eriposte tends to wander all over the place here, so I'll just narrow my comments to the last paragraph.
"Bill Clinton did a lot for these voters in the 1990s." NAFTA. GATT. Welfare Reform. So long, blue collar jobs.
"Sen. Clinton will do a lot more for them." Free trade with Colombia. Credit card bankruptcy bill. A couple of weeks delay in foreclosure. Healthcare, just like the healthcare she got for everyone in 1993. Hillary may not see any bitterness, but 110 million can buy a lot of rose-colored glasses.
Obama says that while working people have been promised a lot over the last 25 years they have been getting screwed by Washington. Take a look at the ever-widening gap, eri. As we say in the labor movement, which side are you on?
In talking about these voters who are reluctant to support him, Obama goes on to say to the SF donors, "...so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points."
It sounded as if those "demanding" voters were some how remiss in wanting to know what they were voting for! For me, my questions about Obama have been what the "change" was going to be, what the "hope" was going to accomplish--in other words, what was he going to do? Now, I'm a former heartlander living in the NYC metro area, have a graduate degree, am not religious, favor immigration, have mixed feelings about how our "free trade" has been implenented, and do not have a gun--but I sure do want to know what Obama means to do.
A recent quote from an Obama organizer was something to the effect that campaign workers weren't supposed to talk about issues, but their personal conversion, their "coming to Obama," that they did "politics, not polices." That, along with the earlier pronouncements that those at his rallies would "see the light," have an epiphany, and know they must vote for Obama, scares me. I am a demanding voter--I need to know what I'm voting for.
I've been concerned about Obama since he floated the Republican talking points about Social Security and refused to address the mandate for parents to buy insurance for their children but not a mandate that the parents (and other adults) have insurance. The Harry and Louis-style brochures against Hillary Clinton's healthcare plan also bothered me. Maybe I'm too reality-based for his pitch.
But the PA voters he was talking about were not treated as if they wanted concrete proposals to evaluate based on a need to evalutate--they were talked about as if they simply haven't "seen the light"--perhaps because they were trapped in some dark, dark place....
Bob in Pacifica,
Your trollishness is amusing but there's only so much BS I can take from people like you. One can do a tremendous amount for people even when one does a few other things that are not that good for the same people. It's not an either/or except in your Bush-like mind of black and white, right and wrong.
I've provided a number of links in my post that point to discussions of how the Clinton era was very beneficial to America overall, even if there were some policies that sucked (i.e., it was an imperfect record but not a bad record for Americans).
Your sorry and pathetic shtick isn't particularly compelling especially given you don't bother to read everything I've written. In your mind, it may be terrible to Americans that poverty rates dropped, real wages increased and 20+ million jobs were created in the Clinton era, but in the world of people with some intelligence and honesty, it isn't.
Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2008 11:20 AMEriposte,
Do not usually address individuals posting habits, but was wondering about the poster myself. Hardly ever post, just access the feeds from several sites and read them offfline. They seem to comment on several blogs whenever anything critical of Senator Obama or supportive of Senator Clinton is posted. How do they have so much free time? I remember few years ago, commnets could be posted to news articles and invdividuls would commnet on them, with differing viewpoints. Could be spirited but usually was not mean and demonizing. Then juveniles, or individuals using juvenile behavior took over the conversations and all reasonable discussion was impossible. This is what I see in the current environment, in this election cycle. Really is disappointing. Thanks for your analysis.
Why is it that some people in America want a president that lies to them all the way to the White house. Wake Up America! The Values statment is overated! Republicans talk about how faith base they are but when asked if they believe everything that the Bible says They all, said that they don't believe everything about what the bible speaks about. Just you tube the Republican debate. Now we are on this Obama character destroy mission. Why is it that when most Americans don't like the way there lives are going they blame minorties... Blame the people that made the agreements with China, India, Japan.. They took the jobs away.. Oh yeah werent they the same ones that preached VALUES!!! Wake up... Terrance Thompson
Posted by Terrance at April 12, 2008 12:09 PMBest hanger ever.. hanky tanky hanger
www.hankytankyhanger.com
Great post, as usual.
Posted by jeter at April 12, 2008 12:11 PMThanks eriposte for posting this.
Unlike "Bob in Pacifica," who isn't qualified to talk about this...take a nice dip in that great Pacific Ocean...cool off there for a while (yes, I have been to CA...boogie boarded in the blue waters there)
I must be one of those "Bitter" Pennsylvanians that Obama was talking about. One of those "prejudiced" ones...
Well, let me tell you some things....
When you get a political candidate that has no experience in running or managing (or even being exposed to running or managing) a complex, byzantine bureaucracy (and Obama doesn't have any experience, and I would proffer he has nearly nil exposure to such activity also), and says he wants to be President, I think..."Do I really want a Bush Part 3?" "Do I really want a clueless, cute-eared politician screwing things up even more? (My theory is that the Obama-anians like his ears.)" "Do I want a politician who hasn't even served one complete term in the US Congress (which is the full extent of his experience in the Federal government) to run for President?" "Do I want a politician who isn't doing the People's Work, where his Senate subcommittee that he allegedly heads hasn't yet held a single meeting, now going on 3 years?" "Do I want someone who doesn't have the data points in their background that shows that they can lead, and make tough decisions, and have such a neophyte actually leading a US of A that's in really super bad shape?"
And the answer is, NO. On all counts.
Am I prejudiced? You bet. I am prejudiced against inexperienced, incompetent politicians vying for high office who dress up their presentations in well-uttered speeches (but have nothing to offer otherwise). One who has a set of behavioral trends that looks disturbingly like a Republican.
NO MORE REPUBLICANS IN THE WHITE HOUSE. (Or even the faux Republicans, like Bush and Cheney and Rice and Uncle Tom Powell and Gonzalez and Addington, and the rest of their Neoconic protoplasm--who all think it's okay to urinate and defecate on the US Constitution and the Bill of Rights, so they can torture people.) And I certainly don't want a Republican-lite.
Remember folks, we have been in an on-going 7-plus year, full-blown Constitutional Crisis. You really want a neophyte like Barack Obama to step into this type of situation? One whose political allegiances (and behaviors) are suspect?
Can you get clued in how disastrous that would no doubt be? Do you think him saying he is going to do something and engage in change (like his TV ads keep saying)--when his background experience as a politician points to something other than that--is that the right person to enter this type of situation?
The answer is NO.
So yes, I am not going to be voting for the Man from Illinois. He is clueless as to how bad things truly, really are.
I haven't been able to take a vacation in the Virgin Islands. Have you?
Like I said, Obama is in the process of jumping the shark.
Chelsea came to Slippery Rock yesterday. She was very well received. It was on the front page of the Sharon Herald. Two color pictures even--one above, and one below the fold.
The Obama-anians don't get it.
The Ship of State is in a very Grave, Grave Situation. Gotta have someone who knows what to do, has pretty good ideas of what the plan(s) should be to get the Ship of State to stop from sinking, and to put out the fires that Bush and Cheney have initiated, that are also eating the Ship. Because a whole shitload of things are wrong right now. Not just one or two, or three things.
Not some person who merely give us bromides.
Posted by Troubled American at April 12, 2008 12:18 PMEriposte,
Isn't it funny how perceptions change?
Honestly, I thought Obama was a pretty strong candidate a few months ago. Now? I think he would be the weakest nominee in 40 years. He is just hopeless. He has made more horrific gaffes than anyone, some of them proudly---viz., his repeated insistence that he is qualified to conduct foreign policy because of his childhood.
Let's look at Senator Obama's visit to SF. Looks a little like Speaker Pelosi's neighborhood, or at least nearby. What a foolish thing to say. I wonder how many of his voters this election cycle would like a do over now? Seems to me he's the destructive one of the party not Senator Clinton. You ask me, go ahead and make him the nominee. We'd be a shoe in for keeping the WH this year. Our EC vote win will be in the 300's, much like Reagan's 1980 victory. Put up Senator Clinton and it looks like 2000 all over again...very close.
And where has Ms. Obama gone, has her voice been silenced by her husband? We all know Mrs. Clinton hasn't been able to keep Bill from talking too much.
Posted by peter at April 12, 2008 12:31 PMAnglachel is brilliant. And the main post is not half-bad, either. :)
Posted by Joelarama at April 12, 2008 12:32 PMAs to Obama's "bitter" gaffe, I'm sure he wishes he would have put things differently, I wish he had myself. My focus however is on this blog and it's overwhelming bias in favor of Hillary.
When her lies about Tuzla surfaced it was given a passing mention here, most of it in defense of Hillary. Indeed that seems to be a pattern, downplaying anything negative about Clinton while sensationalizing any Obama negatives. Needless to say, all of it has become rather tiresome and predictable.
Keeping in mind I'm an Obama supporter, can you give me one good reason why I should continue to read this blog?
Posted by Upton at April 12, 2008 12:49 PMeri, making trade deals doesn't instantly send jobs overseas. It takes a few years for someone to make a deal, shut down a factory here in the U.S. and set up one in China. You're not that dumb. You know that. You can enumerate it:
1. Get money from corporations.
2. Get trade bill passed.
3. Build factory overseas.
4. Shut down factory in U.S.
5. Distract people from the causes of their suffering.
You do understand that, don't you, eri?
Anonymous, I am so glad you read me so much. I can only hope that one day it all sinks in. Maybe the following will help your inability to comprehend.
Yes, I think that Clinton is a DLC Democrat that is better, but only a little better, than a Republican.
People do cling to their guns. Their religion. Their fear and hatred of the "other." Why, before this campaign and eri's wedding to the Clinton campaign, he probably even wrote about the very same things. He wasn't afraid to say those things then.
The government never did take away the guns. The government cut some deals to send away the jobs. It's important for people who do the sending to make sure that people don't stop to think about it. And if someone points out what's happening, then he must destroyed.
It's not elitism what Obama said. Maybe Marxism. As Karl Marx wrote: "The demand to abandon illusions about our condition is a demand to abandon conditions which require illusion." Get it?
Or maybe it's some ol' Judaeo-Christian wisdom, as written in Isaiah, 2:7,8: "Their land is also full of silver and gold, neither is there any end of their treasures. Their land is also full of horses, neither is there any end of their chariots. Their land also is full of idols." There isn't all that much distance between worshipping a gun and worshipping Hillary. Neither one is going to protect you from what's crushing you and your loved ones.
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 12, 2008 01:25 PMwell ...that storied obama judgement stikes again..he certainly has captured the hearts and minds of working class america....his loss in pennsylvania just grew in size..as did his electability..remember those rules..the ones all the obamamites want to play
by..super delegates can vote how they see fit..seems like barry can't help himself..he has already written several chapters for the repug play book for the general election
bob...what the fuck are you talking about?
Posted by dennis at April 12, 2008 01:36 PMtroubled american..funny you mentioned his ears..i call them obamamites because..barry reminds me of mighty mouse..ears...
Posted by dennis at April 12, 2008 01:46 PMupton..to hopefully come to realize that barack obama is neophyte politican..no real substance..no real vision..no real universal health care plan..no real plan for iraq..that he is a person who's present political stature has to do with a speech he gave at the 2004 democratic convention..that his only national office was run against alan keyes..his judgement....that he has alienated the working class in america..shall i go on
Posted by at April 12, 2008 02:10 PMIt's amusing watching the pretender and the other elitist hypocrite tangle themselves in yarn. Frankly our lives need no charlatan, thank you.
Posted by onar at April 12, 2008 02:22 PMCan we please just get the hell over her supposed perfidious mendacity about Tuzla? You know what? If MY ass is in an airplane and I'm told to put a flak jacket on, I'm not gonna make fine distinctions about "landing under sniper fire" and "landing under threat of sniper fire" either. And neither would you, so cram it. I could give two shits whether there was sniper fire, possible sniper fire, or a paintball tournament going on in Bosnia when she landed.
To compare that to St. Barack's having sat there in that church for two decades listening to sewage pouring out of that crazy man's mouth while he indoctrinated a whole building full of people, with the mantle of divine authority over him, that they could never succeed and that their entire lives weren't their fault, is a FREAKSHOW.
Posted by Janis at April 12, 2008 02:26 PMoh yeah..barry also captured all those pro gun people in all those red states he won..oughta help him against mccain..the ones that turn to guns and their religon you know the miserable bastards..go barry
Posted by dennis at April 12, 2008 02:37 PMIs anyone considering that Barrack is correct in his assumptions about the nature of religious belief?
Posted by Retired Catholic at April 12, 2008 02:38 PMi might if he were being nominated for the head of theology somewhere..whats your point?
Posted by dennis at April 12, 2008 02:45 PMUpton - I feel the same way. There is a difference between expressing a point of view and promoting one. I hang on for the occasional posts from steve soto...but the site has become monolithic and mean....bummer.
Posted by allansfca at April 12, 2008 03:12 PMTruly much ado about nothing.
TroubledAmerican:
"Because a whole shitload of things are wrong right now. Not just one or two, or three things."
I get the impression you're bitter!
allansfca, you've expressed a sentiment that I've felt for some time but haven't been able to put into words. Steve needs to reclaim control of this site.
Posted by redstater at April 12, 2008 03:32 PM“Since 1987, job growth in rural Pennsylvania has been twice as fast as in urban Pennsylvania — 25% versus 13%.
“Since 1989, rural population growth has been 6% versus 4% for urban Pennsylvania.”
This is hilarious. Obama has a stereotype of small town Pennsylvania that is the absolute opposite of the reality.
Small wonder Mrs. Clinton is kicking his smug bottom in that part of Pennsylvania.
Posted by peter at April 12, 2008 03:34 PMdennis, what the fuck don't you get? Marx quote, the line from the Bible, how the process of icon-worshipping, or how free trade isn't free? Help me out here. I'll be glad to explain to you. Just take off the blinders first.
peter, you're sounding just like a Republican. How much do those jobs pay?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 12, 2008 04:11 PMObama is correct. The case is in point is Hazelton, PA. They passed anti-immigrant laws because they the Fed govt not doing anything against undocument workers. Why are undocumented workers here? becuase of the failure of NAFTA, and who Championed Nafta? Clinton, enough said.
Posted by mje at April 12, 2008 04:23 PMWhat I don't understand is why this site needs to be reclaimed? Reclaimed from what....fellow democrats??? republicans? Last I checked, Senator Clinton and SEnator Obama are Democrats and this is a Democratic blog and this poster has posted several times that they will support the Democratic nominee in the general election no matter who it is. Or is it you just want it reclaimed from people here who aren't lock step Obama supporters writing about "The Precious" \(h/t Anglachel) and constantly writing praises about his almighty awesomeness on every post and in every comment like many other A-list blogs do at this point.
Jeebus if you want that, then just visit and stay at the Obama Talking Points Memo, The Daily Obama and the Obamablog....you'll get that.
And all this time I thought Senator Obama's campaign was all about unity, tolerance, bringing all people who disagree or have a different opinion together to enact change. ...sigh.
But in the mean time this post wasn't just negative piece on Senator Obama or a fluff Piece on Senator Clinton, it was about the big picture democratic race in general, certain demographics and how they really did over the past years, and it was about democratic frames. Perhaps if people took the time to actually read the whole thing and click on the links once in a while you'd be surprised at what you'd learn and discover.
And last I checked eriposte and other commenters who disagree are welcome to post a response...but typically when they do, they fail to refute the points made and often change the subject or complain about "reclaiming" the site from apparently fellow democrats.
I think Obama can't really play the race card all that well. He's a "safe" African-American, like Tiger Woods or Urkel. People who would NEVER vote Jesse Jackson or even Charles Rangel (God forbid AL SHARPTON!) WILL vote for Obama.
Posted by Moon at April 12, 2008 04:57 PMI don't know. There is so much "unsafe" stuff that even Republicans have not starting running against Obama on. His most recent statement wasn't something that you can just take back. It's what he actually believes. Trust him? Most Americans are much more not likely to at this point.
http://tinyurl.com/54gxrc
Posted by jeter at April 12, 2008 05:07 PMGo away Bob in Pacifica. Go peddle your Clinton Derangement Syndrome somewhere else. Your comments are long, incoherent, and very boring.
It figures that an elitist Obama snob would need everyone to know he lives in Pacifica.
Posted by at April 12, 2008 05:09 PMI think Obama can't really play the race card all that well. He's a "safe" African-American, like Tiger Woods or Urkel. People who would NEVER vote Jesse Jackson or even Charles Rangel (God forbid AL SHARPTON!) WILL vote for Obama.
He was raised in Hawaii (but I can't see him as Magnum's friend T.C.) and he IS half-White.
It's fascinating how the Obama people and their allies in the drak arts politics world act as sentinels at websites and blogs and inject the same defense of Obama tactics which are barely disguised anti-Hillary posts. Most people with a true open mind and willingness to discuss issues and policies have been banned or shut out of many other blogs. People go to those blogs, like DailyKos and carpetbaggers to have their Obama talking points refreshed, not to discuss anything in a collegial manner. But if the diversity of opinion here bothers you, that's not really the problem of this site.
http://tinyurl.com/54gxrc
Seriously Bob, what's with calling people Republicans all the time? I don't get it. Obama likes Republicans, he wants to welcome them to the fold the way that Reagan did with Democrats in the 80s. If the man whose vision you believe in is such a uniter, why are you being such a divider?
As for the current issue, I come from a very religious and religiously diverse family (although I myself am not very religious). My family is also full of gun toting hunters who live, ironically, in Marin County (Sausalito and Mill Valley to be exact). They wear their cowboy boots, listen to country music, take their boats out fishing (more like mini yachts, but whatever), go to church on Sundays, but live in the wealthiest county in the country. They are all also proud democrats.
They are just like some of my other family who live in Texas, Oklahoma, and Indiana but spent much of their time working in factories or the paper mill. In my family as in others like mine, money doesn't really affect these core values. I honestly never thought much about it or thought about why my mother usually has at least 20 items of clothing with the American flag. But she was raised in a small town in Texas where its common place.
My rural family and my upscale family (including the one I grew up in) are pretty much the same. Do people get pissed off because of layoffs, downsizing, illegal immigration, or feel left by the government? Of course they do, but that didn't make them suddenly 'cling to religion' because they already had it. They clung most to what many people cling to when times are hard, their family and the people that care about them. They also cling to their sense of humor (lots of laughter is a big part of my family no matter what).
There are those people who grew up like this who hate it (a few cousins come to mind ) but even those who leave small town America still appreciate many of the core values they learned. They're not all xenophobes or crazy NRA members.
Obama's comments were bad not because he talked about the real issues of job loss and frustration (which he did) but because he ASSUMED that the reason small town Americans live the way that they do is BECAUSE of these losses. What he missed is that in good times and bad times alike, many people in this country are going to love their guns and G-d.
Posted by kacey at April 12, 2008 05:45 PMThe funny thing is, Obama's remark was actually the opposite of elitism. He is in touch enough with small town Americans to know how elitist Republicans, and even some Democrats, have used wedge issues like guns and religion to try to distract them from real problems, like the loss of good blue collar jobs in their communities. It is revealing that wealthy elitists like McCain and Hillary Clinton immediate attack the remark and declare Obama "out of touch." His honesty threatens to undermine their divisive strategy of pitting rural Americans against their urban neighbors. Ending the cynical manipulation and instigation of conflicts between Americans along socioeconomic and racial lines would be a huge step away from elitism and only Obama seems to have the integrity to call a spade a spade and do something about.
Posted by KC at April 12, 2008 05:49 PMA lot of this is post is quite interesting, and I, an Obama supporter, am troubled by part of what Obama had to say. But a simple question: why do I keep reading from eriposte, say, and others on this blog, that the supposed successes of the WJ Clinton Administration provide any reason to vote for Hillary Clinton? This framing of the debate leads pretty naturally to people like yours truly looking askance at dynastic politics. I'm not more a supporter of Democratic dynastic politics than of GOP dynastic politics.
There are plenty of good arguments to make in favor of Hillary Clinton. (I just happen to prefer Obama.) But what did or didn't happen during Bill Clinton's tenure as president should not be. IMHO, one of the arguments either for or against Hillary Clinton.
Posted by joel dan walls at April 12, 2008 06:27 PMYou know, (the poster too afraid to even invent a name for him or herself), I know I must be saying something disturbing when you can't even muster an argument against me. How about you go away and find a name and an argument. By the way, Pacifica is a working class town and I'm living on a government pension from a blue-collar job. That ain't farting through silk. Maybe you can learn the meaning of "elite" by the time you get out of high school. Hint: 110 million dollars is about 110 million dollars closer to elite than me.
+++
jeter, your point is that all those trade agreements have been good for working class Americans? Or just that you don't want to hear about them?
+++
Troubled American, I didn't get the memo. What makes you qualified to post here? I've been a Democrat all my long life. I have been a fighter in my union (you remember those, don't you?) as a shop steward and a branch officer. Last month I came out of retirement to represent a woman in an EEOC hearing case. I've written on labor issues for twenty-five years. I wrote against NAFTA before it passed. I'm still against it and the other trade agreements that Clinton-Bush slipped through.
But maybe I'm unqualified to voice my opinion because you don't agree with it. Pull on those Hillary jackboots, Troubled.
+++
And eri, as I mentioned earlier, your posts are long and all over the place. There is no way to totally answer everything in every post you make. First you knitpick Obama's San Francisco speech, seemingly unable to understand it, you then accuse him of falsely smearing the Clintons as race-baiters, then say that Bill Clinton surely did something to help those people in rural Pennsylvania (if you lose your job you don't need FMLA because you're always off). Your links take the reader to earlier posts which link to wiki descriptions of the tax code. Then you wander down memory lane, trying to explain through FDR anecdotes why Obama is elitist to be actually talking about how working class people feel rather than Hillary Clinton who tells Obama he should be ashamed for saying that people are bitter.
Then you add a post at the end that presumes Obama is an elitist for claiming the working class's "natural inferiority." I must have missed that part of his speech. You didn't seem to link to it. I've been part of the working class all my life so I'll translate. Obama didn't mischaracterize anything. People are pissed down here and it's mighty weird that Clinton and McCain are on the same side of this invented scandal.
So unless you expect every poster here to write a thesis to your scattered posts, at least acknowledge that every poster is going to pick and choose among the veritable bounty of topics you cover. To defend your posts by saying that my critique is not complete is laughable.
So how about a couple of answers to my questions?
1. Why do the Republicans push things like fear of immigrants, fear of the government taking guns away, anti-abortion and gay marriage on state ballots in Presidential election cycles? Is it or is it not to distract voters from their economic issues?
2. Does sending American manufacturing jobs overseas help the Americans who used to have those jobs?
3. If people are so happy in Pennsylvania, then why should they vote for Democrat?
I am under no illusions that Obama is a savior. I went through three or four other candidates before I arrived at him. Unlike what some people here think, you don't have to fall in love with someone to vote for her/him. You just have to compare him to the remaining candidates.
By trying to diagnose what is wrong with the Rust Belt middle class, Obama reveals a shockingly cartoonish understanding of white people - in its own way as ignorant as Reverend Wright’s clownish demonizations of whites. This is an Obama out of touch with regular folks, speaking in disparaging tones about people who take their religion seriously or have an abiding love of the outdoors represented by their owning a firearm (hunting being a second religion in Pennsylvania). It was a dumbfounding moment, showing a candidate who views about half of America as victims of their own bitter frustrations.
Obama later issued a “clarifying statement” after his campaign tried to plead ignorance about what he said.
He did not address what has everyone up in arms - the disconnect between Obama on the stump who would never denigrate working people as he did, and the Obama talking to liberal elitists - apparently like himself - explaining his understanding of how the rubes live and what’s wrong with them.
This revelation has a chance to do more damage to his candidacy than 10 Reverend Wrights. It is doubtful that Obama could find a venue to give a speech trying to explain the naked elitism he revealed in just a few sentences to a group of mega rich contributors. Even if he did give a speech, what could he say? Just about anything he came up with would sound even more condescending.
The more we learn about Obama, the wider the gap grows between the messianic character on the stump whose golden voice and pitch perfect rhetoric has inspired millions of people and the coldly calculating careerist politician whose elitism has blinded him to the struggles and hopes of ordinary people.
The two Obamas are irreconcilable. And the confusion felt by many will almost certainly translate into a loss of support for the candidate in these final primaries that will determine the Democratic nominee for president.
I do wonder how many primary voters will wake up Sunday morning with a lot of buyers remorse. How many would like that do over to choose Clinton now.
Posted by peter at April 12, 2008 06:40 PMAh HA! Eureka!
Obama quoted above:
"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.
It's the bamboozle/hoodwink speech redone for white voters. Oops! That didn't work.
Posted by Whatever at April 12, 2008 06:45 PMSo how much money has Barry Obama raised? From the embittered people? Wonder how much they'll contribute now?
At times, some have remarked that Obama only really performs well with a script. Once he has to speak extemporaneously, not only does he fare worse as an orator, but he tends to get lost and make unforced errors. It’s hard to imagine one worse than this. It’s all the worse because it’s not a gaffe in the normal sense, but a revealing moment that shows how Obama really views Americans. With this statement, it’s not hard to understand why he sat in Jeremiah Wright’s church for 20 years and heard nothing that moved him to dissent.
One wonders if this will end Obama’s candidacy in 2008. Not in the primaries, as the only other option is simply not electable thanks to him. It’s likely the end of any hope for the candidate of Hope and Change in a general election that depends on heartland voters. This clip will get played over and over again, in blogs, television show, and radio broadcasts not just until November but for years and years. It may not end Obama’s presidential hopes just for this year, but ever.
That’s the risk of running for the highest office without garnering the necessary experience beforehand. Unfortunately for Democrats, y'all had already put most of their eggs in his basket before he got properly vetted. No matter what they do now, they’ve handicapped themselves heavily for the November election.d
Posted by peter at April 12, 2008 07:01 PMBob in Pacifica,
You said:
eri, making trade deals doesn't instantly send jobs overseas. It takes a few years for someone to make a deal, shut down a factory here in the U.S. and set up one in China. You're not that dumb. You know that.As I said, you don't bother to read my posts. Did you bother to click through this link and read?
As for the 1 million jobs number that is being used to criticize Sen. Clinton, it comes from reports like these (and includes many of the Bush years when the employment picture was poor), but the Edwards campaign and its supporters are evidently hoping that we don't notice other obviously irrelevant facts from the same source:In other words, if job losses due to those deals had become terrible, the Clintons would have fixed it. On the other hand, you know that the job gains were incredible and keep making it appear that the Clinton years were terrible for workers. If you had some honesty, you would admit that you can't fix something when you don't see the problem on your watch, especially if most of what you saw are astonishing job growth, poverty reduction, and real wage growth until the tail end of your Presidency. Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2008 07:07 PMBetween 1994 (when NAFTA was implemented) and 2000, total employment rose rapidly in the United States, causing overall unemployment to fall to record low levels. But unemployment began to rise early in 2001, and 2.4 million jobs were lost in the domestic economy between March 2001 and October 2003 (BLS 2003). These job losses have been primarily concentrated in the manufacturing sector, which has experienced a total decline of 2.4 million jobs since March 2001. As job growth has dried up in the economy, the underlying problems caused by U.S. trade deficits have become much more apparent, especially in manufacturing.While I certainly regret the job losses due to NAFTA - and agree that NAFTA needs to be fixed, I would like to highlight the fact that during the years of the Clinton-Gore administration - which is time period when the Clintons could actually do something about the economy directly - there were no net job losses. So it is pretty disappointing to see the insinuation that the Clintons could care less about job losses due to NAFTA when the economy was producing far more jobs than were lost during their watch.
Joeldanwalls,
You said:
But a simple question: why do I keep reading from eriposte, say, and others on this blog, that the supposed successes of the WJ Clinton Administration provide any reason to vote for Hillary Clinton?You evidently haven't been paying much attention to what Sen. Obama has been saying on the campaign trail. You evidently didn't pay attention to what he said as covered in this very blog post. He has repeatedly attacked the Clinton era and made repeated comments suggesting that that era was not much differnt for Americans than the Bush era. That is a flat out lie and highly injurious to the Democratic party even if you ignore the Clintons. There was a time when the GOP was repeatedly revising history and making the Clinton era seem bad in comparison to Reagan's era. Many Obama bloggers used to take pleasure in debunking it. Now their candidate is the one spreading the nonsensical myths that Republicans were famous for and you have some of these bloggers cheering. You don't have to like Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton, but for God's sake this nonsense needs to stop. Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2008 07:16 PM
e'rip
you're doing a great job of cleaning the bastards out of their nests, post by post -
foxhole after foxhole (used advisedly),
cave after cave,
redoubt after redoubt.
thanks.
Posted by orionATL at April 12, 2008 07:29 PMDear eriposte,
You quoted something I wrote but instead of directly commenting on it or responding to it, you used it (kind of weirdly, I think) to launch an attack, saying I was "not paying attention" to various things. (Indeed, you seem to make comments like this to a lot of people who question some of your statements.) An alternative interpretation, one that I obviously favor, is that I have paid attention but taken away different highlights or reached different conclusions. For example:
[Obama] has repeatedly attacked the Clinton era and made repeated comments suggesting that that era was not much differnt for Americans than the Bush era. That is a flat out lie and highly injurious to the Democratic party even if you ignore the Clintons.
I believe this statement is wrong. Naturally Obama has raised criticisms of his principal opponent in the nomination battle, but no, I most certainly have not heard him saying that the 90's were no different than the last 7 years.
You also wrote this in your retort to my comments:
Many Obama bloggers used to take pleasure in debunking [GOP myth making]. Now their candidate is the one spreading the nonsensical myths that Republicans were famous for and you have some of these bloggers cheering. You don't have to like Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton, but for God's sake this nonsense needs to stop.
Well, first off, I can take responsibility for what I write, but not for what "[m]any Obama bloggers" write. And if you will please look again, you will see nothing in my words about GOP myths, or about supporting those myths, or about anything else remotely similar. Forgive the tackiness of quoting myself, but here goes (with a punctuation error corrected):
"There are plenty of good arguments to make in favor of Hillary Clinton. (I just happen to prefer Obama.) But what did or didn't happen during Bill Clinton's tenure as president should not be, IMHO, one of the arguments either for or against Hillary Clinton."
I recommend taking a few deep breaths, eriposte. And please do not attribute to me what you suppose "many Obama bloggers" believe.
If Hillary Clinton wins the Democratic nomination, I will most definitely vote for her. (Talk about no-brainers: Clinton vs McBush?) I do not question your sincerity in prefering Clinton (which is not to say I necessarily appreciate your rhetoric, which I find commonly to be distractingly discursive, not to mention way too self-referentially ironic). Can you accept that I have looked at the issue and the candidates and decided that I favor Obama?
I live in Oregon. I've been to see both Obama and Clinton speak in the last few weeks, and taken my child along for what I hoped were practical lessons in civics. And you know what? People at both events were positive, polite, and respectful. Would that the blogosphere take a few lessons from that.
Posted by joel dan walls at April 12, 2008 07:50 PMJoel dan walls,
I completely respect that you chose Sen. Obama for good reasons and there are good reasons why someone may vote for him. It is also a no-brainer to support him if he is the nominee as I've said many times now.
However, you ought to read my posts. Do you see the portion bolded where Sen. Obama said: "...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..." Maybe this means something very different to you than what it means to me. To me this is a direct attack on the Clinton era - that somehow there were massive job losses in that era just like in the Bush era. I know what I'm writing and I provide plenty of evidence to back it up.
I've been providing plenty of reasons to vote for Sen. Clinton over the last several months interspersed in between posts defending her from unfair attacks from Sen. Obama or others. If you want to know why I originally chose to support her here is the post:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/Election2008/TLC-eriposte_Dem_primary_support.htm
Your trollishness is amusing but there's only so much BS I can take from people like you.
Bob didn't say anything that wasn't true.
Watching you flush your hard won credibility down the toilet of rabid fangiiirrrrlllsim has been sad to watch.
One day you will look back at this moment and cringe.
Charges of elitism from the $109 M Clintons is a joke.
To think I constantly defended the Clintons against my winger relatives is to look back at those moments and cringe. They were right, and I was wrong.
Sad but true
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 12, 2008 08:12 PMEri did she really have to go with hunting ducks and doing shots? Unreal
Posted by jesse at April 12, 2008 08:44 PMThe key thing is Obama didn't say anything that is untrue! It went over most people's head.
Fowler got her 15 miniutes of fame.
The full text of what Obama said in SF:
OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).
But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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. So it'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.
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.
Now Obama's full response:
TERRE HAUTE, INDIANA – At a town hall meeting in Indiana, U.S. Senator Barack Obama made the following comments in response to the Clinton and McCain campaign’s attacks:“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’s its hard for some working class people to get behind you’re 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.”
eRiposte, you have turned TLC into no better than Daily Kos, TPM, Huff. Post, Corrente or No Quarter. Sad, very sad indeed!
Posted by Seven of Six at April 12, 2008 09:03 PMTalk left and No Quarter will not survive this period of insanity. Obama will win, and the people who have way to much divested in hero worship of Hillary will go batshit insane.
I remember all the Joe Lieberman loving DINO's over at The Moderate Voice during the CT primary, and this feels just like that. But it is cleansing, as sometimes you have to get rid of the deadwood to get anything done. Anybody actively involved in doing John McKranky's work for him his a DINO
I have always looked at this blog with fondness, and I hope it can remain a player. I really think Steve needs to get a handle on all the fanatics that are trying to turn it into a mini Talk Left.
Once again, it is really sad watching someone who I read and admired sink into the swamp of irrationality. I am not getting personal, I am just telling it like I see it.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 12, 2008 09:15 PMTalk left and No Quarter will not survive this period of insanity. Obama will win, and the people who have way to much divested in hero worship of Hillary will go batshit insane.
Yeah, and then BO's gonna get rid of all ya dirty rotten Hillary hippies! And the mellow will never be harshed by like, old people or women stuff again!
Seems like 7o6 and SS are experts at the W.O.R.M. game.
Posted by Blue Jean at April 12, 2008 10:16 PMOn the bitterness thing: my visceral "oh damn" reaction to what Obama had to say, and to his later comments in Indiana, is this: as with him speech about Rev. Wright, I thought Obama was careful, thoughtful, and professorial...way too professorial. We're electing a President of the United States, not a president of a learned society. I wish someone could be both professorial and presidential, but I don't see that as realistic in American political culture.
Posted by joel dan walls at April 12, 2008 10:19 PMEriposte, you need help.
Posted by Brian Bell at April 12, 2008 11:31 PMSeven of Six,
Could you perhaps explain how I've done that? I reproduced the text from Fowler and explained which parts of Sen. Obama's statements were wrong/stupid.
You have taken the view that everything he said is true. I have explained why parts of what he said were false and why other parts were stupid. If you could care to argue the merits of your position that everything he said is true, I would appreciate it.
Posted by eriposte at April 12, 2008 11:35 PMBob in Pacifica - First off, your posts always bring the same two or three backup units with you to amplify whatever point you are trying to make. And you and they whine to Steve to step in to allow you and your buddies a site. It's thuggery, but your tactics are not what I'm interested in discussing anymore.
Both Clinton and Obama have said they would renegotiate NAFTA. Both of them, yet you specifically and constantly cite one or both Clintons as the problem, and Obama as a preferred solution to union members and blue-collar workers. I know what Clinton has proposed so I don't want to hear a comparison between the two candidates. What, specifically, does Obama intend to do to make NAFTA helpful to American workers. It must besomething(s) that you support, and which he has said he will do.
Posted by jeter at April 12, 2008 11:52 PMWhat, there weren't any blue collar workers at Obama's San Francisco cash fest? It sounds like the people there were seriously concerned about how they could get those people in PA and throughout the country to vote for Obama. Not clear that jobs were a big concern though. He recited the facts that anyone who isn't supporting Obama has known for decades about the abandonment of the American worker, but it was only a narrative for a very liberal, wealthy crowd eager to hear the old liberal psychology applied to assuaging their guilt. Professor Obama gave another one of his unable to close the deal because of those damn non-Obama supporters answers, only this time insulting those who don't support him in extremely broad, stereotypical fashion. Stand by your post eRi. It still has not been rebutted by anything I've read here today. The psychotrollers are definitely out in full force.
Posted by jeter at April 13, 2008 12:03 AMAs for the 1 million jobs number that is being used to criticize Sen. Clinton,...
They were service sector minimum wage job.
I guess my first observation is that it is entirely revisionist history that people in these small towns were not helped by the Clinton administration.
No, not revisionist. It's fact, Clinton was repuli-con lite. He sold his soul to move "to the center". These people were not helped. No analyses show they were.
...these voters are "bitter" and therefore "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment".
He described 30% of people in this little red state of mine. Do you think he would make this statement without polling results that indicate he should? He's a light-year ahead of Shillary in money. He can afford the best polling on the planet. The MSM can paint this as a fuck-up and you are welcome to misinterpret as you wish. He spoke to many people with this comment.
Once again, it is really sad watching someone who I read and admired sink into the swamp of irrationality.
Piffle. Someday eri will be back to cut-n-paste journalism from other folks analyses...never mind.
Posted by phidipides at April 13, 2008 12:05 AMYeah, and then BO's gonna get rid of all ya dirty rotten Hillary hippies! And the mellow will never be harshed by like, old people or women stuff again!
Sorry, you Baby Boomers don't get to claim the honorable title of Hippy. The word you are groping for is sellouts.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 01:09 AM
Race Poll Results Spread from RCP:
Democratic Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking Obama 49, Clinton 42 Obama +7
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Zogby Clinton 47, Obama 43 Clinton +4
Race Poll Results Spread from PCP:
Democratic Presidential Nomination Gallup Tracking Obama 49, Clinton 42 Obama +7
Pennsylvania Democratic Primary Zogby Clinton 47, Obama 43 Clinton +4
Personally, as a european , i have a hard time seeing what the fuss is about. His description of small town america could equally well describe small towns here. The same cling to hunting, fishing, snowmobiles, booze, local stuff etc.
I think its more frightening that other candidates claim that noones bitter and that everybodys full of optimism. I think the demise and frustrations of small towns is the same in the whole western world.
Ok given the sniper mess is HRC veracity on duck hunting believable? Sadly I think the MSM with have a field day with this
Posted by jesse at April 13, 2008 06:32 AMEriposte,
The thugs here that try to bully you into silence just about every time you post something are difficult for me to deal with. It is amazing how these big bad boys can't seem to stomach anything they disagree with. They immediately start whining, dissembling, threatening, invoking Steve and others to come kick you and others off the blog, crying crocodile tears, etc. It's really striking how pathetic they are to an outsider - every time a post is written that is critical of Obama, they simply become downright hysterical.
Please keep it up and don't let the thugs wear you down. You consistently write some of the most honest pieces on the blogs, and it is so necessary for you to continue to do so in the face of so much dishonest commentary out there. The near hysteria of the usual suspects here every time you post something is simply an indication that you're hitting a nerve. When there are no rational arguments left to make, people always resort to this kind of bullying and hyperbole.
Thanks for all your work, and keep on trucking.
Posted by Anon at April 13, 2008 06:40 AMLet's keep it clear what the context for this statement was. Obama and his surrogates like Daschle are trying to spin this as something it is not ( a discussion of Republican tactics).
"So it'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."
This is his explanation to his supporters why he, a 46 year old black man, CANNOT GET THEIR VOTES. Instead of blaming voters, Obama should look within himself: He is a no experience, divisive, racist candidate that speaks in platitudes instead of policies and solutions. He uses BUSH double-speak on "Universal Healthcare", Abortion, and Gay Issues. He is the same as Bush in NOT WANTING to COUNT THE VOTES. He has content to let the media bash Hillary while thinking he is immune from the same treatment! HAH! He attacks his own party and puts Democrats in the same basket as Republicans. He can't seal the deal because half the electorate gets that OBAMA is for OBAMA and not for DEMOCRATS.
Well, Obama is the gift that keeps on giving. He has given me plenty of reasons not to vote for him---not becuase I don't like him, but because he doesn't like me! (NORQUIST QUOTE)
Posted by KathyVT at April 13, 2008 07:19 AMeri writes: "In other words, if job losses due to those deals had become terrible, the Clintons would have fixed it."
Are you saying there haven't been job losses from those trade agreements? Or are you saying that they would have fixed things if the job losses had occurred while Bill was still in the White House? Are you saying that B. Clinton couldn't foresee how these trade deals would impact the American working class? Did the Clintons have a plan to reverse trade agreements if a Republican came into office and kept the agreements in place?
Look, the Clinton years were better than the last seven Bush years. But the process of borrowing against one's house's value had already started. The difference between the rich and the poor continued to widen. In other words, much of the good times were on borrowed money. If you want to say that more borrowed money went to the middle class than under Bush, okay. Faint praise.
Either the Clintons knew what the Trade Agreements (NAFTA was nowhere near as damaging for Americans as GATT, etc.) would do and pushed them, didn't know and pushed them, had an antidote which they couldn't use because someone else was in the White House, or something.
By the way, before you start whining about me not fully addressing all your links, how about you responding fully to my posts?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 13, 2008 08:47 AMjeter writes: "First off, your posts always bring the same two or three backup units with you to amplify whatever point you are trying to make."
I suspect that there are other readers who may agree with some of my points. I don't exchange emails with any of the people who post here. I don't know them. I don't ask for a site. I have my own blog. If it's thuggery to hold an opposite opinion to you and eri, then my dictionary needs to be replaced. I used to come here all the time when it was actually leftist; when I see a lot of Clinton true believers blowing smoke up each other's ass I feel obligated to speak up. It's the liberal in me. That's why I hate Thanksgivings with my Republican relatives. I feel obligated to argue against closed minds.
As for NAFTA et al, as someone who's life has been blue-collar and union I don't take kindly to people who want to parse away the death of the working class. The seeds of what has been happening during the Bush years were planted during the first Clinton years. Yes, both Dems have promised to renegotiate NAFTA. What about GATT, etc.? I don't trust either candidate to fully protect the American worker. But I can look at Hillary's track record of sitting on the board of an anti-union megacorporation, her misrepresentations about her opposition to NAFTA and other trade agreements, etc., to suspect that her dishonesty will continue. The latest eruption, her claims that people aren't "bitter," her duck-hunting and all the other absurdities of this invented hoohaw, is in perfect harmony with McCain's campaign. It if looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, you shoot it.
This latest attack by the Clinton campaign against Obama because he correctly points out that working people are not happy with the way the country has gone the past thirty years is an attempt to deny reality. I can't believe that the people here are so economically insulated from the rest of us not to notice. That's why it seems so dreadful to me that people who claim to be left or liberal or progressive or Democrats willfully attack someone for stating the obvious.
These little discussions mean next to nothing in the grand scheme of things. Obama already is going to win the nomination. Hillary doesn't have the bullets in her gun to shoot him down. I don't like Clinton attacking the next Dem nominee and can only expect the worst intentions. But it is truly distressing to me that people who pretend to be on the left are so willing to detach themselves from reality and are so unclear on basic principles (like Republicans distracting voters from their true economic interests) that they would play along with Clinton's sabotage of the party.
Hope that helps, jeter.
eRiposte, You write a post called (ironically) The Politics of Bitterness, and have the nerve to ask "Could you perhaps explain how I've done that?"
Your continued character assasination of Obama is no better than the pro-Obama blogs bashing of Clinton. If you can't see that it's destructive to the Democratic Party as a whole then I can't help you.
I call bullshit Bobby Baby:
"If it's thuggery to hold an opposite opinion to you and eri, then my dictionary needs to be replaced. I used to come here all the time when it was actually leftist; when I see a lot of Clinton true believers blowing smoke up each other's ass I feel obligated to speak up. It's the liberal in me."
________________
As usual, you're lying. It's not thuggery to hold an opposite opinion - it's thuggery to insult people whom you disagree with, call on steve to make them stop writing, make paranoid accusations, and generally become hysterical when anyone criticizes Obama.
And your self-congratulatory 'liberal' moniker makes me want to puke - there's nothing liberal about you. I've seen you defend Rev. Wright's screed on AIDs and people calling Hillary a whore. I don't call that liberal.
If you don't like the writing here or any Obama criticism, why don't you just stay in the echo chambers of places like the big orange or TPM? That's the real question. There's no point in you participating in blogs that just infuriate you because they say things you disagree with. If you can't stand people having a different opinion, just bugger off why don't you?
Bob - Once again, you failed to answer a specific question about what Obama will do. As usual, you just deflect by using your montages of yeah, but Hillary said this about duck hunting. It's so tired. What will be done for American workers by Obama? Do you have an answer to that question or not?
Posted by jeter at April 13, 2008 04:02 PMWell, Obama is the gift that keeps on giving. He has given me plenty of reasons not to vote for him---not becuase I don't like him, but because he doesn't like me! (NORQUIST QUOTE)
Great... A DINO posting Grover quotes.
Your blog is being infiltrated by fanatics Steve.
It is sad to see.
Posted by SnarkyShark at April 13, 2008 06:56 PMMight this be relevant?
"As the rumination continues over Barack Obama's comments about economically-depressed small town voters, statements made by Bill Clinton on the same topic -- uttered while he was running for president in 1991 -- have now surfaced.
"'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,' Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991."
Posted by joel dan walls at April 13, 2008 08:57 PMLMBAO!!!
When all else fails...
dig up some old Bill Clinton quotes.
P.a.t.h.e.t.i.c.
Posted by willyjsimmons at April 14, 2008 10:53 AM