Originally a comment by Steven on The mix of condescension and entitlement is stunning.
Brooks has nothing to say.
He writes two paragraphs of sharp criticism of Clinton (one at the beginning; one near the end). But rather than support his criticism with evidence–you know, things she’s said, things she’s done–he fills out the rest of the column with a paean to grace.
Reading this stuff is painful: both tedious and cringe-inducing. I skimmed it the first time through; later I circled back and read the whole thing, mainly out of a sense of duty. (I read Brooks…so you don’t have to.)
What is striking on a careful read is that the column is virtually content-free. It is grounded … Read the rest