John Judis Comes out for Hillary

via MAL Contends

Update II: Maybe Hillary, Judis and Co are on to something; even Patrick Buchanan agrees with them.

Update: Many readers have asked: Why are you quoting TNR? Good question. TNR is good on fiscal policy; and I believe this crap by Judis needs to be knocked down. [But I promise never to even bother with Jason Zengerle who is pure shit.] But Salon is pushing this story too, though more judiciously, in Michael Lind’s piece].

John B. Judis knows better.

His piece in The New Republic, Woe Is He, asserts the necessity of the Democratic nominee garnering the white working class demographic.

But Judis, for reasons unclear, uses the parody of the Hillary/broadcast media issues, contending that the "Bitter" and "Rev. Wright" controversies are actually substantive points, and not faux, contrived, out-of-context cheap shots, revealing only of the not credible media and sources who misuse what Obama actually says.

Writes Judis:

(T)o win in November, Obama will have to win almost all of these heartland states. Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters 'clinging' to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region. ... These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they're much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters' opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological--a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called "false consciousness."

Judis has gone off the deep end here.

But David Coleman, who actually listened to Obama, has it right.

(Obama) urged the volunteer to tell Pennsylvania voters he encountered that Obama's campaign is about something more than programs and talking points. It was at this point that Obama began to talk about addressing the bitter feelings that many in some rural communities in Pennsylvania have about being brushed aside in the wake of the global economy. Senator Obama appeared to theorize, perhaps improvidently given the coverage this week, that some of the people in those communities take refuge in political concerns about guns, religion and immigration. But what has not so far been reported is that those statements preceded and were joined with additional observations that black youth in urban areas are told they are no longer 'relevant' in the global economy and, feeling marginalized, they engage in destructive behavior. Unlike the week's commentators who have seized upon the remarks about 'bitter feelings' in some depressed communities in Pennsylvania, I gleaned a different meaning from the entire answer.

Seems to me that Obama's focus on high-paying jobs, ludicrously crafted trade agreements, health care for all, education and understanding the plight of the white working class might just appeal to this demographic.

But I doubt the motivation of Judis noting this imperative of appealing to the white working class and then linking it to the politically charged and utterly contrived controversy pushed by the Hillary Clinton campaign and those sympathetic to its continuing past June.

What's next for Judis? Noting the imperative of appealing to the white working class demographic because it's important that the world-wise, sniper-taking Hillary is better suited to take a 3:00 AM phone call?

Judis is trying to push another contrived controversy under cover of a demographic analysis, and completely ignoring the fact that the object of the controversy is vacuous and the fabrication of a desperate Clinton campaign.

Embarrassing for Judis, and his credibility ought suffer accordingly.