Obama Pushes Back On David Brooks

One of the most depressing parts of this Sunday morning's political fare was the sad sight of Tom Brokaw flying halfway around the world just so he could dully recite Friday's David Brooks column from the New York Times at a Barack Obama who must have been wondering if the National Broadcasting Company bought all their airtime at wholesale prices or something that it could be so wasted. Many commenters and emailers had the same head-cradled-in-hands-moaning sensation at the sight of it, and today, you can all say that you have been of the same mind of this site's founder, who emailed me soon after, stating her own incredulous disbelief.

Brokaw read more or less the entire column, panning the Berlin speech on the air, and Obama basically scoffed, citing the fact that there are nine good reviews of his Berlin speech to every negative one. He goes on to point out numerous examples in the speech that undercut Brooks' central thesis, insofar as he can be said to have one.

Really, when you read the piece, you hardly worry about Obama. You worry about Brooks! That Brooks is no longer impressed with Obama seems to be, by and large, a function of his own boredom. But, even if we take him at his word (and in fairness, it's completely understandable to be bored by Obama), one worries that Brooks is replacing "being rapt with Obama's rhetoric" with blank-headed cynicism:

Much of the rest of the speech fed the illusion that we could solve our problems if only people mystically come together. We should help Israelis and Palestinians unite. We should unite to prevent genocide in Darfur. We should unite so the Iranians won't develop nukes. Or as Obama put it: "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."

As Obama goes on to point out, Brooks is a McCain supporter. Here's Brooks providing his best version of McCain's campaign slogan: "Don't hope for a better life!"

Worse, Brooks goes on to make some terrifyingly myopic conclusions about history:

The great illusion of the 1990s was that we were entering an era of global convergence in which politics and power didn't matter. What Obama offered in Berlin flowed right out of this mind-set. This was the end of history on acid.

Since then, autocracies have arisen, the competition for resources has grown fiercer, Russia has clamped down, Iran is on the march. It will take politics and power to address these challenges, the two factors that dare not speak their name in Obama's lofty peroration.

Of course, the autocracies that have arisen, the resources which have dwindled, the clampdown in Russia and the rise of Iran are just four of the malign things that happened on the watch of President Bush, as a result of his "my mandate is to project blunt American power into the world forever and ever" doctrine One of the reasons Obama went to Europe was to signal that this great delusion of the 2000s was nearing an end.

That's why so many people cheered!

Comments

[likeicare]

David Brooks always looks constipated to me.

One thing's for sure -- his mind certainly is.

[rabrophy]

This is more about Brokaw than Brooks. It's really bazaar for one pundit to read another pundits column to an interviewee and then say "what do you think about that?"

I wish the Network would send Brooks to interview Obama, it would be fun to see Obama deflate that pompus little man.

[GhostOfSchlesinger]

True, David Brooks is known to be a rabid and fawning supporter of John McCain. (People that have seen the two in public - even conservatives - have registered outright disdain at the extent to which Brooks falls over himself, gushing endlessly about the greatness of McCain and practically begging for time on the candidate's bus and plane - "really disgusting," said one WSJ reporter.)

Having said that, the editorial board at the NYT's simply must bring Mr. Brooks back into line. For, even as a longtime admirer (he once practically begged McCain for his autograph) of the Senator, Mr. Brooks has a responsibility as a journalist to try to walk the line of objectivity.

Many are now arguing that Richard Stevenson needs to step in and either convince Brooks to recuse himself from future presidential coverage OR identify himself as a McCain supporter in every one of his columns.

I am a moderate. Yet, I must admit that I am very disappointed in David. He always seemed a gentleman to me. And I, like many, was certainly willing to overlook the sort of weird John Birch streak that lurked in the background of his personality.

But, dear David, this isn't a cocktail party. It's a presidential election. And you simply must work to restrain yourself. I, for one, have been on the phone with Richard. And there are others.

Please do take a moment to consider your larger responsibility to the Fourth Estate and to the American public.

[ReportThis]

I'd say that Obama pretty much made Brokaw his bitch.

[SuiginTou7]

Who the Hell is David Brooks anyway? A McSame bootlicker. A non-strory kinda like Davia Brooks.

[Tommygun264]

David Brooks is the pundit who, when classifying Barack Obama as an elitist, said Senator Obama isn't the kind of guy you can imagine standing in line at the salad bar in an Applebee's. Neither would David Brooks obviously, because APPLEBEE'S DOESN'T HAVE A SALAD BAR. David Brooks is just another overpaid partisan hack - a snob who likes to speak with the authority of the common man while leading a life totally removed from the reality of working class America. Like the candidate he supports, David Brooks realizes he is on the losing team, but his own arrogance keeps him from accepting the truth. So he instead keeps spinning, hoping that maybe, just maybe, McSame can steal the election and then Brooks can salvage what is left of his reputation for perhaps another four years. The desperation of the right wing is palpable.

[JimInOakland]

I finally saw the Tom Brokaw interview with Barack Obama, and came away with a generally favorable take on its quality. A good interviewer allows his interviewee an opportunity to fully respond to the issue being address. And this Brokaw provided. Obama performed extremely well, especially in his "push back" on David Brooks, offering very concise, focused and relevant comments.
I also saw portions of the Charles Gibson interview, and felt nauseous. Even his stting attitude was offensive to me, along with his repeated "Got Ya" type of questioning.
So I feel that it was very important and timely that Tom Brokaw had the interview with Barack Obama.

[InfosolutionWiz]

DAVID BROOKS is The Same "RIGHT WING NUT" Noise Machine That Criticize Obama saying That He Is The Type of Guy Who Cannot Fit In A APPLE-BEES SALAD BAR, when in fact apple bees DOES NOT HAVE A SALAD BAR!!

THIS BROOKS Guy IS A NUT CASE Typical Right Wing Smear Machine in Progress!!!

[Scryinglass]

I think it's sad that you're so familiar with the interior layout of a swill bucket like Applebee's.

[CKieffer]

Be all this as it may - - the important point is that Obama handled it very well. He needs to be able to push back. He needs to keep pointing out that the problems facing us are complex and multi-faceted. In other words, America... welcome to the grown-up's table.

Brokaw is no Russert and it is almost painful to watch him attempt to be Tim Russert - - but I welcome any "conversation" that isn't conducted in 30 second sound bites with constant commercials thrown in.

If we have not all learned by now that the MSM is pathetic at best, then we will be in for a rude awakening when this election really gets down and dirty.

[Rjmartinelli]

I tend to disagree that Brokow provided Barack a fair opportunity to answer all questions. He kept interrupting him to press inane points every two minutes.

It was driving me nuts.

[roch20]

I could not be more proud of Barack Obama and of his image around the world!!! And i loved the way Obama has handle the media in recent interviews, very smart!!!

[rockyroad]

Obama has spoken well . . . with eloquence.

How do we stop the nonsense? Let the man speak.

Fools won't listen no matter the content and cannot be converted.

Such folks not only forget, they cannot imagine, question or think for themselves. If they vote at all, they'll vote Republican. They'll never vote for Obama.

[Scryinglass]

You don't "convert". You convince. Conversion is an action carried out by cult leaders.

[flydoghead]

believe me if you are still supporting McCrashTestDummy at this stage
you need more than convincing
you need electro shock treatments

and some continuing Adult Education
maybe even your GED someday

[abeattie]

Imagine -- the USA leading the free world again, rather than spitting on it.

Hoo boy -- gotta make another donation.

[dcwblackhorse]

Wow, I just got the opportunity to watch Obama on Meet the Press with TB. He was awesome. Please tell me TB doesn't espouse himself to be unbiased! It seemed as if he tried to be hateful. While TR held people's feet to the heat, he was never rude and petty sounding like what I heard tonight. Obama countered every single shot with class and thorough knowledge. How could any American listen to him and not be convinced he's the best way to move our country forward?

[Patriot0259]

These MSM elitists seem to think it's cool to talk down to Obama. "Get to the point"...y­eah, do that, Mr. Brokaw.

I recall during the primary campaign when Major Garrett of Fixed Noise was very condescending to Obama during one (rare) interview that they had with him.

I've never seen one of them do that to McCain.

[darthdarcy]

Our Media has never been more slanted or corrupted.­..

It's a sign of our decline and decent into fascism...

[Rjmartinelli]

Here's the question though. How do we stop it?

So far as I know only one man has been able to get on the air and openly question/call out these hacks for what they are.

That was Jon Stewart when he went on Crossfire.

[BlackWidowPilot]

How do we stop it? Each and every one of us who loves our country, who revere the Rule of Law as enshrined in our Constitution, need to challenge the hacks and stooges of the corporate press at every opportunity, through e-mail, FAX, blogs, snail mail, and any other lawful means, can We The People take our country back.

It's up to Us, all of Us. No one else is going to step in and save us.

Leland R. Erickson

Citizen

[kardwell]

I would rather be "bored" with Obama than horrified by McCain.

I've spent the past 8 years holding my breath waiting for the next shoe, or worse, Nuke, to drop at the hands of a psychopath.

Enough.

[Rjmartinelli]

Every time Brokaw interrupted Obama in the middle of a response, just to parrot another mindless memo talking point that we've already heard 50 times this week I wanted to scream.

One of the greatest things about Tim Russert that everyone repeated over and over during the weeks he was mourned and remembered was that he was fair in his questions and if he asked you a question, he'd give you the time to respond to it.

I was hoping to watch Meet the Press today; not Hardball.