About those elections...
bmon...@gmail.com
content (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/21/weekinreview/21broder.html)
and feature stories
(http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/us/politics/22campaign.html?hp&ex=1169528400&en=e12b8d73732cd34f&ei=5094&partner=homepage).
There are two main articles about the '08 elections...repeat, '08
elections. One is discussing Obama positioning himself as an
alternative to the baby boomer candidates, calling for a new order that
isn't bound up in the old campus politics of the '60s. The other is
discussing how the early and intensive start to this season's elections
are bad for business...and bad for voters. The article discusses how
it will be harder for a dark horse candidate to take the country by
storm and the prolonged scrutiny will make it tougher for candidates to
sustain and hold up under the pressure. The Obama article discusses
how it would be a mistake for him to sell himself as an alternative to
boomer politics solely, as that generation accounts for much of the
voting populace and the voters just elected the oldest congress in
history. People are looking for alternatives, but perhaps not in the
measure that Obama is selling them.
I think these articles are intrinsicly bound together, not just because
they're about election candidates, but in the sentiments they seem to
express. To me it's not surprise that the primary race is off to a
shotgun start and candidates are revvving up their campaigns so early.
I have personally been thinking about "who's next" since the last
elections. I think these last elections were a boon for Democrats in
that the voters expressed a desire for change, and the party has jumped
on the bandwagon and started carting out the local wares to sell on the
national market. If anything, the promise of an upcoming national
election is a distraction from the reality of an incompetent president
running the country in a constant state of emergency. And why is Obama
so attractive all of a sudden? Is he really that earth-shattering a
candidate? He's a good speaker and a charismatic politician, but is
that why he's so exciting? Or is there more a sense that the world is
entering a new phase of global politics, one which is unlike any that
has come before and we need a candidate that isn't caught up in
Vietnam-era battles, one that can leave tired issues and distractions
behind and isn't carrying around axes to grind. Of course no one can
say race, class, gender and social politics aren't still a problem, but
right now, they're not what has everyone on edge.
It seems to me, if Obama wants to win this thing, marketing himself as
an alternative isn't necessarily a bad route. BUT...he has to focus on
where change is needed, what the alternative is actually offering, the
substance. It's all well and good to say, let's leave the campus
politics behind, but then tell me what it is we're moving on to? Being
of the younger generation, it's easy for me to say, boomer politics are
tired and out of date, but I'm not sure everyone would agree. The key
here is not to say boomer issues are the problem, but that boomer
leadership is...we should probably just let the Google guys run the
country anyway.