Hope and change worked out really well for Obama, he won his election convincingly.
Exactly! But does the slickness of the Obama campaign really mean that he is somehow a more authentic person with a deep connection to the people? Or does it just mean he had a better campaign? The Obama campaign was very slick, but I don’t think it’s reasonable to simultaneously criticise Hillary for being non-slick and for being non-authentic.
There is this meta-weirdness to say that Hillary was an out of touch politician obsessing over Washington insider stuff and treating the people as mere resources to be corralled into voting for her… while complaining in the terms of a Washington insider that she didn’t do a good enough job of corralling the people into voting for her.
She gets accused of not having firm convictions, but it seems more likely that she does have firm convictions and just keeps quiet about them because they’re not very popular with the American people right now. (Boosting trade and the movement of people across borders, for example).
Comparing her platform with Bernie Sanders or Trump is interesting, and comparing her campaigning is interesting, but I think people are getting a bit sanctimonious and trying to have it both ways: we want to be lied to without feeling like we’re being lied to.