I pretty much live from paycheck to paycheck.  It's a way of life I've followed ever since I entered the workforce in 1992.  I'd lost two job offers due to the '91 recession, and clung to the part-time job that had helped me pay for a lot of college costs.  When I look back on those days, I don't see happy, carefree, twenty-something cuteness; I see the grim hell of wondering if I'd be able to pay the electric bill or buy something other than tuna fish and peanut butter for the month.  I see getting my phone cut off for months at a time.  I see driving a car with brakes so bad I had to literally hold on to the steering wheel to keep it from drifting right off onto the sidewalk.

Those are the days you laugh at, they say.

I wonder what these days are supposed to be.

'Scuse me Satan, does it usually get this cold here in Hell?

Today's Wall St. Journal(subscription), incredibly, has Thomas "What's the Matter with Kansas?" Frank on the top right side of the op-ed pages today. (!)
I shall try to keep within the "fair use" parameters.

The media flurry kicked up by Mr. Obama's gaffe powerfully confirms an argument I actually did make [in "Kansas"]: That as they return again to the culture war, what the soldiers on all sides are doing is talking about class without actually addressing the economic basis of the subject.

The National Review’s chief pseudo-intellectual, Rich Lowry, corroborating Hillary Clinton’s warning to superdelegates that the Dems are about to nominate another effete candidate in the poisonous Al Gore / John Kerry mold, calls out Obama for undermining the two central rationales of his candidacy: his ability to unify the country and his insistence on leading us toward a more civil political culture.

Obama prides himself on his civility, but it has to go much deeper than dulcet rhetoric. A fundamental courtesy of political debate is to meet the other side on its own terms. If someone says he cares about gun rights, it’s rude to insist: "No, you don’t. It’s the minimum wage that you really care about, and you’d know it if you were more self-aware." But Democrats have an uncontrollable reflex to do just that. Since the McGovernite takeover of their party, they have struggled to work up enthusiasm for Middle American mores.

And saddened, and disillusioned, and enraged and resentful and offended and anguished and frustrated and tormented and worried and exasperated and outraged and furious.  And I could go on and on.

And I’m one of the lucky ones!  

The newspapers and the mags and rags and television shows take up a caricature, and digest its gruesome exaggerations.  Then they regurgitate them to us--as a mother penguin to her chicks--as fact, whose sour effect can be argued, but not their correctness.

And we groan.  Why is so much of the "news" the reporter’s opinion of how the public’s opinion, as abstracted by the reporter, will be affected by the abstracted collective opinion of reporters?  "What do you think, Howard, about what is being thought about what we think people might be thinking?"

For the record, I have never been a Jacksonian or William Jennings Bryan democrat.  I've always been one of those Old Whig types that believe unchecked democracy would be the despotism of the many.  The American southern experience during Jim Crow certainly validates that viewpoint.

With that prejudice stated up front, I also democratic institutions have been a valuable asset to our republic.  We the people elect our leaders to run the country under the rule of law.  It is a wonderful system but it requires the people to elect competent leaders.  Far too many American's bought into George W. Bush's regular guy shtick and look what we have.  The world is a complicated place and I feel much safer with an intelligent, educated President rather than Cletus the Slack Jawed Yokel.  Common people (and I count myself among them) are all too often common.  I want a President (and Governor and Mayor and legislators) that know what the hell they are doing.

Now, every time I think I've heard it all, I get a brand new gift from the Gods of Irony.

For several days, we've been carpet-bombed by another Obama "issue". This one relates to his "elitism", as evidenced by "his 'bitter' remarks", to quote the corporate media message.

Well, if that wasn't enough, get a load of this...

Carl Davidson, longtime left activist and writer, and 'born and bred' in the steel towns of Western PA, and living there now, reports on the 'bitterness' flap, white workers, and Obama's prospects. He's currently webmaster for 'Progressives for Obama' ar http://progressivesforobama.blogspot.com

I want to share this insightful account by Dave Coleman of that San Francisco fundraiser that has caused all the fuss.  I think it's worth reading...

Last Sunday evening I attended the San Francisco fundraiser that has been the center of recent political jousting. The next day, when asked about the talk Obama delivered, I too commented about his answer to a question he was asked about Pennsylvania. Over the past week, though, I have had a Rashomon-like experience concerning those remarks.

Clinton, McCain, and media pundits have parsed a blogger's audio tape of Obama's remarks and criticized a sentence or two characterizing some parts of Pennsylvania and the attitudes of some Pennsylvanians. In context and in person, Senator Obama's remarks about Pennsylvania voters left an impression diametrically opposed to that being trumpeted by his competitor's campaigns.

Remember how Hillary responded to Barack Obama's remarks about "bitter" small town people:

"I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that's not my experience.

"As I travel around Pennsylvania , I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.

Well, we here at DailyKos have obtained evidence of these small town Not Bitter people that Hillary Clinton sees but seem to elude Barack Obama in his travels.

Here is Julie Joyful, the corner cobbler, who loves fixing the holes in the neighborhood shoes. "Business is really booming. No one can afford new shoes because their incomes have not gone up over the last eight years. And when they do buy new pairs from Wal-Mart, they're made in China and are so crappy, they have to bring them to me in no time."

Do you remember Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs from school?

In essence, you must have certain needs met before other things become important to you. In order to care about other people, your survival needs must be met. If you have food and shelter and safety, you can start forming relationships. This continues on up the chain, through families and communities and countries. When our needs are met, we can begin considering the world around us in new ways beyond just, "Where is my next meal? What am I competing with other people/communities/countries to get?"

Now think about this in line with living in a depressed economy in a small town in America.

When Al Gore said:

During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.

The media and the Republicans crucified him for "inventing the internet". The accuracy of his statement was irrelevant. "Al Gore inventing the internet" is shorthand for one of the the main reasons why he lost in 2000.

Ok, so maybe the title says it all and I could stop right there.

Maybe I AM just a little drunk and bitter...

Obama is speaking the Truth about Harsh realities in this Country:  I am Bitter.
We need to response to this locally.
Please consider writing a letter to the editor of your local paper.  
Or shot some video in your community tomorrow asking people if they are bitter?

Obama should not be apologizing! The Bush Administration should be apologizing for so many wrongs!

I want to  very briefly address two issues and open up a discussion of strategy on the basis of these.

The first is the LOGIC in the way the media, Hillary and McCain have interpreted Obama's San Francisco Comments.  

The second is how this sort of response is one that logically is identical to almost all major areas of attacks on Obama. In fact, as long as Obama maintains a intelligent and nuanced position on any hot button we can expect attacks that have this same form.

This raising the question of how best to address such attacks given our culture and "real politics"

Part One: Bitterness and Logic
Part Two Nuance and Elitism
Part Three: Crafting a Strong Response

Part One after the jump

Both the Clinton and McCain campaigns clearly believe that it was wrong for Barack Obama to say that people in Pennsylvania (and elsewhere) are angry and bitter about the job losses and difficulties they have suffered due to the failed policies of the last 20 years.

Somehow, Barack Obama stating the truth about voter frustration in the United States makes him out to be an elitist.  They say that he is out of touch with the voters.

Well, voters, you be the deciders!

If you think the way things are going in this country are just fine, then vote for John McCain and Hillary Clinton!

But, if you are fed up, angry and bitter about the way things have been going in this country, then vote for Barack Obama!

OK, so yesterday after school I went out for a smoke break and to get some coffee before returning to do some grading.  While I was driving back I heard the MSM soundbite version of the "bitter" statement.

My worldview changed at that moment.  Because as soon as I heard it, I thought, "Oh my God.  He just kissed the Presidency good-bye."  Yes, at that moment my audacity sunk below the level sufficient to sustain hope.  The world immediately became a bleaker place, colors faded, and there didn't seem quite as much reason for doing anything as there had just a few minutes before.

Since then, my views of the situation have gone through additional fluctuations.  I don't flatter myself that many people are holding their breath waiting to hear my views, but below the fold I detail not only those views, but the media coverage and reasoning that prompted them, which may be of slightly more relevance.

I have long noticed that one HUGE glaring difference between "liberals" and "conservatives" is that liberals are seldom - if ever - able to be accused of "lockstep" on any issue.

Climate change may be the closest thing to "lockstep" but I would still paint that as "general consensus".

Sometime ago this lead me to create the notion of making a peanut butter and jelly sandwich.

More, of course.