Brooks wasn't his normal obnoxious self, instead playing the role of gentleman reporter. However insightful his observations about the similar yet different leadership styles of Barack Obama and John McCain, he shoots himself in the foot by reverting to something he calls himself out on early in the article. If you write this:
You can't spend the last quarter of your article telling blatant falsehoods and writing things just to make yourself feel good. Barack Obama doesn't hold town hall meetings on the campaign? John McCain, the man who went from calling Jerry Falwell an "agent of intolerance" to weeping and kissing his feet at his vile Liberty University is "honest, brave and forthright?" Normally, Brooks' weaselly little "I like both of these guys but the conservative one more" is fine, but why call yourself out on it and then seemingly obliviously go back to it?
I was writing columns criticizing the Republican Congress, but each time I’d throw in a few sentences slamming the Democrats, subconsciously trying to make myself feel good. One morning I got an e-mail message from Obama that roughly said: David, if you want to critique us, fine. But you’re just throwing in those stray sentences to make yourself feel good.
I felt like a bug pinned down in a display case.
Meanwhile, Golria Steinem would have been better off telling the nation her thoughts on Bratz (now available OnDemand) then trying to convince us that the only reason Hillary Clinton lost Iowa is because she's a woman. From the absurd:
THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.to the downright idiotic:
Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate? After less than one term there, do you believe she could be a viable candidate to head the most powerful nation on earth?
I’m supporting Senator Clinton because like Senator Obama she has community organizing experience, but she also has more years in the Senate, an unprecedented eight years of on-the-job training in the White House, no masculinity to prove, the potential to tap a huge reservoir of this country’s talent by her example, and now even the courage to break the no-tears rule.Steinem wastes everyone's time. If she was trying to impersonate a lurching zombie of old feminism clawing desperately at the limelight, then Mission Accomplished. How else can one seriously put out the hypothetical female Obama without mentioning whether "Achola" is as eloquent as the Senator from Illinois? If Barack Obama was covered with open sores and oozed a horrible slime at every public appearance, the Senator would hardly be the beacon of hope and righteousness that he is now.
Her paragraph about Hillary Clinton's alleged superiority is bunk all around. How silly to even posit that being First Lady gives Clinton "on the job training". Even a particularly active First Lady like Hillary doesn't get the full presidential experience. That's like claiming Anna Benson has had on the job training as a league average starting pitcher because she's married to Kris Benson, so she may as well be some frugal team's fifth starter. But then again who knows, the Marlins are always looking for another way to vomit on the shoes of their six loyal fans. But I digress.
Hillary Clinton would probably have to try twice as hard to prove her manliness if elected President. She'll have to respond to minor crimes like jaywalking and child pornography with naplam strikes in order to show she's tough on crime. And never mind what she'll need to do to those poor Iraqis. They'll be building solid gold Hillary statues, however many of them are left after the tragic ebola outbreak that will strike the country the first time the blood of a US Marine is spilled during the Clinton II Presidency.
As for the pissing contest of who can energize the biggest amount of talent in the country (youth, blacks vs. women), that's only something a past her prime Steinem would worry about. I fear that if Steinem is allowed to continue speaking freely in this election the Republicans will have a whole new pinata to unload on. Perhaps there's some kind of Hall of Fame we can put her in to shut her up?