home

Bob Casey: Obama Expressed Regret For Gaffe, Is A "Person Of Faith"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:27:11 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

On CNN Late Edition, Obama supporter and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey said that Senator Barack Obama regretted his remarks and that Obama should not be judged solely by those remarks. Casey said that Obama made a poor choice of words, took responsibility for them and expressed his regret for any hurt he had caused.

More . . .

Casey argues that Pennsylvanians will judge Obama on his whole record, on who he is and what he stands for, not just one ill advised comment. Casey emphasizes that Obama is a person of faith. He mentions it three times.

The Obama camp completely backs down from the remarks. I wonder what all his supporter who were defending at all costs think about that. Does Obama lack the political courage they were so touting when they lauded the remarks? The answer is obvious - Obama is a pol, just like the rest of the pols,. He HAD to back away from the remarks. That is politics. Some folks need a reality check.

"Clinging to religion." Wolf says that phrase will come up in CNN's Faith Forum tonight. Asks Casey what Obama will say. Casey again harps on how religious Obama is. Casey touts how Obama has reached out to "people of faith." I know what he is talking about - Dems taking the bait is what Casey is talking about. I wonder if Obama supporter's heads will explode. Not really, they will reverse themselves as quick as Obama does.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< Jimmy Carter Won't Endorse Before Convention | Newsweek on Obama's Foreign Policy Experience and Obama on Obama >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Bob Casey: Obama Expressed Regret For Gaffe, Is A "Person Of Faith" | 256 comments (256 topical)
    Religion (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:29:57 AM EST
    it keeps giving.  

    keeps giving... (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:09:50 PM EST
    a place for Obama to cling for 20 years because he too is bitter.

    [ Parent ]
    So did Obama cling to Trinity UCC (5.00 / 3) (#54)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    because he was "bitter?"

    That would explain why he stayed in a church where the Pastor said things like "God Damn America" from the pulpit.

    [ Parent ]

    Not to bore y'all with facts, but... (none / 0) (#258)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    reading the comments I wonder if anyone here has a clue about the kind of "people of faith" Obama is reaching out to and has been reaching out to for a long time. They may not be entirely the kind of "people of faith" you think.

    Like for example faith-based national citizen activist networks like the Gamaliel Foundation, which Obama worked for and taught Alinsky-based organizing through.

    See here for a case study on the kind of activism this type of faith-based citizen organization can produce when its political allies win power within the system. More details here (PDF).

    [ Parent ]

    What Clinton Should Do (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:33:04 AM EST
    She should stop hitting him on it overtly now.  Of course, there are other ways to make her point.  Check out these pics from her recent Indiana stop - here.

    and Bill is (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:28:18 PM EST
    staying relatively quiet on the gaffe.  

    But he does get in a dig at caucuses:

    "In February, when she lost all these caucus states -- which favor upscale voters and people with more free time and are less democratic -- they are, right? [Cheers] -- you get one convention delegate for every 2,000 caucus-goers, one convention delegate for every almost 11,000 voters. "

    [ Parent ]

    BTD, I had wondered in the past... (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:33:53 AM EST
    ..at which point in this campaign some of the "top bloggers" will find religion and maybe this is that moment. LOL.

    We were never at war with Oceania (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:36:06 AM EST
    and we never agreed with those remarks!

    Okay Bob Casey (5.00 / 5) (#6)
    by txpolitico67 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:39:06 AM EST
    If you say so...all is forgiven.  Now let's get back to ANY and every gaffe Clinton makes.  Obama:  The Teflon Candidate

    Heh (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:41:41 AM EST
    That's the plan.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't know, BTD... (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by gmo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:52:38 PM EST
    ...but I think this is a pretty hard direct hit to your argument of Obama's electability over Clinton's, because it waters down into a single, simple, effective talking point.

    I know you still contend that Obama's the more electable candidate in the GE (and you might be right), but do you really feel that this issue will just slide off Obama with no impact to that electability argument, even with Obama's media darling status?

    IMO, this one little thing is going to do far more damage than the entire kitchen sink strategy, because it's these kinds of simple, baseless character attacks that generally stick in people's minds:  "Clinton's a liar!" "McCain's too old!"  

    And now: "Obama thinks you're white trash!"

    You might still be right about him being MORE electable than Clinton, but I don't think that this won't have an impact, and doesn't tip the balance slightly in Clinton's favor.

    [ Parent ]

    Electability (none / 0) (#194)
    by sumac on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:22:56 PM EST
    You asked if "this issue will just slide off Obama with no impact"?

    It could with strong (even tepid) Obama supporters.

    But I think this situation will make it that much easier for many Clinton supporters (who are the gun-totin, Bible-thumpin, bitter, racist, white trash people of whom Obama speaks) to either vote for McCain or stay at home in November.

    [ Parent ]

    so silly though... (none / 0) (#72)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:21:38 PM EST
    we are talking about a clumsy social error or poor choice of words.  Do people here really think Obama looks down on people? his support (clearly not here) has been built on the fact that people (like or not) feel that he isn't giving happy talk, treats them as adults, and wants to move forward together.  they like the fact that he isn't talking down to them.  

    now, play up a poor choice of words, but it doesn't change the fact that the attack doesn't have much weight to the majority of people who support him (which coincidently is the majority of people in the democratic primary).

    [ Parent ]

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:27:56 PM EST
    I think Obama looks down on people.  Maybe not down his garlic nose, but he certainly sees them as racist rubes who don't know that he's the best thing since sliced cheese.

    You know, I am trying not to answer you because your repeated use of talking points just bore the pants off me, but maybe saying this one more time will finally penetrate: WE DO NOT TRUST HIM.  And neither do the majority of democrats in the democratic party.

    [ Parent ]

    that is not factually accurate. (none / 0) (#101)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:32:32 PM EST
    . but a great "talking point".

    [ Parent ]
    But That's How a Movement Works (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:34:51 PM EST
    You are either in it or out of it.  Working class whites are not - as a group - part of Obama's movement.  Which is why the folks defending Obama are Harvard Sociologists and Josh Marshall.

    I don't know about Obama, but I think there is definitely classism coming from a lot of Obama's supporters.  Look at the constant refrain that working class whites support Hillary because they're racists from guys like De Long and Sirota and Josh Marshall.  

    And I think when Obama tells people that voters in Pennsylvania are more skeptical of him - a 46-year-old black man - than other politicians and he says it for a laugh, that he's implying that these voters are all racists and inviting his audience to laugh at them.  Not with them.  At them.  

    Because, of course, these voters are only skeptical of Obama because he's black and has a funny name.  It can't be because he backed away from universal healthcare using Harry & Louise ads, that his economic plans have come out later than Hillary's and have at times been less progressive, or that none of these voters had probably heard of him before last year and so he has no history with any of them.  Nope.

    And that is what Obama was talking about.  He wasn't explaining  why his policies would be better for these working class folks.  He was explaining to his fat cat donors why he was losing Pennsylvania and Ohio.

    [ Parent ]

    The clink in the perfect campaign (none / 0) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:39:09 PM EST
    I offer this as the example of the unperfect campaign.  Axelrod did not get the basic Rove lesson, don't lose the RNC base when you create the new collage.  This is classic dot.com bust.  The old economy is not dead.  

    [ Parent ]
    Quotes (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by hellskitchen on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:56:37 PM EST
    The sensitivity of the Obamas and their surrogates

    They misspeak and misspeak and misspeak and it all gets swept under the rug.

    [ Parent ]

    Senator Arugula! (none / 0) (#161)
    by gmo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:04:03 PM EST
    I missed the arugula comment - that's fantastic.  

    Oh boy.  Nothing says "elitist" like shopping at Whole Foods.

    [ Parent ]

    Kinda like the "I love Thai food" (5.00 / 1) (#216)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:33:30 PM EST
    he said when introduced to an American-Thai factory worker when he did a campaign stop at a manufacturing site in a midwestern state. Sounds like something GW Bush would say.
     The same stop where he called a woman "sweetie."
    originally from the Washington Times (posted on HuffPo, sorry)


    [ Parent ]
    Is this Arugula Story true? (none / 0) (#189)
    by Chimster on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:19:03 PM EST
    I can't find a video of it. Do you have a link? If this arugula story is true, it would be the perfect end to an already enjoyable week.

    [ Parent ]
    This Media Matters article (5.00 / 1) (#202)
    by hellskitchen on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:26:01 PM EST
    while it criticizes how the quote was used, does not question the accuracy of the quote itself.

    Media Matters

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, it's true (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:26:02 PM EST
    Link

    And here is an "Arugula Farmers For Obama" tshirt if  you are so inclined:

    Link

    [ Parent ]

    must everything be video? (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    sheesh...

    NYT Link - sorry, no video

    ;-)

    [ Parent ]

    There doesn't need to be a video (none / 0) (#212)
    by Chimster on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:31:10 PM EST
    It just happens to be one of the most powerful mediums to get a message spread out across the internet.

    [ Parent ]
    But videos without transcripts are horrible (none / 0) (#220)
    by hellskitchen on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:37:45 PM EST
    for people like me who are hearing impaired.

    [ Parent ]
    Argh (none / 0) (#247)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:12:34 PM EST
    My sympathies.  I'm not hearing impaired, but until fairly recently I had an extremely slow Internet connection at about dial-up speed, and trying to watch a video was excruciating.  I still have an aversion to them just because of the time involved.  I'd much rather read a transcript.

    But lots of video seems to be the way everyody is going these days, so you and I and lots of other people are just out of luck.

    I do find when I ask people to summarize what's on the video, they're often willing to do that.  So let's both you and I do it when it seems worthwhile.


    [ Parent ]

    10k Piano lessons (none / 0) (#224)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:40:01 PM EST
    Heard this on Stephanopoulos today, BTD says it's true.  Found link to quote on National Review, but can anyone prove it's wrong?
    Lessons. "I know we're spending -- I added it up for the first time -- we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we're spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth," Mrs. Obama tells the women. "And summer programs. That's the other huge cost. Barack is saying, `Whyyyyyy are we spending that?' And I'm saying, `Do you know what summer camp costs?'"


    [ Parent ]
    all of obama's quotes? (none / 0) (#243)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:00:24 PM EST
    FREE.  The looks on all us bitter people's faces?  Priceless.

    [ Parent ]
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#210)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:28:29 PM EST
    I missed it the first(second, third, ...) time around.

    Next time he tries that line - use milk, eggs, bread.  

    [ Parent ]

    But! (none / 0) (#249)
    by lansing quaker on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:14:17 PM EST
    "But, but I thought Whole Foods was stuff white people liked!"

    /snark

    [ Parent ]

    sophistry... (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:06:52 PM EST
    (and not the Isocrates/Gorgias type) gets you into a great deal of trouble when you're not careful.

    The candidate is trying to stick to his own script, which is one that seeks to thread a very tight needle with a form of triangulation that lectures one group of people that they need to be more respectful of opinions that disagree with theirs...but then gets knocked off by his own unscripted moments and has to be rescued. And that leads to questions...does he mean what he says? Or does he say one think and believe another? Is he the real deal (as he's been touted)? Or is he just another pol out for your vote and willing to sell snake oil to get it?

    The word choice was really unfortunate...not just as a slip of the tongue. Rather they were words aimed at voters...some of whom haven't made up their minds yet.

    It may not have an impact on the people who support him, but it does have an effect elsewhere. That's why they're hauling out so-called "pro-life" Dem senators from PA to try and rescue him from his words.

    [ Parent ]

    But "coincidentally"... (none / 0) (#102)
    by gmo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:34:14 PM EST
    ...that "majority of primary support" ISN'T a majority of core DEMOCRATS, including the lunch-pail dems he just insulted.  

    This statement may or may not hurt him with that group of core dems; it's too early to tell, though PA polling in the next couple of days might give some indication.   But it certainly doesn't bode well for the core argument against his candidacy in the GE, which is that he'll have trouble carrying precisely this group of voters.

    [ Parent ]

    What do you think (none / 0) (#142)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    of the commenters over at teh great orange who insist "Obama just told the truth!".  Are those citizens, voters, Americans really "bitter" and "clinging"?

    And if it is the truth, why not shout it to the heavens?

    [ Parent ]

    Frankly, the gaffes emanating from (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by scribe on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:39:37 AM EST
    Camp Obama the last few days all bear a couple things in common.  The most prominent - to me, anyway - is that they all have the same sanctimonious, look-down-one's-nose attitude that we've come to associate with Obama's mentor and friend, Joe Lieberman.

    And, for that matter, after Obama persuades us to stop clinging to the Second Amendment, which other parts of the Constitution should we then refrain from clinging to, so as to remain cool with his claque?

    The Fourth Amendment?  Not that Professor Yoo's analysis would leave much of that, anyway....

    The Fifth Amendment?  After all, as Meese and all the other good authoritarians would remind you, confession is good for the soul.  I mean, if it takes a little encouragement to get that confession out, no matter - the guy doing the beating has benefitted the confessant's soul, so the beating actually did him a lot of good.  (I could expect Scalia and his Opus Dei buddies to like that aspect....)  And, who needs due process, anyway?

    The Sixth Amendment?

    Or maybe Congress' enumerated powers?

    Please, do tell us.  I'm on tenterhooks to find out, 'Bam....

    I will give Obama crap about the apology (5.00 / 7) (#27)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:57:48 AM EST
    but they are same ol same ol politician apology--sorry sorry, I misspoke, I should have chosen my words better, yada yada.

    But Hillary gaffed on Tuzla, then gaffed on her first apology...it is just a politician thing...don't admit a mistake or truly apologize until you see no other way out.  Great moral and ethical makeup our politicians have--to have to be forced to own something.

    Why I will never like Obama is for reasons completely unconnected to his misstatements.  1.  I hate 90% of his blog/MSNBC bobbleheads.  2.  I don't believe him, I don't trust him.  He always references his policy write-ups but when he actually gets to talk about policy--his position is ...um...malleable.  3.  No matter what anyone says I don't think a young energetic policy staff makes up for lack of experience.  A few terms in a state legislature where he plead the fifth on any tough bill, where he gamed legislative achievement in his final year via a backroom deal with a senior legislator, and four years in the Senate where he has missed tons of votes equals the experience necessary to be an effective President.

    Electability means nothing to me.  Personally I feel Hillary is the most electable.  But I would rather lose with the best candidate than win with the worst.  Charisma is not a pre-requisite imo as evidenced by the great 'brush cutter' who occupies the WH currently.

    [ Parent ]

    what did he mean by his apology (5.00 / 5) (#8)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:41:29 AM EST
    took responsibility for them and expressed his regret for any hurt he had caused. (besides, my grandma has said mean and hurtful things about small towns before:  it isn't her fault any more than it is mine, she grew up in a different time, I grew up in Indonesia and Hawaii)<--- the last part was that little cartoon balloon next to his head as he was giving the stock apology, that he gave after his first apology wasn't an apology but a more wordy reiteration of the original SF comment.

    Hey, I forgive him.  He helped my candidate so no point in me holding a grudge.  (Except for the part about me being bitter for having to live in a small town that has seen jobs move out of town leaving me a quivering gun clingin bible thumpin mass of insecurity who seeks a crutch in every corner of life.)

    Sorry for the Sunday morning inanity but I'm feeling snarktastic, its a beautiful spring day, not a cloud....I'm going golfing in celebration of Tiger's massive comeback win (hopefully).

    Your project for today (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:06:04 PM EST
    Find a semi-local gun blog and see what people are saying....

    [ Parent ]
    maybe it's just me (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:15:59 PM EST
    but Obama's eventual apology seemed dismissive of the people he offended. "I'm sorry if people were offended" (for their lack of intellect recognizing the sociological Truths provided to my Billionaire donors) - isn't the same as "I was wrong" (to categorize voters, calling them racists and gun toting Bible thumpers).

    [ Parent ]
    No, it's similar to the non-apologies we (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:26:14 PM EST
    get from the media. Think Schuster apology.


    [ Parent ]
    Schuster has lost it (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:41:41 PM EST
    I guarantee if Hillary wins the nom and the WH Schuster will hire on with FOX on Nov 5 if the rest of the MSNBC Clinton haters say they are going back to being anti-FOX.

    [ Parent ]
    I think he was being sincere (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    he truly is sorry that folks were offended.  Not that he said anything wrong, or that he insulted anyone, but that his words have come back to bite him in the butt.

    [ Parent ]
    The Real Gaffe Was On Abortion (5.00 / 7) (#10)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:42:48 AM EST
    Not to the media, but if I were Clinton, I'd have those sanctimonious statements out to every women's organization on college campuses.

    Yes, I hear some women cling to reproductive (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:58:53 AM EST
    rights, sometimes even when it is against their personal economic interests.

    [ Parent ]
    Not Sure Of Your Point (none / 0) (#35)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:03:33 PM EST
    Unless you are stating the opposite of what seems to be true, that some women are against abortion even when it is not in their economic interest.

    Of course they are entitled to live as they choose. Choice is the operative word here.

    [ Parent ]

    Reproductive rights = pro-choice (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:06:41 PM EST
    Some women are Dems because of things like reproductive rights even though, because of their wealth, it would behoove them to vote for Rebublicans. Hence, they are voting against their economic interests.

    [ Parent ]
    Hahahahah (none / 0) (#74)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:22:46 PM EST
    That is a good one. Instead of having to pay $100,000 in taxes they will have to pay $120,000 on the half million earned in interest bearing accounts.

    Those women are sure suffering because they voted dem.

    [ Parent ]

    Where did I say anything about suffering? (none / 0) (#88)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:28:17 PM EST
    I only said voting against economic interests.

    [ Parent ]
    OK (none / 0) (#96)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:31:55 PM EST
    Still weak, and virtually meaningless. Besides there is little evidence that those who voted twice for Clinton voted against their economic interests as compared to those who voted twice for Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    The rich have done very well under Bush, (none / 0) (#118)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:42:25 PM EST
    and if they choose to vote strictly on economic interest, should probably vote for McCain. I'm still waiting for Obama to give back the money these wealthy SF donors gave him because their support is contrary to their economic interest.

    [ Parent ]
    Where Is The Evidence? (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:49:52 PM EST
    That Democratic policies are against the interests of rich people?
    Soros is a pretty smart man, as well are many of my wealthy friends. They see Bush policies working against their economic interests as do I.

    [ Parent ]
    If you insist on arguing that the rich (none / 0) (#155)
    by Practically Lactating on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:02:05 PM EST
    have not gotten richer under Bush, I'm going to end this.

    [ Parent ]
    The Rich Got Richer (none / 0) (#246)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:11:53 PM EST
    Under Clinton as well, it is what they do best, get richer. My point is that many super rich Democrats vote democratic party because they believe it is in their economic interests. People like Soros believe that Bush economics are bad for everyone including the rich.

    For instance super rich friends of mine believe that the inheritance tax is a good thing economically for their heirs. Economic interest is not about making a quick buck but sustaining long term economic wellbeing across a broad spectrum of our society.

    [ Parent ]

    We know Obama's a person of faith (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:44:53 AM EST
    We just had a month discussing his close personal relationship with his pastor of 20 years.  Do they WANT to go down THAT road again?

    Ha! (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:45:44 AM EST
    Great point. Will Campbell Brown bring up Wright tonight?

    [ Parent ]
    I've Thought That Was The Danger All Along (5.00 / 7) (#15)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:50:08 AM EST
    You don't make broad generalizations about other people's religion, but you REALLY don't make them when you've just spent the last several weeks defending your church.    

    [ Parent ]
    The Other Potential Issue Is Trade (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:53:51 AM EST
    So what does he mean that Pennsylvanians cling to anti-trade sentiment because they are bitter?  Does that mean they don't have legitimate concerns about what NAFTA has meant for them?  And does that mean Obama isn't serious about fixing NAFTA?

    Obama has had two major press problems - Wright and Goolsbee on NAFTA.  This gaffe has the potential to resurrect both of them.

    And I'm changing my view of what Clinton should do.  She should hit him on NAFTA and trade.  "Pennsylvanians don't cling to anti-trade sentiment out of some sort of bitterness..."

    [ Parent ]

    Why the "cling to anti-trade sentiments" (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:05:27 PM EST
    quote isn't being pounced upon by the Hillary campaign and surrogates, I have no idea. Seems like you could really make some headway there:

    Obama to those who lost jobs to NAFTA: "Just stop clinging"
    Talk about elitist!

    The Media? Yeah, they never will; the Teflon  -- another similarity to Reagan.

    [ Parent ]

    That part hasn't been (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:12:23 PM EST
    explored yet.

    We barely got past guns and religion.

    [ Parent ]

    Perhaps We'll Get There (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:24:19 PM EST
    in addition to the anti-trade sentiment stuff, it raises the entire issue of whether Obama tells the rich folks (or Canadians) the same thing as he's telling the voters.  Of course, all politicians do this to a certain extent, but Obama isn't supposed to be a pol (and most politicians are artful enough not to be so obvious about it).

    [ Parent ]
    Umm.. (none / 0) (#125)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:48:45 PM EST
    Obama does realize that PA is a blue state right?

    [ Parent ]
    How can she not? (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:50:18 AM EST
    He's 'got religion' because of Wright, lol!~

    Oy. Popcorn anyone?

    [ Parent ]

    Nah, too dumb (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:50:34 AM EST
    and too Republican.

    [ Parent ]
    Nothing is too dumb or too Republican (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:07:02 PM EST
    for Campbell Brown

    [ Parent ]
    his answer: (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Turkana on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:56:54 AM EST
    i only clung to wright because i was bitter. now, as is my wife, i'm finally proud of my country. so, i'm not bitter, anymore. so i don't need to cling to wright, anymore.

    [ Parent ]
    but Michelle Obama (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:28:30 PM EST
    only decided she was proud of America after so many Americans voted for her husband and placed him in the lead. It's the racial thing again - and perhaps thought processes learned during 20 years of Wright's sermons.
    And now Obama says "those people" don't recognize his brilliance because of his skin color.

    [ Parent ]
    Good point (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:49:49 AM EST
    So bringing up the "god damn Amercia" pastor should definitely help the gun-religion-hate clinging midwest voters to get over the whole thing in a quick jiffy!

    [ Parent ]
    the clinton supporters (1.00 / 1) (#81)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:25:26 PM EST
    have clearly decided that personal destruction is the only path.  i haven't heard anything on his policies, his vision etc. on this site for a long time.  it's all Wright or Rezko or a gaffe (which is just a ungainly error right???)

    if you're falling, bring everyone down with you.

    [ Parent ]

    Sorry.... (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:29:39 PM EST
     but you do make me laugh.  Hillary supporters will stoop to anything.  We are such liars.  We will do anything to win.  We are really corporatist, free traders, somewhat racist.  We are shrill.  We claw at power.  We are low information so you need to forgive us.    

    (snark)...all the words above have been used to describe and or as you people say "frame" Hillary.  

    [ Parent ]

    He's not running on policies (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:32:20 PM EST
    he say's he's running on judgment. Although his campaign says he's running on politics . . .

    Plus, his policies are pretty empty.

    Speaking of personal destruction, that also seems to have been a big part of the O campaign. Daily sending out negatives on Clinton's character. Ahhh . . . Hope.

    [ Parent ]

    so... (none / 0) (#110)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    his policies are pretty empty.

    do explain.

    and his judgment would have kept us out of Iraq. I cna't wait until all you TL thread posters are working w/ the republicans to bring down Obama.  Because he beat your Captain.  I have no problem voting for Clinton (I won't be able to) and if you notice, I've said little about her (minus the one or two Sniper references).  My big issue is the continuous tone of her supporters "clinging" to any potential misstatement, gaffe, error, whatever, hoping that this is the one that changes things.  Nothing of substance.  just shallow attempts at bringing down, by all accounts, a decent, committed, progressive seeking to lead our country in a different direction.  We should all be happy about his path.  and he has run a great campaign (now, some things you guys don't like, which i fully understand) if you think about how the truly inevitable Clinton presidency is now not.

    [ Parent ]

    That's a mighty big brush you're using there (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    one of the first things you learn in art class is to keep your brushes clean. Keeps things from getting muddy and adds to the purity of the stroke. Oh, yeah, and size matters.

    I kinda thought the "Creative Class" would have already understood that lesson . . .

    [ Parent ]

    his judgment would have kept us (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:50:22 PM EST
    out of Iraq?  Ya think?  So would Hillary.  So would Gore.  So would Kerry.  Every single one of whom has said they would have gone after Al-queda and Osama in Afghanistan and not gone into Iraq.

    Obama is NOT against Iraq.  He has voted to fund the war.  He has backtracked to the pt of being near to McCain as far as having a long term "peace-keeping" force ala S. Korea if it is deemed necessary by the "people on the ground."  Meaning he is going to let someone else make the ultimate decisions on Iraq.  Another waffle for "Arthur Frommer (Barack Obama) the waffle king of Chicago."

    [ Parent ]

    ummm... (none / 0) (#150)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:59:24 PM EST
    I hope nobody here is listening to you b/c the lack of facts anywhere in your post is distinctly misleading.  

    [ Parent ]
    Jeez (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by nell on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    no offense, but you must be out of your mind if you do not recognize that this is POLITICS. Obama and his supporters do EXACTLY the same thing, in far worse tones if I might ad. Need proof? How about Samantha Powers calling Clinton a monster to a newspaper and saying that people in Ohio were just scared and stupid so they didn't vote for Obama. Just look at the piece from the Obama supporting Harvard sociologist that Big Tent Democrat quoted this morning.

    Yes, it is frustrating when your guy makes a mistake, and yes, the other side will jump all over it, especially if some found it personally offensive. Clinton messed up with Bosnia and the Obama supporters pilloried her for it, as did the media. Fine, this Clinton supporter, for one, was not complaining about how mean everyone was being. Did I think the reaction was over the top? Sure, but Clinton is a big girl, she made a mistake, and that's life. Obama made a huge mistake, tough, deal with it. I am sure the media will protect your guy and what us crazy Clinton supporters say won't make a difference anyways.

    [ Parent ]

    Funny (none / 0) (#123)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    But your reasons for not voting for Clinton are the same as mine for not voting Obama.  I have to wonder though, how does this latest "bitter-gaffe" of his reflect on his Judgement?

    [ Parent ]
    his bitter gaffe (none / 0) (#145)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:56:26 PM EST
    is accurate.  people are bitter, do cling to social issues.  


    [ Parent ]
    that is crap and you KNOW it. (5.00 / 3) (#185)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:16:04 PM EST
    not only is that an intellectually barren statement it just goes to prove that some Obama supporters are less likely to really consider the import of an Obama gaffe but are far more likely to defend the indefensible by restating the indefensible as opposed to providing even a grain of truth that might back up their statement.

    Hunters like their guns.  We hunt.  We shoot skeet.  We try and make smiley faces ala Lt. Riggs.  I no longer hunt but I still like target practice.  I would be fine with the govt taking away my gun...but most aren't like me.  Most gun owners are Charlton Heston gun owners (cold dead hands and such).  But me, nor any other gun owner I know, clings to our guns because times are tough.  The NRA club clings to their guns because the govt threatens to restrict them or take em away.

    Church?  Religion is a giant crutch held onto by what? 99% of the planet in some form or another?  Obama is a religion clutching elitist...but apparently he can't see that he is a tree in the forest.  Because I don't he clings to religion for lack of financial security.  Though I do sometimes wish our government would get outsourced to India...then maybe he'd clutch his bible for the same reason as all those poor townies.

    [ Parent ]

    Do you think there is no other reason (none / 0) (#165)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:05:21 PM EST
    people vote on social issues other than that they are bitter? Jeralyn is, I believe, a supporter of second amendment rights. She doesn't strike me as bitter.

    [ Parent ]
    so am i.... (none / 0) (#232)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:47:04 PM EST
    they're not mutually exclusive Cat.  are they?

    [ Parent ]
    AgreeToDisagree (none / 0) (#156)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:02:39 PM EST
    How can you cling to the notion that Obama's " judgment would have kept us out of Iraq" when Obama has said on different occasions that he would bomb Iran, bomb Pakistan and bomb Afghanistan.

    [ Parent ]
    this is exactly the type of BS (none / 0) (#167)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:05:31 PM EST
    that needs to stop being peddled on this site.

    Obama has said on different occasions that he would bomb Iran, bomb Pakistan and bomb Afghanistan.

    it should be deleted.

    that is absolutely not factual. I hope other reasonable thread posters would call you out on this but until they do, I will.  

    [ Parent ]

    Facts? (none / 0) (#234)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    He said he would bomb Iran and bombing Pakistan could not be ruled out ==>here

    I'm not paying for the article because the healine
    is enough "Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran" and you can google for other reference if you need an expanded version of the article's contents.

    As for Afghanistan ... read his 2002 anti-war speech (cough cough) where he says he "I was a strong supporter of the war in Afghanistan" - and the last I checked Afghanistan was not a bomb-free war

    [ Parent ]

    that is brutal (none / 0) (#239)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:55:07 PM EST
    you cite the title of an article, provide no context whatsover, and argue his support of the war in Afghanstan (which the strong majority of the world supported)?

    truly empty response.  expect more than that when peddle false comments that are an attempt to make Obama look like a war mongerer.  He never said he'd BOMB pakistan.  and surgical strikes in Iran need the proper context, which you won't provide for us.  

    careful next time, very misleading posts don't spur terribly substantive discussions.

    [ Parent ]

    anyone going to call out (none / 0) (#180)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:12:22 PM EST
    Ding. ?  didn't think so.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, I Would (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    But I'm too tired from defending Clinton from last week's Obama swarm about what a liar she was over Trina Bachtel.  And before that explaining repeatedly why Clinton's voters weren't all racists.  And before that knocking down rightwing smears against her that come spewing forth from so many Obama blogs and diaries, she's polarizing, she's a serial liar, she's destroying the party, she'll do anything to win.

    If Obama supporters hadn't spent so much time spewing such hateful, personally destructive crap about Hillary Clinton, maybe I'd have more energy and inclination to defend him.   But as it is, I'm exhausted.  Let kid oakland do it.

    [ Parent ]

    ok (none / 0) (#204)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:27:03 PM EST
    thats what i thought.  

    [ Parent ]
    Actually, Ding's post is accurate. (5.00 / 1) (#218)
    by gmo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:33:49 PM EST
    Obama HAS suggested in  the past (notably in 2004, contrary to Kerry's position while running for the presidency) that surgical missile strikes on Iran may become necessary, and equally suggested that similar military strikes on Pakistan shouldn't be ruled out if Islamic extremists took over.  He was speaking in extreme hypotheticals, and his points should be taken in that context.

    Times have changed since then, when he also stood AGAINST immediate troop withdrawal in Iraq.  (IMO, 2004 might have been a -better- time to withdraw troops immediately instead of letting our presence help escalate Iraq further into chaos.)  

    But it's not factually incorrect to say that Obama hasn't made such intimations, because he has.  He may not be making them now, but he's certainly suggested use of force as a means of handling rogue nations when necessary in the past.  And frankly, I don't think that was necessarily an unreasonable stance in general (and certainly not when taken in context), but it does speak to a certain level of immaturity regarding his understanding of foreign policy, especially in dealing with Iran & Pakistan.  

    But since his anti-war stance has become the bedrock of his 'foreign policy experience,'  it's clear politically why many of his supporters are challenging us to ignore that he ever made those comments.      Implying that he still believes this is incorrect (though one wonders how much value to place on policy proclamations during the election cycle versus the candidate's previous statements).   But it's correct to say he did make those statements at the time.  

    [ Parent ]

    Except (none / 0) (#225)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:40:17 PM EST
    But since his anti-war stance has become the bedrock of his 'foreign policy experience,'  it's clear politically why many of his supporters are challenging us to ignore that he ever made those comments.

    Obama is not anti war. He may refer back to that speech, but he also is just as much a warmonger as Clinton is. Both will keep troops in Iraq whether or not the Iraq people want them, and both can't wait to really start winning in Afghanistan.

    [ Parent ]

    You're correct. (5.00 / 1) (#227)
    by gmo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:42:18 PM EST
    I should have said his public image is anti-war, not his policy.  

    [ Parent ]
    No it is not. (none / 0) (#226)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:41:15 PM EST
    please cite b/c your lying.  let people see the context of all the crap your posting so people know that its not true.  if your going to say things like that, please provide links, cite, etc.  It is incredibly dangerous to peddle such falsehoods within our party in the hopes of misleading, scaring, etc.

    if you do cite, i'll point out each lie you just wrote.

    [ Parent ]

    Well, here's what I've got. (5.00 / 1) (#236)
    by gmo on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    A repost from Chicago Tribune, 9/25/04

    http://sweetness-light.com/archive/obama-was-for-hitting-iran-against-gay-marriage

    To be clear, what I wrote is that Obama suggested tactical missile strikes.  And I also said "He was speaking in extreme hypotheticals, and his points should be taken in that context."

    So I don't believe I "lied" in my comment, and offered a fairly measured response to the original thread.

    I'd appreciate a similar tone from you, instead of making blanket accusations of lying.  Thanks.

    [ Parent ]

    the context helps us all (none / 0) (#240)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:55:55 PM EST
    thank you.

    [ Parent ]
    Read His Iraq War Plan (none / 0) (#237)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:51:42 PM EST
    For starters, and look at how he voted against defunding the war from the start (not). He only voted against funding along with Clinton very late in the game, when it seemed politically expedient.

    You need a good detox if you think either Obama or Clinton are anti war candidates.

    [ Parent ]

    what comment of mine are you referring to? (none / 0) (#241)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    i didn't say anything of the sort; i was questioning the accuracy and context of a pretty misleading statement.

    [ Parent ]
    Obviously (none / 0) (#209)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:28:24 PM EST
    You have a lot of reading to do. Obama's voting record  on the waris exactly the same as Hawkish Clinton. His plan for Iraq is exactly the same as Clintons, and from my reading looks like we will be at war for some time.

    Neither have repudiated Bush's WOT.

    [ Parent ]

    this is difficult to find on pro-Obama blogs (none / 0) (#105)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:36:13 PM EST
    >>>i haven't heard anything on his policies, his vision etc. on this site for a long time

    But there are many Hillary-hate diaries!
    Even DK front page = Hillary is trying to prevent Obama from winning the nomination! {gasp!} OMG!!!! She is sooo evil!

    uh - this is a primary and just because the media has given Obama a pass doesn't mean Hillary should when he bashes Democrats and hurts downticket races with his anti-Dem remarks.

    [ Parent ]

    i'm not (none / 0) (#112)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:39:40 PM EST
    talking about anyone else.  

    but that is your response. ? other sites don't like hillary?  ok.

    [ Parent ]

    are you blind? (5.00 / 5) (#166)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:05:29 PM EST
    ignorant? or just looking for a fight?

    The comment is plain as day...OBAMA's policy positions are so VAGUE that not even Obama blogs talk Obama policy.  If they can't find something substantive to converse about concerning THEIR candidates policies how can WE (his opponents) possibly have worthy conversations concerning his policies?

    Nafta?  Obama's position?  Voted to continue it.  Says he doesn't like it.  We talk about that.

    Guns?  He doesn't like em, at all...no wait a staffer answered that question, he loves guns...no wait in Idaho he loves guns but in California he doesn't like guns.

    Gay issues?  No pictures with gay lovin mayors.  But he talks about gay issues in speeches more than anyone ever...gay marriage?  no way, civil unions?  state matter.

    Economy?  He's for bailing out mortgage holders but not mortgage banks.  He's not for bailing out corporations but he's for people keeping their jobs.  Which begs the question...Would he have bailed out United Air or would he have said FU to several thousand workers who were also the airlines major shareholders?

    Pro-choice?  Well, kinda, maybe but us nasty pro-choicers have to learn to understand the complex emotions of pro-lifers...so maybe he is pro-choice and maybe he's pro-Idunno.

    Foreign policy?  Weaseled a committee chair after only 2+ years of Senate service then proceeded to not hold a single meeting with that committee for over a year.  That meeting, same day as the Petreaus hearings, was to nominate so and so to such and such--not policy.  But he did stay in a Holiday Inn the night previous.

    I'm bored now and it is nearing golf thirty.  I'm sure others can talk about more of Obama's ever shifting policies.

    [ Parent ]

    We do have a tendency to cling. (none / 0) (#120)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:43:19 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    My thought exactly (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:05:23 PM EST
    Let's hear more about how Rev Wright brought him to Jesus.  That should really help.

    [ Parent ]
    And Wright has just reemerged (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:36:21 PM EST
    Fox is running audio of Wright delivering, what, a eulogy, I guess, at someone's funeral in which he lashes out at Fox personalities O'Reilly and Hannity in that same charming loving tone we've all gotten to know so well from his YouTube sermons.

    O'Reilly and Geraldo are going do a "special" responding to Wright at I think 5:00.

    [ Parent ]

    now TL supporters are citing (1.00 / 2) (#117)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:42:02 PM EST
    Fox news.  enough said. TalkRight

    [ Parent ]
    Citing? Sounds more like saying "Hey . . . (none / 0) (#131)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:50:43 PM EST
    guess what" vs using Fox as a source to back up opinion.

    [ Parent ]
    Why not? (none / 0) (#133)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    information comes from all sources.  Sometimes (or perhaps even most of the time) enemies tell you more truths about yourself than friends.

    [ Parent ]
    Stupid comment (none / 0) (#135)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:51:24 PM EST
    Fox is a very large part of the media environment, in case you hadn't noticed.

    [ Parent ]
    you guys keep (1.00 / 1) (#151)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:00:31 PM EST
    amazing me... a big part of the media, another good source of info.  ok.

    [ Parent ]
    I wouldn't call it a good source for (none / 0) (#173)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:07:49 PM EST
    all info, but they do make good points on occasion and are pretty fair with equal coverage on the Dems. Negative, but more equal. I don't watch a lot of Fox, but they do seem to be less "gotcha" with the Dems. Don't know how they were treating their own when their primary had more contenders, but that's my view from the couch on their Dem reporting . . .

    I think it's interesting to compare their reporting to MSNBC and CNN.

    [ Parent ]

    You would like to provide (none / 0) (#251)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:20:31 PM EST
    some back-up for your idea that Fox isn't a big part of the media?  Hey, didja ever happen to hear the phase "know your enemy"?

    A big part of the issue under discussion here is whether the "bitter" comments are going to be a focus of media attention and/or will hurt Obama and the Dem Party down the road if he's the nominee.

    NOW do you