Mildly critical of Hillary ("We’re going to put a lot of coal miners and coal companies out of business") Clinton's apology tour of West Virgina, David Brooks writes in his latest New York Times op-ed entitled "Clinton’s Imagination Problem" that "she doesn’t sound like an imaginative candidate who is responding with fresh eyes to situations today." Instead of Hillary's promise to "take a hard look at retraining programs," Brooks suggests:
"A daring approach might have been to use the speech to propose a comprehensive drug addiction and mental health agenda. That would have grabbed the attention of all those Americans whose families are touched by addiction and mental health issues — which is basically everybody.
A more imaginative approach might have been to unfurl a vision to reweave social fabric, the way David Cameron has in Britain. In areas of concentrated poverty, everything is connected to everything else — job loss, family structure, alcoholism, domestic violence, neighborliness.."
Daring? Imaginative? Have you ever watched Hillary robotically nod her head in agreement with anything being spouted by her supporters?
This is the Democratic alternative to a misogynist with a severe narcissistic personality disorder? Indeed, we live in sad times.