Thursday, February 15, 2007

Brooks Lauds Hillary

As conservative pundits go, David Brooks is one of my favorites, in that he's always thoughtful and never shrill. I was nonetheless surprised to read his column today, in which he admits misunderstanding and therefore discounting Hillary on Iraq. He suggests strongly that all of us who object to her stance go back and read what she was saying before the war began. Leaving aside whether the quiet endorsement of a conservative helps or further damns HRC's campaign, it's a fascinating read. Since you may not be able to link to it without Times Select, I quote a bit here:
When you look back at Clinton's thinking, you don't see a classic war supporter. You see a person who was trying to seek balance between opposing arguments. You also see a person who deferred to the office of the presidency. You see a person who, as president, would be fox to Bush’s hedgehog: who would see problems in their complexities rather than in their essentials; who would elevate procedural concerns over philosophical ones; who would postpone decision points for as long as possible; and who would make distinctions few heed.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

As several NY Times respondents to Brooks' column have pointed out, HRC's (Her Royal Clintonship's) nuanced understanding of the political ramifications of the Iraq invasion and lucid hesitancy makes her vote to support it all the more unforgivable. Brooks never adequately explains how such enlightened thinking led to such a wrong-headed vote. Perhaps it was political expediency--or perhaps the real moral is this: we could count on HRC to think long and hard about an issue from every angle, and then make a foolish decision.