It's been a while since my last platonic twice removed reportage of a "debate" -the quotations meant to indicate the disappointment of Kucinich's being locked out at the behest of NBC, which, suprise suprise, they've managed to convince the Nevada Supreme Court to uphold. The liberal media, indeed.
What do you expect? Vegas is a city of surfaces, no, of simulations, if you like. Simulated Paris, simulated Venice, simulated American Dream-everything is surface. Thus, simulated news media, which is ostensibly serving the interest of the people.
Surfaces are tethered to tangible things, whereas simulacra are only tethered to the ideas of things, and where as Vegas, like Disney World, would be perfectly content to let well enough alone, which means, being content with nutrasweet instead of sugar, decaf instead of coffee, reality TV instead of reality. Why go to Venice, when you can go to Vegas, after all?
The question that will be posed tonight is whether these candidates are surfaces tethered to things, or simulacra tethered to the ideas of things.
The realest thing here, at stake, are the people of Nevada, the people of Vegas, those who's work to keep the simulation going, keeping Venice, Vegas, so to speak.
It is interesting then that Hillary Clinton, fresh from duping New Hampshire into thinking she is a real person and fresh from the kind of racial politics that shows how little the Clintons really care about anything aside from propagating their own power, that we find that she is willing to disenfranchise voters in order to win.
So...who's the iceberg? Who's the empty suit?
The Next Morning...
Okay, so I didn't blog it, -I'm blogging it now.
At this point, I feel myself duly impressed with the candidates, even as one of them makes me puke blood. Hillary knew her shit, that's for sure, though her attempts to catch John Edwards on Yucca mountain looked extremely hamfisted, especially after Edwards lit her up with a well qualified answer.
Barack Obama was at times dry-ly funny, and I was suprised how he was received, how people reacted and laughed at him. I felt he did a excellent job articulating his positions on Nuclear Energy and our lagging economy. However, from where I was sitting (which was behind two beers), Hillary's attack on what Obama identified as a his personal weakness-his clutter, not being a "executive officer", his personal disorganization, was spun into Bush's corporatocracy. There is something to that point, perhaps, but whatever footing she gained was lost when Edwards asked whether her and Obama whether they believed that the Big Pharma and the HMO's gave her money because they "care about the government", or some such thing.
The thing that I found most odeous is Hillary pulling a Cheney (yet again) about anyone but her (Obama) not being ready for the hellfire and destruction that will rain down on January 21st. It is this sort of thing, coupled with her surrogates heralding the worst kind divisive race baiting we've seen in many years, that make Hillary unlikable: If you are saying that you, and only you, can protect the country, then you are consciously making the connection that you are in and of the line of George Bush, and the fact to are willing to stoop as low as you have confirms this fact. Maybe you should run Lieberman as your VP. Hell, maybe you are Lieberman???
Obama, thankfully, lit her up on this point. Good.
For the most part, as Chuck Todd et al. noted, there wasn't a whole lot of fireworks, which is good. We need less fireworks. We need more clear ideas.
In Parting...
One thing that emerged, in my mind, is the commitment and the resonance of John(Boy) Edwards. Wow, he looks like a politician, but man, his Union work, his talk of Poor and the disenfranchised really hit home. I thought his answers were thoughtful and committed. If there is an alliance between Obama and Edwards, in whatever form the ticket takes, we might get something done yet...
The question is: How do I vote on May 20th? And will it be an afterthought?
Democracy should never be an afterthought.
And....
Ah yes, the empty suit vs. iceberg. Which is which?
The Democratic field, unlike the GOP, are all icebergs. However, what is underneath is the question. Edward (who I liked in 2004) and Obama are both icebergs, cool and collected, with a lot underneath that we are beginning to see emerge.
Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, is also an iceberg, but what may be her undoing (or her winning spirit, as it were) is the vicious careerist underneath, the entitled rich kid, the yuppie snob...possibly, Cheney with a snorkle-who will win at all costs.
Can we afford it? Anymore?
No comments:
Post a Comment