Given the discussion at this post about Obama’s condescension, I suggest Tom Maguire’s roundup of the coverage of Obama making the mistake of speaking his mind about the rubes who he needs to vote for him:
I can’t believe that in all those Harvard classes they never emphasize that you can’t tell the rubes what you really think of them. Surely they aren’t relying on the common sense of the elitist snobs passing through to figure that out themselves? Didn’t work!
For those not in the know, here is what he thinks, or at least wanted this audience to believe he thinks:
At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:
“It’s not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”
I really don’t have a problem with the guy, or, as McQ points out, that Obama’s claims of being some kind of “new” politician are a load of horse hockey. Marketing is the stuff of campaigning. I do have a problem with supporters who actually believe that load of BS.
Hmm, I do like this quote from Tom as well:
Bayh skips past the odd tension between Obama’s own opposition to free trade and his apparent belief that free trade opponents are embittered economic losers; maybe Barack opposes free trade on behalf of Michelle, who is struggling to get by on only $400,000 per year.
Heh, well so much for talking straight and holding a position from principle. Given his employment of Austan Goolsbee I think Obama is a free trader, he just doesn’t want us to know. Whether that should make one more likely to vote for him or not I have no idea. What is better? Wrong or insincere?
Update: McQ picks this theme up and goes a little deeper.
