Mr. Brooks is making
this a personal indictment of Ms. Clinton. While merely using polling
statistics as reference, he leaves us with the clear impression that the
putative Democratic nominee is the "bad person" in this scenario.
If
I read the description of Mr. Brooks of this demonstrably damned leader
who has to "push,bully, intimidate, elide the truth" then it is not Ms.
Clinton but rather Governor Christie who comes to mind.
And
who among the Presidents of the last 70 years since FDR were the ones
with the most "good private morality"? Would Truman, Ford and Carter all
be on that short list? They were, from all external perceptions, decent
people but lousy politicians.
So, I have issue with
both the tone and content of the argument of Mr. Brooks. The Clinton
machine is ruthless, and Hillary, more closely examined and known then
possibly any other politician who has considered running for the Oval
Office, certainly has her flaws. But was she an ineffective Senator or
Secretary of State? Were there personal shortcomings, moral flaws, that
made her a bad person and a bad leader? If so, show us chapter and
verse.
For those who do not find Ms. Clinton an
attractive option in 2016, and I would count Mr. Brooks among these, the
former first lady appears an inviting target. But the truth is she
champions causes for the poor and underprivileged and has demonstrated a
caring and concern for others that is sorely lacking in the resume of
the Republican candidates who will be soon be paraded before us. Such is
the morality that matters to me.
Mr. Brooks would
have us read a book by the cover he puts on it. I think that does a
grave disservice to Ms. Clinton and those who would follow his advise.
1 comment:
June 2014 Diane Sawyer, in an exclusive interview, asked Hillary to name one significant accomplishment from 4 years as Secretary of State. She ducked the question. I ask you: Name one significant accomplishment?
As for Hillary the paragon of virtue: We are hardly a month past her server-gate press conference, in which she served up whoppers faster than a Burger King burger flipper- lies large and small, venial and potentially criminal, and all of them quickly found out. Emails to Bill, who never emails? The convenience of one device, despite having more than one device? The Clinton Foundation: We can always count on their self-interest trumping other considerations, so we never have to to fear they can't be bought. More names will surface, along with coincidences of meetings held, approvals granted, donations received and emails deleted. The Clinton's response-beyond the usual lines about "right wing conspiracy theories" and "tired old stories" and "it's all for a good cause"- will once again be: Get over it. Hillary is running for the presidency, and only a simpleton would fail to appreciate that the higher mendacity is a recommendation for the highest office. In the right hands lying can be a positive good-as political moisturizer and diplomatic lubricant. What the Clintons pioneered-the brazen lie, coyly delivered and knowingly accepted-has become something more than the M.O. of one power hungry couple. It has become the liberal way of lying.
I suspect, like Mr. Brooks, many Democrats would jump at an opportunity not to participate in the Clinton Charade-it's why they bolted for Barack Obama in 2008-and would welcome a credible challenger. Without such a challenger Hillary's candidacy offers a test: How much more can Americans swallow? John Podesta and the Clinton team must be betting that, like a python devouring a goat, Americans will have ample time to digest Hillary Clinton's personal ethics.
Post a Comment