Klobuchar Or Mayor Pete?

#265: Who's Best At Persuasion?
..................
Why was Amy Klobuchar right to criticize Mayor Pete during the New Hampshire debate?

Here's what Buttigieg said at a campaign stop:
[Impeachment coverage] “makes me want to change the channel and watch cartoons.” The audience laughed, but he explained that this desire to turn away was the problem. “The cynics win,” said Buttigieg, “if they get us to switch it off.”  Taken from a Slate article by Will Saletan.

Here's what Klobuchar said at the debate, two weeks later:
"We had a moment the last few weeks, mayor. And that moment was these impeachment hearings. And there was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people. There was courage from Doug Jones, our friend from Alabama, who took that tough vote. There was courage from Mitt Romney, who took a very, very difficult vote. There was courage, as I read today, about Lt. Col. [Alexander] Vindman being escorted out of the White House. What he did took courage. But what you said, Pete, as you were campaigning through Iowa—as three of us were jurors in that impeachment hearing—you said it was exhausting to watch and that you wanted to turn the channel and watch cartoons. It is easy to go after Washington because that’s a popular thing to do. … It is much harder to lead.... We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us."

The reason I think this is a legitimate point, and not distorting Mayor Pete's words, is that abetting cynicism ("makes me want to watch cartoons"), then pulling a 180 and making the opposite point, is a losing approach ("We all feel this way, right--go ahead and admit it, but we're wrong).  It is, essentially, an ambush, that is grating ("You made me admit to error, then corrected me.  I don't like that.)  And of course Klobuchar couldn't say what I've just said in such detail.  Instead of prose, she had to use a more general poetics.

The Klobuchar point:
1. Announces its 'frame':
 "We had a moment (an opportunity to make a point), and that was Impeachment".
2. Makes its point:
 "There was a lot of courage that you saw from only a few people.  Or, we lost the battle, but in the end will have won.
3. Elaborates:
Her shout out to what really matters:
A. the winnable Senate races in conservative states
B. the support from friendly Republicans
C. the honoring of those who showed courage (mixing in a military title is perfect framing)
4. Summarizes:
"It is easy to go after Washington because that's a popular thing to do.  It is much harder to lead."
5. Punchline:
"We have a newcomer in the White House, and look where it got us."

Klobuchar's delivery is a classic of composition that presents a difficult point to make, in a unified, purposeful, and accessible whole.

Buttigieg, meanwhile, bends to the temptation that every politician feels, in identifying with a popular sentiment, then finding himself correcting that temptation.  Experienced leaders know not to head down that bend in the road to begin with.

And finally, what overcomes any hesitation about 'twisting words out of context' is that Mayor Pete's campaign has been all about how politicians in Washington haven't got a clue.  So, he and his supporters probably did feel like turning the channel, but if they're wrong in wanting to do so, isn't Buttigieg on the wrong track, too?