Passing of an Era
I found Frank Rich's NY Times essay on the Obama/Huckabee victories quite interesting.
In the course of the article he suggests that we have seen the passing of an era. Obama and Huckabee -- the 2 youngest candidates were the best equipped to speak of change and change is the mantra of the hour. Whether that will continue to be true remains to be seen.
The reality is that Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and Hillary Clinton are tired horses. John McCain is a likable and honorable guy -- he may take the nomination -- but he is old. He may have experience but if put up against youth what is the result? I don't know what it will be.
What is interesting about Hillary -- and I'll focus on her for the moment -- is that in many ways she is running for President (often unacknowledged) as the sequel to Clinton 1. He advisers/supporters are old Clintonites. Her main asset is her husband.
I find this statement by Rich intriguing.
But if Clinton operatives know how to go negative, they don’t have the positive balance of a 21st-century message. Iowa confirmed that the message the campaign has used to date — experience — is D.O.A. in post-Bush America. It was fascinating to watch that realization sink in on Thursday night. In her concession speech, Mrs. Clinton had her husband, the most tangible totem of her
experience, standing right beside her, yet she didn’t mention him or so much as acknowledge him.
Even before that tableau was swept away by the sight of the Obama family all but dancing across the stage in celebration, it looked like the passing of an era.
We will see Tuesday if we're not truly on that edge.
Comments
And while I'm not Hillary Clinton's biggest fan, it's sexist to claim her biggest asset is her husband. Her biggest assets are her intelligence, experience, and tenacity. Those might not be the right mix for the next President. One might disagree with her politics. (In the case of war in the Middle East, same-sex marriage, and numerous other issues, I do.) But I don't think one has to devalue her or make her out to be a wife standing in a husband's shadow to make the argument she shouldn't be President.
But on Sat. night's debate, the GOP field was full of old, rich, white men. (Even Huckabee looked old.) On the Dem. side, one had Obama, Richardson, Clinton and Edwards--the only white male on stage. So, though his platform is more progressive than Obama's or Clinton's (it's about even with Richardson's--each have their own strengths and weaknesses), he was the only one on stage who looked like something this country has had before. Each of the other's represents a new chapter in U.S. politics--a first. That appeals to the young, I think, even more than actual age.
Fr. Chris, I am an Edwards supporter. I pick candidates on the basis of studying their platforms and listening to the substance of their speeches. But that's not how most voters pick candidates, alas. Most do so emotionally--and though Edwards (and even Hillary Clinton) can stir the passions, they fall flat of what Obama can do.
Yes, much of what Frank Rich wrote was sexist--but this nation is still sexist. (It's also still racist, but it works to hide this more.) And even though Hillary Clinton isn't that old, she sometimes looks it on the campaign trail--and when she keeps being photographed with Bill by her side and the very aging Madeleine Albright by her side (whom most 20 somethings wouldn't even recognize as more than another "old woman"), then she visually presents an older era. This is reinforced by her message--which often sounds like "Back to the '90s!"
Anyhow, I'm not anyone's supporter, but I'm seeing things coming out of the campaigns that are heartening. When it comes to Obama, I'm particularly excited that he is drawing young people to vote. I hope that is part of a more permanent transformation of the electorate.
thanks for the comments, that will allow me to clarify.
1. First Age. I'm kind of half-way beteween Obama and Edwards. I turn 50 in 2 months. One is 54 and the other 46 (note that Obama is older than Bill Clinton when bill was first elected and older than JFK when he was first elected). I do think that the 8 years between Edwards and Obama may seem small, but is significant. Edwards is part of the "early Boomers, Obama the late. In many ways even Obama and Edwards are of different generations (and I stand in between them). So it is a gnerational issue not an age issue -- in that I agree.
2. As for the issue of sexism. If Hillary ran on the basis of her years in the Senate it would be one thing, but in claiming that her experience as First Lady -- US and Arkansas -- is foundational, then I think Rich is right. Many of her supporters are voting for Bill not Hillary -- they want to go back to the good old days of the 1990s. And I think that's the point Rich is making. I certainly didn't make the point in a sexist way. I would gladly support a woman for President, but I don't think that Hillary is the best standard bearer.
I think the first woman president will likely come from a younger generation -- perhaps one in her 40's now. There are after all, a number of women governors. It is quite possible that Obama or Edwards could chose a Kathleen Sibelius of Kansas as a running mate.
More on this later!