In it Lowry describes the type of liberal elitists that carried Obama in New Hampshire-
Obama crushed Hillary among voters with post-graduate degrees (43-31 percent), with no religion (46-29 percent) and who describe themselves as getting ahead financially (48-31 percent). These voters were just as jazzed about Obama as the press, because they are the same kinds of people -- educated professionals who are moved by the abstract themes Obama has articulated so grandly.
In contrast, Hillary's voters were those struggling to keep their jobs-
Hillary, in contrast, dominated among lunch-bucket Democrats. She beat Obama among high-school graduates (46-31 percent), among Catholics (44-28 percent) and among those falling behind financially (43-33 percent). Clinton beat Obama among voters with incomes below $50,000; Obama beat her in almost every income group above that. Voters who think the economy is performing poorly went with Clinton; those who think it's performing well went with Obama.I find this very interesting. The man carrying a message of hope manages to reach the people that do not need hope for a bright future. They have their college degrees and a bright future.
Basically, Obama is preaching to the choir. However, the folks sitting in the pews are overlooked by Obama's message.
The liberal elitists feel all ooshy and gushy inside listening to Obama message of hope, but the real folks living with the real problems have been able to see right thru Obama.
Barak Obama is Jimmy Carter all over again. A nice fellow who says all the right things and makes people feel all ooshy and gushy inside. Do these qualities make for a good leader or a good President? That is for the lunch buckets to decide.
I do know that ooshy and gushy does not pay the bills.
Voters might like change and unity, but they probably like their jobs and wages more.