On Politics and Politicians
There are only three ways in which a political operative should be judged. One is her actual voting record on issues compared to her conscience and voters’ collective ideas. Two is logical consistency of their views based on facts and previous opinions. And third should be those likely to influence her, i.e., friendships and business acquaintances who have their own agendas.
Everything else, including snippets of speeches, slightly risqué remarks, and perceived slights, is only to be disregarded. Especially suspect is the perception that this is somehow a game, and if someone says something that’s potentially interpretable as ill advised, even if not technically dangerous or incorrect or indeed interpreted in that fashion before the umbrage starts, it’s a sign of immaturity and lack of verbal dexterity required to succeed.
This will only get better when we stop focusing on delivery and style, and focus on content. Even though it’s a solid argument that style and delivery point towards content, it still isn’t enough to preemptively judge content-based performance as if it’s equivalent to reviewing a play, and not judging real life.