(my apologies if this is double-posted; I couldn't find it)

I've been mulling over what truly annoys me most about last night's overspun "Obama called midwest Americans bitter!" pseudo-scandal, and I think I've pegged it.

The fact that Clinton and McCain don't realize Americans ARE bitter, and think it's an insult to say so? No, that's not it.

The way they're tag-teaming Obama, as if Clinton & McCain were on the same ticket (which, increasingly, it seems they are?) Old news. That's not it either.

A multi-millionaire daughter of privilege and the son and grandson of admirals, calling Obama elitist? Blah blah hypocrisy blah.

The ignorance of implying Obama's "clinging to guns" statement is anti-gun control, when Obama is actually fairly relaxed about supporting the 2nd amendment, or anti-religion, when anyone in the country is kind of aware he's so religious, he refused to turn on his own reverend? Not even that, but we're getting warm.

It's how they leapt on his word choice--the same way people leapt on "typical" a couple of weeks back. It's as if they think, and are encouraging us to believe, that anyone's soul can be revealed through the single use of a PERHAPS mischosen word. And I'm referring to the verb "clinging" as the questionable word, not "bitter," which was perfect.

I may be no huge Dr. Laura fan--though I recommend her first book about 10 STUPID THINGS, written before she really got famous and IMHO extremist, to many young women. But one thing I love is her differentiation between an incident and a pattern. An incident of something isn't particularly significant (unless it's something huge like drunk driving or adultery). When someone does something perhaps questionable, just once, wise people don't focus heavily on it because we all slip up, being human. But if there's a PATTERN of questionable behavior, then there's a problem.

Maybe you can argue that Obama's words were ill chosen. I will argue with you about "bitter" but, again, can grant you that "clinging to guns and religion" may have played better if he'd said "focusing on," because "clinging" has a negative connotation. Let's say "clinging" WAS ill-chosen for the sake of argument.

He said it once. Speaking extemporaneously instead of from a script. Once.

He did NOT repeat it four times like, oh, confusing Shia and Sunnis. He did NOT state it from prepared notes--like someone turning little girls with poems into snipers and Bosnian adventure (which was also repeated).

I'm a community college instructor, and let me assure you this: When you're regularly standing in front of a group of people TALKING WITH THEM--not just reciting AT them but talking WITH THEM--you're going to trip over your own words now and then. I'm even a GOOD teacher, but I've said things that came out stupid or even possibly insulting at least once a week out of my 15+ hours of weekly presentation. I once tried counting down instead of up with one hand and accidentally flipped my class the bird (oops!). I apologized, we laughed, and I drove on. I once said something a student felt was insulting, and I didn't even notice my ill-chosen words until she asked me about it after class. We discussed it, I apologized and learned, and we moved on. I've said something at which students took umbrage, and I've had to respectfully disagree with them. I am not, thank heavens, being videotaped during every moment.

Probably.

I cannot imagine the HELL my life would become if I were to be held accountable for a single phrase, spoken or mispoken only once, aimed back at me by someone trying to shift the attention off themselves. You may say "Yes, but you are not running for president, and Obama is." To which I reply--this post is not in fact about Obama. He handled himself just fine. Upon seeing that his words did not do their job, he is IMMEDIATELY responding to that outcry to clarify himself, as he has in the past and hopefully will as our president. Nope, this isn't about Obama.

Check out the subject line.

This post is about Hillary Clinton and John McCain attacking Obama for a fairly benign statement, merely because it has connotations--not so much meanings, but simple emotional resonance--they think can be exploited. Not attacking him on his voting record or actions. Not attacking him on his plans to improve our economy, environment, and international reputation--ie, substance. No, they seem to be spending far too much effort combing over every word he speaks, trying to find anything with even a little negativity to it, so that they can wave it high in the air and shout, "Look, look, what do you think of him NOW?"

What I think is that Obama is out there talking to candidates--wealthy and poor, urban and rural. Even when he's in a new environment, like a bowling alley, he doesn't shy from it. He's doing the job a president-to-be should be doing--traveling the country not to show off his own history, but to better understand ours. He is saying, "I hear you, and this is what I think you're saying," and IF he gets it a little wrong, it's our job as adults to say, "Almost, except for this," as in any good conversation, not to leap on every word as if it had been written, revised, printed, and delivered from on-high. It hasn't.

I think Clinton uses the term "conversation" as a selling point without fully recognizing that people asking you questions, and you responding with what your focus groups say they want to hear off of an over-prepared script, is not a conversation. Obama is, yet again, using the response to his words to further our nation's conversation, while Clinton is still playing "gotcha!"

And I think Clinton and McCain are wasting Obama's time, and wasting OUR time, and perhaps worst, wasting their own. Because while they could be out there trying to do something CONSTRUCTIVE, they are satisfied using their resources to attack a fellow senator, because of a phrase which could contain negative connotations, used once.

No wonder they're going to lose.