Adam is correct to note the obvious journalistic malpractice involved when Chozick 1)developed a hackish, transparently ridiculous thesis about Barack Obama's alleged electability problem, 2)trolled message boards looking for confirming evidence, 3)came up with almost nothing, and 4)pretended to have evidence anyway. It's worth adding in addition that the story wouldn't have been any more useful (although it would have been more honest) even if she had managed to find a few internet posters making the argument without her prompting somewhere. The "theater critic" school of political journalism is normally terrible even when practiced with more integrity.
The central problem is that the "candidate x is unelectable because of some nebulous personality factor" routine never consists of anything but projection and/or circular arguments. Particularly since these arguments are only interesting if such factors actually change people's votes (as opposed to being cited after they become opposition party narratives by people who would never support them anyway), they're essentially unfalsifiable, and hence tend to reflect a writer's obsessions rather than any meaningful public sentiment. Call me crazy, but I'm guessing it's not a coincidence that Maureen Dowd always finds exactly the same personality flaws in all of the different men the Democrats nominate for President.
--Scott Lemieux
