home

Will John Edwards Weigh in on Obama's Comments?

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:43:29 PM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, John Edwards (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

I can't help wondering what John Edwards thinks about Barack Obama's slam of rural Americans. Hillary increasingly has been adopting Edwards' positions over the past months. She showed it again this morning in Indiana:

Clinton took the stage to John Cougar Mellencamp’s “Small Town,” a song that was used primarily by former presidential candidate John Edwards. Edwards prided himself in being the candidate for working class Americans, often reminding the crowds that he was the son of a mill worker. With Edwards now out of the race, Clinton is hoping to take the reigns. “When my dad grew up, it was a working class family in Scranton,” Clinton told the audience. “I grew up in a churchgoing family, a family that believed in living out and expressing our faith.”

I have to believe his phone is ringing off the hook with calls from reporters today. What would he say?

No one understands swift-boating better than Edwards, given the effect it had on his and John Kerry's 2004 presidential bid. The last thing he wants is a John McCain win in November. [More...]

Elizabeth Edwards has already said she favors Hillary's health plan over Obama's because Obama's doesn't have a mandate and a mandate is necessary to keep costs down. She thinks Obama just doesn't get that. It's a safe bet she and John are in agreement there.

If Edwards thinks Obama will get swift-boated by Republicans over his remarks about these small town, blue collar voters he cares most about (on top of the Rev. Wright flap) -- will he decide Hillary is more electable in November and decide to endorse her?

Just a thought.

< Clinton Strategist: Obama Gaffe "Fair Game" | What McCain Said Compared To What Obama Said >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Will John Edwards Weigh in on Obama's Comments? | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Despite what the Boiz think (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:51:32 PM EST
    this gaffe by Obama resonates with real people.

    Hillary is right to run with it.  As James Carville said:

    "When your opponent is drowning, throw him an anchor."

    I really think JE has got to be disgusted by now (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:52:36 PM EST
    How many more core values will Obama drop kick before Edwards speaks?

    i have a feeling that Edwards (1.00 / 1) (#23)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:34:24 PM EST
    likes the fact that Obama is actually speaking about real people and factual feelings.  Are we saying that there aren't people in these states (my state) that bitter about things and do tend to vote on guns, god, and gays when it is often not in their economic interest????  People do cling to social issues when the rest seems unattainable, unrealistic, and hopeless.  I have a whole family who did so in 00 and 04.  It doesn't make it rational or right.  but it does make it real.  we can ignore it or approach it dead on.

    [ Parent ]
    Seriously? You think JE likes any Democrat (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:48:05 PM EST
    to be condescending and insulting to any group of people/voters? No way. That is the opposite of JE's political philosophy.

    [ Parent ]
    Somehow, I don't think Edwards is (5.00 / 8) (#40)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:01:56 PM EST
    sitting at home, cheering the honesty of Obama's remarks.

    You can dissect and parse Obama's comments down to the last "uh," and you can conclude that there really are people who have been embittered over the years, over jobs and the economy and all that other stuff, and maybe you even know people like that.

    But...what you cannot inject into Obama's remarks, because it was not there, is a real understanding of these people's lives, of the towns they live in, and the traditions they maintain.  He talked about them as if they were "those" people, and even if he did not use that term, it's what people heard.

    He was almost accusing them of failing to see what "really" matters because they were all hunkered down in their churches, clutching their guns.

    I am starting to get the feeling that all those glorious rallies that produced waves of adulation and adoration have given Obama the idea that that is his entitlement, and that if you aren't willing to get swept up in the movement, if you ask hard questions, and want more than platitudes and stump speeches, well, there's a problem, and it's yours - it's your fault, because nothing ever seems to connote any failing on his part.  Ever.

    Thanks, but I've had quite enough of people who think they don't have to answer to us, and when they do deign to come down to our lowly level, do so in order to blame us for whatever is wrong.

    [ Parent ]

    With Edwards, it was "us" (5.00 / 6) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:05:24 PM EST
    and with Obama, it's "them."

    The critical difference is empathy vs. sympathy, although even the latter is not quite what Obama projects on this.  It's more an academic analysis, putting people he doesn't understand under a microscope like bugs.  And they -- we -- know the difference.

    That you don't is just sad for you.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama doesn't get it (none / 0) (#98)
    by jones on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:34:00 AM EST
    I think what Obama said is a very real elitist liberal meme: that rural fly-over country voters are too stupid to know their own interests, that they are easily fooled by Republicans playing the gay, god or gun or racist card and fooled into voting for issues that don't matter instead of ones that people like Obama consider important.

    He is completely denying their beliefs in God or the right to bear arms or concern over illegal immigration and attributing all that to misplaced frustration, bitterness and fear over economic  woes. His prescription? Vote for me and I'll redistribute wealth and you'll be so happy that you'll forsake all that stupid God guns and not liking people who aren't like you nonsense. The only problem he sees is that they don't trust him to do it!

    I don't care what your defense of Obama is, all that shows a fundamental lack of understanding of middle class, non-coastal America. Hillary, for all her faults, does seem to "get it".

    Obama is pretty much toast, but the party is committed now. The real problem is, how to limit down ticket bloodbaths. Disassociate with the candidate wherever possible, I guess, ala Kerry, Dukakis, Mondale, etc. Run as an independently minded Dem, which is antithesis to the hard left "progressive" boosterism of a lot of the Obama netroots. They hate it when you run against the party.

    The entire effect of the netroots has been to drag the party to the left, which has caused all the problems we're talking about today. If Mark Warner, for instance, was the nominee, would we be talking about all this crap? No, and he'd be ahead by 20 points and win in a walk come November.

    Identity politics has allowed an unelectable far left idealogue with socialist pretensions to hijack the nomination. People who thought Hillary was bad never dreamed how bad it could get until Friday night.

    [ Parent ]

    Give me a break. (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by pioneer111 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:04:52 PM EST
    Obama is to the right of most Democrats.  That is his problem.  He is elitist but he is a centrist.  Mark Warner would not be winning.

    Dragging the party to the left is what is needed and it hasn't happened.  

    Edwards would have been the better choice for the netroots.  However it is done now.  

    Clinton does get it, she is moving to the left which is the middle anywhere else in the world.

    [ Parent ]

    What J.E SHOULD (none / 0) (#39)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:00:10 PM EST
    be disgusted about isnt "core values", but about what, in actual practice, in reality, (as opposed to misty greeting cards about smalltown values), either party has done to prove they represent the actual, concrete interests of rural working Americans.

    [ Parent ]
    I predict that he will say nothing (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:54:29 PM EST
    unless he decides to endorse Hillary.

    I tend to agree (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:07:52 PM EST
    and I don't see that happening. Hillary got as close to an endorsement she is going to get with EE making her preference for Edwards' health care... I mean Hillary's... health care plan known.

    [ Parent ]
    Well he certainly can't endorse Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by allimom99 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:57:57 PM EST
    after this latest outburst of condescension. I would like to hear him condemn it, but I agree he probably won't unless this is enough to come out for Hillary. ALTHOUGH his NOT jumping on the Obama bandwagon does speak volumes, IMO.

    [ Parent ]
    Basically agree (none / 0) (#13)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:09:43 PM EST
    there is nothing here other than a talking heads gaffe.

    [ Parent ]
    reins/reigns (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:56:02 PM EST
    Take up the reins

    But let Hillary "reign"! (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:00:03 PM EST
    Perhaps a felicitous CBS mistake afterall.

    [ Parent ]
    My guess (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by stillife on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:57:32 PM EST
    FWIW (not much) is that Edwards will remain uncommitted. However, I think that recent events make an Obama endorsement less likely.

    my prediction (none / 0) (#76)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:11:48 PM EST
    Because of the bogus racial and sexist charges against the Edwardses and overtones throughout the primary - and the expectation that Edwards will be involved in future poverty projects, he won't endorse the black man or the white woman.


    [ Parent ]
    When Edwards suspended his campaign (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:57:54 PM EST
    he did so after speaking to both Clinton and Obama and expressing to them his desire that they both make poverty a priority in their respective campaigns.

    How are the candidates doing on that score?  Well, I think Hillary clearly took up the call, but Obama seems to have taken a "don't tell me how to run for president" approach.  Or at least that's how it seems to me.

    Honestly, I do not know how Edwards can look at Obama and have any confidence or belief that Obama gives a damn about the issues that mattered to Edwards.

    I don't know what he's waiting for, but I sure miss his voice.

    at the time, Edwards said (none / 0) (#22)
    by dotcommodity on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:29:01 PM EST
    he wouldn't endorse because Obama was too inexperienced, and Clinton was too divisive.

    Of course, when Clinton had said Obama was too inexperienced, you never heard the end of it!

    Like anyone running for president, even Obama, even Hillary, Edwards thought he was the just right one.

    [ Parent ]

    Really? That's the reason Edwards gave (none / 0) (#47)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:14:52 PM EST
    for not endorsing?

    I would really like a link to that.

    [ Parent ]

    It wasn't a direct quote from Edwards (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by hellskitchen on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:35:17 PM EST
    I can't give you a link, but I remember that is was an Edwards top staffer who spoke anonymously.

    [ Parent ]
    an Edwards surrogate made those comments (none / 0) (#77)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:18:20 PM EST
    a few weeks after Edwards suspended.
    Recently, Elizabeth smacked down the claim that she and Obama had argued during his visit with them.
    Whether it's true or not about Obama, it would be characteristic of the Edwardses to not pile on more divisiveness in the party.

    [ Parent ]
    After Edwards dropped out, within a day or so (none / 0) (#100)
    by dotcommodity on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:56:11 AM EST
    I read a report that said "Edwards says he won't endorse because he believes Obama is too inexperienced and Clinton is too divisive"

    That quote was a day or so after Edwards dropped out of the race, so I'm looking for the link... he dropped out before Feb 5.

    [ Parent ]

    I still (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kmblue on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:08:22 PM EST
    have a signed "Edwards for President" poster hanging in my office, and I met and spoke with both Elizabeth and John (for about 15 seconds)when they passed through Atlanta.  
    That said, I think John is wise to keep silent for now.

    Obama is no longer an empty vessel (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:20:01 PM EST
    The first thing I noticed and didn't like about Obama many months ago, was his arrogance.
    Well, now that is a label he's never going to lose.
    Little by little, the blank canvas that was Obama the myth, is now being filled in with Obama the person.
    Just as Al Gore was "Gored" and just as the Obamedia tried to Gore Hillary, Obama now has his label that he will never lose.
    He's an arrogant, elitist snob.
    Think that will get him many votes come November?
    Look what Michelle Malkin (who I despise, but has a large following online and in the media) has done:
    http://tinyurl.com/6nzcra
    That's Obama.
    This is how he will be see by most people, who aren't his adoring acolytes.
    I thought Obama voted for the bankruptcy bill (none / 0) (#24)
    by MMW on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:36:17 PM EST
    and Clinton was absent that day? Then he voted Nay on capping the credit card interest rates?

    Yet his response says she voted for it, implying he didn't.

    [ Parent ]

    FACTS (none / 0) (#26)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:41:37 PM EST
    As a senator, in 2001, she voted for it, but it did not pass. She worked with Republicans on it and was one of 36 Democrats who helped it pass the Senate. This version was vigorously opposed by consumer groups and unions, and ultimately did not become law.

    Obama voted against it in 2005.  Hillary was not present.


    [ Parent ]

    FACT: He did vote AGAINST capping (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Joan in VA on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:53:38 PM EST
    credit card interest rates. You forgot to answer that question.


    [ Parent ]
    And (5.00 / 3) (#60)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:12:32 PM EST
    Hillary was not present because Bill was having heart surgery. She did, however, release a statement before the vote saying that she was opposed.

    [ Parent ]
    Wow (none / 0) (#32)
    by zyx on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:51:33 PM EST
    That is one nasty graphic MM has of Obama.

    How many hits does her website get, any idea?

    [ Parent ]

    its funny that her comments (none / 0) (#35)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:53:48 PM EST
    are the same ones getting peddled around here.

    [ Parent ]
    Because we all take (5.00 / 5) (#53)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:43:53 PM EST
    our talking points from Michelle

    [ Parent ]
    According to Alexa.com (none / 0) (#50)
    by Nadai on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:34:41 PM EST
    Somewhere around 75-80 million a day right now.  She's a nutbar, but she's huge.

    [ Parent ]
    OK, I'm an idiot (none / 0) (#68)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:47:04 PM EST
    who is MM?

    [ Parent ]
    Michelle Maulkin - super rightwinger (none / 0) (#82)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:30:42 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    you have forgotten... (none / 0) (#52)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:42:59 PM EST
    an effete p*ssy...courtesy of Mark Halperin

    [ Parent ]
    Please let Edwards weigh in on this! (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Universal on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:22:44 PM EST
    This is the perfect chance for him to hit Obama back for making fun of Edwards' concern with poverty and use that as a bridge with which to endorse Clinton before the NC primary.

    Oh, and speaking of North Carolina, guess what the heavy focus of the Clinton rallies throughout the state Saturday (at least so far) was?:

    http://www.villarrealsports.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=361

    (Hint: They were handing out stickers with "we're not bitter" on them)

    It's a great day her in PA. Can't wait to vote for Hillary. One of the lead organizers in my county is hoping for a very large majority in this and the adjacent county for HRC. Much work to be done before that happens, however.

    Paul F. Villarreal AKA "Universal" AKA "RokSki"

    :)

    "we're not bitter" stickers?! (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:54:20 PM EST
    lol!~ ouch.  ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Hey, check this out: (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:14:37 PM EST
    Linky here!

    Mudcat Saunders had some words to say about this. Does he speak for Edwards?

    He tends to think he does (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:38:27 PM EST
    not sure if he actually does

    [ Parent ]
    iirc - Mudcat endorsed Obama (none / 0) (#70)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:52:00 PM EST
    when Edwards suspended.


    [ Parent ]
    Are You Sure??? (none / 0) (#86)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:29:36 PM EST
    I remember Mudcat advising JE to not endorse Clinton, but I don't remember him officially endorsing Obama.

    BTW...Per CNN Political Ticker...Mudcat says Obama has some 'splainin to do!!!

    [ Parent ]

    There was a Family Guy episode (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:00:55 PM EST
    Where they go to a yacht party for Lois's parents' billionaire friends, and one of them announces, "I'd like to thank you all for the huge personal commitment you've made by sending your sons and daughters to fight for our freedom in Iraq."  There was a long pause, then full-on laughter from the crowd as they laughed at the very idea.

    That's what the laughter from the Obillionaires reminds me of.  

    And I think what Edwards would say of this mess is that there are two democratic parties--the party for the elites and the party for the working class.  Obama has made it clear which branch he's dangling from.  Guess where that leaves Clinton?

    Going into NC, expect JE to endorse Clinton.

    David Saunders in the NYT (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:47:46 PM EST
    David Saunders, a Democratic strategist and rural advocate who advised John Edwards presidential campaign but is now neutral, said he believed Mr. Obama's comments would offend rural voters. "It could mean he's rendered himself unelectable," Mr. Saunders said. "This is a perfect example of why Democrats lose elections."

    This is silly (1.00 / 1) (#14)
    by aequitas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:10:24 PM EST
    "Gotcha" tactics and willful ignorance of what Obama actually said is something I'd expect from the wackiest Republicans.  Clinton should apologize for insulting our intelligence.  

    I know what Obama actually said (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:28:13 PM EST
    as well as "What Obama Really Meant" versions I and II.

    Obama should apologize for insulting Americans.

    [ Parent ]

    Is it gotcha tactics? (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:49:18 PM EST
    uh, I don't think so. Obama OWNS this one and it's not a gotcha.

    [ Parent ]
    If you've read Obama's original comments... (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by joc on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:00:05 PM EST
    Then perhaps you can explain to me why he said the voters of "states like Ohio and Pennsylvania" are "feel[ing] so betrayed by government" they will be 'more skeptical' when he as a "46-year-old black man" comes calling. I've asked this a number of times, and I'm not getting any answers from the Obama supporters.

    Do you find his insinuation there silly? If so, please do explain why that is. I find it highly insulting to the voters, and you can bet the Republicans will be funding 527 ads that use the audio of Barack saying it to his millionaire donors. And ask yourself this question as you listen to the audio, what are they laughing at. If Barack is saying something that is truly innocuous, why the laughter?

    [ Parent ]

    his donors laughing (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:06:43 PM EST
    same as they did when he diminished Clinton's FL experience, not good.

    it's one thing to hear the words repeated by someone or read them. Inserting the laughter in print or hearing the original audio really elevates it . . .

    Well, at least we're still in the Primaries.

    [ Parent ]

    what did Obama say (none / 0) (#78)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:19:59 PM EST
    about Hillary's FL experience?


    [ Parent ]
    he said (none / 0) (#84)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:46:01 PM EST
    "When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

    here's the full audio of the speech:

    http://tinyurl.com/44meaa

    at the end of the piece are links to specific pieces written on the speech.  This is the one for the FP that included those remarks if you don't want to listen to the full lenght:

    http://tinyurl.com/4rxn46

    I'm listening to the full length in a bit because I want to hear the context of this remark, which I hadn't heard before:

    "When people tell me they've all stressed about racial discord, well, you know, try slavery for a while." (26:02).


    [ Parent ]
    Ohhh - you meant foreign policy not Fla (none / 0) (#85)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:00:16 PM EST
    That racial comment is awful!
    And said it not knowing he was being recorded.
    Thanks for info.

    [ Parent ]
    You must be kidding (none / 0) (#48)
    by aequitas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:19:37 PM EST
    It's absolutely true that voters in rural areas and small towns often vote against their own socio-economic interests because they are distracted by wedge issues.  

    Interpreting that as an insult to people in PA and Ohio is just silly "gotcha" politics that insults our intelligence.  

    [ Parent ]

    Not what he said (5.00 / 5) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:49:56 PM EST
    First of all, he was explaining to SF fat cats why he wasn't getting any traction with rural and small-town DEMOCRATIC voters in Penn.  He said nothing about voting against their economic interests.  In fact, voters who prefer HIllary to Obama are doing so exactly because of their preference for addressing bread-and-butter economic interests over vague promises of hope and change.

    So your argument is entirely bogus.

    [ Parent ]

    Take a moment (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by joc on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:03:19 PM EST
    Reread what I wrote and what Obama said. I am saying something that you refuse to address. Obama insinuated that the voters in "states like Ohio and Pennsylvania" are listening to him because they are 'more skeptical' because he is a "46-year-old black man."

    Again, why are the donors laughing? They obviously think Obama was saying something funny. What is your answer, to what they were laughing at? The only logical reason for their laughter, I see, is that they are laughing at the voters of Ohio and Pennsylvania. Do you have another logical answer or not?

    [ Parent ]

    Voting against economic interests (5.00 / 2) (#58)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:08:14 PM EST
    This argument is a red herring

    1. That's not what Obama said
    2. Pennsylvania is Democratic

    Even so, do small town voters vote contrary to their economic interests more than other groups? Is there something inherently wrong with valuing social interests over economic ones?

    Obama was, afterall, speaking to a bunch of rich Democrats who are presumably voting against their own economic interests. Maybe he should give them their money back since he is so concerned with making sure that people's politics are consistent with their economic interests.

    You further demean the people we are talking about by calling their concerns "wedge" issues. The implication is that these rich donors vote on legitimate issues while small town midwesterners are "distracted" by "wedge" issues.

    It's hard to "gotcha" Obama when he keeps on digging.

    [ Parent ]

    Silly "gotcha" politics (none / 0) (#62)
    by aequitas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:20:20 PM EST
    (The implication is that these rich donors vote on legitimate issues while small town midwesterners are "distracted" by "wedge" issues.)

    The implication of a desperate Clinton campaign.  

    What I said is what he meant - in addition to them often being swayed by fear and ignorance.  (For example - Ohio 2004 and the gay rights issues.) That's something we on the left have been saying for years.  There's nothing new there, and it's Clinton that's causing it to be a controversy by distorting and amplifying Obama's words.

    Comment #3 for today

    [ Parent ]

    Um (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:28:07 PM EST
    The implication of a desperate Clinton campaign

    These were your own words and interpretation, "distracted by wedge issues." You and other Obama supporters are pushing his foot even further down his throat.

    [ Parent ]

    Were you (none / 0) (#91)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:28:54 PM EST
    upset with Obama's campaign when they aired a radio advertisement in Mississippi that read comments Hillary made in Iowa (so nearly 2 months before they "jumped" on them) about being surprised that Iowa's had just as few female leaders as Mississippi? They took a perceived slight as MS that was made weeks before, that she had already apologized for and clarified, and aired it in MS...so if you criticized the Obama campaign for that, then go right ahead and criticize Clinon, otherwise you should not be talking.

    And these aren't even comments that Obama made months ago, he made offensive comments about voters in an upcoming state...she, and McCain, frankly have every reason to jump on this.

    [ Parent ]

    Not sure that is the theory (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:44:52 PM EST
    It's absolutely true that voters in rural areas and small towns often vote against their own socio-economic interests because they are distracted by wedge issues.  

    I've heard the theory about their economic self-interest, but not their 'socio' self-interest, whatever that is.

    But that is beside the point,because that is not what he said.  Maybe it is what he meant to say, and what he is trying to say today, but what he said was that people are clinging to their religion and their guns out of bitterness.  Hey, I am agnostic and I may agree with that assessment.  But it sure is a stupid thing for a politician to say.  Leave the sociological commentary to the sociologists.

    [ Parent ]

    Darn Pesky Facts (none / 0) (#87)
    by aequitas on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:42:01 PM EST
    I'll leave the "socio" in, thank you.  The subject pertains to people voting against their own interests - both social (class/culture) and economical.

    We on the left have been talking about this for years - since the emergence of the "Reagan Democrats"  Many people in small towns and rural areas feel powerless and are swayed by fear of the unknown (gays, minorities, unseen enemies, secularism, etc.) - and Republican's are notorious for exploiting those fears.

    Now the Clinton campaign is helping the GOP with "gotcha" politics and willful ignorance of Obama's words and meaning.

    4th and last comment of the day.

    [ Parent ]

    With all due respect, your reversal (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:29:22 PM EST
    of realities is . . . okay, abiding by this blog's rules, breathtaking.

    We mused here yesterday, within minutes of hearing about these comments, how Obama supporters would spin this as usual to keep him on the pedestal and blame his incredibly divisive comments on Clinton.

    You did it.  You are the one -- but not the one we have been waiting for, believe me.

    [ Parent ]

    Low knowledge (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:06:52 PM EST
    You are saying they are low knowledge and unable to vote based on rational analysis because they are reactionary.  It is an insult.  

    Furthermore, you are calling those that find the comments offensive low knowledge... if everyone would just have the insight not to be offended or would refuse to see the comments as offensive and ideally view things exactly as you do.... well, that and only that would be true intelligence.

    [ Parent ]

    It's the perfect strawman (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:20:40 PM EST
    Don't you see it?  The only reason Obama will lose if if people are racist or stupid, and vote against their own interests because of these character flaws.

    I saw this happening with Kerry, where his whole theme toward the end was that he was the smartest guy in the room and everyone else was stupid, especially Bush and by extension, Bush supporters.

    That worked really well for us, didn't it?  No wonder we're trying it again.

    [ Parent ]

    Yep (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by otherlisa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:54:19 AM EST
    The only reason Obama will lose if if people are racist or stupid, and vote against their own interests because of these character flaws.

    Exactly. It's as though there couldn't possibly be any legitimate reason for people to vote against the One (TM).

    [ Parent ]

    Defeat (1.00 / 2) (#17)
    by judyo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:22:38 PM EST
    I've got no horse in this race.  The time is long past when a Democrat in the WH could have saved this country but I was struck how "your girl" was further clutching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    http://www.americablog.com/2008/04/clinton-delivers-gop-attack-against.html#disqus_thread

    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:14:18 PM EST
    if these people had a similar reaction when Obama played an advertisement in Mississippi hitting Clinton for a statement that she made MONTHS ago about the lack of female leadership in Mississippi and how she expected Iowa to be different than Mississippi....did you all think he was out of bounds? I didn't. She said, he went for it. Fair game, it's politics. So please, stop whining.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean the same (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Marvin42 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:44:53 PM EST
    GOP talking points and tactics that your candidate (who you don't have a horse in the race for) has been using against SEN CLINTON (note the correct way to address someone)?

    [ Parent ]
    Responding to his comments is (none / 0) (#33)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:52:15 PM EST
    a GOP attack now?

    ummm'k

    [ Parent ]

    nope (none / 0) (#89)
    by judyo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:33:08 PM EST
    haven't voted Republican since Eisenhower.
    This BS is blowing the democrats to the wind.  Josey has it right.  
    For heaven sakes ... look @ the big picture.

    [ Parent ]
    Uh...... (none / 0) (#54)
    by michitucky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:45:35 PM EST
    Me thinks you have a horse in this race......

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary HAD to repudiate Obama's remarks! (none / 0) (#83)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:34:46 PM EST
    because they're damaging to the Dem Party.
    And all those downticket races.

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards isn't going to endorse either of them (none / 0) (#15)
    by flyerhawk on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:11:13 PM EST
    until the race has been settled.  Same with Gore.  

    You can't be a kingmaker if you back the wrong prince/princess.

    What?!? (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:26:32 PM EST
    You can't be a kingmaker if you wait until after it's settled to edorse, either!

    To be a kingmaker, you have to choose...and do it in time to make a difference in the outcome.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, there's the option this year to be (none / 0) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:55:49 PM EST
    Queenmaker, so who and when he endorses will decide his 'label' ;)

    [ Parent ]
    Edwards and Gore (none / 0) (#81)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:28:06 PM EST
    will be instrumental as honest brokers and assisting in putting the party back together. imho

    [ Parent ]
    She was born in (none / 0) (#19)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:23:36 PM EST
    a small town. Probly' die in a small town.

    lol. Right.

    What, pray tell, took her so long to "adopt Edwards positions", if she in fact is?

    Have you asked Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by felizarte on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:47:49 PM EST
    why he hasn't up to now?

    [ Parent ]
    I used to go to Park Ridge in the '50s (none / 0) (#21)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:28:36 PM EST
    with family there -- and it was more a small town than a burb of Chicago then.  You were there then?


    [ Parent ]
    probly' (1.00 / 1) (#27)
    by jondee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:45:03 PM EST
    push for NAFTA, "Workfare", and collect 30-grand-a-pop ghostwritten speaking fees in a small town, too.

    This land is your land..

    [ Parent ]

    You "probably" were there then? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:09:25 PM EST
    Or what are you saying.  Sorry, but I'm not seeing a coherence from one post to the next.  My bad, but I prefer complete sentences -- y'know, with subjects as well as predicates, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    ruralism (none / 0) (#25)
    by judyo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    You need to get out more.  That's no slam.  It's a generalization to be sure but it also has grounding in reality.

    Yeah, I need to hang out with more (5.00 / 4) (#28)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:45:47 PM EST
    California billionaires---then I'll get it!

    [ Parent ]
    Well OK then (5.00 / 5) (#41)
    by badger on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:02:47 PM EST
    As soon as I finish lunch, I'm going to go out, fire up the tractor (1954 Ferguson) and bring a load of wood back and put it in the wood rack next to the back door.

    Or do you mean I should drive into town and hang out with all of the bitter, unemployed, gun-totin', bible-thumpin', anti-furriner bigots you and Obama seem to think live there?

    Have another latte

    [ Parent ]

    Judyo what is true that all (none / 0) (#43)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:05:55 PM EST
    of us small town people are bitter or that we cling to our guns and whatever because we are oh so bitter.

    [ Parent ]
    Funny you should bring this (none / 0) (#37)
    by frankly0 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM EST
    subject up, Jeralyn, I was thinking pretty much the same thing about what John Edwards might think and do.

    At this point, I'd be awfully tempted to break my neutrality if I were him.

    Good timing for this. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:37:51 PM EST
    I've been thinking about it a lot lately. Next week would be good timing for John Edwards if any time is. I was happy that he stayed neutral thus far, being an Edwards Democrat! I think he did well, to not expend his "political capital" so to speak, and that it should be brought to bear at a crucial moment.

    Unless there are vital considerations to make, in terms of his SD status and effecting sway in the SD count (for Hillary}, then he should step forward now to help in the next primaries. The added push in NC and IN would be welcome.

    [ Parent ]

    Me too. (none / 0) (#69)
    by hellskitchen on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:51:58 PM EST
    I actually wrote to him after he suspended his campaign and after Obama supporters at dKos were saying that they were finished with Edwards if he endorsed Clinton.  I suggested that whichever way he went, he might lose supporters.

    But now, he could come out with righteous anger and blast Obama for his arrogance.  And speak to his core issues, reminding the electorate what's at stake.

    [ Parent ]

    precisely. (none / 0) (#90)
    by Arcadianwind on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:42:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Maybe if Hillary wins big in Penn. (none / 0) (#59)
    by kenosharick on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:08:17 PM EST
    he will show some political courage and endorse her. Does he still have much clout in NC? Besides, if he endorsed her and Barack by some long shot became prez., he is too much of a uniter and "new" kind of politico to hold it against Edwards- right?

    Not sure about his clout, (none / 0) (#73)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:04:00 PM EST
    but he would help deliver the message quite well since he is passionate about it. They are both fighters. I just can't see him stumping for Obama. Endorsing him maybe, but their styles and message are conflicting so I think it would ring 'odd' if he stumped for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Laughable... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Alec82 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:34:50 PM EST
    ....criticism.  It is not appropriate to respond to this comment by bashing liberals, or implying that voters don't vote against their economic interests.  Anyone who voted for an ardent supporter of the Iraq war in 2004 voted heavily against their own interests, moral and economic.  In a very real sense, they have gotten what they deserve.  Unfortunately, they injured the rest of us in the process, and, as the votes on the marriage amendments make clear, some of us were more injured than others.

     The feeling I get from some of the posters on this site is that social liberals are no longer welcome in the Democratic party, only Clintonian centrists and left-wing economic populists count.  

    This is why this campaign is confusing (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:55:10 PM EST
    Because I support Clinton, one reason being that I see her as more liberal on social issues than Obama is.  He seems to me to court Independents and Republicans and stays near the center on social issues. All perception, because in actuality I'm sure their positions on social issues barely differ at all.

    [ Parent ]
    A line from my favorite song... (none / 0) (#94)
    by Alec82 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:58:58 PM EST
    There's too much confusion, I can't get no relief.

     But I sober right up when I think of a McCain presidency. In particular, what he might bring to foreign policy.  I actually think he is more socially liberal than he lets on.

     

    [ Parent ]

    You're talking about Republican voters (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:06:23 PM EST
    in 2004.  Obama was talking about Democratic voters in 2008 -- just not Democratic voters for him.

    That's a rather crucial difference that ought to cause you to recast your thinking and comment.

    Unless, of course, you see Obama as actually going for the Repubs in PA -- his Dems for a Day again?  But again, that is not a good long-term strategy for the Democratic side, just for him.  As usual. . . .


    [ Parent ]

    there is no clear progressive choice in this race (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:22:40 PM EST
    certainly not Obama and certainly not Clinton.

    That you perceive Obama to be progressive or social liberal is not a shared perception at all.

    Perhaps it is the way he bases his candidacy on bashing Bill Clinton...or that he reveres the foreign policy of Ronald Reagan...or that he refuses to have his picture taken with Gavin Newsome...or his failure to put forth a health care plan that ensures universal coverage...or...

    I could go on but hopefully you will get the idea.

    The vote in 2004 was indicative of the lousy campaign by Kerry, his inability to fight off the Swift Boat campaign and his inability to fight through the media narrative.

    The implication is that a good number of posters on TL that don't believe that Obama is capable of winning in a general election is probably one that should be of concern to an Obama supporter since that is how many of us feel.

    [ Parent ]

    This is really you (none / 0) (#92)
    by dem08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:41:19 PM EST
    pro-Hillary's "gotcha!" moment and I am proud of the way you are playing it.

    There is a bad film of it, so perhaps you should link to that.

    Obama should be impeached for saying these remarks, and this makes Hillary a stronger candidate.

    It has upset a few Tar Heels (none / 0) (#93)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:54:08 PM EST
    I decided to see what various newspapers and blogs around the country are saying and this:

    http://www.huliq.com/56716/north-carolinians-decry-senator-obama039s-comments-small-town-america

    Will John Edwards Weigh in on Obama's Comments? | 97 comments (97 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment