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...