|NY Times Broder's Vacuosity
||[Apr. 26th, 2007|08:19 am]
David Broder's weasely Obama hatchet job.|
( full text -- in yer face Times Select!Collapse )
"That’s either profound or vacuous, depending on your point of view."
This column's left handed diss of Obama's political philosophy is completely disingenuous. Politicians always get their job by talking, after which we find out what they really want to do, and are able to do. And what they are able to do depends on their ability to persuade, by talking.
Broder's critique of Obama's rhetoric is unambiguously vacuous. On the one hand he give him credit for having read Niebuhr, and then imply that his concrete plans for action are small and drab. I accept that Broder's not sold on Obama, but why didn't he just say it, and say why? In this column he set the Senator an impossible task, to somehow come up with concrete plans as impressive as the ideals informing those plans. Every politician will fail that test. Politics as the cliche goes, is the art of the possible -- a successful politician is one who gets some things done without betraying the high-flown words of his best intentions.
I think Americans are tired of a President with lofty ideals and extravagant, unrealistic, and disastrous implementation of those ideals. Maybe we need a community organizer now: someone to improve a few things on the ground before we try to build a shining city on the hill.