1) What happens to the younger voters that have embraced Obama if Clinton gets the nomination?

A: Without knowing any more specific details of a potential Clinton victory, it can still be said with considerable certainty that a lot of younger voters will experience numbing waves of disillusionment if Clinton wins the nomination. But let's allow multiple scenarios to play out.

If Clinton achieves her nomination triumph with victories in Pennsylvania and then in (possible, but not yet officially confirmed) do-overs in Michigan and Florida, to the extent that the delegate totals are virtually even heading into the convention, there might still be a sense that a Hillary nomination was gained in a reasonably fair and democratic way. Many young people will be turned off or disappointed, but some will still feel hopeful. Seeing Hillary win so many big states would prevent all young voters from feeling that the process wasn't fair.

The awful scenario would be if Hillary didn't win all three of those states (PA, MI, FL) but still muscled superdelegates and party leaders to somehow steal the nomination. If that happened, young people will leave politics for a solid decade at the very least, if not much longer.

The other thing to consider here is the way in which Hillary campaigns going forward. If she continues to play her brand of country hardball, young people will be turned off in considerable numbers even if Hillary were to win all the remaining big-delegate states. But if Hillary won the nomination while waging a more uplifting kind of campaign, the psychic and political fallout among younger voters will be minimized.


2) If she wins it outright, will the response from younger voters be different than if she uses the courts and super delegates to win?

Yes, for reasons stated above.

What I would add here, to lend some background and perspective to the answer above in question 1, is that I base my observations not so much on extensive discussions with other young people (although I observed the huge youth turnout at both my caucus site and at the KeyArena Obama rally), but on a growing awareness of human nature. It's natural for younger people--in any realm of life--to view losses and setbacks in a more personal and emotional way. I've been there many times myself. (Bradley supporter in 2000, Dean in 2004.) The more familiar you become with life and everything else in it--including politics--the more you are able to see shades of gray instead of the black-and-white views that dominated your more youthful and idealistic years.

I do think that the manner in which Hillary secures the nomination--if she somehow manages to do so--will therefore have an effect on young voters. That effect might not emerge in the 2008 general election, but it will be felt in 2012. If Clinton wins this with courts and super delegates, young voters will stay home; if she wins outright, young voters will still be somewhat interested, though with reservations.

3) I have a pessimistic sinking feeling that the U.S. is broken, and more Clinton, and McCain is not the answer. Obama might not be either, but he is a fresh alternative. What is your assessment of where our country is, and how important is this election in terms of putting the nation back on track?


Our country is desperately in need of better governance and more responsible adult leadership, for all the obvious reasons. The question is, how do we get there? Before we attain all the urgently-needed reforms that will get our country back on track, we need a campaign and then an election result that will put our country in position to be healed.

The big tension in this election is, of course, the tension between Obama and Clinton, and the reactions they generate from Americans.

Obama is indeed a policy lightweight (at least, he's not the kind of seasoned workhorse along the lines of a Russ Feingold or Charles Grassley), and it's silly to pretend otherwise. However, one shouldn't think that a lack of executive or legislative experience must disqualify people for public office, even the presidency of the United States. What we've seen in the campaign tactics and stump oratory thus far, as well as in the state-by-state results, is a split between generations in terms of the fundamental lens through which the realm of politics should be viewed.

Older people, understandably, have seen enough of politics to know that it will always be a rough-and-tumble arena. Therefore, they see in Hillary a bare-knuckle warrior who, though compromised and beholden to entrenched power, will still be the more effective champion for important social and legislative causes. The mistrust that is, with good reason, so pervasive in politics these days (just look at the Eliot Spitzer bombshell) is precisely what makes a lot of older people suspicious of Obama's ability to deliver on his promise to bring change to the country and match his soaring rhetorical trajectory.

Younger people, just as understandably, see how politics (like other aspects of life) can be--and, one could say, needs to be--conducted in an outside-the-box manner that can substantially change the subculture in which political battles are waged. If this underlying subculture can be changed, and if long-prevailing Beltway methods can be removed from "The Way The Game Is Played," the whole nature of politics--its possibilities and its guiding principles--will be entirely reshaped. This is the hope of young people and all who long for the kind of complete systemic overhaul that would transform our country for the better.

Therefore, this election is important not just for the result (though that will be significant, of course), but for the campaign and the debate that precede it. If we have two candidates acting like Alan Alda and Jimmy Smits on "The West Wing," and not engaging in the attack-rich mortal combat we've seen in this campaign so far, we could then witness the creation of a new political culture in which politicians can feel liberated enough to vote and act in the support of their consciences and convictions.

(A word about the tone and quality of presidential campaigns: Nixon-Kennedy '60 was perhaps the last campaign to have an appreciably civil and substantive debate, because it was the campaign that fully brought America into a new era where TV ads became decisive, as seen in 1964's LBJ ad in which a girl picked a flower against the backdrop of a nuclear weapon launch countdown. Not since 1960 (which, even then, was still decided based on something visual and not substantive, namely, Nixon's five o'clock shadow) has a campaign been a legitimate battle of ideas more than anything else. And even then, one could make counterarguments.)

Obama and Clinton-before the general election against McCain-need to realize that as long as they stay enmeshed in traditional attack politics, safe forms of interest-group pandering, and familiar forms of communication and debate, they're not creating the fertile soil from which new movements and possibilities can sprout. They, and all candidates for high office, need to start voting, speaking and acting with liberated souls and fearless minds and courageous hearts, in a million different ways. The most cynical seniors and the most idealistic youngsters would both know what this would look and feel like if they ever saw it in action. Obama, as fresh as he is, still has many more miles to go before he can be seen as the real deal by everyone in the country. If he were to not just win, but win in a dynamic "West Wing" (Martin Sheen/Jeb Bartlett) kind of way, this election will carry a positive impact for generations to come.

As hopeful as that in fact is, I'm old enough-and cynical enough-to think that that's not about to happen.

Election results matter, but the way people campaign is even more important with respect to the level of governance we receive from our elected leaders.