David Brooks' columns in the New York Times are a useful barometer of the Republican machine's worries. Brooks, author of several books on cultural criticism, is a master at projecting his and his allies' fears, whether consciously or not, and building attacks (not to say smears) on shadowy mirrors of what he would do, and what he is thus most afraid of.

His column today on Barack Obama is provides a fine example of Republican fears and perceptions, projected onto Obama. ( http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/opinion/20brooks.html?hp) )

Up to now, Brooks has been fairly careful to use measured, even positive language in describing Obama -- perhaps because he and the machine feared Senator Clinton, the enemy they recognized, more than the freshman senator from Illinois. But now that Obama is the Democratic party's candidate, Brook's restraint is gone. Instead, he lashes out at "Fast Eddy" Obama, characterizing him as a sanctimonious shell hiding a deceptive, oddly Republican-like politician.

Remember, Brooks is afraid of what he knows, so he projects the qualities he knows Republican candidates possess onto Obama. The column is thus unintentionally hilarious, since it utterly misses why Democratic voters ultimately settled on Obama.

It's worth noting that the evidence for a 'Fast Eddy' Obama is pretty thin gruel. Brooks naturally tries to build on existing memes, so 'present votes,' pastors, and now of course public finance are his leading points. As a state legislator, Senator Obama sometimes voted 'present' rather than aye or nay. Wow! Those hardball Chicago types! Today voting 'present', tomorrow the cement overshoes?

And, according to Brooks, Obama showed his duplicity by first expressing respect for, then rejecting his former pastor, J. Wright. Ignoring Wright's own behavior in the interval between Obama's steps, Brooks somehow sees Obama's trajectory as deep proof of duplicity. Wow....a former associate not only lashed out with fairly radical statements, he did it while pushing himself into the limelight and openly attacking Obama -- and Obama changed his mind. Go to the mattresses, boys!

In short, Brooks projects the Republican view of voters onto Obama's situation, as manipulable ideological robots whose buttons politicians are supposed to push. Brooks writes: "This guy is the whole Chicago package: an idealistic, lakefront liberal
fronting a sharp-elbowed machine operator. He’s the only politician of
our lifetime who is underestimated because he’s too intelligent. He
speaks so calmly and polysyllabically that people fail to appreciate
the Machiavellian ambition inside."

People inclined to vote Democratic, Brooks assumes, want bumbling idealists like the ones he mentions, Adlai Stevenson and Jimmy Carter.

The humor peaks at this moment. Without speaking for all voters, I'd say that those I know appreciate Obama not because he is some 'shining star for all to see', but exactly because he is ambitious, smart, tough....AND arguing for the kind of politics and government we favor. Already with Bill Clinton, Democrats learned that warm and fuzzy ideas only go anywhere when carried by smart ambitious politicians -- but Republicans like Brooks, it seems, either haven't noticed, or are pining for the days of 1970s liberals.  Thus, in attempting to smear Obama -- and his column is visibly intended to start the meme of duplicity -- Brooks in fact identifies several of Obama's greatest strengths from a Democratic perspective -- among them, the ability to inspire voters and to choose smart political tactics. We want a politician who recognizes the rules of politics that Machiavelli first recognized -- just as Machiavelli did, who dreamed of a united and renewed Italy led by a politician who knew how to obtain and to sustain political influence.

Like most Democratic voters today, I don't want a saint for president, I want a politician who can win -- but not at all costs, and who knows that the goal of politics is not just winning and rewarding one's patrons, but actually leading. 

Poor Brooks, being a Republican, simply assumes that being a winning politican means you must be deceptive and manipulative -- given the Republican party's recent history, he can't imagine any alternative. Thus, Obama appears to him what he fears most, now that Clinton is out of the way -- and he projects his own tawdry understanding of voters and politics onto Obama, complemented by his hope that Democratic voters are the naive sheep that he expects Republicans to be.

By the way, is there anything revealing about the fact that McCain, like Obama, tries to attack Obama by evoking politicians from the 1950s to 1970s. Adlai Stevenson is hardly a name to conjure with, and Jimmy Carter has been out of office for 28 years. Hardly figures to scare anyone under 50 with...but then, that's the McCain campaign!