 |
 |
 February 7, 2008
OBAMA AND THE PRESS....If you've been waiting for the inevitable press backlash against Barack Obama, this piece from Jake Tapper might be a harbinger:
When I wrote my Monday post about voting for Obama I got several jokey emails from friends lamenting that I'd finally joined the cult ("Now you'll have to buy a Mac and start blogging about The Wire...."). And it's undeniable that there really is a movement fervor surrounding the Obama campaign — something that even the press has gotten caught up in. Eventually, however, especially among jaded reporters who are (a) looking for a new angle and (b) a little more aware than most that Obama's actual political career has been good but not world-changing, I wouldn't be surprised to see a few more stories along this line. Not saying it's fair. Just saying that it's out there and might get a little more attention now that it's obvious we have a few more months to go in this race. Newton's Third Law isn't just about physics, after all. —Kevin Drum 11:45 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (333)Comments
Heaven help us if people actually like the candidate they support. A lot of the appeal of Obama does have something to do with the person he's running against. Posted by: Quinn on February 7, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINKSo Obama is a cult, unlike say, The Entire Republican Party Posted by: Boronx on February 7, 2008 at 11:53 AM | PERMALINK'Bout time some folks take a deep breath and start looking at Obama more seriously. Posted by: Teresa on February 7, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINKI am glad that the press has caught on to this. Yes we can may serve as a good rallying point for a football team but hardly qualifies as a platform for a national campaign for the leadership of the free world. Whenever I have heard Obama talk, I am moved by what he says, but the feeling passes away quickly after a rest stop. If Hillary was of a different gender, or had a different last name, she would have wrapped up the nomination a long time ago. The misogynistic tendencies of Americans are apparently more powerful than the racial ones. Posted by: gregor on February 7, 2008 at 11:56 AM | PERMALINK....If you've been waiting for the inevitable press backlash against Barack Obama, this piece from Jack Tapper might be a harbinger... I read that as Jack Tripper. But back to the point of the post: this kind of stuff is cyclical. And if BO gets the nod, we'll come back to the "He's a commie-nazi-islamofacist-jim jonesian-messiah-complexeist." ...or something like that. The Village is awfully set in their ways. Posted by: Zap Rowsdower on February 7, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINKJake Tapper: The Holy Season of Lent is upon us. Can Obama worshippers try to give up their Helter-Skelter cult-ish qualities for a few weeks? Well let's see, today on the internets we've enjoyed commentator Erica S.'s non-comparison of the Obama "movement" to Nazism, and now Jake Tapper's charming allusion to Charles Manson. Step right up, cheap shots! Posted by: Lucy on February 7, 2008 at 11:57 AM | PERMALINKIn another view from Joseph Wilson regarding foreign policy experience The Real Hillary I Know As usual with Wilson's commentary, the entire article is worth a read. It's a wholesale repudiation of the fear-based cynicism that fuels the sickening machine of politics as usual. F*ck that shit, I don't care if you call me a cultist. I'm inspired, but my eyes are wide open. I haven't completely lost my marbles. I'm participating actively in the political process for the first time in my life. If the too-cool-to-care political press can't be bothered to recognize a movement in the making and want to make an elaborate show of out-blase-ing one another, so be it. How tragically predictable. Posted by: MrsAnthrope on February 7, 2008 at 11:58 AM | PERMALINKUh Huh. Don't these reporter realize that leading the Obama crowd is another bunch of reporters? Maybe they're finally turning around and saying 'hey...' Posted by: Tom Stewart on February 7, 2008 at 11:59 AM | PERMALINKThis is insulting to many of us who support him after thoughtful reflection. I see the guy for what he is, not as some messiah. Could it be that enthusiasm for the political process has been missing for so long that pundits don't know what to make of it? Posted by: RollaMO on February 7, 2008 at 12:00 PM | PERMALINKNeither Jake Tapper nor Joe Klein is worth paying any attention to. Posted by: AJ on February 7, 2008 at 12:01 PM | PERMALINKIf Hillary had different last name, pretty sure she would have done worse than Dodd, Biden, or Richardson. Her name got her the default front runner status - status that's been eroding since Iowa. Posted by: MS on February 7, 2008 at 12:03 PM | PERMALINKBoronx: So Obama is a cult, unlike say, The Entire Republican Party. On the contrary, Obama is a cult, like say, The Entire Republican Party. Posted by: alex on February 7, 2008 at 12:05 PM | PERMALINKI will say it again: if Hillary gets the nomination, McCAi will be the next President. So the rightwing press has found a way to attack Obama without appaering racist: so what? That does't mean we have to panci an nominate an unelectable candidate. The party that gets the independent vote wins. Obama has demonstrated beyond doubt that he can and Hillary has demostrated that she can't. The R party won't stay ome if Hillary is our candidate. Obama's strategy--to win by overwhelming with new voters and young energetic voters--is a winning strategy for the general election. Clinont's only stgregnth--the support of older Deomcrats who vote Deomcrat no matter what--won't help her. The media hate Hillary and has pushed slime about her for over a decade. No matter how strong she may be she has never been able to either stop or overcome this. Obama will be slimed, of course, but he deals with it better. he cut off Faux, for example. So the press has found a way to needle him: so what. The real problem for us Deomcrats is the people who keep insisting on supporting Hillary. They are the ones who, through their blind faith and hopeful rationalizations, are working to screw up what could be a brilliant political opportunintiy for us. Posted by: wonkie on February 7, 2008 at 12:06 PM | PERMALINKI hate Tapper, but think there's something to what he says. I, for example, am willing to accept that my 14 year old neice loves Sen. Obama, and truly beleives he will change Washington simply with the force of his considerable charisma and his moving speeches. She's 14. She thinks he's different and exciting and handsome. I suppose he is. I also think he's a good man. But, frankly, her views of Obama are not unlike her views of Justin Timberlake, who was last summer's fascination. I admire her idealism and want to promote it. I'm not running it down. But it has a certain "tiger beat" magazine feel to it. Having said that, I have worked in Washington my entire life. There is no question in my mind how it works. And when ADULTS express the same beliefs as my 14 year old neice about the political system and how it works, and the ability of one person to change the game with his personality, it's entirely different. I do not think it is "cyncial" to point out that no moving speech is going to change the machine here and someone who thinks so is out to lunch. I'm tired of Bush. I want my country back. But sometimes I think I'm almost as tired of so-called adult Democrats who engage in magical thinking about what we face. Posted by: Pat on February 7, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINK@gregor Um, 70% of the people in california who cited gender as important voted for HC. Seems like HC's support is predicated on her gender. If "Hillary was of a different gender" she would have gone the way of her DLC pal Bill Richardson long ago. Her gender is the only thing keeping her in this race. Posted by: Adam on February 7, 2008 at 12:08 PM | PERMALINKNeither Jake Tapper nor Joe Klein is worth paying any attention to. I'll drink to that. Posted by: DaveWoo on February 7, 2008 at 12:09 PM | PERMALINKgregor: If Hillary was of a different gender ... she would have wrapped up the nomination a long time ago. The misogynistic tendencies of Americans are apparently more powerful than the racial ones. And your evidence for this is what??? Or is it just truth by assertion. Apparently, amongst those who cling to the desperation of identity politics, the only choice in the Democratic primaries is between being a misogynist and a bigot. Hmmm, which do I want to be ... Posted by: alex on February 7, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINKNewton's third law is indeed only about physics. Posted by: Jay Ackroyd on February 7, 2008 at 12:11 PM | PERMALINKIf we're going to gab about something this dumb, the only interesting question is, will press coverage calling the Obama movement a cult weaken it or stengthen it? We all like to call journalists idiots, but we're also swayed by their opinions. Posted by: Mark Gilbert on February 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINKYeah, I hadn't started waiting for it yet, because I figured the, uh, "backlash," as you call it, wouldn't come until the Dem nomination process was over, if Barack was the winner. Could be the MSM scum are starting to think Barack has it locked up. In light of your earlier post on Hillary's increasing popularity, it may turn out to be a single fig-leaf, and we won't see too much else significant along these lines so long as Hillary remains a threat to Obama. Posted by: Swan on February 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINKI'm an Obama supporter. I've been a supporter of both Clintons for a long long time. I don't think there is a "cult" around Obama, and those that say that are simply cynical old dinosaurs afraid to face the truth that the old world of politics is dying. Joe Klein's article was laughable. Obama hasn't found an issue to distinguish himself? How about the only candidate in either party who was RIGHT about the war from DAY ONE? That alone should put him in the White House. I've seen the clips from 2002 and 2003 interviews with Obama and he predicts with uncanny accuracy EXACTLY what happened every step of the way. he warned anyone who would listen, unfortunately no one was listening to him then. What else does he need to do to prove his "substance"? The Iraq War is obviously the biggest blunder and the biggest political issue of our lifetime and he's the only one who got the answer right from the start. So, to the pundits out there that marginalize Obama as a so-called "messiah-figure" are no better than the racists who say he's the "black candidate" in order to marginalize his support. Just because his supporters actually think he's a good man and not simply "the lesser of two evils" they need to understand that he's the first candidate in the lifetime of anyone under 40 who has the ability to inspire people to go and vote rather than frighten people into voting... Bush/Clinton... Clinton/Dole... Gore/Bush... Bush/Kerry... That's it. That's my political choice history. Is there any wonder that young people are energized to vote for Obama? The Boomers have very nearly destroyed the planet with their greed and short sightedness and if they care at all about what kind of world their grandkids are going to inherit then they need to step aside and let the new grown ups have a shot at the wheel. God knows they've screwed it all up enough. Don't trust anyone over 40. Boronx, we aren't suppose to be Republicans, remember? Posted by: Radix on February 7, 2008 at 12:14 PM | PERMALINKJay Ackroyd: Newton's third law is indeed only about physics. Nah, Newton's third law was that even after the Restoration you still couldn't get a pizza on Sundays. Later on historians edited his original statements. Posted by: alex on February 7, 2008 at 12:15 PM | PERMALINKThere is a strategic point to be made here. Obama has managed to capture attention and enthusiasm with his great oratorial skills -- he does have a unique ability to motivate people. But he needs to be careful not to settle for that. People's attention needs to be kept. Right about now is time to start mixing it up -- adding real substantive policy points to his speeches. This can be done two ways (a) incorporating it into the stump speech or (b) keeping the stump but adding in a new sort of appearance/speech where he shows off the ability to be a bit wonky. He'll never beat Hillary at her own game, but he has got to show he has some of that game too. She'll never beat him at his game either, but she is starting to show she has some of that game. Posted by: lisainvan on February 7, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINK"the old world of politics is dying." Uh, just in case anyone was looking for an example of the phenomenon I describe in my post above, here's a textbook one. Posted by: Pat on February 7, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINKheatherk, while Obama was correct about the war in Iraq it shouldn't be the only milestone we use for judging his ability to lead the country. I was also correct about the Iraq war, as were many others, I assure you though, I'm not capable of running this country. Posted by: Radix on February 7, 2008 at 12:18 PM | PERMALINKI'd say it's good that this is happening now rather than later, assuming he's the nominee. Even if the press loves certain candidates, like McCain and Obama, it's bound to bring them back down to earth through different types of negative stories. But if he's leveled off now, as opposed to August, he won't give McCain and opening, and his momentum will be stronger. Posted by: Brian on February 7, 2008 at 12:19 PM | PERMALINKI sorta agree. The Obama crowd can be "Beatles-esque", but whatever. Just comes with the territory when you have a charismatic candidate. Posted by: Boorring on February 7, 2008 at 12:21 PM | PERMALINKgregor: The misogynistic tendencies of Americans are apparently more powerful than the racial ones. Nope. They're just more out in the open. Even the rightwing blowhards who regularly refer to Hillary as "a girl" or claim she's getting votes because she has breasts won't mention Obama's race. But they'll mention that his middle name is Hussein, which is almost as scary to their audience. Posted by: thersites on February 7, 2008 at 12:24 PM | PERMALINKThere's nothing new about the cult charge. Clinton partisans have been slinging that mud against Obama for months now all over the blogosphere. It is their favorite charge. It is also insulting. It is also stupid. Of all the dumb reasons to knock a candidate I've got to think this is the dumbest one I've ever heard. Do Democrats want to win in 2008? Or not? Obama's supporters like him too much? OMFG!!!! Get the smelling salts and vote for McCain! Posted by: Curt M on February 7, 2008 at 12:25 PM | PERMALINKIt's the "Britney Effect". Looks pretty but no depth. Posted by: fillphil on February 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKWell, it's not surprising coming from Tapper. After all, this is the dumbfuck who couldn't grasp was Bill Clinton was saying about the economy a few weeks ago. The guy is a GOP plant, pure and simple. HOWEVER, I do agree that some of the Obama folks do get a bit ... well ... excited about their candidate. Almost to the point of idol worship. And that is just a wee bit creepy. HOWEVER, I don't really blame them. The guy's exciting as all hell, and is getting folks involved in politics who would not otherwise be that politically active. I'll worry about their cult status when they all begin to wear the same shoes and try to talk to me about the mothership. Posted by: Mark D on February 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKSeems like rather transparent Clinton spin, no? How hard is it to beat the establishment candidate in a nomination race? Close to impossible, unless that person implodes (see Hart, G. 1988). Really, has an insurgent ever beaten a well-known, well-funded insider? Not since the modern primary model began. Reagan came close against Ford in 1976, and in the same year Carter struck early to sweep away better known candidates in a relatively open field. Similar for Dukakis in 1988 and Clinton in 1992. But beating a known quantity who is also a good campaigner is brutal. You can't do it without a passionate following. The idea that highly educated middle class white men who heart Obama and southern black voters vould be a "cult" is literally insane. Posted by: RMcD on February 7, 2008 at 12:26 PM | PERMALINKHaving said that, I have worked in Washington my entire life. There is no question in my mind how it works. You must be old because Washington hasn't "worked" since th 40s. And when ADULTS express the same beliefs as my 14 year old neice about the political system and how it works, and the ability of one person to change the game with his personality, it's entirely different. I'd say that speaks highly for your 14 year old niece. The young sometimes pick up on STARKLY OBVIOUS TRUTHS that the old don't because they have a shorter frame of reference and aren't hindered by years of habit and indoctrination. Tell me why 1 man fighting for GOOD (whether it's Obama or not) can't change our country when 1 man doing BAD has completely changed our country in 7 years time? Maybe your niece has learned something from the Bush Admin. that you haven't.. it only takes 1 man (with some well placed advisors and appointees) and the will and the whole country can be changed practically overnight. I do not think it is "cyncial" to point out that no moving speech is going to change the machine here and someone who thinks so is out to lunch. You must've been out to lunch since 2001. I think it's not only cynical, but completely blind to look at the state of this country now compared to 2000 and then say 1 President can't change things that much. Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 12:27 PM | PERMALINKIf Hillary was of a different gender, or had a different last name, she would have wrapped up the nomination a long time ago. No, if Hillary was a man named Clinton with her foreign policy errors, she wouldn't have lasted this long with those who are supporting her. Posted by: LogopolisMike on February 7, 2008 at 12:28 PM | PERMALINKOne thing that can't help but impress anyone who pays attention to the demographics of the Obama vote is how out of kilter it is with his supposed message. He inspires hope in the privileged and scepticism in the downtrodden. Isn't that supposed to be the other way around? Posted by: frankly0 on February 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKThe Obama crowd can be "Beatles-esque", but whatever. Just comes with the territory when you have a charismatic candidate. Agreed. God forbid we have a candidate who gets people excited and involved in the political process. It would be much better if we had a dry, policy-wonkish candidate who ran on nothing more than an established resume. Just ask President Mondale, President Dukakis, President Gore, and President Kerry. Posted by: TR on February 7, 2008 at 12:29 PM | PERMALINKI do not believe Obama can change Washington by force of charisma or through his oratorical skills. I do believe that events are coming which will force change upon Washington. I would much rather have a Democrat at the helm (and Obama in particular) when this occurs. Posted by: uri on February 7, 2008 at 12:30 PM | PERMALINKRomney apparently "suspending" campaign this afternoon. Cranky Posted by: Cranky Observer on February 7, 2008 at 12:31 PM | PERMALINKHaving said that, I have worked in Washington my entire life. There is no question in my mind how it works. And when ADULTS express the same beliefs as my 14 year old neice about the political system and how it works, and the ability of one person to change the game with his personality, it's entirely different. I do not think it is "cyncial" to point out that no moving speech is going to change the machine here and someone who thinks so is out to lunch. This really misses the point behind the Obama movement. The reason people are excited is not because they think Obama has this magical power to transform the system on his own. It's because we believe he will give more power to the American people to effect change. The movement is not about him, but us. We get excited when we hear about his plan to make cabinet meetings not only open to the public to watch via the web, but also participate in the meetings. We get excited when we hear about both his record and plans to reduce the power of lobbyists and special interests that prevent the will of the people from being heard. We get excited because his ability to bring people from all walks of life will make it more likely to build a public consensus around a progressive agenda that will put political pressure on congress to enact such agenda. This is why he says "we are the change we've been waiting for." It's not "we" my campaign. It's "we" the people. That is why he focuses so much on lofty rhetoric. Because he is using this campaign to empower people to participate in the political process. Not just to get him elected, but to help people believe that they have the ability to transform the system, even if he didn't get elected. If he can empower more people to actively participate in the political process, he will have accomplished one of his main goals, whether he wins or not. Posted by: Jeff on February 7, 2008 at 12:33 PM | PERMALINKheatherk, I'm an Obama backer, but starry-eyed idealism has nothing to do with it. It all boils down to electability for me. Hillary has no chance of winning over large swaths of voters -- for mostly irrational reasons, yes, but it's a fact. And if McCain is the nominee, the myth of his "maverick" and "straight talk" image is going to draw those independents in. But Obama can widen the Democratic base and make strong appeals to independents. Plus, if Obama's the nominee, McCain would have to play defense by shoring up his base in the red states; but if it's Hillary, the mouthbreathers who hate her will vote for McCain in lockstep. Yes, I know the Republican slime machine will come after him just as they've gone after Hillary. But he's shown some spine in pushing back. Faux News lied about him and he responded by boycotting them entirely. Faux lied about Hillary, and she smiled and asked for a debate there. Please. Posted by: Hunter on February 7, 2008 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKClinton is the new hip black friend. Obama is so last week. Feel the Cl'urge. Posted by: B on February 7, 2008 at 12:36 PM | PERMALINKI like O's stance on the war but call me cynical, I think it likely that if O had been office, he would have voted for AUMF because at that time the country was reeling from 9/11 and rational thought was rare in the national discourse. Well, when he was running for office in that time he didn't "change his mind" to suit the polls. In fact he marched in an anti-war rally that his opponents reveled in throwing back in his face. Call me "naive" but I think his "theoretical" vote would match ever word the man has said since 2002. I have no reason to think otherwise. When did he "subsequently vote for the war"? He skipped the Iran vote (which IMO IS ammo for calling him cautious and centrist, but at least he didn't vote FOR it like some others in the race.) If "Hillary was of a different gender" she would have gone the way of her DLC pal Bill Richardson long ago. Well, she had a famous spouse too, and Richardson didn't. Posted by: David in NY on February 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKheatherk: The young sometimes pick up on STARKLY OBVIOUS TRUTHS that the old don't because they have a shorter frame of reference and aren't hindered by years of habit and indoctrination. That's true. On the downside their "shorter frame of reference" means their hype detectors don't work as well. Ah, the enthusiasm of youth ... and their naivety. Posted by: alex on February 7, 2008 at 12:38 PM | PERMALINKWell, heatherk, I may be spitaballing here, but I suspect some might disagree with your interesting idea that our country hasn't done anything "since the 40s." (Including, I suspect, your candidate, Senator Obama.) The good news, of course, is which oen of us has a more accurate understanding of how the government works me, you, or my 14 year old neice) need not be debated. We get to see it play out in real life! What say we make a date to meet here again in, oh, say, Febraury of 2010? I would suspect Senator Dreamy's charisma will have had ample time to change things by then. Whaddya say? What day should I look for you on this board? Posted by: Pat on February 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKNow that is an interesting thought Kevin, and something you should blog about. Why is it the Republican Party is hoping [I mean seriously, they're salivating at the thought of it] that Hillary is the preferred candidate to run against? Am I missing something here? Posted by: sheerahkahn on February 7, 2008 at 12:39 PM | PERMALINKThis is great for Obama. Seems to me the Democratic electorate is determined to support the candidate it feels sorry for, because they're being beaten up by the punditry, so Obama will doubtless enjoy a surge any minute now. Posted by: David in NY on February 7, 2008 at 12:40 PM | PERMALINKI'm not sure what "fair" has to do with the press. But I'm also not sure what is unfair about examining Obama closely. We'd better hope they do it now, and vigorously BEFORE the primary. Posted by: jerry on February 7, 2008 at 12:41 PM | PERMALINKThe young sometimes pick up on STARKLY OBVIOUS TRUTHS that the old don't because they have a shorter frame of reference and aren't hindered by years of habit and indoctrination. Alternative explanation: while "the old" may see many of their senses fail as time passes, one sense that has grows only more acute is the ability to detect the smell of bullshit. Posted by: frankly0 on February 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINKSomeone explain this to me: If Bush can completely change the inherit nature of this democracy in 7 years, why is it "starry eyed idealism" to think someone working in the opposite direction couldn't change things as much for the better? Is simply thinking it's possible for this country to regain it's identity as a power for good in the world being "too idealistic"? Has Bush really permanently destroyed that possibility for America? If so, then maybe we should all just give up. Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 12:42 PM | PERMALINKHey, even Canada once had Trudeaumania. It's not yet Obamania, and won't ever be, because girls can't get through security to kiss him like they did Trudeau. Posted by: Bob M on February 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINKI've felt this way about Obama for some time. Re what one other person said, it's kind of like Chinese food: A delightful, intriguing and tasty blend that passes through you quickly, perhaps. Posted by: SocraticGadfly on February 7, 2008 at 12:44 PM | PERMALINKAlternative explanation: while "the old" may see many of their senses fail as time passes, one sense that has grows only more acute is the ability to detect the smell of bullshit. What was your point? That the generation that's given us such great leaders as Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush can detect bullshit? Call me unimpressed. Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 12:46 PM | PERMALINKOh, lemme add that Tapper's blog was hilarious. Posted by: SocraticGadfly on February 7, 2008 at 12:47 PM | PERMALINKgregor: If Hillary was of a different gender ... she would have wrapped up the nomination a long time ago. The misogynistic tendencies of Americans are apparently more powerful than the racial ones. If a man had set back the cause of health care reform by fifteen years, and had supported neo-con foreign policy with votes and praise right up until he started campaigning, and had a wife who with a reputation for sleeping around (with the potential for losing the election for him if a single bit of evidence of new extra-marital activity came out), he'd have never made it through the first primary.
There are a certain percentage of Obama supporters who are in love with being in love, rather than anything specific about the candidate's policies. So I do tend to roll my eyes when we see the chirpy "You are just afraid of CHANGE" or "you just don't get that he MOVES MY GENERATION" posts here and elsewhere. It's not the majority by any means, there's lots of people who can converse more sensibly about policy differences, negatives, appeals to different voting populations, but the fluffy bunny portion of his appeal is a negative for me, because the moment the Swiftboat slime machine grinds into action, those are the people that are going to peel off, because it'll harsh their buzz. Posted by: tavella on February 7, 2008 at 12:49 PM | PERMALINKObama acts increasingly like he thinks he's the Second Coming -- and, to me, that's even scarier than Bush's apparent belief that he's God's chosen. Obama's supporters ARE increasingly acting like a scary, intolerant, absolutist cult. I hope enough grownups start waking up to what's going on before it all goes too far down one of those historical black holes. heatherk: If Bush can completely change the inherit nature of this democracy in 7 years, why is it "starry eyed idealism" to think someone working in the opposite direction couldn't change things as much for the better? No, but it's hoping against hope to think that someone will do that simply because they give pretty speeches. Certainly there are valid arguments why Obama is a better candidate than Clinton. Personally I'm about equally unimpressed by either of them - they're both Republican Lite. To get starry eyed about the one who gives pretty speeches though is embarrassing for an adult. It's not the majority by any means, there's lots of people who can converse more sensibly about policy differences, negatives, appeals to different voting populations, but the fluffy bunny portion of his appeal is a negative for me, because the moment the Swiftboat slime machine grinds into action, those are the people that are going to peel off, because it'll harsh their buzz. So the lack of "swiftboat slime" at the moment is because the Clinton's don't play as nasty as the Republicans? Where's one of you old guy's with really honed "bullshit" detectors? I may need a call on that one. I'm just a wee 27 year old girl with but one college degree. Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 12:54 PM | PERMALINKThis is great for Obama. Seems to me the Democratic electorate is determined to support the candidate it feels sorry for, because they're being beaten up by the punditry, so Obama will doubtless enjoy a surge any minute now. I think that's an excellent point. Look at the dynamic that gave us Kerry as a candiate, and that gave us Gore (the Old Gore, sadly, not the New Gore) as a candidate. People are drawn to Hillary because deep down they know that there are so many ways she could lose the election for them. Not to mention the good chance that Bill hasn't kept it in his pants for the last eight years and could create a pre-election scandal that would sink her chances overnight. I think they also feel safe knowing that if Hillary is elected, they will still have very good chances of feeling sorry for themselves when it turns out that Hillary's votes and rhetoric in support of neo-con foreign policy were a better insight into her own views than the slightly different and evasive things she's been saying for the past few months. And just imagine the recriminations if she manages to set back health care reform by another fifteen years! It's the only possible explanation. The democratic electorate has a deep-seated desire to wallow in self-pity, and is determined to pick candidates who will enable them. Posted by: bobb on February 7, 2008 at 12:57 PM | PERMALINKNo, but it's hoping against hope to think that someone will do that simply because they give pretty speeches. If not Obama, then who? Hillary is as much a part of the problems in Washington as anyone. The status quo suits her fine. A Republican? Certainly not. So who? Shouldn't we be choosing a President that at least has the potential to change things for the better? I don't understand this, "Obama can't possibly do what he says, so I'm going to vote for people who aren't even going to try and do it." heatherk: I'm just a wee 27 year old girl See what happens when you get starry eyed about Obama? If you were a Clinton supporter you'd be a 27 year old woman. Well if you base you decision on who is more capable of being Swift Boated, you underestimate the capacity of the Slime Machine to work over time on any Democratic contender, no matter how pure or virginal he or she is. In any case, I don't think Obama is any more capable of fighting the mudslingers than Mrs. Clinton. Posted by: gregor on February 7, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINKCongrats on the degree. It's not in history, or math, apparently. The idea that our nation hasn't done anything since the 40's is a jawdropping argument for someone supporting Sen. Obama's candidacy to make. And, heatherk, just so you know, the same "generation" did not give us Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Posted by: Pat on February 7, 2008 at 12:58 PM | PERMALINK When I wrote my Monday post about voting for Obama I got several jokey emails from friends lamenting that I'd finally joined the cult ("Now you'll have to buy a Mac and start blogging about The Wire...."). My god, you're Matt Yglesias. Hipster doofuses unite! Posted by: srn on February 7, 2008 at 12:59 PM | PERMALINKSee what happens when you get starry eyed about Obama? If you were a Clinton supporter you'd be a 27 year old woman. Someone's "sarcasm" detector isn't as good as their "bullshit" detector... I'm not "wee" either.
Obama's supporters ARE increasingly acting like a scary, intolerant, absolutist cult. Really? Any evidence of that? I'm an Edwards voter trying to decide between them, but judging from the comments sections here, it looks like all the scary, intolerant, absolutist cult members here are spreading the party line for Hillary. Posted by: Wes on February 7, 2008 at 1:01 PM | PERMALINKAs someone who is impressed with both candidates and who was undecided right up until Super Tuesday, I have to admit that my discomfort with some of what I saw coming from Obama's supporters played into my ultimate decision to vote for Hillary. (It wasn't the deciding factor- their debate performances were; but it played a part.) Aside from my natural distaste for collective movements in general, there are two things that have struck me over and over. The first is the large gap between the Obama that is described by his enthusiastic supporters and the one I see when I turn on the television. The second is the gap I see between the enthusiasm for both candidates that seems prevalent in the Democratic party and the largely monolithic (and somewhat adversarial) pro-Obama positions I see struck on most of the left wing political blogs, by the bloggers themselves and especially in the comments field. It makes me think of Orwell's disgust at the left wing intellectuals during the Spanish Civil War, when the same crowd that had looked down their noses at the jingoism and nationalism of the first world war immediately "rushed into the mental slums of 1915." My favored candidate-Al Gore-was never in the race, and I was able to watch the primary campaign without being blinkered by having settled into advocacy for one particular candidate. It seems obvious to me that both Obama and Hillary were excellent candidates; it has seemingly been obvious to the voting public at large, who are churning out in huge numbers and voting for them at a roughly 50-50 clip, and who are insisting that they would be fine with either candidate; and then I hop online to sites that I visited regularly throughout the last eight years and the whole tenor and tone is, as I said, monolithic and confrontational all out of keeping with either the real differences in the quality of the candidates or with their policy differences. It's like a bunch of people getting really, really strident over New Coke. So I can see where the backlash would come from, and while I did my best to not allow it to influence my voting choice (as I said, I would be thrilled to support either candidate), I suspect it was at least a small factor. Posted by: Sean on February 7, 2008 at 1:02 PM | PERMALINKheatherk: If not Obama, then who? As I said, there are valid arguments for Obama. I call him the crap shoot candidate - who knows, maybe we'll get lucky. Maybe that's the way to bet. What amuses me though is great enthusiasm for someone who has mediocre qualifications, is horribly weak on specifics, and who's biggest appeal seems to be a vague message of hope. Posted by: alex on February 7, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKheatherk, Your criticisms of the abilities and insights and decisions of your elders might be a bit more impressive if you and your generation had any record whatever of getting things right yourselves. What you'd do that should inspire our respect? Fall in love with Britney? Go gaga over the Olsen twins? In fact, you're as green as your guy Obama. Posted by: frankly0 on February 7, 2008 at 1:04 PM | PERMALINKBob M, great call with the comparison to Trudeaumania. Very interesting. Posted by: GOD on February 7, 2008 at 1:05 PM | PERMALINKAlthough the supporters of Obama on this site seem to be reasoned voters (for the most part) many examples of cult-like idolatry can be found on other, more Democratic leaning sites such as Daily Kos. There the cultish fervor and vehement denunciation of any contrary opinion is readily apparent. This is a cult of personality and there is no doubt in my mind that many Obama supporters are caught up in it. It reminds me of nothing so much as the Bush cultists- the Leader can do nothing wrong; everything the Leader does or says is genius and gospel; and anyone who opposes (or even does not wholeheartedly support) the Leader is a traitor and hates America. Sound familar? It should, because that is exactly the kind of language that many Obama supporters use now towards fellow Democrats. This is one of the three things that make me uncomfortable with the Obama campaign, if not with the candidate himself. The second is his adoption of Republican talking points on a number of issues. The third is his campaign's and surrogates' response to any criticism-"You're only saying that because he's black and you're racist" (for the record, if you can demonize the Clintons as racists, as the Obama campaign successfully did, then any white American, regardless of their beliefs or accomplishments, can be tarred with that brush). I looked at the Super Tuesday results with wonder, because it shocked me that Sen. Clinton did so well. While I believe that this may be the high water mark for her campaign, the ability of many voters to resist the multi-pronged attacks against her was little short of amazing. To date, Sen. Clinton has been opposed not just by Sen. Obama, but by all the other Democratic candidates, by all the Republican candidates, and the vast majority of the mainstram media, which has churned out buckets of vile, personal attacks free of charge to her opponents. MSNBC, CNN, and Fox have four hours nightly of programs which, for the last year, might as well have been renamed "Defeat Hillary". Print coverage is equally awful, as the MSM provides hundreds of millions of dollars worth of what amount to political advertisements or attacks, all aimed at organizing an Obama-McCain election. The Villagers will reliably attack any Democratic nominee for President. Their job, as many of them see it now, is to destroy Hillary Clinton first (as Clinton hatred runs wide and deep amongst the cool kids). Once that is accomplished they will inevitably set their sights on Sen. Obama. We are seeing a preview of that now with some small attacks on the quality of Obama's support, and another attempt (documented by the incomparable Somerby) to feminize Sen. Obama. Sen. Obama stated that his campaign thus far has shown he can take a punch. Sadly, he has taken no punches yet. Any criticism of his record, or lack thereof, has been blunted or eliminated by bogus cries of racism. These accusations of racism only play with the Democratic electorate, and won't garner the same politically correct genuflections in the other 60% of the voters in the general election (in point of fact, many Republican voters implore thier chosen politicians to be more racist, not less). The MSM and the Republican Party will fall on Sen. Obama like a ton of bricks. Nothing in the primary campaign can be said to assure us that he is ready for that and it remains to be seen if he is. Pat: And, heatherk, just so you know, the same "generation" did not give us Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. Aw, don't you know, Pat, you ancient, that anything before 1980 is the Bronze Age? I don't mind the idea of Obama as a candidate. I deeply resent the notion that my generation is supposed to go away and shut up. And don't kid yourself. The Clintons might seem to be playing rough with Obama but compared to what the Rethugs can do it's like they're attacking him with cotton swabs. Posted by: thersites on February 7, 2008 at 1:06 PM | PERMALINKCongrats on the degree. It's not in history, or math, apparently. The idea that our nation hasn't done anything since the 40's is a jawdropping argument for someone supporting Sen. Obama's candidacy to make. And, heatherk, just so you know, the same "generation" did not give us Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, and Bush. As a matter of fact my degree is in Biology. Can you get a degree in History? That seems a bit "soft" for bestowing higher levels of learning. Anyway... I didn't say "our nation hasn't done anything since the 40s" so pick up your jaw, hun. What I said was "Washington hasn't worked since the 40s." And I stand by that. WWII was about the last time Washington was united enough to actually do things to change the world. Since then it's been petty bickering and "scoring points" for "our side" which is obviously the environment you're accustomed to, but it doesn't mean that's the ONLY way Washington should or can work. Just so you know... The elections I cited are the ones the so called "baby boomers" have voted in. I will concede that the Nixon/Ford/Carter era was probably a hold out of even older dinosaurs, and you guys were probably bullied and suckered into voting for them the same way I've been bullied into voting for the establishment Democrats over the years. However, everything from Reagan onward is squarely at the "boomers" feet. It's obvious to all of us under 40s that you guys suck at choosing leaders. Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 1:08 PM | PERMALINKSo the lack of "swiftboat slime" at the moment is because the Clinton's don't play as nasty as the Republicans? Where's one of you old guy's with really honed "bullshit" detectors? I may need a call on that one. I'm just a wee 27 year old girl with but one college degree. If you think what's been going down between Clinton and Obama is anything *like* what will be thrown at Obama by Republican 427s, you are so naive it's hard to believe you can breathe. They turned a multiply decorated Vietnam vet who freaking leapt into the bush to chase down a viet cong who was shooting up his men and boat into a coward. By the time they are done with Obama, he'll be Rezko's personal bagboy. This isn't a reason to vote *against* him, mind you, it'd happen to any Democratic candidate, but anyone who thinks that the sheathed-claw swiping that has been going on intra-Democratically is anywhere NEAR equivalent is either dumb or just started paying attention to politics. Posted by: tavella on February 7, 2008 at 1:10 PM | PERMALINK…. Look at the dynamic that gave us Kerry as a candiate, and that gave us Gore (the Old Gore, sadly….bobb at 12:57 PMIt is always entertaining to read the maundering of mind readers who can say so glibly what people really think. Kerry won the nomination rather handily because he was seen as a winner who was inoculated against patriotism attacks. Unfortunately, he failed to counter the Swiftboaters. There is no new or old Al Gore: he is the same man, won the popular vote despite the universal media attacks and lies about him, his record and his life. The fact that you buy into that crap is not in your favor. Clinton is regarded as a winner because the right has been thrashing her for 15 years and she is still strong. Obama is new to the national scene and has shown no ability to respond to the smear&fear attacks that await him. ….Hillary is as much a part of the problems in Washington as anyone. The status quo suits her fine…. heatherk at 12:57 PMThat's is not in accord with evidence. The Obama is also a senator. The status quo is an obstructionist radical Republican Party and a criminal president. No one, aside from Republicans, is pleased with this situation. Posted by: Mike on February 7, 2008 at 1:11 PM | PERMALINK Help me out here. Since Obama's a a man of great conviction, why did he vote for funding the war? Why not stand up before his colleagues and the nation and urge them and us to defund the Iraq war and then cast a no vote for funding? Obama didn't do anything so crass as make a calculated political decision did he? I mean that's what people like Clinton do, right? Posted by: Radix on February 7, 2008 at 1:12 PM | PERMALINKheatherk, frankly0: heatherk, Your criticisms of the abilities and insights and decisions of your elders might be a bit more impressive if you and your generation had any record whatever of getting things right yourselves. You tell her frankly0! We boomers have got to stick together - we have numbers on our side. Don't let those whipper snappers get all uppity. Posted by: alex on February 7, 2008 at 1:13 PM | PERMALINKThere is definitely a cult of personality around Obama. There is of course also a cult of personality around Hillary Clinton. Unfortunately for her, it's a cult of hatred, and it was deliberately and expensively created by the right-wing extremist propaganda machine starting in 1992. The Right Wing Cult of Clinton Hatred is a quite visible influence even on some Democrats today. And of course on the Republican side there are worshipful cults of personality around Ronald Reagan, and around George W. Bush (although that one is fading). Many Americans at heart want a King, someone who embodies the nation, a leader, a protector, a moral exemplar, someone to worship if he's a "good King" and hate if he's a "bad King". Sorry, folks, we don't have kings or queens in this country. The President is just a civil servant, with a job to do. As far as I can tell, either Obama or Clinton can likely do the job equally as well as the other. And don't kid yourself. The Clintons might seem to be playing rough with Obama but compared to what the Rethugs can do it's like they're attacking him with cotton swabs. Fox attacked Obama with false smears, and he cut them off at the knees. No interviews, no debates, no nothing. Bill O'Reilly tried to corner him for an interview, and got his ass handed over to the Secret Service. Fox attacked Hillary with false smears and more, and she's asked them to host a debate. I'll take the former approach, thank you. Obama has the ability to push back with grace. Posted by: TR on February 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINKFear of the young peoples? Posted by: Tilli (Mojave Desert) on February 7, 2008 at 1:16 PM | PERMALINK"Hillary is as much a part of the problems in Washington as anyone." An exhibit of cultish mindset might well be an Obama's supporter's failure to acknowledge (or perhaps even be aware of) the fact that Mr. Obama is a sitting United States Senator. Posted by: solar on February 7, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINKYour criticisms of the abilities and insights and decisions of your elders might be a bit more impressive if you and your generation had any record whatever of getting things right yourselves. What you'd do that should inspire our respect? Fall in love with Britney? Go gaga over the Olsen twins? In fact, you're as green as your guy Obama. In the words of Kermit: "It's not easy being green..." I thought Nader was the green candidate anyway? First of all, I'm 27 not 15. Britney? Olsen Twins? Really? That's what you think 27 year olds are into? As far as I can tell Britney and the Olsen's are only entertainment for the middle aged women who buy tabloids. Your wife probably knows more about them than I ever will. Additionally, you ever wonder why it's the guy who's getting the "young vote" that everyone slaps their head over later and says, "Damnit! We should've nominated HIM!" Case in point: Howard Dean. Dean would've won in 2004, but you "establishment" democrats scuttled the movement over something as silly as a yell of enthusiasm, and the exact same arguments made over Hillary's "experience and substance" were made about Kerry, and look where that got us. Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 1:17 PM | PERMALINKQuote: "If Hillary was of a different gender, or had a different last name, she would have wrapped up the nomination a long time ago. The misogynistic tendencies of Americans are apparently more powerful than the racial ones." Because misogyny is the only reason Obama might win the nomination rather than Hillary? Nothing cultish or rabid there! Posted by: LynnDee on February 7, 2008 at 1:19 PM | PERMALINK"Hillary is as much a part of the problems in Washington as anyone." An exhibit of cultish mindset might well be an Obama's supporter's failure to acknowledge (or perhaps even be aware of) the fact that Mr. Obama is a sitting United States Senator. Garshhh. I thawt he wuz on that Survivor show. Yes, Obama is a US Senator. Congratulations. I think you should get an honorary Poli Sci degree from Pat's Unversity of History. So your argument is Obama's experience and activism in Washington is equal to Hillary's? Funny, she's been saying just the opposite. Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 1:20 PM | PERMALINKIf there is a cult of personality around CObama, then there is one around Clinont, too. She has a lot of support from Demcratic women in my ge group (boomer) who simply identify with her--project themsleves on to her. Of coures Secular is right--there is also a rightwing hate cult focused on her. But the the bottom line remains: who get we actually get inot office? Posted by: wonkie on February 7, 2008 at 1:21 PM | PERMALINK…..Obama's strategy--to win by overwhelming with new voters and young energetic voters--is a winning strategy for the general election…..wonkie at 12:06 PMExcept that it isn't. The majority of voters are mature voters and the most youthful demographic is the one with the lowest voting percentage. ….seems like HC's support is predicated on her gender….Adam at 12:08 PMWhy not check the California exit polls? Which ONE of these three issues is the most important facing the country? Category % Total Clinton Edwards Obama The economy 46 55 4 39 The war in Iraq 32 44 4 51 Health care 19 61 5 33 Which ONE of these four candidate qualities mattered most in deciding how you voted today? Gender? Nope. You have to be a parody. Someone supporting an African American Senator and (credible) presidential candidate, saying that Washington has not done anything in the post-war period can't be anything but comedy. Not to mention making that comment while flaunting your degree, which I'm guessing you may have gotten some financial assistance to aquire. By the way, wee heatherk, my age is under 40, too. My IQ is not. Posted by: Pat on February 7, 2008 at 1:22 PM | PERMALINKIt's a standard MSM presidential primary campaign story line, Kevin: o) A front-runner is anointed Sometimes the "underdog" is able to survive and go on (Bill Clinton), sometimes the "underdog" folds under the pressure (Gary Hart), sometimes he or she simply self-destructs (Dean). In this, the longest friggin' campaign ever, the press needs to recycle their story lines a few times. So now Obama is the "underdog" ripe for a takedown. So be it; we'll see if he survives. Hillary already had her rounds in the MSM blender and came out okay. Huckabee was the "underdog" prior to Iowa, and then was written off after New Hampshire (not torn down; just plain ignored) until he shoved it down the press' throats on Uber Tuesday. McCain is a godsend for these folks; he's an underdog and frontrunner story all by himself, *plus* they get to talk about him as being the harbinger of doom for the GOP. Plus ca meme, c'est le meme chose. Posted by: Douglas Moran on February 7, 2008 at 1:24 PM | PERMALINKYou have to be a parody. Someone supporting an African American Senator and (credible) presidential candidate, saying that Washington has not done anything in the post-war period can't be anything but comedy. Not to mention making that comment while flaunting your degree, which I'm guessing you may have gotten some financial assistance to aquire. So, Strom Thurmond fought hard for civil rights in the 60s? Washington and the FBI worked closely with Dr. King to help along the cause? Things got done DESPITE Washington. Go ahead and pat yourself on the back that it took African Americans another 100 years after the Civil War to actually get equal rights. Yay Washington for working! Wooo Hooo! We're number 1! We Did It! I enjoy Gospel meetings for the emotions they elicit, but I do not like the people who use them to manipulate people for their personal aggrandizement. Sen. Obama gives a great speech and has the ability to energize crowds with his oratory skills. Still, when he starts wagging his finger, which I notice he does less frequently, and invoking idealistic calls for change without specifics, I become skeptical about what this man will actually accomplish if he should become president. My cynical self thinks his administration would be very corrupt, he is a Chicago pol afterall, but far less corrupt than W. Bush's. He would be a huge improvement over our current president, but if he is not the unifying leader his followers consider him to be and considered ineffectual like Jimmy Carter, he will create a backlash that will reopen the political door for Republicans in 2016. Posted by: Brojo on February 7, 2008 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINKActually, I didn't need financial assistance... for various reasons that would certainly be seen as "flaunting" if I mention them now! What's that got to do with it anyway? Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 1:27 PM | PERMALINKI'm an Obama supporter and even I agree with this. First of all, the fact that the press is starting to wonder and turn on Obama leaves me cold. I am a Hillary supporter. Talk to me when his press gets as bad as hers. Second of all, I respect Obama but I really think many of his supporters are history challenged. People fought hard in the 60's through the 90's for progressive ideals. These were not wasted battles nor were they an indication of anything more than the bitter partisan battles that have consumed the US for hundreds of years. Better people than Clinton or Obama in the ranks of our founding fathers had to fight through the same partisanship we see today. The idea that Obama, or anyone, can end that 250 years of history, or make Republicans who have no intention of supporting progressive policies join him in his crusade is just naive. I know lots of Republicans and not a single one of them is even tempted by Obama. To the contrary they view him as ultra liberal. They may think he makes nice speeches, but they dont agree with any of his policies. I have the strong feeling that Obama may be too much like JFK for his own good. JFK, as beloved as he is, and while a rhetorical genius, failed to get much legislation through Congress. As a president measured by legislative success, he was not. I get the feeling that in 4 years we will be saying the same thing about Obama. Great rhetorical skills, and no achievements to show for it. For you boomer haters: how can you support a candidate of hope while indicting an entire generation? We boomers fought tough battles and have the scars to show for it. You want to just waive your hand and say we were all idiots? Great way to unify the country. Its pretty funny as a liberal boomer I get tarred with Reagan and George HW Bush. McGovern wasnt my cup of tea but he had some of the same cult following and wrecked the Democratic party for decades. Some boomers thought Gene McCarthy was the next coming, and all we got out of that debacle was Richard Nixon instead of Hubert Humphrey. What you all fail to realize is the boomers were split too into the partisan sides that have dominated our country since its founding, just like my parents were and their parents before that. You too will get there, after you get a hefty dose of reality. And since your unity campaign apparently does not involve or want boomers I will happily go my separate way thank you. You all think you are so new, when you are just McGovern and McCarthy all over again. Of course all of that's just my opinion and I could, and hope to be, wrong. Good luck to Obama and Clinton, because we need a Dem president. And lets hope the supporters of Mr. Unity will find a way to campaign for their man without indicting an entire generation or more in the process. Posted by: Jammer on February 7, 2008 at 1:29 PM | PERMALINKheatherk: I will concede that the Nixon/Ford/Carter era was probably a hold out of even older dinosaurs ... Now, now young lady. With a degree in biology you know perfectly well that even boomers are mammals. Note to Pat: Being a condescending prick is not going to win anyone over to your point of view. Posted by: TR on February 7, 2008 at 1:34 PM | PERMALINKfrankly0: Your criticisms of the abilities and insights and decisions of your elders might be a bit more impressive if you and your generation had any record whatever of getting things right yourselves. What you'd do that should inspire our respect? For one thing, they haven't screwed up the planet, unlike the "elders." That inspires major respect from me. Posted by: lifelongdemturninggreen on February 7, 2008 at 1:38 PM | PERMALINKThat's certainly true. But I'm not trying to win someone over to my point of view. Posted by: Pat on February 7, 2008 at 1:39 PM | PERMALINKheatherk: So, Strom Thurmond fought hard for civil rights in the 60s? Washington and the FBI worked closely with Dr. King to help along the cause? Uh, no, actually they didn't. Things got done DESPITE Washington. And presumably despite the Civil Rights Act of 1957, Civil Rights Act of 1960, Civil Rights Act of 1964, Civil Rights Act of 1968, 24th Amendment, 26th Amendment, integration of the Armed Forces by executive order, the Brown v. Board of Education decision and its enforcement, etc., etc., etc. The idea that Obama, or anyone, can end that 250 years of history, or make Republicans who have no intention of supporting progressive policies join him in his crusade is just naive. Let's put that through the way back machine to the year 2000 and change the names: The idea that Bush, or anyone, can end that 250 years of history, or make Demcrats who have no intention of supporting conservative policies join him in his crusade is just naive. What was Hillary's (and many other Democratic leader's) vote on the Iraq War again? Who is the 2000 Democratic Vice Presidential nominee supporting for President right now? I don't think it's the "idealists" who are being naive about what a single President can do. I think it's the "cynics" who are being blind to the possibilities. I do admit to a grudge against the Boomers. That's my cross to bear. I look at the environment, the Corporate ownership of America, the state of the American Education system and I ask myself, "What the hell were these people thinking?" I understand that you boomers were and are split along partisan lines. I get that, and I get that you guys HATE the ones on the other side and vice versa. Do you get that my generation is trying desperately NOT TO BE YOU? That's what Obama supporters mean when they say the old politics are dying... Hillary is a huge divisive force in America. I'll certainly vote for her if she's nominated just as I voted for Kerry and Gore. However, I sure would like to be able to vote for someone that at least has a shot at healing this country. No Republican is gonna do it, they're on the verge of splitting into 2 parties on their own. Hillary can't do it, whether it's her own fault or not, she is not a uniter by any stretch. I want to be able to tell someone who I voted for without having to follow it up with rationalizations. I've never been able to do that. Posted by: heatherk on February 7, 2008 at 1:43 PM | PERMALINKI am sitting in Washington DC as I type this, and I can personally attest to the fact that the "old" politics is not "dying." As a matter of fact heatherk, it hasn't even had a sick day since 1789. Posted by: Pat on February 7, 2008 at 1:47 PM | PERMALINK | |