A Sense Of Entitlement

With friends like Leon Panetta, Barack Obama is not going to need many enemies:

"There is a sense of entitlement that almost seems to be inbred. They are convinced Hillary is the one who should be assuming the mantle and it's tough to crack that."

Everyone knows I think PUMA's are um, wrongheaded, to put it nicely, but then again I am not a high profile Democrat. Here's the thing, Panetta seems to think Obama is entitled to the support of these folks. The sense of entitlement seems to be his. That is the attitude Obama must absolutely avoid now.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only

< More On the Presidential Debates And The Blogs | Anti-Choice Democrats Plan Events in Denver >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Talk about poor choice of words (5.00 / 12) (#1)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:06:25 PM EST
    what in the h*ell does he mean by "inbred"?

    Hmm, let me think of the places where Obama didn't do well. . .

    The elites vs. the inbreds (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:10:13 PM EST
    Who has more votes to cast?

    The whole thing (5.00 / 21) (#4)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:10:23 PM EST
    is a poor choice of words.

    You'd think they'd be on bended knee, offering flowers and chocolates instead of handing out one way tickets for the Straight Talk Express.


    I'm beginning to (4.95 / 20) (#5)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:12:58 PM EST
    believe that the Dems actually want to lose this election. Or that they are really that craven and clueless. Take your pick I guess.

    Not a one of them seems to think that perhaps Obama needs to get up off his butt and do some work do they?


    I don't know where you got your definition (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:29:38 PM EST
    but the number one definition at American Heritage Dictionary is:
    1. produced as a result of inbreeding

    For those of us without Aspergers, (4.00 / 4) (#79)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    connotation matters.

    Oh for heaven's sake (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    This coming from a supporter of a campaign that can find code racist terms in virtually any spoken term?  How many of us can make a statement that we believe Obama is arrogant without being called racists?    

    Here is a suggestion, don't use a term that could be mistaken as meaning something other than intended.  


    No (5.00 / 2) (#182)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:56:11 PM EST
    Panetta is willfully obtuse in his "inartful" use of terms.  The primaries became a pissing match on who could take the most offensive context of a term used.  In this overcharged atmosphere of looking for the racist in every statement, you don't dare screw up by using such a loaded term as "inbred."  

    Of course, he no doubt did not mean (5.00 / 8) (#123)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:15:15 PM EST
    for it to be heard that way.

    But again, communication is about how a message is received, not just intent as it was sent.

    Communication is like football.  No matter how good the QB, receivers matter, too.

    And especially so in politics.  Panetta threw a bad pass.  And no resort to rulebooks fixes that in football, either.


    So you're fighting with us about it because. . .? (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:27:24 PM EST
    10 comments per day (none / 0) (#175)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:52:39 PM EST
    New commenters are limited to 10 comments per day.  You are at 22.  Thanks.

    Just 10 comments (none / 0) (#201)
    by waldenpond on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:10:30 PM EST
    Since you only posted one comment on July 22, this is only your 3rd day of commenting.  I'll check with Jeralyn as to what she wants to do, but still just 10 comments per day until you hit 30.  Sorry.  

    Now, see, using the word "prejudiced" (5.00 / 2) (#199)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:08:46 PM EST
    about us message receivers is yet another example of not being persuasive.

    No wonder you don't get how Panetta got off to a bad start with this line.


    I agree with you (none / 0) (#185)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:58:26 PM EST
    but I suspect you take a different approach with respect to race issues so I wouldn't say you're being daft, I'd say you're being hypocritical.

    If I'm wrong about how you would take a different approach on other issues please feel free to correct me on that.


    When resort to a dictionary is required (5.00 / 11) (#36)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    the message is not communicated well.

    (Yes, this group knows the difference in the denotative meanings.  But we also know that connotations count.)


    You are apparently unaware of the (5.00 / 9) (#94)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:57:48 PM EST
    months long evil Appalachian theme.

    You're not going to pull a Scalia on this and get away with it. Context and connotation are essential, even if you personally don't (or refuse to) understand what others are talking about.


    Sorry, in a political campaign (5.00 / 3) (#138)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:26:33 PM EST
    you reap what you sow.

    You are not entitled to any response (4.33 / 6) (#151)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:31:18 PM EST
    beyond what I choose to give you.

    And now I just think you're a time-wasting troll.



    You have a good point, IMO (5.00 / 1) (#176)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:53:10 PM EST
    The constant twisting and parsing of words has reach the level of absudity.  You are correct to not allow your imination run wild and connect dots that aren't there.  But noble deeds go not unpunished.  At least some can still think for theirselved.

    he didn't mean (5.00 / 11) (#153)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:31:54 PM EST
    inbreeding any more than Bill meant "fairytale", than Hillary meant to have Obama assasinated, than Cuomo meant shuck & Jive in a racial way, any more than the 3am ad was about race, or that "roll of the dice" was racial etc, etc

    It all depends on who gets to interpret and what they want to accomplish by it....


    Right (5.00 / 3) (#184)
    by flashman on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:56:28 PM EST
    And we have better things to do besides twisting every little word or phrase into something it is not.  Honestly, it's a common, everyday idiom.  I don't know when I've witnessed such an effort to distort, that didn't come from the dark side.

    WLPRM (5.00 / 7) (#45)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:36:53 PM EST
    Ha. Wonderful. :-) (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:38:46 PM EST
    Does anyone still wonder (5.00 / 6) (#127)
    by standingup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:16:21 PM EST
    why Democrats lose?

    Deliverance. (5.00 / 6) (#88)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:46 PM EST
    But, what's w/all these former Clinton administration mucky-mucks dissing Hillary Clinton?  Another excellent topic for post-election research and writing.

    If by that he means (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:55:07 PM EST
    they have a deeply held belief that Hillary deserves the nomination...I agree!

    Yeah. Me too. I'm not a PUMA (5.00 / 12) (#125)
    by derridog on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:15:40 PM EST
    but I completely support what they are doing. They have the right to their political opinions and one of them is that "I own my own vote."   No one can expect other people to vote for them just because they'll be really MAD if you don't and will call you names. If Obama wants people to vote for him, he has to make the case that he is the best candidate. He has to speak to people's needs and values.  It is HIS job to sell himself, not THEIR job to recognize his immense wonderfulness, in spite of  very legitimate doubts and concerns that he does nothing but exacerbate with his behavior.

    It is this kind of arrogance on the part of Obama and his supporters, not to mention the stacked deck against Hillary in the primaries on the part of the DNC, that causes PUMA voters to stand up and speak out.

    More power to them! If the Obamaites had been treated as Hillary and her supporters were treated in this primary, they'd be up in arms and planning their assault on Denver as we speak.


    Where are all of Obama's NuDem voters anyway? (5.00 / 7) (#159)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:37:00 PM EST
    Speaking just for me -- I love that phrase :-) -- I moved on shortly after Rahm's idiotic "knitting" comment. Why are the kingmakers even bothering with this crap?

    Part of what had the two-headed Dean-a Brazile creature (the Filliam H. Muffman of politics) popping its buttons was the cavalry of voters that rendered HRC supportes (among other sizeable chunks of voters) irrelevant.

    Where are they?

    All Team Obama needed to wheeze over the nomination finish line was the huuuuuuuge cavalry of first-time voters fleshed out by AA voters and a motley crew of Creative Class fauxgressives and indulgent CDS haters jumping at the chance to enjoy open season on the Dems' menace du jour.

    I can only assume this flogging is meant to make the Dems look more like the "winning" GOP.

    Otherwise, it's baffling as a strategy and it only underscores my realization that this party neither understands nor appreciates what they've driven away to puff up an empty suit and towering ego for short term gain.

    Hope the Feminist Lawn Jockeys play well with the hard right, movement conservatives Team Obama expects will swoon over The One's charisma.

    My bitterly knitted freeway SUCK IT sign should be done by Nov.


    That's Obama's Term (none / 0) (#92)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:57:16 PM EST
    Didn't use "inbred" at one point?  

    He used bred (none / 0) (#114)
    by Fitz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    Here´s what Obama had to say during a Philadelphia sports radio interview: "But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn´t know, you know, there´s a reaction that´s been bred in our experiences that don´t go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that´s just the nature of race in our society."

    Not The Quote I Meant (none / 0) (#126)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    I'll see if I can find it.

    Obama (5.00 / 19) (#2)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:09:38 PM EST
    has had the sense of entitlement for months now. He was owed the Dem nomination. Now he seems to think that he's owed the Presidency.

    The problem with people like Panetta is that they don't realize what the real problem is. The problem is Obama. Hillary's voters don't like the fact that he's not qualified, waffles and can't speak clearly to name a few.

    I so have a sense of entitlement... (5.00 / 29) (#11)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:16:54 PM EST
    to own my vote.  And I intend on doing just that.

    Oh - I meant I will not ever vote... (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:09:39 PM EST
    for Obama - that is my vote, even if it means staying home.

    I agree (none / 0) (#64)
    by Josey on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45:40 PM EST
    >>>He was saying that Clinton supporters seem to think that there is an entitlement for Hillary to "be assuming the mantle".

    Have you noticed (5.00 / 20) (#15)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:21:58 PM EST
    that Obama's ads don't say:

    "Obama FOR president"

    Instead they say:

    Obama. President.

    Of course, if you call the missing word "for" presumptuous, you're a bad person.

    My husband keeps saying, "gee if he loses this election, his will be the shortest presidency ever."


    SO FUNNY! (5.00 / 4) (#18)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:23:45 PM EST
    Your husband's a hoot (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:28:24 PM EST
    John Kerry ... (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Inky on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:36:37 PM EST
    did the same thing, as I recall. His campaign plane was painted with the words: "John Kerry President."

    That certainly worked out well.


    Obama is following "The Secret" (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by angie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:01:05 PM EST
    his GE plan exposed! /s

    I think he was promised it (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:29:08 PM EST
    by hook or by crook, as the saying goes, by the Kennedy/Kerry machine and Dean/Brazile/Pelosi DNC cabal.

    So of course, he thinks he's owed it.


    "I can get all her voters, (5.00 / 21) (#6)
    by angie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:13:29 PM EST
    but she can't get mine."

    So HE spoke it, so it SHALL BE. Weren't those inbred cretins paying attention!?!?! /s

    A classic (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:30:20 PM EST
    nothing presumptuous about that!  No way!

    You have graduated :) (5.00 / 18) (#9)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:16:04 PM EST
    I'm am sometimes wrongheaded, but I'm never nuts because the one time my spousal called me nuts I said fine......I'll show you nuts, and he never called me that again :)  Nobody is entitled to anyone's vote and that is what I don't understand about this approaching convention and the bitterness shared by so many of us.  Obama can earn my vote but everytime he makes one move in that direction he seems to soon after make two more moves in the direction of not getting my vote.  He keeps sidelining major Dem leaders and thinkers like some sort of spoiled petulant child.  It's getting to be more than I can deal with period.  He's giving off the fumes of some sort of ego addict where only he can be the "One" like some sort of new Jesus or something.  Only he can be the way to our salvation.  It almost makes me retch.

    Hmmm (5.00 / 10) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:16:12 PM EST
    Not only are PUMAs 'inbred' (code for white trash) they also have a 'sense of entitlement' ;-).  White trash with a sense of entitlement.  Now there's a new class of voters (and an oxymoron too!).

    LOL!  And I know I'm distorting what he said with that whole "code word" thing, but it's because I find him so amusing.  And isn't everything a code word these days? And I'm also chuckling because I'm giddy with relief that someone is bashing PUMA's without talking about grief.  LOL!

    And true, some think PUMAs are "um, wrongheaded," but others think it's wrongheaded to tacitly support what happened in the primary, because it's horrible for Democrats and Democracy in the long-term.  So I guess that makes the two groups even-steven.

    And FYI to anyone who doesn't already know, I'm no longer a PUMA.  Maybe I will be again, when they stop with the pipe dream that Hillary will win the nomination after all.  That ship has sailed -- and sunk.  It's too ridiculous to even talk about.

    I have accepted that HRC won't get... (5.00 / 17) (#16)
    by Shainzona on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:22:12 PM EST
    the nomination or the VP.

    But I am still a PUMA - because my membership was not based on that - I knew the fix was in by last March.

    So my PUMA membership - and for many many others - is based on the lack of experience for the candidate to whom this nomination has been handed - not earned.

    So, welcome back Teresa, we're happy to have you with us once again when you want to be back in touch.


    On some of the issues I am PUMA (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Militarytracy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:22:14 PM EST
    as a whole though I would say PUMAish describes me better, Obama could have always gotten me if he had ever truly considered uniting the clans.  Everytime though he gave me pause to think I could vote for him he always followed that up with a face plant of some sort.

    That's pretty much where I am (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:31:13 PM EST
    I'm pretty reasonable and certainly don't WANT to cut off my nose to spite my face. That said, if they can't give me at least a couple of GOOD reasons to vote for him then I may just see his campaign run as a cancerous growth that MUST be removed for the good of said face.

    I'm just praying it ain't Kaine. I will HATE having to run against the ticket but run against it I will. Please let it be Hillary so I can believe someone on his campaign team has some sense of where to go on issues and how to push Obama to be what the country needs. Pretty Please.


    I'm a PUMA and I do not think that it is (5.00 / 15) (#98)
    by honora on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:00:47 PM EST
    required that we think that Hillary will win the nomination.  In fact, I do not think that most PUMAs feel that she will.  I, as a PUMA, believe that the DNC appointed Obama as the nominee despite the will on the Democratic voters. The DNC cheated and lied.  The RNC allowed the Republican voters to nominate their choice; the DNC out republicaned the RNC. I believe that it is important to liberate the DNC and the best way to do that is to make sure that they fail miserably this November.  Tough love. PUMA

    I didn't say that (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:04:27 PM EST
    What I said is that many of them think she still has a CHANCE of winning the nomination.

    I just shake my head and walk away when I see that.


    Teresa, are you convinced (none / 0) (#13)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:20:52 PM EST
    that Hillary is the one who should be the nominee?  Are you going to be voting for Obama?

    My vote (5.00 / 16) (#23)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:26:44 PM EST
    is absolutely none of your business.

    Thank you, enough said (5.00 / 0) (#25)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:27:32 PM EST
    Great Job, Leon (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:20:27 PM EST
    From the Huff Post (No link because I know many folks here won't go there.):

    "Leon Panetta, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff, was tasked by the Obama campaign this summer with soothing ruffled feelings and helping Hillary loyalists to get over their sense of loss. It has been a demanding assignment."

    And clearly (5.00 / 14) (#19)
    by janarchy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:25:07 PM EST
    by calling us 'inbred' and further insulting us (as if we haven't been insulted enough in the past 8 months or so), he's soothing ruffled feelings how?

    Call me 'wrongheaded' if you like, but if someone wants my vote, they'd d@mn well better earn it and do what I want. Insulting me, assuming I'll just vote for someone with a (D) after his/her name and tacitly fall into line is not gonna do it.

    The only sense of loss most of us PUMA and PUMA-friendly people have is that of a democratic, progressive government that actually listens to its people. Hillary was the best of the pack, we don't think she was The One and Only. We'll leave that kind of delusional thinking for the Obamanation, thank you.


    And it's a loss we've pretty much gotten over (5.00 / 19) (#59)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:44:38 PM EST
    and are moving on.  Just not in the direction they hoped.

    Exactly (5.00 / 19) (#74)
    by janarchy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:47:53 PM EST
    Despite what the MSM says, I don't sit at home building a shrine to Hillary and crying over her loss every night. I don't even expect her to somehow magickally swoop in and get the nomination. I just refuse to support the idiotic Dems any longer -- their last chance was in 2006 and they've done nothing since but capitulate to the Republicans and GWB and attack their own.

    Once again, the Dems are snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. As a lifelong Democrat (but no more), I had to walk away and stop enabling them. This election season was the last straw. Now I'm voting for no one, something I didn't even think was conceivable 9 months ago!


    the context.... (5.00 / 10) (#183)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:56:14 PM EST
    by calling us 'inbred' and further insulting us (as if we haven't been insulted enough in the past 8 months or so), he's soothing ruffled feelings how?

    Panetta was trying to explain why he had failed to "sooth ruffled feelings" -- and he couldn't do so while placing the blame where it belongs -- with Obama and his campaign (and possibly with Pannetta himself?).

    I don't know whether Pannetta ever botheed to ask those with "ruffled feelings" what they wanted, but if he did, Team Obama never responded appropriately.  First and foremost is the utter lack of respect shown to Clinton supporters.

    Nothing exemplifies this lack of respect better than the fact that there was ever any question whether Clinton's name would be placed in nomination.  The very idea that the first woman to win a primary oe causus would NOT have her name placed into nomination is mind-boggling simply from a historical standpoint -- to NOT honor that achievement is simply inconceivable.

    And you have to be politically braindead to not have the supporters of the person who received the most votes, and won the most state primaries, and dominated almost every 'swing state' be acknowledged by placing their candidate's name in nomination.  Its bad enough that these voters are getting the message that voters in deep-red states and caucus states are considered more important than they are -- not having their candidate be nominated is treating them like they don't matter at all.

    The fact that this was EVER controversial, let alone the fact that it was a question mark for over two months, tells me that Team Obama and/or Panetta never made a sincere effort.  

    And now Panetta is stuck blaming the wrong people -- and as a result said something really stupic.


    Can I be on his (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Fabian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:28:29 PM EST
    performance review?

    So he's just making excuses for himself.. (5.00 / 4) (#145)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:30:08 PM EST
    ...he couldn't fulfill his task because its so darned hard.

    Here's an exercise (5.00 / 40) (#14)
    by smott on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:21:19 PM EST

    Imagine for a moment, that, shortly after being declared the nominee, Hillary Clinton had done any of the following:

    1. Rented a football stadium for her acceptance speech while not yet formally having enough delegates to claim the nomination

    2. Moved the DNC to New York City

    3. Invented a lame faux-presidential seal

    4. Took a self-coronation tour of Europe

    5. Had "President" stitched on the back of her recliner in H-Force One, after painting her initials over the American flag on the tail

    6. Went on vacation while the other candidate campaigned for her.

    "Avoid the attitude" of entitlement, BTD?
    Jeebus, a little fooking late for that.

    The dude embodies it.

    cheez louise (5.00 / 3) (#198)
    by djork on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:08:23 PM EST
    If I didn't know this list was about Obama I'd think GWB at his dorkiest.

    Hard to grasp (5.00 / 30) (#21)
    by JavaCityPal on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:25:19 PM EST
    Since the media and the Obama camp are so certain the PUMA are small in number, why are they so obsessed? There must be a "PUMA" interviewed nearly every other day.

    1. PUMA are not all women
    2. PUMA are not all over 50
    3. PUMA are Democrats who are furious with the DNC
    4. PUMA is not an acronym for sour grapes
    5. Not all HRC supporters put gender ahead of qualifications for why they supported her

    It's typical of the media, and the Obama camp to simply not listen to the people who are trying to tell them what their driving force is, what their goal is, and why they can't get out from under the bus.

    I did not support HRC because she is a woman. She represented the possibility of competent leadership in the WH for these years ahead when repairing the damage done over the past 8 is pretty critical. The DNC chose to handle the primary in a less than democratic fashion, and now the convention is being dominated by religion.

    Amen to that (5.00 / 5) (#47)
    by Andy08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:37:38 PM EST

    I hada friend who always voted for women (5.00 / 7) (#100)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:01:11 PM EST
    She thought she was being a good feminist. I thought she was voting irresponsibly. As a responsible voter, we have to vote for the best candidate, not one with particular physical characteristics we find appealing. I've never been comfortable with promoting people based in gender or race. I used to see it as a necessary evil, but now I'm starting to think that it's more evil than necessary. It marks everybody, not just the ones who are promoted, as "less". It suggests that women can't make it without preferential treatment. We don't need preferential treatment - we just need to be treated the same as anybody else, and that's what we need to fight for.

    You forgot #6 & #7 (5.00 / 7) (#111)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:08:20 PM EST
    1. They are not all uneducated.
    2. They are not all racist.
    Number seven being the name calling that may cost Obama the election.

    Imagine the howling from the obama camp (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:17:51 PM EST
    if someone had referred to obama as a halfbreed...it would not have been pretty imo.

    But Isn't That Kind Of Misperception Common (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by daring grace on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    throughout politics?

    At least in this campaign, the distorted views both sides in the Dem primaries had of the other seemed pretty common online and in the media.

    For example:

    Not all Obama supporters are under 30, OR African American OR well heeled educated elites OR Hillary Clinton haters.

    I'm college educated but I fit in none of the other categories. In fact, except for my education, my profile is a dead ringer for a Clinton supporter, including where I live--upstate New York.

    One of the main reasons I started coming here at the end of the primary season was because I'd lurked at this site in years gone by, liked the culture here and, when I heard there were a lot of (mostly?) HRC supporters here, I wanted to see for myself who you all were and what your positions were compared with how you're portrayed/represented other places.


    What's wrong with Panetta? (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by Andy08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:25:30 PM EST
    I would think he understand the premise that a candidate should earn people's votes and that after such close primaries and with everything that has happened Obama should have gone out of his way to court HRC's voters.

    In additon, there were more voters this primary season than ever before and not everyone that participated was at the extreme of the spectrum of party above all.

    Sadly, the fact is they believe people are robots that vote party line no questions asked...But that was the USSR, not the USA.

    Obama, the DNC and people like Panetta will be in for a big surprise if this is their real mind frame...

    Agreed (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:16:39 PM EST
    Instead Obama is spending millions and going around saying he can win Kentucky! LOL. Shouldn't he be trying harder to reach the voters he has a more realistic chance of converting? That's not to say all former HRC supporters would jump on board, but instead of coming across as these votes are expected, he needs to realize that he has to earn them.

    What's wrong with all of them? (5.00 / 8) (#133)
    by MichaelGale on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:18:53 PM EST
    Obama says "those people" about hold outs
    Panetta says "inbred" "entitled"
    Pelosi says get over it, he's "God's gift"

    All this in the last week!


    no, she didn't, did she??? (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:38:39 PM EST
    I hadn't heard that one.  LOL

    And, if Clinton or a Clinton supporter had used any of those phrases, the race-card calling would have been in full bloom again.


    Yes Pelosi (5.00 / 1) (#178)
    by Andy08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:54:07 PM EST
    said that he is the candidate "G' bless us with"
    Here is the link to Politico's story

    Unbelievable... These people are out of their minds and Money has a lot to do with it.


    I too was in shock (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:04:35 PM EST
    when I saw Pelosi's comment. I see another version of the GOP "The One" ad soon to follow. This lack of forethought from so many of his followers makes it feel like they are in some sort of cult-like trance.

    Panetta is a politician. Shouldn't he be able to (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    lie? Shouldn't some of Obama's camp be able to lie? Pretend that you don't have utter contempt for anyone who ever supported Hillary Clinton. Instead of telling half of the party that they are idiot hicks who should F off, maybe you might want to give a little effort, just a little, toward courting them. Then you can take it all back later if you want. But you yell PSYCHE after you fool someone, not before.

    tigercourse (5.00 / 0) (#67)
    by Andy08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:34 PM EST
    Shouldn't some of Obama's camp be able to lie? ... maybe you might want to give a little effort, just a little, toward courting them. Then you can take it all back later if you want.

    The problem with this technique is that Obama used it already to attract many of his supporters and after he nail them, he took it all back. By now, he's too dizzy from all the flip-floping.

    Talking about flipfloping... Obama's recent comments to David Brody on CNB are stunning...

    Call it he "misspoke" or he "lied": I call it insulting people's intelligence.

    He should stop doing this.


    If PUMAS are wrongheaded for using (5.00 / 17) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:31:40 PM EST
    the avenue of dissent to bring back democracy to this campaign cycle, what does that make the obama campaign who made sure almost every AA, and others, think the Clintons were racist?  Trying to see that the rules are followed as they are written does NOT make one wrongheaded.  What it does show me is that obama and his camp are afraid of what will happen if Hillary is given a vote...it becomes more apparent everyday.

    Shrug (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:32:12 PM EST
    Where else are they gonna go???

    They don't have to go anywhere (5.00 / 2) (#83)
    by BrianJ on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    Including the polling booth-  which is Obama's problem since Chope and Hange don't seem to be drawing the new voters that his plan (to be generous) requires in record numbers.

    Sounds like (none / 0) (#41)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:34:33 PM EST
    Redneck famous last words:

    "Watch this!"


    Close... (5.00 / 8) (#77)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:49:47 PM EST
    "Hold my beer and watch this".

    Wrongheaded? (5.00 / 30) (#42)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:35:50 PM EST
    Everybody has a line they won't cross.  I notice that it's only when that line is about sexism that people around here are called "wrongheaded" and denigrated.

    Jeralyn has stated she won't vote for Obama if Biden is the VP.  I look forward to lots of posts about how "wrongheaded", to put it politely, that is.

    My guess is that PUMAs are "wrongheaded" because the tacit determination has been made that our complaints of sexism in the Dem party are not important enough to pay attention to.  

    Well, call me what you will.  Here's my line, I will go no farther in ignoring my own interests as a woman, a lesbian, and a feminist.  S*cks for you, I guess.

    Thank you Emma (5.00 / 16) (#106)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:04:00 PM EST
    Sexism isn't the only reason I'm a committed nonsupporter of Obama, but I agree that there's a whole lot of judgment floating around about what is a valid and honorable line which, once crossed, justifies nonsupport/nonvoting versus a silly, crazy or invalid line.  Everyone has their own line, which is fine, but privileging some lines as great and honorable while others are crazy and misguided is kinda cr*p, imo.

    Not just here, but elsewhere, sexism just isn't considered important enough.  Back in the primaries, when many, many AAs said they wouldn't vote for Clinton bc of the SC fairy tale remarks, folks got very upset because the remarks were falsely spun.  No one railed against the idea that someone would not vote for an accomplished Democrat like Hillary just because she'd crossed the racism line.  Had she or Bill actually done that, no one would think twice about AAs AND nonAAs drawing the line there.

    My lines are more than sexism, but that one alone would be enough for me.

    Almost everyone has a line somewhere, they just discount the subject matter of other people's lines.  I mean, if Obama picks Nunn as VP?  If he picked Hagel?  If he gave a speech avidly decrying Social Security and promising to abolish it?  If he switched parties in a blast of happy post-partisanship?  

    Only the KA crowd, as far as I can tell, would support Obama no matter what he does.


    Leon Panetta is racist! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by blogtopus on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:35:54 PM EST
    I'm waiting for the Obama campaign to bring that out, for his use of the loaded word 'Entitlement'.


    Believe it or not (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:11 PM EST
    There are racists out there that don't where sheets some of them can even be democrats.

    Which means (5.00 / 4) (#81)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:51:36 PM EST
    that Obama's irresponsible charges during the primary mute the interests of the victims of those people.

    Obama (1.14 / 7) (#116)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:09:40 PM EST
    Never charged anying.  

    And what victims are you talking about.  Are you a victim of racism some how?  Or are you the victim of reverse racism?  Oh I feel so bad for you.  Has this reverse racism made it harder for you to get a job?  Has it made people afraid of you?  How do you survive?


    I think (5.00 / 9) (#140)
    by Ga6thDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    she means that Obama has deligitimized real claims of racism. Even if the GOP does come out with a blatantly racist ad, there's nothing he can do about it now. He's enabled them beyond anything I previously thought possible.

    I survive the same way Hillary does. (5.00 / 13) (#147)
    by samanthasmom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:30:32 PM EST
    When a less qualified man gets a job that I have worked hard for, I pick myself up, do a better job than he does, skip right over him to the next level, and become his boss. Done it twice.

    that settles it (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by ccpup on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:27:36 PM EST
    You rock!



    sam, Teresa was saying that calling someone (5.00 / 8) (#150)
    by Teresa on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:31:14 PM EST
    a racist who is not, diminishes the people who actually are victimized by racists. Like the boy who cried wolf.

    I have no doubt that you have been the victim of racism and I absolutely hate that for you. In this campaign, many Clinton voters and the Clintons themselves were called racists by members of the Obama campaign or his surrogates. That really hurts when it isn't true.


    Sam knows (5.00 / 5) (#164)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    exactly what is being said.  Sam is just using the "standard" Obama never said it defense.  It was said or implied by everyone else including members of Obama's campaign, but as long as Obama never said it, it didn't happen.

    As a matter of fact (5.00 / 5) (#167)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:46:47 PM EST
    I was denied employment for a job recently that I was fully qualified for, had three excellent interviews for and then  --after three months of waiting -- finally heard from the one racial minority member of the hiring team that I didn't  have enough of a "background of diversity".

    BS, to say the least. My life history was there for her to see but the fact is, I'm white and that was, apparently, not what they were looking for.

    And please don't even start in by trying to deny that women are still discriminated against all the time regarding employment. Happens every single day.

    But it seems that your experience with discrimination is the only one that matters.

    Thanks but no thanks.


    according to at least one (5.00 / 4) (#149)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:31:12 PM EST
    of the Obama supporters we're "born" racist.

    I told her to speak for herself.

    Next thing you know I'm getting a lecture about how I must have little knowledge of AAs and how my lucky I am and was to be white.

    Let me tell you now it was quite the armchair psychoanalyzing session. Especially for someone who has absolutely no idea who I am now and how I came to be the person I am today. I wish I could say it was uncommon but if I had a nickel for every well meaning Obama fan who told me I can not possibly understand, I'd be rich.

    For the record, my sister's SO is AA. So is my nephew. But the armchair interview was entertaining in an annoying preachy kind of way.


    Um, correction (5.00 / 3) (#70)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:56 PM EST
    Since PUMA is just a bunch of over-50 women, in this case "entitlement" is sexist, not racist!



    classist (5.00 / 6) (#73)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:47:52 PM EST
    inbred is classist AND racist isn't it?

    does he mean we are Appalachian or inbred like the Windsors or what?!


    Someone named DemD over at TPM said (5.00 / 23) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:37:05 PM EST
    this, "When people don't support your candidate, you're supposed to think of ways to get them to support your candidate, not try to out do each other in the variety of ways you insult them."

    Obama's people should print that out, blow it up and put a copy on every single wall of every single office of his campaign.

    It's a concept that escapes many (5.00 / 11) (#49)
    by andgarden on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:38:28 PM EST
    to whom it would be obvious.

    Entitlement? (5.00 / 16) (#55)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:43:02 PM EST
    That would be the candidate whose supporter's called for the other candidate to drop out of the race months before the delegate count indicated a loss, right? That would be the people who want their candidate to be announced the primary winner without even counting the votes of the other candidate, right? I'd say there is a definite sense of entitlement here.

    PUMA is more about Obama than Hillary (5.00 / 19) (#60)
    by katiebird on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:44:51 PM EST
    It's an open acknowledgment that Obama is unelectable.  Sure, we'd rather have Hillary.  But, we'd compromise with lot's of others. Gore, for example.

    PUMA is just the tip of the iceberg of Obama's problems.

    I've said it before:  PUMA could disband tomorrow and we could all pledge to vote for him.  He will still lose in November.

    Obama to SF Fundraiser: 'I Will Win' (none / 0) (#202)
    by catfish on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:14:02 PM EST
    apparently he disagrees.

    offensive (5.00 / 8) (#69)
    by jedimom on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:54 PM EST
    It almost appears as though the 'unifiers' are going out of their way to be offensive.

    First Don Fowler and Alice Germond's 'get over it whiners' letter and now Pannetta calls us entitled and inbred, hmmm, can you smell the unity?!

    I found it offensive and it just adds to my conviction that the new 'Brazile Pelosi Obama coalition' does not want me or my family in their new party.

    I'm rather partial (5.00 / 3) (#170)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:48:59 PM EST
    to the "Bitter Knitters" label created by Rahm.  It's so much more visual.

    Earned vs Inbred entitlements (5.00 / 20) (#78)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:50:11 PM EST
    Panetta's problem (and that of the Oborg in general) is that while PUMAs do feel a "sense of entitlement" for Clinton -- but its not an "inbred" entitlement.  Rather, there is the sense that Clinton earned the nomination, and that the Democratic establishment kept her from getting it.

    After February 19th, Obama was clearly the front-runner, and had the media, the money, and momentum behind him.  From that point on, however, Clinton demonstrated that she was clearly the better candidate, but it didn't matter how effectively she managed to clean Obama's clock in the subsequent primaries in crucial states, the flow of superdelegates continued toward Obama.  

    The RBC meeting was the tipping point for a lot of people; while it was intuitively obvious that the 'fix was in' for Obama before that point, the blatant disregard for the party's own rules that was on display at that meeting made the corruption manifest.

    PUMAs don't think that we're entitled to a Hillary nomination -- we think we're entitled to a fair and democratic process...and assume that had the process worked the way it should, that Obama would not have been the nominee.

    And don't forget (5.00 / 11) (#82)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:05 PM EST
    that the Roolz committee drove the awful point home even more by their late return from lunch that way.

    The whole thing reeked of "the fix is in" and "backroom negotiations".


    I loved the comment (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:35:19 PM EST
    from the Clinton supporter (sorry, I can't remember her name)stating that if the RBC now has the ability to decide who the nominee was, they should cancel the 2012 election and make that decision now as well.

    Um (none / 0) (#95)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:57:51 PM EST
    That way = That day.

    Silly me.


    This is the problem (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by PaulDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:54:18 PM EST
    The problem is the following mentality:

    Obama: Not enough pledged delegates to win nomination

    Clinton: Not enough pledged delegate to win nomination

    Superdelegates vote put Obama over the top: Illegitimate

    Superdelegates vote to put Clinton over the top: Legitimate

    That's basically the argument that I perceive.


    4 Stolen MI Delegates = Illegitimate (5.00 / 16) (#96)
    by katiebird on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:59:16 PM EST
    Stolen MI Uncommitted Delegation = Illegitimate

    Done to give the nomination to an Unelectable and Unqualified candidate.

    And that's fine for those who go along with it.  But, I'm not endorsing it.  I won't vote for Obama.

    I'm not voting for McCain either.  


    Those four delegate (5.00 / 0) (#105)
    by PaulDem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:03:17 PM EST
    Those four delegates wouldn't have put Clinton over the top for the nomination, she still had to have Superdelegates to vote her in.

    Still, for many people, the ONLY legitimate outcome of the primary process was a Clinton nomination.  Instead of targeting Obama for scorn, they should be targeting the Superdelegates who decided he had the stronger argument for their vote.


    What you don't see (5.00 / 17) (#137)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:25:23 PM EST
    is that move with the four delegates was exactly so unnecessary by the rules and bylaws committee that it was the evidence of how far it would go to carry Obama over the finish line.  

    And, of course, it was in violation of Michigan state law as well as the Dem party charter.

    It was a stupid slap in the face at 18 million voters.  And it was illegal by state law and by party rules -- rules for which many loyal Dems fought long and hard to make the party more fair when it discriminated against minorities and women.

    It was a slap, and it was the SNAP! that told longtime loyal Dems that it wasn't that party --  their party -- anymore.  It was not about numbers.  It was about the message.


    those four delegates... (5.00 / 20) (#148)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:30:56 PM EST
    ... were the manifestation of the corruption of the process.  The RBC lost any pretense that its primary concern was "the rulez", because the theft of those four delegates from Clinton could not be accomplished under any interpretation of the rules themselves.

    and btw, you obviously don't have the first clue about the rules, because the person who wrote the comment to which you were responding wrote about the tacit endorsement of Michigan's plan to assign all the 'uncommitted' delegates to Obama -- a separate and distinct violation of the rules themselves.  The commenter that you responded to is wrong, insofar as the RBC did not actually assign those uncommitted delegates to Obama, rather it was aware that the Michigan Democratic Party was ignoring Party rules regarding "uncommitted" delegates, and taking steps to ensure that only delegates committed to Obama received the "uncommitted" slots in the Michigan delegation.

    In other words, what happened with the uncommitted delegation was a passive acceptance of rules violations (much like not penalizing IA, NH, and SC for moving their dates in clear violation of the rules).  Stealing delegates that under the "fair representation" rule belonged to Clinton, and giving them to Obama, was an ACTIVE violation of DNC rules by the rules committee itself.


    well the superdelegates are not running for (5.00 / 5) (#154)
    by kimsaw on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:34:16 PM EST
    president, Obama is. Its the PRINCIPLE of the theft, not the number.  Leadership means doing what's right when you know something is blatantly wrong. If Obama can't grasp that STEALING delegates is wrong and doesn't want to play by the rules, how can he be trusted to stand up for anything on behalf of the American people?

    understanding the role of sds... (5.00 / 14) (#124)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:15:36 PM EST
    the PUMA critique is based on an understanding of the proper role of the superdelegates in the nomination process.

    Basically, their role is limited to when no candidate achieves the super-majority of delegates available during the primary season.  When that occurs, they are supposed to use their best judgement to determine who will be the nominee.  

    That didn't happen -- while Obama showed surprising strength in the first two months of the primary season, his inability to connect with core Democratic constituencies and "seal the deal" despite having all the advantages a candidate can have should have staunched the flow of superdelegates toward Obama.  And Obama's actions in the face of adversity and defeat should also have stopped the Obama bandwageon.  And any examination of where Obama and Clinton's relative strengths were made it clear who would be he better candidate for November (not to mention the better President for the nation.) But none of this mattered -- other factors (like actual and theoretical campaign cash from Obama and his allies) kept the SDs flowing toward Obama.

    As others have noted, this isn't about Hillary Clinton -- if the SDs had gotten behind someone like Gore as the "compromise" candidate, there would be no "PUMA" movement.  But a Clinton nomination would be seen as 'legitimate' because it would have reflected the considered judgment of the super-delegates.


    PUMA (5.00 / 12) (#87)
    by kc on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:36 PM EST
    Decloaking  Here...

    I am a PUMA and proud of it. I have also been a Dem my entire life and proud of that-put up with crap from repubs forever. I will not put up with it from people in my own party. I will either try to correct the wrongs in my party or leave. I don't care what the bots or media say. They are incredibly ill informed. Puma is a coalition of people with many bottom lines on voting for Obama, but with the overriding goal of correcting/reforming the party to be more democratic..

    How many times have you heard someone in the media make a statement that you know is wrong and you were stunned that they didn't do their homework?  Well, I have felt that way this entire campaign season-and now, again-no understanding of PUMA. I am constantly reminded that these so called 'experts' could have been cloned from my 7th grade students.

    Creating a new faux menace of PUMAs is ridiculous (5.00 / 14) (#101)
    by Ellie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:01:26 PM EST
    It's just warming the old old, rancid meatloaf made from the anti- Hillary Clinton (aka The Clintons) histrionics that got the Obama Unity Pony wheezing over the nomination finish line.

    Referring to the Krugman / economy thread earlier, the DNC claque's intent to dowplay the economic security and standard of life enjoyed under Those Awful Clintons will be devastating.

    Harping on utterly frivolous ego issues like, eg, Obama's "funny-sounding name" during the Olympics is so dumb it defies description.

    Funny-sounding? Really? Now of all times isn't the time to feign that kind of victimization.

    And if there's anything worse than the idiotic, enduring psycho-caca unleashed on HRC supporters, exemplified by this mentality:

    tasked by the Obama campaign this summer with soothing ruffled feelings and helping Hillary loyalists to get over their sense of loss. It has been a demanding assignment.

    ... Zombie Psycho-Caca is it.

    Ruffled Feelings?!? Really? Really?!? I don't even want ruffles on my chips.

    Oh Feathered Quetzlecoatl, gawds and gawdesses, whatever powers lubricate the workings of the planet and universe, flush this self-help hooey away once and for all.

    Give me some substantial discussion on issues besides what's miffing Obama this week or some utterly patronizing idiocy that's allegedly making me vulnerable to the heartbreak of PUMAnesque related ailments.

    I'm nauseated from Dem Dyspepsia exacerbated by the Precursive Victory Lap Vapors.

    Excuse me? We aren't "wrongheaded" (5.00 / 16) (#102)
    by goldberry on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:02:12 PM EST
    We are voters who are actually trying to avert catastrophe instead of ineffectively making jabs at the Obama campaign and accepting fate as a forgone conclusion without having to lift a finger to avoid it.  
    Oh, sure, we're dreamers, but a month ago, who would have expected Hillary to get a nominating vote?  We might be outliers but it is the outliers who see the vision and pursue it.  

    Most of all, we are absolutely correct in believing that Obama cannot win this election and that the best the Democrats can hope for is a unity ticket with Hillary on top.  

    But don't let that stop you from making fun of us.  It's fairly typical.  We aren't voting for Obama because not only is he unqualified but the way his campaign rushed the caucuses suggests some very undemocratic behavior.  If that kind of president makes you comfortable that he will do what is right and respect you as a voter, go right ahead, act like you want anyone but a Democrat so your friends won't laugh at you and call you a PUMA.

    I'm going to Denver and I'll be more than happy to associate with the dreamers and the nuts.  At least WE know what we're getting into and aren't going to sell our friends down the river in order to not lose face.  You can get behind the effort or sit on your hands but you are not allowed to call us wrongheaded for actually trying to do something.

    So let's see, should I be a PUMA (4.60 / 10) (#144)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:29:41 PM EST
    or should I be a lemming, Mr. Panetta?

    These are the choices we get from the Dems.  What a party.


    Better cat than rat (5.00 / 8) (#156)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:35:04 PM EST
    That's my philosophy. :-)

    It's not about Hillary (5.00 / 21) (#104)
    by Manuel on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:03:00 PM EST
    Obama could have taken any number of steps to secure my vote.  Instead he has been reaching out to different voter blocks, backing down on FISA, mishandling the VP selection process (Hagel? Lugar?, Kaine?), and distancing himself from Democrats such as Clark and Rangel.

    I am worried about letting the media pick our president.  I am worried that Obama will sell out causes that I support.  I am worried that he won't appoint the people necessary to undo the damage of the last eight years.  I am worried that he has abandoned the politics of contrast.  I am worried about the style over substance nature of his campaign.  I am worried that there is no principle he won't sacrifice for politicl expediency.  So far he has not taken many steps to address my worries.  He can't count on my support until he does.

    Filibustering the FISA bill, (5.00 / 7) (#181)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:55:13 PM EST
    as he promised to do, would have gained him huge support from hesitant Democratic voters. He blew it and has no one but himself to blame. The constitutional law professor doesn't believe in the Bill of Rights. Good thing we found out early.

    Entitlement (5.00 / 9) (#108)
    by Moishele on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:05:29 PM EST
    The sense of entitlement seems to be his. That is the attitude Obama must absolutely avoid now.

    That's going to be hard to do because it's that sense of entitlement that defines him.

    From the very beginning Obama has behaved as if the presidency was his. Anyone who spoke against him was trying to remove what was rightfully his, or so it was in his mind. It doesn't matter whom he hurts, whom he tosses aside, whom he lies about- he has the power. He has spilt the part down the middle and expects 'the vanquished' to rally to him while at the same time telling us how inconsequential we are. No one can have it both ways- not even Obama.

    All About Setting Up Blame (5.00 / 17) (#112)
    by BDB on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:08:44 PM EST
    This just makes me worried about the election because now it looks like even the Obama folks aren't confident.  If they were, they wouldn't keep doing this.  This is all about trying to blame any loss on Clinton and her supporters instead of Obama and the DNC establishment that picked him.  All of Obama's weaknesses are predictable.  He's done nothing to shore them up.  Yet, none of the downward polling can be his fault.  Nothing is ever his fault.  He's the Democratic version of Bush.

    Why poke (5.00 / 8) (#120)
    by lilburro on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:13:16 PM EST
    at PUMAs at all?  

    Is Panetta looking to get sympathy points from somewhere?  Where?  There are none to be had.

    They need votes.  Mocking the PUMAs will only get them less of those.

    It's a rile-the-base tactic (5.00 / 7) (#152)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:31:28 PM EST
    It's the one tactic that worked for them consistently in the primaries.

    It won't work in the GE.  But at this point they have to keep going back to the same well, because not only have they made no inroads whatsoever into the indifferent-to-Obama crowd, they're at risk of losing the base in dribbles and drabbles.

    It's the same tactic GWB used -- 'member?  Every time some serious criticism started to make headway against him, we had a Code Orange to divert everyone's attention away from the real threats to faked up ones.

    Now -- vote for FISA -- those d*mn PUMAs won't stop their hysterical grieving!  Kick progressive hero Clark in the n*** -- those d*mn PUMAs and their entitlement!  Polls plummet to a tie after the Rainbow Tour of Europe -- those d*mn PUMAs are ruining everything with their lack of graciousness!

    Some song, different verse.


    Oh that's just (none / 0) (#179)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:54:43 PM EST
    "Political Silly Season"

    The whole process (5.00 / 16) (#122)
    by smott on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:14:25 PM EST
    ...is nauseatingly familiar to women.

    The more experienced, better qualified, harder-working woman, taking the back-seat to the in-experienced, unqualified male who gets the job.

    Actually HRC as VP even aggravates me more because it continues the theme - the better-qualified woman in the back seat telling the clueless boss what to do. (And taking the blame if things go wrong.)


    I've no need to see Clinton as VP.

    Obama lost my respect a long time ago, (5.00 / 19) (#135)
    by Anne on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:23:24 PM EST
    when he revealed his true nature in the "you're likeable enough, Hillary" comment.  Seriously, that's the moment I knew this was not someone I could respect; all the stuff that came after was just confirmation.

    Panetta was not calling PUMAs inbred; I read it as saying their sense of entitlement was a couldn't-see-the-forest-for-the-trees, echo chamber kind of thing.

    That being said, however, Panetta ought to know that this isn't just a case of people feeling Hillary was entitled to the nomination and holding some kind of childish grudge that she didn't get it.  This is about people who believed she was the better candidate, could see and do the math on the votes that were cast, were aware that the DNC was tipping the scales in favor of Obama, have puzzled over the dismissal of long-time, loyal Democrats, can hear for themselves the constant changing of position and can point to FISA as a prime example.

    Obama took us for granted from the beginning, so sure was he that he could get all of the Hillary voters, and get them without having to lift a finger.  Well, I have a finger for him - two, actually - and I would not have to be chickensh!t about pretending to scratch my cheek in order to show them to him.

    I don't know where it started, but someone, somewhere decided Obama was worth taking the Democratic Party apart for, and then failed to have a plan for convincing its members that the "new" party would be oh so worth it.

    Sorry.  My vote.  My choice.  You want my vote?  Earn it.  You want my respect?  Ditto.

    Sending surrogates out to whine about why we won't vote for or respect you?  Tone deaf and mind-numbingly stupid.  Wankers, all of them.  [been reading some books by British authors - love some of their terms for things!]

    Wrong headed, nuts, ungracious, entitled (5.00 / 5) (#161)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    All those adjectives aimed at the PUMAs are not surprising coming from supporters of Obama.  McCain says, "give me a chance".  McCain has years of service and we know he loves his country.  Obama has  cannot say I've defended my whole life yada, yada, because I feel deeply about yada yada.  I'm proud to be "wrong headed", 'nuts', "ungracious" and "entitled" for my belief that Obama does not have the character or the principles to be president of the US.


    inbred entitlement? hey, I resemble that remark (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:46:15 PM EST
    So now we're bitter, we knit apparently, and we're inbred too. And we feel entitled. Wow, we're complicated. I think I've just been painted with a broad racist brush here too. Just because I'm from inbred entitled stock does not mean I'm not a nice person. Hey, we entitled inbred are people too. So cruel.

    Seems to me that what Pannetta is saying is (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by DFLer on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:50:21 PM EST
    He is characterizing Clinton supporters as having the same "sense of entitlement" that Hillary herself is/was supposed to have. So he gets in another dig at Clinton on the "entitlement" indictment, and at the same time, paints her supporters as equally unreasonable and haughty.

    That's how I read his unspoken meaning.

    You know (5.00 / 11) (#174)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:50:32 PM EST
    Say whatever you like about John McCain, but he seems to have no problem understanding that there are some members of his own party who aren't ready to accept him and that it's his responsibility to reach out to those people.

    soo.. (2.00 / 0) (#180)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:54:53 PM EST
    your point (in a thread about a former clinton staffer hired to REACH out to clinton voters who said something dumb)

    is that Obama isn't trying to reach out?


    NO (5.00 / 4) (#186)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:59:08 PM EST
    Only the candidate can reach out.  But Obama knows that anything he says has no weight when he burned all the bridges.  Now he hires leg breakers to do his job.

    soo... wait (2.00 / 1) (#188)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:02:36 PM EST
    the bad this people around him say everyone here will attack him for, but... nothing the people around him do to reach out shall count because THEN its only about what Obama says or does?

    but now if I asked when alot of the stuff he is attacked for when did he say that, oh oh then its different, then what the people say and do around him count.

    right ok.


    oh goody! (5.00 / 6) (#189)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:02:41 PM EST
    you seem to think that we're all supposed to be impressed with the fact that Obama hired a former Clinton staffer for 'outreach' to us.

    It was a nice gesture, sure.  We're always happy to see former Clinton officials gainfully employed.

    But giving Leon Panetta a paycheck to talk to us doesn't make us go "Oh goody!  I'll vote for Obama now" if Team Obama doesn't follow through, and give Panetta something to work with.



    ah no (2.00 / 0) (#194)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:05:19 PM EST
    I am point out the irony in a thread about Obama out reach to imply that Obama isn't even attempting to reach out.

    had he said Obama's outreach is ineffective or he should try something else ok.

    but thats not what he was implying. and I was just pointing out Obama is being attacked for what a former Clinton staffer said, are you saying Obama should have known that a Clinton staffer would say something dumb? or maybe you are saying Obama shouldn't Hire former Clinton staffers? or can someone explain once again why this is a thread attacking Obama and not the former Clinton staffer, because ODS is all I can see in this thread.


    LOL. (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by shoephone on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:03:10 PM EST
    I think you just answered your own question.

    Leon Pannetta was never on Hillary's staff. (5.00 / 6) (#192)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:04:24 PM EST
    ...He's a former Bill Clinton staffer. He's one of many former Bill Clinton staffers who were never Hillary supporters so why was he selected to do outreach? I'm surprised they didn't task Richardson with this too.

    I feel like the Obama campaign hasn't got any use for anyone who supported Hillary Clinton in the primaries. Well that's half of the Democratic Party. Therein lies the problem.


    really? (2.00 / 0) (#197)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    so he hasn't hired any of them? or the ones he has hired you just don't feel were REAL Clinton supporters? or he just hasn't hired the ones you consider the good ones?

    is there a list that out there of the Right Hillary Clinton people to hire, because I don't think he knows that all the former Hillary staffers who have been hired so far don't count as people who supported Hillary during the primaries


    He has thrown Rangel and Clark.... (5.00 / 6) (#200)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:09:39 PM EST
    ...under the bus. The other Clinton staffers that work for him never worked for Hillary's campaign with one notable exception...Solis. Nuff said.

    I'm entitled to vote for whomever (5.00 / 4) (#177)
    by Prabhata on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:53:11 PM EST
    If anyone doesn't like how I vote and calls me names, I thank him/her.  That's the most attention I've gotten from the Democratic Party since the DNC decided to support Obama.  I wish I had two votes, like those from Chicago and use them against Obama.

    Does anyone think (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by JThomas on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:17:39 PM EST
     that Leon Panetta, former chief of staff for Bill Clinton really is no longer a big fan of Hillary and Bill? C'mon, I have heard him advocate for both Clintons many times.
    Leon may have misspoke here but is he now the enemy?

    Well... (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by DancingOpossum on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:27:16 PM EST
    You can effectively vote twice against Obama if you vote McCain. That means two votes Obama has to make up, not just one. But of course, that's a bridge too far for most Democrats.

    I'm quite comfortable with my Cynthia McKinney vote, myself. I don't think it's good to "not vote," at all, but that's a personal judgment call. Some people might honestly feel that there's truly nobody to vote for.

    At this point, it wouldn't matter if the Obama campaign hired the team of Jesus, Al Gore, Brad Pitt, and George Clooney to reach out to voters it has lost, and if all of them conducted themselves with perfect graciousness, respect, and wisdom. Wouldn't matter. I think it is far, far, far too late and there is no turning back, ever, for most of us. So at this point, they may as well cut their losses and give it up.

    Dems Divided by Love (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by Jade Jordan on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 04:02:49 PM EST
    The sad part of the state of the party is that there are two groups of people who clearly love their candidate in a way that we haven't loved our candidate in recent past.

    Clinton supporters love her, support her, and want her to be President in the worst way.

    They despise Obama because they prefer Clinton.

    The Obama Nation love him, support him, and want him to be President.

    Too bad we couldn't have fallen in love with Gore or Kerry as a unit or they would have won the presidency in spite of BushCo's dirty tricks.

    I was willing to vote for Gore but I didn't really care much for him, same as Kerry.

    Maybe next cycle we can all fall in love with and support the same candidate.

    Well, I'm sorry you think all PUMA think (5.00 / 1) (#207)
    by masslib on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 05:33:38 PM EST
    exactly alike, which is what I must conclude from your "wrongheaded" comment.  I simply yhink one ought to hold a full time job before the Presidency.

    Playing Keep-Away (4.88 / 34) (#40)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:34:17 PM EST
    With the spate of freaky drive-by trolls here and elsewhere last night, and this (yes), very poorly worded -- I don't know what to call it -- rebuttal? jibe? criticism? -- of PUMAs, I get the feeling like the Dems are feeling like the victim in a game of Keep-Away.

    Ever played it as a kid?  As either Keeper or Keepee?  Keeper is fun in a mean kind of way, but having something kept away from you, esp. while the Keepers are confidently laughing that you're not tall enough to reach the ball, is enraging in a frustration-to-tears sort of way.

    Now my vote is the ball and they're reacting with all the childish tears and frustration of the Keep Away victim.

    I have said all along that just a few votes in some close contests could make the difference, but in their joy at kickin' me and other long-time but uncool lunchpail Dems to the curb, they forgot that.

    Know what?  I d*mn well am entitled.  I'm entitled to my vote.  I'm entitled to reject the peope who stood silently, if not laughingly, while the netroots-msm unleased the wilding attack dogs of misogyny across the infotainmentsphere.  I'm entitled to reject the party that violated its own procedural rules and basic principles of fairness to throw the election toward the less-able candidate.  And I'm entitled to refuse my support to the Kool Aid myrmidons hell-bent on destroying reasoned political discourse just to put their fantasy superhero on a throne.

    They are entitled to nothing from me.  They have no legal or, after the primaries, moral claim on my for my vote or my support.

    The Dems should hire better PR people.  Seriously.

    Applauding loudly n/t (5.00 / 6) (#109)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:05:45 PM EST
    And on the "game" theme (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:27:42 PM EST
    My mother taught me that being a poor winner was actually worse that being a "sore loser" (another thought less battle cry of the Obama Camp)

    Every woman who (4.83 / 24) (#85)
    by Emma on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:14 PM EST
    has ever lost a promotion or a job to a less qualified man has heard Panetta's complaint:  "You think you're entitled to this  job?"

    And the only reasonable answer is:  YES.  Every other time a man with my qualifications applied for this job, they got it.  These are what the qualifications are.  I have them.  Therefore, I am entitled to the job.

    The "entitlement" theme just plays into the sexism that no woman is entitled to a job that a man wants.  And lots and lots of women know about that sexism, we've experienced it, and we have seen it playing out every single day since January, and, astonishingly, it continues to this day with all the sturm und drang over putting HRC's name into nomination.  YES, she's entitled, d*mn it!  (Unless, of course, there's a man who doesn't want her name in nomination.)

    People don't have time or inclination to follow all the insider politics.  But "woman not entitled to what she's earned", that's quick, that's easy, that's something lots and lots of women understand.  That's PUMA.  It's not surprising the guys don't get it.

    Two of my favorite quotes: (5.00 / 4) (#171)
    by tlkextra on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    The first being applicable to my 30 years as a female in the male-oriented field of Engineering -
    "Whatever women do they must do twice as well as men to be thought of half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult." Charlotte Whitton

    The second being applicable to the 2008 Primaries -

    "Of my two handicaps, being female put many more obstacles in my path than being black." Shirley Chisholm


    wow a Former Clinton staffer (2.00 / 1) (#173)
    by TruthMatters on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:50:24 PM EST
    hired by Obama to reach out to other Clinton people says something dumb, so it turns into a thread of Attack Obama?

    all we need now is for someone to say that will teach Obama to try and hire former Clinton people?

    jeez ODS indeed.

    He is not entilted to their vote (1.67 / 3) (#8)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:15:30 PM EST
    But he is entitled to some respect.  That is the part of the discussion that is lacking in the PUMA arguements.

    No, he isn't entitled to respect (5.00 / 20) (#32)
    by angie on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:29:52 PM EST
    A pol's job is to earn respect, to earn the people's trust and to earn their votes. Is GWB entitled to respect? No -- not mine at least -- and there are plenty of other pols I have no respect for based on their job performance/actions. And it is our patriotic duty to criticize all of them, not to mention our right because of a little thing called the 1st Amendment.

    A politician entitled to respect? HA! Next you'll be telling me that they are all honest too.  


    The way it goes is: You have to give (4.79 / 14) (#57)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:43:43 PM EST
    respect to get respect....something obama apparently knows nothing about.

    At this time, Obama has done nothing to earn my (5.00 / 23) (#34)
    by FLVoter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:31:38 PM EST
    vote.  My parents taught me a long time ago that respect is earned.  Also, respect is a two way street.  You need to show some to get some. He should remember "you reap what you sow."  

    respect is the default... (5.00 / 17) (#48)
    by p lukasiak on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:37:40 PM EST
    ...for fellow democrats.  Disrespect has to be earned.

    And Obama earned my disrespect, which is why I'm a PUMA.


    I respect PUMAs (5.00 / 20) (#52)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    personally, for caring enough to want to change the party that I have given up.

    Dems haven't figured out that the real enemy, always, is apathy.

    And especially when what matters will be turnout.


    You nailed it. Apathy will be Obama's undoing. (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by FLVoter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:06 PM EST
    The New Democratic Party does not respect me (5.00 / 14) (#58)
    by FLVoter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:44:26 PM EST
    or my beliefs that before this primary were core values of Democrats; therefor, no politician in the New Democratic Party is entitled to my respect as a default.

    What has he done (1.00 / 4) (#53)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:42:19 PM EST
    It seems that the PUMA's are the one's with the sense of entitlement

    Sure. We Own our votes (5.00 / 19) (#68)
    by katiebird on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:47 PM EST
    And we're entitled to that much.  Obama could campaign for them.  But, he doesn't seem interested.

    And THAT's a big reason why he's unelectable.


    Yes we are entitled to see that the (5.00 / 12) (#71)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:47:08 PM EST
    DNC follows the rules set out by them and not see them jerry-rigged to make sure a candidate gets the nomination, when obviously he has not reached the threshold...so please don't go there.

    So, judging by another "2" from sher.... (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:06:08 PM EST
    you don't even believe rules should be followed, and the democratic process is not important....that speaks volumes about you.  

    We ARE entitled (5.00 / 24) (#76)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:49:39 PM EST
    We don't "owe" Obama our vote. We can support who wish for whatever reason we wish. That's how democracy works. It's how things have been done for awhile. I'm sorry that Obama and his team of merry men aren't happy with the concept. Perhaps they SHOULD have done the right thing and just tried to settle a party split at convention rather than poaching delegates and negating certain states to pull out a win.

    obama and his merry men...lol (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:12:16 PM EST
    barobin hood....men in too tight tights :)

    Thanks sher.... (5.00 / 0) (#190)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:02:59 PM EST
    Voters are entitled (5.00 / 19) (#39)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:33:47 PM EST
    to respect.  If you don't vote for him, you're bitter, clinging to guns, religion, maybe (via surrogates) even racist.

    Respect is earned, not given.


    Oh really? (5.00 / 15) (#54)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    Where I come from you need to give it to get it.

    Calling me uneducated, racist and saying me and people like me don't "really" matter isn't respectful.

    Don't even speak to me about what I "owe" him.

    If he wants respect afforded then he better do better than he's done so far.


    Who said you don't matter? (2.00 / 1) (#62)
    by samtaylor2 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45:01 PM EST
    Obama and DOnna (5.00 / 10) (#75)
    by smott on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:48:07 PM EST
    Obama called rural voters racist bible-thumping gun nuts.
    Brazile told us to stay home.

    Donna (5.00 / 9) (#86)
    by cawaltz on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:53:19 PM EST
    Hadn't you heard? She's got a brand, shiny new coalition. She doesn't need working folk(we're all uneducated and Appalachian anyway). Oh and men, accordimg to Daschle they vote for the GOP anyway(so that means you lose my hubby too). Then there's latinas and latinos. The list of folks under the bus is looooong.

    Maybe Donna, Howard, Leon and Obama (5.00 / 5) (#97)
    by FLVoter on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:59:20 PM EST
    are all trying to use "reverse psychology."  But since I am a busunder, I am not educated enough to recognize it!

    Sam (5.00 / 5) (#113)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:09:08 PM EST
    I know you've read the many, many comments answering your question, stop playing the disingenuous kid here.

    Thanks Valhalla.....sam's schtick is wearing (5.00 / 4) (#121)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:13:49 PM EST
    a bit thin...

    There's sher....always ready with a down- (4.00 / 4) (#187)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 02:01:38 PM EST
    rating, but never has anything to say...you have learned well from obama imo.

    Why? (5.00 / 3) (#61)
    by janarchy on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:44:58 PM EST
    What has he ever done to garner respect from me or most other voters? Other than swagger about telling people I'll vote for him no mater what happens and presume a lot of things. Some of us see that once again, the Emperor has no clothes.

    He lost my respect when he called me a racist (5.00 / 19) (#117)
    by goldberry on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:10:04 PM EST
    He smeared my character.  Ohm sure, you'll tell me that he never actually did this.  But he has in many indirect ways and his surrogates have been considerably less subtle.  he had an obligation to rein that in and he did nothing.  
    So, would I behave rudely in public to him?  Probably not.  Do I have to respect him as a person?  Sure, when he apologizes to me and millions of other voters and stops using racism as a weapon against us.  
    Oh and it would help if he were actually prossesed the qualifications that would make him even a mediocre president.  The height of his arrogance is to believe he could actually pull off such a fraud.  

    Sure. He's respectable enough. (5.00 / 6) (#155)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:34:53 PM EST
    Yes, I remember all the respect afforded (4.83 / 24) (#24)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:27:13 PM EST
    Hillary (that is snark for those with no snarkometers)

    Panetta is responding to people like this: (1.66 / 3) (#20)
    by steviez314 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:25:15 PM EST
    From the article in UK Sunday Times on Lady de Rothschild:

    The roll-call will not be enough to bring Rothschild back into the fold, however. "We're not going to win by pretending problems with Barack Obama don't exist. He has a huge problem connecting with ordinary Americans, who think, `He doesn't understand me.' He is not modest; he is arrogant. He radiates elitism."

    Sorry, there's something very weird here about a Rothschild calling someone like Obama elitist.

    And then these 2 paragraphs:

    She is not impressed by Barack Obama and doubts he will reach the White House. "My loyalty is to the Democrats winning. Barack Obama is going to have a serious problem getting elected, for good reason," she said in an interview.

    She poured her heart and money into Hillary Clinton's campaign and she is thinking of voting for John McCain, the Republican candidate, for president.

    I don't doubt for a second that someone who married in the Rothschild family just might have a sense of entitlement.

    All good points (5.00 / 9) (#37)
    by Steve M on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:31:56 PM EST
    but you're not going to successfully defend Obama by attacking this Rothschild woman, whoever she is.  It's an ad hominem.

    "This Rothschild woman"---show a bit of (5.00 / 1) (#93)
    by oculus on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:57:29 PM EST
    respect.  She could be a wealthy, landed Baroness for all we know.

    Yeh? Then he oughta call Lady de R. (5.00 / 5) (#56)
    by Cream City on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    and not say it to millions, huh?

    She married into the family (5.00 / 8) (#63)
    by americanincanada on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:45:09 PM EST
    and didn't start out rich. she built her multi-million dollar company long before she met him. Not that it matters.

    How much money one has really has nothing to do with elitism.


    Why is elitist weird? (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by dianem on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:46:16 PM EST
    Seriously, a lot of people believe that Obama thinks he is God's gift to politics. He has said some very offensive things about lower class white voter's and he has refused to denounce even more offensive things. Kerry was called elitist on far less evidence. You may not agree with her assessment, and it may even be wrong, but it isn't "weird".

    Elitism does not necessarily mean rich (5.00 / 7) (#103)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:02:18 PM EST
    People keep saying Obama cannot possibly be elitist because he did not grow up a millionaire. That has nothing to do with it. If he thinks he is smarter than everyone else, and looks down on those not as enlightened, he is an elitist.  I don't know if he is one or not. But it is certainly an open question.

    And to dispel a myth....obama wasn't (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by PssttCmere08 on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:16:29 PM EST
    raised by a single mother either....

    I am sick of hearing that too (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by ruffian on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:36:07 PM EST
    Google's your friend! (5.00 / 6) (#110)
    by Valhalla on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:07:22 PM EST
    She wasn't born a Rothschild.  She happens to have quite impressively built most of her own considerable fortune.

    Not that any of that justifies your ad hominem, but if you're going to go all ad hom, at least get your facts straight.


    Well then... (5.00 / 4) (#132)
    by Moishele on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 01:18:24 PM EST
    I guess you missed the part of the article as to how Lady de Rothschild worked her way up from nothing to being a multi millionaire in her own right before even meeting her future husband. Given that background I think she understands quite well who is the elitist and who has a sense of entitlement.

    Another Judas, clearly (none / 0) (#7)
    by DemForever on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 12:14:23 PM EST

    Pannetta (none / 0) (#208)
    by abiodun on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:44:29 PM EST
    leon Pannetta is a Clintonista. So maybe he knows what he is talking about!

    Entitlement! (none / 0) (#209)
    by abiodun on Mon Aug 18, 2008 at 06:52:20 PM EST
    And am sure you came to the conlusion about McCain loving his country because he got shot down over Vietnam, and spent 5 years as POW, etc.

    So anyone who has not served in the military, sat in a bomber, shot at america's "enemies" does not love his country.

    Just deductive thinking, right?