home

What Bill Clinton Said And What Obama Said

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:46:40 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Nico Pitney notes a Bill Clinton 1991 statement:

"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death," Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.

Pitney thinks (Pitney clarifies that he takes no position on whether the statements are equivalent; of course others have taken that position when linking to Pitney) that is equivalent to what Barack Obama said about small town voters being bitter and clinging to their guns and their religion. I do not. Obama said:

So it's not surprising then that they [rural voters] get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Bil Clinton was critiquing Republicans, not voters. Obama's statement was construed, and not unfairly, as critiquing voters. But more importantly, this line of defense for Barack Obama is incredibly foolish. Bob Casey got it right. Express regrets and move on. I hope other Obama supporters catch up soon. They are hurting Obama now.

< Hillary's Restraint and Obama's General Election Challenges | "He's Not Running for Sociologist In Chief" >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    What Bill Clinton Said And What Obama Said | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    According to AP, when Bill (5.00 / 8) (#1)
    by oculus on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:53:17 PM EST
    Clinton was asked about Obama's remarks, Clinton commented: what Hillary said.  

    (now that is funny!)

    Pffft (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:09:39 PM EST
    That's what my husband says too.  I guess he's finally getting to Bill.

    Parent
    That is a hoot (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:38:53 PM EST
    and gave me almost as much of a chuckle as his "yes, maam" yesterday.  

    We will not see Bill trying to parse What Hillary Really Meant, nor having to do so, just What She Said.

    Parent

    No Comparison (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Athena on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:54:27 PM EST
    Clinton did not malign every cultural attribute of the PA working class in one sentence, as Obama did.   And the verb "cling" implies that their cultural preferences are born of desperation, rather than choice.  No wonder Obama made these comments privately to a well-heeled group out in California.
    Obama sent out Casey today (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:59:33 PM EST
    and Casey did a good job. It is his rabid online supporters who are being foolish now.

    Casey better watch out (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:37:47 PM EST
    ...that some Of Obama's arrogance, elitism and snobbery doesn't rub off on him. It isn't easy for Dems to win Senate elections in PA. Especially if they display the aforementioned qualities.

    Parent
    Isn't "Clinton did it too" (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:04:39 PM EST
    a right-wing meme?

    Not any more! (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:58:34 PM EST
    Now it is a truly bipartisan meme!

    Ain't Unity grand!

    Parent

    Ah, yes! (none / 0) (#54)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:33:19 PM EST
    It's the old "But, but Clinton" the right wingers used to always employ every time we nailed Bush.

    http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22but+but+clinton%22&btnG=Search

    Parent

    They're just digging themselves (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:04:42 PM EST
    in deeper, IMO.  

    Clinton's statements in no way justify what Obama said.  In addition to what BTD pointed out, that Clinton was critiquing the Republicans and not the voters, I would also point out that Bill, unlike Obama, is one of those people.  He wasn't condescending to them.  He was talking about them; he was speaking for them.

    Meant to say (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:05:40 PM EST
    Bill wasn't talking about them, he was speaking for them.

    Parent
    Yes (5.00 / 8) (#27)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:17:55 PM EST
    Clinton did not have the attitude of an anthropologist reporting to the backers of his field research about his visits to far off lands.

    Parent
    Priorities (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:06:16 PM EST
    Express regrets and move on.

    ain't going to happen, at least not anytime soon. The important thing for Obama and Obama supporters is being right. So they will keep on explainin' and attackin' until they think they got their way. Only problem is, the blood on the ground when all is said and done is the hope for a Democratic GE win in November. But that's not what's important to Obamacans, what's important is proving Obama wasn't wrong.

    dig dig dig (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Nasarius on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:26:40 PM EST
    And it happens every single time Obama steps in it. They just have to keep digging. Obama's poorly-expressed position is automatically their position. The same cycle predictably repeats itself once or twice a month.

    I just miss the days when Markos was smart enough to call him and his supporters on their BS. Remember "playing chicken with our troops"?

    Parent

    Obama is NEVER wrong (5.00 / 3) (#55)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    Just like the current, arrogant President.

    Parent
    Remember the "testy" video (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:07:37 PM EST
    Of Obama, when he was asked a question about something Clinton said, and he just would not give up on saying that Clinton was wrong, and then he asked the reporter, "you want to go off the record and I'll tell you what I really think?" and the reporter said no, so Obama moved on?

    I said then that the guy just could not let anything go.  He just pushes and pushes and explains and explains until he "wins" the point.

    Man, I wish my brain was working better or I could remember the incident.  It was right when he started taking off, and there was a grandstand--the side of one--with Obama shaking hands with folks there and reporters directly across from him.  D'oh!

    Parent

    OMG! Check out Daschle scolding Nutter; (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:22:07 PM EST
    I Tom Daschle am the Obama campaign authority on PA. Nutter knows nutting!

    I heard him do that (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:43:12 PM EST
    on TV and could hardly believe it.  Good thing for him he's not planning on running again in SD.


    Parent
    Daschle (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by yourkidding on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:26:21 PM EST
    The other amazing line from Daschle this weekend is his claim to authority since he comes from a small town state. Daschle is a big time, wealthy lobbyist lurking in DC along with the all the other piggies who couldn't wait to get away from small town nowhere USA and cash in. And that's the kind of 'support' Obama really doesn't need.

    Parent
    How does he even (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:33:37 PM EST
    get any traction?  He is the ultimate example of a wimpy Dem.

    Parent
    its Daschle's wife (none / 0) (#76)
    by pluege on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:02:39 PM EST
    that is the mega lobbyist.

    Parent
    One thing Obama doesn't do (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:28:12 PM EST
    is apologize. His supporters have figured this out, and act accordingly.

    The Huffington Post anti-Clinton bias (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by truthseeker77 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:01:21 PM EST
    I noticed that the Huffington Post seems to regret that one of their reporters taped and published Obama's words in San Francisco. You can tell by the fact that the website is desperately attacking the Clintons for every angle, apparently looking for a story that will  balance Obama's flap.

    Huffington Post is, after all, one of the most pro-Obama sites on the net.

    Huffington (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by yourkidding on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:11:27 PM EST
    Absolutely correct.
    HuffPo went nuts over the "LIE" that Hilary told about the dead mother & her dead body. And when it turned out Hilary was telling the truth, down went the whole story & never a word of apology.
    And when that blog started, it thought it was really intersting & new. Same tired old one sided press coverage.

    Parent
    Over on NoQuarter (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by facta non verba on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:10:37 PM EST
    they have this clip of a female caller from Florida on C-Span. I think she nails the crux of why Obama's comments are offensive and why they will haunt Obama to no end.

    http://noquarterusa.net/blog

    It is the third story down.

    wow. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by rooge04 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:32:36 PM EST
    That woman really did nail it. As the media she's talking to is trying to spin it away she is calling him out on it!  I particularly appreciate Obama's statement that he's just saying "something everybody knows is true." LOL. Not arrogant at all, Senator.

    Parent
    Phone conversation with Obama friend (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:26:27 PM EST
    Just called a fried to say Happy Birthday, and he started:  Can you believe what Hillary is doing?  

    Uh, when did this become Hillary's fault, did I miss something?  Man.  

    Dems have been whining (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:27:09 PM EST
    about the God, guns, and rural vote for some time -- as in how they can get it. So now the Dems have one candidate who can get a lot of the rural voters. The other candidate, on the other hand, (perceivedly) insults rural voters.   Hmmm.
    Hey Obama supporter BTD (none / 0) (#4)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:55:07 PM EST
    When are YOU going to move on from this story which is hurting Obama?

    As soon as the Left blogs shape up on this (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:58:42 PM EST
    Attacking Bill and Hillary Clinton is not the answer.

    Will you talk to rabid Obama supporters about this? They are hurting Obama now.

    Parent

    I'm not sure what difference it (none / 0) (#18)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:06:04 PM EST
    can make at this point. The bitterness now is so deep. Are you going to start talking Clinton supporters who say they hate Obama and won't vote for him off the ledge?

    Parent
    I do and will contiue to (5.00 / 5) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:11:55 PM EST
    when as I expect, Obama is the nominee.

    I happen to think I'll will have a lot more credibility with Clinton supporters than most other Obama supporting bloggers. What do you think?

    Parent

    You will with me (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:14:47 PM EST


    Parent
    Much kudos (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:15:42 PM EST
    As a Hillary supporter I want to say that BTD is one of the few voices that can and probably will talk me off the ledge, because I really see him as an honest broker (whether I agree with him or not). And if most left wing blogs had followed his example we would not have the split we have now, and we would truly come together whoever the nominee is.

    Parent
    you will with me too (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by angie on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:42:34 PM EST
    in fact, BTD will not only have more credibility with me if Obama is the nominee, he is the only Obama blogger right now with any credibility as far as I'm concerned.

    Parent
    I think so too (none / 0) (#30)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:22:08 PM EST
    And expected that would be part of your thinking on all this. But it's been hard reading some of the things you've been writing that I've believed not to be true. But so it goes.

    Parent
    You might even get me to vote for Obama (none / 0) (#70)
    by LHinSeattle on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:20:53 PM EST
    as opposed to sitting it out -- which is saying a lot for this life-time Dem right now.

    Parent
    He has in the past (none / 0) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:06:31 PM EST
    I have been downrated by BTD for taking that approach.


    Parent
    As I understand it (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:08:16 PM EST
    BTD is a Democrat first.

    What Obama and his supporters are saying is hurting the party.

    Parent

    What the? (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:14:16 PM EST
    Why should anyone (supporter or not) move on from a live story? Isn't a point of blogging or journalism to cover news?

    My biggest problem so far is that too many outfits are "shaping" their coverage (a-la fox news) to favor a candidate. Are you actually endorsing this?

    Parent

    What the indeed (none / 0) (#75)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:00:10 PM EST
    Just asking BTD to take his own advice. Are you so eager to slam an Obama supporter and keep the conflict hot that you don't even bother to read the post first?

    Express regrets and move on. I hope other Obama supporters catch up soon. They are hurting Obama now.


    Parent
    Alien Abductee? (none / 0) (#58)
    by OxyCon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:38:57 PM EST
    Is this JMM posting under a pseudonym?


    Parent
    The self-immolation continues (none / 0) (#5)
    by Universal on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:56:01 PM EST
    This is when the Axelrod attack strategy begins to land blows against its own candidate as the rush to try to spin away the damage creates even more problems for the lead man.

    Sad but predictable.

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

    This isn't about bitterness (none / 0) (#6)
    by dianem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:56:58 PM EST
    They're trying to turn this around and defend it by saying that voter's really ARE bitter, which is true. But that misses the point entirely. People don't go to church just because they are bitter. They don't support gun rights because they are angry at the government. They don't become racists because of "bitter".

    Or maybe this is the point. If the campaign can focus on the "bitter" part, then people might just forget that he thinks that Obama thinks that "cling" to religious beliefs because of their "bitter"ness.

    Each person is an individual though (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:01:06 PM EST
    I am bitter about specific issues, not bitter in general and Obama's orations have done nothing to soothe that. In fact his lack of clear definition of what he will do on the issues has led to my being bitter toward him and not trusting of HIM!

    Parent
    mt, tell me, to assuage your bitterness, (none / 0) (#82)
    by oculus on Thu Apr 17, 2008 at 04:27:27 AM EST
    do you wallow in guns, religion, and xenophobia?

    Parent
    You may be wrong, BTD. I predict (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 03:59:21 PM EST
    that the Obama campaign will circulate a photo of Clinton with a bitter, rural American, real soon.

    Can't they just use one of (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:50:38 PM EST
    her and Bill? He is from a rural area and they do claim he is bitter. I am sure that the Obama campaign can easily find one of them together.

    (snark!)

    Parent

    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#11)
    by david mizner on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:01:24 PM EST
    about your suggestion to "express regrets and move on." It seems Obama has a huge opening to give a big speech about economic distress--to say what he was trying to say. Why not use his best weapon, his eloquence? The world will be watching, and it'll give him a chance to move the focus of the discussion from the "cling to" part of his gaffe to the anger part. People will be talking about he has the boldness to tackle race and class.

    I must say, as a former Edwards supporter, I'm amused to see the prObama parts of the blogosphere telling us that this is much ado about nothing. When Edwards's staffers made gaffes, we were told that this showed us that he wasn't ready for prime time. Same thing for Hillary. But when Obama makes a huge gaffe that made anyone with any political sense cringe, we're told that this is the press's fault, or Hillary, or the GOP's, not to worry, nothing to see here, keep it movin'.

    I'll take that too (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:02:54 PM EST
    the important thing is to STOP defending the comments.

    If it allows for a pivot to economic distress issues, so much the better.

    Parent

    Of Course, That Would Undermine His Unity Schtick (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by BDB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:13:39 PM EST
    Because any discussion of economic distress requires admitting that certain Americans - most Americans - are being screwed over so that a very few Americans get very rich.   All of which I'd love to hear Obama take on, but it conflicts with his theory that what's wrong with Washington is that there's too much bickering and partisanship.   IMO, he can't have it both ways - either the problem is there is too much fighting in D.C. or the problem is no one is fighting for the working class and economically distressed.   He's already chosen door number 1.  Much to my disappointment.

    Parent
    I think to many people (none / 0) (#51)
    by jen on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:25:12 PM EST
    that would solidify the view that Obama is a media pampered little weenie who gets free national teevee coverage every time he needs to tell us what he really meant. Does Hillary get to make a nationally covered speech every time she f's up? Has any presidential candidate been given that privilege before? No. If anyone doesn't already think the press is shoving O down our throats, just let them once again give him national coverage to make an "eloquent" speech.


    Parent
    This is what is going to get (none / 0) (#61)
    by waldenpond on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:07:22 PM EST
    him elected though.  The theory is the media darling status won't end until after the Nov. vote.  We just have to stomach it until then.

    Parent
    The media darling status ends the (none / 0) (#74)
    by FlaDemFem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:58:44 PM EST
    nano-second that he gets the nomination. He will be shredded, pulverized, dismembered and dismissed. The GOP smear machine, aka the media, is just waiting, laying in wait actually, to get their fangs into him. He is being set up, the media is lulling him into a dream. He and his followers have the unmitigated arrogance to think it's because of his "qualities and charisma" that he is getting a free ride. No, it's not. Imagine his shock when the GOP opens up on him with both barrels. And they will. He won't survive it, in my opinion, either personally, or politically. He doesn't have the guts for a bare-knuckle brawl, McCain does. Obama doesn't have a hope in hell of winning the GE.

    Parent
    Main Problem: It's Simply Not True! (none / 0) (#12)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:02:40 PM EST
    Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota all are very religious, very rural, all have very high gun ownership, and all have areas of longterm economic downturn.  Yet all these states went for Obama in the prmaries and Kerry in 2004.

    Wisconsin, in fact, has, I believe, more hunting permits, per capita than any other state in the country. And this was a state where Obama won nearly every county and every demographic.

    This "theory" that "rural" voters do x, y, and z because of x, y, and z is absolutely absurd. You have to look at not only each state differently, but each county, and even each township within a county to draw an accurate picture about why voters vote the way they do. Maybe its religious, maybe its ethnic, maybe its socio-economic, maybe its education, maybe its histrocial, maybe its a settement pattern, or maybe its one one of many, many, many other factors.  

    The point is that its just plain ignorant and silly to make comments about a large group of people like the one Obama made.  

    When Russ Feingold clings to guns for us (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:52:21 PM EST
    in Wisconsin, as he does, you called it here.  (At least on that, but none of these issues were issues then, when Obama won in Wisconsin -- the reasons were far different, but I already discussed those.)

    And I am not and never can be a gun owner or a hunter here in Wisconsin.  I cannot get into that culture at all.  However, I understand it -- including that it is a huge part of our number-one industry here, already suffering enough: tourism.

    If Obama wants to see bitterness, try taking even more jobs away in already-recessionary states like mine, because that is how they see hunting and fishing and such.  It means jobs, and it also means putting food on the table, as one deer fills a freezer.  (And for the rest of us, it gets the darn deer off the roads, where they can kill us.)

    Yes, people here are bitter about the economy.  

    But no, they are not bitter about their culture.  

    There is a big difference between clinging to it and embracing it -- between bowling for the cameras vs. bowling for the camaraderie, between belonging to a church to get elected vs. electing to go to church for the sense of belonging . . . and between giving thanks for all we do have vs. thinking we have no reason to give thanks at all.

    Parent

    They were exactly the same (none / 0) (#17)
    by myiq2xu on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:05:50 PM EST
    when times were better.

    Parent
    Right! Canada is also another... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Exeter on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:20:13 PM EST
    ...good example.

    Parent
    Btw, there is so little study of the Midwest (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:03:22 PM EST
    but a start is Heartland, a collection of essays edited by (I do not make this up) James Madison.  It is from U of Indiana Press, which has others on the Midwest.  Have you read it, Exeter?  Because your penultimate sentence just encapsulated it well in its diversity, due to greatly varied origins of its people.  Yes, the silliness of trying to stereotype twelve states with a fourth of the nation's population is just something so . . . well, so U of Chicago.:-)

    Parent
    I'll check that out.... (none / 0) (#81)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:02:21 AM EST
    Another resource I have found interesting is the map gallery at Valpo.  

    Parent
    it wasnt the hunters (none / 0) (#53)
    by isaac on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:33:05 PM EST
    in wisconsin that went for obama, this is specious

    Parent
    A Distinction Without A Difference (none / 0) (#34)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:36:53 PM EST
    Anyone who has grown up in small Middle America towns knows about the racism, nativism and exclusionary religiosity that often thrive there. I remember going to school in small-town Northwestern Indiana in the seventies. We had one or two black kids in the entire school, which gave rise to a whites-only Christian school being built on the outskirts of town. Casual racism and anti-rationalism were common; believing in evolution was something to be scorned.

    These intolerant attitudes  are fed both by historical factors (Indiana was the headquarters of DC Stephenson's KKK) and the economic factors cited by both Clinton and Obama. Distinguishing the difference between the Clinton and Obama quotes seems largely a matter of partisan interpretation and not objective reality. Clinton's statement can be interpreted as "condescending" in the same misleading way Obama's has been; it presupposes that the economically stricken voters are deprived of rationality by their fear, and thus vote against their interests.

    Moreover, the Clinton acolytes seem to miss the point that Obama in making his point was addressing the fundamental goodness of the small town residents, something that is clear in reading  Obama's comments in full.


    You're explaining that Obama is (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:04:18 PM EST
    calling small town folks racists?
    And you're trying to HELP him?

    Parent
    Not the only one. (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:20:34 PM EST
    Let me see if I can sound bite the narrative:

    Obama doesn't need to apologize because he was right and because it's not his fault that people choose to be offended by how he characterized them.

    aka
    Obama - right.
    Bitter, clinging folk - wrong.

    Any opinions?

    Parent

    nope (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:24:21 PM EST
    There's racism, xenophobia and anti-immigrant sentiment in the suburbs and large cities too.  And rural voters know it and get sick of being described thusly by folks from those areas.  And they don't take kindly to being described as xenophobes to an audience of the affluent who live in neighborhoods and go to schools just as segregated as the ones you describe.

    Parent
    Time to move on (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:44:11 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama's comments & the deluded (none / 0) (#66)
    by yourkidding on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:15:30 PM EST
    No, the essential goodness is NOT evident

    Parent
    oh the Obama people are spreading this all right (none / 0) (#36)
    by tarheel74 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:40:20 PM EST
    it's as if the english language has morphed into martian where right is wrong. I agree equating the two statements is an act of incredible stupidity. It will keep the story alive and legitimize it into attack ads.

    I quoted Obama (none / 0) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:43:26 PM EST
    I resent what you wrote in your comment and I formally warn you 1jpb.

    Your comment has been deleted.

    It takes two to move on sometimes... (none / 0) (#47)
    by dc2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:13:21 PM EST
    It's fine to say that Obama should move on from this, but how is he supposed to just move on when the Clinton campaign is pouring all their efforts into making this an issue?

    My take: The Clintons are "bitter" about losing the nomination, a near certainty at this point, and so they are willing to distort anything Obama says if they think it will increase their chances of winning by half a percentage point, even if that damages the very likely nominee for November and and puts Democrats' chance of winning the White House at risk.  Sure, McCain is going to try to use this too, but Hillary has turned it into a much bigger thing.

    his comments (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by isaac on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:36:39 PM EST
    require no distortion, they were arrogant and condescending.  add the fat cat laughtrack on the video and we have the perfect macaca moment

    Parent
    No it doesn't (none / 0) (#48)
    by Marvin42 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:16:36 PM EST
    Repeat after me: the Clinton campaign does not control the universe. The Clinton campaign does not make Sen Obama shoot himself in the head. The Clinton campaign is not the devil. This is a big deal without anyone saying anything about it.

    Repeat until you feel better.... ;)

    Parent

    piffle (none / 0) (#52)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:28:13 PM EST
    Good for obama does not equal good for democrats.  And the more he talks and the more comes out about him, the opposite seems more accurate.

    Parent
    Casey did the right thing (none / 0) (#59)
    by joanneleon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:56:12 PM EST
    but I truly wonder whether Obama will listen to his advice.  Obama's first reaction was to say he was simply speaking the truth.  So I have every reason to believe that's how he really feels.

    I don't get the sense that Obama likes to take advice.  Casey may have pulled him out of the fire.  It remains to be seen.  Watching the local Phila. news tonight, they did not put the focus on the "bitter" comments but instead emphasized the "clinging to guns and religion" portion of Obama's statements.  It's getting a lot of play around here.

    Casey is still a relative newcomer around here.  I'm not sure how much sway he has with the voters.  Rendell has more influence.  He hasn't said much yet, and what he did say was tame, IMHO.

    The Sunday Inquirer had a long article about this but I didn't see editorials or letters to the editor on the subject, since it happened such a short time ago.  The letters will come in this week though and that means they'll be published during the week before the primary.  Next Sunday's editorials should be interesting.  We'll see what McClatchy does with it.

    Obama will apologize (none / 0) (#63)
    by yourkidding on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:08:53 PM EST
    I'm losing track of all these Obama 'missteps'.
    The only thing I'm looking forward to is when he finally, finally, apologizes for one of these blunders.
    Hilary is right, Obama is a nice guy, brilliant, BUT, he can't beat the Repugs.

    Brilliant? (none / 0) (#78)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:19:54 PM EST
    I don't think Obama deserves to be called brilliant.


    Parent
    Stereotypes by any other name still smell... (none / 0) (#77)
    by lentinel on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:10:39 PM EST
    I am bitter.
    I am angry.
    I have lost much of my livelihood.

    I am not inclined to buy a gun.
    I don't take pleasure in shooting helpless animals.
    I am not inclined to turn to religion.
    I'd rather listen to music.
    I also watch movies.

    I will not be voting for Obama.
    That is a demographic with which I can identify.

    No, Let's Not Move On (none / 0) (#79)
    by tdraicer on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:54:29 PM EST
    Since I think Obama will lose badly to McCain in the fall I hope his online supporters don't let this go. And I hope Hillary doesn't either. BTD has it backwards-Hillary is the one with a better chance in the fall (as well as the one with a better chance of being a competent occupant of the White House). So I'm for the damage to Obama being fatal now, rather than in November. There is still time for the party not to make the mistake of nominating Obama-but that requires not hiding how badly he has wounded himself until it is too late. Move on? I think not.

    What Phil Little Said (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:38:12 PM EST
    JACOBUS, Pa. -- Phil Little seems like just the sort of Pennsylvanian voter who might have been offended by Sen. Barack Obama's comments that small-town residents "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion."
    "We believe in God, and I own a couple of guns," said the retired Little, wearing a camouflage Field & Stream cap and waiting with his wife in their SUV to watch their granddaughter's softball practice.

    Little says he switched his party registration from Republican to Democrat so he could back Obama in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary on April 22. Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticisms Sunday that Obama's comments were "elitist and divisive" haven't moved him.

    "I don't think he put his brain in gear before he engaged his mouth," Little said. "But he apologized. ... I think he has the right ideas, and I like hearing him talk. I put him in sort of the same mold as the Kennedys, JFK and Bobby."

    Teflon Armor still operational

    What Bill Clinton Said And What Obama Said | 79 comments (79 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment