The Poetry Vs. Prose Debate

"You campaign in poetry, but you govern in prose."--Hillary Clinton, Nashua, N.H., January 6, 2008.

Argh. Bill Shakespeare is rolling in his grave. I'm not sure I've ever seen anybody underestimate, maybe undersell is the better word, the value of words when spoken with conviction.

There's a real interesting article on poetry vs. prose in this Presidential election that came out today over at The Washington Post's Fact Checker. I love how Michael Dobbs points out the poetry and prose candidates, and also how he points out that poetry candidates -- such as JFK, Reagan and Slick Willy -- tend to do better during desperate times like these.

My main issue with this piece, is that it somewhat insinuates that poetry candidates are full of shit or lacking substance. Not sure if he really feels that way, but I couldn't disagree more. What's more substantial than being genuine? And are any of the prose candidates genuine (well, maybe, Richardson...)? Let's look at a screenshot from that piece...

It's no coincidence that the poetry candidates are the ones with all the momentum right now. The key word of this election has been change. People want a President who they believe genuinely wants to change the system, not the status quo rattling off their experience ad nauseam. We've been bullshitted for eight years now, and people are sick of it.

The other highlight of this piece is when Dobbs labels Romney the "data candidate." That guy is a piece of work, isn't he? Good ol', Mitt. As a fellow dreamer, I'm not one to shoot down dreams. So, keep telling everyone that you are the only candidate who can beat Obama. Knock yourself out.