?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
17 September 2008 @ 01:32 pm
Ramblings on political junk and age  
Last night Mom and I were talking about Obama and how enthusiastic I am about him. While she believes he's a better choice than Palin/McCain and will vote for him in November, she doesn't support Obama. She's just voting against the Republican nominee. But she's amazed at how many people my age are just energized by him.

I know some of it is probably Obama's "hip factor" - let's face it, a presidential candidate who has a "Runway for Change" and a very strong web presence - a man whose campaign text-messaged the announcement of Joe Biden as Veep is going to resonate with the youth of America. Obama is actively reaching out for the young vote. More accurately, to the best of my knowledge he is the first candidate to effectively do so. I hate to use the term "paradigm shift" because it sounds so pretentious, but Obama's campaign does go far beyond what I would normally think of as a mere "generation" shift. But maybe the reason the generational shift from McCain to Obama seems so much greater than usual is because there is a generation skipped in the middle. McCain represents the moldy oldies - the Silent Generation - while Obama's the fresh-faced Generation X. But the folks in the middle, the age group that the candidates for 2000 and 2004 were drawn from - the Baby Boomers - were shut out of the President's spot this time.. It's strange to think of Baby Boomers as a "moderating" factor, but the two extremes of age have made the campaign much more volatile.

Anyway. Obama's cool because he represents the new generation. He threatens Silent Generation that they've become obsolete, and the Baby Boomers with their own aging mortality. Generation X like him because he's one of their own; Generation Y and the Millennial can identify and communicate with him in a way that most politicians in Washington have yet to demonstrate they're capable of doing.


--

Anywho, Obama released a new ad. Folks are saying that at 2 minutes no one will watch it; is two minutes truly too long?

 
 
 
whimsicalbeauwhimsicalbeau on September 17th, 2008 08:58 pm (UTC)
2 minutes is too long because if "swing voters" are truly undecided, it's because they are voting based on trends, not knowledge. If it can't be summed up simply without them thinking about it, they don't want it. Black/White. That's how they decide. Scary/not scary, "good"/"bad."
Kuruma Chidori: snape10chidorichan on September 18th, 2008 04:04 pm (UTC)
Do you know what else I like about Obama's campaign--although unfortunately, with stubborn conservatives/uninformed people who lean right, this is the wrong way to go--is that he's not nasty about campaigning like first Clinton and now McCain/Palin are against him. THEY have made up bold-faced lies about him and are scaring the uninformed into believing things like he voted to have kindergarteners learn about sex (it was actually a program designed specifically for their age group to warn them about inappropriate touching to PROTECT THEM from predators, not a sex course!) and that he called Palin a pig (well, she is, but he DIDN'T!! He said that McCain's economic policy fix-up proposal was akin to putting lipstick on a pig--a phrase that McCain himself used against Obama before Palin was on his ticket--and they automatically assumed the lipstick = Palin and her stupid bulldog analogy, yeah, so it was a diss on her!) So yeah... I LIKE that Obama is not nasty in this campaign. It's refreshing. However, unfortunately, I think he needs to get nastier to sway the uninformed. Especially since he has a lot of TRUE things he could get McCain and Palin on!
Danny Darko: stigmatasaru_kage on September 21st, 2008 03:43 am (UTC)
I honestly hope that two minutes isn't too long. It would be a very telling commentary on the state of our country if it is. It seems to me that if people can't be bothered to invest two lousy minutes in even a shallow attempt to stay informed then it's no mystery that we keep ending up with leaders like Bush and company.

The thing that really interests me about the Obama campaign is that it seems to be almost entirely rooted in a relatively new (last 20 years or so) field of psychology called Positive Psychology. If you had to distill the field of Positive Psych into a bumper sticker, it would probably say "Yes we can!" It's a likely PR tool for Obama to pick up since it largely came of age at his alma mater, Harvard, and it was used by an inner-city Chicago school teacher named Marva Collins who proved you could work academic miracles using Positive Psychology techniques. Collins had her students doing things like reading, comprehending, and intelligently discussing Shakespeare in the fourth grade, so I'm extremely interested to see how Positive Psychology translates into political propaganda. As far as I know, it's never been tried before. It should at least be head and shoulders above the McCain PR tack, which seems to consist of just making up any damned thing and praying the electorate is stupid enough to swallow it.

Also, I just noticed you added my journal, so thanks for that. It's always reassuring to find that new people are interested in hearing me ramble about stuff, and it's not just my friends putting up with me because they have to.