Obama: consensus and 'win'win' solutions Clinton: straight to the product

Great article in Newsweek re Obama millenial would-be voters. This adds a little insight into the making of an Obama supporter.


According to Morley Winograd and Michael D. Hais, authors of “Millennial Makeover: MySpace, YouTube, and the Future of American Politics,” millennials “aren’t confrontational or combative, the way Boomers (whose generational mantra was ’Don’t trust anyone over 30’) have been.” Instead, millennials belong to what social scientist William Strauss calls a “civic generation,” drawn to issues of “community, politics and deeds, whereas the boomers focused on issues of self, culture and morals.” Reacting against the excesses of our parents—especially their efforts to advance moral causes through partisan politics—we prefer to address problems by reforming institutions from within. We’re team players, say Winograd and Hais, conditioned through constant social interaction (often online) to “find consensus, ’win-win’ solutions to any problem.”

This feel-good generosity was well on display as a group of Millenial press and bloggers reacted to Hillary Clinton’s willingness to spend two hours answering 34 questions from citizens:


…the reporters in the press pen cracked jokes about her desperation.

The article’s Millennial author, Andrew Romano, confesses:


But the truth is, we’re far more coddled and comfortable than previous generations. Weaned on self-esteem and offered unlimited choice (technology again), we grew up with a sense of entitlement—specifically, for control. And in New Hampshire, it seems, some Democrats heard something like entitlement in Obama’s gauzy pledge to “change Washington.” Untroubled by debt, or joblessness, or unsupportable children, Obama’s millennial fan base (and the older, typically wealthy whites who vote with them) can afford the luxury of privileging process over policy. Clinton, on the other hand, ditches the packaging and goes straight to the product—the plans she’ll fight Republicans to pass. It may not have the same “cool factor” as Obama’s brand, but to Clinton’s base of women, Latinos and downscale Dems, it’s enough to seal the deal.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/109589/page/1

until the race got tight. Thus, doing it out of desperation.

Her style is to take questions. The questions at the town hall covered every freaking issue.

I guess it's too bad no one was able to ask her about Monica AGAIN!

Do you think Obama would ever do a town hall? There will be that style of a session during the GE.

-snip-

In the aftermath of her loss to Obama in the Iowa caucuses, Clinton -- who had at times been adverse to taking audience questions -- opened up her public events to provide long Q and A periods. Upon her arrival in New Hampshire after her Iowa defeat, Clinton threw away her stump speech, and instead spoke uninterruptedly for only 10 minutes at the outset of events, and then took queries from the audience for an hour or more.


-snip-



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/13/a-new-hillary-clinton-see_n_81256.html

The next one is one Wednesday, in Racine, WI.

http://www.journaltimes.com/articles/2008/02/11/local_news/doc47b0ff2e144c7154449170.txt

I do not have the luxury of waiting for someone to be brought up to speed on these issues. We need help on these issues NOW, Iraq, healthcare, child & elder care. I'm not wealthy & can not afford to pay the 30% increase in healthcare every year.


"Democrats heard something like entitlement in Obama’s gauzy pledge to “change Washington.” Untroubled by debt, or joblessness, or unsupportable children, Obama’s millennial fan base (and the older, typically wealthy whites who vote with them) can afford the luxury of privileging process over policy. Clinton, on the other hand, ditches the packaging and goes straight to the product—the plans she’ll fight Republicans to pass."
AMEN

the ReThugs.

Hillary does real things for real people,things we can take to the bank, like SCHIP & working for universal health care. If we could get the healthcare system fixed, all our lives would be so much better off. real things for real people

There not a lot of going to the Moon stuff but I'll take green energy. All tho going to Mars might be interesting. I do like the science.

But the truth is, we’re far more coddled and comfortable than previous generations. Weaned on self-esteem and offered unlimited choice (technology again), we grew up with a sense of entitlement—specifically, for control. And in New Hampshire, it seems, some Democrats heard something like entitlement in Obama’s gauzy pledge to “change Washington.” Untroubled by debt, or joblessness, or unsupportable children, Obama’s millennial fan base (and the older, typically wealthy whites who vote with them) can afford the luxury of privileging process over policy.

What makes them different is the VCR and being able to record television. It's easy to go back and compare the boomer generation in their youth with the way they are today, and draw different conclusions about which issues matter. Today's society is far more consumerist and driven by media manipulation than even that of the 60s was. Although an old generation of autocrats hangs on to the biggest media and commercial empires, most of the reins of power today are held by members of the boomer generation - not all of them Republicans, by any means.

Millenarians don't like the world they stand to inherit compared to the way it was when they were kids, and wonder what went wrong between kicking out Nixon and the current mess (which makes Nixon look good by comparison). It's easy to look back at the idealism of the 60s and early 70s, but what's left is a balkanized political landscape dominated by self-perpetuating identity groups (from both ends of the political spectrum) locked in an endless turf war for new contributors.

The deepest, most significant changes that have taken place since the 60s (as in, after they were over) are the fall off the USSR and the rise of the internet - something for which the millenarians are largely responsible themselves. The millenarians' favorite achievement by the boomer generation is NASA, microprocessors, and modern music (though not the music business, thank you). Politically speaking, all the other good stuff dates back to either the New Deal or LBJ. The last progressive extension of government was the EPA, and that a Nixon addition.

The millenarian generation does not dislike the boomers, but has little or no interest in boomer politics, and tends not to feel comfortable in boomer social and business contexts. Obama is doing well with the under-40 crowd precisely because he's not a boomer and doesn't talk about the past all the time. Younger people have been trying to have their own version of the 60s for some time, but kept getting sidetracked by madison avenue types that would herd them into focus groups and market the results.

There was even a little noticed resurgence of LSD use during the 90s in the rave movement, to see if that was what the 60s were about. It wasn't, but it did give rise to a techno-savvy yet dissatisfied agents who were able to make good money but largely rejected consumer culture and paid little attention to it. They rolled their eyes when George bush got elected, largely approved the war in Afghanistan, but were horrified to see the administration cary it forward into Iraq despite the widespread public opposition.

I'll tell you the #1 reason these people are voting for Barack Obama: because Hillary Clinton had enough standing to run against Bush in 2004 and would have had every Dem in the country on board, but she chose to sit it out instead. Do you really think it was so important to keep a promise to serve out a full term as NY senator when the country was begging for a serious alternative to Bush and got John 'not very charismatic' Kerry instead?

Sorry boomers, selecting Kerry as a candidate was 60's navel-gazing at its worst. He's a great guy and all, but the biggest issue in the 2004 campaign was who did what during the Viet Nam war, with occasional lip service paid to the current (mercifully, much smaller) war being fought in Iraq. Nobody under the age of 40 can even remember any of that stuff first hand and as a result there wasn't much nearly as much interest from under 40s on the Democratic side as there should have been. Howard Dean was the exciting candidate because he actually knew what the internet was and why so many younger people prefer it to television, plus he was talking about present-day issues instead of The Last War.

Is it any surprise that Obama is so strong with the under 40s? He's vastly easier to have a relationship with. Hillary, god bless her, is approaching the age where people start thinking about retirement. The younger generation can respect her, but can't possibly imagine going anywhere with her - she's been at the top of society since everyone under 36 has been able to vote. After having seen the results of one family power transfer (Elder to younger Bush), the younger generation has absolutely no desire to repeat the process with the Clintons. They've already had their day in the sun, and the millenarian generation doesn't particuarly feel like reliving their teens/20s for 4 more years of boomer politics.

I don't know how to say this to Dem boomers without really offending them, so I'll just be blunt: if you are in politics and over 50, we are really not that interested. Al Gore is our idea of an elder statesman. And we can't help noticing that dem boomers didn't exactly shut the country down or call a general strike in 2000. Then we got a nice-but-boring integrity candidate from the laste 60s to run against an incumbent who had demonstrated perfectly clearly that he didn't care what a bunch of lefty hippy peaceniks thought about him. We set up a draft Hillary movement but nobody paid any attention so we tried out Howard Dean instead. Do you think it's an accident that he ended up as DNC chairman? Or that Obama's insurgent campaign is based on the 50 state strategy?

Many disillusioned younger lefties have been considering Obama as the Next Big Idea ever since November 6th 2004. His relatively short political resume is an asset in our eyes, as was Dean's relative outsider status as the governor of a small freshwater state.

We are all buried in debt, have extremely insecure jobs, and can't even consider reproducing (we would have to drop our babies off at a firehouses or something).

I don't like Clinton's policy because it is full of vague promises to bring more people into the middle class and strengthen it, but I doubt any of that will make my life better. I struggled through her husband's presidency, despite the surge in middle-class wealth. Her programs are not for everybody: they are tailored to likely supporters.

I like Obama's policy because he has targeted antipoverty programs that will actually help the poor instead of trying to eliminate them. He talks about affordable housing, ex-prisoner programs, and promise neighborhoods; she has nothing to match that. I sincerely believe in "trickle-up" economics; better conditions and solutions for our most vulnerable citizens will make all of our lives better.

How old were you during Bill's eight years, and what were you doing for a living? I ask because if you are a "young voter" now, you can't be that young (now) if you were already supporting yourself from 1993-2001 -- and I also ask because if you were in an entry-level position, that could account for you struggling, while I was prospering.

For the record, I was 31 when Big Dog took office, and 40 when he left. I knew nothing but a near-exponential rise in salary throughout his administration; just before Bush took office, I was earning $110,000 a year.

Throughout the Reagan-Bush I era (1981-1992), I was between 20 and 31; for most of that period, I struggled with a lot of low-paying crap jobs (even in my chosen profession; I started out as a computer programmer when I was about 24) -- which is why I agree: Trickle-down / voodooo / Reaganomics certainly doesn't work.

I was in school a lot of the time (supporting myself through jobs/loans), it's true, but when I got out, once with a BA and once with an MA, neither time was there a job waiting for me. I only ever had temp jobs with no possibility of advancement. The rent went up all the time and basic needs were very hard to meet.

I never actually wanted to be in the middle class--just to make a bare living doing something not evil that left me enough time and energy to work on my art. I still have the same basic principles in life, so Clinton policies continue to leave me cold. I'm doing okay economically, since I hid out in grad school and got my PhD. during the Bush years. However, I'm still a consultant with no job security and end up going into and out of debt frequently as my work is sporadic. Programs tailored to full-time workers with one employer, a mortgage and a few kids will be disastrous for me if I am forced to participate.

I can say very confidently that, in the places I can afford to live, Obama's antipoverty programs, if implemented, will have a very significant impact on the quality of life. Clinton's positive impact will be in another town, another state, another world from where I live or even hope to live.

But it is much more than self-interest that causes me to condemn Clinton politics. My sense of a moral society is inconsistent with policies that help the greatest number of people, while leaving those that suffer most to their fate. The bottom line for me is that Clinton-era prosperity had the capacity to end Reagan-era homelessness, and it didn't. If anything, the streets got meaner.