I think you missed my point. Read the last part of my post. I was making a sarcastic comment about drawing conclusions based on one point of data. It’s no less fallacious to say that a guy who owns a pickup truck is a “regular guy,” “everyman,” etc. than it is to say that going to horse shows is “elitist.”
This sounded weird to me. Why would the President stoop to attacking anyone running for office (even worse if it came about after he had won)? Should he not be above that blather?
It’s common for sitting Presidents to campaign for party candidates.
Obama did not “attack” or “go after” Brown’s truck. He basically just implied that Brown was using it as a prop. What he actually said was “Forget the truck…anybody can buy a truck.” He also said Brown “wants to park his truck on Wall street,” and that Brown would be “driving us in the wrong direction.”
Moto’s characterization of this as “attacking the truck” is a reflection of right wing blog distortions, not reality.
As an English person I should probably be affronted by that sizeist remark, but that was frickin hilarious.
BTW, in England, people who own horses drive Land Rovers. And they are generally posh, so wouldn’t be seen dead in a pick up truck.
And no politician would use his SUV/4x4 as a campaign gimmick as it would have a negative effect - people who drive these vehicles are generally seen as arrogant, environmentally disastrous pricks. The Mayor of London and Leader of the Conservative Party (and probable next Prime Minister) both make a big deal about riding a bicycle to work.
