I just got here so, on Glenn's recommendation, I read your letter first and mate, you knocked my socks off. What a fantastic piece of writing! I've read you before but I think I was always distracted by your moniker (I have a particularly pedantic little brother...) But apart from its eloquence, I must say I don't share Glenn's equivocality about your opinion whatsoever. I agree wholeheartedly. I think Obama is a superbly qualified candidate, but this whole cult-of- personality, mania thing, whenever and for whomever it arises, always makes my skin crawl. It's a bankrupt celebrity narrative that ultimately eclipses the subject itself. Its converse - the whole pack loathing, phobia thing, currently centered on Clinton & Edwards (but ready, as Glenn notes, to instantly re-target) is comparably meaningless. Both ignore actual policy & competence to focus on perceived attributes and shortcomings (likeability, coldness, charisma, calculation, vanity, naturalness).

Lacking policy and competence, these are, understandably, the preferred Republican narratives. Hence, Mormanly Mitt, Avuncular Huck, Straight Talking McCain & Heroic Rudy. Favouring personality punditry & vapid prognostication over actual reporting, these have also become the Serious Media's preferred narratives.

If Democrats allow their choice of candidate to be decided on the basis of these personality-driven narratives, rather than on the basis of actual policies and competence, they will be fighting the election on Republican homeground - the politics of personal attack and destruction.

And now, as the Australian media is reporting a Clinton win in New Hampshire, I can't help but laugh at how wrong, yet again, the Serious Media's predictions have been. (And how prescient, yet again Glenn's cautions were) I'm sure the frantic re-tooling of the narrative has already begun. I'm guessing Hillary Meltdown will be promptly replaced with Clinton Cries Her Way to a Comeback! Obamamania will be replaced with Mack is Back! And so it continues...

and we probably ain't seen nothin' yet.

http://youtube.com?v=kRJWmAS7z2I

"The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for THEM. It's time we had a president who stands up for all of YOU. (applause) I intend to be that president. (applause)"

- - Hillary Rodham Clinton

She's wasn't an electrifying speaker, but the crowd liked her message.

Maybe, just maybe, the people that voted for her did so because they, too, liked her message.

And in a related story . . .

http://latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-chamber8jan08,1,5346679.story

Chamber of Commerce vows to punish anti-business candidates
By Tom Hamburger, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer
January 8, 2008

WASHINGTON -- Alarmed at the increasingly populist tone of the 2008 political campaign, the president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce is set to issue a fiery promise to spend millions of dollars to defeat candidates deemed to be anti-business.

"We plan to build a grass-roots business organization so strong that when it bites you in the butt, you bleed," chamber President Tom Donohue said.

[...] "I'm concerned about anti-corporate and populist rhetoric from candidates for the presidency, members of Congress and the media," he said. "It suggests to us that we have to demonstrate who it is in this society that creates jobs, wealth and benefits -- and who it is that eats them."

- - as reported in the L.A. Times

Eat them? Bad move. We tried eating all the Republicans in my town. BLECCH! And then we didn't have any jobs!

I've been reading your column off and on for a while now, but over the last couple months I've found myself checking in daily. Of everyone I've read, you are consistently the most thoughtful, steady, evenhanded, and fair writer I've seen.

I'll be happy with any of the Democratic candidates, but I am pulling for Hillary. Today when I checked in at the Huffington Post, Slate, The New York Times, etc., it seemed everyone, everywhere was happily pronouncing her candidacy dead. I was really disgusted by the joy these journalists and pundits seemed to be taking in her loss in Iowa and her predicted defeat in New Hampshire. It's nice to see the remarks you posted from the Time correspondent confirming how happy the press was. How do these people get away with this and remain employed? This is the same treatment they gave Gore, Dean, and Kerry. When will someone at these news organizations put a stop to this? Are there no standards anymore? Is this coming from the top down? I know that every time I have seen people in the media bring up the topic (lately in response to Bill Clinton's criticisms) they have labeled the idea that they could possibly be biased ridiculous. The evidence seems to be overwhelming. I'm just not sure I can handle a whole year of this. Your column helps a lot though. Thanks much.

Hillary: "The oil companies, the drug companies, the health insurance companies, the predatory student loan companies, have had seven years of a president who stands up for THEM. It's time we had a president who stands up for all of YOU."

Um, Hillary, you forgot weapons companies and dodgy mortgage companies.

Hillary also forgot...

Lawbreaking Telecom Companies, and Mercenary Soldier Companies.

I will not endorse any specific candidate.

Recent, as well as historical, performance by Republican administrations has determined that I will vote for any Democratis nominee.

But the right wing/neocon manipulators seem to be trying to make this a choice between two candidates that they can mobilize their base against.

With Clinton they can and will send hordes of working women out to call her a lesbian bitch. They will redeploy all of the disproven Clinton mafia crimes of her husband's administrations. They will say that she is too emotional or too cold as it suits their purpose.

With Obama they will cater to every fear that they have nurtured for years against blacks and muslims. Obama's middle name is Hussein will be the centerpiece of the unregulated attack ads. His face will be shown next to white women and sex or rape will be implied but unspoken.

While John Edwards(from my adopted home of North Carolina) is a hated trial lawyer, almost any Republic nominee will also be a lawyer. His $400 haircut will seem alot less girly next to Romney's hair helmet.

I hope that I'm wrong and that we are not being herded away from the candidate that Republicans fear the most. But ask yourself this:

Who did Nixon want to run against in 1972?

Who did he NOT want to run against?

What was Watergate about for CREEP?