Finally some real journalism:

It concerned the videotape question that was posed by the woman at top, Nash McCabe of Latrobe, Pa. Here's what she asked:

Senator Obama, I have a question, and I want to know if you believe in the American flag. I am not questioning your patriotism, but all our servicemen, policemen and EMS wear the flag. I want to know why you don't.

As I watched her question, what I wondered -- and I imagine many other viewers wondered as well -- was where on earth did ABC find this representative of my home state. As a journalist, I kind of assumed that ABC sent a film crew to western Pa., and then culled the most provocative questions from the people that they found. Silly me. In fact, ABC News found Nash McCabe the old-fashioned way -- they read about her, and her thing with the American flag, in the New York Times earlier this month:

LATROBE, Pa. — Ask whom she might vote for in the coming presidential primary election and Nash McCabe, 52, seems almost relieved to be able to unpack the dossier she has been collecting in her head.

It is not about whom she likes, but more a bill of particulars about why she cannot vote for Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“How can I vote for a president who won’t wear a flag pin?” Mrs. McCabe, a recently unemployed clerk typist, said in a booth at the Valley Dairy luncheonette in this quiet, small city in western Pennsylvania.

.............

That original New York Times article (by a former Newsday colleague, Paul Vitello), the one that started this whole ball rolling. It wasn't really about flag pins or patriotism.

It was about race.

Here's the headline over the picture of Nash McCabe: "In Ex-Steel City, Voters Deny Race Plays a Role."

Vitello writes that he found little support for Obama in Latrobe, and crux of his article is this:

But when dismissing Mr. Obama, voters in this former steel center, whatever their racial feelings, seem almost compelled to list their reasons, if only to pre-empt the unspoken race question.

Because he voted “present” too often as an Illinois state senator. Because he speaks very well, but has not talked about reviving the coal industry. Because he would not command the respect of the military. Because there is something unsettling about his perfect calm, they say.

So, the New York Times is basically stating that many voters are finding odd or vague reasons not to support a candidate who president who happens to be black. And without any thought to the subtext, ABC News plucked one of those reasons and brought it to the center stage of democracy.

To be extra clear, none of this is a criticism of Nash McCabe -- my heart goes out to her and her husband, and there is no evidence here that her views on Obama and the flag, which I personally think are misguided, are racially motivated.

Instead, it is yet another indictment of ABC News, which was eager to act is if there's no racial subtext to this election, other than its question about affirmative action for Obama's "affluent African-American daughters." Obama's been under fire for the last week for suggesting that Rust Belt voters -- facing a swirl of feelings about the economy and "people who don't look like them" -- are wooed by wedge issues.

ABC's contribution to that discussion: Wooing voters with wedge issues.

Sad.

Philly.com story

In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one who candidate who understands the working-class needs.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/16/hillary-clinton-on-workin_n_97017.html

I'm sure Barack never thought any condescending thought towards people that won't vote for him. 

You know why? Because I've heard similar statements from him in the past, although most of the time, his construction is a lot better.  See  for example his Charlie Rose interview.

So all of these people who assume that he MUST think something's wrong with these people are just projecting.  Because, in his shoes, if they had a hard time winning somebody over, they'd blame it on them.

But that's not what Barack is about.  He knows that it's not that there's something wrong with them.

There's been something wrong with government for the last 30 years. These people have been through hell, and they just gave up hope.

Even Bill said it back in the day: They're not voting for somebody who promises them things, because they know they won't deliver.

Instead, they vote for those that promise not to take more things away from them.

That's why we need to keep fighting for Barack.  He actually plans to restore people's trust in government. It's a hard battle, but it's worth it.   And if this works, this investment of effort would keep giving for a long time.

If you agree with this post, consider making calls or donating on barackobama.com. 

Sounds like Bill is blaming young people for not voting for Hillary ontheir "lack of wisdom" and "propensity to be fooled by rethoric" compared to their elder counterparts

Full story

First of all, the whole comment comes out as petty coming from Clinton who looks like he's just being defensive about being lumped with the Bushes into the 20 years of neglect for small towns that Obama was talking about. And sounds a bit bitter that it's not 92 and he's not cool with the kids any more.

Secondly, how is it that older people are wise enough and have good memories when it comes to the 90s,  but when it comes to sniper fire, any person over 60 might be prone to mis-remembering things?

If you can fabricate a war story out of whole cloth, could you be deluding yourself about how great things were with the presidency as
well? (I'm looking at you, Bill and Hillary...)

Aside from being ridiculous and conflicting,  this also shows you what happens when you parse every word people say and look for things to be offended about. Should everybody who considers themselves "young" have a
right to be offended?

Obama was in a casual conversation in a room with a small group of people when he made his "condescending" remarks.  This guy was speaking at a rally!

What did Hillary say about the other day about blaming people not voting on you on them instead of yourself?

To her credit, I don't think Hillary ever said something like this herself, but she came pretty close and her campain has basically dissed
voters in all small states, red states, caucus states, casino workers, and people in MI and FL that had better things to do than vote for a popularity contest.  Oh, and everybody that doesn't remember the 90s as the age of "peace and prosperity".

Because market deregulation was such a great idea, everybody was gleeful at the time.  And losing majorities in the senate in the house, and
having all of government on hold during impeachment trials was a thrill.

Give. me. a. break.

Clinton has ONE mission in PA: win OVERWHELMINGLY the low-income, white voters, to prove that Obama has a problem "sealing the deal" with these voters.

This has been her strategy for weeks now.

But she's making the big mistake of confounding short-term strategy with the long-term goal.  Her recent tirades are losing her huge amounts of the "latte liberals" that, after all, helped Bill win the election.

Chalk that one as another reason why Hillary would be the WORST C-in-C.