Flash back to that electrifying cinematic moment in All the King's Men, when Broderick Crawford reconnects with his populist roots and shouts, "Listen up, you hicks." Now that's condescension! In the movie, it didn't cost him any votes. Red herring, I know. The discussion just brought it to mind.

It would be condescending if Obama were lecturing people with this sociobabble in his stump speech. But he isn't. A bunch of West Coast fundraiders were asking him, "How come you're not breaking through in Pennsylvania despite all this money we've given you?" Obama is supposed to be this political genius (and he is, by the way), so he knows that "Beats me!" won't do for an answer. But he's a law professor, not a poli-sci prof, and this bit of Vulgar Marxism recalled from his undergrad years seems to meet the demands of the moment. Does he actually believe that economics structure culture this rigidly? Who knows? Who cares? He isn't building policies around this kind of theory.

The "gaffe" could have been far worse, BTW, since he started out by saying downtrodden voters were cool to pie-in-the-sky promises -- especially from a politician with a name like his who looked like him.

If he'd stopped right there, Hillary and her goons would have been calling him out not as an elitist but as a racist -- or at least as someone who had called the good people of Pennsylvania a bunch of racist goobers who would never vote for a black guy. The defence that it is essentially true would hardly have got Obama off the hook.

Fortunately, Obama rambled on, into the thorny bushes of guns and religion, prompting Hillary to go for even lower-hanging fruit. Looking for a hook, her campaign pounced on "bitter," which was probably the least controversial word in that now-infamous sentence. Most voters saw the hyped-up controversy as a desperate ploy, and the rest -- much like Hillary's overall campaign -- is history.