Barack Obama is the next generation. Or so says psifighter37 in this interesting post at MyDD and Daily Kos about Obama’s appeal to younger voters…

So why does there seem to be such an overwhelming contingency of support for Obama among younger Americans - those deemed to be not as interested in politics? Simply put, he represents a much different voice in politics than many of us are used to. I grew up during the Clinton years and have become involved in the political process during the Bush administration, and the memories I have of both are overwhelmingly negative. Granted, most of the negativity has come from the GOP and its right-wing minions, but as a 20 year-old, the rhetoric I have heard in the political arena has been near-devoid of positive thinking and optimism. Obama represents a change from the usual rhetoric, no matter how empty it may seem to those of us who wish to scrutinize his record. I recognize that much of the blogosphere has possibly had a chance to live in a time when political discourse wasn’t so hostile, but young adults like myself haven’t had a chance to experience that yet.

Another reason why many young people support Obama, aside from his relative youth to the rest of the field, is that we see, in him, the embodiment of the real America. The Senate consists 94 Caucasians and 6 minorities - Obama being one of the six. It’s obviously not reflective of the changing demographics of the country. Popular music, no matter how good or bad one thinks it may be, is populated by minority musicians. Younger Americans are the product of multiracial families. In a nation whose face is changing, Obama is the person who represents this change. Perhaps it’s a symptom of being what John Heilemann of New York Magazine calls a cipher, but in Obama, many do see the senator as someone who has the opportunity to reunite the country. But in a time where there’s a lot of despair in the country and around the world, Obama inspires hope because to people like myself, he relates much better to us than many existing politicians do.

Jamison Foser does a great job wrapping up last week’s telegraphing of the possible media themes that may follow Obama throughout the campaign season.

Foser writes…

In late November, Republican strategist Ed Rogers began pointedly referring to “Barack Hussein Obama,” using the senator and potential Democratic presidential candidate’s middle name.

Soon, the utterly meaningless — but eminently mockable — fact that Obama’s middle name is “Hussein” was everywhere. NBC’s Mike Viqueira announced “a man named Barack Obama, whose middle name, incidentally, is Hussein, running for president.” On the December 5 edition of Fox News’ Special Report with Brit Hume, Carl Cameron told viewers: “Though he’s written two books about himself already, most people know very little about Barack Hussein Obama Junior’s uncommonly privileged life.” (In case you’re wondering: No, “John Sidney McCain” does not appear in any Fox News stories available on Nexis.)

Suddenly, Obama’s middle name has come up again and again: on Fox, on MSNBC, in newspapers, all prompted by a Republican strategist using it to take a jab at the senator.

Well, not quite. That’s the popular version — and that’s how the popular version of these things tends to go: the “mainstream” media repeat these things after they are initiated by Republican operatives or right-wing media. But, just as it was The New York Times and The Washington Post that made up a fake quote from Al Gore about Love Canal, then used the fake quote to accuse him of dishonesty, the Barack Hussein Obama story didn’t begin with Ed Rogers.

Rogers referred to “Barack Hussein Obama” during the November 28 edition of MSNBC’s Hardball. But just the day before, MSNBC’s Tucker Carlson referred to Bill Press as “a true member of the Barack Hussein Obama fan club.”

But it didn’t begin there, either. The first mention of the name as a political matter that we can find in the Nexis database comes from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. On the November 7 edition of Hardball — three full weeks before Rogers’ comment — Matthews said: “You know, it’s interesting that Barack Obama’s middle name is Hussein. That will be interesting down the road, won’t it?” Media Matters noted Matthews’ comments the next day.

Did Matthews come up with that on his own, or did he hear it on one of the right-wing radio shows he favors? Or did he read it on a far-right website, or have it whispered in his ear by a Republican operative? We don’t know. But we do know that attributing the suggestion that Obama’s middle name may have negative political consequences to Rogers lets Matthews off the hook for his role in popularizing the notion. Maybe that’s why Matthews himself does it.

Foser continues on with comments about the Greenfield “joke.”

After Greenfield’s comments drew the wrath of progressives, he claimed he had simply been kidding — and lashed out at his critics, blaming the “hair-trigger instincts” of bloggers and “partisans” who “routinely assume the worst about their adversaries” and complaining about “a tendency to find malice aforethought.” Greenfield suggested that those unruly progressive bloggers should have taken a lesson from “the habits of the Mainstream Media.”

Greenfield’s lecture didn’t go over very well, and for good reason. As Bob Somerby pointed out, the “mainstream media” has peddled silly — and damaging — garbage like this for years. Indeed, Greenfield’s own piece came in the midst of widespread invocation of Obama’s middle name, as we have discussed. There was no reason to assume Greenfield was kidding — and, even if he was, there’s no reason to assume that his “joke” doesn’t perpetuate a bogus negative storyline about Obama. (And the bogus storylines are piling up; we haven’t even gotten to the right-wing blogosphere following the lead of Rush Limbaugh in misrepresenting a joking exchange between Obama and Times columnist Maureen Dowd over her reference to his “ears [that] stick out.”)

Most of all, Greenfield simply isn’t in a position to lecture anyone else about the “habits” of journalism. Not until he apologizes for his role in doctoring a video clip of Hillary Clinton to portray her as a liar. Perhaps not even then.

Foser closes…

As the recent spate of news reports highlighting Obama’s middle name, big ears, and preference to wear shirts without ties demonstrates, the elite political media are fully prepared to approach another presidential campaign by focusing on petty and absurd “looks French”-style caricatures rather than on substance and fact. Fortunately, as the reaction to Greenfield’s report shows, progressives may be ready to do something about it this time.

Much more great commentary, so read the whole thing.

Newsweek has a long article on Hillary and Obama that might of interest, but they left out some key polling results that arguably could have answered the question about whether America is ready to vote for a woman or a black man.

Here are the (yes, way to early to care) numbers that didn’t make it into the story…

Newsweek Poll conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Dec. 6-7, 2006. N=864 registered voters nationwide. MoE ± 4

“Now I’m going to describe some different choices of candidates voters might have in the 2008 election for president. As I read each one, please tell me how you would vote if the election for president were being held today. Suppose you HAD TO CHOOSE between [see below], the Democrat, and [see below], the Republican. Who would you vote for?” If other/unsure: “As of TODAY, do you LEAN more toward [see below], the Democrat; or [see below], the Republican?”

Clinton 50%–43% McCain
Clinton 48%–47% Giuliani
McCain 45%–43% Obama
Giuliani 47%–44% Obama

RunObama.com put some great video up that documents recent Obama’s New Hampshire trip…

The Daily Show coverage is pretty good too…