home

The Big Problem With "Bittergate" Was Not The "Bitter"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:39:15 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

At TAPPED, the "Creative Class" defense of Obama's gaffe continues (psst, citing Harvard intellectual Robert Reich is not the answer either):

[A] salient quote from Bill Clinton's My Life:

If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns.

The "Creative Class" reaction? "I do think Obama's words were poorly chosen, but I don't think they merit "Bittergate" as we're seeing it play out." Um, what part of Obama's Gaffe is left out? This:

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.

(Emphasis supplied.) Time for the "Creative Class" to give this up. It was a gaffe. Obama has expressed regret. Time to try and move on.

< Phoenix Mayor Asks for Investigation of Sheriff Joe Arpaio's Immigration Crackdowns | Unreliable ARG: Clinton By 20 In PA >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The Big Problem With "Bittergate" Was Not The "Bitter" | 220 comments (220 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I agree, every minute they continue to try to spin (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:44:10 AM EST
    this is a disaster for Obama and his people. He tried to claim last night that he wasn't saying religion was a crutch for people in hard times, an illusion they cling to, but rather a bulwark of support and comfort. He claimed he was praising faith. But he listed religion along with anti-immigrant sentiment and racist/xenophobic antipathy. Is he going to try to claim that these too are positive sources of value and support in hard-pressed people's lives. He's already shot his right foot off. Probably best to lick his wounds rather than try for the left as well.

    McCain is hitting him on this now... (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:45:38 AM EST
    ...and he is hitting on preciselly the points BTD brings up...religion and guns.

    Parent
    I think McCain (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:54:29 AM EST
    did a good job and gave a lot of context.  I wish Clinton would say Obama was trying to explain why people are not voting for him...that context is so important.

    Parent
    McCain being so hard on this (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:01:55 AM EST
    gives us a glimpse of what an Obama/McCain ge would look like, and it ain't pretty.  I think this could destroy BTD's media darling electability argument.  If they can trash him on something like this, imagine what they'll do with Wright and O's (now oft repeated) "I lived in Indonesia for four years as a child, so I have more FP than McCain or Clinton" statement.

    The one thing Clinton has shown us again and again is that she always comes back--and comes back stronger.

    Parent

    please... (none / 0) (#76)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:19:45 AM EST
    O's (now oft repeated) "I lived in Indonesia for four years as a child, so I have more FP than McCain or Clinton" statement.

    could you please at least say what Obama said correctly.  it is utter fabrication... he said this:

    "It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."

    "You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people."

    Don't keep mis characterizing each statement.  that is exactly what the other team does so often and what is so troubling w/ our political rhetoric.  

    Parent

    "knowledge of the world" (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:30:44 AM EST
    My argument with this is that he is saying a child, a male child that is, the Obama male child, has more knowledge of the world than an adult woman, who spent 8 years being the ambassador for the US as first lady.  Once again, it's beyond words how this is translated to credentials for the presidency.  How does one's impoverished family make you qualified to handle foreign policy?  First of all his family may not live in a Chicago mansion, they may not have the first world material goods, but I would not call proud people impoverished.  

    The guy has problems with language.  All this great orator and uniter mean nothing to me when I see his language only united the creative class with AA.  His exploitation of the AA vote is being discussed extensively in the left leaning AA blogs.  

    His campaign is founded on first of all tearing down.  So stop with the false aura of this man as well.  

    Parent

    problems w/ language. (none / 0) (#121)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:40:43 AM EST
    you guys contradict yourself all the time.  i thought he was all language.  that is ALL this site discusses.  not his policies (b/c i'm guessing you like a lot of them) but a potential gaffe or misspeak or whatever.  long gone are the days where elevating the discussion was a priority.  its all about the Clinton team... and you want so badly for her to win (which she won't).  

    objectively, it is desperate and comes through again and again in the comments here.  it is indicative of the campaign she is running.  anything and everything.  she has no message so she hopes to tear down.  and so you follow.

    Parent

    Who is desperate? Let's AgreetoDisagree (none / 0) (#129)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    on that one.
    Your victory lap is long and bitter, fellow.
    Chill.

    Parent
    "she hopes to tear down" (none / 0) (#135)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:46:22 AM EST
    Your language, again.  Language is his weapon.  And he is not good at it unless he has the cadre of speech writers and advisers.  This is not a contradiction, I am saying, his one advantage, language and he is proving to not be good at.  

    If I am desperate, it's because I think he is a disaster.  

    Please explain his FP experience, living as a child somewhere, vs. 8 years of an adult woman's experience as first lady?  

    Parent

    I know.. what he actually said (none / 0) (#82)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:23:03 AM EST
    is so much more embarrassing.


    Parent
    factual is now (none / 0) (#91)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:27:35 AM EST
    embarrassing apparently.  nice.  yes, he left out the sniper fire, but the rest is close to dead on.

    Parent
    Okay so he knows the people of... (none / 0) (#148)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:52:35 AM EST
    ...Kenya and Indonesia. That's giving him the benefit of the doubt. But what I found troubling is the way he characterizes these trips. It tells me that he blows them off! I don't know how else American politicians are supposed to get an experience of other countries. Do we now expect them all to live abroad or have relatives abroad, but not to actually study, take advantage of meeting world leaders, and learning from diplomatic travels?

    Parent
    He may be able to create (none / 0) (#193)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:31:50 AM EST
    the impression that "he knows the people" of Kenya and Indonesia. Kenya has many tribes and languages represented.  Indonesia is even more diverse with over one hundred languages spoken in the archipelago.  Obama has never mentioned if he spoke a single Indonesian or Kenyan language.  I doubt that he was ever a "street urchin" in Indonesia.  American nationals, in whatever country they are where English is not spoken, generally stay in American or English enclaves because it is more convenient and safer for them.  I suspect that this was the case with his stepfather who was an oil company executive.

    I do not know if he stayed in Kenya long enough to converse in one of the languages there.

    So in this particular instance, he was trying to pass off a-not-so-easily verifiable-untruth.  He is really telling such tall tales.

    Parent

    Maybe for Obama (none / 0) (#158)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:56:18 AM EST
    Maybe his overseas trips aren't very instructive.  But I'm betting other members of Congress are able to get more out of them.  And if they are so useless, I would ask obama why he wasted taxpayer money taking them.

    Parent
    Quoting the actual statement (none / 0) (#89)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:26:31 AM EST
    Does not help your case. I agree we should be accurate. But, seriously, his statement is ridiculous on its face.

    A meme that will emerge soon: Obama thinks he's more qualified than everyone on everything, despite evidence to the contrary. He's said several times a version of "No one has done more for XYZ than I have." I predict this will become a parody soon. He needs to be a smarter politician if he is going to be the standard-bearer in November. Leaving behind the SF comments is a good start but he's got a lot of work to do to make himself electable.

    Parent

    No one has given the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:28:45 AM EST
    more ammunition against Obama for the fall than Obama himself.

    Parent
    Um (none / 0) (#92)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:28:22 AM EST
    He's said he's confident that he understands the world better than Clinton or McCain.  He's also said his strongest experience in foreign relations is living overseas for four years as a child.  You may wish he had said these things differently, but he said them.

    Parent
    Spoken by someone who truly (none / 0) (#194)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:35:01 AM EST
    does not know what he is talking about.  Sorry Mr. Obama, I can confidently say that I know more about U.S. foreign policy than you.

    Parent
    You missed part of the quote (none / 0) (#130)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:44:08 AM EST
    Here's the rest of it where he says he knows more than McCain or Clinton.

    "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he replied. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some kind of military thing to make me look more commander-in-chief-like. Ironically, this is an area -- foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain." (Emphasis mine).

    Parent

    Now... (none / 0) (#137)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:47:49 AM EST
    If words are his advantage, how is this kind of speech, which he does often, exemplify his superiority?  

    Parent
    i hope he's most confident. (none / 0) (#144)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:50:01 AM EST
    and i hope Clinton and McCain are too for heaven's sake.  one of them will be running the free world...

    Parent
    If he doesn't understand PA (none / 0) (#202)
    by tree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:13:48 PM EST
    why should we believe he understands Indonesia or Kenya or Pakistan or any other foreign coountry? He spent about the same time in Pakistan twenty odd years ago that he spent in PA these last few weeks and now he's claiming Pakistan is one of the places he "understands".  

    foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."
    .... understanding Pennsylvania? Not so much.

    Parent
    Please yourself (none / 0) (#168)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    Selective use of quotes is no better either.  Here is the portion you omitted and a link to the source too.

    "I would like somebody who knows about a bunch of stuff that I'm not as expert on," he said, and then he was off and running. "I think a lot of people assume that might be some sort of military thing to make me look more Commander-in-Chief-like. Ironically, this is an area--foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more and understand the world better than Senator Clinton or Senator McCain."

    "It's ironic because this is supposedly the place where experience is most needed to be Commander-in-Chief. Experience in Washington is not knowledge of the world. This I know. When Senator Clinton brags 'I've met leaders from eighty countries'--I know what those trips are like! I've been on them. You go from the airport to the embassy. There's a group of children who do native dance. You meet with the CIA station chief and the embassy and they give you a briefing. You go take a tour of a plant that [with] the assistance of USAID has started something. And then--you go."
    ...



    Parent
    thx. (none / 0) (#174)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:04:48 AM EST
    i should have posted a link.  i like the whole thing better.

    Parent
    And Obama is moving on from it (none / 0) (#218)
    by Alien Abductee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:59:14 PM EST
    and pivoting to the economic point he was making in the first place, using it to hit McCain. (no link for you, but go to the Wash Times if you want it):

    "Senator McCain and the Republicans in Washington are already looking ahead to the fall and have decided that they plan on using my comments to argue that I'm out of touch with what's going on in the lives of working Americans," he said. "I don't blame them for this -- that's the nature of our political culture, and if I had to carry the banner for eight years of George Bush's failures, I'd be looking for something else to talk about too."

    "If John McCain wants to turn this election into a contest about which party is out of touch with the struggles and hopes of working America, that's a debate I'm happy to have," he said. "I may have made a mistake last week in the words that I chose, but the other party has made a much more damaging mistake in the failed policies they've chosen and the bankrupt philosophy that they've embraced for the last three decades."

    He's also defusing 'bitter' by using it to joke self-deprecatingly with reporters:

    Mr. Obama, who praised several AP reporters that cover his campaign by name in his opening remarks, also quipped he'd "kept a lot of you guys busy this weekend with the comments I made last week."

    "Some of you might even be a little bitter about that," he said, getting a few laughs.

    He's not going to let the distortions of his opponents - either of them - push him off his message.

    Parent

    I think that arrogance (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:50:07 AM EST
    has deprived him of humor to laugh off a mistake such as this.  I don't think he can appreciate a joke when it is on him. Maybe he has become too full of himself.

    Parent
    Obama Is Spoiled (none / 0) (#156)
    by Athena on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54:39 AM EST
    24/7 adulation has turned Obama into a spoiled brat who can't believe that some people won't vote for him - the "clinging" types - or some candidates won't go away - Hillary.

    His inability to accept "non-believers" - I mean those who don't believe in him - is not an attractive trait, and reveals a rather frail ego that will lash out when threatened.

    The months of idolatry have made him an incredibly weakened candidate.

    Parent

    Yet another example. . . (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:46:08 AM EST
    Time for the "Creative Class" to give this up. It was a gaffe. Obama has expressed regret.

    of how Obama is a far better politician than the bulk of the his fan base.

    Last night's performance (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by andgarden on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:49:37 AM EST
    did not show much evidence of that. He performed WORM for himself.

    Parent
    I didn't see the performance but. . . (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:55:30 AM EST
    even when Obama does poorly he's still a better politician than his fan base.  Even if he were to eat a baby instead of kissing it he'd still be a better politician than his fan base.  This is not meant as a statement about Obama. . .

    Parent
    Made me chuckle n/t (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:02:37 AM EST


    Parent
    whats the point... (none / 0) (#36)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:03:36 AM EST
    of saying this? or saying this that way?  please delete.

    Parent
    Why? (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:09:47 AM EST
    Larry is basically making my point.

    Parent
    if he'd eat a baby (none / 0) (#60)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:12:34 AM EST
    instead of kissing it, he'd still be better than his support. ??? what?  so his support is... serious?

    Parent
    That offended you? (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:32:12 AM EST
    Did you think Larry meant that literally? Come now.

    Parent
    no i don't. (1.00 / 0) (#125)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:42:10 AM EST
    although i don't know larry.  but i could think of quite possibly a million other analogies that would be more appropriate.  but whatever. we'll move on. thx

    Parent
    Let me guess. (5.00 / 2) (#122)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:41:10 AM EST
    You think Jon Stewart is a television news anchor, right?

    It was a joke, intended to demonstrate, through the use of hyperbole, the great naiveté of many Obama supporters.

    Parent

    The point is. . . (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by LarryInNYC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:16:04 AM EST
    first off, to maintain a place of political sanity in the leftosphere where people can realistically talk about real-world politics instead of engaging in "your candidate sucks, mine is great" childishness.

    And furthermore to remind ourselves that drawn out defense of any candidate for a silly gaffe is itself self-defeating.  Obama understands that the sooner he gets this stupid (if largely true) statement off the table the less damage he'll suffer.  People who keep it alive by trying to justify it may think they're helping Obama but they're not.  He knows that because he's a politician rather than a naive political fan.

    If he's seen the movie, Obama probably feels like quoting Max Bialystock from the trial scene in the Producers when confronted with some of his more ardent (and less savvy) fans -- Leo, don't help me.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#51)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:07:53 AM EST


    Parent
    I disagree that it is "time to move on" (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:49:15 AM EST
    When there is a gaffee from someone in the Clinton campaign (not Hillary) it is headline news for weeks. Of course, Barack has changed the whole story into something about"tradition" just as he succeeded in changing the rev. wright story- wih a BIG assist from the media ,of course.

    It's time to move on... (none / 0) (#64)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:13:14 AM EST
    For Obama supporters with a clue. That's BTDs point. Obviously if you're an Obama hater you'll want to pick up as much mud as you can and start throwing.

    Parent
    "Obama hater?" (none / 0) (#222)
    by kenosharick on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:37:30 PM EST
    Most of the viciouness and hatred comes from Barack supporters directed at Hillary or anyone who would dare support her. I was chased off of my favorite blog because I would not drink the kool-aid.

    Parent
    the 'creative class' isn't backing down... (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:50:02 AM EST
    Obama isn't backing down and this is gonna stay in the news cycle for quite some time.

    I think someone hit on it last night...That it's simply not in Obama's constitution to back down, for anything or for anyone.

    As to the strengths and weaknesses of that posture, it's up to everyone's own analysis but it's clear that it's not going away unless/until polling suggests a trend is developing which may not be until PA votes.

    The amusing thing is if Obama loses by PA by 12% or more, the media is going to point to this when it's unclear that he wouldn't have lost by the same margin without this controversy.

    He (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by nell on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:54:35 AM EST
    won't back down when his ego is on the line, but don't expect him to go to the mat for silly things like health care, or the choice rights, or gay rights, etc. It's just when the controversy is about HIM that he suddenly becomes a fighter.

    Parent
    Strawman (none / 0) (#207)
    by gaf on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:51:11 PM EST
    The Obama friendly media is creating a strawman argument & demolishing it.


    Parent
    Obama is going all out with (5.00 / 2) (#11)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:51:06 AM EST
    personal attacks on Hillary now. He's hitting her for having a shot and a beer now.
    Anything to help Hillary win is fair game, as far as I am concerned.


    I think that arrogance (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:58:34 AM EST
    it is frustrating for him to see Hillary still standing and at ease with the "bitter" class that might just put her over the top.  It seems he has lost his sense of humor and goodwill. It is now a real source of angst for him and his supporters.  As long as Hillary is in the race, there is always the possibility she might be able to pull off an eventual victory.

    Parent
    Obama bowling (none / 0) (#191)
    by jeffhas on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:25:54 AM EST
    I love that he criticizes Hillary for taking shots, but forgets he was in a sports bar and went bowling  for the middle class vote...

    Parent
    Obama is going all out on this (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by delacarpa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:06:31 AM EST
    So let him go all out on this,

    Where is his unity, where is his change for America, where is his hope for America and running a different kind of campaign. It goes to show he is a politican and not a change maker. Needed to apolize to middle American and hasn't and won't. Guess his bus tour wasn't so eventful and he is bitter.

    Parent

    quite hard to unite people (none / 0) (#59)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:11:19 AM EST
    who are methodically trying to pin anything and everything on him.  obvious he has to fight this one a bit.  he said he regretted how he said it but said  that his point was that there are many people (in my town and state) who have become bitter about govt and their promises and have clung/gravitated/whatever towards social issues including guns,god,gays, etc.   fact.

    Parent
    The only fact is that you continue (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:16:08 AM EST
    to insult people's intelligence by stating your opinion as fact.
    What Obama said was not just impolitic, it was incoherent and wrong. Obama is not much of a thinker, from what I can see---very glib and superficial.

    Parent
    Gravitated (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:17:26 AM EST
    Is the nicest predicate to use there.

    But it's not a fact.

    Again, as I pointed out elsewhere.  The social issues listed above would be just as important EVEN IF government was functioning for them.

    That's what you don't understand.

    It's NOT a product of their economic situation.

    It's a product of the values that is handed down to them from their families.

    Again.  If everyone in America had 200k/year jobs, they'd still have the Values they have.

    That is the fundamental misunderstanding and the hallmark of elitism is to make this misunderstanding.

    Parent

    And I say, (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:24:22 AM EST
    How can Obama unite the people he keeps insulting?  The only way to stop this particular topic is for Obama to simply say, I made a mistake, I'm sorry, didn't mean it that way. . . "

    Instead, he, and his supporters keep trying to defend his statements.  I shudder at the kinds of statements he will make once he becomes the nominee and continue the string of democratic losing after Kerry.  Gore's case is different.

    Parent

    Don't forget bigotry! (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    Small towners "gravitate" to racism too during hard times according to our wannabe sociologist-in-chief.  Now if you accept Obama's characterization of his own words, that "cling" is a good thing, and that God and guns are longstanding small-town traditions and sources  of strength for the hard times, then you cannot escape that he's also standing by his statement that racism is also a longstanding small-town tradition and source of strength for the hard times, because it is what these people know and and have been raised on.  So you do realize that Obama is standing by his characterization of small-towners as historically and happily bigoted individuals, who are now doubly so in their bitterness?  Do you think it wise for him to continue down this track of standing by his words?

    Parent
    Can Obama and supporters get some new material? (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by ghost2 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:52:11 AM EST
    I am really getting tired of them digging 17-year old quotes from Bill Clinton.  

    While we are at it, lots of us (with regard for truth) really resent the passive-aggressive Obama approach and his snide remarks about Clinton administration.  

    Obama's candidacy is based on "a noun, a verb, and my 2002 speech", now all his defence lines are coming from quoting Bill Clinton in 1992 campaign?  Who is stuck in the past here?

    Give me a break.

    At least we can be confident (none / 0) (#142)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:49:55 AM EST
    that they do not have Hillary's words comparable to his "bitter" comment.

    Parent
    The creative class, starring the TPM, my home for (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by bslev22 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:53:52 AM EST
    quite a long while, has already turned this into a Hillary Clinton gaffe.  Now it's a story about how clever Senator Obama is for making fun of Hillary Clinton for having a shot and a beer.  Folks, face it, no matter what, this will not be an issue in the primaries, although it should be one because it really highlights with crystal clarity the problems that the Demcoratic Party has had winning elections at the national level.  We mock our base, and that is reflected in the manner in which Senator Obama defined small town voters at his San Francisco fundraiser.  I firmly believe that this will be tucked under the rug after Hillary is pilloried for having a beer with the guys, and in the general election campaign it will reemerge to pulverize Senator Obama and the prospects for a Democrat in the White House.

    You can't mock your base and win.

    I wonder (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by magisterludi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:06:30 AM EST
    how those PA hunters will react to Obama imagining Hillary in a duck blind with her "six-shooter" in his song and dance response? Six-shooters? In a duck blind? I've never hunted in my life and even I caught that one.

    Parent
    What the "creative class" (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:07:17 AM EST
    is accomplishing b y mocking Clinton having a beer with the guys, is simply to communicate the idea that Clinton is really at home with them and they can feel comfortable with her in the Whitehouse.  The Obama camp keeps demonstrating that they absolutely do not know what to do with this lemon of a gaffe from their idol.

    Parent
    Exactly right (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:19:05 AM EST
    After months of not talking to a friend, I called to say happy birthday yesterday and he could not stop ranting about how Hillary is using this.  How she is destroying the Democratic Party etc.  etc.  I think there are some anger issues with the Creative Class as a whole.  

    Parent
    by the way... (5.00 / 6) (#16)
    by white n az on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:54:19 AM EST
    I think that you continually miss one of the more salient reasons for this whole 'gaffe'

    Obama is delivering an entirely loaded comment which at the core, blames Bill Clinton and his policies for which he offers no substantive proof.

    NAFTA (none / 0) (#38)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:04:29 AM EST
    Clinton policy.  at the heart of Obama's comment.

    Parent
    He actually needs to stop. (none / 0) (#73)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:18:19 AM EST
    Needs to stop trying to tie Clinton with Bush. He keeps doing this. And it keeps biting him in the arse. And he continues to do it. Most people remember the Clinton years. Positively. Bill had a 65% approval rating even AFTER the Republicans tried to bring him down.  No other president had that kind of approval rating as they left office. He needs to start telling people that don't vote for him that they're racist and stupid. They're actually voting for Hillary just because they think she'd be better. No need for him to try and insult them for not voting for him.

    And the more his supporters try to spin this---a variation of "well everything he said IS true"--the worse it is for him.

    Parent

    NAFTA (none / 0) (#80)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:22:40 AM EST
    has had severe consequences in my backyard.  the policy needs to be active in order to have perspective.  in retrospect, major alterations to the agreement should have been made. You didn't respond to any part of my comment. approval rating, republicanse, etc. is just gibberish.  

    Parent
    Regarding those alterations (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:29:28 AM EST
    If Gore had won the court case (elections are no longer necessary I guess), do you think those alterations would have been made?

    Do you think Bill and Hillary Clinton would have opposed those alterations?

    And, did NAFTA require Bush to give tax breaks to companies that send jobs overseas.

    Or is that something that Bush implemented and would have implemented with or without NAFTA?

    Parent

    doesn't change the fact that it was poorly (none / 0) (#134)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:44:30 AM EST
    crafted from the start.  it has damaged middle america. these are just facts.  nothing else.

    Parent
    Clearly discussing it (none / 0) (#150)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:53:17 AM EST
    Any more than what you've just said is not something you wish to do.

    I'm a NAFTA supporter pretty much, anyway, I'm sure we disagree on a lot.

    Parent

    i'm not a NAFTA supporter (none / 0) (#165)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:59:26 AM EST
    i support free and fair trade.  

    Parent
    There's no such thing (none / 0) (#166)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:00:37 AM EST
    Everyone has an agenda and acts out of self-interest.


    Parent
    Great effort to change topic (none / 0) (#170)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:03:43 AM EST
    from "Bitter."  But "bitter" will not go away until Obama and his supporters stop trying to justify it.  Hillary is the candidate, not Bill Clinton and credible people like Gergen, Woodward and Bernstein attest to the fact that Hillary was opposed to the policy within the Whitehouse, but as a good team player, once the decision was made, she went out in public in support of it.  Even Pres. H. W. Bush was for it.  Like Prohibition, was there was a preponderance of evidence that it was counterproductive, it was abolished.  Any sensible society would try to make things better.

    It is the same with individuals making mistakes:  they acknowledge, apologize if an apology is needed, then change for the better or move on.  Obama should learn to do this.

    Parent

    Well it's funny to me (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:40:15 AM EST
    that suddenly liberals are up in arms about Nafta. something that Hillary wasn't even involved with. But then again, liberals now bring up Lewinsky to me so it should be no shock.

    Parent
    But PA had low unemployment.... (none / 0) (#171)
    by ineedalife on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:03:44 AM EST
    when Clinton left office. It really disturbs me that Obama continually runs the Clinton administration down. If he gets the nomination, what is he going to say in the debates when asked why should the nation trust a Democrat to govern when, according to him, they suck at it?

    Obama has nicer things to say about Papa Bush and Reagan. If he really thinks Republicans do things better then why shouldn't the nation choose a real Republican over a wanna-be one?


    Parent

    ?? is this it now. (none / 0) (#177)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:06:56 AM EST
    but PA had low unemployment when Clinton left office.

    surprised the Clinton supporters are now pushing this.  

    Parent

    This has always been my point (none / 0) (#183)
    by MMW on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:10:57 AM EST
    "Obama has nicer things to say about Papa Bush and Reagan. If he really thinks Republicans do things better then why shouldn't the nation choose a real Republican over a wanna-be one?"

    He fights with Democrats, not Republicans. It's like a bully, who has strength only the little guys, not the big ones. look at how he has gone after the Clintons. It's because he knew they would never tear him apart.

    Parent

    You know what's sad? (5.00 / 3) (#20)
    by OxyCon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:56:03 AM EST
    This is the same tactic the right wingers always employed whenever we raised valid points about George W. Bush.
    It's the old "But, but Clinton". Google it.
    Somehow, if your favorite guy in the world screws up, you can exonerate him if you spend a week sorting through Lexis and you find a Bill Clinton quote that you can twist into the same meaning as the gaffe your guy just made.
    What a bunch of jokers.
    They really "cling" to Obama too much and it warps their brains.

    It is pretty much the same meaning. (none / 0) (#81)
    by Faust on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:22:59 AM EST
    It's not a gaffe because it's false. It's a gaffe because it's a terrible formulation of the same idea.

    Clinton's forumlation frames the issue 10 times better.

    Parent

    BO's regret (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:56:32 AM EST
    was also poorly worded, and that's the problem because he never really owned the gaffe.  That's why it's not going away.

    Yup! (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:57:57 AM EST


    Parent
    Exactly, instead it was that typical weaselly (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:59:08 AM EST
    passive-voice statement, "I'm sorry if anyone was offended by my words." Not "I'm sorry I offended you." He isn't taking responsibility because he can't.

    Parent
    I remember early (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:00:42 AM EST
    in the campaign, in an interview, Michelle Obama said one reason her husband will be a great President is that he will admit it when he makes a mistake, unlike Bush.  Looks like she may have gotten that one wrong.

    Parent
    That's what he should have done (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:18:01 AM EST
    instead of defending what he said.

    "I misspoke, I'm sorry."

    After shooting himself in the foot, he took careful aim and shot himself in the other foot.

    Parent

    In the other (none / 0) (#175)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:05:10 AM EST
    polished wingtip.

    They should be bronzed for posterity.

    Parent

    His fans go from thoughtlessly and often (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:57:07 AM EST
    arrogantly defending his statements to outrageous Clinton attacks.  Okay, so the Clinton attacks aren't that new but twice the spittle is flying off their lips.  They appear crazed.  I'm so glad I opted to go offline last night.  I would have blown a gasket!  Abstinence for teenagers?  What a joke!  If you believe in evolution then you know that survival of the fittest made human beings their absolute uncontrollable horniest in their teens.....everything is working at its optimum except for their checking accounts.  Time to make some babies and checking accounts are manmade and mother nature doesn't give a rip about them.  Talk about setting our kids up for failure again and again and again!  I'm so tired of stupid people running things!

    well, maybe because (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:07:18 AM EST
    Obama apparently supports Creationism, he doesn't really believe that.  It's all about the sanctity of sexuality for him.  How does that jibe with his love of rap music, I wonder?

    This isn't going to go away because McCain is on to it now.  The media will cover everything McCain says about it.  Clinton, not so much.

    Parent

    Funny this unity thing (none / 0) (#112)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:35:30 AM EST
    they had him almost saying that he taught his kids creationism.  

    Parent
    McCain is (5.00 / 5) (#23)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:57:40 AM EST
    answering questions on CNN about bitter gate, and he is helping Clinton by giving credibility to her interpretation. How weird, and how sad, we need to have a Republican say it so the press will put the whole thing in context.

    clinton and mccain on the same team. (none / 0) (#41)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:05:20 AM EST
    this is getting pretty silly.

    Parent
    I am not voting for (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:08:14 AM EST
    McCain, but he sounded more sane than anything Obama has said since his gaffe was made public.

    Parent
    Blame Obama (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:21:02 AM EST
    He's the one who said it, don't blame two experienced politicians for taking advantage of Obama's unforced error.

    Parent
    just think its petty (none / 0) (#88)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:25:55 AM EST
    it was an error.  he admitted it.  he has explained that he regrets his choice of words but feels that, what he was trying to say, was factually accurate.  bad wording, yes.  but saying that there are many people who have become bitter w/ govt, and its inability to truly effect their lives in a positive way, have clung/gravitated,etc. to guns,god,gays,immigration is factually accurate. but we just keep playing the same old games, which i expect.  i just hope(d) that internally within a party, we'd elevate the level of discussion a bit.  was wrong.

    Parent
    No, that's not elevating the discussion (5.00 / 3) (#102)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:32:46 AM EST
    It's not elevating the discussion to dismiss people's values. I think, and others have said, that the GOP tries to exploit social issues. They are successful not because people are bitter and think that the government won't deliver on economic issues for them. They succeed because sometimes they exploit people's fears (of change, of someone different, of death) and sometimes they exploit people's genuinely held values.

    People in the Democratic Party have been talking about this for years. Obama is not the first, and others have done it far less clumsily, and without insulting people's values.

    Parent

    I have to question how you know (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:33:48 AM EST
    it is factually accurate to say

    "there are many people who have become bitter w/ govt, and its inability to truly effect their lives in a positive way, have clung/gravitated,etc. to guns,god,gays,immigration"

    I don't think Obama's statement was clumsily worded at all. I think he said what he meant. I just think he was flat out wrong to say there is a proven causal relationship there. I'd like to see some evidence.

    Parent

    Obama was referring to the (none / 0) (#216)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:50:43 PM EST
    'What's the Matter with Kansas' theory, quesitoned here, for one place.

    LINK

    Parent

    What you say: "is factually accurate" (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:34:31 AM EST
    I tell you this was not a gaffe, there is no regret.  The Creative Class and the Obama campaign believe this things to their core.  And guess what, the clingers will show them in the General Election.  Cause it's not about words, it's about the disdain that is communicated.  

    Parent
    whats up w/ this Creative Class bs. (none / 0) (#136)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:47:40 AM EST
    and so you know, there is no regret and that he believes this to his core?  

    wow.

    Parent

    Yes...look at how (none / 0) (#145)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:50:13 AM EST
    you all ardently cling to the defense that it's factual.  If you believe it's factual, how do you regret a fact?  The regret is in getting caught.  It's not in the comment.  

    Parent
    regret the choice of words (none / 0) (#167)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:02:02 AM EST
    didn't get that?  sometimes people say things that are accurate and factual but say them in a way that they regret.  a better choice of words could have gotten the point across better and not been construed by Clinton for purely political advantage.  She's quite smart and obviously knows better.  but she's a politician above all else.

    Parent
    Dude (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by nell on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:09:26 AM EST
    you MUST stop. The whole point is that it was NOT accurate. People have guns because they like to shoot things and they go to church because they believe, and they believed and liked to shoot things long before they became bitter about job loss. And it obviously was not meant as a positive as the traits that followed after clinging to god and guns was that these people cling to antipathy for people who are different, and anti-immigrant sentiment. Bitter may have been close to accurate, but the rest was inaccurate, wrong, and offensive.

    At this point you are embaressing yourself spinning like crazy. Just stop, this goes away faster if you stop spinning.

    Parent

    This is a perfect example (none / 0) (#186)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:14:12 AM EST
    of digging a deeper hole.  So what is regretted is "the choice of words"?  Not the message?  So when he said that "  . . . bitter so they cling to . . ." stands?

    Can't you see?  How would you like to be told, that the reason one goes to church, owns a gun, is because of bitterness?  Add to religion and guns, "antipathy to people who are not like themselves . . . ."

    Even if you were to change 'bitter' to frustration,  disappointment, discouragement, hurt, etc, etc.  it is still not the right message.  Obama should never have opened his mouth on this topic.  It is not too late yet (maybe) to shut up on this.

    Parent

    Obama defenders (none / 0) (#204)
    by bodhcatha on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:18:31 PM EST
    are being wilfully ignorant, just like they pretended not to see anything wrong with what Rev. Wright said.  What Obama said was NOT factually accurate.  People who have God/guns values do not have them because they're bitter or trying to explain away their frustrations.  Even successful, unbitter people in small towns have these values, whether I agree with them or not.  And remember the CONTEXT.  He was using these remarks to explain why "those people" would not vote for his holy self.  And telling this to SF rich people, god help him.  
    I liked it when a reporter tried to use WORM on Hillary in Scranton on Sunday, and she called him on it.  She's sharp, that one.

    Parent
    Wait a minute (none / 0) (#215)
    by ChrisO on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:33:44 PM EST
    You mean Clinton is using something for political advantage, in the middle of a political campaign? How despicable.

    Everyone knows that when Obama screws up, it's Hillary's obligation to jump in and defend him. Otherwise she's "destroying the party."

    Face it, you keep talking about how everypone on this site is so intent on bringing Obama down that they refuse to approach issues logically. Yet you keep repeating the same spin, and willfully ignore the most damaging things about Obama's comments, despite how many times they're pointed out to you. So I'll repeat: he lumped together religion, gun ownership and xenophobia, and attributed them all to bitterness. I have yet to see you speak to that. It wasn't a bad choice of words. It was a bad idea, and it was his idea. The venue he chose to express that idea was no mistake, either. He wouldn't have said that to a crowd in Pennsylvania. Talking that way to a crowd of wealthy San Franciscans just reinforced the whole idea of Obama talking about the people of Pennsylavania as the Others.

    What's really offensive is the way Obama's supporters are trying the same misdirection with this that they tried with the Wright controversy. People objected to Wright saying "God Damn America," but Obama declares that it's all about race. So now any discussion of Wright is cloaked in racial terms.

    Obama insults small town voters in Pennsylavania and other midwestern communities by dismissing their embrace of religion as rooted in bitterness, and all his supporters talk about is whether it's accurate to say that many people are bitter. Of course there's a lot of people who are bitter, anda lot who are hopeful. But the debate isn't whether people are bitter, as much as Josh Marshall and others would like to spin it that way. The debate is about Obama being so dismissive of values that people in these communities hold dear. And like it or not, most of those people are smart enough to know that.

    I really wish Obama's supporters would stop insulting our intelligence by talking about how "refreshing" it is to have a candidate who tells the truth. This is a political campaign. I want a candidate who is generally truthful, but who is also smart enough not to screw up. How about if on his next campaign stop he mentions how fat people in the audience are? Perhaps he can tie it to a need for better health education. That might be another breath of fresh air.

    Parent

    Ok let's start the elevating (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:43:04 AM EST
    But no longer screaming "but Clinton" every time Obama stumbles. Let's start by NOT tearing down our own president of the past 16 years. Let's start by NOT putting down a very strong woman who is running. Let's start by NOT constantly offending 1/2 of the democratic party. Let's start by NOT saying two major states don't count with a straight face.

    Then I'll join you.

    Parent

    Jeffhas (none / 0) (#196)
    by jeffhas on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:37:41 AM EST
    You are forgetting that Pennsylvania votes Democrat.  He's not referring to Republicans manipulating voters - because these PA voters choose Dems!  

    Parent
    Bitter-god-guns - used in every local (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:00:17 AM EST
    news broadcast I heard in the NYC metro area yesterday and even this morning.

    Those words in some combination as what Obama said about rural/small town PA-and by extension of other rural/small town areas. Obama himself has extended his remarks to include any area with losses of mfring, jobs, including IL.

    A lot of nuance is left out in the brief time allowed for any political news coverage.  

    I was trying to figure out how people might take these reports and am having some trouble doing so, bcz so much is left out.

    Oh, closed private fund raiser in SF also is mentioned but not as often.

    You're right... (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by Scott on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:07:19 AM EST
    ...it is time to move on but you're NUTS if you think people will forget about this issue.  I think one thing this blogger needs to realize is the fact that these words were said in complete privacy (or so Mr. Obama thought)... so he felt quite comfortable revealing his true colors of how he sees the average American small town person.  

    For the record I grew up in a small town.  We were NOT bitter people.  Some of my family enjoyed hunting but they didn't cling to their guns because of some bitter issue.  Some of my family enjoyed going to church but they didn't cling to religion because of some bitter issue.  So CLEARLY Mr. Obama is the one with the issue! Maybe he's the bitter one trying to inject his own views and paint them on these "small town" folks.  I'm beginning to think this to be true. Could it be that he's the bitter one that clings to his religion (Mr. Wright) for some reason?!  

    After receiving an MBA/Finance degree many years ago I am now in more urban surroundings.  HOWEVER, I am still pissed that Mr. Obama feels he can use my upbringing and relatives, that still live in those small towns, for his own benefit.  Using them in a speech to collect money from wealthy bleeding liberal donors in San Francisco.  

    I'll tell you like this... I was an UNDECIDED PA voter.  I've been a little nerved lately by the things I'd been hearing coming from Mr. Obama.  It seems every week he gets himself into trouble with his comments!  This latest one though is the straw that broke the camels back for me.  I'm not alone in this either... I spent the past two days discussing this with my other friends who were on the undecided track here in PA.  

    Mr. Obama is still a candidate that needs quite a bit more vetting before he runs for President.  He also needs to come to terms with a lot of his own internal issues as to how he views people in this country.  I mean come on... first it was the "typical white person"  now it's "small town" folks... I mean he really has a problem with the very people he needs to vote for him.  WE are FINALLY seeing this and it's just not possible, anymore, for me to vote for him in the PA Primary.  At this point I wouldn't even support him in November should he be the nominee!

    This got McCain airtime (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:08:09 AM EST
    McCain is on live with AP and it's on CNN and MSNBC.  He gave a speech that the media says addresses Obama's bitter comment.  MSNBC was showing the SNOB t-shirts, mugs etc and scanning the written items this morning.... Daily Standard, small item 'You're too stupid to understand what he meant'  Slate, 'What's the matter with Obama' Chicago Tribune, neutral article, 8:00am here CNN: Bitter, Fox:Bitter, MSNBC: Obama going after others as out of touch on Bitter battle, trying to pin 'elitist' on opponents.

    Q: Is Obama elitist? McCain: I don't know, comments are elitist, disparaging people who...
    Q: Did you ever see elitist behavior?  I've seen his positions, I don't know if you'd call them elitist, we're different.... (he didn't call Obama elitist) Gov Rendell on... thinks this may increase Clinton's lead a pt or 2 but not significant.  Will campaign for Obama is he's the nom, he's smart etc, Clinton knows the people better (Rendell is balanced on this issue)

    Q: Are we in a recession?  McCain: I think so.  It's a term... Americans are hurting.... people not interested in the technical, risk of losing homes, jobs, guaranteed home loans.

    Has President done enough McCain: we can look back at the things, fingers of blame at every body including congress and the president himself.

    MSNBC summary: Bitter/Elitist speech, Obama's votes may lean that way.

    My opinion: It will busy today.  Apologists and neutralizers, but it is still in the news.  Only good, not referring to racist/bigot tone of comments.

    What bitter?? What Clinging? that was a compliment (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by TalkRight on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:17:36 AM EST
    In his actual remarks (which he stands by), he grouped faith and guns in with "anti-immigrant sentiment," "anti-trade sentiment" and "antipathy to people who aren't like them." Presumably,Senator Obama doesn't think it appropriate to cling to antipathy for others.

    .. 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.

    The new spin from Obama:

    Well, first of all, you know, Scripture talks about clinging to what's good... What I was saying is ...  Those aren't bad things.
    See the pathetic pretzel he twists himself into (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    trying to explain he meant the opposite of what he actually said.

    Parent
    The MCM leaves out the things after guns/god (none / 0) (#173)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:04:32 AM EST
    when commenting about this. Local news was bitter-god-guns--no mention that Obama included the anti-free trade, antipathy toward those they saw as different from themselves.

    That's being lost in the MCM discussion and the Obama spin.

    But what the woman caller to C-Span said was that she felt herself and others from rural/small town America (well, northeastern US) labeled by Obama as bigots and racists.

    Which is what a saw when I first read his comments--and, again, the negative was on the voters, not those who caused their economic problems.  And, when the mention was made of lack of success in fighting those problems, Bill Clinton was lumped in with the two Bushes.

    The past 25 years...leaving St. Ronnie as having no impact!!! Well, Sen. Obama, I know that at one point in this campaign you called unions "special interests" in a negative way. But, until unions demanded fair wages and working conditions, little progress was made. And since St. Ronnie helped to break unions, fewer people share in the gains made by unions.

    So, in a way, unions are "special interests," but, like the old Democratic Party, those interests were for bettering the lives of as many people as possible. The Obama Democratic Party??? What does he really feel unions, the right to unionize, the need for unions?

    Parent

    Left off link for C-Span caller-- (none / 0) (#178)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:07:19 AM EST
    over at No Quarter.

    Parent
    It's amazing (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:24:39 AM EST
    How can anyone think Bill Clinton's statement sounds anything like what Obama said?  These people have gotten so used to playing "What Obama Really Meant" that they skip right past the interpretation phrase and act as if Obama actually SAID what they presume him to have meant.

    The thought process goes like this:  there is a valid political point that bears some resemblance to Obama's statement; unless you're a hater, you know Obama doesn't look down on people; therefore, he must have meant to say that other, non-offensive thing.  It's amusing to watch people like Kid Oakland scream "words matter!!!" a million times when Hillary commits some gaffe, but when Obama gets in trouble, his actual words are utterly irrelevant.  All that matters is What He Really Meant.

    The Reason Why Obamiacs Are Fighting... (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:28:52 AM EST
    ...this so vehemently is because if he really meant what he said, then it somewhat destroys the foundation of his campaign: his general election appeal of being a uniter that has something in common with almost everyone.  

    His "I may have a funny name, but I've got a small-town Kansan accent," suddenly rings very hollow when he's belittling the same people that he is trying to say "I'm one of you."  His ascertion that he is miles away from the primitive stereotyping of Rev. Wright suddenly rings very hollow when he, in one fell swoop, asserts that rural America is racist and xenophobic and that their belief in gun rights and religion, (which he is again stereotyping), lacks merit because their interest in those issues is merely an outlet for their angst-riddled lives.  

    Then why are they saying it's true? (none / 0) (#128)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:43:26 AM EST
    I agree the logical response would be to minimize it as him mis-speaking and talk about how it is not at all true and that he is sorry that he offended people and he sees the error of his ways.  He'll be more careful in the future.  But no, these people are fighting for the statement itself, trying to rehabilitate it by claiming it is true.  I find that mind-boggling.  They are providing irrefutable evidence that Obama's supporters are indeed elitists who don't think very highly of the unwashed masses.  If I were a small-town rube, would  I be too stupid to recognize that unity is just this guy's campaign schtick and that I am only welcome in Obama's one America as a vote to be delivered rather than as a voice to be heard?

    Parent
    They can't help themselves (none / 0) (#138)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:48:20 AM EST
    He said what they actually DO believe about blue-collar working people. They love him for it. They don't care if he pisses off voters he needs to win in November. It proves he's one of them. That's what he was actually trying to do at that SanFran fund-raiser--curry favor with rich white liberals by telling them what they want to hear. It's funny that Obama's core supporters are going to be the ones who help destroy him.

    Parent
    And this is why I hate elitist libs ... (none / 0) (#172)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:04:14 AM EST
    ... eventhough I am one of them.  I consider it a character weakness of mine that, at times, I look down my hyper-educated, upper-middle-class nose at others who I view as less enlightened.  That is my hubris at work.  For the most part I am aware of my own biases, and of the social and spiritual deficiencies of my own life, which I must say do not always measure favorably against the salt of the earth.  I wish the "creative class" would get off their high horse and realize they are the problem here, not the people they would seek to psychoanalyze and criticize.

    Parent
    I wouldn't say they are saying... (none / 0) (#151)
    by Exeter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54:09 AM EST
    ...it's true. I think they are trying to mischaractorize what he said and why he said it.

    Parent
    Who's low information now? (none / 0) (#208)
    by bodhcatha on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:03:53 PM EST
    All these people defending SNOBama's statement (including his acolytes in the media) seem to have no clue about the lives of ordinary Americans.  What a surprise!

    Parent
    The problem with the cling statement (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:41:29 AM EST
    is that it doesn't just hurt Obama, it hurts Democrats.  It just makes it easier to peg them as "ivy-league elitists" because they nominated one, didn't they? -- again?

    How many  MAJOR WORMs can we handle from a President Obama before he destroys himself and brings the Democratic Party down with him.

    It's just goes further toward my impression that if Obama gets 4 years, Republicans will get another 12.  And what will THAT do to the Supreme Court?

    Dueling quotes : Bill Clinton v. Obama (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:49:11 AM EST
    On WNYC's Brian Lehrer Show, they just had a woman (to remove gender bias) read both the first revealed Obama SF fundraiser quote and then two quotes from Clinton from '92.

    They're asking listeners if anything's different between what Clinton said and what Obama said. First caller, Obama supporter, said Obama saying the same thing, but the grammar was not good, so it came across badly.

    Woman born in the Appalachian de-industrialized area, former Obama supporter as of hearing this quote, felt he was attacking her people, her culture. Felt that since he was speaking to SF wealthy donors he spoke about "those people" as he felt about them. She thought it would be a very negative factor in the general election.

    Now, guy saying Obama is not out of touch with people, but people are out of touch with themselves. Feels previous caller probably just not ready for the truth.  

    Woman orignally from south Delaware saying Obama was trying to explain to the more elite of SF why people vote the way they do.

    No one has mentioned that Bill Clinton in no way attacked the voters--he was attacking Republican tactics of trying to use race or the economy to turn one group against another group, the divide ana conquer thing.  

    Wow. Not one person mentioned that--(and I may have missed some nuance while typing while listening)--which is scary.

    The other double stadard (5.00 / 1) (#149)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:52:52 AM EST
    Hillary cannot claim experience as first lady, but she is responsible for everything Clinton ever did, say or write.  

    Parent
    Yes, it is key that Obama was explaining (none / 0) (#147)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:51:06 AM EST
    why people don't vote for him.
    Thanks to his wonderful explanation, there is now one more reason on the very long list.

    Parent
    JMM serves up a "bitter" mash. (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:56:31 AM EST
    He does it to Obama too!!

    The issue is The Laughter (5.00 / 1) (#184)
    by katiebird on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:11:51 AM EST
    Obama spent a week with regular people in Pennsylvania then joined up with Rich Friends to Laugh at those Pennsylvania Hicks.  

    The video of the episode is incredibly damning.

    Excellent point (none / 0) (#190)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:21:25 AM EST
    They're good enough to bowl (badly) with (and blame the low score on a 10 year old), they're good enough to have a beer with, they're good enough to do photo ops with, but they're not good when compared to rich people in SF behind closed doors.

    Parent
    Is there video (none / 0) (#195)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:35:39 AM EST
    of the entire episode yet or just the part before bittergate?

    Parent
    Yep. (none / 0) (#200)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:59:09 AM EST
    People act as though working class resentment doesn't exist.  Many people across the class strata are bitter, that is true.  But it's no wonder people are bitter and feel disconnected from politics when a politican is in SF hanging out with millionaires, making such comments as Obama did.  The situation is the problem.  Obama may mean well but his statement was very very strange.

    Parent
    Thank you (4.75 / 4) (#5)
    by Lil on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:47:08 AM EST
    Frankly, I'm pretty bitter about the last 7.5 years. That's not the problem. Everytime I read that, I think if that was all he said, it would be a non story. If their was one word that got to me, it was "cling", like we are desperate but he will be our savior if we would just get enlightened and support him. That's how I feel about it.

    clinging ... savior (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by noholib on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:58:25 AM EST
    Thank you for highlighting "cling."
    Yes his solution:
    Cling to him.  See the light.  Come to him.
    He's the savior, or the new New Testament according to Tweety Matthews.

    According to Obama's view of history,
    everything has been equally terrible during the Bill Clinton administration and during the George W Bush administration.  But, just cling to Obama and his mantra of change, and all will be fixed in big bad Washington DC and throughout the land people will be hopeful again!
    Charisma, cultivating a savior-like relationship between politician and followers -- NEVER a good prescription.
    I prefer no clinging, no seeing the light, but rather critical rational analysis of policy and practical options.

    Parent

    The words that got me (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:13:06 AM EST
    were antipathy to people that don't look like them and the anti-immigration/anti-trade.  The tape of the woman on C-span hit it... she said she was called a 'bigot.'

    Parent
    The core of what Obama said is true. (1.00 / 1) (#119)
    by halstoon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:40:23 AM EST
    Poor people in rural America vote against their interests economically b/c the Right has done a wonderful job of galvanizing them around issues like gay marriage, gun control, and immigration. When you live in a town where factories moved to Mexico, call centers moved to India, and affirmative action means less contracts are going to you and your friends, it's easy to get bitter. When the GOP comes in and hypes you up about gay people actually wanting to be fully accredited Americans, Mexicans not paying their hospital bills and liberals trying to ban guns, those issues are easy to cling to b/c they offer some semblance of control.

    What's sad is that fellow Democrats would take this opportunity to blast Obama instead of point out the GOP's deplorable use of those divisive issues.

    We've been pointing out the (5.00 / 2) (#155)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    GOP's use of these issues for many years. Obama's framing it in a way that insults these people is what sets us back.

    Parent
    Because that was not what Obama said. (none / 0) (#179)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:08:56 AM EST
    He said the people did this he didn't say that the Republicans used this as a divisive tool.  Bill clinton said that many years ago.  What Obama said was that because of their economic difficulties these people were clinging to their guns and religion etc.  And then went on to blame Bill Clinton along with the Republicans for their plight.  So who was blasting a fellow Democrat then in SF.  

    Parent
    What do you think that means? (none / 0) (#219)
    by halstoon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:26:04 PM EST
    Clinging to guns and religion?? Does that sound like Democrats? Nope. Does it sound like GOP voters? Yeah...Obama was talking about those people.

    As for blaming Clinton, have you not noticed that even his wife isn't singing his praises on trade?? The party has gone away from the FTA's for now b/c people are broke.

    The Clintons have made it clear they'll do whatever they have to do in order to make sure Obama doesn't win. That's fine. Neither will she.

    Parent

    That was Bill Clinton's message (none / 0) (#198)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:45:58 AM EST
    NOT OBAMA's.  The 'bitter" comment was achieving the complete opposite.

    Parent
    Not "bitter," but "cling to" (none / 0) (#201)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:03:57 PM EST
    Obama says that working class voters "cling to" religion, but does he himself "cling to" religion, in his 20-year relationship with his own pastor?

    No no! Others do the clinging, not Obama. That's the condescension and arrogance, right there. If religion is important to Obama, as human being, then other human beings deserve the respect he demands for his own choices. (The lady from Florida got this right away (video; transcript).

    So, why doesn't he do that? You can call it arrogance and condescension and elitism, and it's all of that, but it's also disrespecting working people, all of them. (No wonder the "creative class" isn't backing down either.)

    Now, Obama could dig himself out of the hole he's in by focusing on policy -- universal health care would really help these people -- but n-o-o-o-o.

    He's really got no message any more, so he's got to get snarky about Hillary.

    That is just so stupid, and does not bode well for the general or, assuming that the Party is unfortunate enough to be stuck with him, and McCain loses, for his Presidency.

    Parent

    Obama used the wrong words, but what (none / 0) (#220)
    by halstoon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:28:56 PM EST
    he said is true. We have to find a way to elect a president without pandering to the rednecks. Now that's condescending. Still true, but much more offensive.

    Why am I not surprised Clinton has no problem kissing up to the rednecks??

    Parent

    NO, it's time to bury Obama. (none / 0) (#4)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:46:56 AM EST
    This is the last chance for the Democrats to pick the qualified AND electable candidate.
    it's over. (1.00 / 1) (#47)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:07:11 AM EST
    the last chance was about a month ago.  Ok, let me adjust that comment.  If she wins every remaining state by over 20 point spreads, then she has a chance.  not likely.  maybe we as a party need to elevate the discussion to policies rather than propelling continued discussion of semantics.  not likely.

    Parent
    Yes, you keep repeating that. (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:09:25 AM EST
    But I don't want to see the weakest, least qualified candidate of my lifetime as the nominee, thank you very much.

    Parent
    ah lets (none / 0) (#209)
    by myed2x on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:15:50 PM EST
    go back to the inevitable campaign and throw the whole democratic process, will of the people  and all that nonsense out the window then....Hillary gets the nomination since you couldn't stand the alternative!  There you feel better now...nothing to see here move on the coronation will be in a few months.

    Parent
    Cool! (none / 0) (#211)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:31:51 PM EST
    Can I get tickets to the coronation? Never been to one before.

    Parent
    Post Bittergate - Obama still in the lead by 10% (none / 0) (#212)
    by myed2x on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:33:26 PM EST
    Barack Obama, who has come under attack by his presidential rivals for describing small-town voters as "bitter," seems to be weathering the storm to this point as far as voters are concerned. He maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, 50% to 40%, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

    Gallup

    Parent

    Give it a couple of days (none / 0) (#213)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:43:51 PM EST
    Then we'll talk.

    Parent
    Toxic-gate is a better description (none / 0) (#75)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:19:31 AM EST
    of Obama's elitism on Billionaire Row.

    Elitists = Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, Obama...

    And no - Hillary did not say Gore and Kerry were elitists, but that they were perceived that way - and lost.

    Obama was already labeled an elitist via exit polls with the wealthy voting for Obama and the working class voting for Hillary. But Obama supporters never seemed to mind.

    Now - Obama has confirmed he's an Elitist - in his own words.


    Parent

    Don't forget the SDs... (none / 0) (#77)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    unlike Obama, they are seasoned politicians. They will look at his performances in the primaries, where actual voters have the say as opposed to caucuses where his fans get together and make noise, they will look at his alienating several large blocs of the Dem base, they will consider his inflated record...don't forget, some of them were ON the committees and worked on the bills that Obama showed up at the press conference to take credit for....and they will NOT pick an empty suit with dismissive rhetoric to be the candidate. Unless they want McCain to win by a landslide.

    Parent
    Pledged delegates: not end all and be all (none / 0) (#85)
    by Davidson on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:24:24 AM EST
    You stated that it's over because it's impossible for her to catch up in pledged delegates when that it is not the only basis for selecting who's the strongest GE candidate--the purpose of the superdelegates.

    Pledged delegates are anti-democratic (e.g., NV, TX) and considering that string of wins he had with caucuses in mostly unwinnable GE states, it looks all the more insane to base on who should win the nomination on pledged delegates alone.  Both need the supers to win the nomination, obviously.  The popular vote will be critical.  The only sure way he can "win" the nomination is to disenfranchise MI and FL, and that absolutely ensures we lose the GE.  So it'd be "over" for us.

    Parent

    so you'll concede when she loses that too? (none / 0) (#154)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54:26 AM EST
    and i imagine, if you include MI/Fl, you'll also include some estimation of the caucus states.  

    and funny, no mention here of the report that says, if the caucus states had had primaries, then Obama's victory margin would have been even larger.  kind of interesting.  

    Parent

    Actually that is wrong (none / 0) (#181)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:10:27 AM EST
    She'd likely be a heck of a lot closer on pledged delegates with primaries in places she lost by caucus, because then she would have lost by narrower margins.  Take a look at the WA caucus results versus primary results for a demonstration.  Clinton would happily take that primary loss.  She'd get a heck of a lot more delegates out of it.  Caucuses disenfranchise voters from Clinton's key demographics.  They show up for her in primaries.  

    Parent
    I forgot to add (none / 0) (#185)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:12:43 AM EST
    The popular vote margins would also be narrowed by the closer results.  Yes, Obama gets more votes in absolute numbers, but he doesn't open up much ground, certainly not enough to compensate for the big loss he'd be sustaining in delegate numbers.

    Parent
    Stop repeating (none / 0) (#131)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    the same incorrect facts. I am pretty sure its against site policies.

    Parent
    Why are we feeding this beast? (none / 0) (#7)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:49:23 AM EST
    With all due respect BTD, since when did this he-said, she-said, tit for tat comments between Obama and HRC mean so much in the MSM? I thought the blogosphere was supposed to be an antidote this kind of meaningless coverage. I'm surprised we're spending this much time on this issue on such a great blog. We should be spending more time being outraged at an administration who declared outright they knew and approved hard interrogation tactics (per the ABC News interview). How many diaries has Talk Left spent on this revelation versus Obama's "PA voters are bitter" comment?

    One.

    I think the Bushies admission on torture is more shocking and more important on so many different levels than being obsessed over who said what and how this person responded. Like that never happens in politics!

    With all due respect, let's stop feeding this beast.

    OInly if Obama and his supporters stop (5.00 / 3) (#14)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:53:33 AM EST
    trying to dump on Clinton.  Obama himself is feeding "the beast".

    Parent
    The Bushies admitting torture... (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:00:10 AM EST

    ... is more important than this petulant infighting between Obama and Clinton over who said what and how this person responded. The fact we have an administration who now admits to torture and we're more fixated by this silly squabbling over words is more troubling to me.

    Which means more to us, a country and an administration that admits to torturing on ABC News, or what Obama and Clinton say to each other over petulant comments and petulant responses on both sides?  

    Parent

    Squabbling over words (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:05:19 AM EST
    It's all Obama has.

    We can't squabble over his record or his past cause he has none.


    Parent

    Right but... (none / 0) (#67)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:16:21 AM EST

    ... why should we be paying attention to this trivial rubbish when we have an administration who openly acknowledged they signed off on harsh interrogation methods related to torture? Where's the outrage on that? Why aren't we spending more time on that issue here (and elsewhere) instead of trying spending all this time over who said what and how this person responded? This pales in comparison to a country and an administration that's not supposed to be doing this in the first place!


    Parent
    If I were to go over to Dailykos (none / 0) (#79)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:21:57 AM EST
    And find 5 diaries on the Rec List about the issue that concerns you, I'd be more amenable to your point of view.


    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#103)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:32:47 AM EST

    ... just because I share this opinion on Talk Left doesn't mean anything? Not sure I follow.

    Is this the same Edgar over at Docudharma? Just wondering.

    Parent

    Never heard of that (none / 0) (#124)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:41:39 AM EST
    Just saying imploring one blog to focus on a certain topic would certainly be bolstered by doing so on other blogs as well.

    Without that it just sounds like you want people to stop criticizing Obama.


    Parent

    This isn't about Obama.... (none / 0) (#141)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:49:46 AM EST

    ... I'm not even supporting him.

    I'm just trying to emphasize that there are more important issues that we as Democratic activists (and more importantly, as engaged citizens) should be focusing our energy and time on. The fact we have an administration openly admitting to torture, should shock all of us but it seems we get more shocked over who says what and how whoever responds to it. My point is we should be focusing on this more important issue of torture (and among other issues as well) and not over the soap opera dramas that are going on. What meaning does this serve? Not much.

    You never answered my question. Are you the same Edgar over at Docudharma? Just wondering. No big woop.

    Parent

    Like I said (none / 0) (#164)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:58:43 AM EST
    No.  

    And again.  Well.  Nevermind.  Just saying that if you could show how you have a history of imploring Obama supporters to focus on real issues and stop attacking Clinton, then it's something one would then have to take into consideration.


    Parent

    This isn't about Obama.... (none / 0) (#143)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:49:58 AM EST
    ... I'm not even supporting him.

    I'm just trying to emphasize that there are more important issues that we as Democratic activists (and more importantly, as engaged citizens) should be focusing our energy and time on. The fact we have an administration openly admitting to torture, should shock all of us but it seems we get more shocked over who says what and how whoever responds to it. My point is we should be focusing on this more important issue of torture (and among other issues as well) and not over the soap opera dramas that are going on. What meaning does this serve? Not much.

    You never answered my question. Are you the same Edgar over at Docudharma? Just wondering. No big woop.

    Parent

    I honestly don't understand your (none / 0) (#110)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:34:29 AM EST
    point of view. The election is the MOST important issue right now. The fact Bush is a torturer only underlines that importances.

    Parent
    Um, it's precisely because of the (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:06:23 AM EST
    stakes that choosing the right candidate matters so much. The two are NOT interchangeable.

    Parent
    An administration that admits to torture... (none / 0) (#70)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:17:47 AM EST

    ... means a helluva lot more than a petulant exchange between two candidates. Period.

    Parent
    Right so start a blog and bring up the subject. (2.00 / 1) (#100)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:32:13 AM EST


    Parent
    Acutally, I think it's relevant to this discussion (none / 0) (#107)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:33:52 AM EST


    Parent
    I realize that for Obama supporters (none / 0) (#109)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:34:28 AM EST
    the next best thing to do right now is to change the topic from "bitterGate."  For Clinton supporters OTOH, it is to continue the effort of revealing more of the true nature of the rival candidate.  Fortunately in this site, we can do that without being called all kinds of insulting, nasty name.

    Parent
    This isn't about the election... (none / 0) (#127)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:43:13 AM EST

    ... nor am I an Obama or Clinton supporter... yet. I'm talking about a bigger issue that should take precedence over this meaningless tit for tat discussion that occurs in politics everywhere! Should we be more concerned with this or the fact that we have an administration that tortures and we're not doing anything about it? More importantly, why aren't we more outraged at this than what who said this over what? Seems like a diversion for more pressing issues in our lives. Know what I mean?

    Parent
    How many times did you post this? (none / 0) (#176)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:06:06 AM EST
    I've seen it three times.

    Parent
    Only problem is that if the wrong person (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:08:46 AM EST
    is nominated and McCain wins we will continue to have all those things you are talking about.  That is what makes this infighting so important.

    Parent
    Exactly! (none / 0) (#188)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:15:38 AM EST
    My unerring <sarcasm alert!> instincts were, the night that the Abu Ghraib photos first broke, that Bush would lose the election in 2004.  How could our country re-elect someone who presided over THIS?

    But they did, didn't they?

    Because voters didn't "like" Kerry so much, did they?

    Parent

    We are deciding on who will replace (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:12:58 AM EST
    Bush.

    That requires us to discuss the differences between the candidates.

    Parent

    BushCo torture news = Downing Street Memo (none / 0) (#46)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:07:03 AM EST
    Recall that the MCM managed to barely or not at all cover the Downing Street Memos. And when they did, it was to say they were "old news."

    That's happening with the shocking torture revelations so far.  Bill Moyers will cover in depth; in a few months--longer--Frontline will delve into it. NPR may have a longer segment.

    But the talking heads? Nah. The Pearl Clutchers? Seen anything from them yet?

    Was word one said on the Sunday shows? No, making the Obama gaffe OK for the primary or prepping it for Repub use in the general was more important.

    Parent

    There are of course (none / 0) (#96)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:30:16 AM EST
    very important issues. But your concern:
    "No, making the Obama gaffe OK for the primary or prepping it for Repub use in the general was more important."

    will not be an issue if Clinton is the nominee.  So, relax.  She will be.

    Parent

    Not much can be done with Bush (none / 0) (#72)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:18:09 AM EST
    except to replace him with the Right Democrat which in my opinion is Clinton.  That is why it is important for people to see that it must not be Obama.

    Parent
    Right, the Obama fans can't continue to (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by doyenne49 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:00:21 AM EST
    benefit from the media's Clinton bashing, only to whine and cry when the monster turns on them.

    Parent
    The Most Amazing Thing Happened (5.00 / 3) (#35)
    by TearDownThisWall on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:02:48 AM EST
    on the way to the 2008 Democratic Party Convention-
    The blogs basically became the MSM...pettiness, obsession with personality, ignoring issues, focus on trivia.....high school styled debates

    I can't wait for this to be over-

    Parent

    Consistently (none / 0) (#33)
    by Jgarza on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:02:06 AM EST
    BTD you had a quote complaining about the "gore-ing" of Hillary Clinton.  She has essentially called this the gore-ing of Obama, but now you jump on the bandwagon.  Why is this "gore-ing" fairgame, but Clintons "misstatements" out of bounds?
    Hmm (5.00 / 2) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:04:57 AM EST
    Obama said what he said. This was Obama's mistake.

    Politics is stupid and always has been. the Gore-ing of Clinton is not something that happens to any other pol in this cycle.

    The Trina Bachtel story was falsely reported and spread by so called progressive blogs.

    Obama said what he said. He has stated his regret. Time to move on.

    Parent

    may be not (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by TalkRight on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:33:03 AM EST
    Time to move on.

    or TIME TO PONDER.

    Could it be that what he said is what he meant? Everyone is in "a haste" to give him the benefit of doubt and actually I have seen this on TV and on blogs where analysts are trying to tell us what he could have meant...! Let Barrack Obama tell us what he meant.. he has been changing it every day..

    1. He first denied any wrong remarks..
    2. Then he sent a letter explaining with his most offensive remarks left out of the letter.
    3. He then became aggressive [on defense] and tried hitting Hillary on 109million/Columbia deal thing.
    4. The he acknowledged he phrased his remarks poorly.
    5. The he conveyed his regret for the remarks if they offended.
    6. He says they were a compliment.
    7. Not sure what he will say..

    As a voter I have NO clue as to WHAT Obama actually thinks!!

    Parent
    I think he said exactly what he meant (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:37:45 AM EST
    Otherwise, it would be easy for him to explain what he really meant and move on.

    Parent
    Ditto (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:39:53 AM EST
    and he said what his followers believe.  Look, his faux unity persona is falling apart now, how will he put together the GE coalition.  It doe not work--it's a lie and he will be caught every step of the way.  

    Parent
    gutterball politics (5.00 / 1) (#132)
    by TalkRight on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:44:14 AM EST
    Sen. Obama spent six days posing for clichéd camera shots that included bowling gutterballs, walking around a sports bar, feeding a baby cow, and buying a ham at a Philly market, albeit one that is $99.99 a pound. His speeches won't hide the fact that Sen. Obama has a condescending view of Americans living in small towns.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#163)
    by MMW on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:58:02 AM EST
    Obama cannot be known for great oratory, yet be known as well for WORM. Those two things are mutually exclusive. He is solely responsible for the current usage of WORM.

    And why are so many claiming to know what he actually meant, when he has no record from which to deduce this?

    Are meds being handed out that I know nothing about?

    Parent

    As far as I can tell, the issue (none / 0) (#160)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:56:58 AM EST
    is being kept alive as a result of Obama's inability to just admit he was wrong, and apologize for the offense, and not make the apology effective only on the condition that he offended anyone.  Period.  

    He seems unable to stop making comments and using tactics that reveal that he doesn't think he was ever wrong to have said what he did in the first place.  He keeps wanting us to believe he was just inartful or awkward in his rhetoric, looking for us to apologize to him for not being intuitive enough to know what it was he was "really" saying, or how it was meant to be received.

    My answer to that is that people are not always as forgiving about gaffes like this when the less-than-flattering comments are made in a closed environment and the suspicion is that they really do reflect the speaker's feelings; it's the methinks-he-doth-protest-too-much effect.

    Someone needs to tell Obama to stop digging, put the shovel down and climb out of the hole he is in.


    Parent

    He said exactly what he meant (none / 0) (#203)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:18:02 PM EST
    Again, the lady from Florida got this right away:

    [Obama] said what he said...

    He said bitter people cling to God and guns, and don't like people that [don't] look like them.

    That is what he said, and he said it in an environment where he was seeking money, and he meant what he said when he said it and I do not accept his apology or his explanation.


    Obama's in a private meeting, with wealthy donors. Of course he meant what he said.

    (And he's also wrong on the "25 years" thing -- check the income figures on Bush v. Clinton. Working people definitely had it better, not perfect, but better, under Clinton, and can Obama think they're too stupid not to remember it?

    And can we think about the policy implications for a moment? If Obama doesn't understand or empathize with working people, that means he won't get serious about pursuing policies that would benefit them; that's why it's OK to diss them, and that's why the laughter at the rubes from the donors. And that's why universal health care is off the table with Obama, and that's why the creative class is walking it back. But heck, just like women: F*** 'em, they got no place to go.

    Of course, Obama could very easily prove me wrong; give me the policies that would do so. But he can't do that, because his campaign is about politics, not policy. He's painted himself into a corner, and I, for one, couldn't be more pleased.

    So, it may be time for Obama and his supporters to move on, but that doesn't mean that it's time for me, or the Democratic Party, either.

    Parent

    it would have been (none / 0) (#152)
    by tarheel74 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54:11 AM EST
    but Obama sticks by his comments now, his supporters are spreading the false analogy with Bill Clinton as reported by Nico Pitney and debunked by you and essentially giving this story more legs.
    I do not agree on anything with George Will but what he said on Sunday was right, the tendency of some people on the left to dismiss gun ownership and faith as some sort of mental deviancy hurts us more (in fact when I lived in a blue state city I thought the same way but I live in NC now and it's a different lifestyle here), why because it gives the Republicans ammunition to say "hey these guys look down upon you". Frankly however right Obama might be to say what he did and at the venue he did is bad. Trying to defend it makes it a dangerous game.

    Parent
    The problem in my opinion lies, (none / 0) (#37)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:03:42 AM EST
    in that some of the people posting  and commenting in the progressive blocks seem to think that the RW trolls are not there gathering info on their remarks.  So when they say that what Mr. Obama said was true and that middle America is bigoted, and dumb this will make it to RW talk shows and TV shows as examples of the elitist left wing liberals in the Democratic Party.  Personally I hope that most of the comments I'm hearing defending these remarks are from trolls and not true Democrats as I would hate to think that this is what the Democratic Party has become.

    How right you are (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:06:35 AM EST
    Bill O inparticular loves to point out nasty commments at Huffpost and DailyKos...I can see it now.  He will use those comments any time there is a slow news day.

    Parent
    They'll have to toss them in the trash (none / 0) (#58)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    when Clinton gets the nom.  Good luck finding new dirt on her--or dirt that anyone really cares about.

    McCain's getting so much positive press off of this that he'd be crazy to shut up, and the more he says, the more Obama feels the need to counter, and pretty soon he's going to be getting it from both sides and he'll start to look like the whiny kid who feels like Mom and Dad are picking on him.

    Glee!

    Parent

    dems: the party of lemmings (none / 0) (#54)
    by mscristine on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:08:37 AM EST
    I fear he thinks that the people he insulted won't understand the last part of his statement, so he can spin it, but some republican operatives are busily amassing a fund to have those words printed on milk cartons, next to the missing child,which seems to me a perfect description of the dems understanding of their own self-destruction every presidential cycle, oh yeah except for that guy who is now freely demonized by the obama sycophants.

    I haven't seen anything on it yet (none / 0) (#63)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:13:13 AM EST
    but I am looking forward to BTD's thoughts on how this might impact NC.

    Not quite truthful? (none / 0) (#83)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:24:20 AM EST
    CNN covering Obama's statements going after Clinton/McCain as taking money.

    CNN: Obama says he doesn't take Pac/Lobby money...CNN: Is that true.  Factcheck.org: says Obama gets around it.   They then discuss Clinton's statements.... my point?  He's being portrayed as not quite truthful.  Now, Clinton getting airtime... CNN/MSNBC/Fox live: I won't just come here and make a speech, I expect you to hold me accountable...

    This is the "Creative Class" version of (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:27:31 AM EST
    a rapid response to an attack on Obama.  They are trying to show how great they are at coming to his defense. It would be more effective if they were not making stuff up and doing contortions to say B. Clinton said the same thing.  Of course, with the facts against them they have no choice.

    It woauld also be more effective if they had practiced it defending other Dems, like Clinton and Edwards.

    "Creative Class" meme is ridiculous (none / 0) (#98)
    by AdrianLesher on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:32:09 AM EST
    This gets a little tiring. Should we refer to BTD as a member of the corporate elite? Somehow, like Tweetie and Russert, corporate lawyer BTD thinks he's tapped into the essence of the authentic people.

    If he's going to attack the jobs of the people voicing opinions he disagrees with, his employment is fair game too.

    Incidentally, I'm a public defender, so although I'm not poor, I'm probably closer to the "working class" than someone representing corporate horror shows like Walmart and Shell.  

    I think defending the underlying point of what Obama said is the correct thing to do, as Obama himself demonstrates by continuing refine his words. People who've lost their jobs in the rust belt are rationally upset. They have a right to be bitter. One think I like about Obama is that he's not afraid to be blunt; he'd rather speak straightforwardly than by eupehmism. Sometimes he says something inartful, but he nonetheless confronts the realities of life in the USA in the 21st Century in a more direct way than either Clinton or "straight talking" McCain.

    Quite the opposite (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:33:23 AM EST
    I KNOW I am an elitist. I do not think it is a badge of honor for my political analysis of the white working class. See the difference?

    Parent
    quit the Creative Class thing BTD (none / 0) (#157)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:56:14 AM EST
    it is petty, irrelevant, and inaccurate.  

    Parent
    Tell the Creativ Class bloggers (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:18:23 AM EST
    to drop it. Are you really unaware of who came up with it?

    Parent
    trying to tar BTD by dint of what he does (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Klio on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:14:13 AM EST
    professionally is really a bankrupt move.  It says nothing damaging about him and highlights how little you have to offer the conversation.

    I don't like to give OpenLeft any clicks, but just to help clear this up for you -- the Creative Class has self-identified, and proudly...

    Parent

    And you keep proving the RW point (none / 0) (#115)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:36:00 AM EST
    that Democrats are elitist by saying that what Obama said is true.  Thank you

    Parent
    the problem is "creative class" (5.00 / 1) (#192)
    by boredmpa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:28:37 AM EST
    The idea that blogging(?) is "creative class" is an attempt to increase the image/stature of an activity that does not fit under the normal concept of a 'creative'  class and simultaneously an attempt to distance bloggers from pundits and the MSM.  

    It is fundamentally dishonest, on two levels:

    1. It cheapens the work of writers and artists that take great personal and financial risks with their work and that are actually trained in producing art--not just critiquing the daily news.  

    2. It's akin to all the programmers I know that like to talk about programming being an art and being a highly creative activity.   The "creative class" is just an alternative to "knowledge worker" that suggests working isn't good enough and/or journalism isn't good enough.  Instead we're the creative class, workers with meaning and social value.  As if others aren't.

    Considering most of the work requires very limited creativity, I beg to differ with their characterization.  They're misusing a common term,  unwittingly showing they want to be more valued/elite, and devaluing regular work at the same time.  


    Parent
    it is the Clinton's talking point. (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:58:00 AM EST
    stolen from the McCain.  just like the rest of the kitchen sink she's grabbing for.  

    Parent
    Like drinking beer with the guys (none / 0) (#205)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:20:43 PM EST
    is bad but bowling badly is not.  And again do you thing that what he said was true?

    Parent
    They're reframing it (none / 0) (#101)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:32:19 AM EST
    By emphasizing the "bitter" aspect of the comment, Obama, his supporters, and the media are turning this from a major liability into a minor gaffe. If they chose instead to focus on the real insult - that these Americans "cling" to guns, God, and racism BECAUSE of the bitterness, then it would be a much bigger deal. This way, people who are hearing this story for the first time today will be asking themselves what the big deal it - a lot of people ARE bitter. By ignoring the rest of the comment, they are defusing it. But that doens't mean it will go away. It is simply being added to the list of right-wing hits that are available in October.

    And the context: he was discussing (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:35:38 AM EST
    why people might not listen to a 46 year old black man...


    Parent
    I think BTD should discuss THAT (none / 0) (#120)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:40:28 AM EST
    part of the context, because you know Republicans will.
    Obama said, inartfully, that he won't get votes in PA because there are bitter bigots there.
    It's plain as day to those "bitter bigots" what he meant, and no spinning will change that.

    Parent
    They can't talk about that (none / 0) (#210)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:31:09 PM EST
    The media have chosen not to see anything about how Obama is using race to raise funds and convince voter's. I don't see how they could respond to Obama using his race as part of a fundraising pitch to rich people in San Francisco. And that is what he was doing - he was saying that he needed lot's of money because his status as a black man made the "pitch" harder.

    Parent
    The Media will make it go away (none / 0) (#108)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:34:09 AM EST
    just as soon as they are able.

    So too will the Obama campaign.

    Parent

    Well what are going to do.... (none / 0) (#133)
    by ctrenta on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:44:21 AM EST

    ... to make this issue go away? I think this diary is a good starting point.

    Parent

    And the right-wing will bring it back up (none / 0) (#214)
    by dianem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:07:01 PM EST
    But not yet.  They have little tidbits of "new" information about Rezko and Wright to spring on Obama in the fall. They'll dole them out in tasty little chunks for the media to devour right before the election.

    Parent
    I never thought I would type these words (none / 0) (#139)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:48:39 AM EST
    but here goes:  It will be interesting to see how Chris Matthews plays it.  that will be a clue to whether the press is going to let it go.  He doesn't like Clinton, but he also fancies himself a spokesman for the non-elites. We'll see if he takes umbrage at the comments or tries to spin them away.

    What about Dobbs? (none / 0) (#161)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:57:18 AM EST


    Parent
    Lou Dobbs has been playing it to the hilt... (none / 0) (#182)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:10:49 AM EST
    ...already. Some folks resent that Obama characterized the working classes' values (religions and guns) as something they cling to because they have lost jobs...but Mr. Dobbs had a bigger problem with the antipathy towards immigration part as apparently he considers this a core value to be proud of. But heck, I shouldn't even comment on that dude. He is such a hopeless bigot that he will never, ever get a clue.

    Parent
    Another manufactured "scandal"... (none / 0) (#146)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:51:02 AM EST
    One Democratic candidate is the truth-teller; the other is a spin-machine. Which is which here?

    I think it's perfectly plausible to claim that in periods of economic difficulty, some voters blame immigrants, or liberals, or gays for their troubles. The Republicans have been encouraging precisely this kind of scapegoating for years - convincing rural voters to vote on social issues against their economic interest. Whether you believe it or not, it is at least a respectable point of view.

    And come on, "Bittergate"? Watergate was a crime instigated by a crook; Barack merely said a few sentences. Is this really worthy of the "-gate" suffix?

    Let's tone down the spin and get back to the issues people.

    If you think this is true then you just (5.00 / 1) (#169)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:03:15 AM EST
    proved the RW right.  Look bigots are bigots in good times and bad times.  To blame your failure to connect with a portion of the electorate on their bitterness is oh so wrong in so many ways.  And mind you this are Democrats in a blue state.  You ;may be right about the gate think but to claim that
    t's perfectly plausible to claim that in periods of economic difficulty, some voters blame immigrants, or liberals, or gays for their troubles.

    is like saying that in good times they wouldn't.  Sorry but those who are anti-gay, anti-immigrants, and conservative now were the same in the good times very few changed their thoughts because of their economic situation.  

    Parent
    Yes, Obama should do that, indeed (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by lambert on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:28:25 PM EST
    So, what does he do? Ratchet up the Hillary hate.

    Wouldn't it make more sense for him to fix his fake "universal" health care plan?

    Parent

    So the poor are bitter and cling to (none / 0) (#153)
    by Florida Resident on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:54:25 AM EST
    guns and religion because of it.  But does that include all the poor or just the white middle America poor?  So only if you live in PA or OH are you bitter and cling?  There are so many holes in his logic that it makes me wonder what he really believes.  

    My experience has been that there are rich, poor and middle class racist bigots.  To take a complete class of people, working class americans in the midwest, and stereotype them in that way is wrong.  Anyone who says that what he said is true IMO should look at themselves in the mirror and ask who is the real bigot.  

    Now mind you this is the same man who said that the so called pro-lifers and those that opposed same sex marriage were speaking from their convictions.  Yet people keep trying to convince me he is 100% pro choice and so understanding of LGBT issues.  

    Sorry but that is one glass of kool-aid I am having trouble drinking.

    Hahaha (none / 0) (#197)
    by nell on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:41:24 AM EST
    Please check out www.hillaryhub.com right now....

    He mocked her whiskey, so now they are playing hardball...

    Will he please be quiet now?

    One thing I don't get (none / 0) (#217)
    by ChrisO on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:58:40 PM EST
    is how Obama thinks he's fixing the problem of looking like an elitist by mocking Hillary for having a shot and a beer. Not that it's a huge deal, but the pictures were striking to me in that she actually looked like she was enjoying herself, although she probably hasn't downed a shot in years.

    A bigger question to me, though, is how so many Obama followers can be apoplectic because Hillary said something mildly complimentary about McCain, yet he can base a huge part of his campaign on denigrating the last (and wildly popular) Democratic President. If they're so worried about "destroying the party," don't you think they would see the value in the Dem candidate being able to remind people how good things were under Clinton? As Carville said, "What did you not like about the Clinton Presidency, the peace or the prosperity?"

    Message from on high (none / 0) (#221)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:05:13 PM EST
    But, but, but...Obama is perfect, and because we support Obama we're perfect too.

    Condescendingly yours,

    The Creative Class

    The Big Problem With "Bittergate" Was Not The "Bitter" | 220 comments (220 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment