I know why the youth are excited about Obama...NO ONE has ever said those hopeful "we are all Americans" things to them before! They missed the last big bi-partisan American civil religion wave...they weren't born yet. They messages they have gotten have been divisive, negative, that being American means being AGAINST other Americans!

Barak is simply preaching American civics and representative democracy and good government...the same stuff that made (before Bush) the rest of the world look to us as a model--

I'm THRILLED to know that my kids have the opportunity to hear a REAL American stump speech! It works, we ARE in this together and Obama is simply stating the obvious.

I'm 28, and I have one possibility for why Obama may be picking up such a supermajority of the young vote: Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. For my entire political life it's only been those two families in the White House, and at least I have vague memories of Reagan. I can only imagine its worse for those who are younger. Whether itsfear of dynasty or just because they think Hillary will result in "more of the same" I really think this is an underreported factor.

I'm 27 and I'm sick of being ruled by Bush-Clinton. Obama gives me hope for the future. Obama was right about the war from the start. He isn't just the "black candidate," he's the best candidate. No one my age really cares that much about race, anyway, that's for the older generations to worry about. Obama can appeal to moderate Republicans. He's running a positive campaign. He's witty and he's a great speaker, inspiring even when he gets rolling. I like his story and his family. He's a good man. A decent man. He's not been chewed up and spit out by Washington, Yet.

Hillary Clinton is too cautious and she's an opportunist. She acts like the country owes her the presidency. I'm sick of Bill Clinton. I want Bush-Clinton to just go away. The idea of America being ruled by Bush Clinton from 1988 until potentially 2012 is highly disturbing from a democratic point of view. Is this Pakistan or America?

Idealism and lack of realism put Kennedy into the White House, and it can put Obama there too. These are youthful traits. Let's face it, Obama is Mr Feel Good, not Mr Reality. Reality sets in and political wrangling end up being the truth that any one who wins the Presidency will encounter. I just hope that whoever wins has the moxy to stand up to special interests.

“Or is it the fact that young people, more than the rest of us, are tired and cynical about politics and really do buy into Obama's claim that he's a post-partisan candidate who can end all the nastiness and empty Beltway wrangling?�

It is not the youth that is cynical. They are idealisitic and see there can be a better way. It is the establishment that is so cynical or resigned to the status quo that they are resigned to the status quo.

Compared to Little George, Clinton’s Presidency was stellar. But compared to a non-deviant, Clinton was uninspired and mediocre at best. At worse, he set the tone for dishonesty and cynicism that in some respects enabled this current crowd to say and do whatever they want.... “because they can�. As Slick Willie said regarding why he had his intern give him oral sex, “because he could� .

The impeachment was bull, but the Clintons raced to the bottom… “I did not have sex with that women�… “depends to the definition of what the word “is� is, the right wing conspiracy… lying to a grand jury, having sex with a young intern under his employ… a stained dress as evidence, DNA tests.

Whitewater showed that she destroy documents and used her and his influence for corrupt purposes. Remember the small investment that magically turned into a fortune?

And did I mention MARC RICH and cash for Pardons?

I can’t understand why so many are still so enamored with the Clinton establishmnet. Don’t we deserve a chance at something better?

Everybody's probably seen this, but:

The latest Rasmussen poll has Obama over Clinton in New Hampshire by a LARGE margin.

What is it that accounts for Obama's strength among both blue-collar workers and young people? And can he keep it up in New Hampshire and beyond?

Good question Kevin. I think it's because Obama believes in the audacity of hope. His fresh face brings with it the hope we can live in a post-partisan world in the which the angry left does not engage in divisive screechy attacks against those they disagree with. Instead Obama's the face of unity. Liberals are desperately trying to spin his victory as a victory of liberalism but it is really a victory for centrism. People who are attacking Obama are just using transparent desperation tactics which the American people can easily see through. The self-destruction of the left and Hillary is hysterical.

It's a shame you didn't get a permanent gig at the OWH. It would have balanced out Kristol at the NYT.

People forget, that most of Iowa's college age youth, were probably home on vacation in this early primary and thus could be present for a caucus without distraction.

I think it's a generational thing. Don't take this personally, but it's time for the boomers to get out of the way.

the magnitude of the youth vote for Obama within a Democratic caucus was genuine stunning.

Kevin, people are responding far more *emotionally* to the candidates during this election cycle. In many ways it is a rebellion of younger voters against the entrenched boomer establishment that is obsessed with one or all of the following things: Taxes, 401(k)s, Sin. They are tired of the angry stern daddy bullshit coming from the Republicans, and they are tired of the cold screechiness of Hillary. I would say that even Edwards' angry revolutionary thing went over like a lead balloon to them. They are nauseated by angry, stern, cold, screechy, judgemental, workaholic PARENT TYPES.

What is it that accounts for Obama's strength among both blue-collar workers and young people?

Ehh, the whippersnappers beat me to it.

I think younger voters are perhaps just rejecting anyone who they see as being part of the system that's brought us to where we are now. As for the blue-collar workers, they may well be looking at what their support for the first Clinton garnered them: NAFTA and WTO.

>"Let's face it, Obama is Mr Feel Good, not Mr Reality. Reality sets in..."

Once every so often a leader comes along who can actually arouse the people enough to affect significant change from the bottom up.

The last president of that caliber was Kennedy. Before him we have to go back 30 years to FDR, then another 30 years or so to when Teddy Roosevelt accidentally became president, then 40 years back to Lincoln.

So is Obama an 'generational' leader capable of catalizing change?

Dunno. But I sure don't see anyone else in the current pack who can do it.

Carol above echoes what Gail Collins (www.nytimes.com/2008/01/05/opinion/05collins.html) and others are still saying: that Hillary is the grown-up in the race and that Obama supporters are naïve if they believe his claptrap about bringing us all together. (To be fair, Collins is well aware of the cynicism and fatigue underlying the Clinton strategy)

I knew Obama in college and I believe that the key to his (I hope) ultimate success is that he treats his audience as if THEY are adults also, while Hillary lectures to us as if we must trust her that her crappy compromises are the best we're ever going to get. I'm a far-left liberal and the timidity of Obama's progressivism makes me nervous, but I'm with Andrew Sullivan and others who see him as the best candidate to send the baby boomers home after 16 miserable years of misgovernance.

I don't think it's necessary to be sure that Obama can change the "polarization and partisanship" to realize that he's the only one with any chance to do so. Older voters might be resigned to DC being a cesspool of inaction and acrimony, but younger voters are at least willing to give someone different a shot.

Say whatever you like about Clinton--and I like her--you can be sure that we'd be having the same fights on January 21, 2009 that we've been having for the past 20 years. Obama offers a chance to turn the page on all that, with another, smaller chance to electorally bury the modern GOP for a generation.

Like Whiskey Fire said, he's hot because he's a friggin' ROCK STAR! We are so going to get creamed in the general election if Obama is the candidate.

"I think it's a generational thing. Don't take this personally, but it's time for the boomers to get out of the way. "

hard not to take that personal. do you say that to parents when they pay the tuition bills?

Was it a Brave New World where at a certain age people had to be vaporized for the good of society. Now there is a Social Security proposal that hasn't been floated yet. Forget the lock box, call it the pine box.

Does anyone really think that Barack Hussein Obama is going to carry a single southern state? If so, name the state. I like Obama but if he's the democratic nominee I don't think he'll win the Presidency because of the south. Maybe I'm wrong....any thoughts?

The nation is stable, the economy is strong, and racism has faded to the point that we're ready to elect the first black American President.

Right?

The Democratic party has such strength and is so popular that it can feel completely confident with a black presidential candidate.

I wish it were so.

On the GOP side, Ron Paul did best among young voters... interesting.

Happy Dog, I'm a far-left liberal more likely to vote Green than either Obama or Clinton. You sure you're really that far left?

Noel, I think if we had an Obama/Edwards ticket some southern states would carry, but I've got a feeling that this election may pit The South against Everybody Else.

Does anyone really think that Barack Hussein Obama is going to carry a single southern state? If so, name the state. I like Obama but if he's the democratic nominee I don't think he'll win the Presidency because of the south. Maybe I'm wrong....any thoughts?

Do you really think that Anyone (D) is going to carry a single southern state? John Edwards certainly isn't despite having been elected to the senate for one term from a state with a large number or transplanted, educated northerners. He had little chance of re-election in 2004.

We are so going to get creamed in the general election if Obama is the candidate.

I disagree. I could easily envision an Obama blowout victory in November, especially if its vs. anyone but McCain. But even so, I'd rather take my chances with hope and optimism than with the cynical, partisan divisiveness of the Clintons. Obama isn't perfect, but he embodies the spirit of why people decide to become Democrats. Democrats should thank Bill and Hill for their service, but it's time to show them the door.

"Among teens and twenty-somethings he beat Hillary 57% to 11%. Holy cow!"

Oh great. Now even the Dem blogs are pretending Edwards doesn't exist. C'mon Kevin. He best EDWARDS 57% to 14% and Hillary came in third with 11%.

As a parent of kids who are Obama enthusiasts, along with their friends, I think a big factor is that Obama takes youth seriously. He talks to them like they are intelligent, important people. There is no condescension. That enables them to hear what he is saying, and it makes sense and inspires them. And he asks them to be a part of it, tells them they have a role to play. He engages them.

None of the other candidates in either party is capable of doing this in the same way.

Noel: Obama would win Virginia (which does consider itself Southern, but that's not my point), Ohio, and Iowa, and so will not need ANY Southern state to win. But he will have a shot at Florida.

SG: You sure you're really that far left?

As you know, it's quite possible to be far left and make a measured decision to vote for a candidate who isn't.

Noel: Does anyone really think that Barack Hussein Obama is going to carry a single southern state?

Obama likely won't take a single deep southern state except Florida (which isn't a deep south state in anything but geography). And neither will Clinton or Edwards.

Any of them might take Virginia, possibly Kentucky and Texas if you're counting that as southern. Clinton would get Arkansas (she polls far better there than Huckabee), but I doubt she's unique among the big three in that respect.

Are you going to keep posting this question on thread after thread?

and that's not even to mention the fact that he would have a great shot at winning Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado. 2008 Democratic Convention: Denver.

I like Obama but if he's the democratic nominee I don't think he'll win the Presidency because of the south. Maybe I'm wrong....any thoughts?

Posted by: Noel

To me, the thing about Obama that is most impressive is that he can make voters feel better about themselves when they cast a vote for him. The decision to vote for him doesn't seem to depend on where he stands or the voter stands on the issues. It seems to depend on how the voter wants himself or herself -- and their country -- to be perceived.

While there are surely lots of folks in the south that are immune to such feelings, I think there may be millions -- especially amoung younger voters -- who will feel the urge to vote for him because it will be an expression of their faith in themselves and their country. I think Obama will be able to turn out younger voters in record numbers. And I think that will be the case across the south as well.

Put another way, a vote against Obama will seem to lots of folks -- even republicans -- like a vote against America. And I don't think that most folks, when given the opportunity, will want to vote against America.

I think it's a generational thing. Don't take this personally, but it's time for the boomers to get out of the way. -bs23

A letter writer in today’s newspaper, basically, had the same dismissive message. Since I belong to a group older than the boomers, the group that actually turns out for elections, how do young voters plan to elect Obama without the support of these two large age groups?

"Do you really think that Anyone (D) is going to carry a single southern state? John Edwards certainly isn't despite having been elected to the senate for one term from a state with a large number or transplanted, educated northerners. He had little chance of re-election in 2004."

That is simply not true. Even Fox News exit polls found that Edwards would've been re-elected easily.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,137521,00.html

"In the senate race, the Republicans gained the seat formerly held by John Edwards. If Edwards had run for reelection against Republican Richard Burr, it appears Edwards would have held on to his seat by a 53 percent — 47 percent margin. Seven percent of those voters that would have voted for Edwards voted for Burr."

I am 36, aka Generation X, and I suddenly don't have an opinion, because Kevin just called me Middle-Aged. My brain just shut down except for a nascent desire to drink a lot of scotch. Does it mix well with Red Bull?

I'm in Hilary's camp but if Obama's the nominee I'll vote for him. My concern is that if Obama is the nominee all this happy talk about a black president seems really far fetched because racism still exists. Although people may say they like Obama, when they get in that voting booth I don't seem them marking Obama over McCain or Romney and the last thing I want to see is another 4 years with a Republican President.

From a gut standpoint, the Obama nomination gives me the same feelings I had when when Nader refused to drop from the 2000 race and we ended up with the Florida recount and Bush....

I'm one of those under 44 people who caucused for Obama on Thursday night. What I've found is that a lot of older people just don't think that an African American can win in the general election. I don't know that the older folks are more racist than the younger ones (although I have heard astonishingly high use of the word 'Colored' this past month during political discussions and it wasn't in regard to Blue/Red); but I think that the older folks, think that the general electorate is racist.

Younger people have grown up with images of minorities in powerful positions. We've already experienced a Black president on 24. All the images of violent civil rights protests we saw while growing up were archival footage. Frankly, younger people are just more likely to believe that it is not only possible, but inevitable. Once older folks who like Obama see that they won't be throwing away their votes, they will jump ship on the other candidates.

Thanks Noel for posting just ahead of me to continue to demonstrate the thinking I was only trying to describe. You probably aren't even part of the older demographic group I'm taking about.

It reminds me of the times I've tried to get some project off the ground in a community or church. Lot's of people say they support it, but they don't want to put in any money or effort because they think others won't support it. Once you can demonstrate that others also support it, then there is a huge bandwagon effect.

That is just now starting with Obama.

I will say this about Obama's victory speech, which was great, I loved the fact that people in the audience chanted USA!!!! I thought that was so cool because you usually only hear that on the Republican side and we Democrats love the USA just as much as they do!!!!

"
Obama won (or tied) among all income groups and among union households. This is really pretty startling considering Hillary Clinton's supposed strength among blue collar voters (not to mention all those union endorsements she snagged) and John Edwards' fiery working class populism.
"

Obama's a fine second choice (my choice is Edwards).
But honestly, the way the American poor vote is as strong evidence as you need of the truth of Gregory Clark's _A Farewell to Alms_.

Put another way, a vote against Obama will seem to lots of folks -- even republicans -- like a vote against America. And I don't think that most folks, when given the opportunity, will want to vote against America.

I think you have captured something very important here. I think this is part of his great appeal. We all want to believe, and he really is someone to whom we can attach those beliefs with reasonable confidence. He is a candidate of hope - hope for US

And as David Brooks has commented Obama's past is rock solid, with a sure sense of himself and an inner core that is, yes, conservative in temperament. Compare that with the Clintons poll riding. Ugh.

Hillary is such a depressing candidate. Even though her positions and Obama's aren't that different, she is totally uninspiring. I will of course vote for her if she is the nominee but with distaste and in a depressed frame of mind. Can I please be happy about whom I have to vote for?

I just hope that Obama has excellent security and also that they replace his aging campaign 'plane with something of better quality. I'm praying.

Friends and family in Australia tell me that when John Howard handed the reins over to Kevin Rudd it was as if a burden had been lifted. My aunt, who is something of a traditionalist, said it was as if someone had opened all the windows and doors to let the fresh air in after a long illness. It seemed to be the consensus across the political spectrum. Whatever reasons are given for Obama's popularity there is something in his freshness, his status as not-one-of-the-old-characters in the same old play reading the same old script. The conservative politics of the last decade or so have created a sense of stagnation and misdirection.

Why did Obama win the youth vote by such a large margin?

Simple. Obama chased the youth vote (and every other demographic), while Clinton decided not to. For example, after the question-planting incident in Newton, Iowa (which involved a Grinnell College student and the student newspaper), Sen. Clinton chose not to visit Grinnell. In fact, she did not speak once in the county. Bill Clinton did and drew a huge crowd, but without the candidate ... Well it hurt her. She wasn't even viable in ward 1 of Grinnell (where the college is located). She similarly skimped on appearances in Johnson County (U. of Iowa), and got killed there two.

If she had won a few more delegates in such counties, she would have come in second. If she had really pursued the youth vote, she would have won it all.

The fact is, the Clinton campaign ran an incompetent campaign in Iowa. They only started to understand the caucus process late in the game. For example, they didn't seem to realize that rural votes count for more than urban votes. As a result, they wasted the early part of the campaign building the campaign only in the bigger cities. In the less populated counties, she had no real campaign infrastructure to speak of. Edwards and Obama had all the real expert organizers in their camp.

The Clinton campaign in Iowa was fat and lazy. They took it for granted early and then when things started turning they got desperate and the candidate started screwing up.

Although I am an Obama supporter, I have to imagine that the Clinton people have it a little more together in other states where the process is a little less idiosyncratic.

OK, I'm getting really tired of explaining this over and over, but here I go again.

Obama did NOT WIN the Iowa Democratic Caucus. He won some delegates, but barely more than Edwards or Clinton. Obama did not even win a plurality of delegates, it is almost a dead heat, 1/3 each.

So can you PLEASE stop repeating this fundamental misunderstanding of how the Iowa Democratic Caucus works? Sheesh, it's like listening to the spinmeisters at Fox news in here. Kevin, you are smarter than that.

Young people are far more likely to have serve in the military if the worldwide cf bush has inaugurated goes into chain reaction mode. HC seems to want to finesse it. Obama calls bs on it. If I were subject to the draft, I too, would find Obama a more attractive candidate than Clinton.

I just turned 40 on 12/22 so I am well aware of the civil rights movement (via History classes and films like Eyes on the Prize) and today's world. I think being a Gen X'er puts me in an ideal position of knowing the past and being a part of the future. I like Obama but I really want a Democrat in the WH and I'm not sure if America is ready for Barack. Also, if Barack is our nominee you will see some really negative ads.

My mother in law sent me an e-mail she received that claimed that Barack was a muslim. I had to educate her on this but e-mails like the one she received will get worse if he's nominated. I really hope Barack is ready for a tough fight because it will get ugly..

It's possible that a high turnout of black voters and moderate whites could swing several Border states to the Blue column. I'm think VA, NC,TN,MO, WV, any two of which added to Kerry's '04 totals would produce a win. If FL or OH were added that would produce a landslide!

jps is right, Clinton didn't run the best campaign here in Iowa. She didn't pay much attention to the rural areas until the Hillacopter tour in December.

But it's not either/or. She can't pull the incompetence dodge because she's running on her competence. She didn't go after the youth vote because her support was never going to be from there. Plus, too many campaigns have fallen flat expecting those young ones to come out and vote when "The Office" is on tv. It was a measured decision based on political experience--exactly the kind of experience she is running on.

And it was wrong.

Econobuzz,

Thank you for what you wrote. I was about to write a really angry post, but I decided against it. Even though I am an Obama supporter, I just HATE the rabid anti-Hillary screeds that we see so often from both the right (mostly) and the left (much less so, but it is still apparent). And I generally like all the Democratic nominees and will happily vote for them in November.

Your post brought up something that I have noticed while scanning Obama posters. None of them ever talks about his policies (with the exception that he would not have voted for the Iraq war). All they ever talk about is how he is the candidate for "change," how he is a "great speaker," and how he "doesn't condescend." But nobody ever talks about his policies and what he actually stands for. I mean, talking about hope and non-partisanship is great, but I am not sure how successful it will be as a governing policy(It might have worked for President Kennedy, but it was not effective for President Carter).

Personally, I am voting for Obama because I agree with him in general, and he has the best chance of winning the presidency. I'm 31 and I have spent most of my life governed by really corrupt Republicans (and yes, for all the people who think corruption started with Bill Clinton, the Reagan years were full of executive misdeeds and corruption - of course, he said he didn't remember [and this is NOT a dig at Alzheimers, which a relative of mine suffered from]). And I am just SICK of them, they might be nice people as individuals (well, most of them), but Republican governments are BAD for the country (sorry for the rant). Maybe Democrats of my generation (under 40) think that Obama has a better shot at winning than Hillary.

Look, is it in any way surprising that, in the Iowa caucuses anyway, if Obama won by 38% to 29%, then he would at least eke out a win in virtually every demographic -- again, in Iowa caucuses?

Do the math on it. If he wins 38% to 29%, then he got 30% more of the vote (38/29=~1.3). It would be very hard to achieve that margin without winning virtually all demographics.

The real question OBVIOUSLY is how well that underlying margin translates in other states under different rules.

What I think we can fairly say is that Obama will do much, much better with younger voters than older voters, where ever he goes.

In general, if you don't understand the phenomenon of "all boats rising" in a surge of enthusiasm for a candidate, why should we take your opining seriously?

That's basically what happened with Obama in Iowa. Maybe all boats will rise in other states; maybe they won't. But that's what an intelligent person pays attention to.

RE: "Does anyone really think that Barack Hussein Obama is going to carry a single southern state?"

The South is irrelevant, it's the past. Racism is irrelevant for the kids today, it's the past. The G.O.P.'s Southern Strategy is doomed, as it should be.

Any Democratic candidate will blow away any of the Republicans in the general election.

Look at the Iowa turn-out percentages - and Iowa is a swing state. If the Republicans get creamed in the Midwest (which they will), they can kiss the White House good-bye for a very long time.

(And by the way, the G.O.P. knows this damn well. That's why they're all retiring, and why all the money is going to the DNC.)

frankly0, from my ignorant perspective, Iowa caucus is close to the worst case scenario for Obama.

***

I hate to be an old, cynical crumudgeon. I was not always thus; I was once a young, cynical crumudgeon (although I did vote for Jerry Brown back in the day). So here goes:

I am of Obama's generation, and I am not inspired by Obama's hope and change rhetoric, but repelled by it. It's vague and unconvincing. Obama is vague and unconvicing. His record as a state legislator and as a Senator is unconvincing. I think he's selling the same kind of snake oil that my generation sold to itself about, for instance, the dot-com bubble. I feel like I know this man and I have *never* liked him.

I welcome the youth vote and the massive trunout in Iowa. That's good for democracy, and good for Democrats, and we've got to elect a Democratic administration even if that means Obama ... or even it that means a cabbage. But my explanation for his appeal is simple: he's a celebrity. Across demographics, we value image more than substance, sizzle more than steak. Well he's got image and sizzle alright. No doubt about that.

It's worthwhile to remember that others have been propelled by a surge in Iowa to rise to the top of the pack, and ultimately win both the Democratic nomination and the Presidency itself.

The last one was Jimmy Carter.

And when he was deposited by this surge in the Oval Office, he very promptly turned to perceived shit as President.

I just got an email from a friend in NH, whose 9th grade son is volunteering for Obama. He was chosen to be a greeter today at the Nashua event, got to meet Obama and talk to him. He's not even old enough to vote, yet Obama takes time to meet him?

Maybe they vote for him because he listens to them?

It seems obvious that Obama should attract youth more--he's younger himself and preaches a more idealistic strain of politics. Clinton is almost old enough to be a college kid's grandmother.

Having said that, I wouldn't read too much into one set of results. We're talking a sample of about 40,000 Iowa youth here--let's not try to draw conclusions about grand generational shifts based on that. And 37-30-29 is not exactly a landslide.

frankly0, from my ignorant perspective, Iowa caucus is close to the worst case scenario for Obama.

The Iowa caucus is such a peculiar, idiosyncratic venue that I just don't see how one can extrapolate much one way or the other based on it. I have no idea whether on balance it should be better for Obama or worse than other settings.

Obama's a politician and politicians will say anything to get elected. I don't think he can get elected, but if he's the Dem candidate I'll vote for him. (I like Edwards' rhetoric better.) Even tho others discount it, race will be a big issue if Obama wins the nomination. And ig Hillary wins, women will tilt against her. Meaning it comes up roses for the Repubs if either hillary or Obama win the nomination.

The dems are hopeless even if they win, viz, Reid and Pelosi. Will continue war party pols, no new taxes, untax the rich, suck up to the evangels, blah blah blah.

Prove me wrong.

I don't think he can be elected without support from all Democrats. I think he'll have that, if he gets the nomination. But in re the boomers: for us younger folks---I'm 28---it feels like we've been arguing about the 60s for the entirety of our political life (from "I didn't inhale" to the Swift Boat campaign.) Hell, the whole of our lives. The culture wars are all about trying to roll back the changes that started then, like tolerance of homosexualtiy and sexual and personal freedom and secularism and on and on and on. And we're tired of it. Because the thing is, you've already won with us. We pretty much accept those changes. It's the only world we've ever known. And so we'd really really like to move on. And electing Obama could do that in a way that Clinton and Edwards and McCain could not.

Perhaps that sounds harsh; I was going for frank.

If Obama wins the Presidency, will all of the Obama supporters mind terribly much if other Democrats choose to skip the inauguration so that we can attend the wake for universal health care?

Barak is simply preaching American civics and representative democracy and good government...

And he says it very well, with meaning and feeling. It is reminiscent of Lincoln: As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.

Obama did extremely well at Harvard law school where he edited the Harvard law Review. He was a good teacher, a good lawyer, an effective community organizer, an effective state legislator -- and at the federal level he has more bills named after him than Sen. Clinton, a bipartisan bill. He might be a little inexperienced for prime time and he doesn't have administrative experience (a lack shared by Edwards and Clinton), but he has a lot going for him. On Iraq, he has promised to bring the American troops home as rapidly as the Chiefs of Staff can bring them home responsibly. He isn't beholden to union leadership. He wants to expand health care availability while preserving freedom of choice as much as possible.

He might be single-handidly responsible for the large increase in turnout in the Democratic caucuses compared to 2004.

Can he keep it up? Well, he has a lot of family support, doesn't he?

Hillary is the grown-up in the race

Maybe. But she seems to have the anger and resentment of Nixon, with the additional burden of Bill Clinton. It isn't sufficient to grow "up", one must also grow strong, composed, and proficient. Hillary needed Bill's help when her campaign ran into some disarray -- that's a bad sign.

I wouldn't expect Hillary Clinton or her supporters to give up the ship after one defeat, although Obama supporters on the blogs seem to think that both she and Edwards should concede immediately. One suggested that we should bow down and kiss his ring (now he's the Pope?!!!) and another, in all seriousness, suggested that he is a Bodhisattva. Should be a fascinating election if Barack Obama, a living Bodhisattva, goes up against Mike Huckabee, Christ's representative on earth. The heavens will open. Seriously though, Barack Obama makes exceptionally good speeches. However, there is a bit of excessive praise, almost a mania, to the Barack phenomenon at this point. One supporter (in a New York Times' blog) said that Obama's Iowa speech was one of the most memorable speeches of a lifetime, comparable to the Gettysburg Address. If that's the case, I challenge listeners to recite from memory any memorable line, aside from the repeated emphasis on 'hope' 'change', etc. Obama is blessed with an incredibly rich voice and a beautiful cadence and has the ability to move people using broad themes. This is one of any politician's best assets. I'm still supporting John Edwards, however. He is the only candidate who continues to speak with conviction and strength about the plight of Americans living in poverty, and is the candidate whose policies are actually much more progressive than those put forward by Obama. I would like to see us enter this race with a candidate whose healthcare plan actually covers all Americans and doesn't leave 15 million without coverage. Edwards is optimistic, but his optimism is grounded in realism. On a personal level this involves the way he and Elizabeth coped with the death of his 16 year old son, and with her cancer. On a political level, it is evident from his realization that it is going to take far more than nice thoughts about 'hope' and 'unity' to take on the corporate interests that are going to array against the progressive economic policies, healthcare legislation, and energy policy we want to see passed. It IS going to be a political battle, and it is going to take conviction and courage to win it. It is also going to take a bigger democratic majority in Congress. I still believe that with his rural, working class southern roots, Edwards is the candidate who can compete most strongly across the entire United States. We need a candidate who can reach out to "Reagan democrats." Some are saying that this is 'old politics.' If working and fighting for economic justice, better pay, truly comprehensive healthcare, speaking for the voiceless is 'old politics' then I'll stay old-fashioned. At least I know where this man stands, and I will stand with him. With his strong populist progressive message, and his background, John Edwards is representing true opportunity for change (to use a word that needs flesh on its bones). I was helping manage one of his Iowa caucuses, and we had several self-identified independents, and a Republican small business owner, attend the caucus for the first time and align themselves with John Edwards' message. Don't get me wrong. I like Barack Obama. He is my senator and I worked for his election in Illinois. I can understand the passion he evokes in some of his followers. But I worked for Edwards four years ago, and there are still moments from that campaign, and from this one, that I also had feelings we were looking at another RFK for the democratic party. So Obama supporters need to understand that others (including even some Hillary backers) actually have passion and commitment to their candidate. Most important, I still feel in my gut that Edwards is the one who would have the strongest 'coattails' in the general election, and is the man whose experience and life story will make him a great President of the United States. My own feeling is that Hillary Clinton, because her principal message was her inevitability, will now be falling in the polls. I hope that supporters from the campaigns of other candidates (Biden, Dodd, Richardson, Kuchinich, perhaps even a few of Ms. Clinton's supporters themselves), will consider Mr. Edwards at this point.

A few thoughts.

1)Clinton talks a lot about how she can beat the GOP noise machine, but the truth is she has never beat it yet. She tolerates it very well, but she hasn't come close to matching it. Which means whether we like it or not, Clinton as President means a super-obstructionist GOP as opposed to merely a strongly obstructionist GOP. More of the same.

2)Clinton epitomizes old school conventional wisdom inside the beltway BS. Dave in Iowa hit this on the head. Clinton is conventional wisdom, which often means crappy choices and a tendency to dismiss outside opinions as foolishness from people who just don't understand. How nice it is to have someone who might actually care what people outside his inner circle have to say, especially after 8 years of bubble boy and a narcoleptic DC/NYC analysts getting everything wrong.

3)People who tend to knock Obama's accomplishments never seem to feel responsible for pointing out their own candidate's amazing accomplishments. As for a good sample of why I think he does a good job working with others to accomplish good government, let me just note that this blog already pointed out his accomplishments at the state level and hilzoy at Obsidian Wings wrote a pretty interesting post two years ago about his accomplishments on the national scene in his first two years. Let me just note, as someone from OK who is constantly ashamed of Coburn, it is my strong opinion that anyone who can get that PoS to jump in on a halfway decent idea deserves some benefit of the doubt with respect to his across-the-aisle work.

Diablevert,

And do you care about the millions of Americans who will be without health care under Obama's "universal" health care plan?

I didn't think so.

How yesterday of me to ask, of course. Kool, modern, young people would never ask that sort of grungy question.

Edwards rhetoric is overly confrontational and sounds disingenuous. Besides, I'm always skeptical of rich people who sound angry. Lighten up, you're loaded!

There are 144 electoral votes in the south. There are 70 in western and swing states. Do the math. It's less to do with race than it is with Obama's effete snobby sophisticate aura. I don't see it. As far as age and race, being black or biracial is the really really cool thing and a lot of airhead will vote for someone's race because they believe it makes them cool. Stupid.

Frankly0 - I'm with 'ya. Kiss universal health care goodbye and let's all continue to work and slave at crappy jobs just so we won't lose our assets due to a health crisis. Obama and his happy talk are useless.

Well, the question was about why Obama took both the union vote and the youth vote. One answer that comes to me which would answer for both groups and other voters, too, is the issue of pride vs shame.
Obama evokes and builds a clean feeling of national pride in being American, while the Clintons being back on stage cannot help but dredge up a memory of the nation being shamed by Bill's Oval Office behavior.

What is it that accounts for Obama's strength among both blue-collar workers

there are a lot of blue collar workers who don't like unions, and Obama is running independently of the unions. I expect this will also help him in the general election in places like Tennessee where most of the workers who do not like unions would otherwise vote Republican.

Donna, the Clintons did a lot for this country. They both worked hard and transformed us from debt to surplus and there was something about them that made the country a better place back then. They like people. They really like people. (well maybe Bill likes women a little too much) They were attacked and didn't hate back. They don't desevere the vitriol and poison coming out of the Obamabots and the press haters like Matthews. And btw, Obama has been pretty negative both on Hillary and Edwards using rnc talking points and attacking Hillary for things he himself really ought to shut up about. Like his voting record. But the msm refuses to call Obama's negativity for what it is. The msm that unfairly decided '00 and '04 and gave us the Iraq war is doing it again.

Obama is a rock star.

If you don't understand Britney, Arnold Schwarzenegger, or the Back Street Boys, you'll never understand the rise of Obama. As a rock star, Obama is peaking at the perfect time. If he lays low for the spring he'll still be trendy in November. In fact trends in politics tend to take approximately 4 years or so to run their course. I think this has something to do with the fact that most people only spend a couple hours a month thinking about it. This will give Obama the flexibility of being a colossal fuck up as president and still get re-elected and perhaps someday get consideration as the best president of all time. The country only recently realized that Bush is a recovering alcoholic moron who one shouldn't even think about drinking beer with. It also appears they recently figured out that Guiliani is a corrupt philandering asshole politician and not some super-hero.

The bottom line is that you should vote with your gut. None of this confusing universal healthcare subprime social security mumbo jumbo. They're going to force people to purchase insurance and that sounds bad to my gut. Reaching across the aisle, going vertical, and making the pie higher with floating boats sounds great to my gut. Reagan sounds great to my gut. Obama sounds great to my gut. Kevin thinks too much.

Obama gets criticized for his lack of "experience." Does experience matter?

One President was elected after only serving one term in the House of Representatives. Before that, he served in his home state's legislature. No foreign policy experience. And, being a freshman Congressman, had hardly any experience at all.

That President was Abraham Lincoln.

Lincoln was one of our finest Presidents because he had vision, integrity, character, and excellent leadership qualities. Lincoln was a fine orator as well. Barack Obama exhibits many of these qualities. We need experienced mediocrity, we need uplifting leadership that will bring change.

Elliot. That sounds great to my gut.

I think you can take it farther. How do Lincoln's and Obama's positions on agricultural subsidies compare.

err... make that "We don't need experienced mediocrity, we need uplifting leadership that will bring change."

Elliott, Obama is no Lincoln. Lincoln was a hard worker. No part time legsilator, part time lecturer. He had wit and humor and his rhetoric was more than empty rhetoric and happy talk about hope. He told the hard truths. He wasn't about soft solutions and he knew when happy talk and soft solutions would no longer work and chose the difficult path. The more of these silly comparisons, the more of an ineptitude Obama appears.

B - Obama supports a cap on ag subsidies to corporate farms to help give the small family farmer a chance to compete and not lose the farm. Lincoln, of course, came from a small farm in Illinois (Obama's home state!) and was pro-farmer, creating the Department of Agriculture.

And do you care about the millions of Americans who will be without health care under Obama's "universal" health care plan?

That criticism only makes sense if you believe that a universal mandate approach has any chance of all at getting passed. I've asked this a few times and haven't seen a reply yet, but why does anyone think this idea can be sold to voters? It's going to come across as saying "our solution if you can't afford health care is to make you pay for it." Everyone who perceives themselves as being unable to afford health insurance is going to find this distasteful, and that includes a lot of people who are not yet old enough to need major healthcare, and whose priorities lean more toward having a bigger house, better car, bigger TV sets, etc.

I understand the wonkish appeal of the idea. But it seems like a PR disaster. And yes, part of the perception is that Hillary gave us one disastrous attempt to expand health coverage, so when she's pushing something that seems this far out of touch, I have no confidence that she'd actually get anywhere with it.

"there are a lot of blue collar workers who don't like unions"

Really? And your evidence for this is, what, exactly?

"Obama is running independently of the unions"

Which is why he did so poorly among union workers. Oh, wait, no he didn't.

Matthew, we know you just make shit up. Do you have to do it every time you post here? Would it really hurt you to actually think about what you post and check that you aren't projecting your own prejudices?

"the Clintons did a lot for this country"

Hillary Clinton did? And what would those accomplishments be, exactly?

"why does anyone think this idea can be sold to voters"

It depends on what idea is sold, who pays for it, how it is paid for, and how it is sold. Yes, I think universal mandates can be sold to voters. Now, whether universal mandates for the Obama plan can be sold to the voters, that's a different question.

"and there was something about them that made the country a better place back then"

With all due respect, Chrissy, this is exactly the kind of rhetoric you're attacking the Obama folks for. No, there wasn't "something about [the Clintons] that made the country a better place back then."

Chrissy - I didn't say Obama is another Lincoln. I was illustrating through Lincoln's example that experience is not a prerequisite to be a great President.

On the other hand, you have Hillary, who claims reams of experience. Does shaking Yeltsin's hand at a state dinner count as "experience?" Or, as Chris Rock put it, just cuz you're the spouse doesn't mean you're good at your spouse's job. If you're on a plane do you want the wife of the pilot to take over?

"Obama evokes and builds a clean feeling of national pride in being American"

So did Reagan. That's hardly an endorsement.

"while the Clintons being back on stage cannot help but dredge up a memory of the nation being shamed by Bill's Oval Office behavior."

Funny, I don't remember being "shamed" in any way, shape, or form, by Bill's affair. It affected me not at all, other than the disgust at the investigation and subsequent impeachment.

Chrissy,

Do you have some particular problem with some particular solutions Obama has put forward. I linked to a post with many examples of tough interesting solutions Obama has come up with. Kevin discussed an example of working out a good solid solution involving recording of investigational interviews. You seem to be very sure that Obama is terrible at everything he touches, but you don't give any real examples of what you are so unhappy with. This makes it pretty hard to have any productive give and take.

Hillary did a lot in changing the perception of First Lady from pottted plant to one who reached out and traveled and promoted the rights of women and children especially. She worked hard on healthcare. (hardwork being a foreign concept to Obama) Her extreme grace under unceasing pressure and criticism from rabid haters on the right and in the press (like Matthews) was remarkable. Now she faces it from rabid unthinking mobs on the left. Ungrateful sob's.

"There are 70 in western and swing states."

Completely wrong. There are a lot more swing state votes than that. Obama could easily win without taking a single Southern state, not to mention that polls show him competitive in Florida, Kentucky, Virginia, among others, depending on who his opponent is.

"It's less to do with race than it is with Obama's effete snobby sophisticate aura"

Funny, then, that polls don't show anyone bothered by his "effete snobby [sic] sophisticate [sic] aura." Sheesh... give it a rest, won't you?

And do you care about the millions of Americans who will be without health care under Obama's "universal" health care plan?

If Obama (or Clinton or Edwards) is elected president, presumably with greater dem majorities in the Senate and House, the details of their respective current "plans" shouldn't make any difference.

Congress could deliver universal health care. And we should make them do it.

"Hillary did a lot in changing the perception of First Lady from pottted plant to one who reached out and traveled and promoted the rights of women and children especially"

Oh, nonsense. Eleanor Roosevelt beat her to that, as did several other First Ladies, including Betty Ford and Rosalyn Carter. I have nothing at all against Hillary Clinton and will cheerfully vote for her in the general election, but you don't do yourself any favors by exaggerating her accomplishments.

"She worked hard on healthcare."

She also botched it, badly.

"Now she faces it from rabid unthinking mobs on the left."

LOL.... So pointing out that you are exaggerating is now "rabid unthinking" behavior? Give me a break.

"Ungrateful sob's."

LOL.... And what, precisely, am I supposed to be "grateful" for?

socratic, I wouldn't say Obama is terrible at everything. He is very good at happy talk.

"If Obama (or Clinton or Edwards) is elected president, presumably with greater dem majorities in the Senate and House, the details of their respective current 'plans' shouldn't make any difference."

Absolutely right. Whichever one is elected, the details will almost certainly change pretty dramatically in the final bill, assuming there is one. What matters is the will to do it, and sufficient votes to make it happen.

I can't argue that Eleanor Roosevelt got there first. Got to give credit where it's due. But Hillary added a certain toughness.

"If Obama wins the Presidency, will all of the Obama supporters mind terribly much if other Democrats choose to skip the inauguration so that we can attend the wake for universal health care?"

ROFL.... Wow... talk about a drama queen. This was rather silly, frankly0. You might want to take a break for a bit since you're clearly coming unhinged about Obama.

"But Hillary added a certain toughness."

Not from where I'm sitting. And that isn't what you said in your original post. Just stop the hyperbole and make the case for Clinton, something you're telling the Obama fans to do.

"why does anyone think this idea can be sold to voters"

It depends on what idea is sold, who pays for it, how it is paid for, and how it is sold. Yes, I think universal mandates can be sold to voters. Now, whether universal mandates for the Obama plan can be sold to the voters, that's a different question.

You lost me. The criticism is that Obama's plan does not have universal mandates. Hillary's plan can only claim to be universal because of universal mandates.

I think the idea of universal health care could possibly be sold to voters, but it's a tough sell. When the basis on which it's being sold says to voters (the ones not yet old enough to have major personal health care needs) "if you don't have health insurance we'll force you to give up other things in order to buy health insurance, whether you need it or not" that's not a good sales pitch.

I don't think any of the plans make much sense. They look the way they do because it's politically not viable to talk about raising taxes to pay for universal coverage, so we get these mandates and partial mandates, and private insurance with yet another layer of bureaucracy on top to try to whip them all into shape. But if you're going to try to sell a system like that, it's going to be another major flop, just like last time, if the sales pitch is "if you're young and would rather have a bigger house or a newer car or nicer toys than health insurance, that's just tough because we're going to force you to pay for it."

And the bottom line is that I'd rather have incremental improvements that actually mean something, than big promises based on an ill-conceived plan that large segments of the voting public are going to rebel against.

Chrissy: I wouldn't say Obama is terrible at everything. He is very good at happy talk.

If Iowa is any measure then Obama is also very good at motivating independents to come out of the woodwork and suddenly support Democratic causes. Hillary and Edwards haven't shown that ability so far. Obama may be the only leader capable of uniting a majority behind health care reform.

"The last one was Jimmy Carter."

Classic logical fallacy. That Carter and Obama both won Iowa is woefully insufficient information on which to base any meaningful comparisons. If you have reasons to believe that Obama resembles Carter in any meaningful way, by all means cite them. Otherwise, you probably ought to just stay out of this debate because you're not even trying to make sense anymore.

We get it, frankly0; you have a visceral dislike of Obama.

Obama is no Lincoln

Lincoln wasn't Lincoln at this stage either. The question is: Can he become Lincoln?

Is there anyone else on the scene that we would even think to ask that question about?

Wow, Chrissy, that helped a lot. Thank you ever so much for adding the sort of content that leads toa fruitful exchange of ideas. Now that I have that ever so concise summary, I realize the error of my ways and will dutifully shun Obama.

Sometimes I have to wonder if posters really want to affect other people and possibly change their minds or if they just comment to see their ranting in print.

"You lost me."

All I'm saying is that damn near anything can be sold to the voters, depending on a variet of factors.

"The criticism is that Obama's plan does not have universal mandates."

As noted above, Obama's plan can, and almost certainly will, change if and when Congress gets hold of it.

"I think the idea of universal health care could possibly be sold to voters, but it's a tough sell."

The polls say otherwise. And in these uncertain economic times, it's an even easier sell.

"When the basis on which it's being sold says to voters (the ones not yet old enough to have major personal health care needs) 'if you don't have health insurance we'll force you to give up other things in order to buy health insurance, whether you need it or not' that's not a good sales pitch."

No shit, which is why nobody will make that pitch.

I think Obama beat Clinton so decisively because Senator Clinton is fundamentally unlikeable and uncredible.

She addresses her audiences as if they were remedial kindergarten classes and is unable to emotionally connect with them.

As far as her record is concerned, she fails to understand that although the war is kept hidden for now, we all still know it's going on and we don't like it. Still less do we like her support of the Bush administration's bluster and bellicosity toward Iran.

She does not exude strength or sincerity and she does not come across as a leader.

Elliott, George W Bush got a bunch of independent votes and the sob managed to get into the WH (with some help from the SC). You can be good at fooling people with happy talk and empty rhetoric and if you have the press fools like Matthews and Russert blowing you kisses you can do quite well. That's what is wrong with the system.

Obama isn't President yet, but as a candidate, in terms of the excitement he generates among young people, I think the closest comparison is Bobby Kennedy.

"Wow, Chrissy, that helped a lot. Thank you ever so much for adding the sort of content tha