Dallas Morning News: Yet another low for them.

Over the years, I have become used to lots of inane, borderline and overtly offensive oped columns in the Dallas Morning News and elsewhere.  This new one by Kathleen Parker is breathtaking in its I-dont-know-what-to-call-it-ness.  Here are a few choice excerpts from the original article (and below it is the response that I sent DMN):

His supporters have endowed him with near-mystical powers, not unlike the old Hollywood stereotype of the wise and mystical black person who materializes as a deus ex machina to save the white protagonist. Think Bagger Vance.
[...]
I'm familiar with his spell. He's got It and it's easy to be seduced by a charming idea with a dazzling smile.
[...]
But hope is not a policy. Hope is the prayer proffered over a lover's sickbed; hope is the farmer's baleful eye cast on a white sky; hope is the captive breath as the groom says, "I do."

We all learn eventually that hope takes you only so far. The rest is hard work and clear thinking. Keeping hope alive is dandy, but keeping your wits is better.
[...]
Whatever his qualifications for the job, the crowds chanting "O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma!" betray an undertow of hysteria. This is not the candidate of reason, but of passion. Of emotion. Sen. Good Vibes.
[...]
Mr. Obama smoothly, strategically and subtly mines the well of white guilt. In his acceptance speech after his Iowa sweep – which sounded an awful lot like the speech of a president, or at least a nominee, rather than the pick of a few sturdy Iowans – he liberated his inner Martin Luther King.

Launching into the singsong cadences of Dr. King's "I Have A Dream" speech, Mr. Obama crooned: "They saaaaid. They saaaaid. They saaaaid this day would never come. They saaaaid our sights were set too high. They saaaaid this country was too divided ... but on this January night, at this defining moment in history, you have done what the cynics said we couldn't do."

And here is a rebuttal that I just mailed to DMN in response:

Kathleen Parker's OpEd entitled "Is U.S. in thrall with Obama or idea of Obama?" in the DMN on Friday, Jan. 11, 2008 is the sort of borderline offensive column that should never see the light of day -- these should be "thoughts" (I use the word loosely) in her head as she is half-asleep and half-awake.  That the Dallas Morning News would actually publish this is distasteful at best and pernicious at worst.  Here is my rebuttal to her inane and offensive diatribe.

I will first address Ms. Parker's "column" "point" by "point" and then lay out why I think Ms. Parker needs to do some research before she mouths off offensive and ignorant banalities:

1. "But hope is not a policy":  Who claimed it was?  Did Ms. Parker listen to any of his policy speeches last year?  Did she go to his web site (www.barackobama.com) and check out the policy papers therein?  Did she try to conduct any interview of him and ask him deep, meaningful and substantial questions regarding policy?  Oh, I forget that opinion page "writers" are not really required to do any fact checking, they are given license to simply spew their opinions, unsubstantiated and patently false as they may be.

2.  "Politicians keep saying that Americans want leadership.  Do they?  Or is it followership they crave?" (And, to buttress this absurd speculation she cites as evidence "Whatever his qualifications for the job, the crowds chanting "O-ba-ma" betray an undertow of hysteria" -- really, has she never even been to any other campaign rallies?  Do no other campaigns have the candidate names chanted by the supporters? And how pray does she distinguish between all those other chants and this one as having "an undertow of hysteria"?)  If anything, Obama supporters are more unlike "followers" than the supporters of almost any other candidate, in that they understand that they are in this together, Presidency or not at the end of this campaign -- I know, because I am one of his supporters and I chose him for clear, lucid reasons (life-story, experience, yes experience -- more later, on this -- ability to rally and rouse people from their long, long slumber and yes, oratorical skills, because I admire the ability to use language to move people), not so that I may "follow" him, but so that we may actually bring some sanity to the insanity that is our political process.

3.  "It means nothing" (after excerpting an oratorical flourish that is nevertheless rooted in truth: "they said this day would never come"):  It means nothing only if you have not been paying attention to either our history or the presidential campaign.  So Ms. Parker does not know the "they" that said the day would never come?  Just how cloistered an existence does she lead?  And then she goes on a riff about the cadence he used at that time:  I cannot believe I read this swill in a "reputable newspaper".   Since when is it an offense to modulate your tone and tenor for rhetorical effect in a political campaign, for heaven's sake?  Or do I detect the same mentality that induces one to say "this day would never come", to snipe about the "singsong cadence of Dr. King"?  This is deeply offensive in the extreme, not the least because of the approaching day honoring the great man himself.  Who else's "cadence" does she find gripe-worthy?  What kind of cheap shot is this and does this deserve premium real estate in a newspaper, in this day and age?

4.  "He is the self-object of Oprah Nation":  Does this statement even mean anything?  And again, one detects the same condescending attitude against another icon -- taken together, the sneering references to the two legends (one martyred and one living) are extremely disquieting, considering that they occupy a sweet spot in a prestigious newspaper.  Do you have no editorial control over what to accept and what not to accept?  This attitude towards two of the most beloved members of a community, expressed in a mainstream outlet, gives the lie to the implied premise of her own column that Senator Obama has achieved nothing of note in his life or the campaign.  To have thrived in the face of such blatantly subversive forces is nothing short of amazing.

I could pick any number of other inanities Ms. Parker has strewn throughtout the "column", but time and space do not permit that.  Here is my take on Senator Obama and why he really is more than what he even claims to be.  

The sweetest way to get to know Senator Obama is to read his first book "Dreams from my Father".  This is an amazing piece of work, whether from a politician or not.  It lays bare his soul, his motivations, and the process by which he made his peace with the cauldron that was his life and heritage.  His life story is storybook noble: Ivy-league graduate who eschewed a corporate life to go work on the streets of Chicago on behalf of the dispossessed and the displaced; Harvard Law Review President who gave up prestigious law clerk offers to work as a civil rights attorney and teach law; cerebral, intelligent and honorable man who nevertheless chose to run for public office, where he brought people together time and time again to enact controversial and difficult pieces of legislation: death penalty reform, campaign finance reform, health care access, ethics reform and nuclear weapons proliferation control.  Most importantly, he has built, in the span of a mere months, a formidable network of grassroots organizers that is giving the most powerful Democratic party machinery a run for its money.  If this is not significant and substantive in a candidate running for Presidency, then I do not know what else is.

Obama is really a Rorschach test: how you respond to his words says a lot more about you than it does about him.  To use his oratorical power as a cudgel to allege no-substance is to display your own deep cynicism and ignorance, for the substance is there for all to see, right behind those mighty words...

Let me know what you all think about this (both the original article and my response to it).  I heard back from the editor of the oped page saying that they will only think about publishing this as a shortened (200-word) letter to the editor -- I declined to revise and send, since the original and the rebuttal would not be on par.  Needless to say, I would have polished up my response column if they had accepted it :-(  All this happened yesterday...

•  Tips and pointers welcome....

  by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:04:35 PM PDT

  •  Sounds like an Edwards supporter to me ;-)

    snark

    by deepsouthdoug on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:12:20 PM PDT

    •  Oy!

      Right now I'm expected to bravely stride forward and defend the honour of all of us Edwards supporters.

      Nah, can't be bothered. I'm too tired and I have a lot of criminal investigation to learn (blech).

      All in all, you've just obtained a free pass. ;)

      (rambling snark)

      by Dauphin on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:16:52 PM PDT

    •  Sounds like a %^%&$

      to me!!! :-)

      by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:17:05 PM PDT

    •  Parker on Clinton & Edwards

      Kathleen Parker on Hilary:

      That's both the beauty and the problem of Hillary Clinton. She's whatever she needs to be to advance the only agenda to which she is unwaveringly loyal: the power of Hillary Clinton. She puts one in mind of a delighted self-portraitist, always discovering new textures and palettes. And like all politicians, she benefits from the Uzi-style news cycle that numbs Americans into sensory exhaustion and glazed-eye passivity.

      on Edwards:

      Passionate, but not overwrought, he conveyed the persona of a deeply caring man who wants to make the world a better place. Either that, or the persona of a deeply cunning litigator adept at pulling a jury's heartstrings, which usually precedes the pulling of someone else's purse strings.

      Even the sans-serif font on the John Edwards logo is plain and straightforward. But that's where simplicity ends and sophistication triumphs. In Edwardsian politics, sans-serif is a tactic and simplicity a strategy.

      She's a real piece o work! And I daresay she looks in the mirror and then writes what she sees. And it ain't pretty...

      by denig on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 02:29:36 PM PDT

  •  Great response eloquently put

    If that newspaper had any brains they would offer you a job as a writer. You certainly write a hell of lot better than Ms. Parker.

    by ronnied on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:20:46 PM PDT

    •  Thank you.

      I have hopes of writing a book in the next two years...

      by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:24:12 PM PDT

•  It is becoming obvious that obama needs to

  address polices more if he can do he would stop some of us from thinking his movement is more about italizing than  substance   if not it may cost him the nomination

  by need pr on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:11:09 PM PDT

  •  Did you listen to any of his policy speeches

    in 2007?  Some of them (like the ones on terrorism and foreign policy) were brilliant and innovative and thoughtful, some of them were standard issue.  But there is plenty of policy stuff both in the archives and on his site -- why does this canard persist?

    by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:16:33 PM PDT

  •  You don't have to have substance...

    ... to be a presidential nominee.

    by Plutonium Page on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:19:24 PM PDT

•  Now, I'll be the first one to

  poke fun at flowery rhetoric; hope, after all, is the first step on the road to disappointment if not backed by reasons for it.

  That said, Kathleen Parker's editorial is simply a pile of unadulterated cat feces. It seems to be the attempt of, well, a rather jealous person to discredit an ideological opponent. Mr. Obama's policies are a bit too vague for my liking, but his words and deeds certainly did not warrant such an attack. Note the whiff of not quite as subtle racism as the author would have hoped it would be as well.

  All in all, they let anyone write these days.

  by Dauphin on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:15:04 PM PDT

  •  Saw David Brooks this morning on

    MSNbs with Russert and some woman from USA Today and MSNbs' own political expert Chuck Todd. They would be almost amusing if they weren't so pitiful and out of touch.
    They have been telling us for the last three or four years how great the economy was while people who lived in it had a different experience. They kept telling us that Bush had the upper hand with his miserable ratings because Congress' were worse. Then they told us that we weren't really unhappy in the 2006 election and Karl Rove had his "own math".
    Now that their anointed  inevitable candidates Clinton and Giuliani have stumbled they have rallied to protect the status quo.
    Mock the hick Huckabee. Pretend Edwards doesn't exist (and he wasn't the first to point out that few have benefited  from this military/industrial economy) Now, that you have young people and independents possibly getting excited about Obama, come up with disparaging comments like Parkers. David Brooks said that he knew Obama before he became "God" and was accompanied by "cherubs". Inside the beltway losers and they don't have a clue, even now.

    by blindyone on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:56:53 PM PDT

•  Excellent letter DCH. As an aside,

  people like to be moved, to feel something in their gut. All the candidates have policy position and any editorialist suggesting otherwise is dissembling. In the en though, we elect presidents, I think unfortunately, based on emotional connections. That is what she is railing against because she knows Obama is making those connections.

  by Gary Norton on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:23:05 PM PDT

  •  Nothing wrong with emotional connection,

    in my opinion -- provided junkies like us also are satisfied that there is substance behind the rhetorical flourish.  In Obama's case, the substance behind the words is far more substantial than people seem to want to give him credit for, even in the circles of people who should know better.

    Like Kathleen Parker -- premium real estate on the DMN and she uses it up with such pernicious nonsense...

    by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:27:40 PM PDT

    •  Agree there is nothing wrong

      with emotional connections. But when people voted for Reagan and Bush because he was a nice guy or they'd like to have a beer with him even though their policies would not advance those voters' interests, that is bad. That was the context for my "unfortunately" remark.

      by Gary Norton on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:33:07 PM PDT

      •  I was not picking on you, sorry about being

        ambiguous about that -- I was merely expanding on your thought.

        I have written extensively in comments on DK all of last year about why people find "appealing" a viscerally distasteful thing -- and the two you have named are it, in short!  Bush especially has so poisoned the well, that Obama might be just the ticket to detox it...

        by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:50:27 PM PDT

    •  Newsflash: welcome to the Rethug media.

      You ain't seen nothing yet. These jerks are all over the media, in fact their bosses in corporate offices who pay them have made it so that they dominate.

      You're wasting your time with this pathetic debate on how Obama should deal with it, or how his niceness will win people over or how awful this lady is.

      Get a clue. Your campaign is going to have to face this crap on a daily onslaught. I am sure that Obama's top advisers know how to handle it, they are experienced.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:14:30 PM PDT

    •  Sorry, I didn't mean to discourage your efforts

      Your diary is fine, and your letter is great. By all means, write letters and complain about Rethug columnists. That is an effective form of activism.

      What I'm frustrated with is the naivete and ignorance of many in your diary who seem to have a hard time grasping the obvious fact that our news media is filled with Rethug operative columnists who don't give a damn what we think. They are paid to advance the Republican agenda, folks. Things are far worse and much less democratic (as in democracy) than you have been led to believe. I can't believe I even have to say this-- wake up.

      by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:22:31 PM PDT

•  I think you should have shortened it

  and gotten it published.  Something like "Ms. Parker's recent vacuous column deriding Senator Obama's campaign for extolling hope rather than specific policies rather curiously discussed none of Obama's detailed policy positions, such as bringing the never-ending disastrous Iraq occupation to an end.  Instead, in attempting to define Senators Obama's campaign solely on the basis of his Iowa victory speech, Ms. Parker's juvenile psychoanalysis even managed to insult not only Dr. King, who's historic impact is a bit broader than merely engaging in (according to Ms. Parker) "sing-sing" rhetoric, but also the millions of Americans who are indeed inspired by both Dr. King and Senator Obama."

  They might publish that - and it seems to be your essential point.  

  by Viceroy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:26:31 PM PDT

  •  That is rather nice.

    You should send that in your name to the DMN -- the more they hear from people, the better...

    by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:29:35 PM PDT

    •  Well...

      I used to live in Tejas (in the Metroplex - Go Frogs!) and let's just say that both the DaMN and the Startlegram have heard from me before.  Now, the Chicago papers are more likely to hear my views.;-)

      by Viceroy on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:36:27 PM PDT

      •  :-)

        DMN has been my bane -- I have despaired of them and then suddenly they go and endorse Obama!  The editor who responded to me had the gall to suggest that that somehow shielded them to publish this inanely vitriolic piece and she quacked something about balance and that I "had not cared for" the article -- needless to say, I did not respond very kindly to that...  :)

        by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:41:30 PM PDT

•  Elegant Rebuttal, DCH

  Obama is an inspiring leader, to be sure. And he has policies, progressive policies which have become laws, both in IL and the US Senate.

  Most inspiring to me, though, was his choice to work the streets of Chicago as a community organizer - Wearing out shoe leather and knocking on doors, and LISTENING to people.

  That's the kind of experience I want in a president, one who is by nature, experience, and character, empowering We, the People, to re-infuse the nation with a sense of government that is of the people, by the people, for the people.    

  by Empower Ink on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:40:57 PM PDT

  •  Thank you.

    I wish they would publish it -- Dallas could definitely use a little bit of course correction and yes, inspiration...

    by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:51:44 PM PDT

•  Come on, come on,

  get this diary up on the recommended list!  I want DMN to pay dearly for this kind of editorial "decision" making...

  We need them to see reason.  In addition to getting this diary up there, also write DMN and tell them what you think of their publication and their lack of substance and their fake sense of balance (see my comment above).

  by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:47:05 PM PDT

•  Hysteria

  After the last eight years people are desperate and they might well be a little hysterical for change. Anyone that wants it to be business as usual and votes accordingly has not been paying attention.

  by ohcanada on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:49:19 PM PDT

  •  Amen to that.

    Anyone that wants it to be business as usual and votes accordingly has not been paying attention.

    This is one of the other, primary reasons why I support him...

    by DraftChickenHawks on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 01:52:53 PM PDT

•  We're y'all born yesterday??? K. Parker is a

  Rethug columnist operative.

  What do you expect? And she is following the talking points, trying to stir up white middle class fear of the radical black man... Why do you think she made fun of the I have a dream cadence, hmm??

  She's not an idiot, she's an evil conniving cog in a giant machine ready to take down our guys/gals.

  Get with it, people. This isn't rocket science.

  by doinaheckuvanutjob on Sat Jan 12, 2008 at 04:10:29 PM PDT