Campaigning with Chelsea

The Washington Post ran a story yesterday analyzing the campaigning of Chelsea Clinton on behalf of her mother: Too Solemn for Her Generation?

The article focuses mainly on Chelsea's mannerisms on the trail and the degree to which she seems culturally (dis)connected to young voters. It's an at times interesting, at times superficial, look at a young women on the campaign trail. By far, I found this to be the most interesting graf:

Chelsea, he added, doesn't consider herself an ambassador of her generation, though the campaign does believe she connects well with young people. Her appeal "is less specific to her peers than to people in their 60s and 40s -- people who are parents and grandparents, and they find her remarkable. . . . They know how hard it is to raise children. When they see someone who conducts themselves so well, they identify with the senator and former president."

I think this observation is in part correct, but I also think that the disconnect is more than Chelsea's appeal to older voters rather than her peers or slightly younger contemporaries. The problem is that Chelsea is being used (or rather lending her support) in a capacity that is ultimately very disempowering. She is essentially a figurehead at these events. A spokesperson. An icon. Chelsea is leading a one-way dialogue that is passive on the part of Clinton supporters. She is standing behind the megaphone delivering a message.

By contrast, when I think of the Obama youth campaign, no single figure pops into my head. The image is one of a sea of young people at the polls and at mega-rallies. It is very much more a participatory image and a group effort - characteristics prized by Millennials. It's a two-way, social relationship. A partnership really.

More than any personal tic or mannerism evident in her dress or speech, this fundamental difference in how the campaigns are addressing young supporters strikes me as the greatest example of a cultural disconnect between the two campaign's youth programs.