Obama, in his recent speach, he appears to have given Hillary a new opening thing to shrill on about

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080413/ap_on_...r/obama_clinton

At issue are comments he made privately at a fundraiser in San Francisco last Sunday. He was trying to explain his troubles winning over some working-class voters, saying they have become frustrated with economic conditions:

"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

The comments, posted Friday on The Huffington Post Web site, set off a blast of criticism from Clinton, Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain and other GOP officials, and drew attention to a potential Obama weakness — the image some have that the Harvard-trained lawyer is arrogant and aloof.

He then went on to say:

There has been a small "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter," Obama said Saturday morning at a town hall-style meeting at Ball State University in Muncie, Ind. "They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through.

"So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country." (bold mine)

After acknowledging his previous remarks in California could have been better phrased, he added:

"The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to."

Hillaries response:

The people of faith I know don't 'cling' to religion because they're bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich," she said.

"I also disagree with Senator Obama's assertion that people in this country 'cling to guns' and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration," Clinton added.

"People don't need a president who looks down on them," she said. "They need a president who stands up for them."



It appears to me, that this is one time speaking the truth may have harmed Obama. So far, to this date, IMHO- he has managed to say what folks don't want to hear in such a manner that he has been able to bridge some gulfs here and there.

There is no doubt in my mind that "single issue voters" ARE a type of alienated American, that feels thier "hot button" issue is not being listened too- when, at times, it may be more of a focal point for thier anger rather than the sole source of thier anger.

So anyway- here are the questions:

1) Does hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit this "speech"?

2) Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it?

3) Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain?

1) Does hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit this "speech"? Yes.

2) Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it? Real bad, wasn't intended to be open to the public, intended for consumption of super rich elite liberal left wing folks with an agenda.

3) Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain? No. What he was really saying was that these blue collar Democrats are, for the exception of affiliation with unions what we commonly know as Republicans, bible thumping, gun toting traditional conservatives. Some of them even believe in ID and most really believe in God, Adam and Eve, snicker, snicker. They are too dumb to accept diversity and despise people that don't share their values, gay life style, progressives, integration but they are too smart to believe that the Democrats will support clean coal as they have promised to do in the past. He was telling the ultra left that these folks are ignorant and intolerance towards the destination they desire. Think Republican and you just about have it when identifying these ignorant folks, our only connection is unions.

Well, to your overall point, CR, I'd say the people who come across as the most bitter on this site are not the ones who are the most religious.

1) Does hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit this "speech"?

I really doubt that McCain will say much about this, but at this point Hillary will take whatever she can get. It will come across as saccharin, because she cannot feign to be a highly religious person so she cannot speak for them in any way that will appear genuine.

2) Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it?

I have no real problem with the way he phrased it, but it was phrased much better by CS Lewis. It is, actually, a Christian argument that faith grows stronger under trial and tribulation (not "bitterness" exactly, but as a politician I can see why he chose that verbage). It's often called a test of faith. Another related extension of this is 'hope'....also a Christian sentiment within the "big three": faith, hope, and love. I'd expect other religions to hold similar views.

3) Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain?

Pretty much, yes. Well...eliminating the word 'bitter' and changing it to something similar. And religion is not a way to 'hold on to that bitterness' as the other things he listed are. It's a way to transcend it. But whatever.

Now that is quite a mouthful, Zack. Would it be possible for you to string together any more words of invective than you have?

It seems you have told us everything that's wrong in your world in the six highlighted words.

BTW: Would you define the word "elite." From reading one of Pat Buchanan's political science fiction books, I have come to the conclusion that it is just another conservative buzz word. It cracks me up so much, that I jokingly refer to myself as an "elitist" on occasion. Tell me, are "non-elitists" expressing their inferiority complexes?


Mrs. P." please excuse me for editing your thoughts down to religion.

I think you are partially, even mostly right. Yesterday an ordained Methodist minister, who frequents the same coffee shop as I do, was garbed in jeans helping one of the coffee shop's employees move. In my mind, he represents the best in religion - helpfulness, sensitivity, intellectual capacity, gentleness ...

Yet from years of observation, I am equally sure that religion, if it doesn't make people mean, bitter, cold, narrow, etc., brings out those character traits. It has always struck me as a paradox that the same religion, church, doctrine, preaching and fellowship, produces some people who are highly positive and others who are as negative as those Obama described.

1) Does Hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama with this "speech"?

Well, the opening is there for them to reinterpret what he's said. Basically, what Clinton has done is take his specific statements and make them general. For example, he mentions the fact that some people are bitter and angry and fall back on their religion. She reinterprets that as him saying that all religious people are bitter.

2) Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it?

Yes, he said it right. He just said something that people don't want to hear.

3) Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain?

Yes. The scapegoat is a very common way of dealing with issues. And when we have no control over some aspects of our lives, we seek other ways of appearing to have control - we compensate, sometimes in healthy ways, other times in not so healthy ways.

The speech Obama gave where he stated "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." was presented to a closed group of wealthy far left people according to the mainstreem news that went on to state they were the Lear Jet class, I think I saw Senator (far left wing wacko Harry Reid) in the front row. Perhaps the open border crowd led by George Soros and his funded organization that funds Move-on and other wacko groups.

To me the elite progressives believe in open borders, promote homosexuality and gay marriage, are anti military, blame America for 9-11, support environmentalists agenda over the common rights of the common man, think religion is for uneducated class that need security blankets see nationalism or love of country as a weakness.

Let's say considering Reid the mayor of LA and San Francisco were in the crowd that the above statement fell on that is a true statement.

Sen. Evan Bayth Just told Wolf Blitzer the same thing, that the Democratic Party has shot itself in the foot too many times talking down to patriotic Americans, the elite seem to be talking down their noses when it comes to conservative values.

The point is that his statement was elite, I will bold the important parts here and please note I left out the bitter because no one is bitter. "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." The people are frustrated because of high fuel and heating costs, they are frustrated by costs of higher education and medical care, they are frustrated by increasing prices for food. They are frustrated that manufacturing is leaving America. But none of that has to do with the part in bold where he used the elite comment to smack or identify them as bible thumpers, gun toters, anti-immigration illegal immigration, lacking diversity, anti gay marriage, anti free trade. Actually, the anti free trade from the bold is probably the only thing that connects them to the Democratic Party, they could care less about the free trade if they had their strong union. The only thing these blue collar workers have in common with progressive Democrats is union support. The other frustrations may or may not be better supported by the Democratic Party.

Progressive liberal elite Democrats do not support lower oil prices, they support higher oil prices so alternative energy will replace oil. They do not support nationalism or patriotism nor rights of the average citizen to own guns. They do not promote religion but support the ACLU to battle those who have religious values. They do not support Christianity in the least but would equally support a Muslim in the White house. I'm with Sen. Evan Bayth, Obama's statement is elite.

Does Hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama with this "speech"?
Clinton has reached for her triangulation bag o' tricks and predictably coughed up a hairball reminiscent of McCain's response to the speech.

Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it?
He said it well enough for black, white, yellow, slightly tanned, pink and purple people looking to be insulted by the speech to get what they want out of it.

Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain?
Yes. If it is true PA residents and midwest residents have clung to White House promises that always fall short, and the Clinton administration promised and failed to deliver on these promises, why not say it? Clinton will take issue with it because she's partly basing her experience on her husband's administration, and McCain will take issue with it because Bush is his bestest friend in the whole world. Besides, conservatives know liberals hate America and this is more evidence attesting to the fact.

If people cling to wedge issues like gun control, abortion, "intelligent" design and being overrun by illegal immigrants in an attempt to regain some sort of control in their lives, feel empowered through association because they have all but given up with keeping their standard of living, then someone needs to say it.

What I take issue with is Obama blowing smoke up our bum hairs by omission. How is he going to change economic reality when he is entrenched in a political system that churns out [explicative] like Bush?

So, what you are saying is that these ignorant people should suck it up, sell their pickups, buy bicycles and build solar panels and wind turbines? Obama says he want to tax the oil companies, that will be good for fifty cents more on gas, demand for oil grows daily with an estimate of 40% increase in the next 15 years.

Let's see, these folks need to resign themselves from gun ownership, enlighten themselves that religion is a crutch, bow down and worship the environmental movement and alien movement. They can get all the "help" from the government they need as long as they elect a Democrat, we'll make those solar panel factories pay benefits and negotiate retirement plans and all you have to do is walk to work until we get the air or solar car rolling. We will find it necessary to allow you to share the union with our Mexican brothers and instead of exporting jobs we will just let them come across the border or fly in from any place in the world and stay as long as they vote Democrat. We will fund government by taxing the solar panel and wind turbine factory owners until they beg for mercy and dare them to think about moving overseas. Yes, we can! They took our jobs!

Zack, Republicans brought up this fifty cents per gallon figure in previous elections. How are you arriving at this figure and what is your source of "information"?

Edited to add:

Are you confusing Michigan Congressman John Dingell with Barack Obama?

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/dingel...2007-07-07.html

1) Does hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit this "speech"?

Doubtful, I just don't think this is going to go very far, except with the bitter people. More likely most of those who support the idea he will bring a new kind of politics feel the same way, that politics are dominated by a few loud vocal and angry people.
He already had this perception , as the more elitist candidate. I think that this perhaps strengthens that view but likely for those who already held that view. I don't think it is going to change much.

No, you're saying that Zack. I'm sorry a politician willing to speak to you like an adult rankles your comfort zone and perception of everything that's right with America.

You keep putting words in my mouth and Obama's, m'kay? If you come up with something really crazy I'll bother addressing the guy who believes Democrats are gonna nominate a black man for the presidency just to whack him. That's hard to do considering everything conservatives can get away with saying nowadays, but you may be up to the task.

Does [sic] hillary [sic] or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit [sic] this "speech"?

While I was loathe to respond to an opening post that was so objective as to include a phrase like "he appears to have given Hillary a new opening thing to shrill on about" in its first sentence, it looks as though enough others have been able to rise above the troll-ish tone set by CR, so I'll proceed. Plus, as a bitter small-town Pennsylvanian, born and bred, I am possibly better placed than many to address this glimpse of Obama's true colors.

Of course Obama has given his opponents an opening to "pile on" - as well they should. I doubt this is going to make the scales fall from many idolatrous eyes in relation to a mountebank like Barack Obama, but it might give some of the hundreds of thousands of Democrats for a Day a bit of pause in the upcoming primaries, making them less likely to participate in the Obama campaign's attempt to fraudulently sway the election. I certainly hope so.

Did he say it badly, or did he say it right [sic] and folks didn't want to hear it?

What he was intending to say, he said reasonably well - though he could have been a bit blunter, considering his audience. Something like "If I lose in Pennsylvania, it's because the people there are too ignorant and racist to support me" would have been more to the point. The "folks", in this case, being wealthy pols from San Francisco, I'd say they didn't mind in the least being told how much better they are than a bunch of hicks in Middle America - what righteous mistrust of the Second Amendment they have, what admirable disdain for religion, what superior racial sensitivity! What crap. The people he was slandering might have a different reaction. I sincerely hope they do. Making such remarks at all, though, whether he knew he was being recorded or not, is yet another demonstration of the candidate's much-touted judgment (though I have to admit I'm still waiting for the first shred of evidence of its existence).

Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain? [sic]

No, I do not. Let's look at what he said:
Fair enough - up to a point. Many small towns throughout America are languishing and the federal government hasn't succeeding in creating new jobs in many areas - nor have state or local governments. Presumably, Sen. Obama is suggesting that he's somehow going to wave a magic wand and create flourishing employment out of thin air: empty political rhetoric no different than that of any professional politician ever - so far, so good. Well, except, maybe, for a "candidate of change" - but no one's really buying that line of dry goods - are they? But it's the last sentence that was unnecessary in order to make what is now being spun as a point about the as yet unspecified economic miracle that he's going to single-handedly effect. And that's where Obama strays into uber-elitist territory. And his statement was elitist - though I hesitate to append the "liberal" preface, as such elitism knows no partisan bounds.

What he's saying, in effect, is that the bitterness resulting from job loss accounts for such yokels embracing gun rights, Christianity (presumably of a more fundamentalist bent), and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" - i.e., racism. The references to immigration and trade just underline the reactionary racial hatred and xenophobia of such inbred neanderthals. Granted, Obama's comments, in context, aren't quite as big a blanket generalization as they may seem. He later admits that even in "the toughest neighborhoods, you know, working-class lunch-pail folks," one can still find Obama enthusiasts - so, you know, it was pretty big of him to allow that some of us are enlightened enough to appreciate Barack Obama.

Astonishingly, though, he goes on to oppose such neighborhoods to "places where you think I'd be very strong" (where he sometimes - incredibly, it seems - encounters skepticism about his candidacy ). And what places would those be, Senator? Up-market function rooms in downtown San Francisco? But if Obama is not expecting to be accepted by "working class lunch-pail" voters, then he has no business being a Democratic candidate for dog-catcher - never mind the President of the United States. He's dismissing the Democratic Party's core constituency, simply because they don't recognize his personal greatness. And, hey, I'm just going by what Sen. Obama said - himself - to a crowd of urban supporters - when he thought the plain folk couldn't hear him.

The senator is correct in pointing out that, in central Pennsylvania, gun enthusiasts, religion, and racism are all prevalent. But he is wrong to attribute such positions, beliefs, and prejudices to the economy - and dead wrong to suggest that he and his magic DNA might be the solution.

As I mentioned I grew up in central Pennsylvania. Most of the people in my formative milieu were farmers or mill workers, with a few small retailers and the local professional or two - Doc Stever and the like. My family, owning and operating a roadside tourist attraction, was a real anomaly - like a three-legged dog.

Everyone owned guns - well before the job losses of the Reagan years - and not because they were poor or feared immigrants or people of color, but because they hunted.

And virtually everyone was religious - mostly Protestant (predominantly Methodist, Lutheran, and Presbyterian in the post-war period), though there were small Catholic communities in larger towns. Atheism, however, was unheard of. Even if one never attended church, one still identified oneself as "Christian". This also pre-dated the job losses of the eighties by, oh... two or three hundred years.

One of the unique influences on Pennsylvanian sensibilities, though, are the long Quaker and Anabaptist traditions in the state. The Quaker State was the only colony that outlawed slavery from the outset (and, indeed, had to remove some of their anti-slavery laws from the books to join the union). Pennsylvania was also extremely progressive when it came to Native American rights and has a long history of supporting trade unionism, abolition (it was central to the underground railroad, for example), and human rights in general. There's also a strong undercurrent of pacifism and libertarianism, especially regarding individual and property rights.

While there's the same streak of racism that permeates all of American society, it has been tempered here to large extent by the religious beliefs of Pennsylvanians, frequently making it one of the most egalitarian states in the union - and that's not limited to Philadelphia. I can't speak for Ohio or "the Midwest" with the presumptuous authority of an Obama, but I can attest to the fact that the "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" is no worse in central Pennsylvania than it is in New York City - or San Francisco. And I've lived in all three places.

As for his race-baiting coda, immigration is not an issue in central Pennsylvania and never has been. Probably because there are so few recent immigrants. But the people I grew up among were often second or third generation immigrants themselves, with family stories of difficult crossings and Ellis Island processing fresh in their memory. And Pennsylvanians are decidedly not "anti-trade" - unlike Senator Obama, who recently opposed a free trade agreement with Colombia, for example.

So, I'm sorry, but Obama simply got it wrong. Sure, there's resentment about corporations exporting jobs and some people have always felt vaguely threatened by the concept of affirmative action - not that anyone in central Pennsylvania would ever have encountered it much - but more because of their innate libertarianism than their poverty. The senator identified a few relatively accurate generalizations about small-town Pennsylvanians, but his armchair psychoanalysis is just incorrect. And it tells us far more about Barack Obama and his prejudices than it does about his potential constituents - with whom he is grossly out of touch.

We may know how to bowl, but that doesn't make us a trigger-happy, born-again lynch mob playing out our rage over the closure of coal mines. Assuming as much, though, does make the senator an elitist, desperate to be assimilated into ruling class with whom he can sneer at we "lunch-pail" types. He may soon achieve his ambition. Meanwhile, he should stick to arugula shopping and leave the sociology to someone who knows what the hell they're talking about.

There's certainly bitterness here in relation to the loss of jobs and the general state of the economy, but it is not reflected in our position on gun control or our religious beliefs or our racial prejudice - or even our support or lack of support for Barack Obama. Perhaps the candidate should consider the possibility that we're not "clinging" to him is because we also have a very strong work ethic. We respect someone who's willing to work hard. In that respect, Hillary wins. And it's not because we're racists.

And I have to admit that I'm pretty bitter myself. As I'm one of those small-town Pennsylvanians who has failed to become "an Obama enthusiast", I am, according to the senator, a religious maniac who wants to lynch Mexicans at gunpoint. But I'm not. My bitterness arises from the fact that two decent, capable candidates in the Democratic primary - Biden and Dodd - were eliminated early on to make way for a pair of celebrity candidates. I'm bitter because, of the remaining two, the clueless charlatan could be our next president - after eight years of a similar figurehead. I'm bitter because, this year, I was hoping for some real change. And, no matter which way the election goes, I'm not gonna get it.

Owning vs. clinging. He did say clinging. And he didn't say that this applied to all Pennsylvanians. Not even all of the smaller town Pennsylvanians... just the ones who become bitter. I think it's pretty silly - to borrow a phrase - to deny that some Pennsylvanians may be this way. Heck, some Californians are this way - they just don't make into those expensive dinners. Okay, so some people don't cling to their guns because they're bitter. Well, he wasn't referring to those people. He said the bitter people cling their guns. To reverse that removes a level of specificity and reinterprets what Obama said.

I do concede that he made exceptions for "Obama enthusiasts" in his generalizations - but for "Obama enthusiasts" only. The implication being that if one supports Sen. McCain or - dear God, no! - Sen. Clinton that one is, ipso facto, a member of a Bible-thumping posse intent on hunting down wetbacks. It's gutter politics.

I disagree that there are many - if any - people in Pennsylvania (or much of anywhere else) who support Second Amendment rights, hold their religious beliefs, or harbor their racial prejudices because they've lost a job during the course of the last 25 years. Nor do they "cling" to them for economic reasons. They may find greater solace in religion during times of crisis (as the most cosmopolitan among us might) and innate prejudice may feed some people's bitterness and resent (here, as in Chicago or Los Angeles or Boston), but there is no cause and effect.

Even if Obama could put a chicken in every pot and a car in every garage, racial prejudice, religious beliefs, and advocacy of the individual right to bear arms would not go away. The notion is simple-minded.

Actually he stated just yesterday on the campaign trail that he would remove the tax credits from big oil and invest them into environmental friendly alternative energy. Companies work on profits and if the tax is removed the cost of gas will be increased to replace the tax credit. I've watched the debate in the Senate and the House and the non-partisan government estimate the pass along will be about fifty cents. During the debate in the House one member desires to place a fifty five cent carbon tax on gas nationwide that will go toward the same end so that would make gas prices go up over a dollar together. If you go to Obama's official site and look at his plans for energy (that doesn't include any domestic oil, coal or natural gas) you will find much more gas price increases. http://www.barackobama.com/issues/energy/

We haven't even mentioned the war in the middle of the ME and how that could double the price of oil in a heartbeat if it goes wrong as he tries to meet his election promises. I haven't confused anything.

Back to the topic of debate, I watched the Compassion Forum this evening on CNN and Obama never properly addressed his accidental truth blurt. If selected as nominee he will be destroyed in the general election because of the seeds being sewn by Hillary and her supporters, McCain doesn't need to say a word because they will both make themselves unelectable as this goes along.

The word is on the street that Al Gore and former prez Carter will "force" Clinton out of the race, that's a laugh Democrats hate losers and Hillary is a winner. The party is over and upcoming days will show nationwide polls of how the folks hear Obama's words. My bet is they hear an accidental statement of truth that will doom him.

But, the question is, are their bitter ones who do. Because, that's what he was talking about.



And... you're joking about this, right? You can't be serious. While it is true that these racial prejudices, for example, may have existed in some of these individuals before they lost their jobs... Obama used a very specific word... "cling". He did not say that the prejudices began at this point or that people bought their guns at that point, or started to be wary of immigrants. He said they "cling" to these things. As I stated previously, when one feels like one has lost control, one attempts to find a way to appear to have some. This is not uncommon. Some people use their bigotry to help them deal with their job loss.

What - are there bitter people who also happen to be religious? Of course. There are also inordinately contented people who happen to be religious - and relatively indifferent people who happen to be religious. There are also extraordinarily bitter people who aren't religious in the least. The same goes for racists and gun enthusiasts. What he was talking about was the correlation between bitterness and attitudes toward gun laws, religion, and prejudice. I would argue that a direct correlation is tenuous at best, most likely non-existent. Every item that Obama listed existed well before the economic patterns of the past 25 years - through times of great prosperity and times of depression. He was making a broad generalization about small-town America: they're conservative because they're bitter. Actually it was a bit narrower: they're not supporting me because their bitterness - and skepticism - blinds them.


ON EDIT:

Sorry - I didn't see your second point when I was replying - did you add it on an edit? Whatever.


The senator was not just saying that they "cling" to their prejudices and beliefs in Ohio and Pennsylvania. He started the train of thought earlier, when saying that "a lot of these communities in big industrial states" are skeptical of his pitch - especially since he's a "a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama" - skepticism based on age, race, and xenophobia. Cool.

But in stating that because of their bitterness, such people cling to their prejudices, he was clearly drawing a correlation, especially considering the "skeptical of black men" preface. To be honest, I don't think he was intending to demean big industrial state voters, he was simply trying to explain away his potential loss to Clinton in Pennsylvania to a group of limousine liberals (sort of like what Bill Clinton was doing in South Carolina by mentioning the patterns of previous elections there). But the fact that he assumed that urban Democrats would agree that, yeah, those heartland types will cling to their prejudices, says a lot about Obama's own prejudices - and those of his heartily laughing audience. But the fact remains that, despite the working class demographics, Pennsylvania is not a Bible belt state. We don't tend to be single-issue voters (and the wedge issues of the religious right don't ordinarily figure that prominently in elections here - or in most of the industrial northeast). He simply got it wrong in speaking - nudge, nudge - with a few elitists like himself.

And if Senator Obama thinks that racial prejudice is limited to Smallville and is absent from places like San Francisco, he's in for a very rude awakening. People cling to their prejudices and beliefs everywhere - and it doesn't take the prompting of joblessness to exacerbate them.

Hmm, Wertz put me in my place it seems -

however- watching the news again tonight on this- I do find myself bitter at THREE elitists that are out of touch with all of America- again- as 'celebrity candidates" as Wertz said. I find no great satisfaction that any of them are 'front runners"- my bitterness is that the US doesn't seem capable of picking a good leader since FDR apparently- what the hell happened here?

I find it gut busting dark comedy hilarious that ANY of the three "front runners" harp on "elitism" and "being out of touch with America"- they all are my man.

Obama I give the biggest "pass" too- as he is the only one that at least seems to have had an, well, almost normal life by comparison. McCain comes from a family of military royalty. They know nothing but war and the military life. They are not cowards, for certain, but I don't know if I want Patton OR MacArthur running the country. Hillary- duh, what hasn't been said about her already?

Seems like he should have some clue at least.

I have not seen or heard the actual delivery of the speech, just transcripts- anyone have a youtube link?

So- to answer my own questions.

(with apologies to our best debater, and editor in chief- gotta kiss editor butt now and again- if you don't-it is nearly as bad as insulting your server at the resteraunt )



Does [sic] hillary [sic] or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit [sic] this "speech"?

I am not sure to be honest. Will this thing have legs- or will the hoopla die down except for us politics-junkies?

A history professor said this in his lecture some time back- except for those that consider politics a hobby- most folks don't have the time or energy or resources today to pay attention throughout the entire election cycle. They come home, they are dog tired from working too hard for too little, and the drama on the news makes them feel bad, and they are tired of feeling bad. So most really pay attention just during the last debates, the last month or the last two weeks. Most aren't paying attention now, during the primaries"

I do believe this. It doesn't make those people bad- just over worked.

So, IMHO- it is too little, too early. This mistake needs to be made after he is either the dem nominee, and of course- it will mean nothing if he is not.

So in the general election- probably not. In pennsylvania- well, if wertz is any indicator- probably?



Did he say it badly, or did he say it right [sic] and folks didn't want to hear it?

Well, I just didn't read it that way- I read it more along the lines of "why people go single issue when no candidate appeals to them"-

And, if I am right- well, then he communicated it badly.

If Wertz is right- he is toast.


Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain?

If it is the "single issue voter" point I made- he is absolutely right. Most of those problems that are 'hot button single issue" voter items have big underlying problems that need addressing. That is more of what I gathered from the WRITTEN record I have seen. Even Wertz's posting of the entire comment there makes me believe even more that was what he was trying to convey.

I mean, if crime and poverty weren't such problems- would we have a "gun" problem? If we enforced the gun laws we have, would there be an assault on the second amendment and hunters?

Those are relevant points to make- now, if I am wrong, and he was just feeling that hard working Pennsylvanians are too racist to vote for Obama- he is probably toast, like I said.

Even if, gawd forbid, the latter was true, that all pennsylvanians are racist and ignorant- then HE is the one that needs to appeal to them anyway. There ARE quite a few Ameircans that STILL believe that Obama is a muslim plant- I have heard it enough from enough people. But it is Obama's duty to overcome that if he wants to be president, and this ain't the way to go about it.

1. Sure. If all you want to do is condense what Obama said down to "elitist" and "out-of-touch."

While Hillary runs around saying how she loves to go duck hunting and she's shot a couple, one of her advisers told Talking Points Memo.com that looking down their noses at the working classes isn't confined to just the Obama campaign:

I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government---and Bill Clinton---and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!...

I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination -- and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of 'we're not bitter" stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.

This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start. link


2. He says he could have said it "better" but saying it better wouldn't mean the professional Obama-bashers in media wouldn't have twisted his words anyhow.

People don't want to hear about class in America. Race you can talk about, especially if you're laying blame on one group or another, but class? Hell no! Are Americans "bitter?" Well, if they aren't they sure haven't been paying attention.

You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, "What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?"

Bill Clinton said that in 1991.

3. I've been on this board for awhile and I've been a journalist far longer than that. I know there's a lot of bitter people out there who feel abandoned and their interests unprotected. But I guess if you say that out loud you're looking down on people. Better I guess to just keep taking a whiz on 'em and tell 'em it's just rain.

He in no way attempted to establish a causal relationship between bitterness and these attitudes. He said "cling". He said some of these people "cling" to these attitudes because of bitterness, not that bitterness was the cause of these attitudes.

I more or less address this point in my edit above.

Again, are you telling me that there aren't some of these people in Pennsylvania that, in addition to being skeptical of any politician, wouldn't add an additional layer of skepticism because Obama is a black man?

In regards to that portion of his statements, he appears to be addressing the attempts to oversimplify the issue of his "demographic". An article in the NY Times states that white working class don't want to vote for a black man. He is saying that it is more complex than that. That is what the "46 year old black man" is in reference to. He then moves beyond simply race to talk about these other things.



Or experiences.



Really? You don't seriously think he's unaware of that, do you? His having spent so much time in Chicago and all.

Of course not - but they are hardly limited to working class white men in Pennsylvania and Ohio. It is Obama who's making distinctions here, not me.


"Bitterness" isn't an oversimplification for "clinging" to such a diverse menu of positions, beliefs, and prejudices? It's more complex than demographics, right? As complex as... "bitterness" - "bitterness" exclusive to the lunch-pail crowd in big industrial states. Okay, that explains everything now. Race problem solved. Second Amendment argument settled. Religion no longer necessary. We just need more "sweetness" in Iron City, USA. Why didn't I think of that?


Or prejudices.

He certainly has more experience of Chicago and places like San Francisco than he does of Altoona or Johnstown. To make such sweeping generalizations about a constituency of which he has virtually no knowledge (and on which he has clearly done no research) is not an observation based on "experiences". If he wanted to generalize about the people he was addressing in San Francisco, that would be a different story. Instead, he was playing it as though they were somehow different than we here in Hicksville as regards "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" - no, not just different: better. In my (considerable) experience, racism is far more prevalent in urban areas than in the rural backwaters of the industrial north - far, far, far, far, far more prevalent. Sorry: the orifice out of which Sen. Obama is speaking is not his mouth. He was pandering to up-scale San Franciscans, plain and simple (the man would pander to anyone) - distinguishing their sophisticated grasp of social politics from those of the hoi polloi in central PA. He should just admit the shallowness of his vote-grubbing and move on - if possible, after a gaff like this one.


Again, it's the good senator who's making the distinctions here, not me. Assuming that, as you contend, he knows better, he was clearly pretending that "antipathy toward people who aren't like them" is more prevalent among those bitter, thermos-wielding toughs than among the cosmopolites of the enlightened left coast. If you're right, and I trust that you are, that just makes his pandering even shallower - and more than a wee bit slimy.

This has gotten really big attention!

Small Town TN Pipes In

Last time this happened it was the movie Fargo upsetting Minnesotans.

Trouble is that the middle class meltdown crosses demographics. If you get laid off it's because the job has evaporated, not because you're in a small town. That's very old news -- small towns have been hit hard all along. Might be in a suburb though. Technically some could be called small towns, like the small fish gulped down by sharks.

Unemployment causes people to drink, but buy guns? Naw. They pawn guns, get fifty cents on the dollar. That's better than you'll get for most of your Wal*Mart junk. During my islands of employment between the oceans of bumhood, I'd buy music electronics. Return on that stuff was about the same, and it was really hard to kill yourself with an 8-track digital recorder.

Unemployment brings on depression, so if people find comfort in religion, that's fine. But we saw a family murder/suicide in Colorado Springs that was connected to unemployment, the killer had tried to get help from her church, the church sent her to the hospital for mental health help, and then she bought a gun that someone else had pawned. The father was working out of state. I guess that's where the money came from. It was pretty much a mess. Also odd, usually the father does the family murdering.

Obama can't understand what the middle class is going through because he isn't middle class. But at least he thinks about it and discusses it. He is at least somewhat aware that resentment to illegal immigrants could stem from Americans wanting those jobs.

The gun thing is way off base. The religion thing could be closer to home. At the heart of this is deep insecurity.

The American middle class is living a Bob Dylan song, Like A Rolling Stone.

Take a look at Obama's official site on energy and apply reason and logic and tell me how all of these pipe dreams are going to happen without gas prices doubling within four years. He supports ethanol, he had to to win in Iowa. Ethanol is creating a world food shortage not to mention a domestic food inflation. People in Haiti are already starving to death and one bad season in Africa will see millions dieing a horrible death of starvation. I heard on the news that America is importing wheat because wheat fields are being planted in ethanol crops, how much is a vote worth?

The media is giving Obama a pass and beating up on Hillary, I watched the CNN special on Compassion yesterday and Obama's answer to his accidental SF truth was like an Al Gore moment... How dare they!!! I got my religion ticket punched on the South-side! This morning I was watching Squawk Box on CNBC financial news and the guy that always has messed up hair said something like this: All TV news with the exception of Fox News is rooting for Obama and treating Hillary unfairly. I almost spit out my coffee as I thought of the commercial where the guy says "I'm here to fix the mute button. Yesterday Chris Wallace reminded about thirty million viewers that Obama is a coward and a liar because he promised to come onto Fox News Sunday over 700 days ago, Chris smirked in the way only he can do and says I have even more questions for him now. The problem is on Obama's character about why he stayed in a bigoted church for twenty years and subjected his children to the bigotry and his SF condescending statement about blue collar workers can't be answered other than to say I support bigotry and I accidentally spoke the truth in SF, I didn't know the mike was on.

look at the media darling that will be destroyed in the general election if he doesn't have an unfortunate accident should he be nominated. http://www.aina.org/news/20080411154706.htm Great circles of friends! How dare they!

Okay, so the problem is that in a section of speech in which he is talking about working class people in Pennsylvania and Ohio, he didn't include others? So, was this distinction made in response to a particular question or situation? Like, oh, I don't know... the media's portrayal of his inability to get votes from these particular people? This didn't come out of nowhere, Wertz. If a particular section of his speech deals with a particular issue, how can you fault him for restricting his speech to that particular issue?

And I don't know why you're getting so riled up about the fact that he mentions "Obama enthusiasts"? Isn't he discussing the places where he, Obama, might have a problem getting votes?

There are mountains and there are molehills. If Clinton wants to make an Everest out of this one, I don't think it's going to work in her favor - especially when she speaks about others being elitist. She's going to have a tough time explaining to the working class white how much she is like them when she's just reported that she and her husband have made $100 million over the last 8 years.

Nowhere on his site does Obama call for a 50 cent per gallon increase on gasoline. You are estimating this from his proposed tax on oil companies, but you don't know how much this will translate to at the pump.


Yeah right, back to the debate you took off topic.

Once again it is amazing how the Clintons are given the power to shape a debate. The media falls in line. The "right" stand behind her in some unholy collaboration or alliance. Entspeak has done a fair job at pointing out the neccessity of twisting Obama's words, and I've watched CNN, MSNBC, and, of course, FOX help.


Can anyone, please explain how Obama explaining how some people from small towns would rather vote on wedge issues like guns, faith issues, immigrant issues because people are cynical to the idea that anyone like Barack or any politician will try to really make changein things that willl truly improve their lives, has morphed into Barack calls all blue collar workers bitter because they cling to their guns and bibles.

Here is the thing, Obama supporters or people leaning Obama way aren't going to change their mind on this issue, because they will not purposefully misconstrue what Obama is saying. The Clinton/Republican version sounds so out of character of what Obama has preached that supporters or people leaning Obama will actually listen to what Obama was saying.

And then they will see how out of context the Clinton version is. From here, they will think "damn, she really will twist, turn and say anything." People admire fighters, they won't admire dirty fighters.

So what is Clintons alternative... tell the people how happy they are?? "You're not bitter, you're proud" Well yeah, people are proud people, but they aren't proud of how the government has treated them.... else, why would they say they want a change????

Obama is doing the right thing, continue to use the word bitter, just infrequently, tie it in with the word frustrated and angry. Then tell people how the Clintons want to blow smoke and say "everything is great, you people are happy with your government" then continue to point out... "no, we are not happy, we are fed up, we want change"

No one is doubting that people are bitter, droop. But if you can explain to me how bitterness over job loss makes people in Pennsylvania (or anywhere else) cling to guns, I'd greatly appreciate it.

Obama was simply trying to account for the fact that, in several large industrial northern states, he's just not winning. (Indeed, if you removed the Democrat for a Day votes by Republicans across the country, it's unlikely he'd be winning anywhere, but that's a different story - and would require a different, perhaps more honest, rationalization.) He should just accept the fact that Sen. Clinton is more appealing to a majority of voters in some states (and more appealing to Democratic voters in most states) and move on. No one needs the elitist rationale.

But I'm certainly not claiming that Clinton and McCain aren't every bit as elitist as Obama. The only distinction among the candidates in this regard - in almost every regard (especially on the Democratic side) - is that Obama is a much, much bigger hypocrite about it. He's "the candidate of change" like vanilla is a startling new flavor of ice cream. When people realize they've been had by a huckster, the backlash could be terrible. Of course, by then it could be too late.

This article shows what is going on behind the scenes http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0408/9564.html and the Democratic Party will have to choose soon or both will be unelectable. Israel will destroy Obama's chances in Florida and I fear if he is the nominee they will be so concerned about him not supporting Israel they will take out Iranian nuclear sites before the election to lock in support for Israel's survival.

1) Does hillary or McCain have a real "opening" to pile on Obama wit this "speech"?

When I read about this, I wondered how long it would take to make its way to . Not long, as it turns out. Heck, yeah, it provides an opening to pile on. I’m disappointed that Obama didn’t realize the potential for a real crapstorm as a result. He’s usually a whole lot more savvy.

2) Did he say it badly, or did he say it right and folks didn't want to hear it?

His greatest strength is also his greatness weakness in politics; he is honest. I think he’s right, but in politics being right doesn’t count; appearances do. He should have known how much he would tick off the gun nuts and the Bible belt fundies. Not that I think they are his base of support, but it doesn’t make much sense to make these folks mad and give Clinton and McCain more ammo to use on him. Hillary blathering on about faith makes me roll my eyes so far I can see the back of my head.

3) Do you agree with what he said, yes or no, please explain?

I agree with what he said – to a point. But I will admit to being somewhat irritated – I am middle class, and I am neither a gun toter nor a Bible thumper. Lumping all of us into that category isn’t fair, but I’m not gonna whine about it. He was expressing a valid opinion.

In "some" states, huh?

More appealing to a majority of voters in some states and more appealing to Democratic voters in most states?

Must not be the majority of states since Senator Obama has won more of them than Senator Clinton.

Must not be the majority of the popular vote either since Senator Obama has won more of it than Senator Clinton.

Must not be the delegate count where Senator Obama leads Senator Clinton 1,626 to 1,486

But why worry about facts when you can spin? The burden of proof is much lighter and you can always come up with a ready excuse for the inconvenient truth.

Inconvenient truths such as:

PRINCETON, NJ -- Roughly one in four Democrats nationally say their preference for whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama wins the Democratic presidential nomination has changed at least once since the start of the primary season in January. Most of the converts -- 19% of all Democrats and Democratic leaners -- have moved out of Clinton's ranks and into Obama's, while 7% have taken the reverse path, switching from Obama to Clinton. link

-------------------------------------------

On Monday, Barack Obama trailed Hillary Clinton by 7.7 points in Pollster.com's Pennsylvania poll average. By the end of Friday, he had narrowed that to 6.1 points in a state that is supposed to be a sure thing for Clinton. Today's newest Pennsylvania poll shows Clinton ahead by four points among Democrats in the state, with 8 percent of voters undecided. Obama leads among Protestants, young voters, and men. Clinton leads among Catholics, white voters, and women. link

------------------------------------------------

LEVITTOWN, Pa. -- Like many women over 50, Paula Houwen was eager to vote for Hillary Clinton for president.

"I was impressed when she was first lady. She wasn't the country's trophy wife," the 56-year-old suburban Philadelphia pharmacist recalled.

Today, though, Houwen's no longer a Clinton fan.

"I do not like the way Hillary Clinton has run her campaign," she said.

Clinton's strongest core of support -- white women -- is beginning to erode in Pennsylvania, the site of the critical April 22 Democratic presidential primary, and a loss here could effectively end her White House run.

A Quinnipiac University survey taken April 3-6 in Pennsylvania found that Clinton's support fell 6 percentage points in a week among white women. Nationally, a Lifetime Networks poll of women found that 26 percent said they liked Clinton less now than in January, while only 15 percent said they liked her more. link

Last and also least, you've been flogging this "Democrat for a Day" jive for a while Wertz, and I think it's time to call you on it. If Obama has benefited from Republicans crossing over it's kept Clinton's campaign afloat.

A number of right-wing talk show hosts have recently been urging their solidly Republican listeners to go out and vote in the Democratic race and cast in their lot with Clinton in order to try to sabotage the Democratic Party race.

America's top right-wing 'shock jock' Rush Limbaugh has been leading the charge. 'We want all the disruption in that party possible. It is about us winning,' he told his listeners recently. Other shock jocks have followed suit, telling Republicans in states still to hold their primaries to jump in and vote for Clinton.

Limbaugh has admitted that it is a tough task to persuade his fans to vote for a candidate that he has built a whole political career around viciously attacking. 'I've got a big challenge here to try to get Republicans to change their minds on this and vote for Hillary to keep her in the race, to keep that party at war with itself,' he confessed.

The exact impact of the HillPublicans and the 'Limbaugh effect' is hard to define precisely in recent races and the contests still to come. They can only have an effect in elections that are 'open' - where Republicans can opt to go and vote in the Democratic race and eschew their vote in the Republican ballot. But in recent key Clinton victories in Ohio and Texas some Republican commentators have hailed the strategy as a success. In those states exit polls showed some 9 per cent of voters were Republicans. That number is roughly twice as large as in most previous contests. They were also split almost evenly between Obama and Clinton, although Clinton has traditionally had a much more difficult time in appealing to such crossover voters than Obama. Therefore the 50-50 divide could easily show the Limbaugh effect in action. If so, the actions of the HillPublicans could have greatly helped Clinton. Her stunning comeback victories in Texas and Ohio saved her political life as her candidacy had seemingly been on the brink of political extinction.

In the most recent state to vote - Mississippi - the impact of the Limbaugh effect seemed clearer. One analysis claimed a full 25 per cent of Clinton's voters were Republicans. Though Clinton still lost the heavily black state to Obama, the margin of that defeat could have been much wider without the Republican vote. One estimate put the number of HillPublicans in Mississippi at 40,000 voters. link

"HillPublicans?" Oh, those wacky Brits!

I still believe when all the votes are counted next Tuesday, Hillary will hold back Barack. She's not going to get the big win she hoped for. But I also believe she could lose Pennsylvania a lot more than I did a month ago.

Which would pretty much croak the last gasp of oxygen from Billary '08.

There is a good amount of evidence that disagrees with this assertion. Has Obama been honest on trade? He expressed a disdain for anti-trade people with his statement, but he's been stumping for anti-trade policies on the trail. Was Obama being honest with us when he said a day later that he meant that working class people 'cling' to religion in a good way like the Bible says? Obama only used the word 'cling' once in his sentence. If he meant that people embrace their religion, then he also meant that they should embrace their guns, anti-immigrant sentiments, anti-trade sentiments, and bigoted sentiments as well. We know better than to think that is what he meant, which means he's not being honest with here. Is he a man of faith or a person who looks down on religion as something bitter people turn to? Is he moderate on gun policy or does he view guns as a distraction issue that is unimportant? Is he pro-trade or anti-trade? This is not the profile of someone who is the epitome of honesty.

Perhaps there is a trend here with this uppity candidate? http://www.dailykos.com/story/2007/2/11/223840/971

Wertz


I could try... but first I would have to acknowledge the framing of the debate is in the correct context of what Obama meant, and generally said.

In general, republicans often win on wedge issues. They'll start streaming out flyers with two men holding hands or kissing and say a marriage like this, they'll talk about liberals want to take their guns, they'll talk about how illegal immigrants are somehow causing America to be less secure. They'll talk about ANYTHING other than, the so called populist message, the fact we are getting screwed over so that rich people can get richer.

My father a life long Democrat and Black man voted for Bush in 2004 as I've said before. His reasoning was thus: Both the democrats and the Republicans are going to do the same thing when it comes to the war and economic issues, but the Democrats will let gays get married.

You here this caraciture of our two party system from many people, on both the red and Blue side. It is this bitterness and cynicism to the government that Obama is addressing clearly.

If someone has to choose living in poverty or having the right to keep marriage between a man and a woman, I believe Obama believes that they will choose to vote and address poverty. However, if you convince those same people that both sides will do the same because neither really care about the actual lives of Americans and the suffering of Americans... then those people will not consider the issues that really will bring change and rather CLING to wedge issues. Like a gay Marriage, Like the idea that government will take away all their guns, Like the idea illegal immigrants are stealing our jobs, Like the fact your neighbors daughter may have an abortion.

He is explaining the timeless questions of us liberal elitists, as to why do the "red" voting people faced with similar economic hardships of America find more to be concerned with Tom and Jerry getting married, rather than whether they have health care for their family.

He is saying that the bitterness felt by Americans causes them to have no faith that either party, especially him will actually try to change those economic issues.

And lastly in terms of framing. He was responding, no, when he made these statements?? It is Hillary and McCain and the media that has portrayed this to some kind of attack blue collar a.k.a "middle class white people". But Obama is not saying they ar the only ones that harbor bitter feeling to their country. That is what his opponents want people to believe.




Wertz, why are clintonites starting to sound like Republicans on FOX news?? Is it that important she win?? Yeah Obama is the one, looking at his entire life, that is an elitist?



HUH?!?!? I think being the most hypocritical is when you are something, then call some one else that thing. Obama wasn't calling McCain or Hillary elitist, even after she came out with her 100 million dollar tax returns.

Yet she accuses him of being something, that you admittedly says she is, yet he is the bigger Hypocrite?? Amazing.

I just wanted to come on here to make 2 points

Point One: Sometimes I wish Obama would lay off the sociology. His stump-speech poetry is sociological enough; sociology is always one mis-used modifier or a clumsy pronoun away from bigotry, and this true no matter whose spouting the sociology: you, your uncle or your favorite candidate.

Point Two: The 2008 election went from being an uplifting promising contest between 5 or 6 of the brightest, most promising candidates in US politics... slowly but surely it has devolved into a Don Imus who-can-get-more-offended catfight. It reminds me of a bad soccer match, when two great rivals, full of animosity towards one another, fall apart near the end of the second half, and instead of trying to score some beautiful, gravity-defying goals, they spend their field time attempting to lure their opponents into stupid offsides penalties and such. If you've ever watched European football, you know what I'm talking about; Hillary Clinton is that melodramatic wingman who "goes down" in the goal box on a questionable "slide tackle" and wastes 10 minutes of precious airtime pretending to have life-threatening shin injuries in the hopes that maybe she can out-sympathize one of the refs into handing Barack a red card. 30 seconds later, she's backing dashing around the field like yesterday never happened. And, to be even and fair, Barack has been playing this same game, too.

This has to stop. If you're a gun-owning Pennsylvanian who feels offended by Barack's comment, I'm going to ask that you politely bury this ax so we can get to real questions, rather than pointless diversions. People put their foot in their mouths. Happens sometimes. You've done it, I've done it, every human from Al Sharpton to the Disciple Peter has misspoken and paid that price. I called this back in last year, when I said that crucifying Don Imus was a boneheaded mistake that would only create a culture of racial resentment and misunderstanding. Today, that echo chamber of backlashes is undermining the prospects of our first credible black candidate -- a person who, by the way, participated in the nonconstructive and ill-considered anti-Imus crusade.

At some point we have to cut our losses and stop giving a damn about these "just words."

Wertz,

I'm not an Obama fan. I'm a reluctant supporter of whoever the Democratic presidential nominee turns out to be. But who knows. I may be feeling fey and write in my preference November 4.

I read the pertinent portion. I reread it. I understand why you don't like Obama's campaign and perhaps Obama himself, but I don't get your taking severe offense to what he said this time even if we are talking about your beloved Pennsylvania. You've come late into your Chavez-in-New-York moment.


The dash in this portion of the "speech" (one of seven by my count in 477 words by Microsoft Word's count) looks like an unfinished train of thought to me. Perhaps he meant to say "white working-class don't wanna work towards electing a black guy". Perhaps I'm being generous here. Regardless: This statement is not an endorsement of the idea that Clinton will win Pennsylvania because she's not black. This statement is a refutation of that perception. He's putting it out there, dismissing it and then broaching the subject of wedge issues as the real culprits.

The o