A FINAL WORD ON HILLARY. For this round of the debate, at least. Let me begin with an anecdote. A bunch of us Tappers went for drinks the other day, and Hillary Clinton came up. It was a mixed crowd, but, reflecting the magazine's writing employees, mainly men. As the conversation turned to '08, a young woman spoke up softly. "I like Hillary," she said. Very quickly, several men raised their voices against her, expounding, at great length, on everything that was wrong with Hillary, and why she couldn't win, and why no one should support her. The young woman said nothing in reply, and, in fact, said nothing more for the remainder of the evening. But I'm not sure that her mind was changed. Today, the Gallup Poll reported that "Clinton's highest level of support is among 18- to 49-year-old women; her lowest, among 18- to 49-year-old men." And so, with all due respect to Sam and Matt and Scott and Ezra and Mark, their views on this site must be understood as unavoidably a reflection of their demographics, as well as their judgment, as are the differing views of Dana and J. Goodrich and, well, me. I've been most surprised by Ezra's assertion that Hillary is so uniquely unsuited to the presidency that she -- and she alone of the major candidates! -- should never have even thrown her hat in the ring. And I tend to agree with Mark that Mark Penn has been responsible for some of the most egregious Democrats attacks on liberals (such as through Joe Lieberman), though I temper this with the knowledge that Clinton's style is to have a strategist for every constituency, so that if you find the idea of mom-fluentials absurd, Ann Lewis and Ellen Malcolm are there to provide a different and more appealing view of how to approach women voters.
As I argued in my piece, "The most important division Clinton begets is between men and women," and I think you can see that political divide emerging even here on this site. Unfortunately for Clinton, most opinion media -- including the progressive variety -- consists of upwards of 75 percent (and somtimes even upwards of 90 percent) male voices. That means that the demographic bias of men against Hillary is offered a far greater public airing than the demographic bias of women for her, and that the few women who are around will be more likely to be like the young woman at happy hour, and prefer to sit in silent disagreement rather than feel themselves pounced upon by all the loudest voices at the table, or in the midst of an eight on one intra-office fight.
It also means that progressive media are going to be unusually out of sync with the progressive base this cycle. But the facts are the facts: 43 percent of Democratic women under 49 back Hillary, according to Gallup, and "The bad news...comes among male Democrats aged 18 to 49, which is the only one of...four age and gender groups in which Clinton is statistically tied with Obama." The figure is even starker when you look at the youngest group in the Gallup survey: just 24 percent of 18-29 year-old men back Clinton (the Ezra/Sam/Matt demographic), compared with 40 percent of women in the same age bracket, and 44 percent in the 30-49 group (my own, and Goodrich's).
Now, writers at The Prospect don't do endorsements, at least not on Prospect turf, and, as I said in my piece, "There is a strong progressive case to be made for [Obama] as well." And so this debate will doubtless be continued, as events unfold and warrant it.
--Garance Franke-Ruta
