Late Night: Small Town (2004 DNC)

John Mellencamp performing "Small Town" at the DNC in Boston, 2004.

Obama tries to cover his Gaffe (video)-- did he succeed? Seems to me he sidestepped his insults as if he never made them. Where does he address, let alone apologize for this comment?

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

This is an open thread.

Update: Hillary and McCain respond to Obama's Indiana remarks about his S.F. statement: [More...]

“Instead of apologizing for offending small town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week,” said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. He added, “Americans are tired of a President who looks down on them, they want a President who will stand up for them for a change.”

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, issued a similar response.

“Instead of apologizing to small town Americans for dismissing their values, Barack Obama arrogantly tried to spin his way out of his outrageous San Francisco remarks,” Mr. Bounds said, adding: “You can’t be more out of touch than that.”

Update: Comments over 200, now closed.

< Obama Explains Why Pro-Life Dems Support Him | Obama Interview On LGBT Issues >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Dang I go out to dinner.... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:37:00 PM EST
    ...and all heck breaks loose.

    I doze off (5.00 / 2) (#211)
    by cal1942 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:09:53 AM EST
    in a chair after dinner and all hell breaks loose.  

    I like BTD but I can't agree with his final statement.

    "Not good. But Obama is a Media Darling and Bill Clinton screwed up today so Obama will get away with it mostly unscathed. That's why he is the better choice for Dem nominee."

    NO. He's not the better choice for the Democratic nominee. The media hates anything Clinton and Obama's their pet now only because he's opposing Clinton. If Obama is the nominee; come GE time they'll toss him aside like a one-night stand and go back to their everlasting love for McCain.

    It just won't make any difference who the Democratic nominee is when the gates open.

    The fact is, Obama isn't ready for prime time, has no convictions except himself and if elected could be a catastrophe for the Democratic party.

    Think of it this way: What would have happened if Al Smith had won the Democratic nomination in 1932 instead of Franklin Roosevelt.

    The New Deal was NOT a natural byproduct of the Great Depression.  It took the leadership of a real progressive with an understanding of the importance of economic justice to battle for the reforms known as the New Deal.  Smith's beliefs were the antihesis of Roosevelt's.


    Hell breaks or expands to this new thread (none / 0) (#119)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:25:20 AM EST
    At the older thread, closed now,
    Fabian said:

    His speeches are getting more and more predictable though.  Pretty soon someone will have a ObamaOratory program that will accept inputs[state, target demographic, significant issues] and crank out a speech for him.

    So he manages to say "I am running for President specifically so I can save you and you and  you.".  It's a good line, but how often can he use it before someone says "Hey, the only Change we've seen in these parts is a change for the worse.  What will you do that is different than what everyone else did?".

    Fabian, is this Obama Inspirationotron be a good start?


    I think Jeralyn (5.00 / 0) (#5)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:49:34 PM EST
    got it just right. He seems to have completely side-stepped the offensive part of what he said, as if it was not said.  It might work unless the MSM pushes it further though.  Hopefully, someone will ask him about it at the PA debate later this month.

    Wonder how the voters would feel (5.00 / 3) (#27)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:15:13 PM EST
    if they heard the original comments along with the laughter.

    damn he ticks me off {self censoring!}


    He totally ignored the real problem (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by ajain on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:55:22 PM EST
    Clinton and McCain camps have both responded to that by saying that it is unfortunate that he didnt apologize for his comments.

    By embracing his comments I'm not sure what he does for himself. I mean calling people bitter and resentful is not the best way to get them to vote for you.

    Its hilarious that Clinton actually bashed him for not being optimistic. I mean this is the hope-change candidate.

    Has he ever spent any time (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:47:04 PM EST
    in a small town except to make a campaign stop?  He simply doesn't know what he's talking about, he's just repeating elitist crap stereotypes.

    The farmers in my small town (pop 1,200) voted solidly for him, and I feel bad for them if they hear about these comments.  The church is the center of life in this town, everybody hunts and owns guns.  There's no anti-immigrant fervor of any kind here.  The Jamaican guys who come to pick our apple crop are greeted every year like returning family, and the Mexicans of dubious status who work on many of the farms are fiercely protected from questioning by immigration authorities.  Both are well paid and housed in good homes.  My overwhelmingly white town elected a gay man with two little adopted African-American daughters to the school committee, for crying out loud.

    There are some angry, bitter, bigoted people in some small towns, I have no doubt, but I frankly saw much, much more of that poison in the "liberal" suburbs I used to live in than the small town that's now my home.

    This just makes me crazy.  The Democratic Party is supposed to stick up for not just African-Americans but also all working people and farmers, not trash them in order to court favor with wealthy white suburbanites.

    The folks here are low-information voters, but idealistic, and the shine in their eyes when they talk about voting for Obama is something to be proud of.  I haven't said a peep about my opinion of him because I can't bear to say a discouraging word about their idealism.



    Small Town, Big City Neighborhood not much diff (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:00:55 PM EST
    Fewer chickens in the latter, but a lot of the same principles apply.

    I was born in a small town too and even after moving to the Big Bad City, the differences weren't huge.

    The food was better in the former, though. We always had farm-fresh eggs and dairy and unbelievable bread, right out of the local bakery's wood-fired oven.

    We moved to the market district of Scenic Undisclosed Location and got the benefit of fantastic fare from "small town" merchants who came from similar places all over the world, so YUM.

    If it were up to me to unify disparate parties and factions, I'd demand a sit-down ... lunch.

    We have this awesome Amish market... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by kredwyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:33:59 PM EST
    I don't know when it started or how long it's been going on. But the summer squash? They're huge...like they're supposed to be. Same with the zucchini.

    Totally love it.


    Heh (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:50:48 PM EST
    The food is glorious in the summer, in the winter not so much if you're many miles away from a supermarket with imported produce.

    But the truly fresh eggs! (groan) An egg still warm from the hen is food for the gods.


    Real scrambled eggs w/ real buttered toast? Ahhh (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:08:20 AM EST
    The real deal with 100% organic fresh fare is simply unbeatable! It's still hands down my favorite meal, and don't get me started on what real milk does to home-roasted coffee.

    I was always being accused of distorting the food bragging with nostalgia until some foodies I know hit the family farm with me.

    Chicken soup? ("It's like the chicken was honored to die for this!")

    Salad? THIS is diet food?!?

    My advice to novice cooks: make simple stuff from excellent ingredients and you'll never go wrong.


    and cheaper too! (none / 0) (#85)
    by white n az on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:59:20 PM EST
    have you seen the price of eggs lately? In fact, food prices are way, way up.

    In Philly for the night (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:06:55 PM EST
    a survey of about an hour of local broadcast TV shows that Hillary and Obama are about matched in the air war. Obama is running the ad where he talks to a group in a room about drug companies. Hillary is running the Nutter and the Rendell ad.

    This is so slimy (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by bjorn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:07:13 PM EST
    He did not own what he said.  I am more disgusted with him after watching the video. It is one thing to read it, another all together to watch him twist it around like Clinton said something wrong and not him.  Gross! If you did not know what he said, what he really said, then this would work.  But if you know what he actually said at the fundraiser, this makes him look worse IMO.

    That really was Clinton's fault (1.00 / 2) (#155)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:42:39 AM EST
    She did this badly.  You could see her thinking, "How can I take advantage of this without bringing up 'guns' ?"

      It was too calculating by half, and all she complained about was that he said they are bitter.  WELL, SOME ARE!  Pollyanna words from her will not be helpful here.

      What the harmful (for him) words from Obama were had to do with his equating the smalltown's bitterness with the economy CAUSING them to "cling to religion" -- and then linking 'religion' as an item alongside guns as well as racial and cultural prejudice (attitudes toward people who are different or who are immigrating [illegally, I presume].

      And that he said these words, based on values of the current audience, at a mansion in San Francisco, to only the richest people in the area (or in the world) invited to attend.  Reporters weren't allowed.  I'm surprised that a tape was made and was released.  Here again is the setting for those words, with photographs, as mentioned here a couple of days ago.  The monied people wanted to know why he wasn't doing better with the less-monied folks in Pennsylvania and other big states.

      She'll have to do better.  I was disappointed with her response.


    What did he say in PA? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:15:41 PM EST
    I thought he made the offending remarks in San Francisco.

    LOL, thought I was missing something. . (none / 0) (#43)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:23:57 PM EST
    comments (5.00 / 8) (#18)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:07:33 PM EST
    Here's the thing, for me, about his comments:  they were a way for him to blame the voters for not supporting him.  

    I agree with everyone who says they were insulting, stereotyping, elitist.  But they were also (again) deflecting attention from an obama shortcoming.

    Because what he was asked was why is he having trouble in pennsylvania.  And his response - rather than saying he had more leg work to do or he had to break through or whatever - was to basically say "these are a bunch of ignorant folks who don't know what their real problems are and don't know I will make it all better."

    So it's THEIR fault they haven't seen the light and it's THEIR fault he might lose.


    I don't think you're (none / 0) (#20)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:10:38 PM EST
    going to be a BO speech writer anytime soon:

    "these are a bunch of ignorant folks who don't know what their real problems are and don't know I will make it all better."

    you're right (5.00 / 5) (#40)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:21:57 PM EST
    I should have written, "a bunch of xenophobic, gun-toting, religous nuts who don't know I can make it all better."

    That would have been closer to the spirit of his comments.


    what gets me is - (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:21:01 AM EST
    when Hillary goofs - she hurts HERSELF the most.
    But Obama smacks down Dems and Dem Party positions - and sees nothing wrong with it!!
    He hurts the Party longterm - even if he's not the nominee.
    That's the shortsightedness of Obama's unity schtick.  He's going to bring EVERYBODY together - but first he has to pi** off a LARGE chunk of Democrats!
    But of course - ALL the Dems will fall in line at the convention and ALL will fall down at the feet of Obama.

    Ha. Not right. (none / 0) (#129)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:31:30 AM EST
    But what a test for the unity theme. I think it has gone too far for many. Maybe not outside of the blogging world, although I know a lot of non bloggers who are not supporting BHO. They have a pretty good idea of what is going on and even recognize the media bias. They are not amused.

    Hey, look over there! (none / 0) (#117)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:23:21 AM EST
    is that a dikfer?

    Bitterness (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by mouth of the south on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:08:01 PM EST
    I don't know about you guys but I AM bitter, frustrated, melancholy, depressed, hurt, and mad as hell at what has become of our country in the last 7 years.  Aren't you?  I find it refreshing to hear someone finally say it out loud.  Of course those who have lost their good jobs forever are bitter about it.  Who wouldn't be?  I just wish I had something to turn to like religion, but the religion that I grew up with is long gone in the part of the South that I live in, taken away from me by the Christianists.  I hate guns, so there goes that solice.  I don't hate Mexicans or Black people, in fact I like them.  So I am left with just bitterness and very little hope of salvation for our beloved county.  I get so discouraged that our hope for a Democratic President will be snatched from us and that we will turn to McCain who, in my humble opinion is far worse than Bush ever thought about being.  I just wish we would stop castigating our candidates who try to speak truth to us.  We need to hear the truth and not just platitudes.  We need a thorough cleansing of the unmitigated crap that has been heaped on all of us during the Bush administration.  Let's not blow it by tearing each other apart. Let's encourage our two very great candidates to be courageous and speak truth to us even if it hurts.  Let's not punish a candidate who is trying to start the process of healing that we so desperately need. It is not insulting to anyone to observe the obvious fact that the majority of Americans ARE bitter about the state of our government and the perilous financial problems that the majority of Americans are facing.  The future of our county is literally hanging in the balance in this election.  We MUST come together as a party and support whichever candidate wins the Democratic election.  To do otherwise and vote for McCain would be to surrender to our bitterness and disappointment to the great detriment of our country!  And I know none of us want that.

    Bitter was not the offensive word (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by nellre on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:18:00 PM EST
    The offensive word was "cling".

    I can't imagine anybody worse than Bush.


    Bitter (none / 0) (#48)
    by mouth of the south on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:28:53 PM EST
    I just wish I had something to cling to like religion.  What keeps me going is my total commitment to seeing a Democrat elected President of this county this year.  Haven't you noticed the pervasive bitterness in this country towards free trade, immigration, our lying government, our ineffective House and Senate, the terrible waste of this war in Iraq?  God, the bitterness is so thick in this country that you could cut it with a knife.  That is one reason we are all so fervant about our chosen candidates.  I thorougly understand why people are so angry at either Obama or Clinton, depending upon whom they are supporting.  I get that way myself sometimes, but I still understand the Clinton supporters' feelings and I respect them,  But it won't get us a Democrat as President in this coming election and that is what we all want so badly that we have poured our whole hearta and souls into this election.  

    Did you say all that to the Obama campaign (5.00 / 8) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:20:14 PM EST
    when they were accusing Hillary and Bill and all those other people of being race-baiters?

    No?  I didn't think so.

    Listen, whether intentionally or not, this man is not a healer in any sense of the word.  He's the most divisive guy I've seen come along in the Dem. Party in many years.  He cannot "heal" the divisions in this country by trashing half of all Democratic voters, Dem. leadership who don't support him, folks who are pro-choice, folks who are low-income, folks who live in small towns all over America, his own hard-working grandma, for God's sake.

    If you want healing, get behind Hillary, who has done NONE of those things.


    He is divisive because he is a weak (5.00 / 5) (#45)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:27:16 PM EST
    (unqualified) candidate with a lot of ambition and decent political instincts. Because he has nothing to run on, he has to tear the other candidates down.

    he can't win the general (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by bigbay on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:48:02 PM EST
    In fact, he could get less than 40 %, at this rate. I do not want a Republican for another 8 years.

    At some point, his supporters are going to have to look at his weakness in PA and Ohio, and his propensity for gaffes. Calling small town America racist, bitter and weak (clinging) means it's over for him in those states.


    He can just forget about (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:19:34 AM EST
    Pa and Ohio, WV, TN, IN, FL, MI, MO, and WI now.
    He'll have to make do with those caucus states.

    And those caucus states don't (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:39 AM EST
    ...the caucus states don't vote in the activist-oriented mob scene way during the general election.  Voting via primaries is far closer to GE processes, both of which include more than a small subset of the population of the area.

      And in the GE, they even include people from that other party.  His caucus results will mean almost nothing because they were not reflected in the big states with a wide range of Americans included.  And then those were just the Democrats.


    I am voting for Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by BarnBabe on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:33:26 PM EST
    So I hope the Obama people will heed your advice to come together.  There are bitter people all over the United States. I have disliked the last 7 years of GW ruling but I was not bitter. I was frustrated that he got elected, I was frustrated we could not get him out of office in 04, I am frustrated that after 2006, we are still not doing what we said we would do. What annoys me right now is that he talked about the people in Penna like we were the pits of the earth. Believe me, I have not spent 7 years being bitter. I used my voice but at the same time, I managed to go on with my life very nicely in my small town in PA. If any of you caught American Idol the other night where they were trying to get books to the children in Kentucky, I am sure your heart broke for those people. It was like the world discovering that there are poor people in New Orleans. And it broke my heart that we are spending so much money on other things and we never have enough to take care of our own. But don't worry, I will not vote for McCain because I am voting for President Hillary.

    I appreciate your heartfelt concern (5.00 / 7) (#63)
    by ChrisO on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:38:49 PM EST
    I really do. I'm not bitter, mostly because I see things changing, and I'm very confident that the Dems will control the White House and both houses of Congress next year. But really, this is an election. Whenever I hear people crediting a candidate for "telling the truth," I know the candidate just put his foot in his mouth. When Jimmy Carter said there was a malaise in this country, he was probably right. But then sunny, optimistic Ronald Reagan came along, and people said "That Jimmy Carter is a downer." The party out of power has a fine line to walk. It has to emphasize the fact that things have gone wrong under the current administration, but voters are turned off by candidates who say "everything sucks" and "people are miserable." That's why candidates always couch their criticisms with phrases like "You deserve better." People want optimism in their candidates.

    One of the reasons I support Hillary is that I see her as a tough politician who will use the Presidency to the best effect. I don't advocate her lying, but incessantly telling the truth is not always good politics, and I don't demand that of her.

    I say most of the above  because I'm responding to your comment. I think it's important to add the other part of the equation: what Obama said isn't necessarily the truth. I'm an East Coast, latte drinking liberal. But I come from a working class background, and even though I've left things like church going behind me, I recognize that not evryone is like me. I know many sophisticated, intelligent people who go to church with their families every Sunday. If anything, I think some churchgoers might be a little defensive, knowing that the intelligentsia looks down on them and their simple beliefs.  Obama's statement makes it clear that he shares that disdainful attitude towards the simple folk in middle America.

    Their desire to go hunting is so foreign to him, he can only think they are "clinging" to their guns out of fear and resentment. And by the way, this is reinforced by the fact that he delivered his little talk in front of a bunch of San Francisco liberals, in a setting that really made it sound like he was talking about "those people." If you asked the Clinton campaign what would be the most damaging place for Obama to make that kind of statement, they would have plunked him down right in the same spot, at a San Francisco fundraiser.

    Of course, his followers complain that his remarks are being misinterpreted, because only sophisiticate voters can understand the nuance behind them. Way to get those people he insulted back on his side. But since they insist, how's this for nuance? Obama recently defended his membership in his church in part because there are so many positive aspects to belonging, aside from the inflammatory statements that he never heard. So his church membership is based on positivity, but the hicks in central Pennsylvania "cling" to religion because they're being used and manipulated. That should fix everything.


    Interesting (5.00 / 3) (#131)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:32:36 AM EST
    You wrote:

    Their desire to go hunting is so foreign to him, he can only think they are "clinging" to their guns out of fear and resentment. And by the way, this is reinforced by the fact that he delivered his little talk in front of a bunch of San Francisco liberals, in a setting that really made it sound like he was talking about "those people." If you asked the Clinton campaign what would be the most damaging place for Obama to make that kind of statement, they would have plunked him down right in the same spot, at a San Francisco fundraiser.

    And yet he told the good people up in Boise before the Idaho primary that he wasn't going to take their guns away because there were hunters in southern Illinois and so he understood them.

    The comments were made here in San Francisco and guns aren't so cool here. I'm guessing that his comments came at the Pacific Heights Getty Mansion, home of Ann and Gordon Getty, where one of his three Bay Area fundraisers were held. The others were in Atherton down on the penisula and up in Marin in Kentfield. Atherton & Kentfield are two of the wealthiest communities in the US. All this makes me think back to those comments to the good people of Boise back in late January. Was he sincere? Or they too clinging to their guns? In SF, we all too often take a dim view of the rest of the US, but does not give Obama the right to disparage people who are struggling. That is not a San Francisco value.

    Photos from the event:



    No I'm not bitter (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by angie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:39:19 PM EST
    I'm disappointed, I'm mad, but I'm not bitter -- words matter, right?  Furthermore, my disappointment doesn't make me "cling to religion" as I had religion before, but then again maybe I'm so stupid that religion is my opiate like it is for the rest of the unwashed masses Obama was referring to -- you know, the coal miners, steel workers, the "back bone of America, salt of the earth" people who live in small town PA.
    I notice how you mentioned your disappointment in the last 7 (W) years.  Obama lumped our only 2 term Dem president since FDR into his comments, because he said the last 25 years. Another revisionist history on Obama's part that I refuse to overlook or let him WORM his way out of.  

    The majority of Americans voted (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by Joan in VA on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:42:32 PM EST
    to reelect Bush so they really have no right to be bitter. And I don't think they are.

    you want truth and not platitudes? (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:06:00 AM EST
    then Obama is not your guy.

    Stupid (5.00 / 4) (#23)
    by jmcdonough120 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:12:40 PM EST
    from swimming freestyle:

    "Barack Obama is a remarkably eloquent man and turning into a remarkably capable politician.  But if the Senator believes it's smart to insult voters from a state critical to your success, he's hit one of the worst false notes yet in his campaign.

    Yeah, I know what his campaign said, and that may have been what he meant. But a sophisticated candidate doesn't refer to voters in language that can be construed as derogatory or insulting.  Obama asserted Pennsylvania voters are bitter and so simple and lacking in maturity and intelligence that they address their frustration by clinging to primitive and reactionary crutches rather than addressing their problems in constructive ways.

    It's divisive.  And not the way to attract the voters you need most."


    The problem I have with WORM (5.00 / 3) (#71)
    by FlaDemFem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:45:48 PM EST
    (What Obama Really Meant) is that a Harvard lawyer damn well ought to KNOW how to SAY what he MEANS in the first place!!! If Obama is so intelligent, why is he incapable of saying what he really means? Why does his campaign have to "clarify" his meaning every time he opens his mouth? Why can't he say what he means?? That is my main question regarding Obama's statements on anything that need WORMing. You know, until now WORM was something I did to my horses, dogs and cats. Not something I expect from a candidate.

    He meant what he said! That's the problem (5.00 / 2) (#102)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:13:02 AM EST
    He was speaking casually to a group of supporters.  He was saying his truth as several of his supporters have confirmed and applauded in this site. The truth about what a person really believes in has sometimes a funny way of oozing out at the most inappropriate time.

    I am one of those who rely on my faith in Divine Providence to sustain me with the stamina to cope with everyday challenges.  I am disappointed that the present administration has misused the opportunity to uphold the values of the founding fathers.  And I would be disappointed if once again, the majority of the voters elect someone incapable of righting the ship of state.

    I am glad that even if it is a little late in the process, the true beliefs and nature of Sen. Obama is coming to the surface when there is still a chance for people to rethink their inclination to nominate him.  I fo once have always believed that the times need someone like Hillary Clinton.


    insulting for months (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by 1950democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:47:31 PM EST
    He's been insulting various groups of voters for months! For no particular reason that I could see, early on, he started insulting the whole Boomer generation.

    Barack gaffes again (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Universal on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:15:34 PM EST
    This is not going to play well in PA, to say the least.

    I just finished a piece on the latest Obama imbroglio:


    Obama had been gaining well on Clinton in PA, but this should at minimum halt that trend. More likely, it will start the wheels moving in the other direction.

    Actually, he was starting to trend back (none / 0) (#50)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:30:31 PM EST
    a bit in the Real Clear Politics average of polls today nationwide.  The trendlines on the daily tracking polls are worth watching over a week or more, and Gallup's was starting to tighten a bit.  And Rasmussen's!  Obama had dropped in recent days from a 9-point lead to a 7-point lead to, today, a 3-point lead.

    Looking at those about three days from now will tell us whether the California comments will hit hard, huh?


    susa has been nailing state after state (none / 0) (#61)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:37:44 PM EST
    they had Clinton up 18 this week...until they have Obama gaining ground I'm not buying...at some pt susa will get one wrong but till they do they are my pollster of choice.

    oops maybe you (none / 0) (#64)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:38:55 PM EST
    were talking national, not PA..my mistake.

    I was talking national polls, but yes (none / 0) (#83)
    by Cream City on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:57:44 PM EST
    I watch the Penn polls, too, and I think that SUSA may have been a bit high -- but I read that it will release two more polls before the Penn primary, and I suspect we'll see some impact from this.  (I don't know, though, when the next one is -- if SUSA started polling already, it won't tell us about any hit from this, as it will take a few days.)

    He needs to surround himself with flags (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Trickster on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:20:03 PM EST
    And give a big, eloquent speech in prime-time on the continuing curse of out-of-touch elitism and how we can overcome with in a big rainbow circle of hope.

    If I get any more bitter.... (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:21:17 PM EST
    ...I'm going to start clinging to my bitterness.

    good thing that (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by Arcadianwind on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:39:46 PM EST
    you saved the bitterness till after dinner...
    tis better for digestion.

    well there ya go..... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:47:06 PM EST
    ...my bitterness now has a purpose!

    Notice how Obama makes you (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:23:32 PM EST
    embrace his mistakes, in order to support him.
    Today, if you are an Obama supporter,  you must engage in a full-throated defense of (almost) everything Wright has said, because Obama does so.
    Tomorrow, you will have to speak as an expert on small town disillusionment, tsk-ing at the poor people who still cling to their guns and religion to explain.. to explain their frustration??
    How many people have commented that what Obama said doesn't even make any sense?
    "Marybeth, you know what? I think we're poor because I love my guns!". Is that how Obama sees it?

    really? (none / 0) (#49)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:29:34 PM EST
    ""Marybeth, you know what? I think we're poor because I love my guns!". Is that how Obama sees it?"

    so that's your understanding of what Obama said?  


    other way (none / 0) (#94)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:07:35 AM EST
    Other way around, wasn't it? Because we're poor we cling to our guns to explain our frustration which is really because we're poor but we're too _ to notice that we're poor?

    actually, (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by cpinva on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:31:42 PM EST
    Where does he address, let alone apologize for this comment?

    in an award winning bid for the "a boring constancy is the hobgoblin of little minds." prize, he never does, ever.

    if you go back through all the "bumps" in his campaign thus far, the common thread is his absolute rejection of personal responsibility for any of them.

    he never comes out and says "i screwed up, sorry about that.", or "my staff erred, but i take responsibility, since i am ultimately in charge."

    it's "gosh, no i didn't say that.", or "this is what i actually meant.", or "someone on my staff did that, i'm not responsible."

    sen. obama has laid claim to the mantle of john kennedy's heir apparent. if so, he better damn well start acting like it. pres. kennedy, for all his faults (and they were legion), stepped up to the plate and took responsibility for his administration.

    the "bay of pigs" fiasco is a classic example: he could have, with considerable basis, laid the blame for that failed venture at the feet of pres. eisenhower and cia director john foster dulles, responsible for authorizing and planning it respectively. kennedy did no such thing, he accepted full blame for it, even though he was a less than enthusiastic supporter. as a consequence, both the press and public gave him a bye.

    i just don't see sen. obama doing this. he'd be blaming everyone under the sun, disavowing knowledge of it and placing the responsibility on underlings.

    this is his pattern, it won't stop if he does become the nominee and president.

    Yeah, this is something that's (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:02:21 AM EST
    bothered me about Obama from the start.

    Everything about him and the way he behaves says that he has an infallibility complex.


    It seems he has mastered the art (none / 0) (#136)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:34:41 AM EST
    of plausible deniability.  

    Another example of his infallibility (none / 0) (#207)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:42 AM EST
    complex was how he handled the foreign policy gaffes he made in the early debates.

    It was as obvious as could be that he had simply goofed, and he even tried to pretend at first that some of his statements just meant something different from what they clearly meant. When that didn't fly, somehow, those very gaffes got turned into a brand spanking new Obama foreign policy, as if he had intended all along to articulate this new approach.

    Of course the MSM saw to it that he garnered nothing but praise for his bold new ideas in foreign policy.


    Lame response (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by stillife on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:33:38 PM EST
    from Obama.  He goes on the attack, deflecting blame  on his opponents.  I know, it's politics.  But wasn't he supposed to be a new kind of politician?  Man up, Barry, and admit when you've made a gaffe.

    And what was that bit he inserted about gay marriage?  Voters are discouraged about the economy so they vote on issues "like gay marriage and take refuge in their faith"?  Way to suck up to the bigots.

    Oh, and the last 25 years?  Nice way to implicate the Clinton Administration.  As usual, the Democrats are equally to blame.  I can't stand the way he panders to Republicans.  

    Meritocracy the new Aristocracy (5.00 / 4) (#69)
    by Stellaaa on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:43:02 PM EST
    Elitism.  Gee, never thought that would be our battle.  The class that benefited from all the advantages of the FDR and LBJ era, are now attacking the people they came from .  

    The creative class who are they?  The children of the boomers who were the children of the Gi's who got the GI Bill education, then moved into an FHA house, then got a higher standard of living cause our economy was doing great in the 60's.  All of us the huddled masses now spawned a class that thinks they are better than those that did not get the benefits of the meritocracy.  

    And us, the silly boomer parents, all we did in the 80s and 90s is find ways to retain the merits for the next generation.  And now the little putzes think all the struggles before them were idiotic and so last century.  They diminish the people that did not make it up the merit ladder as gun carrying losers, stuck in some other time and bent on their knees.  

    Yet those who benefit from the spoils of America, do not risk their sons and daughters to the wars or the permanent caste of the under class that is criminalized , medicated and discarded.  

    I guess we are the old ones, we are called now racist and not wanting change.  We are demonized, for what?   These are the people we were waiting for?  Oy vay.  

    third way (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by 1950democrat on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:57:19 PM EST
    He is making it harder and harder ... for me to support him in the GE. I'll get over it and vote for him anyway.

    There is a Third Way alternative -- ask your Superdelegates to support the better candidate for the nomination, namely Hillary.

    seriously? (none / 0) (#87)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:01:23 AM EST
    ask your Superdelegates to support the better candidate for the nomination, namely Hillary.

    would you really want this?

    so IF the voters voted for Obama (more states, more votes, more delegates) you'd be ok w/ the superdelegates pushing Hillary into the nomination??? First, that won't happen and second, that is about the last thing, from a democratic or equitable point of view, should happen.  it is all happening.  


    absolutely unequivocally 100% yes (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:59:25 AM EST
    I'd rather the superdelegates get the nomination right than legitimize a popularity contest.  

    I use the term popularity contest because that is what caucuses are--the candidate with the most motivated supporters wins.  It has nothing to do with the will of the general public, just the will of the turnout.  And don't tell me that it matters that Obama's crowd made the effort.  There is a reason Clinton can't do well in Caucuses...her working class base has to..um...well..work on weekday afternoons and even some evenings.  The primary states Obama has won aren't going to matter in the GE, either they are strong blue or strong red...that Obama supporters trumpet caucus wins and red state wins as proof that he is electable..how is it that Hillary wins the swing states dems can't win the WH without?  That shouldn't be a more relevant factor than winning the Idaho caucus or Kansas?  Electoral projections shouldn't matter?  

    I get your point now.  Obama should be given the nomination because he will lose FL, MI, and probably lose PA and OH but he could expand the map by maybe winning NV and CO.  Makes sense now that I think about it.  Excuse my ignorance.


    really? (none / 0) (#135)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:34:21 AM EST
    You said you'd find it hard to vote for Obama in the GE. Do you still think he's a better candidate than Hillary?

    Rules are rules (none / 0) (#147)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:43 AM EST
    SD's can vote how they want, you cannot change the rules.  C'mon, play by the rules.  

    sorry.... (none / 0) (#186)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:55:21 AM EST
    rules might be rules but superdelegates are people and people aren't stupid -- they're not going to support her.  suicide if they did, and as my friend the superdelegate said, "i ain't dying for her".

    wow, another excellent well-reasoned (5.00 / 1) (#197)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:01:15 AM EST
    rational expression of Obama-think--

    superdelegates and metrics (none / 0) (#223)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:41:10 AM EST
    Not to take this thread further off topic, but maybe we could discuss this somewhere....

    If you think Hillary would be the better candidate but approve Superdelegates choosing  Obama instead on metrics like 'delegate lead' or 'states won', I'd like to discuss with you just what combination of metrics Hillary would have to win to meet your approval. (If you oppose Hillary for other reasons, no point wasting bandwidth.)

    And -- why are any metrics so important? As to suicide, what's important to most elected Supers would be their own constituents, and/or pressure from Kennedy or Pelosi et al. Those factors aside, if HIllary is more likely to win in November, wouldn't she be the safest one to support? Wouldn't it be kind of dangerous to the Super to support Obama and have him lose in November?


    "from a democratic or equitable point of (none / 0) (#160)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:45:02 AM EST

    you mean like the 48 state strategy?


    Looks like (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Left of center on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:08:09 AM EST
    Hillary will win Pennsylvania,West Virginia,Kentucky and Indiana by even larger margins now.  Thanks Barack

    it doesn't matter... (none / 0) (#101)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:12:18 AM EST
    it's all over... it has been for a while.  it is really just a matter of how far Hillary and her supporters are willing to bring down the party, Obama, and Clinton herself... well, that's my opinion (and the numbers).

    Don't throw that on us too (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:22:41 AM EST
    I believe it was Obama who said that his supporters would not vote for Hillary.  So talk to him first about bringing down the Democratic Party. And if it was all about the Party, he would not have jumped in the fray with his little Senate time. So go and look at the people who encouraged him to run against Hillary. They are the culprits. I truly believe that if he waited and got the experience, he would not be sounding like GW. And then he would make a good President.

    No, Obama is the one (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:30:17 AM EST
    bringing down the party.  He is the divisive candidate.  Obama supporters have backed the wrong pony but are so knee deep in it, they want another chance (shovel) to recover from O's latest blunder.  Obama has alienated baby boomers, women, the working class and tossed aside progressive values.  Nobody is bringing down poor little Obama except 'can't stop insulting the nation' Obama.  I'm sorry yet another Obama supporter must wring his hands in despair that so many of us voted for Clinton.  Oh, the tragedy....  I'll be writing Clinton in on my ballot.  Tally that one with your little numbers.

    Sure it doesn't (none / 0) (#125)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:29:20 AM EST
    Because if she is ahead in popular vote when this is done it won't matter. Keep saying that to yourself over and over as PA results come in... ;)

    Do you really think the SDs won't (none / 0) (#134)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:34:19 AM EST
    decide that Obama is too big of a risk in the GE?? He is losing the major states, the ones with the most Electoral votes. And those are what count in the GE. And, FYI, every convention I have watched, since 1960, the "pledged" delegates are only bound until the first ballot. If no one has enough votes to win on the first ballot, and neither of them does, the delegates can then vote for the one they think will actually WIN the GE. And Obama is making one mistake after another. First the stupid purge of his CA delegates, replacing, or trying to replace them, with "loyal" delegates. Then this PA debacle. It wouldn't have been as bad if he hadn't been speaking to a bunch of super-rich people and sneering at Hillary. It was a nasty piece of work, and people will remember it.

    Oh, and don't forget FL. We are still pissed about his stand on the delegates. If the FL delegates get blocked from voting at the convention by Obama, McCain will take FL in a landslide. The prevailing sentiment is that if Obama didn't think our votes worth having in the primary, he can whistle for them in the GE. I do not take that tack myself. I will hold my nose and swallow me stomach and vote for him, IF he is the Dem candidate. But he will get slaughtered in the GE. Completely massacred. The media, aka the GOP smear machine, will have a feast to remember. With Obama as the main course.


    you are kidding, aren't you? (none / 0) (#154)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:42:15 AM EST
    it may well be over, but not how you think. i believe sen. obama's run has reached it's end, and he'll be torched in the next few primaries, displaying his complete lack of electability in the GE, for all to see.

    as such, the honorable thing would be for him to quickly cede to sen. clinton, and stop causing the divisiveness he brings to the democratic party.

    shame on him!


    you guys are losing it... (1.00 / 1) (#205)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:04:59 AM EST
    its over guys.  really.  i know you want it so bad but unfortunately its too late.  Didn't take him seriously enough.  complacency is the very worst trait in a leader.  shining like a national guitar...

    superdelegates are SMART - they won't commit suicide for her.  they've said it behind closed doors.  after NC/Indiana, they'll move to Obama quickly.  


    Read definition (none / 0) (#208)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:07:22 AM EST
    Of chattering on this site. You may be violating the terms by repeatedly posting the same thing over and over. There are many site out there where this is actually encouraged if you feel you have a need.

    Obama's run has reached it's end. (none / 0) (#199)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:01:48 AM EST
    I like the sound of that... I think we've seen it coming for awhile. He's fallen on his own sword; as it should be.

    Obama had poor people in his District (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:19:19 AM EST
    Did he care that they lost their housing?  NO. He did not even notice when the buildings were boarded up and he actually said: affordable housing fails cause of the socio economic conditions.  How out of touch is that?  

    well that was not a very informative post (none / 0) (#115)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:21:03 AM EST
    explain please as not all of us are up to speed on that Stellaaa. thank you.

    TL people are (none / 0) (#122)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:27:46 AM EST
    Here it goes.  Rezko, his buddy, had over 30 affordable housing projects that went into default in Chicago.  11 were in Obama's District.  Rezko, the slumlord, was not paying heat and not maintaining the properties.  Now, his district is not very big.  Many of these projects were projects that were Joint Ventures with the Non Profit Obama represented in his law firm.  Obama, did not attribute any responsibility to Rezko, who drove the buildings to the ground he said the following to the Sun Times:

    Q: Many Rezmar government-financed housing deals have ended up in legal battles, including foreclosure. Several Rezmar buildings are now boarded up, and others are in need of major repairs. Taxpayers have lost millions of dollars on these deals. While Senator Obama has called Mr. Rezko a legal client, campaign contributor and a friend, there's ample evidence that Mr. Rezko was a slum landlord. Was the senator aware then that Mr. Rezko's projects were deeply mired in physical and financial problems? Does the senator think it is fair to characterize Mr. Rezko as a slum landlord?

    A: Housing partnerships in which low-income-housing tax credits are syndicated frequently struggle financially. The reasons for the problems such partnerships struggle are complex but frequently include urban crime, demographic changes and social factors outside the control of any developer or owner. Senator Obama was not otherwise aware of financial and physical problems attributable to misconduct by Mr. Rezko


    PS. TL people know. (none / 0) (#124)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:29:06 AM EST
    We have researched and discussed these issues.  

    I was just thinking---TL for me is like (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:32:38 AM EST
    firedoglake was 4 years ago. I hardly go there anymore. I really dislike the current layout, and there are too many writers for my taste.

    The poster should know this (none / 0) (#144)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:58 AM EST
    but agreetodisagree just started here yesterday.  I'm sure the poster is aware of all of this data and was being sarcastic and will respond that none of it is relevant.  'Obama has the math, get used to it and get in line' 'Scotus' etc.....

    what exactly are you saying though... (none / 0) (#152)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:41:41 AM EST
    that Obama is what?  

    he didn't attribute blame? is that really what you want to hang your hat on?


    and i like your slap on your on back comment.  solid.


    Obama took money (5.00 / 1) (#167)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:48:15 AM EST
    and made a real estate deal with a guy who was basically back stabbing his community.  Obama did not care to find out what was happening to the low income people.  Obama did not look.  Obama did not have connections in the community to tell him 11 building were in default?  Honey, some of us have worked in the field for years and we don't buy fact check or Obama's word.  The real estate deal he made was crooked but he will get away with it.  Treating his community the way he did, well, that is not something he can get away with.  

    funny thing about that community... (none / 0) (#182)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:52:58 AM EST
    they support him.

    Your link is preposterously off point. (none / 0) (#164)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:46:06 AM EST
    Face it, the race is over. Obama's probably going to drop out before the convention to save face, and Clinton will beat McCain, with a lot of hard work.
    She'll be a great President.

    i'd take that bet if you're offering? (none / 0) (#174)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:12 AM EST
    drop out? he's already won silly.  join the other team if you care more about your Captain than the party.  

    Won what? (none / 0) (#184)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:53:36 AM EST
    Fantasy elections?  The creative class invented a new primary game.

    yes (5.00 / 1) (#228)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:56:04 AM EST
    They keep bringing up these unstated presumptions that this is some kind of sports event, with no purpose outside itself.

    Better analogies might be traffic laws, or auditioning for a role, or evaluating job candidates.

    When the PURPOSE of the laws is safety, you follow safety, not the letter of the traffic rule. When the purpose is to find the best applicant (and lay groundwork for November), you look at who is keeping their eye on the ball (woops!) instead of who is gaming the rules. Who is bringing in usable fruit, instead of low-hanging and empty husks on the ground.


    It ain't over til its over (none / 0) (#204)
    by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:04:53 AM EST
    now that is an apropos sports analogy.  

    you neglected to note (none / 0) (#203)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:04:25 AM EST
    that article is dated 12-24-2007, 3 months ago. based on the information then available, it didn't appear that sen. obama really had a problem, other than perhaps one of perception, with regards to the real estate deal he entered into with his friend/contributor rezko. with the information then available.

    as it turns out, more data is slowly becoming available, with respect to that transaction. whether it ultimately makes a difference legally remains to be seen.

    however, it looks worse and worse as time goes on, especially when you throw in his complete failure to tag his buddy for the run down low income housing units he owned in sen. obama's chicago district.


    hillary sat quiet on walmart's board.... (none / 0) (#161)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:45:26 AM EST
    ... as they decided to stop union formation. Which hurt more people? Each candidate is flawed. But seriously, do you really think obama is more flawed than hillary clinton?  

    I can agree that Hillary probably is a better policy wonk. But on moral flaws, that's a gigantic stretch on reality.


    So they pay you guys (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:49:58 AM EST
    but will not pay the poor people in Phillie to get the vote out.  That is cold.  

    actually.... (none / 0) (#183)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:53:18 AM EST
    ... I haven't gotten a dime. I've given money. Gotten family to give money.  I'm a true Kool-aid drinking, cult member. My main involvement so far has been pestering family and friends to donate.

    you do know (none / 0) (#219)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:23:52 AM EST
    what happens in the end though, right? Guyana.

    i don't... (none / 0) (#187)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:56:01 AM EST
    ... agree with the philly thing about paying volunteers and ward bosses. But they also aren't going to pay the fellows they are trying to recruit for on-the-ground organization for the summer. So its something consistent.

    How do you know (none / 0) (#191)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:57:13 AM EST
    She sat quiet?

    You were there at the meetings?


    why don't you run the Wal-Mart meme (none / 0) (#229)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:01:44 AM EST
    past someone who cares?  I don't.  Just like their tax returns, I don't care.  Hillary was a board member of Wal-mart.  So what.  Sat quietly?  In a boardroom stacked with Walton and Walton heirs her influence would have been what exactly?  

    You act as though you were there, watching, as Hillary turned a blind uncaring eye to Wal-mart employees.  But you probably weren't there were you?  You probably are repeating something you heard on another blog aren't you?  Your information source probably didn't give specifics either did it?  Probably made the same generalization...Hillary was on the board, while x and x decision was made, she's at fault..

    Hmmm guess every board member of Enron was at fault for the financial officers deliberate book "cooking".  I guess every board member of Exxon was at fault for a drunken captain wondering what he was seeing in the window as his rig ran aground?  I guess every board member of Microsoft is at fault for every Linux loving Windows hating miscreant who sends a worm Windows' way?


    Wait a gun-totting minute here (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:56:45 AM EST
    From a DK diary I plucked this gem:
    He also talked about gun violence, and reminded the crowd that he had just come from Montana, where "everyone has guns." He said as a practical matter we will not be able to outlaw gun ownership in the foreseeable future, and that trying to do so at this time is not politically feasible. That being said, however, he indicated that we can and should work to address the loopholes in gun show sales and the types of guns that are available. His stance on this reminds me of the work he has done on capital punishment. Recognizing that it was not possible as a practical matter to eliminate it, he worked very effectively to minimize its application.


    How does the above jive with this?

    Obama in Boise on Feb 2 2008:

    "And then there are people who say, `Well, he doesn't believe in the Second Amendment,' even though I come from a state _ we've got a lot of hunters in downstate Illinois. And I have no intention of taking away folks' guns."


    You can tell that both the (5.00 / 1) (#222)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:35:22 AM EST
    Clinton campaign and the McCain campaign can smell the blood in the water over this one.

    "a President who looks down on them"? And especially for the McCain campaign to call out Obama as acting "arrogantly", is just extraordinary.

    They've got him where they want him -- and he got there all by his own self.

    TYPICAL DIVISION (5.00 / 0) (#232)
    by OPTIMISM on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:06:46 AM EST
    To generalize anything or anyone as TYPICAL is within itself divisive. To readily point out others short comings without thoroughly addressing your own is also divisive.

    If Senator Obama acknowledged his own bitterness as the reason for clinging on to Reverend Wright and sitting in his congregation for 20 years, his comments about rural Pennsylvanians would have seemed far less offensive.

    It is my HOPE that in this new millennium, political candidates as well as A-Typical citizens of the world, not only talk the talk and walk the walk, but  practice what they preach. Elliot Spitzer was not asked to resign because of his misconduct, but because he did not abide by the same laws he strongly enforced.  

    A true Unitarian seeks to bring everyone together, not just those who typically speak the same language.

    Check out this article by Gene Lyons (5.00 / 1) (#235)
    by abfabdem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:44:15 AM EST
    I was actually pretty impressed by his (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by RickTaylor on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:06:41 PM EST
    reply. I don't think focussing on the part his critics brought up and apologizing for it would have helped him at all; pushing the debate back to the other points he was making was what I thought he might do, and I think it was his best reply. That doesn't mean the original remarks won't hurt him to some degree, but I think that was a solid come back. It's certainly nice to see a Democrat not automatically becoming purely defensive or ignoring an attack, and makes me hopeful he'll do well against the attacks he'll get running against McCain.

    parsing and backtracking (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:17:15 PM EST
    ie...he is a shoddy politician who sticks his foot in it, then sticks it in deeper by demanding that people see things HIS way. (I have posted another comment exhibiting this)

    If Hillary must own her misstatements on Tuzla then there should be no courtesy afforded Obama to spin his way out of this misstatement.


    You mean the attack where they play (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:24:27 PM EST
    the original audio from the fund raiser?

    yeah, that'll be a fun one to watch him deflect. especially because there's enough audio to choke on. Like belittling Hillary's work as First Lady (laughter) and implying they might be a racist (laughter) along with their bitterness.

    yeah, he speaks real special when behind closed doors and in front of a bunch of rich people . . .


    he's done (none / 0) (#81)
    by bigbay on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:53:08 PM EST
    Obama won't win the general. Now it's up to the bot's to think rationally. He is going to get crushed in Pennsylvania. He won't win that massive state or Ohio in the general . And he's going to make it up in Nevada ?... Kerry carried Oregon, WI and Iowa so those aren't 'extra' Obama states.

    TalkLeft is "out of touch"... (1.00 / 1) (#89)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:02:42 AM EST
    ... Hillary voters. Watch Obama respond to the criticism. Watch what the audeince does. It might be an Obama rally, but obviously people believe him. Watch for yourself, you judge. The transcript doesnt do it justice.

    Anyway, its clear that this is the same old mud-slinging, hoping to get something to stick against Obama. The comments here truly

    We just don't believe it. (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:13:09 AM EST
    Go ahead believe.  It's your choice.  But we don't.  I watched, nothing sincere about that.  A performance.  First he is weak and will do nothing and second, he does not care.  

    huh? (none / 0) (#118)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:23:34 AM EST
    First he is weak and will do nothing and second, he does not care.

    weak? care to explain. thanks.


    so insincere... (none / 0) (#137)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:34:48 AM EST
    .... it got a standing ovation. Seriously, cut the man a little slack. You might not want to vote for him, but don't let your animosity for him cloud your judgement.

    Please (5.00 / 3) (#146)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:39 AM EST
    So people who go to his rallies are a good judge of this? Please be serious. Make a better argument. Let him go to a small town, in front of all kind of people, play his clip, then let him give a speech. If they all stand up and applaud him then I'd say you have a point.

    This is a little like GW Bushs rallies, where his supporters would clap when he messed up pre-written lines.


    "cut a man a little slack" (none / 0) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:40:56 AM EST
    Why?  Let's see, has anyone cut Hillary any slack?  If he is so, perfect, why the slack?

    But they prob didn't hear the (none / 0) (#171)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:49:52 AM EST
    original remarks and laughter.

    He was sidestepping and never really clued them in to the true nature of the comments.


    You must not have read (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:26:20 AM EST
    practially lactating's post above because the response video does not answer the basic issue.

    "where [does] he addressed how they "cling" to
        * Guns
        * Religion
        * Antipathy to people who aren't like them
        * Anti-immigrant sentiment
        * Anti-Trade sentiment

    out of bitterness over economic reality. I really am curious what he meant, so if you could provide me with an explanation, I'd like to read it. "


    bjorn... (none / 0) (#126)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:29:26 AM EST
    i'm curious, would you vote for him in November over McCain (that will be your choice)?  

    Do what you will, but lowering the quality of discussion from what we want our country's policies to be to one about semantics is exactly what we (as voters) should not do.  the media does enough of it.  but keep on keepin on.


    Always with this argument. (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:36:02 AM EST
    I love this line.

    "I don't trust Obama!"
    "But will you really vote McCain?!"

    The world isn't so binary in voting.  People may stay home.  They may vote 3rd party.  They may leave President blank.  They may not be inclined to grassroots Obama in the GE.

    Your binary fallacy doesn't hold enough water for your ideological bucket.


    Sorry, that's not working for people (none / 0) (#142)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:22 AM EST
    'Would you rather Vote for McCain?' isn't an adequate response for many people, because you expect them to say they will hold their nose and vote for Obama.

    The people he has insulted with this commentary will be the ones who vote McCain, because their pride won't allow them to hold their noses. They just don't want to vote for a man who has so little respect for them. At least the GOP pretends better than Obama.

    Rather vote for McCain: a low bar, indeed.


    just watch... (none / 0) (#141)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:36:26 AM EST
    ... the video. And for a moment, try to forget who is delivering the message. Its pretty clear to me he says people don't trust Washington to help them out, so they vote on other issues. Its right in the middle of the clip.

    watch out... (1.00 / 1) (#98)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:10:18 AM EST
    your swimming in rough seas on this thread.  although you're not alone out in the real world.  

    Real world? (none / 0) (#127)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:30:04 AM EST
    I would not vote for Obama (none / 0) (#150)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:41:24 AM EST
    if he is the nominee and so with my family (4) and a few other friends.

    Does anybody else remember John Cougar? (none / 0) (#2)
    by dianem on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:41:58 PM EST
    I feel so old. He hasn't been that in decades. Too bad Obama isn't more of a Mellencamp fan. He'd "get" it if he listened to this song a few times. I think we've been given a peek into Obama's soul, so to speak. He's bright, talented, and highly conflicted. I think he was bitter and he found solace among people who were even more bitter and let their anger feed his anger. This is not entirely a bad thing. Controlled anger can be a strong motivating force. But when you try to move too fast, audacity becomes arrogance. I feel very sad about Obama. I think he could have been great. I don't think he will be, though. He's going to either lose the election and be consigned to "what might have been", or he will win and be a mediocre, divisive President. If he had just waited a bit, grown a bit as a politician, I think he could have been great.

    I think he has spent his life (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:47:02 PM EST
    showing one face to the public and a very different one in private.  The public one wants to please everyone, to be everything to every person; the private is angry and bitter (like PA!) that the public one is so compromised.

    There is the person that he wants to be and the person that he actually is.


    different faces to different groups (none / 0) (#214)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:12:09 AM EST
    Dunno what he shows in private, but it seems his whole modus operandi in his 'community organizing' has been to show quite different faces to different groups. I saw him quoted as saying to a gang of street toughs that his value to them was that he could also go to board rooms and talk Ivy League to negotiate for them.

    In that phase of his career, he COULD talk to each group separately: what he said in the boardroom stayed in the boardroom, and same for what he said in the alley.


    Mellencamp campaigned for Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:48:31 PM EST
    in Iowa. Here's a video I took of him perfoming "Pink Houses" at the Edwards benefit in Des Moines.

    Great sound too (none / 0) (#221)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:32:36 AM EST
    Can you say what video equipment you used for this?  I love the natural quality of the sound at a live event like that.
    Good treble, non-boomy bass.

    I remember John Cougar... (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Maria Garcia on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:55:13 PM EST
    ...wasn't that during a phase in his life when he moved to New York City? I think I remember that because I was in school in NY at the time. Maybe he just played there a lot. I didn't like him then. Liked him when he moved back to Indiana and let his quirky side come out. As John Cougar, he tended to wear a lot of leather, I recall.

    Hurts so good (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by angie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:58:42 PM EST
    Yep, I remember John Cougar.  Heck, I even remember his transitional "John Cougar Mellencamp" period.

    I tattled on my older sister (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by Kathy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:01:17 PM EST
    for looking all googlie eyed while she listened to "Jack and Diane."

    Yeah, he wore a lot of leather then.  He was a bad boy!


    he had a heart attack (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:07:31 PM EST
    really young, at age 42. He dropped the "Cougar" from his name a lifetime ago. Here's a little about him and his commitment to what he sings about.

    i like the fact that he works harder (none / 0) (#46)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:27:33 PM EST
    for farmers than farm state's legislators work for farmers.

    Depends on the farm state (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:48:13 PM EST
    Ours work their butts off for small farmers, but the whole system is stacked against them and for mega-agribusiness.  See the latest "farm bill."

    Saw him at Farm Aid last summer (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:13:33 PM EST
    along with Willie, Neil and a few others :)

    I think his response was perfect. (none / 0) (#8)
    by 1jpb on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 10:58:01 PM EST
    But, I may be considered biased.

    If I participated in stereotyping people is small PA towns, I'd guess that they are less focussed on the PC language policing than latte liberals and their ilk (like me.)  I don't see these people looking for ways to parse language so that they can demonstrate  that they've been verbally victimized.  Time will tell.

    You do realize what you just said (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by waldenpond on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:18:22 PM EST
    don't you?   His response was not perfect, not even close.  Nor is your analysis....

    If I participated in stereotyping people......I'd guess that they are less focused on the PC language policing .....I don't see 'these people' looking for ways to..... demonstrate  that they've been verbally victimized.  

    I am baffled by your statement. You believe they would have to pick apart his language to fully understand they have been insulted.  So are they too low knowledge to figure it out or just bogged down in their ordinary lives to do so?


    Name-calling his critics is the stupidity here (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Ellie on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:47:39 PM EST
    The people he insulted in PA don't need to 'parse' what was blatant, nor is there any merit to your pretense that people calling him out on it are the cartoon 'PC Police', so stick that in your own latte and drink it.

    His insult and patronising message was up-front and blatant.

    He held up precisely the same attitudes in his own neighborhood as righteous values, and excused himself for condoning and supporting those attitudes.

    No parsing necessary. No one put the statements in his mouth. No one's committing evil by seeing them and reacting to what he actually did and actually said.

    Excuse him all you want, but we know where he was and we saw what he did with our own lyin' eyes.

    Good luck with your contortions though. It's a sight to behold.


    If his actual words were all that bad (none / 0) (#93)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:06:35 AM EST
    I think that I'd see more direct quotes, and fewer creative "interpretations" in this thread.

    I challenge someone to count the number of comments that directly quote BO in this thread.

    Some part of this is what you need to look for:

    So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to `white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

    Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

    But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, `Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is so we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama's gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we're gonna provide healthcare for every American.

    But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

    Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

    We don't have to keep re-proving that we read it (none / 0) (#113)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:19:58 AM EST
    Again, the "problem" isn't parsing or context or other contortions.

    You shouldn't treat an immediate discussion linked to the words and actions being discussed as a thesis to be proved ... to you.

    Speaking for myself and applying pop license: we read what he said and we saw what he did.

    It was dumb of him to say it, naive now to pretend it won't bite him on the @$$, and arrogant to assume that this and repeated gaffes from him can be waved away as a problem on the part of the listener.

    That only works with people sold on his famous, unquantifiable, take his word for it Charisma.


    Look at who they are (none / 0) (#194)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:59:24 AM EST
    Here is precisely who BO says "they" are:

    1) people with no evidence in their daily lives that change will come to them, 2) like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, 3) jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them, 4) fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not

    It is reasonable to believe that the combination of these four characteristics could result in bitterness, as well as other emotions.  It is also possible for people  with these four characteristics to cling to religion or (not and) guns or (not and) or antipathy towards others or (not and) anti-immigrant ideas or (not and) anti-trade ideas.  And, it is true that these are wedge issues that politicians often use to divert people from holding the  pols accountable for the policies that neglect or hurt these communities.

    Look at all the text I put in my comment, there is no way that BO was attacking these people, he was empathizing, and describing the difficulties they face.  And he clearly specifies the four characteristics of "they."  It makes no sense to ignore his own words and apply his comments to people who don't have all four of these characteristics.

    I still challenge someone to count how many comments acknowledge the four characteristics of "they."  It looks like most (all?) have taken liberty to assume "they" is a broader classification.  And, folks have also assumed hostility from BO which is clearly not represented by the complete text as I've shown.


    Wow...I get it. (5.00 / 1) (#210)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:08:53 AM EST

    What Obama said:  

    He was like telling the upper crusty people in SF, look, these people you all hate and keep making fun of for voting for Bush, will now vote for me, cause they are bitter.  You see, no one understood them before.  I do.  Here they are hating on foreigners, with their guns, bitter about things and on their knees in church cause they are just ignorant.  We can get them under control.  I bowled with them and I sat in diners with them, and I get them now.  

    How could he have said this:  

    " We all need to come together and understand that there are people in America struggling to keep afloat.  Struggling with daily life.  Keeping their homes, keeping their jobs, making sure their children have healthcare and their parents have a dignified old age.  You here have reaped the benefits of America, now we need to come together and make sure that all Americans have some basic protections, educations, jobs and healthcare.  Every American wants to take care of their loves ones and to contribute to America".  

    What did he do? Pander to their ignorance and prejudices.  


    For starters, since you understand him (none / 0) (#206)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:05:24 AM EST
    so well, while this entire statement absolutely baffles me -- could you explain this:

    There was the Clinton administration

    And then the Bush administration

    So what are "each" of those "successive administrations"?

    On the rest, I feel so much better knowing that he wasn't dissing me because I don't fit every single one of his slights but only a few of them.  Goody.


    This people don't exist (none / 0) (#216)
    by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:13:47 AM EST
    or they're people of the future -- unless, of course, you can also explain how many "successive administrations" there have been after Clinton & Bush.

    I lived in PA, and (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:11:37 AM EST
    not on ONE SINGLE OCCASION did I hear anything racist or derogatory of another nationality said by anyone. I lived on a farm outside of a small village along the Lincoln Highway. My neighbors were farmers, store owners, mechanics, lumber men, etc. I do not recall ever hearing anyone say anything that could be construed as defamatory to any group of people. Except, of course, the team their team was playing. And that only lasted as long as the game. They all hunted, and ate what they killed. Trophy hunting, ie. hunting and only keeping the trophy parts and not using the rest of the animal was frowned upon.

    They are good solid people, the backbone of this country. The people who put the food on your table. And you should have a little respect for them, even if you don't understand them. And if you are ever stuck out in the wilderness, pray for one of those country boys to come along. He will keep you alive and get you home.

    Not sophisticated, or fashionable, but very competent at life. They are also not stupid. And they don't like snobs. Obama is a snob. He belittled them and their problems while not ever having had similar problems himself. While the economy was tanking, jobs flying overseas, and prices climbing rapidly, Obama was climbing the ladder, improving his salary, and his wife's. He should be ashamed of himself. He won't be, but he should be. He will lose PA, big time, in my opinion.


    So you think we don't drink Latte (none / 0) (#109)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:16:38 AM EST
    in our small Penna towns? You think we are not liberal enough? I think we are. We are voting for Hillary. We know what he was saying and just because he was in California talking about us does not mean he can insult us. I lived in California and worked for a hi tech company for 20 years. Then I came back to my small town roots. I love them. I love it here. Winter and all. Even then we are not cooped up. We go places. We go out for dinner and manage to talk intellectually about what is going on in the world. We dislike Bush immensely. We are Pro Choice Non Practicing Catholics and not seeking another religion. People own guns because they get to hunt. It is not our being bitter over GW and the sagging economy. Maybe Obama does not realize that there is a big hunting season here. Deer, Bears, and Turkeys. The cars are nice and people are looking at Hybrids and ways to save energy. I have all energy saving bulbs in my house. And BTW, we do drink Lattes and go for ice cream cones on a warm summer night. Maybe we are not as different as he thinks. Why, we even get to New York City once in a while to catch a show or shop. The thing is, I am really starting to dislike Obama and 5 months ago I would  have said he would do and I liked him. 3 Months ago I realized he would not make the best President the Dems can offer.

    This is a tough crowd (none / 0) (#218)
    by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:16:16 AM EST
    I was trying to make fun of myself with the latte comment.  That term is often used to disparage BO supporters.

    You and your community do not at all fit the description that BO clearly stated in the comments I've shown above.  So, I don't know why you would assume he was describing you or those you know.

    But, you should be open to the idea that there are people worse off than you, and it is not unreasonable to acknowledge the difficulties of those who are truly suffering.


    He didn't apologize (none / 0) (#22)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:12:31 PM EST
    he said "McCain and Clinton think I'm condescending....but I'm not," and here's why:

    "Out of touch?  Out of touch?  I mean, John McCain--it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of touch?  Senator Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I'm out of touch?  No, I'm in touch.  I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania. I know what's going on in Indiana. I know what's going on in Illinois.  People are fed-up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America."

    Yeah, you aren't condescending at all:  you "know exactly what is going on" and you alone are privy to that knowledge cuz us dummies are too dumb to know what dummies we are.

    note that he doesn't mention that (none / 0) (#25)
    by TheRefugee on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:13:28 PM EST
    he had to come up with a foreclosure plan because Clinton already had.

    wrong... (none / 0) (#62)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:38:29 PM EST
    Obama wrote Bernanke w/ his plan on March 22, 2007 while Clinton proposed her plan on March 24 2008

    Out of Touch (none / 0) (#34)
    by LoisInCo on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:19:05 PM EST
    When I see him saying "Out of touch, out of touch" all I can hear is "Just words, just speeches". I haven't heard the quote yet, just a weird written/audio thing.

    That's what I thought also (none / 0) (#70)
    by nycstray on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:44:21 PM EST
    "just words".

    I can see that McCain might be out of touch about some things, but Hillary?! More like he is. Ya know, the guy that can't connect with dems . . .


    I don't completely agree (none / 0) (#76)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:47:55 PM EST
    Ya know, the guy that can't connect with dems . . .

    although he does have more votes, more delegates, and more states in the Democratic primary.  He has raised more money than any other politician in history from more people.  He is connecting with someone, like it or not.  


    thanks... (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:11:07 AM EST
    but he seems to lose all the closed primaries which is the kind that features 'dems'

    Just sayin'


    Yeah, and he thinks the (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:14:38 AM EST
    Dems for a day are going to stick with him in the GE. How out of touch is that??

    What? (none / 0) (#110)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:16:46 AM EST
    So you won't vote for him over McCain???

    I won't. (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:30 AM EST
    I won't vote for him (5.00 / 1) (#151)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:41:31 AM EST
    I wouldn't be true to myself if I did.

    No, certainly won't! (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:43:40 AM EST
    That'd be a big (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:52:50 AM EST
    no.  Re-do Obama's math now.  How's it looking?  Are you aware that it is nearly 33% of Clinton supporters who say they won't vote for Obama and another 18% that aren't sure?  15.. 20.. 22.. 25.. 33.... tick, tock, tick, tock running out of time, better get tell your superdeez to back Clinton, it's the only chance to win in November.

    I plan to vote for Hillary.. ; D (none / 0) (#143)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:25 AM EST
    The only reason to vote for McCain (none / 0) (#168)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:48:46 AM EST
    Is if there isn't a better candidate to take his place.

    Right now, Obama is busy making the case that he is not a better candidate to voters in PA. Not an easy job to do, but he's a fighter!


    he can't win (none / 0) (#84)
    by bigbay on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:58:33 PM EST
    If you insist on giving us a Repug president for 8 more years to prove a point, then maybe this is just a game to you.

    Independents will eventually hear this audio,, before the election. How can he win the general while losing PA and Ohio ? He won't.

     I lived in small town America for a decade. A) they aren't much different  b) they aren't stupid c) they don't like being insulted


    the world is changed... (none / 0) (#97)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:09:15 AM EST
    I heard the audio, watched the video, and am an independent... people like me like the fact that he is taking on the traditional political thought and doesn't always sound like the same old politician... now you may disagree with our take but like it or not, we like what he is saying...

    and remember, he has more votes, more states and more delegates.  he can't lose this primary (simple math) unless superdelegates change the will of the people (i'd argue thats not a great idea).  he's raised more money from more people than any other politician in history and for some reason has turned the "inevitable" Clinton nomination into something that is not.  so, if you are a democrat, i'd start getting behind the man as you'll all be supporting him (or hopefully remaining silent) come the Fall.  just my opinion.


    IF you're a democrat (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:34:07 AM EST
    you have to line up behind Obama now while the primary is going on despite the fact that in one day he insulted the middle class & a woman's right to autonomy?   I don't think "Democrat" means what you think it means. And you aren't doing Obama any favors with your "don't pay attention to the man behind the curtain" argument.

    good use of bold. (none / 0) (#166)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:47:37 AM EST
    i love how everyone here only talks about Obama's words (although you yourselves blast him for being all "words").  besides a few mentions of health care implementation, the entire thread section of this website does exactly what we shouldn't be - knocks words, semantics as opposed to Obama's policies.  

    And now we have the such righteous people saying they won't vote for him in good conscience (then you'd vote McCain or sit out your democratic right?).  I love the self-congregation of people who care more about their Captain than the team itself.  well done i say.  


    Please don't repeat (none / 0) (#120)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:26:05 AM EST
    The same message over and over. More money doesn't matter when you lose (Gulliani, Romney). He doesn't have more votes until all primaries are over. And more delegates don't matter until you get to 2025. It only matters if you are an Obama supporter who thinks they strategy is synonymous with truth.

    Well. (none / 0) (#148)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:39:41 AM EST
    He's winning in a Democratic Primary, with a substantial boost from Caucuses and creating a blockade around Michigan (my State) and Florida.

    I won't go into those details.

    But if Obama keeps on keeping on, and wins the primary, he'll have a heckuva time with those sad, anti-other, anti-trade, gun-loving Dems, and those uppity women and white gays.

    But you can always claim that you "SO BEAT CLINTON!!!"

    Just like Netroots lovechild Ned Lamont "SO BEAT LIEBERMAN!!!" but not quite.

    Really, now.


    Exactly. (none / 0) (#158)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:43:48 AM EST
    The gaffe is a non issue.

    This non-issue and several others just as unimportant will sink Obama because to a lot of people love to make mountains out of molehills. Law of the land.

    Hillary is still very much in this race; just because Obama and the media think ignoring FL and MI is right, doesn't mean the SuperDels do. Rules are rules, as the man said. It doesn't take a chicken to smell the rot coming from Obama's shiny egg.

    As for being a member of Clintonville, well, I'm guilty as charged. It sure beats living in Jonestown.


    Just remind me (none / 0) (#106)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:15:15 AM EST
    but who was the last candidate non-incumbent that didn't run on a platform of changing Washington?

    Obama voted for CAFA (none / 0) (#176)
    by Davidson on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:28 AM EST
    All Clinton has to do is remind voters that Obama, unlike herself, went against the Democratic caucus in the Senate and voted in favor of one of the worst pieces of legislation undermining consumer rights, crafted by corporate lobbyists.

    So, yeah, I would say he's out of touch.


    He only lacks experience. If he had (none / 0) (#54)
    by MarkL on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:32:34 PM EST
    waited, I'm sure he would have been a good, if not great candidate.

    It was a nice try, anyway (none / 0) (#59)
    by Korha on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 11:34:12 PM EST
    I'm reminded of Michael Kinsley's saying: "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth"--or least what a politician believes to be true. Unfortunately, in the case Kinsley's maxim appears to be entirely correct.

    sorry (none / 0) (#88)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:02:18 AM EST
    I've made a backup of my comment, so please delete it if you'd rather. I'll try to find the instructions.

    One of my friends (none / 0) (#90)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:03:36 AM EST
    a die hard Republican no less, says that the classified column inches under the guns section is the barometer of the local economy...

    the more ads, the worse the economy is because that is one of the last things people sell when they need money.

    It's a theory...

    CNN was so clueless when this broke (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:04:13 AM EST
    on Blitzer.  CNN started to get it in the next hour -- but, and I hope this isn't too long, it's almost unbelievable how badly they read the impact of this at first.  I hardly was surprised to see Borger showing her bias again, and Cafferty is his usual anti-Clinton self here, too -- but Toobin shows how unread he is, totally buying the spin about Obama's upbringing being poor, blah blah.  

    This would be a hoot if it wasn't such a sad commentary on media today:

    BLITZER: All right, Gloria, he's already being hammered by Hillary Clinton and John McCain for that matter for supposedly being an elitist and speaking ill of the people of Pennsylvania by suggesting that the economic problems there are causing them to become bitter and buying guns and becoming xenophobic and all of that. What do you think? Is this a real issue out there?

    GLORIA BORGER: Well, Hillary Clinton said today, you know, I don't see bitter people out there, I see struggling people or whatever it is, but she said the people aren't bitter. But I think the people are angry - and maybe Obama's terminology was in artful but I think he's expressing a sentiment of mad-as-hell-voters, not going to take it anymore, that we've seen throughout this election. And that's why perhaps voters are saying over and over again that they want to change. So I think Hillary Clinton is trying to make him into the elite candidate but he's talking about people being angry.

    BLITZER: All right, and Hillary Clinton responded to the Obama comments this way; Jeff. Let me play her little sound bite. . . .  All right, Jeff. What do you think?

    JEFF TOOBIN: I think that is so ridiculous. I mean that is not at all what Barack Obama said. I just think this is an example of how a campaign between the two of them can be purely destructive. And not elevate either candidate. I mean, Hillary Clinton is clearly distorting what Obama said. And by the way, what Obama said is factually accurate. It's been true throughout history that people who have economic problems lash out against various others. I mean, I just think it is an embarrassing for the Clinton campaign to hang on this as if it's some sort of gaffe by Obama.

    BLITZER: It's not just the Clinton campaign, Jack, it's also the McCain campaign. They issued a statement saying it's a remarkable statement and extremely revealing it shows an elitism towards and condescension towards hard working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.

    JACK CAFFERTY: Really? And this is from John McCain?

    BLITZER: No, this is from Steve Schmidt a senior adviser for John McCain.

    CAFFERTY: Look, Jeff's right. They call it the rust belt for a reason. The great jobs and the economic prosperity left that part of the country two or three decades ago. The people are frustrated. The people have no economic opportunity. What happens to folks like that in the Middle East, you ask? Well, take a look. They go to places like al Qaeda training camps. I mean, there's nothing new here. And what Barack Obama was suggesting is not that the people of Pennsylvania are to blame for any of it. It's that the jerks in Washington, D.C., as represented by the ten years of the Bushes and the Clintons and the McCains who have lied to and misled these people for all of this time while they shipped the jobs over seas and signed phony trade deals like NAFTA are to blame for the deteriorating economic conditions among America's middle class. I mean, I'm a college dropout and I can read the damn thing and figure it out.

    BORGER: You know, in this case the Hillary Clinton campaign and the John McCain campaign have the same goal and that is to portray Obama as this sort of (inaudible) elitist who doesn't understand the real working class people or independent voters. And so they're both on the same side on this one and it's obvious why.

    BLITZER: Go ahead, Jeff.

    TOOBIN: I just think it's remarkable that Barack Obama, this guy who grew up in a single-family household with no money, who lived in Indonesia, who came from very modest upbringings, somehow he's the elitist? That's really a pretty extraordinary sort of contortion of his background. I mean.

    BORGER: It's that Harvard, Yale thing.

    CAFFERTY: He did not make $109 million in the last eight year did he?

    BORGER: Right.

    elitist background (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:15:52 AM EST
    Er, do they think everyone in Indonesia is poor? In the links I posted above (I need to reformat them) there is information about his family's actual standing. Also recently Yahoo had a good article about his mother and their life in Indonesia. In Hawaii his grandparents sent him to a fancy private school.

    CNN IS Clueless... (5.00 / 0) (#224)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:42:09 AM EST
    These blowhards at CNN don't know the first damn thing about Rural America.  It would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.  This so called response from Obama is nothing more than trying to chance the subject away from the statement he made in San Francisco.  He's trying to spin it away into something else completely different.  He said:

    "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

    Because of their frustration they cling to guns or religion?

    I know rural people, I live in South Dakota.  Hunting and guns are a way of life here, part of the culture, just like in Pennsylvania.  People worry about losing the right to hunt and bear arms when they hear talk from people that lived their whole lives in Urban areas who are anti gun and animal rights activists, and Republicans prey on those fears.  It has NOTHING to do with the frustration of their daily lives.  It is culture.

    Same goes for religion.  People grow up here in their local church.  All their family members and neighbors attend.  It is as much about spirituality as it is a part of the social fabric.  It is in no way shape or form a response to bitterness.  I'd like to know where Obama's religiosity comes from?  People here get offended hearing people like Bill Mahr belittle them for their belief and way of life.  Heck, tonight Mahr when on a tear against the Catholic Church.  That'll get us votes in November, that's for sure!

    And what's the deal with - antipathy to people who aren't like them?  This is due to their misplace frustration, or is it their way of life???  I say it's their traditional way of life.  They grow up around people who look like them and are suspicious of people who are different or non-traditional.  But on the other hand, they are the friendliest and least standoffish people I know.

    How about their anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment?  He is implying that what people who live in the rust belt have misplaced anti-sentiment.  They see complete industries shut down, packed up, and sent overseas.  Meanwhile profits at these companies that left them behind skyrockets, the executives get rich beyond any reasonable expectation.  What conclusion are they supposed to draw?

    His statement does not address these things.  He just went and made a totally different point to justify a stupid statement.  People who live in Rural America like me won't buy it.  But the urban elites will bite hook, line, and sinker.

    CNN may be able to defend Obama for not being rich, but he Clintons didn't come from privilege either.  They've gotten rich in the last 6-8 years.  Did they forget everything so fast?  Obama is a product of living a in an urban area.  He doesn't understand us, that's obvious.


    'Elitist' only means the pundit is lazy (none / 0) (#153)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:41:57 AM EST
    The words and attitude will roam the airwaves again wearing the cloak of "Reverse" Racism, an unearned sense of Entitlement, the weakness of not standing by what he said -- all the usual right wing hooey.

    Right now, the court scribes just can't resist slamming Sen. Clinton for Obama's failings (as well as her own missteps, natch.)

    Absent that scapegoat, they're not going to divide this evenly onto McCain, nor admit to their own failure to get it right the first time.

    It's what they do. Any Dem that goes on these shows needs to take a shot point blank on the bias AND demand equal time, on top of that, to make their own points. If that doesn't become SOP, it'll just be decades more of this crap I've been seeing much of my life.  


    Borger and Toobin are disgraces (none / 0) (#215)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:12:51 AM EST
    This should go down in the annals of punditry as one of the worst exhibits of media bias in the entire sorry history of the MSM.

    Both Toobin and Borger should simply be fired.


    Huh. (none / 0) (#107)
    by lansing quaker on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:15:44 AM EST
    Obama says that it's Democrats (and Republicans) who aren't dealing with those average, rust belt voters.  And the voters don't vote on the Economy, but on guns, gods, and gays.


    Well, I know that the gubernatorial elections in both Michigan and Ohio were quite different.

    I hope Granholm really hardlines against Obama.  Not only has she championed the economy, investment in human capital, and related to "that working class" for years, but also her state doesn't count in the Primary.

    But Obama is so in touch.

    Toss 17 electoral votes to the Republicans should Obama win.  Farewell, Michigan!  Because it's the fault of Democrats (and republicans).

    AWESOME... (none / 0) (#130)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:32:31 AM EST
    .. vote for McCain in the GE. Affirm your values. Seriously people who are going to vote for McCain over Hillary or Obama are NOT democrats in the first place. McCain is on another planet. If you can't tell the difference --- YOU are out of touch.

    I wasn't aware he needed our votes (none / 0) (#163)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:46:04 AM EST
    He sure doesn't act like it.

    the hillary supporters.... (none / 0) (#170)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:48:58 AM EST
    ... on this site, are as adamant as the 25% of the country that continues to support Bush. There is nothing Obama could do to get their support until Hillary concedes. Lets face facts. I'm not going to say this is right or wrong, but its impossible to win over the people here, until hillary herself concedes.

    He's been more concerned about his (5.00 / 1) (#217)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:14:29 AM EST
    Movement, than actually getting out there and understanding the dem party on a national basis. I recently saw a piece where he was talking about winning the GE and changing the map. Nothing about us though . . .

    I'll be writing Hillary in if need be. That's called voting for a Democrat.

    You have to realize he had many of us in the beginning when it started narrowing, but he's managed to really lose people as time goes on. I originally thought he would be a great VP or if he got the nom, I would vote for him. I want neither now.


    No not even then (none / 0) (#181)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:52:54 AM EST
    We, unlike some supporters of others candidate, do not parrot and mime and blindly follow "the leader." We make up our own minds, based on what we see. We analyze, we criticize, we are honest and can see the flaws in candidates we support.

    And IF Hillary concedes then most of us will still make an independent decision. Some of us MAY vote for Obama, some of us won't.

    But posts like yours, insulting US, will probably only go to increase the numbers that won't. Think about that next time you plan to be condescending, insulting, or get the urge to compare democrats to GW Bush supporters.


    Definitely when Obama concedes (none / 0) (#209)
    by andrys on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:07:47 AM EST
     ... Ever hear of not counting your ...

     I'd say that too many Obama supporters certainly mirror his own arrogance, which is why he is not likely to win in November IF he actually does get the nomination, which is still up in the air -- a reality which makes Obama people say even louder that "it's over" because they believe saying so makes it so, despite an underlying fear they carry that he may not get that nomination unless they can get Clinton out now.


    It is rank arrogance (none / 0) (#178)
    by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:49 AM EST
    to tell people they are not Democrats based on your opinion of how they must vote in the GE.  That is the opposite of Democracy.  

    What is this? (none / 0) (#139)
    by miriam on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:35:33 AM EST
    Will someone please tell me what this means?  Did I fall asleep a la Rip Van Winkle and miss several decades of administrations or what?

    BO: "And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said "

    Hey, Mim. :-) On an earlier thread (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:56:31 AM EST
    some good commenter who did the research reported that Pennsylvania did well economically in the Clinton years -- unemployment cut in half, etc.  

    Obama seems to be counting on short attention spans among Pennsylvanians, not capable of recalling what it was like eight years ago.  Since 2000, much has tanked there.  But they are pro-Clinton for a reason: small-towners have good memory banks.  I know them and am stunned by grudges that go back decades!

    So, in sum, this was just another Obama hit on the terrible decade under the only Dem president in many decades.  Of course, it was incorrect.  That's the Obama Way.


    Clinton did it (none / 0) (#156)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:43:01 AM EST
    It means that the anything negative that has happened in small towns is the fault of the Clinton's.

    Don't worry though.  Nothing Obama does matters at this point.  Poster agreetodisagree says Obama has the nomination and you will vote for Obama in November.

    I still wonder why Obama supporters keep posting if this is all a done deal.  You would think they would be outside enjoying the fresh air kicking back until November.  Seem worried don't they?


    No They Are Doing A Public Service (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:45:41 AM EST
    Making sure the rest of us know that its over. You see, we are wasting valuable energy that we could be using to support our new overlor....I mean lead....I mean candidate in his quest for total world domin....I mean the White House.

    We should be thankful. Hey, did you get your packet of Cool Aid in the mail yet? Mine hasn't arrived yet. :)


    You didn't read it. (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by miriam on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:06 AM EST
    He says Clinton and Bush and each successive administration ...

    How many have there been after Clinton and Bush?  This man does not know what he's talking about.  

    He says he's so brilliant on foreign policy...but he doesn't even understand Pennsylvania!


    You're right (none / 0) (#188)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:56:11 AM EST
    But his linguistic cul de sacs worry us less than his inability to discern any differences between the Bush Administrations and the Clinton administration.

    Oh, that part. Yeh, he was probably trying (none / 0) (#192)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:58:36 AM EST
    to cut back on the "uh's" and . . . well, "filling" is what rhetoricians call it, as he was talking off the cuff and without his friend the teleprompter to script him.

    Of course, if Clinton had said something so spacy, it would be front-page news by now. :-)


    um.... (none / 0) (#175)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:27 AM EST
    ... anyone can get a standing O talking about 9/11 or the war in Iraq --- there was a family guy on it.   I'd be curious to see Bush getting a standing O at an open rally today. Bush's rallies have always had highly pre-selected audiences.

    You don't get it (none / 0) (#185)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:54:25 AM EST
    He got ovation when he was a candidate and scripted. He gets booed today after 7 years in office. You may not see a parallel, but some of us do.

    do you... (none / 0) (#193)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:58:54 AM EST
    ... really think Obama is as unqualified as Bush? I see the parrallel, but I think Obama has a much better ability than Bush to communicate his ideas to people, and enough intelligence and competence to be an excellent president. He might not be at hillary's level of competence -- but his communication ability is significantly superior to hers, to put me squarely in his camp.

    Kerry and Gore were both terrible communicators. Gore actually became a lot better after he lost the election. Do we really want to run another person who has trouble getting the message across?


    I would say Obama communicated all (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:03:54 AM EST
    too well today.
    I'm glad you recognize Hillary's superior competence. I happen to think she is far more articulate and on target when speaking about issues that matter to people.

    hillary hasn't had trouble with her message (5.00 / 3) (#220)
    by TheRefugee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:30:13 AM EST
    she's had trouble with non-stop attacks on her person.  Her message has reached 49% of voters thus far.  Obama gained the two percent by painting everything Clinton as being prejudiced towards blacks.  All she needed was to average a couple points higher with black voters and she'd be at 51 and Obama'd be at 49%...you and those like you made sure that wouldn't happen by portraying her, Bill, Ferraro as unrepentant bigots.

    You think Obama is dominating because Kos et al tell you that he is dominating.  He isn't.  Fractional leads in delegates and voters does not equal a mandate.

    Yes I do believe Obama is as bad as Bush and potentially worse.  Either he is going to try and force the change he is always talking about which would lead to a new neo-con revolution.  Or he is going to be the dualist appeaser that he is portraying on the stump whereby he sees every side of all issues and is fine with whatever so long as it doesn't hurt his popularity.  

    Mr. Anti-Iraq is suddenly willing to stay in Iraq.  Mr. Anti-gun is suddenly all for guns.  Mr. Pro-choice is suddenly kinda pro-life.  If Mr. Coat for all Seasons isn't willing to get behind an issue and remain there then is he really the leader we want?  Not me.  Never.


    I was only responding (none / 0) (#198)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:01:27 AM EST
    To what I saw was the holes in your logic about him getting standing ovation from his own supporters in his own scripted rally as proof of something it isn't. I was using the G W Bush comparison to make a point about that flawed argument. You veered into the rest.

    I am not making any comparisons about Sen Obama, his abilities, his positions and the current President.


    BTW.... (none / 0) (#179)
    by jor on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:51:14 AM EST
    .... (just expanding on my prior comment) --- when Bush is at an open_event -- he gets booed (c.f. Nationals opener).

    with regards to the "john cougar" bit, (none / 0) (#213)
    by cpinva on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:10:53 AM EST
    that was a fiction created by his record company at the time. some brilliant marketing guy thought it sounded cooler than his real name.

    it apparently lasted as long as the contract ran, when he said goodbye to both the record company and john cougar.

    john cougar mellencamp was a transition; his new label feared no one would recognize him as "john mellencamp", so they used that for an album or two, to get his audience used to it.

    'cling to' not 'bitter' (none / 0) (#225)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:44:00 AM EST
    Someone had a good point, that it would be better to  refer to 'the cling to' remark than calling it 'the bitter remark.'

    Bitterness is defensible and in some cases accurate. The offense is in the 'cling to religion (etc)'.

    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#227)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:54:38 AM EST
    Over 200, thanks for your thoughts.

    Precious (none / 0) (#230)
    by nellre on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:10:41 AM EST
    On the "cling" gaffe:

    "Especially Clinton. You will hear these words on Fox News for a very, very long time."

    The Red-Blue Divide

    Considering that OB has lukewarm support for gays Sullivan seems to have joined those who would vote against their own self interests. (See Obama Interview On LGBT Issues here)

    I know exactly where my bitterness resides (none / 0) (#233)
    by Militarytracy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:43:27 AM EST
    Electing a pseudo hero won't sweeten me either.  A conclusion to Iraq will immediately sweeten me.  Various other happenings would turn me into a pillar of honey.  I don't need promises and oration, I need deeds done Obama and you aren't the president to get them done!

    Clinton and McCains Bubble (none / 0) (#234)
    by 1jane on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:32:06 AM EST
    The failed attempt to twist Obama's words is obvious because the ginned up attempt is already over in MSM. What's striking is the swiftness of Obama in addressing this clumsy attempt by two candidates.

    out of touch? (none / 0) (#236)
    by myed2x on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:59:07 AM EST
    Clinton and McCain are out of touch, their backgrounds and upbringings are those of the elite...and simply when McCain is clueless about almost everything including the sub-prime crisis and Clinton votes for a bill that makes it harder for middle-class Americans to get out of debt all the while taking contributions from the same companies who pushed for said bill and then has the audacity to say Obama is out of touch with middle America's financial woes? Well that's just insulting and American's deserve better than 4 more years of the same old same old.  Disgusting, and it's even more so by observing your contortions regarding this.

    myed2x, stop apologizing for Obama (none / 0) (#237)
    by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    let him own his prejudice and learn from this hit he took.  He's displayed bigotry he doesn't even understand he has.
    How would you feel if Clinton characterized low income inner city black people and lumped them altogether then explained why they were all voting for Obama?
    Small town PA can speak for itself.  We can figure out for ourselves why we are not voting for Obama if indeed some of us are not.  He basically said people who were not voting for him were ignorant racist white folk.
    He can go screw himself.  Stop blaming Hillary.

    March 15, 2007 - In an address to the National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton announced an initiative to address the growing crisis facing those holding subprime mortgages.

    I'm a little surprised that you hadn't seen this if you are particularly interested in this issue.
    But watch, she's very impressive. Maybe around minute 7 or a little later she starts talking about this crisis and how it will hurt the general economy. She understands the structure. Also she has been working on issues like this for a long time.

    Obama: Big Ego, Big Mouth, Big Trouble=Unity Tkt?? (none / 0) (#239)
    by SunnyLC on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:03:53 AM EST
    I'm not so sure:

    in which I muse on his recent commments and the unholy mess they add to....

    and finally dream:

    In the meantime, I keep having a recurring dream of John Edwards being nominated for President by acclamation at the convention...it's not going to happen, it might be just a dream, but at least it's not a nightmare.