If it was Naomi Wolf up there instead, there would be zero speculation on this topic. This is not about young men having an issue with women in leadership roles. We've grown up with women bosses and CEOs. The gender/race attacks are being thrown from both sides. If you want to see some hysterically bad liberal behavior on the part of women, go pay a visit to the forums of hillaryis44 or taylormarsh.

The war vote is a big problem. The pathetic lack of consideration for campaign finance reform issues is an even bigger problem and the reason that we really mean what we say when we promise to vote McCaine over Hillary.

But pulling out the Rove-style attacks on a fellow democrat? Comparing him unfavorably to the GOP guy? The outright, blatant lies? All this towards the first politician who has appealed to higher ideals rather than the worst in humanity in what for most of us is living memory?

What is there not to get? We finally have a crack at starting to heal this crazy "malaise" thing and Hillary is dragging the guy through the mud.

I am 34 years old. I am finally, for the first time in my life excited about a presidential candidate and she is dragging my hopes through the mud all because she feels entitled to something that is not hers. So yeah, a lot of us are losing our cool about it and beginning to suspect that a lot of women and baby boomers out there are either very poorly informed or that they MUST be supporting her for no other reason than identity politics and there is op ed jabber all over the web confirming that theory.

Well, I guess I can continue to enjoy Salon for a little while longer. I already quit Slate, possibly for good over this absurd issue.

And it's not that I'm an oversensitive Obamabot. I actually much enjoy hearing legit criticism of my candidate as it means we're returning to something representing legitimate discussion of this campaign. It's the fact that even for what it suggests out of context, it's not a big enough issue to warrant the "America on fire!" relevant-issue-blasting attention it's getting. And what does it suggest out of context? That a lot of Pennsylvanians are big on religion, guns, anti-gay sentiment and immigration issues?

But where it really gets my goat is the wide-spread failure of journalists to take their responsibility as the fourth estate seriously. Even Madden's article, though clearly in defense of Obama doesn't bother with the token research necessary to see that he was actually being both extraordinarily candid and sensitive to the small town working class Pennsylvanians.

The statement was a response to a simple question: What challenges do we face in Pennsylvania? Obama's response was that people have been promising relief to this particular demographic and then throwing it under the bus post-election for so long that they don't trust people who bring messages of hope and change. Especially, he jokes, coming from a guy with a name like his. As a consequence of this, they have learned to be wary of people with messages that help is on the way and stick to other wedge issues based on guns, religion, and a distrust of people unlike them built on the idea that the country is being usurped by people who have no sympathy for them.

In the last paragraph of his reply, IMMEDIATELY after the statement the media has been wildly and irresponsibly spinning as an elitist generalization, he follows up by warning people not to overly generalize the situation based on demographics, that in his experience you'll run into plenty of opposition in communities where you might expect him to be popular and plenty of allies in communities that put Bush into power by riding the blame vote.

I'm not yanking anybody's chain here. You read the original context and it's plain as day. Much of the country is being played for fools by the media that is supposed to keep us informed and provide a reasonably objective view of the facts. The widespread dissemination of a very flawed interpretation of Obama's statement without question leaves me struggling to choose between one of two conclusions.

US Journalists have either become hopelessly incompetent or the conglomerate owned media has allowed the profit motive to dominate their policies to the point where they are willing to manufacture and maintain artificial controversy to keep the country locked in useless debates that keep us from addressing the very real and very serious issues.

I'm sick and tired of hearing all of this meta-interpretation desired to provoke reactions from the audience. What ever happened to giving a meaningful account and analysis of the day's events? It's ok to have an opinion as long as you don't attempt to twist facts to support it.

Another statement people have been missing from the full text of Obama's reply is that he believes the best way to reach these people is to get to the point quickly and tell them exactly how you hope your policies will help them. I think he's dead right on this and the media would do well for itself to consider why it is they're so sick of anything other than straight-talk on the issues.