and communicate "civilly and honestly" with consumers. Wow, I said to myself when I read the article last night.  Obama will mention this when he campaigns in Ohio, in Virginia, in Nevada.  Especially, please, in Ohio and Nevada. And all of us who are on the "list-serve" of the campaign will receive notice of the article.  Or at least of the fact that the article is about. But we didn't.  Instead, we received a lot of stuff about the Mourdock controvery and about Romney's refusal to withdraw his support of Mourdock.  Which was fine, but not to the exclusion of the subject of the Wyatt article. Wyatt is not a political reporter or pundit.  He's a hard-news reporter, and in that article he reported hard facts.  Katharine Q. Seelye, who wrote the other Times article that got my attention, is a political reporter.  Her article is titled " Crucial Subset: Female Voters Still Deciding ," and it focuses on what she terms "waitress moms."  Seelye's report is from New Hampshire. Indeed.  What Obama needs most in swing states such as Ohio, Nevada, Virginia and New Hampshire is to have white so-called working-class voters -- men and woman -- step into the voting booth and quietly, maybe even suddenly, decide to vote for him .  And the way to do that, at least with respect to those whose main concern is their own precarious economic situation, is to highlight concrete facts that actually could matter all-too-concretely in their lives. Like the