Will Barack Obama Defend Move On?

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

I am a long time critic of Move On, including their idiotic General Betray Us ad. Barack Obama was smart not to vote against the Senate resolution condemning Move On. Hillary Clinton made a mistake voting against it.

I find the outrage expressed by the "Creative Class" blogs on Hillary Clinton's critique of Move On quite amusing. What most amuses me about it is how none of these blogs are asking Barack Obama to do or say anything in defense of Move On.

It's funny to me because Barack Obama has studiously avoided acknowledging the existence of Move On throughout this campaign. My question for the "Creative Class" blogs is this, if what Hillary Clinton said was so bad, how come Barack Obama won't defend Move On against Hillary Clinton's attacks?

< Saturday Open Thread | Obama Brings Back Harry And Louise >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Why should he (5.00 / 4) (#2)
    by Stellaaa on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:05:01 PM EST
    "they" will still love him.  

    Indeed (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:06:38 PM EST
    That is the point. Why should he do anything at all to "pander" to the "Creative Class progressive base" when they are for him unconditionally.

    Yes, BTD you see.... (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Maria Garcia on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:12:07 PM EST
    ...it isn't his job to defend them. It's their job to defend him.

    Apparently (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:12:43 PM EST
    no matter what.

    Obama could dig up Paul Wellstone's body, (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:05:34 PM EST
    throw it in a landfill and no one in the blogs would say boo. They've completely forgotten or changed the things they once believe in.

    The imagery is disturbing (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    but the point well taken.

    Also, Moveon has no right to expect a (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:07:27 PM EST
    defense from Obama. They supported him even though he didn't back them up. Why should he back them up now? He knows they are behind him no matter what. It's wasted effort on his part.

    You like to stir the pot... (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by citizen53 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:10:16 PM EST
    Kudos to you.

    MoveOn already shot its wad by holding an election that I did not even know about.

    They made no demands of Obama and they will likely get nothing in return.

    I stopped even listening to them, as they yell too loud to be effective in the long run.


    I write what I think (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:12:08 PM EST
    as I always have.

    If that stirs the pot, sobeit.


    Fine... (none / 0) (#28)
    by citizen53 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:34:17 PM EST
    but no need to be so matter of fact.

    It was a compliment.


    uhm... (5.00 / 1) (#58)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:56:55 PM EST
    "BTD" is the Spanish abbreviation for "matter of fact," I believe...

    I thought it meant big tent democrat (none / 0) (#59)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:02:38 PM EST
    Because he really does not want to be (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:12:53 PM EST
    identified with an organization that is vilified in right-wing circles as "leftist;" it's one more example, for me, of his running away from liberalism and attempting to paint himself a less intense shade of blue so that he can be accepted by Republicans and independents.

    It's the same reason - or part of the reason - he cannot bring himself to utter a word of praise for the Clinton years (the other part is that he thinks it hels Hillary) - he can't win those not-Democratic votes by actually being a Democrat and saying anything complimentary about a man so many people hate.

    It does, frankly, annoy the cr@p out of me that he so easily dismisses the Democratic, liberal base in favor of cozying up to Republicans - who, I suspect, will desert him in droves in November if he is the nominee.

    I would not suggest that anyone hold their breath waiting for Obama to take up any cause that is identified (rightly or wrongly) as liberal, progressive or leftist.

    Wouldn't be prudent.

    Because someone might ask (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:21:46 PM EST
    how he got their endorsement.

    Axelrod is a specialist at astroturfing, and the endorsement was based on an online poll heavily promoted by WKJM and DailyObama.

    Do the math.


    Why would Obama defend MoveOn? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by Manuel on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:20:43 PM EST
    Aren't the progressive blogs the epitomy of the partisanship Obama decries?  

    Good question (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:21:32 PM EST
    Suppose I posted a diary at DK (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:22:57 PM EST
    which rephrased the 2005 Obama diary, making the same points. How well do you think that would be received, if it didn't have Obama's name attached?

    Today? (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:24:41 PM EST
    It would be well received. Then? not so much.

    Perhaps (none / 0) (#29)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:34:43 PM EST
    Blogs inherently lend themselves to dysfunctional, divisive political discourse. The Barack-supporting blogs are no different. They freely discount criticisms of Obama and distort the views of opponents.

    Hillary blogs have been no less in the thrall of their ideological blinders, however. Obama supporters are routinely derided as fanatical or naive. Hillary is generally without fault.


    I'm curious (none / 0) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:12:58 PM EST
    What ideological blinders have you found here?

    I deny your charge on behalf of Jeralyn.

    As for me, I think there is not a dime's worth of difference between them ideologically. Where do you think they part ideologically?


    but they're very smart people, btd (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Turkana on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:26:02 PM EST
    they understand things others don't. they particularly understand things those lowly bitter blue collar workers who keep voting for hillary don't. which is why those people vote for hillary against their own best interests. you can't take obama's words at face value, unless they're words of inspiration. you can't take his actions or lack of actions at face value. you have to see through things. the surface may be confusing, but the pure essence is pure, if you're creative and classy enough to perceive it.

    If they at least said that (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:29:35 PM EST
    it would be an improvement on what we get now.

    It would be an honest description of (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:14:35 PM EST
    what they do. It would invite the c word again.

    It Also Helps If You Take Everything He Says (5.00 / 7) (#26)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:31:21 PM EST
    and restate it differently by adding words and meanings that were not in his original statement. Keep massaging the statement until it says exactly what you want to hear and boy is Obama right on whatever he says.

    Kind of like how a priest (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Fabian on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:42:19 PM EST
    or minister or preacher interprets the Word Of God for the faithful?

    can't take them at face value? (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by kimsaw on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:00:31 PM EST
    I'm sorry I take them at face value. He said what he said. We can all assume ( you know what that does) that he meant the broader picture, then he should have chose his words more carefully. After all "words matter", and that apparently doesn't mean squat to MoveOn and the creative class. Only their words matter, they know what they meant and it doesn't matter that no else does? The creative class- a telepathic organization of the arrogantly educated . Are my words chosen carefully enough. For a college educated crowd Obama's supporters lack blue collar common sense. Understand?

    'Uniters' stay above the fray; Real Leaders LEAD (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:30:56 PM EST
    Obama's taking his cues from the current Uniter squatting in the Republican Palace, though the latter propped his supporters and cronies (to a fault, as most of them were scum.)

    Obama's M.O. is to let his underlings do his work while he ponders, speechify's, and promises to think about stuff in the future.

    In passing, what galls me about his vaunted credentials to hold office and hype inflated comparison to far greater leaders and activists like JFK, MLK, Gandhi and X -- all of whom he samples in his speeches -- is that by his (Obama's) age or well before his betters were so accomplished with, you know, ACTUAL ACCOMPLISHMENTS they rippled internationally.

    Even the Obama Yes (We) Can mantra is cribbed ... from Sammy Davis Jr's autobiography. (Yes I Can! The Sammy Davis Jr. Story)

    If Obama ever had an original thought it died of loneliness long ago.

    Harry & Louise Once Again (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by Petey on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:31:27 PM EST
    "I find the outrage expressed by the "Creative Class" blogs on Hillary Clinton's critique of Move On quite amusing."

    Somewhat tangential, but check out how Obama is closing his Pennsylvania campaign by running yet another ad attacking universal healthcare.

    The "creative class" bloggers have plenty of outrage about MoveOn, but no outrage for Obama's attacks on universal healthcare and progressive policy.

    Odd priorities for "progressives", no?

    politically smart I guess you can call it that (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by kimsaw on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:39:27 PM EST
    but like every thing else he does, there is little political courage involved. That's my biggest problem with this candidate. I don't even think of him as a Dem. He's undefinable and I don't understand where the party stands anymore. I think the Dems are so engrossed in power, that they will lose again because they are dismissing the candidate with true courage. Obama can't even be honest about his own handwriting for whining out loud. I don't even really know what side of an issue he's on.  He panders more than most. He seeks cover and keeps everyone guessing and yet so many are blinded by his halo. What gives...its like he's handed out sun glasses that lead to total blindness.

    Simple Answer (none / 0) (#1)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:03:08 PM EST

    If he can find a dog whistle to criticize Clinton over the issue without actually defending MoveOn, he will do that. A clear statement of defense - don't see it happening.

    Just more tit for tat... (none / 0) (#11)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:12:46 PM EST
    Why should Barack respond to every little thing Hillary says? It's all just more tit-for-tat, he-said, she-said nonsense that distracts us from talking about real issues like health care and the war.

    Moreover, requiring Barack to defend MoveOn is just another example of holding him accountable for every, single one of his associations. If a reverend in Chicago says something offensive, Barack is liable for it; if Louis Farrakhan says something offensive, Barack is liable; if Ayers said something, Barack is liable. Enough with this nonsensical politics by association.

    I have two questions for BTD, though.

    1. When you use the term "creative class," do you use in in a pejorative sense?

    2. Are you not yourself, as a blogger, definable as a member of the "creative class"?

    So it is a LITTLE thing? (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:14:23 PM EST
    to read the Creative Class blogs, it is quite the BIG thing.

    Do you disagree with the brouhaha that the Creative Class blogs have forced on this issue?


    Exactly (none / 0) (#22)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:29:03 PM EST
    You're right, I don't think that Hillary trash-talking about MoveOn is much of a story.

    "Creative class" blogs such as Kos,MoveOn or TalkLeft probably shouldn't give it that much attention. Why? I never assume that anything Hillary says these days actually reflects her true convictions. She's in full rhetoric mode. If MoveOn were supporting her, she would be praising them.

    The whole political scene right now has devolved into this dysfunctional game where we scrutinize a candidate's every word and splash it on the front page. X blogs vilify the statement, Y blogs praise the statement and at the end of the day, everyone is either histrionic or cynical about the whole process.


    I am giving the reaction attention (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:30:49 PM EST
    Because I have a real problem with the ongoing behavior of the Creative Class blogs.

    This is a perfect example of what I am talking about.

    I am curious, have you written any comments to that effect at the Creative Class blogs?


    So- your priority are what other blogers say? (none / 0) (#30)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:35:02 PM EST
    Sorry, but I don't get it. This is like 'bittergate." for days we were told its important. It's a major gaffe, and ultimately, what happened? it didn't (at least according to the polls) amount to a hill of beans. I think this is the same thing. Was it kind of dumb of clinton? Sure, I think a little given her strategy. Will it harm her or does it mean she isn't a real Democrat? No. does that mean that your coverage of the blogs coverage of it is at all useful? Not so much. I find myself coming to blogs less and less in the last few weeks. I keep holding out for more, but this is par for the course.  I think your strength is talking about Democrats versus the GOP. I think that you get that our brand is better than theirs. I wish we were discussing that more rather than continuing Bowers inane construction of the 'creative class."

    Ah Wrong (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by cdalygo on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:40:45 PM EST
    Cherry pick your polls if you must but that gaffe mattered. It will also matter big time going forward into the GE should he get the nomination. (His behavior and that of his more thuggish blogger supporters will only reinforce the elitism theme.)

    What BTD says is important about the other blogs. This election is dramatically changing the blogosphere. It's nice to have it documented as it goes forward.


    I am going to poll aggregators like pollster.com (none / 0) (#39)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:44:59 PM EST
     and real clear politics to see what they are saying, trendlines, etc. This avoids cherry picking and my own bias and those that you would bring to the table.

    So your priority is what I say? (none / 0) (#33)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:39:14 PM EST
    Physician heal thyself.

    did you miss the part (none / 0) (#37)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:42:57 PM EST
    where I said I am coming to blogs like yours and those of whom you speak less and less?  Also, you seem more interested in taking a dig rather than aknowlegeing the greater point of the post. At any rate, this will be my last comment on the subject along this thread unless you have something more to the point about Democrats versus the GOP.

    that is your chice (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:47:12 PM EST
    I think this matters. You do not.

    Such is life.

    Right now, I think this is the most important issue to blog about in that this is where my influence is maximized.


    No. (none / 0) (#31)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:38:23 PM EST
    I only blog here, for your pleasure only.

    How is this not a "creative class" blog? I suppose I am just unclear about your definition of the term and why this blog doesn't fit the description. Can you educate me?


    I am a creative class elitist (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:46:03 PM EST
    Well, an elitist at any rate.

    but I do not think that gives me some special insight into politics. do you think it does?


    Hillary (none / 0) (#68)
    by sas on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:28:52 PM EST

    Why is it only Obama you criticize? (none / 0) (#42)
    by magster on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:51:02 PM EST
    MoveOn and the democratic activists rallied for the Clintons at his Bill's BS impeachment, and the blogs jumped in at the "Path to 9/11" travesty.  But when Hillary criticizes these groups, and Bill essentially calls the youth vote lemmings for liking Obama, it's Obama's and his supporters' so called hypocrisy in action for calling her on it and dividing the party. Hillary has just shown contempt and false accusations for her historical defenders, but Obama's silence less than 24 hours later is a bigger offense?

    Where did WJC call the youth vote lemmings? (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Ellie on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:24:39 PM EST
    I've seen fmr President Clinton's commentary about younger voters -- not all of whom belong to Obama, btw -- and you're mischaracterizing it beyond recognition.

    Quote the passage which is anywhere near what you've distorted beyond recogniton.


    Did I criticize Obama in this post? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:52:30 PM EST
    Where? to be truthful, I am criticizing people like you.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#53)
    by magster on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:18:51 PM EST
    I wrote a gazillion letters to the editor of various newspapers about the Path to 9/11, and I intimidated the Clinton caucus-goers by correcting our precincts votes in Clinton's favor when the captain did not see some raised hands for Clinton off to the side of the bleachers.  I voted against MoveOn endorsing anyone to not alienate Clinton voters.  Up through the "Jesse Jackson won SC too" and Mark Penn's "People might wonder if Obama's a drug dealer", I defended Clinton.  Now I don't care. Every day she or her supporters do something new to make me hate her, and its my fault the party's not unified? Today's offense is here.

    That is not why I am criticizing you (none / 0) (#54)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:20:11 PM EST
    you really do not get the point here.

    If (none / 0) (#69)
    by sas on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:34:32 PM EST
    you did the right thing, I admire you for it.

    This does not mean all the activists did the right thing, and did not intimidate.

    She reflects what she has heard from her supporters and campaign workers.

    Are they lying?


    Why should Barack respond? (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by Anne on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:43:32 PM EST
    Gosh, when you phrase it like that I think you drive the impression that the only way he can see these pesky issues is by looking down his nose.

    Maybe - here's something radical - maybe Barack could actually talk about some of those issues like the war and health care, and maybe he could, for once, sound like an actual Democrat when he does.

    But you seem to be making the case that Barack needs Hillary's permission to talk about the issues, and that doesn't say much for someone who purports to be a leader, does it?  Are you really suggesting that she is preventing him from having a substantive discussion?  Seriously?

    I think the debate the other night showed us why he doesn't talk much about the issues - because he doesn't do it very well.

    As for Barack and MoveOn - if he disagrees with Hillary, he ought to grow a pair and say so, but he won't.


    Sorry KateNC (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST
    No OT comments.

    What is an OT Post....learning the ropes here (none / 0) (#62)
    by PssttCmere08 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:08:50 PM EST
    Off Topic (none / 0) (#73)
    by gish720 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:02:10 PM EST
    Creative Class (none / 0) (#32)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:38:33 PM EST
    I appologize if this is viewed as off topic, but where did the "creative class" moniker come from?

    I found the entry on Wikipedia.

    Is the defenition being used there the one being used here?

    BTD has been using the term a lot lately and I think I missed where it got introduced into the commentary stream. I'm just looking for context and why it got introduced into the commentary so I understand it better.

    Google Chris Bowers and Creative Class (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:40:17 PM EST
    Ok thanks that helps n/t (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Faust on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 03:52:29 PM EST
    Help (none / 0) (#46)
    by DFLer on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:07:36 PM EST
    Fill me in. What do you mean by "Creative Class" blogs? This is the first time I've heard this expression.


    Phase taken from another blog (none / 0) (#74)
    by rilkefan on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:32:25 PM EST
    - mydd I think - to describe the section of the Dems that the blogger thinks is important going forward (computer engineers, scientists, writers, artists would be examples).  He then tried to claim Obama's supporters fit that description better.  He then made some hierarchical blogospheric arguments resulting from the classification.  Googling "creative class site:talkleft.com" will give you BTD's mockery of the whole enterprise.

    Slight Correction (none / 0) (#77)
    by MO Blue on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 09:07:14 PM EST
    It was Chris Bowers at Open Left.

    Your attempt... (none / 0) (#47)
    by mbuchel on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:09:28 PM EST
    to put him in a box is amusing.

    On the one hand, as you always say, he's a pol first.  If he defends moveon we all know that is bad politics because the republicans have been able to define moveon as a fringe group.  

    On the other, if he doesn't speak out, he doesn't pass your purity test and therefore the blogosphere is a bunch of hypocrites for continuing to support him.

    However, if he wins the election by running on his cleaner break from the republicans on foreign policy than hers (and it is as much as Hillary supporters don't want to admit it), then it legitimizes the anti-war position, and in the next election the repubs have that much more trouble defining the debate on their terms.

    And so the reason Hillary's statement is so bad is that she helps in marginalizing the anti-war position by ridiculing them for being... anti-war.  That's exactly what she was attacking them for in her quote.

    This in a nutshell is the difference between the two campaigns.  He's had a strategic message and vision and the tactics help support it.  For Hillary, it's all tactics but no vision.

    How is she going to make the case against the war in a general election if she railed against anti-war activists in the primary?

    He is in no box (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:10:34 PM EST
    And I certainly have no power to put him in anything.

    But the idea is to put ALL POLS in a box, a progressive box.

    At least that USED to be the idea.


    stragetic vision? (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by kimsaw on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:15:10 PM EST
    He's the anti war candidate cause he gave a speech and has done nothing else. Did he organize a demonstration against it after said speech ... his vision is political positioning, should I spell out period.

    sorry - strategic... (none / 0) (#55)
    by kimsaw on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:21:24 PM EST
    But I assume you know what I meant.:-)

    What we're talking about here (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:09:21 PM EST
    is not Obama per se, it's his followers-- like you, actually.  We have no "purity test," it's you guys who have the "purity test," except that you don't apply it to your own guy.  That's what we find endlessly fascinating.  We keep thinking there's a limit to it somewhere, but there doesn't seem to be.

    BTW I have no desrive to se him defend Move On (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:11:22 PM EST
    I detest Move On.

    you really have no conception what I am talking about here.


    I am in somewhat agreement (none / 0) (#57)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:48:21 PM EST
    There is a false choice. But, i do think its a mistake to think his actions are entirely strategically sound. There is no way to know that. Based on prior history, I can argue that his views as are Clinton are flawed. I can go through the whole define or be defined flaw in how he talks of change, post partisanship, etc. But none of it will matter. We (you, BTD and myself) can't know. We don't know how this will play out in the GE or , if Obama is elected, in his presidency. Again, i can point to Clinton 1993, as example , of how I think it will play out. You can say he's different, but its not something you can prove in the context of the environment he is entering,a nd nor can I because 2009 may not be anything like 1993. But the thrust of your overall point- that this is a false choice- is correct. Obama shouldn't have to discuss this issue, and quite frankly , I am not sure why Clinton did.

    You're right... (none / 0) (#61)
    by mbuchel on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:04:48 PM EST
    we can't know, but a fair guess as to why is $$$.  She was talking to a group of donors and she had to paint a picture of how everything was stacked against her - caucuses, fundraising, etc.  She had to make it seem like it was this fringe element that was hijacking the process - and not her fault that she didn't plan for it.

    And what were Obama's statements (none / 0) (#63)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:13:45 PM EST
    at the SF fundraiser all about, if not the same thing?  

    Why would the donors want to hear about (none / 0) (#64)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:17:00 PM EST
    how angry the voters of PA or any other state are? Why would they want to hear about how bitter they are? I know this is tit-for-tat land where one things equates falsely to another, but just asking the question as you do doesn't make much sense if one thinks for a split second about the differences. I losely relate the two according to probably not their best moves, but not as to motivation.

    Stroking their egos (none / 0) (#71)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 06:21:26 PM EST
    When you say small town poor people aren't voting for you because they are clingy and xenophobic in front of a large group of wealthy  people, you're making the implication that these wealthy donors are not socially backward like the others.  It also makes him look intellectual and inciteful.

    Actually (none / 0) (#75)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 07:38:00 PM EST
    you are trying to spin CW as your have decided it. What he actually said was that the reason voters are bitter is because Democrats have failed to address their economic concerns. That's backed up by both his later statements and his initital statement. Paul Rosenberg, no Obama supporter, agrees. And those who are on my side of the economic populist divide have a problem with the statement only in that it didn't go far enough by offering real solutions. His point was that Democrats don't address their economic concerns, and therefore, they vote on the differences on social issues.  Look, I am sure you and BTD think you are right. The problem is that both others and myself who aren't vested in your interpretation (anymore than I am vested in Obama supporters interpretation of facts) don't see it that way. To the neutral, what fewer of us there are, this statement wasn't all that striking other than it was honest. Indeed, BTD admits implies as much when he felt the need to go from merely stating Obama made a 'gaffe' to then saying Obama isn't a sociologist. Meaning, the concern wasn't the truthfulness of Obama's assertion- Most voters are bitter. They have a reason to be. Our economy and the realities of it suck. The only ones who don't seem to get that point are political insiders. I agree Obama is one of them. i just don't think this particular statement agrees with the claims that he's one of them. I also don't think Clinton is all that impressive on these issues. So, I am left taking what I can get and not pretending it was a horrible statement just because you want to spin it in the worse possible light to argue from a place that supporters of Clinton want me to believe.

    Sorry, I actually read the full statement, (none / 0) (#78)
    by kayla on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:25:08 PM EST
    not the truncated version the media touts and I refuse to fall for Obama's (or your) spin.  Obama said that the jobs of small town workers have fallen through under the Clinton and Bush administration.  Your interpretation implies that George Bush is a Democrat.  But the truth is that George Bush is a Republican. He then went on to say that these people don't trust him because he's black and because, as a result of the effects of the bad economy (which started under Bush and Clinton), they get frustrated and they cling to guns, relgion, anti-immigration sentitment, anti-trade sentiment, and apathy toward people who don't look like them.  He said that he wants to persuade people that real change can happen even in their small communities, but that messsage isn't getting traction for most of those small town people.

    The problem with what Obama said was that it didn't make sense, no matter how you spin it, his actual words are still there.  Maybe he didn't word it properly, but honestly I couldn't make any sense of it.  I can never make sense of anything he says off the cuff.  That is my unbiased opinion.  I thought this of him months ago when I hadn't picked a candidate yet.

    Bush + Clinton = Bad economy (this is just a dig at Hillary)
    Bad Economy + Small town = Bitterness (because obviously, no other group of people are bitter or effected by the economy)
    Bitterness + small town people = xenophobia, clinging to religion and guns (because wealthy people are never xenophobic or religious and hunting patterns aren't effected by the season, but rather the economic conditions)
    The solution to all of this?  Obama's ability to persuade that government can do better... (never mind the fact that he has failed to do that for these people)

    I'm sorry, but I am "intellectual" enough to know that this is nonsensical, pandering bs.


    And what is worst is the amount of (none / 0) (#79)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:52:07 PM EST
    so called progressive and, I stress the so-called, that came out of the woodwork defending him by saying that he could had used better words but that what he had said was essentially true.  That really goes a long way in disproving that the Democratic party is not full of elitist people.

    And what is worst is the amount of (none / 0) (#80)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:53:27 PM EST
    so called progressive and, I stress the so-called, that came out of the woodwork defending him by saying that he could had used better words but that what he had said was essentially true.  That really goes a long way in disproving that the Democratic party is full of elitist people.  I mean I hope that the majority of us don't really believe that what he said was the truth.

    sorry about the double post (none / 0) (#81)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 10:53:48 PM EST
    Contradiction in logical construction (none / 0) (#82)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 03:39:23 AM EST
    Either his statement is 'elitist' as people describe, meaning  his comments were understood with certainty, or nonsensical as you describe, meaning uncertainty about meaning. Both argues can not logically be true without more. It also makes little logical sense to talk about pandering while claiming the comments were nonsensical. I suppose you have a better shot with that, but again, not much given it brings upt he same issue of how can you decide its pandering if its nonsensical. Maybe you mean another word? I don't know.

    "Simply unpack your adjectives" (none / 0) (#84)
    by kayla on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:31:35 AM EST
    I don't understand why you think it's wrong to characterize a statement with more than one adjective.  What a strange rebuttal.  You seem distracted.

    I don't know if I've ever called the statement elitist, but I certainly think it was arrogant because he lazily used a stereotype to describe why small town people aren't voting for him and he completely avoided the question by insufficiently describing what other candidates did wrong and why the voters are wrong, instead of effectively explaining what he is doing wrong or what he could do better.  I think he was pandering to a wealthy San Francisco crowd by stroking their egos, implying that they aren't like those silly small town voters.  I think it was nonsensical in that he connected recent economic conditions with traditional small town values that have existed for hundreds of years.  What are wealthy people clinging to?  Can we connect that clingyness to why they're not voting for Clinton?  Also nonsensical because he says that economic downfall started in the Clinton administration.  So, Clinton screwed the economy and all of sudden small town workers are xenophobic, gun totin', religious zealots?  Xenophobia and clingyness never existed before Clinton?  Really?  I think he oversimplified a very complicated problem (I honestly don't know which problem he was talking about originally.  The new spin is that he was talking about the problem of using wedge issues to garner votes) in America and relied on stereotypes to do so.  

    I think it is funny the way people are defending him by saying that he's just telling the truth and those who don't realize it can't handle his intelligence.  They're wrong.  The reason why they think what Obama said is true, is because, like I said, it's a stereotype about small town people.  There's truth to all stereotypes.  So of course they're easy to believe in.  But people should try to be deeper thinkers than that.  It reminds me of this Red Fox joke where he goes, "I was reading this white folks magazine that said all black people carry knives.  So I went to the store and got one!"

    Don't put knives in the hands of people who didn't even know they were supposed to have them.


    Btw (none / 0) (#85)
    by kayla on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 08:48:31 AM EST
    I'm not offended by what Obama said.  I'm the exact opposite of a small town worker.  I'm just saying that I can understand why so many people are.  What irritates me about what he said is that he has a tendency to talk on and on about everyone else's mistakes and he does so in such a lazy way.  I've never heard of an intellectual who doens't challenge you, but instead offends large groups of people while flattering another.  It's like he's afraid to speak from his own heart, his own brain.  He just wants to wave a finger at everyone else.  He wants to say that he's learning from everyone else's mistakes.  It's annoying and phony to me.  And laughing it up with wealthy donors doesn't help.

    I don't want to repeat the last post (none / 0) (#87)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 11:53:00 AM EST
    It was concise and accurate as to the problem with the construction.

    Maybe I can't say (none / 0) (#65)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:18:16 PM EST
    I don't think it ultimately matters.

    Its just more Extremism on display, the Betray Us (none / 0) (#67)
    by Salt on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 05:27:53 PM EST
    blunder is widely known, when they called Senator Clinton a liar today I'm thinking that can only help her come the General Election.

    As A Long Time MoveOn Member (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Blue Jean on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 08:39:52 PM EST
    I think you and BTD are right.  The Betray Us ad was silly and juvenile, but the GOP response to it was worse.  Hillary had our backs on that one, while Himself was ahem mysteriously absent.  If I'd invested valuable political capital in helping an organization, only to see them support my opponent who's never done nothing for them, and will do nothing for them, then I'd be angry too. And my language would have been considably stronger than hers was.

    Bleugh! (none / 0) (#86)
    by Blue Jean on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    "Never done anything", not "never done nothing."  I guess my bitter, small town, rube roots are showing. ;-)

    Creative Class? (none / 0) (#83)
    by bob h on Sun Apr 20, 2008 at 05:30:58 AM EST
    Creative Class = narcissistic jerkitude.