According to the astute Applebaum, that’s the virtually inevitable character of the rhetoric of the endless campaign. As Ivan the K has pointed out, this sort of criticism of the rhetorical campaign--culminating in the rhetorical presidency--reaches its height in the work of our friend Jim Ceaser. People are so repulsed by candidates who can talk but choose to have nothing to say (Obama, for example, was a fascinating writer before he became a candidate) that they often actually prefer candidates who authentically lack eloquence (like our president).
There's a significant difference between authentically lacking eloquence and completely lacking eloquence. I honestly believe most Americans are suspicious of Obama's rhetoric (much like they were of Clinton's), yet still find Bush's "lack of eloquence" ridiculous. Perhaps a happy medium would be best . . . a good speaker who doesn't beat around the bush and gets to the point clearly (without unnecessary rhetoric or constant, stupid-sounding slip-ups).
Gotta finish your sentence for ya. "they often actually prefer candidates who authentically lack eloquence..." -- and have nothing to say.