Holy smokes, you've no idea how happy I am to see "borshch" spelled without a "t" at the end. As an immigrant from USSR, I am very sensitive to Russian stereotypes which, given the strained relations between these two countries, have been rather nasty even after the so-called "end" of the Cold War. And the blatant, brazen misspellings and mispronounciations of (admittedly transliterated) Russian words gall me just as much as Hollywood's idiotic Russian soldiers (invariably in the snow, Russia is always covered in snow, all year round), there for (insert action hero) to shoot in a myriad B-movies. So even little things like this, a transliteration that shows the author's familiarity with the Russian language, which in turn implies sensitivity to Russian culture, is rather heartening.

My Grandmother, of course, makes the best borshch. And the funny part is, she's neither Russian, nor Ukrainian but a full-blooded Jew from the Belorussian zone of settlement. Beetroot and cabbage are, apparently, quite kosher. Lucky me!

What is distinctive is the far more consequential assumption that Americans want and are able to engage an elevated and more noble type of politics than the depressingly familiar garbage...

Yes. Absolutely. Far be it for me to read Obama's thoughts, but I think he's not gambling as much as it may seem. I think he learned exactly the right lesson from the Fox News approach to debate: if you make a powerful assumption about the American people, the American people will, sooner or later, begin to fit this assumption. You just have to play it right.

The assumption of Fox News and their ilk is that Americans are a bunch of mindless idiots, wanting nothing more than a clone of the Jerry Springer Show, only involving political figures. Years of pandering to the basest instincts make it look like it's true. Obama's assumption is the opposite, and, I think it's more powerful because it appeals to the people's self-respect. Wouldn't you listen to someone who, very convincingly, implied that you're a smart, sharp, attentive human being interested in real issues and, most importantly, capable of making smart decisions about these issues?

The Republican policies (whether military, economic, foreign or domestic) are backfiring in large part because all these policies are based on contempt and disdain, whether for poor people, different religions, opposing views or common sense. Obama, instead, is founding his rhetoric on respect for his listeners. Even the all-important body language fits: Bush and McCain look like they have nothing but contempt for their audience, Clinton looks like she's afraid of her audience, Obama looks like he honestly, truly wants to help. And his words match the body language, and therefore it's hard not to feel that his intentions (and even deeds!) may actually match his words.

I understand that one of intelligentsia's favorite pastimes is to lament about the ignorance of the masses. It makes us feel smart and educated, it elevates us above the common fool. This sentiment was perhaps the most powerful reason why 51% of this nation's population voted for Bush: they were sick and tired of being called stupid for voting for Bush in 2000. And John Kerry did nothing to convince them otherwise; if anything, his haughty silence in response to the Swift Boat attacks made things worse. It communicated contempt. It did not win him any supporters.

I think Obama seized a great opportunity. Whether or not Americans are "smart enough" to grasp the fine nuances of his words, one thing is clear: he played the moment right. Rather than nervously defend himself, or haughtily ignore the "scandalette", he used this moment to make a kick-ass speech. He shines at speeches, it's his best weapon, and here was a perfect opportunity to use it. And he did. And the media ate it up, didn't they? I bet you there are indescribable thrills going up Chris Matthews' leg as we speak.

Even the "dumb masses" are going to remember one thing most clearly about this: Obama was challenged, and he responded with an awesome speech. That alone is worth a whole lot. So let's not stroke our egos here and debate about just how smart or dumb the masses are. Especially since this sort of bullshit debate only makes for us look stupid, ourselves.

I'm one of those who has no time to read the full article, but it got me thinking: does this work locally? As in, do mining towns end up with a greater percentage of stay-at-home Moms than, say, Silicon Valley suburbia? Is, then, coastal liberalism in the U.S. due, in part, to the dominance of manufacturing, agriculture and service sector jobs over mineral extraction jobs? If so, are the cornfields of Iowa also a cause of diminished patriarchy?

It's much harder, I suppose, to decouple cultural influences from economic ones within a single nation, even such a diverse one as the U.S., but I wonder if anyone has looked at it. Would be interesting. A lot of people are expressing amazement that such a developed, industrialized, high-tech nation as the U.S. is so closed-minded, hierarchical and superstitious in comparison to other developed nations. Could the reasons for it have to do with our economy? I'm not a sociologist, so I might sound naive asking these questions. But I definitely think it's a question worth looking into.