David Brooks (yes, David Brooks) is causing me to take another look at Kamala Harris.

[LAS14]

I really don't know much about her and was waiting to learn more. Today's column gave me a pretty vivid intro. A little hard to believe since he once called Hillary something I remember as "shrill," although it could have been something else close.

The more you learn about Kamala Harris, the more formidable she appears. She is an amazing amalgam of different elements — highly educated elite meritocrat, Oakland street fighter, crusading, rough-elbow prosecutor, canny machine pol and telegenic rhetorical brawler.

She is also probably the toughest and most hard-nosed progressive on the scene right now.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/31/opinion/kamala-harris-2020.html

[elleng]

1. No reason not to pay attention to what he (and others) say,

regardless of pre-conceived notions; we DO make up our own minds after all.

Consider George Will: Amy Klobuchar may be best equipped to send the president packing.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/amy-klobuchar-is-best-equipped-to-send-the-president-packing/2019/01/30/0f85122c-240a-11e9-81fd-b7b05d5bed90_story.html?

And there's this:

Kamala Harris must answer tough questions about her past.
Ventura County Star Published 8:00 a.m. PT Jan. 25, 2019

https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/2019/01/25/kamala-harris-must-answer-tough-questions-her-past/2663433002/

and this: Kamala Harris Was Not a ‘Progressive Prosecutor’
The senator was often on the wrong side of history when she served as California’s attorney general.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/17/opinion/kamala-harris-criminal-justice.html?

[bronxiteforever]

2. Kick and recommend.

Great column.

[old guy]

3. No thanks.

I will not base my opinion of her on anything he says, good or bad.

[NRaleighLiberal]

4. I have a comment posted on that article.

[LAS14]

5. Do you mean in DU? I couldn't find one. At the NYT? nt

[NRaleighLiberal]

12. Yes... I've started commenting at NYT often on op eds.

As CSL

[LAS14]

14. I found it. It must have been early in the 967 comments, cuz...

.. I had to scroll a long time. You should publish it here!

[diva77]

6. David Brooks is the "Susan Collins" of rethug commentators -- just when you think he's starting

to make sense and you're with him, he'll slip in a rethug talking point gut-punch that cancels out everything he just said.

[peggysue2]

7. This is one of the few times . . .

I find myself agreeing with David Brooks. Harris is, indeed, all those things which makes her a formidable candidate.

[maxsolomon]

8. That's why I've been on the Harris Train for 2 years.

She's the most Intersectional candidate, with the best combination of inspirational background and experience, and she can eviscerate him on the stump and to his face.

Plus, she's not >70 years old. Dems win when they run "youth" (yes, 54 is "youth" comparatively).

[Garrett78]

9. +1

Contrary to what some absurdly claim, winning over white male Trumpies is not the key to us winning in 2020.

If Harris is our nominee, Democratic turnout will be record-breaking. Bank on it.

[LAS14]

10. She's 54???? Really??? Hmmm... I think that's another thing in her favor.

[JuJuYoshida]

11. She's already got my vote

[appal_jack]

13. Brooks' endorsement should doom the Harris candidacy once and for all.

David Brooks is a neoliberal, a George W. Bush fan, and apologist for the billionaire class at its worst.

I strongly suspect that Brooks' comfort with Harris is due to how neoliberal she is as well. I think that nominating a neoliberal candidate like Harris in 2020 would feed the "both sides are the same" narrative to dangerous levels and possible Democratic losses.

Brooks is (as usual) wrong that Harris' identity and fighting spirit will be enough to carry her candidacy. Many of the same tropes that doomed the Clinton campaign from the start (in her case, private speeches to Goldman Sachs, etc.) will haunt Harris (coziness withe both Steve Mnuchin AND the private prison industry, anyone?). Although Brooks cites the example of Harris being tough against a campaign opponent who had been her own boss, she too often has been tougher on the powerless (single moms of truant kids, black men convicted of minor crimes, potheads, etc.) than she has been against the powerful.

I actually agree with Brooks' that 2020 is not likely Sanders' moment. His history in the 2016 campaign is tainted, whether fairly or not (as a longtime Sandernista, I would lean toward "unfair," but that does not change the reality of it all).

For these reasons, I am leaning strongly toward Elizabeth Warren or Sherrod Brown. Democrats don't just need someone tough, they need someone whose toughness is laser-targeted against billionaire kleptocrats and the staggering inequality that has metastasized across America over the last 40 years or so.

On-edit: If Democrats need further information regarding the MANY reasons why they should not take Brooks word on the color of the sky or anything else, see this excellent column by Drew Magary, of which I will offer but a taste here:

How does this random IDIOT (Brooks) get treated as the definitive word on Serious Matters when’s out here acting like (A) Robert Mueller wasn’t appointed by democratically elected officials, (B) This kind of sweeping inquiry could befall literally any president, and (C) Lincoln would be King Of All Paper Shredders if he got investigated? And he’s the one saying something lacks substance? Fire this man.

-app

[LAS14]

15. Why does it matter if Brooks says lots of things we don't agree with,

if we happen to agree with this column and think it's well stated?