home

Obama Rephrases His Regrets About His "Bitter" Remark

By Jeralyn, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:14:53 AM EST
Tags: Barack Obama, 2008 (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Speaking at the annual meeting of the Associated Press yesterday, Barack Obama offered up yet another expression of regret for his "bitter" remarks but again didn't apologize for them.

As I said yesterday, I regret some of the words I chose, partly because the way that these remarks have been interpreted have offended some people and partly because they've served as one more distraction from the critical debate that we must have in this election.

In other words, he doesn't accept the words offended some people, only that the way people interpreted them may have been offensive. And, he dismisses them as a "distraction."

He also repeated his life story: [More...]

Contrary to current reports, I wasn't born into a lot of money. I didn't have a trust fund. I wasn't born in the fame and fortune. I was raised by a single mother with the help of my grandparents who grew up in small-town Kansas and went to school on the G.I. Bill and bought their home through a FHA loan.

My mother had to use food stamps at one point, but she still got her education and she still made sure that through scholarships I got a chance to go to some of the best schools around, which helped me get into some of the best colleges around, which gave me loans that Michelle and I just finished paying off not that many years ago.

He had a few words about Hillary as well:

It's been a hard-fought contest partly because Senator Clinton is a formidable candidate. There aren't many figures in American politics who could sustain 11 straight losses and hang into a race and raise $35 million.

...I have tried to figure out how to show restraint and make sure that, during this primary contest, we're not damaging each other so badly that it's hard for us to run in November.

Obviously, it's a little easier for me to say that, since, you know, I lead in delegates and states and popular vote. Senator Clinton may not feel that she can afford to be as constrained.

But I'm sure that Senator Clinton feels like she's doing me a great favor, because she's been deploying most of the arguments that the Republican Party will be using against me in November, and so, it's toughening me up. And I'm getting a run through the paces here."

He seems pretty confident he'll be the nominee. Bitter-Gate seems pretty played out, and he appears to have survived it. We'll know for sure after PA votes next week.

Update: Comments now closed

< Cindy McCain Posts Copyrighted Recipes As Her Own | How Would the Candidates Close Guantanamo? >

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

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Obama Rephrases His Regrets About His "Bitter" Remark | 205 comments (205 topical)
    From Instapundit (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:41:48 AM EST

    "Well, I do go a-churchin' every Sunday with a bunch of bitter folks who complain about how the government is evil and screws them over, and we yell an' whoop it up when the preacher rails against them Italians and Jews, an' then we ...

    "Oops, wait a minute, that's not me, that's Barack Obama. "
    Oh, dear! (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:55:13 AM EST
    That's a good one.

    Parent
    Projection (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:57:07 AM EST

    The more you think about, it appears BHO is projecting.

    Parent
    right on (none / 0) (#134)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:48:33 AM EST
    add instaputz to the list with Rove, Althouse and Dobbs who are now looked upon as 'allies' here in the echo chamber.

    Parent
    One sign of a closed mind (5.00 / 1) (#199)
    by badger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:05:46 AM EST
    is the inability to evaluate statements on their merits, but instead reflexively denying the validity of anything said by a speaker one considers an "enemy".

    Cultists do that too.

    Fortunately, we have the "unity candidate"  who, along with his supporters, will put an end to that kind cognitive dysfunction. Or not.

    Parent

    I usually file (none / 0) (#210)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:31:04 PM EST
    it under "knowing the enemy". You don't have to like them to learn from them.

    Parent
    Whatever did we do to deserve him!?! (5.00 / 6) (#10)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:43:11 AM EST
    Good grief, what downright p!ssy tone-deaf flack came up with this bit.

    ... because Senator Clinton is a formidable candidate. There aren't many figures in American politics who could sustain 11 straight losses and hang into a race and raise $35 million.

    It's not so much regretting as regretable! And he's just getting started being klassy:

    ...I have tried to figure out how to show restraint and make sure that, during this primary contest, we're not damaging each other so badly that it's hard for us to run in November.

    Obviously, it's a little easier for me to say that, since, you know, I lead in delegates and states and popular vote. Senator Clinton may not feel that she can afford to be as constrained.

    Before I rush off to cling not to my faith but my toilet bowl to barf forth most of my vital organs ...

    Has anyone informed Mister P!ssy that leading isn't winning? Where I come from, we play (hard!)till it's game over.

    What breathtaking arrogance to play up his "lead" when he's gone to such trouble to disenfranchise millions of voters and that issue hasn't been resolved yet.

    Nah! Don't get mad, (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:51:19 AM EST
    remember?  GET AHEAD.  We do our best to get Hillary nominated. Plan B is DON'T VOTE FOR HIM!

    Parent
    shrugs, it doesn't (none / 0) (#13)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:46:30 AM EST
    seem to be hurting him in MI, I think they understand that Hillary's supporter the governor is ALOT more to blame then Obama.

    probably why Obama is leading in the state against McCain and Hillary is not.

    maybe the actual voters in MI know who they should be blaming? I mean its great and all to sit here and decry Obama. but then you can' really explain why only 1 of them is beating McCain in polling in MI, and its not Hillary.

    though yes, she is killing McCain in FL, and Obama is not, so obama has to do it without florida. ironically which Gore would have done in 2000 had he focused on just 1 of those damn small insignifcant doesn't matter states.

    Parent

    It's hurting him in FL (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:01:09 AM EST
    Where Clinton beats McCain and Obama loses.  By a lot.

    Parent
    Educate yourself please (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Davidson on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:04:15 AM EST
    Read this.

    Parent
    Crunch'em if you got'em, he still has to win (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:12:50 AM EST
    Not just poll.

    I'm sticking by my sense that once his forward movement, which made the most of cumulative momentum, slowed down his flaws would be too apparent for everyone greasing him to continue doing so without a lot of splainin' to do.

    • his insurmountable lead apparently isn't. Were that the truth, he would have declared outright victory and not resorted to the frankly desperate measures and misfires we've seen.

    • he's gone against the marquee selling point of Unity, Change and Hope promise and through his own boneheadedness alienated a huge chunk of support he'll need in the GE. He's done that with his own, on-the-record words and deeds: his rivals haven't smeared him nor has the media, which has been ridiculously kind to him thus far.

    • spending so much time whining for his rival to drop out or on desperate measures like pitching to children to pester their parents to vote for him goes well beyond what constitutes a "new" politics of change.

    • the more he talks, the more ridiculous he looks.


    Parent
    I heard about that poll (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by sister of ye on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:54:28 AM EST
    on the radio this morning and it doesn't square with people I've talked to. Plus, if that poll is accurate, why did Obama work so hard to spike a revote? You'd think he'd welcome the chance to openly win the state. Color me skeptical.


    Parent
    and perhaps MI voters aren't aware? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:36:51 AM EST
    Oct. 2007
    >>>>Five individuals connected to five different campaigns have confirmed -- but only under condition of anonymity -- that the situation that developed in connection with the Michigan ballot is not at all as it appears on the surface. The campaign for Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, arguably fearing a poor showing in Michigan, reached out to the others with a desire of leaving New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as the only candidate on the ballot. The hope was that such a move would provide one more political obstacle for the Clinton campaign to overcome in Iowa.
    http://iowaindependent.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=1264


    Parent
    Three Reasons for her to keep fighting (5.00 / 7) (#14)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:47:41 AM EST
    1.  She is a woman.

    2.  She would make a better President.

    3.  She has more experience.

    4.  She is a better speaker in substance.

    5.  McCain is sounding more positive and Presidential every day.

    6.  She can beat McCain.

    7.  He can not beat McCain and he can not count on us women.

    8.  She is not arrogant and condenscending.

    9.  She is carrying our torch.

    10. She is 'this' woman.


    1 reason for her to not. (1.00 / 7) (#79)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:12:58 AM EST
    1)  she can't win - it's over.

    numbers are stubborn things.  

    Parent

    Ma and Pa kettle do math (none / 0) (#194)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:50:27 AM EST
    Great visual whenever they tell me about math...

    Parent
    Do you (none / 0) (#211)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:34:09 PM EST
    have anything to contribute other than to be repetitive, dismissive and argumentative?

    Parent
    I started out with 3 reasons (none / 0) (#41)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:26:42 AM EST
    and it evolved into 10. Didn't change the subjects. Ooops.

    Parent
    Really? (none / 0) (#86)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:16:35 AM EST
    "McCain is sounding more positive and Presidential every day"

    Where exactly, are you getting this from?  McSame is sounding any but "positive" and "Presidential" every day.  

    He knows nothing about the economy, even less about the situation in the Middle East, calls his wife the "c" word and is a war-monger and you think he's "Presidential"

    Good god.  

    Parent

    Oh no no no (5.00 / 2) (#145)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:55:41 AM EST
    I am not a McCain person so please do not try and pin hole me in that corner. I am saying what the media is reporting. Look at Yahoo and CNN. McCain is calling for Congress to declare a gas tax holiday for the summer. Hmmmm, how many voters would like that? McCain presents big and ambitious economic plan. These are his headlines. I will not vote for him, but you have to have blinders on not to see how he is planning on the GE. Right now he is sounding positive in the media.Obama's headline was "Obama tries to quell 'bitter' battle". He is not fighting Hillary on this. He is fighting himself and what he said. She did not put the words in his mouth.

    We always warned that McCain was the media darling of them all, and that if BHO won the primary, he would slide from favor in the press. And THAT was my point.

    Parent

    I won't pin-hole you... (none / 0) (#169)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    ...if you're clearer on it.  You simply stated the "reasons she shouldn't quit".  

    I don't have blinders on, so what I see is a lot of energy going toward the petty, she said, he said crap around here.  

    What I don't see much of anything, from either candidate (or the party), calling out J. Sidney McSame the Third on his idiotic "big and ambitious ecomonic" plan, his lack of understanding of the factions in Iraq, his pandering for a war with Iran and the like.  

    I'm still waiting for a Democrat, any Democrat to grow a backbone and start pushing back against the thugs.  

    Parent

    The reason not to quit (none / 0) (#201)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:11:14 AM EST
    is that I believe that SHE can beat McCain at his own game and BHO will have a harder case. In the end, if the GOP have a 'ok' candidate, they will not cross over in droves. They will stay with their side especially when faced with a new black guy and an old white guy. Just the way it is. But GOP women will cross over to vote for Hillary and the AA Democratic base will stay with her. The GOP AA vote will cross over too for BHO. So it just comes down to numbers on the GE. We can not count on those Indies and cross overs in the primary. They just will not happen. We need to look at the Dem primaries where they were only Dems. Penna will be a good example. Closed primary. Red States are red states for a reason. You might get one or two, but people do not change their stripes overnight.

    Parent
    Two Obamas (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:48:22 AM EST

    How many see two different Obama's.  One that shows his sophisticated training when campaigning and debating and yet when I saw him with his shirt off when he was attacking Hilary on the Annie Oakley and duck blind issue, I saw a more street smarts Obama with very little sophistication. Even his voice sounded different.

    How many think that Obama would not be the same person you are seeing now if the delegates tables were reversed and Hilary was the leader in delegates and in PV?  

    Wait until he would be in the WH (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:59:42 AM EST
    How many think that Obama would not be the same person you are seeing now
    I have a fear about the different Obamas and I do not like what I see. I don't even think we could trust him on the judges. Maybe our best shot is making sure the Senate comes under full control. This man is not ready. As for his speach, I am glad she took the high road. Too bad she did not speak after him to show who was really the classy one.

    Parent
    I heard the same -- the sarcasm (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:50:42 AM EST
    does change his voice and delivery.  I had the tv on but wasn't watching, and then the tone change was so startling that it turned me to the screen to see.

    And then I realized, and reviewed several videos to see, that he really doesn't have a sense of humor -- he has sarcasm, and that's what gets him smiling and laughing.  He rarely does so, though, when he is trying to be humble and take a shot at himself.  It's interesting to watch now.  And I never have heard from him that low chuckle heard from Clinton.

    Parent

    Correction (none / 0) (#17)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:50:35 AM EST
    Meant to say with his coat off not his shirt off

    Parent
    aw heck! Obama Girls had their hopes up (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:31:25 AM EST


    Parent
    Just when I think I've seen Obama's ego (5.00 / 11) (#20)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:55:32 AM EST
    at it's most massive, he comes out with these gems, and I realize that maybe that ego knows no bounds.

    First of all, by constantly - and it is getting to be constantly - stating that "I wasn't born into a lot of money. I didn't have a trust fund. I wasn't born in the fame and fortune," he seems to be wanting to plant an implication that his early life was in dramatic contrast to Hillary's, but her background was certainly not one of money and trust funds, fame or fortune.

    Second, it's been a hard-fought contest "partly" because Clinton is a formidable opponent?  What are the other parts?  And by saying there aren't many who could hang in after 11 straight losses, I think he thinks he's damning with faint praise, but I don't think he realizes what that really says about the race, and his inability to shut her down.

    Third - did he make that comment about his efforts at restraint with a straight face?  Or was he grinning from ear-to-ear?  Because far from being restrained, he has been relentless, and he has had the full cooperation of the media in that endeavor.

    Finally, that last paragraph really sent me over the edge - she's doing him a favor, preparing him for his race against McCain?  My, my - I guess that's an example of the grace and humility we've come to expect from the restrained and humble Senator Obama.  

    Oh, wait - I think I meant condescension and preening smugness...

    No doubt (none / 0) (#75)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:09:03 AM EST
    Second, it's been a hard-fought contest "partly" because Clinton is a formidable opponent?  What are the other parts?

    the "other part" is that all of us low-information, gun-toting, bigoted rubes are too closed-minded and ignorant to jump on the Hope Train.

    Parent

    My reaction exactly, too -- we are (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:54:37 AM EST
    making it so hard for him to win.  Same thought when I saw that sentence:  We-the-voters are the other part of the problem, as he said in San Francisco.  

    You need to study up on some catchphrases from the "excessive '60s," Senator Obama, such as "if you're not part of the solution, then you're part of the problem."  Voters want to hear that they can be part of the solution -- the "hope," the "change" -- and not that they're part of the problem.

    Parent

    Change the subject (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by Dave B on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:55:48 AM EST
    I can understand english, although I am only a lowly engineer and not a wordsmith.  The comments of him and his supporters have been nothing more than an attempt to spin the statement into something different.

    I have to admit that Obama is a master at it.

    If he were as much of a master as he and (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:30:13 AM EST
    the media think he is, he would not be on - what? - the third day of "explaining" his remarks?

    And, if people can see what one is up to, one is not a master, either.

    Maybe a few resounding defeats in upcoming primaries will teah him a little something about humility, but given the bloated condition of his ego, I'm not sure he's capable.

    Parent

    People are starting to notice. (none / 0) (#95)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:20:45 AM EST
    As you say Anne:
    And, if people can see what one is up to, one is not a master, either.

    Funny...this reminds me of the film: "They Live," where aliens are taking over the Planet, but the humans can't see what's happening because the aliens have taken on human form, and they live among us.

    At first only a few people can see them, and know what's going on. With special sunglasses, the people can see through the phony shell of the invaders....

    Yes, Clingy-BitterGate (CBG) and it's fallout, will be with us for a while.

    Lately, I've noticed people are wearing these "sunglasses," and seeing what is really going on.

    Parent

    Even the "Elitist" Label is Kind (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:56:17 AM EST
    The guy was specifically offering up an explanation of why there is a racial divide in this race, and his patronizing and ignorant view was because people in rural areas they are economically hurting and they:
    1. Cling to their guns
    2. Cling to their religion
    3. Don't like people that don't look like them
    4. Become xenophopic
    5. Reject free trade

    As many people have pointed out, he is largely right about the last three, but completely wrong about the first two. And as many have also pointed out, it didn't really have anything to do with the question he was hypothetically answering, except to be saying that the people we are talking about are a bunch of red necks.

    He was clearly caught.

    largely right about the last 3 (none / 0) (#209)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:31:03 PM EST

    So that's why BHO is opposed to the Colomnian FTA and wants to rip up NAFTA?

    Parent
    the gift that keeps on giving (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by DandyTIger on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:00:01 AM EST
    for the life of me I can't figure out why he won't let this go. Unless like his and his supporters initial reaction, he's convinced he was right and he'll keep hammering until we all see the light.

    I've noticed the right is reframing this and characterizing Obama's comment about the regular people clinging to religion only because of bitterness and difficulties as marxist. As in, the opiate of the masses.

    Recommendation to Obama and his supporters: quit keeping this alive and insisting he was right about why regular people cling to religion. Say you're sorry, that people don't cling to religion that way, no matter what you really think, and move on.

    Its simple if he is wrong then why do these voters (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:54:18 AM EST
    Overwhelming rejects Obama as candidate.

    Think about it if you remove the narrative of Obama victim of grievance what is the news story for the days, what is the campaign theme, what then is the defense of his poor judgement, his extremist associates, lack of a consistent accomplished legislative record, his inexperience that are in conflict with his campaign messagea. What story about Obama that received more than a day or two of air time was about a policy, Iraq, our country, healthcare, or the mortgage problems you or me...none.  And if when the cloak of victim is removed from Obama, just recall the pitiful KO spit filled vein popping outrage at the passport peak and when their were 2 more victims, no story no narritive no ah Obama moment. No the Obama victim cloak is what has kept the Media on his side and prevented any discussion past the dismissal of the unsophisticated Rubes, Bigots, Racist, Divisive B, Mean Bill with their uniformed bias about real issues so ....alas it is

    ...and what it also is is a massive short sighted blunder on the part of Party for short term gain the Country should have been the first priority Party growth second during these times this is what Republicans failed to understand as well.

    Parent

    Oh, Obama has done the math... (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by ineedalife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:03:18 AM EST
    and he isn't feeling all that confidant.

    ..I have tried to figure out how to show restraint and make sure that, during this primary contest, we're not damaging each other so badly that it's hard for us to run in November.

    "Us" to run in November? What is he implying here?

    And O? A little hint. Letting your supporters call your opponent a racist is not showing restraint.

    Also, thanks for showing restraint, Buddy. (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:19:11 AM EST
    Especially since you lost TX and OH. And you will soon lose PA. I just LOVE how he insults Hillary supporters as well. I've never seen a pol as arrogant as he. Dubya comes off almost humble in comparison.

    Parent
    exactly! (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    Obama declares himself the "winner" while making condescending remarks about Hillary - further alienating Hillary supporters he will need in Nov.  
    This is a "unity" candidate? ha!
    Yes - Obama represents the height of arrogance!!
    If he thinks he's really "won" - why isn't he acting like it?  by bridging the divide instead of racheting up the divisiveness?
    Probably wants to continue drawing Hillary into the frey because he knows the media has consistently framed their tit-for-tats negatively for Hillary.

    Parent
    I just cannot stop shaking my head (5.00 / 5) (#62)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:54:53 AM EST
    He honestly thinks that by talking down to us THEN insulting us THEN bragging about his own ability to "restrain" himself we will be appeased. Nope. I'm not appeased. And I sure won't be in Novemeber either.

    Parent
    As Tonto said to the Lone Ranger (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by reality based on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:47:38 AM EST
    "What do you mean 'we' Kemo Sabe?"  The Annie Oakley six shooter snark was the final nail in the coffin as far as I'm concerned.  Doc Dean and the Democratic gang that can't shoot straight had better find a way to get "us" out of this fix pronto or this bronco is off the reservation.  Happy trails!

    Parent
    yes - sexism is another Obama trait (none / 0) (#63)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:56:01 AM EST


    Parent
    I picked up on the "us" too. (none / 0) (#31)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:09:47 AM EST
    That part made it clear to me that he knows the only battle going on here is the battle for the top of the ticket--which he can win or lose.  Clinton won't take second place.

    Parent
    But what he really meant (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:12:13 AM EST
    I'm quite sure he'd say that What He Really Meant was "us" as in "Democrats."

    Someone would believe him, I'm sure.

    Parent

    He means the Democratic Party (none / 0) (#207)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:02:03 PM EST
    as in Clinton is destroying the party.  I have the math, she's had 11 losses and she is ruining the party's chances in November.  In other words, if I lose, it's her fault.  pfft.

    Parent
    Yep, yesterday he called it a tie (none / 0) (#148)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:57:23 AM EST
    when he called Indiana a "tiebreaker" -- as some (sorry I don't recall) astute commenter here noted.

    Parent
    I will not take that bet (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:05:50 AM EST
    I found this comments about Sen. Clinton to be condescending, patronizing and arrogant. And it's not the first time

    I would not bet on Bitter- and Clinggate to be quite over yet; these things tend to percolate a while.  I would guess that people are taking a bit of a time out, and putting together all kinds of things Mr. and Mrs. Obama have said, and I would further suppose that the picture all those things create might be rather unsavory to a not insignificant number of people.

    You may be right, for example (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by outsider on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:27:14 AM EST
    Michelle Obama saying:

    "...before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation."

    The underlying message?  Team Obama thinks the American public has to change itself in order to gain/be worthy of Obama's support as president.  At least that would be my take if I were a Clinton spindoctor...

    Parent

    Another non-apology (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:06:00 AM EST
    He's not sorry he said it, he's sorry he got caught.  It's all our fault because we misinterpreted him!

    And don't pull that food stamps, student loan crap on me.  I'm not buying it. Elitism is an attitude; there are billionaires who are not elitist and starving artists who are.

    And of course he had to get in his digs against Clinton.  Nice way to unite the party!  

    Students often qualify for food stamps (none / 0) (#165)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:13:00 AM EST
    even if they don't know it -- so did I as a grad student and single mom.  But where we lived in the burbs, store clerks made it a hassle and would have humiliated my kids (as well as me, but I got humiliated a lot then and just got through it, as grownups gotta do:-).  

    I spotted this part of his story as again trying to create a "story" that seems to obfuscate many details.  Frankly, I wonder (and have thoughts about) why he doesn't tell it straight -- that this was a single mom but a singularly focused woman who earned a Ph.D., in part with the food stamp program, who put school and career first.  And her family made it possible by really being the ones to raise him, although with fallout for him that have made him opt for different choices.  

    That is a really American story that resonates, if  he really upholds all those choices -- his mother's choice not to raise him for most of his childhood but also his own choice to do it differently, if he could say so.  I don't think he does, nor do I.  But I also can't quite grasp what he has written and thinks of his father's choices.  It might not matter with many a candidate, but Obama has co-opted (and good for the Dems for him doing so) the "family values" meme.  Yet what it means to him still seems unclear, and it matters.

    Parent

    What arrogance!! (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:11:11 AM EST
    He explains himself by trying to rip on Hillary YET again.  Personally Barack I don't know anyone who didn't win NY, CA, OH and soon-to-be PA and still thinks he's in the race and manages to raise money. Unreal that he belittles Hillary AND her supporters at the same time---all those dolts giving her $35 million.  The more I hear him the less and less I like him. If that were even possible.

    What a crock (5.00 / 5) (#43)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:29:42 AM EST
    There aren't many figures in American politics who could sustain 11 straight losses
    There aren't many Democratic figures in American politics who could sustain losing all the Blue States either.

    also my pet peeve (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:44:53 AM EST
    The fact that they were 11 straight is just an artifact of the scheduling of what states happened to go when.  It doesn't mean a thing except that he got to brag about it and pretend it meant something, and the press went along with the charade.  Drives me nuts when they repeat it again and again.

    Parent
    even C-Span is showing their Obama love (none / 0) (#65)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:58:41 AM EST
    by posting the number of "states won" by Hillary and Obama.

    Parent
    I know! (none / 0) (#146)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:56:30 AM EST
    I can't believe they would show actuakl results instead of just the states that matter!!!  For shame!

    Parent
    Who? (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by AlladinsLamp on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    I watched Scarborough et al this morning run through BitterGate with clips from Colbert, Bob Hebert, and a "Law and Order" actor (whose name I forget and who trashed Bill and Hillary).

    Then I read Obama's recapitulation of his life history (from Jeralyn's post) and I thought "Has Obama ever held a regular job?" say, even a part-time in high school or a seasonal job during college like retail? Or maybe working in a fish processing plant like Hillary?

    Has McCain?

    I'd really like to see an employment history on our three candidates dating back to their teenage years.

    Who understands the Working American?

    Once you start seeing something in someone (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:37:33 AM EST
    you always see it.  I think the 'elitist and condescending' label is going to stick, and color people's perceptions of everything he says from here on out. He is in trouble and he knows it.

    I got a good laugh this morning listening to my YoungTurk's podcast from yesterdays show. Ben Mankiewicz was interviewing his father, Frank, who was RFK's press secretary and McGovern's campaign manager, and who is supporting Hillary Clinton (he was originally supporting Edwards). Ben asked him if he thought Obama's 'bitter' comments were elitist and condescending.  Frank replied "I think everything he says is elitist and condescending."  OUCH.  He was also very sure that Hillary is more electable in November, due to mainly two factors - racism, and the ease with which Obama can be painted with the same elitist brush that Kerry and others have been.  I thought it was interesting to hear his take on it.  

    Bittergate pretty played out? (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Terry M on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:51:31 AM EST
    Respectfully, Jeralyn, I'm not sure about that.  It is still all over the tv news, the blogs, and so on.  Larry King is doing a show on it tonight, and I'd be shocked if Lou Dobbs doesn't go on for awhile with the story, since BO's remarks are like a punch in the gut to his audience demographics.

    Yesterday, the online version of the LA Times led with a headline along the lines of Obama "Tanking" as a result of bitter comments. Amazing.  The WSJ editorial was biting and was repeated on the news channels last night (Obama's "inner Dukakis"). Ouch.

    I mustered up some stomach medicine and tuned into MSNBC last night.  Matthews, Fineman, Mitchell - all extreme  sufferers of CDS - had a very hard defending BO.  I was shocked.

    I really sense a sea change in the media narrative.

    Heck (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by angie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:15:00 AM EST
    it was on the Today show yesterday and this morning.  I don't think it is going away either.

    Parent
    thanks for your cable media report (none / 0) (#67)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:04:10 AM EST


    Parent
    Obama's Victimhood again, (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Salt on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:08:02 AM EST
    really, Obama fails again to accept responsibility for his shortcomings, which is exactly what he did when he described PA voters as bitter gun and bible totting bigots. As always voters not sufficiently enamored with the persona of Obama are either Archie Bunkers as we were in Ohio or before that SC just flat out racist, Hillary has always been the RWBtch beating poor Obama down again, and again.

    This behavior that is Obama is also why many women will never rally to him, if the DNC were to place him in the Nominee position, we distain the pathology of the victim disease, it is offensive and not a vulnerability we accept.  It is also why many male non Progressives voters exposed to the unscripted Obama turn away because of a sense of something a guy guy friend of mine a one time Obama supporter describes as resentment aggrieved ill feelings toward the candidate.

    What Obama meant (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:08:28 AM EST
    In other words, he doesn't accept the words offended some people, only that the way people interpreted them may have been offensive

    "What Obama meant" has taken on a whole new meaning.

    Isn't this the same summary (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:51:16 AM EST
    Obama gives of every situation?...

    1. It's Clinton's fault, she's misinterpreting my words purposely.
    2. You're still stoopid because you can't figure that out either.
    3. Nobody has been poor like me.
    4. Clinton's being mean to me and I have a huge ego.

    It is tedious.  If he keeps this up, people will tune out the issue.  They just won't be able to take in any more.

    Right. If Obama is elected, we'll have (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:58:07 AM EST
    4-8 more years of blaming the Clintons.

    Parent
    His idea that Hillary is toughening him up (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by ChrisO on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:03:26 AM EST
    is really annoying. I don't believe the Clinton campaign is saying anything about Obama with the purpose of "getting him ready" to campaign in the GE. That's a real twisted interpretation of people saying that he'll be a mess in the GE if he can't handle this campaign.

    I'm reading Franken's book "The Truth (with jokes" and he discusses how on election day, 2004, the Republicans sent some guys dressed to appear gay, holding signs that said "Vote for Kerry, he'll legalize gay marriage," and had them mince up and down a line of African American waiting to vote, obviously exploiting the homophobia in the black community. This is a relatively mild example of the kinds of things Atwater and Rove brought to the Republican Party. Every time I hear Obama supporters say that Hillary is using "Rovian" tactics, or that the Republicans won't be able to do any worse that Hillary is doing, I'm outraged. If these people really believe this, then they are so unprepared for the GE that it's frightening.

    Again it's the bigotry (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by g8grl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:04:53 AM EST
    that he's accusing people of.  It's not the bitterness.  He's so confident in his ability to BS people, Obama can't conceive that anyone might not like him unless it's because of the color of his skin.  

    I wondered when the charges of racism (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:27:27 AM EST
    would be taken beyond the biggies, the Clintons, Ferraro, et al., to the "little people."  But Obama has been so careful to have those charges come from others, not from him, other than implying it, if we didn't excuse his minister and mentor, because we the whites just don't get black liberation theology.

    I never, ever thought that he would publicly make such charges himself, and not about the voters -- and certainly never thought that he'd be so foolish as to be caught doing so and on tape (audio or video).  And that's why he has to be a concern for the super-delegates; he's not ready for prime time.

    Parent

    I've finally figured it out... (5.00 / 2) (#160)
    by OrangeFur on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:07:02 AM EST
    Why did Obama's comments in San Francisco bother me so much more than other things, such as Jeremiah Wright and NAFTAgate? I couldn't quite understand for a while--I find some of Wright's views to be troubling, and I don't understand why Obama spent 20 years there, but in the end I don't think he shares those views. NAFTAgate annoyed me because he lied about it, but politicians lie all the time.

    What bothers me about this latest thing is something else. It finally came to me yesterday:

    Barack Obama thinks he's better than me.

    Just listen to what he thinks about small-town Pennsylvanians. He thinks they're racially prejudiced (skeptical of a black man, having antipathy towards people not like them). He thinks they're xenophobic. He thinks they're excessively religious. He thinks their culture of guns is wrong. He thinks they're wrong about trade, which is odd, since he claims to share what he thinks are their opinions. Basically, he thinks he knows why they act the way they do, and he thinks their reasons for doing so are wrong. He certainly thinks he's better than them.

    Now I'm not white, nor am I from a small town, or from Pennsylvania. I don't own a gun and I don't go to church. But if he thinks that way about Pennsylvanians he's never met, why wouldn't he think that way about me? Unless I'm so conceited as to think Obama thinks more highly of me than of them, what other option do I have?

    Obama thinks he's better than everyone - (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by Anne on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:24:34 AM EST
    and until recently, it's been less evident, but now, it's like he lifted the lid and it's just pouring out of him.

    I haven't seen any evidence of humility in him at all, on any subject, ever.

    Parent

    The unapology... (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    Robin Tolmach Lakoff wrote an interesting chapter on the unapology in her book: The Language War. It's an interesting and useful analysis of political discourse. Highly rec'd.

    In there she writes about the "I'm sorry you mis-interpreted what I said" unapology. This one uses the apologia verbiage, but continues to put the onus of fault on the audience rather than the speaker.

    In other words, "it's your fault for not understanding the true meaning underneath what I was saying."

    Ah, thanks for the scholarly take on it (none / 0) (#183)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    and I'm saving that and other sources I've seen on it, but this sounds like one of the best (rabbis so often really do live up to the meaning of the term and are such good teachers:-).  I didn't get the scholarly analysis of this trick when I was taught it in management.  I just was told, actually told,  to sound sorry even if management was not sorry, simply by saying "I understand that you feel that way," because it sounds good but admits nothing.

    So I've seen through it ever since.  Btw, I left that job as soon as I could, as I figured that such blatantly bad management would not last long.

    Parent

    It's a good book... (none / 0) (#200)
    by kredwyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:08:48 AM EST
    She's got lots of handy bits of analysis in there when it comes to political discourse.

    The reason why you were told to do it that way is because (whether or not management was aware of it)...apologies--real apologies--require a shift in the power dynamic. The person who gives the apology accepts part of the blame thereby appearing to give up some amount of power. And most folks in a position of power don't like to do that...even when it's expected.

    By doing an unapology, you can look chagrined while not actually giving up any power...even for a second.

    Parent

    one doesn't need a Ph.D to (none / 0) (#188)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:39:34 AM EST
    hear the sneering condescention oozing from Obama.
    In fact, blogospheric evidence indicates that one needs a degree NOT to hear it.

    Parent
    His pattern of only addressing societal ills when (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by andrelee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:52:29 AM EST
    his ass is in a sling because he's seen to be on the wrong side of the issue is again exemplified in this episode. It would have been much more understandable if the comments in his explanation to the SF audience for his failure to connect to working class folks was despite his campaigns tireless efforts to address the needs of the working class by consistently providing policy proposals and policy prescriptions that shed light on his plans to help them, they still don't hear him because he's 46, black, and since they are also bitter about their economic situation they cling to guns, religion, and xenophobia. That would be more plausible though not much more politically correct. That would show his awareness of their situation and interest in addressing it. By them still rejecting him that would show THEIR irrationality and out-of-touchness, not his. He can't say that tho' because he didn't do any of that. Throughout the entire OB campaign, race was only directly discussed by OB when it was concerning the Wright Controversy and the subsequent speech and when heavy AA turnout was expected in an upcoming election by bringing out 'the Clintons are Racist' theme in Missi and SC. I wouldn't be surprised if somehow Bill, Hill or someone in the HRC campaign does something worthy of being called racists again before NC. This pattern of him addressing some wrongs in society only after it's connected to him negatively and paints him in an unfavorable light  does nothing to show that he is attune to those issues and the effect it has on people. Again, we are only talking about this because he got caught. What else has he been saying about other groups to other audiences?

    If it's over (4.88 / 9) (#2)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:20:11 AM EST
    then why does he keep bringing it up?

    Obama (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by sas on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:22:40 AM EST
    doesn't even get it, he's so out of touch.

    He seems bewildered that anyone has taken offense.  It must not be what he said, but the way he said it.

    Dumbasses that we arer, we have taken offense.

    This man can't be our nominee.

    Parent

    Eugene Robinson Calles You "Stupid" (none / 0) (#51)
    by flashman on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:38:11 AM EST
    His comment was something like, "It's equally condescending to think the working class is so stupid that they are offended when someone uses words that are more than one syllable..."  Add that to the growing list of insults those who don't drink the Obama cool-aid are bearing.

    Parent
    Our local Eugene in Wisconsin (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:33:28 AM EST
    an AA columnist, today stunningly turns and truly disses Obama for what he sad and did in San Fran and says -- as I have said here before -- that Obama would not win in Wisconsin now.

    The closest state in 2004, barely blue.  As our local columnist says, "Lucky for him, it's been months since Barack Obama won the Democratic primary in Wisconsin. . . .  Since Obama won in February, it's been one public relations fiasco after another. . . .  Wisconsin is known as a progressive state, but there's a move afoot to change things" in the state that was less than half of one percent away from turning red last time.  

    Think about it, Dems.  Do you want Wisconsin in your column, one of the most churchgoing states, where even Russ Feingold sides with the hunters?  Are you reading the local columnists -- including AAs who see the problems, when some of you won't?

    Parent

    and that is the opening (5.00 / 2) (#171)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:19:34 AM EST
    if Hillary's campaign is smart enough to take it...Towards the end of the column your guy Eugene has a pearl:

    It's also clear that the rest of the 2008 Democratic campaign will include more games of "Gotcha!" between Obama and Clinton as each waits for the other to trip over their tongue.

    If Hillary is smart she will move away from bashing Obama outright---let her surrogates do it.  Every time Obama says something attack worthy Clinton should deflect:  "Well it [insert mild attack] but what I would rather comment on is [insert policy discussion]."

    Eugene is right---Obama is spending all of his time making remarks and then having to clarify remarks.  Hillary needs to go into PA, NC, IN etc and hammer away on poverty issues, protecting the Constitution (she doesn't have to say she's pro gun--she just has to say 'I believe in the wisdom of our Constitution including the each article of the Bill of Rights and every single amendment).  She needs to remind voters of this and this.  Note that at the second link, scroll down to "famous 2002 speech".  Obama's famous anti-war speech--towards the end Obama isn't against the war so long as we have "international support" and "bipartisan support."  Bush's coalition of the willing may have been a joke but it was still 100 or so nations that said "thumbs up" in some manner or another.

    Beat him to the punch.  Turn his strengths into weaknesses.  Let your supporters keep Obama on the defensive (as his supporters have done to Hillary) and she keeps hammering away on the benefits of Clinton 90's policies.  Keep hammering away on John Edwards "two America's".  Keep hammering away that she made a decision to support her party, her president on the "authorization" vote but that Bush used that authorization poorly, has executed the war poorly, has no plan for withdrawal and she is the one candidate who wants to end the occupation while still supporting the Iraqi govt's quest for legitimacy.  

    Parent

    That's pretty good Ref (none / 0) (#177)
    by MMW on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    You'd make a descent campaign strategist. I think someone posted an email from the Clinton camp yesterday, asking for ideas. You should check it out. Offer your advice.

    Parent
    And Cream (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:20:44 AM EST
    didn't ya just love the last paragraph in Eugene Kane's article?

    There are bitter voters in small towns and villages across America, including Wisconsin, but it's likely nobody will get their votes by talking down to them. That's just common sense, which is something Wisconsinites are known more for than their bitterness.

    I thought it expressed how many of us "stupid" people feel very well.

    But Eugene Robinson seems to have taken to talking down to people on a regular basis recently. I used to read him often. Now not at all. If I want a press release from the Obama campaign I'll go to the source, not  some Obama Press Agent posing as a jouralist.

    Parent

    Agreed, Kenosha -- but I still read Kane (none / 0) (#189)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:44:48 AM EST
    regularly, because we both are in the big city here, and too many of our journalists are burbanites and don't tell me what my neighbors are thinking next door to me.   I read the local black press, too.  I  often see things differently than they do, too -- but I don't look to media for my affirmations.  I look to learn something I didn't know, especially about people I do know but aren't often heard.  And my work now keeps me from being talked to straight by too many people, sadly, as it used to be easier to keep a finger on the pulse of my city.

    Kane talks straight and often makes me uncomfortable, so it may (emphasis on "may":-) mean he's saying something I ought to have to hear here.   Much of what he says, of course, just must not make much sense to those away from our city!

    Parent

    I read him too. (5.00 / 0) (#212)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM EST
    I don't have to agree with everything someone says to learn from them. This old dog likes learning new tricks. :)

    Parent
    I head Robinson say that also (none / 0) (#162)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:07:11 AM EST
    and thought, "did he just say anyone who was offended is stupid?" I am glad I was not the only one who noticed.

    Parent
    He switched from angry (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:43:55 AM EST
    to me, me, me.
    Scarborough had a mini-debate with Mika Brezzenski? Mika obviously an Obama supporter who equates the bitter comment with Hillary's Bosnia tale.  Scarborough disagreed; he thinks it has a broader implication.  They agreed to wait for further opinion polls.

    Lou Dobbs devoted almost half of his show on the Obama gaffe; He had three guests on; can't recall their names but one was was Politico (Smith I think) another was a Clinton supporter and a journalist who leans Obama.  Lou Dobbs is shocked that Obama would say something like thatt; thinks it is demeaning to the working class that Obama already has trouble attracting.

    So, No.  This is not going away anytime soon, contrary to what the pro-Obama folks in the media might say.

    Parent

    Lou Dobbs (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by stillife on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:04:36 AM EST
    handed Ben Smith his a$$ last night when Smith tried to put forward the story that Democratic activists are calling for Clinton to drop out.  Dobbs flatly asserted that those calling for her to drop out are Obama supporters, not generic Democratic activists.  Smith didn't deny it.

    Parent
    It was a hoot to see (none / 0) (#89)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:18:38 AM EST
    and Ben Smith didn't know what to say, as Dobbs went in his face a couple of times to scold him and the rest of the chattering media class who keep repeating that "Democratic activists" -- i.e., all -- want Clinton out.  Nope, only "Obama activists."

    Parent
    Kinda (5.00 / 4) (#93)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:20:01 AM EST
    like how Daily Kos and Obama nation decide that Drudge was a credible source when it suited them no? Or when we decided that Reagan was a-ok.  Or that we should talk about the sacredness of sex and abstinence education according to Obama (like Bush!).   Get off the high horse.  Obama supporters have claimed much worse sources and media people than Lou Dobbs.  

    Parent
    He's awful on immigration (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:21:12 AM EST
    and that's when to switch the channel.  But he's correct on media coverage of the campaign.

    As Obama says, nobody's perfect.  So no one ought to be written off entirely.  Take from each what they have to offer that is worthwhile, while discarding what is not.  That's life in a great democracy -- and that's what Democrats have to get, that even McCain is not an entirely horrible awful person and might just get votes we want our nominee to get.

    Parent

    That's something I don't think (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:38:58 AM EST
    a lot of Progressives, especially Obama supporters just don't get Cream. People don't hate McCain. The media has been telling people that he was a mavarick, a straight-talker and all about his ordeal as a POW.

    Calling him McSame is not only childish, it's not going, IMHO, to work.

    Parent

    yes (none / 0) (#92)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:19:37 AM EST
    yes they are, as well Rove, Althouse, and well pretty much any other person be it right-wing ideologue or outright wing nut who supports their case...values and ethics be damned this war!

    Parent
    yes, they are (none / 0) (#94)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:20:03 AM EST
    these here supporters have been irrational for sometime when it comes to this election.

    Parent
    Pride goeth (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:16:27 AM EST
    before the fall.

    Pride hasn't gone yet, but I see a cliff in Obama's future.

    Parent

    yup (none / 0) (#96)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:21:02 AM EST
    its over this will be the end of his campaign...wait, wasn't that what you were saying about Wright?  I get so confusalated here with the shifting narratives.

    Parent
    It looks like (none / 0) (#137)
    by Arcadianwind on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:50:04 AM EST
    that cliff--may be somewhere in Indiana? There are some very nice cliffs in West Virginia as well, Seneca Rock is beautiful too.

    Parent
    try this (none / 0) (#178)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:25:04 AM EST
    link but substitute Obama for O'Doyle.

    Parent
    Because he knows (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:24:46 AM EST
    it will never be over. It may leave the discussions and fade into the background, but the miasma of Bitter-gate and Wright and Rezko still linger and will only intensify in the GE.

    I think it has really gotten in his head.

    Parent

    I think he realizes... (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:35:35 AM EST
    ...the seriousness of what he said. It threatens his primary campaign and would doom him in general. He can't simply say he made a poor choice of words. He needs to try to make the absurd claim that he meant something competely different.

    Parent
    Or answer the question and solve the problem (none / 0) (#181)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:29:31 AM EST
    His funders were just saying why should I give you money if you can't win over the working class, how will you do better than Clinton?

    Hoping for a strategy, no doubt. Instead he blames them for not supporting him on being disillusioned with politics (cling to anti immigrant etc). However the obvious thought is, so why does Clinton get through to them?

    I think its because her obvious interest in actual progressive policy, not "bipartisan" polemics, has been revealed at a kitchen table level.

    Parent

    Exactly (none / 0) (#213)
    by Daryl24 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    Just say the standard "I haven't done a good enough job of conveying my message to that particular constituency but we're seeing things turn around blah, blah and a yadda yadda."

    Instead he insults people who are about to vote on his future.

    Parent

    If they were concluded they want a Dem in office (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by angie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:00:44 AM EST
    then they will be voting for Clinton -- from what I've seen from Obama -- his "pro-life" sympathies, his honor of Regean, and the list goes on -- he isn't a Democrat.

    Parent
    of course (none / 0) (#105)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:26:14 AM EST
    we can obviously discount the Clinton's pandering to McCain as a great man and personal friend as what...lies or reality?  Either or, it looks bad - except in the echo chamber.

    Parent
    Are you suggesting (none / 0) (#127)
    by ChrisO on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:41:58 AM EST
    that if Obama campaigns against McCain he's going to say McCain's a jerk and he can't stand him? You folks are so big on uniting the country, but I guess that doesn't include making a civil remark about a Republican. Good start.

    Parent
    Actually Obama does the same thing (none / 0) (#175)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:23:07 AM EST
    and then sends his BloggerarmieZ to intimidate her when she does it.

    They both do it preparatory to launching an attack: ie

    McCain is a war hero, but he's wrong on Iraq.

    Her: Re who is better to beat McCain in the GE:

    McCain has not been in the White House: but (other than that superb qualification that only I have) McCain will -bring- claim(duh) his years of experience (which I will promptly demolish, wait and see)

    Out of this the Obama henchmen at TheDailyObama extract just

    She sayZ McCain is more experienced!!!! ...screech!!!! She endorsed him!!!!!

    Parent

    She didn't endorse McCain, get real here. (none / 0) (#182)
    by Radix on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:31:31 AM EST
    Or do you honestly believe that a winning strategy against McCain would have included he doesn't have the experience to be President? No, the real fight will be to ask whether or not America wants to travel the path that he, McCain, is quite capable of leading us down.

    There is no right, There is no wrong, only winning and money.
    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    You know... (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by ajain on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:04:31 AM EST
    When Obama supporters come out with such ridiculous analogies, because they feel like they are being attacked from the right-it always makes me wonder, where was this outrage when he attacked her character, when he tried to insult her out of the race, when he ran the Harry and Louise ads?

    This selective-outrage-syndrome just hurts your own credibility.

    Parent

    Keep spinning (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:34:44 AM EST
    she was not expressing fervent support of the right to bear arms, she made it clear that she still favors gun control. what she was expressing fervently is the importance of respecting people's CULTURE, of respecting the fact that regardless of whether or not you agree, gun culture is passed down in many families. And she recognizes this because her grandfather taught her to shoot, she never said this makes her a hunter, but simply that she gets that people don't just have guns because they are bitter, they have guns because they like to shoot stuff and because it is part of their heritage. What Obama said showed a basic disrespect for gun culture. Being for gun control is not at odds with showing people respect for their way of life. Gun control is not trying to take away guns from everyone, but it is trying to limit their access to criminials, kids, and people with mental illness.

    Get a grip.

    Parent

    You need to learn to look for nuance (5.00 / 2) (#119)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:37:25 AM EST
    as life really isn't black and white.  Look at the proposals for gun control -- we need it on some guns but not on others.  Actually, it is pretty simple.

    Small-town hunters and even urban ones who shoot for sport but also to put food on the table -- a deer here in the freezer can take families through a winter, as has been done here for thousands of years by our first people -- are not the same as gangs mowing down kids in our streets.  Get real.

    Parent

    Well we do have the right to bear arms, yes? (none / 0) (#163)
    by Radix on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:10:38 AM EST
    Or is Obama proposing a constitutional amendment? Also, as I recall, gun crime was down under Bill's presidency, as was all violent crime, but hey facts are such silly things anyway, right?

    There is no right, There is no wrong, only winning and money.
    Don Henley-The Garden of Allah

    Parent

    Jeering (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by BeBe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:07:33 AM EST
    The JJ dinner was in Philly and for Dems in that county which is Obama's strongest part of the state. His supporters always try to disrupt when anyone other than Sen Obama or one of his surrogates speak. Clinton supporters are to be quiet and act as if he is giving the Sermon on the Mount. It's a double standard.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:16:23 AM EST
    it's because her supporters are old women who have better manners?  </snark>

    Parent
    Please don't come here with BS (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ChrisO on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:18:35 AM EST
    Provide a link to a story that Hillary was "heavily jeered." I just checked the Post-Gazette web site and saw nothing on it. I guess the media didn't think it newsworthy to report a candidate being "heavily jeered" for commenting on a story that's dominating the news. Nope, nothing of interest there.

    Parent
    it's funny (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:38:08 AM EST
    That you say this as if it somehow reflects negatively on Clinton. Actually, it reflects negatively on Obama and his immature supporters. I wanted to jeer Obama when I heard him speak, really I did. But I didn't. You know why? Because it is called having good manners and showing people basic respect.

    All you have established is that Obama supporters are rude.

    Parent

    You're kidding, right? (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by ChrisO on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:53:06 AM EST
    I think you would have been much better off just saying "Guess I was wrong," rather than pointing to a clip that completely undermines your comment. There's a barely audible rumbling in the crowd, and you describe that as "heavily jeered?" Are you kidding? As others have said, you'll hear more booing of Hillary at times because that's what Obama supporters do. I remember during the debate when she made her plagiarism comment, and people like Josh Marshall were trying to say it backfired because "the crowd" booed. If you listen  it was about half the crowd. I wonder which half?

    When are you guys going to get how disgusting it is to keep hearing Obama supporters talking about Hillary destroiying the party, when the booing and really disgusting comments come from you people? What a disgrace.

    Parent

    It's the MASK OF OBAMA (5.00 / 4) (#152)
    by Marguerite Quantaine on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:01:51 AM EST
    all over again.

    syndrome of perception and transference.

    Because, admit it or not, Obama is an elitist.

    Which means, he didn't get caught making a gaffe. He got caught, again, telling the truth.

    And Hillary's people should be focused on that. On providing a way to help people recognize when Obama is telling the truth.

    Look, Warren Buffet is one of the richest men on earth. But he's as affable and comfortable and inviting as an old shoe to a puppy. He's no elitist.

    So, the amount of money one has means nothing in the realm of elitism. It is the ego that elevates. It is the attitude of the person. It is, very often, someone who has risen above his self-imposed station in life, and now looks down with disdain at those who didn't do as he did. It is a superiority complex. It is the "I, me, mine" factor buried beneath the facade.

    Obama got caught telling the truth about how he sees blue collar workers in America.

    And rather than hold him accountable for the truth he told, the media has allowed him the luxury  of deceit by providing him with a prejudiced press that's become America's weapon of choice for mass self-destruction.

    When Hillary "misspeaks" it's a media federal case requiring a firing squad by columnists and pundits toting M16's of asinine ammunition.

    When Obama "misspeaks" it's dismissed as "boneheaded" and a "gaffe" and as being AWOL from church.

    Elitists expect, demand, and get such treatment.

    They feed on the inferiority complexes of journalists, admirers, and especially also-ran-wannabe-colleagues. They can't hold their own with smarter, stronger, more confidant individuals, but they know if they control the lesser masses, their strength will come in numbers.

    The Democrats are skipping along like sheep to slaughter behind this man who will be exposed when someone, eventually, has the courage to investigate his second (not first, but second) land deal with Rezko worth a half million dollars. When someone shows he, his wife, and his children were present during other incendiary sermons at a church Oprah left in 1995, and what his mentor said about Oprah when she exited him. He will be shown as a man who, as he's admitted, wears a mask when dealing with whites, but removes the mask in the company of his own.

    This is a man who sincerely believes he's superior, and therefore qualified to reign over the huddled masses yearning for him.

    Barack Obama is an elitist.

    He's also the Democrats answer to George Bush, with the same kind of blind following -- one that's caught up in emotions for the perception of the man.

    And he's wallowing in it.

    Parent

    Oh, please (5.00 / 1) (#153)
    by Grey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:01:57 AM EST
    I watched the video, and three people and their cats said "no" a handful of times.

    Even Chris Matthews, who introduced the tape on Hardall yesterday the way you're describing it,  completely walked it back once the camera went back to him and said, "Well, I didn't hear any jeering."

    That was Tweety, not fabricating a scandal.  You know, for once.


    Parent

    Willie, I heard that and (none / 0) (#166)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:13:12 AM EST
    "heavily jeered" is overstating it to put it mildly. It was a mixed reaction of a few jeers and a few cheers by supporters of both. Even Tweety said he could hear no jeering. Olberman flat out lied.

    Parent
    Yeah, well.... (4.87 / 8) (#7)
    by Fabian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:34:24 AM EST
    the way that these remarks have been interpreted have offended some people

    I'll be sure to use that line or some paraphrase of it when someone gets all in my face over something I said/posted.  I'm sure it will satisfy them that it was "the way they interpreted my remarks" that caused the offense and not the the remarks themselves.

    No wonder Obama liked Alito so much.  Alito is the Parsing King!  (That was my impression from his confirmation hearing.)

    Please Obama.  Either get a freaking clue or just keep stepping in it.  Either shape up or ship out.  

    I used to be impressed with Obama's ability with words, but now he seems like a Reagan/GWB hybrid.  Good with a speech, lousy when he strays off message.

    His comments about Hillary are.... (4.83 / 6) (#4)
    by Maria Garcia on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:23:41 AM EST
    ...really condescending! Also, I hate when people try to tell me when I should be offended, or more to the point, when I should not be offended. Look, he might get the Democratic nomination but he needs an attitude adjustment if he wants to win the GE. This kind of attitude is going to wear really thin.

    Yes -- Annie Oakley comment was very sexist (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:40:40 AM EST
    He would never snicker about John Edwards learning to shoot a gun from his grandfather, but when a GIRL handles a gun, its something funny to him. I bet the families of the over 400 women that have died in Iraq or the hundreds of thousands of women that handle guns in their jobs, found humor in that comment.  

    Parent
    i think he was calling her out (1.00 / 1) (#76)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:09:09 AM EST
    for pandering - and she was... Sexist is a pathetic charge -- you guys are really desperate.  

    Parent
    He never would have made... (none / 0) (#109)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:28:13 AM EST
    ...the same comment about a male opponent. He thinks the idea of a woman handling a gun is somehow funny. It falls into his previous sexist comments.

    Parent
    it is somewhat funny that Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#131)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:45:21 AM EST
    was pandering to gun owners when she's spent her life opposing their rights.  now, annie oakley is one of the most famous women shooters; it is a reference point for Clinton's silliness. keep grabbing.

    Parent
    Those are Right Wing Talking Points... (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:51:07 AM EST
    She's been talking about her experiences with guns the whole campaign. That's a fact.

    The Brady Bill and Violence Against Women Act were reasonable gun control measures that the vast majority of people in the USA agreed.  Obama is actually pretty extreme on the issue of gun control -- sponsoring one measure, in fact, that would have made it a felony if someone steals your unlocked gun and commits a crime with it.

     

    Parent

    Sorry, can't agree (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:56:32 AM EST
    Hillary was appealing to the people Obama insulted, which may include many gun owners (and some gun nuts) but it was a class thing, not a 2nd amendment thing.

    Hate to tell you this, but there are some gun owners who believe in some kind of gun control. If you think everyone who owns a rifle is Charleton Heston, you're really naive.

    Again, you folks are picking at minutia when you can't attack the message. Obama MESSED UP, and is continuing to MESS UP. He doesn't have the sack to say I MESSED UP, and that is ticking off a lot of people.

    As for the Wisconsin item above, where there might be a danger that he might have lost some of the states whom he had been counting on for his 48 state strategy in the fall, that's another thing for the Super D's to think about.

    I guess Obama really is a D.C. Democrat after all: He is doing everything he can to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

    Parent

    Lets see today we are (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:04:38 AM EST
    Irrational, desperate, grabbing.  

    Parent
    beats yesterday (4.00 / 2) (#186)
    by Kathy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    when we were elderly, stupid and deluded.

    Parent
    We were? (2.00 / 1) (#191)
    by Stellaaa on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    Ma and Pa Kettle meet the Creative Class.  

    Parent
    And I think you should be banned (none / 0) (#190)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:46:14 AM EST
    for constantly calling supporters of Hillary Clinton "desperate". Make your, point, if you can without insulting those that do not agree.

    Parent
    Oh good grief, (none / 0) (#192)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:47:57 AM EST
    here I am hanging out way below the comment that I was commenting on. I was replying to agreestodisagree.

    Parent
    How many duck hunters use six-shooters? (none / 0) (#91)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:19:26 AM EST
    At least we can rule out BO hunting photo ops.

    Parent
    umm.. (none / 0) (#98)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:21:30 AM EST
    At least we can rule out BO hunting photo ops.

    what do you mean by that?

    Parent

    While I myself (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by magisterludi on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:35:06 AM EST
    am not a duck hunter, I do know that one does not use a six-shooter in a duck blind. Unless maybe it's Yosemite Sam.

    A shotgun is used in duck hunting.

    Parent

    She should jump on him about that... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Exeter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:46:41 AM EST


    Parent
    Google Annie Oakley, click on images (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:39:42 AM EST
    and find one that has her with six-shooters.  Obama's research stinks.  She was a sharpshooter with a rifle, and that's what brings down duckies.

    Parent
    If not Clinton, It's McCain for me (none / 0) (#130)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:45:19 AM EST
    because I cannot stand the attitude of Obama and his supporters.

    Parent
    attitude is a great way (none / 0) (#133)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:47:15 AM EST
    to vote.  who cares about Iraq, health care, poverty, etc.  

    solid. rational.

    Parent

    What are we supposed to do? (none / 0) (#151)
    by blogtopus on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:00:30 AM EST
    If Obama supporters keep ASSUMING that if you don't want Obama in office, then you must want McCain, where will people go? People don't like to be cornered.

    Does that disturb you that the great Uniter is unable to attract people who are on the fence about Dem/Rep?


    Parent

    my lord... (none / 0) (#110)
    by myed2x on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:28:16 AM EST
    ...you do realize Clinton's been strutting around for the last few days telling the entire country they should be offended?!?

    Parent
    We are offended (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:39:28 AM EST
    and HRC is not telling us how to feel.

    We leave that to Obama and his supporters, who constantly tell us not to be offended by his offensive words.

    Parent

    "Strutting"? Nope, the one (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:43:01 AM EST
    with the chin in the air in too many photos is Obama.  The one with the stride across the stage, but I always have found the chin in the air to be odd and unusual for one so tall.  Clinton has her characteristics and quirks, but never does she strut.  Word: Watch your words; they make you and your candidate look even worse.

    Parent
    Strutting? (none / 0) (#193)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:49:33 AM EST


    Parent
    Oy vey. (4.80 / 5) (#5)
    by lansing quaker on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:24:16 AM EST
    "But I'm sure that Senator Clinton feels like she's doing me a great favor, because she's been deploying most of the arguments that the Republican Party will be using against me in November, and so, it's toughening me up. And I'm getting a run through the paces here."

    ...

    ...

    I think the only response I can garner is "LOLOL!"  I mean, seriously?

    Obama.  Responding to elitism/snob charges with this.

    Oy. vey.

    What's your point? (none / 0) (#42)
    by CLancy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:26:57 AM EST
    No. Really? What was funny and/or strange about it? Is he a snob because he thinks he's going to win? I've read here, and heard from Clinton's own mouth, that she feels the same way. Does that make her a snob as well?

    I hope I'm not bursting any bubbles, but they're both self-interested elites. So is Edwards. And, so is McCain. Just because they have policies or positions that are carefully crafted to maximize their appeal to the non-elites who vote for them does not make them any less so.

    Sixteen years ago, many accused Hillary Clinton of being an elitist who "insulted" stay-at-home moms with the "baking cookies" remark on 60 Minutes. It was BS then, just as this contrived outrage is BS now.

    Parent

    They were not accusing (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:35:14 AM EST
    her of being an elitist.  They were accusing her of not being feminist enough.  So get your facts straight.  

    And if you can't see what about his remarks is ridiculously condescending, rude and nasty then you know exactly why he will lose in November.  His supporters are playing with fire.  So is he.  He is alienating women, Hispanics, blue-collar workers and Clinton loyalists at his peril.  Kos and his readers will NOT be getting him the Presidency.  Unlike what the perception is, the country is much bigger than the media elite and Obama-loving bloggers.  He will lose as badly as McGovern. Especially as he continues to insult Hillary, her voters and most of the country.  Good luck riding the blog and media wave into the WH.  Because it will not happen.

    Parent

    The country is much bigger (none / 0) (#55)
    by independent voter on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:45:21 AM EST
    than Clinton loving bloggers as well.
    The blog world is (thankfully) not the real world.

    Parent
    You're absolutely right. (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:49:12 AM EST
    But Clinton-loving blue collar folk? There's lots more of them than Kossacks. You better believe that.  She actually managed to bring back Reagan Dems into the party after 20 years. But convince yourself that her support is Taylor Marsh and us.  Sadly for Obama, we're a much much bigger group than the liberal elite solidly behind him.  

    Parent
    The Reagan Dems came back (none / 0) (#68)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:04:26 AM EST
    after Reagan.  Those that didn't are just called Republicans now.

    Parent
    No. They didn't actually. (none / 0) (#77)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:09:51 AM EST
    Her base is even broader than Bill's was. Conservative Reagan Democrats that voted for Bush and Dole are voting for her.  Her base of support is actually BIGGER than her husband's was.  Obama and his supporters ignore this at their peril.  

    Parent
    Voted for Dole? (none / 0) (#155)
    by cannondaddy on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:03:02 AM EST
    I'm sure the number of Democrats who are now voting for Hillary, after voting for a Bush four times and voted for Dole, is statistically insignificant...

    Parent
    So are all those (none / 0) (#161)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:07:06 AM EST
    silly women, Hispanics, older folks and all the  low-info voters Obama can apparently do without.  With that I say Good luck, you're gonna need it.

    Parent
    women are like 55% of voting Democrats, right? (none / 0) (#184)
    by dotcommodity on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:33:49 AM EST


    Parent
    apparently not all blue collar people (none / 0) (#100)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:23:09 AM EST
    are alike.  his numbers haven't moved (some polls show he's risen) this past week.  whoopsie - people aren't as stupid as Clinton would like to think.

    Parent
    Really (none / 0) (#149)
    by cdalygo on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:57:33 AM EST
    What about Indiana?

    Parent
    Why can't celebrities and politicians just say: (4.75 / 4) (#8)
    by nativenycer on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:36:36 AM EST
    "I'm sorry. It was wrong of me to say that"?

    In this case, because he believes it (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:26:01 AM EST
    If he said it was wrong of him to say it, tomorrow there will be 200 other clips and quotes of him saying the same thing, and then he would also be called a liar for having denied it.

     This is what he believes.  All he can 'regret' is not having said it more diplomatically.

    Parent

    what do you disagree with... (none / 0) (#78)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:11:45 AM EST
    there are people that are bitter.  there are people that cling to issues like guns/gays/god.  it's true.   now, i agree his words were chosen poorly in a political setting but c'mon.  in fact, he said it in a pretty stupid manner... but now we don't want are pols to talk to us like adults.  we haven't for a while now.

    Parent
    I didn't realize (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:15:26 AM EST
    that Obama insulting me and calling me racist, gun-toting, immigrant hating racists was "treating me like an adult." You make the point for us. Thanks.  

    Parent
    i don't remember saying everybody (none / 0) (#102)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:24:18 AM EST
    hmmm.  so you deny that his comments are true?

    Parent
    I absolutely deny that his comments are true. (5.00 / 3) (#111)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:30:25 AM EST
    That's the problem with you and his supporters in general.  You keep saying "It's true!" But he never said that some people find comfort in religion. Or that hunting is a past time in small town America. Or that some anti-immigrant feelings are a result of the terrible BUSH (not clinton) economy.  He said we're bitter. We're CLINGING to our guns and our religion and our racism.  What he said is absolutely false. The fact that you and HIM cannot see that is what I mean when I say you make my point. You see nothing wrong with what he said.

    There is everything wrong with what he said.

    Parent

    Rooge (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by cmugirl on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:33:52 AM EST
    Don't even bother - just ignore.  It's not worth getting your blood pressure up.

    Parent
    You have no problem (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by waldenpond on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:42:46 AM EST
    with it because he and you are referring us backwards rubes from small towns that are too stoooopid to figure out that it is our interest to vote for Obama.

    If some personal voted their economic interests, they wouldn't vote Democrat for a single issue such as SCOTUS, they would be voting Republican.  I don't need Social Security, I don't need health care insurance, I like cuts in capital gains taxes etc.

    If I agree with Obama's opinion, that people are too stooopid to balance economic and social issues, and should only ever vote economic issues, I should vote Republican.

    Parent

    Keep spinning (none / 0) (#103)
    by ChrisO on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:24:19 AM EST
    He didn't say "some people." He said "communities." You can find "some people" to fit nearly any description. But that's not what he said.

    And keep telling yourself that it doesn't matter that he made the remarks to a bunch of wealthy San Franciscans. It's clear to anyone who's not desperately trying to defend him that he was talking to the crowd as "us," and talking about small town Pennsylvanians as "them."

    Parent

    talking points (none / 0) (#104)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:25:53 AM EST
    good lord.  yes, poorly chosen words.  hurt his point.  you guys are just praying that this is the poison pill but it's not (people aren't stupid).

    Parent
    People aren't stupid? (none / 0) (#195)
    by oldpro on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:50:29 AM EST
    Actually, it turns out that quite a few are.

    Who has been POTUS these past 7+ years?  And how did that happen?  Elections, right?

    How many/what per cent of the American people are still hanging in there with GWB?

    What per cent of the people in this country don't 'believe' in evolution...but do believe that a prophet named Jesus arose from the dead and, in fact, is coming back again!?  (With or without 'The Rapture.')

    You'd better HOPE that people are still as stupid this election cycle as the last or Obama won't be your president.

    Either way, he won't be mine.

    Parent

    He didn't apply that to his own neighborhood tho (none / 0) (#136)
    by Ellie on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:49:59 AM EST
    When he glossed over Rev Wright's rantings as excusable because of the neighborhood's economic hardships and alienation, the anger was supposedly righteous.

    Was his neighborhood clinging to religion? Bitter? Distrustful -- and negatively so -- of people not like themselves?

    Parent

    Data refuting the Thomas Franks theory (none / 0) (#179)
    by ruffian on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:25:21 AM EST
    What Obama was referrring to was the "What's The Matter With Kansas" thesis, and applying it to Dems as well.  That proposition has been debated and researched for years.  It is not a proven fact with data to support it.  Here is a good quick summary

    LINK

    I expect data when people make such sweeping sociological statements as Obama's.  If he has some to put forth to support his idea, he should do so.

    Parent

    And Kansas went for Obama (none / 0) (#203)
    by katiebird on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:14:02 AM EST
    (to my sorrow) on Super Tuesday.....

    What IS the matter with Kansas?

    Parent

    because we're happier when the rednecks hurt? (4.50 / 2) (#6)
    by moll on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:27:04 AM EST
    Sure. Right. No damage at all. And we'll all just come together on the Unity Pony and ride off together.

    He doesn't have to be sorry. He doesn't really want Pennsylvania (Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Kentucky) in the general. We didn't want those labor jerks anyway - and just in case they missed, the point, we'll say it again a few times.

    Question is - why? Because it's gone beyond thinking he could somehow still win those states. He doesn't care. He wants to antagonize working class whites, just like in his speech when he dismissed affirmative action and said their problem was stagnant wages.

    Why does he deliberately antagonize this group?

    Who benefits?

    Because you see, "He has won" (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by felizarte on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:45:30 AM EST
    the nomination and Hillary is simply teaching him to be a better candidate for November.  What conceit!

    Parent
    I understand Talk Left (1.00 / 1) (#164)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:12:02 AM EST
    is pro-Hillary.

    And the Obama Gaffe is the best thing that ever happened to Hillary Clinton.

    What I don't understand is why you are writing as though candidates for office shouldn't express ideas, especially true ideas.

    Obama still doesn't get that he has "hurt people's feelings." Well maybe their feelings SHOULD be hurt. Kristol equated Obama with Marx yesterday in the NY Times, because it would be dangerous in our politics if a candidate said to the underpaid and underinsured, "Stop being doormats and chumps."

    Obama said no such thing, but what he did say is correct. There are more churches in poor areas, urban or rural. Europe, with its actual working safety net has the least churches of any place except Japan. And Japan, again, has a safety net.

    I think the Right Wing Noise Machine is playing this just right, and I agree that this is Hillary's best issue. But when John Fund and Michelle Malkin are both representing the non-elitist's like John, Po' Boy McCain, don't yopu think progressive blogs should at least tell the people who used to have jobs that paid a living wage, "You deserve better"?

    You just don't get it!!! (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by MarkL on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:15:50 AM EST
    What Obama said is NOT TRUE! It's no more true than saying that Obama must like watermelons.
    He does not understand small town people, while Hillary obviously does.


    Parent
    Here's the problem in a nutshell: (5.00 / 2) (#170)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:16:50 AM EST
    What I don't understand is why you are writing as though candidates for office shouldn't express ideas, especially true ideas.

    What part of IT'S NOT TRUE do you not understand?

    What he said was that people in Pennsylvania support HRC over him because they are bitter and clinging to guns and religion.

    IT'S.

    NOT.

    TRUE.

    Jeebus.

    Parent

    Not true? then explain (none / 0) (#208)
    by dem08 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:10:40 PM EST
    why Reagan Democrats voted for the man who decreased THEIR quality of life.

    Explain why there are more churches in poor neighborhoods than wealthy ones.

    Explain why places with a great social net have LESS religion than places like America.

    Obama expressed an idea that many, including Big Tent, said sociologists would probably find correct.

    Politicians shouldn't trade in ideas they should sell people images of themselves. I understand that. And driving Obama down with a "Gothcha" moment is her greatest hope. I undesrtand that.

    Why a Blog devoted to changing Americans prejudices against defendants wants to seize on this issue? I do not understand.

    Parent

    I agree with him (none / 0) (#1)
    by TruthMatters on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:16:42 AM EST
    most polling doesn't show it to be that big of a problem, when people in PA have been asked, most say its not a big deal (yes you get the republicans and HRC supporters who say yes) I mean heck check out this media curves for the results the got when they looked at this

    http://www.mediacurves.com/Politics/J6797/ReportJ6797.pdf

    it doesn't seem like it's going to stick like some wanted it too.

    SUSA only one that's gotten it right throughout (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by marklar on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:25:00 AM EST
    Check out this pole from a week ago. Hillary by 18%. That's before bitter-gate hit. http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=c79e5bab-a424-49f6-86d6-50c61cf729b7&q=45558

    Parent
    Let's wait and see (5.00 / 4) (#52)
    by Marvin42 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:39:17 AM EST
    When IN and PA results come in, then we'll all be experts. I think the polls are missing something very important. Even if someone say this "doesn't matter" I have a feeling this along with his pastors comments has probably cemented supports against him in certain areas of the country.

    Looking forward to SuSA in PA, IN didn't look too good for him on the last one.

    Parent

    I've never heard of media curves (5.00 / 0) (#121)
    by ChrisO on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:38:11 AM EST
    or seen them cited a single time throughout the primary season. So pardon me if I'm not impresased. Is this what you consider "most polling?"

    I also think it's hilarious that you discount McCain and Hillary supporters, as if that leaves "just folks" to be polled. How ridiculous.

    I saw absolutely nothing in your link that talked about methodology. Were the respondednts just asked if they had heard Obama's remarks, or was the full text read to them? This is entirely relevant, because the media has played up the "bitter" stuff, and ignored a lot of what he said about guns and religion. I don't believe that part of it is just going to go away.

    How about a poll question that asks "Did he describe your community?"

    Parent

    that's because the media adopted Obama's (none / 0) (#37)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:19:15 AM EST
    focus on "bitter" -the better part of his toxic remarks.
    This is the epitome of truthiness! - and his supporters allow it.
    In this case, it's the Repubs who are providing the whole truth of his remarks - the ignorant working class isn't voting for him because they cling to their gun toting Bible thumpin racist beliefs.

    Parent
    Correction (none / 0) (#16)
    by Saul on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:49:17 AM EST
    Meant to say with his coat off not shirt off.

    Guts to use the word (none / 0) (#64)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 08:56:22 AM EST
    You know, the word we know for fact but can't say out loud. That is another problem, why can't we just discuss this elephant in the room and the effect it would have in November?

    This was in answer (none / 0) (#112)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:30:48 AM EST
    to a comment above. Otherwise, it makes no sense here. Sorry.

    Parent
    Wake Up! (none / 0) (#74)
    by Doc Rock on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:08:59 AM EST
    The upper-class controlled, big media are not going to permit an examination of serious issues!

    ...nor an examination of Obama! (5.00 / 3) (#81)
    by Josey on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:14:41 AM EST
    That same media sold us Bush in 2000, the Iraq War - and now Obama.


    Parent
    Obama's ex-Senate mentor (none / 0) (#87)
    by madamab on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:16:50 AM EST
    wonders whether Obama's a Marxist on Fox News.

    This is not going away.

    pathetic (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:18:50 AM EST
    are you serious?  grasping at straws.  

    Parent
    We're grasping at straws but (5.00 / 4) (#99)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:22:34 AM EST
    you are here systematically trying to attack every single Clinton supporter every single day with your claims of desperation. Who is desperate here? If you are "winning" as Obama claims, then LET HIM WIN.  Stop trying to call us desperate, pathetic and everything else.  You are the one giving off the air of desperation the way you come in every day trying to call us desperate and HRC a loser.  

    Parent
    watching the wunderkind (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by TheRefugee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:34:23 AM EST
    implode is probably a shock to their senses.  They didn't know how to support their candidate through positive remarks on policy---they only know how to attack Clinton.  Now that he's faltering--they still only know how to attack Clinton.  

    Since none of them ever bothered to learn what Obama was, other than a great speaker, it comes as no surprise that they can't promote Obama, only defend him through attacking Clinton.  

    I think it is awesome that they can come here and attack us when we talk about gay issues, Iraq, the economy, poverty, health care---but that they also attack when their guy screws up and we call him on it.  That they never defend him with policies of his own is absolutely hilarious, just more of the same:  "you guys are desperate, she's lost, give up."

    Parent

    Thank you rooge04! (none / 0) (#197)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:57:30 AM EST
    I have been saying the same thing for days. This one person, saying the same things over and over is making my head hurt. Is that cause I'm desperate? Or because I am sick and darn tired of someone calling me names every darn day and getting away with it! (And you have no idea how hard it was to clean that up so that I didn't get myself banned.)

    Parent
    VIDEO??? (none / 0) (#101)
    by kenosharick on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    Anyone heard if there is videotape of his original remarks coming out? I thought it was, but have seen nothing.

    yup on corrente (none / 0) (#106)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:27:03 AM EST
    sorry having problems posting a link.
    Feel free to help me out, talklefters!

    Parent
    Put the link between the chains (none / 0) (#125)
    by BarnBabe on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:39:51 AM EST
    Click chains. Enter http// address. It will be between <> and right after "> Insert  name between > <. as in  > name</a.<br> Hope that helps.

    Parent
    Thanks! (none / 0) (#135)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:48:37 AM EST
    from a low information Hillary supporter!   ;)

    Parent
    A few more tips (none / 0) (#174)
    by Cream City on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:22:56 AM EST
    -- it only works for me, maybe it's my browser, if I bold-face a word first that will be the link, then copy that word again, then go to the url symbol, then paste the url . . . and then, above all (and this was missing from instructions I kept getting from good folks here) I make sure that I'm in auto format.  It is burdensome, but so it goes.

    Parent
    There (none / 0) (#113)
    by nell on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:31:34 AM EST
    certainly is videotape of the event, Halperin reported that there were lots of people taking videos. The only video that has been released thus far, however, is of the comments he made just before the quote in question about how people are cynical when they are being approached by him or something. It cuts off JUST before the comments in question. I have no doubt that it was recorded, but since the event is full of die-hard Obama supporters, it is doubtful that video would come out. I do believe, though, that the LA Times obtained footage but have not released it.

    Parent
    Good question (none / 0) (#126)
    by suisser on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:40:45 AM EST
    I heard on CNN on the 13th that there was video and yet I haven't heard any more on the subject.


    Parent
    nell is correct (none / 0) (#122)
    by kmblue on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:38:42 AM EST
    corrente does not have the Obama "bitter" quote.
    My bad for implying it does.

    The video they have up (none / 0) (#141)
    by rooge04 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:51:20 AM EST
    is the part right before where he claims that those bitter people won't hear his message because it will be delivered by a 46 year old Black Man. Yeah, that part was offensive too.

    Parent
    Flip-Flopping all over the place (none / 0) (#159)
    by stefystef on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 10:05:13 AM EST
    Why does Obama keep changing his response to this???
    First he said he was misquoted.  Then misunderstood.  Then attacked.  Now he's trying to re-word  himself again?  Can't he find an answer and stick to it?  He's constant addressing this issue means that inside polls, done by his camp, is showing that people were negatively affected by that statement.

    Obama is the voice of change in America???  You gotta be kidding me.  He keeps talking about it and Hillary has moved on.  This proves that Obama is not ready for Prime Time and not ready for the real challenges and attacks that will come against him by the Republicans in the General Election.

    That's why we need Hillary "Annie, Get Your Gun" Clinton.  What does Annie say??"  Anything you can do/I can do better/Anything I can do better than you!!!

    YES, I CAN!!!!

    Hillary '08

    TickingTime Bomb (none / 0) (#206)
    by pluege on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 11:58:30 AM EST
    Bitter-Gate seems pretty played out, and he appears to have survived it.

    "Bitter-gate" may have reached the end of its news cycle worthiness for now, but:

    1. its far from clear its impact.
    2. if Obama is the dem nominee we'll be hearing about it again in spades...only a down payment has been made.


    And (none / 0) (#214)
    by Daryl24 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:35:29 PM EST
    Reverend Wright

    Parent
    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#215)
    by Jeralyn on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:42:46 PM EST
    Thanks everyone.

    I'm worried that even with our (none / 0) (#216)
    by WillBFair on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 07:23:22 PM EST
    ace in the hole, that most people know the war was a mistake, Obama might not even win the ge. All the silly things his people have said and done - Michelle saying she might not vote for Hillary, implying the Clintons are racist, his supporters foul smears, Wright, the dated far left cliches disguised as policy, and now insulting the red States - all that could add up in people's minds. The republicans will make use of it. Once the Clintons are out of the way, the msm will start chewing on him, and anything can happen.
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com  

    Obama Rephrases His Regrets About His "Bitter" Remark | 205 comments (205 topical)