"Shotgun" chain emails can be political or not, as well as be considered junk or not. Political ones, "likely bogus" according to FactCheck.org, occur when one person/organization sends out ("shotgun's") an email to many other persons/organizations, and asks everyone to pass it on. FactCheck.org, according to Wikipedia "is a non-partisan, nonprofit website that describes itself as a 'consumer advocate' for voters that aims to reduce the level of deception and confusion in U.S. politics.' It is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Pennsylvania, and is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation". See their video: "Just the Facts 2010: E-mails"
A "shotgun" can be used for good or bad purposes, as shown in the cartoon above. It all depends on the motives/expectations of the person doing the shotgunning. Some contain chain attachments which make them like scary chain letters, since they may be virus emails even when the forwarder emails friends. Many people consider it bad etiquette, but that depends on the ego of who receives it, and what is sent, IMO. Personally, I like it when someone sends me a personally interesting/informative one through their email "BCC" function, while disclosing that they are doing that. This way, my email address is kept private from everyone elses. The problem is that most people don't really know what is personally interesting to all their receivers, and what is agreeable to their receiver's opinions!
His Swedish language orientation obviously didn't mean (IMO) to imply in a derogatory way what "small people" can imply in English, but maybe he does have an elitist mentality? I'll leave it to God to make that judgement. Barack Obama didn't mean to imply, IMO, that his birth father served in WWII, but he probably thinks of the "father figure" who he spent most of his childhood with as his life's experience "father"? I'm not defending, in totality, Mr. Obama or the COB of BP as I disagree with both of them on some specific issues. I'll leave the judging of who they are to God, and only try to form a correct opinion about what they do. We must all separate people's "who" from their "do". These explanations make common sense logic to me in both cases, plus I try to think the best of people until legal evidence changes my opinion.