David Brooks’s NYT op-ed today is remarkable. Emphasis mine.
The Kennedys and Obama hit the same contrasts again and again in their speeches: the high road versus the low road; inspiration versus calculation; future versus the past; and most of all, service versus selfishness…. The Clintons started this fight, and in his grand and graceful way, Kennedy returned the volley with added speed.
Kennedy went on to talk about the 1960s. But he didn’t talk much about the late-60s, when Bill and Hillary came to political activism. He talked about the early-60s, and the idealism of the generation that had seen World War II, the idealism of the generation that marched in jacket and ties, the idealism of a generation whose activism was relatively unmarked by drug use and self-indulgence.
Then, in the speech’s most striking passage, he set Bill Clinton afloat on the receding tide of memory. “There was another time,” Kennedy said, “when another young candidate was running for president and challenging America to cross a New Frontier.” But, he continued, another former Democratic president, Harry Truman, said he should have patience. He said he lacked experience. John Kennedy replied: “The world is changing. The old ways will not do!” … How could the septuagenarian Kennedy cast the younger Clintons into the past? He could do it because he evoked the New Frontier, which again seems fresh. He could do it because he himself has come to live a life of service.
My goodness. I didn’t think I’d ever see words like that in public from someone who calls himself a conservative. If Brooks isn’t careful, his Conservative Membership Card will be revoked.
And this strikes me as exactly right:
After his callow youth, Kennedy came to realize that life would not give him the chance to be president. But life did ask him to be a senator, and he has embraced that role and served that institution with more distinction than anyone else now living – as any of his colleagues, Republican or Democrat, will tell you…. The old guy stole the show.
Kennedy’s speech endorsing Obama, by the way, was terrific — he’s still one of the best in the business. Check it out, if you haven’t already.
Could we see Brooks joining Andrew Sullivan on the “Conservatives for Obama” bandwagon? And that, after having been egged on by Ted Kennedy??
Hopefully he can learn something from Ted or at least something can rub off. Acting like a child is not presidential.
<
p>
<
p>
more than was actually there. Deliberately snubbing Clinton seems out of character with Obama, although I’m sure he didn’t go out of his way to make nice. The press is constantly looking for confrontation to sell their story.
From the Chicago Tribune
How do you know it was out of character for Barack Obama to act as described? How can anyone know? The guy has not been around in the public eye long enough. I do know that Hillary Clinton has worked very well in the Senate with some of the same Republicans who were pushing for the impeachment of her husband and who made her life miserable for so long. Sen. Lindsay Graham comes to mind, but there are others.
I didn’t say I know. I said it “seems” out of character. Obviously some people (those who are closer to him than you or I) would know whether it was or wasn’t. I don’t think he would have risen as far as he has if he were as thin-skinned as you suggest.
Let’s face both of these candidates are smart enough to know that they would need one another’s support once the nomination is secured.
…. if during an interview with Obama on CNN after the speech someone asked Barack about Bill Clinton and he replied something like. “There where some factual statements the he (Bill Clinton) made about me that were not factual”. I wasn’t paying that close attention and would welcome this being vetted.
He’s my guy and he should have forced himself to shake her hand even if he was thinking he wanted to clobber her. It is easy to preach unity – but much harder to live it, especially when things get personal as they have in this campaign.
<
p>But, the thing is, Obama is sort of a normal human being and he get’s pissed off like most of us would if our integrity has been questioned and dignity impugned. The Clintons just got dissed royally by Ted K and yet there she is shaking hands – big person or just a complete fake. Maybe a little of both.
<
p>The Clintons can compatmentalize every emotion and just move on – how do you think they survived the Lewinsky thing without breaking down. How do you run the country when you have just nearly destroyed the people closest to you in front of the world – and yet he had to, he gave the SOTU days after the Lewinsky story broke. The Clintons can put on a brave face under any condition.
<
p>But while that is a skill, I do think it is abnormal – like they are political automotons that won’t let anything (particularly real emotion) get in the way of their ambition. Not to say they don’t get emotional – Bill does all the time, particularly getting pissed off at the media. But again that is politics – the only thing they seem to care about. Ah well, enough dime-store psychology.
It is not abnormal. It is called courage and strength, something I think we want in our leaders. It also shows an understanding about politics that we need our leaders to have as well; the fact that on one day some people may be opposing you and another day the same people may be on your side, but you should not take it personally if you are going to lead a nation well. Hillary Clinton understands this. I wonder if Barack Obams does. There is simply no way to tell.
“But while that is a skill, I do think it is abnormal – like they are political automotons that won’t let anything (particularly real emotion) get in the way of their ambition.”
<
p>That comment neatly compartmentalizes the reasons I ended up supporting Hillary. As I thought about the negative images I had of her (unprincipled, conniving, grasping), I asked myself how many came from things I had actually witnessed, and how many came from the constant anti-Clinton drumbeat from the right? People use the most ludicrous examples to reinforce these images. Bill Clinton must be unfeeling, because he was able to deliver the SOTU days after the Lewinsky story broke? What was he supposed to do, cancel? WTF? Would you prefer a President who couldn’t perform his duties every time he had a personal upset? That’s like the people who insist that Hillary must be an opportunist, or she would have left Bill after the Monica incident. As if any of us is in position to judge how they should handle their marriage.
<
p>There are people and groups who have made it their life’s work to destroy the Clintons. Support Obama all you want, but please don’t do those people’s work for them.
<
p>And I might point out that Hillary gets credit for being gracious to the man who has spent the last week painting her and her husband as racists.
Where did the man say the Clintons were racists?
You’re indulging in the same character assassination that you decry has been done to the Clintons. You need to take a step back.
I consider a candidate to be responsible for what his campaign does, and to disassociate himself from comments made by his supporters when they go too far. The Obama camp has filled the airwaves with allegations that the Clintons are racist, and I don’t see him making an effort to stop it. I think it’s the Obama campaign that needs to take a step back. Throwing around unfounded allegations of racism is shameful. Obama’s people seemd to think that accusing him of liking Reagan was an example of “Rovian” politics. I think the Obama camp’s race baiting is hundreds of times worse.
How many times have they shaken hands after a contentious debate? Maybe he was just deferring to the Kennedy-Hillary moment, a much more likely postulate.
One needs a healthy dose of skepticism.
<
p>The most likely interpretation is that Obama didn’t want to reach across several rows of people to shake Clinton’s hand on the very day that he had been endorsed by the chap next to him in a harsh blow to Hillary’s campaign.
<
p>What this is a better example of is the apparent inability of the press — and evidently here also the blogosphere — to concentrate on the issues of substance — like for example the SOTU address.
What makes that the most likely interpretation? Hillary is the one who’s been dissed, and she doesn’t seem to be bothered by reaching across one row of people to shake hands.
It’s actual words from Axlerod. Comments about the press gallery and “context” were from the Chicago Tribune. You weren’t there, they were.
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
why don’t you do a write up on the candidates health care positions and why you think Barack’s moderate Republican position is the one you think is right.
If Obama’s health care position were genuinely shared among moderate Republicans, hey, we might be talking single-payer as a real possibility. As it stands, I’ve not heard a single Republican espouse anything like what Obama has proposed … except Romney, who disavows everything he signed in MA.
<
p>Dude … don’t just take Krugman at face value. I like the guy, and he makes some decent points, but you can make a reasonable, progressive argument for Obama’s plan, like Robert Kuttner did the other day in the Globe.
Don’t follow Krugman all that much. Charlie, I think you are trying to talk yourself into it, but it’s just not a progressive position. How does Obama’s bring anything closer to single payer, everyone is not even covered under his plan.
<
p>What was his statement again?
<
p>”The reason people don’t have health insurance isn’t because they don’t want it, it’s because they can’t afford it”
<
p>Huh?
<
p>How does he wants to resolve this? By allowing an industry to choose between serving everyone at an affordable price, or serving those who can afford it and have a virtually inelastic demand. Honestly, what do you think will happen? Obama calls his health care plan universal, that’s a lie. Kind of like George Bush’s, no child left behind plan. Nice name, but it’s not the plan.
<
p>The only solution is to put everyone in a system which requires some kind of mandate, while at the same time restraining the costs of the system. Getting to voluntary universal coverage by trying to encourage lower costs and hoping everyone will join in will not work. Even David Cultler Obama’s principal architect of his health care plan admits to the need for mandates in a pro-Obama write up. It’s just a poor position. We can’t just put our heads in the sand.
and I don’t like any of the candidates plans.
<
p>Here are some of my earlier comments on the issue:
<
p>http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
http://vps28478.inmotionhosting.com/~bluema24/s…
<
p>By the way, I’m not a strong Obama supporter, though I’ll probably end up voting for him.
If you want to parse gestures of those on the House floor last night as the media insists that we do, maybe we should ask if Hillary Clinton, for instance, regrets her miscalculated (?) robust applause of Bush’s “we’ve got Al Qaida on the run in Iraq” statement while the majority of her caucus sat dourly on it’s hands… on the other hand, maybe we can surmise that she doesn’t.
Just pointing out the obvious, the obvious thing that was so glaring that it was pointed out by most everyone there. To not see this for what it is seems kind of foolish. The point here is that it was Obama’s day, he then acted like a jackass, too bad, maybe he could of emulated Ted a bit more here a show a little class. The man of unity, well maybe not so much, Hopefully he’ll learn.
Ted Kennedy did one extremely bad thing in his life that was immoral, cowardly and inexcusable: Chappaquiddick. In my mind his magnificent senatorial career has been the best attempt at balancing the ledger he could make. He has consistently, effectively and often brilliantly fought for the the well-being and interests of average working people and vulnerable populations. His early anti-Iraq War stance is another example of his wisdom and political courage. The incident in 1969 can never be undone but I would submit he has been doing penance with his career since then.
<
p>There is no excuse for the unnecessary loss of even one life due to someone’s hubris, recklessness or self-interest. I laud and revere Ted Kennedy for his career accomplishments but he can never be forgiven for Chappaquiddick, at least not in this life. So what about the 3940 Americans – as of today – along with 100’s of thousands of others who are dead because of Bush & the Neocons fraudulently hoodwinking the country into an unnecessary war? To those who condemn Kennedy for his Big Mistake, what do you say about Bush’s Big Mistake?
so can you!
he was glowing over kennedy.
Perhaps Brooks sees the writing on the wall and is trying to position himself for the post-Bush world. If W were riding high in the polls, I suppose he’d be his good old vitriolic Republican self.
For those with long memories, Ted Kennedy used to fill the left wing boogieman role for right wingers that Bill and Hillary Clinton now occupy. Brooks is just enjoying any opportunity to make the Clintons look bad. Believe me, if this was the 80s he would have his sights set on Ted.