Sorry, guy. I couldn't disagree more.

I just read what Brooks wrote. He's just spouting a bunch of Republican talking points about what a Machiavellian politician Obama is. He's trying to portray Obama as a fake and to negate Obama's main campaign messages.

Brooks ignores Obama's tremendous grassroots appeal, and the revolutionary approach to his fundraising and how that figures into the real reason why Obama has decided to pass on public financing on his campaign.

Dude, that was a smear piece, not admiration for Obama's political skills. Brooks just wants to make it sound like that's what he's doing.

One thing Brooks does have right, though he doesn't realize it: Republicans have underestimated Obama. They are growing increasingly afraid of him and they don't know how to fight him, so they're resorting to the only thing they know how to do: smear him and smear his wife. I predict their ugly strategy will backfire in a way they'll never see coming.

Oh, and they still haven't realized how screwed they are. But they're starting to sense it.

Brooks is projecting his own understanding of politics onto Obama. He gets that Obama is smart, tough, and if needed, ruthless -- and it scares the heck out of him. But he also assumes, or at least wants us to assume, that tough and smart means duplicitous and corrupt. After all, Brooks is a Republican, and that's how his party works. What he doesn't get -- or rather, what he fears most -- is that Democrats now like Obama's toughness, while still expecting prudent idealism and effectiveness in bringing about change for the better.

Yes. The Fast Eddy label is very flattering to Obama. No one will know that Fast Eddy is a character who lacks character. Certainly, the Obamanauts waxing rhapsododic here won't get it. Or, are they just spinning away in the echo chamber? Having built Obama up to escape Clinton, the conservative press is now tearing him down. Naive? They don't want him naive, amigos. They want him slick and shallow. And that is not going to be hard to do.

That's a very effective hit job piece by Brooks. His best I've seen to date. But it reminds me of the 'Slick Willy' attacks that Bill Clinton loathes so much. Following what PQuincy said above, it is flattering that a 'conservative' recognizes that the Dems have a ruthless politician for once but it's sad that they also seem to conflate that with dishonest as though principled and ruthless are somehow mutually exclusive.

But maybe it's a good thing. I like how he realized at the end that if we're gonna do anything successful in this dog eat dog world where everyone is gunning for us we can't do it by putting out anymore overwhelmed boobs like W. Anyone else remember cringing at the thought of Bush in a room one on one with Putin negotiating on our behalf? All I could think was 'man, the former head of the KGB vs Bush?! He's getting eaten alive...' I don't have that fear about Obama and it was good to see Brooks realize he shouldn't either.

And so as to not slight by omission, I would argue that the story of Bill & Hillary - and maybe even the life-changes of Al Gore - are damned near Greek in their complexity, and possible tragedy. But to see them through talking-head lens' like "flip-floppers?" Sorry, that's talkin' checkers, and watchin' chess.

Isn't it weird how Brooks finds black men who excel to be kind of scary? This column about Obama's sharp political instincts really reminded me of that weird one he wrote the other day about Tiger Woods's unflappable powers of concentration.

Coming from Chicago, I am relieved to see Obama throwing a few elbows. But in this debate about character regarding Obama's left turn on campaign finance, we really need to remember that Obama is taking no money from lobbyists, the lion share of his funds are coming from those donating $100 or less and he is shuttering 527s working on his behalf (witness Move On today). Can McCain say that? I would rather have a tough pol who changes his mind to give himself a tactical advantage than a politician who secretly encourages attacks and lies against an opponent's family, values, religion etc. Obama needs to challenge McCain more forcefully to shutter his 527 offensive.

Billy Glad wrote: "Having built Obama up to escape Clinton, the conservative press is now tearing him down."

HUH? When did the conservative press build up Obama? They were everywhere trying to get Clinton the nomination. Even freakin' O'Reilly had her on his show. What kind of cr@p are you selling here? Sheez. It would have brought the Repugs out in droves to vote against Clinton.

Last week or sometime recently, George Will was interviewed on radio (it may have been local, I'm not sure) about his new book and was asked about Barack Obama. He said that fairly early on he had made an appointment to have lunch with him, just to get a feel for this new kid who was making waves. When he came back to his office, colleagues asked what he thought and he replied that he probably felt like the baseball scout that went to observe A-Rod back when he was in high school. He added that you could interpret it as saying that because A-Rod was in high school, he still had a long way to go -- but on the other hand it hadn't in fact been such a long time before he made it, with impact, into the Big Leagues.

All I can think, of Brooks comments or any of the others, is that it's going to be so wonderful to have someone SMART -- intellecutally *and* street - in the White House, God willing.

I don't know.

Obama's abandonment of pubic finance disappoints me.
Barack will bulldoz McCain and the next president with or withour the $500,000,000.00. The money is being wasted. Coupled with the disappointing FISA stance its a bitter pill.

Brooks, however has it wrong. He presents a litany of the people and things that Obama has thrown "under the truck". Everybody knows Barack throws things under "the bus".

I'm voting for Obama. I believe we will see eight years of tremendous progress toward a just and equitable society. But the past two days have been disappointing.

I ask Barack and Axelrod and Pouffle et al. not to overthink it. We are not winning due to strategists and political manuevers. (Yes,) we can win because it is time and we are right.

Ok, I will call you surprisingly articulate for a fuckwit!

Obama is tough to figure out. Lots of exaggerated strengths and weaknesses.

Can seem very smart frequently, but can't seem to get through a tough interview without making major gaffe.

Maybe this is called inexperience.

Reminds me of Pierre Trudeau.
He was a ruthless pol but he delivered the goods.
Actually when you stop and think about it ALL successful liberal leaders posses this combination of traits (FDR, Johnson, Kennedy), while the ones who don't quite make it don't (Stevenson, Dukakis, Heart)

What the conservative commentariat is trying to do is to take the only winning strengths liberals have and get the public to think of them as a pathology. Don't let him. Always defend the liberals toughness.