The debate for the last several days has revolved around H.'s "Bitter" comment. Was it insulting? Did it reveal him as an elitist? Was he speaking the truth? Yes, yes, and yes, at least as he sees it. What strikes me as interesting is the people that are rushing to defend H. You've got a bunch of suburban blue state liberals saying, "why yes, I am bitter. He's right." Well, he wasn't talking about you. The New York Times has letters and opinion from East coast elites defending H. Well, he wasn't talking about you, either. I thought it interesting that one defense of H. was published in today's Chicago Tribune Voice of the people section, and the writer of the letter lives in San Francisco. Oh please...

The truth is, unless you were on the receiving end of that comment, you cannot put forward any defense of the comment. Only those that H. was speaking about can reserve the right to be directly offended. All these defenses of the comment come off just like the comment itself, as if people are saying "anybody offended by this is not smart enough to understand what he meant." That's as elitist as the original statement. I am reminded of Linda Rondstat, in regards to red state Republican voters in 2004 saying, "don't they know they are voting against their own interest?" As if a rich blue state liberal could possibly have more insight to what red state conservatives interests are than the people themselves.

What this does show us is exactly what many pundits are saying about it: that H. and the liberals/Democrats are elitists, that they believe anybody that lives in depressed blue collar communities are poor, uneducated sheep, and only the Democratic party can save them from themselves. I guess that kind of condescension is pretty offensive.