Obama's remarks gives Clinton an opening
By JIM KUHNHENN and CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writers
MISHAWAKA, Ind. - A political tempest over Barack Obama's comments about bitter voters in small towns has given rival Hillary Rodham Clinton a new opening to court working class Democrats 10 days before Pennsylvanians hold a primary that she must win to keep her presidential campaign alive.
Obama tried to quell the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly. "If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that," Obama said in an interview with the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal.
But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will resonate with the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well. Political insiders differed on whether Obama's comments, which came to light Friday, would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Clinton even though Obama has more pledged delegates. Clinton supporters were eagerly hoping so.
They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch." At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." The comments, posted Friday on The Huffington Post Web site, set off a blast of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and other GOP officials, and drew attention to a potential Obama weakness — the image some have that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof.
His campaign scrambled to defuse possible damage. There has been a small "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at a town hall-style meeting at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through. "So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country."
After acknowledging his previous remarks in California could have been better phrased, he added: "The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to."
Clinton attacked Obama's remarks much more harshly Saturday than she had the night before, calling them "demeaning." Her aides feel Obama has given them a big opening, pulling the spotlight away from troublesome stories such as former President Clinton's recent revisiting of his wife's misstatements about an airport landing in Bosnia 10 years ago. Obama is trying to focus attention narrowly on his remarks, arguing there's no question that some working-class families are anxious and bitter. The Clinton campaign is parsing every word, focusing on what Obama said about religion, guns, immigration and trade.
Clinton hit all those themes in lengthy comments to manufacturing workers in Indianapolis. "The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich," she said.
"I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," Clinton added. "People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."
McCain's campaign piled on Obama, releasing a statement that also accused him of elitism. One of Clinton's staunchest supporters, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., acknowledged there was some truth in Obama's remarks. But he said Republicans would use them against him anyway.
At a campaign rally in Wilson, N.C., former state Democratic Party chairman and current Clinton adviser Tom Hendrickson said rural voters don't need "liberal elites" telling them what to believe. Bill Clinton was the featured speaker of the rally but avoided commenting on Obama's remarks. When asked about it afterward, he said simply, "I agree with what Hillary said."
More much ado about nothing.....let's move forward. Let those he speaks loosley of vote for McCain....
Hillary will cave soon enough. It's the only avenue she has left.
I respectfully disagree. The subject is not about Hillary...
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9561.html
12 reasons 'bitter' is bad for ObamaBy MIKE ALLEN | 4/12/08
The remarks play into the hands of Republicans eager to portray him as a snob out of touch with working Americans. A Clinton comeback was looking far-fetched. But operatives in both parties were buzzing about that possibility Saturday following the revelation that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) told wealthy San Franciscans that small-town Pennsylvanians and Midwesterners "cling to guns or religion" because they are "bitter" about their economic status.
Obama at first dug in on that contention Friday after audio of the private fundraiser was posted by The Huffington Post. Altering course, on Saturday in Muncie, Ind., he conceded that he "didn't say it as well as I should have." And he told the Winston-Salem (N.C.) Journal that "obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. ... The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so."
Here is what he said April 6, referring to people living in areas hit by job losses: "t's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." The Obama campaign contends that coverage of the San Francisco remarks is overheated and distorted. One aide said that "any logical analysis" would make it obvious that the brouhaha will not "change the pledged delegate count" — the key to the Democratic presidential nomination.
In fact, this is a potential turning point for Obama's campaign — an episode that could be even more damaging than the attention to remarks by his minister, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, since this time the controversial words came out of his own mouth.
Here are a dozen reasons why:
1. It lets Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) off the mat at a time when even some of her top supporters had begun to despair about her prospects. Clinton hit back hard on the campaign trail Saturday. And her campaign held a conference call where former Iowa Gov. Tom Vilsack, a Pittsburgh native, described Obama's remarks as "condescending and disappointing" and "undercutting his message of hope."
2. If you are going to say something that makes you sound like a clueless liberal, don't say it in San Francisco. Obama's views might have been received very differently if he had expressed them in public to Pennsylvania voters, saying he understood and could alleviate their frustrations.
3. Some people actually use guns to hunt — not to compensate for a salary that's less than a U.S. senator's.
4. Some people cling to religion not because they are bitter but because they believe it, and because faith in God gives them purpose and comfort.
5. Some hard-working Americans find it insulting when rich elites explain away things dear to their hearts as desperation. It would be like a white politician telling blacks they cling to charismatic churches to compensate for their plight. And it vindicates centrist Democrats who have been arguing for a decade that their party has allowed itself to look culturally out of touch with the American mainstream.
6. It provides a handy excuse for people who were looking for a reason not to vote for Obama but don't want to think of themselves as bigoted. It hurts Obama especially with the former Reagan Democrats, the culturally conservative, blue-collar workers who could be a promising voter group for him. It also antagonizes people who were concerned about his minister but might have given him the benefit of the doubt after his eloquent speech on race.
7. It gives the Clinton campaign new arguments for trying to recruit superdelegates, the Democratic elected officials and other insiders who get a vote on the nomination. A moderate politician from a swing district, for example, might not want to have to explain support for a candidate who is being hammered as a liberal. And Clinton's agents can claim that for all the talk of her being divisive, Obama has provided plenty of fodder to energize Republicans.
8. It helps Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) frame a potential race against Obama, even though both of them have found support among independents. Now Republicans have a simple, easily repeated line of attack to use against Obama as an out-of-touch snob, as they had with Sen. John F. Kerry after he blundered by commenting about military funding, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
9. The comments play directly into an already-established narrative about his candidacy. Clinton supporters have been arguing that Obama has limited appeal beyond upscale Democrats — the so-called latte liberals. You can't win red states if people there don't like you. "Elites need to understand that middle-class Americans view values and culture as more important than mere trickery," said Paul Begala, a Clinton backer. "Democrats have to respect their values and reflect their values, not condescend to them as if they were children who've been bamboozled."
10. The timing is terrible. With the Pennsylvania primary nine days off, late-deciding voters are starting to tune in. Obama and Clinton are scheduled to appear separately on CNN on Sunday for a forum on, of all topics, faith and values. And ABC News is staging a Clinton-Obama debate in Philadelphia on Wednesday. So Clinton has the maximum opportunity to keep a spotlight on the issue. Besides sex, little drives the news and opinion industry more than race, religion, culture and class. So as far as chances the chattering-class will perpetuate the issue, Obama has hit the jackpot.
11. The story did not have its roots in right-wing or conservative circles. It was published — and aggressively promoted — by The Huffington Post, a liberally oriented organization that was Obama's outlet of choice when he wanted to release a personal statement distancing himself from some comments by the Rev. Wright.
12. It undermines Democratic congressional candidates who had thought that Obama would make a stronger top for the ticket than Clinton. Already, Republican House candidates are challenging their Democratic opponents to renounce or embrace Obama's remarks. Ken Spain, press secretary for the National Republican Congressional Committee, said: "There is a myth being perpetuated by Democrats and even some in the media that an Obama candidacy would somehow be better for their chances down ballot. But we don't believe that is the case."
quote-- But the Clinton campaign fueled the controversy in every place and every way it could, hoping charges that Obama is elitist and arrogant will resonate with the swing voters the candidates are vying for not only in Pennsylvania, but in upcoming primaries in Indiana and North Carolina as well. Political insiders differed on whether Obama's comments, which came to light Friday, would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Clinton even though Obama has more pledged delegates. Clinton supporters were eagerly hoping so.
They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."
Yeah, you know wut?... Hillary NEVER worked as a community activist on the southside of Chicago... NEVER. She grew up middle class Republican in lilly white suburban Park Ridge.
God forbid anyone put Obama's words in proper context... more gotcha politics from the DESPERATE Clinton campaign... the media get it wrong again, and refuse to put his words in the proper perspective of his entire speech.
Per usual, Hillary is being a total b*tch. Yeah, she's "found her voice" alright. What a friggin' hypocrit!
And per usual, RM, you will stop at nothing to try to post anything and everything you can possibly find to discredit Obama... OBAMA HAS NEVER BEEN A LIMO LIBERAL....... more gotcha politics dished out by media hacks to a country that desperately needs something more than manipulated soundbites and trangulation... could Obama have stated that one sentence (taken out of context) in a more "politically correct" manner? Yep.
She wants to convince super-delegates that Barack Obama is unelectable...... by doing everything in her power to make him unelectable.
This faux-outrage by Hillary Clinton truly pisses me off... what gives when the multi-millionaire Clintons are trying to undermine someone who has WORKED IN THE SOUTHSIDE OF CHICAGO ON BEHALF OF THE WORKING POOR FOR YEARS???... while Hillary was at the Rose Law firm and on the board of WalMart.......
Compare this mis-statement to the huge issue of Bill Clinton being paid by the Columbian Government... that's right, if elected president, Hillary Clinton will literally be in bed with a lobbyist for a foreign country-- her husband... and then there's the remarkably bad judgment in hiring play-both-sides-against-the-middle Mark Penn... wish I could say I was surprised, but all this reminds me of my own Clinton fatigue back in the 90s when slick Willie hired Dick Morris...
Hillary Clinton will literally say anything to get elected... she has proven me correct and demonstrates on a regular basis why I would NEVER vote for her, no matter what she claims her views are. I don't trust her. Period.
I am taken aback by Hillary accusing Barack Obama of being an elitist. What a PIG.
Strangely, no one has posted the context yet:
quote:
Obama wrote
You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
He made what most people will concede as a valid point: people are frustrated in small towns. He then went on to list generalizations about small towns: guns, religion, anti-trade, and anti-immigration. The only real problem is you aren't suppose to do that.
It looks like Clinton supporters and Republicans are on this like white on Rice, but I'm afraid it seems like all the more nothingness. Like Bill's recent outburst on the camping trail, just an indiscretion and a glimpse of what they actually think. This one may portray some actual feelings, but imho they are true (but you aren't supposed to say them).
Anyway, what exactly is the problem RM? That small town people are bitter and fit into his generalizations or that he said it out loud? I'd rather know what a candidate thinks so I can honestly evaluate them - if he said Oklahoma is a backwards place where people cling to religion and guns while viewing those that are different with fear and pressing an anti-trade anti-immigration agenda... I might vote for him just for the honesty factor there. [:P]
Oh, my favorite Clinton spin is the "elitist angle."
'That ivy league educated millionaire senator who has worked for large firms and lives in a mansion is an elitist!' - said the ivy league educated 100 millionaire senator who lives in mansionS and sat on the board at Wal-mart. Pot...kettle.
So, do we want an ivy league millionaire elitist or a life-long government employee? Yay for democracy! [:D]
Do you really think that religion, hunting and concern about immigration are emotional responses to economic strain?
That is what Obama is saying. The people in small towns in Pennsylvania cling to these things because they are poor and bitter about it.
To him to go to San Francisco, to a party of wealthy people, and say that Pennsylvanians only care about religion, guns and immigration issues because they are poor is incredibly insulting. What he is saying is that poor people don't have real values, just emotions.
Try as you guys might to attack Hillary on this, it won't stick. Take Hillary out of the equation.
How can you possibly believe that his comments weren't elitist?
RM...
"How can you possibly believe that his comments weren't elitist?"Because of his MANY YEARS of public service as a community organizer on the southside of Chicago doing things none of the other presidential candidates have done for the working poor... actions speak louder than misinterpreted soundbites.... I hope his message gets out...
http://www.wral.com/golo/blogpost/2724715/
quote:
TERRE HAUTE, Indiana (CNN) –- Barack Obama was forced Friday to defend comments he made at a recent fundraiser where he described some Pennsylvanians as bitter.
Obama came under fire from Hillary Clinton and John McCain for his remarks just weeks before the Pennsylvania primary.
"When I go around and I talk to people, there is frustration, and there is anger, and there is bitterness," Obama began. "I want to make a point here."
"[Pennsylvanians are] frustrated and for good reason, because for the last 25 years they've seen jobs shipped overseas, they've seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs, they've lost their pensions. They've lost their health care."
Obama then said that politicians from both sides of the aisle have promised answers but that "nothing ever happens."
"So...they don't vote on economic because they don't expect anybody's going to help them," Obama said, adding that they end up voting on issues that include gun rights, gay marriage, and faith.
He then directly hit Clinton and McCain, mocking their earlier attacks.
"Here's what's rich," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton says, 'Well I don't think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack's being condescending.' John McCain says, 'Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? He's obviously out of touch with people. '"
"Out of touch?" Obama said. "I mean, John McCain, it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of touch?"
"Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I'm out of touch?"
He concluded his argument by telling the audience that it is, in fact, the opposite.
"No. I'm in touch. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania, I know what's going on in Indiana, [and] I know what's going on in Illinois. People are fed up."
You CAN'T take Hillary Clinton out of the equation, because she's the one calling him "elitist"....... for crass political gain at the expense of the democratic party.
Barack Obama is the complete and total OPPOSITE of what I consider a limo liberal to be.... but if you were to look up
limo liberal in the dictionary, I think you'll find a picture of....
[:D]
(http://www.cityoftulsa.org/OurCity/Mayor/images/KathyTaylor-1-forweb_000.jpg)
Your answer is to say his actions show he is not an elitist. I agree.
But his comments were wrong. Obama's defense is that he should have said them differently.
This isn't about Hillary. Why is the defense of Obama always something along the lines of "but Hillary is worse..." I don't care that she is using this for political gain. I don't blame her. His campaign has done the exact same and I don't blame them.
How can you defend comments like this? How can a rich man, at a fundraising party of rich people, make comments so derogatory about poor people and you not be upset? How can he look down on the poor and not be seen as elitist?
If he truly believes that poor people cling to religion only because they are poor, then he is out of touch with most of America. No man so out of touch can be their President.
As much as I have supported Obama on several issues, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Do you really think that religion, hunting and concern about immigration are emotional responses to economic strain?
That is what Obama is saying. The people in small towns in Pennsylvania cling to these things because they are poor and bitter about it.
To him to go to San Francisco, to a party of wealthy people, and say that Pennsylvanians only care about religion, guns and immigration issues because they are poor is incredibly insulting. What he is saying is that poor people don't have real values, just emotions.
Try as you guys might to attack Hillary on this, it won't stick. Take Hillary out of the equation.
How can you possibly believe that his comments weren't elitist?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Your answer is to say his actions show he is not an elitist. I agree.
But his comments were wrong. Obama's defense is that he should have said them differently.
This isn't about Hillary. Why is the defense of Obama always something along the lines of "but Hillary is worse..." I don't care that she is using this for political gain. I don't blame her. His campaign has done the exact same and I don't blame them.
How can you defend comments like this? How can a rich man, at a fundraising party of rich people, make comments so derogatory about poor people and you not be upset? How can he look down on the poor and not be seen as elitist?
If he truly believes that poor people cling to religion only because they are poor, then he is out of touch with most of America. No man so out of touch can be their President.
BS. Are only the poor, small town folk capable of commenting on their motivations or emotions? Because, RM, you would be considered out of touch as well. The truth is easier to absorb by small town folk than it is by cosmopolitan sophisticates who have to have it "phrased correctly". Those who have travelled and worked in both arenas, like Obama, have the credibility to comment on the motivations of either. John Edwards was also capable and said the same things only in code that was more acceptable to liberal psyches. Small towns in Penn or Ok don't need truth sugared up for consumption.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Do you really think that religion, hunting and concern about immigration are emotional responses to economic strain?
...How can you possibly believe that his comments weren't elitist?
Pennsylvania is said to have Philadelphia on one end, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in between. I've lived in Pittsburgh and a small town in the rural part of the state.
When the steel industry died off, it took a lot of small towns with it as people lost their homes and tax bases withered. Steel production went overseas. Is it any wonder those people who lost their homes and businesses resent foreigners?
When WalMart opened a super store in a neighboring town, our hardware store closed. Our shoe store closed. Worst of all, the grocery went out of business too. Is it any wonder people resent big businesses?
We know that demagogues thrive in hard economic times. It's easy to find someone to blame, whether it's the fascists in Germany blaming the Jews, or our home-grown xenophobes blaming Hispanics. The point is that there are indeed a host of bitter people in our country. Obama had the brass to merely point out the truth.
We all want our politicians to simply speak the truth. We're adults (allegedly) and we don't need sugar coating. Yet when candidates spout positions that have been finely tuned in front of focus groups, we have no idea what their real ideas are on any given subject. That is, we have no real idea of what they'll do once they're in office. So when a candidate says what he really thinks, like it or not, it's a breath of fresh air in an over heated campaign.
Obama defends 'bitter' remarks
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/04/11/obama.remarks.cnn WATCH IT!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/11/obama-defends-bitter-remarks/
"When I go around and I talk to people there is frustration and there is anger and there is bitterness. And what's worse is when people are expressing their anger then politicians try to say what are you angry about? This just happened -- I want to make a point here today.
"I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how're you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What's going on there? We hear that it's hard for some working class people to get behind your campaign. I said, 'Well look, they're frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they've seen jobs shipped overseas. They've seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare.
"And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we're going to make your community better. We're going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And of course they're bitter. Of course they're frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement -- so, here's what rich. Senator Clinton says 'No, I don't think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack's being condescending.' John McCain says, 'Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he's obviously out of touch with people.'
"Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain -- it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of touch? Senator Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I'm out of touch? No, I'm in touch. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania. I know what's going on in Indiana. I know what's going on in Illinois. People are fed-up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that's why I'm running for President of the United States of America."
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/11/pavoters/index.html
"But I wish everyone who's angry about the flap over Obama's remarks, on both sides, would debate what he actually said. "
Do YOU have a lobbyist? Who is out of touch?
If Hillary Clinton were not in this race... would RM be making these arguments?
RM -- "What he is saying is that poor people don't have real values, just emotions."
I don't think so.
And it IS about the Clintons. Funny how after his comments came to light after a closed-door fundraiser in which people were not supposed to be allowed to record........ then Hillary's campaign hands out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina?!?
When Hillary Clinton's campaign tries to make political hay out of this, she unwittingly accuses herself and much of her own political party of being elitist... you know, I'm an Obama supporter and I am not now, nor have ever been a drinker of lattes or mocha lattes... [:D]
Obama's politically incorrect statement of truth is not much different than some of the opinions expressed in the book, "What's the Matter With Kansas"??? A book that was very popular among democrats...
It's a book I don't really agree with, btw... but it definitely struck familiar chords with me as an Okie...
What Rufnex said.
I grew up in your classic Midwest Rust Belt town. I read what Obama said the other day.
I thought: "What's the big deal? What he said certainly is true."
And it's not inconsistent with what he's said in the past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M
OK, OK, I get it now ... we want our politicians to tell the truth only *some* of the time. [xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by rwarn17588
What Rufnex said.
I grew up in your classic Midwest Rust Belt town. I read what Obama said the other day.
I thought: "What's the big deal? What he said certainly is true."
And it's not inconsistent with what he's said in the past:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M
OK, OK, I get it now ... we want our politicians to tell the truth only *some* of the time. [xx(]
Damn, you beat me to it, Rwarn. I was literally about to hit "post new reply" with this same vid.
I understand how, on paper, some of his comments could be misinterpreted, but watching him struggle to explain himself genuinely on Charlie Rose there, he just seems like a guy who wants to speak the truth about people compassionately.
I agree, RM, that absent further explanation, Obama's comments can appear somewhat derogatory towards those who consider religion central to their lives. For those who have followed Obama's career, we know that nothing could be further from the truth. In fact, one of the reasons I support Obama is because of his deep respect for religion. Here is his Call for Renewal keynote address that he gave back in 2006: http://www.barackobama.com/2006/06/28/call_to_renewal_keynote_address.php. It is a rather lengthy speech, but in it he makes the case for a return of religion to political discourse. He recognizes that the greatest movements in our country were founded upon a sense of morality spurred by religious conviction. Yet, he also recognizes that the right wing has successfully used religion as a wedge issue, to get the working class to vote social issues rather than of economic one.
And while Obama is appealing to people's sense of religious morality to lead the country in a new direction, Hillary is simply duplicating what the republicans have done--she actually sounds like a reporter from Fox news, calling Obama an "elitist."
If Hillary doesn't recognize that the working class is angry, she is the one out of touch. They are angry at politicians who say one thing and do another. Politicians who say they oppose NAFTA when they host luncheons in support of NAFTA. Politicians who say they oppose free trade with Columbia while their spouse and chief strategist lobby in favor of it.
I am sure that Clinton must be pleased, after months waiting for Obama to "mispeak," she has some words that she can twist against Obama. But she should be careful. Calling Obama "elitist" is very likely to backfire. When the working class is reminded of the millions the Clintons have made, the fact that Bill Clinton has charged $8 million to tax payers so that he could have a nice office with a view of Central Park, they just might wonder who is the pot and who is the kettle.
I'm bitter and I own guns. I'm voting for Obama
"I tell you the truth, we speak of what we know, and we testify to what we have seen, but still you people do not accept our testimony."
John 3:11 (NIV)
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188673.php
Talking Points Memo | For it, Before She Was Against It
For it, Before She Was Against It
04.12.08 -- 11:53PM
By Josh Marshall
Theda Skocpol writes in ...
I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!
I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination -- and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of "we're not bitter" stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.
Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?
This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start.
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188674.php
Talking Points Memo | Obama in 2004
Obama in 2004
04.12.08 -- 11:45PM
By Josh Marshall
TPM Reader GB sent me in the video of a 2004 appearance by Barack Obama on the Charlie Rose show in which he talks about the same issue of rural and working class Americans and the Democratic party. It's from November 23rd, 2004, so just after Obama was first elected to the senate but a couple months before he was sworn in.
It's interesting to watch since it's in a very non-campaign setting and almost four years ago. He makes exactly the same point, but explains it differently. Some of it is likely equally demagoguable, but shows up some of the tendentious misconstruals of what he said. I clipped out the three minutes or so of the hour segment where he addresses this issue ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M&eurl=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188674.php
YouTube - Barack Obama on Rural and Working Class America, Circa 2004
I guess what ticks me off about it is that, although he may be telling the truth "as HE sees it," stating that people "cling" to religion is what gets me the most. "Cling" to religion? From a self portrayed "Christian?"
Please define "Cling to religion" Mr. Obama. Other than these most recent comments, I rather like the man, enough to have vote for him.
I applaud someone for speaking their mind, as he has done often and eloquently, but these last statements give me cause for some concern.
Clinging to religion.
Been there, done that.
Without delving too much into my long-ago past, I understand that "clinging to religion" thing completely. Decades ago, I insulated and isolated myself, using my religion, against the perceived outside evils of the world that were out to "get me." (And the economic collapse of the late 1970s and early '80s was a factor.)
It's so long ago, and I'm so distant from that mind-set, it's hard to fathom now.
It took me going to college and seeing the real outside world over the next few years for me to gain more nuanced and balanced views. There's nothing like getting away from your little small-town circle and being exposed to lots of different types of people at a large public university to do this.
It doesn't mean I've lost my faith, but I'm more skeptical about it. For myriad reasons (notably the inevitable errors of centuries of translation), I don't take what I read in the Bible -- nor what I hear from preachers -- as the gospel truth (no pun intended).
So, yes, people sometimes "cling" to religion as a crutch.
Twenty-five years ago, I was Exhibit A.
I am just amazed that almost everyone of you attacked Hillary as a defense of Obama.
Obama and his following go after Hillary for every word she says, then Obama says something stupid and you act like Hillary can't comment on it because she isn't poor.
Today Obama attacked Hillary on gun issues. He was quoted saying, "She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," Obama said, invoking the famed female sharpshooter immortalized in the musical "Anne Get Your Gun."
He continued: "Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better.
This from a guy who has been anti-gun until he ran for President. Here is his NRA questionaire from his days as an Illinois state senator.
http://www.savetheguns.com/PDF_Files/amended_obama_iviquestionaire_091096.pdf
He said he is in favor of banning the manufacture, sale and possession of all handguns.
If anything, Obama is out of touch with gun owners, not Hillary. She has been very clear on the second amendment and Obama has not. His sexist attempt at ridiculing her today will backfire (pun intended).
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
I guess what ticks me off about it is that, although he may be telling the truth "as HE sees it," stating that people "cling" to religion is what gets me the most. "Cling" to religion? From a self portrayed "Christian?"
Please define "Cling to religion" Mr. Obama. Other than these most recent comments, I rather like the man, enough to have vote for him.
I applaud someone for speaking their mind, as he has done often and eloquently, but these last statements give me cause for some concern.
I appreciate that "clinging" can have a negative sound to it. But it is not necessarily negative. After all, to cling simply means to resist separation, to holdfast, to adhere. The bible itself says that we should "cling to what is good." It says that a man shall leave his parents and "cling to his wife." How is that negative? While one might interpret his words to sound like some desperate attempt to grasp at something, I think his intent was that people simply cling to what they hold dear, to what gives them solace, when all else has failed them.
You right, RM, Hillary's consistent position on the Second Amendment has earned her an F- (//%22http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/clinton.htm%22) (I didn't think there was something that low) from the Gun Owner's of America. Not that I have a problem with that. But it does seem a bit odd that, immediately after Obama's comments, Clinton starts drinking whiskey and talking about shooting ducks (//%22http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/%22). Maybe since she's losing ground with women (//%22http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/33411.html%22), she feels the need to connect with more male voters.
"If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns."
-- Bill Clinton, in his 2004 memoirs, My Life, making the same argument as Sen. Barack Obama.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/13/historical_quote_of_the_day.html
http://www.bittervoters.org/
Bitter Voters For Obama
Bitter, and proud of it. Clinton says we're 'resilient,' but we can't take it any more. McCain says 'let em eat Lemons,' but what we really need is a leader who can turn lemons into lemonade: Barack Obama.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
You right, RM, Hillary's consistent position on the Second Amendment has earned her an F- (//%22http://www.gunowners.org/pres08/clinton.htm%22) (I didn't think there was something that low) from the Gun Owner's of America. Not that I have a problem with that. But it does seem a bit odd that, immediately after Obama's comments, Clinton starts drinking whiskey and talking about shooting ducks (//%22http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/%22). Maybe since she's losing ground with women (//%22http://www.mcclatchydc.com/homepage/story/33411.html%22), she feels the need to connect with more male voters.
If that is her new tactic then we should be prepared for more cleavage, high heels and bedroom eyes.[;)] I thought the video of her throwing back boilermakers was....strange.
RM, I call shenanigans. While many on this board have gone after Hillary for many things, Obama has not come close to attacking Hillary to the extent she has jumped on this. Every other comment last night was an attack on Obama for his "bitter" remarks.
My favorite was:
quote:
Clinton said
The worst part is, Senator Obama has failed to own up to those remarks.
Really? Maybe he just misspoke. Hillary accusing someone else of a failure to own up is just fantastic. Also note that "attacking" Hillary (actually I'm commenting on her attack on Obama but...) is an ancillary response by most people in this thread - not the response.
Obama screwed up, no doubt about that. He had a clear path to victory and gave some fodder to Hillary to throw against him. Whether this is the screw up Clinton needed to get back in the game or not, I don't know. I do know that I did not find his comments offensive nor inaccurate having had plenty of contact with, in and around small towns in Iowa.
Obama hasn't attacked Hillary? What kind of selective hearing do you have?
"Hillary Clinton. She knows better. Shame on her."
"She's packing a six-shooter. Come on... I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind."
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Obama hasn't attacked Hillary? What kind of selective hearing do you have?
quote:
I really said
Obama has not come close to attacking Hillary to the extent she has jumped on this.
Huge difference there. Obama certainly made a point to reference her harrowing escape from sniper fire - but few have accused him of harping on it. This is her new talking point.
quote:
Originally posted by TulsaFan-inTexas
I guess what ticks me off about it is that, although he may be telling the truth "as HE sees it," stating that people "cling" to religion is what gets me the most. "Cling" to religion? From a self portrayed "Christian?"
Please define "Cling to religion" Mr. Obama. Other than these most recent comments, I rather like the man, enough to have vote for him.
I applaud someone for speaking their mind, as he has done often and eloquently, but these last statements give me cause for some concern.
Clutch the crutch and join the out of touch!
http://baldwinparkdemocrat.blogspot.com/2008/04/whos-elitist-and-out-of-touch.html
Conservatives' Hate-Based Campaign Against Obama
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=conservatives_hate_based_campaign_against_obama
"The right-wing smear campaign against Barack Obama has already begun. Conservatives intend, as they have so many times before, to appeal to Americans' ugliest prejudices and most craven fears. "
"The Republicans are certainly setting down their marker: they intend, as they have so many times before, to wage a campaign appealing to the ugliest prejudices, the most craven fears, the most vile hatreds. It's not that people should vote against Obama just because he's black, they're saying, but you know, he's that kind of black. As Rush Limbaugh said on Friday, "It is clear that Senator Obama has disowned his white half, that he's decided he's got to go all in on the black side." Ladies and gentlemen, your "moral values" party. "
"But faced the possibility that they might actually lose the White House to a black man, there's no doubt what many on the right are preparing to do. Racial reconciliation can wait for another day; there's power at stake. And if stoking racism is what it takes, then that's what they'll do. "
"Some things take so long
But how do I explain
When not too many people
Can see we're all the same
And because of all their tears
Their eyes can't hope to see
The beauty that surrounds them
Isn't it a pity"
G. Harrison
"
"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death," Bill Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.
"You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"
A couple months later, Joe Klein, writing for the Sunday Times.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html
Bill and Obama sound like they are saying pretty much the same thing. On the other hand Bill and Hill have not been on the same page as of late........ NAFTA....Columbia Fred Trade......
now "bitter" white folks.
Then there is Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary:
" I was born in Scranton, Pennsylvania, 61 years ago. My father sold $1.98 cotton blouses to blue-collar women and women whose husbands worked in factories. Years later, I was secretary of labor of the United States, and I tried the best I could â€" which wasn’t nearly good enough â€" to help reverse one of the most troublesome trends America has faced: The stagnation of middle-class wages and the expansion of povety. Male hourly wages began to drop in the early 1970s, adjusted for inflation. The average man in his 30s is earning less than his father did thirty years ago. Yet America is far richer. Where did the money go? To the top.
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes â€" to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics."
Read the whole post: http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-bitterness-meet-press-and-old.html
Bittergate....ha ha
Bitter Voters For Obama
http://www.bittervoters.org/
Is 'BitterGate' The End for Hillary? Carter and Gore may say "Yes."
If you aren't the least bit bitter about what has happened to our country in 7 years, then you aren't paying much attention.
Put that lapel pin on and know the one's without them on are not proud about our direction....unless their employer is forcing them to wear lapel pins ala CBS Sports!
The entertainment value of this primary season so far is just fantastic...I'm waiting until Hillary steals the nomination from Obama via superdelegates at the convention. Oh the weeping and gnashing of teeth yet to come.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The entertainment value of this primary season so far is just fantastic...I'm waiting until Hillary steals the nomination from Obama via superdelegates at the convention. Oh the weeping and gnashing of teeth yet to come.
Democrats will not be weepie as they finish off Clinton creepie. I am looking forward to the Repug Convention....when I can catch up on snoozing while they're boozing. I will watch to see if McCain't find the podium....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
The entertainment value of this primary season so far is just fantastic...I'm waiting until Hillary steals the nomination from Obama via superdelegates at the convention. Oh the weeping and gnashing of teeth yet to come.
Democrats will not be weepie as they finish off Clinton creepie. I am looking forward to the Repug Convention....when I can catch up on snoozing while they're boozing. I will watch to see if McCain't find the podium....
Sounds like someone's been spending too much time over at the dailykos. You should clean your keyboard off before visiting this forum. We don't know where you've been...
He needs a keyboard condom on top of a breathalyzer keyboard to keep him from posting under the influence....
Robert Reich has some interesting comments to make regarding the whole incident:
quote:
Are Americans who have been left behind frustrated? Of course. And their frustrations, their anger and, yes, sometimes their bitterness, have been used since then -- by demagogues, by nationalists and xenophobes, by radical conservatives, by political nuts and fanatical fruitcakes – to blame immigrants and foreign traders, to blame blacks and the poor, to blame "liberal elites," to blame anyone and anything.
Rather than counter all this, the American media have wallowed in it. Some, like Fox News and talk radio, have given the haters and blamers their very own megaphones. The rest have merely "reported on" it. Instead of focusing on how to get Americans good jobs again; instead of admitting too many of our schools are failing and our kids are falling behind their contemporaries in Europe, Japan, and even China; instead of showing why we need a more progressive tax system to finance better schools and access to health care, and green technologies that might create new manufacturing jobs, our national discussion has been mired in the old politics.
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-bitterness-meet-press-and-old.html.
I actually don't know if Reich has officially endorsed Obama, but his comments (along with others) seem to indicate that he supports Obama. I find it interesting that those who have worked so closely with the Clintons (Richardson, Reich) actually support Obama.
I am posting under the influence of the Bushevik Empire. And condoms are worn for prevention of disease and pregnancy despite some who would condone their use as a substitute for education.....
quote:
Originally posted by FauxTurD
I am posting under the influence of the Bushevik Empire. And condoms are worn for prevention of disease and pregnancy despite some who would condone their use as a substitute for education.....
I think you may want to rephrase that if that's supposed to be a knock against abstinence education.
I am not knocking abstinence education which would have been more appropriate for your parents time period.[:X]
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Obama hasn't attacked Hillary? What kind of selective hearing do you have?
"Hillary Clinton. She knows better. Shame on her."
"She's packing a six-shooter. Come on... I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind."
Unlike Hillary, Obama never took out an ad exploiting her "mistatements" regarding Bosnia. That would have been an easy, republican way to slam her. She, on the other hand, now is running an ad claiming that Obama is out of touch. Obama did nothing more than point out the truth--why republicans are able to get votes in rural America. It's the same thing that her husband said so many years ago. I never thought I would see one democrat attacking another on such a thing.
She should be very careful--this is very likely to backfire against her. Already, she has been booed (//%22http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/14/obama.clinton/index.html%22)at the Alliance for American Manufacturing. And people may become more angry at her for her Rovian attacks than they are about the comment.
She has to buy ads for her messages. Obama gets free press for everything he says.
He is also outspending her 3 to one on television and has a reported five to one edge in paid staffers in Pennsylvania.
Why is he still behind?
What is wrong with Obama that he can't relate to the voters of Pennsylvania? How can you be so far ahead nationally and spend so much money and still be behind?
Answer that.
He doesn't even have to say a word. Reminds me of the young girls fainting at Elvis and Beetles concerts.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEnI-1IdFLs
Perhaps Hill should explore some bodily functions while at the podium.
"I don't think the people of Pennsylvania are bitter. And I have licked a few."
Stephen Colbert
My observation is that Obama is naturally charismatic and Hillary is a natural politician. Therefore they fight in different ways.
Hillary must resort to pandering to whatever crowd she is speaking to. If it's a big ex-military crowd she has to attempt to connect with them (hence the sniper fire comment). If she is confronted with country folk, she tries to be country. In any case she is unsuccessful because she is a known entity. Her attempts to reinvent herself only serve to make her look silly.
Obama's is fueled by Hillary's attempts to pander. Without it she is hard for him to defend against.
Obama is an unknown entity so he has the ability to morph to fit his constituency. His biggest weakness is that he is becoming known!
His comments about guns and religion, and his connection to Wright reflect his real un-filtered views. Many of his constituency will continue to identify with him, but some will be repelled. The more we know the more he looses his polish, the less his charisma works. Magic is not magic when you know the trick!
I think both of their attempts to identify with the moderate left are clumsy and insincere. Hillary has always been very liberal, that is known. Obama is irrefutably liberal.
So they make mistakes is when they attempt to appear moderate. Otherwise they run a good campaign. Unfortunately now is the time when they have to attempt to pull in the moderates and independents, so now is the time that we will see them stumble. It's unavoidable.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
She has to buy ads for her messages. Obama gets free press for everything he says.
He is also outspending her 3 to one on television and has a reported five to one edge in paid staffers in Pennsylvania.
Why is he still behind?
What is wrong with Obama that he can't relate to the voters of Pennsylvania? How can you be so far ahead nationally and spend so much money and still be behind?
Answer that.
Really, RM, are you that cynical that you believe whomever spends the most money should win an election? Shouldn't Ross Perot be president, then? Do you really think that Hillary's 20 point lead in Pennsylvania was cut in half simply because Obama spent more money than her? You really don't think much of Pennsylvanians, do you?
By the way, Hillary had more money, more name recognition, and more endorsements at the start of this campaign. Why is she losing? What is wrong with her that, after 8 years as first lady, the majority of people in her very own party want someone else as president?
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
She has to buy ads for her messages. Obama gets free press for everything he says.
He is also outspending her 3 to one on television and has a reported five to one edge in paid staffers in Pennsylvania.
Why is he still behind?
What is wrong with Obama that he can't relate to the voters of Pennsylvania? How can you be so far ahead nationally and spend so much money and still be behind?
Answer that.
You're such a whiner. He's a lot closer than he was two months ago. Racism is hard to overcome.
Hillary gets more media coverage lately. Especially, when she pretends to get hammered....
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Obama hasn't attacked Hillary? What kind of selective hearing do you have?
"Hillary Clinton. She knows better. Shame on her."
"She's packing a six-shooter. Come on... I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind."
Unlike Hillary, Obama never took out an ad exploiting her "mistatements" regarding Bosnia. That would have been an easy, republican way to slam her. She, on the other hand, now is running an ad claiming that Obama is out of touch. Obama did nothing more than point out the truth--why republicans are able to get votes in rural America. It's the same thing that her husband said so many years ago. I never thought I would see one democrat attacking another on such a thing.
She should be very careful--this is very likely to backfire against her. Already, she has been booed (//%22http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/14/obama.clinton/index.html%22)at the Alliance for American Manufacturing. And people may become more angry at her for her Rovian attacks than they are about the comment.
"I used to love her, but it's all over now."
Heck, the sight of her makes me wonder if Vince Foster did commit suicide after all....
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Obama hasn't attacked Hillary? What kind of selective hearing do you have?
"Hillary Clinton. She knows better. Shame on her."
"She's packing a six-shooter. Come on... I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind."
Unlike Hillary, Obama never took out an ad exploiting her "mistatements" regarding Bosnia. That would have been an easy, republican way to slam her. She, on the other hand, now is running an ad claiming that Obama is out of touch. Obama did nothing more than point out the truth--why republicans are able to get votes in rural America. It's the same thing that her husband said so many years ago. I never thought I would see one democrat attacking another on such a thing.
She should be very careful--this is very likely to backfire against her. Already, she has been booed (//%22http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/14/obama.clinton/index.html%22)at the Alliance for American Manufacturing. And people may become more angry at her for her Rovian attacks than they are about the comment.
"I used to love her, but it's all over now."
Heck, the sight of her makes me wonder if Vince Foster did commit suicide after all....
"IF" Foster committed suicide?
Funny all you former Clintonites who are finally now seeing who/what these people really are and the backs they've stepped on and broken to get to where they are.
Carl Bernstein sez it best:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/
There is a time to every purpose and at one time in 1992, Bill Clinton was the right man at the right time. Bush was not. Hillary is not.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Carl Bernstein sez it best:
http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/
There is a time to every purpose and at one time in 1992, Bill Clinton was the right man at the right time. Bush was not. Hillary is not.
What's the saying? Hillarity isn't half the man Bill was...
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
Hillary has always been very liberal, that is known. Obama is irrefutably liberal.
The word 'liberal' has been over used and distorted by the right wing. It has to be their near favorite pejorative. Why else would a couple of conservatives start calling each other liberals when they get steamed up?
To reiterate - Senators Clinton and Obama are only liberal by Oklahoma standards. They're fairly middle-of-the-road Democrats.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Obama hasn't attacked Hillary? What kind of selective hearing do you have?
"Hillary Clinton. She knows better. Shame on her."
"She's packing a six-shooter. Come on... I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind."
Unlike Hillary, Obama never took out an ad exploiting her "mistatements" regarding Bosnia. That would have been an easy, republican way to slam her. She, on the other hand, now is running an ad claiming that Obama is out of touch. Obama did nothing more than point out the truth--why republicans are able to get votes in rural America. It's the same thing that her husband said so many years ago. I never thought I would see one democrat attacking another on such a thing.
She should be very careful--this is very likely to backfire against her. Already, she has been booed (//%22http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/14/obama.clinton/index.html%22)at the Alliance for American Manufacturing. And people may become more angry at her for her Rovian attacks than they are about the comment.
So the evil republicans are the only ones who engage in smear politics? Did you miss the General Betrayus ads?
quote:
Originally posted by Ed W
The word 'liberal' has been over used and distorted by the right wing. It has to be their near favorite pejorative. Why else would a couple of conservatives start calling each other liberals when they get steamed up?
Yeah like the term "neocon" for the left...
quote:
To reiterate - Senators Clinton and Obama are only liberal by Oklahoma standards. They're fairly middle-of-the-road Democrats.
Not according to the national journal, which has been consistently used as a reliable measurement of politicians and voting record for years. Their studies are even cited by NPR.
I still think he is betraying US citizens.
Neoconned again.....
And btw, the term radical would be opposite neocon....not "liberal". Conservative....liberal. Get it?
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
His biggest weakness is that he is becoming known!
Well said.
The more America gets to know his pastor, his mob friends and his thoughts on poor people, the more trouble he gets in.
His campaign is spiraling down and his Obama people act like it is all Hillary's fault. This campaign will teach him well and he should be better prepared next time.
More nonsense from you RM.
You need to seek better news sources than talk radio and teevee.
You never address issues. Instead, you attack values and beliefs which should be personal. His campaihn is not spiraling down. His organizational skills beat both McSame and Billary. Once he puts Hillarity away in May, the second coming commences. Bet you never thought the lord would return once again black.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by Gaspar
His biggest weakness is that he is becoming known!
Well said.
The more America gets to know his pastor, his mob friends and his thoughts on poor people, the more trouble he gets in.
His campaign is spiraling down and his Obama people act like it is all Hillary's fault. This campaign will teach him well and he should be better prepared next time.
Better prepared? Hillary was the presumptive nominee in January, and her campaign has all but fallen apart. She has had to replace two key people, and still cannot seem to regain any momentum. Her campaign has been a lesson in ill-prepared.
You didn't answer my earlier question--what is wrong with Hillary that, despite her money, her name recognition, and her suppose experience, less than half of democrats want her to be president?
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
More nonsense from you RM.
You need to seek better news sources than talk radio and teevee.
You never address issues. Instead, you attack values and beliefs which should be personal. His campaihn is not spiraling down. His organizational skills beat both McSame and Billary. Once he puts Hillarity away in May, the second coming commences. Bet you never thought the lord would return once again black.
This coming from the guy that links to smokingmirrors, the dailykos, and huffintonpost...
People are just now exposing BO to the light of day, and unfortunately for him, soon people are going to demand that he actually take a position on at least one issue.
Hillary was ahead until Obama started getting all the positive press possible. The media attacked Hillary and praised Obama from the Iowa primary on. He is a great candidate and was getting all the good press.
But by April, people started asking deeper questions about him. His background and his friends suddenly became news and it began to trouble many Americans. Now he is being compared to the last two nominees, Al Gore and John Kerry. I thought they were both good men and both got my vote. But most of America saw them as aloof and elitist.
Hillary is doing better now and should close this race over the next few primaries. The rules for caucuses were followed by Obama better so he is ahead on delegate count. But if the primaries had been winner-take-all, Hillary would be ahead in delegates.
The general election is winner-take-all. It is one more reason why Hillary is the stronger candidate for the democrats in November.
Like anyone cares, I wanna give a big amen to Borack on the bitter score, and will own it entirely. I am bitter, angry, frustrated, hacked off, voter whatever he wants to call it. I will vote my emotions every time, sure nuff. Right now I am more angry at the GOP than scared of the Dems. If the Dems would ease up on their gun-grabbing, baby-killing, Iraq-defeat-at-any-cost, education-as-brainwashing ways they would deprive the GOP of material for extorting votes from Joe Six-Pack. Hearing that down-his-nose-at-you crap from another smarmy Harvard-educated loy-yah politician almost makes me want to vote GOP.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
Obama hasn't attacked Hillary? What kind of selective hearing do you have?
"Hillary Clinton. She knows better. Shame on her."
"She's packing a six-shooter. Come on... I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blind."
Unlike Hillary, Obama never took out an ad exploiting her "mistatements" regarding Bosnia. That would have been an easy, republican way to slam her. She, on the other hand, now is running an ad claiming that Obama is out of touch. Obama did nothing more than point out the truth--why republicans are able to get votes in rural America. It's the same thing that her husband said so many years ago. I never thought I would see one democrat attacking another on such a thing.
She should be very careful--this is very likely to backfire against her. Already, she has been booed (//%22http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/14/obama.clinton/index.html%22)at the Alliance for American Manufacturing. And people may become more angry at her for her Rovian attacks than they are about the comment.
So the evil republicans are the only ones who engage in smear politics? Did you miss the General Betrayus ads?
Not that I care too much what you think, my point was more the basis upon what Hillary is attacking Obama (i.e., elitist, out-of-touch, etc....). That is something that comes straight from a republican handbook.
It would be like a Democrat attacking Hillary for her statement that she didn't choose "to stay home and bake cookies."
Exposing Barack to the light of day? You goof. He's ahead because everyone sees he's honest.
How come IPLaw never ever exposes the Busheviks for who they are? Neocons are blood sucking vampires who love to turn discussions inside out for diversion. They love darkness...
Looks to me like his SF statement helped him more than hurt him because people are bitter. Just look in the mirror.
The truth will win in the end.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/horseraceblog/2008/04/what_does_bitter_reveal.html
What Does "Bitter" Reveal?
The commentary on the few sentences Barack Obama uttered in San Francisco has clustered around two extremes. Roughly half see them as the revelation of his previously secret disregard for the beliefs of the mass public. The rest see them as self-evidently true, even if the words were poorly chosen.
My feeling is that we don't know what he meant. All of this analysis is based on brief, off-the-cuff remarks made behind "closed" doors. It is difficult to tease out a man's inner philosophy from such a slender data set. At best, we can only hope to have a vague sense of the thoughts that inspired the words. So, the quotation has been a bit of a Rorschach test. Commentators have seen what they are inclined to see.
This is one reason why, politically, it was a stupid thing to say. Candidates should not say vague things unless there is an identifiable benefit, like evading a journalist's direct question. Otherwise, clear and concise is the way to go. Vagueness implies interpretation. Interpretation implies discussion. Discussion eats up precious news cycles a week before the Pennsylvania primary.
And, of course, vagueness invites opponents to interpret, and therefore define. This is what we've seen. Clinton smartly chose to put her interpretation in the mouths of ordinary Pennsylvanians - and Obama was forced to respond by using the "boo's" at the Alliance for American Manufacturing meeting as the alternative interpretation. In one sense, this has already been a victory for Clinton. What is Obama spending money and airtime on? His comments in San Francisco! The Obama campaign seems to have learned one lesson from the Kerry/Edwards debacle. It doesn't let accusations go unanswered. However, it has not yet learned the other one. It needs to be more proactive in managing the definition of its candidate.
The other big problem with his comment is that Obama presumed to explain the behavior of the voters he is courting. We might not know for sure exactly how he was explaining them, but we know that he was trying to. This is something that is best left to political scientists, not candidates. They should never speak of voters in any but the most flattering terms. Otherwise, there is a risk of alienating them. When you analyze people, you are signaling that you are separate from them. You are an "other." What is more, nobody likes to feel that they are being analyzed. The analyst can come across as haughty. "Who the hell does he think he is to explain me?"
This is not the first time Obama has done this. His Wright speech sought to explain the behavior of the voters - black and white - he was courting. He really needs to knock this off. It is not the job of the candidate to analyze the voters. His job is to court them, to form a bond with them. He must have them believe that he understands them on their terms, not on some set of abstract principles derived from a book they've never heard of.
This is one reason "Bubba" and "Dubya" have won the last four presidential elections. Nobody ever tied those two to Theodore Adorno.
Of course, Obama did not analyze just any group of voters. He analyzed the ones Democrats need: whites who don't make a lot of money. In 1992, Bill Clinton and Herbert Walker essentially split the white vote. Clinton got 39%, Herbert Walker got 40%. This is all Democrats need. They don't need to win white voters outright. They just need to split them. Flash forward to 2004. Bush beat Kerry among white voters, 58% to 41%, and won a solid victory.
You can tell the same story again and again. When Democrats break even with white voters, they win, as in '60, '64, '76, '92, and '96. When Republicans win them decisively, Democrats lose. This happened in '52, '56, '80, '84, '88, '00, and '04.
So, what Obama really did last week was analyze the group that will swing this election.
I'm beginning to wonder if analysis is a problem for candidate Obama. All candidates have quirky "ticks" that impede them from being perfect campaigners. George W. Bush has a habit of mangling words. John Kerry has a habit of going off script. Al Gore has a slightly condescending tone to his voice. These are all basically knee jerk responses that candidates do without thinking. They don't mean anything by them; they're just "ticks." But they still distract people. Obama might have a knee jerk inclination to analyze. Maybe I'm wrong, but we have seen this happen enough to make me wonder. After all, he did publish an autobiography when he was just 34. Maybe he is an analyst by nature.
In a lot of other contexts, this is a highly desirable trait. But not in this one. He needs to stop this. So does his wife, who should never again tell us that we have a "hole in our souls." If this kind of stuff continues, Clinton and the Republicans might just get that "elite" label to stick.
There is some good news for Obama in all of this. The Pennsylvanians whom Obama was analyzing were mostly going to vote for Clinton, anyway. So, it's unlikely that the comment will damage him on Tuesday. It might cost him a point or two, but that's probably it. Of course, the reason this nomination battle is continuing through Pennsylvania is Obama has failed to woo lower income whites, the same voters he'll need in the fall.
Posted by Jay Cost
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
Not that I care too much what you think, my point was more the basis upon what Hillary is attacking Obama (i.e., elitist, out-of-touch, etc....). That is something that comes straight from a republican handbook.
It would be like a Democrat attacking Hillary for her statement that she didn't choose "to stay home and bake cookies."
I'm still trying to find out what play from the "republican handbook" is that she's calling? I suppose that class warfare and race baiting are old and tired for the democrats now and they're moving on to greener pastures.
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Exposing Barack to the light of day? You goof. He's ahead because everyone sees he's honest.
Are you talking about PA, because she's polling outside the margin of error in virtually every poll now?
quote:
How come IPLaw never ever exposes the Busheviks for who they are? Neocons are blood sucking vampires who love to turn discussions inside out for diversion. They love darkness...
You mean expose them as the puffed up paper tiger that you're irrationally foaming at the mouth about?
quote:
Looks to me like his SF statement helped him more than hurt him because people are bitter. Just look in the mirror.
Exactly what am I bitter about, other than the fact that you're allowed to use up valuable Internets around here?
It's become apparent from polling in the last few days that the so-called "bitter" controversy did absolutely nothing.
It keeps tightening in PA: leads of 1, 3, 5, and 6 points for Hillary. Nationwide poll stays steady or slightly widening for Obama.
Maybe voters have, ahem, more pressing issues in mind.
quote:
Originally posted by pmcalk
I actually don't know if Reich has officially endorsed Obama, but his comments (along with others) seem to indicate that he supports Obama. I find it interesting that those who have worked so closely with the Clintons (Richardson, Reich) actually support Obama.
It is official, Reich to endorse Obama today:
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2008/04/heilemann_robert_reich_to_endo.html
Heilemann: Robert Reich to Endorse Obama -- Daily Intel -- New York News Blog -- New York Magazine
As for the reasons? Reich states:
"I saw the ads" — the negative man-on-street commercials that the Clinton campaign put up in Pennsylvania in the wake of Obama's bitter/cling comments a week ago — "and I was appalled, frankly. I thought it represented the nadir of mean-spirited, negative politics. And also of the politics of distraction, of gotcha politics. It's the worst of all worlds.
. . .
And I've come to the point, after seeing those ads, where I can't in good conscience not say out loud what I believe about who should be president. Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
Those ads are nothing but Republicanism. They're lending legitimacy to a Republican message that's wrong to begin with, and they harken back to the past 20 years of demagoguery on guns and religion. It's old politics at its worst — and old Republican politics, not even old Democratic politics. It's just so deeply cynical."
My favorite part of these threads has been the complete, eyes wide shut, avoidance of the fact that the left cranks out some of the most hateful and divisive campaign material that we've ever seen. There are no organizations on the right that produce hateful material that even begins to match the garbage coming from liberal blogs and websites which run ads and commercials for democrats during election cycles.
So was the McCorkle camp exposing Kathy Taylor's property tax and voting records an example of "Republicanism" Bledsoe?
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
There are no organizations on the right that produce hateful material that even begins to match the garbage coming from liberal blogs and websites which run ads and commercials for democrats during election cycles.
Really?
The swift boat liars...the McCain has a black baby? the Willie Horton ads?
If I listened to you Iplaw, I would think republican campaigns are all about puppies and rainbows.
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
There are no organizations on the right that produce hateful material that even begins to match the garbage coming from liberal blogs and websites which run ads and commercials for democrats during election cycles.
Really?
The swift boat liars...the McCain has a black baby? the Willie Horton ads?
If I listened to you Iplaw, I would think republican campaigns are all about puppies and rainbows.
Congratulations, you've dug up 2 semi relevant ads from the last
30 years.
Swift boat liars...I don't recall their accusations being refuted or proven as false.
Lastly, visit your friendly leftist hate sites today, dailykos, moveon, huffingtonpost, etc., and look at how even YOUR candidate is being treated.
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
quote:
Originally posted by RecycleMichael
quote:
Originally posted by iplaw
There are no organizations on the right that produce hateful material that even begins to match the garbage coming from liberal blogs and websites which run ads and commercials for democrats during election cycles.
Really?
The swift boat liars...the McCain has a black baby? the Willie Horton ads?
If I listened to you Iplaw, I would think republican campaigns are all about puppies and rainbows.
Congratulations, you've dug up 2 semi relevant ads from the last 30 years.
Swift boat liars...I don't recall their accusations being refuted or proven as false.
Lastly, visit your friendly leftist hate sites today, dailykos, moveon, huffingtonpost, etc., and look at how even YOUR candidate is being treated.
Those are truth sites not hate sites....you want hate turn your dial to KRMG radio.....
http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/politicalcartoons/ig/Political-Cartoons/Are-You-Bitter-Off-Now-.htm
quote:
Originally posted by FOTD
Those are truth sites not hate sites....you want hate turn your dial to KRMG radio.....
I guess if you truly believe that whites have never been oppressed your definition of "truth" can encompass just about anything.
Ok, AOX... you win. I'll bite.
What has KRMG done to you lately that has caused you to suddenly post something spiteful in their regard daily. Prior to this week I do not recall you even mentioning them. Did they run a piece on someone in your family or what? I listen to their programing for about 30 minutes each morning and have not caught anything that has changed... why the sudden constant banter?
Maybe Rush's 18th annual fundraising drive for lymphoma and leukemia research really got him pissed off this week.
quote:
Originally posted by Conan71
So was the McCorkle camp exposing Kathy Taylor's property tax and voting records an example of "Republicanism" Bledsoe?
It seems to me the exposure of this information was an act of desperation--that obviously did not work.
Some have said that Clinton (and her surrogates) are doing somewhat of the same thing in her discussion of the the Rev. Wright, bitter/cling, William Ayers and flag-pin "issues." It is more out of the Republican play book that got really started with the "Contract on America" in 1994 and was run over a cliff by the drive to impeach Bill Clinton and by Tom Delay and his friends.
The Republican campaign machine may not be able to stop themselves from continuing these tactics.
When Democrats draw from this play book, while it sometimes has short-term success, more often than not it ends with exhaustion: i.e. Clinton fatigue.
These "mistakes" by Obama--which only cause me to support him more strongly--IMHO, pale in the face of the many many strategic mistakes made by Clinton. Do I really need to list them? I think not.
For the real issues--there is little difference between Clinton and Obama. Both are much better than any Republican.
Two "real" issues did jump out for me from the Philadelphia debate:
1. Clinton's proposal to create some sort of Middle East NATO. This is very very questionable to me and has gotten little press.
2. Obama's proposal to consider raising the capital gains taxes. Surely he does not propose to raise any general tax during a recession. I think this would delay any recovery. It is right out of Herbert Hoover's play book. Targeted progressive adjustment to the capital gains tax and other similar taxes should only be considered after the recovery is well underway. (Except perhaps some excess profits tax on the oil and gas industry as long as the price of oil is over $75 per barrel).
Note: I do strongly agree that FICA taxes should be applied to wages in excess of $97K. Perhaps some phase-in and progressive adjustment for those wages between $97K and $250K and for those making less than $25K (putting walk around $ in the hands of those who will spend it) until the recovery is well underway. But at the end of the day this is the easiest and fairest fix.
Sorry I got off topic.