The title of your link is incorrect. The right did NOT attack Obama over mustard choice. The actual comment was not on the choice of mustard, but rather:
1) Why was MSNBC treating a trip to a burger joint as newsworthy and
2) Why did MSNBC edit out the mustard choice?
The response from the left has generally been to criticize the right for their concern over Obamas mustard choice, when in fact they weren't. They've consistantly ignored the real point (and a very minor un-newsworthy point it was) that MSNBC was concerned about O's choice of mustard.
So I have to wonder:
1) why they're making such a big deal about it and
2) why they aren't criticizing MSNBC for their concern over O's choice of mustard.
What a whole lot of furor over nothing!
The post concerned the lunch trip of Obama and Biden to a burger shop to get a "
." I accept that this should not have been news, but the White House image makers wanted to portray the two as just regular guys out at the local diner, so the event was hyped. MSNBC just happened to be in the burger place with cameras rolling when Obama and Biden came in and ordered. Again, not sure why MSNBC had to cover it, but they did, on live TV with Andrea Mitchell at the news desk and Kelly O'Donnell on scene. The dialogue between the two harped on how the trip had a "real guy kind of quality."
And that was the story line. Two regular guys out for a guy kind of meal. A script written in the White House and read by MSNBC.
But MSNBC edited out the audio when Obama ordered his Hell Burger just at the moment when Obama asked for Dijon mustard. Now I have nothing against Dijon mustard, but the image didn't fit with the image being spun by the White House and MSNBC. Dijon mustard on a Hell Burger had a very John Kerry-ish quality about it.
So I did the post, made note of the Dijon mustard, the MSNBC editing, and quipped how Obama must have sought Kerry's counsel.
(which dubbed the scenario "Dijongate") and
linked to the post, with the commentary that they thought the mustard thing was a non-scandal and non-issue.
Like most of my posts, Dijongate could have and probably should have fallen into the black hole of internet punditry, never to be seen or heard of again. But the reaction from the nutroots was widespread and swift, and they have kept the story alive.
Check out the links to the original post, and you will see that many of the high profile nutroots blogs have linked. If you check out the links and comments, you will see that the full foul-mouthed, abusive intellect of the nutroots has been brought to bear.
So I kept updating the story, with further links to Obama's choice of condiment, in part as a reaction to the reaction. Which has driven some people even crazier. Now the story has gone national, being picked up by the Washington Post
What gives here? Why the out-sized reaction? If this is a non-story, why is the left obsessed with it?
There are several parts of the answer to this question. Certainly part of the answer is that the left is not content with control of the presidency and Congress; anything, no matter how trivial, which questions Obama must be controlled. Also, Dijongate was a metaphor for the larger issue of media bias which helped Obama get elected, particularly MSNBC's unprofessional and widely-criticized cheer leading.
But those two points cannot explain the nutroots reaction. Surely, Dijongate was a minor blip on the progressive radar screen, if it was a blip at all.
I think the answer to why the nutroots cannot let Dijongate rest is the inherent insecurity of the left with their hold on power. While the mainstream media and left-wing blogs constantly tell us that Republicans and conservatives are dead politically, I don't think they actually believe what they are saying.
More - Le·gal In·sur·rec·tion: MSNBC Hides Obama's Dijon Mustard (aka Dijongate)