The key to victory in November, for any Democratic candidate, will be whether women continue to show up and vote in the historic percentages (of the electorate) demonstrated in in the primaries (so far).

What may be happening is a new political reality in which a new generation of women, with entirely different political attitudes and needs than the generation before them, is just reaching the age (40-60) when a generation really begins to show up at the polls and exercise its political power.

It was men, much more than women, entering that age group back in the late 70s (Silent and younger WWII generation men) who ushered in, gave energy to and sustained the Reagan Revolution (the "angry white male").

In the Boomer generation, which is now coming more fully into power as the WWII and Silent generations depart the scene, the energy and desire for political change and for recognition of their accomplishments and needs, comes most strongly from women. Hillary Clinton may be benefitting not because women are voting for her simply as a woman, but because, as a woman of that generation, she is just in a better position to hear, see and speak to this demographic, and is less invested than the men in the old, traditionally male, political narratives.

I use to fear McCain. But if women continue to vote in unprecedented numbers, I think it means the dawning of a new era in which he will be at a disadvantage, just as much as any other Republican candidate on the scene today -- as the "angry white male" shuffles off the stage and is replaced with the "fed up female."

No one, male or female, young or old, Left or Right, has trouble recognizing, and applauding, the historic, inspirational aspects of Barack Obama's campaign.

But this campaign season has revealed that men, including the leading male Democratic candidates and their mostly male campaign advisors, may be having difficulty fully recognizing, and effectively acknowledging, how historic Hillary Clinton's campaign is. How inspirational it is, at least for women. And, why its ground-breaking nature requires a ground-breaking response from them.

That failure to grasp what the first serious female Presidential candidacy means, including what it means for women who are not committed Clinton supporters, or fully decided on any candidate, and what it requires from candidates who want their votes, had consequences in New Hampshire.

For instance, if the Obama camp had been able to put themselves in the shoes of women, to see the campaign through their eyes for a moment, Obama might not have missed the opportunity handed to him on a platter in the New Hampshire debate, when Clinton was questioned about her "likeability" -- a question that, for women, resonated with all the age-old dismissals of public women and their attractiveness. He would have known immediately that he needed to renounce the cringe-making, sexist nature of the inquiry. He would have understood that it wasn't Hillary's likeability that he needed to defend -- which he did with a dismissive, "You're likable enough" -- but a woman’s right to be taken seriously, and engaged with, seriously. He would have known that it wasn’t about standing up for Hillary, a competitor, but about demonstrating that he could stand with women -- women whose support he needs, and who he is, after all, campaigning to represent.

Women, especially those of Clinton’s generation, have spent a lot of their lives rising to meet responsibilities they were never prepared for; bushwhacking into unknown territory without guides or guideposts. They understand that competing against a woman is mostly new, and therefore tricky, territory for male politicians. They're willing to forgive a few mistakes, but not too many.

Both Obama and Edwards made rooky mistakes in, at times, appearing to take cues on how they should compete against a woman from the mostly clueless, still male dominated media. They also allowed themselves to be lulled into over-estimating how much the orgy of over-the-top negative coverage of Clinton could benefit them. Now they’ve been given a chance to get a clue from women voters themselves.

If they know how to listen, here is what they’ll hear; they have to take every opportunity possible to disassociate themselves from the boy’s club discomfort with a girl in the tree house that characterizes too much of the coverage of Clinton’s candidacy -- and campaign like men who fully understand the respect women have earned.

A good place to begin would be with condemning the media narrative that puts Hillary's victory at the door of "women's sympathy." Not because it's dismissive of their competitor, but because it's dismissive of all women. Women with votes they need.

The bottom line is; male candidates can still be reassured that women won’t vote for a woman just because she is a woman. But it’s past time for them to wake up to the full implications of this reality; increasingly, women don't have to vote for men simply because they have no other choice.

Democrats are up in arms over Republican efforts to pass laws requiring voters to produce government issued identification in order to vote. An Indiana law just came up for review by the Supreme Court (Justices May Seek Compromise in Voter ID Case), where the Democrats' arguments were greeted skeptically. This issue is a dog for Democrats. There is no upside in contesting it in court. Just accept it and move it.

I understand fully that there is no need for such laws, and that GOP efforts to pass these laws are politically motivated. Some people see this as part of a broader voter suppression effort, which is possible. More likely, I think Republicans are seeking to create the illusion of massive voter fraud as a way to mobilize the base -- "OMG, Mexicans are coming across the border to steal our jobs, rape our women, and elect Democrats!" I am not sure which of those the Republicans consider the most heinous.

But regardless of motivations, there is simply nothing objectionable about asking for a valid government-issued ID to vote. And even if you disagree with that, you have to realize that it is a losing issue. It is impossible to convince a majority of the population that asking for a driver's license (or equivalent) is an undue burden. Indeed, most people are shocked to hear such a requirement is not already universal. Not only is this a loser politically, it is a loser as a legal strategy. The U.S. Supreme Court as current constituted is simply not going to side with Democrats on this issue. The court is dominated by a core of right-wing ideologues like Scalia and Republican political operatives like Roberts (Roberts is Karl Rove with a better pedigree). Relying on the Supreme Court for anything at this point is likely to be fruitless.

Democrats are right to be wary of Republican voter suppression effort, but suspicion of their motives is no reason to give them a great political cudgel. The better way to address Democratic concerns now would be to pass federal laws ensuring easier access to government-issued ID. This should be one of the first bills passed in 2009 if both Congress and the Presidency are controlled by the Democratic party.

Bernard I. Finel

www.bernardfinel.com