QUOTE:
The Hillary volunteer takes the line that "it's Hillary's time" or "it's a woman's turn," and I read that a lot in the newspapers when opinions are solicited, but I just can't get behind that logic--or illogic--at all.

I've seen that line among women I know split pretty starkly along a generational line. Most of the women I know who are near my age (28-35), either support Obama, or support Clinton but are turned off by the "you're only a true feminist if you vote for Hillary" idea (as set forth here). Most of my mother's friends (ages from 55-65), however, either say that they are voting for Clinton b/c it's time for a women to be President, or that the fact that Clinton is female plays a significant role in their support. For what it's worth, my mother initially supported Clinton, but has been completely turned off by her to the point that she has donated to Obama.

I definitely understand (at least to the extent a guy can understand) the idea that, to a woman, the fact that a woman could be president would have some impact on their preferences. I just have a hard time getting comfortable with the idea that it should be dispositive. By way of comparison, as a Jew, I think the idea of a Jewish person becoming President would be a net positive to me, but I wouldn't ever vote for someone for that reason alone. For example, I couldn't possibly vote for Lieberman.

And speaking of coincidences, I was thinking about that very "argument" this morning (having also read and heard it repeatedly), and was left equally cold.

Is that really the best they can do?

Every time I hear a supporter say "it's Hillary's time" I think "You're just reinforcing the worst possible rationale for anyone wanting to do that job". The notion that it's somebody's 'turn' or 'time' just leaves me cold. If Bush has taught the US anything, it should be "Get the right person for the job."

Gyuri, if only my first choice had thrown his hat into the ring. We could have had the thrill of a new group represented as well as a good man: Russ Feingold.

My mom has also really been put off by Hillary, and like me is a lukewarm Obama supporter. We were both big Edwards people.

Me, too (well, second choice for me). I asked my mother who she voted for, and it was Edwards, even though he'd already suspended his campaign, which was like my own votes for Dean and Bradley in the previous two primaries.

Edit: Actually, not exactly "me, too," because I think my mother would prefer Hillary to Obama.

QUOTE:
Gyuri, if only my first choice had thrown his hat into the ring. We could have had the thrill of a new group represented as well as a good man: Russ Feingold.

I could get behind a Feingold candidacy, too.

As for Edwards, for some reason he leaves me a little cold. I'm not sure exactly why, and it's probably not rational. It may be that I've been infected by the general disdain in the legal profession for plaintiff's attorneys, and the corresponding belief that they are predisposed to be full of shit when making "I just want to help the common man" arguments. In any event, he was my preference in 2004, which I thought was a weaker field, but this time out I liked Obama more.

I quite enjoyed this article.

It's an interetsing thesis, which suggests that the real war within the democratic party is as much tactical as ideological in nature.

Edit: I should point out first, before I set about disagreeing with other things, that I agree that the Dem race is not really about current policy-related ideology, though I'm not sure it's about tactics (50-state vs. narrow wins) either. I think it's actually about, as many recent US elections are, competing attempts to define personal narratives and to peg the other as a type of person who is unsuitable to win the election/lead the country (e.g., Obama is an empty suit who can't win b/c he's black and everyone thinks he's a Muslim; Clinton is an inveterate liar/triangulating opportunist, who can't win b/c of her heavy baggage an the fact that over 50% of the country hates her).

It's an interesting article, though I think for the description of history rather than its somewhat muddled thesis. The key claim that the Dems lost the '72 and '84 elections (or at least lost them by huge margins) because of internal strife seems a little off. In both of those situations (but especially in '84), the Dems were running against a popular incumbent (in '84, a monstrously popular incumbent). Those were not elections that the Dems had any real chance of winning, and a slightly closer electoral college result would not have changed anything (see Bush 2 for evidence that the size of victory is not particularly related to the President's claimed mandate). The idea that Muskie or Hart in '84 would have won the general election is not very plausible. Hart could have won in '88, but it wasn't Dem infighting that killed him then.

This year, an average GOP candidate would get crushed by an average Dem candidate, unfortunately the GOP somehow managed to nominate their best chance despite themselves, while the Dems have two good, but flawed candidates running against him. Though I may regret saying this, I don't think the Dems are going to lose this election because of intra-party hatred brought upon by the primary. If they lose, they are going to lose because the long primary has allowed McCain to set his own narrative while the Dems have been forced to go on offense only against themselves, but to play defense against both their Dem opponent and McCain.

Hillary finally goes with the fear-mongering bin Laden imagery.

By the way, any predictions for what happens in PA tomorrow? My guess would be that Hillary wins by 12%, enough to plausibly keep the campaign going, but not enough to make her likely to win.

7%-8% win

Key quote from the Salon article linked by AG:
"It's fair to say that the Democratic leadership is always more eager to lose with a Mondale than with a McGovern -- with a familiar, safe, mainstream candidate rather than a reform-minded outsider."

I disagree with a lot of the premise of the article though, basically saying that the candidates' difference s boil down to images and perception.

Can you actually name a substantive policy difference between Hilary and Obama?

I think you were directing your request to Linus, but thought I'd take a stab even though I generally agree that the differences between the two aren't huge.

Actual, current policy differences include the reach of "universal" health care (Clinton includes a mandate that everyone be covered, Obama's doesn't. . .this may in fact have a huge effect on what the eventual solution looks like), removing the cap on the social security tax (Obama wants to remove it, Clinton doesn't), negotiating with "rogue regimes" (Obama is for it, Clinton is against it), and, of course, eating babies (Obama's against it, Clinton's for it).

Those are the revealed differences that I could come up with off the top of my head, and I'd agree that, for the most part, there aren't huge policy differences (although, relative to elections in other democracies, the differences between the Dem candidate and McCain won't be that substantial either).

There are also potentially hidden policy differences, based on the political history of the candidates. The biggest one here is Iraq. I am personally of the view that Clinton's current stance is one of political necessity and not true belief (she hadn't held it until the Dem primary started, and she also voted for a rather strong statement about potential use of force against Iran), whereas I think Obama has been much more consistently against the Iraq war. That being said, it's not clear to me that, as President, they will actually treat Iraq differently, as I imagine that the facts on the ground limit the variety of reasonable action, but this difference may affect the way they respond to other potential military issues.

By the way, if, after reading this, you get the sense that the entire reason for my post is to make the "eating babies" crack, you'd be correct.

And I am grateful you did. It's good to start the working day with a laugh out loud moment.