Now, I agree with Big Tent Democrat, who has been arguing that Hillary Clinton should have let others carry the ball on the whole bitter/cling controversy.
But that doesn't let "Shot-and-a-beer" Clinton prove she is of the masses.
Posted by phidipides at April 16, 2008 10:32 AMAnd regarding parsing and the "bitterness" thing:
Clinton, McCain, and media pundits have parsed a blogger's audio tape of Obama's remarks and criticized a sentence or two characterizing some parts of Pennsylvania and the attitudes of some Pennsylvanians. In context and in person, Senator Obama's remarks about Pennsylvania voters left an impression diametrically opposed to that being trumpeted by his competitor's campaigns.
Posted by phidipides at April 16, 2008 10:40 AMah, yes- an off-topic slap at clinton is always a good way to represent your candidate and his supporters.
Posted by Turkana at April 16, 2008 10:40 AMThis post echoes my feelings about Clinton in every respect. Now I support HRC, but, like you Turkana, I voted for Nader in 1996 knowing full well that CA would go for BC. I would not take a chance if the election was close. Maybe that vote was a bad move because it embolden Nader and we paid the price in 2000. It's best to vote for the person we really support.
Posted by Prabhata at April 16, 2008 10:40 AMOh my!
You mean a politician actually....perish the thought...partook of some local activities!
What's next?
Baby kissing!
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 10:41 AMtwo for two, phid- refuse to accept that obama made a gaffe. something even he finally came around to admitting.
Posted by Turkana at April 16, 2008 10:42 AMSnark warning!!
Personally, I LOVE the photo HuffPo used to go with the headline. He's obviously screaming, "WAKE UP YOU F***ING INFANTILE MORONS!!!" at the crowd.
Why can't Hillary control her man??
Heh.
Posted by Redstar at April 16, 2008 10:54 AMThis is a terrific post. You captured my opinion of the Clinton presidency as well. I didn't vote for him either time and I'm proud of that but if it had been close, I would have. I'm still very angry with him and I hope one day to talk to him face to face about that. But I don't believe Obama's hype. I don't think he's ready to be president - nobody who rides the Unity Pony and talks about post-partisanship is. I'm voting for HRC on the 22nd. I'm holding out hope that she'll live up to all the talk about idolizing Eleanor Roosevelt. I like her health care plan better. I like her idea for a bond-funded WPA-style program to rebuild our infrastructure. I think she's a stronger fighter than Obama. At least she's been through the fire once.
Full disclosure: I don't think either HRC or Obama can beat McCain but I think she's marginally less unelectable. The good news is that I'm nearly always wrong so maybe we'll see a Dem in the White House in January. Here's hoping!!
Posted by eRobin at April 16, 2008 10:55 AM...refuse to accept that obama made a gaffe.
Maybe my elitism is showing...but why would I do that when even Obama didn't do that? He apologized for the phrasing, not intent, of the comment. Parsing, indeed.
Posted by phidipides at April 16, 2008 11:13 AMIf Obama becomes the nominee, he will need to counter the same "tax and spend liberal" label Republicans use every four years. Lest Obama forget, he will have to reach back to the Clinton years to summon Democratic Party credibility on economic governance to win working-class voters away from McCain.
Praising the Reagan years while criticizing the Clinton years weakens Obama's most effective counterattack against the GOP smear.
I have my issues with Bill Clinton's presidency, but pissing on the only two-term Democratic presidency since FDR is batshit crazy.
Posted by fafnir at April 16, 2008 11:17 AMWell, the "issue" is not how PA voted or did under Clinton, but how so-called "small towns in PA" voted and did. The Dem presidential candidate barely carried PA in 2000 and 2004. What party mostly represents these "small towns" in Congress?
I don't have the data (it exists), but I don't see it in the links on how PA fared under Clinton.
Seriously, I doubt that the 90s were any kind of "return" to the prosperity of say even the 70s for these small industrial towns, although they were almost certainly better off than how they fared under Reagan and under the cretinous Bush II.
This election has frankly gone completely off the rails at this point----or should I say it's going just the way they always do? Nothing ever changes, no matter how bad things get. Take about a sign that we can't reform ourselves, sheesh.
(And no I'm not blaming you for that, turkana, just because of your post---it's the "hot political news of the day", I get that)
Posted by euzoius at April 16, 2008 11:19 AMin a previous post i directed euzious to the link where a reporter, who was there, and not a mangled audio tape, had a different take of the msm.
having trouble posting the link, so here's the hard copy...
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html
Posted by anthony at April 16, 2008 11:22 AMnice parsing, phid...
if it wasn't a gaffe, why did he need to apologize at all?
and euzo-
i agree that the campaign is completely off the rails. and i agree that pa wasn't booming, but, as you indicate, it was much better off under clinton than under reagan or bush. which is exactly why the clintons have every right to be angry at the dishonest conflation.
Posted by Turkana at April 16, 2008 11:34 AMit was a gaffe of historic proportions..whether he slithers to the nomination or not..it will haunt him in the ge
Posted by dennis at April 16, 2008 11:44 AMUnfortunately I only have my lying eyes and experiences to rely on. The first election I could vote in was 1980, so for my entire working adult life I have been under Republican administrations except for the 8 years of Bill Clinton. It must be coincidence that in those 8 years I was the best off financially I have ever been. Coincidently, the Country's finances were the best they'd ever been. I don't know why so many have such short memories, but it's a no brainer for me-- The Clinton years were prosperous for me personally and for the Country in general. If my choice is Hillary, John, or Barack, I'm going with Hillary.
Posted by DoubtingThomas at April 16, 2008 11:55 AMObama said a lot about people in places like Pennsylvania and Ohio being forgotten by previous administrations or falling through the cracks.
Did he actually say what, specifically, he was going to do to "change" that?
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 12:10 PMThere are two questions here:
- Were the small towns of Pennsylvania actually better off during the Clinton years than under Bush II?
Overall, America and Pennsylvania were better off of course, but did the small towns benefit? I don't know the answer - certainly alot of rural areas have been stagnating or declining for decades but it's hard to generalize. As euzoius points out they have been voting GOP for president for quite a while, and this discussion is about whether they would vote Democratic if they thought they would benefit economically.
- Was Bill Clinton saying young people are foolish?
Well, he was saying young people would believe (mistakenly in Clinton's view) that small town Pennsylvania has been stagnating through multiple presidencies. I think this is a case of "could have phrased better", as I don't think he meant to say that young people are foolish. A more appropriate way for him to make his point would be to say that older people remember the economy of the 1990's.
Posted by CA Pol Junkie at April 16, 2008 12:25 PMfully realizing i am a hillary partisan..if one listens to exactly what obama said in san francisco..i just don't see how there is anything ambiguous about it...the words are devasting to him...if not now ..later..on...despite all the spin about what he really meant...
Posted by dennis at April 16, 2008 12:29 PMI think this is a case of "could have phrased better", as I don't think he meant to say that young people are foolish. A more appropriate way for him to make his point would be to say that older people remember the economy of the 1990's.
He didn't say young people are foolish. He didn't even say that young people are being fooled. Although I think that's a reasonable way to put it if he believes Obama is spinning a yarn. What he said was simple. Older people won't sit there and listen to it. It's clear to me that the implication was that older people would obviously, having experienced the Clinton administration as adults, remember that things were better. Whereas younger voters would be relying on the accuracy of Obama's speech.
Sorry, but the headline "Clinton thinks young voters are foolish" is clearly inappropriate to the remarks as Clinton made them and are just another example of incendiary journalism.
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 12:39 PMif one listens to exactly what obama said in san francisco..i just don't see how there is anything ambiguous about it...the words are devasting to him..
Only and unless you don't have the innate inquisitiveness necessary to look for the comments of those who were there. I won't link them again, since you aren't inquisitive enough to click it, so I'll post a little excerpt (apologies):that seems to have
"The response that followed sounded unscripted, in the moment, as if he were really trying to answer a question with intelligent conversation that explained more about what was going on in the Pennsylvania communities than what was germane to his political agenda. I had never heard him or any politician ever give such insightful, analytical responses. The statements were neither didactic nor contrived to convince. They were simply hypotheses (not unlike the kind made by de Tocqueville three centuries ago ) offered by an observer familiar with American communities. And that kind of thoughtfulness was quite unexpected in the middle of a political event. In my view, the way he answered the question was more important than the sociological accuracy or the cause and effect hypotheses contained in the answer. It was a moment of authenticity demonstrating informed intelligence, and the speaker's desire to have the audience join him in a deeper understanding of American politics."
Ole gunslinging shot-and-a-beer will have something as good soon...if you get the chance to hear it. Her poll numbers are dropping as a result of her attacks on "bitterness"...
Posted by phidipides at April 16, 2008 12:53 PMThis has been the stupidest and most distorted election campaign since 1948. The country faces multiple huge problems, some without precedent (petrol addiction, harmful even criminal financialization, global warming), some logical extension of previous errors (insane military spending and spending on weapons unable to cope with DIY insurgencies, unwillingness to raise revenue to pay for infrastructure, education (the long term investment) & healthcare). The Press has been unfair to both democratic candidates. They love McCain. They don't discuss real issues at all.
Why doesn’t the press force HRC or BHO to discuss the problems of the underfunded Mass health plan? Both are much too glib about the costs of expanding healthcare, and too vague about how they would know that it is safe to pull out of Iraq. So which do you prefer?
3rd Bush term- vote McCain
3rd Clinton term- vote HRC
otherwise vote Obama
I consider Bush, Rice & Rumsfeld dangerous war criminals and McCain a genial old dement- can't possibly vote that way
I would not buy a used car from either Clinton and I want change- no to HRC
Obama has some good qualities but I don't know his priorities. He might help bring in many new Congressional Dems. Vote Obama as the least evil
This isn't going anywhere, and those of us who have lower incomes and live in rural areas don't really need bloggers or Hillary Clinton telling us how we're supposed to interpret this shit. We're not dumb. We know what Obama was saying and we just don't see a problem with it.
We do see a problem with being told to suck it up and stay happy.
Posted by soullite at April 16, 2008 01:04 PMwell played, soullite. that's exactly how post-parsing is done! because, of course, she never told anyone to "to suck it up and stay happy."
Posted by Turkana at April 16, 2008 01:25 PMhey phid:
the bitter comment in a whole new light no? an honest unscripted answer to an honest unscripted question.
how can one be demeaning if one does not hear the tone of the speaker? a mangled charlie brown like tape can expose condemnation and elitism?
reading the reporter WHO WAS THERE, will go a long way to quash this shit. however, hilary fans will believe what they want, regardless. we can be guilty also. but to say he's trying to rise above regular politics is definitely not a reach. look at his response to a supporter in pa, calling hilary prejudice. he said, nope, just politics as usual. i just hope the party isn't in tatters come november.
a bientot
Posted by anthony at April 16, 2008 01:29 PMI love it when one person speaks for a whole group of folks as one. That must have required monumental organizational skill. I salute you!
I can't get 2 neighbors to agree on what color to paint the repoed house down the street.
Posted by TIKI AL at April 16, 2008 01:33 PMObama will chew her up and spat her out in tonights debate...she will show her true colors. And then there was one.
Posted by curious at April 16, 2008 02:01 PMphidipidies..you presume much for a seemingly smart person..i did read your link..but found that someones interpretation of obama's intent to be somewat irrelevent... and it may well be that the audience he was speaking to.. knew what the word didactic neant and knew who tocqueville was..but i would bet that many of the people he was talking about...didn't
Posted by dennis at April 16, 2008 02:12 PMObama will chew her up and spat her out in tonights debate
And he's so magical, he'll do it in the past tense!
Posted by iamcoyote at April 16, 2008 02:21 PMHere's how it works. Hillary Clinton is quoted:
Another class headline from Huff. Post.
Clinton On Working Class Whites In 1995:
"Screw 'Em"
Why any self respecting DEMOCRAT would spend considerable time at Huffpost is beyond me, really. Do we NOT REMEMBER who Arianna Huffington is? I was a kid when she was railing against Clinton and EVERYTHING the Democrats did in the 90s. She was the Ann Coulter of that time and was treated much the same way. Is it any surprise that her site spews more Clnton hatred than most Republican ones? I don't think so. It's seriously disturbing that 'progressives' are treating her as if she is one.
Posted by kacey at April 16, 2008 03:29 PMwhoever benjamin barber is.
Posted by Turkana at April 16, 2008 03:55 PMUnlike many of the Obamans, I was an adult during the Reagan and GHW Bush years. I saw little to admire. I certainly won't support a candidate who thinks they are to be emulated and the president who brought us jobs, surpluses and world respect in the nineties is to be demeaned.
Posted by Chuck at April 16, 2008 04:09 PMDefenders of Bill Clinton's benefits to the working class during his eight years ignore the core of the damage done to them, the trade bills which allowed American manufacturing to totally abandon the factories and workers here. The time lag between passage and corporate migraton was not fully felt until Bush II. Hillary's Walmart has destroyed countless small town businesses.
Before you dismiss conflations, remember that Bill Clinton passed NAFTA with almost unanimous Republican support and a minority of the Democrats in each house. NAFTA was a Bill Clinton/George H. W. Bush joint effort. If Bush II brings America a massive depression would you blame that on the next President? NAFTA, GATT et al cut the heart out of manufacturing on American soil.
Which side are you on, Turkana?
Posted by Bob In Pacifica at April 16, 2008 05:46 PMTurkana
As someone who was born and raised in western PA, and who still has many close relatives there, I can tell you categorically that Sen. Obama speaks the truth about the last TWO administrations.
Why should we accept former President Clinton as being the arbiter of truth about PA.
Posted by sally at April 16, 2008 05:49 PMAnd how is it that Barack Obama is gonna bring manufacturing back to Middle America?
Posted by snark at April 16, 2008 05:59 PM"Obama will chew her up and spat her out in tonights debate" (curious)
"And he's so magical, he'll do it in the past tense!" (good one, coyote)
No wonder Obama is doing better than expected, that cheating newbie has a time machine!
bob,
if you're saying i'm for you or against you, i guess i'm on the side of the terrorists.
Posted by Turkana at April 16, 2008 06:34 PMI saw a little more than half of the debate tonight between Obama and Clinton. Both candidates handled themselves well, were dignified, polished, and eloquent. The twisting of what their spouses say, and using what their surrogates and pastors believe as a political battering ram will mercifully come to an end soon (I hope).
The single sour note I observed came from George Stephanopolous, who asked how tough the candidates would be on Iran, as President; taking as a presumably proven fact that Iran has a nuclear weapons program. The media elites are advancing the project of destroying Iran as a regional power, and frame the question not as a hypothetical, but as gospel, without providing any supporting proof or material evidence.
Posted by Copeland at April 16, 2008 07:50 PMturkana, i'm always impressed at how civil and restrained you come across, even when you're (quite articulately) expressing something which causes me angst--and yes, bitterness--to no end.
this bush-clinton conflation of obama's is one of a long list of extreme, hurtful, and gratuitous lies out of obama's mouth that has taught me never to believe another word out of that man's mouth again. he is a f'ing disgrace to the democratic party. he ought to stop masquerading as a "democrat" and run like the covert INDEPENDENCE PARTY candidate he really is.
ross perot, michael bloomberg, colin powell, and joe lieberman--all rolled up into one nice, new, shiny trojan unity pony.
Posted by kangeroo at April 17, 2008 12:15 PM