The "Creative Class," Elitism and Obama's Gaffe

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Do you think the "creative class" blogosphere just started watching politics today? Or are they playing ignorant? Ezra Klein writes:

I'm not really sure what the big deal over Obama's comments in SF is supposed to be . . . As far as I can tell, few actually find the argument underlying Obama's statement controversial. It's a pretty standard thesis, and has been delivered, in various forms, by everyone from John McCain to Bill Clinton.

I would be curious to see what statements of Bill Clinton and John McCain Ezra Klein is talking about. Personally, I have never seen a pol say what Obama said. Political scientists, bloggers, intellectuals, ME, yes. But pols? Never. See, pols have a different job - get votes. Obama already has trouble getting white working class votes. This statement certainly does not help him. But I think he will ride it out - precisely because of his "Creative class"/Media Darling status. More...

This post from AmericaBlog is typically overwrought and filled with bile for Hillary Clinton, but it links to an example of how being a Media Darling will help Obama ride this out:

Until the Hillary Clinton campaign gets into a overt fight with "creative class"/Media, like the type we see in that clip, she can not easily label Obama "elitist." Why they have been so hesitant to do this is impossible for me to understand.

The most interesting part of this story will be how John McCain and the Republicans play it and what effect it will have. Barack Obama's Media Darling status has completely neutralized the Media advantage Republicans and conservatives have long had on these kinds of stories. Can the GOP get traction on this one? We will see. It is worth noting that Obama fanboy Andrew Sullivan actually understands the problem here.

< Hillary Again Attacks Obama Over PA Remarks | Live Blogging Today's Clinton Campaign Press Call >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Obama bloggers... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    are trying to carefully ignore that the predicate behind Obama's remarks was that the Bush years AND the Clinton years were responsible for the plight which embittered these small town PA gun totin', bible huggin' unfortunates.

    The predicate of his campaign is destruction of Democrats...whether they are small town citizens or past presidents or opponents.

    Why does he heart Reagan so?

    Why do these progressive bloggers see Obama as their savior?

    media star? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by mscristine on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    OH WHY INDEED. I am so mystified over this man's seeming magical power over some dems, but the media won't be able to save him come november, and probably won't want to. They are corporations after all. I am so scared of Obama.

    I do not think that is the problem for Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    They should know what the problem is, but wither they are political idiots or have decided to play political idiots.

    CDS (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    it's the gift that keeps giving

    They see anything but Clinton as the best choice.

    I'm of course assuming that the blogging elite are not so young and blind to believe that Obama is the second coming of RFK and it is events like this past week have proven that not to be the case.

    And then there's the other possible explanation...that we buy emotionally and defend our purchase rationally. They have already bought in and are 'deer in the headlights' incapable of changing direction because they are hypnotically tranced or too weak to change their minds. One of the funny things about blogs is that you get hung by your past statements because they are so readily available (hint...Markos).

    I don't know which to be the case with Ezra...he is young. Perhaps Hillary doesn't satisfy his yearning idealism because she is rooted in history and is a well known commodity.

    Arivosis and company and Sullivan, though, are CDS afflicted and they probably serves little purpose here except to inflame.


    BTD is being mocked (none / 0) (#147)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    by John Cole:

    Out of respect to one of the of the worst Clinton bots, I am affixing the following to all posts now:

    Speaking for me only

    John has posted 4 CDS threads at Balloon Juice just today.

    I think he's starting to realize he bet on the wrong pony.


    How do you mean? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Daryl24 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    I think he's starting to realize he bet on the wrong pony.

    Heh (none / 0) (#173)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:29:05 PM EST
    I take it as as sign of respect. John cares about what I say. He is smart to care. . . .

    Not the Media's Darling Forever (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by tdraicer on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    He won't ride it out in PA. And he won't ride it out in the fall if he gets the nomination because McCain is the REAL Media Darling. How you continue not to see that is beyond me.

    We will see (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    If he rides this story out, then my theory will be proven correct imo.

    He's had a (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    2 point downtick in the Gallup poll, overnight, which means his one-day numbers were quite a bit higher.


    I think this one really hit home.


    He may in the short term (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by joc on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    But this one's coming back. Particularly the part where he claims the people of "states like Ohio and Pennsylvania" are 'more skeptical' when they here a "46-year-old black man" talking to them. The problem isn't just that he is impugning racist beliefs on the voters, there is also the audio track. When he says this the millionaire donors (from San Francisco no less) all laugh at the point he's making. Have no doubt that will find its way into Republican commercials in the fall.

    Well my thoughts (none / 0) (#196)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:19:48 PM EST
    are that the GOP and McCain think that Obama has clinched the nomination and if they can drag out the outcome longer that is to their advantage and then of course they get a bloodied corpse in September to beat up some more.

    Yes, you are right Obama will make more errors. He is after all rather inexperienced.


    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    sadly, I must say, don't be so sure. The media is doing their best spinning, spinning, spinning and trying to make it look like this is all Hillary's fault for going after him on it. What a meanie! What these people who are upset at Clinton don't understand is that organizations like Fox News and the RNC are using this to paint ALL democrats as out of touch elitists (based on the 5 minutes I could stand to watch this morning), saying this is how Democrats really feel, etc. Clinton needs to run from this, and run from it hard, to avoid being painted in that same light - as someone who thinks it is okay to look down her nose at working class voters.

    And that's how Obama has hurt the Dems (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:21:08 PM EST
    yet again.  He is divisive and has to go.

    <one part snark, one part not; you decide>


    Are you saying (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    Clinton should go after people like Jeffrey Toobin and Jack Cafferty who found nothing wrong with what Obama said?  I wish she could but I think that might backfire.  The press loves nothing more than to talk about how a candidate is blaming the press for all his or her problems (especially the Clintons).  They are able to neutralize a lot of criticism with this tactic.  How would she go about it without it backfiring on her?

    YEP (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST
    Did you see her comments this morning? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    She had a determined look on her face like she is not about to let this one go.  A decision was probably made that Obama has attacked Bill Clinton's presidency once too many times and there will never be a joint ticket.

    She looked to be personally pissed and stunned at different parts of Obama's quote.  It was a very bad quote.  The reasons why will take several days to fully analyze.


    Yeah one does wonder (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    how much will be too much as Obama continues to vaguely attack Clinton and the Clinton years by name.

    Somerby does point out that when a Big Dem pol (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    tries to merely chide the MCMers (members of the Mainstream Corporate Media), much less "go after them," the MCMers tend to unite against the "whining" Dem.

    Somerby says it's important for surrogates and especially the lib/prog/Dem pundits within the MCM, or near to it in the magazines, to take on the poor journalism of the MCM.

    Not happening--CDS? Preserving career viability for that big transfer to the MCM? To rise within the MCM?

    Such critiques may happen if the MCMers split on supporting Obama v. McSame--but the really Big MCMers will dance to the tune of their corporate masters. That's where the real decision will be made: Do the corporatists want to risk the governing style of BushCo through McCain for 4 to 8 years--or will they see a manageable alternative in an Obama presidency.  Which might explain why Obama is trotting out so many Republican talking points...not for the voters, but the CMs (Corporate Masters).

    In a way, that's the game Bill Clinton played to get into office--he used the DLC to calm down the CMs enough that they did not feel he would change things too much, and the MCM laid off him a bit in the general election.  But the MCM sure took off after him almost immediately after the inauguration. Did fulfilling his promise to allow gays to serve in the military startle the CMs enough to want to rein him in? I've never understood why Sam Nunn kneecapped him so early in his term....  But I claim no understanding of what goes on at those levels of power!

    I do, however, notice that when the Clintons take on the press, they get huge pushback and punishment.  Tweety may have had to apologize, but that and the Schuster thing seemed to harden the Boyz in the MSNBC Locker Room against Hillary.  And Tweety seemed to gloat in the NYTimes article, but I digress.

    I think Somerby is right on this--can't be the Big Dem pol, needs to be surrogates.


    She could begin (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST
    by demanding a correction re jobs/unemployment during the Clinton administration...just for openers.

    Bill had nothing (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    to do with the tech boom in the 90s.  Greenspan's tinkering with monetary policy was more significant.

    NOTHING to do with it? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    Nothing? that is a horribly ignorant statement.

    Just awful.


    Can someone explain this to me (none / 0) (#77)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    OT sorry.

    I hear this from every Reagancrat out there: Bill didn't cause it, it just happened because of the internet.

    I want to tell them they're wrong, but I don't know what to say. Anybody have a helpful link?


    This is the problem (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    That Bill was responsible for a good economy works politically....but when trying to pinpoint specific economic policies, it becomes difficult....

    Bill raised taxes in 1993...Raising taxes did help to set the framework for closing the deficit--which actually happened when the tech boom flooded the federal cofers....

    The other major economic idea was NAFTA--that was in 1993 too.   Beyond that there really isn't much.    


    raising taxes on the correct people (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    helped in setting the stage for a better economy.  Your insistence sounds more like republican talking points than real economic analysis.  

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    enlarging the middle class in record numbers certainly helped boost the economy in a massive way...just as Bush's anti-middle class tax policies have pushed many of them back into poverty.  And out of their homes.

    Bill raised taxes (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    and put the government's fiscal house in order. He did a lot to put the country on a firmer economic footing, improve the investment climate, and give us sustained job growth. The fact that he didn't personally invent the microchip, well, I guess you're right.

    Presidents don't have as much influence over the economy as people think, but they still have a lot. Obama was simply wrong to imply that things had gotten worse under Pres. Clinton.


    That might do it (none / 0) (#81)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    re my request above. Thanks!

    Bill raised taxes (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:33:23 PM EST
    in 1993 and pushed NAFTA to passage that year as well....

    After that, the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and Bill had little impact on the economy.....Greenspan adjusted interest rates to fine tune the giant tech boom--which is what closed the deficit.


    NAFTA was passed in 1994 (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    your comment on Greenspan is simply false and ignorant. Adjustments to monetary policy would not have any direct effect on fiscal deficits. You are really full of it on this issue.

    Of course if you are arguing that all that is needed to insure economic growth is low interest rates ten you need to talk to Ben Bernanke and ask him what the problem is.


    Tell that to Milton Friedman (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:42:36 PM EST
    Interest rates make a difference in economic activity....not directly on deficits, true, but they matter.

    Obama was actually (none / 0) (#197)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:23:31 PM EST
    factually incorrect. Pennsylvania had positive job growth during the Clinton years. 4% I believe. The decline came under Bush. And yet Obama blames Clinton time and again.

    "nothing to do with it"... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    ...except for funding and promoting the rural tech initiatives that brought high-speed internet into the classrooms of middle America, often before the large cities had that kind of access.

    You're wrong on this, and it would behoove you to study the history of the Clinton administration's efforts in this area before offhandedly dismissing them.


    Ooooh, that elitist Jack Cafferty! n/t (none / 0) (#34)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST
    Very much so (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    It is too funny that you do not think of Jack Cafferty as an elitist.

    Here is a clue - so is Lou Dobbs.


    THEY may personally be (none / 0) (#78)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    since they get paid a lot and are on the teevee. But what they push is populist themes, economic for JC, ecoonomic/xenophobic for LD, and that's what people hear and see. It takes being able to take a meta step backward to separate them from their message. Not going to be too effective a tactic for HRC to go after someone like Cafferty, imo.

    Cafferty in particular (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    is an elitist and his unabashed support for Obama irrespective of what position Obama takes proves that.

    Dobbs is a racist populist in the classic sense but it springs from his elitist roots.

    these two actors are elitists and we both know it.


    Hmmm (none / 0) (#148)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:50:19 PM EST
          n 1: someone who believes in rule by an elite group [ant:
               egalitarian, equalitarian]

    I don't think so. At least what he says is anti-elitist on a regular basis.

    So support for Obama=elitism? Ha ha. "Irrespective of what position Obama takes" is simply your characterization of what you don't like - his support for Obama, especially when you admit you didn't understand the remarks he made in SF.

    Don't be so mad just because Cafferty made fun of Hillary's Tale of Tuzla.


    Cafferty (none / 0) (#166)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    is a sexist pig. End of story. The ridiculous comments he makes on a daily basis going after Hillary are enough to know that he is out of his mind. He regularly talks about how she has multiple personality disorder. Gee, could it be that she is just a human being like everyone else and expresses a full range of emotions???

    bjorn, I think ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    ... HRC and Hillary supporters could have a "Bitter as Hell" protest event in front of the CNN building with about 50 people with signs. No, wait, that won't help.

    I thought the commentators mostly got it right in discussing Obama's statement: Voters feel like they can no longer trust Washington to deal honestly with THEIR economic interests, so they become one-issue voters.  


    Hmm (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    But that is not what Obama said. Certainly not ALL of it.

    Here is a link to ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:19:10 PM EST
    ... an Obama speech in Indiana yesterday --

    He did say this.


    Not what I am referring to (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    Sorry. the SF comments are the issue.

    Harder for a Clinton (none / 0) (#41)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    Poppy Bush did what you suggest, and to great effect, in going after Dan Rather in an interview in 1988.  It was clearly a set up and Bush clearly had an echo chamber all in place to applaud his taking down of the "elitist" Rather.  This cowed the rest of the media and resulted in less critical coverage of Bush during the 1988 campaign.

    In the case of Bush's attack on Rather, though, the Republican media wurlitzer was already in place to make sure that Bush's attack succeeded.  The Clintons have never been successful at manipulating the media and certainly don't have a David Gergen-Michael Deaver operation in place 24/7 the way the Reagan White House did.

    For reasons I don't understand, the media just hates the Clintons and have hated them almost since January 20, 1993.  I remember covering Clinton's Northwest "Forest Summit" in the spring of 1993 for Pacifica.  Sitting there in the media room with the White House press corps was disheartening, just listening to the reporters go on with each other about Bill Clinton.  They clearly already hated him and he'd been in office for what?  Two or three months?

    So I think it would be really hard for Senator Clinton to pull off what Poppy did in cowing the media.

    That said, I certainly hope she tries.  They definitely deserve it.


    The media hate the Clintons (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    because they loved them so much.

    They hate them the way you hate your first love because you made such a fool of yourself fawning all over them.


    I Must've Missed Something (none / 0) (#106)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    When did the media ever love the Clintons?  When Bill was governor of Arkansas?  I was a politically attentive adult during that whole time and I don't remember there ever being a media love fest for Bill Clinton.  Heck, the media in Arkansas forced Hillary to stop calling herself Hillary Rodham and start calling herself Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And even then they snarked about her keeping the "Rodham" (while not being similarly snarky about the "Day" in Sandra Day O'Connor.

    And though the media have it in for the Clintons, that's nothing compared to how they had it in for Howard Dean. William Greider actually heard them bragging to each other about having brought Howard Dean down.

    Jimmy Carter couldn't catch a media break; Ronald Reagan could do no wrong in the media's eye; Poppy Bush got a free ride until the recession at the end of his administration.  Then Bill Clinton came along and it was Whitewater 24/7/365, almost for eight years.

    One theory I heard (though I don't know if it is true) is that early in the Clinton Administration, the Clinton media folks -- can we say George Stay-on-top-of-this? -- were not sufficiently deferential to the media darlings.  Stephanopolis did not sufficiently hide what he really thought of the national media.  And they never forgave him or his boss or his boss's family.


    The media never loved the Clintons (none / 0) (#114)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:57:39 PM EST
    but they didn't always hate them.

    In the very beginning (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    the media establishment LOVED the Clintons.  They were the new Camelot. He was young and an outsider and energizing and the elites lined up behind him...for about ten seconds.  It was short, but it happened--and remember when George Snuffaluffagus was called a Greek God?  (I never saw it myself)  The love affair ended when they saw that Bill was actually a politician.

    Sound familiar?


    Coming out of hibernation to disagree (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    I'm just logging on to express my opinion that this quote by Obama will not go away.  Sorry BTD.

    He is NOT riding this one out.  Well he may stay on the bull for a while, but he's about to fly off the saddle.  Get the distraction clowns ready!! (media on alert already)

    Quite frankly this is the fatal gaffe of his presidential campaign.  It insults way too many people in ridiculous and nonsensical ways.  It even tries to equate Bill Clinton's economic legacy to that of Bush.  It is toxic and ugly stuff coming from a supposed Democratic candidate.

    So yea, basically BTD I disagree with you.  The Obama elitist puzzle just got its final piece with his "cling" statement and it may take a while for the media and the blogs to digest but this is definitely toxic and makes him completely, and I mean completely unelectable.

    Despite the media.  Maybe it will resonate even MORE because of the media adoration.  The ELITE media telling the little people what to think.

    Hillary will be the nominee.  I knew it the morning I saw the Jeremiah Wright tape and never in my wildest dream did I think he'd pile on to his problems by making such a disparaging statement about people whose votes he badly needs and are about to vote in Pennsylvania.

    We will see (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST
    Will it happen at "Dean scream" (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    Frankly, Obama has made the most ridiculous comments I have EVER heard from a serious Presidential candidate---not just this one.
    His repeated insistence that he is qualified to conduct foreign policy because he spent 4 years of his childhood in Indonesia is in my opinion the single most foolish statement uttered by someone of his supposed caliber. Once the shine rubs off him, the desire to "cling" to him in "hope" will very quickly fade.

    again with the clowns! (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    What did they ever do to anybody except make cute balloon animals and wear floppy shoes?

    I think the interesting thing about this particular media story is that McCain is leading it.  I've been watching it pretty closely, and I don't think it would have legs without McCain and his folks pushing it along.  That's what makes this particular instance different.  It'll be a good test of BTD's electability argument as well, because the media can only have one darling.


    Rodeo clowns, who are (none / 0) (#151)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    what he was referring to, are very brave and nimble people. When the rider bites the dust, their job is to keep the bull away from him by getting the bull to chase them. Not the greatest job in the world, but a highly skilled one. More to being a rodeo clown than balloons and big shoes. :D And given what the Obamacans have to do every time Obama opens his mouth these days, it is an apt analogy. Or is it a metaphor?? Hmmmmm...

    I don't think (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:40:59 PM EST
    he is going to ride this one out.He is utterly unelectable now and I believe the voters of PA and IN...much less WV and KY will show us that. I believe that the media spinning for him will doom it even more. I believe that the SDs will be watching.

    But are the SDs part (none / 0) (#14)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:42:05 PM EST
    of the elite creative class, or are they regular people who will understand the situation?

    Some of each but most are pols... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    They know whose votes they need to get elected, reelected and they know whose votes the Democratic nominee will need to beat McCain.

    They'll wait to see how it all plays out but I do think this will help Hillary.

    Bumpy road ahead...detour sign in view...


    Is all of the creative class elite? (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    Shouldn't the question be, are the SDs elitists?

    The SDs are the people (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:39 PM EST
    ultimately responsible for seeing that the Democratic Party fields a viable candidate in the General Election. An unelectable candidate is not viable. They are politicians, and they make a living counting votes, and they aren't stupid. They will look at the votes and realize that Obama cannot carry the states with the most electoral votes. The ones we need to win.

    I sat down for dinner last night (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    ...flicked on the TeeVee and decided to see what the bobble heads were saying about this latest Obama scandal, and what did I see?
    The video that BTD posted.
    Borger, Cafferty and Toobin are really teh suck.
    Us blog commenters are more informed and make more sense then those clueless baffoons (and we do it for free ;)
    Does anyone feel sorry for Woof Blitzer having to ask those marooons their opinion every day?

    duh... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    Borger is CDS
    Toobin is big time Obama supporter
    Caffery hates everyone
    Blitzer asks these people for their opinions because there isn't a story that he's capable of understanding even with and/or in spite of their help.

    Talking heads on main stream media continually miss the point but this travesty has gone on for many years...this is not a new phenomenon nor does the American public by and large not realize this.

    That is why blogs have a higher rating of trustworthiness than cable television news.

    Cable television news serves to continually undermine their own credibility and seemingly are incapable of realizing that they are all but guaranteeing their own extinction.


    Did you stay tuned? As within an hour (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    (and I'll keep this shorter than my comment on this last night -- with the transcript of Toobin, Borger, Cafferty, et al., if you want it) CNN had quite a different cast of characters, with quite a different tone and take on this.  It really highlighted for me how poor that first group's research is -- the basis of the best reporters, knowing the facts rather than just spewing puffery.  For example, Toobin's reverse of the realities of Obama and Clinton's backgrounds, claiming he was poor and she grew up in wealth -- no  journalist worth his salt ought not know by now that Obama went to a private prep school while she went to public schools.

    This is especially important in looking at their proposals for education, such as his support of vouchers to use public funds to send more off to private schools.  From the city that started that program, I'm so appalled by that; the cost of essentially supporting two school systems, public and private, through our property taxes has hit my city hard.  But Obama hasn't been hit hard or at all on that -- because of buying into the myth of his poverty-striken upbringing, it must be.


    the "elitism" label has sunk other Dems (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    GOP used it successfully against Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.
    You'd think a former first lady....but no - Obama has been identified as the "elitist."  Even with Edwards big house, it didn't stick to him because of his lower-than-middle class childhood. And he always attended public schools, unlike Obama who never attended a public school - all the way through Harvard.
    Then there are his "arugula" comments combined with "latte sippers" - combined with his comments about "those people" during a fundraiser on Billionaires Row....

    But you're right - he's probably safe because the billionaires who like him influence the corporate media.

    Time will tell. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    The corporate media is no longer the only media.

    Got a radio in your car?  Rural Pennsylvanians do...and they're not the only ones...


    Are we headed towards (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by MacBook on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    ...a GE based on:

    Rev. Wright vs. Rev. Small Town

    Once religion gets thrown in -- and it seems Obama rightly or wrongly has been responsible for this -- all hell is likely to break loose.

    The Democrats really need Hillary right now -- or Gore, or someone to turn us away from this.


    Great clip from CNN (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    Obama's gaffe was the worst in the world for a pol - speaking the hard truth instead of the pretty fable.

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    I am not sure if what he was saying is true - I can stretch it and have him agreeing with me and Richard Hofstadter about the dangers of populism. Truthfully, it is a pretty incoherent statement.

    But politically, and Obama's JOB is POL, it is absolutely bonheaded.

    Let's hope his Media Darling status can put this to bed. But let's be honest, if any other pol had said it, they would be toast.  


    I took it from an economic perspective (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    right off the bat - but then that's how I see everything. He clearly shifted the emphasis to that rather than the cultural aspect in his excellent off the cuff response to Hillary's trying to make it an issue. It would be  great if we had a teflon prez who could start to connect these dots for people against the screaming meanies of the right and their constant obfuscation of the economic implications for most people of the conservative agenda.

    Let's hope he is that Teflon pol (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    I think he is.

    You can't speak to his underlying concerns (none / 0) (#66)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    but you can say its a political gaffe? How is discussing the impact of using gays and guns to cover up economic issues an arguments against economic populism?  With whom is this a gaffe? The media? You say he's insulated by being a media darling. The voters? Do you think they don't know they are angry at the politicians and politics over economic issues, and being cynical are voting other issues? How is different than what the matter with Kansas? I don't know how else to ask this question.

    Of course I can (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    And you know I can. Stop playing ignorant Bruh. Are you a Creative Class blogger now? Are you an ingenue about politics now?

    Yeah, that's me, the political creative class (none / 0) (#104)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    I will tell you what- let's trade biographies and life histories, and then, let's talk about which of the two of us having this conversation are more like the creative political class and which is more like the working class voters we are now discussing, because ulimately its about the voters. Trust me in trading biographies, you would certainly not be able to make such an argument. I mean what do I know of these issues aside from growing up so poor I didn't have running water until my teen years, living in a rural town of only 5000 people with a conservative bent (they voted GOP by 70 percent in 2004), working my way through school, and the whole 9 yards. You can certainly disagree with my questions and not answer them, but it's really unfair to keep slappiing with labels that really have nothing to do with either me, my backgrounds or belief systems.

    Coming from a guy (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    who has already made a gaffe about arugula, who is already being painted by Hillary as not giving a crap about universal healthcare (and honestly, he doesn't really seem to view it as being of primary importance, as being a need), his comment is not going to be taken as an APPEAL to voters frustrated with politicians over economic issues.  Especially when said in front of millionaires in San Francisco.  He has little ground to stand on when separating himself from these "other politicians."  

    Plus I think the explanation on offer from you as to why voters vote for "guns and God" is a very simplistic one.  

    BTD posted about a month ago, maybe, on the topic of Obama winning over values voters.  Apparently it didn't work out so well and he is actually winning the traditional Democratic blocks.  Well he won't be winning over values voters now, and since he clearly can't articulate working class Dem values, I don't know how well he will do with them either.  


    Did you disagree with (none / 0) (#108)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    What's the Matter with kansas? And, no, it's pretty spot on. They don't trust us over the economic issues so they vote on random issues. People regardless of class or backgrounddo this all the time. When you don't have a way to tell the difference between two choices, you pick something arbitrary like gays.  you got two applicants for a job, they both have perfect resumes, but you only got one spot- who do you choose? Basic human behavior that doesn't involve just class.

    Who are THEY? (none / 0) (#117)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    THEY in Obama's example are PA voters.  Again, you realize PA is blue right?  PA voters have a tendency to agree with us.  And PA voters can be easily inflamed on class issues.  PA is a state with many industrial ghosts.  PA is a state with many farmers.  PA is a state with fans that throw batteries at other baseball players.  PA features the Main Line, a strip of gross wealth that grows directly out of a poor Philadelphia neighborhood and continues in a series of upper-middle class strip malls until it reaches the farmers and much less wealthy middle class folk outside.  

    The way Obama explained the feelings of Pennsylvanians in his statement doesn't agree with me.  PA is a state with a lot of class issues and class is important there, certainly symbolically.


    My point is (none / 0) (#126)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    Pennsylvania ISN'T Kansas.  So yes I disagree with its application to PA.  

    what I realize is that (none / 0) (#150)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    this cycle has produced so many contortions amongs bloggers including here about what they stand for that I really have found it eye openning about bloggers more than about the issues.

    I note how you change the subject. The core issue isn't blue versus red. It's do you see what he says as true or not.


    I am the wrong crowd to spin (none / 0) (#154)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:04:07 PM EST
    many of us likely agree with "Kansas" (none / 0) (#132)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    GOP has used God, guns, and gays to incite voters to vote against their own best interests.
    But we're not politicians telling zillionaires on Billionaires Row that "those people" with no job and no health care are stupid for clinging to their God and guns.

    "you see, what the liberal elite (none / 0) (#139)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:25:35 PM EST
    fail to notice is that poverty is a heart-wrenching decision.  I think the reason that these folks flock to my campaign is because I understand them, and realize that they have moral issues.  They need hope again. They need unity.  The problem dems always make is they don't reach out to the religious folk, the common folk.  That's what I'm all about...  

    I'm Barack Obama, and I disproved this message."


    that was Obama's message (none / 0) (#161)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    in his diary at DK - that caused such a firestorm.
    Of course, those opposing his remarks then are defending them now.

    yes (none / 0) (#153)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    how dare he point out to billionaires that there is a such thing as class and that people  are resentful of it. How elitist. Look, I am more than willing to accept for those who want to spin it that this is a gaffe, but really, the more you argue and put light on what many o fyou are saying the less it makes sense other than its Obama who said it. I don't accept this sort of stuff from Obama supporters, and I am not good with this sort of analysis from clinton supporters either. i see it as ultimately aiding and abedding the GOP to engage in such tactics. Neither side is doing the party and our chances in the GE any favors by playing these games. The only one who wins here by the spin is the GOP.

    oh - no! (none / 0) (#165)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    when Obama made the comments and his zillionaires laughed at the "God and guns" crowd, Obama didn't stop them.
    He was waiting to collect their zillion dollar checks for the Obama campaign.

    And bruh - I only wrote a potential GOP ad. If you dislike it now, you'll probably dislike it more in Nov.


    Don't forget (none / 0) (#170)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:10:56 PM EST
    the gaffe about overall wearing farmers in Iowa:

    The problem is not that he had this one gaffe, the problem is that this fits a pattern.


    Then There Is the Little Matter of Accuracy (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    A lot of the spin seems to be that Obama was merely trying to explain why these rural whites vote against their economic interests.  But here's the problem with that - Pennsylvania has gone democratic in every presidential election since Clinton in 1992.  

    These people have been voting their interests, they've just been getting screwed over by all those red state voters Obama is so very fond of courting.  And now they're being told that the democratic party doesn't need to worry about their vote in November because Obama can win over red states like Virginia and Colorado.  Oh, and that their lack of enthusiasm for being consistently condescended to and discounted by Obama and his supporters makes them racists.  

    Hard to believe Obama isn't doing better in Pennsylvania.

    He does know (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:11:21 PM EST
    PA is blue right?  Because some people speak as though PA isn't blue, while the next day saying we don't have to worry about MI and FL because Obama will win PA.  PA voters do often vote in their economic self-interest.  But if they're insulted they might not.  All McCain has to do is run an ad.  A cheap ad.

    Plus it is my experience that the people who "cling" to guns and religion in PA are just middle-class people who feel like they don't owe anyone anything.  Not "small town" folks who are frustrated with job losses.


    I think the voters in Penn ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    ... sylvania will soon figure out, if they already haven't, that the people they've been voting into office for the last 25 years have been working behind their backs to send THEIR jobs to Mexico, Colombia and other countries.

    That would make me bitter, too!


    Which is why they would vote for (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    the "just kidding, Canada!" on NAFTA guy?  Which is why they would vote for the guy whose healthcare plan isn't up to par, whose economic plans trinkle in after Clinton's?  Obama isn't running on populism.  He's running on hope and change.  And painting people as bitter racist gunowners is not going to work with that strategy.

    I think you got the NAFTA ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    ... issue exactly backwards. What makes it so dispiriting is that Clinton operatives certainly had discussions with Canada -- and she used the issue to attack Barack Obama!

    Moreover, Obama's chief pollster isn't contracted with Colombian anti-labor interests, and Obama's spouse hasn't been paid huge sums by Colombian interests. (those were Mark Penn and Bill Clinton, respectively).

    Also, it wasn't Barack Obama who claimed that he was against NAFTA -- when he was actually for it and had attended and presented at mettings in support of NAFTA. (that was Hillary). Of course, when it became politically expedient for her to change her opinion on NAFTA, the change was made.

    Yes, Pennsylvania voters have a right to be bitter with the status quo -- represented by Clinton and McCain -- and want, instead, change.    


    prove Hillary's campaign (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    had discussions with Canada.  Obama's did.

    But They Haven't Been Voting Them Into Office (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    They voted for Gore.  They voted for Kerry.  They threw Santorum out for Casey.  

    They don't need to figure out anything.  They already know and it shows in how they've voted.

    What they also know is that their votes are being discounted by Obama and his supporters.  How many times have we seen comments here that say, Obama doesn't need Pennsylvania, he's going to win Colorado and Virginia.  He's going to win over those red states.  You know, those states filled with people who did vote for Bush.

    They don't need to figure anything out, they know that nominating Obama will marginalize their power in the democratic party in favor of the "creative class."   Just as it is in their best interest to vote democratic, it's also their best interest to vote Clinton (who also has the only universal healthcare plan).  

    Of course, nobody will say this because that would mean that Obama isn't losing these voters because of his race, he's losing them because of his politics and policies.  Which would mean the "creative class" admitting that maybe they don't know what's best for the working class and poor.  Which has never happened and isn't going to happen any time soon.


    EXACTLY (none / 0) (#121)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    Every election cycle, Democrats in PA work hard to keep the state blue, and they SUCCEED.  Why can't our fellow Democrats give this state and its Dems some credit?  

    This is exactly the point (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    Obama was talking about Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and explaining how guns and God and bitterness prevent them from seeing the light of his magicalness.

    So while we could argue about the usefulness of his "analysis" when we're discussing, say, white voters in the south in the general election, that wasn't what he was talking about.  He is simply factually wrong on this, as well as demeaning.


    That tape from CNN was at the beginning. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    Later in the evening, they changed their tune. Other analysts, asked on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is this? Two said 10 and one said 11. I wouldn't assume that first clip is how others now view it.

    I think he will (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:07:17 PM EST
    WORM his way outta this one too, but it does throw another a chunk on the heap of him being a prissy, pretentious little fellow.

    pics of Obama event on Billionaires Row (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    where he made the controversial comments last Sunday.

    thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    that is an interesting little read...

    San Francisco is going to be the symbol (none / 0) (#94)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    of Obama's candidacy, I think. He's no longer 'Chicago Style', he's San Francisco Snob Style.

    I live in the Bay Area, so I know the type. They contribute to Greenpeace, but drive Hummers 'for the security' or 'I don't drive it often.'

    If Obama had been Clinton, he'd already be sipping lattes on the Golden Gate Bridge in all the political cartoons by now. But he's not, so I give him a couple months.

    Hillary can win CA without SF (and did) and it would behoove her to ignore the Bay Area at this point; it's radioactive at this point.


    wow, guess that claim by the Obama camp (none / 0) (#198)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:54:19 PM EST
    that the little people are buying up his candidacy, in mugs and hats isn't totally true.

    He mentioned how a woman sent him 3$, but kept this quiet, he must be burning an awful lot of green. Hmmmm.....I thought something was fishy about his liitle people are financing me claim.

    Change you can believe in, yeah as in bing chunk of change he needs!!

    No wonder he wanted to end the campaign, heck we're really finding out what he's made of.

    Not made of the small donors more like the stuff of Oprah and  SF's billionaire row.

    I was just at Pacific Heights for a doctor appointment at CPMC and the houses are old, but big and the view shown from the link is typical of the homes there. On a clear day Angel Island and Alcatraz is the back yard view.


    ugh (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Nasarius on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    What is this now, part of his stump speech?

    knowing the leaders is not important

    It truly doesn't get much stupider than that when you're talking about foreign policy.

    The handwriting (5.00 / 14) (#59)
    by swiss473 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    The handwriting has been on the wall for Obama ever since he pulled a whopping 27% of white democrats in Ohio(and a staggering 34% of whites overall when independents and /Republicans were factored in), after having been annointed the nominee by the establishment and the media, after outspending/out advertising Hillary 3-1, after blowing her out in 11 staright contests by an average of 30 pts, after having the best media/press coverage that anyone in the history of American politics has gotten, after having just about every advantage that one could imagine...and he still could not top 44% in a democratic primary and not top 27% among white democrats.

    That was at the height of his powers.  He's fallen quite a few pegs since then and will only continue to fall.  There's no reason to expect he'd improve on those numbers.

    When taken in comparison with Texas where the county maps showed that he basically won the cities with high black turnout(Dallas, Houton, Cleveland, Cincinnatti) and the college towns with the kids(Austin, Columbus) and got smoked everywhere else.  I suspect Pennsylvania will continue this trend with Obama winning Philadelphia, State College, maybe a few counties right outside Philadelphia, but getting hammered everywhere else.  The map will look eerily similar to the county map in Ohio.  At that point, the Super Delegates will realize what is up.

    Also, his results in Texas confirmed his huge weakness with the Hispanic vote.  The dems already struggle topping the low 40s in the white vote.  If we start falling in the Hispanic vote(and unfortunately for us, McCain is about as the best guy the GOP could hope for to get Hispanic votes), we may as well pack it in.

    Throw in his excluding Florida and Michigan and the problems only mount.

    And his struggles in Ohio and Texas were BEFORE the Wright videos broke, before this latest blunder, before who knows what else will come out between now and November.  His numbers will only decline.

    Clinton needs to take the initiative here and it appears she's doing so.  A big win for her in PA will be the Gettysburg of this campaign.  Just as Pennsylvania was as far as Lee and his rebellion got before being turned back and sent to their eventual defeat, so too will Pennsylvania be as far as Obama and his followers get before being turned back and sent to their eventual defeat.

    I haven't read all the comments here yet so (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:20:37 PM EST
    this may be old hat, but to me what Obama does that's so offensive is say the people who've lost their jobs are angry (true) and bitter (not a good choice of words) and due to this anger and bitterness have a certain set of values, I think it's saying the values are an offshoot of the bitterness and anger that is the big mistake. Telling people why they hold certain values with a pat little sewed up reason, especially like bitterness is off putting to say the very least.

    You only think that (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:27:37 PM EST
    because you actually read the words he uttered and ignored the WORM revision and the "hey, look over there--a pony!" comments that came from his campaign afterwards. :-)

    Actually what he said was that they vote on the (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:34:59 PM EST
    values issues becuase they don't trust policians on the economic issues. that if they thought politicians would do something bout the economic issues they might vote differently. it can certainly be spun as a negative, but its not a slam dunk that people here are pretending.

    This is WORM, v.2 (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:06:48 PM EST
    Although I grant you that it's just as nonsensical as what Sen. Obama originally said.

    You're ignoring context (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by badger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:10:12 PM EST
    If Edwards had said the same thing you just posted, it would be believable, because Edwards ran on a platform that actually addressed those issues. To a lesser extent, so is Clinton.

    But the same statement coming from Obama is simply a piece of academic (or elitist) analysis - he's the politician he's talking about. He hasn't shown any understanding of the underlying problems, his proposals, like health care, are triangulated half-measures, and even the setting in which the statement was made works against him.

    And then it becomes even worse, because Obama did not frame the issue as clearly as you do, but instead chose near-pejoritives like "bitter", "clinging" and others and put those statements in a context that was simply wrong and condescending.

    So yes, you can contort what Obama said into a statement that's true and could even be productive, but it's no longer what Obama actually said, and Obama is not a credible messenger for the message anyway.


    like i said above- (none / 0) (#159)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:32:44 PM EST
    i am not the right audience for this. this isn't as you now admit about what he said, but about who said it.  about the only point i agree with is he could have said it better. the rest is just you playing primary partisan. i am free because i don't have a horse in this.

    If you agree (none / 0) (#172)
    by badger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:23:07 PM EST
    that he could have said it better, then it certainly  seems to be about what he said as well as who said it.

    What he said is damnable enough - I'm just saying that even if he put it as clearly as you did and intended to mean what you said, it still would ring hollow.


    actually what i said here is that (none / 0) (#174)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:29:11 PM EST
    because it allows for folks such as yourself to do the GOP's job for them as labeling Democrats as elitists for pointing out Americans are suffering , however, unfairly you are doing so here , then yes, it wasn't the best wording. There isn't any reprehenible aboutw hat he said in terms of the substance. No more than it was when Edwards talked about economic inequality in this country.  see, this is the one for two, shellgame of hide the ball to which I try to get BTD to own up to above. Its only hollow if you yourself are an elitist. to most average americans dealing with say the mortgage crisis, increased risk, increased educational costs, increased healthcare costs, decreased wages, etc-- this rings as true. you know i think this will be my last post unless you have something more interesting to add. the fact is pretty much your problem with him is the substance as you now admit and not the way he said it. thats why i dont particularly think this is a Democratic argument against Obama so much as an elite trying to play Rovian game of callinig your perceived enemy what you are.

    I hate to break it to you (5.00 / 2) (#177)
    by standingup on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:01:34 PM EST
    but I live in Missouri and those comments from Obama will not go over well.  You and others are forgetting that many of these people may be mad but they are also proud and resourceful.  The message they will here from Obama is one of an outsider, looking down at them instead of a candidate that understands them.  

    And as much as you would like to make this an issue of Hillary's supporters doing the work of the GOP for them, it is Obama handing the GOP a big gift.  The GOP was writing the script for how to work this as soon as they heard his remarks.  We know what happens with a politician who nuances from Kerry in 2004.  If you have to go over and over what you really meant in order for people to get the substance of your point, you will lose the people's attention and respect.  


    well yes if we sit around using GOP frames about (none / 0) (#189)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:39:30 PM EST
    what he meant (the fact Clinton's statements are exactly those of McCain to me says it all) and the press gets on your bandwagon of misinterpreting his meaning- then yes absolutely, he will lose. but then so do all Democrats to whom this strategy is applied. You seem to think I don't get the big picture. I do. That's why i find this strategy utterly fascinating my many of you. YOu seem to using the kitchen sink theory of trying to attack Obama, but then in so doing reinforce all sorts of nasty GOP frames. Keep up the good work of telling me how "i don't get" what you are doing.

    OT sadly one of the way I can tell (none / 0) (#190)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:47:53 PM EST
    what candidate is supported on what site now is how comments  are rated. You really said very little other than I am ignorant, but you are brilliant about politics,a nd two people gave you a 5 for saying this. I don't even go to D kos for this level of analysis anymore. The places I, as someone who am on neither team, can go at this point is dwindling to nothing with regards to blogs. What I care about here is what frame you are reinforcing. Talking about voter anger over politicians voting against the voters economic interests is here "elitism" when in fact it's exactly the opposite. I think many of you know that. I think many of you sadly don't care because you think it advantages CLinton. Obama supporters are exactly like this too. Whatever wins, wins without regard to the GE and how these arguments have been used against all Democrats in the past. That sort of analysis doesn't rate a 5.  It is in fact a GOP frame that you are more than willing to use against a fellow Democrat because it suits you rather than because its actually what happened, and indeed, when challenged on the substance, you say that's offensive. To whom? The voters" According to you yes? Why? because voters are proud-- yeah, he said it inartful, but restructured its one that will resonate powerfully with voters. That they don't trust us on economic issues isn't offensive to them. So the underlying substance isn't offensive.

    You have been commenting (none / 0) (#192)
    by standingup on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:12:17 PM EST
    here a total of two days and are an expert on the members here?  We hardly have any influence over the press.  If we did, the biased reporting on the Democratic primaries would have ended months ago.  

    I did not say you were ignorant.  I stated what I did based on my own knowledge of the area where I live and the people I know.  Did you come here to have a discussion or just to disagree with Clinton supporters?  I found many of your comments to be quite condescending and dismissive of Clinton supporters.  We can have reasoned discussions but those require that you respect our opinions too.      


    Yeah because commenting means I haven't been (none / 0) (#199)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:00:05 AM EST
    lurking for months. I find your comments to be what you claim i am. what I have dismissed is that any of you here have any greater knowledge than anyone else. If you find my pointing out your own limitations as conscendtion then maybe the problem is the view of you take of your own opinion. I came here to hopefull find people who dont' identify everything they say by whom they support. That 's  probably a mistake because no place like that  exists anymore.

    And your so even handed in support of (none / 0) (#200)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    your candidate I guess.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Truth Partisan on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:23:37 PM EST
    Extensively re-quoting the whole speech is a mistake by the Obama team....
    Obama's hurt himself and there's a lot of work to do. The problem is this strikes at the Dem base people he needs AND his expanding-the-electoral-map people. That's why all his right-wing dogwhistling on abortion, etc., is happening right now again.
    If Obama could pull all this off, without compromising principle, I'd be impressed--for him, him only this season, it is possible and goes to both BTD's and Obama's argument that he can soothe issues down.
    But he's walking too close to the line on bedrock Dem principles and I don't see any real policies coming out of this. That means he loses base Dems.
    He's also getting tired and punchy--lots of problems this week.

    Am I missing something? (5.00 / 6) (#80)
    by MaxUS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:39 PM EST
    Wasn't the original question about why he was doing poorly in rural areas?

    The correct answer, of course, is that he's doing poorly in these areas because these people feel the effects of bad policy immediately and hard. They vote for the candidate who makes the best case for policies that will affect them and Obama's campaign is about "politics not policy."

    The answer Obama gave, we all know is that they are bitter and, well exhibit "antipathy to people who aren't like them."

    Now it's being reported that Obama is bactracking by saying:

    "I didn't say it as well as I should have," Obama, an Illinois senator, said in Muncie, Indiana.

    "But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to. And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families," he said.

    That is all well and good, but what does it have to do with why he is behind among rural voters? Why exactly does Obama think that these people who don't feel like they are being listened to voting for Hillary and not for him?

    To your point BTD, the fawning media might give him a pass, but the people who he offended will not, even if the people who support him choose not understand the depth of the insult.

    A point that needs to be made is that (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:38:31 PM EST
    "rural" and small-town areas are not the same -- per the census as well as culturally, educationally, economically, politically, etc.

    A minor point, because the comments will be read, and probably correctly, as bashing anyone outside of urban areas in the Midwest, which is all he knows but for what he saw out of his bus window in less than a week.

    However, for the sake of accuracy, he was picking up more -- as BTD says -- on the Hofstadter/U of Chicago sociologists (i.e., Muncie studies, where he was today)/Sinclair Lewis take on small-town mindsets than on really "rural" farm areas.

    It is telling to me that Obama buys into that meme, a myth about many small towns now, as that take is almost a century old and quite outdated when you see the census data on small-town demographics these days -- although the continuities are there, the ones he hit for the Constitutional amendments still embraced strongly re religion and guns.  But immigrants, he does not get at all and ought to see how many Midwestern small towns and their churches also have brought over and embraced immigrant groups from Laos, Somalia, etc.


    I already see evidence that the media elite (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:28:53 PM EST
    are turning...go read Foser's piece at mediamatters.org for this week. Chris Matthews and Company are using an absurd story about Obama  not drinking coffee in a diner to call him elitist outright.  I agree with Foser's view that the business about the diner is silly and beside the point, however it's a good example of how the media will likely turn on Obama when the Hillary hatred is out of the picture if he's the nominee. I think Obama's Achilles heel is his arrogance and especially like Kerry, his wordy, pompous elitism. When Obama's talking without a script, he's not very good at all.

    What is more ... (none / 0) (#168)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:57:29 PM EST
    ... elitist and arrogant than the "inevitable" nominee?

    Obama tries to change subject with response (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:30:06 PM EST
    These blowhards at CNN don't know the first darn thing about Rural America.  This would be comical if it wasn't so tragic.  The so called response from Obama is nothing more than trying to change 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 in Rural America get offended hearing people like Bill Mahr belittle them for their belief and way of life.  Heck, last night Mahr went on a tirade 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?  Is this 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.  I honestly don't see the Rural Americans I know as having a racist bone in their bodies.

    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 response statement does not address these things.  He just went and made a totally different point (ala Thomas Frank - What's the Matter with Kansas?) to justify a stupid statement.  People who live in Rural America like me won't buy it.  Franks was talking about something different than Obama was in his first comment in SF.  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 and private schools.  He doesn't understand us, that's obvious.

    Quite a first comment, MoveOn fan (nt) (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:30:17 PM EST

    Big Tent Democrat (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by esmense on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:32:13 PM EST
    Voters are angry over the great disconnect between themselves and the people who are supposed to represent them -- and they have been for a very long time.

    I run a national business that's customer base is almost entirely rural, small town and suburban men. Before the 1994 election, I was overwhelmed by angry guys who, out of the blue, would start ranting about term limits. Since I don't agree with term limits, for several well thought out reasons, I was reluctant to get roped into these conversations -- their anger told me something was going on here that did not have much to do with rational arguments for or against term limits. So, to defuse the conversation I would make a kind of a joke -- I'd say, "Naw, I don't think term limits are the answer. I think we should try to pass a law that limits congressional pay to no more that 2 or 3 times the average per capita income in the representative district."

    The reaction was ALWAYS the same. There would be a pause while they did a little calculating, then they would laugh, uproariously. Then, we could have a real, conversation.

    My point is this; people well know that those in our national political establishment no longer share much in common with the people they are suppose to represent. This is why the label "elitist" is so effective.

    My prediction is this statement will have consequences, because it confirms what people think about candidates, liberal candidates especially -- that they are out of touch with ordinary American life and have little respect for the people they claim to want to represent -- and what they think is wrong with the system.


    Wet behind the ears (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Chimster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    I think what could become Obama's downfall is his appearing too naive, which will hinder his ability to become an effective commander in chief. I'm assuming these are not scripted speeches. SO, each blunder he commits is when he is off script and being candid. An indication of how he really thinks about things and how he will if president. Unfortunately for Barack, the more people get to know him, the more people get to know him.

    here's his problem (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by tarheel74 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:49:25 PM EST
    not only did he say it but the venue where he said it cannot be any worse. Now I will underline my problem with Jeffrey Toobin. He makes some great leaps and embellishes Obama's bio more than what Obama does. Did he grow up in a single parent family? yes but since the age of 10 he lived with his grandparents. Did he grow up in a family with limited means? I do not know that but he did go to a private prep school and then to Occicental college (another private school) transferring to Columbia. None of these reflect a person of limited means. It is one thing to admire him for what he is and quite another to embellish his life story.

    Obama represents EVERYTHING they hate (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:58:44 PM EST
    The right wing media and talk radio are NEVER letting these quotes go...  Obama has become the biggest caricature version of a liberal.

    He is hitting the memes for them on all fronts!
    Makes Kerry seem like a mainstream American.

    I could literally make a list right now with over 20 things about Obama that are right at the top of the "what Republicans hate and fear about liberals" criteria.


    Driving by to agree (5.00 / 0) (#110)
    by madamab on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:54:02 PM EST
    that the media won't save Obama. He is absolute toast.

    I thought Wright was bad, but this is something Obama said himself! I don't think he has a shot of being the nominee now. He basically expressed contempt for the values of a huge chunk of the Democratic base. He has now lost them. End of story.

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#111)
    by nemo52 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:55:12 PM EST
    with this.  Obama will be the Darling until the General election contest begins.  Then the media will be slobbering all over McCain, and I then predict a big McCain win.

    Becoming the tradmed (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:01:10 PM EST
    All this energy spend arguing about whether what Obama said was a gaffe, how it will affect voters, whether the media will cut him a break, etc.: What a complete waste of time and energy.

    The thing I detest most about mainstream political commentators is that nobody really talks about the words themselves, the issues, the principles. No. That requires too much intellectual rigor. It's so much easier to sit back like an arm chair quarterback and theorize about how the archetypal Archie Bunker voter is going to react to something or other. The issues don't matter. Only the meta matters.

    The blogosphere flourished in part because it focused on the news and the issues instead of the largely worthless kewl insider analysis. And now, look at the meta hand wringers we've all become. How sad for us.

    moment of sad irony (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:17:37 PM EST
    "Look, Barack is the Democratic Nominee.  Deal with it. Every Vote Counts!"

    When Obama apologizes (none / 0) (#146)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:45:35 PM EST
    then I will apologize to those he has offended.

    But if he wants to play the WORM/spin game, then he can win all those votes without me.  I'm not going to bat for someone of weak character who can't even say "I'm sorry.", even once.


    An apology will suffice? (none / 0) (#183)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:18:29 PM EST
    You won't require he reject and denounce himself? Awfully nice of you!

    Time for the 12 step program. (none / 0) (#187)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:00:32 PM EST
    First, you have to admit you have a problem.  Eventually, you have to make amends to those you have hurt.

    Sanctimony (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by badger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:22:03 PM EST
    There has been a lot of discussion here in several previous threads about the principles and the issues involved.

    You can choose not to read those comments, but that doesn't mean the discussion you pretend to yearn for didn't take place here.


    Not really (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by digdugboy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:28:26 PM EST
    Every front page post has been about "the gaffe." Each post frames the issue in terms of whether there will be some negative political outcome for Obama. I tried to make one comment about the substance of Obama's remarks -- suggesting they were accurate descriptions of a segment of the electorate -- and somebody spotted me a "1" for my efforts.

    If there are any other posts dealing honestly with the substance of Obama's remarks, I certainly haven't seen them. The mere fact that there may be a few doesn't negate my point, though. It's almost all about the hand-wringing meta and very little about substance.


    I agree completely (none / 0) (#155)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:05:24 PM EST
    BTD, what do you make of this? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by davnee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:04:09 PM EST
    Saw over at Politico that the Obama campaign sent out to the press the CNN clip with Cafferty, Borger and Toobin giving his statement the WORM treatment.  This is the clip that includes Cafferty's helpful analogy between bitter out of work small towners and bitter out of work Arabs that flock to al Quaeda training camps.  Good politics trumpeting your "independent" water carriers or astonishing stupidity on the part of O's campaign?  I think they truly don't get it.  

    This should embarass the CNN trio (none / 0) (#131)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:11:48 PM EST
    but it won't.  They're probably very proud and grateful that their darling recognized their fine work.

    The Issue is Respect (5.00 / 6) (#123)
    by Richjo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:04:44 PM EST
    The problem with what Obama said is that it fails to respect the viewpoints of those he is criticizing. It implies that they only hold these viewpoints out of ignorance, and because they are allowing their frustration from a lack of economic opportunity to cause them to be open to manipulation on these issues. There may very well be some truth to that, but to say it that way fails to respect the idea that there are many people who hold those beliefs in good faith. Most people who think that way are not going to change their minds on these issues anytime soon. What they can be convinced to do is not focus on those issues in our politics if we approach those differences respectfully and if we offer them real solutions to the problems facing them. Obama seems to be failing on both those fronts now.

    As for that CNN clip, it has got to be one of the most disgraceful things I have ever seen. All three of them manage to ignore the real issue. The controversey is not over if people are angry or bitter over the lack of economic opportunity, but rather if that is what causes them to hold certain beliefs. The implication being that such  beliefs could only be held by people blinded by anger and bitterness, because such beliefs are so horrendous in the first place. If that does not smack of elitism I have no idea what does. Jack Cafferty seems to go as far as to compare those who are concerned about God and Guns to terrorists! That those three are allowed to speak on television is a disgrace.

    And Obama (5.00 / 2) (#134)
    by standingup on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:12:23 PM EST
    is supposed to be the candidate who will be better for down ticket candidates and change the electoral map in those states where rural voters have been choosing Republicans?  So much for that argument.  McCain and the Republicans will paint him as just another inside the beltway politician with no idea of what is important to the average person.  

    I'm wondering (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:22:07 PM EST
    speaking for myself, as BTD says:
    How many voters in the heartland watch Tweety or Olbermann?  How many are political blog junkies?
    I'm thinking it's the soundbite.
    I thought, like BTD, that Obama's gaffe would blow over because he's a media darling.
    But I'm starting to change my mind.  
    The voters aren't reading four paragraph explanations of What Obama Really Meant.
    Obama may have done himself some serious damage.
    I will observe the results with interest.

    Wow (none / 0) (#3)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:36:09 PM EST
    they really, really hate her don't they?

    Clinton pounces...yeah that's some fair and unoffensive framing.

    Hillary has been relentlessly (none / 0) (#33)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:00:16 PM EST
    critical....McCain will leave her to do the attacking.....Hillary loses when she goes on the attack.

    McCain will benefit.....Stay above the fray.

    There are many who comment from the vantage point of how this will be perceived.....What remains to be seen is how many people will actually feel insulted....


    McCain did reply (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:10 PM EST
    And I think McCain would now be delighted if Sen. Obama is the nominee. He will attack more after the Dem nomination race is over.

    Nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:10:52 PM EST
    McCain has been extremely critical, The entire GOP Machine has been.

    And will be. You are really being ridiculous today.


    Hillary loses (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:06:50 PM EST
    whether she goes on the attack or not.  The old CDS, you know.  She should attack.  She has nothing to lose.

    does Joe Klein (none / 0) (#8)
    by bigbay on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:42 PM EST
    cling to his religion ?

    or for that matter, folks on the south side of Chicago ?

    EZRA (none / 0) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:39:17 PM EST
    yes (none / 0) (#30)
    by bigbay on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:58:21 PM EST
    do you NOT realize I linked to this video?

    I am deleting your comment for that reason.

    just an fyi (none / 0) (#107)
    by boredmpa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:52:12 PM EST
    i didn't realize you linked the video until this comment because of the way the site includes clips.  

    I use firefox with noscript and didn't have talkleft authorized...and the layout wasn't that obvious--usually there's a gap on a missing include.  


    Do you disagree with the underlying point that (none / 0) (#25)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:52 PM EST
    voters are angry over the economic issues? If not, why? If so, is this a form over substance discussion as to what you and others are referring as a gaffe? Do you think voters don't know they are angry at the politicians?

    Do you think that is (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:53:35 PM EST
    a plausible interpretation of Obama's comment? I do not.

    Angry at immigrants? Angry at people like Obama?

    The fact is I think you are latching on to the best possible spin but it is utterly absurd to pretend that is what Obama was saying.

    His was a classic Hofstadterian analysis of populism and its downsides.

    Let me put it this way - JOHN EDWARDS would NEVER have said what Obama said. And you know it.


    Bullseye/Edwards would NEVER (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:58:12 PM EST
    have said it.

    Game. Set. Match.


    and Edwards would never have said this (none / 0) (#135)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:17:07 PM EST
    Betcha $5 the GOP already have an ad ready to go...



    After watching Moyers' Journal on rising cost of (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:53:34 PM EST
    food, energy, etc., and the effect on those with low and fixed incomes, I cringed watching Obama say that everyone can come up with $5 to give to him, that no one's too poor.

    An elderly woman described how her SocSec check was all gone by the 7th of the month (rent, elect., some of her meds, some food)--I felt terrible for her.  She mentioned going into the grocery store and leaving without buying anything--the smallest package of hamburger was $4, which she couldn't afford.  A family picked up gallon o milk on sale for $4, a saving. But one of the kids wanted bagels which they hadn't had for awhile--gal of milk exchanged for half gallon, so the a few bagles could be purchased.  Food pantries running out of food. Meal sites with growing numbers to feed.

    Does Obama not know this? Or just not think of what he's saying?


    me, me, me, me, me!! (none / 0) (#167)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    I read where Michelle O. (none / 0) (#185)
    by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:20:57 PM EST
    chatted about how it's sooo expensive to buy organic stuff for the kids, but she does it because her kids are precious.

    She would have a hard time chatting with the people with the kids and the bagel/mild dilemma, I'm thinkin'.  But I'm not really sure who is more bitter.  Some people are resilient, and others are not--it doesn't always have to do with income.


    What I know is this (none / 0) (#51)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:09:15 PM EST
    Did he word it well? No. Obviously he should have said it better. That's the form over substance analysis to which I am referring.

     You actually answer it here by saying as much by saying that it could be interpret  with positive spin the way I think he meant it, and indeed later comments suggest.

    Do I think Obama is a saint here? No. He needs to connect with low income voters. Period. But then, so do they all.

    I live in a working class neighborhood. I grew up in the towns of which he spoke. There is a bitterness and cynacism about politics. Is he the man to change it? I have my doubts. Do I think everything he says is an excuse to go off on him? No.

    Do I think you are interested in the economic bitterness that's out there? Not so much. Citing Sullivan certainly doesn't indicate an interest in economic interest.

    Sorry, I've asked you  other questions that suggests overall they really aren't your issues. As I've told you repeatedly, they are mine.

    So that's why I bring it up. You say its a gaffe, and that the only thing that will save him is that he's a media darling. It's true he is. But, I wanted to dig into the underlying assumption. First, to ask- what makes it a gaffe? The message or the way in which the message was delivered or the underlying facts about what's happening with voters?

    You are right about one thing- I don't assume that he was intending anything malicious in the way he said it. I don't assume that with Clinton either.  Pretty much the only one of the three I assume maliciosness is McCain.


    You do NOT think it is a gaffe? (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:14:42 PM EST
    Really? you wrote:

    "Did he word it well? No. Obviously he should have said it better. That's the form over substance analysis to which I am referring. You actually answer it here by saying as much by saying that it could be interpret  with positive spin the way I think he meant it, and indeed later comments suggest."

    Do you think white working class voters will be looking to interpret it favorably for Obama? I do NOT. Obama is in a precarious spot here UNLESS the Media saves him.

    I think you want to pretend that this can be about your particular concerns. I think you want to pretend that what Obama said could not be used by the Media to destroy his candidacy.

    His political life, as it has been for a while now, is entirely in the hands of the Media. Thank Gawd they love him and hate Hillary. Otherwise he would be done.


    hmm... (none / 0) (#73)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:22:54 PM EST
    I am personally not thanking anyone that the media has been riding shotgun over his political life.

    In fact, I think this works to Obama's disadvantage because he wouldn't enjoy that distinction in the general election and some people might be fooled by the change thinking that the media has been so on his side during the primary.


    What I think is that it was a political mistake (none / 0) (#89)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    but not because of the voters. It's because you and others are spinning it with negative conotations. Your comment about the media is a bit banal. You seem to be arguing- well they could have spun in negatively. Yeah, they could have, would have, should have, but it's not them doing the heavy lifting of spinning this to the public as a negative.  So yeah, it's a mistake. But the reasons why are important too.

    Yes, the media likes him,a nd they don't particularly like Clinton. All I can say is- well that's just a horrible thing if we want to get elected to have the press own our side rather than Gore or Kerry our candidate. The only real question is will they side with Obama or McCain in the GE, and if they side with McCain, will Obama step up? The other real question is would it matter either way because as you say they hate Clinton.

    Speaking of Edwards, how did his war on the media work out? Of all the things I supported about him- like I told David Mixner- the war on the media battle was always us riding into town on the horse backwards.

    I think you have no idea who I am. I think many of you are such political animals that you assume that everyone who posts on your blogs are motivated by the same sort of forces. You can disagree with my opinion. but please don't tell me what motivates me.

    Remember back on mydd when I started my first diary in this primary cycle way back in mid last year by discussing healthcare?  These issues are what motivate me. I have my reservations about the candidates- including very much Obama. He does appeal to forces in the party that I think are problematic. But,  my issues are economic issues and the deterioration of wages and America as an economic superpower.


    No profanity (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:04:04 PM EST

    first, we can't be stupid (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    and now we can't be profane?!  When will the insanity end???

    Lookit, Obama has, in the last two days, touched so many third rails--religion, abortion, gay rights, gun rights--that he should be glowing by now.

    I think McCain will keep playing this.  I think that the right wing media will lead the left wing media (picture Bush with congress) and the story will be a festering sore by next Thursday.  The problem is that Obama keeps blowing the spin.  "I didn't mean to call them stupid.  I just said they weren't smart."

    If he makes it to the ge, he will be shredded like a clown in a wood chipper (to use a simile that might appeal to this rabid clown-hating bunch)


    You forgot 'The Purge' ;) (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:56:56 PM EST
    While he's out touching third-rails, he's also under cutting some of his activist support. Granted, not a big news item and he did turn it around, but it wasn't unnoticed as to who he was siding with . .  .

    LOL @ you and the clowns (none / 0) (#109)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:52:48 PM EST
    Wow Kathy ;)  Can we say i-s-s-u-e-s? hah.

    By the way, did you ever see that movie, Poltergeist?  Spooky clowns are the ones I hate the most!


    I'm sure (none / 0) (#57)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    beneath those $4000 suits, their hearts felt no pain at his remarks.  I'm sure there was very little outrage indeed.

    Outrage?! No, laughter. n/t (none / 0) (#69)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:20:53 PM EST
    Not a gaffe? (none / 0) (#64)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    Write this down and post it on your fridge:

    Do. Not. Ever. Run. For. Public. Office.

    I am starting (none / 0) (#70)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:21:12 PM EST
    to buy into BTD's theory that he will get away with this due to media darling status. I didn't think so at first because I was jarred by the comment, but watching the coverage, the reporters are covering for him big time. While there was truth in the idea that voters are bitter, it was foolish of him to try and equate the bitterness with religion, guns, or anti-immigrant sentiment. That is the part that makes it so insulting. The bitter comment on its own would not have been a problem...and, of course, the context makes it worse - that he was speaking to rich people in California....

    But, I would put my money on BTD's theory and bet that he gets away with it in the primary. Hillary protects him because the media is too busy painting her as "attacking" to tear into Obama. I do think, however, this provides great material for the GOP to paint him as an elite, out of touch, candidate...it fits in too well with Rev. Wright, Michelle Obama's comments about America being a downright mean country, etc....

    Yet he said about pro-lifers (none / 0) (#152)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:00:56 PM EST
    that we must understand the moral values they hold and listen to them and not dismiss them as the pro-choice groups have. EH?
    So this people who do the bombing and other things to Clinics.  Who try to intimidate women who are seeking an abortion have deep rooted moral values, but those small town folks with their guns and their immigration fears and NAFTA dislike are just bitter and clinging.   Tells me a lot about him.

    these people are delusional (none / 0) (#156)
    by isaac on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:13:38 PM EST
    the americablog post was just stunning in its sheer ignorance of political reality, they really cant see how damaging obama's remarks are.  shameless

    Poor as Prop (none / 0) (#160)
    by pluege on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:44:33 PM EST
    Klein, like Obama demonstrates that the poor are just an abstraction to them.

    elitism, gaffe and blindness (none / 0) (#169)
    by SAINTIXE56 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:00:13 PM EST
    for some people obama said a gaffe, for some other people, he simply said what a lot of poeple think; possibly politically incorrrect , possibly costly , but none the less the truth. Small town people have quite often shabby , old fashioned , minimally informed positions. And yes poverty is dangerous. BITTERNESS moved russia back to his old ways , yes countries on this planet do live in much more security than the US without guns. Yes , one feels safer in Britain than inthe US. Yet religion and NOT FAITH cause poorly educated people to extremisms. It may not please the US, it may cost Obama the race, but at the end, he said the truth and bless him, when the US and his mainstream blind politicians yet ever so politically correct wake up after the political hurricane which is bound to run amok in our country, obama will be there to help you pick up what is left from your lives. Truth hurts , but it is the truth none the less.

    Your opinion of Americans (none / 0) (#175)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:29:48 PM EST
    in small towns is so stereotyping, so wrong, that you better "cling" to your anonymity and avoid Main Street.  

    I really hope that you are not an Obama voter but a Republican, as I don't want to be anywhere near you.


    Thanks I couldn't had said it better. (none / 0) (#178)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:01:56 PM EST
    The problem is that I see a lot of comments defending Obama by saying that what he said was true.  A low elitist opinion of Americans in my Opinion.

    A good night for (none / 0) (#176)
    by Daryl24 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:49:02 PM EST
    Matthews and Olberman combined is a little over 2 million viewers. That means they barely beat Sanford and Son reruns. Matthews and Olbermann seem to be sources of fascination for many in the blogosphere.  Most people are watching anything but.

    I read Bob Somerby's Dailyhowler yesterday (none / 0) (#184)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:19:11 PM EST
    regarding the New York Times piece coming up on Chris Matthews, its worth reading and then clicking on Somerby's link to the article itself. Matthews isn't watched by tons of people, but the Washington insiders love him and he's apparently influential, sad to say.

    My biggest fear is (none / 0) (#179)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:04:57 PM EST
    What is the Democratic Party becoming??
    Are there really Democrats with such a ill informed opinion of rural America?

    Are you McCain's campaign manager? (none / 0) (#188)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:11:56 PM EST
    sounds like it.

    Sounds like a GOP troll to me (none / 0) (#195)
    by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:14:06 PM EST
    All his/her posts sound that way. If its an Obama supporter its certainly one of the more cultish ones. The sad thing is that some O supporters have been so out there that its hard to recognize satire when it pops up.

    Good Grief! (none / 0) (#194)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:52:35 PM EST