"The more important issue than Senator Obama’s choice of words though," Schnur tells us solemnly "is the world view underneath them." Can you see him writing these words with an ashen face and a heavy hand.
Schnur is one of those people who you can read like an open book. His motivations, like those of all of Obama's detractors are so clear. He heard or read these words and realized it would be a hard sell, but if he helped the effort and did it sneakily enough, people might eventually find Obama's words offensive.
So he doesn't argue that there is a world view underneath the word choices, he assumes there is one...an elitist one.
Item #4: "Fight Leaves Democrats Questioning Prospects." Written by Jeff Zee Scoundrel.
Read the article and you will find more paragraphs with quotes from people turned off by Obama's remarks than supporters, despite the articles admission that this well-hyped fiasco has done little to influence voters either way.
The article will pander to the middle with a neutral sentence like, "For six weeks, Mr. Obama had diligently worked to introduce himself to the voters of Pennsylvania."
But this neutral sentence is invariably followed with one like, "Now, though, advisers to Mr. Obama wonder...[if Obama has been overtaken by] what his rivals suggested was a profound misunderstanding of small-town values."
Not one paragraph suggests that Clinton is in trouble over this manufactured flap. There is ample evidence that this whole controversy has galvanized support for Obama.
Item #5: "Who's Bitter Now?" Written by Larry M. Bartels. April 17. This is yet another anti-Obama opinion on a subject that the New York Times should have dropped four days ago.
Bartels sneers this elitist sentiment: "[Obama's San Francisco remarks are] a remarkably detailed and vivid account of the political sociology of the American electorate. What is even more remarkable is that it is wrong on virtually every count."
Those remarks are just so remarkable...so remarkably wrong.
Who talks like that outside of high school? How did this preening, self-centered intellectual appoint himself chief interpreter of the people's thoughts?
Bartles makes the asinine observation that social issues are really the issues on which elites base their votes. WHAT!?!?!? Are you nuts? The elites have no reason to vote for social issues. The elites puppet the social issues to get their purely economic agenda accomplished...lower taxes? Or how about a Supreme Court that will prevent victims of pharmaceutical malpractice from suing for wrongful death?
Item #6: "Guns and Bitter." Written by "the editors." This editorial works so hard to distance the editors from their part in making the "bitter" debate the focus of the media's attention over the last four days.
"A few more days of these Punch and Judy shows," those wild and crazy editors write, "and even we will be tempted to tune out." Get out of here. What will Jeff Zeleny do? He'll have withdrawals.
But the "editors'" real views of Obama come through the appearance of objectivity. "His comments...have reinforced a feeling that he can be too aloof, or, yes, elitist. His attempts to explain himself have fallen flat..." Wow. I STRONGLY disagree. Their opinion of Obama could not be any more clear. "...as have his insulting Annie Oakley jokes and demands to see pictures of Mrs. Clinton in a duck blind. Sexist jabs are as offensive as racist jabs."
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
