THE STORY THEY'RE GOING TO LIKE

I think I know what the mainstream media's 2008 presidential election story is going to be, because I think I read it twice today.

First, here's Jonathan Darman, reviewing a new book about the Clintons for Newswek:

...Senator Clinton's rule -- don't compromise goals for the sake of emotion -- has served her well in her presidential campaign. So far. But Clinton may still need her feelings yet. Near the end of her time in the White House, the First Lady watched as Rudy Giuliani, her expected opponent in the New York Senate race, dissolved amid personal scandal. "Now I know why he likes opera," Clinton told confidant Sidney Blumenthal. But the opera lover would redeem himself with a passionate performance on 9/11 and now may end up as Clinton's opponent in the general election. In that scenario, the Clinton campaign would work hard to move beyond the "unthinking emotion" that burnished Giuliani's 9/11 image, focusing instead on the mayor's real record. It will not be a simple task. Emotions aren't rational, but they do count.

Now here's Albert Hunt writing for Bloomberg.com:

... The Clinton campaign is efficient, effective, disciplined and tough.

It also seems to be joyless, humorless and lacking in heart and soul.

...Campaigns, it is said, are a reflection of the candidate. Senator Clinton herself is often a control freak. That trait was honed during the Clinton administration controversies -- some really were attributable to what she called the "vast right- wing conspiracy" -- but she came to the White House with much of that state of mind....

The real impresario [of her campaign] is Mark Penn, a brilliant, socially inept disciple of Dick Morris, the scandal-tainted former guru to Bill Clinton....

The problem [with his method] comes when something unforeseen develops. Great political strategists are like great football coaches; they have to be able to throw out the game plan when exigencies arrive.

... He is the best at data and demographics, not so great at understanding people....

There you go -- that's going to be the narrative: We shouldn't elect Hillary because she has no emotions and no soul, and that means that she, like her campaign's impresario, is "not so great at understanding people" and can't "throw out the game plan when exigencies arrive." Rudy Giuliani, by contrast, has emotions and a soul -- and that's why he was able to "redeem himself with a passionate performance on 9/11."

Yeah, it sounds like the same old "vote for the candidate you'd rather have a beer with" argument -- but it's retooled for the post-Bush era. Now the pundits are going to argue that being the candidate voters would rather have a beer with actually makes you a better president -- emotion is competence, as it was for Giuliani on 9/11.

This will give the pundits an out if Giuliani blows his stack on the campaign trail, or if the tantrums and vendettas of his mayoralty become issues -- we'll be told: Well, better that than an automaton! Passionate guys like Giuliani are just what we need in a crisis!

Maybe, for once, the voters will reject this argument. Maybe they'll finally realize that competence isn't directly proportional to overt emotion. Somehow, though, I doubt it.