DEBUNKING MORE CANARDS

Let's debunk the barrage of lies, starting with the latest:

1. Obama's "white" problem

This is one of the most insidious and nasty dog-whistle attacks to come down the pike. Let's be honest "white, working class", "white rural" and "hard-working white" are all synonyms for the same thing -uneducated white redneck bigots. This is the narrow demographic who won't vote for Obama. What the media and the Clinton campaign want you to believe however is that they are representative of the larger demographic of white non college educated voters across the country, and this just hasn't played out in the numbers.

Where has it played out? Appalachia.

All of the states where Obama has had a "problem" are in that area of the country. north western PA, Southeastern OH, all of WV -in fact it stretches from northern AL to southwestern NY. Josh Marshall has more about who has settled in that area of the country as does Jonathan Tilove.

Moreover this whole area of discussion has focused on the false idea that ALL of the people who voted for Clinton in the primaries in those states will not vote for Obama in the general election which is unlikely -particularly if Clinton makes good on her promise and stands behind him once he's the nominee.

Obama has won "white" majorities in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Virginia -and in the second whitest state in the union- Vermont, he won 60% of the "white working class" vote. He doesn't have a "white" problem -he has an Appalachia problem -minuscule in comparison to the insinuation Clinton, the MSM and the Republicans are making.

That the media is fueling this story is predictable as they thrive on controversy real or manufactured ("You provide the prose poems, I'll provide the war") and I don't even begrudge the republicans for using this line of attack (ignorant whites are after all their base) but for the Clinton campaign to advance this argument is not only desperate but despicable.



2. Obama is "elitist"

An "ist" is one who subscribes to an "ism". Elitism means one who believes in the elevation of the elite and in this context is generally taken to mean that one believes in the superiority and or advancement of the rights and privileges of that elite.

For Obama to be "elitist" then, he would have to espouse the belief that the wealthy, privileged and educated deserve to be placed above everyone else. I defy anyone to cite any quote from Obama where he advances this view. Even if we twist his "bitter-gate" words to mean what his opponents want them to mean -they can't be made to mean that he believes the above.

Is Obama "elite"? That's another question. Harvard Law School, editor of the Harvard Law Review, Law Professor, Illinois State Senator, United States Senator, Keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic Convention. Yes. The man is elite. But one can be elite without being "elitist"



3. Obama's "Wright" problem will hurt him in the fall.

Perhaps, but while the results of the fall remain to be seen, here's the latest poll saying that Bush is a bigger problem for Gramps than Wright is for Obama.

Additionally, Grampy doesn't want to go down the controversial pastor road what with calling Rod Parsley his "Spiritual guide" and with his courting John "the Catholic Church is the Great Whore of revelation" Hagee, and all. Just sayin'.

Although I note with amusement that Hagee has now attempted to apologise -not in any meaningful way like to the Pope, but to Bill Donohue of the Catholic league. That's kinda' like Usameh Bin Laden apologising to the American Nazi Party for calling America the "Great Satan".