Very reasonable eyewitness account of the much-maligned 'Obama gaffe' about small town mentality in Pennsylvania. Although the reporter is clearly an Obama supporter, he does a very credible and thoughtful job of presenting the facts as he experienced them -- unlike many mainstream media outlets, who did a lot on-camera speculation about facts they knew little about. From my viewpoint as a news consumer, this account is much superior to a lot of superficial media coverage I observed in subsequent days.

This is the type of thoughtful journalism we need to see in this contentious campaign season. Rather than snatching a quote out of context and twisting it to suit a political stance, David Coleman fully explains, not only the physical circumstances in which a statement was made, but he helpfully describes the emotional surround of the comments and what he believed the candidate was trying to convey.

This commentary is a attempt to set the record straight and clearly points out the disservice journalism does when they reported this issue and let other candidates misuse it without challenge.

Ok, this obviously a pro-Obama person, so it's not some objective outside source. But it is important because he was THERE and heard the remarks. Even though he is obviously biased towards Obama, I think he makes a solid point about making sure to get the context of what someone says. I would definitely recommend reading it to get the context of the remarks. The clips I've heard are inaudible, so we have only FOX or CNN giving us the few phrases they've decided are the most inflammatory. I don't think it's dismissive or condescending or eltist to speak the truth. Perhaps PENN voters are embittered - the important thing is what he will do for them. The context of the quote shows that he was not dismissing them. He was trying ... More »

The fact that Coleman was at an Obama fundraiser means that he is probably a biased observer. Still, I always find a firsthand account and impressions interesting. Here he gives context and depth to comments that are being made much of taken out of a larger discussion. To me, it remedies the soundbite sensationalism we've been hearing so far.

It's about time somebody set the record straight!

Great article of clarification.

David Coleman speaks with a clear voice. There is no anger but a bit of disappointment that things get pulled apart in the way Obama's remarks did. Coleman may be a fan of Obama but I suspect that he would attempt to speak truth to a similar situation twisting Clinton's words. He seems to desire clear dialog and honest reporting. Unhappily, our American experience is of a different sort. This piece is the clearest explication of what was said and what was meant that I have seen anywhere.

From a reporter who was in the room.

Although Mr. Coleman may be a supporter of Sen. Obama, I don’t think that the possibility of bias is a major concern here. He has through his own first hand experience given us additional facts about the context of the Senator’s remarks which were new to me. We are able to draw our own conclusions whether we agree with his or not. If they heard of these facts the rest of the news media did not see fit to report them. I suppose that would only have served to make his remarks more reasonable and thus less sensational and “newsworthy”. I have posted elsewhere that I fail to see why “elitist” is such a damning epithet. Surely the Presidency is an unusual office, demanding unusual skills and unusual wisdom. To we really want ... More »

This report shows why the newspapers continue to lose readers, such as myself. This report should have been grabbed and vetted by NYT and the cable news (who seem to repeat everything useless every hour) and then presented to the audience, Instead, we got those vapid questions from Hannity (ghostly presence), Stephanopolous, and Gibson .