Doubling Down

Must be read to be believed. Jane Smiley and (as quoted by Ace) Bob Herbert.

From the Jane Smiley post:

So now, Barack Obama tells the truth about conditions as we know them--that the countryside and the small towns are dying in many places in our country, and that the corporatocracy doesn't care enough to do a thing about it. He points out that immigrant-baiting, gay-baiting, gun-baiting, and religious pandering have helped to destroy those towns and that countryside, that those being destroyed have been cynically enlisted by their very own destroyers to provide the votes that help accomplish the destruction. And this is what Senator Hillary Clinton says about it: "Senator Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans."

...

I cannot believe how angry this makes me. I cannot believe that after the last seven and a half years, I can even get this angry...

From the Ace of Spades post:

Well! Controversy over!

There is no mystery here. Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it’s pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere — will not vote for a black candidate for president.

...

Senator Obama has spent his campaign trying to dodge the race issue, which in America is like trying to dodge the wind. So when he fielded the question in San Francisco, he didn’t say: “A lot of folks are not with me because I’m black — but I’m trying to make my case and bring as many around as I can.”

Instead, he fell back on a tortured response that was demonstrably incorrect. Referring to the long-term economic distress of many working-class voters, Mr. Obama said: “It’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

He danced all around the truth. Unless you’re Fred Astaire, if your dance steps get too intricate you’re bound to make a misstep. This was a big one.

That's the third inconsistent media defense I've heard for Obama's Redneck Rampage speech.

Let's see:

1) He could not possibly have intended something so offensive and absurd.

2) But he's 100% right about that offensive and absurd characterization.

and now three:

3) He can't be held responsible for his offensive and absurd characterization, because he misspoke; he actually intended something more insulting.

...

[T]he MSM is very heavily invested in claiming this is all about "bitter" and defending Obama and attempting to declare it a non-story which is not worth discussing. They've been doing that since the story broke; it would take an awful lot to reverse themselves at this point.

They would have to admit -- gasp! -- they got the story almost entirely wrong from the get-go, and mostly because they're so uniformly liberal that neither they nor anyone they even know could imagine what could possibly be offensive about the remarks apart from "bitter."