Arthur Hailey's success...was hugely because some of his books coincided with a prevailing public interest/concern with the theme of some of his novels.
The very opposite appears to be the case with Mitt Romney. His is a great American success story that can make a best-selling novel, autobiography or motivational reading.
It runs against the grain of public sentiment on the topic and his detractors use it to belittle the "American Way".His story cannot find traction. This is a great pity.

The man himself was a rags to riches story but his novels were formulaic verging on cliche. Now I don't expect people over here to become political all of a sudden but what on earth dose she mean?

I think she is saying that right now, wealth, whether inherited or earned, is suspect-the 99% and the Occupy movements, for instance. So although his story would have been seen as inspirational in the 1950s, right now, he is seen as grinding the faces of his employees and sacking hundreds of them to keep profits high. I admit I don't know the ins and outs of Romney's story, just the basic facts(he hasn't exactly wanted it told, either) but I think that is where she is going.