Obama's Job Is Politician

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Josh Marshall, not surprisingly, misses the point:

So, with the obligatory, yes, he could have worded it better, do I think it was offensive and condescending? No. I don't. Do I think it can be spun into something offensive and condescending? Sure. . . . [S]peaking for myself I've spent too much time over, what, 15 years now? ... defending both Clintons from similarly ginned up nonsense [not much time spent in the last 15 weeks though. Seems Marshall has become the ginnee] to have much energy left to help out as they pull the same puffed up outrage act against another Democrat. I guess I'm just not feeling it.

(Emphasis supplied.) I actually have criticized Clinton for her charges of "elitism" against Obama. But the point here is not whether Josh Marshall is offended or whether he will "help out" the Clintons (like anyone is expecting that). The point is did Obama do his job as a politician? The answer is of course not. He committed a gaffe. Hopefully not an "I voted for it before I voted against it" gaffe, but a gaffe nonetheless. He has expressed regret. Let's hope this story goes away (Marshall skepticism about whether this story "really" hurts Obama notwithstanding.) Attacking Clinton on it, as TPM has done, does NOT help Obama. It really does not.

< Rasmussen: 56% Disagree With Obama's "Bitter" Remarks | The Unevolving Relationship: Media And Blogs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    But it feels so go to attack Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#2)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:57:27 PM EST
    Wasn't there a study correlating the areas in the brain that are active during heroin use with the areas in the brain that are stimulated politically?

    Pump it up, Josh. You know you've become an addict when the real world ceases to matter any more.

    Thanks for reminding me of that! (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:53:52 PM EST
    When I next run across Hillary Hate, I'll just think "uncontrollable addictive behavior", pause for a moment of pity, and move on.  

    There's still no consensus on whether addiction is curable or not, so the affliction may be permanent.


    Let's not forget (5.00 / 4) (#3)
    by david mizner on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:57:56 PM EST
    that this gaffe--in which Obama's said he lumped religion in with anti-immigrant sentiment and said it's something people cling to--came from someone who gave an entire speech lecturing Dems for the apparent hostility toward faith.

    There's something tautological and insiderish in the claim that this doesn't matter because we know what he really meant. To be clear, I happen to think I know what he really meant, but then I'm a Democrat who voted for Obama. There are millions of people still getting to know him who might not think they know what he really meant. To say, this is a fake issue but his words were ill-chosen is go around in a circle. His choice of words is exactly the problem.

    If he'd only responded (none / 0) (#82)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:35:52 PM EST
    "Oh my god, I didn't mean that at all. I'm sorry!"
    But no, he mocks Hillary for having a whiskey with a beer chaser, etc. etc.
    Mocking is demeaning the opponent. He should be careful about that just as Geoff Davis should avoid using the term 'boy'.

    I, for one, hope (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by americanincanada on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:09:33 PM EST
    it doesn't go away until Obama goes away.

    redneck bigots do exist (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by angie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:17:29 PM EST
    but I don't think all white blue collar people who vote for Hillary over Obama are redneck bigots.  Because please, lets remember, his "ill-chosen words" were in answer to a question about why he (Obama) was having a hard time making in-roads with white blue collar voters as compared to Hillary.  Everyone in the media seems to be overlooking that part (the same way Obama's spin is ignoring the bigot part too, and focusing only on the religion, trying to reframe the whole thing as a good thing -- "when times are tough, people take solace in religion" seems to be the main talking point).  

    Look, if Josh Marshall (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by frankly0 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:19:13 PM EST
    has any question of whether Obama's comment were in fact condescending, let him ask himself the following question honestly: does he believe that if Obama were in front of an audience of small town PA voters, Obama would have been in any way likely to have said what he said in the way he said it?

    The fact that the honest answer to that question must be a resounding NO shows how condescending the remark really is. If any politician, or any reasonable sentient person, realizes in their bones how offensive such a statement would sound if uttered in the faces of the people it is describing pretty much tells you all you need to know about how condescending it is. Why be powerfully reluctant to utter such a statement to such an audience if it wouldn't be likely to be perceived by them as deeply offensive? If it were just a matter of misspeaking, of not choosing the most felicitous way of putting a legitimate, unoffensive point, why do you think speaking this sentence would be infinitely less likely in PA than in SF? Why shouldn't Obama have randomly misspoken this sentence in PA rather than SF?

    Really, the fact that Josh Marshall can't grasp or accept how the statement is condescending says far more about himself than about anything else.

    in the WAY he said it? (5.00 / 0) (#21)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:24:09 PM EST
    no, but would he have said it but used better wording.

    damn straight. people are Bitter and he knows it, anyone who says they are not, are on the wrong side of the issue here.

    WHAT Obama said is true, HOW he said it is the problem which he has already apologized for.

    but to say that the guy arguing that people are bitter and fed up with a government that promises but does nothing for them, that he is an elitist?



    No. The offensive thing he said (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:28:52 PM EST
    was that people are clinging to their religion, guns, anti-immigrant beliefs and racism out of bitterness because they don't have jobs.

    And this is true how?

    Hate to break it to you, but many religious people have jobs.


    You are missing the point completely (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by angie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:34:15 PM EST
    the TRUTH is, that whether what Obama said is true or not is irrelevant. What matters is: politicians aren't supposed to insult the people whose votes they are trying to get. It's that simple.  If your guy would have just done a public mea culpa and dropped it instead of trying to "prove" how true his statement is, this would be over by now.
    (and, btw, I deny that the statement is true unless someone can show me a respective, published  sociological study -- not just opinion -- proving that ALL blue collar workers are gun touting, bigoted Jesus freaks because they are bitter).  

    lord... (none / 0) (#31)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:35:50 PM EST
    you are blind

    proving that ALL blue collar workers are gun touting, bigoted Jesus freaks because they are bitter

    you can't argue w/ the irrational.  Obama didn't say anything of the sort.  but so it goes with the posters here.  


    My last comment to you.. (5.00 / 4) (#34)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:40:42 PM EST
    You are chattering and not making a single effective point, IMO.
    Watch the recs my comment gets to see who agrees.
    Nearly every comment you make is a simple assertion--"you're wrong", "that's not factual", or the like---or insults. What  is your point? I see none.

    "Watch the recs" (none / 0) (#57)
    by rilkefan on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:12:28 PM EST
    Not a good argument.  This site leans HRC, esp. in the comments.

    You missed the point (5.00 / 4) (#43)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:52:25 PM EST
    that Obama was talking to people in SF trying to explain why he isn't up more in PA...I think Obama did not make a gaffe he told the "truth" in his own mind, which is that voters are using guns, religion, and anti-immigration sentiment to cope with their bitterness.  In the real world, where facts count, and sociologists study this - there is nothing true about what he said.  He should have told the truth, which is for some reason i have been off the mark, I have not been able to make a genuine connection with working class voters.  That is the real world truth.

    Among other things, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by frankly0 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    one of the deeply offensive things about Obama's having said what he did is just how Two-Faced it makes him out to be.

    As I said, it's unthinkable he would have said this in PA on the stump.


    Here's the part of the post (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    of Josh's that made me giggle uncontrollably:

    "Of course, I don't live in a small town or in rural America. But then again, neither do any of the other people I've heard sound off on this topic."

    Hehheheeeehhheeeeh! (gasp, wheeze)

    Can you spell "elitism" boys and girls?


    HAHAHAHAHA (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:42:00 PM EST
    but of course, they feel eminently qualified to discuss the matter!

    So anyone who doesn't live (none / 0) (#42)
    by Tiparillo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:51:58 PM EST
    in a small town or rural America is automatically "elitist'?  

    News to me


    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:26:50 PM EST
    You forgot the reference to godless liberalism.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#77)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:10:47 PM EST
    I don't think I expressed myself very well.  I was joking.  I thought you were trying to show how offensive the statement was by redefining it to apply to a group to which BKJM might be perceived to belong.

    Bwa! (none / 0) (#85)
    by chrisvee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:48:57 PM EST
    WORM -- I get it now.  Duh. I'm slow. :-)

    if BO's elitist, then so is HRC and JMc (5.00 / 0) (#33)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:39:57 PM EST
    As defined by the American Heritage Dictionary, elitist means:

    "1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.
             1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
             2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class."

    This "debate" is quite silly.  All politicians are elitist to a point, whether we want to sit down and have a beer (and a shot or just red wine) with them or not.  

    elitism = intellectual snobbery (none / 0) (#72)
    by moll on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:48:44 PM EST
    The question is whether rustic whites are capable of self-understanding and self-government or whether they need an intellectually superior leader to guide them.

    Obama's rhetoric implies we suffer from "false consciousness" (as the right wing is putting it, because they want to draw attention to how marxist it is - opiate of the masses and all that).

    This isn't the only example, either - conservatives picked right up on that rhetoric when it showed up in that race speech he gave after the Wright thing.

    Put in everyday terms, it's a question of whether the candidate is obligated to at least pay lip service to the idea of being a servant of the people, or whether the reverse is true - the people need to adapt themselves to fit elite ideas of what the candidate thinks they need to be.

    All leaders are elite, but Obama has been flaunting it.


    WSWS on "bitter" truth (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by Andreas on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:45:15 PM EST
    The WSWS does not agree.

    The American media and the political rivals of Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opened fire on the Illinois senator this weekend after he committed the unpardonable offense of speaking the truth, or at least a part of it, about the bitterness among working class Americans over the steady erosion of their living standards and jobs. ...

    Apparently, the Democratic senator is guilty of a double offense against the norms of contemporary American electoral politics: He allowed real-life experiences of social deprivation to affect him, and then spoke frankly in front of an audience, albeit a privileged one at a private fundraiser, of the economic realities of American society.

    He compounded this political sin with the suggestion that religion, gun rights, economic protectionism and anti-immigrant agitation were used to divert working people from the economic oppression they face. ...

    The near-unanimous consensus that Obama has committed a huge blunder by referring to working class bitterness and resentment has two sources: the enormous social distance of the millionaire pundits and politicians from the real lives of working people, and the fear that under conditions of convulsions in the financial markets and the onset of a deep recession, any discussion of the underlying social antagonisms in America has potentially explosive consequences.

    US media, Clinton assail Obama for "bitter" truth
    By Patrick Martin, 14 April 2008

    If only this had been remotely what he said... (5.00 / 3) (#48)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:54:44 PM EST
    but it wasn't.

    Obama was talking about why people in Pennsylvania and Ohio are supporting Hillary over him, not about why heartland voters vote Republican against their own self-interest. He was making a very lame argument that actually made no sense.

    Once again Obama's offensive remarks are touted as some amazing truth that we just don't get because we are not smart enough to realize how incredibly insightful and visionary he is. Poor Obama, the victim of a malicious press corps and the monstrous HRC.

    Anyone else notice a pattern here?


    Pattern? (5.00 / 6) (#50)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:57:59 PM EST
    You mean "it's everybody's fault but my own"?

    They're either racist or stupid or (now) bitter if they don't vote for Obama.

    He fails to realize that they are not necessarily voting against him-they are voting for Clinton.

    Every utterance I have heard come out of his campaign via him or his surrogates has firmly convinced me that he has demonized her in his mind as a monster that must be defeated.

    Annie get your gun, indeed.


    Maybe if Obama had been in small-town (none / 0) (#66)
    by Anne on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:33:03 PM EST
     Pennsylvania and waxed philosophical about the zeitgeist there that he thought had kept people from voting for him, their stony faces and the lack of amused chuckling might have offered him a clue as to how far off-base he was, how badly he had misread the small-town psyche, and he would have had the opportunity to immediately repair the terrible impression his remarks are now having all across the country.

    Seems to me a good politician does not make the mistake of talking down about the people whose votes he would really like to have.  In speaking to the moneyed elite who wanted to understand why he was not making more headway with the very people who might benefit from real change in Washington, he might have done better to simply say that he didn't know, and that he was doing all he could to get his message to the people.

    What is sorely lacking in Obama is even an ounce of humility, the understanding that he doesn't know everything.  All we have heard lately is that he is The One, The Only One, who knows more, who has done more - and all across the country people are listening and looking at each other and wondering who the heck this guy thinks he is?

    There was a time when he looked like a brilliant politician, but of late he has begun to look a lot less brilliant, and a lot more like a loose cannon, who seems to alienate more than unite, which kind of brings down the whole house of cards.


    Actually, the more people pan him (none / 0) (#67)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:34:57 PM EST
    the better he looks to me.  Funny how the world works, isn't it . . .

    the man is Harry Potter's mirror (none / 0) (#76)
    by moll on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:06:03 PM EST
    Obama's words are calculated to attract those who are alienated. Bitter people are the ones who want "change" (instead of wanting tangible things like universal health care).

    The more he makes "the establishment" angry, the more his fan base is going to adore him.

    Especially when it comes to passing judgments on how screwed up America and Americans are - that is exactly what they signed on for.

    He isn't a politician. He's a deity. Rev. Wright was his prophetic voice. Here on this list, we just haven't had the "epiphany" yet. If we just learn how to look at him right, we can see whatever we want in him - and then we'll worship him too, and cheer when he speaks the hard truths (that everyone but him is wrong, wrong, wrong).


    yet another article stuck on "bitter" (none / 0) (#41)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:50:17 PM EST
    while ignoring the worst of Obama's remarks.
    If only Obama had stopped talking after "bitter"...

    perhaps they're "stuck" (none / 0) (#49)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:56:48 PM EST
    on "bitter" because they understand that all the rest flows from that word -- bitter.  The guns, religion, etc. stuff is all old news to Democrats who have been paying attention since, what, Reagan went to MS?  That is the modus operandi of the modern GOP -- turn your faith and biases against your own typically economic self interest.  Play ad nauseum and repeat next cycle.

    Perhaps, that's what BO was referring to.  Sorry if you don't like it; but happy for you if you don't get it, ain't lived it or simply don't recognize what it is he's talking about.  


    Once again (none / 0) (#52)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:02:45 PM EST
    it's our fault for not understanding the Great Obama.

    It's you who don't understand. He did not say we were bitter because we have lost our jobs. That is a no-brainer. He said we clung to our beliefs out of bitterness. That is BS.


    The most unforgivable part (none / 0) (#70)
    by miriam on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:44:14 PM EST
    to me is not what he said, but the setting in which he said it. Had he been in PA it would have been insensitive and elitist enough to raise plenty of hackles.  But the fact that he said it in one of the wealthiest areas in the country about people in one of the most economically depressed areas is beyond all understanding.  No matter how many times he tries to rectify what is essentially a racist slur, it will not ring true because of where he said it. And his interpretation of what is true is not automatically the correct interpretation.

    Note to Obama: People resent their culture and families being arrogantly mocked and demeaned behind their backs.      


    you know what I would like to see (none / 0) (#1)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:55:20 PM EST
    instead of the other 49 states all tellings us what PA thinks of this

    a post that goes through some of the PA papers and local news and let PA tells us what they think.

    yes i get it HRC supporters and republicans think this is huge, BHO supporters do not,

    but what does PA think? I don't see many people quoting PA papers or PA local news, no they are quoting the NY times, or Clinton surrogates

    wow can anyone imagine a Clinton suroggate coming out and saying this won't hurt Obama much?

    oh wait Ed Rendell did, on PA local news.

    so why don't we explore what PA is saying about this in order to see how major this is.

    From what i have seen so far, this is something Obama has to worry about in the GE, but in PA, it doesn't look like there will be much movement.

    1 reason ordinary people don't watch cable news.

    Someone this morning (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:08:58 PM EST
    did a round-up of the main PA papers.  All of them had headlines about the gaffe above the fold but one, which had it below the fold with a bigger story inside.

    Maybe you can use that thing called Google and find all the major PA papers yourself and report back?


    so if I said that all the major papers (none / 0) (#14)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:12:49 PM EST
    are not making this a big deal and my post was more of a do it yourself so you guys would see that PA doesn't consider this as big as HRC supporters are hoping?

    what were the headlines and the text of those stories, so far everything I see, basically says Hillary is the one out of touch. yes Obama screwed up he said what he said clumsily, and with poor choice of words.

    but he was right, and Hillary who seems to think he is wrong, is the one out of touch. but obviously me saying that means I am lying right.

    hence the someone who won't automatically be called a liar because he says something people don't line or don't want to agree should try it and see what they find.


    Did you look for the papers? (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:18:13 PM EST
    Did you read the stories and headlines yourself?

    Or do you just want to be combative about anything and everything?


    yeah I ave already done (none / 0) (#20)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    this, and like I said try it yourself, PA itself isn't making as big a deal of it as HRC and her supporters want

    like I said a local news station Chanel 4, quoted the governor as saying he didn't think it would hurt him to much in the state.

    so is it possible that PA doesn't think this is that big of a deal? sure it could change but so far, its not going to hurt him as that much in the state but don't take my word for it.

    Channel 4 quoted the governor, so 1 of those 2 are wrong. my bet is the governor what would he know.


    also before anyone says (none / 0) (#25)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    I am lying (the very reason I said someone should do it)

    here is the video of the local news.

    http://mfile.akamai.com/12932/wmv/vod.ib sys.com/2008/0414/15876369.200k.asx

    that woman at the end pretty much sums it up for me. THIS is what the media should be doing, I don't care what politicians in washinton think PA voters will feel.

    just ask PA voters how they feel.


    Several PA voters on this blog (none / 0) (#40)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:48:59 PM EST
    have been fairly outraged.

    Color me surprised (none / 0) (#47)
    by Tiparillo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:53:58 PM EST
    really? PA Hillary supporters (none / 0) (#58)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:15:05 PM EST
    on this site are upset at Obama?

    I mean come on this is why I said the local news, people here are political junkies and in are not like people who get their news only from their local papers and local news.

    hence why it would be cool if the National media cared what the local media was saying, its very telling.

    the only state Obama has to worry about is PA, he has time to repair the damage in any other state. and PA doesn't seem to want to sweat it. though yes the Hillary supporters in PA and the republicans are fired up at their opponent saying something they don't like.


    Hm. (none / 0) (#64)
    by Kathy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:30:42 PM EST
    Here is a local news story from Altoona, PA, about a protest (one of four or five around the state, apparently) outside an Obama office on Sunday.


    Frankly, they seem a little bitter.


    How do they feel (none / 0) (#69)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:41:51 PM EST
    You know, PA and OH and MI are swing states with a large number of CRUCIAL electoral votes.

    If a (relatively) small number of potential Democratic voters are alienated, then the Democrats lose the WH in November.

    And then we will have a lovely chat about the issues that the 2012 election teeters around when I have bigger patches of grey hair.  Not my best date prospect ever, but "it is what it is".


    glad you've got that crystal ball (none / 0) (#71)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:45:31 PM EST
    i've seen other commentators wax about how BO doesn't need all those supposedly oh so important allegedly Democratic states.  So, guess we'll see what happens comes November.  Bottom line, no one should vote for HRC or BO based on what happened in 2000 or 2004.  Times have changed and even those perceived as "bitter" by some (or merely offended by others) are starting to wise up.

    Really? (none / 0) (#78)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:16:36 PM EST
    Because Utah and Mississippi and North Dakota are going to put him over the top, are they?

    i didn't get one today (none / 0) (#6)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    but I've gotten several in my hotmail account in the past.  The sad thing is that people in my town (and others i imagine) actually question whether he is muslime.  It is being pushed by someone; insane.  

    It may go away (none / 0) (#7)
    by Lahdee on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:04:08 PM EST
    in the primary, but it will be back in the general. McBush will use the elistist meme freely and often.

    How so? (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:49:27 PM EST
    Please, do tell.  How the pampered son and grandson of Navy admirals, who went to the best private schools, got a legacy admission to West Point, dumped his first wife to marry a younger, rich woman to buy his Senate seat, has 8 houses and never work a "real" job in his life is going to play the elitist card?

    Even his real name, J. Sidney McCain III reeks of being an elitist.


    My friend (none / 0) (#81)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM EST
    just sit back and watch.  Ringside seats for everyone!

    And you think (none / 0) (#8)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:04:12 PM EST
    "rednecked bigots" are going to vote in a Democratic primary? or for a Dem in the GE?

    Who contends that? (none / 0) (#13)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:12:45 PM EST

    Willie (none / 0) (#32)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:35:57 PM EST
    in his post, asks if we do acknowledge that rednecks bigots exist and that he's getting these emails about Obama (and the way his post was written, implying that rednecked bigots are sending these emails). My point was, yes, there are people like that, but they are not going to be voting for Obama anyway. But, HRC supporters are not rednecked bigots.

    I've never gotten that email.... (none / 0) (#19)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:20:48 PM EST
    ...guess I have a good spam filter.

    Neither have I (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:26:33 PM EST
    I think that email is an urban myth like the: anti war protesters spit on the Viet Nam Veterans.  

    I know lots of folks (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:30:08 PM EST
    who have gotten it.

    However, it originated with the rightwing noise machine. It is not a grassroots redneck effort to keep the black man down. It is RNC crap, pure and simple.


    So you are arguing (none / 0) (#61)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:24:30 PM EST
    that Obama's remarks about clinging to religion because of job loss, were because some rightwingers sent around an idiotic email?

    Again, not what he said at all. Not even in the same universe.

    It seems you are trying to defend his remarks by throwing rhetorical spaghetti against the wall to see if it sticks.


    urban myth? (none / 0) (#28)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:31:08 PM EST
    of course you do.  

    but you wouldn't care if it wasn't, would you?


    Marshall is puffing (none / 0) (#36)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:44:25 PM EST
    about defending the Clintons for 15 years.  I don't believe that if HRC had said some similar statement about voters, that BO would not have jumped on it.  He wants to close this campaign and has done worse because he has alienated the Clinton's supporters with his demand that she quit since before OH.

    Disagree BTD (none / 0) (#38)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:46:09 PM EST
    Hillary never referred to Obama as an Elitist until he portrayed Elitist traits on Billionaire Row - and thankfully, she rejected them.
    His words will resonate negatively for the Dem Party for a long time.
    If the situation were reversed, by now Axelrod would have positioned Obama as THE spokesman for the Dem Party and the DNC - repudiating Hillary's remarks - and declaring she should withdraw for the "good of the party."

    what were those (none / 0) (#39)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:48:50 PM EST
    "elitist traits" he, himself, displayed on "billionaire row"?  he said a few things, but i didn't see him channeling any "traits", certainly not elitist traits, through that audio clip.

    you need to read the blog (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:53:57 PM EST
    called The Flip Side of Obama at Politico today.

    you mean . . . (none / 0) (#53)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:05:25 PM EST
    "Barack Obama's flip side revealed"

    Thanks.  Today I learned from that astounding peice of "journalism" that BO is, wait for it, a politician and not the Messiah.  Thanks, for pointing me in the right direction.   I just thought he was God, thanks for getting my head straight.  



    really? (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:59:13 PM EST
    Elitism = looking down on people.

    Obama explained to the billionaires why "those people" weren't voting for him: they're gun toting Bible thumping racists who are too ignorant to realize he's the best thing since sliced bread.

    Apparently, Obama believes those are the reasons all voters haven't fallen under his spell.


    And how condescending he was (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:06:01 PM EST
    when he offered to kiss that woman to get her vote!

    Like we're all going to go goo-goo-eyed over his baby browns. We're voting for President here, not choosing a winner on American Idol!


    He said that?!? (none / 0) (#55)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:07:54 PM EST
    Really, I've gone back and read and listened to what he said and I didn't see many of the words you used.  Perhaps, you should go back and put it all in context.  I suggest, you pretend that you don't know who said what was said.  You, however, believe that the speaker is a Democrat.  And, you think about the past 20 - 30 years of GOP politics.  That, or just give me a really great argument why HRC ain't an elitist as well.  

    and where'd you get that definition? (none / 0) (#56)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:11:08 PM EST
    I took mine from American Heritage.  I believe the word you're looking for is snob.  This site should take up that phrase.  It's much better, and more on point, that elitist.  Why, I'd venture to guess that quite a few of us here meet the definition of elitist.

    American Heritage Dictionary
    snob (snŏb)

       1. One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.
       2. One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.


    Um (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jgarza on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:55:59 PM EST
    Marshall post was pretty thoughtful.  He said he didn't think that there was anything wrong with what BO said, as in it didn't offend him, but that he would reserve judgment as to how big of a political blunder it is.  SO i don't really get what the gripe from this post is?

    Marshall is full of it. Period (none / 0) (#87)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:50:55 PM EST
    He has no credibility at all. Reverse the rolls and for sure Marshall's hair would be on fire castigating HRC for the same crass remarks that don't offend him coming out of his idol's mouth.

    Food for thought... (none / 0) (#79)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:30:43 PM EST
    ...for all you bashers on here.

    "Several audience members told CNN after the speech they came to the forum to hear each candidate talk about trade issues, and were not interested in the political back-and-forth of the Democratic primary race.

    When Clinton focused on policy and expounded on enforcing trade agreements, creating new jobs and standing up to China, she received some hearty ovations."

    Bitter Voters For Obama (none / 0) (#83)
    by nellre on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:39:35 PM EST
    OMG.. Obama's campaign is (none / 0) (#84)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:21:17 PM EST
    robocalling to tell dumb PA hicks what he really meant.


    Is he getting advice from Bob Shrum or something, now?

    lefty wingnuts need to shutup already (none / 0) (#86)
    by pluege on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:44:38 PM EST
    Attacking Clinton on it, as TPM has done, does NOT help Obama.

    Attacking ANY DEMOCRAT doesn't help and the "top librul blogs" have no business whatsoever attacking either Obama or Clinton. For sure, it is recognized that Obama and Clinton must attack each other to an extent - they are in a very tight race and they need to differentiate to the extent they can. But even here, they should not be attacking each other in a cult of republicanism - wingnut way, but only in a `my policy is better than their policy and here's why' kind of way.