Obama on rural insecurity and guns in 2004 on Charlie Rose

h/t Josh Marshall:

Can I just point out that the former first lady of the United States with a $109 million net worth just called a guy from a single parent household, with 1% of her net worth, an elitist?

Clinton's willingness to misrepresent Obama's point and muddle a potentially helpful discussion on Democrats, rural voters, and GGG issues (God, guns, and gays) is particularly irritating to me. It really bothers me that Clinton thinks rural voters are so foolish as to fall for this rubbish. It bothers me even more than all of Clinton's arguments against Obama are ones that, at the end of the day, will benefit McCain more than anyone in the general election.

Thanks a lot, Hillary.

Obama responds to Clinton and McCain:


The one thing that hasn't surprised me at all about this episode, however, is the beltway boys' shallow coverage of what Obama said. Washington pundits generally suffer from the delusion that they represent the workin' man, that their values are those of "small town America." Tim "Pumpkinhead" Russert never shuts up about his childhood in Buffalo. David Broder goes on his annual sojourn outside the Beltway to report on regular people's opinions, which always end up-- miraculously!-- conforming to his own. David Brooks sneers at bourgeois hipster "Bobos" and their blend of liberal idealism and Reagan-era selfishness without the slightest hint of irony, utterly blind to the plain truth that your average Whole Foods- and Ikea-shopping, artsy, wine-drinking secularist is a model Everyman compared to carpetbagging neoconservatives like Brooks. And Joe Scarborough wants a manly man president who can bowl and clear brush.

Want some wood?

Yet, when the news camera actually zeroes in on Pennsylvania and Ohio and West Virginia, we find that these Washington pundits' perception of the citizens of flyover country is that they (we? probably not) are prudish, highly judgmental, instantly shut off all critical thinking skills when they see a flag, and absolutely unable or unwilling to see that voting for the party of "God, guns, and gays" means voting against the party that wants to provide them more economic support.

I do have one question, though: it's awfully hard to argue that the press isn't actively trying to influence the race, to tar a candidate with a particular brush, when the 3 big stories of the last week are "Obama calls rural voters bitter," "Obama orders orange juice at diner in South Bend," and "Obama's a bad bowler." Do they just not care anymore if we know that they're in the tank for McCain?