I've never gotten the notion of Bush as "charming" or "likable". On television or the radio, he comes across as either very uncomfortable and brittle, or swaggering like a used car salesman. Perhaps in a small group, the frat boy humor, cute nicknames, etc. are entertaining for a short time, but I suspect that an evening with George Bush would be a deafening bore. His pet issues, like social security "reform" are those of a right wing crank and the rationale behind them seems to be more about a vague sort of belief (much like his vague religiosity), rather than from facts or even life experience. In other words, I picture and evening with George Bush as being like an evening with some cranky uncle who tells bad jokes and spouts inane political pieties that embarrass his wife and children by the end of the evening. I had an uncle like that I know others who've had fathers, cousins, uncles or (occasionally an aunt or a mother) like this.

Perhaps his "non-Beltwayism" is part of what gets journalists to avoid hard questions. May be its the implicit knowledge that you get nowhere with a crank or the intuitive avoidance of challenging an authoritarian personality. Whatever, the bamboozlement has continued for years, even as it has become obvious how the game is played. Some of it probably has been the organization of information at the WH. High level people like Rove happily leaked all kinds of misinformation, while the usual 2nd and 3rd rung people were kept to Regent University loyalists and much of the civil service was cowed or simply not cultivated--Dana Priest, Walter Pincus, & Sy Hersh do talk to these people, but the rest of DC press corps doesn't.

As for intelligence. The previous comment about Otto (the idiot) from "A Fish Called Wanda" is a good one. Otto read Nietsche, but understood little of it. Bush is someone who's been indulged and bailed out all his life. His businesses were failures that were meant to fail---they were tax shelters. He's never really had to master anything and his insecurities are obvious,. The insecurities also make it easy for him to accept flatterers or the guidance of Rove or Cheney. If one reads about Clinton, JFK, or even Nixon & Johnson (two self-absorbed, self-pitying paranoids with much in common with Bush), they were all very curious men with searching intellects. Not academics, but men who studied history and the world around them. LBJ knew Vietnam was a mistake and that Civil Rights would forever hurt Democrats in the South. He made his choices knowing what they were. Bush clearly couldn't muster the perspective taking of an LBJ or move from stupid choices (escalation in Vietnam) to courageous ones. Draper seems to have lifted the veil a little bit, but it sounds like he almost says more about himself than the White House. It will take someone shrewder and more immune to cheesy charms to really put the pieces together.

The time has come for people outside the blogosphere to emphasize what chickenhawks these guys (and gals) are and to organize in a way so as to pressure WaPo et al., to publish other voices (petitions, ads, etc.), particularly voices of people who've been right about Iraq.

Schaller doesn't break things down by region. I would guess that the "white boy" factor varies by union membership and socioeconomic status. In other words, what Dems really lose is the Southeast and parts of the Midwest & West. The Black vote is a compensation in the South. Places like Iowa or Wyoming are more difficult (and also much less rich in votes).

As a white guy with a PhD and Midwestern blue collar roots, I can say that the Dems lost a lot of the white guys with civil rights and this is more acute in the South where Unions are non-existent and people are willing to support neo-feudal social systems if they can feel that they're still oppressing people who don't look like them (I used to live in Atlanta and this sums up even much of the "new South", which isn't that "new" or moderate; it's neo=-Feudalism is one reason why the South is a long way from transcending long held ways of life and voting).

The trouble with not courting the Bubbas is also failing to to really address blue collar issues. Liberals (meaning people with college degrees) have been distancing themselves from labor issues since the 50s. The Jimmy Hoffas of this world tended to make people forget the Walter Reuethers and liberalism has veered ever toward middle class issues, with often patronizing embraces of minorities. The women's movement failed as a broad based economic movement, even though many women in the pink collar ghettos were happy to join--abortion and what to do with lesbians took the stage away from more basic issues (I'm pro-choice and gay, but I'm not blind to what a difference emphasis and infighting make). The environmentalists have consistently ignored poor and working class people, even though they bear a much greater burden of pollution. And these are just a few of the liberal interest groups... The Dems and the progressive movement, generally, needs to look at the big picture and occasionally pound the heads of their interest group compadres. Yes, we can probably forget the hard core Bubbas, but we can't forget what we should stand for, and that will help in the places where the Dems have hope.

Why bother with any of them? 2008 is not going to be the GOP's year and gays should do their part to seal that deal.