Adam Nagourney Watch Part 2

In which a prominent political journalist considers nominee wrinkles.

As someone who, at 13, campaigned for George McGovern in his 1972 presidential race. I was interested in Adam Nagourney's New York Times article about Barack Obama and the youth vote. I live in Illinois and it's true that even when Obama was running for senate, he seemed to have a cabal of fresh-faced youth around him wherever he went. This is part of Adam Nagourney's observation in this piece, along with the caveat that historically it ultimately doesn't matter which candidate the youth are pumped up about. Nagourney references Gene McCarthy and Howard Dean to prove this point but forgets George McGovern, who I am convinced would have won the election had everyone who was for him been old enough to vote. Whether or not Obama will bring youth to the voting polls is speculated upon with a disclaimer:

"It rarely turns out to be true: the percentage of voters under 30 in the total electorate was basically unchanged between 2000 and 2004--17 percent, according to surveys of voters leaving the polls."

This is a fascinating statistic and one worth doing a story about. I couldn't wait to cast a vote after turning of age, even though I cast it in the wrong direction--for Jon Anderson rather than Jimmy Carter--because, as far as I can recall, I liked the word independent. Still, being able to vote for the first time was one of the most thrilling days of my life, so I have been perplexed about voter apathy on college campuses. The consideration of Obama and the youth vote seemed like a lead-up to a promising article. Until, in the midst of an article about Obama, Nagourney managed to take a detour into his ongoing Edwards dis, at which point the article pivoted downward:

"Mr. Obama has filled the role of the youthful candidate this year, taking the part that John Edwards played in 2004 (The once-boyish Mr. Edwards, 54 years old, has aged noticeably since his first campaign)."

OK. Well I guess Edwards has aged about 3 years since 2004, but he still looks remarkably young for his age. It still always disconcerts me to see him with his grown daughter because they look like they could be a couple. But even if Edwards did look old, it's a remarkably catty parenthesis. The graph continues:

"At 46, Mr. Obama has just the slightest streak of gray hair, no creases in his face and works out every day to keep trim."

First this is just not true. Like Edwards, Obama does look young for his age. But he has creases (and crows-feet). Just look at any photo
So why, in the paper/web of record, would it state he has no creases? How come no editor at the New York Times checked a photo to verify this?

The graph continues with further proof of Obama's youth.

"Democrats" (which ones, where, when? --it's a pretty large population) "may debate whether his youthfulness makes it tough for him to come across as presidential; at the least, it means that he does not come across as parental, at least not to the newly voting age crowd." (Any sources here? Any actual youth who could be quoted saying that they are required to refer to all other 46-year-old parental units as Mrs. Cleaver, so it's a big change when Obama signs off with his first name?)

In trying to establish Obama's coolness and youth, Nagourney manages to age not only John Edwards but also an entire over-50 population:

"Perhaps alone in the field, Mr. Obama, displays an ease in talking with younger voters and a style that cuts across generations. An e-mail Mr. Obama sent out the other day had the subject line "hey" - memo to readers over 50: If you have kids in their teens or over, ask them about it - and signed only "Barack.""

Perhaps they could also ask their teens to read it to them, since surely their eyesight must have failed by now.

If youthful looks aren't enough to confirm the thesis, there is policy stance:

"What is more, Mr. Obama has firmly identified himself as an anti-war candidate, which historically has been an integral part of the appeal of candidates who did well among younger voters (think Eugene McCarthy in 1968 or Howard Dean in 2004)."

I know you, as reader might be thinking: what about Dennis Kucinich? Why: if an anti-war stance is criteria for a youth vote, aren't youth flocking to him? Not Nagourney--he's thinking about Bush:

"Ken Mehlman, who ran George Bush's 2004 presidential campaign, has long argued that Mr. Bush was hurt among young voters" (awwh) "in the closing weeks of the campaign as Democrats" (again which ones ?) "began warning that Mr. Bush would impose a draft in a second term in order to get enough troops to fight the war in Iraq (the White House has always denied considering such a step)."

The article then goes on to detail how where in Iowa the youth vote might best be utilized by Obama during the caucus process, and to be fair, the explanation is no more confusing than when anyone, in two paragraphs, tries to explain the Iowa caucus process to people who don't live in Iowa.

So the article has been pretty much what now passes for journalism: unnamed sources, lack of clarity, unchallenged untruths, and a White House denial thrown in out of the blue. Oh and a gratuitous negative Edwards remark.

Nagourney was the reporter to report on Edwards being called the "Breck Girl" by an anonymous source and he has questioned whether it was a mistake for him to be used as a mouth piece by Republicans to publicize the label. "Perhaps."

Some might have hoped for a more definitive awakening of conscience but maybe he's learned a lesson. After all he didn't call Obama, with his allegedly unlined face, "Oil of Olay Girl." But there's learning the letter and there's learning the spirit, and why do I get the feeling that if Edwards hadn't appeared to have aged, Nagourney would be referring to him as Dorian Gray .