Live Blogging Today's Clinton Campaign Press Call

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:20:54 PM EST
Tags: Hillary Clinton (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

I'm on the Hillary Clinton press teleconference call. I'll be live blogging, so check back for updates.

Speakers: Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack and some PA mayors. How it works: There will be a theme announced, various people address it from the campaign and then they open it up to questions from reporters.

Phil Singer: The topic is the comments of Obama in San Francisco.

Gov. Vilsack: He grew up in small town in W. PA. After reading and reviewing Obama's comments, he found them condescending. They undercut his message of hope. Obama suggests they are bitter. PA residents don't want a pat on the head, they want a pat on the back. It's why they have been gravitating to Clinton. The most glaring example is Obama's comments about G-d and guns. Vilsack says guns are a reflection of what we do with our families.

It's hard for a candidate to win in the general election if he has these misunderstandings about people in small towns.

More...

Chris Dougherty: Mayor of Scranton. (NE PA.)We're optimistic. We're doing real well lately. We have a long tradition of going to church and being sportsmen. Those traditions are part of who we are.

Mayor Lucas (Sharon, PA, right on Ohio line.) He couldn't believe Sen. Obama said these things. Saying we are bitter is the furthest thing from the truth. 7 years of Bush has hurt us, but we're making great strides. Hillary understands where we are at and what needs to be done.

Mayor of Bethlehem: We need a President who will get things done and not make comments that pile on. We have lost jobs, but we're still here fighting to make our city strong. In ways, we're thriving. Despite the hard times, we're not bitter, we have faith and we need someone to fight on our side. That's Hillary, she'll roll up her sleeves and help us get there.

Mayor of Wilkes-Barre: Today is the first day of fishing season. We have strong faith and hunting and fishing bring families together. We have experienced great opportunities to improve our economy. When things are tough, we need leadership to help us get through tough times, not put us down. We are not bitter.

Mayor Harrisberg: 27th year as Mayor. born and raised in small PA town. PA only has two large cities, the rest of the state is small. We like our small town values. We embrace our religions out of faith, not out of bitterness. We don't deserve to be categorized or stereotyped like Obama did in his remarks. His remarks are negative, hurtful, condescending, show bad judgment and lack understanding. They are divisive. He made these remarks in an upscale location thousands of miles away when he thought we wouldn't be listening. This is perfect ammunition for Republicans in the fall. They will eviscerate him.

Hillary understands the people of this state, she will bring us together.

Q and A: Is there a difference between Hillary and Obama on Second Amendment rights? Bethlehem mayor: the difference is a matter of outlook. Obama's comments reflect a major misunderstanding about why people hunt and want to own a gun. It's not because we're afraid. There's a fundamental disconnect. Vilsack: Hillary has been a strong supporter of Second Amendment rights.

People don't hunt because they are bitter. They hunt because they want to share the experience with their families and want to pass it on. Agrees there's a fundamental disconnect on Obama's part.

Another Mayor: How could Obama connect guns, faith and bitterness?

Q about how these remarks compare to those of Rev. Wright. Answer: His comments in SF were revealing because he didn't know he was being recorded. Rev. Wright's remarks were not Obama's remarks. Wright's remarks went on for two decades, and Obama waited until they were brought to light to criticize them. These are his own remarks.

Mayor of Scranton: Obama just spent six days in the state and came away thinking we are bitter. We're not. Hillary has spent a lot of time here and she gets us. She hasn't forgotten her roots.

Call over.

My impression: These mayors were really upset by Obama's remarks. They took them as personal criticisms of PA residents and their traditions respecting their faith and culture regarding sports like hunting, but more importantly, as a sign that Obama just doesn't get small town America, is condescending and Republicans will hurt him over this in the fall.

It was also striking how genuine their support of Hillary seemed. They really believe that she is one of them and has not forgotten her roots, that she gets small town voters and will roll up her sleeves as they put it and go to work for them.

< The "Creative Class," Elitism and Obama's Gaffe | Revisiting Lincoln's 1860 Cooper Union Address >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Live Blogging Today's Clinton Campaign Press Call | 123 comments (123 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Great response. (5.00 / 2) (#1)
by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:32:29 PM EST

Obama just spent six days in the state and came away thinking we are bitter. We're not. Hillary has spent a lot of time here and she gets us. She hasn't forgotten her roots.

people are what obama said... (none / 0) (#29)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:36:10 PM EST

they are frustrated, bitter, tired of the same old political speech. we can discuss semantics but i have always felt that we, the american people, can handle discussing difficult topics and everybody doesn't have to say the perfect words all the time (god knows we don't in real life). i personally (from middle america) am sick of this, especially within a party. we have to move away from this bickering about who said what how. Obama responded immediately to the criticism (which we all should agree is a good thing); we can disagree but everybody should stop pushing the same old "i hope this comment brings him down" stuff...


Do you know why we hope this comment (5.00 / 9) (#35)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:43:41 PM EST

brings him down? Because I feel like a lot of people are missing the point of why we feel so passionately about Obama. We do not trust him. We do not feel he is a true democrat. We do not trust him to push core dem values. We think he is inexperienced and could very well set the party back another decade. We do not trust him to get us out of this war. We do not trust him to defend choice and we sure as heck do not trust him on gay rights.

I feel very strongly about this. I voted for Gore (who I liked) and Kerry (who I didn't) because I was a good little dem. You know what? No more. I will not give my vote--a vote many women before me fought for, struggled for, starved themselves for, took beatings for--and hand it to a man just because I am "supposed to."

You want to see bitter and frustrated? You want to have a dialogue about the world at large? Let the DNC hand this preposterous poseur the nomination. You ain't seen nothing till you've been faced with a voting bloc full of ticked off, middle aged women.

I will not support a party that does not support me.


Ditto from this typical middle-aged (5.00 / 4) (#65)
by Anne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:11:32 PM EST

woman; well said, Kathy.

I have the same viscerally negative reaction to Obama that I have to Bush, only the pain of knowing this guy calls himself a Democrat makes it much worse, really.

He starts from a position of being willing to chip away at what matters to Democrats - I know there is always compromise, but the worst negotiating tactic in the world is the one where you say, right from the get-go, that you're willing to give in.

If I thought he was looking to unify the country around Democratic values and positions, I could get excited. But his unity message isn't about Democratic values - it's about political Prozac, and I'm sorry, I'm not willing to take that pill to feel better about not actually being better.


: Amen... (none / 0) (#122)
by AmyinSC on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:02:12 PM EST

to both Kathy and Anne - RIGHT THERE WITH YA!!

well... (none / 0) (#40)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:47:35 PM EST

not a true democrat.

he was our most progressive senator per his voting record. but he's what? a republican.? this is what is wrong w/ clinton supporters at this point. I, an obama supporter, would vote for clinton if she was our nominee. now i now that is not going to be the case but I'm not playing the clinton team vs. obama team game... it is becoming so silly here on TL.


Personally (none / 0) (#125)
by Trickster on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:41:44 AM EST

Kerrey was my next to last choice in the primary among the six "major" candidates (Kerrey, Dean, Edwards, Clark, Gephardt, Lieberman), but well ahead of #6. I had no problem supporting him with great enthusiasm in the fall, and was in fact honored to support him.

And I was perfectly prepared coming into this election to go on being a good little Dem and throw all my weight behind whomever the Party selected. It didn't have to be my guy/gal.

Just not this guy. He has brought GOP-style character assassination into the Democratic primary, and he needs to be taken down. In my view it will hurt our Party's soul if he is not.

If he wins I will vote for him against the GOP, but the Democratic Party brand that I have enthusiastically supported for the last 36 years will not move me in the same way, not unless his campaigning style* gets repudiated within the Party.

*It truly is the style of campaigning I want repudiated. I continue to hold out the willingness to learn in the future that Obama, a talented political neophyte was led down the primrose path by unscrupulous campaign consultants. But after this campaign season, I'll have to see some real evidence of that before I ever offer any other than the most tepid of support to Sen. Obama.


You're not paying attention (5.00 / 2) (#38)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:45:14 PM EST

as somebody said on this site yesterday, it's not the "bitter" that's the problem, it's the "cling to." Announcing that small-town and rural folks only "cling" to their church and their guns is factually flat wrong, deeply demeaning and utterly infuriating.


semantics. (none / 0) (#43)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:49:58 PM EST

as stated. he explained himself. now, you don't believe him; fine. but did you say the same thing about clinton re: the sniper comments. I checked - it doesn't seem like you were upset at all regarding her "good choice of words" in an outright lie. quite equitable.


: kind of a big difference (5.00 / 4) (#87)
by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:35:41 PM EST

between telling a war story and getting it wrong, and telling people they're worthless pieces of sh*t, and then saying, oh, I could have said that better. Telling a SF audience that rural PA (and OH, etc.) people are clinging to religion and guns because they're bitter is sooo out of touch. I can't even fathom how he could get that so badly as a pol except to think he really is that elitist and out of touch. Simply stunning.

: you need to get a dictionary (5.00 / 2) (#95)
by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:57:19 PM EST

and look up "semantics" -- it does not mean to pretend that the offensive part of a two part comment doesn't exists, or that people who do not ignore the offensive part of the comment are parsing said comment too much to twist its meaning. Pretending that the "cling to guns, religion and antipathy to [foreigners]" part of the sentence doesn't exist as you do (and as Obama does in his WORMs) is not "semantics" -- it rewriting the entire meaning of the sentence. He said it -- this is his fault and a sign of his bad judgment. Furthermore, a point that isn't getting enough play -- he didn't say it to the people of PA -- he said it to a room full of SF millionaires when he thought he wasn't being recorded. This shows me, at least, what I always suspected -- Obama says one thing in public and another in "private." In fact, his camp didn't confirm the comment was even made until they found out a recording existed -- do you realize that if that recording didn't exist, Obama would have continued to lie about about saying it? Of course you do, you just don't care.

: That's very funny (none / 0) (#118)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:22:09 PM EST

Typical Obama supporter response to criticism: "Hillary's got cooties!!!" (thx Shakes)

It's not always what you say . . . (5.00 / 2) (#41)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:48:10 PM EST

but how you say it.

Clinging and bitter were 2 poor, poor word choices. The implication that they are walking around bitter was bad enough without all the extras thrown in. Nobody wants to be thought of as bitter. Pissed off and angry at the Bush admin but soldiering on perhaps, but walking around bitter? Not so much . . . And though I don't speak for all women, I know many that wouldn't want to think of themselves as clinging or bitter (ew!). His words can cut in more than one direction.

And then he continued digging . . .


And sometimes (5.00 / 3) (#56)
by miriam on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:00:30 PM EST

It's not what you say or how you say it, but the context/setting in which you say it. If Obama had said this to the crowds in Pennsylvania it might be forgiven as a stump speech over-remark. To have said it to wealthy donors in SF about the 'backward hicks' in PA. puts the remarks in a different category. As in the mocking you "behind your back" category. I'm not in the small town, clinging to guns and God category that Obama referenced, but I am still mightily offended by his patronizing tone. And his racist innuendo. This man does not need the nomination; he needs serious, extensive therapy.


Just a hunch (5.00 / 3) (#88)
by mm on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:36:59 PM EST

Aside from the condescending, patronizing, arrogant elitist tone that we've all come to know and love from Mr. Hope and Change, I have a suspicion that the reason he's saying these things to his billionaire friends is that they may be starting to question him as to why he's having such a hard time winning over the core working class democratic base voters. This may have been the way he's addressing their concerns.

It's not his fault. These people are bitter! Bitter, bitter, bitter.


: Right, and they may not be as dumb as (none / 0) (#106)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:38:20 PM EST

he thinks small town PA voters are.

Very true. (none / 0) (#72)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:16:08 PM EST

I'm amazed Mr New Media didn't seem to think those remarks weren't gonna hit outside the room even though it was a 'closed' event. I'm glad they did though.

Man, I just want to smack his smugness.


Reality check (none / 0) (#33)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:40:27 PM EST

Comments like this may very well bring him down, no matter how you or I feel about it (OK, I admit that I'll be gloating if it happens). The fact is that it was a boneheaded mistake.

Sure, everybody doesn't have to say the perfect words all the time, but he's a pol, and politicians are supposed to be a little smarter than that.

I can only imagine what hay the media would make of this story if Hillary had been the one to make that statement.


Also, his verbal gaffes are adding up (5.00 / 2) (#45)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:52:24 PM EST

and they seem to be elitist in issue and demographically. Pretty soon there's going to be a 'nice' video loop about what he 'really' thinks of people'

so says this 'typical white woman' ;)


you sound like a republican... (1.00 / 1) (#52)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:57:42 PM EST

you voting for McCain now?

His life doesn't strike me as terribly elitist. You don't think many many people have decided to vote against their economic interests while voting on social issues like god, guns and gays. now, we are all adults (i think), and we're all smart enough to actually talk about the way the world is. Not everybody votes this way; many million do not. but to discount the fact that this happens is why we've lost the last two elections. i know this is a Hillary site, but come on, hoping that every new comment by Obama is the one that makes his campaign fall (it won't by the way) is so so petty.


lol!~ heck no! (5.00 / 2) (#62)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:08:37 PM EST

I'm writing in Clinton. He assumes he has my state, so he won't miss my vote, eh?

And your life is not what makes you an elitist, you attitude does. And this dude has too much 'tude.

BTW, implying I sound Republican isn't an insult if that's what you were aiming for. My parents are Republicans.


i wasn't insulting (none / 0) (#64)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM EST

your parents. relax.


: Never said you were. (none / 0) (#76)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:18:34 PM EST

Just saying I don't have a problem with people just because they are Republicans. I grew up with them and know they don't all bite ;)

Actually some of what Obama says (5.00 / 3) (#68)
by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:13:02 PM EST

make him sound like a Republican.


This is not (5.00 / 3) (#70)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:13:39 PM EST

a Hillary site. BTD is an Obama supporter, albeit a tepid one. This is a site (a rarity these days) that is not in the bag for Obama.

Hey, I'm technically a member of the elite (based on my income) and I vote against my economic interests whenever I get the chance. I'm grateful that I've been able to do fairly well in life, and I consider it my duty to help out the less fortunate. I think taxes should be raised to lower the deficit. I believe it's the responsibility of government to take care of those who can't take care of themselves - children, the elderly and the poor.

However, I don't believe that Obama is a truly progressive candidate. I haven't seen any evidence that he cares about poor people. If he did, he would have separated himself from slumlord Rezko. I don't believe he cares about gay rights. If he did, he would never have used McClurkin for a campaign event. I don't see any evidence that he cares about women's rights, given his condescending remarks to Hillary, his "flirtatious" demeanor with factory workers in PA (vibrating cellphone), his implicit approval of the misogynistic media, and (see Jeralyn's post from last night) his sucking up to right-to-lifers.

When I look at Obama, I don't see a candidate who's willing to fight for anything I believe in. I see an equivocator and a triangulater who's all about himself.

And they say Hillary is the one who would do anything in her quest for power! Talk about projection!

Lastly, I'm sick of Obama supporters throwing McCain in my face. It's such a cheap argument.


really. (none / 0) (#78)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:22:17 PM EST

I haven't seen any evidence that he cares about poor people.

he spent a decent portion of his life working as an organizer in South Chicago (i don't want to get into a history lesson but that isn't Greenwich or Santa Barber)

I don't believe he cares about gay rights.

every major gay rights organization supports him. They don't forgo due diligence.

I don't see any evidence that he cares about women's rights, given his condescending remarks

given his comment. great. so hillary doesn't care about truth (i disagree) given her Sniper comments.

maybe just go to his site. read his policies. see who is supporting him and why. just a thought.


An organizer in South Chicago (5.00 / 3) (#86)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:32:06 PM EST

how conveniently vague. He was a community organizer while at the same time being in the pocket of crooked slumlord Rezko and didn't even notice the crumbling, unheated Rezko buildings. OK then.

Every major gay organization? Link, please. I contribute to HRC and I got a call from them the other night, asking me to up my contribution. They said they don't care who wins the election, as long as he or she is a Dem. Doesn't sound like an Obama endorsement to me.

The sniper comments are irrelevant to me. They're being used as anti-Hillary talking points, and I fail to see how one misstatement disqualifies her from being President

And I'm not gonna go to his website. I've been there, done that. Anybody can write up white papers for him. Why should I believe them when his positions have already been contradicted by Samantha Power and Austin Goolsbee?

I don't know what to expect from this guy, if he becomes President.


x (5.00 / 1) (#90)
by echinopsia on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:42:19 PM EST

>he spent a decent portion of his life working as an organizer in South Chicago

Two years is a decent portion of his life?

every major gay rights organization supports him.

EVERY one? Not hardly. Besides, Hillary's got Barney Frank.

see who is supporting him and why.

From the looks of your post, one of them's quite an exaggerator.


what i expected... (1.00 / 1) (#92)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:44:00 PM EST

empty responses. two years (wrong), Barney Frank (1), and exaggerator (name calling). well done.


: AgreeToDisagree, (5.00 / 3) (#101)
by ding7777 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:30:08 PM EST

A decent portion of a 26 year old's life is not 3 years (in 1985, Obama moved to Chicago; in 1988 Obama left Chicago for law school.)

A survey of lesbian, gay and bisexual (LGB) Americans released Thursday show that Senator Hillary Clinton has the support of 63 percent of LGB likely voters in the Democratic primaries, followed by Senator Barack Obama with 22 percent (link)
Trying to call Hillary a liar for the sniper comments would be like calling Obama a liar for saying the Kennedy Foundation arranged for his father to come to the US.

: Well, I didn't expect a few years (5.00 / 4) (#110)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:33:55 PM EST

-- as I read it was three years -- to be labeled as a significant portion of Obama's life, as you did.
Then again, I don't three years in the U.S. Senate is a significant amount of experience in running the country, either.

: Please respond to stillife then (none / 0) (#97)
by Iphie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:16:41 PM EST

you managed to avoid/ignore the questions and issues raised in that comment, choosing instead to focus on arguments you believe to be more easily dismissed. I won't reiterate every point from that comment, but as you've stated on this thread and others that every major gay rights organization supports him, please do provide proof for your statement. Where are the links stillife asked you to provide?

4 yrs a "decent portion of his life"? (none / 0) (#89)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:38:03 PM EST

He graduated Columbia in 83 and waited a bit before going to Chicago. Then entered Harvard in 88.

One of my problems with him is his lack of longevity in any 'position' he's held. he seems to lose interest quickly and has received lots of help making himself look ready for the next level.


how condescending can you get? (5.00 / 2) (#96)
by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:09:06 PM EST

next you'll be telling us that because Obama is inevitable we should just "sit back, relax and enjoy it." And keep on telling us how stupid & petty we are -- THAT'S going to win us over. I swear I don't think I would dislike Obama half as much as I do if it wasn't for his supporters.


This typical white woman (none / 0) (#48)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:53:18 PM EST

agrees with you.


whats worse in that context then... (none / 0) (#37)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:44:41 PM EST

poor choice of words within a factual statement.

good choice of words in an outright lie (snipers).

seriously. ??


What's the factual statement? (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:52:47 PM EST

That small-town folks are ignorant, bitter, gun-toting bigots? That'll play well in Peoria!

I want to know this: Obama says that these people are "clinging" to their religion b/c they're bitter over economic downturns. So what's Obama's excuse for clinging to Rev. Wright?


: And (none / 0) (#111)
by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:34:37 PM EST

if he is the great hope that can save all these bitter people from themselves and the evil Hillary, why couldn't he save Rev. Wright? The man sounds pretty bitter to me...

it wasn't a factual statement! (none / 0) (#93)
by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:48:02 PM EST

He was asked why people aren't voting for him - not how they feel about the economy. And his answer was that they are mad at the economy but stupidly blame immigrants or cling to guns and god rather than do the "enlightened" thing and vote for him.

He was blaiming his own failures in connecting with these voters on their supposed ignorance!


"Under [threat of] sniper fire" vs. (none / 0) (#108)
by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:53:54 PM EST

actual disparaging remarks -- well, I think the actual disparaging remarks are way worse than two missing words.

But I know you differ.

Don't get all bitter about it.


When it's down to deciding "worse" (none / 0) (#112)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:34:58 PM EST

it's a sign your candidate has lost the race.


interesting... (5.00 / 4) (#2)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:36:38 PM EST

Scranton: Obama just spent six days in the state and came away thinking we are bitter. We're not. Hillary has spent a lot of time here and she gets us. She hasn't forgotten her roots.

I hadn't considered the territory and the implication that territory had to play in this event.

Obama doesn't address these remarks while in Pennsylvania. No, he waits to unveil his impressions until he is in California.

I think it adds greatly to the dismissive nature of the remarks but I still think that beyond being arrogant and dismissive, it seems lost that the point he was trying to make was to blame Bill Clinton for their bitterness.

I think that the Clinton campaign should have seized on the very context of Obama's remarks were entirely destructive to the Democratic party as a whole since he wants to lay blame for everything that doesn't work for Democrats at Democrats feet.

: And he's addressing them now (none / 0) (#3)
by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:41:50 PM EST

in Indiana. His PA return might be interesting. I can't believe he's having such a hard time with this state.

equating the Clinton and Bush presidencies? (5.00 / 9) (#5)
by mscristine on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:55:41 PM EST

Obama lumping Bill Clinton's presidency in with Bush makes my blood boil over and should make all dems. I guess his too young to remember the 90's audience believes it too, and only the mighty Obama can set them free.

I wish he'd stop that. (5.00 / 5) (#7)
by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:01:01 PM EST

If he wants to dog whistle to the Republicans, that's fine - but he sounds like he's tapping directly into CDS, which is not a very Democratic thing to do. (It might even be....a Republican thing to do.)


That's the part that was most unecessary (5.00 / 5) (#10)
by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:03:52 PM EST

It doesn't even reflect the reality of what happened in the 90s. If we want to talk about who is damaging the Democratic party by staying in this race, look no further than Barack Obama and his bizarre attack on the Clinton presidency despite supposedly being the "inevitable, Math guaranteed nominee."


I haven't heard 'The Math' being spun lately (none / 0) (#17)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:18:50 PM EST

Have they dropped that? Or is it just because I'm not watching cable?


: John King (none / 0) (#115)
by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST

on CNN earlier referenced the math and how it is nearly impossible for Clinton to win and that if she loses Pennsylvania, there is just no justification for her staying in this race in terms of the math or in terms of psychology...blah blah blah. King also said he talked to Obama organizers in Pittsburgh who think they can take PA from Clinton...

Obama should continue talking this way (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by felizarte on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:13:48 PM EST

so that the voters will have a chance to get to REALLY KNOW him. Let's wait for his other analyses of the country's problems. That should be fascinating and enlightening.


But when they get to REALLY know him (none / 0) (#18)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:19:31 PM EST

They like him. They really, really like him!


true (none / 0) (#30)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:38:18 PM EST

speaking generally, the more people know him the more people like him. the inevitable Clinton presidency is now not. so goes it.


: false (5.00 / 4) (#94)
by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:51:53 PM EST

Many people like him a lot less when they get to know him. I know lots of them, including myself.
ps: the like him post was snark

: That argument might have worked (5.00 / 3) (#99)
by Iphie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:25:15 PM EST

much earlier in the campaign. If it's true that as more people get to know him the more they like him, then he should be doing better in each subsequent primary. But clearly that is not the case -- more people know him now then they did at the time of the NH primary, and yet Hillary wiped the floor with him in OH. Why hasn't Obama been able to close the deal?

The Mayor of Harrisberg says it all (5.00 / 10) (#14)
by vicsan on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:15:18 PM EST

with his statement. They all seemed genuinely angry and I can't say I blame them. First he praises the likes of Ronald Reagan and then has the nerve to compare the fruitful years of the Clinton administration to the last 8 MISERABLE years of the Bush administration? The DNC, Kennedy, Kerry, Leahy, Brazile, Casey and their ilk should be outraged. Not to mention the voters og PA. They can't be happy about this. I know I wouldn't be.

I love these conference call blog posts. It's just another window into what goes on in campaigns. I really enjoyed this read, Jeralyn. Thanks so much for blogging it.

: Typo. Should read: voters OF PA. (5.00 / 1) (#16)
by vicsan on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:16:39 PM EST

sorry.

: That was my favorite quote too (none / 0) (#20)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST

He let his hair down, so to speak, with his wealthy, liberal elite base in Cali, and now it's coming back to bite him in the a$$.
I doubt it'll do anything to interrupt the media love affair, but it seems that "low information" voters in states like PA, OH and TX aren't listening to the brilliant media. Funny that.

I live in the.... (5.00 / 4) (#25)
by Mrwirez on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:31:20 PM EST

Pittsburgh area. "I am mad as hell and not going to take it anymore"...... Thats why Hillary Clinton gets my vote on the 22nd. Obama should go back to Chicago and help his town, or maybe just finish his first term as the junior senator from IL. The Audacity of him telling us Pennsylvanians how we think just p*sses me off. I have had it with this guy and his surrogates........ Go home already and stay out of PA !

Some here argue that BO (5.00 / 3) (#54)
by suisser on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:59:37 PM EST

wants like anything to be liked, and that is at the heart of his chameleon ways. I'm not convinced. I think he needs to be right, he needs to believe and have everyone else in the room believing that he is the biggest brain around, the deepest thinker, the philosppher king with a deep and innate understanding of the human soul. He and only he knows the pain of abortion, he and only he understands the bitterness of the ecomonically left-behind, he and only he has seen the world through the brave clear eyes of a mixed race child.

: you mean he's blinded by his own arrogance? (5.00 / 2) (#74)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:17:20 PM EST

Nah, that can't be it.

already losing to mccain (5.00 / 2) (#104)
by isaac on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:34:46 PM EST

in ohio and pa

spin all you want, this was a fatal gaffe

media darling status aside, roundtable wankfests dont decide elections, voters do. double digits in pa, he'll be lucky if he holds on to oregon cause he done sure lost kentucky and nc. and there's still that small matter of mich and fla. this will only make it more likely they get seated as is, as pressure from terrified sd's who see the writing on the wall mounts

Define "ahead" (5.00 / 2) (#124)
by Diane DR on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:39:48 PM EST

because if you include the votes in Florida and Michigan, Clinton is only behind by about 100,000 and if the voting goes the way its beginning to look like it will go, she may well pull ahead after Pennsylvania. As far as Obama having won "every kind of state" well, every kind of caucus, certainly. Primaries? Not so much.

The most recent polls I saw were that 19% of Obama's backers won't support Hillary in the GE and 28% of hers won't support him. No matter how you cut it, the Dems are in trouble. I happen to believe that Clinton has enough experience and is enough of a fighter to battle back and defeat McCain. I expect the inexperienced and elitest Obama to further sink his own campaign. If he thinks the press is rough on him now, he's totally unprepared for what he'll face if he's up against the GOP in the GE. If the DNC can't see what a liability he would be at the top of the ticket...well, then the party deserves to implode.

Let me tell you, from where I'm sitting in Pennsylvania, what's so offensive about Obama's remarks. It is that they came in response to a question as to why he is behind in PA. Effectively, he said that people aren't supporting him because they are clinging to guns, religion "and their antipathy to people who are not like them." So, he's not trailing because people have substantive reasons to support his opponent, he's trailing because we're all gun-totin', bible-thumpin' racists. Obama seems breathtakingly blind to his own racism, while cavalierly throwing the label at everyone else. Newsflash: I've voted for plenty of black officials and would be proud to vote for a black candidate for POTUS. Just not a Reagan-admiring fauxgressive with a history of short-circuiting the democratic process (Alice Palmer, the Michigan revote, cutting 900 of his own supporters in the CA caucuses for selecting delegates to the convention), questionable associates (Rezko, Wright) an emerging pattern of saying one thing to the voters and another behind closed doors, and the potential to do as much damage to the country as McCain will, albeit in different ways.

If their outrage was genuine (none / 0) (#4)
by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:51:54 PM EST

Wouldn't they avoid saying that BO's comments were directed at PA citizens in general rather than the demographic that he actually addressed, with the following four characteristics:

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

It sounds like the Mayors trying to play the victim card, even for those who were excluded by BO's comments. Makes them look weak and desperate, imo.

The message was: (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by Fabian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:59:07 PM EST

We are doing our best. We want to succeed. Our constituents want to succeed. We haven't stopped working and we want a president who will work alongside us.

(Subtext - Not write us off as bitter people who have given up.)


Obama doesn't get to speak for them (5.00 / 6) (#8)
by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:02:02 PM EST

The arrogance comes from him pretending to know what is in their minds and hearts and dismissing all their concerns and life experiences as a result of simply being bitter.

It's a similar tone and attitude to the statement Obama once made about Hillary "periodically feeling down and lashing out" He said it with certitude that he knew what was motivating her and it was his duty to explain it to the little people.


Must this comment be on every thread? (5.00 / 5) (#9)
by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:03:37 PM EST

And it's still silly, speaking of successive administrations that haven't happened yet, as well as still ridiculous. Read what was said here; there are only two big cities in PA -- and few in the Midwest, other than the Chicago that clearly is all Obama knows of the Midwest . . . other than what he saw out a bus window for a week.

It's reminiscent of his claim to be a world traveler because he switched planes in an airport in Europe. But do keep reminding us how dumb as well as offensive his comments are.


again with the victim card! (5.00 / 7) (#11)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:12:18 PM EST

My God, it's amazing how many times that gets played. Clinton says the media is unfair? She's a victim. Clinton says that debates are skewed toward Obama? she's a victim. Meanwhile, Obama is just "misunderstood" or he's being "attacked" or "relentlessly attacked" or "attacked some more." How'd that call to Lorne Michaels work out for him? No, he doesn't "whine," he just makes requests. He points out the truth. Everyone else is the victim!

These Pennsylvanians aren't feeling victimized; they are feeling maligned and angry and they are taking up for themselves.

Your failure to get this basic nuance is intellectually disappointing.


The problem with the facts (5.00 / 3) (#13)
by Manuel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:13:57 PM EST

Obama's statements were too general and easy to challenge on a factual basis. What is the historical unemployment and household income rate for this demographic? Has there been any correlation between their social attitudes and their economic standing?

This was a botch of a typical Obama attempt to bring about unity. He was explaining the attitudes of another group to his SF liberal audience. He was attempting to elicit sympathy for them. It is something he needs to do to bring the country together (though I rarely see him trying to explain the left wing of the party to the mainstream). I think he was wrong both on the facts and on the tone this time.


He was trying to explain (5.00 / 3) (#21)
by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:25:24 PM EST

why working-class white voters aren't swooning over him. It's all their fault, those ignorant rubes!


I posted this down below, but what I (5.00 / 3) (#42)
by Anne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:48:55 PM EST

also find disturbing is that aside from what he said - which was bad enough - it was never intended that we know that he said it; it just reeks of "this is just between us," from one who clearly views himself as a member of the elite class, speaking to a roomful of elitists gathered to shower him with money.

He gladly takes the money from the little guys - he brags about it, hits Clinton over the head with it at every opportunity, is downright smug about it - these people who probably cannot really afford to do it, who are sacrificing to do it, and then he goes into a venue with people who could freakin' buy the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and belittles and condescends.

If I'm one of those low-dollar donors, and I hear these remarks, I know in an instant that this guy is not the least bit interested in me.

One thing's for sure - he's got that audacity thing nailed; too bad it has nothing to do with hope.


Yes and millionaires (none / 0) (#26)
by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:32:45 PM EST

Speaking to millionaires to gain sympathy for them?

God, how grandiose.

California millionaires hearing the pity party Obama was attempting is just as ludicrous as "I know how they feel". California is another country compared to the people in most of the areas Obama is talking about.

And how dumb to put Pa residents in front of millionaires to describe economic policy. I mean how stupid it that? Is that all he's got?


: He has said similar things elsewhere (none / 0) (#120)
by Manuel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST

I am starting to think that he really does believe that "typical" white people have racist fears and resentments but that it isn't their fault and they can overcome it. If you look at his personal history, you can see how that belief could have developed. Now that isn't a real good thing to say when you are running for office in OH and PA small towns. I'll give him points for trying to bridge the gap but he needs to do much better on facts and tone.
His continual bashing of Bill CLinton's presidency is inexcusable. Weren't some Obama supporters in another thread complaining about the use of RW talking points?

Not victims...that's Obama (5.00 / 5) (#15)
by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:16:37 PM EST

Speaking only from my experience.

He cannot know how they feel with comparisons to IL and In. It is an entire different ballgame.

What any candidate needs to do is not make people of Pa feel like victims, they need to support their successes. They have succeeded even though most of what they have know is gone or depleted: coal, farming, manufacturing. What to they have? The have great colleges, history, beauty and tradition, work ethic.

Tradition is a key word here. I am from a small Pa coal town and they love their history, love their land, love their mountains, love their home towns and their family connections. Oh, and the Steelers. They feel very passionate about patriotism as to their history.

They are not nor have they ever been victims, even back when the Carnegie's and the Frick's were abusing them.

Stop it.


25 years..so that would (5.00 / 2) (#19)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:22:13 PM EST

mean that Reagan, one of Obama's "change" icons, started the bleed of jobs from the US?? And it was continued through both Bush administrations, with a Republican Congress in between too busy trying to take down Bill Clinton to worry about the economy?? In spite of which, Bill Clinton left us with a surplus and a gain in jobs.

And if Obama had meant to refer to the

the demographic that he actually addressed,

shouldn't he have actually referred to them in those terms rather than specifying small town residents in Pennsylvania??

Your post is WORM food..if your candidate MEANS something, he should SAY IT IN THE FIRST PLACE!! And he should not apply demeaning stereotypes to people he wants to vote for him. Americans don't like to be patronized. By anyone. Hillary knows this, Obama does not.


: This is exactly what he said. (none / 0) (#23)
by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:27:00 PM EST

See for yourself.

You keep spinning this point (5.00 / 2) (#47)
by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:52:49 PM EST

but repetition doesn't make it right.

The demographic population Obama was talking about was the PA voter who was voting for Clinton, or at least notvoting for Obama. That was what the question was about. Your off-repeated four points were only the excuses he used to explain away his trailing in the polls. He maligned anyone who wasn't buying his campaign.


I'm using his actual words, can you find a quote (none / 0) (#58)
by 1jpb on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:03:00 PM EST

where

He maligned anyone who wasn't buying his campaign.

Of course you can't, and yet I (who uses his actual words) am the one who you say is spinning.

You're comment is only proving my point, you may want to stop digging that hole you're in.


: I've seen you post the full quote over (5.00 / 2) (#123)
by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:57:25 PM EST

and over in every thread. You may not realize it, but it doesn't help your case to actually quote the words. You want me to spit some part back at you, fine, here goes:

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This is in response to why more Democratic PA voters are voting for Clinton and not him. There is no major difference in policy between him and Clinton on guns or religion or trade or immigration, except that her policies are more detailed and he often coattails off of her policy statements, when he isn't using Republican talking points to bash them, because his policies are to the right of hers.
He's blaming his lack of support on some perceived bitterness on the part of voters, rather than a failure of his own to get sufficient voter support. If you can't see how "So it's not surprising then that 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" isn't offensive then there is nothing any of us here can say to make you understand how profoundly negative and stereotypical his comment was.
Its far more likely that you have firmly planted yourself on top of the pile of manure that is Obama's bigotted statement and are looking down at those of us with our feet planted firmly on the ground. From that "elevated" position it only "looks" like the rest of us are in a hole.
And if most of your argument comes down to saying over and over again that someone who disagrees with you is proving your point, maybe they really aren't.

I just checked her site's blog (none / 0) (#60)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:04:06 PM EST

let's just say he sure didn't make any inroads with her voters, ya know, the ones he NEEDS in the GE.


Hillary has been a strong supporter of 2nd Am? (none / 0) (#22)
by Ben Masel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:26:37 PM EST

Just yesterday you were touting her crime plan in which she explicitly promised to grab firearms.

Renew the Assault Weapons Ban to take the most dangerous categories of firearms and magazines off the streets.

Automatic weapons are already (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:33:50 PM EST

illegal in PA. So are semi-automatic weapons. I know because we had a semi-automatic .22 rifle for rabid varmints and we had to get rid of it and get non-auto rifle. Replaced it with a bolt action .22, plenty of firepower for rabid skunks, etc. So, banning automatic weapons from the streets has already been done in PA. The rest of the country just has to catch up. Heh.


not finding it in statute search (none / 0) (#39)
by Ben Masel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:47:33 PM EST

got a hint?


PA Uniform Firearms Act (none / 0) (#69)
by Ben Masel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:13:11 PM EST

here

Where's the prohibition on semi-automatics?


Well, whatever...do know that we, (none / 0) (#114)
by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:37:52 PM EST

living on a farm and having a rifle for purposes of basically hunting were not allowed to have an automatic weapon. We lived in a small PA town, and the sheriff told us that the gun we had was not permitted. Now, it may have been that we needed a permit or some special documentation for an automatic weapon, but I don't remember that being the issue. I remember being told that automatic, and semi-auto, guns were not allowed. Check out all the county ordinances while you are at it. Give you something to do.


: Noticed an pre-emption clause (none / 0) (#116)
by Ben Masel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:00:49 PM EST

so a County does not appear to have authority to enact firearms ordinances more restrictive than the State statute.

According to Brady campaign.... (none / 0) (#50)
by Ben Masel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:55:11 PM EST

Pennsylvania Gun Laws

ASSAULT WEAPONS
Are there limitations on assault weapons? No
Pennsylvania - No state restriction on the sale or possession of military-style semiautomatic assault weapons. Assault weapons are as easy to buy as hunting rifles. Congress and President Bush allowed the federal assault weapons ban to sunset in 2004. See also: Large Capacity Ammunition Magazines

I was wondering.... (none / 0) (#24)
by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:29:23 PM EST

if Hillary should only make sparse comments about Obama's remarks - disagreeing with them - but not making his remarks a "theme" of her campaign.
What do you think?

I think the way she said it works (5.00 / 2) (#32)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:39:43 PM EST

I don't think she should overdo the Obama part, maybe just fade him out (lol!~), but speaking to the heart and soul of the voters I felt came off as, well, inspiring. When she compares/contrasts their perceptions, she's the one that comes off as hopeful and ready to work for change, imo. OOPS! lol!~


No, I think she has to make the case (none / 0) (#27)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:33:46 PM EST

that Obama is unelectable, rather than simply winning PA.


Agreed (5.00 / 1) (#31)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:38:52 PM EST

I don't see a way for her to appear heavy handed about this. Something no one has mentioned here: Hillary Clinton's family is small town PA. He people lived in Scranton for 100 years.

Obama did not just insult small town PA. He personally insulted Hillary Clinton and her entire family.


good lord... (none / 0) (#44)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:51:43 PM EST

kind of a stretch no? he is now intentionally insulting her family. what an awful person.

so you're going to vote for Mccain?


It is Obama who needs to make the (5.00 / 3) (#53)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:58:25 PM EST

case to Clinton voters that he needs their help to win in November. It's good of you to recognize that he is derelict in that area, but there's really no point in asking that question over and over, except a silly rhetorical one.
Many Democrats will not vote for Obama for reasons that have nothing to do with Hillary or McCain, but derive from the bitter recognition that Obama's lack of qualifications make him unsuitable for the Presidency at the present moment.


not voting (none / 0) (#57)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:01:58 PM EST

is doing something, you know that right? one less vote for him does help McCain, right? or is my math wrong. Not doing something is an action.


Did you not understand my comment? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:03:36 PM EST

Please, you are insulting readers with your question about McCain. Stick to the topics of the posts in the future, please.


I suppose I have the luxury (5.00 / 2) (#66)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:11:39 PM EST

of living in Georgia, which is consistently red (unless a Clinton is on the ticket).

My vote matters to me. I have voted in every election I was able to since I was seventeen years old. I do not make this statement about Obama lightly. I can very well see a "charmed" congress cake walking an anti-choice but otherwise liberal SCOTUS through but I cannot imagine anything that will galvanize them more than fighting a conservative, anti-choice McCain nominee.

My vote is not automatic. I will not be taken for granted. I will not watch a man I have known to be one of the greatest presidents of my lifetime razed so that Obama might rise from the ashes. I will not tolerate the misogyny and rampant denigrating of core liberal values anymore--and I sure as heck will no longer support the so-called "progressive" blogosphere with my clicks or my money.

I guess I'm just one of those typical white people. So be it. What you are reading is a person taking a stand on issues, on character. If you do not understand that, perhaps it's because we haven't seen the dem leadership do it for a very long time.


: huh. there are bitter people out there... (1.00 / 1) (#73)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:16:30 PM EST

i knew it.
and what is this so called "rampant denigration" of liberal values?

well, i didn't understand the use of derelict (none / 0) (#61)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:07:52 PM EST

careless?

you guys are getting better at name calling every day. silly.


This is still the United States of America (5.00 / 1) (#102)
by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:34:26 PM EST

and not a communist country or a dictatorship -- I get to vote however I want with no explanations to anyone, especially you.
Put that in your unity pony & smoke it.


but he is electable... (none / 0) (#34)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:41:36 PM EST

the people across the country have spoke. he's won every kind of state, has more votes, has more delegates, and will be the nominee... he's clearly electable. now there are plenty of arguments can make (ideally it would be about his policies) against Obama (this site does every day) but saying he's unelectable is slightly discounting relatively obvious support from all over.


That is your OPINION. (5.00 / 3) (#36)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:44:12 PM EST

Hillary is entitled to argue that you are wrong.
Maybe you shouldn't cling to your bitter lattes so closely, hm?


: actually... (none / 0) (#84)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:28:59 PM EST

that was factual.

Aside from his 'home' state (none / 0) (#49)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:54:37 PM EST

which major Dem state has he won?


please don't do this to yourself... (none / 0) (#55)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:00:13 PM EST

a delegate in any state is important (and youre not going to argue that Obama can't win NY or California or Mass,etc. are you?)....

that is why he is winning, has won, and will be OUR nominee.


Of course (5.00 / 4) (#63)
by miriam on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:09:55 PM EST

we can argue that he won't win NY. I'm a New Yorker and until a month ago I'd been a registered Democrat for 47 years. I have no intention of voting for someone I consider as incapable and thus dangerous as Obama. Do you think I am alone in this? If so, you don't know upstate and western New York. He may carry NYC, but that will likely be it.


i think your alone in thinking... (none / 0) (#67)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:12:50 PM EST

that Obama won't carry NY. that is a new one to me and everyone else. move on to a better argument... there's got to be something better...


People seem to forget how many Republicans (5.00 / 3) (#71)
by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:14:57 PM EST

win state offices in NY. Don't take NY for granted if the upstate republicans get mobilized.


I've got little pad in Chelsea (5.00 / 4) (#77)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:20:27 PM EST

My whole building is ready to stay home on election day. Lots of folks in the Village feel the same way starting back during SC when both Clintons were blasted as racists.


your anecdotal evidence doesn't change... (none / 0) (#80)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:24:06 PM EST

the fact that the argument is irrational. Both Clinton and Obama will carry NY just like they'd both carry MA. seriously, find something better to hang your hat on.


Obama carries MA? Really now . . . n/t (none / 0) (#83)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:28:03 PM EST

you think McCain (none / 0) (#85)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:29:50 PM EST

is going to. People, are we really going to argue that Obama isn't going to win these states. This is just too much. really.


: SUSA polling says (5.00 / 2) (#98)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:23:01 PM EST

Obama in tie vs McCain in MA where Hillary cruises
You really should know what the facts are before you spout off about what states Obama can take for granted.

: I went back over past elections and (none / 0) (#91)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:43:24 PM EST

looked at maps. Ah, the states we've lost at one time or another . . .
I did it for a reality check because I was thinking/assuming he wouldn't have a problem in the beginning. But as time wears on . . .

guys... (none / 0) (#75)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:17:41 PM EST

come on. move away from the Obama won't win NY argument. the argument itself (not you) is desperate, irrational, and a waste of time.


: NYS population 19 million (none / 0) (#82)
by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:27:10 PM EST

NYC 8 million, so that leaves about 11 million for the rest of the state:

New York's agricultural outputs are dairy products, cattle and other livestock, vegetables, nursery stock, and apples. Its industrial outputs are printing and publishing, scientific instruments, electric equipment, machinery, chemical products, and tourism
New York is a major agricultural producer, ranking among the top five states for agricultural products including dairy, apples, cherries, cabbage, potatoes, onions, maple syrup and many others. The state is the largest producer of cabbage in the U.S. The state has about a quarter of its land in farms and produced US$3.4 billion in agricultural products in 2001. The south shore of Lake Ontario provides the right mix of soils and microclimate for many apple, cherry, plum, pear and peach orchards. Apples are also grown in the Hudson Valley and near Lake Champlain. The south shore of Lake Erie and the southern Finger Lakes hillsides have many vineyards. New York is the nation's third-largest grape-producing state, behind California, and second largest wine producer by volume. In 2004, New York's wine and grape industry brought US$6 billion into the state economy. The state has 30,000 acres (120 km²) of vineyards, 212 wineries, and produced 200 million bottles of wine in 2004. A moderately sized saltwater commercial fishery is located along the Atlantic side of Long Island. The principal catches by value are clams, lobsters, squid, and flounder. These areas have been increasing as environmental protection has led to an increase in ocean wildlife.
The state also has a large manufacturing sector that includes printing and the production of garments, furs, railroad equipment and bus line vehicles. Many of these industries are concentrated in upstate regions. Albany and the Hudson Valley are major centers of nanotechnology and microchip manufacturing, while the Rochester area is important in photographic equipment and imaging.

From good ol' wiki. And if he and his good friend the rev keep dissin' various demographics, he'll quickly learn that in NYC, there aren't to many pushovers that will just 'fall in line'. McCain is not a horrible {shudder} option for some. And he relates better to the voters Obama can't seem to.

It is a huge danger. (5.00 / 2) (#79)
by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:22:55 PM EST

He might lose blue states. He has pissed off the old, white, female base of Democrats who actually do see a stark contrast between the Clinton years and fascism. That does not sound like a real Democrat.

Now he has pissed off the lunchbucket Dem states as well, by making excuses to his wealthy fundraisers about why he can't convince lunchbucket Dems he's a populist.

This is scary.


he is winning... (none / 0) (#81)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:26:50 PM EST

more people have voted for him. someone like him in Iowa and CT and Illinois and Missouri and Mississippi and on and on. he's registered more young voters than ever before, raised more money from more people than ever before and is going to be the nominee.

My friends, so called "lunchbucket" dems have voted for him over and over again. or is it now the republican talking point that only the elitist dems are voting for him. have you looked at his wins?


: He is losing in the traditional... (5.00 / 3) (#100)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:25:55 PM EST

battleground states...
FL, OH, MI, PA (actually, I think he's even in PA) but he's also suffering in traditional blue states.
If you look at the electoral college map with Obama v. McCain...the picture doesn't look too bright.
Hence the whole subject of his electability and no matter how much you want to put your head in the sand on this topic...it's real and it gives credence to Hillary's arguments about electability.
There are some democrats that don't want to lose the presidential election in November

yeah, except for the ones in FL & MI (none / 0) (#105)
by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:35:44 PM EST

those delegates aren't important at all.


Is it just me (none / 0) (#109)
by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:13:18 PM EST

or does brand new commentor agreetodisagree sound just like someone who was banned (the chattering?) It just sounds familiar.


: Yeah, but are you voting for McCain? (none / 0) (#117)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:08:13 PM EST

: all Obama supporters (none / 0) (#119)
by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:32:04 PM EST

are apparently the same person. what a welcoming community.

: Moopsy is that you? (none / 0) (#121)
by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:36:33 PM EST

(Previously known as JJE.)

He's a timid centrist at best and Reagan-y at (none / 0) (#103)
by No Blood for Hubris on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:34:40 PM EST

worst -- ooh, we wouldn't want those scary health benefits to be MANDATED, oooh no. And Social Security, wooh, that's a problem. And choice -- woooh, those little gurlz don't get that it's a big moral problem to those of us who have zero stake in the outcome and don't really mind government-forced maternity all that much. The working poor? They don't count. They're well, bitter. It's like Hillary being emotional periodically, remember that?

Not Ready for Prime Time.

A very impressive set of PA pols (none / 0) (#126)
by Trickster on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:47:16 AM EST

Speaking very heatedly and pointedly about Obama's remarks. No way Obama is going to be able to match that message.

Don't be surprised if Obama loses PA by 20.