I'm not sure how this whole "bitterness" brouhaha will play out, but I like that Obama, unlike the last couple of Dem general election candidates, responds quickly and turns defense into offense on the exact point (wrong and out-of-touch) on which he is being attacked. For an example of this, see the video at the end of this post.

Basically, he narrows the point he initially made to the question of whether people are, in fact, bitter about the current economic situation, and then mocks McCain and Clinton for being out-of-touch in a jokey, casual way. He may end up not being a good president, but he's a pretty good politician.

From what I've heard, he has defused that situation quite skillfully.

I'm not sure he will have actually defused it (the American public is an odd beast), but I agree that he did as well, if not better, than can be expected. Of course, Clinton has helped him a bit by trying to turn herself into a gun-toting, god-fearing, 'merican.

Pan Tau wrote:

QUOTE:
From what I've heard, he has defused that situation quite skillfully.

Not so sure about that. Hillary's going to keep bringing it up, and it will no doubt be mentioned at the PA debate. The media will keep the issue alive.

Grrr.... The fact that this is even an issue just shows how much is fucking wrong with this country.

[/fume][/splutter]

Regardless of whether Clinton keeps bringing it up (she looks ridiculous when she does, and she doesn't need to bring it up herself), the media will keep at it. It fits into the traditional media trope that the Democrats are effete elitists. The relevant question is whether this trope matters as much to voters in this election as it has in the past. It probably will. It's a shame that Romney couldn't win the GOP nomination, as it would have undercut this.

What he should have said is that he didn't meant to say that gun rights, religion or whatever are necessarily stupid or wrong (although maybe he does think that), it's just that the President doesn't actually have that much direct influence on the issues related to guns, religion, etc, or at least, voting for a Democrat isn't going to change as much as the Republicans want their scared constituences to believe.

But the president can have a lot of influence on whether or not we fight stupid, immoral and mind-boggingly expensive wars. The President can set leadership objectives for overall economic development - technology and so forth. The President can have a lot of influence on the tax structure. And the president, through the NLRB and so forth have a lot of impact on how labor laws are enforced or not.

These are the things that working class people should be focused on, but because they're so jaded by the experience of nothing improving that they cling to these wedge issues like abortion or guns which Republicans whip up for the express purpose of taking people's eye off the more critical problems.

We're accustomed now to Hilary's robustly brass neck, but the spectacle of her describing an opponent as from an "out of touch elite" is indeed one to grimly behold.

That said, Obama fucked up a bit with that comment. When people say that politicians are out of touch with working-class voters, for whatever reasons, they are nonetheless telling the truth.

Gary Younge today: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/apr/14/uselections2008.barackobama

Good piece there.

Fayette County is indeed very grim, and yet has a lot of natural beauty. I didn't know that George Marshall or the Big Mac was from there, however. Doesn't make it less grim.

Is he a bitter person?

I think he handled it fine. What he said isn't controversial in the slightest. It's just one of those things that you can't say in the US media, unless you're a conservative. If I'd have handled it any differently, I'd have pointed out that David Frum (you know, ex speechwriter for Bush) said exactly the same thing, except that his point was that we need to keep the masses in fear of economic ruin to ensure they have conservative cultural values. He wrote an entire book on the subject, for fuck's sake.

Y'see, this is where I differ from you youngsters. When I see Buffalo mentioned, I start singing Shuffle Of To Buffalo...

Err.... "Matrimony is baloney, she'll be wanting alimony in a year or so, still they go and shuffle, shuffle off to buffalo. When she knows as much as we know, she'll be on her way to reno while he still has dough."

Hmm. I was a very cool 11 year old wasn't I. We went to see 42st in the point for my sisters 9th birthday. I think that catherine Zeta jones was one of the leads.

Suddenly, and most unexpectedly, an awful lot becomes much more clear . . .

My sister was a big fan of musicals, particularly that andrew lloyd webber shite, and every night as she would go to sleep she'd put on one of them and would loudly sing along with the wrong words, and it used to irritate the shit out of me. So eventually I wound up knowing the lyrics to such horrendous dross as starlight express and the phantom of the opera.

I did like cats though. Elliot threw in some rivetting yarns.

Is 42nd street a sort of compilation best of musical? I would have thought that lullaby of Broadway was in something else.

She supported Liverpool, too, didn't she?

42d Street is partly a remake of a Warner Bros. film from the 30s and partly a compilation. Lullaby of Broadway wasn't in the original film, but was written for Golddiggers of 1935 (and yes, I had to look that bit up).

Well, look at that Reed: Pittsburgh Steelers owner Dan Rooney tells his mama he's for Obama.