Joan,

There is a reason that support for Clinton and Obama so drastically splits at age 45 (according to polls I've seen). Your comments on Obama and the sixties clearly demonstrate this. As someone born in the sixties, I too an "not that invested in the battles of the sixtes". This is not somethings to fear. This is not something that threatens Democrats. Quite the opposite!

Civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, environmental rights etc.; obviously all terribly important victories for all Americans and no one should begrudge the left on their efforts and successes during that tumultuous decade. But here's the thing: so many boomers romanticize that period in our nation's history that they miss the downside. And there was a downside. By dividing what could have been seen as ultimate Civil Rights, or simply Human Rights into tiny categories the left invented identity politics as we know it. And that has been the downfall of the left ever since.

Identity politics is directly related to the decline of the Democratic party and the rise of the Republicans. Identity politics reeks of "me first" while working towards a goal that is communal. The hypocrisy in that is palpable; beyond that the hypocrisy is like blood in the water for conservative sharks. They can paint you all as selfish and immature--and they have a small point. Of course they've explploited this point beyond all reasonable limits, but that doesn't diminish its effectiveness.

I believe it was Einstein who said, "We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." Listening to establishment Democrats speak, to me, is like watching someone slam their head into a wall over and over and not being able to do anything to make them stop. We've been through the Clintons. I thought Bill was a tremendous president. Truly. But, I also thought that the politics that got created between the Clintons and the Right was hugely damaging to our nation! Hillary can only exacerbate this damage. She will be incapable of extricating us from this partisan culture war. The Right sees her as the embodiment of the culture war. This animosity will hamstring her presidency "on day one".

I don't see how you don't get this. But, apparently most of your generation don't. Must have been the battles of the sixties!

Aside from what I said about the 60's directly, my point is that due to Hillary's baggage from the 90's and her ties to the establishment wing of the Democratic party she is the focal point of an entrenched animosity for most of the Right and also many independents.

Obama, obviously doesn't carry this baggage. That's the point. Beyond that, Obama is speaking powerfully (see Iowa and rural Nevada) to a swath of independent voters and conservative democrats who long ago abandoned the Democratic party. These centrist voters were responsible for Reagan's mandate. THEY WILL NOT VOTE FOR HILLARY. They will choose McCain over her in a heartbeat, for reasons I mentioned, but also for many more.

Obama is the only candidate who can transcend the partisan model of which the Clinton's are part and parcel.

I'll add that the experience argument is flawed from the start. All of our great presidents have been visionaries, not managers. Ours is a government of the people, and Hillary does nothing to inspire citizens to action--the only path to real change.

I don't think that my personal feelings have any impact whatsoever on whether or not the Clinton's are the focal point of a great deal of venomous partisanship. Maybe I'm missing your point.

No question that any of the three Dem contenders would make a fine president. I wasn't saying anything to competence.

I started this out responding to Joan's concerns about Obama's "battles of the sixties" comment. It is not emotional to suggest that Hillary and Bill Clinton derive a great deal of support from establishment Democrats who came of age during the 60's; that's just a fact. It is not a personal feeling that the culture wars were kindled in the 60's; that's just a fact. It is not my opinion that Hillary inspires animosity among many in the center and most on the right; that's a fact.

I am an Obama supporter exactly because he is not beholden to old-style conventional Democratic wisdom. He is looking forward. That is all I'm saying. And the commment about the sixties should be great news to all who are searching for a way out the games we've been playing for nearly 40 years!

I get your point. But the fact is that you're speaking strictly about the base of each party. With a two party system the far ends of the spectrum hold much more political power than governing power. The vast majority of citizens, including myself, fall somewhere in the middle. An Obama presidency would neutralize the wings to a degree not seen in decades thus opening the door for real policy change and a true revolution in how we govern our nation.

Of course the far right wing will never capitulate. They won't support McCain for chrissakes. The thing that needs to be repeated over and over is that Obama (while clearly liberal on the issues--yay!) has the potential to do for Democrats what Reagan did for Republicans: pull disaffected members of the opposition into a broad coalition not captive to the wingnuts on either side. THAT is the only recipe for true change, and Hillary is clearly too polarizing a figure to accomplish that.

seriously? wow. whatever happened to civil discourse?

Tim,

Just a note to say that I have very much enjoyed your daily posts here at War Room. You will be missed. I'll look for you on Politico.