no matter what the news cycle topic and interview is about? Should she have lengthened and cluttered the message by saying "Democrats are standing up for working people, and homeless, and poor, and immigrants, and women, and POC, and LGBTQ, and unemployed, and people with cancer, people with AIDS, people with mental illness, people with unsurmountable medical debt, prisoners/detained immigrants, abused spouses, hungry children, underpaid teachers, crumbling infrastructure, etc etc.
Exactly HOW LONG would the list need to be in order to avoid that type of nitpicking and hair-splitting and hyper-critical fault-finding? Many people make a sport of endlessly criticizing the Democrats for not having a concise and easy to understand message... then, when the message matches the topic and the news of the day... it's never a surprise to see the cheap shots coming in from the internet among those who are grievance shopping and always looking for SOMETHING (no matter how small or petty) to gripe about.
Those folks should just give it a rest. It really serves no good purpose to continually portray our Democratic leaders and standard-bearers as being out of touch or negligent. It's getting to be ridiculous.
= new reply since forum marked as read