David Brooks, get over yourself

You know Obama's Berlin speech was solid when this is all the NY Times' resident sourpuss, David Brooks, has to say about it.

"[Obama said America] must 'lead the world in battling immediate evils and promoting the ultimate good.' In Berlin on Thursday, it was more of the same."

Really, Mr. Brooks? Are you seriously going to criticize the senator for sticking with his positive and effective campaign theme?

"But now it is more than half a year on, and the post-partisanship of Iowa has given way to the post-nationalism of Berlin, and it turns out that the vague overture is the entire symphony. The golden rhetoric impresses less, the evasion of hard choices strikes one more."

So now we're going to judge Obama's effectiveness as president a mere six months after he won his first primary? Yeah, that makes sense.

"When John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan went to Berlin, their rhetoric soared, but their optimism was grounded in the reality of politics, conflict and hard choices. ... Kennedy didn’t dream of the universal brotherhood of man. ... Reagan didn’t call for a kumbaya moment."

I guess John McCain isn't the only one who needs a history lesson from time to time. Kennedy and Reagan were already president when they gave their Berlin speeches. Are we to judge Obama by the same standards? Sure, he's being a bit presumptuous, but that's not an invitation to criticize him as if he were already the man in charge. The job of a presidential candidate is to stake out policy positions and defend them with "soaring rhetoric." Obama has defined his positions well (FISA bill excepted) and his oratory is second to none. But he wasn't in Berlin to give a policy speech. He was there to start the process of getting America back into Europe's good graces, and to lay out his goal of generally bringing people together. The mere fact that 200,000 people turned out in a foreign capital to hear the message is proof that he can do it.

"The odd thing is that Obama doesn’t really think this way. When he gets down to specific cases, he can be hard-headed."

Duh. Of course he can do what he is pledging to do. His skills at working the system and getting what he wants are unsurpassed. The beauty of his candidacy is that he's great both at whipping crowds into a frenzy over the wholesome, all-American ideals that we've been missing for a long time and at getting down to business.

So, Mr. Brooks, if you're going to criticize him, save it for some legitimate policy debate (there are plenty to be had), and don't insult us with this tripe.