Glenn I wrote: "However, Brooks is right in what he is saying. Voters do want to identify with a candidate and look for clues as to what they are like."

And you responded: "Do you have any proof for that?

Also, Brooks isn't just making a claim about what might influence voters' decisions. He's using that claim to defend media coverage choices.

I'm sure you can find some voters who think it's relevant what kind of sex the candidates have. So if television networks followed the candidates around and filmed them having sex with their spouses, and then broadcast it and asked them about it in debates, would you accept the same rationale -- "hey, you can't blame journalists for covering this and talking about it a lot. Voters might consider it relevant."

First: open your eyes and look at what people have posted yesterday and every day before about what they think of the two candidates. They are all making assessments based on a wide range of criteria from policy points to whether or not they can identify with the candidate on a personal level. In fact, there is a post just before your response to mine where the person says they identify more with Obama because he wasn't immediately good at bowling and seemed a little uncomfortable. Further, any political scientist will tell you (I have a degree in political science) that there are nearly as many reasons why someone will vote for a particular candidate as there are people who vote.

Second: To merely respond with "Do you have proof for that," feels more like a shool yard taunt than an actual substantive point or argument to rebut what I was saying. I could go through every point you have made throughout your career and ask the same and make you cite everything you argue like I was proofing your doctoral thesis. And you did the same thing to another person on this thread.

Third: The quote you take Brooks to task for is but one small part of a broader argument he makes as to whether Obama is looking like a brand new type of politician or a traditional liberal. I am not buying into his argument because I think in his heart that Obama is unique. In part because he is from a new and younger generation ( which happens to be mine as Obama and I are only a few years apart in age) that has a lot to say that is very different from the older generations that make up the majority of the government. Therefore, I identify with Obama on a cultural/social level that has to do with nothing more than being part of the same generation. Does that mean it is all I am considering? Of course not. I wouldn't vote for a right wing candidate simply because they are my age. I identify with Obama for a number of reasons and one of them is because of cultural-like clues I have seen in him as he campaigns.

Fourth: Your "sex" analogy is childish. I abhor that kind of coverage, but I do think that talking about "who" a candidate is is part of what I could describe as a portfolio of journalistic coverage. Look at profiles run by every publication from the New Yorker on down--they all look at candidates in human terms and describe what these people are like.

Fifth: Don't take what I am saying here as condoning the debate and the questions put forward. I have been very critical of it and would not defend it. It was stupid and infantile. However, Brooks does make a good point that there is room in a debate and in political coverage to learn more about "who" a candidate is as well as the ways they interpret various issues and what they believe are good and proper solutions.

You are right. Bill Clinton has done for the Democratic party and the people of the world than all of the posters who chide him with their nasty rhetoric combined. Those millions he has EARNED also include the incredible work he has done since his presidency to address some of the most vexing and difficult challenges the world faces that have cause untold human suffering. By buying into the wall of hatred that was built by the right wing against the Clintons you people have singularly allowed that which stands againts you--the right wing--to turn you into echo chambers for their point of view.

It's also interesting that a lot of the cutural changes that ocurred during Clinton's presidency have helped create this time where a woman and a black man could engage in such an amazing primary and both have the expectation they could win the presidency. I am not saying this is the only cause, but certainly a contributing one.

So I have to wonder if you people are completely unable to support your candidate without having to tear everything and everyone down that is related to his opponent?

The funny thing is that I believe Democrats have to nominate Obama because Hillary's story about Bosnia has essentially poisoned her candidacy. I am very sorry for it because she and her husband have done so much for all of us. But I also believe that Obama is a wonderful candidate as well.