I have this vague memory of being twelve, asserting my tween independence by staying up later than anyone else in the house to watch the Arsenio Hall show. An oldish guy who was running for something came onto the stage and played the saxophone. I was embarrassed for him. Isn't he somebody in politics? Why is he in Arsenio Hall's band? Will the crowd bark their support, or laugh him off the stage? I think I remember an appreciative bark, but I can't be sure. Then came boxers or briefs. It's been downhill ever since.
Last night the Democratic presidential candidates held a debate and answered questions from YouTube. Obama and Clinton have both used YouTube for political advertisements, as well. You gotta hand it to Hillary Clinton - she is really doing everything within her power to muster up all the coolness money can buy.
The goal is, what? To be the hip candidate? To appear accessible, down to earth? All of the above, probably, and more. But is this really what we want in a President? Shouldn't there be a touch of nobility in the next leader of the free world? I am confident that every political candidate knows how to access the Internet, or at least how to hire someone who does. I'm just not sure I care. I'm not sure I need him (or her) to Rock the Vote or to be folksy. I'd prefer articulate, experienced, innovative, passionate. Peaceloving, hopeful, smart. Not necessarily cool.
7 comments:
i agree. i am tired of the jostling for positions and cool doesn't sell me...
Cool won't win my vote. I knew the cool kids in school. I wouldn't want them leading my country.
sure, but if you want peaceloving and passionate, I'm betting it won't be a republican...so Hilary and Barack are still at the semi-top of my list...jab
How tacky is it for me to comment in my own comment section? But this is me, doing it anyway.
I guess I'm afraid it's going to backfire in a general election. While the Democrats are trying to look cool, the Republicans are busy looking regal. And while I don't believe in the Republican approach to government, most people don't vote for that reason. They vote because a candidate's a "family man" (whatever that means) or because they find comfort in a person, or for whatever visceral undetermined reason. It concerns me when our guys are spending their political capital on President Bush's reputation (which is like
kicking a dead horse, in my opinion) and on YouTube. I'm afraid we're going to end up looking unprepared and unprofessional.
I made the same point to a classroom of college students a few years back, and what they told me is that this is an attempt to make young people more interested in the process. It does not appeal to me, but if it gets college kids to the polls...
i always thought it had more to do with showing that they are "of the people". i mean...bill clinton playing the sax or commenting on a death of a cast member from the real world shows people that they are more down to earth. i dig it.
To jump in, I agree that most attempts by Presidential candidates to "look cool" ends up coming off as insincere.
I think the YouTube thing is different though. Studying some this summer on Internet culture, I really think YouTube is a different kind of medium than, say, FaceBook or MySpace. YouTube might, at the moment, be cool, but I think it is a much more democratic tool than it might appear.
YouTube, unlike MySpace or Facebook, is a content tool more than a social interaction tool. What I think it comes down to is how such a tool is used. YouTube is definitely going to have stupid skateboarding dogs, which means it's going to be used for time-wasting and youth culture activities. But it's also going to be a place where massive amounts of information about each candidate is available for anyone who wants to see it. That, I think, is more than cool, it's revolutionary.
Oh, and PS, I believe the Republicans are having their own YouTube debates in September. I don't think it's a Democrat or Republican thing, it's a CNN/YouTube thing and they're giving equal chances to both parties.ww
Post a Comment