Reactions to story from The New York Times

David Brooks of the New York Times has an opinion piece up and Im here to tell you he is full of bull. Mr. Brooks opinion is biased in his lack of hope not for just America but the world when it comes to Barack Obama and his world tour. Apparently, Mr.

The bullshit is starting to wear thin with some. Like New York Times columnist David Brooks: Playing Innocent Abroad In Berlin on Thursday ... [Obama] vowed to help remake the world. He offered hope that a history-drenched European continent could choose

This. CNN is showing new video from a camera crew, traveling down a road somewhere, with flaming cars on either side of the road. It looks like something out of a Central Asia version of Mad Max. Fox News says Russian troops are 35 miles from the capital of Tbilisi.  … … I wonder whether Americans look at a chaotic, violent world, where brutes like Putin authorize an all-out invasion while the world is at the Olympics, and say, “yes, this looks like a job for a former community activist. After all, people really seemed to like him on his world tour a few weeks ago.†I’m reminded of David Brooks’ criticism of Obama’s Berlin speech, particularly the line “People of the world - look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one.†… There wouldn’t be a challenge too great for a world that stands as one. But that never happens. For now, one part of the Russian world is standing as one in Georgian territory. The question is what the West — and the next president — is going to do about it. Yes, the question is, indeed, what next? Instant update:  And here is our choice – Sen Obama: “Let me be clear: we seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government, and friendship with the Russian people. We want Russia to play its rightful role as a great nation – but with that role comes the responsibility to act as a force for progress in this new century, not regression to the conflicts of the past. That is why the United States and the international community must speak out strongly against this aggression, and for peace and security.†And Sen. McCain: “Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attack, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world. World history is often made in remote, obscure countries. It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity’s progress toward respecting the values and security of free people.“ Maybe you think Obama is being soft, appeasing. Maybe you think he’s being diplomatic, statesman-like. Maybe you think McCain is being bellicose, war-mongery. Maybe you think he’s being tough, a fighter for freedom. Either way, there’s no question that their styles are starkly different. American voters, the choice is yours.

Obamania: The Magical Mystery Tour Brian Rom With America’s most celebrated community organizer now winging his way home (requiring, some may be surprised to learn, the services of an actual aircraft),herewith some reflections on the highlight of his grand tour, the Berlin speech. Obama’s tone was serious, offering his trademark “this is our moment†rhetoric and the accompanying visions of a world transformed.. By now, we know the formula, the “narrative arc†in the words of New York Times columnist David Brooks. In this view, some problem threatens. The odds are against the forces of righteousness (read: the liberal worldview). But then good people unite and walls come tumbling down. Cue the violins, embrace your neighbor, and watch the good Teutonic dames und herren ululate rhapsodically (OK, Germans are not known for their propensities to ululate, but given Obama’s Hawaiian connections, this is really not such a stretch) as the acolytes finally get to see the light: the Berlin blockade was thwarted because people came together and walls came tumbling down. Winning the Cold War was the same. Apartheid ended because people came together and walls tumbled. The narrative arc swings yet higher: If (when?) his Oneness ascends his throne, the walls separating Jew and Arab, black and white, rich and poor, despot and victim, natives and immigrants will also all come tumbling down as their love dissolves their differences disparate interests. Given the uncritical adulation Obama’s have received, I also suggest that the only substance free elements of this entire circus are the perorations themselves. What we have here is history on acid; the inevitable result of the Left’s incurable ‘s Bush Derangement Syndrome. However, by trying to ride the coattails of the American presidential giants who preceded him in Berlin, Obama’s uplifting but vague rhetoric inadvertently highlights his pygmy status on the world stage by helping remind us, in Brooks’ words, “that the soaring optimism of JFK and Reagan was grounded in the reality of politics, conflicts and hard choices. Kennedy didn’t dream of the universal brotherhood of man. He drew lines that reflected hard realities: ‘There are some who say, in Europe and elsewhere, we can work with the Communists. Let them come to Berlin’. Likewise, Reagan didn’t call for a Kumbaya moment. He cited tough policies that sparked harsh political disagreements – the deployment of U.S. missiles in response to the Soviet 22-20s – but still worked. In Berlin, Obama made exactly one point with which it is possible to disagree: his call on the Germans to send more troops to Afghanistan. The argument will probably fall on deaf ears, however, since the vast majority of Germans oppose that policy.†One part of the speech that did garner joyful acclaim from the adoring throng was Obama’s proclamation that he was “a citizen of the world.†Excuse me, but is he running for president of the United States or secretary general of the U.N.? This pandering to European sensibilities is eerily reminiscent of John Kerry’s ill-fated 2004 debate pledge to subject American policies to a “global test.†This said,. Obama’s turn toward the idea of global responsibility is actually a welcome flip-flop coming from someone who spent the primary campaign demagoguing Senator Clinton on the charge that the free trade deals her husband signed were sucking American jobs from Ohio to Mexico and Canada. If you are really a “citizen of the world,†why should it matter? It is also a welcome turn for a candidate who spent the primary campaign complaining that the war in Iraq was costing too much money that should be spent on American roads, bridges, education, and health care. If you are really a “citizen of the world,†surely Iraqi infrastructure is as good an investment as American infrastructure. I am the only one whose olfactory system detects a whiff of opportunistic hypocrisy here? Frankly, I’d settle for a president who is a citizen of America, thank you very much. Or at least one with the humility to recognize that the president is elected by Americans, not Germans. In the meantime, it is hard to take Obama’s speech as anything more than the pandering to which he is prone. What else to make of his proclamation that “America has no better partner than Europe“? What about Japan? What about Canada and Mexico? What about Israel? Maybe he would make a good ambassador to Germany or France in a McCain administration? What was also striking about the speech was the disparity between the grandness of the venue and the crowd, and the smallness of the message delivered. In the final analysis, despite all the grandiloquence and oratorical flourishes, he said absolutely nothing of major, or even minor, importance. So, due in part to the willing connivance of the media*, Obama has grown accustomed to putting on this kind of saccharine show for the rock-concert masses. Again, in Brooks’ words, â€His words drift far from reality. (Although) Obama has benefited from a week of good images, but substantively, optimism without reality isn’t eloquence. It’s just Disney.†That the bloom is coming off the Obama rose is reinforced by this week’s NBC/Wall Street Journal poll. In the face of the torrent of obsequious Obamacentric reporting Obama has actually lost a couple of points to McCain. Obama retains his leads in the four ‘soft’, “feel-good†categories: Improving America’s standing in the world; Being compassionate enough to understand average people; Offering hope for the future; Being easygoing, likable. However, most telling may be that when it comes to the ultimate attribute of a successful leader, “Being honest and straightforwardâ€, McCain also leads Obama. Thus, it looks like this election is shaping up to be between the wishful thinking fantasists and the realists. The long history of this great country suggests that with the occasional mistake of electing the likes of a Jimmy Carter, the serious, grown-up candidates will prevail. Thus, Obama is increasingly likely to be remembered as the silver-tongued community organizer who, like the little boy who accidentally coming upon his parents in the bedroom, thinks his dad is attacking his mom: He may get all the facts right, but ends up drawing the wrong conclusions. *Some 67% of Americans polled this week agree that the media are actively rooting for an Obama victory. Consistent with this view are subsequent reports that the actual crowd was closer to 20,000 than the 200,000 originally reported, but as yet uncorrected in the U.S and European mainstream media. This is, of course a familiar enough refrain: “We were only following order [of magnitude].â€

During last Sunday's taped Meet The Press on NBC, Tom Brokaw read excerpts from a David Brooks NY Times column critical of guest Barack Obama's speech in Berlin. Brokaw did Obama a favor. After all, Brooks is the leading conservative on the nation's most influential op-ed page, and quoting him allowed Obama to give a solid rebuttal, which he did....except for one thing. He began his answer by saying, with a grin, that "there were about nine good reviews for every bad one." Ouch. I always cringe when someone (athlete, rock star, politician) reveals familiarity with their press clippings (and the percentages, no less). A good rule for office seekers is to never "talk process" on the record (polling, fundraising). The press always tries, and it only makes the candidate seem calculating. Equally important, never hint that you read your own media reviews. Stay on the meat of your policy and vision, and sell only that. It'll sell you. Obama's comment to Brokaw was easily dismissed as a cute aberration. Yet later the same day, at the UNITY '08 conference in Chicago, he joked that the reason his trip abroad is being hammered by Republicans is because it was such a huge success (again, he meant from the standpoint of positive media coverage). This got admiring applause from the audience. He noted that if it had not been a success he'd have been hammered for that reason. Another round of applause. What he said was surely true, and his manner was light and deft, but there was a valedictory, "I'd like to thank the Academy" tone to it. Then came Monday. At a Virginia fundraiser he told supporters that "We are now in the position where the odds of us winning are very good." The word "difficult" was then added half-heartedly. On Tuesday he met with House Democrats at the Capitol, and Dana Milbank wrote in the Washington Post that he reportedly told them, "This is the moment . . . that the world is waiting for," and "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Others have written that the part of the quote Milbank excluded, where Obama said it's "not about me at all," decisively removes any hint of "arrogance" from the rest of what he said. Gee, if that's all it takes to pull in the undecided's, let's go out for cocktails and blow off the hunt for 270 electoral votes. There's more. Some thought the minor dustup in June over the podium with his own fake presidential seal attached (using Latin words for "Change We Can Believe In") was much ado about nothing. Maybe not. His team ditched it after one appearance, and we know why. It's way too early for victory laps, or even the perception of them. After all, we're going to have a fight on our hands, and it's just beginning. I watched with dread as the late Texas Governor Ann Richards danced through her '94 re-election bid. Oh, she did it "backwards and in high heels," but she was in smug mode and it concerned some of us. At the time, I imagined her awakening every morning in the Governor's Mansion, looking in the mirror, and telling herself, "Hell, the Hollywood Women's Political Caucus loves me, I wowed the whole country as the keynoter at the '88 Democratic National Convention, I'm the absolute bee's knees." Richards treated the candidacy of the shallow upstart George W. Bush as a mere speed bump. She clung to a lead in the polls throughout election season, then lost at the finish, later admitting she'd underestimated the opposition. That's euphemistic for "I thought I had it won." A pity, because her defeat gave W a direct path to the White House. I'm on board the Obama train, and I've got the bumper sticker -- er, car magnet -- to show for it. Yes, I'm well aware this is still summer, but Obama consistently fails to break free in polling despite the pathetic Republican brand and the (so far) shaky John McCain operation. There are several reasons the race is tight; no more are needed as we fast approach the fall campaign. This isn't a question of self-confidence. Obama's got plenty of that leadership trait. It isn't about issues. The public is fed up with the war and the economy. Nor is the concern having enough money to counter scurrilous TV attacks by Republicans. The Democrats are loaded this year. Humility also counts, however. Indeed, the written prayer Obama left at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem last week begged God, in part, to "help me guard against pride..." So the senator knows this is really a question of how others innately see us. Human nature and life experience tells me that voters who are kicking the tires don't appreciate a candidate acting like victory is a fait accompli. Right now, the candidate who fits that description is my candidate. It has me worried about winning in November.

Some responses to the criticism of Barack Obama that has followed his speech in Berlin last week. Summary: I think the criticisms all show a poor understanding of history, and the nature of politics, rhetoric, and fame. 1. Charles Krauthammer has been widely quoted as saying Obama didn't "earn" the right to speak in Berlin, as did JFK and Reagan. My response: Speakers - whether Presidents or Presidential candidates, or anyone - don't "earn" the right to speak by their credentials beforehand. Rather, they are invited, if the host sees fit. And they may or may not attract a large audience. Obama attracted a huge audience of 200,000. By that measure, not to mention the audience's reaction, Obama eminently earned his right to speak in Berlin. 2. David Brooks is of the opinion that whereas JFK's and Reagan's speeches in Berlin consisted of rhetoric grounded in reality, Obama's was merely rhetoric. My response: Really? How was JFK's "I am a Berliner" grounded in reality - last time I checked, JFK was an American, Washingtonian, New Englander, etc. In fact, that was classic rhetoric, taken from the ancient "I am a Roman." And Reagan's "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" was real in what way? Was that a serious threat or proposal? In the end, the wall was torn down by the Germans, not Mr. Gorbachev. JFK, Reagan, and Obama all used soaring rhetoric not grounded in reality. For that matter, so did Thomas Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, and most great political speakers and writers. 3. And then we get to the McCain campaign's attempt to paint Obama as pursuing fame - you've no doubt seen the ad with Britney Spears and Paris Hilton on television and YouTube. My response: Fame has forever been and always will be inextricably linked to politics in a democratic society, in which candidates get elected to office by the people. Reagan got elected Governor of California because people knew him as an actor, and the same of course is the case with the Terminator. The decisive point in evaluating candidates is not whether they use fame in their campaigns, but what ideas and plans they have for their state or nation if elected. Barack Obama's ideas are far more original and appealing than John McCain's - and if Obama gives speeches that inspire millions of people, which his opponent is also incapable of, then so much the better.listen to Light On Light Through podcast also iTunes Paul Levinson's books