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.