Right on, BTD.

Yes, politics is a behind-the-scenes affiar.  It probably just more of that CDS; Obama does something that's up for criticism, and yet, "The Clintons did it, too!"

To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing.

Obama-speak at its finest.

Over the top = Shrill, hysterical harpy.

Smash = giving a speech calling him on his gaffe.

Humanly sympathetic observations = characterizing a large swathe of the Dem base as bitter and clinging.

Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama, gaining a few days of lurid publicity
she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination
she desperately wants the nomination

Her comment at the end comparing Hillary's income with Obama's stood out for me.   Skocpol must know that economic standing is far from the only factor involved in "elitism".   And anyway, Obama certainly makes  a great deal of money compared to the "small-towners".   I don't know that either of them are particularly populist but Obama's gaffe in San Francisco have to be of concern.

He is totally unelectable at this point.

She is going to rack up big numbers in PA, Ky, W Va, and Ind.

That is how JMM operates...he sees Hillary as a unwelcome pest and so he reaches for the nearest tool to get the job handled, without respect for the tool he is using because he is suffering from CDS.

Josh doesn't want to pay the price for admitting his own CDS and thereby losing traffic so he demonstrates his cognitive dissonance by bringing in these tools.

What he suffers in the longer term is reader realization of his own dishonest efforts and when Josh loses his credibility, he has nothing at all.

While she says, breathtakingly, that, somehow, the "clinical" observations of the Clintons and/or their aides were less "human" than Obama's, to any objective person it's obviously more acceptable to talk about such delicate issues in as "clinical" and  emotionally neutral, and objective terms as possible. Why? Because one wishes above all not to be passing judgment on the people involved, or even appearing to be doing so, precisely because it would seem unfair and unsympathetic to do so.

And describing Obama's "clinging" sentence as a more "humanly sympathetic" approach is so off-target than it's hard even to read without gagging.

Now it is now.  I wonder what happened to the same people who would have slammed a GOP member for some of Obama's slights. They sure attack Hillary. That is the problem with wearing blinders. I know what Hillary's flaws are. I can see what BHO's flaws are but the same Bloggers I once idolized are not willing to acknowledge them. I would feel better if they were more honest and willing to say, I don't think that was right to say but he has learned from it.

Really, Skocpol might be regarded as Exhibit A in the mindset of a core group that has coalesced around Obama. The blindness to the effect of their own biases is breathtaking.

Suffice it to say, anyone who can read Obama's notorious sentence, and think it fairly captures its essence to say that it's just "humanly sympathetic" has lost the ability to see any hand in front of their nose, and maybe their nose as well.

And the Clinton Derangement Syndrome must be duly noted as well. Just the fact that Skocpol can see only Hillary's attacks on Obama, and not say a word, apparently, about those of McCain and the entire Republican Party, shows how twisted is her perspective on what is taking place.

How can I trust anything else on the site when nonsense like this goes on?

I suppose this is "traditional politics," but it lacks substance and obscures real debate. Obama actually has a congruence to the positions he takes, not swerving from pose to pose as he moves from state to state and audience to audience.