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

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • 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.

    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.


    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).


    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. "


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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).


    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.


    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".

    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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.


    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)

    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.

    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


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

    NYT Link - sorry, no video



    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?'"

    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.

    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.  


    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!"



    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.


    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.


    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?


    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.


    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....

    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).

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.

    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.

    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.


    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?

    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.    

    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..."


    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.


    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.


    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).

    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?

    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?


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

    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

    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.

    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.

    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!

    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.


    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.  


    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.


    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.


    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 . . .


    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."


    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.  

    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.


    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?

    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.  

    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.


    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.

    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?

    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.

    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.  


    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


    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.


    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.

    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.


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

    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.  


    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.


    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.  

    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.


    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


    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.


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

    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.


    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.

    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.


    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.


    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.


    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.


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

    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.


    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

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.

    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.


    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 get it?  Or are you more comfortable with your head buried in the sand there?


    There is no such thing as bad publicity (none / 0) (#162)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:04:38 PM EST
    unless you are a politician in a tight race, fighting for every vote you can get.

    Daniel Schorr threw Wright a life preserver this morning, but only NPR listeners heard it.


    Somebody needs to trot out the whole (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:49:03 AM EST
    damn speech and let the Obama camp defend it. These were not the only remarks that lacked 'judgment', so it was no 'mis-speak', imo. I wonder how the voters would feel about the laughing that accompanied the words.

    Mark Helperin told Stephanopolous (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:08:20 PM EST
    there is video coming out soon.  Stay tuned.

    Heh . . . (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:17:07 PM EST
    Methinks that will not go over well.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:24:37 PM EST
    He thinks they're bitter now...

    what is false about what he said... (none / 0) (#91)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:28:53 PM EST
    ? really.  people are bitter.  people do cling to the more "social" issues b/c they have come to expect little from govt.  it is true - people in my town (went red in 00 and 04) do exactly that.  

    i know we like to pick on anything, all the time, but this is becoming juvenile; all us adults can't actually discuss what actually goes on.  


    Is it true that people are voting (5.00 / 2) (#113)
    by joc on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:40:58 PM EST
    for Obama because he's black? Maybe, but you don't win over voters by saying that's the cause. So when they see video of  Obama telling his millionaire donors:

    Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

    Do you think the voters are going to be saying, 'yeah it's true, there are beaten down, betrayed people out there,' or do you think they'll be asking why his wealthy donors thought his comments about poor were funny? And why did Barack Obama say those people are more skeptical of him?


    did you watch that... (none / 0) (#126)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:48:56 PM EST
    are we really taking this seriously... it was tongue and cheek.  are you that blinded?  c'mon.  this is becoming incredibly damaging as you guys, again and again, decide to push absolute crap.  

    and secondly, do you really think that there isn't a slight hurdle for some voters in rural america (my america) to vote for a young black guy named Barack Obama.  there is nothing "racist" about that.  it is factual.  They very well may vote for him, but it is a hurdle.  the same for some people voting for a woman.  doesn't mean they won't.  THATS why this election is historic.


    Absolute crap? Tell that to the Pennsylvanians (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:58:08 PM EST
    in the small towns as well as those in other places in the country.  Those are the ones you should worry about. Ask them whether this crap that Sen. Obama said about them makes them feel crappy and affect the way they vote.  Or, we can just wait until the close of day on April 22.

    OK (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:05:14 PM EST
    Here is how someone from a poor rural town feels about Obama's comments. Warning, I think she is an Obama supporter, not sure though.

    It always amuses me when upper-class people with power and privilege start screeching about "elitism." Today all manner of political, media and blogging elites -- people with advanced degrees who've never been to a tractor pull in their lives -- are snorting about elitism because Barack Obama said something that anyone with a real redneck background knows to be true -- working-class, small-town whites feel left behind, bitter and frustrated.

    C & L


    I agree with your point here (none / 0) (#138)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    Obama is just making the self-aware joke about his name and racial extraction that he always makes.  I don't see anything wrong with laughing at it.

    damaging (none / 0) (#147)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:56:47 PM EST
    cause you believe he is the nominee.  

    "push absolute crap"? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    I dunno.  Why don't you ask Obama?  He's the one who said those not-just-words.

    It's not racism (none / 0) (#222)
    by joc on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:39:02 PM EST
    The "black guy" just has a "slight hurdle" for "some rural voters in rural America."

    Again, reread what I wrote. You don't win over voters by insinuating they are racists. No matter how "factual" you believe it to be. You don't see the Clinton campaign going around saying the reason some people aren't voting for Hillary is because those voters are misogynists. There are misogynists in the world, but the campaign, much less Hillary, doesn't give it as an excuse for why they aren't voting for her.

    "[I]t was tongue and (sic) cheek." You can certainly choose to believe that. But you can't tell other people, who will be shown the video, that that is what they have to think. And this is the problem. Obama will be seeing this video in ads during the general election, paid for by Republican 527s. Will you stand-up in front of 'your America' and explain to them he was just joking about them being racist? Will that win him votes?


    so you agree he is accurate (none / 0) (#230)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:45:45 PM EST

    You'll have to be specific (none / 0) (#244)
    by joc on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:03:18 PM EST
    Agree he is accurate about what?

    And I'm still wondering if you have an answer to my questions in my prior post.


    ??? huh (none / 0) (#250)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:14:56 PM EST
    it is accurate. it is a hurdle. it is not blatant racism, just like Hillary's hurdle of being the first woman president (maybe next time) is real because she is a woman.  that is why this is historic.  i just don't get what you disagree w/ Obama about regarding his statement.  

    is it not a slight hurdle being a black man named barack obama.  it is. plain and simple.  now, it won't keep him from the presidency as it once might have.  that is an incredibly positive statement. just like the fact that Hillary is a woman would not keep her from being president, as it might have once been.  but to deny that it isn't a hurdle for some americans still (on both accounts) is to close your eyes.  

    some people like the fact that he has acknowledged many feelings that exist, be it on race, religion, or economics.  some people, say you, don't like that he has.  they'll keep on pushing the line that he is calling people racist... he isn't.  he's saying, based on people's backgrounds and situations, that some people do sort through a variety of feelings while ultimately coming to the right decision for themselves.  he knows full well that the majority of people in America are good, loving people that want a better country.  

    What is inaccurate about his statement?


    You're intentionally avoiding my point (none / 0) (#256)
    by joc on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:29:57 PM EST
    I'm saying (again) that you don't win over votes by insinuating voters are racists. You counter by saying, but it's true, they are (although rather than being straight-forward, you hide behind words like "slight hurdle" as if people won't understand that means the same thing).

    You may "like the fact" that Obama is excusing his poor performance on racial as well as religious or economic differences with the voters, but none of this will help him in a general election. It will hurt him.

    "[T]hey'll keep on pushing the line that he is calling people racist... he isn't." Right, he's just pointing out the "slight hurdle." You say tomato, they say tomato.


    OK (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:50:25 PM EST
    If you have met people who are bitter  (characterized by intense antagonism or hostility) and cling to the church because they have come to expect little from government, then I guess what he said is true.

     I thought red voters thought the church, rather than government,  was supposed to provide for people. I didn't realize they turned to the church only in bitterness after government failed them.

    I never in my mind have made the connection between not getting anything from government, and clinging to the church instead, so maybe i just don't get it.


    For one thing (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:54:28 PM EST
    What is false is that people believe in ("cling to") things like their faith quite independently of any bitterness they may feel for their personal economic situation. He says their beliefs flow from their bitterness, which is not only false but also insulting.

    In addition, to say that people get bitter and so cling to their religion in front of a group of presumably wealthy people in, of all places, my beloved San Francisco, is a stunningly bad political move.

    Furthermore, I think this idea that people vote against their economic interests because they are manipulated by the GOP (which is not what he originally said, but which is contained in WORM, v.3 or v.4, I can't remember which) is dismissive of those voters. People vote for politicans for all kinds of reasons that don't have to do with them having been manipulated. Not everyone votes solely on how economically comfortable they will be if their chosen candidate wins. I make a boatload of money--guess what: I vote against my economic interests when I vote for the Dems. It's not because I am manipulated by the Dems, I just believe in the principles of the Democratic Party. People should not be woeful of my against-economic-interests vote any more than they should be woeful of the votes of those poor, downtrodden, bitter Pennsylvanians.


    Penn voted Dem (none / 0) (#168)
    by jeffhas on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:06:03 PM EST
    Are you saying Dems manipulated small town citizens  to cling to their religion, guns, racism, homophobia, free trade?

    He was NOT speaking about Repubs here -  Pennsylvania votes Dem.


    It's starting... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by joc on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:32:01 PM EST
    Here's video of what I think may be the most damning part of what he said. When he insinuates people not voting for him maybe 'more skeptical' of him because he is black.

    It's never a good sign when this has to be said: (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by ahazydelirium on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:53:07 AM EST
    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.

    Statements like these are always uttered with an implication of political panic. Needing to remind the electorate to vote on records and positions, instead of a "gaffe," is never a strong moment in a campaign because it demonstrates that the gaffe is more prominent than a record or position.

    And, as Casey is not all that accomplished in Pennsylvania, I don't think his comments will do much to counter the effects of the original comment. Nothing (except time) will be able to overcome the image of a wealthy politician telling a wealthy crowd how bitter, fanatic and poor Pennsylvanians are.

    If people are voting on Obama's record (5.00 / 5) (#29)
    by TheRefugee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:58:52 AM EST
    they don't need much to be impressed.

    Does Casey not realize (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    Obama is a clean slate? What record? Finding out his State record is NOT easy and well, we all know what an impact he has had in Washington . . .

    Hurting the democratic party (5.00 / 8) (#20)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:53:08 AM EST
    I am sure someone else has brought this up, but this whole tape, his statements, the idea of rich billionaire laughing at the remarks about rural voters is going to deeply hurt the democratic party in GE. Isn't this exactly the stereotype of the liberal democrats the republicans promote (no comment on the irony of that).

    This is the guy who wants to lead the party into the election?

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:31:33 PM EST
    and I think it's now absolutely essential to prevent him from getting the nomination by whatever means are out there.  I didn't think that before this.  But these remarks will tar the Democratic Party for a long, long time if he isn't rejected.  Clinton has far better cred and life experience to counteract it on behalf of the party.

    I think so too (none / 0) (#144)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:56:25 PM EST
    I think it was Mark Halperin this morning who said he doubted this was Obama's "macaca moment".  Probably not for the nomination, but I think so for the GE.

    On Monday Obama runs away from his (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by tigercourse on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:19:58 PM EST
    church "I didn't listen to a thing that man said!" on tuesday he runs back to it "I am a man of faith!" and wendesday he's sprinting away again. He doesn't know whether he's coming or going.

    Good Analysis from Politico (5.00 / 2) (#75)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:23:34 PM EST
    Not completely on-topic, but it's an article of what Hillary wish she could say, but that McCain will have no problem saying. And this is just on the heels of the SF comments.


    Are you joking? (none / 0) (#121)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:44:41 PM EST
    I can think of at least a dozen times when the media have noted how HRC doesn't think BO can win.  The HRC camp has been spreading this story all over.

    I would be surprised if there are a handful of press who haven't heard (and most reported) that HRC "feels strongly only she can beat McCain in the GE."

    It's so funny to pretend they aren't very actively pushing this story to the press and SDs.

    And, when this is reported there are two things missing 1) this is obviously part of the HRC team trying to undermine BO, and 2) shouldn't someone question the HRC team's ability to predict election outcomes, they screwed up their own run, but somehow they are all knowing experts about November.  I wonder what their predictions said about BO's chances for the nomination back in May of 2007?



    Despite Casey's (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by Andy08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:27:14 PM EST
    and Obama's attempts to spin this (as well as those by the media and others). Obama's offensive remarks and their meaning were clear.

    This caller to C-Span and Florida citizen points out why what was said by Obama was so offensive.  She gets it.  Listen to her

    And even the remarks themselves, Obama made another comment where he said that voters in PA are even more skeptical of him b/c he is black and is called
    "Barack Obama"; and everyone laughed. Yes, essentially he said that PA voters are bigots who  have a harder time to see his message of hope because it comes from a vblack man with a different name.  Pay attention: listen to him in SF (before the "other remarks")

    The lady in Florida (none / 0) (#107)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:37:01 PM EST
    is right on the money!

    That CSPAN caller is right on target (none / 0) (#108)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:37:57 PM EST
    Thanks for the link.

    In Obama's response that the moderator read, I like how he tries to say he was correct in his statements, and implying that saying people are  'frustrated and understandably so' is the equivalent of 'bitter'.  Not much of an apology there.


    We voted Casey in... (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:43:05 PM EST
    Just to rid ourselves of the God awful Rick Santorum (I hated his guts). I knew Casey was a pro-lifer but he was such a breath of fresh air I would have voted for Santa Claus to rid ourself of the Santorum CANCER.

    Having said all that, Bob Casey Hates the Clintons. His father, Pennsylvania's Governor (who was also a prolifer), wanted to speak at the 1992 Dem convention and William Jefferson Clinton  said no thanks.....
    So Casey would defend Obama or Osama for that matter just to get a smack on the Clintons. If a strong Democrat could run against Casey in the future I would vote him out in a second.

    Since you're from PA, can (none / 0) (#141)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:54:54 PM EST
    you tell us what the reaction is there to Obama's "gaffe"?

    I'm from Pittsburgh (none / 0) (#184)
    by smott on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:16:01 PM EST
    And it headlines the politics sections in the papers here last 2 days.

    Today it's page 1 above the fold in the Sunday paper.  'Furor continues over Obam's small town quotes'


    I'm from PA, too (none / 0) (#186)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:16:54 PM EST
    ...But I haven't a clue. I think it's too early to tell how people are responding to this.

    One man-on-the-street in Scaife's paper (Tribune Review) called it "a slap in the face," but he said he didn't think it would hurt Obama because those most insulted wouldn't vote for him anyway, which is probably true.

    I honestly doubt it will shake the faith of Obama-supporters. After all, these people applaud when he blows his nose.

    It may tip a few percent of the undecideds toward Hillary and boost the margin of her win.

    But remember, his remarks weren't limited to PA but to "small towns" where people "cling" to god and guns. That ain't going to play well in Indiana  nor North Carolina. I'm really curious to see if Hillary's support improves and his drops in those states. If not, then I guess he really does have teflon--at least among Democrats, who I'm convinced really ARE out-of-touch with the rest of the country. No wonder it's so hard for Dems to win national elections....


    Or OH, or MI... (none / 0) (#193)
    by smott on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:22:30 PM EST
    ...or WV, or KY...or....

    I just got off the Phone (none / 0) (#228)
    by Mrwirez on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:43:20 PM EST
    with my 62 yr old mother who is actually a republican. She feels that Hillary has been targeted unfairly by the press and actually has sympathy for her (which I can't believe came out of her mouth). She also said her group of ten or so women she goes out with are almost all democrats, and not one will vote for Obama. They just don't like him. The original reasoning was the reverend Wright comments, and now this. They also get the feeling he is phony and his wife is a very racist woman. I really think Obama has a major problem and it goes to his electability in November, here in PA anyway . His statements are contrary to what he has been campaigning on all along. I also got the feeling from my mom is that the republicans think Hillary would be a much more formidable opponent come November, because Obama is more dovish and the weaker democrat..... ? At this point I would bet Hillary will win by 16-20%.... just a hunch.

    Irwin PA -25 miles east of Pittsburgh


    When is the Bitter-Talk Express (none / 0) (#213)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:31:25 PM EST
    due back in PA?  Will the locals greet him with flowers and candy?

    Questioning Obama's Damage Control Capabilities (5.00 / 2) (#154)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    This seems to me to be another example of how much the Obama campaign struggles to play defense when the media turns on them.  That they are too dependent on his status as media darling.

    Much as with his earlier comments about Ronald Reagan, the Wright stuff, and Goolsbee/NAFTA, the Obama campaign seems slow to appreciate what a problem they have.  These comments, regardless of what you think about the content, are an obvious political problem.  But instead of immediately saying he misspoke and apologize, the campaign and its surrogates (both official and unofficial) at first defended them, then Obama apologized for any offense it may have caused but stuck by the underlying truth, and now has Casey coming out and actually apologizing, but of course Casey isn't Obama.  This has only prolonged their agony, IMO.

    Just as their inability to simply say that Obama didn't think Reagan had been a good president and should've said so in that editorial board interview in Nevada permitted that controversy to rage on for days.  When - at most - it should've been a one-day story.

    Similarly, their first reaction was to defend Wright and only after it wouldn't go away did Obama give his big speech (and that only worked, IMO, because the media was afraid they were helping Clinton).  

    Same thing with Goolsbee, they issued a narrow denial about the embassy in D.C. and so then get caught not only having to admit the basic story was true, but looking like they are either liars or don't know what their advisors are doing.

    The thing every one of these incidents has in common is that they are mistakes of their own making, they have nothing to do with Clinton.  And in every case, Obama's first instinct is to deny any problem (even when the political problem is obvious) and that leads to him having bigger problems and dominating the media longer.  It's like he has no idea how to deal with a potentially damaging story if the MSM won't carry his water.  

    Not a good sign for his ability to handle the GOP smear coming his way if he's the nominee.

    One More Concern (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:04:45 PM EST
    The complete inability of his blog supporters to push back effectively on this story makes me wonder about their ability to help him play defense.   Their only response to Obama criticism so often boils down to "this is all Clinton's fault" or "Obama was right!"   That's true even as, in this case, Obama's wounds were entirely self-inflicted.  But more importantly, I don't think either of those things are going to work against McCain.  To play defense against the GOP, you need to do more than complain about how unfair everyone is being in not reading Obama's comments in the best light possible.  These folks don't seem capable of doing that.

    Humpty Dumpty (none / 0) (#172)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:07:36 PM EST
    that is the question, will they be ever to put him together again.  Together being the 'Agent of Change", "new politics" "Hope" "One America"  Some of those mantras are breaking down.  Now, he has to go beyond mantras and a story, so what is there?  

    What happened between (none / 0) (#4)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:33:57 AM EST
    Friday's defiant defense and the walk back today is that the Obama camp's own polling almost certainly showed how bad it was. Which is what politicians do. How will the faithful respond?. My prediction is it will go down the memory hole until the GOP brings it up in the GE.

    Do (none / 0) (#33)
    by nell on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:01:16 PM EST
    you really think they conduct polling that quickly? How do they decide who to call so fast? And would the message even resonate with people so quickly?

    They didn't call me (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:08:00 PM EST
    Only Sen Casey robo call for contributing to Obama's campaign. Click.

    they have enough people on the ground in Penn (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:11:22 PM EST
    that they may not need an official poll to know that this is very bad for them there.  In fact, Donna Brazile raised the bar again this morning - now she says that Clinton needs to win by 15% for it to be considered a big win.  My guess is that she knows it is going to be a bad day in Penn.

    Rasmussen says (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by eleanora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:27:34 PM EST
    they're polling on this right now.

    "Rasmussen Reports is surveying voters this weekend for reaction to Obama's remarks. Preliminary indications from interviews with 400 Likely Voters suggest that the comments are troublesome for Republicans and unaffiliated voters. However, there is less of an impact among Democrats. That tends to confirm the growing consensus that the comments may have more impact on the General Election than the Primaries.

    The preliminary data also suggests that Obama was shrewd to try and focus attention on the portion of the comments about people being bitter. That part of the message is well received. The reference to guns, religion, and immigration that creates potential problems. Rasmussen Markets data still gives Obama an 82.9% chance of winning the Democratic nomination. "

    exactly! (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Josey on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:46:51 PM EST
    the bitter part is the better part. And what did the media initially focus on? - bitter
    The worst part is religion, guns, racism, immigration, etc.
    Obama's remarks are toxic for the Dem Party.

    thanks for the Rasmussen link (5.00 / 1) (#229)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:44:06 PM EST
    Preliminary indications from interviews with 400 Likely Voters suggest that the comments are troublesome for Republicans and unaffiliated voters. However, there is less of an impact among Democrats.

    And this spells trouble for Obama in the general election. I think the DNC is stupid enough to run him despite this, but his much-vaunted "Obamacan" and Independent support is going to vanish in the general as the GOP hammers Wright and these truly elitist remarks--as well as Michelle's thesis and assorted other remarks.

    Obama is unelectable and everyone knows it except for the Democratic party elders and the academic liberals and pundits who are infatuated with him.


    yes they do (none / 0) (#175)
    by bigbay on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:09:22 PM EST
    campaigns poll usually 3 times a day...the managers aren't doing their job otherwise. accurate internal polling is critical to a campaign. And they ain't using Ras, Gallup or SUSA

    I've never considered... (none / 0) (#18)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:51:58 AM EST
    Casey to be an effective advocate for anything or anybody...and to that end, he didn't disappoint.

    Obama gaffed, the campaign posture is to never admit a mistake and now he's getting clobbered by it on all media...newspapers, Sunday morning news, Saturday night local news, national cable news...

    Mr. articulate turned out to bungle statements about some of the most volatile issues (economy, religion, guns), in the worst possible way, in the worst possible place (SF) all to try to make the worst possible point that Bill Clinton has embittered middle America.

    He's got to worry now...because shortly after Casey appeared on CNN, even Gloria Borger walked back her 'much ado about nothing' thinking from Friday night into the notion that this is a really big problem. When you lose Gloria, you lost a charter member of the CDS club.

    Now videos from his SF speech are starting to leak out and campaign signs I am not bitter are starting to show up and this issue isn't going away any time soon.

    I was laughing last night. At Daily O (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:58:45 AM EST
    they were discussing about how they were "bitter" and some were suggesting starting an "I'm bitter" support for him. LOL!~

    So, we have Clinton supporters saying they aren't bitter and Obama supporters saying they are. Now THAT, is hope and change in action, lol!~  ;)


    Shows the whole 'bama followers mentality (none / 0) (#63)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:16:52 PM EST
     Common sense abandoned.

    That Video Is a Disaster (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:07:15 PM EST
    Obama and a bunch of rich San Franciscans laughing about what racists working class whites are?

    I figured this would be a bump in the road for a week, probably hurt him in the upcoming primaries.  But how much more video is out there (and video is much worse than that terrible audio)?

    And it's terrible for democrats generally.  If he's the nominee, this is a potential disaster.  

    Here's a horrifying thought - how many times has Obama said similar things.  Politicians repeat themselves constantly.  Didn't he have a series of fundraisers for wealthy donors?  Let's hope at those functions he was more - not less - artful.


    You gave me a good moment of smiles (none / 0) (#34)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:02:33 PM EST
    To myself that is. I was watching the video and realized after it ended that I had not heard a word he said except the last line. I was looking at the back of the head on the one man, wondering where the people were sitting on the other side and wondering why they had not pulled the curtains aside and looking at the back of Obama when I realized the video was over and I had not heard what he had said. So I am laughing at myself because I had to replay it and concentrate on what he was saying. Woe de me.LOL.

    Hmmm... (none / 0) (#36)
    by nell on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:04:14 PM EST
    yes, Gloria Borger backtracking is significant. Just what did she say? Why was it a problem?

    Then there is Campbell Brown. I read on another side that she was talking about Clinton saying he was elitist and then Brown chimes in and says Elitist? Have you see her tax returns? Who is she calling elitist! I love it when REPORTERS feel the need to defend a candidate. Ridiculous.


    Did she mention how much she paid in taxes? (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:12:39 PM EST
    A nice chunk to charity and taxes.

    Also funny (none / 0) (#47)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:07:17 PM EST
    That a reporter doesn't seem to know the definition of the word elitist:

    1. leadership or rule by an elite
    2. the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery <elitism in choosing new members>
    3. consciousness of being or belonging to an elite
    -- elit·ist   -ˈlē-tist\ noun or adjective

    Nothing to do with your tax returns!


    It would be even better if she knew (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:21:48 PM EST
    the definition of the word "journalist," which last I heard did not mean the same thing as "proselytizer."

    Elitist &#8800; rich (none / 0) (#70)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:20:07 PM EST
    to their mind an elitist is a rich person.  That definition is wrong, but often only rich people are elitists.  The new rich are not usually elitists, and the Clintons would fall in that category.

    It occurs to me (5.00 / 4) (#190)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:19:30 PM EST
    that with most of the country feeling economically stifled, and the hopes of the impoverished reaching middle class, and the middle class reaching the next level, that the fact that this laughing crowd is so wealthy and so privileged is going to have far more implications than any poll can test.  Mine is the first generation who feels they will not do better than their parents.  To see all those billionaires chuckling over their champagne glasses at poor people is going to be the nail in the coffin.

    Also funny (none / 0) (#48)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:07:17 PM EST
    That a reporter doesn't seem to know the definition of the word elitist:

    1. leadership or rule by an elite
    2. the selectivity of the elite; especially : snobbery <elitism in choosing new members>
    3. consciousness of being or belonging to an elite
    -- elit·ist   -ˈlē-tist\ noun or adjective

    Nothing to do with your tax returns!


    Oh gosh. I'm so ignorant! Would (none / 0) (#67)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:19:03 PM EST
    someone please tell me what CDS means? Thanks.

    CDS (none / 0) (#80)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:24:40 PM EST

    Clinton Derangement Syndrome (none / 0) (#92)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:28:56 PM EST
    (and WORM, which I only just figured out myself, is What Obama Really Meant)

    Thanks both of you! I knew about (none / 0) (#136)
    by derridog on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:52:22 PM EST
    WORM, though.  Acronyms are great unless you don't know what they mean.  Thanks for clearing that up.

    So without advice, he speaks his mind? (none / 0) (#21)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:53:12 AM EST
    not just one ill advised comment. Casey emphasizes that Obama is a person of faith. He mentions it three times.

    And also from this statement, Casey is once again bringing us back to the church and faith Obama embraces. I don't think Casey's statement is so great either and he is my Senator. A good example of voting for someone who could win and looking the other way on his Pro Life stance.

    Exactly (none / 0) (#152)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:01:04 PM EST
    Did Casey really want to go there?

    Words, only words-- (none / 0) (#25)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:56:58 AM EST
    "'I didn't say it as well as I should have,' Obama admitted...."

    If you just say it right, you don't have to actually DO anything.  Did Lincoln actually DO anything besides saying "With malice toward none"?  Did FDR actually DO anything after talking about four freedoms?  

    BHO will be too busy thumbing through his thesaurus to act.  (And won't I have fun recalling that foghorn in the Lifebouy commercial?)

    I found it interesting (none / 0) (#26)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:57:16 AM EST
    that Casey said twice that Obama would win PA. Very interesting. And also, instead of answering the questions Wolf posed he kept saying that Obama was a person of faith who grew up in modest means.


    "person of faith who grew up in . . . (none / 0) (#37)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:04:15 PM EST
    modest means"

    And Clinton isn't?


    Casey (none / 0) (#44)
    by nell on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:06:45 PM EST
    said Obama would WIN PA??? Seriously? That is very strange. I have only heard him say that he expects Obama to do very well here...why on earth would he be RAISING expectations after such an incident? Do they know something we do not?

    Probably not (none / 0) (#51)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:08:25 PM EST
    Just trying to spin back into positive, and probably to keep moral up.

    This totally nails it, BTD (none / 0) (#31)
    by Universal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:01:02 PM EST
    "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."

    He's just another pol who also happens to be very green and have some questionable people close to him (Wright, Rezko, Michelle "America is just mean").

    Not a Messiah, not 'change,' not anything but another ambitious pol who got routed in a primary for a House seat just 8 years ago.

    Same guy.

    This gets to the nut of it all: (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:10:53 PM EST
    Obama is a not yet ready for prime time player.

    Given time to season and gather strength, Obama could be really good, but he's not even close yet. And if he and his flock had a lick of sense (which they don't because they're all ego), they would gladly take the HRC Veep slot, let Hilliary be the battering ram this round, and use the next 8 years to prepare themselves for 2016.


    I sure wish they had (none / 0) (#187)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:17:54 PM EST
    realized this 18 months ago.  It was exactly what I wanted to see happen.

    I feel bad for Casey (none / 0) (#40)
    by Universal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:05:49 PM EST
    He is a good man but his family is like the Hatfields to the Clinton's McCoys. Bob, Jr. just has to play his role in the ongoing saga.

    I'm sure Casey was thrilled with Obama's "I don't want my daughters to be punished with a child" (or was it 'a baby'?) when addressing abortion recently.

    Casey is strongly pro-life.

    Not only do the Caseys dislike the Clintons, but Bob , Jr. has his own issues with Governor Rendell as well. The two engaged in a very nasty primary battle for the Governorship which Rendell obviously won.

    Rendell, of course, is a strong Clinton supporter.


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

    Obama gaffe (none / 0) (#42)
    by jackyt on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:06:06 PM EST
    I think it's telling that Obama "mis-chose" his words when he thought he was out-of-earshot from anyone who might disagree with him.

    Obama the inartful dodger (none / 0) (#60)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:12:42 PM EST
    Gotta write up a post with that headline. If somebody uses it first, throw me a link ;-)

    He has talked about this same (none / 0) (#76)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:24:16 PM EST
    theme in public and on camera.  

    So now you have more proof that BO is elitist and doesn't understand ...


    thanks for the link (none / 0) (#109)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:38:27 PM EST
    to the Charlie Rose interview because it leads directly to the problem that Obama has...

    He was referring to Galesburg IL, where he specifically DID NOTHING to prevent the Maytag plant closures.

    Obama's connection...the Crown family...specifically Lester Crown who was/is the largest investor in Whirlpool who bought Maytag, closed the plant and moved the jobs to Mexico.

    Chicago Tribune tracks this story H E R E

    The International Association of Machinists didn't much care for Obama and his efforts...link H E R E

    Yes indeed, we have more proof that Obama is elitist, and more importantly, doesn't care


    Doesn't Clinton's (none / 0) (#140)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:54:53 PM EST
    Walmart tenure, cough, cough, sort of cancel this out? Pols are not as black and white as you would like.

    Surprisingly as a board member (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by jeffhas on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:27:13 PM EST
    Hillary actually made them pay attention to employee rights and concerns of female employees...  Sometimes you do have to work from the inside to make change.

    So What? (none / 0) (#219)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:35:59 PM EST
    No one said she was not doing good work there. The point is that Walmart is not a friend to Unions, and in this she is no better than Obama or any Pol. They all take money and get advantage from people who have views different from yours, whoever you are. And they slip and slide when confronted with it.

    She has broken ties with them (5.00 / 1) (#223)
    by nycstray on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:39:53 PM EST
    and returned donations a couple years ago.

    Good For Her (none / 0) (#231)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:45:59 PM EST
    She made a political expedient choice. I hope that you are not arguing that Clinton is some kind of new politician that is pure and will not take money from 'bad guys', as long as she does not get too much heat for it. Because if you are arguing that she is anything but a typical politician you are seriously deluded.

    I don't think so... (none / 0) (#157)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:02:45 PM EST
    Wal-Mart was Arkansas' largest corporation and it seems reasonable that Hillary would have served on the board.

    She was just one of many on the board of Wal-Mart.

    I don't think Wal-Mart is responsible for making small mid-western town residents cling to their church or their guns or intensify their feelings of anti-immigration.

    Perhaps you might want to clarify why you think this parallels Obama's gaffe.


    Not The Gaffe (none / 0) (#179)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:11:18 PM EST
    But your point:

    He was referring to Galesburg IL, where he specifically DID NOTHING to prevent the Maytag plant closures...


    The International Association of Machinists didn't much care for Obama and his efforts

    Seems that this is typical Pol behavior, and Clinton is the same. None could survive if they did not play to the rich, middle and poor alike.

    Not sure why you think Obama is worse than Clinton in this regard. From my point of view that is something one has to accept about all politicians.


    ignoring of course... (none / 0) (#192)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:22:09 PM EST
    Obama's connections to the Crown family, that makes sense.

    But then he demagogues the issue about jobs vanishing to Mexico and that his friends were instrumental in making that happen.

    Then he demagogues the issue again when discussing midwestern citizens 'clinging' to guns/religion because they are bitter about losing the jobs and stumping that he will change this pattern when all evidence is to the contrary...he won't change it even when his 'friends' are in control.

    There is no Hillary parallel here.


    You Are Drunk (1.00 / 1) (#214)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:32:37 PM EST
    And no one is ignoring Obama's relation to the Crown family.
    You sound no better than an obamamaniac if you really think that Clinton is not as two faced as Obama. It is called Politics.

    Obama... (none / 0) (#242)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:58:58 PM EST
    built the entire predicate on Bill Clinton's and George W. Bush's presidency as the direct cause of the bitterness of these people.

    There was a fairly comprehensive analysis yesterday that suggested that small town America fared well until Bush 43 took office.

    I have not seen any direct evidence that one of Hillary's prime backers has been shipping jobs out of the country.

    To suggest that there is equivalence should have some effort towards proof rather than an assumption of guilt.


    Hillary broke the gender ceiling (none / 0) (#182)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    by sitting on the board of Walmart -

    NonSequitur (none / 0) (#215)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:33:02 PM EST
    Not only elitist when (none / 0) (#143)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:55:32 PM EST
    compared to down home folks like the Clintons, but his father was from Kenya, that's not American.

    HRC; she's one of a kind.


    the thing is... (5.00 / 1) (#174)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:08:08 PM EST
    That she didn't go into Iowa trying to find the concern over the price of arugula and she didn't sample $100 per pound ham in Philadelphia nor did she dismiss the concerns of small midwestern town residents that 'cling' to their churches and guns.

    You probably have forgotten that she and Bill entered the White House with little savings and the money they accumulated came only after 2000 and their books and his speaking engagements.

    Obama is living in a house that he bought for $ 1.3 million - the Clintons never had anything like that until after they left the White House.

    I think it's hard to make a case that Obama is more connecting to the average worker in America but don't let me stop you from trying.


    Don't forget that (none / 0) (#199)
    by 1jpb on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:34 PM EST
    he once asked for orange juice when he was offered coffee in a diner.  And, he's a bad bowler (although the Ellen show has revealed that  this may be an HRC problem too.)

    Silly stuff, imo.


    Yup (none / 0) (#159)
    by Daryl24 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    He mis chose his words so much that his audience got the point and laughed. Twice.

    I got a chuckle last night (none / 0) (#53)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:09:52 PM EST
    I was at a party with some Capitol Hill staffers last night of both parties. I was talking to a member of Sen. Casey's staff and half jokingly told this person I was disappointed in their boss' endorsement of Obama.  The staffer told me he/she was too. (Oh, and they are a PA voter who is sending their absentee ballot in Monday)

    I laughed to myself half the night!

    The man from Hawaii (none / 0) (#55)
    by Prabhata on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:10:50 PM EST
    To those who've lived in cities and know nothing about the hunting culture, the Obama gaffe may not seem very outrageous.  I was in that group until 1989 when I went to NY State, near the PA border and saw the hunting culture up close.  I was astounded how seriously these people take their hunting.  They look forward for months for hunting season, they buy their supplies, they plan their outing with their friends, and bond with other men.  The men breathe hunting before and during hunting season.  BO, probably never experienced the hunting culture even from afar, and his statement shows how far away he is from connecting with the hunters of America.

    Heck, the man from Harvard (none / 0) (#61)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:14:16 PM EST
    He does the usual lump Clinton and Bush together thing ("25 years"), but these voters will remember that they had it a lot better under Clinton. Obama doesn't know that because he wasn't working for a living at the time.

    Even out of touch with the political reality (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:18:28 PM EST
    of showing respect for hunters.  Even we non-hunters know that politicians need to do that much.   I don't expect him to do the obligatory duck-hunting trip in the fall election, but I at least expect him to be politically savvy enough not to insult hunters.

    Where I live... (none / 0) (#87)
    by Lora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:28:07 PM EST
    The public schools are closed the Monday after Thanksgiving for hunting.

    I'm Surprised He Sent out Bob Casey (none / 0) (#57)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    Doesn't he know there are Harvard Sociologists ready to defend him?

    Hubris (none / 0) (#64)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:16:56 PM EST
    Is all this hubris yet?

    No (none / 0) (#71)
    by Faust on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:21:07 PM EST
    I actually think Obamas problem is vanity. Clinton trends more towards hubris.

    But (none / 0) (#78)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:24:34 PM EST
    Hubris is the vanity of the mortal vis a vis the gods, I was asking cause BTD told me it has a different meaning than the classic one.

    "Cling" is the center of the gaffe. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Faust on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:19:13 PM EST
    There are a number of problems with his formulation of the issue, and really it's a touchy enough issue he should never have bothered with the explanation he was trying to provide. But it's the word "cling" that make his phrasing as bad as it is. Merely saying "find solace in" would have helped quite a bit. Though it doesn't match all components of the phrase either. Just a terrible formulation he made.

    In any case it's good that he backs off it. It was a stupid formulation of the issue. I understand why some people were trying to defend the comments but in this case there is simply no point in defending them as they are political poison.

    I think this particular gaffe will go the way of sniper fire however. It will get attatched to the "elitist/unamerican" narrative that is being collected for Obama, just as the "untrustworthy" narrative is being collected for Clinton.

    A lot will depend on the polls, if Clinton gets a bounce out of this (likely) the legs may grow.  

    Not so sure the comparison to (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:30:51 PM EST
    the sniper fire gaffe is accurate beyond the point that they are both embarrassing.  Clinton didn't insult anyone with that gaffe.  The substance of it was meaningless, and it just went towards character issues.  

    I think this has more staying power. I think she will get a huge bounce out of it in Penn. There is no way to explain it away as non-insulting to the people of Penn.


    re the sniper fire, Hillary should have just said (none / 0) (#191)
    by ding7777 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:20:29 PM EST
    "according to Sinbad, it was like Crips and Blood" -

    Bittergate (none / 0) (#104)
    by zebedee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:35:58 PM EST
    The Clinton camp is letting him off the hook with the focus on the word bitter. If he'd just said people are bitter because of the economic hardships that would have been no problem. Lots of the Obama responses are saying what's wrong with being bitter, answering the wrong issue. Once it's bittergate rather than something like clinggate he's off the hook, he just gives a big speech on frustrations in these communities, the media salivate at how well he's framed the issues and identifies with their predicaments and he may even get a bounce out of this.

    We'll see (none / 0) (#114)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:41:02 PM EST
    My experience is that no one likes to be called bitter, even if they are.

    Nope (none / 0) (#115)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:41:33 PM EST
    Nobody wants to be labeled as "bitter."  It's insulting.  If he'd said "angry," there would be much less of a fuss.

    Maybe so (none / 0) (#127)
    by zebedee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
    But he would just say poor choice of word, he really meant angry or frustrated. He can't explain the clinging to guns and religion the same way  

    True. (none / 0) (#149)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:59:08 PM EST
    I think it is all bad.

    Let's see what Obama says tonight (none / 0) (#82)
    by maritza on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:26:04 PM EST
    at the Religion forum on CNN.

    Should be interesting to see what he says.

    Person of faith? I don't think (none / 0) (#97)
    by vicsan on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    bringing Rev. Wright into this is going to help his situation AT ALL, but carry on, Mr. Hope. The more you and your supporters mention your "faith", the more Rev. Wright will be brought to the forefront,  AGAIN. Please, keep it coming.

    Bravo, Armando (none / 0) (#99)
    by joanneleon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:32:09 PM EST
    God, it's so good to hear some sanity in the left blogosphere.  Friday night and yesterday, I had nearly written us off after seeing all the righteous responses to Obama's Pacific Heights moment.

    Maybe I do have a brain larger than an amoeba after all.  Phew.  That's a relief.

    However, the comments are actually a plus for Obama.  No one with any sort of brain larger than an amoeba would take these comments to be belittling the middle class.

    See, if you Believe in Change (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 12:51:21 PM EST
    you can Change gaffes into positives!

    Complete with (5.00 / 1) (#181)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    "Why not tell the truth?" comments.

    Argh.  Obama isn't an Catholic.  The campaign trail is not a confessional.  This is about salesmanship and public relations and marketing.  Telling people what is wrong with them does not tend to make them like you.


    Obama Clarified he can't win PA. (none / 0) (#153)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:01:21 PM EST
    if there was any doubt that Obama would not win Pennsylvania in the general election, he has eliminated that doubt.

    Excuse (none / 0) (#158)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:03:06 PM EST
    Wait, this gives his campaign the perfect excuse if they lose.  The media played up the comment.  

    he's a dead goose and trying to resuscitate (none / 0) (#171)
    by scorbs on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:07:10 PM EST
    him ain't going to work; Obama is simply not electable.  He's what the Dems have been running and losing with, Dukakis, Kerry, elitist Dems who don't appeal to lunchbucket voters.  If Obama didn't believe this nonsense that his supporters have been trumpeting as reality, we should accept Obama's view of life in America as truth, why did he say it?  He believes it to his core, and he's an acorn not far from the Wright tree.

    hypocrisy abounds (none / 0) (#177)
    by kempis on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:10:49 PM EST
    On HuffPo right now, Obama-supporters (and HuffPo editors) are skewering Hillary as attempting to capitalize on Obama's "bitter small town" gaffe by presenting herself as "pro gun." However, when Obama made similar positive remarks about gun-ownership in Idaho this February, nary a peep was uttered about his "shameless pandering."


    In Idaho, Obama also talked about how he had been "praising Jesus at the same church for 20 years." Of course, now we know that he magically missed any controversial remark ever made by his controversial minister in those 20 years. But no peeps from Obamites about his pandering to the god and guns crowd. Let Hillary do it, and it's proof positive that she's evil and "will do anything to win!" Damn....The liberal elite is just as stupid as small town Americans....


    I think Kerry is the right person (none / 0) (#183)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    to defend Obama from charges of elitism.

    it is killing her. (none / 0) (#195)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:23:04 PM EST
    Her campaign has again and again been telling people this: "We (Clintons) don't lose".  

    They've lost...

    and i love how Obama is the elitist - republican talking points have made there way to her campaign and this site.  if people were only so irrational, then she'd be the nominee.  but.... she's not.


    You don't seem to be enjoying your (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:45 PM EST
    victory lap very much. There's no point in repeating over and over again that Obama has won. That is not factually accurate.
    Now go away before you get banned again.

    Have you seen the price of arugula lately? (none / 0) (#205)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:27:12 PM EST
    I resent the arugula (none / 0) (#217)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:33:36 PM EST
    Us plain Greeks and "garlic nosed Italians" were eating arugula for thousands of years.  Just because they glommed on to it, nothing wrong with arugula.  

    Was talking to my mother... (none / 0) (#233)
    by kredwyn on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:47:32 PM EST
    about these ramps recipes that I'd seem in the NY Times. She shook her head and told me she didn't quite get how something so stinky had now become so fashionable.

    Folks in her neck of the woods used them as an onion substitute when money was tight. Now they are trendy...

    Who knew?


    I thought this was dead-on from (none / 0) (#188)
    by smott on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:18:53 PM EST


    Money quote -

    Obama's statements today are paradigmatic of the wine-track attitude and are particularly shocking coming on the heels of his own plea that the nation not judge him harshly for his associations and pastimes, that he be allowed a complex identity that could encompass both his grandmother and his pastor. Fair enough, and an argument that elicits a certain sympathy from me on his personal behalf, though it fell far short of explaining why we should not question his political judgment based on the company he keeps. What he requires we do for him he refuses to do for others, preferring to dismiss an entire class of people in a high-handed manner. Graciously excusing them from racism and then turning around and denigrating their lives in an even more fundamental way is not going to win over a lot of hearts and minds, Barry.

    could you guys stop using Barry... (none / 0) (#200)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:41 PM EST
    it seems really odd coming from Dems.  slightly petty.

    Perhaps. (5.00 / 1) (#211)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:30:17 PM EST
    But it's a ton better than the monikers that people use for Hillary Clinton.

    ...actually we can analyze and pick apart (none / 0) (#196)
    by smott on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:24:56 PM EST
    ...his words but, for me, the whole things goes to the head-banging stupidity of even saying something like that. How naive can you be? And I say naive to be kind, when I could have said, elitist, out of touch, condescending or whatever.

    Bottom line is Not. Ready. For. Prime. Time.

    This is not A gaffe (none / 0) (#197)
    by miriam on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:25:04 PM EST
    It is one of many revealing cumulative episodes all revolving around the same center point.  The rants about white KKKAmerica and the diabolical infecting of blacks by whites with HIV.  "The typical white" grandmother whose sin appears to be not that she raised and paid for his privates school education, but that she is white.  The small towns of America containing gun and religion clinging whites.  If white Americans want to vote for a man who so actively dislikes them, then so be it.  But we should at least be talking about it.  

    Yes, and his statement was (none / 0) (#245)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    when he thought the "poor white trash" wouldn't hear it.  That's the reality.

    Can bitter people have hope? (none / 0) (#207)
    by davnee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:27:55 PM EST
    To me bitterness represents something beyond frustration or anger.  To me it represents an entrenched anger that signals a loss of hope or optimism.  Perhaps I read more into the word than it represents, but I only raise this question because I don't understand Obama's whole campaign theme.  He tells people to have hope, that change is coming.  But his campaign is no morning in America.  He, his wife, his pastor, and his advisors, all seem to feast on and obsess over the meanness and bitterness of American life, not its possibility.  While I think the "cling" portion of his remarks are most problematic. After all, the man pretty much tells small town America that he doesn't like or respect them or their culture.  But I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the "bitter" portion either.  Does he really want to campaign on rage and despairrather than optimism?  I don't think that is a winning strategy, not over the long term.  

    The echo chamber effect (none / 0) (#221)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:38:47 PM EST
    keeps on getting more and more pronounced.

    One discussion was about whether or not "effing wh**e" was offensive or not.  (no, really.  stay with me.) So one commenter posted "Maybe Rhodes is a f__ w__!".  It was HRd by some, and uprated by others.  I uprated it - after all, people were claiming that it "wasn't offensive".  So....was it or wasn't it?

    But inside the echo chamber, there is so much reinforcement of stupid memes, distortions, lies and simply bad ideas that the people who live there come to think that what they read and post really is the way that the rest of the public thinks.

    I'll take bets now on the number of "What is wrong with Pennsylvania?" diaries posted on April 23.

    this is the greatest (none / 0) (#238)
    by dem08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 01:54:03 PM EST
    story that could possibly happen in the Hillary Bunker.

    As Big Tent, who remember SUPPORTS Obama, says, Obama lacks courage, sense, and character.

    Kepp this story going! I just hope Hillary finds a way to use this against McCain. Her experience shooting ducks as a little girl helps, obviously, and makes her working class bona fides even more believeable.

    The Clinton's make 110 million dollars, but they are just folks and I bet parties at their little house are backyard barbeques with machinists and sales clerks.

    A picture comes into focus (none / 0) (#248)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:13:24 PM EST
    there is mounting evidence of Obama's underlying resentment of white America...from the Wright association, to Michelle's rant, to his "typical white person" snark, to this. None of it is necessarily without some merit...just political poison, i.e., all of it is not good for the GE. GOP media will have a field day.  

    Obama groupies need to have a serious rendezvous with reality.

    by SAINTIXE56 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:21:40 PM EST
    when there is hope, gone is the despair.

    bitter in sf (none / 0) (#253)
    by skmf12 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:24:33 PM EST

    i live a minute outside of san francisco, and i
    am poor, and i work 12hours a day to make ends meet, and my job has outsourced more than half of my fellow employees at united airlines, and i've lost 25% of my wages since 9/11, and lost many of my benefits, and my pension, and am paying huge medical copay.


    and how dare him come to my town, and beg for money that would be better used, to help those who are in need of his 'hope"...
    HE HAS SPENT OUTRAGEOUS AMOUNTS OF MONEY, TO GET HIMSELF THE MOST ELITE HOUSE IN THE COUNTRY, how about a little FISCAL SPENDING OB, is that how your going to do us poor people, spend all our countries money?  

    comments now closed (none / 0) (#254)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:26:01 PM EST
    thanks for your thoughts.

    Heads Up on Future Comments (none / 0) (#257)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 02:33:35 PM EST
    Please do not refer to Obama as BO or as Barry. Be respectful. Call him Obama, Barack or Barack Obama.  Comments may be deleted if they use BO or Barry in a demeaning way.