All the recent polling shows that the four issues that matter the most to America are the economy, the war in Iraq, healthcare, and something else I can't exactly remember right now.

Now, lapel pins and bitterness may not have been options on that poll but I'm pretty sure if they had been, they'd be pretty low on the list....

The sad fact is, the media doesn't care what the public wants. If only cares what it wants the public to want, which is, in a roundabout way, merely what it wants to begin with. It assumes it is smarter than the public, therefore what they're interested in is what the public, too, is also interested in, deep down, once you get past all that Iraq and economy nonsense.

And I'm beginning to think the constant, droning drumbeat of that "elitist" label against Barack Obama is a thinly veiled code substitute for the word "uppity".

Nothing gets a racist Southerner riled up as much as the very thought that some Negro is trying to rise above his or her station. And for some white fools whose dull sense of entitlement makes them think they deserve a better job than working the loading dock at their big-box hardware superstore, an African-American national leader has just gone TOO FAR AHEAD OF THEM.

Obama is, as I believe you noted on Amy Goodman's show (I heard a bit of it today-- great job, by the way!), self-made-- the prep school in Hawai'i (the state where he was born) was a scholarship deal, he did well enough at Harvard to be President of the Harvard Review (AND he paid off his student loans!).... What's elitist about that? Compare that to our current president, who got into Yale and Harvard as a "legacy", and whose grades were proudly mediocre or worse.

But if you can get dumb racists to equate "elitist" with "uppity", it gets their blood boiling. And they'll vote for a complete nitwit instead. And that's what the Republicans are running as their candidate. Again!

Heavens help us.

Nothing proves Glenn's point more than the fact that Stephanopoulos carried Sean Hannity's water, asking verbatim a question riddled in factual errors.

We have 2 wars, a looming recession, a lending crisis, worsening global warming, etc., etc., etc., and we're forced to fixate on THIS kind of crap?

Pathetic!

Thanks for calling 'em out on it Glenn.

Democrats have been portrayed as latte-sippers for several election cycles now. You don't have to accuse anyone of racism to see how it works. Unless there's something you know that we don't about Al Gore? And who among us does not love Maureen Dowd's fabricated quote about John Kerry?

On certain days (like days when idiotic "debates" like this occur and idiotic defenses of them are mounted), it must be very demoralizing to even bother to continue your fight to point out what SHOULD be painfully obvious.

Thank you, Glenn, for pressing on. We need you more than ever.

as to all the potential presidential candidates who are better qualified because they deliberately chose not to educate themselves or strive for advancement.

Has everybody but them noticed that the only reason the "gottcha's" will be Very Important is because they'll still be around in the fall telling us precisely how Very Important these things are.

Were a travesty and a missed opportunity to put some meat in the race.

However, Brooks is right in what he is saying. Voters do want to identify with a candidate and look for clues as to what they are like. The problem is that this is one very small aspect of what goes on in people's minds. They also want good policies and low taxes, or at least the feeling that their taxes are paying for things they believe in, and they want to see their hard work and the collective hard work of the country come to some benefit such as improved access to health coverage.

Therefore, where Brooks is wrong is in ascribing far too much importance to identity and not enough to competency and policy.

There's a Starbucks on every damned street corner. If it's only Dems who patronize them we should be ruling the world right now.

Brooks is simply making the point that bowling a 37 (37?!) resonates with some people, which it does, "fairly or not".

Don't pin this on the media, either. Voters may care about the economy, the war, health care, etc., but they don't necessarily have any thoughts on the best way to fix these things. The information is out there, but it's vast, complicated and confusing. They're looking for a leader they trust to handle that stuff.

I don't see any good reason to excoriate Brooks' commentary. It's a fair reflection on possible political challenges Obama faces.

The debate did a disservice to both of the candidates and the viewers. In order to help assure future debates focus on issues of importance (to most of us) we need to send a strong message. May is a sweeps month for television ratings, ratings that determine what advertisers pay to air ads. Boycott ABC News AND entertainment for the entire month. If enough of us do it and ratings drop, the debates in the general election may be more focused on what matters to most in the electorate.

David Brooks is right. The first thing I think about in the morning is whether or not I'd look good in a tank. And I sure want a president who'd look good in a tank too. And in lycra. And who bowls a 300 the first time he touches a ball. Because, man!, my ideal president is a buffed-out athlete.

Not!

To counter Brook's argument, it is the looking uncomfortable but being willing to try all those things that make someone seem like me rather than sitting in a Gray tower looking down on me.

A day or so ago I got hit with one of those random web surveys when I clicked on a NYTimes story off their home page. You know the kind, Please take a few minutes to help us improve.... This survey was principally about their web design, but I thought maybe there's be an opportunity to get in a word or two about content. So I proceeded and probably have a whole new infection of syp apps to show for it.

Anyway. I have little problem with the NYTimes' web design, navigation properties, or search/archive functions. But then, they made an error (heh) and gave me an opening in a couple of questions where one was allowed to make suggestions for content.

My first request was, Please! Fire and replace, Maureen Dowd, David Brooks, and Bill Kristol. And, I found a place to address the news-less articles about Iraq, FISA, and candidate policy positions.

When the question was, Where do you go as your principal source of news? (double heh) I had fun noting an array of liberal blogs and included McClatchy.

Suck. On. That. NYTimes.