Clojure is IMO indisputably a good language within a certain scope, and especially relative to many other languages used in practice. However, I think it's greatest merit is not so much the language itself - and there is nothing especially innovative about any of its features per se - but that it introduced so many programmers to a more functional style and the selection of very practical features it includes (Java interop was a smart move, as the ecosystem is a major hurdle for adoption). Much of the fandom and enthusiasm IMO comes from the contrast between the other sorts of languages people use in industry - which traditionally are imperative - and this functional style. It is much easier to reason about functional programs than imperative programs where names can refer to one thing at one moment, and to another at another moment. Mutability really is bad and should generally only be used judiciously and in very confined and controlled contexts.

In my experience, while I have found Clojure enjoyable and practical, it is still a "dynamic" language. A good deal of run-of-the-mill programming can manage quite well with such a language, but as projects become larger, deeper, and more complex, the lack of static types really does become a cost and an impediment. To understand any function and what it expects, you often need to read a few layers in to find what exactly something consumes and returns. Types really are a boon in such code bases. Some may point to various schema libraries in Clojure. While these can be helpful, they are often comparably inscrutable in practice (both in terms of specification and the resulting errors) and really do not compare to bona fide types, especially with LSP integration. And when you model something using types, the code sort of just falls out of the type definition.