Rasmussen: 56% Disagree With Obama's "Bitter" Remarks

A new Rasmussen national poll finds 56% of Americans disagree with Obama's remarks calling small town Pennsylvanians bitter and clinging to G-d and their guns. Only 25% approve.

45% said Obama is out of touch with small-town Americans and his words show an elitist view of them. (Questions asked and results are here.)

But it may make more difference in the general election than the primary. Democrats are less offended by the remarks, and liberal democrats, even less so:

Democrats are fairly evenly divided—34% agree with Obama and 43% disagree. Generally, Obama supporters agree with him while Hillary Clinton’s supporters disagree.

A plurality of politically liberal voters—46%--agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. Moderate voters take the opposite view and disagree by a 51% to 27% margin. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives disagree with Obama’s statement, only 12% agree.

Republicans and Independents on the other hand: [More...]

Republicans overwhelmingly disagree with the statement and unaffiliated voters disagree by a two-to-one margin.

By demographic:

Voters under 30 are evenly divided on Obama’s statement while their elders strongly disagree. Fifty-three percent (53%) of African-Americans agree with Obama’s statement while 29% disagree. White voters disagree by a 3-to-1 margin.

Forty-five percent (45%) say that Obama’s comments reflect an elitist view of small town voters. Thirty-seven percent (37%) disagree. Republicans overwhelmingly say that the statements are elitist and most Democrats disagree. Among unaffiliated voters, 40% say they represent an elitist view while 34% disagree.

Rasmussen says Obama's "bait and switch" was a shrewd move:

The survey also confirmed that the Obama campaign and its surrogates were very shrewd to try and switch the conversation to whether or not people are bitter and want change in Washington. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters agreed with Obama’s statement that “People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington.”

We'll see how well that response plays for PA voters soon. I think they'll remember he said they cling to G-d, guns and anti-immigrant sentiment out of bitterness.

Just to be clear, his words were that small town voters

“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."

< Anybody Worried About Alienating Clinton Supporters? | Obama's Job Is Politician >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Jeralyn, please don't leave out (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:54:24 AM EST
    the earlier remarks: he was giving reasons that people might not vote for or listen to a "46 year old black man".
    His message is going to be crystal clear to those small town types.

    Crystal clear, you betcha. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:03:03 PM EST

    He could have shortened up his remarks quite a bit by just getting to the bottom line and calling them racist rubes and been done with it.

    Has anyone figured out why someone would cling to the notion that you had a right to own a gun just because the mill closed down twenty years ago?


    There may be a connection, but not the (5.00 / 5) (#26)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:25:52 PM EST
    one Obama thinks there is. Guns in PA are mostly for hunting. Hunting puts meat on the table and in the freezer and the smokehouse. That helps a lot when employment goes down the tubes. What Obama doesn't get is that those guns feed people. The need for that is what he misses seeing. In a good economy, you eat venison, squirrel, rabbit, etc. if you have a taste for them. In this economy, you eat them because you can't afford to buy meat in the store. He has no clue about what the country culture is all about. It's not about red-necks riding around in pickup trucks shooting off guns, it's about using guns to feed the family, and being self-sufficient as much as possible because you can't afford to do anything else. It's about going to church to pray for better times, to see your neighbors, help the ones that need it, share what you have, etc. Church in the country isn't like church in the city, it's a meeting place where neighbors get together and help each other, and worship God. The two are not mutually exclusive, last I heard. Obama just doesn't get it. He seems to think people go to church for political reasons, like he does.

    Let's not forget (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:19:14 PM EST
    that his "bitter" comment was in answer to his funders' question of "why are you not gaining more support in Pennsylvania?" And his answer was (everything after the "bitter") plus the fact that they do not believe a "46 year old black man" can be the answer to the cause of their bitterment."

    Perhaps he meant to say that his message of HOPE and CHANGE is not getting through to them, which I would like to comment on.  For people who have faith in God, hope is eternal; it is something they are never lacking in.  But change?  Change what?  It is human nature to want to change something for something better.  But from the point of view of one who comes from a small town, Change, as a message needs to be clarified, specified.  It is not a notion than can stand alone.  Who wants to change a situation in a small town where people do not feel compelled to lock their doors because there is a feeling of community and the residents more or less look out for one another?  Or where you can augment your food reserves by hunting or fishing?  Or know where your children are and who they are associating with?  Who wants to change a clean environment for one that is polluted?  With farm communities, the issue is not jobs.  The concerns are over the cost of fuel, marketing of products and swallowing up family farms by conglomerates, etc. etc., sending their children to college and protection from unfair competition from foreign producers.  These are concerns not addressed by Obama because he has no personal knowledge of these.  Clinton understands; that is why she did so well in upstate New York where the farming communities and other rural areas were.

    So, take away the hype and the active pushing of the MSM, Obama cannot maintain his teflon covering for long (even teflon eventually goes bare and dangerous)  At this point, it is difficult to know for sure whether his "darling" status in the media is because they think he deserves it, or wether it is just setting up a weaker candidate for the republicans in November.  I think it is the latter because it is beginning to show.

    I am a firm Clinton supporter and I am not shy saying that because I did consider the relative qualifications of these two:  In foreign and domestic policies; record of getting things done in healthcare, tax fairness, fair trade, passion to pursue what will benefit the majority of the people.  I think that part of the antipathy towards the Clintons of the establishment is their demonstrated ability to synthesize the country's problems and change the system is necessary (e.g. the welfare program, healthcare--even if the initial attempt failred).  Hillary scares them because she will do what she says she would, and they know she could.


    Obama bad. everything he says and does i (none / 0) (#59)
    by dem08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:53:02 PM EST
    And everything he says and does is wrong.

    So many Pennsylvanians eat only the meat from their hunting expeditions. After the hunt the women gather the meat and salt it.

    That is one reason the working class in Pennsylvania doesn't feel frustrated when their jobs disappear forever. Whether you make 80 thousand a year with benefits at a factory or under 20 thousand without, you hunt and go to church.

    It is how small town people live.

    And I agree: Obama chose his church carefully for political benefit, realizing that when Americans got to know Pastor Wright, they would have their new Norman Vincent Peale.

    It is all so clear now. Thank you FlaDemFem. Hillary must be a great candidate and not some fancy San Fransisco talking small town hater.

    I bet Bill hunted when The Clinton's were down on their luck, and the Congregation found them work.


    Obama is an arrogant lightweight. (none / 0) (#145)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:46:36 PM EST
    And he patronizes people he wants to vote for him. For someone with his education to make the sort of rhetorical mistakes he is making is due either to incredible arrogance and narcissism, or he is not paying attention to what he is saying and where he is saying it. Either way, he is not presidential material. He should stay in the Senate and get some experience in convincing people to vote for him. Right now, he isn't doing a very good job. And, FYI, the primaries aren't over yet. So, cool it on the Hillary bashing, you might have to support her when she is the nominee. Unless you are going to go home and sulk through the general election.

    And you don't "gather meat", you dress the carcase. Then you smoke it, salting it is more for small pieces, or fish. And not recommended by your doctor. Smoking, in this case, is better for you.


    FlaDemFem (none / 0) (#151)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:37:01 PM EST
    I "gather" meat when I go to the butcher shop!  ;)

    Yes, but you haven't shot it yourself (none / 0) (#158)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:58:01 PM EST
    have you? Buying at a butcher shop and killing and butchering a carcase yourself are two very different things. Funny that you should not realize that. Heh.

    I HATE (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:45:33 PM EST
    that the listeners laughed at that line!  As a black person, it's really irritating to know that the possible first black prez of the US will go to a bunch of rich white people and make jokes about the plights of the Afrian American.  It was like he was trying too hard to make them feel comfortable with him by stressing that these small town whites are xenophobic.

    Ugh, yes stroke their egos and make them feel great for funding your campaign by demeaning the other type of white people.  Y'know.  Since there's only two types. /snark


    at first I cut him slack for that part (none / 0) (#72)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:02:58 PM EST
    thinking it was just his form of humor about himself.  But comments like yours over the last few days have changed my mind. Thanks for point of view.

    I'm sure he would have said 'named Barack Hussein Obama' if even he were allowed to speak his middle name on the campaign trail.


    I never got the age part of it..... (none / 0) (#3)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:59:24 AM EST
    ...is he claiming youth? I mean he's not old but, its not like he's 26 or even 36.

    Yes (none / 0) (#14)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:13:20 PM EST
    That was my impression -- that he was claiming his age was a reason why certain segments of voters weren't responding to him.  IIRC PA has the second largest 65+ population (after FL). I figured I was being called 'ageist' on top of everything else. :-)

    Heh (5.00 / 0) (#28)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:26:20 PM EST
    I'm 40 and I don't like him. Guess I'm an old soul. ;-)

    Hee (5.00 / 0) (#75)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:07:09 PM EST
    I'm actually younger, too, but every time I read something slicing and dicing the poll internals, I feel like time is out of joint or something. :-)

    Claiming Youth (none / 0) (#49)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:43:22 PM EST
    in California?  I'm shocked!  

    Of course he is!!!


    reading comprehension? (none / 0) (#102)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:28:16 PM EST
    he was making the casual point that it is slight hurdle for some people to vote for a black man named Barack.  now that is a fact.  just like its a fact that, for some people, Hillary needs to hurdle the fact that she is a woman.  Now, it doesn't mean those same people won't vote for him or her, just that it is a hurdle, varying in size per person, given their background, history, ill-informed opinions (i.e. Barack is a muslim).  Now, that is factual.  I've had people in my town mention that they like Barack although they're not sure about the muslim thing.  That doenst describe everyone but doesn't eliminate the fact.  THAT is why this election is so historic.  Because, the for the vast majority of people these hurdles (black/woman) don't determine their vote and the person they are does.

    Um, this is not profound (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:47:01 PM EST
    It's always ineffective when someone refuses to engage in conversation and instead makes obvious statements in a desparate attempt to come off as more intelligent then they are by trying to insult the intelligence of listeners.  Stop it.  It's lazy.


    I think what makes Hillary supporters or small town whites offended by the statement is not the truth behind it, but the constant excuse that Obama isn't appealing to these people because of his race.  Sure there are people with that problem, just as there are people who have a problem supporting Hillary, as you noted, because she's a woman, but it's not the only reason.

    It's as though Obama is relying too much on exit polls and not thinking of Hillary supporters as real people with variying reasons they gravitate toward her.  It's just as much a question of "Why don't these people support Obama?" as it is "Why do they support Hillary?"

    Why is it so hard for him and some Obama supporters who comment on this blog to admit that we might actually like something about her that Obama just does not have?  Why can't it be that he's missing something?  Why is it always that we are missing something?  Why is it that whenever Obama has the opportunity to answer the question he answers by citing a quality of himself that he has but does not have any control over?  It's like he's saying, "Yeah... they don't want to vote for me, but that's because I'm black, heh.  I can't help it! Sometimes you come across people that are so backwards that you just can't help them![cue audience laughter]"  Firstly, it's ridiculous for a presidential candidate to think that (and I don't think he does.  It's all just a show).  Why the hell did he decide to run for president if he thinks so ill of his potential opponent's supporters?  Secondly, it's disrespectul to us - the people who he'll need in the future.

    He can appeal to us Hillary supporters who are not bigots.  There are enough of us non-bigot Hillary supporters that if he wins the nomination, could still help carry him to the White House, but he's got to appeal to us.  He's going to have to understand that what he said has offended many of us, (I'm not one of the offended.  Just disappointed) apologize, and let it go.  This is politics.  You can't try to fight us and force us to agree that you're right.  It doesn't work that way.


    Your "explanations" are boring. (none / 0) (#112)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM EST
    Why don't you just accept that people disagree with you, as your handle suggests?

    Given that you've said this many times (none / 0) (#134)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:41:34 PM EST
    I feel like I should ask.  If this is a "fact":

    he was making the casual point that it is slight hurdle for some people to vote for a black man named Barack.  now that is a fact.

    Than you would not be offended if HRC used this argument when talking to superdelegates, right?  Because it is, after all, a fact.


    The Problem I Have With It (none / 0) (#138)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:59:29 PM EST
    Is not that he was making the point, generally, that given this country's history, it's not easy for a black man to run for the presidency.  I might agree or disagree (or both, to some extent), but I don't have any problem with him saying that.

    The problem I have is that he wasn't talking about all Americans and our shared history, he was calling particular kinds of Americans, working class whites, bigots  and he and his wealthy donors laughed at them over it.  Because, of course, none of those rich donors have any problem with African Americans (never mind that if Obama is the nominee, he's likely to win a higher percentage of the white working class vote than he is of wealthy whites who are overwhelmingly Republican).  


    Seems like (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:58:56 AM EST
    People agree or disagree on the basis of whether they like Obama or not, not on the basis of what he actually said and meant.

    No Lora ,I think there is a bigger issue (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:20:58 PM EST
    and while some blogs are skewering him personally on this issue, white liberal democrats (academics, techies and other types who make up the "elitists") have been excellent fodder for the right wing in the past. It is this characterization that most irritates the working class union workers and rural small towners who made up the bulk of the party for a long time. These democrats went to Reagan in the '80's for just such reasons.  Recent polling suggests that Hillary is bringing them back and for Obama to be seen as  "latte drinking, volvo driving" is just suicide.  These are people McCain can win if Obama wins the nod.

    Quite the opposite, Lora. (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:41:34 PM EST
    Except for one speech, Democrats did not know Obama.  We have begun to know him through his campaign for POTUS and his words and deeds.

    We expected to like him because initially, we did!  But as we hear more...learn more...disappointment sets in.  Then, anger...then, opposition...

    That is the reaction of two kinds of people...the reality community not tied to any specific candidate and Hillary-supporting/Clinton-admiring Democrats.


    Take a look (none / 0) (#142)
    by Lora on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:15:18 PM EST
    I was looking at the breakdown of the demographics of Rasmussen's poll above, to quote numbers and answer you, and I realized I missed this sentence first time through, which is what I concluded:

    Generally, Obama supporters agree with him while Hillary Clinton's supporters disagree.



    Yep. (none / 0) (#150)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:16:59 PM EST
    The response is different when you see (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by katiebird on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:01:40 PM EST
    him setting up the laughter and listen while his rich friends laugh.  It was a bonding moment for them.

    If that video shows up in an ad.  Or gets emailed around to a broad audience, it could be devastating.

    I'd like to see a poll that measures the impact of THAT -- seeing/hearing it vs. reading it.

    The Laughing Is What Kills Him (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:07:59 PM EST
    that and who was laughing and where they were.  

    If he'd said his comments on CNN in an interview, it would be a lot easier to sell the "I misspoke" line, but, of course, he would never have said what he said on CNN.  Which is part of his problem.


    I Should Add (5.00 / 3) (#91)
    by BDB on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:16:51 PM EST
    My mother comes from Appalachia.  She hasn't lived there for more than 40 years.  And she still is very touchy about the portrayal of Appalachians.  From what I can tell, there's a sense in those communities that rich, educated whites in the big cities do laugh at them.  And they have good reason to.
    Basically, Obama and his rich donors have just confirmed what all of these people fear, that they laugh at them and their poor ways behind their backs.

    I may have told this story here before, but I was waiting for a table at some diner with my parents.  By the door it had one of those machines where kids put fifty cents in and get a toy, a super ball or something.  One of the "toys" was a set of Hillbilly teeth that you wear like vampire teeth, only some are blacked out because, you know, what's funnier than not being able to afford dental care.  Anyway, my mother saw it and said with more disgust than I think I've ever heard, "the only people you can still make fun of these days is poor people."  And whether intended or not, that's what it sounds like Obama and his donors are doing.  


    Laughing -- Not Good (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by STLDeb on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:17:21 PM EST
    That is not good.  I'm ambivalent either way for Obama, however that being said, I found his comments very condenscing to middle America and his laughing does NOT help matters.  Like you all said, it takes away from his "I misspoke".  

    He really should try to stop explaining himself and just apologize for his remarks and not to those "to which were offended".  That, to me, is a copout.


    The more I think about it the more sick (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by katiebird on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:01:44 PM EST
    I get.

    A gaffe can be explained as a slip of the tongue or a mistake or whatever.

    But, that had the feel of a set-piece.  A laugh line.

    Maybe it's because I was the butt of junior-high jokes -- but I didn't like it.  Not one bit.

    We've GOT a president with a cruel sense of humor.  Do we really need another?

    The things he said were elitist -- I believe that.  But, while I'm not looking to date these guys or "drink a beer with them" -- I don't at ALL like to think they're sitting around in their back-rooms LAUGHING at me or us.

    Now that I've seen it, I'll never get it out of my mind.  And the fact that so many people who've seen it don't seem to have noticed it, really bothers me.

    I guess it's a new campaign technique -- Laughing at Voters.  Ha. Ha. Ha.


    here's a link to a protest (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:56:15 PM EST
    outside an Obama campaign site in PA. Reported by a local television station.



    If it shows up in a Hillary ad (none / 0) (#78)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:07:57 PM EST
    You know what the response will be, despite the fact that 4 months later it will appear nonstop on every cable outlet with the name McCain attached to it.



    So you think it's politically wise (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:05:22 PM EST
    for Obama to state that bigoted rednecks won't vote for him???
    This is about winning votes, not being right (which I don't think he was, anyway).

    Willie (none / 0) (#135)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    I think we can understand your point but do you have any idea of how well your comment exemplifies the problem that Democrats have in getting these voters to pull the lever for Democrats?  Leave out the offensive terms.  Not all of them are bigots and you are using "rednecks" as a pejorative.  

    The real issue is how important the small town or rural vote is to this election.  And the current environment is one where the rural vote is as competitive as it has been in years.  Republicans have been winning elections because they have won these votes but there is no reason that the Democrats can't do better in rural America.  But it won't happen if the rural voters are offended and insulted by Democrats who want to stereotype and label them.  

    It is quite possible the election will hinge on the rural vote.  Here are a couple of pieces with some information on just how important a role the rural vote will play in 2008:

    The Rural Vote and the Election of the President

    Republicans lose ground in rural America



    The poll confirms the obvious (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:06:14 PM EST
    BO's point that people are fed up would have been alright and would be what politicians have been saying since the birth of the US. To say that they are bitter and that's why they cling to their guns and religion is another matter. I don't like it when Republicans make bad comments about SF liberals because I'm proud to be liberal and from SF.  Likewise I can see those who are conservative would be upset if someone said something like BO said.  The Democrats need those blue collar workers and the liberals to win in November.

    Wow, white voters 3-1 against (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by davnee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM EST
    How can this guy win the general with a number like that?

    He can't. (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by vicsan on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:15:25 PM EST
    Hopefully,  the Super Delegates will now open their eyes and actually see who CAN win. It's not Mr. Hope.

    One hopes everyone (none / 0) (#30)
    by dem08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:28:08 PM EST
    pays more attention to Polls. We don't discuss the "Horse Race" issue enough.

    The unfortunate thing about Polls is that sometimes they favor issues and candidates we don't believe in, so I have found it best to change my opinions and attachments when the Polls change.

    But I agree that this one remark shows Obama is unelectable.


    so white dems aren't going to (none / 0) (#46)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:41:43 PM EST
    vote for Obama?  is that your argument?

    No. I am (none / 0) (#70)
    by dem08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:00:00 PM EST
    being ironic. The Hillary supporters here act as if Hillary and Bill did not make 110 million dollars over the last few years, act as if Hillary and Bill never went to fund raisers in SF.

    Hillary may at one time have been working class and a great lover of guns and duck hunter and all the rest of that.

    But if Hillary supporters don't think she and Bill have mostly wealthy and powerful friends, just as Obama and McCain but Obama is still climbing the fame/wealth/power ladder, they are delusional.

    And this thread is so delusional it is shocking.

    Hillary is a multi-millionaire. She and her husband raised well over 200 million dollars when you throw in his library.

    Hate Obam, please. But at least have a good reason for doing so. And Hillary's "just folks' hunter persona is not even believable for an iota of a millionth of a second.


    Your point is? (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:07:21 PM EST
    I don't see anyone here suggesting the Clintons are not currently wealthy. What in the world does that have to do with Obama's words in SF? I'm very sorry, but Clinton is not the one who uttered them. It was your boy who did. And they are not going over very well, unsurprisingly.

    As has been said before (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:08:10 PM EST
    It doesn't matter how much money a politician has, the question is their attitude.  That's why people laughed at Bill Clinton and his "I feel your pain" comments, but people I know who have met him (and I've also read of others) who say his charm is that when he's speaking, you feel like you're the only person in the room and that he's speaking directly to you. Hillary doesn't quite have that gift, but I've met her and she took more than 2 seconds to shake my hand. She asked a couple of questions about me and I think that's what really connects.

    Obama, on the other hand, is very good at speaking at large rallies and rousing up the masses, but these kinds of comments just show that he just doesn't get it about real people. (Maybe that's why when he was a state senator, he didn't realize people in his own community were freezing all winter without heat in low-income [Rezko owned] housing. It's a completely different and inconvenient world for him]


    I dislike Obama's (5.00 / 5) (#82)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:10:23 PM EST
    policies, statements and attitudes towards everything I stand for as a liberal Democrat.

    But please, like your candidate, go on insulting me and pretending I don't have good reasons for preferring HRC over Obama.


    What are you talking about? (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by kayla on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:15:01 PM EST
    You're delusional if you don't think the Obama's are filthy rich and won't be just as rich as the Clintons in 15 years when they're their age or even more so.  I mean... they live in a 1.9 million dollar home (without the discount), together they make several hundred thousand dollars a year (I think I read it was about 450,000 dollars), their children go to a private school, they're ivy league educated, and they're both talented and intelligent and well liked on the national stage.  From their already affluent status, they will only continue to go up and up.

    Look, if you are running for president and have a successful campaign, you are extremely wealthy.  That's one of the things that's wrong with the system.  Only the wealthy run this country.  I would love to make a quarter as much as they do by the time I'm 46.  Anybody would agree.


    Income is not the issue (5.00 / 1) (#133)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:37:04 PM EST
    it is whether you understand working and middle class voters in the midwest.  CLinton does, Obama doesn't.  Money is not what makes you an elitist.

    Straw Man (5.00 / 1) (#160)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:42:57 PM EST
    "The Hillary supporters here act as if Hillary and Bill did not make 110 million dollars over the last few years, act as if Hillary and Bill never went to fund raisers in SF. ... And this thread is so delusional it is shocking."

    It appears you've created a Hillary supporter out of whole cloth.

    I was an Edwards supporter, as were others who post here, until he suspended his campaign. I became a Hillary supporter because of the two remmaining candidates, she is the most progressive.  Additionally I had noted during the debates that Obama didn't seem to have a real grasp of or enthusiasm for policy which I consider the most telling feature of any candidate or, as Krugman so aptly said, a window into the soul. It was policy that accurately foretold GW Bush in the 2000 campaign.  Compassionate Conservative was pure crap. As pure a load of crap as Hope and Change.

    I believe that few Clinton supporters have any delusions concerning their candidate.  She's not as liberal (in a Roosevelt Democrat sense) as we would like but she's miles ahead of Obama. She has an incredible work ethic and really does understand the federal government.  I was especially impressed that she intends to replace contract workers with civil servants.  That's demonstrating a full grasp of the many problems brought about by the Bush administration's demonic privatization drive. We know about Hillary Clinton. We know that she's withstood grossly unfair media and political abuse the last sixteen years and has done so with grace and dignity. We know that nobody will work harder on the job. We know she lived in Arkansas for a number of years and we know she understands tradition.  Tradition.  That's what Obama missed about the people of rural Pennsylvania.

    For Obama, a telling tale is the story of the Roberts confirmation. In view of the Roberts event, Obama's Pennsylvania remarks come as no surprise.

    I'd say that few Clinton supporters are unaware of the money they've earned in the last eight years, but having money and having an elitist attitude are NOT necessarily related. Plenty of people of fairly modest means are virilently elitist. I've known plenty just as I've known plenty of very well-to-do people who are not in the least bit elitist.


    So what is your answer (none / 0) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:16:41 PM EST
    to the question Obama was asked? Can he not beat Clinton in Penn because rural Pennsylvanians are delusional?

    Hillary and Bill are now wealthy after (none / 0) (#110)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:34:41 PM EST
    leaving the White House heavily in debt thanks to the GOP who tried to kill progressive Democratic candidates in America. Their wealth comes from millions of people all over the world who appreciated their ideas and work on behalf of people who desperately needed help. The money showered on them for speeches and books were not ill gotten gains. In fact much of it was given to charity.  And if there ever was a president who did so much for this country it was Bill Clinton.  You may quibble about some things but American was once a proud and solvent country and we need a president now who will get us back there.  I once thought Obama might do that but he is an empty suit and will lose in the November election IMHO.

    You are teh funny (none / 0) (#120)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:38:57 PM EST
    You think that if Obama is president for 4 or 8 year that he will take a vow of poverty afterwards?  Or will he go out on the lecture circuit and "fill up the ol' coffers"?

    I know what I think.  


    Clinggate gaffe (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:09:04 PM EST
    It's being called bittergate. Too bad, because it misses the condescending part of the sentence.

    Snobgate (none / 0) (#33)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:31:46 PM EST
    is the right term, but the media won't use it.

    Rubegate? (none / 0) (#34)
    by jawbone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:32:27 PM EST
    What is the best shorthand phrase for this?

    Bubbagate?? nt (none / 0) (#148)
    by FlaDemFem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:56:51 PM EST
    56% all around (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:09:53 PM EST
    56% agree with his statement that "People are fed up." See #4 in questions link above.
    If he can continue to mitigate the damage it should pass on to the GE where the republicans toss "elitist" around like a new frisby.

    Gosh (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:44:35 PM EST
    If all he had said was that people are fed up, as opposed to saying that people cling to religion and guns because they're fed up, I daresay we wouldn't even have a controversy in the first place.  If all he meant to say is that people are frustrated, how did all those other words get into the sentence?

    You gave a great summary (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:11:17 PM EST
    of why Dem's have a hard time with a large part of the electorate.  It comes through when you think that people are too stupid/bigoted/religous/etc. to understand their own self interest or how truly wonderful you are.

    Those are voters who vote Republican (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:15:39 PM EST
    not Democratic voters who vote in Democratic primaries.

    His argument was that people were voting for HRC over him because they are bitter and clinging to God, guns, xenophobia and racism.

    Not exactly a winning argument in the GE.

    pheh (none / 0) (#83)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:12:37 PM EST
    She's winning the small towns and the big states. Obama is winning the big cities and the small states. I wish that the electoral college would update it's policies and start counting by cities, not states! Fair is fair! [/snarkel]

    he's winning (1.00 / 0) (#93)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:17:53 PM EST
    the nomination.  more states, more votes, more delegates.  can't knock that

    Because (none / 0) (#108)
    by Josmt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    Big States with 3 times the population of small states (which btw he has not won yet, with the exception of IL) doesn't count? Or MI and FL don't count, that's right... Obama supporters don't count MI and FL I forgot...

    sad (none / 0) (#109)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:34:12 PM EST

    i'd be far more interested (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by cpinva on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:16:56 PM EST
    in the reactions of potential democratic primary voters in PA at this point, since they're the ones most immediately going to the polls.

    i think we now know why the obama campaign is so desperate to get clinton to drop out; the longer this goes on, the more opportunity for him to make idiotic statements.

    Or to be uncovered? n/t (none / 0) (#119)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:37:22 PM EST
    Hillary is actually PRO gun (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by dem08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:18:46 PM EST
    There is a video of Hillary talking about Obama's elitist arrogance that shows that Hillary would be the strongest candidate ever for Democrats because Gun Owners are collectors, hunters and people who like to shoot at targets.

    This may be the turning point and I suggest all Talk Left Hillary supporters keep drumming the word "elitist" and quoting Obama's arrogant contempt for 'small town America".

    Why does Obama hate decent gun-owning, small town, Church-attending, people so much?

    Is it because the good jobs have fled and he just doesn't like poor people?

    Anyway, this issue is a win-win for Hillary and she may get the NRA endorsement.

    Her list of people who love their guns, collectors, hunters, and target shooting enthusiasts is so complete, one wonders why sometimes Police Chiefs favor restrictions on guns and gun shows.

    But maybe the key is: Small town residents should have NO restrictions. And cities should have some, but just those who do not say they want to target practice or hunt or shoot for pleasure.

    I am not surprised that Talk Left is so enthusiastically anti-Obama's and his eltism. Especially when Hillary ties the issue so closely to our great and abiding love of guns, which has brought so much pure good to America.

    I am pro small town, and cannot understand how anyone who was once a factory based economy well-paid worker could be described as frustrated over 25 years of low wage jobs.

    Obama's silver spoon is starting to show, and Hillary's response makes her look better and better.

    Interesting spin. LOL (none / 0) (#22)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:23:24 PM EST
    Elite (none / 0) (#23)
    by bison on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    Your definition of elite should not be disingenuous.

    Heh (none / 0) (#48)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:42:52 PM EST
    That's some high-quality snark there.

    I am old (none / 0) (#89)
    by dem08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:16:19 PM EST
    and prefer "sarcasm" or irony. But yes. I was actually shocked when I saw Hillary charcterize gun owners as three classes in a speech Monday the 14th attacking Obama's eltism.

    According to Hillary gun owners are

    1. hunters; 2 collectors, and 3 people who like to target practice.

    I know some lawyers who are DA's and Defense attorneys, perhaps even Jeralyn, would say that Hillary engaged in a simplification that was meant more to get votes than to represent the truth.

    In my shrinking, once industrial city of Buffalo, NY, where Hillary is our Junior Senator, guns are used for other purposes. Maybe nobody told her; maybe we need to become a small town.

    I think Hillary is mis-playing this contraversy. She doesn't usually ask me for my opinion, and I am certain her experts know more than me, but I think there SHOULD be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership.

    At least today, speaking for small town America against the elitist Obama and his hoard of effete America hating San Fransisco Fat Cats, Hillary Clinton does not.

    Look at the video on MSNBC. it isn't her finest moment. (sorry I cannot find another source!)



    Well (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:35:28 PM EST
    From where I sit, it's a running joke among gun owners that politicians who are looking to pander always characterize them as "hunters and sportsmen," as if it's all that about.

    I honestly can't recall the last time I heard any Democrat bring up the word "self-defense" in reference to guns.  I guess that must set the wrong people off or something.

    While Hillary is surely a panderer, much like any successful politician, Obama seems to be greatly overestimating the amount of mileage he can get out of ridiculing her pandering.  Not to mention, are we supposed to believe he went bowling for fun or something?


    Here's your chance (none / 0) (#95)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:19:57 PM EST
    Just got an email from Greg Garin from the HRC campaign.  He's asking for your (and all HRC supporters')input.

    Let him know.

    Dear __

    You've probably heard about some of the big changes going on in Hillary's campaign lately. My name is Geoff Garin, and along with Howard Wolfson, I'm now leading the campaign's strategy team. My job is to plot the path to the nomination and lay out the strategy that will get us there.

    There are two reasons why I said yes immediately when Hillary asked me to do this job. First, I believe that the Hillary Clinton I know will be a great president who will do great things for our country. Second, I am confident she can win.

    Let me lay out for you the situation as I see it right now. The Pennsylvania primary is approaching -- just eight days to go -- and a win there will do two things: give us momentum that will carry us through the races that follow, and show that Hillary is still the best choice to beat John McCain in the big, competitive states that will decide the race in November.

    The Obama campaign is outspending us three to one in Pennsylvania. But I'm confident we can win in Pennsylvania, and I know Hillary is too. She is campaigning hard and really connecting with the voters there.

    The voters in Pennsylvania know that she is the candidate who understands their lives and respects their values, and that every day she will be a president who stands up for them instead of looking down on them.

    If I had to point to two of our best weapons in this campaign, one would be the incredible strength of our candidate, and the other would be the phenomenal role people like you have played in sustaining this campaign, even through some pretty tough times. Everyone from Hillary on down has made sure I know about the vital role her online supporters have played in this race.

    I made a personal commitment to Hillary that her campaign would be as good and as strong and as smart as she is. And I want to ask you a favor to help me keep that commitment. In the days and weeks (and hopefully months) ahead, I want to know what you think -- about the state of the race, our campaign strategy, or your ideas for doing things differently. You've made an investment in this campaign, and I want your input as we plan the days, weeks, and months to come.

    I can't promise that I can reply personally to every single message -- but I can promise to read them all.

    Click here to send me your comments, thoughts, and ideas about our campaign.

    I'm really looking forward to reading what you have to say, and to working with you to help Hillary win!

    Geoff Garin


    The problem isn't just that Obama said it -- (5.00 / 14) (#29)
    by esmense on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:28:02 PM EST
    it is that so many liberal Democrats believe it.

    Let's remember what he actually told that audience of privileged supporters -- not simply that Americans experiencing hard times "cling" to religion, guns, and protectionist economic policy, but, of much more consequence in the long run, that such hard times have turned them into "bitter" bigots and xenophobes -- who distrust "people who don't look like" and are typically anti-immigrant.

    But is that the truth? Or simply a lefty truism? What is the reality? Has the last 40 years of economic transformation -- that has caused great suffering in many parts of the country -- really led to more bigotry and greater intolerance?

    The evidence seems to indicated the opposite. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the country has become MORE tolerant, not less so.

    Furthermore -- and this is VERY important -- working class people know something that more affluent Americans, because they live lives increasingly isolated from the rest of us, often don't realize; that working class people today most often live and work in MUCH MORE diverse, in terms of race and ethnicity, environments than more affluent, privileged Americans -- including the denizens of high tech enclaves on the West Coast who were undoubtedly among some of those Sen. Obama was pandering to with his remarks.

    To put it more succinctly; if you are a member of a craft trade union, work on the line in manufacturing, on the docks, in construction (union or non-union), retail, food service, transportation, hospitality, etc., etc., you are MUCH more likely to have co-workers, acquaintances and friends who are African Americans and/or members of other minority groups than if you are hanging out on the Microsoft campus, in a law firm or ad agency, in publishing, in the financial services industry, or on the business side of the communications and entertainment industry.

    What Senator Obama said is a liberal cliche -- that Democrats have been using to comfort themselves for their political losses for at least 40 years. It is a stereotype that elites have found useful for dismissing working class economic concerns and justifying libertarian economic policies that mostly benefit their own class. It is also an indication of limited, stereotypical thinking on Sen. Obama's part -- thinking that reflects how little opportunity -- from privileged prep school to his privileged position in the Senate -- he has had to get to know many working class Americans, and how litle he has bothered to learn about what has happened to their lives over the last 30-40 years.

    Great comment!!! Best of the week! (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:34:31 PM EST
    But unfortunately, you must be wrong. Kerry, Daschle, Durbin, Kennedy---they know the signs of loserdom all too well. They have chosen Obama precisely because he embodies none of the flaws they  are burdened with.

    Speak in plain English. (none / 0) (#40)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:39:33 PM EST
    If it can't be said simply, perhaps it should not be said at all.
    I often hear people say simple things using big words and complex phrasing.
    Lawyers are especially bad about doing this.

    I know everyone here hates William Krystol, (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Mrwirez on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:36:57 PM EST
    but here is his Op-Ed column in the NY Times today. It will be the republican talking points that will be used against us in the GE, IF Barack Obama becomes the nominee. At this point I truly feel that we as democrats will lose the White House if BHO is our nominee.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&or ef=slogin

    Heh (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by Steve M on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:40:32 PM EST
    I don't feel it speaks particularly well of my fellow liberal Democrats that so many of them agree.

    But as a native Midwesterner now living in NYC, it doesn't surprise me in the least.  I know how an awful lot of coastal liberals feel about the heartland and small-town America.

    I really thought Anglachel had the definitive take on this whole controversy:

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

    They have guns because they like shooting stuff. They hold to their religion because it provides them with something they value. I may be a secular humanist myself, but as the child of a very devout father, this dismissal of faith went down sideways with me. (It also makes me want to ask, so what the f*** keeps your skinny ass in the pew of your church, given how you characterize the faith of those who do not support you?) Their identities are every bit as complex as Obama's, and as grounded in the dense fabric of their lives as what he claims for himself. It is not epiphenomenal, something to be shed when the scales fall from their eyes and they understand their role in his march to greatness.

    This is the elite attitude in a nutshell: there are complex, freethinking people like us, and then there's this vast mass of rubes out there who are collectively motivated by something that can be summed up in a slogan of one sentence or less.  One of the reasons politics is so impossible to predict is that people consistently refuse to be pigeonholed in this manner.  But that doesn't stop my colleagues in the latte-drinking set from trying.

    Fact is, no one likes (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:44:49 PM EST
    being told they've been propagandized into holding ideas which have no basis in reality.

    If you go to some rural areas, where "crime" (other than spousal assault, public drunkeness, and the like) is a rarity, you will find deeply fearful people, scared out of their wits that some person (in their minds, usually one with skin darker than theirs) who is going to kick in their door in the middle of the night, take all their stuff and leave them for dead.  They'll be sleeping with a gun under their pillow, stickers on the door "Protected by Smith & Wesson" or the like, and so on.  This is taking place in areas where they roll up what sidewalks they have before 8 PM, where the loudest noise at night is either a startled dog or a train whistle, and where the kids can leave all their toys in the front yard so long that they get overgrown in weeds.  These same folks will believe that one, to live in the city, would have to be in a constant state of fear, cowering behind multiple locks and barred doors, never venturing out for longer than it takes to buy food and return.

    I live in a large city.  This morning I walked the dog at 4:30 am.  I had the sidewalks to myself.  I actually have to worry far more about crossing the street around people who think stop signs are optional. I often forget to lock my front door - I haven't been broken into in well over 15 years - and that was before gentrification set in.  

    The fact is, people in rural - and not so rural - communities have been sold a bill of goods by the national media, all of which was designed to put them into a quivering state of fear where the daddy state would protect them from harm in exchange for a few of their liberties.  It was "disease of the week" movies in the 70s, urban nightmare stories in the 70s and 80s, crazed crackheads and meth addicts in the 80s, rappers, darker people, immigrants and then terrorists.

    All the while, the Republicans were decrying the protections the law gave ordinary people and in the next breath demanding more power for law enforcement. Driven sheeplike into quivering fear, the average person was more than willing to buy into the program.  The program was Rove-like before there was Rove - the Republicans attacked the strengths of communities by claiming those strengths were weaknesses, and their weaknesses strengths.  Intolerance and racism became "good ideas", because it was always someone who didn't look, think, act or worship like you who might do you wrong.  Seeking common ground and understanding became bad things, because the terrorists hated us for our freedoms and would use them to kill us.  Reliance on law and the legal process became a bad thing, because the Constitution only protected the guilty from "justice", "justice" of course, being synonymous with Dirty Harry wasting some DFH with his .44 mag.  Violence as a first resort became a good thing, because that way you could make sure The Other didn't get you.

    This insular, closed-minded small town mindset is exacerbated in places like rural Pennsylvania (though it's not exclusive to there), where (as I've said before) the demographic is such that it is entirely possible the only A-A persons kids might see through graduating high school are being chased, tackled and cuffed, on "Cops".

    And, when someone tells them they've been sold a bill of goods, how would you expect them to react?

    How would you react?

    The answer to both these questions is:  "pretty much the way the survey indicates".

    This is quite possibly (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:14:50 PM EST
    the most ignorant comment I've read in days. Bigotry, of all kinds, is just as prevalent in urban areas as in rural areas.

    If you want to examine fear and resentment of 'otherness', look no further than Rev. Wright's sermons - not occurring in a rural area last I checked. I nearly had to resuscitate my neighbors after they watched those rantings - these are white people who've adopted two AA HIV babies and have been raising them in an integrated neighborhood. They surely appreciated the sermons that teach black kids to fear and resent white people.

    Bigotry is everywhere, and all kinds of good and bad people are everywhere. These broad stereotypes should not be a part of the progressive dialogue.


    Thank you for reading with such insight - (none / 0) (#126)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:55:44 PM EST
    viz., parts like this:

    The fact is, people in rural - and not so rural - communities have been sold a bill of goods by the national media, all of which was designed to put them into a quivering state of fear where the daddy state would protect them from harm in exchange for a few of their liberties.

    My post was not about bigotry.  Rather, it was about the use of fear by Republicans and their co-parceners in the media.  The purpose of the fear-mongering - which includes (but is not limited to) appeals to bigotry - was to create a pliable, fearful population who'd willingly accept (indeed, beg for) the whip hand of the Republicans (and statist Bush Dog Democrats, too).  In that regard, people who "cling to" their guns may actually be right to do so, but in pointing them (or intending to) at The Other, they are not aiming correctly.  The biggest threat to their liberties ("threats to their liberty" being a reason which many of those "clinging" people would say is high on their list of reasons for having the guns in the first place) is not The Designated Other, but rather the Republican guys doing the designating.

    So, I was offended by what Obama said, but not for the reasons a lot of people might think, i.e., that he was making fun of them for being backward.  No, I was offended by it because it is yet another example of his having, perhaps unconsciously (I dunno one way or the other), adopted a right-wing frame in his thinking and campaigning, accepting (the orthodoxy of) the Ruling Daddy state as the One True Path for this country, just like the rest of the Kewl Kids do.

    But, I guess since this was an ignorant post I wrote, all that subtlety (which flew over your head) never really existed.  So it's OK to call my post ignorant and bigoted in a very conclusory way and, of course, without pointing out any facts - you remember "Facts" - or arguments which could tend to support your contention.  Because, after all, the mere fact you might disagree with something you didn't bother to fully read means it's quite OK to personally attack the author, and denigrate the post.

    That's the liberal way, after all.  Isn't it?


    Apologies (none / 0) (#132)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:36:53 PM EST
    if I missed your insights or misinterpreted you. I was reacting to several parts of your comments such as this one:

    "If you go to some rural areas, where "crime" (other than spousal assault, public drunkeness, and the like) is a rarity, you will find deeply fearful people, scared out of their wits that some person (in their minds, usually one with skin darker than theirs) who is going to kick in their door in the middle of the night, take all their stuff and leave them for dead."


    I still think this is stereotyping rural people as fearful bigots (ya know, of dark skinned people especially), and I still think this is very reminiscent of the message that Obama sent with his comments about rural people. If that's not what you meant, I apologize for missing something. If it is what you meant, I still think it's ignorant as well as inaccurate.


    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:44:14 PM EST
    but I have lived in a rural area and in small cities/towns and I have usually not locked my doors--whether at home or not.

    And I didn't cling to a gun, or, if I did own a gun, it wasn't in any condition to be used in self-defense (it was taken apart and the bits stored in different, hard-to-reach locations, because I had children).


    I like the first sentence. (none / 0) (#67)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:58:05 PM EST
    Fact is, no one likes being told they've been propagandized into holding ideas which have no basis in reality.

    I would just add three dots and bookmark it for posterity.

    (Sorry, just been at the great orange again listening to "It's all Hillary's fault!" that Obama did what he did and said what he said.  Amazing.  I wish I could harness the spin to power my house.)


    Well, if you like it so much (none / 0) (#73)
    by scribe on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:04:12 PM EST
    you should give me a "5" on the ratings, so it moves up the thread....

    Only the first sentence (none / 0) (#84)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:13:01 PM EST
    because it describes politics and the echo chamber phenomena so perfectly.

    I keep thinking about changing my dk sig line (Proud member of the Cult of Issues and Substance!) because it makes it pretty obvious that I'm not an Obaman.  

    The progression from substance-based discussion to Obama fan site is almost complete.  If it weren't for the Iraq war, there would be almost no substance there at all.  (I include torture, etc under the Iraq war.)


    btw (none / 0) (#125)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:49:59 PM EST
    I've been thinking about moving, and looking at communities, and there are sites that rank communities by various indicators.  Someone told me a city I was thinking of had "a lot of crime", and it had, by the numbers, what I thought was actually moderate.  Where, I wondered, was really, really low in crime?  I thought and entered "Grinell, Iowa", and BINGO, they had the lowest rating of all.  I guess you don't have to lock a bicycle there.  Cool!  Except I don't think I'd care for the weather...though I've seen the place, and it's pretty nice.

    Anyway, one thing people will tell you in a lot of small towns is that the crime rate IS low, and they are very proud of this!


    Did you ever think (none / 0) (#143)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:31:38 PM EST
    that your own ideas about small towns and rural communities is not so grounded in reality?  I grew up on a farm.  I have lived in a large city and currently live in a what is considered a suberban setting, small city that is surrounded by a large rural area.  I find you comment pretty offensive in that I think you are very lacking in your description and knowledge.  

    Do you honestly think that all of these people are that gullible that they buy everything that is put out there by the media and Republicans?  

    And another thing, they do know a little about crime too.  There are trends of gangs moving from urban areas into rural areas.  Meth was a problem for these communities before it even hit the cities because it started in rural communities.  Where do you think they get the anhydrous ammonia to produce meth?  

    Please, these people are not as you portray them.  


    Change nonsense (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    The question was why weren't more people voting for him in places like PA. If people were bitter and wanted change, wouldn't they be voting for Obama? Why would their bitterness be an excuse for why they weren't voting for him? I thought he was supposed to be the change candidate. He may have fooled some people by this pivot, but it's nonsense.

    gaffe motivation (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by jackyt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:54:46 PM EST
    My impression from seeing the video was that Obama was answering the concern (spoken or not), "Why should we give you money when you are getting your clocked cleaned in PA?" His answer to that concern was to dismiss Clinton voters and imply they are inferior socially, culturally and economically... "not like you!" More than his snobbiness, it holds a cynical appeal to the snobbiness of the audience. And judging from the laughter, it worked (for them).

    Have a link (none / 0) (#96)
    by Robo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:20:56 PM EST
    to the video?  I haven't been able to find it.

    video link (none / 0) (#117)
    by jackyt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:36:39 PM EST
    link truncated (none / 0) (#130)
    by mscristine on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:24:12 PM EST
    that link wasn't to the statement he made but the words before the offensive statement and whoever released JUST this portion is obviously still committed to ensuring he is protected.

    I thought I heard (none / 0) (#146)
    by Robo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:54:33 PM EST
    the video of the actual statements at issue were videoed as well.  That is what I am looking for, but guess it has not been released yet.

    From what I've been reading around (5.00 / 2) (#74)
    by hopeyfix on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:05:43 PM EST
    ... people seem to equate richness to elitism. I saw  at least twice on CNN and once on NYT people commenting that Hillary has to be much more of an elitist because her family made 100 million in a decade. I find it appalling that the "higher level educated professionals" behind Obama fall down to such ignorant levels, and argue that even though he lives in a million dollar mansion, he is way more in touch. I must have taken some acid on my lunch and not noticed, because I seem to be delirious!

    Transformative in all the wrong directions... (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by HankRoth on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:36:19 PM EST
    There is a lot that could be said here, like why didn't Obama leave his church during the 20 years he went there? Why did he subject his children to listen to that hate speech? But, we already know the answer.

    And he is condescending. Does he really think the only reason people "cling" to their guns is because of bitterness? I have my guns because the Constitution gives me the right to have them and protect my family in good times and in bad times. His remarks suggest he does not appreciate the extent to which Americans will go to keep their guns or why they believe they should have them. -- It is not so they can knock over a gas station. The only reasonable conclusion anyone should take from this is Obama is reflecting a feeling that he has and some Blacks may have about "clinging" to guns and it has little to do with the Second Amendment. He never mentioned hunting because it isn't about hunting, it is about hurting people. It is about taking what they want and think they deserve. And that is why some of the rest of us keep guns, not because we're bitter, but because someone may try to harm our families and take what is ours.

    He also insults Americans in "small towns" and elsewhere, who may "cling to religion." Does this tell us something about his own attitude toward religion? It raises and unmasks the question on a lot of people's minds. Is he really a Christian or did some of the Islam taught to him as a child by his father (and stepfather), during his most formidable years influence his current religious views?

    And it raises another question. Does he really think people are anti-immigrant only because they are bitter about the economy or concerned more about undocumented immigrants having access to resources denied to "small town Americans," as well as all naturalized and born Americans, unfairly?

    Obama has made misstatements which he is now defending. He says he knows why people are bitter. I'm annoyed at his elitism and his condescension and skewed dysfunctional understanding about Americans because the media has never adequately vetted him. Now the truth is being revealed quite by accident and it may be too late. If Obama becomes the nominee, we will all be in a lot of trouble. The real Obama has an anti-progressive-regressive-admiration for Republican governance and an elitist and privileged perspective which is not shared with most Americans. It is true Obama would be transformative - though the transformation would be in the wrong direction.

    Others are judged by the company they keep.
    Why not Obama?
    Continued here: http://pnews.org/ArT/ZuLu/TranS.shtml

    Perception becomes reality (none / 0) (#12)
    by Chimster on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:10:37 PM EST
    I have no idea if Barrack Obama is an elitist or not. He sometimes sounds and carries himself that way. His demeanor is at odds with his message. But I'm not sure if any of that matters at this point.

    The fact that this is getting major play and finding its way to the MSM  front pages, Obama will have to live with this new label through the primary and the GE, whether its unfair or not.

    Just curious. (none / 0) (#18)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:17:44 PM EST
    Why "G-d"?

    I don't know Jeralyn's religion, but (none / 0) (#21)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:22:24 PM EST
    Jewish people---especially Orthodox---follow the rule not to spell out the name of the deity.
    That is the origin of the practice.

    Thanks. (none / 0) (#77)
    by lyzurgyk on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:07:30 PM EST

    I was brought up Reform and remember restrictions on the use of "Yhwh" (spoken?) but was not aware of this convention.  

    What is the Matter With Kansas? (none / 0) (#20)
    by bison on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:21:16 PM EST
    What is the Matter With Kansas?
    The upside of this is, once again, Obama has stirred a dialogue on trying to understand why white working class people have the proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. Obama's comments have the potential to lead the nation in turning a corner on how cultural, life-style, and anti-immigration issues are used as political wedge issues.   He acknowledges the economic bitterness  that has existed in this country for decades, but he sees the solution residing in each of us as American and our ability to seek positive solutions.   He sees that part of the problem has been that for too long time, we've had a politics that's been too small for the scale of the economic challenges we face;  instead, of having a politics that safeguarded cultural, life-style, and immigration policy, we've had a politics that's used these issues to drive us apart.  All this did was to feed the forces of division and distraction, and stop us from solving our economic and social problems.  That is why the great need of this hour is much the same as it was when King delivered his "fierce urgency of now" message.   Let's not get hoodwinked.   He is forcing us to confront our feelings of bitterness and  to transform them into actions of  hope.  Lets' get real!  Any body growing up on food stamps, black with a single white mother,  and having to pay off college loans, understands God's Grace and appreciates the opportunities that this country has to offer.
         The Clinton Campaign is defining elitism according to their definition of is.  To say that he is out of touch with blue collar white people, is it also a way to say that he is a racist.  Some of the last modern vestiges of white political power reside in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana. It is  a way to say that he is a closet black nationalist out of touch with lower middle class white people.  Is it a way to say that he is really just like Rev. Wright?  There is a subliminal race message lodge in the "out of touch," elitism line.   Black elitism is an absurdity at worst, and humorous at best.
         For a discussion on Obama's rural and small town policy -- Go To

    Might we get another major speech (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:24:30 PM EST
    from Obama out of this gaffe? Truly, that would be a pleasure. No one has done more to strengthen the practice of giving "major speeches" to explain away disasters than Obama.
    I look forward to many such speeches should he become President.

    What's the Matter with Kansas (none / 0) (#25)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:24:58 PM EST
    is that they vote Republican against their own economic interests, when they used to be economic populists a hundred years ago.

    It's not that they're too racist or bitter or religious to vote for Barack Obama.


    I don't think it's wise (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:37:53 PM EST
    to take that book as gospel anyway.  There is plenty of decent criticism of it.  And again, PA is BLUE.  That's just the thing - Obama's comments were about small town people in PA but the small town people in PA actually can be sympathetic to the Dem party, enough so that our state goes blue.  We won a bunch of Congressional elections in 2006.  Continuing to see small town voters, esp those in PA, as backwards and locked into some rusty Repub ideology is not positive.  After taking back Congress in 2006, it's horrible for the party to act like we're still losers.  We're not.  We need to build off 2006, and stop acting like it is an anomaly.  Both Obama and Clinton seem to not have absorbed the fact that we won in 2006.  

    Is Obama digging himself a deeper hole? (none / 0) (#27)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:26:11 PM EST
    His responses to clinggate appear to be digging him deeper.
    'He also mocked Clinton for an event at an Indiana bar on Saturday in which she drank a shot of whisky and chased it with a beer. "Around election time, the candidates can't do enough for you. They'll promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and they'll even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer," he said.'

    Obama defends "bitter" remarks as McCain attacks

    He is implying insincerity on Hillary's part.

    Where did the promises thing come from? He's the candidate claiming he's going to change how Washington works!

    Which candidate (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Chimster on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:31:19 PM EST
    would you rather have a beer with?

    To be fair, I should also ask which candidate would you rather have a glass of Chateau Margaux 1995 with?


    Clinton for both.. (5.00 / 2) (#86)
    by alexei on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    She would be funny and so smart, so I could laugh and be stimulated by the conversation drinking either.

    My answer would be (none / 0) (#56)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:50:00 PM EST
    contingent on the beer you were offering.  We have a fine in state brewery with good environmental policies and some really good beer!  (Blackout Stout)

    We also have a great local brewpub(Russian Imperial Stout)

    I would have those beers with quite a few pols, except those that would ruin the experience(GWB).

    If they are buying Bud Lite, their name better be Al Gore or Hillary Clinton.


    Nice choices. (none / 0) (#68)
    by Chimster on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:58:11 PM EST
    However, Hillary has a fondness for Blue Moon Belgian White with an orange slice. It's owned by Coors, who once had their CEO run for a Republican State Senate seat. See? Hillary ca reach across the partisan aisle too.

    Did I see Obama (none / 0) (#43)
    by Mrwirez on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:40:41 PM EST
    serving hamburgers to white folks the other day? Hmmmm, the nerve of him, pandering to cheeseburgers.

    Heh (none / 0) (#65)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:56:00 PM EST
    They sit their a**es down on tractors, too.

    The media took a couple days to (none / 0) (#36)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:34:36 PM EST
    catch on to this, probably because they share Obama's opinion of small town America.

    Hard to imagine (none / 0) (#39)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:38:44 PM EST
    a guy of Obama's background and temperament not ruffling a few feathers now and then. But at least when he does, the conversation immediately gets more interesting. Questions about race and class, for example, do need to be addressed urgently. We may disagree with some of Obama's answers and views, but we are all forced now to come up with credible (not simply partisan) alternative answers, and define our actions accordingly.

    I disagree that Obama's only job is get votes. (Down this path lies the accusation so often aimed at Clinton, that she will do or say anything to get elected, an accusation that can be fairly -and pointlessly- aimed at any pol.) I think the underlying purpose of his campaign (of any Democrat's campaign) should be to raise the most difficult political and ethical questions and to address them in a way that creates fruitful dialogue. And, despite his occasional blunders, this is what he's doing.


    Yes, the conversation gets so 'interesting' (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:51:35 PM EST
    as he continues to perpetuate simplistic stereotypes about white people, women, rural voters, and so. Very interesting indeed. I've learned so much about my inner racism and and xenophobia.



    Moi aussi (none / 0) (#100)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:26:11 PM EST
    ...I mean, uh-huh.  I useta think I just liked her more because of the issues, but then I read so often that people who don't prefer Obama are channeling their inner racist, so I have had to search for my inner racist.  I haven't found her yet, but she must be there, because everybody says so.

    It's called... (none / 0) (#103)
    by Josmt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:30:45 PM EST
    The Wright effect...

    Do you think that people's values (none / 0) (#104)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:30:46 PM EST
    and attitudes might be deeply affected by enduring chronic employment and watching their communities collapse around them for years on end?

    If so, how? If not, why not?

    I think the question is important for Democrats to consider. Even if you feel contempt for Obama, you might, if only for my benefit, condescend to address the substance of my post.


    Yes. Absolutely right. (none / 0) (#137)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:51:14 PM EST
    I have lived nearly all of my adult life in a rural small town whose legislative district, until the 70s - 90s, was almost entirely dependent on natural resources for a thriving economy with any good family-wage jobs...timber & fish, mostly.

    That economy changed radically from what looked like sustainable growth to high unemployment because of GOVERNMENT decisions...mainly decisions by governments - local, state, national - led by Democrats (think spotted owl/wildlife habitat, dams blocking salmon runs, development restrictions on rural land ie. growth management, envirnomental lawsuits, etc).

    When 'governent decisions/actions' have restricted the economic choices of the citizens, then government must come up with viable alternatives/options...or pay the political price.

    Hence, retraining programs, impact funds, tax breaks for businesses locating to rural areas, economic diversification/eco tourism, etc. etc.

    Yes.  Rural people, not unlike urban people, have reasons to be angry (and some, bitter) when government causes problems rather than solving them.  That makes me angry, too...and it should.

    On the other hand, what makes this lifelong Democrat bitter is this primary campaign.  Pushing Obama into a POTUS candidacy long before he was ready - simply to ensure that Hillary would not win - is the singular most destructive and cynical thing I have seen in my 50 years in Dem. politics.


    One of the reasons (none / 0) (#147)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:55:20 PM EST
    Obama's comment has caused such offense is that he connects economic impoverishment with some pretty nasty attitudes toward fellow citizens (or non-citizens, as the case may be). In other words, beyond anger, he's talking about class-based resentment and nativist hatred. I guess he was trying to say he feels people should direct their frustration toward their recent governments rather than toward their fellow citizens.

    Also, I'm not sure why you attribute Obama's candidacy primarily to someone cynically pushing him into it. Seems like he's got enough of his own will-power to have made the decision to run on his own. Also, HRC may yet win the nomination. But she, like him if he wins it, will have to earn it. No?


    Sigh.... (5.00 / 1) (#152)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:39:25 PM EST
    Re Obama's will power/decision to run:  I agree that he isn't short of anything it takes to run...except seasoning/experience/vetting...as he (and we) are now learning.  Chutzpah isn't the issue.

    Ask yourself how it could possibly happen that an unknown, first-term greenhorn in the US Senate, newly minted (and the only AA in the Senate at that) up and decides to run for President, talks his wife into it, and (Wow) raises over $200M...all by his little ol' self?

    Let me fill you in.  Yes, he had Dick Durbin and the Chicago Daley machine to start but if that would get you the nomination, Durbin would have run himself.  

    Nope.  More than that was needed...and could be provided by the anti-Clinton faction who would love to be president but couldn't make it on their own:  Kerry, Kennedy, Daschle (and his DC lobbyist wife).  They have lists, connections, fundraisers, mailing lists, contacts in every state, people who owe them favors, etc. etc.  They would (and do) back the only Dem primary candidate who could take the winning AA vote away from a Clinton, split the Dems and maybe win the nomination...even the presidency if all went well.

    Why?  Obviously, two reasons.  Get rid of the Clintons once and for all (class war over!) and 'the path to presidential/executive branch power' (if you can't get elected yourself) is to run a winner who will owe you everything if they win...someone new to DC who will need your 'help' staffing a government, appointing/hiring/selecting/choosing.

    Sound familiar?  Worked like a charm for Cheney/Rove.

    I didn't like the results then.  I don't like the same game now.

    On-the-job POTUS training doesn't work for me.


    That he has powerful (none / 0) (#153)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:56:54 PM EST
    supporters (to which he will be beholden) is clear. But so does Clinton. Not sure what you're getting at with that line of argument, unless you think that she had already earned the nomination before having to run a campaign for it.

    In any case, at this late point in the race, I can't see much benefit in underestimating the man, or the machine he runs.

    Actually, does he run it? Are you suggesting he doesn't?

    Also, let's say he wins the nomination. By this logic, if Clinton and her people then support him and he wins the GE, he will then owe her a pretty hefty return. No?

    Guess we're back discussing the horserace after all.


    Oh my... (none / 0) (#155)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:33:12 PM EST
    First...no, she didn't have the nomination locked up but she was clearly the odds-on favorite against all the 'known' candidates, from Edwards to Richardson to Biden to Dodd...no?  

    But.  None of them could compete for/take the AA vote from a Clinton, much less tar them with 'racism' as could a black candidate.  And did.

    Next...benefit of underrating/underestimating him or his machine at 'this late point in the race?'  Yes, it's late, but it's not over.  And if it were, wouldn't you like to know what you're in for?  I would...and do.

    Then...does he run it?  No.  Axelrod/Daley machine runs it.

    Finally...let's say he wins the nomination and Hillary does the gracious thing and supports him...dunno how many of her supporters will sign on with an Obama campaign.  She would, of course.  Some are too angry about this campaign to ever come aboard with their money or their time...maybe, maybe with their vote...but it's not a given any more than an AA vote is a given for Hillary if she wins.  They will hold out, hold back, if the theme is 'she stole it from him!'

    If he is the nominee...it's simple IMHO...we lose.  Period.  If she is...dunno, close call maybe.


    Of course (none / 0) (#140)
    by Dr Molly on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:10:29 PM EST
    people's attitudes are deeply affected by enduring chronic employment, etc. I assume you're talking about attitudes such as racism, xenophobia, sexism, religious fear, etc. etc. and, if so, then I would say those attitudes are also affected by lots of other things - such as living in ivory towers, propaganda, wealth, class upbringing and so on. Frankly, I suppose that some of Obama's stereotyped attitudes towards white people derive from his experiences.

    But, more importantly, what does any of that have to do with what Obama said? Nothing, if you're honest. Obama responded to a question about why rural white folks in PA were supporting Hillary and not him. His response was a bizarre mishmash of how people turn to God, guns and anti-immigrant biases when they are poor, along with some misinformation on the economics of the Clinton years, and some redneck insults thrown in for good measure. Not that they just might like her better for example.

    So, nice discussion we're having but it doesn't have anything to do with the topic.


    You're calling me (none / 0) (#149)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:59:43 PM EST
    dishonest?  Because I'm not hyperventilating about Obama being a closet aristocrat?

    So, am I on topic now?


    I think not (none / 0) (#141)
    by badger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:13:48 PM EST
    because for most people outside of the creative class, their values are bound up in things that are essentially not directly economic.

    You might change their attitudes or values if you were a candidate that offered them believable economic alternatives to what they have now. The GOP doesn't, Obama doesn't, Kerry didn't, Hillary might. Bill Clinton did but failed to deliver.

    But if you don't offer them an alternative for their economic situation, then they're going to vote based on their other values and attitudes, and those are what the GOP has pandered to since 1980.

    It's basically BTD's "Lincoln/1860" argument, and it's basically what Tom Frank argued in What's the Matter with Kansas", but most people who read it take away what Obama said and ignore the rest.


    I disagree (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:52:20 PM EST
    I doubt very seriously if he was trying to create fruitful dialogue. He was calling it like he sees it and if he wanted the dialogue he should have just said these remarks to the people's faces in these small towns. Instead, he choose a wealthy California group. I lived in California for 20 years. Many of the people there think they are their own country because of the economy which is larger than many countries. He was appealing to their level and trying to show that he was one of them, not one of the rednecks they make jokes about. It is not a compliment to the big money Dems to be seen as above the fray.

    I agree with you (none / 0) (#123)
    by CodeNameLoonie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:42:49 PM EST
    in this instance he was not wise.

    Still, I think Obama, sometimes despite his best interests as a candidate, creates, triggers, or inspires serious and necessary debate about key questions.

    Here's another example. One thing I look forward to in the GE is the debate over immigration reform. Obama's position to give driver's licences to undocumented workers will surely bring him no end of trouble with many, even from within his own party. He'll no doubt have to shift ground many times, but the net result will be, I hope, a lot of public discussion within the Democratic party about what the most ethical and pragmatic reforms to the current immigration system should be.


    It is a catch 22 (none / 0) (#156)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:41:19 PM EST
    I think they should be able to get driver licenses. First, it puts them in the system, then they have to buy car insurance which protects the total population. But, they probably will not be able to buy the car insurance without a legal verifiable address and maybe a Social Security #. They will be scared to do that and thus few will end up applying.

    Sorry but I cannot tell what that picture (none / 0) (#41)
    by athyrio on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:39:51 PM EST
    is suppose to be so please enlighten me...thanks.

    when's the last time TL (none / 0) (#44)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:40:53 PM EST
    has disagreed w/ something Hillary has said/done?  seriously.

    When is the last time you (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:09:06 PM EST
    disagreed with something Obama has said or done?

    When is the last time you agreed with something Hillary has said or done?

    Obama made this mess himself.  It's fair game for Hillary to call him on it.


    lol (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by myed2x on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:36:01 PM EST
    answering questions with questions?  Nice work, at least they don't eviscerate over here do they myiq?  Guess it's kinda hard in an echo chamber though.

    It's not like TL needs to disagree (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    with things Hillary says and does.  That is done quite amply elsewhere.

    Hillary is behind, and I think she'd be the best president of the three in the race, and I don't mind saying so.  I know she has flaws, but I hate to see them magnified and made so much of, week after week after week, while Barack Obama has had his flaws glossed over.  I believe--as do many who spend time at this site--that Obama would not perform as well as Clinton in representing us in foreign policy, in a woman's right to choose, in promoting health care initiatives for every American--to name a few things.  Things at the top of my list.


    BTD (none / 0) (#47)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:42:14 PM EST
    "blasted" (is that the word to use?) Clinton for not taking the media on re: Trina Bachtel issue.

    I think (none / 0) (#63)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:55:21 PM EST
    her choice of denim pantsuit today was a bit much. Does that count?

    BTD (none / 0) (#64)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:55:26 PM EST
    Almost daily, if you actually read what he writes.

    Scroll down the front page and read BTD's (none / 0) (#69)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:58:49 PM EST
    ...post called Republican Talking Points. It begins with a criticism of Hillary Clinton.

    No sign of it in Gallup tracking so far (none / 0) (#54)
    by fuzzyone on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:48:15 PM EST
    He has a 10 point lead, 50-40, over Clinton and a statistically meaningless 2 point lead, 46-44, over McBush.  Of course the dem poll is mostly people from states that have already voted, since most already have, so it may not mean much for what happens in those states (but that is also true of the Ras poll cited in the post).

    I heard a radio report that a repub pollster expected the Dems to get a ten point bump once they have a nominee.  This makes sense to me.  The fact that either dem is basically tied with McBush when the dems are still fighting it out seems like a very good sign to me.

    You mean like Obama? (none / 0) (#101)
    by felizarte on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:27:31 PM EST
    Harvard Law, U.S. Senator, running for president and would say something like "bitter . . . clingers?"

    Clinton gets booed (none / 0) (#106)
    by cannondaddy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:31:44 PM EST
    for overplaying hand in "Bittergate".  

    Post Bittergate - Obama still in the lead by 10% (none / 0) (#107)
    by myed2x on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:32:37 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.


    Where's? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Josmt on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:35:51 PM EST
    my phone call? I didn't get one... you see that's why I don't follow Polls, they don't reflect the entire population only a small portion.

    jokes (none / 0) (#118)
    by myed2x on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:37:12 PM EST
    the majority of todays posts here on TL have been Poll centric....oh I see polls only count when they support the narrative.

    is this (none / 0) (#122)
    by myed2x on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:41:47 PM EST

    "Scranton and Allentown newspapers endorsed Barack Obama on Sunday."

    I thought Hillary grew up in Scranton!?!?


    Because... (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by AmyinSC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:25:11 PM EST
    They are owned by the same co. as LA Times and Chicago Tribune, which said all of their papers would support one candidate.  And this has been mentioned here often, just yesterday in fact.

    While I am at it, I resent TREMENDOUSLY that Obama continues to attack Bill Clinton's presidency, and lump it in with DUBYA'S!!!!  He has consistently put down the best 8 yrs this country has had for some time, while glorifying Reagan, and wanting a return to the foreign policies of Bush I.  And he accuses CLINTON of attacking another Dem?  He does it constantly every time he attacks Bill.  I'm sick of it.  I cannot even tell which party Obama is IN - he wants to win over the Evangelicals, Repubs, and Indies, while Clinton keeps winning the Dems.  What does THAT tell you?!?!


    Infuriating...I agree, Amy. (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:05:32 PM EST
    Conflating the Clinton years and the Bush years is the worst thing a Democrat can do in rewriting history and ignoring the evidence of the 90s...

    ...that Clinton and the Democrats are good managers, know how to govern, create jobs and lower crimerates, send more people to college, pay the goddam bills and start a savings account, didn't send your kids off to die for oil profits and tried to give everybody healthcase.

    Democrats who denigrate these things are worse than the Rs using RWTPs.  They are vipers.


    Larry has an excellent post (none / 0) (#154)
    by jen on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:58:01 PM EST
    GO HILLARY GO (none / 0) (#115)
    by drewohio1 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:36:04 PM EST
    Thank god for that.....

    Finally people are looking at this fake and calling him out.... ofcourse the msm was waiting for him to win the dem nomination and then deliver the knockout barrage, but this beat them to it.

    The way this turkey speaks to his crowds of parishoners, I am not surprised on his real attitude.

    Wake up people and rejoice, the preacherman has no clothes.

    What's juvenile (none / 0) (#159)
    by cal1942 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:42:31 PM EST
    about a descriptive like 'arrogant jerk?'

    Isn't a flip remark about her education lacking a certain effect, a bit jerky?