I know, I know... the media is always idiotic, particularly when you have blowhards like Matthews and Dobbs on the air. But everywhere you look, even on many blogs, even with Pro-Obama comments, the coverage of the "Bittergate" so-called "controversy" is atrocious.
What's the problem? The basic issue is that nearly all the coverage basically assumes a CAUSAL EFFECT between economic hardship and OWNING GUNS or THEIR RELIGIOUS FAITH. Despite the clumsily worded comments that can obviously be distorted this way, this is NOT what he was suggesting. He was instead suggesting that those in economic downturn don't trust politicians to help them in that way, so they instead VOTE on social issues that they believe their vote can have a small effect on. If you replace "cling" with "vote" in his comments, you'll get a still somewhat clumsily stated, but still much closer reading to what his actual meaning.
So, here's an example of what I'm talking about. Yesterday, a fairly positive poll from LA Times came out showing that "Bittergate" basically had no effect (at least not yet), but it still contained this falsehood:
The telephone interviews took place Thursday through Monday, meaning the bulk were conducted just as controversy broke out over an Obama remark widely criticized as demeaning to rural voters in Pennsylvania. He suggested that for some residents of small towns, their commitment to gun rights, religious faith and hostility toward foreign trade had its roots in their bitterness about economic hardships.
Emphasis mine.
No, he didn't suggest that, and to paraphrase it that way is to assume the ridiculous right-wing frame of his comments.
Meanwhile, Lou Dobbs started his show tonight with his "top story" that Obama STILL hadn't apologized for his remarks denigrating small-town people. The NERVE of that guy!
Chris Matthews basically asked McCain what could possibly possess anyone to say such "elitist" things, to which McCain (predictably) responded that he had no idea. He's right, why would anyone suggest anything like that? Obama sure as hell didn't.
There are so many more examples of this it's sickening. Obama's doing a pretty good job fighting back against this, but I feel as though he's barely responding to what the FRAME of this controversy is, which is the assumption that he was saying small-town people only buy guns and turn to religion because they're suffering economic hardships. From what I've seen, I've only seen him respond to this framing just once:
"Contrary to what my poor word choices may have implied or my opponents have suggested, I’ve never believed that these traditions or people’s faith has anything to do with how much money they have."
I'm glad that Obama is fighting back, but I feel like this part of his message is being completely lost on the media. Is there some way to make them understand this, or is the media just a completely lost cause?