What McCain Said Compared To What Obama Said

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:02:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Oliver Willis compares this McCain statement to the Obama Gaffe:

It’s the influx of illegals into places where they’ve never seen a Hispanic influence before,” McCain told me. “You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona on this issue. I was in a town in Iowa, and twenty years ago there were no Hispanics in the town. Then a meatpacking facility was opened up. Now twenty per cent of their population is Hispanic. There were senior citizens there who were–’concerned’ is not the word. They see this as an assault on their culture, what they view as an impact on what have been their traditions in Iowa, in the small towns in Iowa. So you get questions like ‘Why do I have to punch 1 for English?’ ‘Why can’t they speak English?’ It’s become larger than just the fact that we need to enforce our borders.”

More . . .

Obama said:

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

(Emphasis mine.) From my perspective (the son of Hispanic immigrants), McCain's statement is much worse. Why? Because as I read it, McCain's seems to APPROVE of the anti-immigrant sentiments he is finding. The problem for Obama is that he said "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." That seems to be signalling disapproval and disagreement and arguing that the basis for these feelings is wrong. It can be construed positively if you want, but that is not how politics works.

Personally, I can find ways to interpret Obama's statements so that they work for me. I find it hard to explain an interpretation that will be palatable to these actual voters.

As I have said, a pol's job is to get elected. That means capture votes from as many folks as possible. As a voter, I do not want pandering to xenophobes, racists, sexists, homophobes, etc. but I do not require useless antagonizing of voters. I love political courage - but political courage with a purpose.

Obama committed a gaffe. All the spin in the world won't change that.

< Will John Edwards Weigh in on Obama's Comments? | A Difference of Opinion: Not Every Top Blog "Has Had It" With Hillary >

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

Menu

Home | About | RSS
E-Mail | Comment Policy |
Search
Login

Make a new account

Existing Users

Username:
Password:
Creator and Principal Author
- Jeralyn E. Merritt
TL Alumni

Contribute To TalkLeft

Sections
Site Credits
- TalkLeft Graphics by C.L., Our Man in Hollywood (2006 - 2008)
- TalkLeft Header Graphic by Monk
- Powered by Scoop
Legal
- All Content Copyright ©2002-2023. Reprints only by permission from TalkLeft.com
- Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.
- TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.
"The pump don't work 'cause the vandals took the handles"
© 1965 Bob Dylan

What McCain Said Compared To What Obama Said | 92 comments (92 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I was having a heated debate with... (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:44:41 PM EST

..my dear beloved husband last night. I agree with you BTD that McCain's comments were more offensive to me as a daughter of Latino immigrants. But the problem in this election is that so much crap has been stirred up its hard to validate everyone's perspectives anymore. So I can totally see that a white person from a small town would find Obama's remarks more offensive than McCains.

: I agree with you, Maria (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:05:17 PM EST

(as I often do). The other thing about McCain's remarks is that they are wholly expected. An insensitive republican making a thinly veiled racist statement? I'll let you know when the shock wears off.
When it comes from one of our own--one who is seeking our votes for the nomination--it is doubly cruel.
To say that "What Obama said was bad, but what McCains aid was even worse" is not a strong argument for me. The fact that the two have these statements which we can use to compare in tone, meaning and purpose, is what should give us pause.

Parent

200,000 Jobs For Small Town America, NY (3.00 / 2) (#47)
by PC on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:30:52 PM EST

Clinton is part of the problem that he was speaking of. Clinton promised to create 200,000 new jobs in NY and ended with a net loss. The reasons do not matter; the results are what have affected small town America.

Obama is however correct if he would not have used the wrong word. In the middle class we look at the issues and focus more on Guns or Religion to cast our vote. Why should we think that any candidate will change our economic condition based on the past results.

Again, if Obama is "correct" (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:39:38 PM EST

then why are the Democratic voters in PA going overwhelmingly for Clinton and not going with the new guy? They are disillusioned by Clinton and so they are voting for her? Its not a rational argument.

Parent

So (none / 0) (#51)
by BethanyAnne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:57:51 PM EST

When rural areas are voting R, they are somehow acting in their interests? Does that follow from your argument? /confused

Parent

He wasn't answering a question about (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:24:33 PM EST

Republicans. He was answering a question about why Democratic voters in a Democratic primary are not as receptive to him as they are to Hillary. That's what's got you confused. Some Obama supporters are trying to spin this as being about Republicans. Its not. Its Obama dissing Clinton voters as embittered and closed-minded. The primary is not being fought over guns and religion, this is simply Obama's excuse for not doing well in peeling off Clinton voters.

Parent

: I think Obama couldn't say straight out (none / 0) (#80)
by Lora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:28:19 AM EST

The reason these democratic voters would vote for Clinton over Obama is that in the end for this group, racism triumphs over sexism. I think that's the cold hard reality. As a PA resident who has seen close and up front the racism of small town dwellers (and even of the not-so-big city dwellers) I believe there is no way Obama could get those votes. Of course he couldn't say it, but he rather daringly alluded to it with the phrase "....antipathy to people who aren't like them...." Never mind that he was talking about immigration. It applies to attitudes about Blacks as well.

Parent

Pennsylvania (none / 0) (#53)
by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:14:25 PM EST

has gone blue for the last four elections and he was responding a question about why he is still have trouble with this particular demographic in the primary. All the voters he is trying to woo in PA are DEMOCRATS as it is a closed primary, so he was talking about DEMOCRATS who are voting for Clinton, instead of him. And why do they do this? Because they are bitter, which makes them love their god, their guns, and dislike immigrants.

Parent

NonSequitur (none / 0) (#55)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:24:52 PM EST

The germane point is that the rural vote went to BUsh. That is the context here.

Parent

And that this is somewhat of a swing vote... (none / 0) (#61)
by Exeter on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:13:55 PM EST

... Most of America lives in "rural america" when its defined as towns less than 100,000.

Parent

: Yup (none / 0) (#62)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:22:18 PM EST

They swung R.

Parent

The context of Obama's comment (none / 0) (#67)
by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:26:19 PM EST

had nothing to do with the Republicans. It had to do with Democrats who were lining up with Clinton in the Democratic primary.

Parent

Yes And (none / 0) (#72)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:50:02 PM EST

They are the same bunch of Dems that voted for Bush.

Parent

So by this argument (none / 0) (#74)
by sumac on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:02:49 AM EST

you agree that Hillary is the one who can build the Dem party rather than Obama? If she's getting the Dems who voted for Bush, then maybe the anointed "Uniter" is not as capable of uniting Dems as he and his supporters would like to think?

Parent

Not Sure (none / 0) (#75)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:37:09 AM EST

I voted for Clinton in the primary because I liked her a bit more, even though I was sure that both candidates could beat the GOP. Obama with his teflon coating and wide appeal has a lot going for him though.

Parent

: Cracks (none / 0) (#76)
by sumac on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:45:16 AM EST

I admit I have not found the light in terms of the Obama wonder. I was never sold on him. But I do recognize that he has been a media darling and has had a great amount of appeal.
Still, this story may illustrate a breaking point with a wide swath of voters - cracks in the armor, if you will.

Parent

wait a second... (none / 0) (#68)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:32:30 PM EST

You're conflating Bill Clinton with Hillary.

Hillary Clinton made the promise of 200,000 jobs (or whatever number it was) in the 2000 election but the economy tanked and the jobs issue was a noisy issue in the 2004 election after 4 years of Bush.

Obama was talking about Bill Clinton.

It's dishonest to conflate the statements by Hillary with the comments by Obama who made absolutely no reference to Hillary or that comment in his remarks that are under discussion.

Parent

Right, that's why Hillary SHOULD (none / 0) (#1)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:08:07 PM EST

step into this, strongly.
She can demonstrate the right attitude that neither of those two have, gaining points against both in the process.

Just so I understand you (none / 0) (#4)
by mbuchel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:39:33 PM EST

As BTD says, we can acknowledge that there is plenty of room for a (more) favorable interpretation of the remarks, specifically in the context of the larger point that he was making - that voters frustrated by their economic position will vote against their interests on social issues - guns, gay marriage, etc.

But because he's a pol, it's stupid of him to raise such an issue (let alone use any nuance while doing it), and as a result Hillary should co-opt Right Wing Noise Machine talking points and use them to tear down our likely nominee for the Fall, instead of making an affirmative case for her nomination.

Look, you can be pro-Hillary, but using terms like "elitist" and "out-of-touch" to label another democrat seems like validation of all things Republican.

How about leaving the smearing to the RWNM and instead make an affirmative case for yourself. Unless, of course, Hillary would rather have her BFF McCain elected president over Obama.

Parent

Obama smeared Democrats (5.00 / 2) (#16)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:24:02 PM EST

as xenophobes, racist, and clingy. Why it is okay for him to insult fellow democrats and WTF would you call it besides elitism?

Parent

Apparently (none / 0) (#19)
by mbuchel on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:01:22 PM EST

you didn't read BTD's post to the end, b/c (and he'll certainly correct me if I'm wrong) but he seems to take issue with the clumsiness of the statement rather than believing Obama was labeling democrats as "as xenophobes, racist, and clingy" as you stated.
I know you are wont to think Obama is a disingenuous candidate getting a free ride - and to a certain extent he has, although I don't know that the Wright episode was all that easy for him. But speaking as a democrat - not as an Obama supporter - I'd rather us not use RWSM buzz words against our own.

Parent

: I like BTD (none / 0) (#37)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:09:31 PM EST

I respect him, I do not agree with him about what Obama said.

Parent

Just so you understand me: (none / 0) (#11)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:07:46 PM EST

Hillary has a golden opportunity to show that she understands working class and poor voters' concerns better than either McCain or Obama.
There's no reason she shouldn't make that argument.

Parent

please (none / 0) (#46)
by ColumbiaDuck on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:25:57 PM EST

Obama insulted VOTERS. Hillay did not make him do this. And HE played into the right wing's hand by confirming stereotypes.

And I would at least consider your opinion of clinton's actions if 1) obama had a chance in the GE after this (and likely will hurt all dems) and 2) he hadn't been using right wing talking points on issues relating to health care, social security and "character" for six months.

Obama has no one to blame but himself for this.

Parent

Just so (none / 0) (#2)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:22:02 PM EST

But how big a gaffe? (none / 0) (#3)
by dianem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:29:38 PM EST

Obama seems to have a lot of "gaffes" on his plate. The Rezko land deal, frankly, stank. I know, Obama probably didn't do anything wrong, but it also seems unlikely that it was as much of a coincidence as he suggests. The person who enabled him to buy his beautiful house was a longtime friend and political supporter who was known for cultivating politicians for the ultimate goal of getting political favors. How can that be good?

The Wright matter was a "judgment" issue that I can understand more, but it still stinks, and I think it will be a major problem for him in the general election. Oddly, the "G-D America" comments do not bother me, except that I recognize how offensive this statement is from a religious man, and I don't think that the kind of hatred Wright showed could have been a rare event. I am more bothered by Wright's comments on the Clinton's.

His judgment in allowing race to define this election was his most egregious error, imo. He could have spoken out against being "the black candidate" early in the game, but he barely gave it lip service and at the same time he campaigned by playing on anti-racist sentiment and the desire of black people to gain political equality by having a black President. Instead of truly "unifying" people, he has been playing both sides against the middle, and that will cost him as he tries to attract moderates who aren't as sympathetic as most progressives. Maybe he didn't have a choice - but I think he did. I think he could have run on simple charisma if he had waited a bit longer. He could have waited to see who would win and set himself up as VP (it would have been a no-brainer) and then run as a "seasoned man of the people" in a few years.

This... it's one more straw on the camel's back. I don't think it will cost him the nomination, but it will be used against him and a few more people will move away from his corner. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't as big as the other issues, but added to them it is going to cost him.

Was he approving those sentiments? (none / 0) (#5)
by ajain on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:43:43 PM EST

Or was he simply laying them out?

To be honest, I am just trying to give McCain a sympathetic hearing.

But yea, its a big Obama gaffe that is gonna be pretty hard to push away. But who knows, Mr. Once-in-a-lifetime politician can do anything.

Having said that - its really interesting that the Clinton campaign was reportedly waiting of Obama to make a gaffe and he gave it to them. Not that she hasn't made mistakes in that time, but still.

: Does Not Compute (none / 0) (#18)
by daryl herbert on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:51:27 PM EST

McCain isn't stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment and he isn't praising it.
Republicans with strong anti-immigrant sentiment are more likely to stay home in November as a way of punishing McCain for his pro-immigration policies--which to his credit he didn't change just in time to run for president, even though he knew they would hurt him in the general election.

Parent
: What's wrong with opposition to illegal activity? (none / 0) (#64)
by LonewackoDotCom on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:04:50 PM EST

McCain has made it quite clear that, like the Dem leaders, he supports illegal activity.
What the McCain quote and the linked article fail to note is that some meatpacking plants have been known to hire IllegalAliens, send recruiters south of the border to recruit illegal aliens, and similar. And, what it fails to note is that somewhere along the way several politicians have turned a blind eye, usually because they're basically getting a share of the profits, even if it's all legal. And, some politicians - even those mentioned at this site - have been known to collaborate with a foreign government to help crooked companies get a workforce (youtube.com/watch?v=1KxDhesWutc).
I don't know why the Dems would support that, I just know that they do.

Parent

No pol is perfect (none / 0) (#7)
by Lora on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:58:25 PM EST

I'll take Obama's gaffe over McCain's ** any day. As to the voters Obama supposedly alienated, he wasn't going to get them anyway. So, he shouldn't have said it but he didn't say anything that wasn't essentially true. It's a lot of flap over very little, if you ask me. He is not going to please all. No candidate will, nor should they try. I'm sure McCain ticked off loads of people with his offensive remarks (count me as one). If Obama ticked off a few folks, perhaps he won the support of lots more. I'm a tepid Hillary supporter, but I like Obama better because he told it like it is. I know people with precisely the attitude he described and I agree with his reasoning about it.

Obama wasn't going to get the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#12)
by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:08:58 PM EST

in PA anyway? Nice of you to acknowledge Obama's electability problems!

Parent

: Not those Dems (none / 0) (#23)
by Lora on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:17:41 PM EST

Parent

why wouldn't he get their votes anyway? (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:38:46 PM EST

He was talking about democrats and why he was not getting their votes in Pa.
Well he certainly won't get them now which means he can not win PA in the general and if he can not win PA he can not win, period.
He insulted the people who he HAS to win over to win the state in the GE.

Parent

He will not appeal to certain voters (none / 0) (#24)
by Lora on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:19:22 PM EST

IMO the reality is that voters who actually hold the opinions he has stated will not want Barack Obama.

Parent

: that is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#30)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:45:27 PM EST

he is deciding what opinions people hold depending on where they live. That is bigotry on his part, not theirs. And if he can not get those votes he should never be the nominee for the democratic party.

Parent
: The problem is (none / 0) (#26)
by andgarden on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:25:15 PM EST

that in Pennsylvania and several other states, they hold the balance of power.

Parent
: You're willing to write off... (none / 0) (#49)
by daryl herbert on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:49:26 PM EST

You're willing to write off every white* voter who believes in gun rights, has misgivings about large-scale immigration, feels strongly about going to church, or is apprehensive about foreigners and gay people?
That's very noble of you. I'm sure Sen. McCain will appreciate your chivalry. In the meantime, Sen. Clinton is busy trying to win their votes so that she can take the White House.
* Sen. Obama was obviously talking about white voters. Voters of color almost never fit the pattern of poverty/cynicism causing them to vote Republican.

Parent

PA is conservative (none / 0) (#25)
by Lora on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:25:08 PM EST

Take out the big cities and PA is red.

Parent

do you live in PA? (none / 0) (#31)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:46:58 PM EST

if not, please, what more would you like to tell us about ourselves?
I don't like in a big city and my town is about 50 percent democrat.

Parent

: I do (none / 0) (#44)
by Lora on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:11:35 PM EST

I live in PA.

Parent
: CNN had the map up of PA (none / 0) (#60)
by waldenpond on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:09:41 PM EST

It has a huge T that is red. It was showing what happened with the vote in 2004. Small piece of blue on the west, small piece of blue on the east and a verrrry wide strip in the middle with a band on top.... red.

Parent

Bitter gun nuts vs. Prius-Driving, Sushi-Eaters... (none / 0) (#8)
by jerry on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:00:45 PM EST

Bitter, Angry, Religious Gun Nut

vs.

Tax-Raising, Latte-Drinking, Sushi-Eating, Prius-Driving, New York Times-reading, Body-Piercing, Hollywood-Loving, Left-Wing Freak Show.

I'm afraid we'll lose. Again.

: In Az, lots of people don't like McCain, but we (none / 0) (#10)
by jerry on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:06:53 PM EST

love our guns.
At many times, I think it should be easy to swing the state blue, we have a blue governor, and the mayor of Phoenix claims to be blue, but the feeling I get from most people, erroneous as it maybe, is that our Democratic Overlords show disdain for the common individual.
I think Obama's gaffe, which I think is relatively minor, plays right into that.
I've only shot a gun once or twice, and it's a lot of fun.

Parent

You know that's intriguing, BTD (none / 0) (#13)
by debcoop on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:15:06 PM EST

Because 2 days ago David Sirota posted McCain's remarks at Open Left and my perspepctive then in terms of the voters Obama was talking about was that these remarks from McCain ironically made McCain look better....because McCain's remarks were just descriptive of how they felt..not value laden. It was an instance in which he was able to walk in the shoes of the people Obama was talking about and so he was came across across as empathetic....not a known Republican trait....

But you know I guess it's a question of how easy it is to slip on other people's shoes. For McCain it was easier to slip into small town white people shoes than for Obama.

I did not see McCain's remarks as excusing their anti immigrant feeling though I can totally see how you would see his talk as excusing the feeling rather than explaining the feeling.

That is a real politician's skill...to always talk about WE...to be able to see the world from other people's shoes...no matter how unlike those shoes are than yours.

This is how I see McCain's statement also (5.00 / 2) (#27)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:26:54 PM EST

partly because I know that McCain came to it with more pro-immigration feelings than the people he is describing, and was trying to see why they disagreed with him so much. If he were Tom Tancredo saying the same thing, it would have had a totally different tone and context.

What strikes me about Obama's case is that he sure did not talk that way about the people in the small towns in red states in the west and other states where he was ahead. Heck, the book that describes what he tried to say is called What's wrong with Kansas?. Didn't see him saying Kansans were bitter. Seems like only the people in states that don't support him are bitter.

Parent

exactly (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:00:15 PM EST

once again, and I know this pissed people off, but when explaining why people where not supporting him he said they were racist. Because that is the bottom line about what he said... "they are suspicious of a 46 year old black man".. "They are suspicious of people who are not like them".

Parent

: Sad but true (none / 0) (#81)
by Lora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:33:10 AM EST

Parent

mixed metaphor gaffe! (none / 0) (#14)
by debcoop on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:16:23 PM EST

to walk in other people's shoes...or see with other people's eyes. Gotta pick one.

Parent

Why what Obama said could be worse (none / 0) (#15)
by Radix on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:22:10 PM EST

These statements aren't expected from Democrats. Then when you hear such from one it does sound a whole lot worse. I think it boils down to a matter of expectation. We expect McCain to say such, so we cringe, Obama says it and we spit coffee all over our brand new HD screens.

you are sorely mistaken (none / 0) (#22)
by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:12:31 PM EST

Cassandra strikes again... (none / 0) (#28)
by SAINTIXE56 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:28:30 PM EST

seems to me that- yes Obama may lose the race
- But Clinton will not get many Obama voters so - yes McCain will be elected. Then.... as too many pols try to paint a white knight shiny armor america and dare not speak the truth to the voters, well it will be probably the economy which will do the dirty job.
Plan seeing the Euro carry on its world currency status and NATO getting more and more an empty shell status. We dont acre about them, soon it will be they dont care about us. As for China ...welcome to a brand new world. Deny the truth, it will revenge on you...

Obama was generalizing, (none / 0) (#29)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:37:14 PM EST

from political theory. I seriously doubt any real Pennsylvanian came up to him and told him he was feeling so bitter that he had to cling to his church, clean his gun, and vote Republican. That is what makes it sound elitist and out of touch.

I won't vote for John McCain under any circumstances, but at least in this example he is talking about real people he talked to.

he is NOT talking about real people (5.00 / 1) (#33)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:56:06 PM EST

he is making a sickening insulting generalization about people he has no right to psychoanalyze and then ask for votes from.
If someone made this sort of broad brush statement about black people or Latino people you would not tolerate it, or maybe you would.
When asked why people in PA were not voting for him it would be better if he told the truth, there is not a huge AA community, there is no crossover voting with independents included, it is not a primary and he has lost all of the large blue and rust belt states so why would PA be any different? It is an older population and we prefer Clinton.

Parent

it IS a primary (none / 0) (#34)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:57:02 PM EST

rather than a caucus

Parent

Sorry, you misunderstood what I said (none / 0) (#36)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:04:33 PM EST

I mean that Obama is generalizing about people, and McCain is (at least he says he is) reporting what he heard from real people.

We seem to be in agreement.

Parent

Sickening? (none / 0) (#38)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:09:48 PM EST

So why do you think that this demographic has been voting R?

The R's have mastered the art of suckering in the working class by playing up religion, gun rights, and anti-immigration spew, while at the same time f'ing them royally.

Obama made a political gaffe in an attempt to wake up people that vote R against their self interests. I never understood it myself.

Parent

I don't know why anyone votes R (none / 0) (#39)
by ruffian on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:16:37 PM EST

Why don't you ask an R voter in Pennsylvania? Or maybe Obama can quote them next time instead of mangling someone's political theory.

By the way, you stated the theory a lot better than Obama did.

Parent

: Not Me (none / 0) (#42)
by squeaky on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:57:03 PM EST

I was responding to Obama's media darling status and how his poor choice of words would get spun into a positive by the media.
The NTY was my example, not my words. Although I never understood why this demographic voted for Bush twice when he has utter contempt for them and has done everything to screw them, save for his mocking swagger.

Parent

He wasn't talking about Republican voters (none / 0) (#43)
by tree on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:04:11 PM EST

He was talking about voters in the closed Democratic Primary who don't want to vote for him. He was talking about Democrats who are voting Democratic, just not for him. (PA has been a blue state for the last four Presidential Elections.)

Parent

: Really? (none / 0) (#94)
by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:40:36 PM EST

You mean those dems that voted for Bush? The ones that were pandered to with NRA talking points, evangelical bs, and threats that Kerry will sell you out to the french?
Those dems?

RUSH: Okay. Let's do it again because I want these back to back, bam, bam, bam, bam, so you can hear the contrast. This is Kerry in 1971 -- again it's the Senate Foreign Relations Committee -- testifying about the Vietnam atrocities followed with his trip to the sporting goods store to get a hunting license in Ohio this week.
KERRY 1971: How do you ask a man to be the last man to die in Viet'naaam? How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?
KERRY 2004: Can I get me a hunting license here?
RUSH: There you have it. The new Jean-François Kerry, ladies and gentlemen, as he attempts to appeal to all of you Midwestern hicks. You Midwestern hicks that got gun racks in the back window of your pickup truck out there. It's just amazing. They cannot... You know, once they are identified as liberals -- and that's happened in this campaign -- once they're identified as liberals and they have to start proving to you that they're not liberals or trying to establish to you that they're not liberals. They think they have to show you that they're conservatives. They then tell us what they think of conservatives. Kerry has just told us what he thinks of the people whose votes he needs: "Can I get me a hunting license here?"
link

Parent

you have your head stuck firmly (none / 0) (#32)
by TeresaInPa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 06:48:33 PM EST

in the sand.

What they both said (none / 0) (#40)
by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:23:47 PM EST

was that people react to change when they don't like it...and most people don't like most change because it isn't positive for them...in their own lives.

Whatever it was that Obama meant to say, what he DID say is insulting to voters he (we) need to win in the fall.

I think he probably started to say one thing and ended up saying another...the sentence that ends with "...as a way to explain their frustrations" doesn't make sense fron start to finish. I think he got several ideas mixed up/conflated in one clumsy sentence (voting against your economic interests, gun control/gun rights, religion, immigration, xenophobia, etc.) trying to explain a rationale he may actually understand but cannot talk about in this way as a candidate...certainly not in the venue he was taped in...the Getty mansion on Millionaires' Row? Sheesh...and did I hear that audience LAUGHED at his description?

Dear gawd. Bobby Kennedy must be turning over in his grave and John Edwards knashing his teeth.

I am neither horrified or surprised...greenhorn candidates learn these lessons the hard way...or not. Sometimes the price breaks the voter bank. This could easily be one of those times.

This changes nothing (none / 0) (#41)
by BethanyAnne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 07:48:53 PM EST

Really. I'm sorry, but it just doesn't. All the Hillary folk didn't want Obama anyway. This validates their worst fears. Way too varied of a list to go into, but it's clear that Hillary supporters are jumping on this with both feet.

Obama folk will brush it off. I know I have. shrug

The folk that haven't decided? Are there any undecideds? I guess there might be a few, but still, I don't think that there are enough to matter.

Hillary will still win PA. She will still not win by as much as she needed to gain any real momentum. This will still go to Denver, with both camps trying to destroy any chance that Dems have of wining this election.

Circular firing squad behavior at its finest.
Bethany

: this is a concern troll comment... (5.00 / 1) (#69)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:43:12 PM EST

The whole point of the convention is to pick the nominee...that's the way it is has been done for centuries and crazily enough, it is still the rules.
If the Democratic party wanted a nominee in June, they should have scheduled their convention in June.
I think both camps are trying to win the nomination in the best way that they know how. It may not seem appropriate to you or it may seem like a circular firing squad to you but Obama saw his opportunity to win only by destroying the Bill Clinton legacy and parroting the notion of Hillary's divisiveness. I'll leave the characterizations of Hillary's efforts to others.
In the end, we will have one nominee. Personally, I don't think Obama is electable in the general but if he is the nominee, he will get my vote.
As for Hillary supporters jumping on this with both feet while you can shrug it off...OK, I'm good with that. The significance of the 'gaffe' (as it's being called) is not necessarily with undecideds but also if not primarily with super delegates who I expect to consider the electability argument.

Parent
: Doesn't change the primary (none / 0) (#54)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:23:07 PM EST

but definitely changes the general....and goes to the electability argument.

Parent

The difference, though, (none / 0) (#45)
by Exeter on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:23:38 PM EST

is that Obama said, in essence, "the reason why rural white people are racist, bible thumpin', gun nuts, is because of x..." As someone that lives in a rural area I sincerely offended and angry by this comments. Do I like to shoot stuff because I'm racist or just bitter about the economy? All black people are different, all white people are different.

well (none / 0) (#50)
by BethanyAnne on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 08:56:34 PM EST

I guess that's the worst possible spin to put on his words. Thanks.

Parent

: It's not the worst possible spin... (none / 0) (#58)
by Exeter on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:02:42 PM EST

...it's what he said. But, I have to say, I now know how the African American community feels when patronizing racist liberals make ignorant stereotypes about them.

Parent

ROFL . . . fun with inadvertence (none / 0) (#52)
by daryl herbert on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:03:18 PM EST

Remember who is the enemy.

And "Bring Them Home Now!"

I know you don't mean it like that . . . but ROFL. You'd better be more careful or Rush Limbaugh will start reading your comments on air.

Agreed! (none / 0) (#56)
by indy33 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:42:20 PM EST

This may sound crazy from ole indy33 but I completly agree with this post. Of course being a devoted Obamaniac, I will say that if you have the spare time, check out the chapter devoted to politics in Obamas book the Audacity of Hope. He really talks about this exact thing happening because its happened before to him. Years of work and advocacy ruined by one bad phrasing. He also sticks up for Hillary and slams McCain. Wow! He mentions that speaking off the cuff is now frowned on in politcs because of this exact thing. He admits that he has been the beneficiary of great press coverage, he acknowledges that its not to be taken for granted becase it will turn. For all the elegant speeches he has made, he has said things that upon second look just dont ring right. This happens to everyone in politics. Why i support him is because for all the talk of his being an "elitist" and all, I belive his heart is in the right place. This is why after all the (pardon the term) "bitterness" of this primary I will undoubtedly support Hillary or Obama or Al Gore or (wince) John Kerry or Dennis Kucinich if they are the nominee because even if I dont agree with them I beilive their hearts are in the right place. I have fallen into this on so many occasions and have been in many heated discussions on this site and in "real life". I have been so angry at things that in retrospect are pointless and just goes against everything I have stood for my entire life. I love Hillary and Bill. Yeah, its not quite as unconditional as it once was but come on! I guess its true that the nastiest wars are the civil wars. This is my official mea culpa. If you feel that this is empty because its Obamas turn to be hammered then so be it. but heres my conclusion. Obamas bitter comment=dumb politically and intellecually lazy but some truth ,Clinton on Tuzla= not entirely true but entirely unimportant. Yes i think Obama would be better as I know many think Hillary would be but these last few days have been terrible for both our canidates and i cant take it anymore. Im fully ready to take the flames and accusations of hypocrisy for my rantings against Hillary and I will reply with admission and humility. My dream of seeing Bush replaced by Obama has clouded my mind to the fact that replacing him with Hillary will be awesome too. I will continue to advocate for Obama but not at the expense of Clinton because i dont have the stomach for it anymore. When I see that Bush authorized a meeting to instate torture into our military policy. How can I be mad at Hillary! I must say that these horrible elitists that Obama was talking too and apparently now he will be painted a member of, are decent people how have not forgotten about the plight of others or they would give there money else where. Of course they have troule relating but these same people have donated millions to the cause of Democrats and the less advantaged. Just like all groups of folks there are good guys and bad guys, these are the rich, good guys in my opinion and I am far from being one of them. What he said was dumb and I beilive he regrets it but i beilive in the choices and actions he has made that this does not define him. I could be wrong and the Reps. will do everything to prove it to me but I see bitterness everyday and its women and immigrants who feel the brunt of it. This should be placed on our government and should speak to improving our country socially and fiscally! Sorry for the length but I had to let it all out! I feel like a changed man!

Suggest that you... (none / 0) (#71)
by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:45:07 PM EST

learn how to organize common thoughts in paragraphs and consider that paragraphs are accomplished by pressing the <ENTER> key twice.

It's too dense to read comfortably so it makes it a candidate to skip.

Parent

: Somene told me that (none / 0) (#84)
by indy33 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:25:46 AM EST

the other day on here and its true, I hate paragraph breaks. I think its how my mind works but it could be just laziness. I have now adopted it as a "style" rather than admit my shortcomings! Im practicing to be a politician, cant you tell!

Parent

What's good for BO is all that counts (none / 0) (#73)
by Prabhata on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:53:42 PM EST

BO defends against racism when his ass gets caught in the discourse, and now he complains that candidates can't talk off the cuff. All I see is BO attempting to put out the fire by belatedly saying it happened to HRC too. But you see, Homey don't play that.

Parent

I agree with Big Tent (none / 0) (#57)
by dem08 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:47:55 PM EST

This is pro-Hillary Blogs best hope for derailing him.

Who cares what he meant or whether it was true. This was a mistake and with the help of Right Wing Blogs, pro-Hillary Blogs can make this Obama's retirement from politics.

I did think The Fix showed a tape with Obama making the remark a pretty good approach to the displaced working class, but Hillary supporters should hammer away at this and talk about this insult to the people whose jobs and prosperity are never coming back.

And I think Hillary should let loose The Big Dog and see what he can make of it.

The issue sticks if you keep repeating it.

Obama's Schtich for Rural America: (none / 0) (#59)
by Exeter on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 10:09:15 PM EST

Most people around the country think you would NOT vote for ##ME## because of X, but I don't think that is true because of Y. Translation: If NOT voting for Obama means X, then voting for Obama means Y.

No longer voting Democrat (none / 0) (#65)
by mrcrea on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:21:46 PM EST

So after all of the gaff's of Obama, and Clinton and their inexplicable spending policies I've decided I can't support either. The gaff's aside, can someone please explain to me where the money is going to come from for these policies. The only estimates I have seen have put Sen. Obama's plans at around 1.2 trillion increased spending. Not only that but both Clinton and Obama fail to address Social security at all. How do they plan to fix it without bankrupting the US. Obama and Clinton's health care plans are a total mess. They work under the assumption that employers will not go for the competitive advantage of dumping their employees for the gov't rolls. With that in mind consider Obama's estimate of $60 billion for 47 million Americans, not extrapolate that to the rest of the population and that runs to $300 billion. I honestly am so disgusted that Mr. Change is for changing to European style socialism. This gaff just sealed the deal for me. If you want to know what happens to moderates who support the war and are open minded, look no further. If you want to ruin our country with this unreasonable spending then fine but fess up to it and don't hide behind the empty rhetoric that both of these two have. At least I'll give Obama and McCain some points for being candid, but neither of the Democrats are honest with the american people about the cost long term or short term of any of their plans. I think people need to look past the war and realize that Obama and Hillary are wrong this time.

Who offends whom (none / 0) (#70)
by Prabhata on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:44:56 PM EST

The way I see it. Obama offends PA voters, the people he is trying to reach, McCain may offend immigrants, people that seldom go for Republicans. Obama spoke to defend himself and pushed the blame on the voters of PA. McCain is speaking deliberately to his base. The interesting thing about the controversy is that we see how the media will play in the GE when Obama makes a mistake, and when McCain makes a mistake (confusing Shia and Sunni)

It's not a gaffe if its true (none / 0) (#77)
by mbu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:11:46 AM EST

Maybe if these dumbass Pennsylvania Hillary voters would stop being bigoted, xenophobic, reich-wing, Jesus freak hicks, Obama wouldn't have to make comments like these.

His Critics will sit around and label Obama a Marxist all they want but they can't deny the fact that on this issue, Marx was right! RELIGION IS THE OPIATE OF THE MASSES WHY CAN'T MORE PEOPLE UNDERSTAND THAT?

sorry BTD, you're wrong, flat out. (none / 0) (#78)
by cpinva on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:32:08 AM EST

i've read mccain's comments multiple times, from all angles. no matter how you slice it, he's merely relating observations, not agreeing with them. to get to that requires lingusitic magic, which you don't possess.

don't get me wrong, i wouldn't vote for sen. mccain if he and i were the last two humans remaining on the planet, but there's enough real stuff to blast him with, without having to divine that which is obviously not there.

metoothen, yes, why don't we?

Look, let's be honest.

sen. obama isn't going to get the nomination, he'll be a has been in a month. the wheels have already started falling off that train, the next ten primaries will bring it to a grinding halt, far short of the station.

sen. clinton will beat sen. mccain in the fall, because she will get the votes of the real democrats, not the "dems for a day" (who'll go back to voting republican in the fall) and the young voters, who historically barely register a blip in national elections.

all is not a loss however, several authors will make lots of royalties writing books on what happened to sen. obama's magical campaign.

Delusional thinking (none / 0) (#79)
by Seth90212 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:27:00 AM EST

Obama has an unshakable base of support of 40+%. He is not going to suddenly collapse, he can only gain. Notice he has been up to 10% ahead of Clinton in recent national polling.

Do you really think that big name Dem superdelegates are going to support Clinton? Most of them hate the Clintons and are anxious to twist the knife. The Clintons have been in it longer and have many enemies in the Democratic Party. That's just the way it is. There are "uncommitted" supers such as Gore and Carter who you may as well put in the Obama column now. There are many others.

The Dems won't risk alienating Obama's supporters. He will end the season with a lead in delegates and pop vote. No way Clinton gets anointed if she's behind. Yes, Hillary has supporters too, but hers are more fungible. Women, for example, do not vote a block for Hillary, nor do women vote as a block for the Dems generally.

Going negative, particularly over silly issues like this alleged slight only quickens Hillary's exit from the race. Trying to damage Obama only results in more supers declaring their support for him. This has been the trend. Find and read Donna Brazile's email to a crazed Hillary supporter. It's very instructive.

Parent

: the "delusional thinking" (none / 0) (#83)
by cpinva on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:23:28 AM EST

is that sen. "the man who wasn't there" obama can win in nov. that would require a complete suspension of disbelief.
his only real base is the AA community. they constitute approx. 12-13% of the total population. they are concentrated in the deep south states. neither dem. candidate will win those states in nov., even if they capture 100% of the AA community. that is just a statistical fact.
his other "base", young voters, will constitute another 10% of the actual voters in nov. again, should he capture 100% of this "block", it isn't enough.
the balance of the 80% are comprised of groups who've either not voted in the dem. primaries (they voted in the republican ones), or have shown that they are less than enthusiastic about sen. obama.
additionally, though sen. obama is currently the "media darling", he won't be the instant he becomes the dem. nominee (should that be the case), they'll turn on him in a heartbeat.
finally, all his gaffes and skeletons in his closet will come back to haunt him in the GE, with a vengeance; the republican/right-wingnut smear machine, not caring if it's accused of racism, will tar & feather him with his own words/actions/associations. he's just not competent enough to withstand this. sen. clinton's been doing it for 16 years now.
if the purpose of deciding the dem. nominee is to pick the one who can actually be elected in nov., sen. clinton is the clear choice. she's the only one of the two with the bona fides to defeat sen. mccain in the fall.
add to that the momentum she'll have going into the convention, and the superdelegates would be committing political suicide were they to back sen. obama instead.

Parent

Ummm... (none / 0) (#82)
by Shade Tail on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:50:27 AM EST

"Personally, I can find ways to interpret Obama's statements so that they work for me."

The way to do that is by recognizing that he was absolutely right. And the people of those small towns, at least all the ones I've been talking to lately, have completely agreed with the sentiment. And I know a lot of such people, because a large part of my family lives in one of those dead-end towns. Obama was speaking directly to them, and they agreed with him. So I'm not seeing the problem.

Really, I'm having trouble understanding why democrats and left-wingers like myself are getting so heated up about this. It betrays a massive lack of understanding to even imagine that Obama's words were a gaffe. Either that, or it betrays an alliance with the limbaugh-esque right wing spin machine, but I'm giving my fellow dems and liberals the benefit of the doubt on that. Surely we haven't sunk so low as to twist someone's words into something they didn't actually say.

Arrogance is the Problem (none / 0) (#85)
by Richjo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM EST

The reason this is a gaffe and a huge deal is that essentially Obama was trying to explain what is "wrong" with the people who are not voting for him. The underlying assumption being that there must be something wrong with anyone who isn't voting for Obama. That type of arrogance is condemded on this website daily when coming from Obama supporters and the the left wing blogs, but all of a sudden it is acceptable when coming from the candidate himself? I respect BTD's desire to defend Obama from serious harm as that could do severe damage to the party, but I fear that his assessment may be skewed by his desire to do so. Obama's statements are basically an insult to anyone supporting a different candidate. According to Obama's reasoning no one could honestly believe that Hillary Clinton will make a more effective president than him, or be voting for her because they are more confident she will fight for them as President; no, the people supporting her are too impaired to see the truth, are clinging to god and guns and the past, and are simply too cynical to see how wonderful and inspirational he is. It has never dawned on Mr. Obama that maybe those people don't need some pretty speech to inspire them. That they have never lost hope. That in spite of the hard times they face they still believe in the greatness of their country, and still understand that they nonetheless enjoy opportuities that most people in this world could only dreaming of having. These are people who are not just voting for the first time because it seems cool and hip to do so, but people who have always done so because they see it as their civic duty, and because they understand the sacrifices made by others for them to have that ability. We have had to endure for months now the attitude of moral superiority of the Pro Obama media and his supporters. There is always a sinister reason why people oppose Obama according to them. It couldn't be that he is not what he claims to be, or that he is a total hypocrite in that he himself has engaged in all the things he has criticized others for. I guess I can understand why his supporters cling to this totally false and fantastical view of the man. I am sure deep down they must be very bitter over having been duped by a hypocritical, exploitive, political opportunist climber.

The thing is...*whose* arrogance is it? (none / 0) (#86)
by Shade Tail on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:53:53 PM EST

"...Obama was trying to explain what is 'wrong' with the people who are not voting for him."

No, he was not. He was explaining why they feel the way they do, and he was right. There is nothing arrogant about observing and stating the truth.

Parent

Really? (none / 0) (#88)
by Richjo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:10 PM EST

Suggesting that people are "bitter" and "cling" to things because they are acting out of anger and frustration is essentially saying that they are misguided, and that if they were thinking straight they would not fall prey to such baseless and harmful ideas. It is not respectful, and everyone knows he would have never said it that way to those people themselves. If he wanted to talk about why these people are not voting the way he would like he should have talked about what Democrats weren't doing to reach them, not about their bitterness causing them to cling to things. He may have been accurate in describing their motivations, but his use of language clearly paints those motivations in a pejorative manner that is merely reflective of a particular viewpoint, not a fact. It should never been expressed in the manner it was as doing so was disrepectful and overly simplistic.

Parent

Yes, really. (none / 0) (#90)
by Shade Tail on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:22:57 PM EST

"Suggesting that people are "bitter" and "cling" to things because they are acting out of anger and frustration is essentially saying that they are misguided,"

No. It is not saying that, "essentially" or otherwise. Furthermore, since Obama's statement was 100% true (something you would know if you bothered to actually talk to the people you claim he has so terribly maligned), your manufactured outrage about it becomes particularly limbaugh-esque.

Parent

Continue to Cling If You Must (none / 0) (#91)
by Richjo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:21:56 PM EST

No. It is not saying that, "essentially" or otherwise.

Funny, because they are the words that were used. I am glad you don't believe that is what Obama meant. I am sure he meant the whole thing as a compliment. To prove so I think you should encourage him to run an ad in small rural towns saying the exact same thing. You could take the actual clip from his previous comments and use them.

And I have no idea what world you live in but every time I have an argument with friends less liberal than myself one of the first things they throw out is that liberals are arrogant and look down on people, and think that it is OK to tell people how they are supposed to think and live their lives, as well as that liberals always try to claim that anyone who disagrees with them is ignorant. That is exactly what Obama's remarks imply and for you not to see that is just sad. As I said before I forgive you for clinging to your completely distorted and divorced from reality view of the man. I know how bitter you must be at having been duped by him into believing that he actually believed all the things he has said in the past. I can see how you feel the need to lash out against those who actually can see the truth to which you are so obviously blinded. It is sad when a candidate for President doesn't know any better than to behave in the very way that people like Limbaugh attempt to portray liberals as for their own nefarious purposes.

Parent

Don't project your failings onto others. (none / 0) (#92)
by Shade Tail on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:05:44 PM EST

"Funny, because they are the words that were used."

So now you claim that wasn't what he "essentially" said, but what he really said. Putting aside the fact that you are wrong (which is a very big fact to put aside, but bear with me), you honestly expect me to believe your spin when you can't even keep your story straight? And on top of that, when I call you on your Faux "News" style tactics, you then accuse me of your own failings?

Little wonder your less-liberal acquaintances seem to think liberals are arrogant and talk down to people; that's apparently the example you show them. Don't blame Obama (or me) for your mistakes.

Parent

: So You Continue to Delude Yourself (none / 0) (#93)
by Richjo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:31:14 PM EST

I made the claim that it is unreasonable to suggest that one could mean anything positive when talking about people being "bitter" and "clinging" to things out of frustration and anger, especially if you are saying they are clinging to things that are not good things- ie, anti-immigrant sentiment,etc. I have consistently focused on Obama's choice of words and what they imply. You have continually ignored his choice of words and the only reasonable interpretation of them; in favor of your biased, ridiculous, self serving interpretation of what you want to believe Obama meant. My story has been straight all along- you don't call people bitter clingers as a sign of respect, but in fact to do so is the exact opposite. A fact you have continued to ignore time and time again. Whatever broader point you want to pretend Obama was making simply is not reasonably consistent with his choice of words, and you have yet to provide one shred of reasoning that would support such a conclusion. You simply reassert what Obama meant without any contextual analysis to connect your interpretation of his statement with the actual words that were used. Your pathetic attempt to suggest that there is a difference between saying what some said and what they essentially meant is a difference without a distinction. If I call you an idiot, I am essentially saying you are stupid. So to claim- well you didn't call me stupid, you said I was an idiot- would be ridiculous. That is what your argument is tantamount to. Let me give you a little hint as to how to actually respond to the substance of the argument that should be going on here. What you would need to do to defend your absurd interpretation of what Obama meant would be to give an example of where people would be described as bitterly clinging to something out of anger, and show that such a description was being used to describe something that is not considered negative. Good luck with that. Who knows, in the world you seem to live in there might actually exist such an instance.

Parent

OBAMA'S SMALL TOWN SLAM! (none / 0) (#87)
by Jeff Morris DeJaVu57 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:19:57 PM EST

OBAMA'S SMALL TOWN SLAM!
By Jeff Morris- DeJaVu57

I saw this "Headline" on CNN the other night, and it really ticked me off. It came only minutes after CNN aired an Obama speech he made in San Francisco. Yup. Our MSM is at it again! This CNN headline was shortly after followed by another "Obama's Explosive Comments Against Small Town America" headline.

Explosive? Was CNN and I watching the same speech? Obama said "small town Americans cling to religion, guns, and oppose illegal immigration? ...O.K... Religion-... the one thing they can still believe in. Guns-.... The economically deteriorating neighborhood isn't as safe as it was in better times. Oppose illegal immigration-....You mean just like the majority do in the other 49 States? So where's the talking down Part?

Naturally Hillary and McSame couldn't wait to chime in. As should have been expected. I think Pennsylvanians are resilient, said Clinton, not people to be looked down upon....Obama looked down on them?.... This shows he's out of touch with Main Street America, said McCain. Since when is McCain Main Street America? He supports Bush policy in Iraq. That means he's at about 28% approval!

The media loves controversy and sometimes creates a story by twisting statements and over blowing an incident. This reminds me of what the media did to Howard Dean in 04. Sadly, by playing it in the MSM over and over, they succeeded in portraying Howard as high strung. Many knew he was only trying to rally his followers after finishing third in the 04 Iowa primary. His troops needed a pep talk with energy, and he gave it!.

The MSM needs to realize the clout they have. What they report can have an effect on an election. I hope they're not going to do to Obama what they did to Howard in 04 by greatly exaggerating this. I heard what Obama said, but never perceived the negative message our MSM did. What ever happened to CNN, the once credible 24 hr. cable news station. Shame on CNN for its lack of news reporting standards and help in creating this phony controversy

Jeff Morris-Saugerties, N.Y.- DeJaVu57

Continue to Bitterly Cling to Your Position (none / 0) (#96)
by Richjo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:35:58 AM EST

According to you people love to be told they are doing that, so by all means continue!

Also, if Obama understands them, why don' they vote for him? This whole thing arose because he was answering a question about why these people don't seem to be supporting him. So you understand them, and Obama understands them, yet somehow he feels the need to call them bitter clingers when explaining why they don't vote for him? Please don't allow the facts to stand in the way of your delusions.

Interesting how I continually point out that Obama does not speak this way when talking to this group of people directly, but rather only did so when speaking to the super rich in San Francisco. If you can honestly claim that saying people bitterly cling to things is fine, then please by all means go make a donation to Obama so he can run an ad saying exactly that.

OBAMA's credential (none / 0) (#97)
by John Lai on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:30:02 AM EST

This is a man who claims to change WASHINGTON politics while his homebase, CHICAGO is on fire. If he brought the CHICAGO POLITICS TO WASHINGTON, we would be darned.

Folks look before you vote; buyer's remorse doesn't count much in real life.

As far as I am concerned, his proposed policy is more or less carbon copy of Hillary. Sometimes, I wonder if he does it on purpose to avoid comparison. He does not have a whole lot to compare with.

There are only a few things which are different. He blow it. For example, universal health coverage without mandatory just don't work. Many countries such as Sweden, their experience tells us that OBAMA's wisecrack in health insurance doesn't hold water. The medical costs eventually would cost taxpayers more than a bundle.

Negotiation with IRAN,NORTH KOREA, (MAYBE LADIN, HAMAS TOO) IS NOT A VERY GOOD IDEA. It sends a funny message to our allies.

His foreign policy experience is deplorably weak while he claims that he has the most confidence. To him, it is just easy, talk and run. Well, just hope that we don't get him as the next president of the USA, the leader of democratic countries. I really don't know where this country will stand after him. Maybe this country would crawl after him.

The media and OBAMA campaign tell us that OBAMA is not an elitist because he is not as rich as Hillary and McCain. It is not true. OBAMA is rich enough to talk down to a small town rural American.

"elitist" is a person who uses elite position in a condescending manner and OFTEN, in politics, IT is used to describe persons as OUT OF TOUCH with the common people. Intellectual, disregard of his fortune, Intellectual from institution often does that.

Does OBAMA have an elite position?

Yes, OBAMA IS a MILLIONAIRE, SENATOR. GRADUATE from the IVY LEAGUE, A SENIOR LECTURER IN LAW SCHOOL, an intellectual who plays with feelings of small tonw people and ALSO a candidate for nomination.

DOES OBAMA talk in a condescending manner?
Yes, he reports to the elites in San Francisco about the small town rural American who is bitter. He always lecture people; coming out of institution telling us what is life about. He has lived with a typical white grannie who is atypically rich comparing to a rural American in Pennsylvanian.

HE ATTRIBUTES people GOING to church because of bitterness and Washington. This is what an elitist does to make fool of country folks. Bitterness exists in Chicago, Illinois and every states. He didn't care much about the working class until now.

WHEN people refers to OBAMA as 'OUT of Touch' with the life style of small town rural American, HE then brags about something else. This is also a sign of an elitist; a celebrity out of institution.

Such arrogance!

What McCain Said Compared To What Obama Said | 92 comments (92 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment