I’m a day late linking to an amusing skewering of Obamania by David Brooks in yesterday’s Times. He writes about Obama Comedown Syndrome.

Up until now The Chosen One’s speeches had seemed to them less like stretches of words and more like soul sensations that transcended time and space. But those in the grips of Obama Comedown Syndrome began to wonder if His stuff actually made sense. . . .

Barack Obama vowed to abide by the public finance campaign-spending rules in the general election if his opponent did. But now he’s waffling on his promise. Why does he need to check with his campaign staff members when deciding whether to keep his word?

Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics? Is giving Robert Byrd’s campaign $10,000 the kind of change we can believe in?

If he values independent thinking, why is his the most predictable liberal vote in the Senate? A People for the American Way computer program would cast the same votes for cheaper.

And should we be worried about Obama’s mountainous self-confidence?

These doubts lead O.C.S. sufferers down the path to the question that is the Unholy of the Unholies for Obama-maniacs: How exactly would all this unity he talks about come to pass?

  • jamesk
  • It’s the system that is broken. So much money is needed to campaign, that even the most idealist of candidates can get sucked into the vortex of the system.

    Obama may have had an idea of how he wanted to do things, but once he gained the momentum he was quickly shown the only way to do things – thats with buckets of money going into influential pockets, flowery speeches be damned.

  • Jens

    The extent to which Democrats seem to be able to damage their own candidates so that the other side has a great chance of winning is amazing.

    I think this is just the beginning of the real infight. I think it will come done to a few votes on August 28th, when either Obama or Hillary are voted the Democratic Party’s candidiate. Even worse, it could go down a brokered convention route.

    By that time, they may well both have damaged each other so much, that McCain might have an easy game. All he needs to do right now is to sit be the side and watch, as these two damage each other.

  • RE: “Obama says he is practicing a new kind of politics, but why has his PAC sloshed $698,000 to the campaigns of the superdelegates, according to the Center for Responsive Politics?”

    Obama doesn’t live in a vacuum. Maybe leadership PACs should be eliminated. Maybe the superdelegate system should be eliminated.

    But David Brooks isn’t calling for the elimination of either of these things. He just wants to use them for putdowns of Obama.

  • Harrison

    Wow. Wow. Wow. Wow. So Obama gets more popular then your candidate, so you jump on board with a Right Winger? You have no ideals, or beliefs, you have blind allegiance to a candidate and can’t admit when you’re wrong. What’s next, posting a column by Ann Coulter to show the world how much Obama sucks?

    You haven’t posted a single compelling reason (saying someone is a manager isn’t a reason) in this blog to vote for Hillary. Just acres of reasons why you don’t like Obama. Ironically, he’s the one candidate who is inspiring people and shaking things up, which is what you CLAIM you want to do! Odd.

  • Sebastian

    Yeah, what happened to ‘we’re the audience now’? Fail to give us what we want, and we’ll go elsewhere.

    Looks like the democratic support base has gone elsewhere.

  • One person’s “amusing skewering” is another person’s “churlish diatribe,” I guess. Personally, I find it more useful to read why someone supports a candidate rather than why he doesn’t.

  • Ben Field

    Obama-mania moves from place to place as the campaign does. In Washington, our caucuses are over, and a lot of new democrats are busy talking about how they are going to make an impact personally. Mania, no. I was also amused by the article because it’s cleverly written, but it is based on an old premise, because no movement sustains constant excitement at all times in all places. The question is what any movement ultimately brings about. Maybe the most telling sign from this article is that David really believes the campaign is nothing but hype and rhetoric. Clinton Democrats should take notice that the demographics of their party are changing very rapidly, and Obama is at the middle of it. I wouldn’t call that “hype” or “mania.” The changes are already underway, and he’s not even in office. The “damage” is done. Skewer away.

  • Brooks is sloppy with his facts. It is not true that Obama is the most predictably liberal vote in the Senate.

    The Americans For Democratic Action, lists Obama’s liberal voting record for 2007 as 75 percent. 21 senators had a more liberal rating in 2007 than did Obama.

    Obama scored 95 percent liberal in 2006 — but 12 senators scored 100 percent liberal.

    Obama scored 100 percent liberal in 2005 — but so did 21 other senators.

    It’s good to skewer Obama where he deserves it, such as backing away from his public campaign funding promise, but that doesn’t entitle Brooks to make stuff up.

  • Highgamma

    Of course, Mr. Brooks was citing “People for the American Way,” which, last I looked, is not “Americans For Democratic Action.”

    I could say that Mr. Fikes should apologize for accusing Mr. Brooks of “making stuff up” (Read: lying, a pretty bad thing), but I’m pretty sure that Mr. Fikes will give one of those left-handed apologies that doesn’t mean anything. (Oh, the levels to which discourse has devolved….)

    Maybe Mr. Fikes can prove me wrong and show me that things really are “different this time”.

  • Pingback: BuzzMachine » Blog Archive » Finally covering Obamedia()