In a similar vein, they don’t like that “others” are getting help they’re not getting even they could use it too. And in fact that's a legitimate complaint. Someone earning $10 above the income cutoff for insurance premium subsidies under the ACA is getting screwed. Someone earning $10 above the Medicaid income cutoff is getting screwed. Someone receiving Medicaid in Alabama gets fewer benefits than someone receiving Medicaid in California; they're getting screwed. People whose retirement quality of life is dependent upon the vagaries of the market rather than a defined benefit pension are getting screwed. People who get paid less for what they do than someone in a union doing the same job are getting screwed. The problem isn't resentment. The problem is where the resentment is directed. Democrats — the ones who don't enthusiastically participate in the screwings — are afraid to go there, so they've effectively ceded the resentment field to Republicans. If they're not going to actually do something about it, they should probably quit whining.

Some people (http://the-crows-eye.blogspot.com/2011/09/counter-messaging.html) are skeptical about the imagery of charging a double-sawbuck for admission to the rebirth of global communism, but I think it's brilliant. You can take the proceeds and hire the ShamWow guy to do an infomercial and from there, it's a clear shot to the workers paradise.

I don't disagree with much of what I've read here, but I would like to note that Obama made quite clear before the election his obeisance to the insurance industry and other health industry cartels, and once he got the nomination the money came pouring down. So anyone who expected more than what he delivered was simply not paying attention. I mean, he actually said, and wrote in his position papers, that industry would play a major role. Nothing stealth about it. O well.

Yes, I'm aware of the guiding lights of the campaign, Dr. Dick; that's why I mentioned it in my initial comment. The proliferation of "mongrels" in the comments to that post is quite clearly a reaction to the president's remark. I can't remember the last time I saw anyone use the word online in that capacity outside of white supremacist sites. So in that sense, what someone on the "left" said did indeed have an impact. I will take exception to the description of Obama as representing the left; his policies strongly resemble those of Richard Nixon. But of course he is seen as a radical leftist by the people at issue here, who do not exist in a vacuum. I will say again: I may very well be wrong about this. I think not, but of course I would.

Maybe the comment won't have any long-term impact. I've been dramatically mistaken about many things. I did notice an explosion in the pejorative use of the word in the comments on this Politico post. I was really surprised to see the commenters use it so freely, because I read the comments before I read that excerpt from the Obama interview. Again, I know my view is very much the minority one. It is shaped by my previous experience with casual racists. One tends to believe that one's experience is universal.

Mongrel is indeed a word that racists use to describe black people, Jews and anyone else who isn't "pure." As you know, we're in the middle of a campaign by racists, and people who manipulate racists, to normalize racism again. The president's use of the word helps that process along; people who were hesitant to use it as a slur not because they're on the fence about being racists, but because it opens them up to what they regard as PC criticism, now have the opportunity to use it freely in its pejorative sense under the president's imprimatur. Racists everywhere are breathing a sigh of relief because a burden has been lifted from them. I don't think that's a good thing. Obviously mine is vastly the minority opinion. Maybe the value of the president's use of the word in a neutral or positive fashion outweighs what I see as the negative repercussions. I grew up in a part of the country where the Klan once controlled the state--by which I mean the governorship and the legislature--and many of my neighbors weren't especially happy that times have changed. I hate to see them empowered.

The leak and the stories won't force any changes in policy unless there's a constant stream of followup leaks. Two weeks in the newshole and then off to the memory hole. You're right, though, the Guardian story is very good and may have an impact on the Brits. But not here.