meaning, values and clinton. oh my!

I am consistently infatuated by the way meaning is shaped in popular culture - more specifically, meaning within this democratic presidential primary campaign. The complicated race/gender dynamic between two candidates equally qualified, equally loved and equally disliked in their own ways is reduced to talking points. This point, in and of itself is nothing new, nor anything specific to this particular primary. All modern elections, campaigns and presidencies are run this way, but what I find to be particularly interesting is to which talking points these two complicated campaigns have been reduced.

Both exist under the umbrella of change, as the entire democratic party is in agreement that change is 'good'. (The republican party early on had been fixated on change, but now that a nominee has been selected, this verb no longer has a place on banners or podiums). Their relationship, portrayed as oppositional, is defined by a set of dualities, including 'a new kind of politics' and 'politics as usual', 'empty rhetoric' and 'experience (to advocate change)', 'sincere' and 'disingenuous, aka a monster who will stop at nothing', 'inspirational' and 'practical', and probably a dozen more escaping me at the moment.

Read any news article, and actions or words of either candidate are fit into the aforementioned shells. I am reminded of a line from Baudirillard's 'Passwords', where he claims "...because the sign always effaces the thing. So the object designated the real world, but also its absence - and, in particular, the absence of the subject". Baudrillard is, of course, talking about language and meaning. He states that the symbol, in this case a category such as a monster who will stop at nothing, effaces or hides the reality. Clinton criticizes Obama on his foreign policy experience and the dynamic is abated to 'a new kind of politics' versus 'politics as usual'.

What does a new kind of politics mean? What does a new kind of politics look like? What are the benefits of a new kind of politics? The actual meaning, the reality, is never discussed. The Obama campaign says it is sticking to the issues - but fails to actually mention any substantial policy initiatives. Instead, it continues to communicate by advocating these categories of difference (I won't get into how advocating categories of difference is the exact same thing the Clinton campaign is doing, the McCain campaign will do, and is the quintessence of what is wrong with American politics). Instead, Obama chalks up Clinton's win in Texas and Ohio to her going negative. He fits their relationship back into a category of new versus old, but still does not elaborate on the specifics, of sincerity versus disingenuousness. (Clinton claiming she has more foreign policy experience and therefore will be able to handle international crises is not really negative in any sense, but perhaps on the coattails of unnecessary comments about Obama's race in January, is seen as more aggressive).

Aggressive or not, Clinton is elaborating on the image being portrayed. Successfulness aside, she is attempting to make Obama appear as an empty shell in relation to her practical experience. She is using the sign to her advantage through elaborating on it and making it appear as connected to reality Or, as Baudrillard might say, turning it into a true simulation. Obama, on the other hand, is only reiterating the image. He criticizes her for going negative, he criticizes her for politics as usual, he says he is inspirational and he claims he will stick to the issues. But what this all boils down to is that that she voted for the war and he claims he would not have.

Baudrillard asks, "The fact remains that the study of value is complex: whereas commodity value can be apprehended, a sign value is feeling and fluid - at a particular point it gives out and is frittered into 'show'. When everything eventually gives way to artifice, are we still in a world of value, or in its simulation?" The value or significance of either campaign's symbolism is inherently meaningless. Obama is only inspirational insofar as he can inspire people. And for some time now, people have become inspired because he is considered to be inspirational. At a particular point, the reality of the situation gives way and we exist only in a simulation, a simulation of a new kind of politics where people's political inspiration is expressed by talking about their inspiration.