DAVID BROOKS: UTTERLY INCAPABLE OF GRASPING ACTUAL HUMAN BEHAVIOR

If you read this blog regularly, you know that I fear Republicans have a much better chance of retaining the White House after the '08 election than most people think -- especially if Hillary Clinton is the nominee. But on Friday, David Brooks made clear that he thinks Hillary's chances are looking good.

I dunno. I don't think I'm persuaded.

The biggest story of this presidential campaign is the success of Hillary Clinton. Six months ago many people thought she was too brittle and calculating and that voters would never really bond with her. But now she seems to offer the perfect combination of experience and change.

But so far it's only Democratic voters who are bonding with her. Her negatives aren't going down.

...Her success has put incredible pressure on Barack Obama. He continues to attract huge crowds and huge money, but he also continues to make rookie mistakes, like saying he'd talk with Hugo Chavez. He's forced to campaign on the defensive now, knowing that each misstep reinforces the "He's too young" story line.

This is unrelated to my main point, but I've been thinking that the GOP and the press have a ready set of talking points with which to attack Hillary (evil ambitious dynasty-craving socialist with no principles) and one for Edwards (pathetic pretty boy) -- but haven't had anything for Obama. Alas, Hillary's now given talking points to them. Obama's significantly easier for the GOP to beat than he was before she went medieval on him. Thanks, Hill!

... The one thing Republicans had going for them was the head-to-heads. Bush, the war and the party could all be unpopular, but individual G.O.P. candidates beat Clinton because her negatives were so high. But she is changing that. People who've said they would never vote for her will take a second look once they see her campaign.

Brooks offers no evidence for this. I'd really love to see some.

That means in 2008, Hillary won't save the G.O.P. An orthodox Republican will not beat an orthodox Democrat. If Republicans want to have any chance next year, they have to go for broke.

What does he mean by this? See below (though it isn't really clear below either).

You can see hints of the bad environment at Republican campaign events.... A questioner at a McCain event in Keene charged, "We've had 16 years of draft dodgers in the White House!"

Oh, there's always someone like that, someone who didn't absorb the GOP talking points and is therefore angry at boomer noncombatants regardless of party. Real knee-jerk Republicans know what they're supposed to think: that Dan Quayle, Dick Cheney and George W. Bush acted honorably during the Vietnam War, but Bill Clinton didn't, and neither did John Kerry (or John McCain). And besides, how does anger at two combat-avoider presidents help the wife of one of those presidents get elected?

...So as I travel around watching the Republican candidates, I'm looking for signs that they're willing to try something unorthodox. Eighty percent of the time, what I see is the Dole campaign: Republican candidates uttering their normal principles -- small government, military strength, strong families -- and heading inexorably toward defeat.

What I see is four GOP front-runners most Americans would rather have a beer with than Hillary Clinton. Two of them won elections in very blue places, and the other two are on TV a lot. Therefore all of them have some degree of appeal to swing voters, and in the general-election campaign we'll be told that when they talk like right-wingers, they don't really mean it. Hey, it worked for the Republicans in '00 and '04.

But there are flashes. There are times when they break out of the conventional trench warfare and touch the anger and longing that define this historical moment.

Brooks offers two examples. Here's example #2:

The other flash I saw was at a Romney event at the Lincoln Financial Group in Concord. Romney had slipped away from the policy chunks of his stump speech and was talking about his success in business and in running the Olympics. He was talking about how you assemble a team of people with complementary skills. How you use data and analysis to replace opinion. How you set benchmarks and how often you should perform self-evaluation.

It wasn't impassioned or angry (he doesn't do anger). But it was Romney losing himself in something he really cares about, and it opened up a vista of how government might operate.

Wow, David. That's your idea of a potential campaign game-changer? The use of data?

Brooks really is a wonk. Something like this inspires him, so he doesn't understand that it's never going to inspire other people.

And that's why you can't trust either side of his analysis. If he thinks this kind of thing could get non-Republicans to warm up to the GOP, you can't trust his judgment when he says Hillary will get non-Democrats to warm up to her.

Voters aren't going to vote based on how the candidates present themselves as leaders. Voters are going to vote based on what the press puts in the foreground and what it puts in the background. If we're told endlessly what a bold new dynamic person Rudy or Fred or Mitt is, we'll buy it. That's essentially "Hey, this guy has president vibes, and we in the press think he's cool." It invariably works. That's what I've been assuming we will be told about the GOP nominee.

But maybe I've been wrong. Maybe this very column is a harbinger of the press coverage we'll get -- maybe reporters and pundits have decided they're going to tell us Republicans all have a Dole-like haplessness and Hillary really is showing a wisdom born of age and experience.

I think it all depends on what the polls look like next February when we know who the nominees are. If Bush is dragging down the Republican, maybe we really will be told the Republican is pathetic; his mistakes will be emphasized and the Democrat's will be overlooked. But I think the race will be close and, as a result, we'll be told the Republican looks really inspiring and fresh -- and that will be the thumb on the scale that gets the Republican elected.

But maybe the press will surprise me.