David Brooks takes on Obama "magic"

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/19/opinion/19brooks.html?em&ex=1203570000&en=a37d78be1404f491&ei=5087%0A

Thoughts?

 

No thanks.

 

Not too many went into the article.

 

There's a great piece to be written about the role "charisma" plays in "leadership."

This isn't it.

 

Clearly hard-up.

So he reaches . . . and misses.

Happens to almost everybody.

 

Democratic Party: Blue. Obama: Magic.

Is he trying to say Barack Omaba is Frank Lucas? 'American Gangster' came out on DVD today.

 

The first 50% of that piece was a hacktacular piece of hackiness. There was nothing of value in there.

“A sense of ennui began to creep through the nation’s Ian McEwan-centered book clubs.” Really? Why are the book clubs Ian McEwan-centered? An author that writes psychological thrillers has something to do with the Obama campaign? Really? That is quite a stretch.

After wasting away a lot of time on nothing, Brooks finally feels the need to make a point, I guess, when he writes about the spending of money on superdelegates. I will return to this later.

The comment about the “predictable liberal votes” is awful. It implies that someone thinking independently of others cannot come to the conclusion that other people have come to.

Up next is a comment about self-confidence. Why would this be a bad thing? Does Dick Cheney not have a monumental ego? In everything he says at any point he talks, his ego is on display, yet I never heard it be considered a negative.

What this really comes down to is the comment on superdelegates. However, this is a quick comment and instead of being made an issue, is used as a simple one-liner during a fill of…nothing.

What Brooks really wrote was a rebuke of religion, Christian, Muslim, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. Faith without substance allows for “some invisible connection” to persist.

 

David Brooks is enamored with Joe Lieberman. That should say all that needs to be said.

 

David, 1993 called.

They want their glasses back.

 

No, it's a rebuke of religion centered around a person. Treating God like a God would certainly stand up to more of his objections than a guy, even if the guy speaks well.

 

False. There was nothing said in that piece that could not be said about any religion on this planet. Disagree as you may but the facts are laid out in every philosophical argument against the books religions are based on.

The author certainly intended it to be exactly what you wrote. The problem is that Brooks' premise is built on air. As such, it should be applied where it is most applicable.

 

That seemed to be where Brooks was trying to go but never really drove home the point.

At this point voters are willing to buy into Obama's big picture message of hope and accept that the devil is in the details.

At this stage Obama need to win the party nomination. There is no benefit in staking out specific positions that could cost him primary votes.

The rubber will meet the road come when he becomes the chosen candidate. He will then have to articulate the details of how all will realize their hope and dreams. Voters will then be fully focused on his ability to run the country as compared to McCain.