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

What he did most recently can certainly be used as evidence that Obama is no elitist. At least, not in his use of sign language.

He comes across with a calmness in demeanor and tone that fools and soothes many people. But underneath it he is as bitter (if not more so) than many of the Pennsylvanian pinheads he claims to understand.

Was that an attempt at being funny, doomed_planet?

I'm only asking to be sure. I don't want to guess and guess wrong.

Good thing Obama isn't running the same kind of campaign The Clintons are. If he were what would the folks in small town Pennsylvania make of this remark?

n January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The statement -- which author Benjamin Barber witnessed and wrote about in his book, "The Truth of Power: Intellectual Affairs in the Clinton White House" -- was prompted by another speaker raising the difficulties of reaching "Reagan Democrats." It stands in stark contrast to the attitude the New York Democrat has recently taken on the campaign trail, in which she has presented herself as the one candidate who understands the working-class needs.

"I don't think [Obama] really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you,' she said this week.

But those who were at the event say the 1995 episode fits into her larger viewpoint. As Harry Boyte, the director of the University of Minnesota's Center for Democracy and Citizenship who was at the retreat, told The Huffington Post: "[Hillary Clinton] sees herself as the champion of the oppressed, but there is always a kind of good guy versus bad guy mentality. The comment before that was that 'the Reagan Democrats are our enemies and they weren't on our side,' and she was agreeing with that comment. She said we should write them off: screw them."

Double standards and selective outrage, both in the media and here on . Two of my least favorite things.

Yeah, sort of. I was also trying to point out the hypocrisy of Obama. He's not at all what he portrays himself to be. That's my argument.



Hillary Clinton is a dirty politician and a liar, too. The operative word being "too."

What I don't understand is the seemingly blind support for a man who has done nothing for you but talk a big talk. Are you that naive to believe he will lead everyone to the pot of gold underneath the rainbow? It's absurd the way people give Obama a total free pass. I have not seen a post by any of his supporters here at AD that addresses the possibility that the guy is full of IT. Isn't that a possibility? Or is there something about him that legitimizes his person beyond reproach? I find it disturbing that otherwise very savvy individuals put such credence in someone without a hint of caution or suspicion.

There is nothing "blind" about my support for Obama, doomed_planet. Frankly, after the last miserable eight years of "compassionate conservatism" I, like millions of other Americans, crave something different rather than a flashback to the '90's in Hillary Clinton or the '50's with John McCain. I don't know who you're talking about is giving Obama a
"total free pass." It sure ain't the press with the way they blew up the Jeremiah Wright situation and it sure ain't the anti-Obama posters here. At one time there were 11 threads active related to Barack Obama and they all weren't blowing him kisses.

If you haven't seen a post by the Obama supporters here on AD that addresses the possibility that he's full of it, could that be because that's the job of the opponents, not the supporters? If I'm supporting Obama and you're not, why should it be my job to validate your opposition? I sure haven't seen any posts from opponents of Obama that addresses the possibility that it's you guys, that are full of IT.

Who's out on AD as a Obama supporter? Well, there's drewyorktimes, Sleeper, nebraska29, Daffygrl, kmsouthern, Dingo, BoF and myself that I know of right from the get-go. I think droop224 and tonyman are as well but I'm not sure of that. I am pretty sure Turnea hasn't declared his preference one way or the other.

On the opposite side, there's quick, Zack, carlitoswhey, Amlord, net2007, Bikerdad, Aevans176, Wertz, barnaby2341, Aquilla, Ted, Azwhitewolf, Moif and a few others that I can't remember right now.

Oh right, you're not feeling the Obama love either, doomed_planet. My bad.

There is no shortage of savvy individuals who don't think Obama is all that and a bag o' chips. Between all that talent I don't think anyone's giving him a free ride here.

As I said to Wertz (who is a liberal and definitely not a Obamaniac) I haven't turned my b.s. detected off so much as I turned it down. When anyone chooses to back one candidate over another they have made a choice that indicates something about themselves. They have invested a certain amount of trust in that person and they're saying, "Okay, I made a choice. Don't violate my trust. Don't make me regret it."

I have no reason to regret my support for Barack Obama and as the attacks on him grow in heat (and silliness) I'm trying to brush it off.

Nighttimer, I am not standing in opposition to Obama. I have written numerous times on this board about how he is going to get my vote and how the Democrats are going to take the Presidency, and both Houses of Congress. What I haven't done, is give him that blind support that you and others are being accused of by doomed_planet. Only recently, with the speech on race, the Jerimiah Wright sermon, and the bitter comments have I come to appreciate where Obama is on the issues, and how well he understands our problems. Prior to those substantive speeches and statements, he was full of hot air. Talking with language that was similar to the John Edwards of '04 and Ronald Reagan. Blow sunshine up their butt and they will love you. America doesn't need sunshine, it needs a boot. Rev. Wright's sermon was that boot. I personally loved it.

If you don't believe me, do a search on the board for Scooby-Doo and you'll find this from me:
You won't be able to find anything from me that is positive about John McCain. All I have been doing is trying to get more information out of Obama and chastising you for voting your skin color. I've always been about the issues (of relevancy); I cannot state the same for you.

Does Barack Obama's religion matter?

More from BHO:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout,I chose my friends carefully.The more politically active black students.The foreign students.The Chicanos.The Marxist Professors and the structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.We smoked cigarettes and wore leather jackets.At night,in the dorms,we discussed neocolonialism,Franz Fanon,Eurocentrism,and patriarchy.When we ground out our cigarettes in the hallway carpet or set our stereos so loud that the walls began to shake,we were resisting bourgeois society's stifling constraints.

Obtuse? Now you're mistaking irony for obtuseness. You're no angrier than the folks in Pennsylvania who are passing on BHO are "bitter". something to think about.

Of course, if they've so completely internalized their bitterness, if it is completely woven throughout their lives as to become the foundation, then perhaps the comparison is worth exploring. I'm just sayin....

Speaking of obtuse, what do Wright's orthopraxis and a young Obama's need to be part of the "in" crowd have to do with one another?

Just to clarify a misunderstanding here: I'm not opposed to Barak Obama. I've already said at least twice that I think he might be just what America needs.

I've also said I'd probably vote for McCain if I were an American, but thats just a guess. I really have no preference one way or the other. I wouldn't mind Hillary Clinton as president either. None of the options makes any difference to my life as far as I can see.

Okay, there's a possibility that he may be full of IT, yes. But, I know Clinton is full of IT, so I'm much more willing to give him a chance than I am her.

He isn't the president yet, of course he hasn't done anything for me/us. I haven't seen any Obama supporters (or should I say "non throw-Obama-under-a-bussers") fit the characterization you present here. Just because one isn't willing to go along with the criticisms in many of the posts here that tend to ascribe a malicious, diabolical intent to the man (fraud, mountebank, sleeper agent, etc) doesn't mean one thinks Obama is beyond reproach. Sure there is the possibility that he's full of feces. He's a politician, that goes without saying.


I agree with you here. The country would be well-served to stop drinking it's own kool-aid. But you have to admit that there's absolutely no way any politician- especially a minority one- would get anywhere close to being elected to anything if he or she spoke with that level of veracity. That's an impossible standard for any serious politician in a national election.

I don't admit that. The media will try to spin that, but if you agree with what he's saying and I agree, there are probably millions more who agree as well. The only people who will get outraged by these sorts of statements are the pre-programmed false patriots like Amlord and Ted.

The majority of Americans have concluded that the war was a bad idea. Yet, the media is talking about how pro-war, 100 years in Iraq, John McCain is ahead in some of the polls. The media is completely out of touch. If nominated, either Hillary or Obama would win the general election. The country is that tilted away from the Republican party. There hasn't been one primary where the Republican voters outnumbered the Democrats. I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if the Democrats win every state.

The majority of Americans also believe the economy is in a recession. Yet, the media is still asking, "Are we in a recession?" Then they have some Wall Street talking head opining about diversifying investments and avoiding the impulse to dump stocks. He talks about the strength of the S&P and the NASDAQ, neither of which have any indication on the conditions of the working class.

Obama has been making substantive speeches and statements about the condition of our country and the media has tried to manufacture outrage. Yet, when you talk to the people they confirm they are bitter.

They relate directly, because both speak to the development of BHO's worldview and what he may have meant by his "slip." Was it poor wording, or was it an expression of his true feelings. Or perhaps a third option, suggested by the quote from his book. That "fitting in" is such an important value to him that he'll pretty much say anything to fit in, which could explain why he tossed red meat, er, prime pressed tofu, to the San Francisco limousine liberal crowd. This alternative, of course, presents its own perils.

You may already know this, Doomed_Planet, but Obama's index finger is scratching his face as well. So if he is using sign language for Hillary, is he saying she's number two?

I understand you don't support him, that's cool. But this projected guise of bitterness has zero foundation to support it. If you'd like to provide examples, perhaps we can do so in another topic.


Aw, NT, you left me out.


Clearly you haven't had steak in San Francisco. Man have you missed out.

Obama's college associations and opinion matter as much today as mine did in college. Did yours change decades later, Bikerdad (regardless of education)? Mine did.

Then again, Dubyah's gift in college was pouring beer, and look at the President we have today. Maybe it would have helped if he actually knew what neocolonialism was?

Talk about a lack of respect. "Pre-programmed false patriots"? Sheesh.

Maybe you don't realize it, but these comments have hurt Obama with ordinary white guys. Maybe you don't care about how ordinary white guys view Obama, but I'm sure Obama does. That isn't spin, that's truth. Obama's numbers in Pennsylvania, once closing in on Hillary, have jumped back out to double digits in some polls. Without the one outlier, Hillary's average margin would be about plus 8. Link

According to Rasmussen:

Obama thought he was safe speaking with the committed far lefties in SF when he made this ludicrous statement – and yes this will hurt al LOT since he cannot say “he didn’t hear it” etc.


Its wrong but the man said what he believes – and this will hurt him the most.



The key word imo is “cling” not bitter. Poor stupid (mostly white working class men) “cling” to their guns and religion (and vote Republican) when clearly they should be Democrats.

This insulting bit of rhetoric is so ludicrous as to be not worth discussing. Last I heard guns and religion predated this campaign, and this downturn and I see no reason to use this logic at all.

Then don't discuss it?


Obama should have said "cling to the past." This would have included a lot of things not covered by guns or religion. - like the bowling balls, the corner bars and the Archie Bunker mentality.

Gee thanks for the advise Bof. I know you just hate to discuss gaffs by your soul mate Obama – but oh well – this added to Wright and Ayres tells us a lot about where this man is coming from.



Yes he should but that is not what he meant is it. What exactly is "past" about religion or guns - both of which have been with us since day one of this country? He meant “cling” to things Obama and the left wing of the Dem party don’t think are that important imo – esp when it comes to the ballot box.

This gaff hurts him more than all the others.

Well, I finally sat through the whole of the Obama session in San Francisco. As expected, it was pretty much a sermon to the converted. The only thing I learned was that Sen. Obama isn't very good at answering questions. The whole "bitterness" speech arose from this:
He was asked what kinds of questions canvassers should expect in Pennsylvania and the only one he could come up with was "What's he going to do for me?" Really? We're that self-interested? Not "What's he going to do for our kids? or our troops? or the environment? or the folks across the way who lost their house? or poor Mrs. Yoder down the street who can't afford her heart pills?" Not "What's he going to do for the country?" Boy, we suck.

The fact is that working-class men and women in the big industrial states aren't looking for things to be done for us, we're looking for solutions that will enable us to do for ourselves. Free enterprise and small government are very big around here. Hand-outs are not. Obama is seriously misjudging his constituency. And the key word here is "solutions" - not rhetoric, not inspiration, solutions. We want someone who'll put in a hard day's work in the interest of the American people, who'll balance the books, defend the country, keep corruption to a minimum, and not screw everything else up too much. If we wanted a prophet, we'd cling to religion.

In any event, the closest he came to providing any class of answer was "We'll give you talking points," and "The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing." Very helpful. Otherwise, there's not much in the remarks that a door-to-door campaigner could use in Obama's "answer".

It was when he started distinguishing between Pennsylvania's communities for his left coast audience, though, that he strayed into the "bitterness" territory:
And then he segues into how cynical and skeptical "they" are and, well, you've read the rest.

As I mentioned before, what I found startling about Obama's response (even more startling than what I still regard as condescension - very sympathetic condescension, of course - and pandering to an up-scale audience) was the notion that he wasn't expecting votes from the working class - that it was remarkable to find "Obama enthusiasts" (what, is he a hobby now?) among "working-class lunch-pail folks" as opposed to "places where you think [he'd] be very strong" (presumably, those places that "have more in common with San Francisco than they do with the rest of Pennsylvania"). To me, the working class has long been the backbone of the Democratic Party - the union members, the lower middle class families, the two working parents - the "lunch-pail folks". And Obama seems to be admitting that he's not "very strong" with such key voters. The Democratic Party is the workers' party (though not exclusively) and if you don't have the workers, you don't have a Democratic candidate.

If the challenge is "to get people persuaded that we can make progress," he shouldn't be indulging in photo ops in bowling alleys (at least, not if he's a desperately lousy bowler), he should be talking to us about his plans - not "wealthiest one percent" talking points, but plans. Believe it or not, the Good Country Folk of the Big Industrial States can grasp fairly subtle and complex concepts. And not all workers, in my experience, are feral beasts that cling to superstition and prejudice when frustrated, no matter where we may be unemployed. You can even use words of more than one syllable when addressing us. By the way, are there no people in San Francisco whose "jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing to replace them" - or just not among Obama supporters? Are the chronically unemployed of the Tenderloin or the Mission district clinging to fundamentalist wedge issues and racism? Seriously: generalize much, Senator?

This is, to my mind, symptomatic of an American class issue - what distinguishes a member of an elite (like an elected official or a millionaire) from someone with an elitist attitude or perspective. For all the South Side of Chicago, wife-with-four-spoons rhetoric, Obama looks on the working class as something separate from himself - and it's here that I see Obama's unconscious elitism at work. His clarification of the remarks in question during the Philadelphia debate was, I thought, kind of telling:
Maybe it's just me, but when I heard his response, what leapt out was "Washington's not listening to them... they end up focusing on religion... they end up being concerned about things like guns... those are incredibly important to them." And I said to Sean, "Wait - aren't these Democrats? Shouldn't that be 'us'? You know, 'Washington's not listening to us' or 'We pass these traditions down.' What kind of Democrat is he if 'we' are a 'them'?" The attitude revealed through the language seems, at best, paternalistic.

I wasn't expecting much better from Clinton when she was asked to respond, but after a few paragraphs of waffle about "My Grandfather the Factory Worker" and a bit of faith-based pandering, she got to the point, admitting that people are frustrated with government:
Never mind the jingo, it is the perspective that, to me, indicates one of the differences between the candidates. When Obama speaks to San Francisco fund-raisers of "our challenge" in persuading people that "we we can make progress", he is not speaking of the workers or of the Democratic Party or of the progressive movement, he is speaking of the Obama campaign. With his battle-cry of "We are the ones we've been waiting for!" he is, apparently, excluding "them" - or what I would call "us".

Given his paternalistic attitude toward the working classes, when he considers us at all, it is probably not surprising that he'd tell campaigners that our only question would be "What's he going to do for me?" Well, the entire working class is not fundamentally petty, self-interested, and mean. That would seem to better describe the "us" that lusts after power and wealth, however silver their tongues. I guess that's what he means by "not being out of touch" with the American worker: "They're just like me!"


Oh, and BoF, Archie Bunker was a resident of New York City - one of those "more like San Francisco" places where Obama's supposed to be "very strong" - not central Pennsylvania or Ohio. The Bunker "mentality" was urban, not mid-western. That's the problem with blanket generalizations - yours and the senator's - they're blanket and they're generalizations. And they could be losing your candidate votes.

I'm well aware that All in the Family was set in Queens, but that didn't keep Archie from having a redneck mentality. These things sort of cross geographical lines.

Exactly. And, while you may appreciate that such attitudes aren't exclusive to working-class lunch-pail folks in Pennsylvania and Ohio (or absent from the refined crowd at a northern California fund-raiser), Barack Obama apparently does not. That's one of the points I was making about his rank generalization.

Right. Because if you've ever followed the cool crowd as a young adult you are cursed to live the rest of your life as an impressionable fop.

The two are only directly related as far as if you ever run for president you should never write a book and offer unnecessary fodder.


Dude. If it's not what Obama says it's what he doesn't say with you. It's more of the same elitism even though his website and Clinton's have very similar platforms.

Why should anyone "never mind [Clinton's] jingo"? I guess 'cause they can choose to if they want to look at the broader context of her statements. It's like minding what Obama does/n't say except the predisposition is negative.

Your skepticism at a relatively new candidate promising so much is justified, but I wish you'd stick to that—and his campaign's racial and sexual double standards just to keep it real. Politicians should get heckled on their flaws for everyone's sake, and party members should heckle their own politicians most of all. But your fatalistic predictions in regards to electability make me think America should never entertain a liberal candidate for the office of the White House again. That way the country is spared experiencing another derailed candidacy.

Yeesh.

You're so intent on making sure any Democrat moves into the White House—a hope I share—you're channeling Karl Rove in the process to avoid a Mondale moment. It's a lose-lose situation. Give up while you're ahead of fate.

You sound like a traditional Republican (not a Bush Republican). Obama stands for none of this. He is a classic left wing Dem – to the left of Teddy K. He stands for big government in every way. His "constituency" were the people in SF he was speaking to when he made the reamarks that tell us all al lot about him.

I'm not criticizing Obama for what he didn't say, I'm suggesting things he could have said that would have been less offensive than what he said. Or he could have been honest and said, "You know, I have no clue what the lunch-pails of Pennsylvania might ask you. Here are some talking points." But what he said instead was offensive - not to the latte crowd in San Francisco (who, elitists themselves, no doubt accepted without question that all the white trash of central PA is interested in is what the gubment can do for them), but to the constituency in question. It was also inaccurate.

(An aside: Should Sen. Obama wish to distinguish the workers in industrial states from those who take their lunch in boutique cafés, someone should let him know that, here in Pennsylvania, we carry lunch buckets, not lunch pails. "Pails" are for nursery rhymes. He might want to bear that in mind should be be talking to the working class rather than about us.)

Obviously, as the senator admitted himself, he has phrased similar sentiments differently "in public". Elsewhere, Obama has criticized having "separate conversations" among blacks and whites about race - that "most segregated hour in American life" every Sunday morning, for example. Is a "separate conversation" about class any worse?


Because the point I was making wasn't about what either candidate was saying per se, but about what their choice of pronouns revealed about their attitude and perspective. Go ahead and mind Clinton's jingo - I don't care. To me, the slightly trite suggestion that we can be a stronger country through our ability to listen to one another, respect one another, and understand the different decisions that people make in life is a damn site more inspiring than the suggestion that "they" cling to wedge issues out of frustration. It also sounds more like the path to a solution than the condescending rationalization for why Obama has failed to reach the working class.


I'm not quite sure how you make that leap. I've never suggested that Obama wasn't electable because he's a liberal candidate (though I have mentioned that that is how the GOP will be painting him, however far removed from the truth it may be). Nor have I suggested that he's not electable simply because he's a black candidate, for what that's worth (though I think his race will be a much bigger factor than his quasi-liberalism). Nor do I think that he is unelectable solely because of his elitism. But, as you can see, this paragraph already has an accretion of factors - and we haven't even got to any of the "distractions" or "associations", to say nothing of (lack of) experience and (lack of) judgment.

My "fatalistic predictions" are based on a uniquely unsalable combination of factors. As I've said repeatedly, I could well be wrong (I was certainly wrong about Clinton not running in 2008) - and, should Obama be the candidate, I hope I am. Beyond that, I offer only my honest opinion of the candidate and his chances of winning. I'm sorry it's not confined to what you see as justifiable parameters. I'm not straining to criticize the candidate, but I am admittedly being a bit more comprehensive in my examination of the candidate than, say, MSNBC or The New York Times. I'm also trying to be fair, in my own mind, at least, to both Democratic candidates. I think, if you read my posts, you'll find that I am hardly an enthusiastic or uncritical Clinton supporter.



What I sound like is a Reagan Democrat - we've got a lot of them around these parts. I know what Obama's constituencies are - and they don't include some of the traditional Democratic constituencies, like the working class. That is a problem. A big problem. A lose-the-election type problem. And it's the problem Obama was trying to address in San Francisco.

And, while this may be the stuff of another thread, Obama is not a "classic left wing Dem" nor is he to the left of Ted Kennedy, despite what the National Journal may say, and some of his positions are more conservative than those of most Democrats - especially the "classic left wing" ones. For example, and contrary to your assertion here, Obama mentioned in his Philadelphia speech on March 18, Obama said that in order to "continue on the path of a more perfect union," all Americans must "believe that they can write their own destiny" and celebrated the "quintessentially American - and yes, conservative - notion of self-help." That's a far cry from "what Obama can do for you".

All I'm saying is that if Obama is looking woo the working class in states like Pennsylvania (and he'd damned well better be if he wants his address to be 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue next year), it's not going to be through briefing canvassers on "what Obama can do for them". Do you think a politician saying "Elect me and I'll create more jobs" sounds "new" and "different" and "changey" to anyone who's old enough to have paid attention to any previous election cycle? Do you think anyone is going to warm to a relative unknown - especially "a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama" - if all they're hearing is the same old slogans? Obama is right: people are skeptical about the promises they've been hearing for generations.

If he wants to win the votes of this constituency, he needs to find common ground. And suggesting that they need the government or Barack Obama to do for them isn't it. Talk about veteran's rights, Senator. Talk about government reform. Talk about gas prices. Talk about the environment - and the potential impact of ecological irresponsibility on Pennsylvania's trout streams and deer habitats - and you've got the Democratic "gun vote". And wear a damned flag pin if it's important to enough of your constituents, for God's sake. But the "Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you" approach is not going to work.

Uh, in case you haven't noticed, Obama thought the story of his life was so compelling, so utterly uplifiting, that, even though nobody, aside from his friends and family, outside of Chicago had ever heard of him, he wrote an autobiography, 10+ years after he was doing his best to run with the "cool crowd." How desperate is this guy for affirmation? Just another piece in the puzzle of "who is Barack Hussein Obama"?

You like what he's said, and that's good enough for you. Me, I've seen this movie before, Robert Preston played the role in an Oscar winning film....

The stakes here are a bit higher than 76 trombones...

Need I say more...

Wertz


Tell me, just cause I really would like your opinion, what are the key policies, issues, interests, or politics that Clinton espouses, that Obama doesn't, that McCain does, which would cause Barack to lose the "reagon democrats", that Clinton would win.

Or what he should have said.


Or what he shouldn't have said.

It's okay to admit nothing Obama does/'nt say at this point won't sound offensive, Wertz.


Still insisting his comment was an endorsement that white people ain't gonna vote for him? Your prerogative to take offense.


Damn. Lunch pails? More out-of-touch points for failure to pass off as folksy as Clinton and McCain. And rightly so. There's no reason to not take offense.


I could copy/paste the paragraph above this statement, replace he with she, black with female and it would be just as true. A culmination of factors isn't a hurdle unique to Obama from the GOP's perspective. The only remarkable differences are his baggage isn't as well known as Clinton's and Bush has done a heck of a job wasting this country's resources with executive experience. The former's impact is being softened by Clinton with mentioning Ayers, but that's a double-edged sword.


Not only can you make 2 + 2 = 5, you can also read minds.

I think what gets lost in this is how quickly people will jump to territorial borders shoring up various barriers then anything else. I might like a president that says all the right things so that I might identify with him or her but being I am somewhat statistically speaking overall an anomaly personality wise I don’t ever really count on such, this is pointless and lacking point though.

Candidates should not be openly punished for speaking honestly, I mean I don’t know how much of this you can say for bush jr but if we do make punishment the reality of not being 110% PC at all times then you are left with voting for what? The best chameleon? I mean what talking has gone on about why a person would say such a thing? Was it merely stress talking? No instead we have a cascade of effects which basically involve backstabbing by everything involved it seems to me over being PC. Personally I found the remark about never being Muslim with such emphasis more appalling but that did not register on the PC market it seems.

Would simply a different use of words to say the same thing be any better? Such as in hard times people will vote for what they think they can count on?

50% of the time PC is poisonous politics and nothing more in my view.

Well, obviously, the differences between Obama and Clinton are very different than the differences between Obama and McCain. So let's look at Clinton first. In terms of policies, there are a couple of factors that loom large.

The military and national security is one main area. What many see as a liability - Clinton's initial support for the use of force in Iraq - could work to her advantage among blue collar workers in Pennsylvania. She claims she regrets the vote in hindsight, but doesn't disown it because she felt at the time that she was acting in the best interest of national security. That plays well here. A lot of people in these parts also initially supported a military incursion in Iraq and have since had serious second thoughts. Plus she has a record of service on the Senate Committee on Armed Services, lobbying for necessary resources for our troops, advocating veteran's rights, and passing legislation, for example, to track the health status of our returning troops to prevent conditions like Gulf War Syndrome from being misdiagnosed (a cause she championed as First Lady as well). That plays well here, too.

Her response to the September 11 attack as a senator was more impressive and more useful than anything George W. Bush did as president. She fought to provide compensation to the families of the victims, grants for hard-hit small businesses, and health care for first responders at the WTC. People here respect that, just as they appreciate her visits to Afghanistan and Iraq and the Walter Reed Military Hospital, however ceremonial. Apart from making a speech against the war that many Pennsylvania Democrats would have supported at the time (not that any of them would have heard it - or even heard of it - prior to the primary campaign), Obama can offer nothing comparable but an absentee year or two on a few related committees.

And Sen. Obama is right that many "lunch-pail types" are "values voters" - though not out of fiscal frustration. The fact that Clinton is a Methodist is a plus - and that, for those with a long enough memory (and an interest in such things), she has frankly discussed her faith and liberal religious political philosophy several times in the past, especially following her father's death in 1993, but continuing through her regular attendance of the Senate Prayer Breakfast. To many Democrats, this might be a mild turn-off, but here, again, it plays pretty well. Obama's church, on the other hand, is quite alien, if not a little threatening, to people accustomed to the more staid services of the industrial wasteland - especially the many Catholics among the Reagan Democrats, who are suspect of Episcopalians. Even relatively square praise bands are still considered somewhat outré in the heartland - and the TUCC, by comparison, is like a folk mass on mescaline (and that's without examining the content of Rev. Wright's sermons).

While both Clinton and Obama are "social liberals", Clinton does have a record of endorsing a number of "family values", which are attractive to Reagan Democrats - like her support of children's issues ranging from her advocacy of the Children's Health Insurance Program and the Foster Care Independence Act as First Lady to her introduction of the Family Entertainment Protection and Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Acts as senator. Her focus on health care in general is also attractive, partially because it's not just about subsidizing health care, but introducing things like more advanced info-tech systems to decrease administrative costs, lower premiums, and reduce medical errors. Obama may support similar positions, but he doesn't have the record in national politics to demonstrate much of anything. Opinion has shifted toward something like "Hillarycare" among many working class Democrats - and it's already got her name on it.

Even her advocacy of women's rights is something of a plus, especially as she's focused on women's rights as human rights, emphasizing a lot of third world concerns. She's not so much one of those feminists who thinks women should be working in mines or on oil rigs, she's the brand of feminist that doesn't like women wearing burkas or being stoned to death for adultery. She's not as pushy about gender-based affirmative action as she is about female circumcision (and, while we may not know exactly what that is, it sounds pretty grim and we don't want it here).

One of the factors that created Reagan Democrats in the first place was the perception that the Democratic Party had neglected the middle class for the interests of political pressure groups - notably minorities and those below the poverty line. Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to reclaim some of the blue collar vote by appealing directly to working families. The fact that we experienced some gains due to the economic prosperity that coincided with the Clinton administration helped cement the notion - and Hillary Clinton is, to an extent, seen as a champion of middle class voters "by association" - though she has certainly supported many initiatives on behalf of lower income families as a senator and has sound proposals relating to, for example, fiscal stimulus packages aimed at those facing foreclosure.

People here are also fed up with government corruption and, while they don't favor too much regulation, can get behind many of Clinton's recommendations like strengthening whistle-blower protections, investigating and eliminating corporate welfare, making all government contracts public, and ending the abuse of no-bid contracts. In this area, Obama has some similar proposals, but he's not getting the message out.

In fact, that is one of the key differences between the candidates at this stage. On almost every issue, there are some planks in Clinton's platform that working class Democrats can get on board with - from paying down the national debt and targeting tax cuts to the families who need them most to supporting "three strikes" legislation and the death penalty. Obama may also have a number of positions with which blue collar workers could sympathize, but who's to know?

To large extent, it's more the campaigns than the actual policy differences between the candidates that appeal to Reagan Democrats in Pennsylvania. When it comes to things like beleaguered homeowners, Clinton has the specifics - and her stump speeches are larded with them: a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures, a five-year freeze on mortgage interest rates, an energy assistance plan for families with skyrocketing heating bills, and so on - and on. She's almost boring with the details. But that's the kind of thing people here want to hear.

Obama's sales pitch is very different. And the criticism that has been dogging the candidate is somewhat valid: his campaign has focused on soaring, uplifting rhetoric. It's not that he doesn't have the sort of detailed proposals that Clinton talks about, but he has made the conscious decision to push the "transformative" nature of his campaign rather than to dwell on how he will effect the "change you can believe in" and what, exactly, that change is. Clinton may not be as inspiring, to say the least, but she has been attempting to reassure an anxious electorate that her policies can improve the lot of working families - and providing the hardcore wonkery to back it up.

We tend to go for pragmatism here; flowery words and upbeat slogans are for selling soap, not public policy.

The differences between Obama and McCain are more marked - and probably don't require going into in much detail. As a moderate, maverick Republican (and that is still his reputation here), McCain himself is practically a Reagan Democrat. Over the last few election cycles, the GOP has got a lot of mileage out of hypocrisy: convincing enough of the American electorate that their candidates were courageous, moral warriors and that their opponents were effete, intellectual snobs, out of touch with the common man - while, in fact, the direct opposite was often the case. The irony of an Obama campaign would be that the Republican Noise Machine could continue with the same old smears - but that, this time, they'd be true.



If I didn't find his remarks in San Francisco offensive, I wouldn't be posting here. Like I said, I'm not straining to find things in Obama's speeches.


I'm not sure what that means, but I'm still insisting that his answer sounded to me like someone trying to explain why it would be a "challenge" to get past "their" cynicism and skepticism - especially for "a black man named Barack Obama" facing people who "cling" to their "antipathy toward people who aren't like them". You tell me.


Except it wouldn't. Clinton isn't being portrayed as more liberal than Obama, Obama is being portrayed as more liberal than Clinton, for example. And, when it comes to casting votes in the general, I think the race barrier will be a greater hurdle than the gender barrier. As I've stated elsewhere, there's no equivalent to "The Bradley Effect" when it comes to female candidates - even if it may be as difficult for them to make it onto a ballot. And your swapping of adjectives and pronouns makes no sense at all when it comes to many of the "distractions" or "associations". Though both have more than a few of each, they are simply not reciprocal (and you're right that most of the Obama baggage isn't as well-known - yet). And if we're talking about (lack of) experience, I'm sorry - there's no comparison. The (lack of) judgment, I'll admit, is more subjective.


I'm not quite sure why this phrase was stuck in, but if you're comparing Bush's experience with Sen. Clinton's, we're back to apples and oranges. Neither Clinton nor Obama have much executive experience, outside the business sphere. I've always maintained that the key "experience" difference between Obama and Clinton is that he lacks experience of national politics - just as George W. Bush did. If one looks at national experience and executive experience, few presidents have had both. Most, though, have had one or the other. If one accepts that high ranking military experience counts as either or both, Obama is the only contender I can recall with neither.

Clinton claimed to regret the vote only after she began losing. Once it became apparent that it was politically a problem, she said she regretted it. This leads me to believe that she regrets it only because it caused her political problems, not because she felt the vote was wrong. She has only offered her regret as a campaign tactic.



And which committees would those be and what years was he absent, Wertz? You saying he never attended these committee hearings during these "years"? And from what committees has Clinton been absent? I mean, if you're being fair about this, shouldn't you look at the records of both candidates? Or are you simply going to take Clinton's word for things?



Wow. What exactly does this have to do with the question asked?



I see, so Obama's plan is just about subsidizing health care?



Wow, that's a pretty ignorant statement. Is there a high likelihood that the practice of female circumcision will become common in the US? If not, then who cares? And, if you don't know what female circumcision is about, there's a great book by Germaine Greer called, The Whole Woman, that deals with the subject. Interesting, that it is a part of female culture in these countries.



Ah, candidate validity by association.



Have you looked? I mean it's easy to be spoon fed your candidates position, but you claim to be looking at them equally, so... have you looked at his policy plans?



Dogging the leader in the campaign? But can Clinton be trusted? This is what has been dogging the one trailing in the race. That plays a large role in this race and is, in my opinion, a huge part of the reason she is losing.



Uh-huh. Sounds like sour grapes, too me.

Wertz, you admitted as much in your follow up posts that Obama really does have these principles in his platform. So the issue is one speech out of thousands that have been delivered and parsed ad nauseum. I've stopped parsing Clinton and McCain rhetoric on purpose, its mind numbing and McCain probably makes more gaffes than Clinton and Obama combined.

One speech seems to drown out the countless others. If you re-read his race speech, you see a lot more "we" than "me", but the recency of a private fund raiser in SF trumps that. It shouldn't. Obama is a great example of how that "hard day's work" can turn someone who grew up not exactly rich to the potential next President of the United States. I believe he has an ability to lead in a way that both McCain and Clinton lack. Neither of them inspire me. Obama does. McCain almost did, back in 2000. He had my vote before Gore did. I don't hold any naivete that Obama is any less capable of disappointing me than the other two, but for any of them to feel like they can truly say "I'm one of you", is sheer folly. Obama, McCain, and Clinton are all "two comma" people (a phrase I learned in Finding Forrester, great movie). "Two comma" people simply view the world in different terms. Its what defines an elite. But to say that Obama doesn't "get it" simply because of one speech, or perhaps even a few more brief examples (to give the benefit of the doubt) is an aberration compared to the body of work that I've been able to study, and I'll admit its not comprehensive. The problem is, that doesn't translate well in the era of sound bytes. That's why Wright's speeches got so much play, such wonderful sound bytes to work with.

We've had 8 years of "Bushisms" that have become so commonplace that people have eventually tuned them out. Obama will hopefully retire that phase of rhetorical life, but the pervasiveness of the media and the incredible amount of "overparsing" (not sure that's a word, but it should be) by all forms of media that is taking place adds a new level of meaninglessness to these campaigns. Instead of substance, we're spending all our time reading "gotchas".

I'm just tired of it, and the real campaign hasn't even started yet.

I read this article and thought it added to the debate on this thread and will offer it to stand on its own. http://www.bostonherald.com/news/opinion/o...ticleid=1088709 The debate offered in the article is rather compelling as to why it is necessary to examine all aspects of early voters reasons for voting for Obama which may have been canceled out by recent topics, including the "cling" thing. The topics discussed on character in the debate using up the 45 minutes of the debate could be those many early voters for Obama would like a "do over" with the new revelations.

Sunday evening I was watching Fox News The Strategy Room (or something like that) and there was a focus poll that included liberals, moderate liberals and Republicans and the guy played the NBC questions to Obama and Clinton and asked if they thought they were relevant and the overwhelming majority found them relative and were equally interested in these topics as to the issue questions.

I stopped reading the article after, "Michael Graham." I stopped reading your post after "Fox News".

You must really be upset with the new commercials for global warming with Speaker Pelosi and Newt Gingrich sitting together? Why even bother replying if you have such a closed mind? I watch every news channel available to me and most evenings end with Hannity and Combs followed by Keith Olbermann to balance out my view of the left and right viewpoints and see their feeding troughs. With that said you probably don't know that Senator Obama promised to visit Fox News Sunday over 700 days ago and continues to turn down the interview each week. Why should Senator Obama fear going on Fox News Sunday when he has no fear to meet with Iran leadership should he be elected? The worse thing that could happen is that he could be exposed to over twenty million viewers that watch the show each week, does he fear tough questions, if so he isn't ready to be president. Cris Wallace reminds the viewers each week that Obama gave him his word to come on and answer questions, he has a countdown clock with days, hours, minutes that prove Senator Obama is afraid of hard questions. How will a candidate answer hard questions in the general election when he knocks his knees contemplating talking with Cris Wallace? He and you sound like fearful persons, fight your fear and read the article and debate where the article is wrong.

My bad then. You're milking a few statements you find offensive for all they're worth, finding new ways to incorporate them such as with the dreaded lunch pail example. Gotta keep the outrage alive.


I wouldn't "tell" you anything if I thought he was endorsing this idea. That's why I'm posting.


FFS. It doesn't matter who wins the primary. They will be portrayed as the most liberal candidate ever to run for office—again. And wouldn't it be a shame to throw your vote away on Clinton/Obama when Republicans have a maverick this time; a moderate that doesn't have to fight the irrational, liberal urge to expand gubmint and take your money.

This time isn't going to be different. Republicans have been wheezing about Clinton for years. If she wins she'll be back to Public Enemy #1 status regardless what you and I think her actual liberal tendencies are. Reality has never been an obstacle for the GOP noise machine. She isn't going to make the general election race any easier for Democrats and the GOP can't portray both as equally liberal if it wants to come off as believable during the primaries. It is easier (and cheaper) to portray a relative unknown as the more liberal choice during the Democratic primary. You should know this.

Why should any Democrat take GOP spin into consideration when in the end Republicans will not hold back on behalf of obedient liberals that voted for the "least" liberal choice? "They're gonna try to screw us in a few months. Let's show 'em and screw ourselves first," is the pragmatism you're advocating while Democrats vote in record numbers.


The Bradley effect isn't going to help Clinton win the general election, Wertz. She's been within