ArchPundit

Dana Milbank has a column being criticized in several places for suggesting that Hillary Clinton comes off as too smart. 

“We have one form of learning, which is pretty much an auditory form of learning supplemented by some visual aids,” she announced. “We are leaving out . . . kinesthetic and esthetic learners.”

Further, she reported that “60 percent of our in-age cohort will not graduate from college” and that “a child drops out of school in America every 29 seconds.”

She blamed Bush education policy, which “homogenizes the classes,” and pledged to help “individual districts and states achieve a level of facility and teacher preparedness and adequacy.”

Let’s hear it for facility preparedness and adequacy! Put your hands together for kinesthetic learning and the de-homogenization of the classroom! Save the in-age cohort!

The audience sat quietly through this, applauding in the appropriate places. They gave Clinton a seated ovation when she finished, rising only to put on their coats.

For a quarter-century now, Democrats have had a habit of selecting brainy, establishment presidential nominees who are frequently pedantic but rarely passionate. Al Gore and John Kerry were bookish, and Michael Dukakis didn’t even show emotion when asked about the hypothetical rape and murder of his wife.

The lone exception was Hillary Clinton’s husband — and it’s no coincidence that he has been the only successful Democratic presidential candidate in three decades. But Hillary lacks Bill’s presence on the stump; hers is a message of leadership by laundry list.

“I also created the Healthy, High-Performance School programs,” she told the teachers. And, “We worked hard to create a program for 100,000 federally funded teachers.” And, “I proposed . . . the National Teacher Corps.” And, “I’ve joined up with several of my colleagues to propose renovating and rebuilding crumbling schools.”

The initial response I’ve seen is that this is a horrible attack on her and that only the empty press would argue that knowing details is a bad thing.

The problem is that’s not what he said  His examples make the point. Who of the last 4 Democratic Presidential candidates could talk policy longer than any of the rest?  Bill Clinton.  Yet he could talk in public about policy in a way that discusses values more than policy details.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is deals in details and it’s not effective.  People are motivated not by policy discussions, but by values.  That’s how George Bush won twice even though his policy prescriptions were in the minority.  He convinced people they share his values.

If Democrats want to go down this path again, we can have the same fights we’ve been fighting since 1988.

Same as Michael Dukakis

Sames as Al Gore

Same as John Kerry

Or there are at least two candidates who actually talk to people about how the policies relate to their values and actually reach them instead of giving them a 10 point plan.  And both of those candidates can give you the 10 point plan other times.   The fetishization of wonkishness is the biggest weakness Democrats have.  Not because it’s bad to care about policy, but because elections are largely about values and if you aren’t fighting primarily about values then you aren’t engaging in the right fight.