There are a few unsettling things about the current Democratic presidential race. I criticized Hillary Clinton's campaign recently, but some of what is going on now in New Hampshire from the other candidates calls for equal time.
First. There's the anti-age, anti-experience message. It wouldn't hurt to revisit Aristotle's views on this attitude if only to see how really old it is. Comments about Hillary and her supporters looking like a "wax museum" are deplorably derogatory toward age. Democratic candidates who ride that wave of demeaning humor should be ashamed.
Besides, the truth is that Obama isn't much younger than a lot of the blame-them-for-everything boomers. He isn't 20. And Edwards is even less of a spring chicken.
It's odd, too, that Obama can talk like JFK and Martin Luther King, quote them, while borrowing tone and style from the Gettysburg Address, but if Hillary talks about the past, she's "living in the '80s and '90s." What's that about?
Second. This notion that Hillary feels "entitled" to be president is a red herring. Research indicates that as a culture we're still uncomfortable with female bragging. In The Secret Handshake, I wrote about the female "self-promotion trap" long before this race.
It works like this in politics. McCain can say, "I'll win. I'll win" as he did on Meet The Press. No problem. Edwards can brag about coming in second in Iowa. Huckabee can insist he is going to be President and Obama can present himself as the answer to our hopes. Apparently these indicate "confidence." But if Hillary sounds self-assured, it's "entitlement." And "not likable." This kind of gratuitous word play is vintage George W. Bush. It's part of the status quo Democrats supposedly disdain -- not change, but more of the same.
Sure the candidates are getting desperate. They all want to win. So what's wrong with riding a fortuitous wave of subtle or subliminal age and gender bias now and then? The problem: It's not what Democrats say they're all about.