You may not care about the issues she does, but her vote counts as much as yours or mine.

...of being low information voters should assume the label of being "elitist," IMHO.

I may not have agreed with the flag pin question, but she is a voter and has the right to speak out about it if asked too.  

there are many things I wish we could focus on in this election, but I know that would be impossible to do.

they had this article up on abc (I think) and this poor woman was slammed by the readers.  

...someone who's going to vote based on what kind of jewelry a candidate wears is the prototype of the low-information voter. Sure, people can vote on whatever they decide to - I remember a piece in NY Magazine from 2000 where somebody voted for Bush because he was a party boy, just like the voter in question - but let's not pretend that's something we should celebrate.

it is ignorant to believe that someone is unpatriotic because they don't wear one. The Republicans have been eating our lunch for years now by encouraging voter ignorance and we shouldn't be doing the same.

George Bush, Dick Cheney, Tom Delay, Newt Gingrich. They all wouldn't be seen dead without their lapel pins, and it cheapens and demeans the patriotism of others. When enemies of our great country put such emphasis on wearing a lapel pin, it causes the rest of us to pay more attention to how someone acts, than what they wear.

This is what we should be telling people who believe that wearing a lapel pin is somehow important.

A president doesn't just represent the privileged or college-educated.  Nor does a President solely represent those with the same skin color, religious beliefs, ethnic background, or sexual orientation.  A President must be someone who stands up for all Americans, and Hillary Clinton has repeatedly done that across all the various demographics.  Look at the big states she's carried, and look at all the different types of people who have voted for her.  It's why she won Ohio and California, and Texas, and New York.  And yes, it's why she won Florida (with all the candidates listed on the ballot---a fair race for everyone who ran).  And it's why she's going to win PA on Tuesday---because Hillary is a candidate of the people.  

but let's just look at the obvious for now:

"It's no Hawaiian prep school and Ivy League story, unlike Obama's. It's a slice of working-class Pennsylvania, the core of Hillary Clinton's support there."

1) Obama got into Punahou on scholarship.  His single mother was on food stamps for a time.  

2) As far as the Ivy League goes, he took out loans to pay for it, which he attended in the 80's and just finished paying off in 2005.

Oh, but you didn't write that; you just quoted it in your diary.  So I suppose you're not responsible for the misleading information that you bolded.

Your diary also implies that only people without healthcare issues support Obama.  I am currently unemployed, and I wish that I could afford cobra like your father.  My mom is currently unemployed and cannot afford cobra either.  I would say someone who can afford cobra is lucky to be able to do so.

I also find it insulting that you assume this Nash McGabe is a low-information voter.  Did you do any research on the actual term.  Do you even know what it means?  I'm fascinated how came to your conclusion linking bitter to low-information.

Still doesn't change my mind about FL and MI.  And Hillary struggled for years?  Please.

I feel sorry for McCabe's situation, but I think people need to stop fooling themselves and cut through the bullshit.  It's one big popularity contest, nothing more.

Sigh.

I'll bet within an hour of looking I could find someone who is not voting for Hillary because she believes a woman shouldn't be President. Maybe she has a tragic back story just like the woman you reference. Should I not point out that her reason for not voting for Hillary is uninformed and ignorant?

as all the talking heads were ridiculing the flag pin question. They seem to forget it was a citizen, a voter who asked the flag pin question.

Obama would have been wise to respond: everybody has their own way of showing patriotism. For some it's wearing a flag pin. And that is all right with me. I don't wear a flag pin but I love my country. I ask for you to accept my patriotism too.

As usual, you nailed it, Alegre. Thanks for a great diary debunking this crapola.

But here's the thing guys - her vote counts as much as yours or mine, and if she wants to take in to account whether she thinks someone relates to her values then who in the hell are you to tell her she's low-information or that her views don't count in the grand scheme of things?

This is a strange diary, when you apparently took offense at the observation that Clinton's talking points are contradicted by the past actions of herself and her campaign, and so would only appeal to "low information voters" who would not pick up on those contradictions.  But hey, if it lets you tear down those strawmen, I guess it serves your purpose.  At least it allows you to avoid the thornier question of how Clinton's talking points can be interpreted in a way that is consistent with her own statements and those of her surrogates (such as Bill Clinton).

She's had a heartbreaking life. The government has failed her miserably. Yet she only seemed to care about culture war issues like flag pins. Why didn't she ask Obama a question about his health care plan? That would have made more sense given her life story.

Now, maybe the flag pin question was a stand-in for the "aloofness" thing. But I don't see the connection. Obama can be rightly accused of being aloof, as this woman believes. But there is a big difference between being aloof and not wearing a flag pin.

that I found her question to be puzzling.  "Do you believe in the American Flag?"  I mean she has all sorts of problems and this is the question she asks.  I will say that I don't understand.

Also I haven't seen John McCain wear a flag lapel pin in a while, same with Jack Kingston (rep from GA who attacked Obama about the flag pin) or Sen Clinton.

I don't understand the mindset she has.

"And to those who would tell us that the votes in Michigan and Florida shouldn't count until the nominee is decided I want you to take a look at that last sentence of that article.  Mrs. McCabe's husband is going to have brain surgery that he may or may not survive two days after the vote on Tuesday, and yet she and her husband are going to make sure their votes are counted."

This elitist thinks this diarist is stretchin' it.

Unfortunately, one of the "snips" that you leave out is the statement that McCabe is more likely to look for fault in I Obama while overlooking fault in Clinton.  For example, she seemed to have found fault in Obama's lack of a flag pin but overlooked the same fault in Clinton, who usually doesn't wear it either.

Despite McCabe's sad story, she is making her voting decisions on specious arguments.  She is a voter and allowed to do that.  I've heard of farmers choosing candidates based on the weather on election day.  Just because it's your right to do something does not always make it right to do so.  As a country we need to move away from so called "values" voting and make it more important to be informed and intelligent.  Voting for someone because you feel they're scrappy, or on the other hand, because they're cool, is just plain dumb.

Many Democrats are voting Obama because they think he is more electable than Hillary.  But it is not so.

PA, OH, FL, MI, MO are blue collar or hispanic states.  Obama will never win these states in the General election against McCain.  Face it--Be real, it is wrong ---people just are denying it---but racism is still strong enough to deny Obama the victory in these states---coupled with Wright, Flag, those Muslim E-mails, bitter clinging remark, etc.  

No matter how much money you put in these states.  I hear it from CSPAN, radio talk, blogs, from non white relatives and friends ---how can they let somebody like Obama represent US?  It is wrong but you cannot deny it. It is there.  It is ugly but it is still a reality.  

Other swings states like WI, OR, MN, IO have more sophisticated population ---they are very much pro-Obama now and very angry about the war, and Bush ---will go Hillary if she is the winner.

The bloggers dont want to talk about it because it is politically incorrect and ugly--but the reality is still there.

I really like Obama and think he will be a great president --but I like a Democrat to win the WH even more because only a Democrat can fix the problems Bush created.

Next to such knuckleheaded obtuseness, Mr. Obama's pratfall may strike many voters as a misdemeanor. He was probably rescued as well by the typical Clinton campaign overkill that followed his mistake. Not content merely to piously feign shock about Mr. Obama's San Francisco soliloquy (and the operative political buzzword here is San Francisco, which stands for you-know-what), Mrs. Clinton couldn't resist presenting herself as an unambiguously macho, beer-swilling hunting enthusiast. This is as condescending as it gets, topping even Mitt Romney's last-ditch effort to repackage himself to laid-off union workers as the love child of Joe Hill and Norma Rae.

The video of Mrs. Clinton knocking back drinks in an Indiana bar drowned out the scratchy audio of Mr. Obama's wispy words in San Francisco. Her campaign didn't seem to recognize that among the many consequences of the Bush backlash is a revulsion against such play acting. Americans belatedly learned the hard way that the brush-clearing cowboy of the Crawford "ranch" (it's a country house, not a working ranch) was in reality an entitled Andover-Yale-Harvard oil brat whose arrogance has left us where we are now. Voters don't want a rerun from a Wellesley-Yale alumna who served on the board of Wal-Mart.

In Clinton, she sees someone who has struggled for years, just like her, and has earned the right to be president."

I'm sorry, I don't get this.  Hillary Clinton was born into an upper middle class family, attended Ivy League schools, was first lady of a state and a country.  Struggled?  No. She has lived a mostly affluent and mostly powerful life.  Her options have been pretty unlimited.  I cannot in any way identify with her life.  I can certainly understand how someone can support her positions, but a working class or poor person identify with her life story, uh uh.  Oh, and that's before the vast weath she now has.

I'm fighting to live on an income of about what you mentioned you pay for childcare, Alegre, and I cannot imagine that Hillary Clinton has the personal experience of any of that.

Thank you for this diary, Alegre.

....and to the McCabes, I hope surgery will be successful and you can start healing.  Then next, hopefully Hillary will become our President to help everyone be represented again and for us all to start rising up.  I wish you all the best.

One thing that really bothers me about BO's claims.  He says he wants to have Corporations at his policy making table.  WHY DOES NO ONE TALK ABOUT THIS?  THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT WE HAVE WITH THE NEOCONS.  The Corporations making our policy.  That's FASCISM.  And now we learn, he's already doing that with his money bundlers going to them to write policy (his big donors).

"low information voter." In other words, it doesn't take much information to realize that Hillary if far more prepared to be President on day one than is Obama. But I still took the time to look at both their policy proposals, and low and behold, as a "high information voter" I definitely support Hillary over Obama.

Mrs. McCabe's concerns aren't valid.

This is an excellent diary.  I think you make a valuable point - that it would be arrogant to assume that someone who has organized their values different is simply less educated about the issues.  That is probably a mistake we are all guilty of making here, yes?

I hope both camps will read and give some thought to at least that part of your message.

   apparently of the Clintons. She's yet to even object to Bill Clinton appearing on Rush Limbaugh's program. The same Limbaugh that called his daughter a dog.

  The same Limbaugh that accused his wife of murder.

   Boy the Clintons really do want power!!

But here's the thing guys - her vote counts as much as yours or mine...

Agreed.

...and if she wants to take in to account whether she thinks someone relates to her values...

She's fully entitled to make such a judgment based on whatever criteria she'd like, just as I'm fully entitled to point out the fact that her criteria is superficial and akin to the kind of thinking that gave us two terms of Dubya.

...then who in the hell are you to tell her she's low-information or that her views don't count in the grand scheme of things?

1. Being superficial does not necessarily make one uninformed but I suspect the correlation is strong.  2. So long as she's a politically active citizen of this country, she'll have a voice; whether or not that's for the best, however, is debatable...

In Clinton, she sees someone who has struggled for years, just like her, and has earned the right to be president.

Rumors of Hillary Clinton's "struggles" have been greatly exaggerated. She grew up in a two-parent household in the suburbs, her father was a successful business owner, she attended Ivy-league universities, and more or less hitched her political star to her husband for the first 40 years of her life. She's worked hard -- but "struggled?" Not so much. In comparison, Barack Obama has lived a much less "elite" life.

In Obama, she sees someone who rose like a rocket, always has a smooth explanation for everything -- whether it's about his former preacher or the flag pin -- and who makes it all look too easy.

Translation: He's a pro. And I for one am glad he's playing for our team.

"That's what upsets me about Barack Obama," she says. "He takes everything so nonchalantly."

Well, he certainly makes winning elections seem easy in comparison to Hillary Clinton...

And to those who would tell us that the votes in Michigan and Florida shouldn't count until the nominee is decided I want you to take a look at that last sentence of that article.  Mrs. McCabe's husband is going to have brain surgery that he may or may not survive two days after the vote on Tuesday, and yet she and her husband are going to make sure their votes are counted.

THAT's what Democracy's all about guys. And they get it.

I'm glad that the McCabes are committed to voting, but their story has nothing to do with MI/FL. I'm sure Vladimir Putin could find an equally hard-scrabble supporter of his who went to great lengths to "vote" in the Russian "election." Does that mean that the State Department should consider the Russian "election" free and fair? Of course not -- and the same is true of MI/FL.

Some hacks iditoic anti-HRC comments in the diaries of this playground lead you to what you think is a valid (useful) attack on the campaign of Barack Obama?

You know what HRC said about these folks?
Screw'em.

talk about taking a quote out of context.  The poster was saying that they thought Hillary's site was designed for low information voters.  They never meant or implied that all of Hillary's voters are low information voters...that would be a really stupid thing to say and was never the intent...in fact they clarified it later in the posts, had you read them.

lol

The comment you're replying to, from your last diary, did not say "Hillary's supporters are low-information voters." That is a deliberate misrepresentation.  It said that part of Clinton's strategy is aimed at low-information voters:

"Why do I always get the sense that Clinton's talking points are solely intended for low information voters?"

Since you posted your second diary immediately after replying to that comment, I assume that's the one you're referring to. If the point was unclear, the commenter went on to make this explicit:

"I said that her talking points are aimed at low information voters, not that those comprise her entire constituency.  Both have such inviduals as supporters..."

This does not mean that her supporters are low-information; it means that there exist low-information voters in the world, and Clinton targets them. See?

To put it another way, saying "Obama's talking points are aimed at working class voters" is not the same as saying "Obama's supporters are all working class." Some of them are, some of them are not; the (hypothetical) statement doesn't specify.

This diary is actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The diary is aimed at low-information MyDD readers, because the outrage it expresses only makes sense if you aren't aware of what the original comment really said.  Once you've become a high-information MyDD reader, by reading the comments in question and getting the context, the diary's premise falls apart.

Thank you, alegre, for illustrating rfahey22's point so deftly!

As usual, your logic in these diaries is torturous. McGabe has a story, one that hits on several themes and issues in this election. She's got plenty to pick from...and she goes for the damn flag pin?

"But her vote is worth just as much as yours and mine!" you reply. True. And it would be a terrible thing if she bases that vote on whether or not a politician wears a lapel pin. If that brands me with the "elitist" label, so be it. I want democracy to work by that idea of the informed public voting on candidates and issues.

Really, all I think you've done with McGabe here is reinforce the fact that it was a bad question to ask, and go on to show what a wasted opportunity it was. Well played.

...and then another labored attempt at calling for Michigan and Florida to count. You should just stop putting them in your diaries, they stick out that bad.

February 9th at the WA state caucuses. They weren't supporting Hillary because Bill cheated on her. They were supporting Obama because he voted against the war. Seriously. No kidding. At that point I became extremely worried. At the precinct caucuses April 5th, an Obama supporter got up in front of hundreds of precinct delegates and actually said that Obama doesn't take any money from special interests. Not one dime. Zero dollars. This was a women who went to Harvard with Obama and she said this with a straight face. Not a single person questioned this whopper, and flag pin lady is a low information voter? We affluent latte liberals ought to know better, and the vitriol directed at that poor woman by Obama supporters (not necessarily at mydd) is sad.

"So long as it benefits my candidate, I don't care?"

Sheesh.  You'd think, after how long the Repugs have been manipulating the less educated into voting against their economic interests by emphasizing social or completely irrelevant (i.e., SBVfT) issues, that Democrats would realize that ignorance is not a virtue, nor should we be extolling a lack of education as some sort of superior state of existence.  Ignorance is in fact a sharp and dangerous weapon, and one which is--nine times out of ten--wielded against Democrats.

Alegre, you basically allege that the only response to "low information voters" is to either welcome their opinions or to disenfranchise them.  Talk about a false dichotomy!  There is a third, superior option: educate them!  Anything less is unfair to them--it deprives them of their ability and right to cast a meaningful, thoughtful vote.

Shame on you, Alegre, for being shamelessly exploitative.

But here's the thing guys - her vote counts as much as yours or mine, and if she wants to take in to account whether she thinks someone relates to her values then who in the hell are you to tell her she's low-information or that her views don't count in the grand scheme of things?

So then who in the hell are all of you to tell so-called "elitists" that their views don't count! Latte-drinkers, volvo-drivers, and Ivy league grads all have their own individual sets of values, and their votes count just as much as McCabe's or alegre's.

We should just cut the "low-information" and the "elitist" bullshit and recognize that everybody makes their own decisions for whatever reasons they want to, regardless of whether the rest of us like those reasons.

In her own words the voter believes that "In Clinton, she sees someone who has struggled for years, just like her, and has earned the right to be president. In Obama, she sees someone who rose like a rocket,"

The stories of Hillary and Obama, the stories of all of us, are more complex than that.

At times Obama struggled, at times Hillary has been helped along by others.

In terms of having a "right" to be president, that is something provided for by the constitution under which Hillary and Obama are equal.

To answer the question "who in the hell are you to tell her she's low-information or that her views don't count in the grand scheme of things?" I am just another person expressing a point of view that don't count in the grand scheme of things.

I also reckon it is a tad elitist for anybody to say to me "who in the hell are you".

"In Clinton, she sees someone who has struggled for years, just like her, and has earned the right to be president."

Yes, she is a low information voter.

NOBODY has "earned the right" to be President.
Nobody.

What else ya got?

Candidate of "hope" and "change?"

Barack Obama refuses to offer "hope" and "change" to the people of this country on health care. His economic advisor, Austan Goolsbee, a free-market advocate, says there isn't enough money in Obama's policy budgets for universal health care.

The only way to GET universal health care, is for everyone to participate, that everyone be mandated to participate--as 5 capitalist systems around the world have already acknowledged.

Without mandates, there will be no universal health care.

Yet Obama refuses to include mandates in his health care policy proposal. Thus, there is no "hope" and no "change" in our system of health care in this country--a system which is on the edge of a complete collapse.

"I do think that in order to ensure that we have universal coverage, we need to say that everybody has to join, so for that reason, the mandates that Sen. Clinton is talking about I think will actually be more successful in achieving the goal" --Elizabeth Edwards (AP/Winston-Salem Journal, 4/10)

Sunday :: Apr 20, 2008
Searching for Universal Healthcare

by Mary

Last week, Frontline featured an excellent documentary talking about how other wealthy capitalistic societies have solved the problem of providing universal healthcare for their citizens.

TR Reid, a veteran foreign correspondent for the Washington Post and frequent guest on NPR, explored the ways five countries have solved the problem of covering everyone's healthcare without destroying their capitalistic societies.

By examining the healthcare systems of Britain, Japan, Germany, Taiwan and Switzerland, Reid makes a convincing case that Americans too should be able to find a way to cover everyone and to rein in the exploding healthcare costs as well.

Kevin captured the conclusion well:

These ideas aren't as foreign as they seem. If you're a U.S. veteran, your healthcare is like Britain. If you're a senior citizen on Medicare, you're Taiwan. If you're a worker who gets insurance from your employer, you're Germany.

What Reid says is that each of these countries came to the same set of policy goals to make universal healthcare work although they varied the ways they achieved these goals:

1) Insurance companies were forced to accept everyone

2) All individuals were mandated to contribute (through taxes or having to buy insurance)

3) Doctors and hospitals (and drug companies) had to accept fixed payments for care negotiated upfront

Yet, for the citizens of these countries, none of these things were a problem because they all felt like their system worked well for them, their families and their country.

In fact, they were all much happier with their systems than Americans are with ours. And they all would be horrified to hear that anyone could go bankrupt or die because they couldn't get coverage.

For me, the most telling story was that of Switzerland, where universal coverage was not achieved until 1994. Before 1994, the healthcare system was much like ours is today.

But then in 1994, citizens of Switzerland were allowed to vote on a referendum requiring universal coverage using private insurance companies, mandating that all individuals buy their insurance with the poor being covered by the government and with regulating the prices that could be charged.

This referendum was hotly contested with the conservatives predicting doom and the entrenched interests spending a huge war chest to defeat it. It won by the very narrowest of margins, just barely over 50%.

But now that it has been in place for over a decade, even the most conservative, die-hard capitalists believe that healthcare is a right and that their country is better because they cover everyone. They could not imagine going back to the way it was before.

As TR Reid said, all of these capitalist countries realized that the market could not solve this problem and that providing healthcare was a basic function that a wealthy capitalistic society should provide. They came to realize that there were limits on what the market could do.

Unfortunately, we are not yet there which is why John McCain can claim that individuals should shoulder even more of the risks and cost, government should get out of the business of regulating the system, and as a very wealthy man, he can believe that this proposal is a "solution" for the healthcare crisis. [...]

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0 12379.php

Barack has lived a more privileged life and Hillary and hasn't come as far on his own.

And I fly a winged pig to work.

Of all the comical distortions in this campaign, this is the funniest

a low information voter and claim that Obama supporters are elitist, I suppose that means you also are extremely sick of Hillary supporters saying that Obama is doomed, can't win, that his supporters are just dumb and can't see past the fact that he can't win. That we are in a cult, blinded by his cult of personality and if we knew anything about the issues we would vote Clinton. Oh, and we are all rich snobs with no jobs and no problems who try to steal  the election away from the heir to the nomination.

I assume you are equally disturbed about all that. And since every diary you write seemed to get rec'd, im sure you'll find it important to post your next diary about this. Right?

Oh, this is rich. In January, the MyDD-Clinton-brigade was calling Obama supporters "low information voters" all over the place. You know, because we're all young and/or black. It's nice to see you guys regret saying that now. Let's all never use that phrase again, OK?

"She cares about that flag pin.  Who are you to tell her she shouldn't?"

I'm another person.  She doesn't have to listen to me, but I'd have some decent arguments for her.

Am I the only one who is getting about 800 volts of condescension from this diary piece?  "Here's another ad that I think folks like McCabe could relate to."  It's like an anthropology piece.

Right Here:

"In the portrait activists often paint to illustrate the problem, the uninsured patients are the victims of the system. While [Michelle] Obama agrees with that, she also says individuals have an obligation to take care of themselves.

"It's mutual responsibility," she explained in the interview. "Whatever health-care solution we bring to the table, people have to use it. People have to put good food in their bodies. People have to take their medication as directed. People can't sit and completely blame outside forces."

http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politi cs/blog/2007/04/michelle_obama_hes_just_ a_man.html

Where to begin with this cavalier, right-wing talking point?

Michelle Obama is offering "personal responsibility" talking points to working class, low-income voters who don't have health care, don't have jobs, can't afford rising food or gas costs, and have no voice in the government.

Her message to them? "You can't sit around and blame the system. You have a personal responsibility, too."

When you can't afford to buy vegetables, how do you eat good food?

When you can't afford medication at all, you can't follow Michelle's arrogant advice to "take your medication as directed."

And when you can't find a job--or you work 2-3 jobs at minimum wage just to keep up--then it's a sure sign there's something wrong with "the system," isn't there?

Michelle and Barack Obama are indifferent to the very real challenges of working class and low-income Americans, and to their very real suffering for the past 8 years.

They won't do a thing to ease the economic suffering of the people in this country, nor will they do anything to solve the health-care crisis in this country.

For the Obamas, it's all about them. Their success; their power; their place in history as the first black couple in the White House. Ordinary working class americans need more.

I prefer Al Giordano's coinage of "slow-class" (opp. fast-class) over "low-info." Far more descriptive, since measuring information on only one axis tends to neglect the quality of that information. See McCabe Nash.

Ah, do I ever miss the days when we could meaningfully discuss political science on this blog.

lots of good information, as usual...

on purpose.

"Low information voter," as you well know, refers to the exit polls that show Hillary voters are, on average, less educated and poorer than Obama voters.

You, on the other hand, know better, but choose to misunderstand and misinterpret regardless.

I feel bad for the poor woman, however, I just wonder why the question she put forth to Barack wasn't centered around health care, prescription drugs? but the flag pin.

Odd.

You see someone you empathize with. I see someone who is the typical person who asks a dumbass question about patriotism when she herself concedes that there are bigger issues at hand.

And if you say her vote is just as valid, why dont you feel the same about MoveOn voters who Hillary bashed? Why are these stubborn rigid "crossover" votes considered more legit than the activist based of our own party?

I dont pander to people. That woman is silly and a prime example why Reagan democrats got played by the REpublicans. They like to be pandered to. Obama's attitude towards a freaking lapel irritated her more than the many serious problems in our government? What the hell???

I mean, we all have personal things we get annoyed by. I get annoyed by Hillary's "ELECTION' Tracy Flick" like demeanor. But that is not on the list of my biggest priorities. If I had just one question to ask, that wouldn't be it.

Alegre keeps shilling for Hillary's money in almost every post. Save your hard earned money Obama and Hillary supporters. People like Mark Penn wasted it away in the past. Let the two duke it out till the end of the primary and use that money, if you really want to,  to beat a republican in the real election that counts - the General Election.

Just because the woman had a hard time doesn't mean she knows anything.

Yes, she had it rough, but honestly, if she is simple enough that she can relate to Hillary because, like her, "Hillary has struggled all her life", then she is ignorant of the facts, and therefore LOW-INFORMATION.

Hillary had to struggle her whole life? Really?

Yes, her story is heart wrenching, but it doesn't mean that she instantly knows what she is talking about...

Ed Rendell told a group of Pennsylvania college students that they are low information voters who are "drinking the Kool-Aid" but don't know enough about Obama's positions.

He said these people "don't look past the oratory" of Obama's message and can't name any of his policies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-RNGQKTyQ E4

Ed Rendell is clueless. Many college students and Barack supporters connect with his positions clean energy, i.e.,promoting alternative fuel and the repeal of tax breaks for oil companies; and his positions on health care are revolutionary. He focuses on people being procative with their own well-being by exercising, good nutrition, keeping fit, etc. These were big draws for me and alot of the under 40 crowd.

Insults aside -- so?

The fact is that non-elitist votes count just as much as elitist votes. If we want to win in November we'd better take that into account.

We'd better nominate the candidate who can (honorably) get the most votes from the most people in the states that count in November.