Hillary, Obama, and Dirty Hippies
Over Labor Day, Monica and I went to the 40th anniversary of "The Summer of Love." This concert in Golden Gate Park attracted mostly 1960's diehards, plus some modern hippies and supporters of Ron Paul. It wasn't a huge event. At least in the morning, while we were there, the performers made up a significant part of the crowd. Monica bumped into Ray Manzarek, Doors keyboardist, literally, as I told Monica, not even noticing the Door, "I guess there's nothing more to see." (Actually, we would have stayed except we were on our way to a wedding.) But, the point remains the same. Baby Boomers are approaching retirement age. This "Summer of Love" reunion concert was free, and still not crowded. The PBS specials on the 1960's have been rerun, and people are losing interest. The 2004 election which pitted a dirty hippie as characterized by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against an an establishment figure enthused one and only one aging generation.
This is a race of style over issues, as Hillary and Obama have near identical voting records, and Hillary would not have started the war in Iraq, though her early voting helped enable it, while Obama spoke out against the war, but had nothing to lose by doing so. The "substance" to be determined by voters is which candidate can get things accomplished. Will the "vast right wing conspiracy" eat up Obama just as it marginalized the Clintons or can Obama bring in Republicans and build a mandate? Hillary could still prove me wrong, but this idea of feminism or racism driving the 2008 campaign misses the crux of what has happened. Instead, the dynamic is what the late William Strauss and Neil Howe labeled a Fourth Turning, see a pertinent comment posting here. In Iowa, Obama got 57% of the under thirty vote. In New Hampshire, Obama got 55% of the under thirty vote. He received 59% in Nevada and he received 65% of the under thirty vote in South Carolina. As long as the under thirty crowd continues to vote in high numbers, they dictate who wins, and the under thirty crowd is voting with Margaret Cho.
Another take: George Lakoff
Would you prefer to pick the candidate who best reflects your views? David Byrne and I have a problem when we do that.
This is a race of style over issues, as Hillary and Obama have near identical voting records, and Hillary would not have started the war in Iraq, though her early voting helped enable it, while Obama spoke out against the war, but had nothing to lose by doing so. The "substance" to be determined by voters is which candidate can get things accomplished. Will the "vast right wing conspiracy" eat up Obama just as it marginalized the Clintons or can Obama bring in Republicans and build a mandate? Hillary could still prove me wrong, but this idea of feminism or racism driving the 2008 campaign misses the crux of what has happened. Instead, the dynamic is what the late William Strauss and Neil Howe labeled a Fourth Turning, see a pertinent comment posting here. In Iowa, Obama got 57% of the under thirty vote. In New Hampshire, Obama got 55% of the under thirty vote. He received 59% in Nevada and he received 65% of the under thirty vote in South Carolina. As long as the under thirty crowd continues to vote in high numbers, they dictate who wins, and the under thirty crowd is voting with Margaret Cho.
Another take: George Lakoff
Would you prefer to pick the candidate who best reflects your views? David Byrne and I have a problem when we do that.
posted by David Rasmussen at 12:26 PM
<< Home