Polling the Age of Hope

Well, I'm forty and I see Clinton as a self-serving, triangulating opportunist (I wouldn't have said that two weeks ago). I see Obama as someone who has a more sophisticated, mature (!) grasp of geopolitics.

It's much simpler than that.

How old were you when the war started?
Do you think the people who started it should be rewarded or punished?
Who was President and what was happening when you turned thirteen and started paying attention?
Did you start your first job-hunt during a boom or bust?
Do you remember Viet Nam?

Those are the sorts of questions that determine the generational gap.

The experience vs change dichotomy is an effect, not a cause.

This is not an attack on Scherer, really, but I skidded to a halt on the second sentence.

Why is "identity politics" treated wit such disdain, when the consequences of not being a white guy (glass ceilings, differential sentencing e.g.) are still such a massive problem in our society?

Again, it ain't just Scherer but, sheesh.

Michael Scherer:

Thanks for posting this relatively reasonable conjecture. These are issues that are worthy of attention simply because elections are about representation.

I have some simple questions for you of the kind that would occur to a simple non-journalist like myself:

So how would anybody actually know whether or not you are correct? Who is going to go about the hard task of confirming what is mostly the product of speculation?

Is the act of raising interesting questions all that is necessary--or are answers the most important thing? If the entire political journalism industry is simply incapable of factually and satisfactorily answering questions like the ones that you pose, isn't the kind of conjecture you offer essentially irresponsible to be handing out at this stage of the process?

stuart, i take your point. And this is the hazard of me posting on the dem contest, when i am so engaged with the GOP. I don't have time to report this out now, but I am sure it will be looked into, probably through more detailed polling, and I will post follow-ups as I can. Also I would say that it's okay to post conjecture on a blog, certainly more so than in a formal article for the web or a magazine. Readers can chime in, other bloggers can respond, updates can be posted, etc.

PDA, I take your point. I was not trying to knock the idea of identity politics as much as I was trying to set up a contrast with the age issue. But i did not do it very artfully.

m.

This is aimless speculation that jams the public discourse. The continuing theme is to deny access to substantive policy ISSUES, and to make style, posturing, and "identity" the focus of interest.

Everyone thought they knew who George Bush Jr. was. What did they know? Scherer needs to get reacquainted with rational thought. Time-Warner is blasting the loud rock music of personality politics at us, as though we were Guantanamo detainees, but we don't have to listen to this garbage.

This is not responsible journalism; it is cultural vandalism that is accelerating the decay of our democracy.

Michael-

Surely you know that the phrase "identity politics" is another Republican talking-point to denigrate the "other."

And Michael, I took your point. You just gave me a level place to put my soapbox on... so I think you and apologise.

We now return to our regularly-scheduled bitchy sniping.

Michael Scherer:

I'd just like to take this opportunity to offer my thanks for responding to commentary. It is very, very much appreciated.

And if you are going to continue using "identity politics," you should strive for consistency. Perhaps you could write about the stratifications of Republicans, i.e., the "white, Protestant, Trust-fund Republican" or the "white, Catholic, Trust-fund Republican" or the "Might makes Right Republican" or the "I do whatever Rush tells me to do Republican" etc.

Compare and contrast.

"think you" = "thank you."

I really have to stop drive-by commenting while I'm working...

Well, anecdotally I can tell you you are correct.

In Austin, supporters for Obama tended to be younger and more ethnically diverse.

Clinton backers tended to be more female and older. In the caucuses at least.

Ok, now last week I mentioned a litmus test for hate speech and the Republican and Democratic party.

Now, yesterday:
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/politicalintelligence/2008/03/limbaugh_apolog.html

Now, today:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/limbaugh-so-called-dream-ticket-doesnt-have-a-prayer/

I am wondering when you and Joe will come out and reject or denounce this type of activity.

Silence?

Let the litmus test begin...

I mean, it's ok if you do either one. I'm not picky. You can "reject" or "denounce" this type of activity.

Any time, now...

Supposing that the generational dissension is real within the democratic nominating process (which I've been saying for a while); how does this impact the conventional wisdom that Obama would have a better chance than Hillary in the general election? I don't see swing states like Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, or Missouri as "youthful" states. Not that they would swing for Hillary, but should Democrats worry about Obama's ability to turn out the youth/younger vote in key swing states?

full disclosure - I myself am 26, and I'd like to think of myself as politically independent from others in my age category, despite the fact I'm arguing that categories matter.

Great question and point, romlock, I'd like an answer to that myself (not being in the position of accurately predicting Village CW, of course).

Hillary's 60, not 61...shows how much u know (or care to get right) about Hillary...I don't like that u imply that the young people are just gonna sit at home should Obama not get the nomination...

My mistake, dj1mt. I have fixed her age in the copy.

HH: While I normally agree with almost everything that you say besides the personal attacks, I think you're wrong to discount this so automatically.

When a category of people breaks 45-55 or 40-60 for one candidate, I don't care. It might be relevant to those who wish to predict who will win, but to me, it just means that they're about equally appealing.

When the difference is 2:1 or 3:1, as shown here, I think some analysis is warranted. Granted, as Stuart said, it is not provided here, but if you assume that a significant portion of voters are not totally stupid, it raises some possibilities which might be worth discussing.

Is it, as Michael suggests, simply a result of ageism or different "brand appeal"? If so, it suggests to me that we should blame the media, as you are so fond of doing.

But what if the voters aren't totally stupid media-consumers, and it IS a reflection of some real differences on the issues, but no one dares mention the fact that the old and the young have fundamentally different interests?

For example, organize the following in terms of priorities:
A) Stopping climate change, even if it means making sacrifices
B) Not having a national debt so big that even the interest on it is killing us
C) America being #1 4eva

Don't you think young and old people might have fundamentally different takes on these issues? And have you ever seen it discussed?

As Stuart pointed out and Michael admitted, the information here raises questions that may or may not have concrete answers, and certainly doesn't answer them. But I don't think they are pointless questions.

This divide is important. I guarantee that people in the Dem establishment with a longer term perspective are thinking about how nice it would be for an Obama nomination to lock in this entire generation of younger voters for the long haul. It's about the next 30 or 40 years.

As a younger person (33) who supports Obama, I really see both HRC and McCain as part of generation of leadership that has completely failed us. Problems fester while debts for me and my kids grow. I see it explicitly in generational terms. If this comes down to a race between Clinton and McCain, I predict that I will be deeply disillusioned with D.C. for some time to come.

This may be the tale for the U.S. for the next ten years or so. The large baby boomer bloc making U.S. politics older and more stubborn, while younger people continue to jostle for some sort of real shift.

I think this is less about the actual ages of the candidates - I'm 24, so both Obama and Clinton seem old to me - and more about their messages. This campaign has often been talked about in terms of hope vs. cynicism, and the truth is that older voters know that usually cynicism turns out to be right. The popular culture says that hope is what you should trust, but reality says otherwise.

By demographics, I should be an Obama supporter, but I've been a political junkie for the past decade and I've seen enough to know that voting on the basis of hope rarely turns out well. And I've seen the media fall in love with politicians who talk about the future, change, and hope, only to see them revealed as unreliable, divisive, and just plain incompetent (and no, not just Bush).

For any young Obama supporters who don't understand what happened on Tuesday, The Rolling Stone "messiah" cover is a perfect example of why older voters are supporting Clinton. Younger voters who haven't followed politics much before may actually believe that Obama is perfect. Other young voters are seriously trying to figure out if he really is that great. But older voters know that no politician is perfect, so they are making their decisions on a completely different basis. Being adored by the media and their deeply committed supporters says absolutely nothing about a candidate. And I'm not saying that the opinion of Obama supporters doesn't matter; it's just that no candidate should be adored. Obama can certainly win on specifics, and a measured examination of the candidates strengths and weaknesses. But it's hard to run both a specifics campaign, and a messiah campaign.

I'd like to add, in support of what Observer says above, that those of you who are older who don't "get" what Obama is appealing to.

I'd say part of what he's appealing to is the sense among younger people that watching Congress is like watching our parents battle it out over their long-established pet peeves.

Experience is a very very valuable thing. But as young people get out into the real world, they learn to distinguish where experience actually helps, and when older people think that it helps, but it doesn't.

I'm 22 and support Senator Clinton for president. Actually, a large majority of my friends do as well (the ones who care enough to look at the candidates and the issues before voting). I also know a large number of college students who support Senator Obama, but those are largely people who, when pressed, can't tell me why they support Obama over Clinton.

I support Senator Clinton because I know she'll be good for my future.

Hey Rose, don't forget to be 24 while you can :)

Posted by Rose | March 6, 2008 2:59 PM:

Being adored by the media and their deeply committed supporters says absolutely nothing about a candidate. And I'm not saying that the opinion of Obama supporters doesn't matter; it's just that no candidate should be adored. Obama can certainly win on specifics, and a measured examination of the candidates strengths and weaknesses. But it's hard to run both a specifics campaign, and a messiah campaign.

Thank you for expressing this more succinctly than I've been able to for the past many months, Rose.

Excellent commentary, IMO.

One last point: a lot of posters are criticizing Michael's original post as "speculation."

He printed the numbers from the exit polls right there. The youngest group is 70% for Obama, the oldest is 70% for Clinton. It doesn't take much speculation. Just eyes and a brain.

Well, one cannot blame the youth with their youthful exuberance and hopefullness for supporting the guy who sells the same wares - that would be Obama for those of you not paying attention.

Those of us with experience and a world view based on actually being around long enough to see things for what they really are of course support the experienced candidate like Hillary.

I want my President to be ready for the job on day one, that is why I support Hillary!!!

If Obama really was interested in turning his vision into reality (and I like what he has to say, especially his understanding that the rich need to do more for the nation) then he would do the right thing and withdraw to become Hillary's VP and then run in 2016 - by then he would have both the vision and the experience and be THE PERFECT candidate.

Posted by BrendanB | March 6, 2008 3:18 PM:
One last point: a lot of posters are criticizing Michael's original post as "speculation."

Posted by Michael Scherer March 6, 2008 11:42:

Those older than Obama see him as a naive kid, while those younger see him as a manifestation of their own ambitions and optimism. On the flip side, younger voters see Clinton as a chiding parent, while older voters see her as a wise woman. These are just rough outlines, and they may be way off.

BrendanB:

This is obviously speculation; there is no way to logically draw an inference of "younger voters see Clinton as a chiding parent" from polling data. We would need empirical evidence that these characterizations Michael Scherer conjectures actually exist in the minds of voters in order to qualify these "outlines" as anything other than ideas or hunches heaped on top of very indirectly related data.

What people do is very different than why they do it. We can see from taxi receipt data that many thousands of people showed up at Newark Airport (NJ) yesterday. If Michael Scherer then wrote that he had an idea that a lot of travelers found the Newark experience to be reminiscent of the familiar drudgery of ordinary chore-filled life (instead of a wondrous, adventure-filled movie voyage into worlds unexplored), it would be similar speculation.

FSU-Dem:

Hillary Clinton will only be good for your future if you live in New York. She will never be president. If she wins the nomination, McCain will be president in 2009.

Stuart: I get your point.

Though I see Clinton as a chiding parent, so he speculated on my mindset pretty well. I'm glad HRC's there to "get real" and tell me not to have hope. It's the lack of inspiration that I look for in a leader.

smedley - you could not be any more wrong. Hillary will defeat McCain easily because she knows how to play the system. The only way McCain will win is if Obama continues to split the party going into the convention.

BrendanB:

It's the lack of inspiration that I look for in a leader.

I guess I'd have to say that I'm not looking for a leader. I'm hiring a public servant to perform a good job. I don't need to be "united" with anybody. What I need most from my government is a high level of competence in performing needed services. I'm shopping. I want good value. The candidates are cars. The cars are supposed to get me somewhere, and not leave me stranded and screwed and out of gas money. Needless to say, car commercials that use copy like "Experience the freedom!" or "This is our country!" don't tell me anything except that the car advertisers don't want me to base my buying decisions on the concrete characteristics of the car (like gas mileage, for example). I'm not shopping for a "leader". I'm not hiring a Lord Protector the Beneficent, I'm hiring a director--executive management.

People who are looking to be "lead" by some charismatic, inspirational figurehead have a very different idea of what government is for than I do, I suppose. I wonder where that idea comes from...

Time4Tolerance:
Obama is not splitting the party. He has the lead in popular votes and delegates. Clinton is splitting party by forcing a losing hand and going negative.

For those who do not know:
"Time4Tolerance"/"StewieZ" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager entertainment's sake, (whether posting as a Hillary supporter or alternately an Obama supporter).

Another take on race, gender and age.

I think its worth noting that the Civil Rights struggles that the older among us still remember (I'm 50) changed the baseline of what is considered "normal" levels of discrimination.

I'm not willing to speculate on specifics but I will just note that today's 20-30 years olds grew up in a significantly different cultural environment that the one that we older folks experienced.

Well Stuart, Clinton has never been the "executive" of anything. She hasn't even been a senator much longer than Obama has.

I don't want Obama to be a "messiah" or a Lord Protector. I want fresh ideas, because the ideas that have been exchanged between people of Clinton and McCain's age for the past 20 years have failed us - not "going to fail us," not "failing us now" - they've failed.

Where is the country right now? My unborn grandkids are racking up debts right now, and for what? We're not even seeing any dividends from these investments. That's where this generation of "leadership" and its "experience" have gotten us. Not even back to square one, but in a deeper hole than ever.

Some how jaded baby boomer cynicism doesn't seem like the answer to this one.

People who are looking to be "lead" by some charismatic, inspirational figurehead have a very different idea of what government is for than I do, I suppose. I wonder where that idea comes from...
Posted by stuart_zechman

Richard Reeves had a great line about Reagan, that he understood what those who mocked his (lack of) intellect didn't, that most people see the president's role not as running the country but as leading the nation. Actually, Roosevelt said it over a hundred years ago, the Presidency is a bully pulpit. Even if HRC can beat McCain, which I don't believe she can, she'd be fought at every turn, even if she hadn't decided to piss off half her own party with her scorched-earth demagoguery of the last week.

One area the president does control is foreign policy, and that is ultimately the reason I support Obama. I prefer his broad, open approach to Clinton's warmed-over cold warrior Liebermanism. Just look at their respective approaches to Cuba, to use an issue less emotional than terror and the ME.

I am a 52 year old white woman and I still believe in hope. We need to have the youth on our side, not against us, and Obama is the one person who can unite us!

Bingo, BrendanB. And Big Media will not talk of economic issues in anything other than simplistic terms. They excuse themselves by either trotting out A) the public doesn't care or B) it's too hard. Knowing this, McCain will not be challenged by the media when he says he will extend the Bush tax-cuts. Obama or Clinton will be cast as tax and spend liberals for ending the Bush tax-cuts. About this, HH is most certainly right (from other threads).

Although some younger voters do fit the stereotype of Obama supporters due to his "cool" factor, and a real belief in hope, its important to remember that one of the few substantive differences between Hillary and Obama lies in the field of health care.

I may be wrong, but I'm guessing older folks care more about health care than those who are younger. I'd also guess that the people who would opt out of Obama's healthcare plan would be in the younger age set. Of course there are others, but that seems to me to be one positional difference that really makes sense in understanding the division in support between the generations.

BrendanB:

Clinton has never been the "executive" of anything. She hasn't even been a senator much longer than Obama has.

OK. True enough. I suppose that the exposure she may or may not have had during the first Clinton executive is a debatable point that needs more information to be settled. If I were to concede that the candidates were equivalent in this regard, it still doesn't change the fact that I don't need to feel "inspired" in order to hire the best candidate for the job.

I want fresh ideas, because the ideas that have been exchanged between people of Clinton and McCain's age for the past 20 years have failed us - not "going to fail us," not "failing us now" - they've failed.

This is an incredible statement. Are you suggesting that there's no real difference between how George W. Bush governed and how Al Gore would have governed if elected? I'm not saying that you are suggesting this, but please clarify. Some people are of the opinion that Movement Conservatism's almost complete takeover and dominance of the federal government has failed us--not people of a certain age cohort. Specific policies implemented by terribly misguided ideologues have failed the country, in many people's opinions.

Where is the country right now? My unborn grandkids are racking up debts right now, and for what? We're not even seeing any dividends from these investments. That's where this generation of "leadership" and its "experience" have gotten us. Not even back to square one, but in a deeper hole than ever.

Amen. Does this mess have anything to do with the fact that people who espouse the idea that "government isn't the solution" have been largely running our government into the ground for the past seven years virtually unopposed? Are those people just all older--or does what those people do in government have anything to do with that mess?

Some how jaded baby boomer cynicism doesn't seem like the answer to this one.

I'm not a baby-boomer myself, but it seems like you're not making a distinction between people who said "Hey, deregulation isn't such a good thing, if it results in crazy predatory lending being so mixed up in bought and sold debt, that banks will be in trouble, and the whole economy could be in for a rough time for a long time!" and "Government regulation is the problem with the economy!". Please correct my understanding of your remarks.

Posted by Jim, Foolish Literalist | March 6, 2008 4:09 PM:

I prefer his broad, open approach to Clinton's warmed-over cold warrior Liebermanism. Just look at their respective approaches to Cuba, to use an issue less emotional than terror and the ME.

So do I. Agreed. No argument.

It seems though that you are arguing for my position--that what's more important than feelings about the candidate is what the candidate will or won't do.

Stuart's is the type of cold-eyed realism that proves ever more seductive as we age--we tend to bracket off more and more of what we perceive to be possible, within our own lives and the world about us. When that hope and idealism dies away one is left with the hard crust of cynicism. Or, one is left defending the likes of B&HC, people who, in our own promising youth, we would have condemned out of hand as manifestly corrupt and false. Now we wisely defend them as the best we can get. We deny the promise of someone like Obama (he's just the latest in a long line of destroyed hopes in the American culture).

Their clarion call and ours too if we submit to this seductive "reasoning" is no we can't. That's Hillary's wonderful appeal--she reinforces the hopelessness of our culture, the monotonous underachieving and ceaseless lack of fundamental change. She is who we become when we give up that hope--f-ck is it a terrifying image to find looking back at you in the morning. Do not submit to it. Do not become what you once loathed in your elders.

Stuart,
My position is that the current generation of leadership participates in a certain style of zero-sum politics. I believe that the Right introduced these politics in 1994, (though they existed before, they hadn't completely taken over).

I believe that the establishment Dems have responded by A) moving to the right themselves, and B) taking on this style of politics themselves (the Clinton gloves-off style being Exhibit 1).

They may/may not have been forced into this by the Right, but the fact is that this is where we are now. Loggerheads. Many people believe that this is the only way things can be. I believe that these people are stuck in a paradigm, and other ways actually do exist.

Can Obama bring a new way about? It will be very very hard, but I believe that he would at least be a step in the right direction, whereas Clinton would not be a step in this direction whatsoever.

I don't believe that Obama is some sort of savior. The fact is that when I listen to him, I don't even hear a lefty. I hear a pragmatist, which is what I consider myself.

I don't believe that the Clinton and Bush years are the same. The Clinton years left us with a surplus. There is a real difference between Dems and the GOP. The question for me is choosing someone who can take advantage of this moment of GOP weakness.

It's a question of "The Bill Clinton years were good, and so we just need to go back there" vs. "Something is sick in Washington, and we need to throw the windows open and let the air blow through for awhile." HRC doesn't represent this fresh approach to me.

For those who do not know:
"Time4Tolerance"/"StewieZ" is a troll attempting to impersonate movement conservatives' stereotype of a "liberal" for its own meager entertainment's sake, (whether posting as a Hillary supporter or alternately an Obama supporter).

For those of you who are certainly as aware of it as I am, "stuart_zechman" is a pompous troll attempting to impersonate a moderator for this site as he somehow thinks he knows who and what we all are since he obviously thinks that no one here can determine that for themselves unless he in his infinite wisdom tells you who everyone else is.

Just because I don't support Obama, I am a troll. You are the problem. Get a life.

The issue here, Stuart is that the Chief Executive Order and the Chief Operating Officer have different job descriptions.

Hillary lacks the vision to be a good CEO.

She might be a decent COO, however.

Now before you argue that was the Bush/Cheney model, I would argue that Bush's primary failing was the vision and priorities he set more so than the details he missed or COO-like qualities he lacked.

The future may prove me wrong, Oregon JC, but do you honestly think that Obama truly represents "Yes we can" when you compare his definitions of what we "can" do to Kucinich, or even John Edwards if you believed he was sincere after largely doing the opposite of what he said while he was in the senate?

Does it really make you feel better about Obama as a candidate that he sets the bar at the same level as Hillary and then says "Yes we can"?

oregon jc..
well put, but i believe the hopelesness you refer to is best described as moral relativism. when the history of the baby boomer generation is finally written i believe this will be a major chapter. Moral relativism seems to have always been the compass boomers have used. i am of the generation that follows just after them and am amazed at what a bunch of coddled, spoiled, ethically challenged group they have become...damn, i might have just sounded like their parents there...

BrendanB, I share much of your dissatisfaction with government, but I don't see the logic of blaming America's problems on the age of politicians. 4 of the last 5 Presidents have been left-handed, and the same kind of logic could lead to calls for a right-handed President. Honestly, I think the argument that it's time for a President who isn't a white man is a lot more solid, although I personally would never vote on the basis of race or gender.

If people are saying that voters should support Obama because he's 14 years younger than Clinton, I think that there needs to be a clear argument about how his relative youth would specifically make him a better President. I understand Observer's points about possible real differences between older and younger voters on policy priorities, but Clinton talks more than Obama does about moving to a green economy, increasing the use of renewable fuels, and utilizing technology. She's the one saying we need to aim high on health care, and make higher education more affordable.

And about inspiration, if it's not real, it's not inspiring.

rose
i agree, but still age matters some right? McCain has always reminded me of that great uncle that smells like moth balls and drives a new caddy every 2 years, though he never gets 15000 miles on one before he trades it in....the preceding was for humor sake only...settle down

Cynicism:
Currently, the word 'cynicism' generally describes the opinions of those who maintain that self-interest is the primary motive of human behaviour, and are disinclined to rely upon sincerity, human virtue, or altruism as motivations.

Posted by stuart_zechman | March 6, 2008 4:27 PM:

...what's more important than feelings about the candidate is what the candidate will or won't do.

Oregon JC:

How is my position an example of cynicism?

Or, one is left defending the likes of B&HC, people who, in our own promising youth, we would have condemned out of hand as manifestly corrupt and false.

I'm not defending the Clintons when I say that my problem with them is with the laws and policies that their ideology produced, e.g. DCMA, DOMA, NAFTA, Fast-track Authority, the DLC's formal politics of triangulation, etc.

It didn't take endless investigations into Whitewater, Rose Law Firm, Vince Foster's suicide to convince me of anything--that's for rightwing nuts who need some kind of moral support for their ideological hatred of Liberals and Liberalism, period. I'm not interested in the "corruption scandals" as an indicator of anything--that crap simply vindicates the talk-radio vendetta against all of us to the left of Sean Hannity. The impeachment of Bill Clinton had to do with a bloodless coup being executed by rightist and partisan extremists, in order to overturn the electoral expression of the will of the majority, which that cast of miserables found ideologically unbearable. I'm not interested in Drudge-inspired scandals defining Democratic candidates--I'm interested in what the candidates do.

I don't care raise up politicians from Illinois on pedestals far above what might be "manifestly corrupt and false" about politics in the United States. I care about specific things getting done, and specific problems getting solved.

Observer:

I guess I'd say that with Obama, I do have hope that some sliver of real change can occur. I don't feel he's as thoroughly corrupted and I guess I cling to a notion that he's saying what needs to be said to get the nom. His language about maintaining the strongest military in the world concerns me to no end, but given their respective war votes... I was listening to radical Oregon radio this a.m. and a bloke was saying that he was going to write in Kucinich 5/20 to make a point. I'm not there yet but a Clinton nomination might get me there. I don't want the 90s again, I want something better, and perhaps we can only get there if things get a lot worse first.

But what I say hardly matters--no more U.S. taxes for me. I'm following my divine wife to another country this April--the willing embrace of exile pleases me. To those of you left behind, all my best in fighting the good fight.

BrendanB:

Well said; I understand your points now.

Rose,
Obama's age means that he's coming from a post-Veitnam, post-RoeVWade era. I think it's possible to start talking about the same old issues from a different perspective. I have a different perspective from my parents. Much of it due to the times in which I grew up.

I believe that younger people can see how the current generation of leadership has been behaving in a way that they can't see from the inside.

Look, the ascension of Obama's generation is inevitable. The question is do we want to spend another 4 or 8 years spinning our wheels before we move on, or shall we move on now.

I totally agree, Time4Tolerance. Stuart wants to keep trolls off this board just like liberals who want to stop me from bringing an AK-47 to my mega-church just in case the terrorist strike. What makes you latte drinkers think you own the world. You think you are better than those of us who eat freedom fries?

brendanb...
well put...you oughtta get a cabinet post, or at least an ambassadorship to luxembourg

RKA:

Hillary lacks the vision to be a good CEO.

Sorry, how do you know this again?

...and please, for God's sake, RKA, don't bring up endless accounts of her campaign's tactics and statements. We're not talking about her campaign, here, we're talking about her vision.

What about what she has proposed doing for the country, her goals, her priorities, her policy proposals indicates to you that she "lacks vision" to be a "good CEO", i.e. to run the executive in a superlative manner?

I would just say that, as a 48 year old, successful, New York City based professional, I do not consider myself naive or prone to adoration of political leaders. However, I am supporting Barack Obama. (I will disregard ugly, intrusive comments like those of Time4Tolerance asserting that Obama is dividing the party. The person dividing the party is obviously Hillary whose lack of decorum and dignity in this campaign has come to me as both a surprise and a disappointment.) I support Obama primarily because he thinks correctly (in my view) about the Iraq war and about the US role in the world. The US is at a turning point in its history. Will it become an empire, with all of the corruption, inequality and waste that goes along with empire, or will it return to its proper role as a progressive, enlightened, last-best-hope-of-mankind experiment by citizens? Our political culture is sclerotic, perhaps as ill as that of republican Rome before it became a corrupt, military dictatorship. I could go on for hours about this--suffice it to say that I interpret Obama's commitment to talking with the unsavory out-of-favor elements in the international scene as a rejection of the endless scapegoating utilized by the political elite to keep the American people always ready to fund more and greater weapons systems and to allow our civil rights to be undermined and the quality of our lives to be spoiled. To change the US, we must first change our manner of directing the minds of the US population to always new "enemies". I am frankly not optimistic that this can be changed--the die may already be cast. However, neither McCain nor Clinton have the vision to even try to change it, in my view.

BrendanB, Obama does talk about his different perspective, particularly in terms of being able to transcend old political divisions. But he is already falling into those old divisions, as is shown by his falling Republican support. (I don't blame him for this, but he is well on his way to being yet another polarizing politician). So where is the actual evidence of this new perspective that he'll bring to politics?

And again, it's just 14 years. Not exactly a parent-child age gap.

In addition, this may be a little off-topic, but there is no way that a 46 year-old mother of two small children could be elected President. BrendanB, I'm sure that you would not hesitate to vote for Obama if he were a woman, but we all know that most voters wouldn't seriously consider voting for any woman who is routinely described as both "young" and "attractive." It's the Elephant in the room in this debate.

Posted by Rose | March 6, 2008 5:27 PM:

...most voters wouldn't seriously consider voting for any woman who is routinely described as both "young" and "attractive."

Rose:
Would you be able to provide us with links or quotes to any data that would support this assertion?

Rose, to follow you off-topic: While I won't directly dispute your point, I will point out that Governer of Alaska Sarah Palin has been bandied about as a possible Republican VP candidate, and she IS young and attractive.

Rose, it seems that gender is a big issue for you here. It really isn't for me. I haven't given a lot of thought to the prospects of a younger woman. I don't know if I totally see your point. I do think that if HRC doesn't get the nomination, the next viable woman candidate won't come along for quite awhile. That is truly a tragic statement about our country, but it can't sway my vote in this particular race.

14 years may not be much in some cases, but I think it makes a difference in this case.

One thing I'll say about Clinton is that people on all sides seem to understand what they're getting. Some people like it, some don't.

Stuart, I am absolutely - bet the bank - certain on this one. I actually don't know if studies have been done on this, but I'll look into it. It's just so obvious, to me, from my observations of people in the business world.

There have been a lot of studies on female candidates performance in elections, and I thought that this article had some interesting points:
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5764.html

And young mothers are likely to be perceived as "softer," so this would undoubtedly be an additional problem for them to face as political candidates.

Posted by Rose | March 6, 2008 5:45 PM:

It's just so obvious, to me, from my observations of people in the business world.

I understand, but if you were to visit Redstate.Org, or the comments at Malkin's HotAir, you would find quite a difference in what is obvious to other people with different assumptions. I think that it's better for us in the reality-based community to argue less from anecdotal evidence than from hard data, even if we believe that our assumptions must be sound. Where I live, everybody hates George W. Bush. There's absolutely nobody (apart from a freak fringe minority akin to the Revolutionary Communist Party) who wouldn't vote for a woman for president. If I were to go on anecdotal evidence for my assumptions about general attitudes, I would be wrong--disastrously, dead wrong.
When I remind certain Swampland writers that the Iraq occupation is considered not worth it by most Americans, even though there is now more ambivalence in attitudes with respect to tactical pacification, I do it like so. There can be no disputing the facts.

After all, if you're willing to bet the bank on it, there has to be some polling data somewhere, right? I'd love to see actual data that says what you believe--it would be very, very interesting! After all, if people believe these things, it would be interesting to know if people also believe that this is likely the last chance they have in their lifetimes to vote for a woman...

My evidence, Stuart, is my own eyes.

You are not assumed visionary until proven non-visionary. It's the other way around.

Vision requires originality and creativity.

I have not seen anything from Hillary in her long career that is remotely orginal or creative.

Honestly, the most original thing about HIllary is her gender..and that is only because we have not yet had a female president.

Most of her fine work is derivative, some of it came when a light bulb went off in focus groups here and there.

There's nothing wrong with being an uncreative worker bee. The vast majority of the populace fits in this mode. But being a good president is not something you can learn in school or apprenticeship. One of our worst presidents was also the most experienced: James Buchanan.

I'm a younger voter (25) and favor Obama. There are certainly variations, but I think the dichotomy is largely true.

With regards to more young people being able to opt out of health care, and hence favoring Obama I would also add that the same argument could be made about Iraq. More young people could have to serve in Iraq or already have, hence to them it is a more important issue. However this charge is never levelled. Older voters have to be very careful about what charges they level at younger voters.

Had Hillary Clinton not totally discounted young voters she would have easily won more states, won in Iowa and this election would be over by now. Instead she and her team made the cynical bet that young voters would never come out. They have and proven her wrong.

She is now going to have a very tough time going to the convention with fewer elected delegates and winning the nomination. Young people might not vote for her.

I know I would have previously favored a Clinton/Obama ticket with her in the top spot. I will not now. Mainly because she has patronized, belittled and derided both Barack and supporters like myself as stupid naive and clueless to the health care situation. I have an older father who has had 3 heart attacks who I have to care for. Hence I still live at home despite being in grad school. This is why I moved back home. A lot of young people are in the same positioin. I am not heartless to the health care situation. The fact that she thinks I am pisses me off even further.

Her waving upward and claiming that voters somehow think "the sky is going to open and everything is going to fine" is further dismissive. Her lecturing "Shame on you" tirade was similar to a Catholic school nun talking to a 3-year old. I'm sorry but I could never support her.

By the way, I think Rose is right about young, attractive women who are smart having a hard time being taken seriously. There are not a lot of young women in elected offices. I have thought of this, because I was trying to think of a female running mate for Obama that would be pretty young in 2016 to be an heir...and there really are not any. Most of the women in politics are older.

He doesn't need this RKA. What he needs is the best most experienced Vice Presidential candidate.

That is Governor Kathleen Sebelius of Kansas. She happens to be a woman. I don't care. She's also the best option. That's why I want her.

The problem is that a certain far-left ultra-feminist wing of Hillary supporters will never support any female candidate but her. To them it has become much less about having qualified women that it is simply about having Hillary. This is not to say all or even most of her female supporters are this way. But certain of them are.

Gloria Steinham now falls into this category. Despite being a great feminist and historical figure, she has now sunk to the level of dismissing John McCain's six and a half years as a P.O.W. simply because he is a man, claiming if he was named Joan McCain and a woman no one would have cared. Steinham also said they would have blamed him had he been a woman for his capture.

Hate to tell her but they already did this to John McCain. When they asked him why he got captured he admitted because he had been overly aggressive about going after a SAM site. This is more than I would have done.

Some ultra-feminists have gone round the bind on Hillary. Which is a shame because there are so many qualified female candidates with real executive experience of their own out there like Sebelius, Napolitano, Blanco, Gregoire, Granholm and Rell. All qualified female governors that are never mentioned.

Interesting to note almost all of them support Obama.

Posted by RKA | March 6, 2008 6:16 PM:

My evidence, Stuart, is my own eyes.

You are not assumed visionary until proven non-visionary. It's the other way around.

Vision requires originality and creativity.

I have not seen anything from Hillary in her long career that is remotely orginal or creative.

Interesting, thank you for answering the question.

Basically you can find nothing whatsoever "about what she has proposed doing for the country, her goals, her priorities, her policy proposals" that's either original or creative.

I guess that I'll have to do some basic research into her plans, and see if I can produce a single item that's "remotely orginal or creative" to debunk your claim...

I'll be back later, RKA!

It seems though that you are arguing for my position--that what's more important than feelings about the candidate is what the candidate will or won't do.
Posted by stuart_zechman

Well, on some level, every vote is a crap shoot. We expect, bet, hope, guess what the candidate will do. I never would have thought HRC would support Bush's war and, five years later, Kyl-Lieberman, and I expected Obama to be much more aggressive on anti-war legislation (a timetable at the very least). I supported Edwards because I was willing to make a leap of faith that he would be more progressive in office than his past record indicates.
I also think that Obama will/would have longer and more progressive coat-tails than Clinton, but who the hell knows?

(As for HRC being the only woman to make a realistic run at the presidency in this generation, as some seem to be saying... Who the hell had ever heard of Barack Obama five years ago? He was a long-shot in the Illinois Dem primary for Senate).

Posted by Jim, Foolish Literalist | March 6, 2008 7:03 PM:

Well, on some level, every vote is a crap shoot. We expect, bet, hope, guess what the candidate will do.

True--but are you really arguing that we should place more importance on feelings about the candidate than rational expectations based on knowledge or reasonable inferences about what the candidate will or won't do?

Do you like rolling the dice? Is that what you want elections to be about? You can't be arguing for the validity of wild spasms of irrational exuberance whilst at the craps table of Presidential politics, right?

I know that you're not saying this, but I don't get what it is that you are saying...

High Sheriffs:

Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /swampland/2008/03/polling_the_age_of_hope.html on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

What's up with the 403-type errors? I'm not directory-crawling your site...

Being a newbie to caring about politics. Thank you Obama and Clinton for jarring me out of my working class duldroms, but I know I heard Obama say, HRC made the wrong decision voting for the war. This bothers me for two reasons, one, I feel, he has no right to say a decision young people have died for out of..patriotism, is wrong. Maybe not well thought out, maybe in hindsight a terrible decision but not wrong. YET, he speaks several pages in his book, Audacity of Hope, for fighting, ie civil war, for absolute truths even though there may be a tough price to pay. Hmm, I wonder how many votes his "wrong decision" remark garnered.

I know that you're not saying this, but I don't get what it is that you are saying...

well, if I think back to where this began (and I admit I am deeply confused by the length and the back-and-forth of this long thread) I was reacting to what seemed to me to be your arguments in favor of HRC as a technocrat vs Obama as an "inspiring" orator. I think she is probably a better manager than he is, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't be perfectly capable of executing those aspects of the presidency, and I think his strengths as a politician outweigh hers as a manager.

As I say, that and foreign policy were what pushed me into Obama's camp before she started her repulsive scorched earth candidacy, which she seems bent on continuing.

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/hillary_mccain_has_crossed_com.php

This bothers me for two reasons, one, I feel, he has no right to say a decision young people have died for out of..patriotism, is wrong.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

So if the soldiers who do the fighting believe they are fighting for a good cause, then the president's actions are beyond reproach or discussion?

The Pentagon works very hard to make soldiers in Iraq think they're fighting because of 9/11. I think this is a national disgrace. But you would argue that since many of the troops in Iraq believe this (80% in a 2005 poll), that the Pentagon's dishonest exploitation of the good faith and patriotism of those young people justifies itself, because it works?

Americans have known Hillary Clinton for 16 years now, 16 long years that have gone progressively from bad to apocolyptic, from reeking centrism to reeking extremism. Most sadly of all, most of the excesses of the last 8 courtesy in part of our esteemed democratic elders, the Reids, the Pelosis, the Daschles, and yes the trio of utter sh-twads (Kerry-Ed-Hill), "progressives" who gave our hegemony at any cost crusader free license to preemptively wage war. So forgive me if I'll hold off on hope for a renaissance anytime soon.

At the same irrational time, I'll embrace irrational exuberance, Stuart, any f-ing day over calm, calculated whore one's soul and dearest held principles to get elected/reelected. I know the Clintons as well as we'll ever know two politicians and I will not suffer them, period. Whatever calculus you're applying, great, it works for you. But anyday, I'll roll the f'ing dice on the kid, for the risk is worth it if it leads to even a fleeting seismic jolt in Washington. Can he pull it off? I doubt it, but remember your first reaction to the Yes We Can vid or I think it was your first read on his post NH speech--remember those feelings before calculating Stuart took back over--what if man. What if we jettison the doom and gloom and as a united party back that shining ray of hope. I know, the heavens will open up celestial bonghits for everyone. I tell you what's going to open up with the same old sheeot of Bush Clinton forever, the gates of hell are going to swallow this nation hole.

This may be taboo but I feel that it needs to be addressed. Racism is still alive and well in America but more so amongst the older generation of Americans. People over a certain age are never going to vote for a black man. I say this as an Obama supporter.

I don't blame older white Americans completely. The fact is that they grew up in an America that was much more homogeneous whereas the younger generation was significantly more integrated and diverse.

Yes, there are always going to be exceptions to the rule but I think that, in general, most Americans over a certain age will never be comfortable voting for a non-white American.

Posted by Jim, Foolish Literalist | March 6, 2008 7:35 PM:

I was reacting to what seemed to me to be your arguments in favor of HRC as a technocrat vs Obama as an "inspiring" orator.

I see!

That's the problem!

No, I'm not making an argument for the candidacy of HRC in any way. I'm making an argument for rational decision-making as a superior method for getting what one wants in terms of purchasing, hiring or voting. I'm for choosing instead of following. I'm for making up one's mind instead of being inspired.

"Will it become an empire, with all of the corruption, inequality and waste that goes along with empire,"

Dude, we crossed the Rubicon a long time ago.

I hate how the Democratic party is painted by the MSM as being dominated by 'identity politics'. Maybe if you backed away from DC CW for a second you might see that the entirety of GOP base politics is IDENTITY POLITICS, and the identity in question is WASP(ostensibly heterosexual). The GOP base is deathly afraid of WASP(OH)s losing their hold on culture and governance and virtually every policy position of the GOP speaks to this. So enough of this Democratic 'identity politics' bullsh!t already.

As far as the kids go...why in the world would they listen to someone like Hillary Clinton? You think these kids look around this country and their futures think and the generations in power now have done a good job? Or do you think these kids realize that virtually every authority figure in their lives have been lying to them their entire lives. If I were 18, I wouldn't believe a f@cking thing Hillary said, but I might be willing to believe Obama, because like them, he is young and new to the scene. We know what Hillary's generation has brought, and it ain't good.

The generational gap is exceedingly simple, but it has little to with your MSM-style sweeping generalizations about age groups. Rather it was neatly summed up by John Edwards during last year's Philly debate:

...I think that if people want the status quo, Senator Clinton's your candidate. That's what I believe. If they want real change, then they need somebody who tells the truth about a system that doesn't work, who believes that this may actually be the first generation -- we're all worried about this being the first generation that doesn't leave the world and America better for our children, unlike 20 generations that came before us.

This is not an abstract thing. This is not about lobbyists. Matter of fact, it's not about any of us. The truth is, when this election is over, I'm going to be fine. Senator Clinton's going to be fine. Senator Obama's going to be fine. The question is, will America be fine? And will we ensure -- and I think this is the great moral test of our generation -- will we ensure that our children have a better life than we've had? That's the responsibility we have.

In an ironic reiteration of this point: Lady MacBitch, er, excuse me, the older Senator Hillary Clinton wound wind up stealing the "we're all gonna be fine" line of Edward's extremely personal and heartfelt sentiment later. After accusing the younger, apparently green and inexperienced Obama of plagiarisms.

Yeah, generation gap. Well, there it is.

Stringer, I really doubt that there are a significant number of feminists who only support Clinton. Most "ultra-feminists" are actually far to the left of Clinton, so they're really not that attached to her. They'd be happy to support another woman, especially if she were more left-wing.

On Steinam, her comments about McCain were obviously inaccurate and unfair. As an interesting sidenote, I actually saw her speak about a year ago, and when asked about the Obama-Clinton race, she actually said that "Barack Obama is a feminist," and certainly in no way endorsed Clinton. She was clearly not just automatically supporting the female candidate. But I imagine that like a lot of people she was angered by the sexism of the MSM, and to a lesser extent of the Obama campaign, and that has caused her to actively support Clinton.

I know that a lot of Obama supporters strongly deny the suggestion of sexism in the media or in the Obama campaign, but there is a sincere belief among many of us that Clinton has been treated unfairly by the media, and by Obama's campaign in a more subtle way, because of her gender. Ironically, I find that the Obama supporters who are not sexist are often the most quick to deny any suggestions of sexism. It's difficult for these Obama supporters to admit that some voters are supporting him because of their sexism, just as it's difficult for Clinton supporters to admit that some voters are supporting Clinton because of their racism.

Stuart, I'll look for some data on this - although I should really get back to work! I agree with what you're saying about empirical data, but to me this was really on the level of "people who exercise more are healthier," level of obvious. But I understand that most people don't have my perspective of the business world (The industry I work in is very sexist, but then so is Politics; There are only 16 female Senators). Have you seen any of the recent articles on maternal profiling? It's very hard to imagine how a woman could face less maternal profiling running for President than applying for a regular office job.

Eh, allow me to apologize for that expletive in my post, long week of work. Sorry guys.

I'm for making up one's mind instead of being inspired.

You're operating under the assumption that you'll be making a purchase in any event.

For those who seriously consider staying home as their default position, inspiration is essential.

There's a significant fraction of folks that describes.

Oregon JC:

I'm with you in spirit, but just listen to yourself...

You're making a decision. It's not entirely irrational. You think that we've been f--ked by the DLC.

Yes, we have. You're making a rational choice. You're saying "I don't know if the kid is going to f--k progressives over the way that the Clintons did once they were in office, but I sure as hell know that the Clintons did f--k us over, so that settles it!"

You're doing an anti-Hillary--going with what you know, instead of what you don't know. Lots of folks say to themselves "Well, I believe that I know exactly how she's going to f--k us, so I'll stick to that, instead of screwing around with what Obama might do to us..." That's the opposite of you. OK.

You are, at the end of the day, making a choice against a candidate you know something about, and not placing your faith in a charismatic leader. That's a decent method, I suppose. I happen to believe that this is a superior method of choosing a candidate than gathering up the sum of one's feelings and saying "That woman! She makes me feel better than he does! She's awfully inspiring, don't you know? I just...think she's great!"

You're making a partisan argument out of a discussion of our proper role as citizens in a democracy. I'm trying to say (without much success, apparently) that we are not doing our duty as Americans, if we think of politics in terms of who we feel inspired the most by, instead of who will do things that we want them to accomplish. That's our job as voters--to figure out what's good for the country, and then vote with our eyes open for who the most likely person is to make that happen.

I'm disagreeing with BrendanB, who said:
I'm glad HRC's there to "get real" and tell me not to have hope. It's the lack of inspiration that I look for in a leader.

I don't have a problem with the fact that he doesn't like Hillary, I just think that his criteria is irrational.

I'm agreeing with Rose, who said it so well:
Being adored by the media and their deeply committed supporters says absolutely nothing about a candidate.

That a candidate elicits certain feelings in their supporters isn't a reason to vote for that candidate. Whether you think that they can reduce the cost of health care, such that it isn't the back-breaker that it currently is--that's a reason to vote for that candidate. Whether you think that they're going to get us into another stupid occupation, or extend the current one until we're broke and every last human being on the earth wants to kill us in our beds--that's a reason to vote for that candidate.

In my opinion, of course.

Posted by Paul Dirks | March 6, 2008 8:33 PM:

For those who seriously consider staying home as their default position, inspiration is essential.

Paul Dirks:

Good point...let me think about that.

Swampcritters:

I realize that my earlier post was not on-topic for this particular thread, but since there are NO pundits in swampland yet willing to address the issue of Republican vs. Democrats and hate speech, where ELSE would one post.

Unfortunately, I'm choosing Mr. Sherers' not so much to project the expectation that he might be first to respond, but that I have yet to hear ANY pundits respond.

I've heard now two instances in two days where Rush Limbaugh has gone racial. He did apologize for essentially calling Obama, essentially, a monkey.

Anyone on the Democratic side would have been roasted by nearly every one of you - an entirely appropriate response.

I seem to remember last week, just how eager you pundits were to jump in on the issue of Farrakan's "endorsment" of Obama and Hillary's "reject or denounce" parsing of the issue, which was really a non issue.

So, now, we have a paralell issue, where on one hand Obama even took heat from conservative pundits, and everyone else made a considerable amount of noise about it, even though Obama could not be blamed for what Farrakahn says or does.

The contrasting silence on the issue of Republican hate speech is deafening - and I am not targeting Mr. Sherer but ALL of you pundits:

What say you?

Sorry, that really should have been "Whether you think that they're going to get us into another stupid occupation, or extend the current one until we're broke and every last human being on the earth wants to kill us in our beds--that's a reason not to vote for that candidate."

Yes, that "not" was pretty key...

Rose,

I agree with you that sexism is rife in our society.

But the fact that 60% of the dem primary electorate is female when the first credible woman candidate is running is an advantage for her. And its hard to deny that she has parlayed sexism to her electoral advantage by evoking backlashes from female voters.

I wish that more women voters would be able to separate their justifiable concerns about sexism from Hillary's candidacy.

Although it is considered blasphemy on swampland to quote maureen dowd, i think she makes a really good point in this column:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24dowd.html

It is Obama, not Hillary, who is running a campaign based on the traditionally feminine qualities of consensus making and it is hillary who is running the more aggressive stereotypically male campaign.

Blacks are not supporting Obama just because he is black. Early in the campaign, he was trailing Clinton among black voters. Black voters rejected Blackwell for Ohio governor and Swann for PA governor despite them being black because they were perceived as not being in black voters interests.

Black voters did not support clarence thomas's nomination either.

I wish more women would take a step back and rethink their equation of HIllary as the fulfullment of women's aspirations. You don't need to be a clinton hater to be troubled by Hillary's participation in the criminal defense of a child rapist or her leading the legal teams to discredit Bill's paramours. Yes, it's not PC to ever bring this up...and honestly, I could care less what or who BIll Clinton does. But I wonder, given these facts, why don't more women view Hillary the way that blacks view Clarence Thomas?

And what message does it say to women that the first female president is the spouse of a former president? That you can achieve anything you want as long as you marry the right guy? is that really what feminism is all about, or is this just settling for what's available right now.

Will electing the wife of a former president be really a victory for women? Indira Gandhi of India and Benazure Bhuto of pakistan both became heads of state when voters employed nepotism to elevate these two daughters of male leaders, but does this make India and Pakistan to be progressive places for women? I don't think so.

The irony of this whole race is that Barack Obama has treated women better in his life than Hillary Clinton has. Obama brings a leadership style that incorporates the best of what femininity has to offer.

In fact, i would venture to say if it had not been for the inconvenient fact that Obama had to run against Hillary, President Obama could be called "the first woman president" in the same way that Bill Clinton was "the first black president."

I wish we could have an honest conversation about the many reasons that a feminist ought to not vote for HIllary, but it is too inflammatory and politically incorrect to do so for anybody other than some random blog commenter.

RKA:

It's not blasphemy to dredge up the increasingly unbalanced Dowd--it's silly.

From Media Matters:
As a campaigner, Sen. Barack Obama is angry and overwhelmed.

That was the unflattering takeaway from Maureen Dowd's catty column (subscription required) last week about the Illinois senator's foray onto the presidential campaign trail, as Dowd traipsed out to the heartland to watch the Democratic sensation up close. But as is her custom, Dowd fixated on personality and stagecraft, not substance, as the poison-penned, Wednesday/Saturday columnist for The New York Times painted a relentlessly unflattering portrait of the senator.

In the eyes of Dowd, Obama was out of his element on the national stage: "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted."

Dowd's attack, hyped on the Drudge Report the night before the column was published and widely seen as the first real Obama hit piece of the season by a major pundit, deserves attention not because of the (largely nonexistent) insight Dowd shed on Obama's emerging candidacy, but because Dowd included several of her now-trademark -- and highly dubious -- attacks; attacks that in the past have been embraced by the mainstream press and tripped up Democrats such as Hillary Rodham Clinton, Al Gore, and John Kerry.

The truth is, almost nothing about the Obama column rang true. In part, because Dowd provided virtually no evidence to back up her contentious claims that Obama was "testy," "irritated," and "conflicted" while campaigning in Iowa.

What unleashed Dowd's wrath? Perhaps a career cynic like Dowd is put off by Obama's audacity-of-hope message. That, and her contrarian impulse to bash Obama when most others were not. But it appears the senator's specific sin in Iowa was that he publicly tweaked the press, and particularly the media buzz created when People magazine recently ran a candid, shirtless photo of Obama vacationing on a Hawaii beach. "You've been reporting on how I look in a swimsuit," Obama noted.

Rule Number 1: Celebrity Beltway journalists don't like to be upstaged in public; especially not by newcomers. Just ask Howard Dean, who, when declaring his presidential candidacy on June 23, 2003, asked rhetorically, "Is the media reporting the truth?" Not smart. The press corps quickly labeled Dean an angry kook. (In two profiles of Dean published during the summer of 2003, The Washington Post alternately described Dean as being "abrasive," "flinty," "cranky," "arrogant," "disrespectful," "yelling," "hollering," "fiery," "red-faced," "hothead," "testy," "short-fused," "angry," and "worked up.")

Although political journalism is broken (its flaws are glaringly obvious), candidates, and especially Democratic candidates, are not allowed to question the competence of pundits and reporters. Dowd in her column sternly rebuked Obama and reminded him who sets the campaign rules -- it ain't the candidates.

Here's a quick dissection of Dowd's snarky column (headline: "Obama, Legally Blonde?") that highlights her dubious assertions.

* "He was a tad testy." Dowd gave no examples to back up her characterization.

* "The 45-year-old had moments of looking conflicted." Dowd offered no clear examples of Obama looking conflicted.

* "In the lobby of the AmericInn in Iowa Falls on Saturday night, he seemed a bit dazed by his baptism into the big-time. He was left munching trail mix all day while, he said, "the press got fed before me." Obama's utterly trivial remark about the press getting fed first in no way suggested that he seemed a bit dazed.

* "Everything was a revelation for him: The advance team acronym RON, or Rest Overnight. Women squealing. 'I saw a hat,' he noted with a grin, 'that said, 'Obama, clean and articulate.' " Obama's utterly trivial remark about a woman wearing an Obama hat in no way suggested that everything was a revelation for the senator.

* "Senator Obama's body language was loose." Dowd was reduced to interpreting Obama's body language for vague insights.

* "He was eloquent, if not as inspiring as his advance billing had prepared audiences to expect." Dowd produced no examples of the type of "advance billing" Obama failed to live up to. (And whose advance billing was it, Dowd's?)

* "He sounded self-consciously pristine at times, as if he was too refined for the muck of politics." Dowd offered no examples to bolster either vague claim that Obama was "pristine" or "too refined."

* "But his friends say it played into this Harvard grad's fear of being seen as 'a dumb blond.' " Dowd provided no quotes from any of Obama's friends to confirm her claim. Also, note "dumb blond" appears in quotes, even though the words are Dowd's and nobody else's.

* "He has been known to privately mock 'pretty boys' (read John Edwards, the Breck Girl of 2004)." Dowd provided no information to back up her blind quote that Obama mocks "pretty boys," and specifically Edwards.

* "He's so hung up on being seen as thoughtful that he sometimes comes across as too emotionally detached and cerebral with crowds yearning for an electric, visceral connection." Dowd offered no examples to bolster her claim about Obama.

* "When The Times's Jeff Zeleny asked him on his plane whether he'd had a heater in his podium during his announcement speech in subzero Springfield [Illinois], Mr. Obama hesitated. He shot Jeff a look that said, 'Are you from People magazine?' before conceding that, unlike Abe Lincoln, he'd had a heater." Once again, in order to make her point Dowd opted to interpret Obama's body language. In this case, what a brief look from the candidate "said." (Note that the trivial question at hand dealt with stagecraft: Did Obama have a heater? Who cares?)

Look, RKA, her op-ed is entitled "Who is less macho?" It's a shot at both candidates. It's not a compliment. It's a snide, cheap shot.

And when historians trace how her inevitability dissolved, they will surely note this paradox: The first serious female candidate for president was rejected by voters drawn to the more feminine management style of her male rival.

Can you really not see the insults?

While Obama looked at her warily, even fearfully, Hillary suddenly switched to her feminine side.

Dowd is calling Obama a bitch--again. Don't you remember this:

June 6, 2007
Op-Ed Columnist
Can He Unleash the Force?
By MAUREEN DOWD

...The next day, after reflecting on the matter overnight, the Obama campaign sent out a rebuttal to Hillary’s ridiculous claim, citing reports showing that radicalization in the Muslim world and terrorism are spreading rather than diminishing. The belated memo was blandly addressed to “Interested Parties.” But by then the only thing that was interesting was why it took Obambi so long.

Meanwhile, Hillary’s Web site blared the headline “In Command” linking to “raves” of her confident debate performance.

The Boy Wonder cannot take over the country unless he can take on Wonder Woman.

Maureen Dowd has a problem, RKA. I bizarre, psycho-sexual problem that involves loathing other women, and despising men who don't assert themselves over other women. She's got serious issues, and she can't even tell anymore just how ridiculous her pieces are. She reads like a fetish sex worker advertisement.

I wouldn't advise you to use her analysis of back-handed compliments in your arguments. You'll just look more and more clueless the more publicly unhinged she gets:

Twice a week, the Times prints ugly, misogynist hate speech from its resident lunatic. Today is one of those mornings:

In paragraph 1, we learn that “some women” don’t like Hillary Clinton’s “shoulder-pad feminism.”

In paragraph 2, we learn that these unnamed women dislike the “men-are-pigs” thinking that Clinton has “revived with a vengeance.”

In paragraph 4, we learn that “a woman I know” thinks Clinton “doesn’t make it look like fun to be a woman.” In paragraph 5, the crackpot paraphrases Clinton thusly: “I have earned every wrinkle on my face.”

In short, Maureen Dowd is a vicious old hater—and the Times prints her misogynist hate speech two times each week.

Seriously, RKA. Don't quote this twisted freak; she's not on your side--or anybody's.

Stuart, If George W Bush himself says we need more money for AIDS in Africa, I'll happily quote and credit him despite the loathing I have for him in general and the fact that he ain't on my side.

A good point is a good point regardless of who makes it or why they make it.

I find it silly when someone you don't like makes a good point and you use the good old politics of personal destruction to discredit the messenger when you don't like the message.

You know what is hilarious about that media matters link, Stuart?

A male writer calls Maureen Dowd "catty."

Aren't these the same people who crucified Chris Mathhews as a sexist for daring to say that HIllary won her senate seaton a wave of female sympathy from being cheated on?

And they have a male commenter calling a female commenter "catty?"

What a bunch of filthy hypocrites!!!!

If Chris Mathhews called Hillary "Catty" there would be blood in the streets!

Apparently media matters only believe sexism applies to women named Hillary, not women named Maureen!!!!

Hilarious, Stuart, that you site this while lecturing me on the credibility of my sources.