dkissam: Election stuff.

dkissam (

dkissam) wrote,
@ 2008-01-08 12:59:00

Election stuff.
I have been sitting around trying to think of what this whole experience vs, err..!experience, I guess, reminds me of, and why it seems like that dog doesn't want to hunt right now.

Remember when that guy who wrote "The Cult of the Amateur" was on Colbert and was basically soundly thrashed and the internet at large pronounced him a douchenozzle? I think that meme is why invoking "experience" isn't working for Hillary. All Hillary's talk of experience just makes her sound like she's trying to bar the gates to anyone who hasn't "earned" the right to be called an expert by her own circle. Young people, though, have grown up to prefer a meritocracy. Now, whether or not Obama would come out on top in a strict meritocracy is irrelevant. The point is that by stressing this idea that you have to have put in a certain amount of time lingering in the company of political insiders and powerbrokers in order to claim to be experienced, she looks like she's anti-meritocracy, and that makes her look like all those aging Baby Boomers that the younger electorate have to work with who frustrate the heck out of them and who they perceive as being resistant to good ideas unless they come from someone who has already been pronounced The Authority by their age group peers. It identifies her with a group young people see as anti-change, people who bar the gates, and yes, status quo maintainers.

I wish Bill didn't seem to be getting so upset over this. I know, of course he's upset, but he's totally killing my fantasy wherein he's Secretary of State to President Obama, with Gore as UN Ambassador. Think of my fantasies, Bill. However, I have to admit that his anger seems to be coming from a husbandly place rather than a purely competitive place, which is actually quite sweet.

In other news, is somebody going to relocate Obama's Kenyan relatives to the US? I'm worried about them already, after seeing his nice little old...err...stepgrandmother? And uncle, on CNN last night, I think it was.

(Post a new comment)

blixie
2008-01-08 10:00 pm UTC (link)

that the younger electorate have to work with</b>

Sure, but the younger electorate historically don't vote, and I think Hilary is playing the only angle she has on Obama. For all this talk about how "different" the candidates are I found that alot of hooey, and experience, specifically experience working in Washington IS imho an asset, not a detractor.

Bill and Hill talked the same shit Barak did back in '92, and to their credit they *did* change things, alot of things (which is exactly why I plan to vote for Hilary now), but they also failed spectacularly precisely because they were "outsiders" and didn't have the relationships in place to pass some of their more ambitious policies. I don't mean to sound all "you can't fight city hall" but seriously, you can't fight city hall, our system was built specifically so you *can't* make sweeping changes. So the idea that Barak is convinced he will have the magic touch of hope, just underwhelms me, I can't even measure how successful he'll be since I have no clue what it his promise of "change" entails.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

dkissam
2008-01-09 01:18 pm UTC (link)

That's actually the argument that Hillary should use; that what their experience means is that everything they *wanted* to do the first time around they can actually accomplish *this* time around.

I just think that like I said to ss below, I think that Obama's contingency, particularly the young people, feel like they're smart, they're informed, they're engaged, and thus think they *are* Obama. And while I agree that Hillary's experience is extensive and is legitimate, it can kind of sound like someone who has been fortunate enough to have had access and opportunity# for a long time saying being bright and engaged and willing and caring isn't worth anything because some people simply have had access to the machine and are thus positioned better, and that's the wrong thing to say to people who are used to being part of online culture, which is at least ostensibly a meritocracy. It's usually merit that gets you attention online, even though there is of course a complex social structure underneath it all. And I see the whole world as just an extrapolation of fandom, so that's really where I'm coming from on all this.

# And yes, Obama is similarly privileged or he would not have lived the life he's lived and gone to Columbia and Harvard, but he isn't playing up that feel so much.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

blixie
2008-01-09 02:01 pm UTC (link)

it can kind of sound like someone who has been fortunate enough to have had access and opportunity# for a long time saying being bright and engaged and willing and caring isn't worth anything because some people simply have had access to the machine and are thus positioned better, and that's the wrong thing to say to people who are used to being part of online culture, which is at least ostensibly a meritocracy.

I think anyone who would characterize Hilary Clinton, one of the most persecuted and hated female politicians in the country, as merely being "fortunate" and lucky are the kind of people I want to punch square in the face. She and Bill have worked hard as hell for everything they've ever accomplished in politics, if that's not merit I don't know what would be, and basically I think that's Bill's whole glitch with Obama, selling people on a meritocracy IS a fantasy, no it's worse it's a LIE. A pretty lie dressed in HOPE and CHANGE but a lie just the same.

I mean I don't disagree with your analysis of his constituents, it just doesn't make me feel any more excited or engaged in his candidacy and in fact makes me even more put off.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

dkissam
2008-01-09 02:29 pm UTC (link)

Well, from where I sit, attending Wellesley and Yale Law School makes someone quite fortunate - as does attending Columbia and Harvard Law School, of course. It's rare that someone winds up ascending the heights of any power structure, whether it's in politics or entertainment or any other sort of business, without having been quite fortunate at some point in their lives. But I think he *plays* less fortunate, not because he is but probably because he doesn't say "I" as much and instead says "we." Kind of like Bill, actually, but with Bill it's because he demonstrably *was* that rare person who ascended the heights without the cards having been stacked in his favor from birth. Once again, I invoke Joss Whedon. Joss is talented and brilliant. He's also a third generation tv writer. Would his talent and brilliance have gotten him where he is if he hadn't had access? I dunno. And seeming as if you're a person who wants *me* to have access makes me feel more like I could be part of things than someone who tells me what they are going to do with their own access.

I think another reason why he's playing - and would not have played at all at another time - is that the Democratic party feels really good about itself right now. The only Republican who would stand a chance against Obama *or* Clinton is McCain; however, I think that McCain is going to turn out to be their nominee, so we're not in as stellar a position as we were when it looked like that greasy tool Romney was going to buy his way into the nomination. So, we kind of feel like we could take a chance, and that's why "Obama is like rolling the dice" wasn't working. And "restore us to the 90s" is compelling for those of us for whom the 90s were the most awesome period of our entire lives, but I'm not so sure that people who are in college right now really remember that any more than I really remember the Reagan years. I was a kid, so I was insulated, and therefore all I remember are big dramatic things like the assassination attempt and Iran Contra.

So instead of "restore the Clinton 90s" - which btw I think would've played wonderfully in 2004, and I hated Kerry and loved Dean but I think Hillary should've run in 2004 - I think they need to go with "restore what the Clinton 90s *could* have been." Like you said in your first comment, remind people that Bill came to Washington kind of like Obama right now, with big ideas but not a lot of insider experience, and that he paid the price - cast Republicans as what they were, enormous spoilers. And remind people the same Republicans are still sitting there waiting to be spoilers, and that Hillary is ready for them this time.

Also as far as younger women go - and I know that you're younger than me and swsa is younger than you so it's weird that I'm speaking for younger women, but I think I'm accurate - the fact that Hillary is a woman works better if she can attach that to the idea that Hillary in power is good for all women. Is it? Sure. Any time a woman ascends it's good for women. But she needs to show how she specifically has used her access to reach back down and bring up the women coming after her. This is why the more we see Chelsea, the better. The Republicans don't know how to attack females who are both beautiful and present themselves tastefully. Neither hag nor whore applies. Also it would be great for the Clintons if the Republicans would attack Chelsea because heads would explode.

Ultimately even though I do have a horse in this race - I still think an Obama presidency would be healing, and that's what the country needs the most, IMO - it's hard for me to get worked up either way, because I don't think there's a Democrat in the line-up, even dropouts, who wouldn't make a fine President in their own way, and who couldn't bring home a win against any Republican who is not McCain. And I can't really say who would run better against McCain. One thing that I think would work nicely against McCain from Clinton is that heinous remark he made about Chelsea back in the day.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

soundingsea
2008-01-09 12:57 am UTC (link)

Remember when that guy who wrote "The Cult of the Amateur" was on Colbert and was basically soundly thrashed and the internet at large pronounced him a douchenozzle?

Hah, I just saw a rerun of that. Dude was pretty much Made of Fail. Only paid professionals can create art? The hell?

You're right that Hillary isn't helping herself by saying "experience experience experience". It's the same argument, and it lacks resonance with younger people.

(Reply to this)(Thread)

dkissam
2008-01-09 01:07 pm UTC (link)

Well, we have a very informed society - at least, people that pay a lot of attention to stuff like this tend to be very informed. And we have a lot of leisure time.

And "experience" can sound way too much like "long-term privilege and access." It reminds me of TWoP in a way, how everyone, me included, thinks that at least from time to time we could come up with some shit that is way better than what the writers came up with. We soak ourselves in the observation of the product and the process and care a lot about it, so at a certain point we become aware that the biggest difference between us and the actual writers is that for whatever reason, they have been granted the access, and we have not. And we don't feel like there's any inherent difference between us, and if we feel like they're not doing a great job, it can make us resentful.

Hillary needs to focus on making potential voters feel included. Right now Obama is feeling kind of like Rob Thomas during Veronica Mars season 1. Can he pull off subsequent seasons? Who knows? But he's paying attention to voters and making them feel like they are *doing* something. Experience doesn't mean exclusion. Joss, for example, could've bent down and tried to make the fandom feel included if he'd wanted to, but he couldn't see any benefit in it, and it's not his temperament to enjoy that interaction. And at that point maybe it wasn't to his benefit to pretend to notice the fandom. Right now, though, Hillary really needs to pretend to notice the fandom. Make the fandom feel like they're really part of something. And now that she can claim frontrunner status again, she can back off of trying to convince people who *do* loooooooooooooooooooooove Rob Thomas and think he's better than Joss!! that they're not stupid or wrongheaded for loving him and that hey, he's great! but convince them she's better.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

	jmatonak 2008-01-09 07:55 pm UTC (link)
	That guy is an utter tool. I think I've aged out of the "youth vote", but I want to bust Andrew Keen in the mouth. (Reply to this)(Parent)

jmatonak
2008-01-09 07:54 pm UTC (link)

I don't see a problem with Hillary running on her record, but the problem is, she's running on her record. I remember her being the point-woman on the Clinton I era health care reform, and I remember her not getting very far. Her stance on Iraq is troubling to me. And so on. Of course, she can't do anything else, really.

I would rather see Obama elected than Hillary, but I would rather see her elected than anyone but Obama. So I'm prepared to enter an alliance to hex John Edwards with any Hillary folks that are around. :)

Also... hi!

(Reply to this)(Thread)

dkissam
2008-01-09 08:03 pm UTC (link)

Well, I'm perfectly willing to believe that she was in there in the trenches with Bill during his terms, but the problem with that is that it's hard for her to talk about that without *talking about that*. She has to be careful. I mean, for one thing, she never had a security clearance while she was First Lady. Sure, she probably had access to anything and everything, but she can only admit to so much. For another, she seems overly cautious about bringing up the Clinton Era because she is (IMO) too busy looking forward to the General and being scared of giving the Republicans an opening there. Screw that. Mention away. It's not like the Republicans are going to refrain from going there. I think she should take this opportunity to remind people that in fact the Clinton era was pretty awesome and that actual real normal people think back on it fondly, even if the Republicans in power do not. Like, with health care reform. Yes, she was blocked from being able to do anything. Blocked by the Republicans. She needs to come at this like, remember how great things were? We wanted to do all these great things? And we did a lot of them, but we learned a lot of lessons there because so many of the things we tried to do got shut down by the other side. Now we know how to get those things done. So, both Restoration and improvement upon their previous administration. The Republicans scared Gore into pretending the Clinton era wasn't awesome, when in fact it was 8 years of peace and prosperity. She shouldn't let them scare her into pretending it wasn't awesome.

And oh, definitely, I would rather see Obama than Hillary, but certainly Hillary before anyone else.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

blixie
2008-01-10 04:04 am UTC (link)

Like, with health care reform. Yes, she was blocked from being able to do anything. Blocked by the Republicans. She needs to come at this like, remember how great things were? We wanted to do all these great things? And we did a lot of them, but we learned a lot of lessons there because so many of the things we tried to do got shut down by the other side. Now we know how to get those things done. So, both Restoration and improvement upon their previous administration. The Republicans scared Gore into pretending the Clinton era wasn't awesome, when in fact it was 8 years of peace and prosperity. She shouldn't let them scare her into pretending it wasn't awesome.

Exactly, and I really do think, or at least hope she's going to embrace that and stand on it, I think it started with the debate, and will hopefully continue in her campaigning beyond NH.

(Reply to this)(Parent)(Thread)

dkissam
2008-01-10 01:15 pm UTC (link)

I think that's better than giving the opposition the opportunity to say she's "anti-hope." She needs to frame Obama as being someone who is like she was when she got to Washington, someone with wonderful ideas and passion, and herself as the person who still has those ideas and passion, but 15 years later with a specific plan of attack. She needs to basically be saying, look, two terms from now, Obama is your man, because I identify very strongly with him. He is me/Bill 15 years ago. He isn't foolish - and you're not foolish for liking him (that's the important part, the way she's stating it so far plays that way) and *I get it*, I get the passion and I get the frustration and once I thought I'd come sailing into Washington and change things overnight, too, but I got knocked back hard. There's nothing wrong with passion, she needs to keep hitting that passion and ideas and enthusiasm are good and drawing the parallel between Obama now and the Clintons 15 years ago.

Another thing that I've noticed is that so far both camps are careful to never go too far about each other, never turn it into a situation in which Obama couldn't be her running mate. I don't think either camp wants to get into a situation where he cannot possibly run for VP with her.

(Reply to this)(Parent)

Username:		Create an Account Forgot your login? Login w/ OpenID
Password:
	Remember Me
	English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…