The public—and the media—have long bemoaned the lack of serious candidates who value substance over sound bites. In Hillary, we have a candidate who is serious and substantive, and who is winning both votes and endorsements based on her detail-centered policy approach.Click through to read the whole thing.
Yet the narrative is that the public is not enthusiastic about her. This is not only inaccurate, but destructive to our expressed desire that candidates be thoughtful campaigners with thoughtful policy ideas.
The last time we saw a candidate get constant flak for being a "boring policy wonk" about whom "no one" was excited was 2000. Al Gore was a robotic nerd, while George W. Bush was a fun guy with whom everyone wanted to have a beer. And we know how that worked out.
Enthusiasm Gap: Part Whatever in an Endless Series
Just yesterday, I wrote a piece about the supposed lack of enthusiasm among Hillary Clinton supporters, and now the media has obliged me to write about it yet again, in a new piece for Blue Nation Review:
Shakesville is run as a safe space. First-time commenters: Please read Shakesville's Commenting Policy and Feminism 101 Section before commenting. We also do lots of in-thread moderation, so we ask that everyone read the entirety of any thread before commenting, to ensure compliance with any in-thread moderation. Thank you.
blog comments powered by Disqus