The XX Factor: What women really think.

Does Ben and Jerry's Make Socially Liberal, Fiscally Conservative Crunch?

A post from Double X writer KJ Dell'Antonia:

Rachael, describing my ideal GOP-ster isn't hard. She supports civil liberties, she wants the government out of its citizens' personal lives and favors smaller, effective, government-run programs where needed. She supports free trade, recognizes global warming and opposes the death penalty. No invasions, no torturing—and no bailouts. Finding her—on either side of the aisle—proved harder .... (Read more in Double X.)

What's With the Big-Name Worship?

Hello to all the XX women—major fan here. I'll be guest-blogging with you for a week, and I'm thrilled to join such an august set of old friends and admired colleagues. So thrilled, actually, I'm buying everybody a round of the "spam, egg, rice and seaweed Hawaiian specialty" that we now know our new president loves. Look for it in the mail, and please warn your letter carriers.

Before we move on to, say, the hot "Baby Alive" doll trend (" 'Be careful,' reads the doll's promotional literature, 'just like real life, sometimes she can hold it until she gets to the 'potty' and sometimes she can't'"), I do want to say I think Hanna's on to something when she calls Obama's Rick Warren move "tokenism." It is a token gesture, and that's exactly what makes it irritating. For what seems like ages, liberals have dutifully swallowed the lesson that America is a center-right country, way more in line with Warren than with Wallis; that the bulk of Americans regard liberal values with suspicion; and that any Democrat who aspires to national leadership has to mince around either shading his liberalism (think of Bill Clinton and Don't Ask Don't Tell) or mounting grand conciliatory gestures toward the other side's values (think of John Kerry's attempts to look militant). This is a pretty broad phenomenon: In my day job at the New Republic magazine, I often write about Congress, and while hoofing around the country to cover congressional races this fall I was struck—as I was in 2006, too—by how far the infinitely adaptable red-district Democratic candidates go to demonstrate their sympathies with conservative mores, while the Republican candidates tend to feel far less pressed to make those kinds of adaptations or token gestures. (George W. Bush sure didn't see the need to tap Gene Robinson or Katharine Jefferts Schori to deliver his inaugural invocation.)

Of course, it's nice that many Democrats try to rise above dogma and pitch themselves to a broader coalition. That's the Obama Doctrine, as much as anything is. But at a certain point, the frantic efforts to smooth conservative America's ruffled feathers get damned tedious. I think Rick Warren was that point for many.

And why the hotshot obsession? What with signing up first Hillary Clinton and now Warren, whom the Independent aptly called "the most popular religious figure in the US bar the Pope," Obama seems to be on a mission to get every American with ~20 million followers to stand next to him on a podium and authenticate the breathtaking range of his appeal. But I can't help wishing he had chosen somebody a little less garishly megawatt, for God's sake. Some slightly more obscure person of good works; somebody less political and less token; somebody more along the lines of Kirbyjon Caldwell during the W. years. That kind of choice, not Warren, would have been the real surprise.

Hating on Homes With Aboveground Swimming Pools

Voting Republican

I'm intrigued by this interpretation, from psychology professor Jonathan Haidt on Edge, which Ann already wrote thoughtfully about, about why people vote Republican. Haidt points out that mostly liberal academic psychologists have concluded that "conservatism is a partially heritable personality trait that predisposes some people to be cognitively inflexible, fond of hierarchy, and inordinately afraid of uncertainty, change, and death." And then right when he is about to lose me, for seeming pat and condescending, he writes:

"our diagnosis of conservatism gives us the additional pleasure of shared righteous anger. ... Our diagnosis explains away Republican successes while convincing us and our fellow liberals that we hold the moral high ground. Our diagnosis tells us that we have nothing to learn from other ideologies, and it blinds us to what I think is one of the main reasons that so many Americans voted Republican over the last 30 years: they honestly prefer the Republican vision of a moral order to the one offered by Democrats."

and

"the second rule of moral psychology is that morality is not just about how we treat each other (as most liberals think); it is also about binding groups together, supporting essential institutions, and living in a sanctified and noble way. When Republicans say that Democrats 'just don't get it,' this is the 'it' to which they refer."

I don't entirely understand why Democrats haven't generally persuaded more voters in the middle that they're also about binding people together. That's what Barack Obama's community organizer past was about, and yet somehow that job description was treated as a bad word at the Republican convention. But I think Haidt's framing of the challenge is useful. And humble, which is a nice change of pace from all the campaign clattering this week. (More natterings from me about that here and here.)

The Contendah

No, Emily, we should not judge Sarah Palin as a mother, no matter how beguilingly she and her impulsive soulmate invite us to do so. Remember when the Earth was young, 10 days ago, and we were still wondering about the Hillary Holdouts? If they haven't been scared straight by now, they aren't coming back. But one thing I hope we learned from them is that sexist attacks helped Hillary more than they hurt her, energizing her supporters and winning her some converts, too, among women who weren't totally sold until they saw her criticized in ways a man wouldn't be. Every sexist shot not only boomeranged, but was held against Barack Obama. Which is why everyone who wants him to win should mind Dahlia's advice to Joe Biden and avoid certain modes of attack altogether.

This is especially critical given the latest polling, which suggests that many women really are switching from Obama to McCain because he's chosen a female running mate: According to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, "white women shifted from an 8-point pre-convention edge for Obama to a 12-point McCain advantage now.''

Like Hillary Clinton and every Republican in my lifetime—with the exception of Sen. Soulmate, before he got religion and lost our phone number—Palin is running against the media. So our sins will be held against the Obama-Biden ticket, too. With time so short, she did not even wait to be attacked before throwing down the victim cards of gender, class, and media bias: "I've learned quickly, these past few days,'' she said in her convention speech, "that if you're not a member in good standing of the Washington elite, then some in the media consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.'' (Are these the same "some'' who want us to make nice with terrorists? Or the "they'' who hate us because we're free?) Sure, but then why bring the straw man to life by lunging for the bait? Mike Barnicle played right into her hands, worrying on MSNBC about who'd be minding little Trig if Mummy was off working in the Executive Office Building.

And the more Democrats rant about God, guns, babies, and Sarah P., the better for McCain, who must have been doing the happy dance after Harry Reid described her tone as shrill, and when Biden joked that one big diff between them was that she was better lookin'.  I was in Toledo for that one; that is what he said, and Obama was just as casual with his words that day, repeatedly addressing older women in the audience as "young lady.'' :( 

This past weekend, my 12-year-old son, who totally knows how to work me, suggested that we celebrate my return from the Sarah Palin Party Convention in St. Paul by watching The Contender in her honor. I'd forgotten, but it's one of those heavy-handed, here-comes-the-crowbar and there-goes-your-cranium liberal morality tales about a Sen. Laine Hanson, played by Joan Allen, who's tapped to become the vice president after the guy in office dies. Her top adviser is her husband, but that's about all Hanson and Palin have in common. Early in the movie, we see the Clinton-ish president, played by Jeff Bridges, wondering whether a woman who has served only a decade in the U.S. Senate will be seen as experienced enough to handle the job, especially on the foreign-policy front.

Only oops, he was so busy trying to stump the White House chef that, just like John McCain, he seems to have neglected to vet his pick, whose past is more exciting than he might have hoped. For one thing, though it has somehow previously escaped the nation's notice, she appropriated her best friend's husband while he was managing her first campaign. A story that she had sex with a bunch of guys at a drunken college party turns out not to be true. Hanson would rather withdraw her name than dignify her accusers with a denial, but Bubba convinces the country that we're better than that, too, and don't need to know. So yay, she's in, and sex scandals are out! 

There is one scene relevant to life on this planet, however: When consultants advise Hanson's craven shell of a formerly good-guy rival to "gut the bitch,'' he winces but goes along, and is ruined in the end. Though part of me is looking for a reason to wag my finger and say, "Let that be a lesson to you, young man," it's not really Obama or jaw-flappin' Joe that I worry about getting carried away like that; it's the rest of us I'm not so sure of.

I Expected Better: The Bill Clinton Story

Maybe, Emily, I didn't see Bill Clinton's speech the way you did because I actually expected him to do Barack Obama some good tonight. But then, that I expected better of him is an old, old story.

History was made in the Pepsi Center this evening, when William Jefferson Clinton arrived on schedule. I would not say that Michelle Obama twinkled at the sight of him ... and could not say whether Hillary did, because there was a lady waving a flag standing in front of her. But before too long, I was remembering why I voted for Ralph Nader in 1996. Back then, Clinton had the political capital to get a much better welfare reform bill but cared more about himself than all those down-on-their-luck Americans he was always biting his lip over. Tonight, he had the chance to make a much better pitch for Barack Obama. But again, instead, forever and what else is new, talked about how much better things were when he was president.

Who was it again that he was referring to when he said Obama "has the intelligence and curiosity every [emphasis his] successful president needs''? Or helpfully pointed out that he and Hillary have made Obama the candidate he is today: "The long primary tested and strengthened him.'' Oh, and not to worry because "he will continue and enhance our nation's commendable global leadership in an area in which I [emphasis his again] am deeply involved—the fight against AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria.''

Though every word he said about how much better off we were when he was president was true, of course, I hadn't realized that burnishing his legacy was the point of the exercise. He had the crowd going bananas before he ever opened his presidential beak, and one of the lines they loved best was, "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than by the example of our power.''  Woohoo, true again. But how that moves one voter to Obama I'm sure I don't know.

"America can do better'' than it has under Bush. "And Barack Obama will do better.'' Really? That is one weak offense, Bubba. And the old hound dog did not exactly rip John McCain's head off, either, going on and on about how his wife's former drinking buddy loves this country and sure suffered in Hanoi. The best I could give him would be a gentleman's "C''. But at the moment, I am too mad to manage it.

Hillary Clinton Needs You To Behave

"If anything, the country shows every sign of yearning for Clintonism as a governing idea now as much as it ever has."

                                                           -- Mark Penn, today in Politico

So I guess the Politico called Mark Penn and said hey, cowboy, we've got some rope over here that would look real good around your neck if you're up for one of those do-it-yourselfers...and of course, he couldn't resist. The result being this piece, Clintonism Lives, which I'm fairly sure was not intended as self-parody. But the fact that the guy who masterminded Hillary Clinton's campaign into a ditch still doesn't get that this is not the week for an apologia should be a cautionary tale for other Clinton fans: They will be judged on the extent to which your grudges are on display in Denver - which is why I fully expect the Clintons themselves to be gracious if it kills them. Yes, Bill is out there grousing that he's not sure how to sell Obama as commander-in-chief. But by Wednesday, I'm sure he will have figured it out.

What Hillary Nation has to think about is: Even on an it's-all-about-you basis, if John McCain wins in November, are you so sure that vindication of Hillary's prediction that Obama wasn't electable will be the result? It's just as likely she'd be blamed for such an outcome, which the Clintons know. That's why she will hit every mark and then some. And why, if he goes so much as cocks an eyebrow off message, we can safely assume he really has lost his last political marble.

"Passed Over": One Great Bad Ad

Hillary Holdouts: Don't Come Running Home on My Account

I do not agree, however, that "a vote for McCain is a vote to overturn Roe.'' Or assume, as you say you do, that the Hillary Holdouts "don't care'' if Roe is overturned. Of course they worry about that possibility—and in the end will probably be frightened into returning to the Democratic fold on that basis. But though an entire industry exists to argue otherwise, to keep us afraid and divided and donating, Roe is not going to be overturned. And putting all our energy into either warding off that constant threat or keeping alive that constant hope is not just fighting the last war; it's fighting a phony war, one that continues to distract and drain us but effectively became theater a long, long time ago.

Case in point: In Evansville, Ind., where my parents live, there have been banner headlines this week about the latest local abortion fight—in a county where (in theory, anyway) no abortions are performed. Under cover of darkness, i.e., without any public input, the Vanderburgh County Commissioners passed an ordinance that would force abortion providers, if there were any, to have hospital-admitting privileges in case something went wrong and to give patients info about where to get follow-up care in case of complications. Indiana Planned Parenthood strongly protested and put out this statement: "No abortions are performed in Vanderburgh County. There are no facilities and there are no providers ... it appears as if the commissioners took action to fix a problem that does not exist ... This type of regulation does nothing to improve health care in our state. It just further restricts a woman's ability to make decisions about her own future.'' An editorial in today's Evansville Courier & Press suggested that the real goal was purely political; one of the Republican commissioners, who is up for re-election, was trying to look like a hero to his peeps in his race against a pro-life Democrat.

On the national level, do you think John McCain meant it back in 1999 when he said he wouldn't bother trying to overturn Roe? ("In the short term, or even the long term,'' he said then, "I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade, which would then force X number of women in America to [undergo] illegal and dangerous operations.") Or does he mean it when he says now that overturning Roe will be a priority in a McCain White House? The moment I wrote about last week, describing McCain in the fall of 2000 looking out the window in embarrassment as Lindsey Graham and I got into a whole big discussion about when life begins, convinced me that he would rather eat worms than hear the word abortion. Bush v. Gore made plain that the Supreme Court IS a political body, and politically, the Republican Party has no, I repeat, no interest in overturning Roe.

The perceived enemy of choice has changed, too, when a lot of you either weren't looking or didn't want to see: Even many self-described pro-lifers—and that term means different things to different people, believe me—have shifted the focus away from changing the law to changing the moral consensus and addressing material needs. When the conservative but pro-Obama jurist Doug Kmiec says that "merely reversing a single court decision such as Roe ... as best I can tell, would directly save no unborn life,'' he speaks for a lot of us who see the conversation we've been stuck having as an incredibly narrow way to look at "life issues.''

I think we can probably agree that criminalizing abortion would not stop it but would radically alter the political terrain to the benefit of the, to my mind, often anti-life GOP. And as a Colorado pro-life Democrat named Chris Rose told me for my book on women voters, the Republican Party can't end abortion: "Ending abortion isn't something they know how to do, because that would require an enormous change in our country and in our government,'' including programs to help women provide for their children and avoid unwanted pregnancies. "If you believe government can't do anything right, then you can't end abortion.''

So Hillary fans: It's your party, you can cry if you want to. But don't cry to me if, for thousands of reasons other than Roe, the result is not quite as satisfying as you'd hoped. For the lady in the attic, there is never a happy ending.

The Contender?

Last night I watched The Contender, a movie about the nomination of a female vice-president. It's mostly concerned with post-Lewinsky prurience and takes sexual politics to an absurd level to make that point (gang-bang allegations? Really?) but left me thinking about Kathleen Sebelius (and no, I'm not revealing anything scandalous here). Like Joan Allen's character, she's a delicately featured, centrist Democrat who's the daughter of an Ohio governor. Sebelius has made it to lots of shortlists for Obama's veep, but seems to be forever the bridesmaid. The reasons for her rejection are wide-ranging: She's too nice. She's an uninspired speaker. She's not Catholic enough. She's too pretty, so she'll remind voters of their deep-seated fear of miscegenation standing on the podium next to Obama. She's a female whose birth certificate fails to read "Hillary Rodham."

These arguments against Sebelius are usually preceded by the bullet points in her favor. But the oddest endorsement of Sebelius came from Hillary-hater extraordinaire Camille Paglia, who wrote that Obama will need someone with Sebelius' "blandly generic WASPiness that has persistently defined the American power structure in business and government and that has weirdly resisted wave after wave of immigration since the mid-19th century." Paglia's backward semi-compliment streamlines all the other complaints into one smooth peg: a boring identity is the ultimate sin in this election cycle. But is she really so inoffensive as to be offensive? Consider—she's just a year younger than Hillary, meaning she would have faced those same glass ceilings in her political rise—more, perhaps, since she ran for office earlier. And she might not be considered Catholic enough now for purposes of the veep slot, but I would imagine it didn't do her any favors in the Kansas of 30 years ago, where WASP probably wasn't the first dismissal that came to mind for her. (She may not wear her Catholicism on her sleeve, but I actually think that's something that might appeal to a lot of moderate Catholics, who don't tend to be a Bible-thumping group—as for the single-issue voters who're peeved about her abortion record, well, they probably weren't sniffing near the Democratic ticket anyhow.)

So it's not hard to imagine she threw some ‘bows along the way, but like Nancy Pelosi, smoothed her scars into a public persona and cloaked her chutzpah in pearls, pantsuits, and a picture-perfect home life. They both worked within, and rose to the top of, the existing power structure—something about flies, honey, and vinegar, maybe. (Pelosi and Sebelius, by the way, both went to the same all-women's Catholic college that my mother attended for a time. From what I gather, social life there often alternated between dates with Georgetown guys and girls sitting around a dorm common room with their hair in curlers, chain-smoking and playing intense games of bridge—if that isn't training for navigating Washington's smoke-filled back rooms and cliquish power circles, I don't know what is.)

Maybe I'm just rooting for a nice Irish-Catholic girl from Ohio to make it big for my own selfish reasons, and maybe her undefined national image lets me project whatever I want to on her. But I kinda bet Sebelius has a hell of a story and somewhere along the line decided it wasn't in her best interest to tell the gory details. She's a feminist and a trailblazer, but in what now sticks out as an oddly old-fashioned way. She doesn't seem to want to be anyone's lightning rod, which is perhaps what really bugs hard-core Hillaryites. And maybe they're right—in our ultra-confessional era, can someone truly become a feminist icon who's not willing to mine her identity politics and shout her personal history from the podium? Or, perhaps more pointedly, does a woman have to be a feminist icon before she can be on a national ticket?

Obama Sells Out on Offshore Drilling

Now, though, he's taken flexibility too far, by selling out on offshore drilling. While campaigning in Florida yesterday, Obama told the Palm Beach Post that he would be willing to open Florida's coast for more drilling as part of a "comprehensive energy policy that can bring down gas prices.'' And what's even worse than the shift itself -- yes, sometimes compromise is necessary -- is the ridiculous claim that it will bring gas prices down. It's never necessary to say something you know isn't true.

As he says, the Gang of 10 compromise put together by five Democrats and five Republicans in the Senate would do a lot of good things, like "repeal tax breaks for oil companies so that we can invest billions in fuel-efficient cars, help our automakers re-tool, and make a genuine commitment to renewable sources of energy like wind power, solar power, and the next generation of clean, affordable biofuels.''

So, as he now sees it, "if, in order to get that passed, we have to compromise in terms of a careful, well thought-out drilling strategy that was carefully circumscribed to avoid significant environmental damage - I don't want to be so rigid that we can't get something done." Gosh, no, that would be bad. If only I could remember the last time the Democrats in Congress did any such thing, maybe I'd know just how bad. And of course, he's just undercut those Democrats who were trying to hang in there. 

So what's the difference between Obama's loss of nerve and McCain's earlier switch on the same issue? In May, McCain knew offshore drilling was a step in the wrong direction, but by June, he'd seen the polling and seen the light. Now, he thinks offshore drilling is crucial.

There is no mystery about why Obama has now changed his mind, too, although his position seems to be that offshore drilling is still a bad idea, but we should do it anyway: A national poll taken last week showed that 57 percent of voters favor offshore drilling because 56 percent think gas prices would fall as a result. Only they wouldn't, and both candidates know it.

In the same interview with the Florida paper - on the day Chevron became just the latest oil company to report a record profit for the quarter -- Obama said: "I think it's important for the American people to understand we're not going to drill our way out of this problem," he said. "It's also important to recognize if you start drilling now you won't see a drop of oil for ten years, which means its not going to have a significant impact on short-term prices. Every expert agrees on that." (They also agree that if we haven't gotten serious about cutting CO2 emissions long before then, then the heartbreak of realizing that Obama has served us a baloney sandwich will be the least of our worries.)

Only, by even sorta orta backing new drilling, he is sending exactly the opposite message to the public, maintaining the fiction that there is no urgency to changing our ways, and that we can go right on consuming energy same as always. How again is this "change you can believe in"? I get that the McCain commercials blaming Obama for high gas prices are hurting him, but especially given how ludicrous this notion is, how about responding with facts? I know it's easier to assure people you'll bring gas prices down than to explain why nobody will, or should, but he's not even going to try?

His excuse might be the worst part: "The Republicans and the oil companies have been really beating the drums on drilling," Obama said in the interview. Which might give voters the impression that anyone who beats the drums loud enough and long enough will get this same "Alright already!'' response out of him. And it might give those young voters he is counting on the idea that he's not only not as different as they thought...but maybe, just not different enough.

It's OK To Flirt. Really.

Thoughts From a Hillary Supporter Who Might Go for McCain

Just received this e-mail from a friend, a Washington lawyer who is a lifelong Democrat and a generous donor to the party. She supported Hillary in the primary and is undecided about what she'll do in November:

I just read your XX column, and I wanted to share a couple thoughts. Even though Hillary characterized her campaign as a big feminist movement in her exit speech, I'm not sure all her supporters saw it that way. I also think the risk of defection to McCain is very real, and not limited to uneducated, working class types. Just in my office, I know 6-7 women, all lifelong Democrats from VA who are now planning to vote for McCain. They are all highly educated people who follow politics closely, and a couple even worked for Dems on the Hill at one point or another. The decision to defect to McCain has nothing to do with Hillary as a woman or Obama's personality. They like Obama enough as a person, but they think he's an empty suit—rhetoric with little record behind it. Even if they agree more with Obama's positions, it seems risky to put such an inexperienced person in the White House—especially after what happened last time. I think the media misses this. It is not all about feminism. 

Having said that, I know there is a bit of truth to the feminist argument. I also know a strong, pro-choice Democrat from Maryland—someone who regularly hosts NARAL dinners—who is defecting to McCain, even though she understands his views on abortion. I doubt if this woman ever even voted for any Republican before in her whole life, and she just contributed to McCain's campaign. Truly amazing! I think Obama will have a real problem in the Electoral College if he does not find a way to reach out to the people who voted against him—for whatever reason. For now, I'm undecided and I'm planning on staying that way for a while. My big issue is the economy and both Obama and McCain are weak in that area, so it probably doesn't matter much.

I answered her that the experience issue doesn't resonate with me, especially as Cheney and Rummy had been around since the last ice age, and where did that get us? Hillary has been in the Senate only four years longer than Obama: big whoop. If you count his time in the Illinois Senate, he's actually had more experience as an elected official. (And while of course her experience as first lady counts for something, would we give Laura Bush full credit for those years—even though, as she belatedly tells us, she, too, had a big policy role all along?) The whole experience question just feels like a stand-in for race, or maybe something else I'm missing. Because when someone says they would slit their wrist before voting for Obama, that is NOT about Clinton having been in the Senate longer.

And here's my friend's response, which shows that hurt feelings cut both ways during the primary season, and opened some wounds that Obama must now work hard to help heal:

I think her years as first lady count for something, but regardless, she has a much better command of the issues. He was a back-bencher in the state senate, not committee chair, etc. ... He improved during the debates, but even at the end he was flubbing basic tax, economic, and foreign policy issues. Maybe I've been dealing with those issues for too long, but honestly, he is constantly struggling for answers and contradicting himself. I think it would help if he gave voters a sense of who he would appoint to his Cabinet. If he is just going to be an inspirational figurehead, I'd like to know who's going to be advising him. ... Bottom line—the divisions here are very, very deep for all sorts of reasons, and Obama has got to find a way to reach out. Many people are hurt by all the name calling in the campaign. [My son] was repeatedly called a racist at school for supporting Hillary, and I know they have had to address similar issues in [a private school in Washington]. I've heard that some African-American women who supported Hillary were subjected to threats and taunting. Of course, it's not Obama making those comments, and people need to realize that there is a downside to all that young voter passion, but it does not make you want to switch to the other team. Five years ago, I would have voted for McCain in a heartbeat because I've always liked him. He's definitely sold out to the right in those five years, though, and that's what gives me pause.'

That she's even thinking McCain should give her party pause, too.

Dead Voter, Live Candidate

Even her fund-raising pitch was subdued, and she sounded like an easy-listening version of herself as she hit all the recent talking points, minus any negative mention of Barack Obama. Her supporters at Charleston's Civic Center were on the quiet side, too, and silent as—well, you know—at every mention of her Democratic rival; when she said she and Obama had "always stood together on what was most important'' no one clapped that I could hear. And in the bleachers waiting for the Hillster to arrive, there was considerable disagreement about whether it would be better to stay home on Election Day, or settle for Barack Obama in November if Clinton doesn't get the nomination.

"I won't vote period if she doesn't get it, and I've got a big family and none of them will vote for Obama, either,'' said Carroll Ramsey, who was with his 12-year-old grandson and cast himself as a reverse ageist: "I've been in this old world for 63 years and he doesn't have the experience." The hairdresser sitting in front of him agreed: "I didn't care for all that church stuff with his preacher,'' said Dorothy Chapman, "and really, I don't think he's got enough oomph. He could change my vote, I guess, but he'd have to do some high talkin'.''

"Well, I'm a lesbian,'' said another supporter, Nancy Toney, as heads swiveled, "and these Republicans are not homosexual friendly, so hell yes I would'' vote for Obama in the fall. "I had to go with the woman, but I like both of them.''

No Nightmare Ticket

All Politics Are Relational

Not only is it OK to admit being so over this endless campaign, it's all but required. Privately, even Stephen L. Carter must be fed up at least some of the time, with revulsion and rage and—where did that come from?—passion taking turns. I've started viewing it like any long-term relationship, in which just when you think you will never laugh at that stupid joke ever again—well, you do. And just when you're sure that if one more person says superdelegate you will run screaming into the traffic, you suddenly find that embarrassing as it is, you do care about Guam. Or so I can imagine.

You know who else seems sick of this Democratic primary? Barack Obama. Not that he’s phoning it in or anything, but a certain weariness seems to have set in. Which I take as yet another sign that not only is he not too elite, he might be too normal: He still thinks he can go off script sometimes, and he lets it show when he’s had it with trying to insist on a new kind of politics if all we really want to carry on about is flag pins. When Hillary Clinton says she would never have chosen Jeremiah Wright as her pastor, she isn’t kidding; you wouldn’t stick with that guy for five minutes if your every human impulse was run through the purifying filter of, “but how would that play in Scioto County?"

Yesterday, I talked to Christine Jennings, whose ’06 Congressional race for Katherine Harris’ old seat is, in effect, still going on. Jennings has been on the campaign trail almost every day since thousands of voters in Sarasota County reported having trouble casting their ballots on electronic voting machines in that one race—a race that according to the tally she challenged, she lost by 369 votes. In ’08, she still has the same old opponent, only he’s an incumbent now. And if that weren’t jolly enough, two weeks ago her ’06 primary opponent decided to get back in the race, too, as an independent. So as you can imagine, Jennings isn’t all that sympathetic when voters tell her how worn out they are with both Hillary and Barack. “I tell them, 'Don’t fall for that. That’s how all those Republicans on TV saying this race is dragging on too long want you to feel.’ (It was also the Republican-controlled legislature in her state, she points out, that cannily voted to switch the date of the Florida primary, and tucked that change into the wildly popular bill outlawing the impossible-to-audit voting machines that Jennings believes cost her the '06 race: “They knew exactly what they were doing.") “Democrats love to focus on the issues, and that’s good, but we need to focus on winning." And be willing to endure even the sight of Sidney Blumenthal trying to paint Obama as an old-fashioned '60s radical—yes, though that decade ended when the candidate was 8. Because if Christine can hang in there, so can we.

Why Obama Can't Close the Deal

No question he's made mistakes. But his fatal flaw, according to her, is that he is not as skilled as she in answering Republican attacks (with more of the same). Watch her gleefully practice on her fellow Democrat, with Republican-style ads evoking such GOP golden oldies as the red phone, Pearl Harbor, and, OMG, Khrushchev? I never expected her to be leading the proverbial Million Mom March, but doesn't it bother any of these old-school feminists to see her painting her rival as the girl in this race—yes, as if that were a bad thing—just as every Republican since Richard Nixon has done to every Democrat since Adlai Stevenson? No doubt the former Goldwater Girl will never be outdone on the mushroom-cloud front. But at what point does one turn into what one fears?  If I wanted Karl Rove for president, I would have voted for him the first time.

To me, Obama's appeal is rooted in his view that we have more in common than we might realize—and can't afford to go on tearing each other to shreds in this polarized, cartoon world where if your views are two degrees north or south of mine, then U R evil and must die. It was his refusal to play the same old zero-sum game that got him where he is today—ahead by every measure and, barring the kind of collapse that won't happen unless he betrays his own best instincts, on his way to becoming the nominee.

So, why can't Obama close the deal? In a way, it's his strength in November that is his highest hurdle now. I always thought he would have a harder time winning the nomination than the general, because the Clintons have defined and dominated the Democratic Party for a long, long time. And it's the very same "Let's stand on common ground, together'' appeal—which will win him the support of independents and Republicans in the fall—that makes him so suspect to Democrats who don't want to stand anywhere with those people; they want payback for the Bush years. And while that's understandable, it's not a way to win. Even Bill Clinton, with all his superior political skills and peekaboo triangulating and solemn vows not to act like a real Democrat, would not have won without Ross Perot in the mix. We can't get there on our own —which, again, is Obama's message.

Another reason he can't close the deal: We are never satisfied! Republicans settle for the good-enough candidate, go on about their lives, and show up on Election Day, but not us. I took my children to an Obama rally where people were screaming and swooning and speaking in tongues they were so excited—and on the way home, my daughter sniffs and says she wonders if he's focused enough on global warming. And what can I do but swell with pride? My baby really is a Democrat.

The Good News: No Pathetic Press Conference for Stabenow

The good news is, Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow did not hold a news conference to say she was sticking by her hubby of five years after he confessed to police that he'd been with a prostitute. On the contrary, after the news came out, Stabenow didn't show up at a previously schedule press availability; instead, she put out a compact, two-sentence statement calling her mate's behavior "very disturbing and serious.''

The bad news, beyond the obvious: The hooker was arrested, but the john wasn't? What kind of nonsense is that, that he gets off with only a ticket for driving with a suspended license? Post-9/11, cops are seriously staking out the hotel rooms of prostitutes-in-training? And post-this latest spate of sex scandals, readers still see this sort of story in a partisan light? Most shocking to me were the comments appended to the story in today's Detroit Free Press -- from Democrats saying hey, at least he's not a toe-tapper like that Republican hypocrite Larry Craig. And from Republicans and even some Obama supporters laughing it up that this somehow shows the moral superiority of their team: "Obama is getting more and more supers to rally behind him,'' one poster said. "But the ones Billary have sewn up are the adulterers and their spouses.'' Jeez, can't we at least admit that human failings are bipartisan?  Though the Free Press story notes portentously that Hillary Clinton once attended a fundraiser for the former employer of this doofus, I don't see how voters could possibly conclude that this has anything to do with anything.

Florida II: Just When You Thought It Was Safe To Go Back in the Water

Well, I woke up this morning, switched on my computer, read the headlines, and suddenly had a nightmare vision of Denver-Democratic-Convention-as-Florida-in-2000: a political horror show in which two candidates are running neck and neck, both sides are lining up their lawyers, legal scholars are looking for decades-old precedents, pundits are howling, and no one knows how to resolve the dispute because this sort of thing hasn't happened for a century or more.

That nightmare would be bad for the candidates, bad for the Democratic Party, bad for the political process, bad for the country. It might even be bad for John McCain, since if he won, in the wake of a Democratic Party meltdown, his victory would be suspect, too. Democracy only works when an election is held according to a set of rules which most people in a given society agree to abide by in advance, even when they don't like the result. That advance agreement is what then confers legitimacy on the winner, who is accepted by the losing side because he won fair and square. But when the rules suddenly become unclear, as they did in 2000, and the victor has to be chosen according to some other, ad hoc, previously untested procedure, as in 2000, the winner will inevitably be considered illegitimate by some part of the population.

And—let's face it—no candidate chosen after a rowdy, chaotic, confusing August convention will be considered legitimate by all Democrats, and may not be considered a legitimate presidential candidate by the general public, either. What are superdelegates, after all? Why haven't we ever talked about them before? Why did the Democratic Party impose proportional representation, the worst voting system known to man, on its candidate selection process? Why exactly don't the Florida and Michigan votes count? Should they be held again, as the Detroit Free Press says today? None of these questions can be resolved, post facto, and since they haven't come up before, or at least not in living memory, no one knows how to resolve them in advance.

Maybe some smooth, establishment thing will now happen, either Hillary or Obama will be gently induced to step down, and the Democrats will move on to do battle with McCain, secure that their candidate is the right one. And if not? Time to start playing the creepy horror movie music, since the scary shark scenes are approaching fast ...

Can the Superdelegates Save Us?