MyDD :: David Brooks? Right about something?

David Brooks? Right about something?

by wasder, Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:37:25 AM EST

I feel queasy saying the words "David Brooks, correct" together but he sure has captured the zeitgeist of the Dem race right now in his column....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/06/opinio n/06brooks.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slo gin

As much as I am generally well disposed to the concept of both a woman president and an African American president, in as much as these people might bring a needed fresh perspective to how to govern in these confusing times, I am massively disheartened by the fact that Hillary Clinton seems to feel the need to out-macho Obama to win. What a shame to take the idea of a woman president and instead attempt to be even more and bigger of the same, a saber-rattling, elitist-bashing, "I hate egghead economists" Bush lite. Hate to say it that way but this is the kind of primary campaign she has been running since Super Tuesday.

Thoughts?

Tags: Brooks, woman, macho (all tags)

Permalink :: 26 Comments :: Post a Comment

Re: David Brooks? Right about something? (2.00 / 2)

Well, you sure got the queasy part right.

by johnnygunn on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:47:54 AM EST

Re: David Brooks? Right about something? (2.00 / 1)

I don't think this article was meant to bring any good to either Democrat.

Remember that on most matters, David Brooks usually comes down on the Republican side of most issues - in that respect, he certainly must relish the opportunity to have Barack Obama as the Democratic candidate this fall.
Other than that, it seems that he is having a bit of trouble with a female of the species stepping outside the role into which our culture has implicitly cast her.

by pan230oh on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:48:57 AM EST

Re: David Brooks? Right about something? (none / 0)

I agree that this article was not meant to shine a positive light on either of the candidates, but I personally feel that it does hit the nail on the head in terms of the overall strategic presentation of the candidates at this juncture of the race. I loathe David Brooks and certainly don't trust his motives but in this case he has an interesting analysis.

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:26:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

not really (2.00 / 4)

david brooks is just being david brooks. He is uncomfortable with either Obama (who he has lost luster for) and Clinton (who he never liked).

To me, anytime someone like brooks talks about HRC being "too manly" or "out manning" Obama, it just betrays his difficulty with strong women. He can only see them as "being manly".

Being "tough" doesn't necessarily mean manly.

by 4justice on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:49:56 AM EST

Re: not really (none / 0)

Brooks isn't the one talking about Hillary's supposed 'testes.' That would be her own campaign demeaning herself and the woman's movement. Just FYI.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: David Brooks? Right about something? (2.00 / 3)

If we stick to not naming right wing people, then remember David Brooks is one of them. I can understand that when he praises Obama, we feel that Obama is transcending parties but I thought when Hillary gets that, there is somethinng cynical. We might want to apply similar thoughts in both cases in the name of progressive justice (unless we consider ourselves progressive hypocrites).

by Sandeep on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:54:47 AM EST

Oh, baloney. You boyz are a bunch of... (2.00 / 3)

cry-babies.

Hillary is a strong woman and you just can't stand to see it.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 06, 2008 at 11:58:52 AM EST

Re: Oh, baloney. You boyz are a bunch of... (none / 0)

Why does "strong" have to mean "unable to be nuanced." Its the same game that Republicans always play in the General Election---the elitist tag, the trashing of the "experts" (in this case economists), the pretending to be of the common people when you are a millionaire many times over. Its a lame tired game and I am bummed to see a female democrat playing it.

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:48:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

LOL. (none / 0)

You are tired to see a female democrat playing it?

So Kerry was OK to play it? And Edwards? And Dodds? And, particulary Obama (who is far more elitist than anyone but Kerry)?

But HRC gets called out for it.

I. Don't. Think. So.

by CoyoteCreek on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:22:46 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: LOL. (none / 0)

We must be talking about a different game. Kerry had it played AGAINST him by Bush the same way Clinton is playing it against Obama. To reiterate: the game I refer to is the one in which you say your opponent is an out of touch elitist (ala Bush making fun of Kerry's windsurfing) while being yourself an Ivy educated millionaire, the routinized trashing of educated thought (Bush against scientists, CLinton trashing economists) and trying to outmacho your opponent (as in any Republican against any democrat in recent memory).

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 02:01:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yeah, I have thoughts: (2.00 / 2)

Calling Clinton "Bush lite"?

That's trollish.

by aggieric on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:01:11 PM EST

Re: Yeah, I have thoughts: (none / 0)

It is what many here believe.

I heard someone say once she drops out,she can be McCain's top pick for VP.

So it's hardly trollish. It's what many of them believe.

by reggie44pride on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:23:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I have thoughts: (none / 0)

Aggieric---I apologize to you and anyone else who might be bummed out by this terminology. I don't actually think that Clinton would govern as Bush lite in any way and if she is the nominee I will vote for her all the way. I do hate the campaign she is waging--I think it is unnecessarily pugilistic, that it appeals to the lowest common denominator, and generally depresses my notion of why she should be the first woman president. I would love to see a woman candidate come to this with something other than the kind of I can outmacho you tactics she is resorting to.

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:41:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah, I have thoughts: (none / 0)

I would say dismissing the unanimous concent of experts and social scientists who say her gas tax plan is worthless -- dismissing them with phrases like 'I don't cast my lot with economists' and the like, is pretty damn Bush Lite. Maybe not even Lite. Bush at least had bad experts who agreed with him. No experts will line up with Hillary here.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:09:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think David might be feeling a little (2.00 / 2)

emasculated himself. Not the most macho guy in the world himself (and I have NO problem with that since I really do not like macho men) and an elitist egghead wannabe himself, I am not surprised he would have this reaction.

In what other race have we anguished over what the economists say? I have always assumed my brain could figure out a simple concept without having to consult the economists to think for me. If Clinton feels the same then good for her.

It comes back to men deciding ONCE AGAIN what the proper level of masculine/feminine traits are for a woman running for President.

Screw that.... oh I'm sorry, was that too macho?

For Obama it now becomes: Faith, hope and CHANGE! And the greatest of these is Change!

by TeresaInPa on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST

Re: I think David might be feeling a little (none / 0)

I don't think its only men who are trying to decide how much feminine/masculine characteristics should be displayed by female candidate. Several of my women friends, who have supported Hillary in the past, see her macho posturing as lame and unfortunate. Joke about it all you want but its a sad stance for her to take.

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:43:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: David Brooks? Right about something? (none / 0)

I Don't trust David Brooks. I'm a Obama backer and he is one of those 'they will turn against you in a second' people.

You will notice, he writes what come to his mind on that date. Whatever is prevailing in the wind, he will latch onto. At least Krugman, has some kind of a compass.

Obama/Warner 2008

by MissVA on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:06:50 PM EST

Re: David Brooks? Right about something? (none / 0)

You hit it. He is a wind sock.

by reggie44pride on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:24:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: David Brooks? Right about something? (none / 0)

I completely agree with both of you here---I don't trust him at all and don't hold any notions that he wants either dem to win. But i can't say that I disagree with his formulation of the battle taking place for the nomination. And this particular column is well written.

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:44:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Out-macho? (none / 0)

Why, when a woman is being assertive, perhaps even aggressive, in putting forth her views, is she seen as attempting to be macho? If a man acted that way, no one would say he is trying to out-macho someone.

Aggression or assertiveness in a man is considered strong; if it comes from a woman, she's a bitch.

by Montague on Tue May 06, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST

Re: Out-macho? (none / 0)

I never said bitch, so keep that in mind. When anyone is reducing their appeal to their "testicular fortitude" and having more "cojones" than somebody else, whether they be man or woman it is reductionist and lame.

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:00:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out-macho? (none / 0)

No, Jillette said it. I do realize that you weren't calling women bitches for being assertive. I also agree that this cojones crap is lame. A woman cyclist described my hill-riding skills by saying I could really "haul balls." Yes, it's just an expression, but I don't have balls and I don't want them. If I'm a tough and aggressive cyclist, that only puts me in company with millions of other women and men who work hard at a sport.

by Montague on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out-macho? (none / 0)

Montague---thanks for evenhanded response. I haven't heard the Penn Jillette thing but if he called her a bitch I think that way beyond the pale and not something I support. I am married to a strong woman who is very successful at her field. She has managed to get to her position by being forceful and effective but she doesn't have to ape the approach of macho men to do it. It is really this aspect of what Hillary is doing right now that bums me out and I thought David Brooks of all people described it well. And the echoes of Bush in the "who trusts the experts" sentiments freak me out.

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:15:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out-macho? (none / 0)

Thanks.

I dunno, but it doesn't strike me that Hillary is aping the macho approach. She's just a tough person and is trying to make that clear.

We probably each view it through our own filters, so I can imagine we are both sincere even while it seems different to each of us.

by Montague on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:32:37 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out-macho? (none / 0)

Filters is right. I am sure we are both sincere. When I really break it down and look at it, the point that really bothers me the most is not the macho thing so much as the "I don't take my advice from economists" thing. There has been so much of that kind of attitude from the current administration.

by wasder on Tue May 06, 2008 at 03:50:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Out-macho? (none / 0)

This is the thing... once Hillary and her supporters chose 'testicles' as a political measuring stick, she sent her own movement down the same sad path Limbaugh would have it be. Strong women as ballbusters or ballhavers... not simply strong women deserving respect for their views regardless of reproductive organs -- or because of their organs.

Fight the Smears!

by Lettuce on Tue May 06, 2008 at 01:11:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.