On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:10:11 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
David Brooks had a puerile piece in the Times last week trumpeting
Obama's "downfall". I imagine he's spouting the same drivel on TV.

Found it and read it. What, in your opinion, makes it "puerile" and/or
"drivel," other than it a) disagrees with your opinions, and/or b)
paints Saint Barack as a mere mortal...?

It was a shallow, facile, snide column filled with half-truths
and unfair criticisms. Obama can't "connect" because he bowled
a 37 ? Fer chrissakes, how stupid is that ?

It's not the bowling a 37 - it's trying to appear as something someone
as supposedly smart as him ought know he isn't, be it a bowler or
anything else. His hubris told him that he could do it (or look at
least competent) and reality told him it ain't simply chunking a ball
down thataway and getting a strike every time. It's Obama's political
career thus far.

It was just your plain old, vanilla liberal bashing and standard
anti-intellectual diatribe from a Bill Kristol wannabe who has
neither the intelligence or gravitas to be Bill Kristol.

I think Brooks, like yourself, has seen the handwriting on the
wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Ah, well, with those, um "facts," it's clear Brooks is completely
off-base...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

HTH,
R