Obama and the Grumpy Old Men

Seventy-eight year-old Rep. Charlie Rangel calls him "stupid," BET mogul Robert Johnson, 62, compares him to Sidney Poitier in Guess Who's Coming to Dinner (not a good thing, intimates Johnson), Rep John Lewis, 68, calls him "no Martin Luther King Jr," and former ambassador Andrew Young, 76, insists that "Bill [Clinton] is every bit as black as Barack." Recent sexagenarian Bill himself has lit into him ferociously half a dozen times this year.

These grumpy old men's target, Barack Obama, would at first seem an unlikely candidate for their wrath: at the very least he is a likeable, polite, even-tempered and accomplished senator who has not had a bad word to say about any of his attackers. The most obvious cause of the assault is, of course, that all five men are supporters of Hillary Clinton and are invested in her success (very emotionally so in the case of Bill, and very politically so in the case of Rangel).

But the bitterness of the tone and the content of the offensive point to deeper roots: could it be that these men, highly successful in their fields against scarring odds, resent the arriviste Obama? The biracial, binational product of 1970s Hawaii has hardly bowed at the altar of Clintonism, and certainly not paid sufficient homage to Rangel, the dean-of-the-New-York-congressional-delegation and a fervent power-broker whose brokering will have gone awry if Obama wins (Rangel is perhaps best known for taking credit for Hillary's successful New York Senate run). It may also be that he hasn't shown all these men the deference they expect from an upstart.

Lewis, Young and Johnson would seem to have less to lose, except, perhaps, their pride: for these pioneers, it may be embarrassing to have backed so publicly and so early an uber-establishment candidate such as Clinton over the promising (and only) black Senator who is making such a strong bid for the presidency. This is especially true now, when both men's African-American political and business bases are so ardently embracing Obama. Lewis explains his support because the Clintons are "family;" the civil-rights hero's loyalty is remarkable, but surely at some point the argument becomes circular, and the people in power remain in power until the end of time because they have a paternalistic hold on our allegiance. Worse: two terms of George W. Bush's unerring loyalty to those loyal to him yielded the Katrina catastrophe, a lawless Attorney General's office, a criminal war fought to the bitter end, among many horrors. How can one not come to the conclusion that loyalty in politics, if not in real life, is grossly overrated?

Obama, in his post-racial zeal, can hardly complain that he doesn't receive the full backing of his Congressional Black Caucus colleagues and other black leaders. But on the issues alone, he would seem a better fit: for instance, few groups have been more vocal than members of the CBC in their opposition to the Iraq war championed by Clinton. It is also hard to argue that she has a better grasp of issues specifically affecting many African-Americans than Obama does: if nothing else, he spent years working the streets of Chicago's South Side (to paraphrase Johnson, we know what Clinton was doing in her youth: organizing young Goldwater Republicans in suburban Park Ridge,IL, and at Wellesley as president of the College Republicans).

Obama has garnered the support of important African-American political veterans (John Conyers perhaps most prominently, but also Jesse Jackson, Barbara Lee, etc), while others are still on the sidelines (Maxine Waters, uncharacteristically, Jim Clyburn). Among younger activists and elected officials, it's a blow-out for Obama: they are unlikely to feel any loyalty to the Clintons, are engaged by a post-baby-boom candidate and feel more in sync with him on the issues. For politicians, the generational gap has come about because the younger generation has turned away from the Clintons, not thanks to older leaders' unanimous support of Hillary. The public anger expressed by her close circle of elders will only further engage young political activists in favor of Obama, no matter how contrite Rangel and Johnson's apologies to Obama (the latter's bold lying about the whole matter didn't help either).

Among voters, the generational gap in support for Obama and Clinton dwarfs the gender gap according to a Pollster.com analysis. There are probably many reasons for this: people are more drawn to politicians closer to their age, older white voters may be less likely to vote for a black candidate, older voters are disproportionately female and may be more likely to remember the Clinton presidency fondly, etc.

The causes of the generation gap may be unclear, but its consequences matter greatly, as it is finally dawning on political advisers that the "echo boom" well understood by marketers applies to politics: the offspring of the baby boom form a big bulge of consumers and voters. And at some point, perhaps this year, they will actually make their way to the ballot box (they already did so in Iowa, where they overwhelmed the caucus sites). Even if younger voters participate in the same low proportion they usually do, their sheer numbers can create major change, not unlike the 1970s, when most of their boomer parents came of political age.

Many commentators have pooh-poohed Obama's de facto coalition of supporters: black voters, as always, seem barely to count (except in South Carolina, we have been told thousands of times, because they form half the primary electorate); young voters never vote (except in Iowa this year, we are told, but that was unusual); white men don't vote for Democrats. The truth is, of course, that these groups, who are disproportionately supporting Obama, are expected to constitute over 60% of Democratic voters according to a recent Diageo/Hotline poll. Of course, Clinton can win the nomination by doing extremely well among older white women (about a quarter of Democrats) and, it seems, Latinos (10%), at least on the West Coast, but that is not a more likely path to victory than Obama's. Particularly since she may not be able to count on these women unconditionally, as Obama's win among female voters in Iowa demonstrated.

This dispiriting demographic segmentations obscure a more important fact: in every state that has voted so far, the more voters got to know Obama and focus on the race, the more votes he has received. So much has happened in the past month, politically, that it is hard to remember that he trailed Clinton by an (unweighted) average of 14% in CNN December polls in the early states. The result: he has won one state by 9%, and lost two by 3% and 6% (the latter, Nevada, possibly by less). These stunning gains have come about among all demographic groups surveyed, including older people.

With this in mind, the accelerated, bunched up primary process, culminating in the 22-state Feb 5 contests, is Clinton's best friend: if Obama's gains in early voting states are any indication, it is unlikely she could survive the closer scrutiny that comes with staggered voting, the Obama magic or the spite of the grumpy old men so intent on doing her a favor.

Comments

[JakeEasy]

Paul,
Try a little math.

Dr. King would be 79 now. Many of us old farts marched and demonstrated for the glorious day when a black man could run for office as well as Obama is doing. However, just because he is black is not the reason to vote for him. That is what we marched for - to have someone judged by more than the color of his skin. I greatly admire Barack Obama and will proudly vote for him in the general if he is the nominee. But my support for Hillary is based not on race or even sex or age, but on my opinion of who will better lead us forward. Both candidates have the right goals. Both deserve our respect and support. That was the purpose of all that effort forty years ago.

To dismiss the people of age that do not agree with you as grumpy old men invites the counter argument of seeing you as a clueless young fool. Not that I would ever do that of course. Now be nice, share with others, and for goodness sake, put on a warm coat.

[lovethesinner]

Paul, this is one of the most insightful and engaging posts I've ever read at Huffpo.

Just the title is enough to clear the air and point out something that should have been obvious but has been kept submerged; that Hillary's experience is really just a network of "good-ole girls", and "grumpy old men".

This is the bargain of "two for the price of one"?

I can't see the Democratic leadership buying in to it. I can't see Howard Dean being willing to throw away the future of the party to invest in something so partisan, and shopworn.

Thanks again for great reporting and excellent writing.

[patrice37]

It's interesting to see the mass projection going on here. Seems like many members of my generation who have ever been slighted by someone younger are personally blaming Barack Obama for it. As far as I know, Obama (who is middle-aged by any definition and older now than Bill Clinton was when he ran for president) has never made age any kind of issue. And he was out there fighting for social justice while Hillary was representing banks and playing with cattle futures. Why is that so hard for some of my fellow geezers to acknowledge?

[TheWesternBreed]

What's obvious is that the Democratic primary race wasn't a particularly nasty race until Bill Clinton and his old FOBs noticed that Hillary was in some danger of losing. Then the knives came out and Democrats began stabbing the best hope their party has for future years, all up and down his back. That will be hard to forgive.

[ljsfolly]

For me Bush one wasn't wonderful and bush two has nearly driven our country to ground with the wall street fiasco and the Iraq war hole that is sucking us dry. Clinton one did Ok and got us in the black but he didn't have 9/11 or a war to contend with. Clinto has been too lock step with bush 2 and believes much as he does. For too many people they really believe the vote for hillary is a vote for bill and that is the problem. No way should they be tied together. As she had did not have any real "experience" to govern while being the wife she isn't much more experienced that obama. She just does the swift boat better as she did learn that part of the process. She also has her own rove named Penn to do the dirty. That many blacks don't see she is a different person from bill and will not treat them as he did is a sad thing as too many will be sorry if she wins.

[facemn]

Great article!

Make your voice heard for Barack here:
http://barackforpresident08.blogspot.com/

[Bocababs]

If I have not told everyone on this post so far in the comment section -- I voted for OBAMA on Saturday in SO. FL as we have Early Voting down here.

For full disclosure reasons...I am a Grumpy, Middle Aged WHITE WOMAN.

[messy]

Please note that the Baby Boom ended in 1964, and that Obama was born in 1961. He might be from the end of it, but he's still a boomer.

[eshalom]

Ageism is as immoral as the other 'isms being exposed in this campaign, and on Martin Luther King day, it's sad to realize that Barrack Obama's generation is now arbitrarily dismissing the contributions made by older people, some of whom continue the struggle for equal rights for all people. On this mesage board, I've seen a reader's comment referring to Hillary Clinton as "as an old hag," reflecting both ageism and misogynism.

Your post is a blatant attack on an older generation, which, by the way, Paul, once included Martin and Coretta King.

[independentrepublicrat]

Quote from the AP: [Obama's] campaign manager, David Plouffe, was far more pointed in a written statement that accused the Clinton campaign of "an entire week's worth of false, divisive attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself."Whatever the hard feelings, Clinton told supporters they would fade by the fall general election campaign. "We will all be united in November," she said, as the crowd chanted "HRC, HRC." [end quote] ---------------------------------------------------- I have said this time and again. The Clintons and their supporters believe that no matter what lies, dirty politics, race-baiting, xenophobia inciting, lying, misreprensenting, amoral campaign they run, that Democrats in general---and Blacks specifically---will have no choice but to support them in November if they are successful in stealing this nomination. I beg to differ. I hope all intelligent Democrats of good conscience will vote for a change in the political party by NOT supporting her if she robs the public of a chance at an honest debate and a substantive choice for president. Don't vote for Billary in the fall under any circumstance; make a stand about your morals and your values as a party. Blacks more than others should always stand up for right because they, since inception, have been the true moral conscience of this nation; FACT!

[OhPlease2007]

Paul, speaking of grumpy old men, your forgot to mention Obama's 'spiritual mentor' Rev. Jeremiah Wright waxing grumpy when he stated the following hateful -&- culturally divisive remark about Bill Clinton:

"Some argue that blacks should vote for Clinton because her husband was good to us," he [Wright] continued. "That's not true," he [Wright] thundered. "He did the same thing to us that he did to Monica Lewinsky."

Now Paul, I ask you, do you 'really' think a good Christian would have made that kind of hateful remark? And in church???

If you are going to be digging up statements by Hillary supporters, I ask you, is the above hateful remark about Bill Clinton, 'truly change' that we are all supposed to believe in??? . . . No thank you!

In my opinion, Obama's 'spiritual mentor' is as phony as Obama's campaign message of, "hope -&- change."

We the people don't need any more politically -&- culturally divisive politicians running our country. I will never vote for either Hillary -OR- Obama. America clearly deserves better than them.

Source: Baltimore Sun.com(Obama's spiritual mentor- Powerhouse Chicago preacher draws attention, and plenty of controversy, Michael Hill, Jan 16, 2008)

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nation/politics/bal-te.preacher16jan16,0,1629577.story?coll=bal_tab01_layout

[HollyBrinee]

I'm so tired of the St. Obama act. By refusing to properly vet Obama, and really look him over with a critical eye, Democrats like Paul do a disservice to all of us. You think people are hard on him now? Wait until the GOP gets a hold of him. It's breathtakingly arrogant to insist that all of those people were supposed to drop everything and hail Obama. Once the Obamamaniacs come down off their high, they'll wake up next to Obama on general election day...will they still love him in the morning?

[altohone]

The grumpy old men syndrome exposes the true nature of power politics more than it passes judgement on Obama.

The grumps expected Hillary to be a shoe-in, so they jumped on board knowing supporters would be rewarded and detractors punished... business as usual.

It isn't complicated.

I'd guess some are regretting their decision.

[vbond]

Now is the time for good men and women - grumpy or not - to come to the aid of our country.

In my opinion, the odds are about even that Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the Democratic Party.

The odds are far better that whichever wins the nomination will be the next President, unless the party is in disarray and key constituencies are alienated. Democratic victory in November is far from assured.

If the battle continues as it has become between them, and certainly if it worsens, the candidacy or the Presidency of either will be seriously threatened by partisan and intraparty division.

It is time for an intervention.

Not only the kind that Clyburn or, reportedly, Kennedy have fortunately made, to tamp down the competitive excesses of the campaign, but something far more significant.

There needs to be a massive show of support for one or another of these leading candidates, from as wide a swath of the political spectrum as possible.

Such a display would be unprecedented before the nominee is a foregone conclusion. But that is exactly the point, to make it one, and soon.

I am an Obama supporter because I actually believe that he is capable of forging such an endorsement alliance... the kind that would in fact erase the electorate's concerns about his experience.

Historically, endorsements have not been major movers of the electorate, but this mass endorsement would do just that.

It would address the Obama experience issue head-on, and it would model behavior for that portion of voters which could in fact constitute the "governing majority" that even many Clinton supporters would acknowledge to themselves she could never command.

What kinds of names am I talking about?

Gore, Kennedy, Feinstein, Hegel, Boxer, Bloomberg, Richardson, Michelman, Lewis, Sibelius... and more.

And when should they act?

Before Titanic Tuesday... the point is to make a difference that counts.

In another time, with another candidate slate, I would vote for Hillary.

But these times are truly different.

And so is the alternative.

It's time to align.

Now.

[DoninJoisey]

Rangel is a democrat thru and thru. He is abiding by the "rules" of who has "chits" to cash in. Hillary has the most "chits".
I read Rangel's book. He thinks that's how politics ought to work, I don't.
I've had enough of the "you scratch my back,.." politics as usual that Hillary represents.