I've read (or read as much as I could stomach) five NYT editorials this week that dealt with "Bittergate" and/or the debate. Every single one of them missed the mark. How out of touch is the pundit class? Let's see.
We'll start with Krugman, since he's the most recent of the ones I've bothered with.
The Kroog, as we know, is absolutely rabid in his support for HRC. He can barely write a column these days that doesn't have a dig (obvious or subtle) at Obama. He seems to base all this on his preference for HRC's health plan (let's face it--neither Obama nor HRC has a great health plan) and his glowing nostalgia for the WJC economy.
Me? I see WJC's economic policies as better than what we have now, but nothing to write Grandma about. But that's beside the point. On to Kroog's column.
He makes the point (rightly, I believe) that the "bitter" stuff related to the ideas in the book "What's the Matter with Kansas." Then he refers to some chum of his who supposedly refuted all this, and who claims that all GOP gains in the South relate to civil rights.
Excuse me? Have these men ever been to the South? Do they know any Southerners? I've been here 36 years and I consider it an insult to Southern voters--even the racist ones--to think that they switched parties solely because of race issues. Talk about out of touch.
He also goes with the rather tenuous
According to this theory, “values” issues lead working-class Americans to act against their own interests by voting Republican. Mr. Obama seemed to suggest that’s also why they support Hillary Clinton.
"Seemed to suggest." Put words in others' mouths much, Mr Krugman?
And if I may try my hand at putting words into someone's mouth: Kroog says: "Over all, none of this suggests that people turn to God out of economic frustration."
No, but voters can be swayed to vote religion before pocketbook. Prayer in schools, anyone?
And of course, he closes by echoing HRC's (and the GOP's) talking point about Obama being elite and out of touch. Lovely.
Books's garbage on the debate was another of his classically appalling pieces. Why they didn't fire him after the "anti-neocon=anti-semite" debacle I'll never understand.
The always nauseating Maureen Dowd lets us know what an ordinary working class girl she is, and goes on to accuse Obama of being elitist. And she calls San Francisco elitist, and decides, I guess, that Obama suffers from guilt by association. I'm sorry I read even a paragraph. I should know better.
Bob Herbert I have to give some credit to. He concedes that, yes, there are bitter people in this country, and he makes the point (which I've read here on Kos a time or two) that race is a deciding factor for some people's votes, & that's not really something Obama can come out and talk directly about.
But Herbert says, "Instead, he fell back on a tortured response that was demonstrably incorrect." Poorly stated? Yes. Demonstrably incorrect? Debatable, but I wouldn't say demonstrable.
I had to shave a few points off Mr. Herbert's average for that one. Everyone else in the lineup got an oh-fer, so he did quite well by comparison.
And I almost forgot William"Don't Call Me Billy" Kristol. Bringing right wing radio talking points to the NYT. That's classy.
Now, the NYT's readers seem to see things a bit more clearly than the bulk of their pundits. Here are the LTE in re Kristol's execrable column. These folks seem to be far more in touch with reality than the bulk of the NYT's pundit class.
Rant over