As you read David Brooks' opinion piece on Sen. Barack Obama in today's New York Times, you might wonder at which point is the "but...." is going to arrive?
After lavishing praise towards Obama, albeit, in a measured tone, Brooks ends the column by pronouncing of all things, the man is "dull."
We can each guess how the story ends. But over the past two years, Obama has clearly worn well with voters. Far from a celebrity fad, he is self-contained, self-controlled and maybe even a little dull.Brooks spends the entire column commending Obama on his self-control and calmness under fire, especially, in contrast to Sen. John McCain. You are left to wonder is Brooks going the way of conservative author Christopher Buckley and endorse Obama?
Apparently, knowing what happened to Buckley and his departure from the National Review, Brooks could not stomach being burned on the right's burning funeral pyre.
Instead, he lamely predicts Obama as a president led from greatness to moribund leader.
It could be that Obama will be an observer, not a leader. Rather than throwing himself passionately into his causes, he will stand back. Congressional leaders, put off by his supposed intellectual superiority, will just go their own way. Lost in his own nuance, he will be passive and ineffectual. Lack of passion will produce lack of courage. The Obama greatness will give way to the Obama anti-climax.Something tells me, that Obama would take this statement as vindication of the true meaning of his campaign for the White House.
He claims his campaign is not about him, but about what people want. It may be his choice to stand back and bend to the will of the people. To call this dull shows a lack of understanding of what Obama the candidate means to millions of Americans.
You would be hard pressed to find that particular adjective laying in any sentence with the word Obama.
You would be hard pressed to find another conservative columnist endorse Obama, either.