I'm so tired of being told about the "average voter" and what he needs to hear. The assumption is always that they want to know about the most surface and trivial of "issues."

I especially love Chris Matthews' characterization. He said recently that Obama needs to learn to appeal to the average voter, which he then described as a guy who "goes down to the diner to get away from his wife for a few hours." Of course the assumption is that the average is male, not female, and that he hangs out someplace where he can discuss heavy issues like flag pins and preachers with other like-minded hen-pecked "voters."

This same thinking is evident in Bill Kristol's comment that Hillary "only appeals to women and the Democratic establishment." Because women are some small fringe group, right? Because despite being 50% or so of the population, we're less "average" than the men. I believe women vote in slightly greater numbers, too, (don't have time to really research that one), but somehow we're still some minority interest group, while a guy in a diner is the one who needs to be addressed.

It's not too flattering to the diner guy, either. Noonan and Matthews are of course concerned with weighty matters, while Joe Average is a meathead who can't manage his wife and sits and contemplates the shallowness of Obama's patriotism over coffee and a cinnamon roll.

I bet if you do the Nexis search thing you can find articles from Noonan in '04 and especially in '00 saying the same sort of stuff about Kerry and Gore. It would really make the point giving examples of the 2000 Gore bashing since she has magically declared that Bush fooled her once it became apparent his presidency was a sinking ship.

In the Clear Spring archives...

The Ford got stuck in the mud.

The wheel was in a farm rut.

It was a foot deep.

Mules pulled Ford.

It's true. It's historic.

I've seen a photo if it.

anyone who would emigrate below the Mason-Dixon line ...would be exposed to such feelings daily ... This is, after all, a region where lynching is still considered a favorite pasttime.

Fortunately the rest of us are a little more evolved.

But not evolved beyond stupid, archaic stereotypes, obviously.

Unless you have some poll data to show that 'lynching is considered a favorite pasttime' here.

How about we stick to the point and not go out of our way to offend a bunch of people who might otherwise agree with you, shall we?

Cinnamon Roll? Waaaay to elitist. It's either a plain donut deep fried in lard or nothing at all.

And a white-centered, imperialist, romanticized understanding of America is fine, as long as you acknowledge the fact that there are other understandings of American history as well, and that those understandings are just as valid.

Sure they are, for people who aren't running for President of ALL the people. If you want to run for the head of the NAACP, inserting race is part of the job description.

You can posit all the platitudes you like but the numbers are too one-sided. 88% of America is NOT black. If a large portion of that group is convinced the candidate has a fixation on a particular race, you're done. Even more so, when one of your "moral compasses" turns out to be a racist.

The fact is, though, there is a large percent of the population that is more than a little dissatisfied with the fact that America, in reality, has never quite matched up to the America of principle.

Of course not, but it is simple reality that having high expectations and not quite making them ends in better results, than meeting low expectations. Which do you prefer?

Blacks who have a cultural history of being mistreated by this country are just one part of the demographic that refuses to romanticize America's sordid history.

EVERY history is both sordid and exemplary. If you want to wallow in the sordid and feel sorry for yourself, by my guest. But you don't get my vote. Which would you rather have? Self-pity?

For many of us, the question of patriotism is not "How much you love your country, the way it is." It's "How big do you dream for your country, the way it could be."-- Rosenkavalier

Obviously you don't hear the subtext heard by the non-black majority of America. It's something along the lines of, "You're terrible, racist, bigots so you should vote for me, to fix you." I can assure you when I say this is not what I want to hear from someone I'm voting on, to represent me.

In the end, it isn't about what color someone is, it's about how they think. It's why liberals can't accept black conservatives as genuinely black.

For once you have a situation where Republicans are breaking for a true tipping point in history, and you're posturing about some undigested fantasy. Make the perfect the enemy of the good, and you'll get neither.

Brian Williams is a dolt. We've known that for years. And he's a right wing ideologue. We've also known that for years. It's sad that a once good network replaced Tom Brokaw with this opinionated mediocrity. But, Glenn, I think you just finished a book that touches on this.

"As for the "bitter" element, I'd think anyone who would emigrate below the Mason-Dixon line as you have would be exposed to such feelings daily, shooter242. This is, after all, a region where lynching is still considered a favorite pasttime.

Fortunately the rest of us are a little more evolved."

This is the pitch perfect voice of an Obama fan. It's also the reason why he's in a lot of trouble right now. Do the man a favor Iokkan and keeping your dribbly mouth shut.

I unfortunately haven't had time to read the comments for a while now, and I don't have time today. But I wanted to say two things: (A) I have enjoyed Brian Williams as a news anchor, when I have watched him, and will do so no more. This kind of commentary deserves a public shunning. And (2) [sic] I have been hoping that you would comment on that Peggy Noonan column, Glenn. It was, and I realize this is saying quite a bit when compared to the rest of her output, unbelievably vapid, self-serving, and inane.

The Wall Street Journal is the media entity with the largest disconnect between its news department, which is pretty consistently first rate (if focused on areas to which I don't normally pay enough attention), and its editorial department, which is consistently myopic, dogmatic, sanctimonious, and puerile.

A pulitzer? Holy moley.