Election coverage is infuriating.

Once again the Presidential Election is being boiled down to image and soundbites rather than each candidates stance on the issues. The pattern so far in this election seems to be Clinton attacking Obama over a slight non-issue while Obama valiantly and effectively defends himself while keeping the focus on his stances. For example, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright controversy has been brought up constantly, while I haven't seen a single mention of Geraldine Ferraro in weeks (Google them if you don't get the reference). Case in point, I haven't read a single article or seen a single news report on the election in the past few days that hasn't mentioned the word "bitter."

If you're not up on the story, Obama made this comment at a fundraiser in reference to working-class citizens in small towns who have lost their jobs:

"...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 anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama has been criticized for this statement, being called anti-religion, anti-firearms and elitist. But consider the scenario: You live in a small community with maybe one or two large employers, and due to the struggling economy they start laying people off. In times of crisis people band together, and usually the biggest rallying point in any community is the church. Furthermore, downsizing is often blamed on outsourcing, hence the resentment towards the outside. Obama makes a valid point, although it is poorly worded; he even admits that he could have phrased the comment better.

The Clinton campaign, of course, saw this as another chance to attack Obama, and the media has not shut up about it since. Clinton called the comment "elitist, out of touch and frankly, patronizing." She has even put out an ad attacking Obama over it. Clinton, the woman who put on a faux Southern accent when talking to voters in the south, frequently touts her supposed middle class childhood and apparent love of guns and beer to appeal to middle class voters (incidentially, Clinton and Obamas stance on gun control are almost exactly the same), and lied about her experiences in the Middle East to get sympathy votes called a one-off comment by Obama patronizing.

The "Elitist" tag is annoying in and of itself and something I might get into in another post, but the big problem I have with the whole issue is how much coverage the comment has been getting. It's one statement out of many from all sides, and the only reason it stands out is because it could be construed as an attack on small town America, which is gold for sensationalist news media. Consider some of the headlines: "Obama's "Bitter" Comments a Belittling Blunder", "'Bitter' quote more harmful than Wright?", "Obama: God, guns are only refuge of bitter Pennsylvanians."

There has been hundreds of reports on it, yet polls have shown that there has been no significant change in support for Obama because of it. In fact, the statement has become a rallying point for certain bitter voters. As much as Clinton might have been looking for a bump from this, it's not taking, most likely because nobody fucking cares.

So why all the coverage? Why the endless analysis? Why all the articles asking "Can Obama recover from 'bitter' flap"? Does this even deserve a "-gate"?

Honestly.

-Niraj
Those Logistical Gophers