"Look, I get it. Democrats have been traumatized by recent events, and one of the responses is..." - Hallo friend USA IN NEWS, In the article you read this time with the title "Look, I get it. Democrats have been traumatized by recent events, and one of the responses is...", we have prepared well for this article you read and download the information therein. hopefully fill posts Article HOT, Article NEWS, we write this you can understand. Well, happy reading.

Title : "Look, I get it. Democrats have been traumatized by recent events, and one of the responses is..."
link : "Look, I get it. Democrats have been traumatized by recent events, and one of the responses is..."

"Look, I get it. Democrats have been traumatized by recent events, and one of the responses is..."

"... to throw up their hands and say, 'Fine then. If all voters care about is whether somebody puts on a good show, we’ll just come up with a celebrity of our own.' They look to the recent past and see a bunch of serious, experienced public servants with a deep understanding of policy who would have made fine presidents but who lost in part because they failed to light up the TV screen: Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Hillary Clinton.... It’s true that Democrats have underappreciated the importance of charisma in presidential politics. But the answer to those electoral failures isn’t to stop caring about substance. It’s to find candidates who are both charismatic and serious, who would be able both to win and to do the job once they took office."

That's Paul Waldman in a WaPo op-ed, "Get a grip, people. Oprah should not run for president," which I find outright insulting to the person who may be the greatest American alive today. How is she not serious? Why the presumption that people who've gotten into politics early in life and hidden within the structures of government, cosseted by aides and advisers and beholden to contributors, are the serious people? Why is he treating Oprah as if she is all surface, no substance? Take 10 minutes to read her Wikipedia page and come back and tell me she's an unserious mass of charisma and nothing more!

Waldman goes on to say that Democrats can win without stooping to Oprah by finding another Bill Clinton or Barack Obama. Those guys were "fantastically compelling candidates who could also talk your ear off about policy" and who "knew how to work the political system, and they also knew how to sell." What's so deep and substantive about that? With great advisers, any candidate can work up positions on the policy issues of the day, and isn't that what Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did?

I notice Waldman didn't say Bill Clinton and Barack Obama got law degrees from elite schools and jumped into government from there. I don't need to say that's a bad way to equip yourself for the presidency to be able to say that's not the only way.

By the way, I was about to type "Oprah" and I accidentally typed "Obama." The "O" is a powerful first letter. We feel it deeply in a part of our brain we cannot look at and analyze. Speaking of emotion, Oprah is (per Wikipedia) "criticized for unleashing a confession culture, promoting controversial self-help ideas, and an emotion-centered approach." There is no other approach, people. We are emotion-centered whether we admit it or not.

And Oprah has been loved by America for a long, long time. Longer than Bill Clinton, longer than Barack Obama. Compare these signatures:



Did he not copy her?

Thus articles "Look, I get it. Democrats have been traumatized by recent events, and one of the responses is..."

that is all articles "Look, I get it. Democrats have been traumatized by recent events, and one of the responses is..." This time, hopefully can provide benefits to all of you. Okay, see you in another article posting.

You now read the article "Look, I get it. Democrats have been traumatized by recent events, and one of the responses is..." with the link address https://usainnew.blogspot.com/2018/01/look-i-get-it-democrats-have-been.html

Tweet

Subscribe to receive free email updates: