While I can’t say I’m a huge fan of Maureen Dowd’s, I agreed with a lot of what she had to say in her column in today’s NYT, in particular, this:
[Obama] can create an uplifting new kind of politics if he becomes president, but first he’s going to have to get past the shallow and vicious old politics he says he disdains (even if his campaign knows how to dip into the Clinton toolbox).
The thorny questions Obama got in the debate were absolutely predictable, yet he seemed utterly unprepared and annoyed by them. He did not do well for the same reason he failed to outmaneuver Hillary in a year’s worth of debates: he disdains the convention, the need for sound bites and witty flick-offs and game-changing jabs.
He needs to be less philosophical and abstract, and more visceral and personal. Some of the topics he acted dismissive about are real things on the minds of many Americans.
Many of you will disagree with those statements — just as you disagreed yesterday, when I highlighted similarly critical analysis from two writers at Politico. But the facts of the matter stand: If Obama wants to transform “old politics,” he must first prove he can face and prevail against “old politics,” with something more than annoyance.
As before, I’m reaching and repeating this conclusion as an Obama supporter.