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

[msimmonsva22]

I really, really miss Tim Russert...........you kind of take for granted the level of professionalism and tact he had. Most journalist today, Brokaw included are more interested in being the celebrity than a real investigative journalist.

NBC please encourage your "tv personalities" to view old Tim Russert tapes and learn how it should be done!!!!

[LiberTLover]

Wow Tom, you couldn't even balance it out with one good review and one bad? Have you really sunk that low, sir? Would that have been too much work for you, or is McSneermeister offering a secret multi-million dollar reward for the first 'journalist',(wait, just couldn't keep a straight face using that word, need to get the roar of laughter out first... ok ..) who can ask the most twisted, biased, inane, 'damned if it's yes, damned if it's no' question to get BO to say something that McMetooMagoo and his sleazoid staffers can use in a Swiftboat type ad that isn't hopelessly lame like the others thus far? After watching the interviews with all the anchors and many so called correspondents, I am convinced it is the latter. Shame on all of you, you disgrace yourselves and your so called profession on an ongoing basis and I, like many others will no longer be watching or supporting your sponsors.

[eden4barack08]

Ditto! To everything you said.

[Zentomato]

I also agree. Enough with NBC and any of their sponsors.

[eden4barack08]

Let's bombard them with requests to expand MSNBC's favorable part at least.
Why can't they unashamedly have ONE liberal network, like FNC is to the right? Is it balanced that all we have out of all MSM is just one measly hour with KO? I say NOT!

[WoodyCPM]

Journalism is not a profession. Anyone can be a journalist. There is no test you have to pass to become a journalist. It isn't a profession like lawyering or doctoring or nursing or teaching or hell, even truck driving. Journalists are just a bunch of bloviating, blowhards. They've always been that. Some are better at it than others, but there isn't anything about journalism that practically anybody couldn't do.

[DevilAdvocate]

I don't know about that, I think it's a skill..... kind of like the President....oh wait, that job was taken by just anybody too! LOL

[Poststep]

I don't think Obama needs to hear anymore praise really. I say bring it on. When he has to deal with the stupidity it gives him an opportunity to one, say how stupid it is; two, how biased it is and then to either repeat himself, explain or defend himself. He seems up to the challenge. So far.

[schatsie]

If Obama does this well with the debates, it should be a rollover election,

[kasinca]

I wonder when the conservatives will realize how whiney they are. As long as they control all branches of government and can pretend they know what the heck they are talking about they are fine. When reality sets in and their failed governance hits them between the eyes, they whine and resort to personal attacks. That is the way they have always won, dirty tricks, personal attacks, and lying their asses off. Conservatives are pitiful as leaders and as losers.

[Swedishgal]

And they won't know until they are out of office and competent people are appointed and show them how the government is supposed to work and then they will criticize it anyway. They don't let facts or reality stand in the way of their beliefs. An incompetent government for these people has been a self fulfilling prophecy and a disaster for the rest of us. You know when you're winning with these guys because they do get personal with the accusations and other b.s.

[Ceasar]

Couldn't agree more! They can only win when the lie, cheat, and steal. Every time the leave office, we are worse off and the economy is ALWAYS in shambles. Somehow, they convince poor people to vote for them by appealing to less than desirable emotions. Let's pray for enlightenment of the highest order for these children.

[Querent]

The worst of it is that when the Repigs are in power, nothing is out of bounds. Nothing is too dirty, no advantage is ever held to be unfair, and the more damage inflicted on the dissent the better. But when they are out of power, they spend half of their time crying that this or that is unfair to them, and that they are entitled to a "level playing field", by which they mean that their hereditary advantages must be institutionalized. Everybody has to play fair except them. There's a name for this: crybabies.

[vipersdad]

Why should they stop whining? It's working for them? They have had the Media on the ropes since the so-called "Reagan Revolution" and it's worse than ever now.

We need a few more people with the huevos to actually be unbiased in the face of pressure from advertisers, editors, corporate owners, etc...

And we need a few more progressives who have the philosophical consistency to put their money where their beliefs lie. We need to do our homework - look at who supports the message of the right financially and then tell them we are not going to patronize their products, services, or establishments. Then we need to follow-through.

Sooner or later, the whining will just be whining if we vote with our checkbooks. Until then, that whining has been effective and they will keep using it.

[Heaphy]

Forget sad sack Brooks and semi-retired Brokaw. The most beautiful thing about this segment was Barack Obama's spectacular smile, his articulate, reasoned rejoinders and his hard-earned confidence without a trace of overconfidence. He is a vastly better campaigner than either John Kerry or Al Gore, and I am very confident that he will lead us to victory. However, we MUST NOT fall victim to overconfidence. I will do something substantive every day between now an election day to help that victory, and I urge every other HuffPo reader to do the same.
- Jim Heaphy

[Sixtwo]

I worry about the wagging tongues of the "Brooks" and his types who can't come up with intelligeht, substantive rebutttals to Obama's articulated positions on issues of importance to the American people, and/or his speeches; and, therefore they baffler us with B.S. The best response is to laugh...!

[BWonka]

Don't know who is more pathetic - "Babbling" Brooks or Mc Loser.

NBC sure ain't the network it used to be - and it isn't just the sad loss of Tim R.

[zippywpinhead]

Hey Br.okaw, GET TO THE POINT! if I wanted books on tape I'd go to amazon.com. Do your job instead of reading some other blowhard's hit piece...

[Querent]

LOL

[ChiGuy]

Brokaw has always been more about delivering the story rather than the face-to-face interview.
Even during his time at The Today Show, his interviewing skills lacked preparation and substance.
Some things never change.
He was handed MTP because of his standing as one of the all-time great national anchors. But reading the news, and actually digging into it are two VERY different things.

[youknowwhat]

The more I listen to these so called political commentators. The more I believe the commentators themselves really don't want Obama to be president. Brokaw seemed really bitter towards Obama, and really upset that he couldn't outdo him in that interview.
Seems as though the MSM are still getting their talking points from Cheney.

[mybelovedcountry]

so good i watched it twice..nice O'
Obama speech in Berlin was diplomatic it cannot be policy specific because he is not a sitting president nor acting on the behalf of a a sitting president.!

[Tom95134]

WOW!!! I missed MTP this morning but Obama hit another 3 pointer with his response to Brokaw.

Brokaw never has been of the caliber of Tim Russert and this lame use of the conservative writer David Brooks' Op-Ed piece (even though Brokaw probably intended to give the appearance that Brooks was a liberal because of the mention of the New York Times) clearly showed the fact that Tom can't cut it. He makes the show sound like something that has been put together by a couple of intern writers and the first time he sees anything is when it appears on the teleprompter during the broadcast. NBC should be getting him off MTP as soon as possible or the audience will be shifting to one of the other Sunday Morning talking heads shows.

[schatsie]

Kennedy and the PEACE CORP was kumbaya, right....

[dana94591]

David Brooks is lucky that he can write in English. I just can't see what the media sees in him. He fails to offer anything to the editorial page and he is riding on the neocon wave. I don't even see why he has his job on the News Hour. I don't even understand him half the time.

[ToddG]

dana,

I am with you on this. Brooks reminds me of my college professors who thought that writing in long, meandering sentences is somehow to be confused with intelligence.

[Querent]

Brooks only has one good mannerism. It's that slightly taken aback momentary air of surprise he is able to project when someone at the table talks sense. It conveys the idea that because Brooks has not been able to anticipate what the other person has said, and because Brooks has such depth of intellect, there must be something (anything) wrong with whatever has just been said. It's like momentarily visually putting a cancel sign over the other person's face, and it's to be expected that Brooks will then calmly show how wrong whatever was just said was.

Only it never happens. Brook's assumed depth of intellect is only the sheen of the sky in a shallow puddle. The depth is an illusion. The only thing under it is half an inch of mud.

This is when he starts to produce the compound sentences, which he wraps around the discussion like the tendrils of a vine. His verbal arabesques, which he uses to try to disguise the fact that he has no idea.

Brooks is vacuous. He is the mannered, almost well-groomed absence of an intellect.

[Daly]

I am with you - every time he comes on the news hour it is painful however Mark Shields does a good job of putting Brooks in his place but I do wish that News hour would replace Brooks because he is just dialing it in.

[wiseapple]

I've tried to grasp the significance of this fellow but it's just not there. He is supposed to be considered a moderate in his take on things according to the way he is projected on TV shows when he is a guest. I don't see it in his columns though. His "nuanced" angles on subject matter are usually baseless when you break down what he is saying into its integral parts. To put it more bluntly, Mr. Brooks's work often has an offensive air to it.

[rockstein]

the mainstream media's INSISTENCE on asking Obama the same, tired questions over and over, trying to "get" him or trip him up, is nothing but biased and only serves to reveal their laziness in real reporting. Despite Bush's abysmal approval rating and the general dissatisfaction in the country, it amazes me that people like Brokaw simply latch on to the McCain campaign talking points as though they're truth. how about busting McCain on his inability to answer a straight question, provide a sound plan to fix the economy or to even get his facts straight when it comes to Iraq.