Did Barry Jump the Shark?

The New York Times, this morning, was nowhere near kind to Barack Obama after his Berlin speech yesterday.

The news analysis noted that the speech lacked almost any real substance or detail and when it did (he suggested that the Krauts, as well as the rest of the EU, is going to have to pony up more troops in Afghanistan), it kind of slipped by the crowd, all decked out in their Yankees hats and waving Obama-supplied American flags.

David Brooks goes further on the Op-Ed page, calling him out for illegal use of optimism not grounded in reality. When used in tandem, these are good things, but without, as Brooks writes, Barack really seems to have jumped the shark.

Don't get me wrong, I'm going to be very happy to have a President I can probably be proud of in a few months. The cowboy routine with W was only attractive for a very short amount of time.

I just wonder what we're going to see when he's faced with making an actual legislative or military decision...something that forces you into some real choices beyond words in a speech. For him, they often seem to be a form of abstract art, where it can mean whatever the viewer/listener wants it to mean.

The Two Obamas

Par for the course, David Brooks nails it in his allotted space on the New York Times' Opinion Page today.

He points out what any honest person who's reflected on this presidential race knows...that Barack Obama is one crafty politician and that the 'change' routine, while effective, does not necessarily reflect his heart.

He goes so far as crediting him with having more gumption than Bubba in his claim to win at politics by not playing politics.

The column splits out the two Obamas nicely. One one hand, you have Dr. Obama, who says that he can no more disown his preacher than he could his own grandmother. But when it becomes expedient, Fast Eddie throws him under the bus.

In 2007 and before, Dr. Obama lectured the country on the necessity and benefits of public election financing. In 2008, and much to his credit, when he's built the greatest political fundraising machine this country has ever seen, he makes a claim that would make Bill blush...that the donations he's been getting from folks actually are public financing.

Gall and chutzpah, folks. Gall and chutzpah.

A Column I've Been Mentally Relying On

As this fascinating primary season has worn on, I've been trying to figure out why I'm so inclined to see Barack Obama and John McCain favorably.

Obama's lack of intense focus on talking about budget balancing and my irritation with McCain-Feingold over the years would seem to make it hard for me to support them.

Within-party, head-to-head, considering only on-paper policy positions, would lead me to see Mitt and Hillary more favorably.

Why can't I vote for them?

It's because I just don't like them and that overrides my thoughts about their stated policy positions.

There's something I perceive about them that I just find irritating.

This recent Times article by David Brooks argues that I'm by no means unique. He holds that we're not as smart as we think or wish we'd be.

Relying on a healthy dose of social science research, he posits that being human, we make flash judgments about people's character and that can override the sensibilities we tend to pride ourselves in.

(Space constraints being what they are in the paper, he doesn't extend the argument in this column, but you can see where sociobiologists would be able to spin yarns about how this is actually a favorable trait for us to have and what kind of survival outcomes it can lead to.)

It can be disconcerting in some ways to find out that you're only human...especially when you extend this realization to product marketing (which is really no different than a political campaign, unfortunately), but on the other hand, it does end up satisfying that I can at least rationally understand my own irrationality.

David Brooks on L'Affaire de Libby

As usual, David Brooks hits the nail on the head in his New York Times column today (which I had to get online because the delivery fella threw me a Plain Dealer today, instead.  Blech!)

This whole Libby-Plame-Wilson-Rove-Armitage(remember him?)-Novak affair is like a multi-act play.  No one, including the salivating media, is wearing any halos on this Independence Day.

The mock horror under something that really had no serious underlying crime is quite a farce.

The best nugget is below, but check out the full article.

Scooter Libby emerged as the least absurd character in the entire drama, and yet he was the one who committed a crime. President Bush entered the stage like a character from another world, a world in which things make sense.

His decision to commute Libby’s sentence but not erase his conviction was exactly right. It punishes him for his perjury, but not for the phantasmagorical political farce that grew to surround him. It takes away his career, but not his family.

David Brooks in the 7-3-07 NYT

Quasi-Catholics

David Brooks' column this morning again proves why the NY Times Opinon page continues to be an every-day must-read and why he's one of the reasons for that.

He walks through evidence of the changing status and mindset of American Catholics over the last generation or two. The skinny is that they've become better off in a socioeconomic sense by retaining the good elements of Catholicism but not blind obedience to its more ridiculous ones.

To put it succinctly...Always try to be the least believing member of one of the more observant sects.

Reminds me of a few people who I admire.