TW: David Brooks, moderately conservative columnist for the NYT, has been flirting with Obama since he announced his candidacy. This column is one of his more convoluted partially because Brooks fancies himself an amateur psychologist. He is also, like Peggy Noonan, David Frum, Kathleen Parker and other conservative pundits, struggling to retain his membership in the right wing pundit class while being critical of their 2008 candidates. Ultimately, however, he strongly implies that Obama demonstrates the temperament to be not only and effective but an extraordinary POTUS, something we could probably use about now.
From Brooks/NYT:
"Through the debate, he was reassuring and self-composed. McCain, an experienced old hand, would blink furiously over the tension of the moment, but Obama didn’t reveal even unconscious signs of nervousness. There was no hint of an unwanted feeling...He doesn’t have F.D.R.’s joyful nature or Reagan’s happy outlook, but he is analytical. That’s why this William Ayers business doesn’t stick. He may be liberal, but he is never wild...it is easy to sketch out a scenario in which he could be a great president. He would be untroubled by self-destructive demons or indiscipline. With that cool manner, he would see reality unfiltered. He could gather — already has gathered — some of the smartest minds in public policy, and, untroubled by intellectual insecurity, he could give them free rein. Though he is young, it is easy to imagine him at the cabinet table, leading a subtle discussion of some long-term problem...Obama has clearly worn well with voters. Far from a celebrity fad, he is self-contained, self-controlled and maybe even a little dull."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/17/opinion/17brooks.html
No comments:
Post a Comment