A Note On Political Pundits

Meet the Press this morning had nothing to offer. I am tired of seeing the same "pundits" blather on week after week. Bob Schrum, Mike Murphy, James Carville and Mary Matlin spent most of Sunday's show dissecting comments that Barack Obama made last week.

This is what Obama said in San Francisco on April 6th:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothings replaced them…And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And 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."

Now it is worth noting that the only text I could find of these comments on the web was this truncated version. It leaves out much of the explanation and context behind the conclusions that Obama makes at the end of his statement. That shouldn't surprise you for it is nothing compared to the hackery of what followed on MTP:

Instead of undertaking an appropriate analysis of his comments; the pundits simply retreated to the positions of the candidate that they each support. Murphy and Matlin, the two Republicans on the panel didn't even brush against unbiased analysis. All they did was spout off campaign talking points. Matlin said "Obama is not what he says he is". Carville actually said that "there are people out there who hunt for fun!".

What on Earth does that have to with the angst that people feel in small towns across the country? How about taking a look at the content of what Obama said and analyzing it for accuracy?

What bothers me the most about this incident, is that Obama's comments were 100% true. They were not elitist! He made frank and honest statements about the feelings that many Americans have. These pundits are so deep in political circles that they don't see truth when it is front of their face. All they see is what is a statement that can be distorted to hurt the opponent of their chosen candidate.

Obama's comments can be seized on by his rivals (both Clinton and McCain have already criticized it). They can be twisted and made to seem "elitist" "anti-religious"or "anti-gun"; but that doesn't take away the essential truth of his statements.

It is pundits like these (on both sides) that are destroying the essence of democracy. Candidates must couch everything they say because of these people. If a candidate gets too close to the truth, watch out. Some pundit will twist it around and use it against them.