The Bushed Generation

Tomorrow's Pennsylvania primary will most likely settle nothing, but there is an outside chance that the results could end it all. If Barack Obama wins by even one vote, it's over.

The slice-and-dice demographics show Hillary Clinton running strong among blue-collar voters, gun owners and bowlers, but there is a less obvious layer of the electorate that could surprise the experts--the voters who were pre-pubescent when George W. Bush took power.

These 18-, 19- and 20-year-olds who are either in college or entering the work force into a dismal economy have been registering in large numbers, and despite all the negative ads and campaigning, may find Obama's message of new politics and hope irresistible. He could win the nomination on their disgust with what eight years of the worst presidency in modern times has wrought.

At a rally yesterday, Obama said, "You have a real choice in this election. Either Democrat would be better than John McCain, and all three of us would be better than George Bush.

"But what you have to ask yourself is who has the chance to actually really change things in a fundamental way so that 10 years from now or 20 years from now you can look back and you can say boy we really moved in a new direction and we put the country on a better path."

According to an AP reporter, "The comment threatened to undercut Obama's efforts--and those of the entire Democratic Party--to portray the GOP presidential nominee-in-waiting as nothing more than an extension of Bush's unpopular tenure. At the very least, it provides fodder Republicans can use to prop up McCain."

But it may well be that the conventional wisdom of propping up McCain misses the point of this election. Pennsylvania's youngest voters may settle that question tomorrow.

Obama: Buyer's Remorse

Yet another theory to explain the inexplicable results of the Democratic New Hampshire primary:

Caught up in post-Iowa euphoria, normally prudent New Englanders suffered an attack of buyer's remorse on Election Day--anxiety over their decision to make a big investment based on emotion rather than history and horse sense.

Purchasing a sleek new Obama would make them feel good about themselves, but did they know enough about performance and durability to justify what might turn out to be an extravagance? Wouldn't a familiar Clinton model be a safer investment?

In our new Age of Anxiety, much as voters now want change from Bush fatigue, a heartfelt political commitment would bring with it doubts and worries. In the coming months, such ambivalence may be reflected in more mood swings at the ballot box.

In South Carolina, for example, buyer's remorse could follow the Republicans' sudden infatuation with Mike Huckabee and persuade them to pick up a reliable old John McCain, even if they are not entranced by all the familiar features.

Then again, maybe not.