And Time's Ana Marie Cox asked, "We can be pretty sure he's just making this stuff [up] now, right?"

Shouldn't people with the kind of job Ana Marie Cox has catch on to this sort of thing before most people, not after?

Putting voters in boxes is rather annoying but as much as I hate too, I agree with Penn.

You must realize voters like, me grannies and gramps in their 60s are the progressive Democrats and rebellious youth of the 1960s.

We are as excitied about Obama as you younger voters under 35. It is the voters 45-55 who are more conservative. Besides people my age have consistenting voted in higher numbers. Many voters my age have not been this excited about an election since RFK ran.

Obama has a wide appeal among voters. McCain appears to have an older conservative following.

Penn, spinmeister until the end, is busy trying to create a new need for his services, no doubt. I saw some Burson-Marsteller people in softball jerseys in town the other day -- maybe they could use Penn in their lineup? I'm sure he'd be a great pitcher, what with all the spin he throws.

shouldn't even be getting his Op-Ed into a high school newspaper, let alone a widely-read blog like Politico.

Please Mr Penn, go count your Clinton dollars somewhere and keep your (miserably incorrect) opinions to yourself.

This is Mark Penn's big news? They've always voted.

I'd say operatives should focus on how to capture and keep the latino vote. This is by far the fastest growing segment of the population and unlike the retired, will be voting for decades to come.

I suppose I'm that demographic--I have elementary school children, I live in the suburbs, I'm married, and one of my kids plays soccer.

However, even among my cohort of fellow "soccer moms" there is incredible diversity. Some work, some stay home. Some work part time. Some are the primary breadwinners, some are not. Some are recent immigrants. Some are white. Some are married, some are divorced. Some are all varying shades of nonwhite. Some attend church, synagogue, or temple, some don't. Some volunteer at every school event, some don't. Some never worked after college and had kids right away, some never took more than maternity leave off from work.

It's hard to see these people as a block. Speaking from the inside, I'd be willing to bet a beer and a lunch that we all aren't voting the same. We have similarly-aged children, who attend public school. But the similarity ends there.

I think the endless hunt for a voting bloc is a bit shortsighted, and a waste of time.

Hillary would have won the primary were it not for her team being dominated by dimwitted megalomaniac hacks like Mark Penn and (ugh) Terry Mcauliffe.

Before dismissing Penn's observation as being unreal, some observations should be noted:

1. During the course of the primary season, Obama's actual vote count in most of the large blue and purple states, was significantly less than Sen. Clinton's and nearly always short of the percentage support suggested by pre-election polls. The difference apparently was a consequence of relatively smaller support from traditional Democrats--particularly women.

2. Obama's support was strongly reflected among young activists in caucus states motivated by its excitement and activity which as a demographic group are much less moved by the routine of voting booths and structured balloting.

3. The social psychological reality may account for the present disparity between polls which suggest that Obama is ahead in scratch polling but McCain is when adjusted for those likely to cast ballots.

The Obama campaign will ignore Penn's empirical insight at its peril.

We'll find out in November if Mark is correct. I would not underestimate he power of women voters in the 40-57 age group, especially if they've been in the workforce most of their lives.

out of political life already.

This Penn fellow is one of the lousiest political "strategists" I have come across.. none of his thoughts have any bearing on reality. I would read and follow Karl Rove's articles/advice before I would Mr. Penn's.

He is quite simply not competent to speak for anyone including himself. Please don't give him any more print space, Salon. Really. You guys are better than this.

the snarky little dudez in the blogosphere - most of whom haven't a clue about life's little realities.

And it is possible to completely dislike a person (Penn) and still understand that the theory is sound, because it is backed up by demographic data. In fact, PEW/Kohut had a report several months ago about this very thing. All anybody with a little initiative needs to do is check U.S. Census figures (nationally or by state) to see that Penn is correct. But, I forget: "bloggers" aren't real journalists. They're great at cut-&-paste, though...

for the future.

Problem with your theory is that older voters (40+) make up the largest block of voters TODAY. Also, the fact that many of the baby boomer voters will be retiring in the next 3-5 years (and that roughly 1/4 of the remaining "older" voters are already retired), prudence and pragmatism suggest that this demographic has clout - and lots of it. And you can bet that boomers aren't going to sit around in rocking chairs, content to be sidelined.

So, as a betting person and a former D.C. political/policy "wonk", the money and attention should be on the older voters, because if we don't tackle Social Security, Medicare, health care, pension reform for this majority demographic, you can kiss your future and your kids' future goodbye - because "older" people (and the above mentioned issues) will become a main drain on this country's resources.

The facts cannot be disputed. Young adults, especially under the age of 30, do not vote. The groupies filling the adoring throngs of Obama-Rama rallies are not a majority. They THINK they are - but they are not. They will NOT make a difference in the outcome of the election this year.

I repeat: The youth vote will NOT make a difference in the outcome of the election this year. And neither will registering new voters, especially the working poor, lower middle-class, voter and minorities as is the Obama strategy to make up for the Democratic base vote among women that he has lost and obviously, if you look at his numbers today, is not getting back.

The facts cannot be disputed. The largest voting block in this country are older voters. So let's stop pretending that Penn isn't on to something with his op-ed. You in the media have gotten so much wrong for so many years now that you should redefine your profession from that of "journalist/commentator/columnist/whatever" to "speculator."

If you understood campaigns outside the media box mentality you would have seen that the only reason Obama is the nominee is because Clinton's high-priced spread consultants failed to set-up her campaign for a ground game. The Obama high-priced spreads scarfed up those little caucus gigs early on and that remained the mathematical difference in the quest for delegates.

And here's another tidbit that the media conveniently forget: Half the Democratic base clearly did not prefer Obama as the nominee. You can't have that kind of bleeding and expect to have big numbers in August - or November for that matter.

The caucus-style process hardly is a democratic one. It's one night, one time and if you can't make it - oh, well! Sadly, many shift-working voters, single parents, and families who have children involved with sports, school, etc. do not attend caucus's. One could say that it's their loss if they cannot make their voices/votes heard. But one could also say that the system needs a massive overhaul.

The super-delegates were put in place to keep the "rabble" in check. After all, elites always know what's best for everyone else, don't they?

Mark Penn wasn't the only screw-up in Clinton's campaign. They were not running a Primary, they were running a General election. That was the difference. If Hillary had taken that shot of whiskey a little sooner, things might have been different in spite of her inept, expensive, gaggle of consultants.