I have had an uncomfortable feeling that the way I see the behavior of the Obama supporters is how Republican supporters saw all of us last election season in 2004. They alienate people - and then wonder why they cant close the deal.

how is what he said any different than what bill c. said in the 1990's?

folks are frustrated, angry, and pissed off with their government selling wolf tickets.

how exactly is that wrong?

I am Judith,

do you really believe that Obama alienates people more than Hillary Clinton? I'm not asking for any justification of who's better, who's nicer, who's truer. Do you actually believe that Clinton unifies the party and has crossover appeal to Republicans?

I can see it now. McOld stands at the podium with all of the great gravity he can muster in his demeanor, and says: "Yes, my friends, Obama used an irregular verb in describing the bitterness some voters feel. Couldn't he find an American verb that wasn't irregular? That, my friends, would sum up an Obama Presidency! Elitism!"

Man, that's a great link to the successes of the Shillary Clinton administration in Pennsylvania. I'm sure those were some wonderful jobs created in Pennsylvania, as most minimum wage service sector jobs without benefits that replaced the factory jobs with benefits were at that time -the exact jobs Shillary takes credit for during her last administration. Minimum wage jobs do tend to be great jobs, now don't they. And that massive decrease in poverty! Had nothing to do with the people who were no longer counted as poor due to TANF. Perish the thought. It would be like Bushco ending the Food Stamp program and claiming we've solved the problem of hunger because we no longer have hungry people to count. Eureka!

Oh shit! Don't look now, but Fox Noise sent a team to Pennsylvania to skewer Obama on the "bitterness" issue. The problem is, all of the small town folk they talked to were bitter, even those who don't intend to vote for Obama. And what horror happened after Hillary dressed as Annie Oakley and downed a Chivas boilermaker? Uhhh, seems white women moved away from her. Way to go, Mark Penn, you're the best thing that ever happened to Obama! You and eriposte!

It is fascinating how increasingly bizarre your posts are becoming, eri. If you link up to info sheets of stats from Pennsylvania under Bill Clinton, are you saying that Hillary owns Bill's term of service? Let's get the okeydoke over with. Is she running on Bill's record or away from it? Does Hillary also own the media merging that Bill pushed? We've already talked about NAFTA, GATT, etc. She now owns it, right?

So if everything is hunk dory in Pennsylvania, why should they vote for any Democrat? Because it was Camelot from 1992 to 2000?

Look, keep playing your pretend outrage. In a few weeks Clinton will concede. She's already mathematically cooked. Then you can take a few weeks off, air out, reconnoiter you way back into reality and get ready for the fall.

And for chrissakes, please don't moan about me not commenting on everything in your post. If there's anything in particular you want me to comment on just point it out and when I come back here later I will.

By the way, the working class is bitter.

I am so glad you wrote this eRiposte! Thank you, thank you...

Clinging to bigotry is good!
The Bible says so?
Maybe in Rev Wright's house of hate.

I'm not going to bother with this post except to respond to this in the update:

(which explains why Sen. Clinton has generally been cleaning Sen. Obama's clock in rural America)

Remember Idaho? How about North Dakota? Nebraska? Kansas? Wyoming? Clinton sure cleaned Obama's clock, keeping him under 70% in some of those rural states!

[ As Sen. Obama said yesterday, "scripture talks about clinging to what’s good… what I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is, they’ve got family, they’ve got their faith, they’ve got the traditions that have been passed onto them from generation to generation. Those aren’t bad things." ]

specifically

"...what I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is, they’ve got family, they’ve got their faith,..."

that is absolutely NOT what obama was saying in his initial comment.

what obama is doing now, as a strategy of damage control, is to turn his current completely around from the initial message

to make it appear now AS IF he were initially appreciative of the role of religion in small towns

when in fact he was at best detachedly descriptive and, in fact, was implicitly critical ("cling") of its role in his initial comment.

for some politicians this kind of slight-of-hand would be labeled deceit.

Wow. The Tuzla Terror™ must have really tanked last night to inspire this screed.

Yes Bob, Clinton must get out. We've found the candidate we can beat like Carter in 1980. What a joyous Wednesday morning in November with a President-elect John McCain. The Clinton's know this, the RNC knows this, I know it. What a wipe out is coming. Democrats to lose....

Done

Now lets see how many down ticket races his candidacy will hurt.

HRC must stay in the race as an option. The Dems lack of vetting Obama has left the party in a bind, we need an option, that option is Clinton. The guy is not an option now in the GE, Clinton will be the better option come November.

What a joyous Wednesday morning in November with a President-elect John McCain.

ROFLMAO!!

People are pretty bitter after 8 years of Buschco, what with a failed war, a failed conservative government, and the failure of the Democrats to corral the pretzledent. You can't run a republi-con for dogcatcher downticket. Hell, even McOld has to run as an "American" with narry a peep about being a republi-con. You guys broke it, so you own it.

We own it Phid...We. McOld isn't Bush...he's not on the ticket. Run Barry Obama and we'll have that sweet Wednesday morning. Look to the polls Phid. They're not the ultimate poll, but look at them now. Not the cakewalk Democrats envisioned. Let Barry open his mouth like he's been doing and the race goes from 1980 to 1984. McOld will be in bed by eleven PM, California won't matter again.

Thanks for losing.

the down trodden cling to their religion...and their guns..and the wealthy audience snickered...some even laughed....what he really meant was.. you cling to what is good..says so in the bible...pretty repulsive stuff..he is one hell of a liar...but hey it's just a little blimp along the way..lets see what the good folks of pa think about it..instead of obamabloggers...

phidipides..there was a time i saw your name and looked forward to reading your post..now i see it and have the same reaction as seeing bob in pacifica and brian bell..nice company...i find eriposte thoughtful and at least reasoned..as opposed to the sarcastic babble you hide behind...

Remember Idaho? How about North Dakota? Nebraska? Kansas? Wyoming? Clinton sure cleaned Obama's clock, keeping him under 70% in some of those rural states!

If you look at the county by county maps of those states (the ones that had primaries at least), it's pretty typical that Obama won the urban areas while Clinton won the rural areas.

Bob in Pacifica - Clinton has crossover appeal in the Senate. Many Republicans including Tom Delay and Newt G. praised her and worked with her. I voted for George Bush 1, yet she certainly has my support. She doesn't need every right-wing nut, just the women Bush 11 siphoned off from the elitist Kerry (voted for him, too).
"The working class IS bitter." They're wondering why the price of arugula is so high in Whole Foods.

CG - yes, Obama's caucus state run served him well. Too bad the general isn't a caucus. And what idiot thinks we can take Idaho and Nebraska?

You want to know what someone from PA feels about it.

Read what Dr. Robert Reich, former Clinton Secretary of Labor has to say:

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 – which wasn’t nearly good enough – 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 – 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...

We’re heading into the worst economic crisis in a half century or more. Many of the Americans who have been getting nowhere for decades are in even deeper trouble. Large numbers of people in Pennsylvania and across the nation are losing their homes and losing their jobs, and the situation is likely to grow worse. Consumers are at the end of their ropes, fuel and food costs are skyrocketing, they can’t go deeper into debt, they can’t pay their bills. They aren’t buying, which means every business from the auto industry to housing to even giant GE is hurting. Which means they’ll begin laying off more people, and as they do, we will experience an even more dangerous downward spiral.

Bitter? You ain’t seen nothing yet. And as much as people like Russert, Carville, Matalin, Schrum, and Murphy want to divert our attention from what’s really happening; as much as HRC and McCain seek to make political hay out of choices of words that can be spun cynically by the mindless spinners of the old politics; as much as demagogues on the right and left continue to try to channel the cumulative frustrations of Americans into a politics of resentment – all these attempts will, I hope, prove futile. Eighty percent of Americans know the nation is on the wrong track. The old politics, and the old media that feeds it, are irrelevant now.

Seven, it's not just the 'bitter' thing, where's the rest? Talking down to those in rural America to those on billionaires row in SF. Two America's, he in one and the rest of us in another. Our values verses SF billionaire values.

I enjoy popping in once a week or so to watch eriposte's descent into madness.

Seriously, the epic struggle to conform reality to cover over the cognitive dissonance is something I haven't seen since the early days of the Bush adminstration, when Bush's supporters were first struggling to deal with the fact that they elected a monster.

Obama hasn't been vetted? How about Hillary? Did anyone see her incompetance at running a campaign coming? Good thing we vetted her and found out that she can't run a big league campaign. Bad strategy, bad personnel, running from her husband's legacy while embracing it at the same time, dull speeches (speeches matter when it comes to inspiring your campaign workers and voters), etc, etc. Good thing we vetted her and found out she's a paper tiger riding on her husband's coattails.

...i find eriposte thoughtful and at least reasoned..

And peter thinks The Mad King, idiot son of George, is thoughtful and at least reasoned.

McOld will be in bed by eleven PM,...

McOld'll capitulate much sooner than that. It'll be tough when Obamarama focuses his 4X money advantage directly on McDumpMyInjuredWife and the republi-con party...or neo-con...or paleo-con...or assi-con...whatever your party is this week. You'll discover your new party clothes don't cover much.

"The working class IS bitter." They're wondering why the price of arugula is so high in Whole Foods.

No elitism in this comment...though I do detect some bitterness.

Eriposte,

I think in the light of the latest development and Obama's reference to Annie Oakley, this video is priceless. It's light-hearted too. Could you give props to it?

Annie Get Your Gun - Anything You Can Do

Talking down to those in rural America to those on billionaires row in SF.

Quit your lies peter.
Remember a buck in CA doesn't go as far as a buck in Texico.

Annie Get Your Gun - Anything You Can Do

Anything Billy did,
I did it better.
The good that Billy did,
I did it too!

And the bad?
Not the bad!
And the bad?
Not the bad!

The stuff Billy did,
That you like,
I did it better.
All that stuff
That you like
I did it too.

And the bad?
Not the bad!
And the bad?
Not the bad!

CG, take a look at these maps (pre-Texas & Ohio) showing breakdown by county. Basically, each candidate does well in the rural areas of states where they do well. It is quite the myth that Obama does poorly in rural areas.

Go look where he was when he said these things. The oldest money in California was hosting him. Yeah, he was talking down to us peons in flyover country to those finely dressed people in SF. Two America's, his and the rest of us. Ask the help how they felt, those running to get the valet parked cars. This isn't about 'bitter', but the other things.

CG, here is an updated county map with more details.

The problem CPJ is the race has changed since your maps have voted. Ohio, Texas, and Mississippi are more indicative of the current race. Many of those in the earlier primaries would love to have a do over I'm sure.

Should Obama lose the General Election because Hillary - instead of defending the truth of his comment - chose to demonize him as an "elitist," please do take time on your blog to give yourself (as well as her) a hearty pat on the back.

All-powerful Clinton can cause Obama to lose the genreral because she called him an elitist. He might lose the general because he called middle america xenophobic bigots who cling to religion and guns.
Maybe he can windsurf for us next week.

Keep trying peter...

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama’s statement that people in small towns “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." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% agree with the Democratic frontrunner while 19% are not sure.

Partisan and ideological differences suggest that the comments are more likely to be a factor in the General Election than in the Primaries. A plurality of politically liberal voters—46%--agree with Obama’s statement while 33% disagree. Moderate voters take the opposite view and disagree by a 51% to 27% margin. Seventy-four percent (74%) of conservatives disagree with Obama’s statement, only 12% agree.

Democrats are fairly evenly divided—34% agree with Obama and 43% disagree. Generally, Obama supporters agree with him while Hillary Clinton’s supporters disagree.

Republicans overwhelmingly disagree with the statement and unaffiliated voters disagree by a two-to-one margin.

Voters under 30 are evenly divided on Obama’s statement while their elders strongly disagree. Fifty-three percent (53%) of African-Americans agree with Obama’s statement while 29% disagree. White voters disagree by a 3-to-1 margin. From Rasmussen

Seems Seven and others are in the extreme. The America of the rest of us "disagree" with him here.

eriposte,

Maybe you should check out the most recent response to Clinton attacking Obama on this point. Most everyone is tired of hearing it:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/14/888068.aspx

Clinton is the one that is out of touch, not Obama. Her attacks are about nothing and have no merit.

I normally come to this site to get some objective opinions, guess I need to keep looking.

i find it extremely difficult to believe the people of this country aren't angry, disillusioned, frustrated-- bitter with how gov't has divided, lied, shipped jobs away, or got on their knees for the corporations. bear sterns buyout anyone???

how can someone spin a child born not of privilege, raised by a single mom, and didn't make 109 mill last year as elitist...

again like him or not, that so many of america is buying this wholesale spin proves they are sheep.

The sheeple voted for Bush twice, so they should have no problem voting for Bah hah mah.

...and didn't make 109 mill last year as elitist...

Who made $109 last year?

Classism. Elitism.

For a guy so hung up on walking in other people's shoes you're awfully quick to condemn someone over being successful.

He went to private schools. Kind of elitist. He had a pretty cushiony childhood. It's not his background that makes him elitist to people making less than $40,000 a year, it's his comments and his wife's comments. Most people can't relate to someone complaining about having to spend $10,000 a year on dance lessons for kids.
Do they shop for arugula at Whole Foods and complain about the cost? No, they buy iceberg lettuce. They make a point of not drinking foreign beer. If we didn't learn anything from the lose of Gore/Kerry - two candidates much more qualified and intelligent than the guy who took them out, it's that middle america matters.
Clinton got the message. Obama's lost in space.
Oh, and they're also patriotic. He loses big on that one.

Peter - Fortunately, by November there won't be any Republicans left (what are they down to now, 35%?), the moderates won't remember or care what Obama said in April, and the progressives, the legions of young Obama supporters and the traditional African-American base will be swarming to the polls in his support, while weary, old John McCain will still be creakily arguing his war agenda and tax cuts for the rich.

Hillary and her crowd can try to scare people into voting for her, but I'm tired of candidates who run scared of Republicans. Just look at the Congress who we voted in to end the war, and who instead wet their pants as soon as the Repubs looked at them cross-eyed. Maybe Hils doesn't think Obama can beat McCain, but then again, she probably thought she could beat Obama.

I'm voting for a candidate who senses how desperate Americans are for change, and is eager to seize victory. I'm voting Obama.

...but I'm tired of candidates who run scared of Republicans. Just look at the Congress who we voted in to end the war, and who instead wet their pants as soon as the Repubs looked at them cross-eyed.

Senator Obama would be a member of that pants wetting group, no?

Heck JMac, by your logic we'd be much better off not running an intelligent, gifted candidate at all! After all, running a down-to-earth idiot like Bush would save our candidate the trouble of having to pretend he or she sympathizes with people so stupid they vote against their own economic interest. After all, it worked for the Republicans, right? What this country needs is another President we can all feel good about having a beer with! Much better - and easier - than actually fighting to elect someone who is brilliant, talented, charismatic and capable of leading our country out of the ditch it's in! Go Bush...er, I mean, Clinton!

phiddy, a serious respected journalist such as yourself should get your facts strait, Hillary drank a shot of Crown Royal whisky, not Chivas Regal blended Scotch whisky.

And the Clintons made 109 mil over about 8 years, not 1.

Anyone watch the Compassion Forum last night?
We finally put those air sickness bags to good use. Godbot competitions, what next?

Why weren't any voo doo or devil worship enthusiasts allowed to ask questions?

Haven't inspected his pants, actually. And, to the degree that Obama didn't work as hard to end the war as he should have, I hope and trust he will do so as President. After all, he did have courage enough to speak out against giving Bush permission to go to war, something that Clinton lacked spine enough to do. BTW, how is she going to defend her vote when McCain says she was right there, elbow to elbow with him, at the start?

eriposte, I like your Bold's much better in the blue than black.

We are running an "intelligent, gifted candidate." Her name is Hillary Clinton.

Balthus, it would be up if it were 35%. My last reference has it in the 33% area with Dems at 38%. We're talking registration here aren't we. In 2004, we were at 35% and still drew 62 million votes. Democrats will never beat that one. Shame more people don't vote. We definately need higher turnouts.

eriposte:

thanks so much! you made me laugh so hard - your satirical takes on the obama madness throughout the country are spot on and they never fail to make me feel a little less like I'm in and orwellian, insane world.

never have i felt so unified by the magic one who believes that i'm a racist, xenophobic, bitter, grumpy old witch.

i'm just so grateful for his trenchant sociological analysis delivered to the SF hoi polloi.

good god - what have the democrats wrought this time?

Haven't inspected his pants, actually.

Just the rest of Congress' pants?

And, to the degree that Obama didn't work as hard to end the war as he should have, I hope and trust he will do so as President.

There's always "hope".

After all, he did have courage enough to speak out against giving Bush permission to go to war,

That took courage did it?

something that Clinton lacked spine enough to do.

Senator Clinton has explained her vote. It had nothing to do with a lack of courage. It had to do with the "hope" that the president could be taken at his word that he needed the authority as a "stick" and that he intending to only use force as a last resort.

BTW, how is she going to defend her vote when McCain says she was right there, elbow to elbow with him, at the start?

What will she have to defend? She wants to end the war. McCain wantes to continue it for 100 years if necessary. The AUMF will be a non-issue in a Clinton McCain general race.

no snark, not condemning them for being successful at all. good for them. but calling someone out for elitism when one makes 109 million is a reach, no?

i don't think hilary went to public schools.

tiki, she said the last time she went to church was irrelevant. so she wins the vaudin vote.

single mom is cushiony childhood? i didn't get that memo.

again, how is what he said not true?

thomas frank, who wrote what's the matter with kansas???

Thomas Frank, the author who redefined the perception of the red state/blue state divide in America, says he doesn't find Sen. Barack Obama's comments on the bitterness of small-town Midwesterners all that alarming.

"People are bitter in small towns," Frank told the Huffington Post. "People are bitter everywhere. I don't know if you have seen the stock market -- people are bitter about their situation. It doesn't strike me as a very controversial statement."

better yet, how bout this from someone who was there, instead of incomplete audio:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html

this will get parsed and im sure comments supporting the other side, (a good thing in conversations) but i've asked and i'll ask again, what was untrue about what he said?

but calling someone out for elitism when one makes 109 million is a reach, no?

You believe someone can't be wealthy and not be elitist? Again, odd coming from someone who implores others to investigate the details of the AA experience to try and understand where they're coming from. Yet here you are making a judgement on Clinton based solely on her income.

good god..what have the democrats wrought this time?

no shit

Ditto Dennis

obama people remind me of the movie..invasion of the body snatchers

For a guy who's supposed to be the greatest orator since Daniel Webster, Obama sure manages to talk himself into a lot of predicaments. He needs to start acting more like Bush and never say ANYTHING unscripted. They're both too arrogant for their own good, but Bush could make his arrogance work for him. With Obama it's starting to come across as a case of terminal condescension. It doesn't help that he sees nothing but sycophants everywhere he turns. Unfortunately, he probably won't find any humility until McCain hands him his lunch in November.

no snark, that's not what i'm saying.
the elitist tag came in response to what he said in ca about blue collar folks in pa; an honest unscripted response to an honest question. you said in a past post that politics is politics, and yes, i agree with you. but someone who just paid off his student loans, had his grandmother's help because he was raised by a single mom, who's other grandmother lives in a hut in kenya, gives one a little perspective, that does not lead to elitism. it is difficult for that meme to stick. i should be surprised how that (elitist) comment is taking root, but i guess, everything else didn't work, so why not this? in perspective, 109 mill vs. someone who just paid off student loans... come on, the money is irrelevant, the charge is the issue.

and hand him his lunch he will..won't ever know what hit em..at least with gore and kerry they had to make stuff up..

ohio ..pennsylvania...and florida....i don't think so..

The America of the rest of us "disagree" with him here.

You forgot this part:

UPDATE: A Gallup daily tracking poll, however, suggested that Obama is not being hurt by the controversy.

But let it never be said that I don't understand the plight of both you and eriposte, and the Clintonistas in general. So, let me clue you in to the next Obama controversy...Orange Juice! It'll be easy! Copy-n-paste all of your stuff, highlight it, then go to Edit, Replace on your toolbar and replace "bitter", and "elitist" with orange juice. You'll save some time.

Here, I'll help:

Seven, it's not just the 'bitter' thing, where's the rest? ***becomes*** Seven, it's not just the 'orange juice' thing, where's the rest?

See, it's easy! And there is no change in the readily observable intelligence behind the comment. It still sucks!

I'm telling you, buddy. As you, eriposte, McOld, the republi-cons and the Clintonista wing of the Democ-ratic party get in bed together over this Obama stuff you'll be missing a sure thing if you don't employ the old Orange Juice Gambit. It'll play in the heartland! I've even heard that Michelle likes hers fresh squeezed!!!

Hillary drank a shot of Crown Royal whisky, not Chivas Regal blended Scotch whisky

Oh shit! She really is of the people, and a true unembittered commoner. I guess I was wrong about the Copenhagen too, and she really does spit Skoal on NASCAR weekends. I wonder if she has naked chrome women mudflaps on her corporate campaign jet and still wears the "I'm With Stupid" baseball cap?

having a drink with them is a bit more honest then he was in san francisco....to bad there was a tape recorder in the room as their was np press allowed

the recorder didn't capture all that was said.

it is a shame that we've become a nation of snippet politics.

it recorded enough..and it was condesending..but.. he could have chose his words better..

Maybe this can be good news to Barry Obama...

April 14, 2008; 12:57 p.m.
Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's name came up again at the Antoin "Tony" Rezko corruption trial and in a way that earlier filings in the case did not telegraph.

Stuart Levine, the prosecution's star witness, said he and Obama were at a party Rezko threw at his Wilmette mansion on April 3, 2004, for Nadhmi Auchi, a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire who Rezko was trying to get to invest in a South Loop real-estate development.

Auchi, now a citizen of the United Kingdom, has faced criminal charges in Europe. He also figured in the revocation of Rezko's bond early this year after attempting to wire him more than $3 million. Upon learning of that attempt, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve declared Rezko a flight risk and ordered him held in a federal jail in the Loop.

The Rezko party in 2004 was designed to induce Auchi to pour money into the South Loop investment. Obama's presence at the party was not previously known. At the time, Obama was fresh off a surprise win in the Illinois Democratic primary for U.S. Senate and was riding a crest of national publicity. FROM Chicago Trib.
***
What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans? From the NYTimes

white men are afraid--bill clinton

blue collar workers are bitter--barack obama

could you imagine if obama said the former???

double standard? both, in some respects to the times, are true. how come bill got a pass on what he said? (btw, i won't open that can o' worms.)

and yes dennis, he could've chosen better words, but do you really want a parsed candidate or someone that has the temerity to speak off the cuff and answer an actual question?

again, how is what he said, untrue?

good nite all...

Snark -

After all, he did have courage enough to speak out against giving Bush permission to go to war,

That took courage did it?

Actually, yes. Or perhaps you don't recall the climate in which anyone who voiced skepticism about the war was labeled a traitor?

something that Clinton lacked spine enough to do.

Senator Clinton has explained her vote. It had nothing to do with a lack of courage. It had to do with the "hope" that the president could be taken at his word that he needed the authority as a "stick" and that he intending to only use force as a last resort.

Says a lot about her "experience" doesn't it? Everyone in the world knew Bush was headed for war, the drumbeat was full force, the press was behind it...but somehow Hillary was taken in by the monkey in chief!

Anyone saying Obama is the greatest orator of all times hasn't watched a debate. He's super when he's reading from a teleprompter, but trying to explain his present votes in Illinois, his votes in the Senate, or any question not scripted, he's almost as bad as George Bush. He has become a better debater - thank goodness, because a lot of votes are won or lost on that last debate.

balthus..along with how many others?

Sen.Obama, is once again w.o.r.m.ing his remarks.
He would NOW have us understand them to be taken
as "complimentary", as in the scripture. I guess
we're supposed to overlook or just forget about the antipathy part, anti-immigrant, guns, if it is
repeated enough and the MSM gives him a pass,as
they are apparently working at doing.
Obama has misrepresented facts surrounding the
accomplishments of the Clinton-Gore Administration
years.
There are many questions that remain unasked of Sen.Obama by the MSM.
http://www.politicalgateway.com/main/columns/read.
Sen.Obama is quick to say that "she will do any-
thing to get elected." Its unfortunate but, I'm
feeling he said it, in order to deflect attention
from the fact that it is true of HIS campaign.
See: http://www.AudacityofHypocriscy.com
His comments on Annie Oakley were really "tin ear". He makes a misstep that he is forced to acknowledge. Then he chooses to lash out at his rival by seizing upon a historical female icon
To make his point. BTW one doesn't use a six-shooter while hunting!

the vote on the iraq resolution was 77-23

Actually, yes. Or perhaps you don't recall the climate in which anyone who voiced skepticism about the war was labeled a traitor?

Jeez, I remember a lot of opposition to the war. In fact, I recall so much opposition to the war that many on these sites pointed out how Bush was going to go to war despite almost everyone other than his fellow republican syncophants opposing it.

Says a lot about her "experience" doesn't it? Everyone in the world knew Bush was headed for war, the drumbeat was full force, the press was behind it...but somehow Hillary was taken in by the monkey in chief!

Not much different than your own "hope" that Obama will do the right thing once in office despite his less than aggressive efforts to end the war once actually in a position to do something courageous about it.

Elitism is not about how much money you make. It's about looking down on and stereotyping poor people. This is Obama's "Let them eat cake" moment.

they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment

maybe somebody can help me out here..i've been reading through the bible..trying to find what book thats in..anyone know?

Latest polls show this flap not hurting Obama at all. By midweek the new meme will be "Obama - Teflon candidate" - no matter how much dirty Hillary flings at him it just won't stick. Now that's a storyline that will get superdelegate attention!

BTW, for all you Clinton supporters who can't let a day go by without savoring the campaign's latest lie, feast your eyes on this, from ABC News:

Over seven stops in North Carolina, [Bill] Clinton said "Everywhere I go there are all these people with signs, saying I'm not bitter - I'm not bitter."

Clinton said during a stop in Jim Thorpe, Pennsylvania "this fellow said to me... "President Clinton, we are not bitter, we just want to turn the country around." Clinton said another supporter in North Carolina said "I hunt 'cause I like to and I go church 'cause I need to. And if I were a millionaire, I would still hunt and go to church.'"

The strong sentiments were appreciated by the crowd, but were not entirely accurate. During Clinton's seven stops in North Carolina on Saturday there were no "I'm not bitter" signs. There was a small assortment of people at his later events wearing stickers with the slogan, but many of those sporting the stickers weren't even sure what they meant.

Let them eat arugula!

Bathus - did you read What's the Matter with Kansas? You get votes everywhere you can, and we need middle america.

And anyone that thinks Bill Clinton ran this country into a ditch needs to look at his record. He left a $431 billion surplus, he created 1.76 million jobs a year, he closed the gap between the rich and poor. He also won seats in his last term - almost unprecedented. Obama slams him - but lets see if he does as well.

Thanks Eriposte for posting this.

The Obama-anians still don't get it. They act more and more shrill, and more and more Republican.

Maybe they should convince Obama to leave the Democratic party, and run on McCain's ticket.

But I will say this.

This primary season is far from over. And it matters not what Obama-bots or the more reasonable Obama-anians say.

And it matters not what distortions or selective readings of what the polls say by Obama supporters allegedly indicate.

The proof of the pudding is next week, and the week after that, and the week after that. Until the entire primary season is over.

That's the only thing that counts.

Not stupid comments uttered in Pittsburgh, that I heard today on the radio uttered by Obama. Clueless arrogance doesn't make one fit to lead. Especially one of the nations that has such influence and impact on the rest of the planet (yet despite that, it is sorry-assed shape, big time).

I think Barack Obama doesn't know who he is. He can't figure out if he is a poseur, or if he wants to be hack politician from Illinois, or if he wants to aspire to be a Statesman. (Just remember that guy who is his neighbor to that land Obama bought, and is currently under investigation--Rezko I believe his name is--is connected to the Iraq mess, the corruption mess, the wastage of mine, and your, tax dollars. Yes, Obama is connected to Rezko who is connected with the Iraq quagmire mess. Was just on 60 minutes on Sunday.)

Obama obviously can't make up his mind.

He knows he wants to be President, and experience those trappings.

But he is clueless in all things of governance.

Try telling me how "Presidential" it is to vote "Present" in the Illinois legistlature (a trend of many multiple times); Try telling me how "Presidential" it is to cave to special interests (like that power utility in his home district); Try telling me how being a Community organizer in Chicago, or how being the editor of the Harvard Law Review can be equated with having experience (or even mere exposure to) the complex, and byzantine Federal bureaucracy, and how it operates, and what to do to make it work (especially when it is presently malfunctioning). (And the examples I use here are only representative--more where these come from.)

He is unqualified. He is ambitious, yes. But he acts more and more like a Republican. (reminds me of GWB, in fact.) He insults those he doesn't know ("bitter" Pennsylvanians? Let him come to northwestern PA. Many people here want to debate him directly about that issue, among other things), and to top that off, he refuses to denounce (properly) the reverse-racist comments of Reverend Wright. He is more into equivocating.

And the MSM is letting Obama get a free ride. Just like the current occupant in the Oval Office. MSM "hearts" Republicans. That should indicate something--the MSM might recognize Republican-type trends in Obama's behaviors. Something to think about.

Lest you think I am country bumpkin, I'll let you know that I am indeed University educated. And like most Pennsylvanians, we can see through the BS of the Barack Obama campaign. We look at what a person says, and what they have done. We look at whether, when given a chance to learn about the complex, byzantine bureaucracy, whether they seize the opportunity (like being given a Senate subcommitte to head that is about aspects of European matters and NATO, yet has yet to call one meeting of that subcommittee to order in the nearly 3 years plus Obama has been in the Senate). Or whether like GWB, blows everything off, because--like GWB--he has a Direct Line to God. And is "The Decider."

Today, belatedly, (since his attempts to belittle and ignore the prairie fire he started) Obama allegedly is attempting to apologize for his "bitter" commentaries.

Errors of a clueless, unprepared neophyte, not yet fit to lead. But arrogant though. Big time.

Maybe if they share their arrogance and ill-preparedness between them, perhaps Obama and McCain can mount a Presidential campaign between them in the Autumn. But I think they should be on the same ticket.

Hillary Clinton shouldn't have to be running against two Republicans at the same time in the primary season right now.

Tell me Obama-anians, why (if you are in a state that has already has had its primary) why did you vote for him?

Did you do it on "feelings"? Or did you look at his record? Look into his background?

How many of you actually attempted to read either one of his books? And then ask, "Is what he wrote true? How can we verify it?"

I'm willing to bet ZERO have. The UK-centric journalists are all over this. The US MSM is "on vacation." (Even the latest Newsweek cover story is only a first effort at some spade work.)

You can be damned sure that the Republican Attack Machine (in support of McCain) are doing so.

I am willing to bet the vast majority of people who have voted for Obama haven't looked very closely at the Man from Illinois.

Our very sick nation DEMANDS that we take the time, and do the close-looking. Our children, our future generations yet unborn DEMAND this of us.

This isn't "American Idol" lite--hey, we have a feeling about Obama! Let's use our "cell phones" and vote! (Substituting the polling place voting machines for cell phones. And substituting "American Idol"'s popularity contest mind-sets and carrying that into the much more serious, and concrete election primary contests.)

"American Idol" has no impact on the long term. Voting in the primaries and in the general election in the Autumn does. And will.

View things that way.

The United States of America can ill afford another four years of a GWB-type of Presidency. All war, all the time. A trashed economy. A trashed, catastrophic foreign policy. McCain is already aping this. Obama appears to be also doing this (just by saying he will do something different doesn't make it so).

Faced with these challenges, what do you think Patrick Henry would do? Benjamin Franklin? Thomas Jefferson?

Think about it.

I don't think Hillary Clinton went to public schools.

Actually, she spent grades K-12 in public schools, like Maine East High School and Maine South High School. Try again.

I love reading the comments on this issue because I find it consistently interesting how much people fail to pay attention or even ACKNOWLEDGE that people may be offended by what Obama said. It's like his supporters need a 12 step program in order to admit there is a problem. When my gun toting Obama loving relatives are pissed off at what he said, then there ARE people who are upset. Is HRC exploiting it? Duh, she's a politician trying to win an election. She's no different than Obama exploiting every misstep or perceived misstep she's made.

I read an article today in the NYT by William Kristol. I can't stand that man, but I forced myself to read it because it's important to "know your enemy." He expressed what a lot of people are thinking and saying, as well as giving a clue as to how the Republicans will approach this in the future. Kristol quotes Marx's statements about religion,

"Religious suffering is at the same time an expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the sentiment of the heartless world, and the soul of the soulless condition. It is the opium of the people."

It sounds a lot like, "it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to...religion....as a way to explain their frustrations."

Now to many Democrats, it's not a big deal because we as a whole are generally less religious than Republicans or Independents. But considering that the overwhelming majority of Americans are emotionally tied to their religious faith, Marx's statement is a dangerous statement to be attached to any Democratic candidate.

What Kristol points out is what Obama supporters don't want to seem to hear. People aren't angry about being called 'bitter,' they're angry because Obama said that their 'bitterness' is the reason why they turn to guns and G-d. No matter HOW you spin it, that's what Obama said. If he had stopped at saying that people were bitter, and then explained why they were bitter, then there would be NO STORY.

I constantly read blogs talking about how the last 8 yrs have been horrible and of course people are bitter, so why are people complaining about what Obama said. But Obama blames the Clinton administration in equal measure for the hardships that people are facing DESPITE the fact that the comparison is FACTUALLY INACCURATE, DESPITE the fact that if he were to be the next Democratic president, he would be the INHERITOR of the Clinton legacy. More jobs were created under Clinton than under Reagan and both Bushes COMBINED. I understand that he's running against Hillary Clinton, but she's not Bill, and being DISINGENUOUS about the successes of the Clinton Administration is distasteful to say the least, coming from a Democrat. I mean why would we want another Democrat in office, if its the same as having a Republican there?

The other tale that I find odd is this continuous commentary about how much money the Clintons have. Do you realize that the Obamas are wealthier at their age than the Clintons were at the SAME age? Do you not think that if Obama were a hugely successful president and loved worldwide that he'd make A LOT of money once he was out of office? I'm guessing Obama would. We all know Bill Clinton was poor and HRC was middle class. Now they're uber wealthy. But wealth isn't the mark of elitism to the American populace, otherwise Kerry wouldn't have lost to GWB. GWB grew up in New England with a platinum spoon in his mouth, but Kerry was perceived as the elitist.

Also, people need to stop retelling the story he was a "poor Black child" raised by a single mother. The Time magazing piece on his mother is actually wonderful and moving. She was definitely a "free spirit" and had Obama at a young age, but she remarried, had another child, and still mangaged to get her PhD. Additionally, his father is a Harvard graduate, he went to elite prep school in Hawaii, he went to a small, expensive private college in CA (I know because my uncle went there), transferred to Columbia University, and then went to Harvard Law. He's had more opportunities than MOST Americans regardless of their color.

white men are afraid--bill clinton
Anthony, that's totally out of context and you know it. It's not even a direct quote. If you want honest discourse, than be honest with your posts. You also know he was referring to how the Republicans use wedge issues with a particular voting group to get them to vote Republican. Clinton was talking about what Republicans would do, Obama was speaking about small town Americans DIRECTLY. Big Difference.

eriposte:

I have two compliments & one criticism:

[1] Many, I enthusiastically among them, regard your painstakingly detailed posts on the so-called Iraq-Niger yellowcake "intelligence" as a reaching a model for citizen journalism in the blogosphere. I've written to these effects before elsewhere and do it again here so you at least you know someone noticed: In my view your work on this amounted to high public service for which neither it nor you received anything like the credit and recognition deserved and earned.

[2] I have very much appreciated your many posts on this campaign, in particular your thoughtfulness in providing a form of index linking to each. When my own favorite left the nomination process [Actually neither of my top two favorites even entered, so when I reference former Senator Edwards I actually am referring to my original third choice among all those who might have run.], I looked around with a sense of desperation for something to help me choose between the two now remaining, and the posts in your index served as the frame around which my choice came to be made.

[3] Since making that choice, for Senator Obama, I've continued to read your posts, including your links to others, I don't know whether more out of gratitude for the help I gained from your indexed posts up to SuperDuperTuesday, or out of the 'force of habit' effect that recent studies have noted characterizes many regular web surfers. My impression has been that your posts have been unreservedly anti-Obama where the subject has involved Obama or policies of his campaign, or reflexively contra-Obama in favor of Clinton where the subject has involved Clinton or policies of her campaign being criticized by those you seem always to regard as cynical &/or hypocritical surrogates for Obama, to the point where frankly in many instances I have had great difficulty in accepting they are either.

Being merely human I have experienced a number of human reactions to reading your posts since making my choice, including feelings of defensiveness at one extreme, of which I am somewhat apprehensive given I recognize intellectually at least that such is an unsound basis for propping up barriors to considering your points and more importantly [sorry] hers; and self-doubt at the other extreme, of which I am just as skeptical.

After going through this for about 6 weeks, I've decided to move on & leave along your posts for the balance of the Dem nomination, for somewhat the same reason I've left off looking any more at a number of so-called "conservative" & some so-called "mainstream" bloggers. I've concluded is that unrelenting boosterism for one candidate or against the other simply isn't helping the debate.

Even though I've been around long enough that this will be the 9th presidential election I will vote in, I can't remember ever going thru this before [I think something like this may have been in play in 1968, but I was too young.], not even when my original choices dropped off in 76, 88 and 2004; I still had no difficulty working and voting for the eventual nominee no matter who it was. But not this time, at least insofar as Senator Clinton, because to my mind the process is over and, agree with me or not, what she's been doing since SuperDuperTuesday has increasingly turned me off to her, which I felt particularly acutely last night in listening to the two Dem candidates discuss faith & politics issues on CNN yesterday.

I concede I may be suffering from some syndrome here [even though it's never come up before], but I also think if I am, then you are two, and I don't think it's healthy that I allow you to re-infect me or that my support re-invigorates your own problem.

Thanks for the fish.

I could understand someone sayiong, Hillary and obama re both too centrist, but I'll take a chance on obama. Instead we get Obama as the progressive Messiah and Hillary as the neocon devil, which is utter mindnumbing rot.

The joke remains that the Obamamaniacs continue to behave as this empty suit were FDR, RFK, and MLK Jr. rolled into one, when AT BEST he will be no different than the Clintons. I could understand the progressive embrace of Edwards, or Gore, or even Dodd. But Obama? Well, at least it has been a valuable lesson in the limits of the Reality-Based_Community.

I see Kacey gets it. Seven pay attention to what she wrote.

BTW one doesn't use a six-shooter while hunting!

You do if you're a good shot!

peter, I don't read what kacey writes. I find her to be much like you, a republi-con plant! When did she show up here? Right after eRiposte's venomous threads.

I don't read what kacey writes. I find her to be much like you, a republi-con plant!

I'm really disappointed by that comment SoS.

I find kacey's comments here to be amongst the most fair and often the most insightful.

Opps!

Wrote SoS in the name spot instead of snark!

I don't read what kacey writes. I find her to be much like you, a republi-con plant!

I'm really disappointed by that comment SoS.

I find kacey's comments here to be amongst the most fair and often the most insightful.

peter, I don't read what kacey writes. I find her to be much like you, a republi-con plant! When did she show up here? Right after eRiposte's venomous threads.

The mind is a terrible thing to waste, you know. Spoken like someone who doesn't understand the Democratic Party, nor our history (you might want to pick up a book and learn more about the Party you're supposedly representing). I guarantee I know more about our party and am more heavily invested in the Party than you will ever be. Candidates come and go. You should understand that by now.

This prettymuch sums up my impression of the 'bitter' kerfluffle. The last paragraph is spot on.

I guarantee I know more about our party and am more heavily invested in the Party than you will ever be.

My thanks to Romano snark.

Jeez kacey, why don't you come off as condescending, per se, sound snobbish or sort of superior, perhaps?

SoS,

You're the one who dismissed her comments without even reading them.

You're the one who dismissed her comments without even reading them.

I went back and read her comment. She comes off as a bit of a 'concern troll'.

She quotes Kristol, who smeared Obama and put him in the same vein as Marx? Now Loserman has picked up on it...

Signing my initials? Easy on the wine dude!

Oops, forgot... ;)

I wish I had a glass!

She quotes Kristol, who smeared Obama and put him in the same vein as Marx? Now Loserman has picked up on it...

Well, that was her point. Obama needs to be more careful about not giving them the opportunities. That was one of Romano's points too. And I agree eith both.

Well, that was her point. Obama needs to be more careful about not giving them the opportunities. That was one of Romano's points too. And I agree eith both.

I don't give a shit about the neo-cons, they are dust!

But she's an expert on the Democratic Party?
Let's be honest and say DLC... like I said, 'concern troll'.

So I guess it gets back to our old argument about the "Dino Dems" (Clinton faithful to be more precise). Who are soon to be dust as well... from my outlook it's people who are "heavily invested" that are fighting the natural progression of the Democratic Party. Stay the same (Clinton), new and improved (Obama). *bright shiney smile*

Pass the bottle dude! ;)

I guess I'll repeat anthony's words: can someone tell me how exactly what he said is not true?

Bill Clinton said much the same in 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?'"

Hey man, have good night, I'm off to watch B-Ball.

CA Pol Junkie,

You are right about the caucus states. I have posted an update to my post. I was really referring to the larger state primaries.

I really appreciate your posts. They're spot on. The angrier ones are best!

FWIW Clinton went to public school and one Ivy League, Obama went to the most pretigious prep school in Hawaii and two Ivy Leagues. His father went to Harvard. The Clintons' parents weren't from the Ivy League.

I really appreciate your posts. They're spot on. The angry ones are most spot on!

FWIW Clinton went to public school and one Ivy League, Obama went to the most pretigious prep school in Hawaii and two Ivy Leagues. His father went to Harvard. The Clintons' parents weren't from the Ivy League.

kacey is one of the more intelligent posters around..that is why some don't like to read her

So I guess it gets back to our old argument about the "Dino Dems" (Clinton faithful to be more precise). Who are soon to be dust as well... from my outlook it's people who are "heavily invested" that are fighting the natural progression of the Democratic Party. Stay the same (Clinton), new and improved (Obama). *bright shiney smile*

And you followed up that comment by asking how what Obama said is any different than what Clinton (whom you apparently are hoping is soon to be dust?)said in 1991! So how exactly is anyone impeding the natural progression of the Democratic Party if Obama is saying the same things Clinton was saying 17 years ago?

Oh, right. We have 'hope' that Obama is gonna do better.

Dennis - you crack me up:

"they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti immigrant sentiment or anti trade sentiment

maybe somebody can help me out here..i've been reading through the bible..trying to find what book thats in..anyone know?"

_______________

yup - it's in rev. wright's version of the bible. you see, anyone who doesn't see obama's visionary light is a racist, xenophobic redneck. sound familiar?

So how exactly is anyone impeding the natural progression of the Democratic Party if Obama is saying the same things Clinton was saying 17 years ago?

Clinton made promises to small town PA he couldn't completely deliver on.

And you want another Clinton to have another chance to solve those problems.

Time to pass the torch to the next group of Democrats and give them a chance to help.

I know it's Obama's schtick that the Clinton admin and the Bush admins were basically synonymous but we all know that that's not really true.

What aspect of Obama's record gives you "hope" that he will have more success at reversing the ills that plague the American blue collar class than Clinton did?

I know it's Obama's schtick that the Clinton admin and the Bush admins were basically synonymous but we all know that that's not really true.

I think Obama's campaign is trying to use the synonymous schtick because of the continuation of the bu$h/clinton dynasties. And you have to admit, Clinton did not fight against big corp.

What aspect of Obama's record gives you "hope" that he will have more success at reversing the ills that plague the American blue collar class than Clinton did?

Mainly because he's not as entrenched in lobby money. His decision making will not be owed to big corp. Whether he's successfull is another story.

Like Clinton (if she gets the nod), he'll have a Democratic congress with which to work.

Hillary also grew up in a blue collar, working class to middle class suburb. She lived her first three years in Chicago then they moved west to bedroom suburb Park Ridge. It's more upscale now but not in the 50s and 60s when she grew up there.

He's a hypocrite and no different than anyone else. His biggest contributor so far is Goldman Sachs ($523,478). Eight of his twenty top contributors are securities and investment firms. Two are major proponents of privatizing Social Security.

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.asp?id=N00009638

He said he doesn't take money from oil companies and lobbyists. I found the following on Rosanne's blog:

From the Center for Responsive Politics he accepted $160,000.00 from major oil companies, Exxon, Shell, Chevron, BP and others. Two of his top bundlers George Kaiser and Robert Cavnar are CEO's for major oil companies. Last month, Obama accepted another $8400.00 from ExxonMobile, $12,370.00 from Chevron and $6500.00 from British Petroleum.

These are the funds and contributors for 2008 Finance/Insurance $15,087,469.00, $7,035,249 Communications, $6,715,680.00 Securities, $5,069,186.00 $10,261,541.00

I don't give a shit about the neo-cons, they are dust!

That's the attitude Democrats had in 1988, 2000, 2004. Now can you name all the Democratic presidents for those years?

Now can you name all the Democratic presidents for those years?

In the year 2000 Clinton was the Democratic President.