The New York Times story linked by Drudge (clearly the Grey Lady likes to get early attention drawn to its daily editions by supplying key stories to the hit-meister) this morning, which examines the fallout from Obama’s elitist comments in San Francisco, tries to prop him up with the always-key quote in the third paragraph of a story:
Who Ezar Lowe is, I don’t know, as Google searches produce nothing. Apparently the identity of the church was not vital to the story. But it doesn’t speak well of him or the people he’s ministering to if he thinks the only reason for their religious beliefs is because they’ve lost their jobs.
Meanwhile, later in the story the Times injects its own elitism, as well as some on behalf of Democrats as a whole:
Indeed, advisers to Mr. Obama concede, his job has been made that much more complicated by his remarks about bitterness among small-town voters. Though it remains unclear what effect the episode will have in the long run, it has suddenly prompted a series of questions – and worry – from Democrats about whether Mr. Obama could weather a Republican onslaught in the fall, should he win the presidential nomination.
In Pennsylvania, as well as coming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina, did Mr. Obama provide another excuse for white voters to voice qualms about his candidacy without acknowledging that it is his race that troubles them? If he defeats Mrs. Clinton, will accusations of elitism dog him as they have previous Democratic nominees? Does Senator John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, suddenly have an issue that will resonate for the next six months?
There you go: white voters are just looking for a more acceptable excuse not to vote for Obama, when it is secretly his race they object to. Shows you don’t have to attend closed San Francisco fundraisers to find liberal elitist comments.