Another BoBo Bashing of Obama-Rama

I know it’s repetitive to keep rehashing all of the wingnut nonsense out there concerning all-but-named Dem presidential nominee Barack Obama, but David Brooks in particular today made it impossible for me to avoid commentary (here...BoBo is in true "concern troll" mode).

So, in addition to all of this “what do we really know about him” business (as if we could really know any of these people), the narrative of “why doesn’t he have a bigger lead” is now spreading all over the place, as if that somehow provides an excuse for our punditocracy to avoid an in-depth analysis of why John W. McBush is so bad of a candidate to begin with.

And BoBo tells us that Obama was “sort of there” for a few key moments, but not really, including his time with the University of Chicago Law School. And Brooks also tells us that Obama “was a community organizer for three years but left before he could be truly effective.”

Well, I don’t know by what measure Brooks considers Obama to be “truly effective,” but according to this Daily Kos post…

More than 150,000 new African-American voters were added to the city's rolls (for the 1992 election). In fact, for the first time in Chicago's history-including the heyday of (former mayor) Harold Washington-voter registrations in the 19 predominantly black wards outnumbered those in the city's 19 predominantly white ethnic wards, 676,000 to 526,000.

For the first time in ten years, more than half a million blacks went to the polls in Chicago. And with gubernatorial and mayoral elections coming up in the next two years, it served notice to every¬one…that an African-American voting bloc would be a force to be reckoned with in those races.

"It was the most efficient campaign I have seen in my 20 years in politics," says Sam Burrell, alderman of the West Side's 29th Ward and a veteran of many registration drives.

Not bad for a 31-year-old lawyer and community organizer now running for president, wouldn’t you say? However, heaven forbid that BoBo actually let facts get in the way of his innuendo that Obama is somehow too mysterious, too effete or too careless to be trusted with the most important job in the world (repeating this “belonging to something, but not ‘of it’” nonsense).

But what really got me in particular was this…

He became a state legislator, but he was in the Legislature, not of it. He had some accomplishments, but as Ryan Lizza of The New Yorker wrote, he was famously bored by the institution and used it as a stepping stone to higher things.

Actually, Brooks is partly right that Obama’s career in public life has been almost a continuous arc towards this moment. However, to say Obama was “bored” according to Lizza is ridiculous (and I should also note that Lizza’s fine article was obscured by the dustup over That Cover by Barry Blitt; that was the issue in which Lizza’s piece ran).

While on vacation, I read Lizza’s well-written and well-researched article, and it is truly educational to see how Obama has emerged to this moment. It discusses his one-time allegiance with Chicago alderman Toni Preckwinkle who grew disenchanted with some of Obama’s political moves, though she remains a committed delegate. It also discusses Obama’s relationship with political matriarch Alice Palmer, who feuded with Obama when Palmer sought her State Senate seat once more after she was defeated in her run for the U.S. Congress; the problem was that Obama sought it also, and he refused to back down. And it also discusses how he once opposed Emil Jones, a powerful political presence with whom Obama once fought, but, after Obama learned a bitter lesson in his defeat at the hands of U.S. House incumbent Bobby Rush in 2000, he sought Jones’ help in his bid for the State Senate (Jones became president of the Illinois State Senate in 2003).

In short, it tells the story of how Obama became a seasoned pol growing up in the rough-and-tumble world of Chicago politics, and acquiring more saavy (to say nothing of powerful connections) in the Illinois senate. Yes, I believe he is a visionary figure, but he is hardly a neophyte, and I think that’s true of all of these people, regardless of their party.

Of course, far be it for Brooks to try and communicate any of this, and he closes as follows…

So, cautiously, the country watches. This should be a Democratic wipeout. But voters seem to be slow to trust a sojourner they cannot place.

Actually, I cannot recall a “Democratic wipeout” in any election during my lifetime; as noted here, Bill Clinton won in 1992 with less than 50 percent of the vote (and I once read an excellent post explaining how Ross Perot siphoned votes both from the challenger and the incumbent Poppy Bush, but I cannot locate it at the moment; if I do, I’ll update this…and by the way, for the latest presidential numbers, click here).

And finally, allow me to propose another reason why more Americans don’t profess to support Obama at this moment versus John W. McBush…

THEY’RE ON VACATION!!

Update: Doesn't sound like "real change (that) needs real change for real" (or whatever) to me, Newt (here...sorry for the link) - sounds like more of the same, actually.