Friday, June 20


The buzz about Obama's renouncing public financing for his presidential general election campaign seems to be that it was (a) a smart move; and (b) not so deftly handled. But David Brooks' take on it, much as I hate to say it, reflects my own:

I have to admit, I’m ambivalent watching all this. On the one hand, Obama did sell out the primary cause of his professional life, all for a tiny political advantage. If he’ll sell that out, what won’t he sell out? On the other hand, global affairs ain’t beanbag. If we’re going to have a president who is going to go toe to toe with the likes of Vladimir Putin, maybe it is better that he should have a ruthlessly opportunist Fast Eddie Obama lurking inside.

All I know for sure is that this guy is no liberal goo-goo. Republicans keep calling him naïve. But naïve is the last word I’d use to describe Barack Obama. He’s the most effectively political creature we’ve seen in decades. Even Bill Clinton wasn’t smart enough to succeed in politics by pretending to renounce politics.

It's really a pretty fair column and worth reading it all. I've been asking for some time, what WILL BO fight for? What does post-partisan, new politics really mean to him?

Labels: , ,


Post a Comment

<< Home