http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/10/opinion/l10brooks.html
Here's the text:
To the Editor:
I agree with David Brooks’s analysis. I believe that Barack Obama needs to make statements on the character of the campaign without getting personal.
The aspect of claiming “victimization” when being challenged (such as the “Ken Starr” remark by an aide to Hillary Rodham Clinton) is not even adult, let alone presidential.
Of course, if Mr. Obama wished to play the game, he could accuse his opponent of using “Lee Atwater attacks” or, worse, “Karl Rove attacks.”
But I think all of us would rather have a person in our highest office who resolves conflicts than one who generates them. We don’t need a "fighter" if the next four years means nothing but fighting.
(You can probably guess my pro-Obama sentiment. The other letters that the Times published were largely in agreement.)
The last 2 sentences summarize my misgivings with the prospect of a Clinton presidency. I am seeing controversy ahead, and the last thing I want is for the President to be the issue. We have too many urgent problems to solve. This is not to say that people will not try to find some issues with Obama, it's just that in my view, Obama has less of a chip on his shoulder.
More to come.
