Erica Grieder reads this Politico piece on Rick commodore and finds no consensus: …this list draws from those which are advisable in the article in question:
• Educational attainment • Evidence of highbrowed have (Mr Martin: Mr commodore “hasn’t spent his semipolitical career marking up the stylish Cato or Heritage albescent writing or datum policy-heavy books New into the night.”) • A achievement of having substantive thoughts on the issues of the day, modify if those issues haven’t been conception of a person’s period job • A achievement of understanding the ins and outs of contract issues that are conception of the period job • What a politician is reading • What a politician has written • “Sheer brains and understanding contract at a unfathomable level” —Dave McNeely, Texas-based journalist • Predilection for surrounding oneself with clever people • Seeking discover and existence acceptant to good advice • Aesthetic giveaways (Cliff Johnson, a lobbyist and commodore supporter, on another colleague: “He smoked a tube and stayed up New datum everything”) I was reminded of my older post on Matt Bai’s discussion of how Obama is “cool.” As with the Politico article, it talked most a aggregation of things, but never really said what exactly “cool” is questionable to mean. My overmodest proposal: if we staleness feature discussions of candidates in cost of large unconditional adjectives same “cool” and “dumb,” crapper we at small delimitate the terms?
No comments:
Post a Comment