What affluent liberal drinks Chablis? Is Buchannan still getting his wine in a box?

But seriously folks, doesn't it bother any liberals (and who else reads this here) that Obama basically answered in the context of why don't those Elmer Fuds vote for you that that they are bigots?

Isn't there just possibly some other reason to vote against Obama other than racism? if he and his don't understand that isn't it sufficient hubris for Obama to deserve to lose?

What, that Obama is intent on winning the primary battle but losing the election war?

So I'd think the stereotype--while kind of 70s--is probably kind of apt.

As long as it isn't the Merlot that was demonized by the independent film watching set after Sideways. Although most of them allegedly hated merlot before the movie.

Why must I start to loathe my own class of college educated progressives?

Well, maybe I am dumb. Working class origins, you know. I mean, how bright could I actually be?

Your quote: "It's one thing to criticize legitimate issues, for Hillary to make the case about experience, or policies. It is quite another to latch onto a thin thread, and purposely attack the likely candidate for your OWN party in the hopes you can capsize his nomination and take it for yourself."

Actually that is the way that primaries work. As you may recall the Republicans were attacking each other on whether Mormons were Christians, whether each other were varmint hunters or flip-floppers, etc.

The only difference is that the Democratic primary system is designed in such a way that it can create chaos. Proportional representation and some non-elected votes--look how stable it makes the Italian government.

Based on your headline, I thought your article was going to be about something more than parsing Obama's "bitter" statements, but whatevs. Joan you continue to show that nothing Obama says or does will ever be enough for you, even when you admit that the criticisms leveled against him amount to little of nothing.

What I thought your headline alluded to, was the idea espoused by pundits and politicians that Americans who live in San Francisco, New York, DC, or other coastal cities, somehow are less American, less "salt of the earth", or less moral than people who live in the middle of nowhere. Because I am African-American, attended a prestigious university, make more than the median household income, single, care about public transportation and fuel efficiency in cars, live in an urban area, interact with people who look different than I do, and occasionally drink lattes, how am I somehow considered a negative demographic? Why are my votes considered less desirable than NASCAR watching, suburban or rural living, wife and kids having, SUV driving, cable-instead-of-Internet news gathering, white skin having Midwesterners? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but how did I get to be chopped liver?

Don't be bitter. The proverbial dog that is your argument just won't hunt.

Annie Oakley would've used a six shooter. Thus the analogy is consistent even if there might be a duck blind in the middle.

"The other worry is more about Obama's base of support than about Obama himself, but it could doom his candidacy: that despite his impressive showing so far in the 2008 primary season, he's still mostly the candidate of coastal liberals, lefty intellectuals, Ivy League check-writers and African-Americans, and he isn't doing enough to reach the white working-class voters that a Democrat will need to beat John McCain in November."

It's depressing to see a Salon contributor not only accept, but spout the mantra that working class whites are the heart of the American polity (or the Democratic party), and that will of other collective majorities should be subverted for the sake of placating them. Perhaps it's just me, but I feel I can almost hear the sneer as Ms. Walsh lists off demographic groups favoring Obama.

Why is it that no one asks the reverse question? Shouldn't Clinton be concerned about reaching out to the many well-educated liberals whose generosity she'd need for a general campaign? Doesn't she need the votes of African-Americans to cobble together an electoral majority?

Kevin C, would you please go back to my original post and point out what argument I actually made because I don't recall making one. Let me put it this way: You will know it if I make an argument. What I made as a slight comment. The rest was anecdote, gun lesson, and poverty.

Your quote: "Because I am African-American, attended a prestigious university, make more than the median household income, single, care about public transportation and fuel efficiency in cars, live in an urban area, interact with people who look different than I do, and occasionally drink lattes, how am I somehow considered a negative demographic? Why are my votes considered less desirable than NASCAR watching, suburban or rural living, wife and kids having, SUV driving, cable-instead-of-Internet news gathering, white skin having Midwesterners? Not that there is anything wrong with that, but how did I get to be chopped liver?"

You are not a negative demographic--you just aren't a sufficient demographic to win an election. E.g. most people are white, high-school educated, and live in suburbs and/or exurbs. So you can't carry the country by carrying your (and mine aside form the black part) demographic.

You have correctly pointed out that the working class doesn't have much money anymore. I congratulate you upon your cleverness and also your astute suggestion that politicians should pander to people with money. To hell with the working class!

Forgive me, you are right: you are dumb. And trolling.

Annie Oakley would've used a six shooter. Thus the analogy is consistent even if there might be a duck blind in the middle.

Why do you think Annie Oakley would have used a six-shooter?

I meant that Lamont may be a better indicator of what's good for the party and the country than, say Ed Koch, Mark Pryor or Evan Bayh, but in both cases, you may have Bill Clinton doing his passive aggressive peeing-in-the-pool that leads to a pathological warmonger into office over the better, progressive candidate.