This first one comes from the New York Times Magazine, and it's about the implosion in the McCain campaign; this second one comes from The Atlantic, about the good Senator's inability to see far enough ahead that she would have to fight the political equivalent of World War One style trench warfare against Obama. Here's also a piece by the same author, written earlier in the campaign; it's not particularly prescient, but it does give one a good sense of what goes on in a campaign, and how a campaign divided cannot stand. My motivation for this is largely because I came across a pair of annoying articles in Dissent, both about how sexism contributed to Hillary's defeat. First one here, second one here. They annoy me because they both refuse to acknowledge that Hillary simply didn't put the time, strategy, and money into planning for a genuine, get-off-your-ass-and-knock-on-doors, fifty-state, full-season campaign (not to mention the genuine and legitimately infuriating way she pushed for the inclusion of Florida's and Michigan's votes after agreeing they wouldn't count.) Remember, Hillary was broke well before the primaries ended, even though she wasn't really all that much behind Obama in fundraising, and had a several year head start, and a rolodex basically of every single rich donor in the U.S. She simply didn't take seriously a serious candidate other than herself, and paid the price. One could even argue that she made a wise decision in trying to load-up the election by winning early and earning momentum - in that case, she paid for her ticket and took her ride. Nothing sexist in that, regardless of the innumerable and unjustifiable things that many said.
Again - the contrast between these two and Obama could not be clearer; off the top of my head, I can't even name Obama's campaign head, though I can could name several advisors - compare this to the fact that during the primaries, I basically was scouring every couple of days for Solis-Doyle stories (like how she wouldn't work when her soaps were on, and wouldn't call donors back.) Whether or not one likes Obama, his policies, or his style, he most certainly understands how democracy works. Whether or not this translates into actual leadership remains to be seen, but it seeing it in action gives me a feeling akin only to how I imagine I would feel if I saw the ghost of George Washington getting off a UFO piloted by King Arthur - this isn't supposed to be happening, but it's one of the most awesome things I've ever seen.
The long-term implications of those Dissent pieces - not that they in-and-of-themselves mean this - is that the professional classes in America will continue to deceive themselves that everything is still just a matter of them waiving their hands and making it so; what's really radical about Obama is that he promises that if one takes democracy seriously, and not as a hot new energy drink that all the kids are going to want to buy if you just have Miley Cyrus drink it while half-nude, then Americans will appreciate and respond to that message. Half of everything, so they say, is just showing up. Obama - and his volunteers - showed up every day this election, and I can't think of anything I've seen in politics in my lifetime that was genuinely both so concrete and reassuring. "Blockbuster" campaigns are over; now it's about getting a hundred million people to make and post their own little movies on YouTube.
That Is All For Now.
No comments:
Post a Comment