Political analysts love to talk about the ongoing (and interminable) battle between Democratic presidential hopefuls Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton in generational terms--Stumper included. Such discussions almost always center on style. Forged in the heated cauldron of the 1960s-era identity politics, Clinton is cast as a typical Baby Boomer; she knows how to pull the levers of power in Washington and understands what it takes to defeat the intractable opposition. Obama, on the other hand, assumes the post-Boomer role: post-racial, post-partisan, the living embodiment of a younger generation's desire to get past the "old divisions" and work across party lines for "change." But while such stylistic characterizations are important, they've obscured differences that have, I think, had a much more substantial impact on the course of the nominating contest to date--that is, the generation gap in tactics.

The latest efforts launched by each campaign to reach out to upcoming primary voters--both relatively unusual--nicely illustrate this gap. Last week, Clinton began airing her first ad in North Carolina (below). Called "NC Ask Me," the 60-second spot poses as an open invitation for Tar Heelers to ask Clinton "anything and everything."

The "NC Ask Me" pitch is supposed to seem new-fangled, open-source and Internet-y. After applying a light patina of Southern specificity to generic issues--"I hear about the crushing cost of healthcare from Winston-Salem to Fayetteville"; "military families from Fort Bragg tell me their deep concerns about how we're treating our veterans"--Clinton tells viewers to "go to NCAskMe.com, and then I'll be getting back to you here on TV to answer your questions and offer some solutions," presumably in upcoming commercials. But the ad campaign isn't, of course, about "hav[ing] a conversation," as Clinton puts it. If that's what the New York senator wanted, she would hold a live, unmediated Web chat with the unwashed masses. Instead, it's about creating the superficial impression of solicitation--and hoping that it lends her bid a welcoming aura of Web 2.0 openness--while screening the submitted questions for toothless queries ("What's your plan for the economy?") that allow her to "respond" with carefully scripted talking points through the old-school, one-way medium of television advertising. No back-and-forth, no give-and-take, no real input from voters. Just top-down messaging masquerading as a something "newer." Clinton's last "conversation"--the series of sterile chats that followed her campaign's Jan. 2007 launch--inspired the famous "Hillary 1984" YouTube ad. So it doesn't matter how many times Clinton says, "I want to hear from you" or "this election isn't about me, it is about you" or "it's nice talking with you." Anyone who remembers "1984"--and with more than five million views, that probably means much of younger, engaged America--realizes that she's not about to relinquish control any time soon.

Is Obama more open? Not really. But the important distinction--the real generation gap--is that he doesn't pretend to be. Team Obama realizes that Clinton's "conversations" are transparently phony. So he doesn't even indulge. Instead, the Illinois senator's staff implements novel, under-the-radar efforts like Indiana's recent "3-on-3 Basketball Challenge for Change."

The incentive is irresistible: a lucky supporter from the hoops-obsessed state gets to play a game of pick-up with two friends against Obama (a skilled baller) and his to-be-determined teammates. But the objective is what makes the "challenge" really intriguing. To enter, high school students must collect voter-registration forms from 20 of their peers--meaning that the "3-on-3" scheme is not about raising money or submitting questions, but leveraging students' actual social connections to increase the states' concentration of young voters (most of whom go untargeted by rival campaigns because they're still 17--even though they'll turn 18 by Election Day in November and are therefore eligible to vote in the May 6 primary). It's this sort of strategy--aggressive organizing in unexpected places, plus mobilizing new voters--that accounts for Obama's slim but insurmountable lead of 150 or so pledged delegates, nearly all of which came from caucus states where Clinton didn't even bother to compete.

So while the former First Lady awkwardly attempts to appeal to the latest generation of voters, Obama actually drives them to the polls. More than age, packaging or rhetoric, that has made all the difference.