If you don't think you're better than us, then what the f*ck are you doing?!

So the media is jumping up and down on my friend Obama (that's right, he's in my top 8) over making some rational points about rural Pennsylvanians priorities. But don't take my word for it, just look at the fake news:

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=166074&title=gaffe-in

In fact he was pointing out that some people who suffer most because of failed economic policies prefer to focus on second amendment or social issues. He was trying to explain the political attitudes of what (to rich San Franciscans) was a completely alien world. In reality Obama's blunder to me, is assuming that rural voters are confused about what's pertinent to them. If gun rights and gay marriage have a bigger impact on your voting thats fine as long as you don't go on to bitch and moan about how the person didn't do anything that helped you get a job or loan.

However in his explaination, Obama said words like "cling" and "bitter" while explaining his view. So whatsay we skip the meaningful analysis and move straight to hearsay. You see for every negative thing you say in a campaign for office, the press and your opponents get to say negative things about you. It also helps to imply that only the negative comments are "real" and all those other positive things are the candidate's "lies." I like that people actually act as if we can "learn" the most about candidates by breaking up sentances for the least context and the most threatening tone.

Sterwart's point is fair, this is the President of the United States, a position supposedly so elite that it helps if your dad had the job before you. Furthermore Clinton and McCain have both touted their experience or service, which is just another way of saying they have elite traits that make them better suited to be president. You're all elite people following in elite footsteps, just say so. Hasn't the last eight years suggested theres difference in being of the common man, and just being a common man?

If you don't like Obama's healthcare plan, or his public service record, or his skin color, fine, vote that way. Just understand that EVERY candidate for EVERY office can have dialogue edited to sound like a loon, dick, or moron. If you really think you're backing the one horse who won't be made to look like a douche on YouTube, go to bed until after the election, please. People believing a candidate's goals and convictions can best be understood by some floating soundbytes would have voted for them anyway.

Democrats need to stop thinking about who is electibility is highest. Dems picked their last candidate based on qualifications that Bush & Co. mocked anyway (while going on to praise every other American in uniform). Republicans are going to try and make any Democratic candidate look out of touch, it's what you do if Christ is running against you "This Son of God don't know what it's like sheparding flocks from here to Jerusalem..." And fretting about it isn't going to stop it, ease it, or help you counter it.

Democrats have been running from the term 'liberal' for 20 years, the same 20 years that lead to a Republican presidential candidate practically having to sell a fragrence called 'Conservative' just to get the nod. Maybe Dems would get an equal or greater base of support trying to embolden liberals. Granted it didn't work in 1972 or 1980 when liberal candidates lost 49 states, a scary prospect for any political movement, but since 80, no one has argued the liberal case with conviction. It seems that conservative voters are going to get whipped into a frenzy either way, so what can you lose?