Brooks on Clinton, Obama
In two words — combat and composure — the NYT’s David Brooks says a lot about the fundamental difference between Clinton and Obama.
Excerpts:
Clinton signaled that she wasn’t going to concede even an inch to the vast elitist conspiracy. She wasn’t going to feel guilty about ignoring the evidence. She was going to stomp on it, flay it and leave it a twisted mass of jelly quivering on the ground. She was going to perform the primordial duty of an alpha dog leader — helping one’s own …
Obama still possesses his talent for homeostasis, the ability to return to emotional balance and calm, even amid hysteria. His astounding composure has come across as weakness in the midst of combat with Clinton, but it’s also at the core of his promise to change politics. He vows to calm hatred and heal division.
Honestly, read the whole thing. It’s worth it.
7 Responses to “Brooks on Clinton, Obama”
Sen. Obama is a POLITICIAN just like Sens. Clinton and McCain, only less-experienced and less-qualified.
David Brooks got the theme of the two sides just right.
We have plenty of evidene that remorseless fighting just leads to more remoreseless fighting, with nothing of substance to show for it except anger and a lust for revenge. That leads to endless cycles of backlashes to backlasheds to backlashes.
II'm more than ready to try calm communication, instead. '
Im more than ready for strength without bluster or provocation.
What Brooks and the jabbering classes don't get is that it's not all about Obama, the politician. It's about his ideas and takng the first steps on the long road to realizing them.
I just hope that the nation will see the worth of a long-term vision rather than opt for the short sighted knee-jerk reaction.
As far as approach to politics goes, its Hillary who will bring 4 more years os Bush, not necessarily McCain.
I wish we didn't have to choose between combat or composure.
It seems to me that the art of politics is to know how to balance the two.
With most representatives dependent on special interests and inflexible partisan supporters consensus on public policy requires some amount of force to blast past the resistance. But once passed that barriers finesse is needed.
Hillary had the force to study Health Care, but not the finesse to achieve support.
Does that even make sense?
Clinton and McCain have tons of experience in getting us into foreign policy quagmires and not solving our domestic problems like healthcare. How that makes them more qualified than Obama remains a mystery.
“I wish we didn't have to choose between combat or composure.”
It's often a choice, also, of how you do combat.
Force can need as much finessing as negotiations.
As if either Clinton or McCain have done anything all that inspiring with their extra time in office. All I know is Obama seems to understand the problems and address them, while Clinton and McCain intend to continue on as things have been going. Its time for someone who knows how to inspire to lead us, thats 90% of leading. So what if he has less years in the Senate, you wouldn't know it by listening to them and reading their positions on things.
Obama at least seems to have some sincerity and/or can fake it better than Hillary, Clinton went into vapor lock when she was asked whether she likes the Sox or Yankees more. I swear to god, you could see her brain frantically trying to calculate which answer would poll better. Thats not leadership.