A ‘bitter turn’ — Clinton goes nuclear, Obama goes on the defensive

When it comes to the political world, I get the sense “bitter-gate” — yep, the story apparently now gets a “gate” — went from zero to 60 in just a couple of seconds.

Obama is pushing back hard…

…while Clinton is sounding an awful lot like a Republican candidate.

It’s unfortunate, but in some ways, this flap reinforces why a prolonged Democratic primary process is bad for the party. We now have two dominant forces — the Republican machine and the Clinton machine — simultaneously arguing, vehemently and loudly, that the likely Democratic nominee is an elitist, out-of-touch liberal who doesn’t like working families and embraces un-American values. It’s absurd, but that’s exactly the message dominating the political landscape right now.

As Noam Scheiber put it, “Strange how the Clinton approach to strengthening the Democratic Party is remarkably similar to the GOP’s approach to strengthening the Democratic Party.”

Now, it’s probably not quite that simple. Clinton smells blood in the water, and figures this is arguably her last real chance to bury the frontrunner.

But therein lies the biggest problem: Obama’s remarks were clumsy, but the forced outrage is excessive and disproportionate.

Joe Trippi put it this way:”The fight in Pennsylvania is over working people. It should not surprise anyone that Obama is speaking to their frustrations, or that Clinton is branding Obama an elitist. Obama crossed the line to touch the two issues — guns and religion — that most politicians try hard to avoid, but that is part of his appeal and he quickly moved to explain his words. It’s unlikely to stop his march to the nomination. It is more likely that the Clinton campaign did itself more damage by crossing the line and insinuating once again that Obama was somehow un-American.”

Apparently, that won’t, however, stop the attack ads (from the rival Democrat, that is).

Clinton and McCain pounced simultaneously, with identical messages, in large part because this is all they’ve got. Jeremiah Wright simply wasn’t enough. Obama gave them an opportunity with a couple of awkward sentences, but at the same time, he also captured some real, genuine disaffection that exists in plenty of communities nationwide.

If Obama had been reading from a prepared text, or sticking to carefully-crafted talking points, he certainly wouldn’t have phrased this point the same way. But he was making an observation about why voters have been willing to give up on voting on economic issues, and here’s the kicker: I think he was probably right.

If I were advising the Obama campaign, I’d actually embrace the controversial quote. Of course folks in small towns are clinging to their guns; they’ve been led to believe the state is coming to take away their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course they cling to their faith; given the economic turmoil in their communities, they have to cling to institutions that give them strength and hope. Of course they’re bitter; while millionaires and wealthy corporations have been well represented in corridors of power for as long as they can remember, they’ve been working harder, making less, and feeling like they’ve been left behind.

That’s not an un-American sentiment. That’s not reflective of poor values. That’s not elitism. That’s reality.

Regardless, I get the impression that this really is the campaign. Clinton is going after Obama’s arguably accurate remarks with everything she’s got, and the Obama campaign, on the defensive, is pushing back with everything it’s got. Superdelegates are watching, the media has nothing else to talk about, and how this flap shakes out in the next few days will tell us an awful lot about what to expect from the next few months.

“Clinton and McCain pounced simultaneously, with identical messages, in large part because this is all they’ve got.”

And in large part because Clinton and McCain represent the same governing philosophy, and would deliver more of the same if either were elected.

Those who want politicians who sanitize every word they say to avoid the risk of offending anyone (and avoid the risk of saying anything of substance) will continue to prefer the Bush/Clinton/McCain Party. Those of us who prefer a leader who is willing to actually say something (and actually change things if elected) will continue to support Obama.

  • Yawn….

    Wake me up when the First Fornicator weighs in with his pearls of wisdom…
    I can’t wait to hear Billy-swine has to say…
    That guy is so slick… he could turn a sow’s ear into a purse.

  • The last month has convinced me that the charge that used to make me roll my eyes– that the Clintons were Clintonites first and Democrats second– is true.

  • “If I were advising the Obama campaign, I’d actually embrace the controversial quote. ”

    Where ya been Steve? That’s exactgly what they are doing. He’s said almost exactly what you just suggested, twice (at least) already. See this here (the response is at the bottom):

    http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/hillary_hits_obamas_small_town.php#more

    “Jeremiah Wright simply wasn’t enough.”

    If Wright wasn’t enough, what makes anyone think this will be? An unfortunately worded statement of obvious truth, on a weekend? Sure Hillary’s jumping at it, as you say it’s her last chance. But it ain’t gonna be near enough.

    “…and the Obama campaign, on the defensive, is pushing back with everything it’s got.”

    I dunno, it looks to me like he’s taken the opportunity to go on the *offensive.*

    Incidentally see here for a cute summary of the “cycle of outrage.”

    http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/well-here-we-go-again.php

  • I think its actually Obama stronger, people are seeing that he is stating the truth, that he is in touch with the people, those who bash him for this comment, probably weren’t going to vote for him anyways

  • Leads one to wonder if the Clinton and McCain camps orchestrated their responses to support each other.

    If the Republican/Clinton campaigning style can only pronounce and accuse, we can at least be glad that Obama’s having a conversation with America. I am glad that some news media outlets are reporting the conversation, but those that don’t publish the sound-bites instead.

  • I voted for Bill Clinton the first time and against Dole the second time. I’ve been sitting on the fence leaning away from Hillary but willing to vote for her if she won the nomination. Now because of the campaign she is running I find myself actively disliking her-a lot! I’ll vote against McCain, but I hope like hell Hillary is not the nominee. There isn’t an ounce of integrity between Bill and Hillary.

  • OBAMA CAN DO NO WRONG ACCORDING TO OBAMA SUPPORTERS. HE GOOFED, HE FINALLY SAID SOMETHING THAT HE REALLY BELIEVES. HE AND HIS WIFE ARE BITTER, ALTHOUGH I DON’T KNOW WHY. THEY HAVE THE AMERICAN DREAM.

  • SO Obama and his supporters can attack Clinton on anything and they are just speaking truth.
    But if Clinton or anyone else points out the problems with Obama’s statement – A statement he himself admits can be seen as dismissive of religious people and gun rights advocates- well they are destroying the democratic party.
    it seems to me that it is the Obama people who are the masters of false outrage. Any criticism of Obama no matter how justified is met with hyperventilating attacks of how dare you question him?
    If you don’t accept his after the fact explanations than you are relentlessly criticized as some McClinton – i.e. someone who can be igored by the Obama bubble keepers..

    the sheer unexamined hypocrisy here is amazing.

    the point is that his comments were bad. He can explain them after the fact when he is being criticized and people are free to accept or reject that explanation.
    but the person at fault is Obama for making the statement in the first place. Not those people who have honests problems with the misstatement.

    the selfrightouness of the Obama supporters who think that sonehow Obama was entitled to the free ride the media gave him for so long and are outraged that anyone dare question him does a lot more harm than Obama’s original statements.

    In a democracy people are free to criticize Obama not just Clinton and McCain.
    we all understand that none of you have respect for god or guns but can’t you even concieve that some people do. and its an insult to imply that such beliefs are just a byproduct of being bitter. Yes people are angry at economic issues and Bush’s policies but that was not the part of his comments that people were finding insulting.
    He can recast his comments but let’s not pretend the original ones weren’t rightly questioned. also let’s not pretend that the attempted recasting of these comments aren’t a direct result of the criticism.

  • Everyone offended by Clinton’s use of Obama’s gaffe – and that’s exactly what it was – repeat after me:

    “politics ain’t beanbag”
    “politics ain’t beanbag”
    “politics ain’t beanbag”

    And it’s way too late to complain about “overreaction,” considering how every so-called Clinton misstep (driver’s licenses for immigrants, anyone?) is endlessly replayed and greeted with howls of outrage and derision.

  • Why the yelling Vincie? Is that the only way you can add substance to your argument? He did not say he and his wife were bitter. Why don’t you go see if Michelle Malkin has anything new posted?

  • Yes. Let’s get offended because a politician actually said something that happens to be true.

  • Everything Obama said was true. Most people who have lost their jobs and can’t pay their bills are angry and bitter. Of course, in the Clintons’ case, they just don’t BOTHER to pay their bills; paying Mark Penn is more important. That’s about the only thing they have in common with normal working folk.

  • I agree, Obama’s telling the truth. I also feel that with her attack Clinton has revealed her essentially Republican mindset. The ‘elitist’ framing has been used by Republicans for decades, and the fact that Clinton reinforces it, instead of rejecting it, tells one everything you need to know about where her heart truly resides. I’m with Jim at #3: I used to disbelieve harsh critics of the Clinton’s who painted them as amoral and devoid of principle, but their current campaign has made a believer out of me. The welfare of the Democratic party, aside from providing a vehicle for attaining power, is obviously of no interest to them.

  • I could have happily supported Hillary if she won the nomination. Notice the tense. If she pulls it out, I will hold my nose and vote for her. If her campaign comes calling for cash, I will let them know what I think of her in terms inappropriate for this website. Case closed.

  • I’m glad that Obama is sticking to his proverbial guns. Everything he said is true. What he said is the genesis of the Reagan Democrat phenomenon; the rest of the country may just be waking up to the fact that we have fundamental issues, but the MidWest started feeling the pinch a long, long time ago.

    And the Democratic Party hasn’t gotten it, not at all. They’ve retreated into the corners of the nation where they feel safe…and they lose more than they win because of that retreat.

    Here is a Dem candidate who actually supports second amendment rights and is a devout Christian who realizes that you can’t keep God out of the public square…even if you’d like to. Yet he’s the one being branded elitist? He’s the one who’s actually campaigned in red states…not just written them off as provinces of Dumbfuckistan.

    Of course McCain will attack Obama for those remarks, and Obama’s hands wouldn’t be tied responding to McCain. But if Obama did a speech where he talked about the Clintons’ $100 million, or how they’ve been waited on hand and foot since they entered the governor’s mansion in Little Rock…he’d be chastised. If he pointed out who the real elitists are…the ones who blithely sent away what was left of those good jobs to make friends amongst the corporate titans…he’d be chastised.

    She makes my stomach turn so much that i’m eternally thankful that i can say that i’ve never been a registered Democrat. I want nothing in common with her.

  • will you people learn that it is NOT true that people ‘clling to religion and guns’ because of bitterness.
    that is false and that is the problem with the statement.
    stop pretending otherwise.
    And you can Believe the theory of Lwhats the matte with Kansas’ that white working class people are easily manipulated dupes of the GOP but your belief doesn’t make it a fact. Some democrats see that book as an oversimplified stereotype of more complex issues.
    in short not everyone thinks like you and people who disagree with you have valid points.
    And you are not helping Obama by just proclaiming that his admiited gaffe is true so stop complaining. That argument just proves that you don’t get the insult. That argument negates Obama’s claim that it was an unintentional gaffe since it reinforces the idea that the deomocratic party has problems with honest beliefs in guns and religion since we aren’t allowed to be insulted without being labaled a GOP operative.

  • Wrong Joepa, when people are in trouble they cling to whatever is left in their life that is solid, that they can still contolr, that includes religion and issues like gun ownership.

  • This is all moot.

    Clinton still can’t get to 2025 without a huge revolution by the super delegates. In the words of Barbie “math is hard”.

    Clinton won’t be the nominee. She’s now just a surrogate for the McCain campaign.

  • #8 vincie: TYPING WITH YOUR CAPS LOCK KEY ON SIMPLY AMPLIFIES YOUR STUPIDITY

    the silver lining here is that this should once and for all put to rest the idea the clinton will be obama’s running mate, thank god. and not unlike the rev. wright controversy, which many pundits agree has actually became a positive for obama, especially in the days following his race speech, when working class people hear what obama is saying straight-up it will resonate with them.

    that man has courage, and people of all walks of life are starting to get it.

  • Hillary’s saying her grandfather worked from the age of 11 in a lace factory, long hours a day, six days a week, until he was 65. She implies he LOVED it, that it’s good to be slave labor like that?

    Well, that was before there were child labor laws, that was during the Depression, and the government didn’t give tax breaks to the wealthy, or pull their jobs out from under them to send them overseas.

    I admire hard work as much as the next person and have never had it easy myself, but what she described was a terribly limited and grueling life.

    In praising such a life, which may have indeed been praiseworthy, she certainly didn’t describe any moments of despair or weariness, did she? It was an admonition to be proud to be a slave-laborer.

    Which is EXACTLY what Obama was pointing to as shameful in America, the government’s refusal to even help, and in fact, the government’s helping corporations to lay these kinds of conditions on Americans.

    I am deeply offended by her “elitist” championing of the kind of life that must be lived by Americans who can barely make ends meet, past and present, from her position of privilege, power, and wealth. It’s sickening.

  • I find that when people make statements such as Obama’s they truely believe what they say. Only because of the flak hes taking now is he rearranging his words. He said what he said bottom line. Look at exit polls he only gets 30% of those voters he so wrongly calls bitter. After this flap he may be lucky to get 10% of them in PA. He will lose PA by more than 20% probally 69% Hillary 30% Obama.
    Considering the AA only amount to less than 15% in PA .

  • This is all moot.
    Clinton won’t be the nominee. She’s now just a surrogate for the McCain campaign.

    Yep. It is a tempest in a Tuzla tea cup:
    http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/186006.php

    Double yawn at the double fake.

    She played the Wright card the first time Bosnia BS broke…
    Now we have to suffer her faux outrage over nothing to cover Bill’s Bosnia slip…

    Triple yawn.

    But do wake me up when the moral leader of the Dem Party chimes in.
    What comes out of Bill’s piehole is always of interest.
    He is a pithy and profound… in a belly laugh sort of way.

    Better yet… wake me when the Clintons’s go plantinum as America’s clowns of choice…

    Quadruple yawn.

  • Maybe Obama can start referring to Clinton and McCain as “my Republican opponents”.

    Better yet, maybe suggest the get a room.

  • Hey Carpetbagger, your guy fucked up. Deal with it. Clinton didn’t screw up here, Obama did. A hundred Obamabots chiming in that he spoke the truth doesn’t change anything. The guy doesn’t have a clue when it comes to blue collar small town Pennsylvannia voters. He’s not Jesus to them. He’s not Jesus to a lot of people. Sorry to burst your bubble.

  • Axt113
    Wrong. smart succesful and happy people support religion and guns in good times and bad and have for centuries. It is not just pablum that the trouble cling to when they are unhappy and your attempts to explain Obama’s gaffe misses the point. Yes religion can provide support in good times and bad but people don’t cling to it out of bitterness.
    Your refusal to see that implying otherwise is insulting and just shows that you don’t understand nor do you care to try.
    and you can think this mistake and the Wright fiasco only make Obama stronger. but these are the reasons why his numbers amongst independents have been falling versus McCain. It might not hurt him for the dem nom since he prob. can lose pa. and still prevail there.
    But is an issue that should be addressed not ignored as it will hurt the dems chances in November as will ObamaLs failure to appeal to the very people you dismiss as clnging to relligion and guns. Those votes count too you know. And those people can also vote dem. and have in pa. but may not be willing to do so come Nov.

    yes ecomomics have caused a lot of frustration but the continued desire to bring separate issues like god and guns into these ecomomic issues is perpetuating false stereotypes that people find offensive.

  • How many close friends who rank among the poor or middle class can any of these candidates count? How many politicians in Washington are not among the elite ranks of class or social status? How many politicians in Washington have not used their political ties and position to advance their economic status? It does not take much effort to review the Clintons’ history in Arkansas to see how badly they wanted to escape their humble roots and rise to positions of stature and celebrity. It is just the height of hypocrisy for Hillary to charge Obama with elitism. Can Hillary explain away the bitterness some of us feel about the use of political power among elites including the Clintons themselves to favor those within their spheres of influence, i.e. crony capitalism. And the bitterness that many of us feel about her abuse of power in voting for the Iraq war to bolster her own image of power?

  • Joepa, sorry but you’re wrong, rich successful people don’t go to church as often when things are great, you’ve heard the old saying there are no atheists in the foxhole, well its true, people are more religious when they are in hard times, they focus on more family and religious based issues when they don’t feel that they can effect economic ones.

    Sorry I do understand, i’m living in the middle of such an area right now.

    You are being insulting by trying to tell people that everything is fine and dandy when things aren’t, Hillary is guilty of telling people that they are optomistic, yeah right, then why is consumer confidence at a 26 year low and likely to go lower, yeah you’re so confident your numbers are going down.

  • Obama should absolutely not go on the defensive. He was totally correct on this issue, and apologizing only makes him look week and susceptible.

  • OBAMA CAN DO NO WRONG ACCORDING TO OBAMA SUPPORTERS. HE GOOFED, HE FINALLY SAID SOMETHING THAT HE REALLY BELIEVES. HE AND HIS WIFE ARE BITTER, ALTHOUGH I DON’T KNOW WHY. THEY HAVE THE AMERICAN DREAM.

    Good to see Brick Tamland is here. “LOUD NOISES!!!!”

  • it seems to me that it is the Obama people who are the masters of false outrage.

    Absolutely, because they were the ones who seized on a private statement about voters having good reason to be bitter about politics these days and said the comment meant the speaker was elitist and out of touch.

  • So Obamaites aren’t using Republican attack talking points against Clinton?

    No.

    Thanks for the easy one.

  • Joe in PA.

    Man, you stopped making sense about 29 posts ago. Go drink your Rolling Rock and kindly stifle yourself. God and guns goes good with beer I hear. But you probably already knew this…

    😛

  • Aristides (6):Leads one to wonder if the Clinton and McCain camps orchestrated their responses to support each other.

    I’ve been wondering this myself. Obama’s original comment was made last Sunday. Yet both McCain and Hillary waited until Friday to notice it? What a coincidence.

    And Hillary says that these people are not bitter, but rather proud as they reconstruct their lives. Maybe she needs to take a closer look at the right direction/wrong direction polls.

  • I have to disagree with the idea that Obama’s on “the defensive” here. That implies crouching in fear and getting wailed on. He’s landing counter-punches that are hitting stronger than the original.

    McCain calls him “out of touch” for the statement, Obama counters by using it to point out McCain whiffed in three straight tries in dealing with the housing issue.

    Clinton calls him an elitist, and he points out that she took tons of cash from the credit card companies to support an atrocious bankruptcy bill that’s screwing over lots of people.

    The only way that’s “defensive” is in the sense of “the best defense is a good offense.”

  • Axi133
    I never said things are fine and dandy. I said don’t insult those who have valid religious beliefs by pretending that those beliefs are a result of bitterness.

    Yes some atheists when times are tough all of a sudden realize what’s missing in their lives but a lot of people believe all the time.
    It doesn’t sound like you are one of them but that doesn’t mean you are right.
    but let’s get rid of the strawman again nobody disagrees that tough economic times cause frustration and that is why people are quite correctly against bad trade policies but that has nothing to do with religion and guns.
    Implicit in your argument is exactly the problem with Obama statements.- the thought that working clas s people are making irrational choices out of bitterness and frustration. But the only reason these choices are ‘irrational’ is because they ar enot yours. Working class people can understand the issues as well as you and are just as rational in their choices as everyone else is (and just as bitter). To act like they are some unique species instead of individuals like you is the problem.
    And Obama is just as much a rich sop of bundlers as any other politician. To pretend he isn’t is just buying into his brand -it doesn’t make it true.

  • Sorry Joepa, no one said they are making wrong choices, everyone who understands is saying that these choices are borne out of frustrations, you are the one making vlaue judgements, i’m just pointing out the fact that people don’t care as much about those issues, right or wrong, when they are well emplouyed and have a lot of money in the bank.

    Methinks you are taking your own bias against these people and trying to project them on to us and Obama.

  • Clinton and McCain both blew it, McCain even more than Clinton.

    McCain was there when Mike Huckabee first started talking about how alienated voters, especially evangelical voters, are from the government, and he saw how people stuffed the ballot boxes in the south and the midwest for the Huckster even when they knew he had no chance of winning. People are bitter, for a lot of reasons, and looking for a candidate who “gets it”.

    How many of those votes will go to Obama is up in the air, but a lot of them had a low opinion of McCain already. This weekend isn’t going to make Joe Six Pack like him any better.

    One of the little details bloggers and pundits often seem to miss is that an off-the-cuff remark makes a far different impression than a prepared speech. You can apologize for botching a line and most people will let it slide, but it’s far harder to explain away a comment that was prepared and scripted, and then repeated on numerous occasions.

    Obama may have chosen a wrong word or two, but the general thrust of his message is spot on. Clinton and McCain prepared responses to it that are both foolish and counterproductive. They will damage themselves more in the long run because they’re reading from a script and repeating their mistakes over and over.

    Incidentally, this tempest reminds me of McCain’s “gaffe” from early in January, when he admitted that a lot of the jobs that have been lost in Michigan aren’t coming back. Mitt Romney, if I remember correctly, guaranteed that he would work to bring them back without offering any specifics.

    McCain took flack at the time for his honesty, but remind me again who the nominee is?

  • missmud
    Thanks for proving the point that there is a wing of the democratic part that are not tolerant of god or guns. Obama’s comments make me wonder if he is one of them. If I went by the words of his supporters like you I would have no doubt.
    I’m really not sure how you think he can win in Nov. though without the votes of people like me.. We are the reason why Pa. has gone democratic lately but if you keep on making it clear you don’t respect us then don’t be surprised if our votes might go to the ones who do.
    Its amazing that when Obama has problems appealing to a group you guys don’t try to engage and persuade but attack and dismiss.
    If the people here had acknowledged the insult but said it was unintentional I would be more willing to accept Obama’s backtracking.
    But the arrogance and prejudicial thinking here have reinforced my first instinct that Obama like many of you look down on those democratswho believe in god and guns as poor deluded rubes. Bill Clinton and sen.Casey got our votes because they didn’t express that attitude But hey why learn from success.

  • I agree with Joepa37 in his last post. Working class people are not making irrational choices. The God/guns thing is not just in bad times; however, they will tend to become more pronounced in bad times.

    I can’t get into Obama’s head, so i don’t know if he mangled a statement that gets to the root of the matter…or if he was really being the “typical’ liberal elitist. And that typicality has hurt the Democratic Party greatly over the last 27 years. Just like it is not ok for a Republican to be pro-choice, it’s pretty damned hard for a Democrat to understand/support guns. Since the Dems became corporate, Republican lite…what reason is there for the blue collar to vote for them? The Dems aren’t going to protect the voters’ economic interests, AND they look down their noses at some of the things that those voters hold dear.

    Working class people can understand the issues. I know full well that there is as much reason, common sense, and wisdom in the farm fields and on the factory floors of America as there are in its ivory towers of academia. (I’ve been to both places and prefer the former.) The problem is what information working class people get. You’re not going to understand these issues from reading small-town newspapers or watching TV news. And politicians won’t be honest with them.

    Obama’s remarks would have been much less a gaffe if he made them talking to working class Midwesterners rather than the “typical” liberal elitists. Moreover, the shit that makes blue collar Midwesterners angry and bitter are not scape goats…they’re causative reasons. We are blaming trade policies and the like, because that stuff is very much to blame. But we should be blaming politicians…on both sides of the aisle.

  • This is all just so-ooo sweet! Obama makes a factual comment about how the status quo in American politics has screwed Mr. and Mrs. America out of the American Dream. The John and Hillary Show takes the bait, and outs themselves both in the same teacup. This results in two symbiotic outcomes, being:

    1.) Hillary is the same as McSame; and

    2.) McSame is the same as Hillary.

    Let the mutual destruction of the status quo begin….

  • I am so, so tired of the politics of manufactured outrage. I really hope Obama calls Clinton and McCain on the ridiculousness of their reactions. They don’t care about the words or the ideas behind them, they’re just hoping they can spin some tough but honest talk into a campaign weapon. I can’t say I agree with Obama on everything, but his straightforwardness and willingness to say unpopular but true things is a both a welcome breath of fresh air and an illustration of how insincere and fake both Clinton and McCain are.

  • I grew up in white small-town Kansas, and return every year to see my remaining family. Throughout my adult life my home town has withered, lost population and its retail infrastructure and any prospect of high-wage jobs, and reliably voted Republican– until 2006, when they helped send a Democrat to Congress. Until then my town’s political culture was dominated by the same bitter, hateful right-wing pseudo-populism you can hear on Rush Limbaugh five days a week. Yes, many are bitter, or angry or whatever synonym you might wish to use. That part of Obama’s statement is true about my home town, and I think also for many other similar communities throughout the Midwest.

    Do the ‘conservative’ working-class whites of my home town “cling” to religion and guns, among other ideas, as a rationale to justify their Republican votes? Of course they do. Spend an hour or two at the barbershop or the Western Diner, ask about any ‘Democrat politician’ and aside from fairly frequent racist bigotry (if they think they can trust you), you’ll hear about guns and something supposedly Bible-based, be it homosexuals or ‘an eye for an eye’ or the evil of evolution. If you ask about why there are no new industries and most of the stores in town have gone out of business over the past thirty years, they’ll likely say something about the jobs being sent overseas and all the Dollar Store products are made in China and all the brown immigrants from Mexico drive down wages. If you ask about any political parties or officials, you’ll most often hear that the politicians are all corrupt and don’t care about anyone other than their wealthy contributors and associates, and nothing can be done, because both parties are equally bad.

    I think the political life of my home town is what Senator Obama was describing, and I think his portrayal was pretty much spot on for many of its residents. In the face of the longstanding right-wing Republican populist philosophy described by Thomas Frank, have millions of my fellow Americans rationalized their fatalism and passivity and prejudice by ‘clinging’ to nonsensical, manufactured political narratives about the necessity of unlimited guns for happiness in life, or electing a supposedly Christian political party that will ‘safeguard’ marriage and other virtues? Have their decisions to support Republicans helped to redistribute income upwards and reinforce the economic decline of their own communities? Of course they have– the evidence is all around.

    Senator Obama did not demand that Americans stop owning guns or attending church. He did propose that many people have adopted a political viewpoint which in the end may work against their own economic interests, and helps to make them resistant to accepting his candidacy. Is he insulting people when he says they are being diverted from the most important questions, and mistaken in not considering his ideas? I don’t think so.

    On the other hand, I’ve heard and read Senator Clinton and her supporters, for a variety of reasons, ridicule me and my support for Senator Obama for months. They pretty much all boil down to the idea that I’m not very intelligent, or not thinking things through, or have been fooled by the Obama phenomenon. But I don’t take it as a personal insult, or consider her disqualified as a presidential candidate because we disagree, and I think they should give me the same courtesy.

  • The delusion continues. The Obama can do no wrong and Hillary can do no right.
    Next time we should put up the statement without attribution and I’m sure then you would be willing to see the points I was trying to make.

    There is a reason you know why Obamas negatives have been increasing. Putting your head in the sand and not letting Obama make amends for his mistakes is not a winning strategy.

  • I continue to be amazed that anybody from Ohio, Indiana, Michigan and Pennsylvania would even consider voting for person who, until the Ohio primary, was a long-time supporter of NAFTA regardless of the lack of strong labor/environmental standards, hired Mark “Columbia Free Trade” Penn to run her campaign and continues to keep him on the payroll.

    On the other hand, Obama is long-time critic of NAFTA and similar free trade agreements, but they might vote against him because why?

    What the …?

  • As if anybody would care, I lay out my own take on this here. — Bernard HP Gilroy @ 30

    Nice piece.

  • Joe in Pa–

    A couple of questions: What do you mean by a “belief” in guns, as you have mentioned a couple of times? Do guns have some special meaning in your life, or why would they be an important political issue?

    I took shooting courses and did a lot of bird shooting when I was growing up, but have never felt doing (or not doing) those things made me a greater or lesser person. Plenty of people I grew up with had rifles and shotguns, usually in a rack in the pickup or a case in the house, and my father and many friends were hunters. There aren’t as many hunters now in my hometown as there were when I was a kid, it’s dying out a bit, I suspect, at least as a working-class pastime. Out in the country there are many more signs up listing this farm or that as off-limits for hunters, again compared to when I was a kid, and in the next county over there’s a large, nationally prominent hunting lodge, all suggesting to me that hunting’s become more ‘professionalized’ and less ‘blue collar’ than half a century ago.

  • Obama knows poor people, and he expresses that knowledge clearly and courageously.

    Clinton III and Bush III are spoiled from too many years of “experience” — i.e., having people lobbyists, other politicians and billionaires kiss their asses. They are incapable of sincere expression. Everything they say is scripted, focus-group tested, rehearsed and a little shrill because of its insincerity.

    I am no longer willing to promise to back Hillary just because she says she’s a Democrat. To quote E.E. Cummings, “there is some s. I will not eat.”

  • Re CJ @47,

    Those Midwestern voter don’t have access/or the willingness to find information like that out. Once upon a time, the union would have informed them…but the unions are pretty much gone. At first glance, it looks like things were rosy during the 90’s; that’s all some people need to know.

    But i promise…if Clinton wins the nomination, the Reps will be telling a very different tale of the 90’s throughout the Midwest. We’ll here how Republicans in Congress weren’t going for NAFTA, but Bill made it happen.

    Realistically, the problems of the Midwest predate NAFTA…it was just the coup de grace.

    And OhioDem, well said.

  • So Barack Obama talks about how the Clinton years ruined the economy, tells pro-choice Dems that we “don’t acknowledge the gut-wrenching issues” involved in abortion rights like those wonderful anti-choice people, compliments gays when they don’t “proselytize,” Harry&Louise’s universal health insurance, says that “Social Security is in crisis,” but Hillary is the one who sounds like a Republican?

    And she’s supposed to rescue him when he blows it with core Democratic voters exactly why? She’s not his mom; she’s his opponent in a tough primary. Apparently this “new kind of politics” simply means that no one, ever, under any circumstances, is allowed to criticize Barack Obama no matter what he says or does. Sounds kind of like another politician we’ve been watching for a few years.

  • Eleanora,

    seeing all sides of an issue is not a republican thing, ignoring the issues and stating that you know what is right even when the facts say otherwise is republican, that is what Hillary does

  • http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/04/bitter-and-angry-in-rural-penn.php

    excerpt

    Posted by astral66:

    Maybe there aren’t Bubbas driving around in pickup trucks with the classic bumpersticker “God, Guns and Guts Made America Free” where Obama’s detractors live, but here in rural Pennsylvania that line may as well replace “e pluribus unum” as the motto on the national currency.

    I live in western Pennsylvania, and I can tell you, people here are bitter and angry. Poverty is prevalent. People hunt squirrels and eat them, along with racoon stew. People also hunt deer here, not for sport, but so they can put meat in their freezer so they can feed their families. They cut wood in the forests and heat their homes with wood stoves because they can’t afford to pay the gas bill. I know a guy who goes to old landfills to dig up old milk and beer bottles to sell on eBay. He uses the proceeds to buy clothes for his family at the Salvation Army (and to pay for his dial-up connection).

    Racism and prejudice are ever-present here. A friend of mine is part-owner of bar in a small rural town south of where I live. I meet up with him there occasionally and watch as down-and-out people come in with their disability and welfare check money and drink it away. It’s a pretty depressing place, but it does serve as the social center for a town that has seen its few industries shut down and the local people’s jobs eliminated or shipped off elsewhere.

  • Obama has a way of saying things that many people would prefer to ignore. It’s not the kind of talk we’re used to hearing from politicians, and it may not be politically wise. but it’s desperately needed.

  • Wow, Eleanora, you’re really angry!

    I think you’re missing two points, though. First, Obama is the Democratic nominee. This isn’t a close race where Hillary can fight hard and pull it out. The only way she can win is by engaging in what her husband once called “the politics of personal destruction.” And that’s just what she’s doing.

    I also think that, in your haste to dislike Obama, you’ve misunderstood or distorted some of his positions. He never blamed the Clinton years for “ruining” the econmoy. He has said that NAFTA, in particular, was a mistake. But you know what, Hillary has said the same thing and claims she opposed it at the time. Surely you don’t think she is saying that the Clinton years ruined the economy?

    Comparing Obama to Bush is also an incredibly stretch. Bush surrounds himself by yes-men and never admits mistakes. In contrast, Obama has admitted plenty of mistakes and seems to value discourse over dogma.

  • Hey, JoePA37: thanks for demonstrating the truth about Pennsylvania being “Philadelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between.” How you like it there in Alabama, y’all????

    I love how this campaign is demonstrating that “Clinton supporter” is a synonym for “moron.”

    As to Hillary, she has now even managed to convince SWMBO – who is a loyal Democrat’s loyal Democrat – that if she’s the candidate, the two votes cast here from Le Chateau du Chat will be for A Little Yellow Dog, since we are the kind of Democrats who vote for A Little Yellow Dog before we vote for a non-Democrat.

    Once a Goldwater Girl, always a Goldwater Girl.

    For those who recall my arguments back in February about Obama having penetrated Clinton’s “OODA loop,” you might remember that the last stage of an organization whose OODA loops has descended into chaos is “a complete loss of moral authority.”

    Here it is.

  • Obama will turn this unDemocratic latest nastiness of of the Clintons to his advantage by simply (and elegantly) telling the truth. That’s something no one’s seen in politics for a long time. It may not be what the party hacks (Clintonistas) want to hear, but it’s what the American public has longed for ever since Carter, really all the way back to RFK and JFK. It’s what turned most of us on to John Edwards, too.

  • Dear Dear Frantic Joe,

    Pay close attention: I really don’t give a flying fuck if you have an arsenal blessed by Jehovah himself. Always been my experience that those who fight so damned hard to defend their guns are the same ones who usually end up needing them. But things must be tough up there in Scranton so stay armed to the teeth for all I care.

    You may however wish to consider the wicked irony of having that dashboard jesus staring directly at your gun rack.

    And yeah I’m atheist in and out of the foxhole. So fucking what? I had years of indoctrination. Just didn’t take. Funny thing is, I never need to defend my beliefs the way freaks like you do. I believe what I believe and don’t care what you think nor do I ever EVER try to persuade others to go my way. The irrational delusions you bible beaters cling to are so far fetched that it’s only by warring with those who believe differently that you can give your own life credibility.

    But whatever. Frankly it’s fun as fuck to get you guys stirred up. If we stay up late enough maybe you’ll start speaking in tongues too.

  • Reverend Wright … Typical white men … now “guns and religion” … I guess Bill Kristol was right Monday in the NYTimes it looks more and more that the lefty harvy image is going to stick very easy. Hilary was right when she told Richardson that Obama is unelectable

  • Ohiodem
    I f you knew much about pa. politics you would know that guns rights are a big issue here. And its not so much a rep. or dem divide as a Philly v. rural area. I can see both sides of the issue but its people like Tom Cleaver who insult as ‘hicks’ those who disagree with them that makes sure that reasonable discussion can’t take place.
    Hunting is a tradition and for some people a necessity in pa. Indeed the hunters have been at the forefront of a lot of the economic conservation issues but instead of being treated with respect we are attacked as hicks.
    I understand the Philly has a crime problem but there are many ways to deal with it as opposed to restricting peoples rights.

  • I read a lot of sports blogs, especially football, and I always find the political threads that turn up on them interesting because they seem to reflect the views of a lot of independent to conservative voters, with liberals in the decided minority; and they’re pretty low information voters at that. It was interesting to read the Rev. Wright story through their eyes; people were split about 50/50 on that.

    And there were lots and lots of threads about Wright.

    And about ‘Bittergate’? I still haven’t seen a single thread yet. Not one.

  • missmud
    Your pathetic attacks don’t bother me at all. It is you who is full of hate not me. I don’t need to attack others for fun and you must lead a truly small life if you do. So rant away. I won’t bother to respond though since I wouldn’t want to ruin your fun. Of course such rants only hurt your candidate by reinforcing the liberal elitism meme but that appears to be your game. I have afeeling you are the GOP operative here only to foment divisiveness through ridiculous over the top statements.

  • Am I the only one who has noticed that there are no intelligent or rational Clinton supporters here anymore? They’re all trolls and morons. I know that there are still intelligent ones out there somewhere. I meet them every day. But it seems like none of them go on the internet anymore.

  • @Shade Tail,

    On the internet perfectly rational, intelligent people become trolls and morons

  • I’m suprised Hillary didn’t show up in black face today and suggest that Obama was an uppity n**ger and should be lynched. But then again she practically did.

    She is beyond vulgar.

    She continues to be toxic beyond comprehension—destructive to the broader interest of the Dems and the country.

    She is risking another Republican administration, and thus the completion of the Theocratic takeover of the Judiciary and the elimination of our civil rights (reproductive, privacy, sexual orientation, expression, etc.)

    WISE UP. Super delegates need to get her to stop now.

  • Dear Hillary,

    Thank you for dividing the Democratic Party so badly it put me in office. You put your personal reputation on the line for me. Yet, now that you are hated by most Americans, I must retract my promise to put you in my Cabinet. Thanks anyways.

    Hugs and Kisses,

    John McCain

  • Labeling all of the Clinton supporters as trolls and morons, and then complaining that there are no intelligent Clinton supporters seems pretty circular to me (logic-wise).

    There have consistently been Clinton supporters here, despite the extreme garbage they have to put up with, but I doubt any Obama supporter is going to consider anything we might say “intelligent” when we do not agree with you. I get sick of being called names and having my ideas ridiculed, but I just tell myself I am doing posting to express my opinions and exercise free speech because I think it is wrong to bully and drive out opposing views, anywhere. I believe the replies are largely motivated by political tactics not by the truth value or worth of what anyone says here, so the “intelligence” of anyone’s comment cannot be judged by the reactions to it. Shouting down the comments of Clinton supporters doesn’t mean you have changed anyone’s mind here or that you are right, or even that your candidate will win. This is a tiny corner of the blogosphere far removed from real life. Nothing that anyone says here about Obama or Clinton is likely to affect much of anything, so I find myself wondering why you guys work so hard to shout down the people who disagree with you.

    This blog (e.g., Steve) clearly has no pretense toward objectivity any more when het portrays Clinton’s criticisms of Obama as Republican and makes it appear that Obama is somehow being persecuted when all of his opponents try to make capital off of what is clearly a gaffe — of his own making, not Clinton’s. Obama was an idiot to say what he did. You are all equally idiots to insist that what he said was true and that he should defend it. I continue to wonder how you think insulting and alienating those who disagree with you, or an important demographic in Indiana and PA for that matter, is going to win votes for Obama. He might even lose some ground in Oregon with this.

    #50 — e.e. cummings never capitalized his name. He is every adolescent’s favorite poet, but most intelligent people outgrow him pretty quickly. Adding a poet’s name to the portion you quoted doesn’t make it deep. It had some shock value in the 50’s but now it is only crude.

  • If the above posts by the Obama supporters especially the gratitous attacks are considered balanced and intelligent – I’m glad that you guys consider me deluded. The hate and defensiveness are really sad.

  • I hope the party elders are watching this and seeing that Clinton is out of control. tonight on CNN John King told Rendell that she is going so loud and so fast that no one can hear or are able to think about this. In other words, as always, Clinton lacks finesse and is going so far overboard in her attacks that she will lose anything she hopes to gain.
    The problem with the Clintons is that they always go overboard and over reach and this is her doing so times ten.
    However, while trying to pander she again told one of her stories. She now says she was taken hunting as a girl by her father and taught to use a gun and hunt.
    Yeah, right.

  • #69 Mary: “This blog (e.g., Steve) clearly has no pretense toward objectivity any more when het portrays Clinton’s criticisms of Obama as Republican”

    When Hillary calls Obama an “elitist”, one of the Republican’s favorite words to hurl at Dems, then, yes, her criticism IS REPUBLICAN. How dare she.

    Maybe it’s time for Obama to get a little more critical of Clinton; he’s been way too nice. How about this:
    http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/http://bravenewfilms.org/82093/ (Her stint on the anti-union WalMart board). Wow, that outta help her get some votes in PA and IN.

  • joepa37:

    Thanks for the reply.

    So, what defines a “big” issue for you, or the people you allude to? What makes the answer to a political question about gun rights more important than the availability of new jobs, or the occupation of Iraq, or the war in Afghanistan, or the ongoing drop in home prices and bust in the housing bubble, or the federal budget deficit, the cost of education, the rise in gasoline prices, etc.? If gun rights are more important to you than the aforesaid issues, then why? To repeat my previous question, you seem to refer to yourself as a hunter, do you have a personal stake in gun ownership, or some relation to firearms that makes this one of the most important issues for you? What state-wide elections in Pennsylvania have been decided by voters for whom gun rights was the most important issues? The contests for governor? Santorum’s races? Spector’s elections? Are there current polls which show that gun rights will be the decisive issue in the presidential vote in November? I guess I just don’t know enough about Pennsylvania politics.

    Also, what aspect of Senator Obama’s past votes on gun rights, or proposed initiatives on gun rights, do you disagree with? If you can ‘see both sides’ then why would his policies carry such weight? Similarly, I certainly don’t recall anything any quotes, when did Senator Obama call you or others “hicks”?

    You wrote that “Hunting is a tradition…”, but many things are traditions at one point or another, and they may change over time, without becoming important political issues. Do you think that there’s a distinction between hunting as an issue, vs. ‘guns’ as an issue? Some people think that. I’m familiar with Ducks Unlimited having a role in advocating for watershed conservation, but when have leaders from that organization been referred to as “hicks” by Senator Obama or anyone else in this campaign?

    Also, I think it would be most fair, if you feel upset about insults and people referring to you or others as “hicks” then please don’t lead your comments with gratuitous “If you knew much about…” phrases.

  • Hannah, I agree that Obama should be harder on Hillary but, the problem is that whenever anyone says one little thing about her, her supporters whine and cry sexism.
    That is why none of the contenders went after her in the debates. Because they know she loves to play the victim and her supporters think all criticism is sexist and whine.
    As a woman I find it embarrassing and cannot imagine any other female leader, like Pelosi or in other countries stooping to such things or encouraging supporters to act that way.
    They know it’s the kiss of death when it comes to being taken seriously. but, for Clinton, she is not above doing anything.

  • Son, I’ve been a Democrat since Missy Lady Bird came through my little town on the back of the train, and long before your mama stopped changing your nasty nappies. Though I was born of lowly circumstances, I never relished the idea of being a hick. Like many Republicans I know, you slap that redneck sticker on your head and defend it as if it’s some enviable way to be when in fact it simply validates your choice to remain ignorant. I’ve been around people defending stupidity all my life and though it’s not worth a spit in a bucket for me to waste my time pretending to give a fuck, it’s always big fun for me watching you guys get all riled up. I call it sport.

  • If Clinton’s tough on him what do you thing the GOP will do to him between now and November?
    If he’d used the word embrace instead of cling, all would be well. His choice of words implied these small town folks were using religion (guns, immigration etc) as a crutch.
    I know what he meant, and it wasn’t evil… but turn-about is fair play. When are the pro-Obama sites going to apologize for parroting anti-Clinton right wing talking points? When I they going to say ‘she said it awkwardly but we know what she meant’?
    Many vocal Obama followers have been parsing every word Hillary utters with such jaundiced eyes that I have been driven away from their blogs in disgust.
    This is what karma feels like.

  • joepa37:

    I’m sorry you are upset about “hate and defensiveness.” I’m an Obama supporter and wrote some of the “above posts.” What have I written here that you consider hateful?

  • vwcat: If Obama sticks to real issues, not fake stuff (ie crying) that are sexist, then it’s game on. Let her supporters whine and cry. Too bad. They will be seen as whiners.

    The WalMart thing matters. Big time.

  • Nell, do you live in a small town in the midwest? I live in a town in the middle of America. I see what has happened because of Nafta and free trade. I have seen family members out of jobs that have moved to Mexico and china. My husband will be out of a job come summer.
    Free trade began with the Clintons.
    And they have embraced it fully until the primaries. Suddenly Hillary is the woman of the people. right.
    People around here have said what Obama has for a long time. Believe me, he expresses what we feel and no amount of pandering by Hillary will erase that.

  • Mary (#69)–

    So you think Senator Obama and I are both, in your words, “idiots,” OK I suppose we are all entitled to your insults as the price for having you in this forum…. still– maybe you wrote it somewhere else– WHY do you think we are wrong? Do you think we are lying, or just mistaken? Above I wrote extensively about my personal experience, perhaps you could tell me why my assessment is incorrect? What makes you think that anyone who might be offended by Senator Obama saying “cling” would have been a likely supporter of him in any case? On the other hand, do you, like Senator Clinton, think that Senator Obama is “an elitist”? What is you definition of an elitist and what are your criteria for deciding if someone is an elitist? Is it possible that you have not previously thought out what that term means in detail, and who in particular fits into your definition. Consider that you instead have a kind of confirmation bias, where you begin with a negative inclination and then collect statements, opinions, etc. to support your pre-judgment?

  • Ohiodem
    too many questions to answer here. In short gun rights is one issue I care about amongst many others. The issue wasn’t whether the guns rights advocates are right or wrong – there are a broad spectrum of beliefs on that issue with a lot of nuances. The point was that the implication that people believe in guns rights only out of bitterness over economic frustration or because they are being manipulated by the GOP is condescending and insulting. I characterize it that way because the remark clearly implies one can’t intelligently analyze the issue and come out on the side for guns rights. But the truth is that people not only can but have just like others can analyze the issue and come out on the other side. People have different perspectives beliefs and priorities.
    And I have a problem with those who just assume like Tom Cleaver that their position is right without accepting that others can disagree without being morons and without understanding the nuances of the issues..
    Obama’ s original statement seemed to express similar beliefs in the guise of explaining why those poor pennsylvanians should be excused their delusions over guns and religion because they are just bitter over economic distress.
    The implication is that no right thinking non bitter person would have those beliefs.
    So the questions you asked about the history of gun right issues in pa while meaningful for another discussion are really a tangent not worth going into here though I’m sure you can find plenty on the issue on the net if you really care.

  • vscat
    I’m sorry for your plight.
    I’m a software engineer and have seen these well paying jobs exported to India and China, or held by H1 visa holders here in the states. Free trade began with Bush I. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush. Hillary opposed NAFTA.

    I am afraid that Obama’s promises cannot be kept. Hillary is more pragmatic. Don’t believe everything you hear and read about her. The bias and hatred is daunting… but she really might be the president you need.

  • Nell (#76)–

    I disagree with you. I think that Senator Clinton’s complaints about Senator Obama are quite similar, if not identical, to the attacks mounted by the Republicans. She got an earlier start, back in February when he took the lead in delegates and the popular vote, but overall I’d say that since McCain clinched the Republican delegate count they have been mostly the same. Former President Bill Clinton’s attacks have also been quite similar. They have all attacked him for having any relationship with Pastor Wright, there was the complaint that Senator Obama was not qualified to be Commander in Chief, the attack for insufficient patriotism or Americanism or goodness or whatever they meant, and now this attack for being a supposed elitist.

    I’ve noted this theme many, many times on anti-Obama sites such as TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, etc…. this notion that somehow they are all being nice but the Republicans will be much meaner, and so he must be very weak, ergo should not be the nominee. But as the primary campaign has gone on, it’s seemed to me that the Clintons have just as much facility as impugning Senator Obama’s character, motives, abilities, etc. as the Republicans. Maybe I’m wrong, perhaps Nell you can point out instances where the Republicans have been notably unfair but Senator Clinton has supported her fellow Democrat? Maybe it was that TV interview where they kept asking her if Senator Obama was a Muslim, and she just smiled and said as far as she knew he was OK. I was really impressed with that.

  • If working class people love Obama and he just loves them, why are so few voting for him (percentage-wise)? You all want to attribute that to ignorance — they supposedly just don’t understand that Obama is on their side (that’s the elitist part). I disagree. They see clearly that Obama doesn’t support their interests and that Clinton does. The stereotypes of working class folks as bitter, poor, gun-toting super-religious bigots is just plain ugly and doesn’t deserve comment. You might as well get it over with by calling them “red-necks”. Obama seems to think in such terms and he has no excuse for it. Arguing that such a stereotype is true is not worthy of Democrats, in my opinion. Yes, there are bitter people out there. Yes, some engage in hunting (have you ever seen how many deer there are in PA?). Yes, some complain in Limbaugh hate-radio terms, but most do not. Since when can and should a whole group be characterized so simplistically? That’s the harm of stereotyping, wrong when applied to any group. Arguing that you once worked in a steel mill so you have the right to talk about people that way, purely stinks.

    Personally, I think that people who have less economically and who are traditionally the target of scams grow to recognize and distrust fast-talking con-artists. I think Obama’s rhetoric will have less appeal for such folks, just like it has less appeal for older voters who have been around and heard it all before and thus are less impressed with big talkers.

    My own political views put me in Kucinich’s camp, but I couldn’t bring myself to vote for a man with a trophy wife. So, you are only partially right about the feminist contribution to my beliefs. I was more in sympathy with Edwards positions than Clinton’s but, like Obama, Clinton represents the chance for a historical breakthrough for an underrepresented group which I belong to, and that is important to me. I consider Clinton more intelligent and more hardworking than Obama, more egalitarian, more experienced, and I believe she would be more electable and do a much better job, partly because her personality is tenacious while Obama’s is equivocating and people-pleasing. Obama gives good speeches but he will be a crappy president, doing too little, too slowly, when we have serious looming problems that need strong, decisive action and the ability to barter favors and wheel and deal politically. Obama just isn’t the right guy for a crisis, in my opinion. When I hear people saying that they are endorsing Obama because their kids and grandkids love him, it makes me want to tear my hair out. That’s no better than voting for a guy because he would be fun to have a beer with. We have a global climate problem, a financial crisis, a war that needs to be ended, world confidence to regain, worldwide food shortages and conflicts over oil and water, and problems of globalization in 3rd world countries. Of course, people want their hope restored, but meaningful action is much more important than slapping a band-aid on our emotions.

    About Wal-Mart — for those who don’t know, Walton started WalMart in Arkansas and the Clintons were helpful to him because it would provide jobs in an area with high unemployment, especially for less educated and less skilled workers. Bill Clinton encouraged Walton with his “made in America” marketing theme. Hillary was on the board during that time period. Later, Walton was no longer in charge and the approach shifted from selling goods made in America to maximizing profit by selling those produced in 3rd world sweatshops and the focus was on building huge stores in areas where they would drive out local businesses, and ugly employee practices were adopted. Clinton initially used her position on the board to oppose those policies and then resigned. Those who hate Clinton obscure the fact that WalMart changed and that Clinton never condoned the practices WalMart engages in today, the ones most people are justly outraged about. So, blaming her for WalMart is majorly unfair and ignorant (disingenous too, as I can’t believe all Obama supporters don’t know this stuff).

    You can call this description revisionist or self-serving by Clinton except that it is well-described in Bill Clinton’s autobiography, written before Clinton was elected Senator. Now, you can parrot the talking point that the Clintons always planned to run Hillary for president right after Bill, that it was her deal in exchange for not divorcing him, but that would just make you sound like a Republican, since that comes right off conservative webpages — for those of you who want to know when and how Obamabots have echoed Republican talking points.

  • OhioDem, Clinton unequivocally stated several times that Obama was not Muslim, before finally adding the qualification that Obama supporters blame her for. That came after four or five repeated statements that he was not Muslim. You can claim that she meant to imply that he was a Muslim (or leave wriggle room), but the clip doesn’t support your version of things.

    It is normal and natural for someone asked the same question over and over to start using slightly different wording to give the same answer. It takes a great deal of suspicion to believe that the fifth answer was the one she meant to give — what if the interviewer had not kept asking the same question so repeatedly?

    Of course, perhaps you also believe that Clinton’s campaign sent the photo of Obama in Somali dress to Drudge. People keep claiming that Drudge’s statement that Clinton’s campaign sent it to him is proof. However, Drudge should know exactly who on the campaign did it and he never did reveal the name. Clinton’s campaign investigated (instead of issuing an immediate denial, as a guilty person might do) and found that no one had sent it. You can check that sort of thing by asking around but also by checking email accounts of campaign staff. So, it isn’t as if there weren’t objective evidence in this situation. Yet, Obama’s supporters keep spreading the entirely unsubstantiated rumor that Clinton’s staff tried to portray Obama as Muslim. The most damning evidence that this is untrue is the FACT that the same picture was floating around on conservative websites for days before it emerged on Drudge, attributed to Clinton’s campaign. Persisting in believing an untruth that is such obvious ratf**king, becomes nothing more than an anti-Clinton smear. There is so much of this kind of thing in this websites comments section, that there is little point in refuting it any more.

  • In case you haven’t noticed its Obama who repeatedly praised Reagan while attacking the demos of the 1990s . who adopted the republican talking points on social security and against mandates. Funny how those republican talking points don’t bother Obama supporters though they are a lot more damaging to the democratic agenda.

  • When I hear people saying that they are endorsing Obama because their kids and grandkids love him, it makes me want to tear my hair out. That’s no better than voting for a guy because he would be fun to have a beer with. We have a global climate problem, a financial crisis, a war that needs to be ended, world confidence to regain, worldwide food shortages and conflicts over oil and water, and problems of globalization in 3rd world countries. Of course, people want their hope restored, but meaningful action is much more important than slapping a band-aid on our emotions.

    Yes, we have huge, life-or-death problems that will be enormously exacerbated with another Republican president. And you have said: “I don’t care if McCain gets elected; we’ve stood eight years of Bush and we can stand that, too.” That’s how much you give a good goddamn about anybody but yourself. You have no fucking credibility, my dear.

  • Joepa37:

    I disagree. Whether one’s ideas about gun rights are right or wrong, or whether these questions are as important as other issues in deciding to vote, is at the heart of the discussion on this thread. My opinion is that gun rights should be sensibly limited and that many other issues are much more important for the welfare of this country.

    Since you refuse to reveal your own beliefs about gun rights, such as their relative importance and limits, I think your posts end up mostly as complaints that Senator Obama and his supporters have insulted you by being condescending about how you form your opinions. We apologize.

    You apparently have some great reasons for being a gun rights advocate, but you won’t tell us what they are, and (effectively) you won’t admit the possibility of any criticism for holding whatever views you hold. You have ruled out that your views have been affected by anything the Republicans have said or done

    You have provided no evidence that these issues are highly determinative in how people vote.

  • Gee, it would seem that guns and religion go hand in hand with a lot of people. Including our current president. He commands a lot of guns and he is a born again Christian. These 2 things together have helped to put this country partly in the mess it is in both domestically and internationally.

    No, not ALL people turn to guns and religion. But then again a lot of people do. It is a reaction by some to a feeling of being powerless. It is a way to achieve what they feel they are lacking. I also don’t believe that the point he was making is that these things are wrong nor was he belittling them for doing so. It is a normal and very human reaction. I think he was ultimately trying to say “I understand – I get it”.

    But then to have the reaction to that, IMHO, that he got is a little over the top considering that it came from both McCain and Clinton: the pots are calling the kettle black.

    Clinton is more and more Republican by the minute. She and McCain will be on the same ticket. Laugh – but stranger things have and could happen!

  • e.e. cummings never capitalized his name. He is every adolescent’s favorite poet, but most intelligent people outgrow him pretty quickly. – Mary #69

    If that comment wasn’t elitist, I don’t know what is! Why dah-ling, you simply must be soooo sophisticated that you’ve probably “outgrown” a-a-all American modern poetry! (Last sentence must be articulated out loud with a clenched jaw for ultimate pretentious effect! I am sure that Mary can demonstrate this very well for us!)

    Of course, hypocrisy has never stopped Hillary and her Clintonista followers such as Mary from leveling criticism at Obama. After all, it’s all about “do as I say, not as I do.” But don’t stop now! After all, we’ve gone through eight years of hypocrisy from the Bush administration; what’s four more years of hypocrisy from a Clinton administration?!

    I guess this is Hillary’s idea of demonstrating bipartisanship and unity. If Republicans can do it, so can Democrats! Why bother taking a higher moral road? All that matters is winning at any cost!

    For those who think that they will be able to vote for Hillary in November even if it means holding their nose, you have a stronger set of fingers and a weaker sense of smell than I do! I’m not saying I’ll vote for McCain, but….

  • OhioDem
    Anybody who finds fault with TalkLeft has a problem with me. The site welcomes any opinion as long as it is civil. Talk Left is not anti anything! The fact that you fail to understand that speaks volumes. Most folks there are pro HRC, but we welcome debate… and we won’t eviscerate you for your opinions. The reason we’re there and not here or at TMP or DailyKos is because of the civility.

    The blogosphere has screwed up big time with this campaign.

  • Times like these I remember why I moved away from Western PA. For all the many wonderful traits of the folks living there, the stubborn, self-righteous pride many take in not developing past 10th grade was just too stifling.

  • Mary:

    You are the perfect example of the Boomer Bimbo. I’d include you in Hillary’s circle of the Entitled Boomer Bimbos, but I am certain the “Heathers for Hillary” all laugh at you behind your back.

  • Nell–

    I think your characterization of TalkLeft as somehow not ‘anti-Obama’ is mistaken. The TalkLeft threads are full of personal invective against Senator Obama, replete with name-calling and insults to him and his supporters.

    If TalkLeft was objective, then they would have the same standards for criticism and support of Clinton as they do Obama. Instead Jeralyn & BTD et al consistently fault Obama, and then when Clinton does something similar they simply ignore it, or provide some usually lame rationalization. Shall we revisit the idiotic issue of whether Senator Obama was ethical in referring to himself as a Professor? Your team beat that dead horse to a pulp, even after UC sent out a press release to correct matters you guys couldn’t stop carping about it. Was that when you ‘welcomed debate’ and and shone the light of civility? Or is proclaiming that you “have a problem” with someone’s opinion your idea of civility?

  • I am glad McCain and Hillary pounced on Obama. Obama needs to be pounced on for acting so “elite”.
    I love to post about how wonderful Hillary is. The bloggers swarm at me like angry bees. Buzzzzzzzz! Thanks for all the attention!.

  • Yes, everything Obama said was true. Democrats are bitter. And that’s just how limosine liberals like their lattes: bitter. Oh, except for Barry. He likes orange juice!

    Homobama wins and so do the terrorists. Think about it.

    He should change his name to snobama. What a fancy pants elitist! Why does B. Hussein Obama hate rural America?

  • I agree with Maria. Maria Schriver and Caroline Schlossberg heard about Obama from their kids. I love my kids dearly, but I think I have had a litle more experience than kids. Especially Maria and Caroline have been raised in politics. It would seem they could guide their children rather than the reverse! Geez!

  • Here’s a solution for everyone.
    McCain can take on Hillary as his vice president.
    They’d make a compatible pair. They have a talent for
    both dividing the country & the Democrats.
    When Sen. Obama wins the nomination you will see
    a campaign like no other. I trust a person who has the
    audacity to tell the truth.

  • What I find disturbing here is the utter lack of decorum on either side. Personally I find it refreshing when a politician speaks the truth. I grew up in a farming town in Illinois, so I have seen what it is he talks about.

    It isn’t a hyperbole to say people are “bitter” and have been for some time. Nor is it a stretch to posit that individuals haven’t been voting in their “interests” due to that. A rudimentary understanding of social sciences illustrates what people can and will do to rationalize an issue, especially when they lack control of the situation. Their economic prospects are dire? Issues like gay marriage, and gun rights become increasingly volatile, because those are things that can be controlled. It’s all about trying to maintain some semblance of control in a world , that to their eyes, is spinning out of any such control. The idea that you can’t say that in the public square, is testament to how far we have fallen over the last 8 years.

    Mary said:

    I disagree on this issue. I have found, and I have seen some research to suggest as such, that older voters just have a harder time voting for a younger candidate. The common refrains are always used, “They need more experience” and variations thereof. In most peoples minds experience is synonymous with older which in turn is synonymous with wisdom. Now intelligent people in both camps can see that for what it is. Experience isn’t everything, not all older people are wise, nor by association are all younger people un-experienced or un-wise. That isn’t to say that some don’t fit the bill on either side. But by and large people reject any intimation that they are part of any aggregate, even though they completely act out those very predicted traits.

    I am not sure how one could make this statement with a straight face, honestly. Are we to argue that Clinton and Obama are as equally well known? I am sure that Obama is more well known then he was at this point last year, but honestly I doubt most of the sorts of voters you are reffering too even know what Clinton’s policies are. That isn’t a dig against them, just a statement of fact, most people don’t post on political message boards and just aren’t that in tune to a candidates record and or policy stance, other then the broadest of strokes. I am positive that voters in Ohio or Texas, or even Wisconsin didn’t know a whole lot about Obama before he became a presidental nominee I doubt the same argument could be made for Mrs. Clinton. These aren’t non-issues when talking about voting preference. Before someone can decide whether they like your message they have to hear it first…..

  • Apologies to Mary, I was defeated by the blockquote tags. Some how it ate your quote and only printed my response! I fought the web and the web won…..

    I was referring to these to passages you wrote:

    Mary said:

    I think Obama’s rhetoric will have less appeal for such folks, just like it has less appeal for older voters who have been around and heard it all before and thus are less impressed with big talkers.

    and

    If working class people love Obama and he just loves them, why are so few voting for him (percentage-wise)? You all want to attribute that to ignorance — they supposedly just don’t understand that Obama is on their side (that’s the elitist part). I disagree. They see clearly that Obama doesn’t support their interests and that Clinton does.

    Again apologies for my noobery.

  • Fed up and ready for change!

    Small-town America, industrial America, urban America, southern America, northern America, coastal America… from sea to shining sea – we are the ones we’ve been waiting for and this government will hear our voices this time.

    Yes We Can!

  • Gee, it would seem that guns and religion go hand in hand with a lot of people. Including our current president. He commands a lot of guns and he is a born again Christian.

    Well he proclaims himself a born again christian. In truth there is much difference between calling your self a christian and actually being one.

  • This is going to bury Obama, he has no chance of winning the nomination now even if he somehow manages to edge Clinton out with pledged delegates. She will certainly win the popular vote now.

  • Mary
    You go girl! I can’t believe you are still putting up with the several trolls that lurk here.

    Her active imagination and rich fantasy life probably help her persevere.

    Imagining she lived in 1930s Chicago, when it was 60% black, that’s always a nice escape from reality. Sure, the Census data says it was only 8% black back then, and if Mary lived there then, she’d be pushing 100 now, but facts have a well-known anti-Hillary bias. There’s a not-so-subtle misogyny in all of history — history, hmmm? Think about it.

    Or maybe she’s saved by her fantasy life of being a professor in a world where Foreign Policy is a major and they hand out Roads Scholarships? That’s got to be a fun escape.

    Keep at it, Mary. If nothing else, you’ve been the inspiration for Insane Fake Professor, the funniest satire I’ve seen in ages.

  • Anybody who finds fault with TalkLeft has a problem with me.

    Fine by us. You’re both unhinged.

  • A rudimentary understanding of social sciences illustrates what people can and will do to rationalize an issue, especially when they lack control of the situation. Their economic prospects are dire? Issues like gay marriage, and gun rights become increasingly volatile, because those are things that can be controlled. It’s all about trying to maintain some semblance of control in a world , that to their eyes, is spinning out of any such control.

    Bing-o. We tend to think of this only as scapegoating or blaming the wrong people for one’s economic woes, and it is those things, but it’s much more fully understood as the relatively powerless seeking to assert power or control (or, in the case of religion, not just assert control/order but also find comfort and hope) where they can.

    This is not exactly a new human phenomenon, but we lose sight of that sometimes because the things and people over which the hurting and desperate look to exercise control change from era to era and place to place.

  • Ever since I was a John Edwards supporter in 2000–what, you didn’t think I meant in this election, did you? That just shows how little men understand how Hillary’s dynamic and inspiring campaign has energized women everywhere–I’ve put the rights of workers foremost in my priorities.

    All you children pasting photos of Mr. Ebony Tower all over your notebooks only care about florid speeches and dime-bag visions. You know nothing about the ravages of globalization, economic insecurity, lack of health care, stagnant wages or policies that favor corporations at the expense of average citizens, not to mention endless war and destructive foreign policy. That stinks, and my deep concern for all these issues is why I cannot vote for Mr. Glamour Shot and will instead be supporting Senator McCain if Senator Clinton does not get the nomination. I am sure McCain is not as bad as the Obama condescending scaremongers are painting him. And his trophy wife doesn’t matter to me. It’s not like she’s that much of a trophy anyway.

  • Unfortunately most American folks I am aquainted with live in a dream world. They expect the government to take care of them. They complain at the high cost of everything but refuse to look at the poverty of the rest of the world. They are to apathetic to protest or vote for change. They are bitter and angry and blame their problems on Blacks, Mexicans , Republicans, Democrats, Bush, Christians Moslems, Rag Heads, you name it they have an excuse. They have never been to a third world country unless it was to stay at a 5 star resort.

  • Hmmmmm, IFP, I like “Mr. Ebony Tower” but I liked “Hucksterberry Finn” better. And I think you meant to say 2004 for Edwards, not 2000.

    She is is going to bury Obama, he has no chance of winning the nomination now even if he somehow manages to edge Clinton out with pledged delegates. She will certainly win the popular vote now.

    I love this guy Greg. None of his posts ever seem to indicate an acquaintance with math or, um, people. But perhaps he’s from the “You’ve got to see it to be it!” school that believes that if you repeat the nonsense long enough, people accept it and make it true. Worked for Bush re WMDs/blaming al Qaeda for 9/11.

  • In re: Mary #69

    The assertion that appreciation of E.E. Cummings is for preadolescents is self-parodying, and I can only feel pity anyone who feels this way. The assertion that he wrote his own name in lower-case is wrong, and I would thank you not to spread this misinformation.

  • Here’s what it says at the Wikipedia cite you quoted:

    “Cummings’ publishers and others have sometimes echoed the unconventional orthography in his poetry by writing his name in lower case and without periods. Cummings himself used both the lowercase and capitalized versions, but according to his widow did not, as reported in the preface of one book,[1] have his name legally changed to “e. e. cummings”. He did, however, write to his French translator that he preferred the capitalized version (“may it not be tricksy”).[2] One Cummings scholar believes that on the occasions Cummings signed his name in all-lowercase, the poet may have intended it as a gesture of humility, and not as an indication that it was the preferred orthography for others to use for his name.”

    None of that suggests that the author (1) did not use lower case; or (2) preferred capitalization. Nor does it suggest that his works were published with capitalization. Orthography mattered to cummings because it was a device used in his poetry and contributed to meaning. His motives for using lower case for his name are not in question here.

    You are an adolescent, obviously.

  • I am sure McCain is not as bad as the Obama condescending scaremongers are painting him

    Has a poster ever had a more apt name than Insane Fake Professor?

    More wars, fewer jobs, baby.

  • Expressing an opinion about the merits of a poet is elitist?

    You disagree with someone’s opinion, so you tell them they never got laid and call them a “bimbo”? That’s sophisticated argument!

    Deliberately misreading people’s comments in order to parody them isn’t particularly intelligent either. The whole style of response here is adolescent. Who exactly do you think you’re impressing? Clearly each other, but in a sort of Beavis & Butthead way. “heh heh heh — you said 60%”

    Yes, let’s make this all about whose supporters are more or less elitist. That is clearly the basis for selecting a presidential candidate.

  • If Obama can turn this minor gaffe– which was converted from a molehill to a mountain by a bored MSM and McBush and Hillary– into a larger conversation about declining small towns and the shrinking middle class then he’ll be fine. It’s certainly not one of his or Hillary’s finest moments.

    This manufactured controversy is like every other manufactured controversy about Obama– it’s not changing any minds that are already made up. If you like him it’s the kind of comment that reminds you why you like him so much. If you don’t, then you see it as some kind of attack on guns or “rednecks.”

    But what about people who aren’t committed to either canddiate? We’ll see in 10 days how it goes in PA. It’s tricky to predict if the very people he’s talking about are going to see this as insulting OR if they’ll see it as a sign that he actually “gets” what is happening in declining, rural towns. Or maybe it won’t make one ounce of a difference because a lot of the people in those small towns who are “undecided” are already predisposed to vote for McCain over the black or the woman anyways.

  • Zoe, you obviously have no idea how bad this is for Obama. You think this will blow over, you are wrong. People were already wondering about Obama because of his close ties to Wright, but this is worse because the words came out of his very own mouth, and there is no trying to say this was taken out of context.

    I live in Florida, but was born in Pennsylvania, and my family tells me how this is playing out, and they pretty much all say that he is hated in PA.

    His words were demeaning, belittling, and very telling about what Obama really thinks of small town people who make up most of the electorate.

    Now, do yourself a favor and start backing Hillary now, his candidacy is over.

  • Mary,

    Spring, the academic journal of the E.E. Cummings Society, has been published since 1980. It’s current editor is Michael Webster. There is an online positing of the contents for the New Series (which began in 1992).

    There’s an online copy of a 1992 Spring article by Norman Friedman, (1992): 114-121, entitled “NOT e.e. cummings”.

    Not that I’d expect you know anything at all about academic journals, or courtesy for that matter, but I hate to let such obvious ignorance go unenlightened. Can’t have people snickering behind your back, can we?

  • Senator Clinton today threw the whole Democratic Party under the bus to save her pathetic campaign. I am from a small town in Minnesota and completely understand what Obama meant in his comments. I am bitter as hell at what is going in in our country today!!! Clinton on the other hand took it as an opportunity to call Democrats “elitist and out of touch”. After the rage subsided I realized that she is describing herself and not the Democratic Party and I no longer consider her fit to be a Democrat and hope that she joins Joe Lieberman in his little two faced party. Good riddance.

  • “Psycheout Said: Yes, everything Obama said was true. Democrats are bitter. And that’s just how limosine liberals like their lattes: bitter. Oh, except for Barry. He likes orange juice!

    Homobama wins and so do the terrorists. Think about it.

    He should change his name to snobama. What a fancy pants elitist! Why does B. Hussein Obama hate rural America?”

    Mature commentary. Straight off the Michele Malkin page.You are gathering a whole set of new catch phrases to parrot. Bitter, orange juice, fancy pants elitist. Really cuts to the core of what is wrong with this country today. Any comments on issues or can you only name-call and whine?

  • All you children pasting photos of Mr. Ebony Tower all over your notebooks…

    Christ, that’s good.

  • I have only now got around to reading comments 90-127 and have to concur with TR, @ 126; Insane Fake Professor, @ 114, you have *outdone yourself* with the “Ebony Tower”. It’s really too bad, that Hillary didn’t think of it when she accused Obama of being elitist; it would have made an excellent counterfoil to the usual accusations of “Ivory Tower” as well as throwing in a dash of “black is SCARY! Run for the hills!”. Two ducks with one round of birdshot, as it were… 🙂

    But the term has also brought to mind another association, drawn from chess. I haven’t played chess for almost as long as Hillary hasn’t shot a gun (and, even then, I was not too good at it, due to my undersized, female brain) but, doesn’t the tower, pretty much, *zoom* through the chessboard?

  • From Greg:I live in Florida, but was born in Pennsylvania, and my family tells me how this is playing out, and they pretty much all say that he is hated in PA.

    His words were demeaning, belittling, and very telling about what Obama really thinks of small town people who make up most of the electorate.

    First, all you have to offer for how Obama is playing in PA is your family? Let me guess, they’re not Obama supporters. Funny how your anecdotal evidence is all the “proof” you need to show how hated he is here– considering some polls have Hillary leading by as little as 4%. She dropped from a 16% lead to 4% lead in a month. What happened during that time? Obama traveled the state, people got to know him and get a sense of what he’s all about. But we’ll know soon enough, P-Day is only 9 days away.

    Second, what exactly did he say that was belittling? That many people in small, declining towns are bitter? (true) or is it the reference to the popularity of guns? (um, also true. Gun racks are a plenty in small towns in PA.) Or was it the reference to churches? He has since explained what he meant by that, and since we all know Obama is a pretty committed churchgoer it’s hard to believe he meant going to church was a bad thing. Well, unless you’re a strident Hillary supporter and not only support your candidate but have decided that Obama is evil.

    I’m a former Hillary supporter. I don’t think she’s evil, I think she’s smart and capable, but I just think he’ll be a better president than she. The Clintons had their time, now it’s time for a fresh perspective, someone outside the beltway mentality. Obama is smart, thoughtful, and honest and isn’t a candidate mostly because of nepotism.

  • It’s hard to believe so much passion is wasted on on trivial differences. If sex or race or even education or intelligence made a difference, Condolezza Rice would have resigned long ago. Clinton and and Obama voted on 888 issues together and only against one another 52 times and never on important issues (National journal, 2.23.08 pg. 30). They both voted for $81 and $50 billion for the Iraq war. They both buy into the arrogant belief that the U.S. can redeem itself by staying in Iraq to prevent “chaos” or “a bloodbath.” But our invasion turned Saddam’s brutal tyranny into chaos and the bloodbath that followed. They are buying into the same rationalization as McCain. Next they will agree to extort surplus protection oil money from our puppet Maliki “to pay for Iraq’s reconstruction.” But we let Bush do the the inexcusable and irreparable. We can not un-kill those we have killed and should sign a non aggression pact with Iran and then GET OUT OF IRAQ!

  • “… that the likely Democratic nominee is an elitist, out-of-touch liberal …”

    I would agree with two out of three. Obama is certainly not a liberal.

    BAC

  • Obama’s fate has been sealed; he is just unelectable. Should Obama be the nominee, ghosts of Jeremiah Wright and “Bitter Working Class” will come back to haunt Democrats until the election day, paid for by GOP.

    The only way Democrats can win this November is to nominate Hillary and make Obama her Vice President.

    Vice President Obama will have his unoppposed nomination in 2016, still very much young. Obama in 2008 would be destroyed beyond recovery in 2008, however.

  • The erosion of our constitutional rights, an illegal war, a recession if not depression, and people are offended by Obama’s use of the word “cling”!!!

  • Ah yes, the Saintly Barack Obama – ready to lead us all to greener pastures….the same pastures where Adlai Stevenson contentedly chews his cud of indignant condescension.

    The Democratic Party – looking down on their voters for 40 snooty years and still completely in denial about it.

  • Comments are closed.