Smells like '68

or,
Look away, look away, look away, Maureen Dowd.

Remember when I told you my high school observations, that the kids who were truly popular and drank moderately and other such activities on the weekends were secure enough they did not "brag" on it? That it was those feeling insecure who felt the need to trot out their weekend exploits to impress others?

Today, Maureen Dowd for some inexplicable reason, feels the need to remind us of her expertise: the seven odd presidential campaigns she has covered, and just how little she's learned. (Covering seven presidential campaigns has made me realize that when it comes to predicting how presidents will perform, “nobody knows anything,” as William Goldman said about Hollywood.)

No mention of Sen. Obama or Sen. McCain's positions on the issues, just a psychological analysis that it's hard for folks to change after 40. Redemption runs out, it seems. Nobody can learn new tricks past a set age. Of course, she ends with her fears of President Hillary on "Day 2".

Fear not, Maureen. Maybe you're ... projecting or something, always focusing on the face of that familiar female candidate, not venturing far from the campsite to have a closer look at those policies being advocated by Mr. South Side of Chicago, whose friend Oprah is know for her Great Giveaways. Seems Dowd'll swallow what the fellas offer up, but damned if that Clinton dame is going to have a shot at leading, if she has anything to say about it.

Maybe she too wants McCain to win. Maybe she's so busy looking backwards -- at Kennedy, LBJ, Nixon, and all those campaigns she's personally covered as a glamour journalist -- that she really can't see what's coming. Well here's another, who clearly can:

The TimesOnline says the right wing is set to attack Barack Obama as the ultimate "liberal socialist" in the mold of George McGovern.
...
I was struck earlier by Obama's statement that the solution to the Florida primary election is to hold caucuses. Of course he would say that, since he does best in caucuses.

So say some, did George McGovern. Especially, like Obama, in red states that are unlikely to go blue in November. That's how the superdelegates came about -- so the Dems could avoid a repeat of that failed strategy.
...
The inference is that by winning the small red states with caucuses, but not the big blue states like California and New York, Obama is likely to repeat McGovern's blowout in the general election.

Why not a column taking a closer look at Sen. Obama's background: that "activist" community role playing he did in Chicago? His flip-flopping stance on gun rights? His sad lack of experience, thinking he can kumbaya his way to peace and goshdurnit, get everyone to just like and follow him along the primrose path?

Sadly, too many folks seem to think McCain can just be branded as a combover coot, and that the young people will all fall in line and turn out, and that who knows? Maybe Utah will go Blue this year, for the charming fella?

I suspect the reason so many like Dowd and Sullivan are backing Obama is not only because they're sheltered and comfortable enough they can't see the nasty fight the Republicans will put up, and that truly this Clinton is a much stronger fighter at this point in the game than Obama -- who thinks he can win as a lover and uniter, not a fighter ... but because: they personally as journalists burned their bridges under the last Clinton administration. Bad blood. Both are celebrity journalists, not in it for the job, but the lifestyle. Like Tom Petty says, "Oh my my, oh hell yes, please put on your party dress..." They like rubbing elbows, being in with the in crowd. And an Obama/Oprah Giveaway Administration, fresh faces they can impress, suits them just fine.

This Clinton administration, I suspect, won't be so fun. Won't be so much about the parties and mingling and making nicey-nice, as it would be about keeping your eyes on the ball. Getting the job done, and not promising the moon if you know you can't deliver. ("Out of Iraq by the end of 2009?" Why doesn't somebody just call Obama a liar on that one? It's okay to play the skeptic on the new guy, no? Take off the pleasant smiles and nicey nice talk and actually, you know, question him on the facts?)

The reason is: if Obama falls flat on his Democratic face after he is elected, at least there will be social invites showing up in the mail, eh? Nevermind how the soldiers in the field fare, or those working who don't favor "giveaways".

Really, it makes one long for the days of smoke-and-a-shot journalists who knew their roles. And it wasn't telling us about how they felt personally betrayed when the Clintons refused at the time to go to the mat against the military on gay rights, or spinning on whether or not their name would be on the Do-Not-Invite-To-The-Social-Party lists. Use your salaries, buy lives on your own times, and think about actually getting the job done? Letting your work speak for itself, and not recapping the highlights in pretty prose?

Thanks a bunch, and remember to gird those loins: I think we're gonna really see a fight, this time around, and I'm telling ya... those defensive games are way underrated. But the crowds love 'em, last man standing and all...