Is that an attempt to slur the candidate? By posting this myself, I fall into some reinforcement of the frame that either are bad. They are not. But I will concur with some of the kudos that Chris Cillizza in Fix Pick: Obama, the New Gary Hart? gives to Matt Bai in A Candidate Not a Cause. Of the two articles the latter's comment "For Obama, this might argue, going forward, for replacing some of the rallies and rhetoric with more substantive speeches and interactive town halls." is on the mark. The former's title like my title reinforces a link to pieces of "liberal" history, Gary Hart, and in the article Bill Bradley. I was a supporter of both, as well as Howard Dean, another name thrown in.
Barack Obama is the only candidate I have seen in person, so I can relate to the experience of hearing his inspiration, and seeing it in others. But it probably is the demographics that those who have had experience with these earlier campaigns and may be more active in the process, do have more questions and expect more.
Meanwhile those independents and the media who may have been expecting more all along without having or appreciating the work it takes, see something new. As for Hillary, it has been noted elsewhere that she did change her tune and began taking more questions, while Edwards has been all along. As they point out Obama did in Iowa, but less so in New Hampshire.
I might also note that I have seen Joe Lieberman give a mildly rousing speech and look how he turned out. There could be a more experienced and jaded demographics than in the past.
[Speaking of the past and raising questions, my email OpEdNews brought me a piece I relate to this demographic remark. Andrew Bard Schmookler's "No Man is an Island" not to mention other voices from the past: The Politics of MLK in the Democratic Primary by David Domke and Kevin Coe.] [Also Early research, early comment.]
No comments:
Post a Comment