So, let's say Pelosi gets replaced by (insert name here). Do you think that will stop the . . . .

[deurbano]

134. I remember at the time many considered him way cooler (largely because he was younger)

than Clinton.... and there was this great optimism that he would be ushering in a post-partisan age. (Which is why I voted for Clinton in the primary since I knew full well that was a dangerous pipe dream; I preferred someone who had already been through the wringer with the RW attack machine and wouldn't harbor such illusions.)

I'm not sure what "new ideas" candidate Obama was proposing (in contrast to Clinton)... but yes, the "young," "new," "fresh face" parts were major factors of his appeal. But Clinton would have won that general election, too. Another aspect some (like Josh Marshall, I think) mentioned was that Obama didn't have the same "baggage" in terms of being on the RW attack radar for so long. Again, I thought that was actually an advantage for Clinton. But I think Josh and others actually believed Obama could avoid becoming the same kind of target (even then, many seemed to assume it was Clinton's fault that she was targeted... as opposed to that they saw her as an effective threat and wanted to neutralize her)... but of course, they just traded in virulent sexism for virulent racism... or in the case of Michelle Obama, both.

This is not meant to disrespect President Obama (and god do I wish he were still president), just to say his young, new, fresh face did not keep the hounds at bay for long. Once someone is perceived as a threat-- and especially if that someone is not white and/or not male and/or not straight (etc.), since then even that person's very existence is considered a threat-- they WILL be targeted... and the more effective a threat they are, the worse it will be.