Late Night: Son of a Preacher Man

The comments keep coming on tonight's Faith Forum. Here's the final thread -- it's also an open thread if you want to discuss other things.

Also, if you prefer Dusty Springfield singing it, here she is.

< California Delegates Chosen for DNC | The Latest in Shaming Punishments >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My last comment today..PROMISE (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:29:59 PM EST
    Notice how Hillary comes down on Obama for disrespecting voters, and his response is to insult HER personally. That has been a pattern for a while now. She's like the big sister that has gotten his goat now.. not that she wants it!

    She's got his goat alright! (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:35:42 PM EST
    I do believe he is unravelling and in danger of becoming a joke. If he ever gets the nomination, then it would be the cruelest joke of all.

    I'm waiting for him to resort to (none / 0) (#37)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:29:23 AM EST
    I know what you are but what am I?

    He did not disrespect any voters (none / 0) (#89)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:02:13 AM EST
    and Hillary is losing yet another battle when she tries to milk a non-issue or mischaracterize what he said. Like Obama said, she knows better.

    Have you seen this?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M&eurl=http://www.thepresidentialcandidates.us/barack-o bama-on-charlie-rose-in-2004/329/

    This is from 4 years ago. Do you think he is disrespecting people here?


    I'm especially thick skinned (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by phillhrrll on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:36:50 AM EST
    and he's denigrated and insulted me twice, but I'm just a typical white guy what do I know ? If he  gets the nomination it'll be the dems worst defeat, and that's beyond a nightmare.

    Race baiting is unhelpful (1.00 / 1) (#106)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:41:05 AM EST
    Bill Cliton made a statement in 92 about bitter white guys. I take it you'll condemn that. Or do you feel that only someone who is 100% white can discuss white people?

    No no no (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:48:42 AM EST
    Clinton's comment was about the GOP and their use wedge issues and it was done in a public forum not behind closed doors to billionaires. Obama thought his comments were private but he was mistaken. Furthermore this is not about the word bitterness alone. This Florida woman nails it:


    And it is about Obama mischaracterized the Clinton years as bleak economically shedding jobs when in fact the opposite is true. See my comment below.


    I don't think so (none / 0) (#114)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:52:50 AM EST
    watch the clip I posted. Obama is saying the same thing he said in SF but more artfully and not subject to misinterpretation. It is much more thoughtful and compassionate that what Cliton said in 92. While Clinton says "white guys" are manipulated, Obama says that in hard times they fall back on that which they know and cherish.

    nice try, but no cigar. who do you (none / 0) (#117)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:08:53 AM EST
    think you're fooling--oops i meant convincing--here?

    I'm not trying to convince anyone (none / 0) (#123)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:37:45 AM EST
    everyone is free to make their own decision. But all Obama has to do is make this video from 4 years ago available to anyone who doubts his interpretation of his own comments in SF. Obviously he was being truthful when he said the words just came out wrong.

    If this is the WJC quote that you're referencing (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:27:38 AM EST
    "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,

    I don't see where Bill Clinton said "bitter", but in any event, describing people as "economically insecure" does not equal saying rural people  "cling to their guns and religion" because they are "bitter".


    Are you honestly stating (none / 0) (#186)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    that if Obama had uttered the words: "economically insecure white people" that some of you would not get all hot and bothered and start calling Obama a racist this and a racist that?

    Honest answer please.


    That's Clinton obviously (none / 0) (#108)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:42:34 AM EST
    It came out sort of vulger unintentionally.

    No (5.00 / 3) (#125)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:04:27 AM EST
    he is not but that's not what he said in San Francisco. It is not about the anger many feel, that's real and justified. Many others note it. It is everything else around it. He painted rural America as bigoted, gun-totting, religion-clinging xenophobes to an audience composed of billionaires behind close doors. And he blamed the Clinton Administration for contributing to the loss of jobs when that is not the case. He constantly harps on the achievements of Clinton when in fact under Clinton we had 112 months of uninterrupted economic gains, the longest economic expansion in US history. Read my other posts as well as those others.

    Partisan posters on blogs will (5.00 / 0) (#129)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:32:40 AM EST
    never be convinced. Frankly, the candidates aren't appealing to the likes of you. They are appealling to less interested, more fair-minded voters who don't hold irrational grudges against them.

    Nothing Obama says or does will convince you. That's okay. He won't get every vote.


    You're right: (5.00 / 3) (#134)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:14:48 AM EST
    Partisan posters on blogs will never be convinced. Over at DKos, they're busy lynching someone who had the temerity to dislike the fact that Obama has lauded pro-lifers, creationists, and abstinence education. See, when George W. Bush said/did those things, it as horrible. When Obama does it, it's perfectly understandable. Because.... Obama can do no wrong.

    So, just as soon as I hear you say that those things were bad for Obama to say, I'll listen to your point.


    LOL, Dr. Molly, (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:39:56 AM EST
    I'm with you there, but if Seth thinks that its okay for Obama to say those things because he personally believes them, then thats okay with me even though I vehemently disagree. However, it would be nice if Obama supporters understood that there are some core Democratic issues that some of us really, really believe in and we don't like it when they are thrown under the bus for the purposes of pandering.

    By the way (none / 0) (#132)
    by Seth90212 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:40:01 AM EST
    I feel Obama believes that Clinton missed his opportunity to be a transformative president. Bill did not try to do big things, he just tried his very best to hang on and enjoy presidential power. Obama is more of a visionary who will try to reorder things along progressive lines. What Reagan did for the conservative movement. I'm not saying he will succeed. But he will try.

    Clinton presided over a period of some economic expansion in some sectors. Things weren't all that great in other sectors and many of the ruinous trends that are ingrained now starting taking shape in his admin. He was president just as the country was recovering from the Bush recession. You may credit him with that if you like. I suspect if Bush had won we would've had the same recovery and the same dot.com bubble.


    Seth90212 (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:44:30 AM EST
    Why do Obama supporters engage in the blood-sport of trying to destroy the last Democratic President?  

    Isn't it enough that Obama and his supporters insult Hillary on a personal basis and not a policy basis?

    If Obama is more aligned with the Reagan and Bush policies, why should I vote for Obama if he's the nominee?


    That's my question too (none / 0) (#154)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:12:00 AM EST
    I cannot for the life of me understand why any liberal would want to bring down, to denigrate, the only successful Democratic Administration in the last 40 years. What is with that?

    If the intent is to alienate those of us who voted for Bill Clinton, twice, it's working very well. Many of us believe the relative peace and prosperity of those years are head and shoulders above anything we've seen since. But you go right ahead and join the Bush Administration in the but, but, Clinton chorus. I am amazed that any Democratic candidate would think attacking a popular former Democratic President good politics.

    If Obama and his supporters believe that it is smart politics to alienate nearly half the Democratic Party then so be it.
    We may not like McCain but we don't like be treated as if we're just little appendages that come in handy whenever an election rolls around. Obama and his supporters may believe that we'll all just climb on the bandwagon when it comes to town should Obama win. Keep insulting us and Bill Clinton and that just isn't gonna happen.


    Those comments aren't an attack (none / 0) (#159)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:31:18 AM EST
    Yes there are some who are busy tearing down both the Clintons, but the comments above are not.  The economic successes and failures of our country rarely have anything to do with who is President.  Pointing that out is not an attack on Clinton.

    ignoring of course... (none / 0) (#164)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:56:57 AM EST
    that the entire Obama campaign calculation is that in order to get past Hillary, everything Clinton must be diminished/dismissed/destroyed.

    The simple fact is that employment rolls went up dramatically, people's incomes went up dramatically and people prospered during Clinton's two terms and the impact is all the more obvious by the complete turnaround of these benefits under 8 years of Bush.

    Is it really good strategy to dismiss the achievements of the only living 2 term Democrat when the general election virtually dictates a reliance upon them to contrast what Republican rule has done?

    I think this is evidence of Obama's ambition that meant to get past Hillary, is harmful to the Democratic brand and extremely short sighted.

    I think that this more than any other accounts for the disparate support for the 2 Democrats based on age...that the over 40 crowd knows the prosperity of the 1990's under Clinton and the under 40 crowd doesn't get it because they were still growing up.


    And how much blame (none / 0) (#166)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:18:12 AM EST
    does Donna Brazille have to do with this tactic?

    Regardless, the lies and attacks on Bill Clinton's economic legacy are what switched me off Obama to HRC. IMO, the DNC and particularly Ms.B pushed this self-serving malicious and divisive meme along with Axelrod and Obama. I smell a party coup attempt and that includes railroading the dem voters.

    I really detest feeling railroaded.


    That is a really really dumb thing to say (none / 0) (#174)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:51:53 AM EST
    Not just because it's wrong but because your candidate, or any Democratic Candidate is going to be running on the idea that our economic condition right now it THE RESULT of Bush's economic policies.

    And indeed Obama himself will be running on the idea that he can change that.

    Then you come along, and because destroying the Clinton legacy is so important to you, you say that a president can not be held responsible for or given credit for the economy during their administration.

    What a mind numbingly dumb thing to say.


    If taxation and trade policies have (none / 0) (#180)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:03:56 PM EST
    nothing to do with the economic success/failure of our country, what exactly does?

    I agree (none / 0) (#187)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:38:00 PM EST
    with that Clinton failed to be the transformative President he could have been. I think that was largel due to his loss of Congress in 1994 and to the Monica Lewinsky scandal that demolished his Presidency. But on economic stewardship he was transformative. He balanced a budget for the first time since the 1960s. He left a surplus. He created more jobs in 8 years than Reagan-Bush did in 12.

    Where I disagree with you is that Obama has a vision. He can't even bring the Democratic Party together and his vision on health care leaves out 15 million people. Obama's vision on energy mirrors Cheney's. Obama is playing to what's politically expedient not what is morally right.

    Your last remark is nonsense. Clinton's economic miracles were due to one man primarily, my former CEO and boss, Robert Rubin. Your ruinous trends statement is hard to fathom. Bush undid everything Clinton achieved. His economic policies are a marked departure from Clinton's.


    about that Charlie Rose interview... (5.00 / 4) (#142)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:58:38 AM EST

    1. It was about the Maytag plant in Galesburg IL, closed by Obama's benefactors...the Crown family

    2. According the machinists union, Obama never said/did anything to prevent the closure but only demagogued it - the Illinois State Senator

    3. Obama never introduced legislation in the Senate to do a single thing about plant closures or NAFTA...now, he's the champion of the bitter people

    A historical perspective is H E R E

    The disrespect is riding the bus through Pennsylvania for a week and then recounting why there's a core of voters that he can't reach by dismissing them to a group of wealthy California donors.


    Oh my gosh ANYONE WHO watches this (1.00 / 1) (#96)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:24:52 AM EST
    video doesn't immediately come out and say Charlie Rose is out of touch, elitest who is condescending is the the biggest hypocrit in the world.  But something tells me the Clinton Koolaid has your sites steady on Obama.

    On the other hand (none / 0) (#155)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:17:57 AM EST
    Obama supporters, it seems, make a point of being at known, remaining oasis of civil political discourse to push their Obama talking points; repeating them ad nauseum.  It does not work here.

    well, i'm the son of a preacher woman (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:51:30 PM EST
    I'm in SF and her church (UCC) is in PA.  This campaign constantly pushes my ethical and political buttons.

    The SF billionaire row comments (and the tone/closed door nature), the not standing up to the pastor issue(or switching churches), the annie oakley rant (Clinton was not pandering), and the race-baiting (im not black, but im queer and there's a difference than bringing your identity to the table and hatchet jobbing your opponent) all turn my stomach from and ethical and political standpoint.

    Ethically, I could never do those things.  Politically, I think they are a disgrace to democracy and informed voters.

    And that he followed the annie oakley comment with a dishonest portrayal of her bankruptcy position didn't help.

    I've said I couldn't vote for the man for a while, but I'm pretty sure of it now.  Not because I'm bitter, but because my core beliefs in some semblance of ethics/rules and in educated voters prevents me from rewarding this travesty of democratic process.  I cling to my ethics and notion of democracy, the facts that I'm underemployed and queer are secondary.

    Beautifully put -- it's the dishonesty (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:14:19 AM EST
    at every turn that turns me off.  I know he's a pol, I know she's a pol, but he just takes it to a level that leaves me wondering who he really is at all.

    Any insight from your mother as to how his UCC church unlike any other I've seen (I go to one nearby often and have been to others when in a joint PCUSA-UCC parish) is going over among others in the UCC?  It certainly is a faith accepting of many -- my UCC church pastor is gay, btw, and a great guy much admired in the community, all the community -- but Wright's rendition of black liberation theology seems to transgress and even contradict tenets of UCC and PCUSA congregations here, including one that's AA.  I've been there and can't imagine any minister there saying or doing what Wright did.


    i don't know (none / 0) (#52)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:46:43 AM EST
    the UCC issue really hurts.  frankly i've been debating how much I want to discuss the issue with my mother but i fired off an email to my dad.  

    The whole point of the UCC system is a national framework with basic tenets!  And yet the national president of the UCC went to Trinity and suggested a day of preaching about race.  He thereby implied the UCC was standing by Wright's comments AND involved himself in a campaign bait n' switch (the issue was about lay leadership, not race).  I don't know that Wright violated any basic tenets, but I think highlighting him paints an incorrect view of the UCC and of black churches.  And again, it was politically stupid for the UCC president to go there.    


    Uhm, I think you are gender bias (1.00 / 1) (#100)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:30:37 AM EST
    I will vote for a man or woman it's just I think the man is the better candidate this time.  And I can see how you can interpret Clinton's comments as not being pandering.  But it's kind of funny how her retoric and agenda seemed to follow the specific patter of attacking one candidate and then trying to sell herself as the candidate to individuals who this attack might offend the most.  Maybe that's not pandering but it's definitily not right!  I mean listen to her entire statement not just my father took me to Scranton to learn how to shoot.  This is pandering of which both candidates are guilty.  Please don't let your faith in one candidate destroy your own civil rights in November.  Vote for a Democtrat in November regardless of who it, I know that I sure the hell am even if it's Hillary Clinton

    at this point i'm getting sleepy so (none / 0) (#118)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:11:21 AM EST
    i'm not even reading your posts, but glancing at them is enough to make me chuckle.  i wish you well, even though you probably don't give a hoot about the dem party--only about your precious obama winning.  sorry, some of us have larger values at stake here than electing one man to office.

    voterin2008 (none / 0) (#156)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:25:19 AM EST
    a simple answer to you:  I AM NEVER VOTING FOR OBAMA! Because you keep repeating the same untruths/mischaracterization about and of  Clinton.  

    Hear hear!! (none / 0) (#15)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:02:54 AM EST
    Thank you for saying this.  In the same video he still continues with the lie about not taking lobbyist money.  

    like he says the average donation is under (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:23:32 AM EST
    100$. yeah sure uhuh....next whopper !

    yeah (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:29:07 AM EST
    I saw that, but keeping up on all the "noise" is knowing how to parse it is beyond me.  

    I just assume money/influence is hard to track...hell, even voting records are extremely difficult to parse (yes/no/present/absent) occur after positions are known and usually involve complex legislation.  As such, a yes is frequently meaningless on key issues (it wasn't going to pass or it had a significant majority) or dishonest (it's the 'light' soundbite bill, or it will be killed in conference).  Swing votes and cross party votes are the easiest to parse imho.  

    So I take all the noise with a shaker of salt.  It's the legwork that I track in any election:  clinton's known work against the initial bankruptcy bill, her work for universal healthcare (and support of an incremental SCHIP), her defiant stance on women's rights.  

    Analytically, there just seems little to balance that against other than the wapo article that discusses obama's claims on immigration (it was kennedy, specter, others) and the housing bill (it was dodd).

    Obama's a bright guy, he understands political capital and the MPA in me appreciates he knows the term. But, the only measurable resource from the outside that's reasonable in my mind is a politician's blood, sweat, n tears--not blaming political capital, not funding, and not just a yay/nay vote record.  You have to spend your own time and take risks instead of waiting for the political window of opportunity; you have to jimmy the window open.


    Clinton on the times blog (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:05:12 AM EST
    Title:  "Clinton Portrays Herself as a Pro-Gun Churchgoer"

    Key quote: "She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith "is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.""

    1) 700+ comments, 80% plus bagging hillary for pandering (and I mean total rant mode).  

    2)Clinton isn't portraying herself because she has been known as "religiously inclined" for years, attended prayer breakfasts, etc.  

    3) As to guns, she didn't pander and actually qualified her statement so it wasn't taken as her being an avid hunter.  And I sure don't know of any anti-hunting votes by clinton (thus not portayal). Anyway, her honest qualifier was important because it signaled she knew something about guns/hunting other than the "inner city violence" perspective.

    Question: Where are these people coming from in such mass to bash hillary (it's the highest of any of their blogs)?  Is an action alert going out?  It makes the times blogs pointless to visit--at least the ron paul posters werent shifting posts to 400+ "she'll do anything" comments.

    here's the link

    I think that when Obama (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by sander60tx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:14:04 AM EST
    is getting attacked, the pro-Obama bloggers become like an angry swarm of bees.  At least, that is how 700+ rants on the NYT blog, not to mention the virulent diaries on DailyKos, seem to me.  The buzzing is nearly deafening at times.

    the pattern laid forth by Ron Paul... (none / 0) (#28)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:20:34 AM EST
    and the Ron Paul Revolution...

    Pity that they can't see how entirely counter-productive it is


    it's toxic. if this is courting the youth vote, (none / 0) (#35)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:28:16 AM EST
    i don't want it.  and i say that as a member of that very same cohort of people (under 35 or whatever the pollsters' number is) supposedly so enthralled with him.  i decidedly don't fit into their pre-assigned pigeonhole for me.  it must be because i'm racist--yes, that's it!

    I wonder if its one of the strategies... (none / 0) (#138)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:43:31 AM EST
    ...that they learn in Obama activist camp.

    I think I saw that Movie (none / 0) (#168)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:37:39 AM EST
    except it was called "Jesus Camp"

    YouTube (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:06:48 AM EST
    I didn't watch the Faith Forum. But it coupled with the late night open thread is a great excuse for this atheist to post a link to one of my favorite gospel songs beautifully done by Alison Krauss - Down to the River to Pray.

    I remember listening in wonderment (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:59:59 AM EST
    the first time I heard that, in the film.  So we got the CD, and every time I hear it, I just have to stop whatever I'm doing and listen in wonderment again -- that humans could make such heavenly sounds.  Thanks for getting me to stop for a few minutes again tonight. :-)

    Just gorgeous, ty for link :) n/t (none / 0) (#73)
    by eleanora on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:16:43 AM EST
    something tells me... (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:12:28 AM EST
    That Son of a Preacher Man wasn't the type of faith that they were searching for in the Faith Forum tonight.

    all the more reason (5.00 / 0) (#42)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:38:00 AM EST
    to use it.

    Compassion (none / 0) (#48)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:41:39 AM EST
    Did any one notice if in the Faith forum they talked about the impeding world crisis of the price of food?  Also here in America.  Hunger is real.  All that compassion and I don't think there was a mention of it.  Haiti had riots and numerous other nations.  

    I saw those headlines today (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:40:43 AM EST
    I've been staying off cable news and keeping to local because I'm sick of the coverage. Was cruising the web today and saw the food headlines. Oy. I think it was last night that I saw some coverage on it in the different countries (wich I could remember where I saw it). Not a pretty picture.

    I honestly think Clinton is the only one of the three that can grasp the issue with some substance. Obama's to green, McCain, too out of touch with these issues.

    What's the best answer for us, who want to help, to be effective? Where do we as people, direct our efforts?


    The price of rice (none / 0) (#91)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:07:11 AM EST
    has gone up 70%.  The biofuels are causing major problems.  Here in America also I know from the work I do, the price of protein for food programs is going really high up.  This is a looming disaster.  The Germans just dropped their standard for 30% biofuel conversion because of the impact on the food supply.   It's of gloal warming proportions, but the problem is the food industry.  

    Faith & Compassion Forum: a misnomer (none / 0) (#39)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:32:18 AM EST
    I do not know if the purpose of the forum was to grow faith and/or compassion.  Certainly the questions asked of the two candidates did not lend themselves to enlightenment.  If the purpose was to get Hillary to come up with a quote to be used against her; then it was a failure.  It only served to project her sincerity.

    As for what it did for Obama:  It did allow him to emphasize that he has religion.  But faith? I can't tell.  Compassion? Certainly not to  another human being like Hillary.


    I'm not letting go of this (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:13:55 AM EST
    because Obama needs to be taken to task over the inaccuracies of his comments:

    And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

    Jobs did not fall during the Clinton Administration. I went and looked at the BLS for the top 100 US markets under Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. Bush 41 led in 12 (Gary, Honolulu, Des Moines, El Paso, Little Rock, Fresno, Seattle, Witcha, Riverside/San Bernardino, Tacoma, Raleigh/Durham, Madison). Clinton led in all the rest or 88. None for GWBush.

    Here are numbers for Pennslyvania markets:
    GHWBush 0.59% Clinton 1.72% GWBush 0.00%
    GHWBush 1.18% Clinton 1.73% GWBush 0.31%
    GHWBush -0.95% Clinton 1.51% GWBush 0.14%
    GHWBush 1.10% Clinton 1.24% GWBush -0.51%
    GHWBush 0.42% Clinton 1.10% GWBush -0.75%

    Someone needs to point this out and soon.

    Forbes (5.00 / 2) (#38)
    by Step Beyond on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:29:29 AM EST
    A few years ago Forbes compared recent presidents on economic measures including jobs and unemployment. Clinton came out on top overall.


    Clinton's two terms in office (1993-2001) were marked by strong numbers for gross domestic product (GDP) and employment growth and especially for deficit reduction. His overall ranking puts him first among the ten postwar presidents--ahead of Lyndon B. Johnson, Kennedy and Reagan, who were tightly grouped behind the 42nd president and recent autobiographer.
    Clinton campaigned on the economy and had remarkable success. GDP growth during his eight years averaged 3.5% per year, second only to the combined Kennedy/Johnson years and ahead of Jimmy Carter and Reagan. The economy also added jobs at a faster rate under Clinton than under any postwar president except Carter. For Carter, however, job growth merely matched an increase in the size of the labor force, while Clinton had much better luck curbing the unemployment rate as well. The result: The public's confidence in the economy hit an all-time high in the summer of 2000, near the end of Clinton's second term, according to Gallup. In the summer of 1992, before he was elected, it was at an all-time low.

    Kentucky and Indiana markets (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:40:53 AM EST
    Gary, IN
    GHWBush 1.52% Clinton 1.02%  GWBush -0.64%
    GHWBush 2.00% Clinton 2.54%  GWBush -0.16%
    Lexington, KY
    GHWBush 2.26% Clinton 2.97%  GWBush -1.61%
    Louisville, KY
    GHWBush 1.97% Clinton 2.40%  GWBush -1.70%

    That I have to point a misstatement when it took about 90 minutes to do the research. Where is the media on this? Or other blogs?


    Older voters (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:56:55 AM EST
    know perfectly well that the economy did well during the Clinton years.

    Younger voters--it's hard to get that sort of thing through to them, even if they had very nice things when they were growing up because of that nineties Clinton economy.

    I love young people, but I don't want to give them the car keys and stuff...


    I'd rather drive the car until (none / 0) (#103)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:37:11 AM EST
    the economy crashes, the enviroment is so affected by global warming their is no changing it, we have completely destroyed the Bill of Rights, the supreme court is controlled by extreme conservatives, thousands of more terrorists are formed in reaction to our occupation in Iraq, until I'm retired without healcare and they need to pay for my care.  That's what I took from your comment.  I myself would like them to be engaged and working to assist in the great challenges ahead.  Of course we could just vote for McCain or have superdelegates choose Clinton and kill any hope of that.

    i've come to believe obama cares (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:15:45 AM EST
    little to none about any of those issues you just listed.  his platform is increasingly becoming a sham for me.  and this coming from someone who was really impressed by his 2004 convention speech, and who was ready to vote for him in a heartbeat a few months ago.  no more.  stick a fork in me, i'm done.

    I am so tiired (none / 0) (#152)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:49:48 AM EST
    of saying this, but I feel almost obligated to stop this misinformation from Obama supporters:

    SDs will choose WHOEVER the nominee is. So by your definition if Sen Obama is the nominee all hope  will be killed.


    Don't let go of that (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:27:21 AM EST
    Keep it going.

    what edgar said. keep it going, charles! (none / 0) (#120)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:13:34 AM EST
    p.s., did you see my response to your comment in an earlier thread?

    I did see your comment (none / 0) (#124)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:40:45 AM EST
    thank you and yes I like your idea.I'm travelling right now but will be back in SF by week's end.



    46 with no opinion on whether life at conception (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:21:39 AM EST
    That was the big shocker for me during the faith forum. Obama was asked if he thought life started at conception. Remember Clinton said the potential for life started at conception, but whether it's life is a matter of debate, etc. But Obama actually said he hadn't decided.

    Sooooo, if he does decide, and he decides it's life, then there goes choice. Up to now he's been "present" on choice when it comes to votes. He does say he's for choice, but he seems to always qualify it, and he seems to always say there is room for compromise and for working with right to life folks. But this latest bombshell positively pushes him over the line on this issue. I don't believe he can be counted on as a pro-choice candidate.

    Casey (PA) has a new strategy (none / 0) (#153)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:56:20 AM EST
    News carrying headline:

    Unlikely Obama Backers:  Anti-Abortion Lawmakers

    Casey and Timothy Roemer think he will reach the "socially conservative" in PA and IN."

    It does say that Obama has not given any indication that he is pro life but they think he is the way to helping them on the issue.


    The Annie Oakley comment (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:23:53 AM EST
    is getting under my skin.  When I was a child, my grandfather took me out sometimes and taught me to shoot a rifle.  It was a pretty special time, because we went out to a quiet country place, and we shot a gun, which was definitely out-of-ordinary, and, come to think about it, I guess we mostly did it the year my dad was in Vietnam, so it was nice to get the extra attention.

    I have shot a gun a few times since then--I lived in the country and had to get rid of some varmints if I wanted to keep small livestock.  And I got that old .22 Mossberg rifle of my grandad's.  I kept it for many, many years after I had no use for it at all, from sentimentality.

    I really don't care for guns and wish we had a more European attitude about them, myself.  But families do hunt and shoot as a target sport, and Obama's "Annie Oakley" comment is another irritating put-down.

    I taught my daughter to shoot a .22 (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by badger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:04:29 AM EST
    when she was 12 or 13. We don't hunt, but it's possibly a useful skill where we live, and it was just a nice experience.

    I find the Annie Oakley comment and associated derision personally offensive. Just one more sign that Obama really is clueless.


    Annie Oakley (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by sister of ye on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:17:46 AM EST
    There's a pretty easy way for Clinton to defuse the Annie Oakley intended insult - humor. I suggest 1) going onstage in a western hat, making a comment like, "I understand Sen. Obama suggested this would suit me," and 2) singing a few lines from a song from Annie Get Your Gun - "Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better" would be most appropriate.

    And The Second Act? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:22:29 AM EST
    Mrs. Clinton is "acting like Annie Oakley and Billy Graham all in one," said David Plouffe, Mr. Obama's campaign manager, "and she's neither."



    Another example of how out of touch (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by badger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:49:50 AM EST
    his entire campaign is. Billy Graham is not Falwell or Robertson, and there are a lot of (probably older - over 45) people who really respect Billy Graham.

    I'm not one of those (older, but not a Graham fan).

    It's a really stupid remark for someone who wants to get votes. I hope it's widely circulated.


    That Is The Point (none / 0) (#87)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:53:48 AM EST
    Of his insult, both are respected and she doesn't measure up.

    Not apparent (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:04:22 AM EST
    Given what Obama's been through the last few days, very few people believe he'll be talking about Annie Oakley or Billy Graham in favorable terms.

    Especially on the heels of the Annie Oakley comments from today from Obama himself where the derisiveness of not just Clinton, but of the icon herself, is more apparent.

    No.  It's not apparent that the Obama campaign has any respect for Oakley or Graham.  Not at all.

    Probably get to work on that.


    That Is Silly (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:10:42 AM EST
    Must be the kool aid.

    Hardly Silly (none / 0) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:25:40 AM EST
    Convince me Obama and his campaign are speaking of Annie Oakley and Billy Graham in respectable terms.

    And not as the stereotypes that a lot of elitist liberals have of them.

    You have to make a case.  I'm not going to believe you just cause you say so.


    It Is Painfully Obvious (none / 0) (#183)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:06:30 PM EST
    It is one of the most common types of putdowns, comebacks etc, to make a hyperbolic comparison in order to show that someone is fake.

    Is it an insult to Albert Einstein, when person B says: 'OK Einstein, whatever you say,' in response to a dumb thing person A said.

    Annie Oakley, is the Einstein of marksmanship and she is a woman whose story is widely known due to the musical. Billly Graham is also akin to Einstein in religious leadership, widely known and revered.

    Obama was using these symbols of excellence to put down Clinton's recent and quite obvious pandering to those she perceived Obama insulted. She is no Annie Oakley or Graham.

    You are really losing any semblance of rational thought to even imagine that Obama was insulting Oakely or Graham. To do so would be like calling Einstein a dope.


    Yeh, it's clearly respect for Annie Oakley (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:43:46 AM EST
    that motivated Obama to make that remark.  I'm sure he's a regular donor to the Annie Oakley museum.

    And ducks, he respects them, too.  

    Squeaks, you're a hoot here.  Give us another one, this is great stuff.


    This is silly (none / 0) (#130)
    by marcellus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:32:54 AM EST
    It's clearly an attack at Clinton that wouldn't make sense with your logic.

    Silliness is upthread (none / 0) (#177)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:40:33 AM EST
    to the series of comments to which I was replying.  Did you look closely -- or just drive by?

    And You Are A Writer? (none / 0) (#184)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:11:08 PM EST
    Hopefully you have a bit more objectivity when you analyze subjects that are less emotionally fraught. I am sure you do because no one except your closest admirers would ever take you seriously otherwise.

    David Plouffe . . . (none / 0) (#88)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:56:34 AM EST
    what an a**. If you google his statements, they will be great fodder for the Repubs in the fall. He's the anti-obama message straight from the horse's mouth. Actually, it's a horse race between Plouffe and Axelrod some days . . .

    I'm not in the habit of giving advice to Obama... (none / 0) (#140)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:49:16 AM EST
    ...but I think they should lay off the Annie Oakley stuff.

    Wow, I'd say (none / 0) (#147)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:24:58 AM EST
    they are really in panic mode here.  That's pretty vicious even for Plouffe.  Must be getting some real bad polling on "bitter."

    nooooooo (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by diplomatic on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:25:32 AM EST
    Well, (none / 0) (#78)
    by LoisInCo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:22:17 AM EST
    Clinton isn't known for a great singing voice. But yes, she should agree and play it up.

    Just read Larry's piece over at no $.25 (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by MaxUS on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:34:29 AM EST
    He's put up a larger chunk of the SF Obama gaffe.

    And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

    I won't go into the whole: exactly which administrations can be considered to be successive of the Bush administration thing...except to mention it because it just bugs me.

    No, the thing that I want to point out is what hit me as I was perusing a well written Diary at MyDD that asked rhetorically: "Why would anyone be offended?" (You should read it if you haven't eriposte has a direct link to it on the Left Coaster FP, if you're interested)

    Anyway, in the comment section of that diary someone wrote ironically or sarcastically:

    Well because the PA voters have lived with the failures of the Clinton and Bush [both] administrations and the lies of the Clintons in this campaign they have every reason to be bitter. And angry and pissed off.

    And that's when it hit me! I was reminded that Obama's comments were made as an attempt to justify his poor showing in the small towns. What struck me is that his argument is not only insulting it's nonsensical.

    Apparently, these people in small towns are so bitter about their circumstances which Obama attributes to Clinton and Bush that they are choosing to vote for another Clinton over him. Huh?

    PS: I'd provide links to the relevant articles except that I can't seem to get the html tags to work properly. I keep getting an error that I haven't been able to figure out how to fix.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by tree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:56:22 AM EST
    I tend to be overly logic driven at times, and that was one of the first things I noticed about his answer--it made no sense. People who were made "bitter" by the Clinton years wouldn't be voting for her. I keep repeating that he was describing Clinton voters, not Republicans, and not only was it demeaning it was an illogical excuse for his poor showing in PA.

    I notice that Obama in all his "explanations" has sought to elide over this point. He's spun it as if  he said that small town voters are bitter over the economy and so they should vote for him cuz he's all magical hope and stuff when he really said that they are bitter and cling to their guns and religion and that's why they don't trust him and aren't voting for him.  


    Democrats will continue to struggle (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:02:18 AM EST
    as long as they don't understand the rural voters.  I explained in a comment last night that while the rural voters might be mad, they are also very proud.  Obama's words will be taken by many of them as an outsider looking down on them instead of a candidate understanding them.  

    CNN just played a clip of Bill Clinton speaking today.  He told a story of a man talking to him about Obama's statements.  The man said, "I'm not bitter, I'm proud."  A paraphrase of the rest "I know what has happened in our nation.  I am not happy about it and want to see things change for the better."  Expect to hear a lot more of this from Bill.  He really does well with the rural crowds.    


    Okay, disregard my first paragraph (none / 0) (#45)
    by MaxUS on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:40:40 AM EST
    I re-read the whole successive thing and I understand the grammar better. It doesn't bug me as much anymore as an extemporaneous comment.

    He's talking about Republicans (none / 0) (#127)
    by marcellus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:26:17 AM EST
    and not Clinton-supporting Democrats.  In fact, you'll find from reading the comments on TalkLeft that the Obama campaign is not specifically targeting Clinton-supporting voters (and even conceding these votes up to a point).  The question asked was why was he behind in Penna. and the response was that he's a little frustrated because with a closed primary, the campaign wasn't able to switch enough Republicans to follow earlier models, like in Iowa.

    The theory under consideration is that the Republican party appealed (falsely but effectively) to salt-of-earth Christians for the past 30 years on gun, anti-immigration, and anti-abortion issues.  You could argue (and I do) that they should instead side with the Democratic party on issues of charity, forgiveness, and tolerance.  This is the plan that Obama was waiting for the general election to unveil.  

    Many here have commented that this is pandering to the Christian right and attention is shifted from the "true" Democratic base.  But here's the thing... if that's true, then Clinton will definitely win the nomination, and the new voters will still build the party in small way for the future.    I vigorously object that these new voters will dilute the purity of the Democratic party because you're not conceding liberal principles, but rather trying to change the issues under debate to say that a large segment of Christianity is liberal.


    So he was complaining (none / 0) (#171)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    that he couldn't win a Democratic primary with just Democrats voting?? Who does he think does the nominations for the Democrats, the Republicans and indies?? No, it's the DEMOCRATS. So, if he can't win a closed primary, he shouldn't be the nominee because he obviously can't get the Democratic base to vote for him. His ego and narcissism tell him that he can get the Republicans to vote for him in the GE, the facts in the real world say otherwise. Obama isn't about the Democratic party, uniting it or expanding it. Obama is all about Obama and he thinks the election should be too. Not the sort of mindset I want in any elected official, let alone the President.

    Simple solution (none / 0) (#176)
    by marcellus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:14:47 AM EST
    He's winning the Democratic primary so far.  That could change.  If Clinton wants to use the gaffe to win the DEMOCRATIC primary, she should go ahead and win more votes.  It could still happen, but it's a contest not a coronation.

    Yes, it is a contest, one that (none / 0) (#181)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:12:08 PM EST
    Obama's supporters want Hillary to withdraw from to give their candidate an easy win. That may be how he has won elections in the past, but he can't do that anymore. He has to win the votes. And he is alienating large blocks of voters, just about every time he opens his mouth. The thing Obama needs to learn is that if you want the voters to like you, you should show that you like them. Bill Clinton could give him lessons on how to do that. Heh.

    A couple of days ago the msm said a fire (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:40:34 AM EST
    broke out at one of Hillary's HQs, and someone said a similar fire broke out in Texas.  I didn't find anything about the Texas fire, but I'm starting to get my Primary-Gate radar up. Anybody hear this?

    As usual, it wasn't played up in the tradmed.

    Big Dog commented on it saying "Hillary will rise out of the ashes like the Phoenix" -  Amen !

    that's pretty funny (5.00 / 2) (#57)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:55:57 AM EST
    considering Fowler is an Obama supporter who maxed on her contributions to Obama.

    this is illustrative of an ongoing pattern. (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:27:55 AM EST
    there are few--perhaps even no--real, substantive, or meaningful principles undergirding the obama "movement."  in their eyes, only two categories of people exist:  those who agree with them and are therefore right and of sound mind, and those who don't and are therefore bitter/stupid/racist/fill in whatever description is most convenient here.  that's why it doesn't matter to them who needs to be thrown under the bus along the way--or whether such offhand decisions are at all consistent with their purported values as previously stated.  there's no consistency because there are no underlying principles.  it's disturbing to say the least.

    That's why the movement will fall apart. (none / 0) (#145)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:05:41 AM EST
    If he wins the GE, which could easily happen. He will be the next Jimmy Carter. Oh well, at least we may get decent supreme court justices, if we're really really lucky.

    Better hope he gives good (none / 0) (#163)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:54:35 AM EST
    SCOTUS because for all the love and respect I have for Jimmy Carter, his administration lead to 12 straight years of conservative administrations and assaults on American hopes for real change.

    I personally don't believe that Obama can win a GE. But if I'm wrong, could happen, I believe his administration would be a disaster and lead to more Republicans in office.

    As for electing more Democrats to the House and the Senate, what difference will that make? In the House the Blue Dogs join the Republicans and defeat any progressive agenda.

    In the Senate, I'm not sure they are in favor of a progressive agenda. Even if they are, the Republicans will say something mean to them and they'll all run to a neutral corner and wring their hands with the worry of getting elected again so that they can go back to Washington and do nothing for another 6 years.

    Oh my, am I sounding bitter? And it has nothing to do with guns, God or jobs, except for the ability of elected officials to do theirs.


    The theory on Fowler (none / 0) (#148)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:30:35 AM EST
    is apparently that she gave all that money in order to follow Obama around and have access to closed events.  Which may even be true.  But her pieces have struck me as simply somebody who wants to play journalist, not as a supporter of either candidate.  But what do I know!

    Eyeing the Papal Vote (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:02:00 AM EST
    Mr. Obama highlighted his own ties to the Roman Catholic Church, saying that he had once attended a Catholic school in Indonesia and shared the experiences of a Catholic education with many Americans.

    That is from the NYT. He attended a Catholic school for a year when he was six living in Jakarta and now suddenedly he has ties to Catholicism. The Reverend Wright would not play too well in the Vatican. Is it possible he brought up and mentioned conservative Catholic Senator Casey aiming to swing the Catholic vote in Pennsylvania his way? It is a little pathetic.

    Oh, this is just too much (5.00 / 3) (#72)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:16:30 AM EST
    and I say that as a survivor of a dozen years of Catholic education.  Does he know his catechism?  Has he been confirmed, much less baptized in the faith?  Does he know the holy days, and what he is to do during them? The seven sacraments, and has he ever partaken in a one of them?

    I do think I've got him now -- he's a dabbler, he's a job-hopper, he's a tourist who thinks he can look out a bus window for a week in Pennsylvania and peg the people in every small town there and across the Midwest. The type I've had to hear time and again, who are expert in everything because they did it once.  Uh huh.

    It was evident in some of the stuff he tried to make fly in the "faith forum" tonight -- he has a lot of the right words and phrases, but that's not enough.  He couldn't put them together coherently . . . and certainly not in a way that would work well with the Catholics I knew and know.


    Absolutely..... (none / 0) (#141)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:55:38 AM EST
    ...and Washington DC is full of people like this. I work with a lot of them. Yet another way he probably wants to be like Bill Clinton, who actually did know a lot about everything. I remember hearing him speak about the human genome project and taking questions from scientists...he went into details that were really pretty remarkable and left the scientists in the audience really impressed. Al Gore, of course, was like that too. Obama may also possess that gift but its funny that he needs to bash the administration that really did know a lot about everything. Bottom line, that's what bugs me the most about him.

    I too survived many (none / 0) (#157)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:25:43 AM EST
    years of Catholic school. I am a recovering Catholic who left the church when a friend, who had been abused by her husband, told a priest in the confessional that she had grown to hate her husband. The priest wanted to know what she did that made him, the abuser, so mad. I never attended church regularly again. It was the straw that broke the camel's back of my outrage at the misogyny of the Catholic Church. Still love the music and the quiet of an empty church. Ain't buying the dogma.

    And even I resent someone using "my" church to pander to voters. This man just keeps sinking lower and lower in my estimation.


    The Pope is coming to DC soon, (none / 0) (#173)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:46:46 AM EST
    maybe Obama can get an endorsment from him. Snicker.

    If the President thing doesn't work out for him (5.00 / 2) (#82)
    by badger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:36:21 AM EST
    he now can claim enough experience to run for Pope. At least if you measure his experience on the same scale he uses for foreign policy credentials.

    So, about the stereotypes (5.00 / 6) (#68)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:04:46 AM EST

    I live here in the SF Bay Area what amazes me all their alleged cultural sensitivity and all the diversity training does not extend to the people of America, particularly lower income people.  They generalize, they lump and marginalize lower people here and across America.  

     People who condemn intolerance and yet have no compassion or understanding of economic hardships most people face.    My definition of a Bay Area liberal is they will complain about the homeless guy on the street, but march for a poor person across the world.  

    You see this in their objections to affordable housing, in their attitudes about public schools.  It really makes me cringe.  It's this faux liberalism.  

    I have to say this elitism, or class superiority, is not limited to white people, it's so accepted everyone does it, they don't even know when they are doing it.  When I heard the Obama talk, I was not surprised.  

    it isn't liberals (none / 0) (#76)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:20:10 AM EST
    it is Americans as a whole.  

    Katrina?  Oh we'll donate plenty.  For the rest of the homeless?  Pittance.  9-11?  Lots a dough.  Raise taxes to pay for new schools, books etc to better our children's education?  Are you kidding me?  Tsunami in Indonesia?  Plent of spare change for that.  

    American's love coming to the rescue in an emergency.  When the problem is pervasive but semi-out of sight it is much easier to think about investing than donating.


    I hate to step into it (none / 0) (#77)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:20:21 AM EST
    But it's not necessarily a fair comparison.

    To me there's a difference between poverty stricken people in Africa or other parts of the world and the 'homeless' folks one is more or less inclined to run into on Telegraph Ave.

    Of course there's faux liberalism.  I just wanted to point out a reason why I, myself, have had less patience for some of the homeless folks I see here in the bay area than would befit a liberal in good standing.


    Telegraph (none / 0) (#81)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:31:50 AM EST
    Telegraph is its own microcosm.  I was using the generic idea of the person in your back yard and used the term.  What I am saying is that the Obama gaffe was not such a gaffe, these are shared sentiments in the crowd he was speaking to.  

    BY contrast I was at an event that same week for Hillary and she talked about Americans and the American spirit etc.  Sort of a contrast that the unity guy was dividing and she was really working on unity.  


    hey, just how many TL readers are (none / 0) (#92)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:07:59 AM EST
    in the sf bay area here??  why am i hearing so much about this for the first time today?

    We are hiding? (none / 0) (#94)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:10:57 AM EST
    Berkeley here.  Look and the Hillary sign you find it's me.  

    Double Bind/Double Standard (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:44:46 AM EST
    Clinton bashed for fighting and bashed for not fighting.

    Collegial and quietly diligent, Clinton could be counted on to exhaustively work a bill through and cultivate support from both parties, according to numerous senators and aides interviewed by the Globe. This was, some say, the new Clinton that her presidential campaign wanted to reintroduce to voters - the Clinton who once described herself as "the most famous person nobody knows."

    Fifteen months later, however, even some Clinton supporters concede that goal has been more difficult to achieve in the one-on-one campaign against Barack Obama, in which Clinton chose after her loss in the Iowa caucuses to define herself as a relentless fighter

    That harder-edged persona - intended to present her as tougher than Obama - has won her greater support among some elements of the electorate, especially blue-collar voters, pollsters say. But it has also come at a cost, as Clinton continues to be hamstrung by public impressions of her as divisive and untrustworthy.

    Clinton's supporters say she is the victim of old, unfair images that are reinforced in the media.

    Here is one:

    But some political specialists and lawmakers say the tone of Clinton's uphill campaign against Obama has underscored the side of the Clintons that some voters do not like.

    Boston Globe

    Exactly so (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:36:10 AM EST
    I've said from the beginning that she is not allowed to campaign.

    Yes (none / 0) (#185)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:20:53 PM EST
    She is supposed to be a good girl and not make a fuss or show any aggression because that is not how respectable women are supposed to act. But then without being aggressive and fiery, she is not qualified to be POTUS and CIC.

    The article was most interesting because the author, a woman, seemed to be defending Clinton in a way. Her argument is that Clinton should have not put on the gloves because she is sooooo respected for reaching over party lines as a gracious healer and uniter, able to strike a compromise unlike no other.

    Ironically the Senator she is most like is Obama.


    Is he going to be held accountable (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by nycstray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:49:14 AM EST
    for his 'words' this past week? Seriously, beginning with the SF Fund Raiser, up through tonight, he's made a lot of claims. Many which I find, um, surprising. Why isn't anyone questioning his claims?

    It's driving me nuts, as the list is growing and it just seems to be accepted.

    Salon article on young women and Obama (5.00 / 3) (#95)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:13:52 AM EST
    Hey, Obama boys: Back off already!

    Interesting article about the young women getting tired of the sexism.  Surprise, they thought it was over and that we were just a bunch of old nut cases clinging to our battles.  

    Ughh (none / 0) (#104)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:37:30 AM EST
    "With straight white male progressive friends, I feel something that makes me viscerally angry and afraid -- the viciousness of the rebuttals to the suggestion that [Obama's and Clinton's] policies are roughly equal or that Clinton's have some benefits to them, the outright dismissal of any support of her, the impossibility of having a nuanced conversation ... The whole 'Hillary Clinton is a monster' theme is so virulent."

    Too much kool aid brings out the worst. Sexism and racism are alive and well. But what is also disturbing is that there are also many who hate Clinton and love Obama or vice-versa, without any respective isms. And I just do not get it because they are almost identical in their policies and their bipartisan talents.


    sorry, but i really have to disagree with (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:57:28 AM EST
    you on the whole "they're almost identical" myth.  they're nowhere near identical in their policies because obama's policies--at least to me, anyway, from what i've seen--only constitute a means to an end.  i.e., if we found out today that republican policies could get him more easily elected, he'd be out of this primary faster than you can say "Duped."

    hillary's whole life story is telling; she actually cares about the content and real-world impact of her policies.  she's not just on some flippant and narcissistic ego trip like some people.

    btw, i'm reading carl bernstein's new biography on hillary now, and it's pretty good (so far, as of p. 107).  makes me cringe at times, but i think by and large he's fair, painstakingly detailed, and comprehensive.  what i've read so far already tells me that she and obama are nothing alike.

    and as for their bipartisan talents, we've already seen that hillary has actually accomplished much more on a bipartisan basis.  as usual, walk versus talk.  it's easy to appeal to republicans on a superficial, prevaricating level.  it's a much more difficult prospect to wrangle with them and win over hearts and minds.


    I'm interested in what you consider doing more (none / 0) (#128)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:27:22 AM EST
    I've read their political biographies and while yes during the senate years Clinton was more successful at creating praire breakfasts and legislation on adult content on video games.  Obama passed legislation on campaign finance reform, sponsored immigration reform with of all people John McCain, the Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act with bi-partisan support, the defense autorization act with bi-partisan support and some more if you care me to list them.  I could be missing something here could you please point me to the legislation that Clinton has passed even if it's without bi-partison support while in the Senate?

    Don't forget her recent legislation (5.00 / 1) (#175)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:54:05 AM EST
    helping out nurses. Oh and there was that co-sponsoring of legislation (with Dodd) to extend the Family Medical Leave Act to include wounded vets. Oh...and I seem to recall that there was some legislation about home healthcare workers...

    As has been noted, you should be able to find the various pieces of legislation that Clinton has been involved in here at Thomas.

    Also here's from FactCheck about the tally of legislation both candidates have been involved in. You might check out the full article re: the legislation. It's lengthy, but worthwhile to see what legislation she's actually been involved in.


    Well I was wrong that's what you get (none / 0) (#188)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:52:01 PM EST
    for rellying on the web for facts or at least the wrong parts of the web.  My humble apologies and good post.

    Ok I read the article and reallized that (none / 0) (#189)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:06:29 PM EST
    it's not an accurate reflection of their history.  I mean it discounts an co-sponsored bills if it's going to be a fact check then check to see if they actually where involved in time and resources in passing the bill.  And 90%+ of Hillary's bills where renaming post offices and yes 50% of the two legislative accomplishments they credited him with was guess what renaming a post office.  Is their anyway to really check the legislative accomplishments.  I think the best legislation I've researched was Obama proposal to Create time lines for troop withdrawl from Iraq that was voted down by Republicans in the Senate.  So I still apologize for my previous post not being accurate regarding Hillary's legislation but I still have questions on it since factcheck.org basically say's she is the leader of PostOffice memorials.

    I would suggest that you go (none / 0) (#190)
    by kredwyn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:11:05 PM EST
    to the Thomas link at the Library of Congress.

    As a research tool, it's highly effective in finding out what legislation she sponsored, co-sponsored, tried to get through but wound up redirecting through other means.

    One of the big things that congressional critters do is the post offices, commemorative dates, and so on. Considering the length of time it takes to write up, get co-sponsors, and move through committees...legislation does not normally move at a rapid pace.

    Both of them have sponsored and co-sponsored legislation re: troop withdrawals.

    BTW...the post office renames? A few of them are to rename the post office in commemoration of a fallen service member like the Lt. Michael Murphy post office--a medal of honor recipient who died in Afghanistan.

    They may be fluff to you. But to a family member and NYer...it's something else altogether.


    Thank you for the post I will research the (none / 0) (#191)
    by voterin2008 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:22:41 PM EST
     Thomas link.  

    I agree I don't see the sexism and racism being (1.00 / 1) (#111)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:48:46 AM EST
    rooted in the campaigns but in the media and the Republican side.  Although if you look at both sides you can find some race bating and sexism on each side. I believe the Obama and Clinton campaign have played each card to their advantage at some point is what I mean.  What makes me upset is that other then a speach from Obama they have both been either playing victims or accepting the role as victims through out the election.  I believe both of them should be attacking these with vigor showing just how exception each of them are regardless of the stereotypes they are being framed as.

    No, you really don't think this, do you? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:12:03 AM EST
    Your earlier comments here make clear what you're up to, but you are getting better at a bit of subtlety, at least by comparison.

    But your drive-by style really is problematic here.  You have had several replies with queries to you, yet you have not gone back to address them but just move on to drive by again.

    Perhaps you don't know how to find replies to you?  Click on the "Your Comments" link on the right of the screen.  Read, reply, rinse, repeat -- if you wish to engage rather than just enrage.  Cheers.


    I really try to reply to everyone but lately with (none / 0) (#126)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:18:29 AM EST
    the amount of traffic on this site the comments are closed by the time I get a chance.  I'm very interested in discussing anything with anyone.  I'm no up to no good just trying to comment on the anti-Obama posts here.  I do admit my last post was probably the worst, but I don't like how the media always says Oregon where I'm from is upper class educated voters.  Guess I don't like to be stereotyped and then SF is portrayed in the same way like since he said the comments there he is condescending since we must be living great on the west coast.  Anyways love to reply to any questions you have.

    This was not replying to you! (nt) (none / 0) (#178)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:43:44 AM EST
    Sometimes the fights over small differences... (none / 0) (#143)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:58:44 AM EST
    ..are the most brutal. I don't get it either, but I am not so good at not letting my buttons get pushed as you are.

    It was all relatively civil until (none / 0) (#150)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:40:27 AM EST
    Clinton won the NH primary and the Obama people immediately started in accusing the Clintons and everyone around them of race-baiting. That ginned up the normal Clinton dislike into CDS and infuriated the Clinton people, and it could only escalate from there.

    nice close... (none / 0) (#151)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:43:58 AM EST
    And it's made me realize we are still dealing with the gender issue. I don't think we know what to make of women in power, or make of Hillary. I don't think the world is as postfeminist as I was feeling that it was."

    Sort of puts the Annie Oakley ridiculing comments into perspective...

    Faith Forum (1.00 / 4) (#19)
    by xargaw on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:07:58 AM EST
    Hillary Clinton is grasping where there is no issue.  This is low road politics and it is disappointing to watch Mrs. Clinton behave in a such a contrived manner. Mr. Obama presented himself articulately and masterfully tonight. He came across as authentic. I am not a long time supporter of Obama, but I am a supporter of late as much because Hillary has abandoned ethics in the campaign and Obama has demonstrated himself to be Presidential.

    Correction (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:24:52 AM EST
    Checked and the word "grasp" should be replaced with stoop.  From the official "blogging for Obama handbook".  Disappointed, within the approved phrases as well as: contrived.  Of course you are not a long time supporter.  But Obama was masterful, within the playbook.  Great job.  Good one, that she abandoned ethics.  That is great.  I am sure Professor Lakoff would give you an A.  

    (Jearlyn, I just have to say it sometimes)


    Sen Obama? (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:47:44 AM EST
    Is that you posting on this forum? We know its you, stop trying to make yourself look good. :)

    You mean clinging (none / 0) (#51)
    by facta non verba on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:45:17 AM EST
    I thought it odd that Obama in defending himself choose to defend himself by highlight the word "clinging" from his remarks in SF. It's good that we cling to our religion.

    Well in SF he had them clinging to guns and Jesus. I guess it too is a good thing we cling to our guns. Pathetic.


    Hey anyone pick up on the fact that Clinton just (1.00 / 1) (#113)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:51:46 AM EST
    framed San Fransico as out of touch, condescending elitests.  I know I'm reaching here but being from the west coast I don't like how everyone assumes this about us.  We are hard working folk, she could have said he was meeting with rich supporters but she emphasized SF.

    nice try. i'm from SF, as are numerous people (3.66 / 3) (#116)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:05:36 AM EST
    here at TL.  please stop trying to mischaracterize her comments, or to try to incite, bait, or inflame.  don't you realize this is getting old?

    It's not a mis characterizing her statments (none / 0) (#131)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:36:09 AM EST
    I'm from Oregon and this might be rooted in the media coverage that we are free loving upper class well educatated liberals.  But I see a picture being painted that the West coast is not seen as people dealing with the same issues as the SW, MW and East coasts.  And her statements seem to suppliment this even if it's petty it's still a view point or opinion which you can dismiss by saying I'm from SF and it doesn't describe my feelings, well it does describe mine!

    San Francisco (none / 0) (#133)
    by marcellus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:11:41 AM EST
    is a largely unsuccessful Republican dogwhistle from the 2006 election.  A bunch of Republicans ran against 'San Francisco values' all over the country.  Hillary Clinton used the same framework , presumably since she was talking in front of a conservative audience(the location of the fundraiser wasn't an important part of attack, unless it was to point it was in a different state, in which case California would've been more appropriate.).  It's on the same realm as Obama not taking his pic with Newsom.  I doubt it'll have any long-term implications for either.  California is safely blue.

    Dusty Springfield! Yeah! (none / 0) (#3)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:37:36 PM EST
    And I can still hear her version of Windmills of Your Mind, awesome! That was quite a few years back.

    I prefer Dusty's outfit, Jeralyn (none / 0) (#12)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:00:19 AM EST
    as I think I had that blouse.  And that overdone mascara. :-)

    I've always been a big Dusty Springfield fan... (none / 0) (#13)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:01:17 AM EST
    but I only have her greatest hits CD

    Linda Ronstadt put out a CD probably 12 years ago called 'Winterlight' (or something like that) which was sort of an honorarium of Dusty Springfield and Dionne Warwick (and obviously a tip of the hat to Burt) which I absolutely love.


    Did Clinton "attack" Gore and Kerry (none / 0) (#4)
    by sander60tx on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:44:46 PM EST
    by saying that they were both viewed as elitist?  There are numerous diaries on that subject over at Daily Kos.  I didn't take it that way at all.  I think that Gore in 2000 did come across as condescending (but not anymore) and that Kerry was widely perceived as elitist.  So, now Hillary (and I) are worried that the republicans will paint Obama similarly (as McCain already has begun to do).  His supporters have also been painted that way (e.g., latte-sipping).  What do you think... did Hillary make a mistake by bringing up Gore and Kerry?  Was that an attack?

    I do not believe (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by americanincanada on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:47:46 PM EST
    that was an attack. I believe that she meant that while both Kerry and Gore were good men, that they were perceived as not respecting certain people and values. She is correct. That is EXACTLY how Kerry is still perceived. Al Gore overcame that, to a certain extent.

    I know that the Obama followers are freaking out about those comments and talking about Gore and CArter endorsing to get Hillary out as revenge. But those rumors of them endorsing are just that...CArter and Gore have both said they are out of it until the convention and I believe that.

    There will be no real outrage over this except on the blogs. Most people knew what she meant and agreed.


    I also heard it as saying it was unfair (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:04:01 AM EST
    to them and the Dems, an image we have to fight today.  And she is fighting it, and we need it.

    I remember poor Al Gore getting a "makeover" mid-campaign, when told to be more "alpha male."  It was not alpha, it was awful -- plaid flannel shirt and ironed, yes, ironed khakis.  Obama looked a bit odd by bowling in a white shirt and tie, but it was a lot better than having him put on a bowling shirt with "Ed's Pub" stitched on the back or something.


    Bill Kristol (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Emma on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:51:12 PM EST
    keeps the PA comments in the news with an op-ed in the NY Times.

    What does this mean for Obama's presidential prospects? He's disdainful of small-town America -- one might say, of bourgeois America. He's usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it's not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

    And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service -- then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?

    Obama's isn't the only mask that slipped, I think.  Nary a mention of Clinton, it's attack mode on Obama all by himself.


    Also on Dailykos, (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by sander60tx on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:57:39 PM EST
    they think that Obama's "shame on you" response was brilliant.  Of course, it was horrible when she said that previously.  When she criticizes him she is "harming the democratic party" but when he does the same, he is "brilliant."  My head is spinning.  I wonder if the average voter gets this distinction.  

    he's mocking her... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:02:50 AM EST
    which is red meat for DK...of course they love it.

    Is Clinton made of glass? (none / 0) (#46)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:40:48 AM EST
    You guys act like any response to her attacks is beyond the pale.

    Let me be the first to say welcome to earth (5.00 / 7) (#56)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:53:48 AM EST
    LOL. That's pretty funny.

    OK, so you're new to this planet. Well, as it turns out, there are these two candidates for nomination of party. One, no matter what he says, is praised and worshiped in many of the blogs. His name is Obama. Those same blogs bash the other candidate ceaselessly. That other candidate is named Clinton. Oh, and Obama bashes the Clinton relentlessly as well. So there are a few blogs that actually try to consider matters more fairly, and a few that favor Clinton. But they're constantly harassed by the followers of this Obama.

    But don't worry, you'll figure it all out. Good luck to you.


    It's the hypocrisy, sweetie! (5.00 / 6) (#70)
    by tree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:12:28 AM EST
    When Clinton said "Shame on you" over Obama's lying about her health care plan and trade views in campaign ads, the Ace(spelled with two esses) Obama blogging community fell all over themselves in their lather about how divisive Clinton was to say such a thing and how it just proved that "She will say or do anything"TM to win the election.

     Now that Obama is having his own "Shame on you" moment, suddenly its a brilliant move and really the only right and just thing to do.


    One of the reasons that the cult meme is used is just because of behavior like this. It really does seem as though they don't even realize they are being hypocrites. They have to be willfully closing their eyes not to see it.


    but he's consistent about one thing... (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Dawn Davenport on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:17:22 AM EST
    Hillary first shamed him for his lying, and in turn he tried to shame her for his lying.

    At least he's consistent in his lying.


    I don't think that they believe they are (none / 0) (#161)
    by sander60tx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:39:13 AM EST
    hypocrits.  I think that they  believe that her (bad) behavior justifies their response.

    Ah yes.... (none / 0) (#30)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:22:34 AM EST

    My personal favorite...limburger cheeseheads.


    DK is now an Obama echo chamber. (none / 0) (#40)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:32:47 AM EST
    Obama has paid tons to blogs to keep him in the front pages.

    well, I don't mind if he wins those opinions, its the real world that works for me.


    "Supercilious" (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by felizarte on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:58:53 PM EST
    I remember this word frequently used to describe Al Gore in 2000.  I wonder if Gore minds having his and Bill's adm. lumped in as failures with Bush by Obama?

    Warming up the dogwhistles? (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by tree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:44:40 AM EST
    If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service -- then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?

    Sounds like the orchestra is tuning up for the first movement of the soon-to-be long-running Obama-bashing symphony from the RW media: attacking his inexperience and his "elitism".


    The truth (none / 0) (#105)
    by phillhrrll on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:39:30 AM EST
    is the truth

    Kristol and Clinton reading from the same (1.00 / 1) (#49)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:42:00 AM EST
    playbook. Maybe she picked the wrong primary to run in.

    Yes (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:36:50 AM EST
    And I bet you're equally aggrieved about Obama's right-wing, George W. Bush statements on abstinence education, pro-lifers, and creationists, no?

    This could mean (none / 0) (#55)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:52:26 AM EST
    that the republicans are beginning to hedge their bets.  They are no longer so sure about who the nominee will be so they will try to do damage to Hillary and Obama before either face McCain.

    likely dem voters (none / 0) (#66)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:04:20 AM EST
    probably don't read Bill Kristol much and if they are like me, switch the channel (almost as fast as if it was Ann Coulter) when his face pops up on the television.

    She said they were good men.... (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:01:08 AM EST
    ...who got tarred with the elistist brush and it hurt them in the election.

    Gore Won (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:08:20 AM EST
    What do you think... did Hillary make a mistake by bringing up Gore and Kerry?  Was that an attack?
    I did not like it, but I understand that Clinton is projecting herself as the anti-elitist, so it makes sense. Considering that they both are for Obama, or at least it seems so, it also appeared as a dig.

    On the other hand Obama had a really good, albeit self serving,   counter response:

    He also slipped in a plug for Gore, the 2000 nominee who has yet to announce his preference for 2008, and alluded to Clinton's earlier remark on the same stage. "I know that Al Gore was mentioned earlier," Obama said. "By the way, I have to say, I think Al Gore won."



    Gore won (5.00 / 3) (#101)
    by MaxUS on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:31:27 AM EST
    except that the voting in FL was hinky so he conceded.

    I'm not sure that this is an argument that furthers his cause. Ouch!


    Obama bringing up Florida in 2000 (5.00 / 4) (#112)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:51:11 AM EST
    when Dems were denied their right to vote, to have their votes counted, does not seem a wise move by Obama just now.  

    Earth to Obama:  Yeh, Gore won -- including Florida.  But you won't, and do you wonder why?

    Count the votes, Obama.  All the votes.


    I'm addicted, obviously (none / 0) (#6)
    by Molly Pitcher on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:48:19 PM EST
    to the news: I went looking for a final read before bed and I found this at USA TODAY:  

    "Clintons seem to be opportunistic givers. She announced $100,000 to South Carolina library few weeks before North Carolina primary. Giving for fame, votes, etc makes it meaningless."

    Now can someone tell me why a gift to (I guess) the USC Library would influence North Carolina?  Those states have been squabbling since colonial times.  Any thing to get another dig in, I suppose.

    And, sorry, Jeralyn--I am not distracted by the clips.  I am positively prehistoric: Bing Crosby, Ink Spots, etc.

    No one... (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:16:59 AM EST
    has been more vigorous in his support of children's issues than Barack...

    It just sounds so much better (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:04:17 AM EST
    when he says it all about himself.  But your Obama imitation is getting good, keep it up -- and soon, you can be saying "no one has given a better Obama imitation. . . ."

    ack! late night thread - (none / 0) (#7)
    by Klio on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:48:23 PM EST
    must be time for bed!  I do prefer Dusty, but have you heard Shelby Lynne's new album, Just a Little Lovin'?  It's nice ... not Dusty, but nice. And she doesn't cover Preacher Man :-(

    [Sorry can't find good YouTube.]

    Cheers, and thank you,

    Oh the humanity! (none / 0) (#60)
    by tree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:59:45 AM EST
    Another body thrown under the bus. Its turning into the Hindenburg of a campaign.

    You're either on the bus or under the bus.... (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:06:59 AM EST
    ....old reference from the Electric Kool Aid Acid test, for those that don't get it.

    just had a thought (none / 0) (#71)
    by TheRefugee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:14:23 AM EST
    from the forum:  Was Obama asked about his big-tent candidacy's purging of average everyday loyal Obamaites in favor of the "big money donors and their girlfriends" or asked why the campaign reversed itself so quickly concerning the purge?  

    you know what's funny, (none / 0) (#107)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:41:49 AM EST
    i read an interpretation by todd beeton of this move as an encouraging sign of responsiveness by obama to his supporters.  i saw it as exactly the opposite:  axelrod & co. quickly seeing the mob discontent for what it was--a potentially real threat to spark and accelerate obama's implosion.  if obama is elected, i have a feeling that all of a sudden, he's not going to care anymore about all of those supporters he threw under the bus the first time.

    New birth-location based approval process (none / 0) (#75)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:18:54 AM EST

    Hello -user-, it says you're -race- and from -state- originally.  And you are also happily -orientation-.  I know you've lived here -years-, but we're concerned that you might be:

    a) biased against -alternate race-
    b) biased against -alternate orientation-
    c) biased against -alternate class-

    Please upload official documentation showing your card carrying membership in -alternate race-, -alternate orientation-, -alternate class- communities.

    *Note*Your email address will remain private, but your orientation, race, and class will be fully disclosed so we can swiftboat anything we disagree with.

    remember this - condescending? (none / 0) (#158)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:30:45 AM EST
    Yesterday (none / 0) (#182)
    by ding7777 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:21:15 PM EST
    I posted a comment that had a link which directed you to a Chicago Tribune article where Obam states that he would bomb Iran and bomb Pakistan.

    That article "Obama would consider missile strikes on Iran" is no longer free, and I said I was not going to pay for it (you can if you want, but I'm not)

    Next time, please follow the links that are provided before accusing me of "peddl[ing] false comments that are an attempt to make Obama look like a war mongerer"

    Agiain, here's the L I N K to the article.


    CNN Analysis Commentators Were Mindless (none / 0) (#162)
    by pgo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:52:56 AM EST
    CNN was despicable in the post faith Forum analysis last night. After both candidates spent time answering a variety of sensitive questions the CNN lackeys immediately launched into the "bitter" baloney. Each commentator had to opine about how it would bot go away. Who gives the marching orders? What a joke - wrecking what could have been a valuable dialogue on the candidates views by chucking it all out the window and reverting to the CNN "get Obama' campaign. I was floored!

    Ignoring of course... (none / 0) (#165)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:01:39 AM EST
    That Friday night, they were saying the same thing...non-story, will fade.

    Clearly this story continues into Wednesday night's debate and it doesn't help Obama.

    Fueling it with Annie Oakley dismissal isn't likely to inure to his benefit either.

    By the way...this 'non-story' is still the lead story on CNN this morning.


    I see Jeralyn and Ann Althouse (none / 0) (#167)
    by thereyougo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:31:15 AM EST
    got some front page ink under blogginheads in the New York Times:  Hillary's Sexism

    Congrats to both.

    Annie Get Your Gun (none / 0) (#169)
    by gabbyone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:40:31 AM EST
    Wasn't it in the musical Annie Get Your Gun, that Annie sang the song, "I can do anything you can do better?" Hillary should fling that back at Obama at her next rally. Little comic relief
    is needed every now and then.

    Talk Left feeds the beast.... (none / 0) (#170)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:40:41 AM EST

    ... ah, more of the he-said, she-said meaningless coverage of the 2008 election. Since when did Obama's "PA voters are bitter" and Hillary's Trina Bachtel story become such big news? Why is this more important than Bush & Cheney's admission that they signed off on illegal interogation methods re: torture? Didn't people see the ABC News interview???? Since when did PA voter's bitterness become more important to cover in the MSM and blogs, when blogs were supposed to be an antidote to that? Here's the big question:

    How many diaries have we seen on the Talk Left front page re: the Obama/Clinton tit for tat speeches versus Bush/Cheney's admission on torture. I'll tell you how many I saw on the TL front page: one.

    Since when did outrage over Obama's/Clinton's comments become more important than a story like this? It's more than just Talk Left. That doesn't mean Talk Left should follow the herd.

    Let's see more front page diaries on the latest developments of this shocking story. Whadda you say y'all?

    Bachtel was big news in the NYT (none / 0) (#179)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:49:02 AM EST
    and hundreds of media outlets for a week.  And the Obama comments on PA are heading there.  Why is it not important that candidates counter coverage they consider unfair?  

    But both candidates have to talk about issues to get the focus there.  It's Obama's campaign that said, last week, that it's about politics, not policies.  (And his SF comment certainly is all about politics rather than about policies about religion, guns, etc.)


    This will be the second time the far left (none / 0) (#172)
    by WillBFair on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    has done us dry, put up an unqualified ideologue to parrot their fantasies on a national stage. And we'll loose another critical election.
    First, his ideas are either serious policies taken from the Clintons, or dated far left cliches (Dictator parties and camapign reform indeed. Why doesn't he just add Nader's proportional representation and have done with it?). Then his pastor makes charming comments about America. Now Obama openly insults the red Sates. Who knows what will happen when the msm go after him.
    Despite our ace in the hole, that most people know the war was a mistake, it isn't clear anymore that he can win the ge. At the very least, his mandate will be restricted to ending the war. And this precious moment of opportunity for the democrats will be lost forever.