home

Clinton Strategist: Obama Gaffe "Fair Game"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:37:29 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit
By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Greg Sargent has a terrific interview with Clinton strategist Geoff Garin that demonstrates that the Clinton campaign will be discussing Obama's gaffe for the foreseeable future:

Hillary chief strategist Geoffrey Garin dramatically raised the stakes in the battle over Barack Obama's comments about small-town America, saying in an interview that they would be "damaging" to him in a general election, could set back the Democratic Party's efforts to reach heartland voters, and should be something that super-delegates consider when deciding whom to support.

Read the whole thing. Good work from Sargent. My own view is that the Clinton campaign is being too aggressive on this story. The Media hates Clinton and loves Obama. They should have let McCain take the lead on this. Clinton should not make herself a big part of this story.

I want to add one thought - if these comments are a problem for Obama, then they are Obama's doing, not Hillary's. The Media's hate for Clinton means that the only way this story get legs is if it becomes unavoidable to them. so the Hillary Hating blogs need to deal with their Messiah's Feet of Clay. Either the statements are harmless or they are not. Hillary has nothing to do with that. I think Hillary should lay off it from the perspective of her campaign. She might even be helping Obama with this full assault.

< Revisiting Lincoln's 1860 Cooper Union Address | Will John Edwards Weigh in on Obama's Comments? >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Clinton Strategist: Obama Gaffe "Fair Game" | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I agree and disagree (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:46:01 PM EST
    She should stay the heck away form the Philly media market with this stuff and keep on her positive Rendell/Nutter message there.

    In Scranton, Erie, and Pittsburgh, she can make hay of it. It will likely work to nullify Obama's cash advantage.

    Surely there is a way (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:41:06 PM EST
    to emphasize that she, Hillary Clinton, affirms that she believes that small-town America is as much where things are happening in America as anywhere.

    She has made a good start.  And I think she comes across as pretty genuine about it.  She lived in Arkansas for years and years, and it has no Honolulu or Chicago or Boston or SF or NYC.  I think she can hammer away that she can connect in a positive way with small-town America.  That's what she should do.  

    Parent

    AND (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:42:10 PM EST
    she can emphasize that small-town America can connect in a positive way with Hillary Clinton.

    :-))

    Parent

    I hope (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:47:49 PM EST
    she doesn't use it in an ad.  I agree that it would likely backfire on her.  There's already an existing perception that she is the one running a negative campaign (I disagree).  I think she should take the high road and give Obama enough rope to hang himself.  He's been doing a pretty good job over the last couple of days.

    If she wins a decisive victory in PA, however, I certainly think she should use his detachment from us commoners (which reminds me a bit of Bush I and his supermarket gaffe) as an argument to the Super-D's.

    Her ad about growing up (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    in Scranton should be helpful.  She talks of small town values. I would play it 100 x a day...even add a little to it.

    Parent
    I have never understood (none / 0) (#58)
    by Nadai on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:48:31 PM EST
    this attachment to the high road.  Negative ads work.  Kick him in the groin, I say, and kick him again while he's writhing on the ground.

    Maybe that's just me.

    Parent

    Negative ads work sometimes. (none / 0) (#71)
    by lyzurgyk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:10:02 PM EST

    But they don't work when you're also fighting a media that wants to portray you as a relentlessly negative candidate.

    Parent
    Hanged for a sheep (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by Nadai on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:17:45 PM EST
    If they're going to characterize you as negative, anyway, why not go full force?

    Parent
    You Got Me There. (none / 0) (#85)
    by lyzurgyk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:35:55 PM EST

    Damned if she does, damned if she doesn't.

    You wouldn't think the media would need any prompting from Hillary to jump all over a statement that wrong-headed.   She can try to build on it in the upcoming debate (five minutes down the road from me!) but I'm not optimistic about her chances of scoring a clean hit on Obama.  He's a slippery one.


    Parent

    He's slippery alright, but (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:48:00 PM EST
    he may have just ticked off too many. Not everyone needed to live in PA to catch the overall 'tone' of what he said. NY also has some similar population to PA for instance. Think of the mid-west and eastern states and their populations.

    And then there's people like me that will get out there and defend the people he insulted. Good people they are. It's quite understandable why he can't connect to them.

    Parent

    What really hurt him was not so much (none / 0) (#122)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:09:08 AM EST
    what he said, but where and to whom he said it. He didn't say it in public to regular people, he said it behind what he thought were closed doors to a room full of millionaires and billionaires. He belittled the working American to a bunch of the idle rich. Bad move, really bad move. Then he tried to bluff his way through it by saying he was right, just had a bad choice of words. That was downright stupid. But he can't see it, and neither can his supporters. And it's going to cost him, big time.

    Parent
    Yeah (none / 0) (#92)
    by Nadai on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:03:39 PM EST
    I don't know that it would work, either; politics is a strange business.  But she's running out of options, and anyways, my personal preference is to (metaphorically) whack people who annoy me.  With Obama, I'm in "Whack him! Whack him!" mode non-stop.  :)

    Parent
    He's slippery (none / 0) (#110)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:12:53 PM EST
    In his Indiana statement, Obama made an attack on HIllary for calling him elitist for, he claims, no good reason. People who didn't read his SF remark may believe him; so she needs to correct the record as to what he said.

    He's now made elitism an issue and is calling her elitist. She needs to fight back, using every true weapon available.


    Parent

    I would further argue (5.00 / 3) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:51:17 PM EST
    that this is helping Hillary remake herself. Who a year ago would have predicted that Hillary Clinton, the great satan of the left, would be the keeper of the Reagan Democat flame? Amazingly, she almost wears it well.

    From liberal Democratic elite to fighter for the (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by lily15 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:07:46 PM EST
    people.  You hit the nail on the head.  This helps Hillary is multiple ways.  First, it reframes her as
    andgarden stated, into the hero of the Reagan Democrats...which means she would appeal to independents and moderate Republicans as well.  She is now the outsider battling the Democratic establishment...another plus.  And by staying in the race after everyone outside of the Clinton campaign has called for her to quit, estabishes her as a fighter for middle class America, against the elites in Washington.  If Obama gets branded with the elite liberal Kerry, Gore, Dukakis frame, it is in juxtaposition to HIllary's new frame...which wipes out a big chunk of the Republican argument against her...strengthening her for the GE.  

    Also, Garin immediately stepping in as chief strategist removes the hostility that followed Mark Penn around and creates in his place, a new narrative with a fresh team and reinvigorated candidate..  positive images, all.  

    I hope this is a talking point with legs.  It certainly showed the true Obama elitist attitude.

    Parent

    She (none / 0) (#100)
    by sas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:28:17 PM EST
    can take advantage here.  She is a person of faith and hard work.  This resonates very well with a ton of people all over this country.

    People are seeing a non-flattering picture of Barack and Michelle Obama.

    I really believe he is non-eclectable in the GE.

    Parent

    She does wear it well. (none / 0) (#91)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:49:59 PM EST
    She's comfortable with it. I always liked her because she is the roll up your sleeves type. I respect her work ethic. And that there wonky brain!

    Parent
    not remake... (none / 0) (#113)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:23:49 PM EST
    ... but kick off her high heels and take off the First Lady formality and go back to the fighter she always was.

    Parent
    Clintons and Reagan Democrats (none / 0) (#111)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:17:07 PM EST
    What's surprising about HIllary bringing back the Reagan Democrats? That's what she and Bill did in 1992.


    Parent
    No surprise here. (none / 0) (#119)
    by Benjamin3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:45:05 AM EST
    Hillary has been winning these voters the entire primary season, with the exception of maybe Wisconsin.  They like her message on the economy and her image as a fighter.  Bill Clinton also did well with the Reagan Democrats in 1992 and 1996.

    Parent
    She has gotta take a stand (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Sunshine on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:52:07 PM EST
    McCain is not going take the lead and say too much about this...  They want to run against Obama, he would be easier to beat in November...  They just barely took a stand against the Rev Wright thing and they would just take a token  stand about this, just enough to make Hillary lay off then let it die...  The media is not going cover it, as usual...  The only mis-steps the media covers is Bill's or Hillary's,  the rest they make excuses and let them die.....

    I understand what you mean (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:53:46 PM EST
    but I don't see that she has anything to lose by going after this, at least in the way she has done so far, by complimenting Pennsylvanians for their resiliency, etc.

    She is going to lose this nomination if the status quo is maintained, and Obama does not make many mistakes. The clock is running out.

    Hillary can use this "gaffe" to (none / 0) (#23)
    by hairspray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:10:40 PM EST
    contrast her small town middle american roots with the voters who are tuned into that story line.  Obama doesn't have that kind of upbringing and it shows.  But Hillary runs a fine line here and needs to keep it positive.  I would love to see Olbermann call out working class middle Americans as "worst people in the world."

    Parent
    Disagree (5.00 / 10) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:54:56 PM EST
    very much with you on this one. I think this is the first real shot she's had at him that is issue based rather than character based (like Rev. Wright) and it really points out the differences between them.

    She should hit as hard as she can on this one because she could score a knockout, not just a win in PA. If Obama only carries Philly, it could have a big impact on the superdelegates.

    It could also help her in Indiana and North Carolina.

    I would take it one step farther (5.00 / 5) (#11)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:58:40 PM EST
    because Clinton's people came from small town PA, and now she is not only wealthy, but she is running for president of the United States.  She is a true success story from those "bitter" PA roots Obama speaks of, and to present herself as an advocate for those small town folk who work to make good is not only genuine, it is engaging.

    That part of her tends to get lost--she is a true American success story.

    Parent

    I'm with Jeralyn on this (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Grey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:06:33 PM EST
    Letting McCain go with it is a mistake on two fronts; first, it would look like a general election tiff before the GE, and the point here is to make Clinton look like the better nominee.  Second, McCain has no standing on this at all, not with his limited grasp of economics and of the struggle of working families (if that is where the conversation is headed, and I think it is.)

    Jeralyn is absolutely right to say that this is Clinton's best shot to date to after Obama on issue, and this is not a small one.

    Good move by Clinton on all fronts, I think.


    Parent

    And a Third Reason (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by daryl herbert on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:29:32 PM EST
    Sen. Clinton had to make an issue of this, or people might suspect that she agreed with Sen. Obama!

    Parent
    I agree completely (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by Nadai on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:30:54 PM EST
    It should help in West Virginia and much of Kentucky, too, maybe even eastern Oregon.  If I were her, I'd have someone clean up that audio and run it on every radio station in every one of those states.  A TV ad with clips from it over a nice aerial shot of the Getty estate in SF where he said it would be nice, too.  She may not have much control over what the mainstream media does with the story, but she has complete control over her campaign ads.  I'd hammer him with it.

    Parent
    Oh! You should send this idea (none / 0) (#61)
    by jen on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:52:43 PM EST
    to the campaign! I love the part about including an aerial shot of Getty's estate!

    Parent
    good point (none / 0) (#63)
    by swiss473 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:57:08 PM EST
    But I expected her to win everywhere but Philly before this.  Now, her margins will just be greater.

    As for the Super Delegates, did they seem to worry when Obama only won Cleveland, Cincinnatti and Columbus in Ohio?  Or When he only won Austin, Dallas and Houston in Texas?

    Who knows, maybe it'll take a 3rd example of how he only wins the black vote, the rich liberals and the college kids to get them to pay attention.

    North Carolina is the key.  It will have around 35% black turnout.  If he loses there, where he only needs around 30% of the white vote to win, there's no way whatsoever he's the nominee.  Watch the results there, if he slips below 35% of the non-black vote, he is big trouble.

    Unfortunately for the party, he'll still have a delegate lead of well over 100 and tossing him aside will be very difficult.  His comments and gaffes have further made it nar impossible htat he would end up as VP so he's off the ticket completely.  How does the party resolve this?  Di we really have 65%+ of the Supers push Hillary over the top and risk whatever occurs?  Is Al Gore getting ready to step in as the compromise candidate?  I think the only way is for Hillary to open up a lead in the popular vote, and then she'd have a decent argument, but even then, it would likely make things last all the way until August, and in that case, McCain is helped immeasurably.

    Lets see how things play out

     

    Parent

    100+ ? (none / 0) (#120)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:47:41 AM EST
    Unfortunately for the party, he'll still have a delegate lead of well over 100 and tossing him aside will be very difficult. [....]  Di we really have 65%+ of the Supers push Hillary over the top and risk whatever occurs?

    I'm no number cruncher, but with 4,000+ delegates out there, isn't 100 sort of in the margin of error? Especially since many of Obama's delegates were gotten pretty dubiously, and counting FL/MI, O and H are pretty near tied in delegates, iirc.

    This whole meme of the Supers as good for nothing but amplifying a narrow delegate lead is a new rule Obama is trying to make up anyway. Earlier in the campaign his camp was pushing 'don't overrule the popular vote.'

    65% of the Supers? How would we expect them to split by their own preferences? 50-50%? Is an extra 15% unreasonable?

    Either way, some people are going to be mad. Why are we so afraid of Obama's people being mad? There are more OF Hillary's people.


    Parent

    I say go for it (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:57:25 PM EST
    She can state it in a way that is "understanding" rather than a full monty attack on BO.

    I would stay away from Philly and nearby 'burbs too and hit the southwest and north.

    Tone is important here.  Anyway Hillary, that is my advice.:-)

    She already has the right tone, imo (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:30:25 PM EST
    on the understanding. At this point she can drop him from the stump and just use the meat of her response from today. That way she's connected her words with his and she can keep them out there without mentioning his name  ;)

    She knew just what to say, go figure, lol!~

    Parent

    I thought the same at first (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Dave B on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:59:06 PM EST
    But I wonder if she kept her mouth shut if she would be the next one to start taking the elitist hits.

    If she takes "the high road".... (5.00 / 6) (#20)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:07:47 PM EST
    ...the media will bait her into saying something critical of Obama anyway and accuse her of using it against him whether she does or not. Besides, I didn't see the Obama campaign taking "the high road" over any of her gaffes. But she shouldn't come out and call him an elistist, she should just keep saying...I understand you to the working class people of America. It will be taken as a dig against Obama, but that only matters to the besotted MSM and Obama supporters.

    Parent
    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by Nadai on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:37:11 PM EST
    that Clinton can be successfully painted as elitist.  She's rich, yes, but that's no where near the same thing.  Her personal background is solidly middle class, and more importantly, she and Bill both have been characterized as a couple of hillbilly upstarts for decades, like Ma and Pa Clampett go to Washington.  It's the meme Obama was trading off of when he called her Tonya Harding, and I think it's too entrenched to wrench around 180 degrees.

    Parent
    Surrogate fodder (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:02:10 PM EST
    is what I think. She should take the highroad (a day or two of including it in the stump is reasonable) and dispatch her rural surrogates to rile up the ire. Rendell could be effective perhaps if he takes the humourous tone he is famous for.

    she's running out of time (5.00 / 8) (#15)
    by Jeralyn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:04:00 PM EST
    the high road doesn't help her. She needs to deliver a body blow. This likely will be the best shot she has before PA votes.

    Parent
    absolutely right (5.00 / 4) (#78)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:20:18 PM EST
    Hit this hard and don't let up.  McCain is going after him as well and that could help her out.  She needs to put a high heeled boot on his neck and stomp it while he's momentarily down.

    Commentary on CNN today has not been favorable to Obama, much to my surprise.

    Parent

    I think the remark belittling religion (5.00 / 4) (#14)
    by imhotep on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:03:23 PM EST
    is important to keep in the news!  Just sayin.

    So 2 weeks ago (none / 0) (#21)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:08:38 PM EST
    Obama was dangerous because his religious leader may influence him and now he hates religion?

    Parent
    Perhaps (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:14:50 PM EST
    it is more he appears to only "understand" his own religion. From " Understand my church it has history and meaning!" to "You only cling to YOUR religion because your bitter".

    Parent
    That sounds like a great (none / 0) (#28)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:18:53 PM EST
    tactic. Claim that Obama's religion is somehow not the same as all the other Christians in this country.  I'm sure that will work wonders.  

    You do realize that most Conservatives think ALL Democrats are anti-religion, right?

    Parent

    His tactic (none / 0) (#30)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:23:27 PM EST
    not mine. I had no issue with Wright's sermons (other than the Clinton attacks). And I don't care what conservatives think frankly. I am not one. I care about what I think, and my fellow Democrats think. There are plenty of christian (various denominations) Democrats who could find offense. Which of course, is the issue.

    Parent
    So you see the problem too. (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by MMW on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:17:50 PM EST
    Two weeks ago he CLUNG to religion, last Sunday he threw it under the bus.

    He is soooo principled... I must be a fool for not supporting him.

    Parent

    Interesting Point (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Edgar08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:18:10 PM EST
    I do still want to know if he thinks his Trinity Churchgoers are bitter and clinging to religion?  They might very well be.

    It really shows a lot about how he views religion.  About why people turn to religion in America.

    And it supports how Trinity sells (yes, SELLS, they're a megachurch, no doubt about that) religion to it's members.  

    Parent

    "Deeply regrets" (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by LoisInCo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:06:12 PM EST
    He has a new statement out where he says if he offended anyone he deeply regrets that, but that the underlying truth remains. (Saw on CNN).

    I think the problem with the statement is... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:09:47 PM EST
    ..that even if true, no one likes an analysis of a situation in which they are dubbed the bitter party. No one wants to admit they are bitter. We all like to think that we can rise above our adversities.

    Parent
    Speaking as a woman (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:26:06 PM EST
    I am pretty frackin' bitter about all this crap that has been thrown at Clinton in order to raise up a man who is in every way her junior.

    Parent
    Kathy (none / 0) (#102)
    by sas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:40:19 PM EST
    I'm cranked up about that too.

    It will be extremely hard to support this guy in November - don't know if I can honestly.

    I'm really hoping she is the nominee.

    Parent

    I have not lost faith (none / 0) (#106)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:51:47 PM EST
    that she can still get the nomination.

    I look at it this way: if it was really over, then the super d's would make it so.  They are holding back for a reason, and that's because they know she still has a chance.  She wouldn't be wasting her time otherwise.

    I am not giving up until Clinton gives up.  We are both fighters.  Sometimes, she is stronger than me, but that's why she's where she is and that's why I'm at home on a Saturday night, blogging in my pajamas.

    Parent

    SDs are not a bloc (none / 0) (#115)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:46:57 PM EST
    SDs are not a bloc, though eventually some of them may play one on tv. The more of them hold back, the bigger a bloc they can appear when they do jump in.

    Different SDs are holding back for different reasons, whoever they support (and, obviously, the really undecided SDs). Some may like Obama but not want to jump on a sinking ship, or their constituents may favor Hillary. Same the other way round; some may like HIllary but fear to commit.

    Parent

    plenty hope (none / 0) (#116)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:08:52 AM EST
    I do think there's plenty of reason for hope and confidence. HIllary IS the best candidate, and it's becoming more and more obvious as time goes on.

    SDs like anyone may push for their favorite candidate, even as he looks less electable -- but at some point they'll need to rally round the more electable Hillary. (Except those who for palace intrigue reasons don't mind a loss in November, or are emotionally delusional.)


    Parent

    Seriously (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Nadai on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:45:02 PM EST
    No one likes being talked about like they're a member of some exotic species being studied for the illumination of their betters.  It's insulting no matter what conclusion those betters reach; it's beyond insulting to find yourself, your family, and your neighbors classified as a bunch of bitter losers clinging to your silly tribal rituals to ameliorate your obvious failures.

    Parent
    Obama forgets the whole world is listening (none / 0) (#117)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:13:09 AM EST
    He thinks he can talk the language of many different  groups (which may be true). In Chicago 'community organizing' that may have worked. But he forgets that when you're running for POTUS, everybody may hear everything.


    Parent
    And bitterness (none / 0) (#34)
    by abfabdem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:26:34 PM EST
    runs counter to the message of hope!

    Parent
    missed the point: he's hope, you're bitter (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:51:39 PM EST
    and he has pity for you. And if you don't believe in him, then you're just a looser. I think I got his message right. But then, I'm just a typical... Snark.

    Parent
    another problem with this belated apology (5.00 / 3) (#36)
    by angie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    is that it came after his camp (1) didn't confirm he made the statement until they knew it was recorded and (2) didn't issue an apology until after he WORM'ed the remarks without an apologize and (3) Hillary and McCain issued statements that they thought he should have apologized for the remarks. Once again, just like with Wright, he sends out feelers of half-truths, WORMs etc to see just how far he has to go to make up for his "bone-headed" mistakes.  

    Parent
    I just read on another site (none / 0) (#84)
    by MichaelGale on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:32:02 PM EST
    how right Obama is but the people in Pennsylvania just don't know it and they need to listen to him and break through their denial.

    Parent
    "but that the underlying truth remains" (none / 0) (#87)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:36:16 PM EST
    and which 'truth' would that be Mr Hope?

    Sorry I offended you, but it doesn't change my opinion, perhaps?

    dig, dig, dig . . .


    Parent

    Let's see, when is the PA Primary? (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:27:03 PM EST
    I'm not a practicing journalist anymore, but I look into my crystal ball and see:
    Man on the street interviews
    Long-form packages contemplating the countryside
    Interviews in diners, with linked soundbites of townfolk
    Frequent references to polling
    Endless replays of the Obama soundbite
    Idle factories, mines, and shuttered storefronts.

    Get the picture?
    I think the story may have legs.

    Yep. If he'd made the same comments to (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:34:42 PM EST
    explain a past loss in PA, it might die down. This involves a primary coming up which he is sure to lose. It will be discussed up to the election and then as part of the after the vote analysis.

    Parent
    Unfortunate (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:38:30 PM EST
    that she needs to twist the meaning of what Obama said into some kind of a petty gotcha about his "liberal elitism" (wtf? from another Dem). Otherwise, to differentiate herself from him she'd have to embrace the idea that everything is hunky dory in America, economically speaking, and that everyone's happy with the status quo. No, no bitter people here.

    How much better it would be for Dems, and for the country, if she could pick up the message of a need for a new economic vision and an end to the distractions from it, and amplify that message along with Obama. How about a call for Hillary to do that, Hillbloggers?

    There is NOTHING (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:43:07 PM EST
    to pick up from what Obama said.

    Let's see if we can get it forgotten.

    It was a political mistake and Obama himself is backing away from it.

    Obama supporter seem unable to admit what we all can see.

    Parent

    There is nothing (none / 0) (#59)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    to pick up from what he said? Man, then you really didn't understand it.

    But he should have wrapped it up in some cotton candy to guard himself from the nonsense gotchas.

    Parent

    Man (none / 0) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:08:15 PM EST
    I understand it but I understand politics too.

    you want to KEEP THE STORY ALIVE? Then you must be thankful for Hillary on this.

    I guarantee you Obama never wants to discuss it again.

    Parent

    No I don't (none / 0) (#72)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:13:16 PM EST
    And I'm not a top-2000 blogsite owner who's got EIGHT front page posts up on the topic.

    Parent
    I see (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:22:17 PM EST
    Talk Left can drive the Media Narrative on this you think? I wish. Let me tell you, if I could, I would be spinning like a fiend for Obama on this.

    But I have given up spin, for anyone, in this cycle.

    I write what I think now. Nothing else.

    Parent

    Disingenuous (none / 0) (#98)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:20:43 PM EST
    You're syndicated to f'n Newsweek!!

    You have a featured spot on memeorandum. You get quoted in all the roundups. What you and J are writing here is getting quoted in the trad med as "what bloggers think." You have some responsibility for affecting things with what you're saying. If you didn't think you were having an effect why would you bother, day after day.

    Parent

    Obama himself went back to the same... (none / 0) (#89)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:40:06 PM EST
    topic today. Clearly he is not eager for it to go away but he is trying to spin the context.

    What is really dumb though is that he says this in California after spending a week in PA. He then brings it back up again in Indiana.

    I can see the hero's welcome for him when he returns to PA.

    Parent

    we just don't understand it (none / 0) (#73)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:13:38 PM EST
    because we're so bitter. Snark.

    Parent
    And we're (none / 0) (#104)
    by sas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:48:08 PM EST
    racist,

    immigrant hatin'

    gun-totin'

    fundamentalist

    xenophobes.

    Stupid too.

    Parent

    Well, if he's the nominee (none / 0) (#88)
    by jen on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:39:22 PM EST
    he and his supporters better get used to it, because his media darling status will take a hit once he's up against McCain. Remembering what "they" did to Gore and Kerry, I can't wait to see how O and his supporters will hold up -- or not hold up I should say.


    Parent
    I would like to agree with you (5.00 / 4) (#64)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:01:16 PM EST
    ARe you saying she should follow Obama's example in how he dealt with the Bachtel story?  You know.... how Obama came out and said that the larger issue of health care was getting lost in the petty distortions around the tragic death of a young woman and that playing gotcha was distracting attention from the important issues facing people today?  

    By the way, where is your post to fellow Obama bloggers suggesting they do so?  Were you successful with them?  Did the Obama bloggers start an organized campaign to contact Obama to do this?  Did you write to the DNC suggesting such?  How about your representatives?

    Parent

    Tsk (none / 0) (#68)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:06:44 PM EST
    Rather bitter of you.

    Cheer up. Only a few more weeks to go. :)

    Parent

    And then are you going to come (none / 0) (#123)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:40:55 AM EST
    back here and congratulate all the Hillary supporters on their candidate's win?? I certainly hope so, although I doubt you will. :)

    Parent
    That's what I looked for him to do (none / 0) (#77)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:18:56 PM EST
    just as I looked for him, as the father of two daughters, to speak up about media misogyny, too.

    That's how he could have counted on me in November.  So far . . . well, Obama and I can just keep waiting each other out, until he figures out that I'm the one that he's been waiting for.

    Why?  Because I'm the one that's got what he needs: my vote.  He has to earn it.  I'm waiting.

    Parent

    The thing that floors me is that (none / 0) (#124)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:43:51 AM EST
    Obama has two daughters as well. So, is the way the media treats Hillary the way he would want them treated if they ran for office??? Or is he going to raise them to stay "in their place"?

    Parent
    That has been her message, but (none / 0) (#46)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:40:14 PM EST
    you clearly have been listening only to your guy, Obamablogger.  You can catch up on Clinton by googling, going on Youtube, etc., though -- as you obviously will want to do.

    Parent
    She's the one saying (none / 0) (#53)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:46:28 PM EST
    all she's seen is happy shiny people in PA working from dawn to dusk for their children.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:47:46 PM EST
    You complain about distorting comment? Irony.

    IOKIY are doing it on behalf of Obama?

    Parent

    On behalf of a possible change politics (none / 0) (#62)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:53:01 PM EST
    HRC won't bring change, won't even try, just the same-old same-old. That will make an awful lot of people who had a spark of hope give up completely.

    Parent
    Just so we are clear (none / 0) (#70)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:08:57 PM EST
    It is ok for YOU to distort the comments to serve whatever purpose you deem worthy. How nice for you.

    Parent
    It's what I heard her say (none / 0) (#74)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:14:44 PM EST
    Are you saying that wasn't part of her response? I can get the video link for you if you missed it.

    Parent
    Yep (none / 0) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:22:57 PM EST
    It was not part of her response.

    No need for a link, a need for a QUOTE though.

    Parent

    Here you go (none / 0) (#99)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    "It's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that's not my experience," she said.

    "As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children," she said.

    link

    I will admit to having added a teeny weeny bit of snark to it...

    Parent

    She said (none / 0) (#105)
    by sas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:49:50 PM EST
    resilient and hard working, which is what we are.

    Parent
    energy independence (none / 0) (#118)
    by 1950democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:31:51 AM EST
    Hillary has been trying all through the campaign to talk about a new economic vision: green jobs, energy independence as a project comparable to JFK's moon shot. But she barely gets a word or two before the media cuts to some shouting Obama rally.

    Maybe now she can get so more attention to it, as an example of what she and her positive supporters can bring to pass.

    Parent

    Please use this information (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by jen on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:53:36 PM EST
    What pisses me off most about O's original comment, is how he once again slips in the little dig on the Clinton administration and those horrible '90s.

    "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."

    No one ever seems to call him on this and he does it constantly.

    My friend ms in la put together some data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and encourages everyone to use it freely:


    All data from the US DEPT OF LABOR - Bureau of Labor Statistics:

    http://www.bls.gov/home.htm

    The graphs of the 90's economic data are dramatic and telling, but the links and images all seem too buggy and don't travel well ... so this info gathered below is extracted directly from the raw data at the site, and filed here "for the record". In case anyone needs to use it in those blog arguments about the icky horrible rotten depressing 90's economy - specifically the midwestern manufacturing sector which has been so devastated during the Bush years. But NOT during the Clinton years-- contrary to what has been alleged by certain presidential candidates and supporters ...

    You can search the site yourself, but it's not easily navigable to find the specific states' info. They make it hard to locate and retrieve the detailed reports for some reason. But with patience you can find those graphs and charts yourself - the visual has a much more stronger impact.

    -----------

    NATIONAL STATISTICS:

    ----------

    UNEMPLOYMENT

    In 1999 the overall Unemployment Rate nationally was around 4%.

    By 2003, during the Bush administration, the national Unemployment Rate had risen by 50% to approx 6%

    NATIONAL MANUFACTURING JOB STATS 1992 to 2008:

    Depending on the difference between the MANUFACTURING of durable vs non-durable goods- anywhere from 2 to 3 million manufacturing jobs have been LOST in the nation since 1992

    Conversely, during the Clinton administration, nearly 1 million NEW manufacturing jobs were ADDED in the nation between 1992 and 2000.

    Subsequently, from 2000 to 2008, during the Bush administration, there were approximately 2,250,000 manufacturing jobs LOST nationally.

    GRAPH

    ----------

    "RUST BELT" ECONOMIC STATS 1990's - 2008

    -----------

    PENNSYLVANIA- MANUFACTURING JOBS - 1992 to present:

    In the period from 1992 to 2000, during the Clinton Administration, Pennsylvania manufacturing jobs were consistently at or just under 900,000. This figure holds steady through the period with no significant dips or peaks.

    Just after 2000, a huge descent begins and continues throughout the Bush administration to 2008 in a steep decline - Around 300,000 manufacturing jobs in Pennsylvania were lost during the Bush Administration thus far.

    Sharpest declines occur between 2001 to 2004. By the end of 2001 over 200,000 manufacturing jobs have gone from Pennsylvania from the early 1990's numbers. The lowest numbers of manufacturing jobs in PA are found in the year 2008.

    PENNSYLVANIA EMPLOYMENT DATA

    In 1998- the number of employed persons in PA is approximately 220,000 higher than it was in 1992.

    In the same time frame the Unemployment Rate in PA went from 7.6% in 1992 down to 4.6% in 1998, or a 40% drop

    By 1999- Employment in PENNSYLVANIA was at 62% and the Unemployment Rate was lower still at 4.4%

    By 2002 Pennsylvania's Unemployment Rate was up to 5.7%

    --------

    OHIO EMPLOYMENT DATA

    When Clinton took office, there were 5,000,000 employed persons on the rolls in Ohio. (16 yrs and older)

    Each successive year through to 1998 (these stats offer only 92-98) approx 100,000 new people were added to the employed list
    (*exceptions: 1996 only added about 50,000 and 1998 numbers held steady from previous year)

    By 1998- at @ 5,400,000-- there were approximately 350,000- 400,000 more employed in Ohio than there were in 1992.

    In the same period (1992-1998) the Unemployment Rate in OHIO went from 7.3% down to 4.3% - a decline of 42%.

    In 1999 OHIO Employment was at 64% and the Unemployment Rate still at a low 4.3%.

    By 2002 however,like PA, OHIO's Unemployment Rate had climbed to 5.7%

    In 2003 the Unemployment Rate was higher yet at 6.1%

    ---------

    INDIANA EMPLOYMENT DATA

    1998 shows @350,000 more employed persons, 16 yrs and older, in INDIANA than there were in 1992.

    The Unemployment Rate declined in the same period from 6.6% to 3.1% -- representing about a 54% drop.

    In 1999- INDIANA had 66% employment and the Unemployment Rate was at a low 3%

    By 2002, during the Bush Administration, the Unemployment had already climbed to 5.6%

    -----------

    MICHIGAN EMPLOYMENT DATA

    1998 shows @600,000 more "employed" persons in MICHIGAN than there had been in 1992.

    The UNEMPLOYMENT RATE declined from 7.7% to 3.3% in the same 6 yr period - a 58% decline.

    In 1999 MICH, like INDIANA, saw 66% employment.

    In 2002 the Unemployment Rate spikes from the earlier 3% up to 6.2% - over 100% higher.

    In 2003 Unemployment rate is higher still at 7.3%

    In 2007 the Unemployment rate is hovering around 7.1%

    -----------

    SUMMARY: No-- the Clinton years do NOT represent the decline of jobs in the American labor force, or the loss of manufacturing jobs or general midwestern 'Rust Belt' jobs in America. Anyone who maintains otherwise is propagating more 1990's revisionist mythology and telling Fairy Tales...
    Thanks for the research. (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by eleanora on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:36:31 PM EST
    I've been wondering how Senator Obama will address economic issues if he wins the nom, since he has no record as a state executive controlling a budget to stand on, and he's been burning up our cred on the Clinton years. Our best weapon going into this election was the ability to ask the voters, "Are you better off now than you were eight years ago?"

    Parent
    I agree. (none / 0) (#1)
    by DodgeIND on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:41:28 PM EST
    I think Clinton should take the "higher ground" on this one and allow the McCain camp go off on it.  Clinton is coming off in the media as a bulldog chomping at anything coming their way which could be viewed as petty.  It's stinks of desperation if you go to hard on this issue.  I think this gaffe isn't a big deal anyway, and I'm sure many people do as well.  Save the attack dogs for bigger issues.

    McCain won't do much with this now. (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:04:41 PM EST
    He'll just save it for October.

    Hillary must use it or lose it.

    Parent

    GOP would tar Hillary with it too... (none / 0) (#109)
    by 1950democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:58:21 PM EST
    If Hillary keeps quiet, the GOP could say it's because she agrees with Obama's original statement. They do have similar policies (at least compared to GOP policies) on gun control, immigration, etc. Obama's is the sort of attitude that the GOP likes to paint ALL Dems as having. She needs to contrast herself from Obama here.

    Parent
    I'd like to add: (none / 0) (#2)
    by DodgeIND on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:42:49 PM EST
    Also, with the topic of division in the Dem party prevalent in political discussion these days Clinton should try to avoid agreeing with or teaming of with a Republican against another Democrat.

    Parent
    I agree with you half way. (none / 0) (#3)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:43:03 PM EST
    I do think there is a big risk in Hillary going after Obama on this; however, I think that she cannot win the nomination without arguing that Obama is unelectable in the fall---"ruining his chances", the O-list bloggers would put it.
    Sky is blue, water is wet (none / 0) (#18)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:07:28 PM EST
    Hardly shocking that the Clinton campaign wants to use this.  

    IMO, it would be a bad decision for Hillary to engage in this debate.  Populist rhetoric is not her schtick and it is very easy for a comment to come back at her.

    I'm sure her campaign will try to keep this on life support but unless the storyline can be pushed forward by other information it won't have much legs.

    Gaffes are not scandal and unless you can figure out a way to turn it into a simple soundbite(i.e. He was for it before he was against it) they fade with the news cycle.

    The media will be required to find a new story and move from this one.  

    Hmm (none / 0) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:11:05 PM EST
    Seems a simple story to me.

    The question is will the Media stay after it.

    Parent

    The media stays after it... (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:31:56 PM EST
    because Hillary and McCain are talking about it.

    and it's entirely relevant because:

    • It's about Pennsylvania
    • Pennsylvania is the next election
    • Obama's comments were a backhand slap at Bill Clinton because he was specifically mentioned as the cause of this small town bitterness
    • No matter how you slice it, this was a divisive comment by Obama which cuts against his meme of being the uniter completely.
    • In Obama's arrogance to never back down, he continued to assert his claim and spin it which gives it more life.

    The media loves controversy above all else

    Parent
    They won't (none / 0) (#26)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:17:03 PM EST
    I can tell you this right now.  Well at least they won't unless one of the candidates continues to make it the story by saying something dumb.

    You guys always overrate how much conscience decision making goes on within the media.  They server one master, readers/viewers.  And stories like this only have so much momentum on their own.  To keep them relevant they need someone to say something newsworthy about this.  But commenting on populist story lines is a double-edged sword.

    The media wants controversy.  And they are constantly looking for new controversies to one up their competitors.  

    This is why partisans get so upset with the media because they want the media to cover the stories they think are important which is usually unrelated to what the media finds newsworthy.


    Parent

    One master? (none / 0) (#29)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:21:25 PM EST
    "Now who's being naive, Marge."

    You must be kidding me. If it had been any other Dem BUT Obama, this would be a fatal mistake.

    This is a good reason to believe Obama is the best choice for nominee BTW. I consider this a wonderful test of my theory on this.

    Your comment seems incredible to me.

    Parent

    That's only because (none / 0) (#38)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:30:05 PM EST
    you hold the view that the media operates as a monolithic entity.  

    I have been having this argument for YEARS with Republicans who believe that the media is always in the bag for the Democrats and that they are always treated unfairly.  

    You can always cherry-pick anecdotal evidence to support your theory.  But the fact that about 95% of the examples of Obama bias are based on comments of a subset of people from one news organization does not lend this claim a great deal of credibility.

    Hillary has been behind almost from day 1 in this campaign yet she, contrary to historical trends, she is not only still in it a significant swath of the media is urging her to fight the good fight.

    These kinds of gaffes change no one's mind.  The fact that this gaffe is getting huge play on the hard core Conservative sites and staunch pro-Hillary sites but drawing little attention elsewhere, suggests that this is only an outrage in the minds of people looking for outrage.

    Parent

    What? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:36:43 PM EST
    You clearly have not been reading me. Please do not falsely state what my views are. Have you even read me on NBC?

    And to continue:

    "I have been having this argument for YEARS with Republicans who believe that the media is always in the bag for the Democrats and that they are always treated unfairly."

    Well, that is convincing. Both sides complain so the Media must be doing something right. You sound like Brian Williams with this BS.  

    And to continue your exposition
    of ignorance and bad faith, you write:

    "You can always cherry-pick anecdotal evidence to support your theory.  But the fact that about 95% of the examples of Obama bias are based on comments of a subset of people from one news organization does not lend this claim a great deal of credibility."

    When I am writing about the egregious bias of one news organization is not to say that there is not less egregious bias in others.

    Here's a question for you - is Fox biased?

    Actually, scratch that question - I have no desire to discuss this with you. Either you are dishonest or ignorant. No need to talk about this with you either.

    Parent

    Nice work (none / 0) (#51)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:45:20 PM EST
    3 separate personal attacks.  Good work.

    Every news organization is biased.  It is unavoidable.  There is no such thing as unbiased news reporting.  Never has been.  

    I have read your views on NBC and MSNBC.  You haven't been coy about them.

    Oddly enough you seem to find only the Obama biased stuff.  You don't point to Paul Krugman or Sean Willentz because they fly against your meme.  Lou Dobbs engages in holy war on every new Obama attack meme. Instead you harp about Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann endlessly ignoring any potential counter-bias because it doesn't suit your claims.

    So I may be willing to concede that MSNBC and even NBC are biased for Obama.  But how does that make CBS or ABC or the New York Times or the Washington Post or CNN or FoxNews or NPR biased in favor of Obama?

    Parent

    No more discussion with you (none / 0) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:48:25 PM EST


    Parent
    thanks for taking up... (none / 0) (#86)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:36:03 PM EST
    where I left off last night but I noticed that most of my back and forth with flyerhawk last night was deleted revolving around his ability to discern what the VAST majority of pro-choice people believe.

    Parent
    not sure about the theory test (none / 0) (#66)
    by DandyTIger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:04:44 PM EST
    since this is still the primary. I think the media and pundits and many in the DNC leadership and even among the SD's will "believe" in him almost no matter what. Especially against Clinton right now. So he may for now pass your test and weather this gaffe and win in the primary.

    My theory is that this comment along with a few other things along the way just killed his chances in the GE. A good test of my theory will be if he slips through the primary by being the media darling and voter disenfranchiser and wins. And then he looses in the general.

    I of course hope my theory is never tested. :-)

    Parent

    As long as McCain also mentions it, they will. (none / 0) (#37)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:29:16 PM EST
    This is a situation where they don't risk being called racist if they go after Obama. Many of the issues they haven't gone after (JJ JR., etc, involve race and the media is scared to hammer him on those). This is your typical Democrats are not mainstream theme they love to go with. They can go after this story even though they hate Clinton because many people, not just Republicans are offended by what he said.

    I think the location of the upcoming primaries will very much keep this in the news. There are a lot of the same PA type people he referred to in WV and KY and IN too. Even North Carolina but I still think he'll do fine there. It may not hurt him in Oregon but it will in these other states.

    Parent

    This story line (1.00 / 1) (#43)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:37:21 PM EST
    may impact him in PA, but he wasn't going to win there anyway.  

    This gaffe is similar to the Nafta-gate "scandal".  Short term gain but long term it won't have much impact.

    The problem is that most people like Obama, even if they may not vote for him.  A single gaffe isn't going to change that.  Obama isn't John Kerry, a person who exudes effete elitism*.  So this sort of story really only has so much play because it goes against the image Americans have of him.

    *- I am quite certain that there is a large number of people here who think Obama is effete, elitist, arrogant, obnoxious, an alien, etc.  But this crowd is hardly an example of disinterested objectivity.

    Parent

    But, flyer, he needed to make it somewhat (none / 0) (#52)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:46:06 PM EST
    close in Pa and this will hurt him. Plus it will continue on into WV, IN and KY. I'm not a gun owner or particularly religious and I'm not bitter about anything but GWB and the war, but I do recognize that this was a major screw up by Obama. Saying this in San Francisco about small town Americans? Even Obama is now apologizing.

    This may not be enough to end his campaign but I think you need to recognize that it is a pretty big deal and a perfect test for BTD's theory.

    Parent

    "He wasn't going to win there, anyway" (none / 0) (#54)
    by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:46:52 PM EST
    Does this worry you?  What about November?  What candidate are the voters in small towns across America, the ones who don't eat much arugula, going to vote for in November?

    Have you looked at the 2004 EC map?  Done the math and figured out how Candidate Boyfriend is going to manage to move into the WH?  I can't come up with the 270, so help me out.

    Parent

    I (none / 0) (#103)
    by sas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:44:59 PM EST
    totally believe he in unelectable in the GE.

    These stupid comments of his just cement that.

    Parent

    It is a media tightrope (none / 0) (#31)
    by debcoop on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:25:42 PM EST
    The media loves Obama and McCain.  They hate Hillary Clinton. They will let McCain criticize Obama and leave it there esp if this was Obama v McCain. And his campaign's inital response was better and more pointed than hers....'elitist, condescending"

    Hillary attacking him does make the press pull go into its offensive Hillary attack mode and maybe even defend him from McCain's attacks. But if McCain keeps going after him on it and why not because it's really damamging, then the press has a problem.  How does it validate McCain's critique without also validating Clinton's critique.

    Until today's statement by the Clinton using words like demeaning and condescending the McCain people had done a better job.

    However her dilemna is she can't let just echo McCain because 1.  it will look like she can't think or lead for herself. 2. it makes her second fiddle 3. it doesn't go over well with Democratic primary voters for her to just say me too to McCain's comments.

    So it's not the most ideal strategy but she can't just leave it to McCain. It makes her look weak and uncaring.

    Even before she said anything yesterday (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:38:47 PM EST
    media like CNN went into attack mode on it, per video, transcript, etc., in previous threads here.

    But then McCain's and Clinton's responses came -- and as the cast of CNN characters (vs. character assassins such as Toobin, Cafferty, and Borger) changed to smarter ones who saw Obama's comments as the gaffes that they were . . . Clinton actually got some favorable media play.

    So I dunno.  She may be darned if she does or doesn't with this media, but what I saw in watching quite closely yesterday as this broke makes me think that she might as well go ahead and push it.  Maybe not "aggressively" -- a weapon-word against women -- but assertively and positively about Pennsyvanians, as she has done.

    I do agree that it's her supporters there and in other upcoming states that ought to hit hard, and from what we saw from Indiana and from governors, again per earlier threads, they are doing so.

    Parent

    That's for sure. (none / 0) (#67)
    by lyzurgyk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:06:35 PM EST

    My own view is that the Clinton campaign is being too aggressive on this story.

    If the Clinton campaign doesn't cool it, the MSM will morph Obama's comment into just another story about Hillary "going negative".

    She has to distinguish (none / 0) (#93)
    by Foxx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:06:42 PM EST
    herself from Obama, otherwise the elitism sticks to her too. And distinguish herself from McCain at the same time.

    This may seal (none / 0) (#97)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:18:13 PM EST
    her ability to run again in 2012 against the incumbent McCain.

    The Democratic base of support has (none / 0) (#107)
    by shpilk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:51:02 PM EST
    been the poor and disadvantaged in this country, and while Obama might have used a bit more tact in the way he said it, the fact remains.

    Most Americans, especially the poor think this country is on the wrong track. They are bitter, they are angry, they do feel disconnected from the Beltway Bubble.

    Hillary is grasping onto a third rail here, by denying it; it could turn around and totally wipe our her base of support with the poor if she is not careful in how she handles it.

    But (none / 0) (#108)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:45:12 PM EST
    you're forgetting, that isn't why they turn to faith, guns, and anti-immigration stands....

    But that might be why they turn to a politician whose husband reigned during some of the best years of our time.

    Parent

    I am glad that this has given Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#112)
    by riddlerandy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:21:56 PM EST
    the chance to explain that, in addition to being the only non-elite member of the $109 million club, she is a pro-gun church-goer.   Who would have guessed.  You think she was carrying when she got off the plane in Bosnia?

    Parent
    Nice snark. (none / 0) (#121)
    by Benjamin3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:17:56 AM EST
    As far as guns, all she has said is that she doesn't believe people "cling" to guns out of bitterness, and she stated that she supports the 2nd Amendment.  And elitism has nothing to do with wealth.  It's an attitude.  If there was a direct correlation between money and elitism than nearly everyone who has ever run for President would be an elitist.  Robert F. Kennedy (certainly not a pauper) was adored by lower income voters and minorities.  Do you think he was an elitist?

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#125)
    by shpilk on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:20:52 PM EST
    I disagree. I think people when driven to extremis turn to the worst aspects of bigotry offered up by these things.

    When they are constantly hectored by right wing hate radio to fear 'the gays', to fear 'the towelheads', to believe in Creationist BS, they most certainly do.

    I live in NH, and I see it here as well, even amongst the more affluent - they breathe in the hate of pervasive talk radio, in emanates from the core of their beings. I work with them. Some are engineers, white collar workers; they don't have to be poor.

    They just need to fear.

    And that is what Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Dobbs, Weiner/Savage, Severin, Coulter, Malkin the merchants of hate offer up. It's absorbed into their minds, and groups of people become scapegoats.

    Just like Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, the times of Pol Pot and in Rwanda with the Hutus.

    Gays, Jews, intellectuals, artists, immigrants .. all become targets. And now with 9/11 changing 'everything' it's anyone who can be remotely described as being a 'terrorist'.  

    Obama was right, he simply didn't go far enough in describing the true malaise that affects the very worst aspects of American life. This discussion gets to the very underpinnings that drives the most ugly part of what America is today, driven by fear and race hatred, Obama lifted up a corner of the rug, the edge of it.

    He's not talking about people that normally vote for Democrats, to begin with. The fact he reached out to try to grasp at what drives them in their extremis, to relate might have been done indelicately, but it's the truth.  

    Parent

    We Are Bitter and Mad as Hell (none / 0) (#114)
    by CountryJoe8 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:25:49 PM EST
    Hillary, if we are not bitter, are you saying we're happy?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow

    Clinton Strategist: Obama Gaffe "Fair Game" | 122 comments (122 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment