Bitter Cling

I think this is a very important momment for Obama because it's a serious political roscharch test that will be a momment when his adverseries try to redefine who and what he is and what he stands for as a politician.

I think Marc Ambinder at the Atlantic has done a great job reporting the substance of the issue and the political implications but I think two things should be brought out about this:

(1) This is a great chance to kill the elitism critique. The beauty of this attack is that it is so hyper and he's being hit by the RNC, McCain, and Clinton at the same time. And he's going to fight back but the issue will be saturated; just as the Wright issue was saturated and will therefore be neutrued in a general election as a distracting topic.

(2) If he can get through this flap I don't think the superdelegates will fear voting him on at the top of the ticket because he will have proven his political chops.

(3) Clinton is not going to take the VP slot. This was a momment where if she was really not going to try to shift this thing so it hits the convention she could reach out an olive branch; instead she came out swinging which I respect from a political standpoint but it irks me as a democrat looking at McCain sitting pretty over there mulling his VP choices.

(4) There's a debate coming that gives Obama a great high profile way of addressing the issue.

Overall, I'm not worried about this flap. Obama is going to have to be more hyper alert after this and it's gratifying to see his campaign jump on this like white on rice. If it had to happen, it's lucky it broke on a Friday night.

Also, I just want to say it amuses me that this is the third time the chattering class has declared this is the scandal/issue that is going to break Obama's campaign. It may happen, but hopefully this too will pass.

Great post over all Joe, I agree with you.

Through, I don't see how the Tuzla case could not have been overblown.

Here's a simple solution for any journalist panelist who talks about this "bitter" nonsense on any TV show today, tomorrow, and next week:

Remind your fellow journalists that this is a dumb, insignificant topic and start talking about SOMETHING ELSE.

And clearly, if there ever was an upper middle class family, it is the Ivy League Obamas.

And the Clintons have a hundred million dollars and John McCain's "weekend cabin" in Sedona has an in-ground swimming pool and a guest house on its several acres.

"This Obama controversy, described below by JNS, is the sort of thing we journalists blow up into massive gas, mostly because we really don't want to get down in the weeds about the things we need to get down in the weeds about..."

Well said. I tend to agree with gator_fan, not only on his or her excellent taste in sports teams, but on the assessment of where this flap can go: it's an opportunity to address the elitism BS right now and show who's really out of touch. From Obama's tone as he addressed the controversy, he gets that.

Funny how the press thinks that it's a bad thing to come from any socioeconomic class except either the aristocracy or a cartoonish and inauthentic fantasy of the working and middle classes.

We've seen some evidence of non-populism in the past from Obama. Early on, he talked about the high price of arugula at Whole Foods. Shoulda been iceberg at Kroger's. And clearly, if there ever was an upper middle class family, it is the Ivy League Obamas.

It's always been a mystery to me how Democrats who succeed in life (such as Obama, Edwards) and support policies to help people get ahead are the first ones that are branded out of touch if they live in a big house or get an expensive haircut.

Rich Republicans on the other hand (John 3,500 square foot cabin McCain) support policies that screw the working class over and over and yet they are portrayed as more in touch with Joe Six Pack.

Class warfare is apparently only a one-way street. Fantastic!

News flash! Americans are bitter! Now, on to more important matters, like American Idol!

Ok, any journalist or voter who gets sucked into this game is a moron. HRC & Bill made $105 million in the last several years; for the past 30 years McCain has been in the Senate & married to a woman worth $100+ million, and BO and his wife for the past few years have made a few million. None of these people are poor working stiffs.

Yeah, BO knows what arugula is; big deal. He also knows what it's like to be a community organizer, what it's like to have to get a scholarship to go to college, etc. Hillary -- the corporate lawyer -- is a punk for starting this nonsense and McCain's just as bad for jumping onboard.

Joe, if you want to have some fun, why don't you ask each of them what a gallon of milk costs, or a gallon of heating oil, or a loaf of bread. My guess is that BO will have a much better idea than Hillary, and McCain won't have any idea.

Of course people have been bitter about politics. That's Karl Rove's whole schtick-- hate thy neighbor politics.

Good post, Joe. Please don't give oxygen to this crap.

Joe, good take on this.

I know Obama can do no wrong in the eyes of most of the commenters here and Hillary can do no right, however I appreciate your layout of the story. I don't think this is a particularly big deal, as I agree that Hillary's Tuzla story wasn't a big deal. I think it was the way it was overblown. I'm afraid this is going to be overblown as well. It has been the top story on the NPR news for the past several top of the hour breaks.

A Kos diarist makes a fairly cogent argument on how this could actually help Obama. Check it out at http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/11/204530/918/268/494012

I 'm going to have to agree with that Kos post there. Obama is right. But remember how Mccain telling the truth to Michegan about jobs not coming back helped him there? Wait....

Sometimes Americans don't want the truth, and they want things sugar coated and they want promises that can't possibly be kept.

That's how I'm worried that this will hurt Obama. Americans are idiots. But maybe the way he addresses this issue might help him. Mccain was blunt. Obama tends to be a lot more nuanced, in the sort of way that digs in over time, almost subconsciously.

It is a testament to the state of this country and our media that we have learned this week that the highest members of the Executive Branch were absolutely involved in the decision to destroy this nation's reputation and very likely committed war crimes with the decision IN THE WHITE HOUSE to allow torture, but the big stories of the week are whether it's rude to order Orange Juice over coffee in a diner and whether Obama should have used the word bitter or cling in a comment that otherwise makes complete sense to any sentient person living in America in 2008.

I appreciate Joe's attempt to separate the wheat from the chaff on this stuff. His Time-mate Halperin seems to have his knickers in a twist but he's all about this sort of stuff. If you want a good laugh, look at his list of who we(he) are waiting to hear from on this matter. Dick Cheney? Sean Hannity? Rush Limbaugh? Joe, please have a talk with him. He brings down the whole franchise with his schtick

There are war criminals running the country.

Oh, and Go Gators!!

It's not so much what he said, it's how he said and where. This plays right into the hands of republicans, whether it helps Clinton, it's impossible to tell, but it most assuredly help repubs. The media right now thinks Obama is a "darling" but they've had a much longer "love affair" with McCain, don't expect a change, afterall, they think they're regular people.

This is not jab at you, Joe, since this is a solid post and you've never joined the Cult Of the Regular Guy, but it's pretty comical hearing multimillionaires like "Meet the Press" crowd talk about how Obama isn't a regular guy.

As usual, Somberby captures this perfectly:

It’s all a part of the foppish values that drive the Washington press corps! Russert, of course, jets off to his multi-million-dollar “crib” on Nantucket to write books of self-praise about how he’s really from Buffalo.

It seems like every time a scandal, whether large or small, has broken out in this campaign, there is always someone in the press who says something along the lines of, "This is the kind of thing the press tends to blow out of proportion" or "This scandal isn't a huge deal, but it's a slow news week so the press is eating it up." We don't seem to get feeding frenzies anymore, but meta-frenzies, where there is a self-acknowledgment from journalist that their behavior is not acceptable, yet they go ahead and do what they normally do anyway.

It seems like they use self-recognition of their actions to excuse their actions. It's like me looking at a cookie and saying, "This is is fatty and caloric, and is not very good for me" and then eating it anyway, satisfied and conscience-free, because I am at least am aware of the situation.

This is not to take any knocks at you, Joe, I'm happy that at least some in the press are aware of the patterns of behavior the media can get itself into. I just wish there was a way to solve this Collective Action Problem, so that the candidates couldn't so successfully spin situations due their ability to predict the press' behavior.

I fear that even though people seem to recognize that this minor flub isn't a big deal, the press is going to turn it into one, causing real harm for Barack's future candidacy. The firestorm is predictable, but hey, it's all ok, because at least the press knows it's predictable.

"So, will this have an effect on the campaign? Probably not--not unless Clinton is able to build an Obama-as-Elitist narrative."

I'm not worried in the least about Hillary. No, as someone posited a couple weeks ago, this won't be Obama vs McCain it will be Obama vs the MSM. You guys haven't learned anything and are already hard at work on the 'Obama as elitist' meme...proof? Here it is:

Hardball Thursday...
MATTHEWS: What's so hard about doing a diner? I don't get it. Why doesn't he go in there and say, "Did you see the papers today? What do you think about that team? How did we do last night?" Just some regular connection?

SHUSTER: Well, here's the other thing that we saw on the tape, Chris, is that, when Obama went in, he was offered coffee, and he said, "I'll have orange juice."

MATTHEWS: No.

SHUSTER: He did.

And it's just one of those sort of weird things. You know, when the owner of the diner says, "Here, have some coffee," you say, "Yes, thank you," and, "Oh, can I also please have some orange juice, in addition to this?" You don't just say, "No, I'll take orange juice," and then turn away and start shaking hands. That's what happens [unintelligible] --

MATTHEWS: You don't ask for a substitute on the menu.

SHUSTER: Exactly.

MATTHEWS: David, what a regular guy. You could do this. Anyway, thank you, David Shuster. I mean, go to the diners.

If its accurate descriptions you're into, here's an accurate description of how the MSM sees its mission:

"I actually happen to know people who need government and so they would care more about the programs, and less about the things we kind of make fun of…But as sport, and as our enterprise, Gore coming up with another whopper is greatly entertaining to us. And we can disprove it in a way we can’t disprove these other things."
-Margaret Carlson

Joe: a good post. But, at the back of my mind, I have this feeling that the so-called American public is not really as sophisticated as we think. They have issues; lots of them are local. they need jobs, or a better standard of living, or affordable gas or food on the table or some entertainment, and a good school for their children. Now the elites spend a lot of time polling and telling us what the American people want. And the pundits, journalist and opinion types, often sitting on their bums, tell us the American people want. I would like to hear from a gasbag who earns $45K and worries about how he is going to pay his rent, feed and clothe his kids and pay for medical treatment. In the MSM, as is, we have too many people with fat wallets opining about how real people suffer or feel or think.

If Obama were a typical pandering politician this might really hurt him. But he's made his way through the morass thus far by saying pretty much what he thinks. So when he comes back to the story and clarifies his point, people have generally responded positively. If you look at his comments about the "bitter" language today he is sticking to his guns (maybe even clinging to them) but clarifying, and in some cases, rewording things that he had previously worded poorly. Unfortunately for Clinton and McCain, history is on Obama's side, and the more he taps into the history of deinsdustrialization, the more his language will resonate with voters here in western PA.

Welcome to JoeKleinWorld!

In JoeKleinWorld, as in BHOWorld, legitimate concerns over the massive illegal activity that both Obama and Klein support are "anti-immigrant sentiment" or "anti-immigrant feelings".

See also my previous comment.

Here's a question:

Hillary loaned her campaign $5 million back in February. How much of that $5 million came from the $800K Bill was paid to promote The Colombian trade deal? They file a joint return so any money she loaned is equally from his income.

In effect she is using money from the Colombain government to pay for her campaign. I guess you could charitably call it innocent money laundering.

The line that includes bitter and cling ought to read '...making them susceptible to demagoguery...' on the issues he described. In fact, he was describing the GOP campaign playbook with the precision of a motivated sharpshooter.

Barack Obama has the ability to speak to us like we are adults on important issues. The media seems more concerned with helping the rival campaigns to lower the discussion to the intellect-free level of character description via political narrative.

Joe Klein - It is admirable that you believe this kind of stuff to be unimportant - and I agree. What can you do about it?

The bitterness statement was a no brainer - look at the state of he economy and public opinion polls in rust-belt states. They`re not bitter, they´re pissed, disillusioned and cynical about government's ability to turn this around.

And while the comments about their "clinging" on to social issues could be misconstrued, it's absolutely true.

If Obama can arrange a high-profile speech further clarifying his remarks, I think he can really turn this around and go after Clinton and McCain instead.

Joe's sentiments are nice, but I wish he'd express them to his colleague Mark Halperin, on whom you can sense the blood dripping from his fangs as he once again devotes most of the ink on The Page to nonstop analysis of this "story." just as he has been driver #1 for the Wright story in the "mainstream" media.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/12/94456/5992/33/494223

Good post, Joe.

It's amazing how the tiniest bit of truth-telling sets the likes of JNS into a frothing tizzy.

Clapping harder for the economy and Iraq? That's SO 2005.

People just can't ignore the fact anymore that the Bush years have decimated the middle class, and that they are far worse off, emotionally, financially, and from a security perspective than they were in the Clinton years. We can't even manage to get planes up in the air, for Christ's sake! And Waco has nothin' on fundamental Mormon pervs! The casting of Republicans as more moral or ethical than Dems simply will not play; I mean, it's truly to laugh.

I think the best Democratic general election commercial this year would be stock footage of a gas station sign saying $1.87 a gallon, fading to W being sworn in. Deep voice: "Can you really afford four more years of Republican rule?"

This is "Naked Lunch" time, Joe. The electorate is taking a cold, hard look at what's at the end of the fork, and they aren't gonna swallow a spoonful of sugar anymore. They can't afford it. JNS and others can try to stir this "controversy." To me, it's not news that Obama made a pretty self-evident statement.

TUZLA was a lie = perpetuated by the candidate herself and used as an example of her experience

OBAMA's remarks were true - maybe not said as politic as possible but true

That's the difference

LIES VS TRUE
PAST VS FUTURE
$109million vs under a million

The reason this will not only not "cling" but likely be turned into a positive for Obama is that he is not an "elitist" and he will likely use the Faith and Values "discussion" Sunday night and hit back hard on this --

YEAH!

The MSM finally has a "slip" that could bring down Obama or at the very least provide Clinton with the needed boost to keep the campaign going.

HURRAY!

Halperin, Kaus, the Real Clear Politics gang and FOX gets more page views and sells more ad buys.

NO MIND...

Obama's comments are consistent with his "race" speech and consistent with McBush's Michigan primary "gaffe."

WILL THIS BE IT FOR OBAMA?

Only if the MSM wants it bad enough and presses really (really, really, superdelegate) hard.

GO HALPERIN!

fact is, Clinton is done and Obama's mistakes are mistakes that he is actually making in the general election. but that doesn't sell ad space....

Joe's sentiments are nice, but I wish he'd express them to his colleague Mark Halperin, on whom you can sense the blood dripping from his fangs as he once again devotes most of the ink on The Page to nonstop analysis of this "story.

My mind is cloudy and my memory tired: Drudge rules his world, no?

Jim, FL, I think Halperin has been worse than Drudge in this election cycle, which is remarkable because Time puports to be "mainstream," while Drudge does not....

It's the Clintons who are being condescending to the blue collar voters - assuming they'll be persuaded Obama is an "elitist" because they say so, and that they'll feel insulted becuase they tell them to feel that way.

He said it inartfully, to be sure, but Obama commited a truth. Musn't to that in the presidential campaign.

I'm usually very critical of Joe, but I think here he's hit the nail on the head. I do want to expand a bit on one point he made:

"[This controversy]...is the sort of thing we journalists blow up into massive gas, mostly because we really don't want to get down in the weeds about the things we need to get down in the weeds about..."

For several decades now, our media overlords have generally sneered at the very idea of seriously discussing issues: "Ooooh, issues -- they're icky and boring!" Instead, we have this nonstop obsession with "character" and personality...which leads to the utter insanity of the media going into hysteria mode for a week over, say, haircuts or phony baloney accusations about the Clinton administration trashing the White House. IMHO, these sick obsessions and the constant descent into hysteria mode are a big part of what's killing the American democratic republic.

Okay...is this an unofficial Pro Obama blog? I mean...is this part of his campaign or something? The anti Clinton vitriol is appalling.

This is all personal. If it weren't personal it wouldn't be this, well, "bitter". So even the intellectuals are bitter? I wonder if all those chastising her do not see a little bit of themselves in her.

I do not know what will happen, although so many of you seem to know. But one thing I am certain of is that Mrs. Clinton is not going away even if she loses this nomination. And I will venture to say that when this election is studied, the media and bloggers and pundits will be examined closely and probably not too kindly by historians.

America (Democrats, especially) will have lost an opportunity of two great presidents: Clinton 2008-2016 and Obama 2016-2024, because of sexism, ego and well, stupidity.

PS. By the way, his comments no matter how "right on" they were, were arrogant. Mr. Obama is talented, yes, but he is unashamedly arrogant. And "coming from nothing" doesn't guarantee humility folks. It may just feed the opposite. Arrogant leaders are extremely dangerous. You just went through one, remember?

PS. By the way, his comments no matter how "right on" they were, were arrogant.

PS. By the way, you Hillary cultists are no better than Bush cultists.

Here is a 2004 Charlie Rose interview with Obama. They discuss What's Wrong with Kansas - and Obama explicitly discusses hunting for camaraderie & tradition and church as a comfort while living with economic insecurity.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJut4-dHuV8

because of sexism,

Yes, of course, we're all neanderthals incapable of making any kind of rational decision based on her record or her foreign policy positions.

And there's nothing arrogant about Hillary Clinton. Nope. Nothing whatsoever. Inevitability as a political strategy is both smart and humble.

Re the Charlie Rose video - fast-forward to minute 11:00 and then play it.

if there ever was an upper middle class family, it is the Ivy League Obamas.

Such an egregiously ignorant assertion.

1. Let's say your take is true, on it's face. You still think they are somehow REPRESENTATIVE of an upper middle class Ivy league couple? Totally ridiculous.

2. They made it to the Ivy League (he after a stint at Occidental) because they were GOOD. Excellent even. NOT because they had money, or were legacies, which are the truly REPRESENTATIVE ways one becomes an Ivy Leaguer.

3. As has thankfully been articulated elsewhere, their Ivy League pedigree proves only that they are part of the ELITE, not ELITIST.

I agree that Obama has a proclivity to sound condescending, and this hurts him. But damn, your job is to properly discriminate the truth from the crap, and the probable from the not likely. Why the hell are you saying lazy stuff like this?

To TomT:

Question: how has Hillary Clinton damaged America? Did Gore really lose because of the Clintons or because of Mr. Nader and a little craziness in Florida? Did Kerry lose because of the Clintons or because he was off windsurfing when they were swift boating him?
Did the Clintons not inherit a more than crippled economy upon entering office in 1992, left by the Reagan-Bush/ Bush-Quayle administration?

What has she done that is so horrible? How has she hurt the nation? The proportion of the venom in this blog denotes a deep seeded resentment that seems to have no other explanation than that it is personal. And that is pea minded, short sighted and again, a dangerous attitude.

And... I am not a Hillary cultist. I can't vote, I am not an American. What I do see here is a barrage of Obama cultists or followers spewing venom against a person, a woman who has as much a right as anyone, with an extraordinary curriculum, to run for President and it is as if a criminal is running for office.

Vetting Mr. Obama and questioning him to a tenth of a degree that she is questioned is extremely important because if you let someone get away with everything he says because he is a brilliant orator or is charismatic or is just "cool" as Jack Cafferty has said on his ridiculous segment in CNN, who knows what will happen. Look at Mr. Bush. Shouldn't he be investigated by the law? Nothing is happening because, well, during the campaign the press loved the "great uniter" and even though he wasn't as sophisticated as his predecessor, he was purer and America was ready for purity and compassion and oh, yes, a man of religious and moral fortitude.

That's all I am saying Mr. TomT.

Unfortunately your decisions and vitriol do affect the rest of the world perhaps more than it affects many Americans, believe it or not. Just take your pick at any nation in the globe, sir.

Yes, of course, we're all neanderthals incapable of making any kind of rational decision based on her record or her foreign policy positions.

And there's nothing arrogant about Hillary Clinton. Nope. Nothing whatsoever. Inevitability as a political strategy is both smart and humble.
___________________________________

1) So you must be okay if either she or Mr. Obama win since they are almost identical on their positions and they have pretty much voted the same in the Senate. And if it's about records: as a Senator she has done much more than he has.

2) I may be wrong, but I never heard her call herself the inevitable candidate. That was the title the press gave her and it did nothing than attract more animosity towards her.

And I think she has eaten plenty of humble pie in the last 15 years of her life. That is what I pick up when I hear her.

She makes mistakes, many. I just find the incapability by the press and the Obama followers to see his mistakes, flaws and possible downfalls as worrisome. And if he is given the nomination, and he manages to beat McCain, it is going to be a rude awakening for America and the free world (if there is such a thing) will be left dangling. And do not think for a minute that it is because of a dependency on the U.S.A. It is because of an INTER dependency. The US needs its neighbors and allies just as much as they need it. It is just bigger and stronger that is all.

1) So you must be okay if either she or Mr. Obama win since they are almost identical on their positions and they have pretty much voted the same in the Senate.

There's one great big difference. Let's put our heads together and see if we can figure out what that might be...

And if it's about records: as a Senator she has done much more than he has.

I would hope so, given her head start both in time and prominence. But she didn't do much that mattered. For seven years, she kept her head down and kept her sights set on the Broderist, Liebermanish middle. This after justifying her carpetbag campaign in NY on the grounds that it would give her a quasi-national office from which she could provide leadership to the party and progressive causes. She didn't do that. If only we had seen some of the alleged "fighter" in the Senate, some of this anger, some of this tenacity. Who knows where we'd be today? But, rather ironically, she didn't want to upset anyone while she waited for this campaign.

And if he is given the nomination, and he manages to beat McCain

He isn't being "given" a thing. He's winning it. As for beating McCain, I don't think Clinton can.

And do not think for a minute that it is because of a dependency on the U.S.A. It is because of an INTER dependency. The US needs its neighbors and allies just as much as they need it.

Couldn't agree more. Precisely why I don't want the candidate who continues to see foreign policy through a cold war lens of "toughness". Who voted for the Iraq War, for Kyl-Lieberman, and who I gather today vowed to 'get tough' with China.

Joe, my father, the populist Dem from the Deep South, was angry and disgusted at Obama's words. He will hold his nose and vote for Obama in November only because "he ain't McCain".

I do think it's possible Obama's gaffe was the one where you mistakenly say what you really think and we saw that Obama really doesn't connect with blue collar workers.

That doesn't mean he won't be a good president but I do believe his choice of words was a window into his soul and he just doesn't get those gun-carrying, god-fearing folks in small towns.

I've always thought Obama's "message" of bringing people together was a bunch of hooey, much in line with Bush's crock about being a united not a divider.

But, I think Obama is a very smart guy and an agile, slick politician, which in the end are probably better concrete qualities in a leader than an undefined campaign based on unspecific feel-good speeches.

You know what is funny?

Obama's detractors keep stepping on their own smears of him.

First, he was a manchurian muslim.

Then Wright came along, and Obama is a radical black supremicist by association with a caricature painted of his pastor. The assumption is that because Obama goes to a church he agrees with everything said in the pulpit.

Now after his comments, Obama is attacked for not being sufficiently respectful of religion.

Well, if he doesn't respect religion, how can you be worried about his former pastor ever said?

Or how can you say that he is secretly a muslim.

I find it hilarious how utterly incoherent and mutually exclusive the attacks on Obama have become.

I guess that's why they call it the Kitchen sink.

Could we work on dispensing with the idea that there's such thing as an "average American".

Most people who use the phrase seem to mean 'people just like them' unless their journalists at which point they mean people they encounter at roadside diners.

America is a big and diverse place, and trying to pidgeonhole it invariably results in sloppy thinking.

RKA, it's not a smear to say Obama can come across as slightly condescending.

I have compared Obama to Wilson and Carter but I can see how the Stevenson comparison makes more sense. Stevenson was the candidate of choice for intellectual Dems. And I remember the great Michael Beschloss story about how when Stevenson was given a stuffed aligator by a little girl in Florida, his reaction was "C***t, what's this?" instead of "Thank you little girl, this will look good in my living room".

Over the years, HRC has been mocked for her lack of fashion sense and "hokiness". She and Bill might have made a lot of money in the last seven years but I bet she never forgets gutting fish and washing dishes in Alaska during her college years or growing up under the roof of a man who as pathalogically stingy.

There's a reason why she looks so comfortable among blue collar workers.

anyone wondering how long it would take for Hillary to take this too far...

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/clinton_my_dad_taught_me_how_t.php

I have to admit, I thought it would be Monday or Tuesday before either she or Bill made her into a laughingstock over this.

Politicians are judged - for better or worse - by what they actually say, not by what they mean to say. And what Obama said was condescending. It's just not a good idea to make critical blanket statements about why people turn to religion. And although I am as far to the left as anyone on gun control, his comments on gun owners were politically foolish.

RKA, Drudge has been really pro-Obama in the past few months! Although we all know that's because he wants McCain to win...

And as an aside, Democrats really need to be careful about blindly defending everything Obama - or any other Democrat - says. We need to be able to admit that Obama's comments were insensitive, inaccurate, and nonetheless based on a larger truth; His clarification was perfectly reasonable. But if we insist on defending his original remarks, we are just going to drive Reagan Democrats and Independents away.

And the Obama campaign is so not getting this if they think that they can make the story go away by reminding everyone that Clinton is rich; That is just not the point.

I agree with Obama. But I don't think it is just Pennsylvania. It is the whole world waiting and hoping - living in fear. I know. Many of you will tell me, as you have, that this election has nothing to do with us foreigners. That it is all about America. The American choice. The American future. And you are (mostly) right. This is your choice. This is about the American future. This is about America. But it does have something to do with us Johnny Foreigners. We do have a stake in this. Why? Because most level-headed people in this world still look to America for direction. We still look up to America. We look for guidance. We look to America for leadership in this crazy little sphere of ours. Question is, can America still provide it? And who offers that hope? http://angryafrican.net/2008/04/12/note-to-america-the-world-is-watching/

We're just as bad as the MSM - helping them blow this thing all out of proportion - if we continue to get sucked up into discussing ridiculous "issues" like this. In fact, the reason the MSM concentrates on "reporting" stuff like this is precisely because it can count on whipping the American people into a frenzy over nothing. We LIVE for this sort of "reporting"! God forbid we should actually demand any sort of focused discussion of, or attention to, anything of real consequence to our democracy! The reason we are where we are is because we continue to buy in to crap like this. Who's keeping it going now? We are!

So let me make sure I'm clear on this.

Those Americans seeing their jobs go overseas are not bitter? The Americans seeing the towns they grew up and had plan on living in all their lives dying on a the vine are not bitter? The Americans living on minimun wage with about zero chance of making better wages and no chance at health insurance are not bitter? Those regular blue collar middle Americans who complain about having to punch 1 for english, have to call India for repairs and are looking forward to paying more for food and $4.00 for gas are not bitter? Those Americans that went to the border and attempted to errect a fence because our government can't control the borders weren't and are not bitter? Those Americans that send their kids to failing schools everyday and see no progress everyday no matter how much in taxes they pay or how involved they become are not bitter? No American living in a community where foreclosures are high and seeing their property values plummet and crime rise while Bearn Sterns gets a bail out is bitter? No American watching billions being stolen in a failed effort to rebuild Iraq while American streets and bridges are crumbling is bitter?

Anyone who points out that they may be bitter because of all the above and more is out of touch? No one in America is clinging to their cling to their gun for protection against uncontrol crime and praying to God that things will get better in their life?

John McCain spoke from one of his 8 homes, denouncing Obama as an elitist.

Bill Clinton did the same while speaking by satellite phone from the corporate jet of a natural gas kleptocrat from a former Soviet Republic.

I remember the good old days when only Gore was an elitist, running against that down to earth W, who had no fancy relatives or colleges in his background, just generations of West Texas moxie.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/12/35450/1226/121/494151

Hunter nails it, although he gets a bit over the top at the end there.

Southern Bell---

What did your father find condescending about what Obama said? How did he hear about it? Did he see the clip of Obama's response to Clinton's and McCain's criticism?

.
All this blather about a perfectly obvious and true remark. Does anybody think Billary would actually let Chelsea marry a coal miner? Or anybody from Scranton?

Meanwhile, we have McCain still mooning, very publicly, over the older man who introduced him to notorious gay author Somerset Maugham, and the "liberal" media let it slide.

Check it out, yawl:
http://blog-me-no-blogs.blogspot.com/2008/04/mccain-turned-on-to-gay-author-by-teen.html

Not that there's anything wrong with that. But, like, a Democrat sneezes, and the media shows the Kleenex seventy million times. A Republican makes movies with monkeys, deserts his Guard unit, or waxes wussy, and nada. I'm just sayin'.
.

jayackroyd -

I like Hunter's intent but dismissing opposing views as "inbred" & "hick" reinforces (in my area) a notion that liberals are elitist.

It gives my neighbors an excuse to vote for McBush.

Just because someone is filthy rich does not mean they are incapable of connecting with working class voters. I have my reasons for not supporting Hillary, but the $100 million is not one of them. Bruce Springsteen is seriously wealthy and he still connects to the working class. In his case it is a matter of authenticity.

Hillary's upbringing was not working class in any way shape or form and there is nothing wrong with that. But her attempts to shoehorn what is very likely one afternoon with a bb gun with her grandad into an authentic working class upbringing is just plain silly. She is taking what for her should be a good thing and running it into the ground. Earlier I said that this campaign would get into a phase where she would try and impugn Obama's patriotism as the "Patriot Games" portion of the fight for the nomination. We are clearly seeing that well under way.

She's saying that he's not American enough to be the nominee.

Those Americans seeing their jobs go overseas are not bitter? The Americans seeing the towns they grew up and had plan on living in all their lives dying on a the vine are not bitter?

No, because they're so proud to be an American that none of this bothers them in the slightest and if you suggest otherwise, it just proves what an elitist you are.

I am a little confused at how Obama is considered to be elitist at all?

Didn't he come from a racially mixed marriage? Grow up without either parent for the majority of his early years as a child/adolescent because his father left the family and went back to Kenya? Didn't his mother marry another man from a foreign country, and sent Obama back to live with his white grandparents to raise? Didn't he have to get loans to finish college at Harvard?

No ladies and gentlemen it is not elitism Barak HUSSEIN Obama is struggling with here. It is his rebellion from years of rejection, abandonment, and struggle with being a mixed race human being not accepted into either a white or black community.

Until Obama crossed paths with the now infamous Rev Wright, I believe he struggled with the fact he was a misfit, a social outcast. Until Rev Wright's prudent guidance, Obama had no grounding force in his life to center his inner being.

Since Rev Wright has provided the mentorship and guidance to Obama, its not elitism. It is bigotry and hatred for white America, plain and simple. It is rejection of your white self, and power to the "po' black boy syndrome". Its "whitie has kept you down, the white corporate greed and power is to blame". "The chickens have come home to roost, and GOD DAMN AMERICA and the US OF KKA"!!!

Yes Rose as you posted earlier, this "slip of the tongue", is yet another example of a "window into the soul" of Barak HUSSEIN Obama. How psychologically damaged this man is, and where his convictions are truly based.

If you are abandoned and rejected, you will gravitate to the place you feel accepted. Obama was accepted by his mentor and "spiritual advisor", Rev Wright. He has taken on the values and ideals of this masterful MADMAN.

God save us all if this psychotic is ever elected president.

Rev Wright / Obama '08 WRONG for America

Blue--

I like Hunter's intent but dismissing opposing views as "inbred" & "hick" reinforces (in my area) a notion that liberals are elitist.

You've missed the point. He's saying that McCain and Clinton (and the rest of the Beltway elite) think of "those people" as inbred hicks. You know, like the republican strategist who dismissed their evangelical base as kooks.

No one cares that Obama thinks working class whites mistrust government. THat is a perfectly logical thing to say. Where he screwed up is to say that they turn to religion and guns because of their bitterness.

So Obama wants us to believe that HE stayed in Reverend Wright's church because he was moved by the Holy Spirit and became a Christian, but those poor whites in Pennsylvania only go to their churches because they are blinded by their bitterness?

Give me a break. It was an unbelievably stupid remark to make and to compound it by saying it in San Francisco was the icing on the cake.

For once, we really having an honest, thinking candidate for President who reflects on the diversity of our country. We are a mixed bag of honest folks and angry folks and folks who are disengaged from anyone different from themselves. That is true in America's midwest small towns and the small towns of the San Francisco Bay Area (close to where this blogger taped Obama's words without his knowledge). We need an honest person like Barack Obama to be straightforward about our foibles; to make us reflect on our good and bad sides; to get parents to take responsibility for raising their sons and daughters to be hard-working, honest students; to get Americans to slow down and appreciate the good in others; to value our potential with good efforts instead of generating negative approaches and always blaming someone else. Let us go forward - toward Obama.

Keep chugging the Obama Kool-Aid, Joe.

God, you "journalists" have become a joke!

Ok, after reading what might be called a dangerous (or addictive forming) amount of articles and comments on this issue, I really do think this will explode in Obama's favor, drawing him closer to lower and middle class voters and really finishing off Hillary.

Imagine (if you must) that you are a struggling middle-class voter.... who are you going to side with? The one who identifies with your anger, or the one who denies it, and calls you optimistic and hopeful?

Even we upper-middle class educated, late-sipping whatevers are pretty pessimistic about the state of our economy and governments responsiveness to the people it purports to serve.

Ah McHillary thinks we're optimistic?

Is there a way to tell Hillary that I am, in fact, angry and bitter? And that her attempt to say that I think everything is fine is, in fact, insulting?

TeresaKopec: I think he meant that they turn to religion and guns as VOTING ISSUES, not as crutches.

What he may have meant and what he said are two very different things.

Once again, Teresa Kopec rises to cheer on Hillary the Duckslayer. Any news on when she last went hunting - or to church? Or are such questions still irrelevant?

With most of our elected officials being “career politicians” and many in the top 1% of the affluent (at least 40 US senators are millionaires) aren’t pretty much all of our elected officials out of touch with the average U.S. citizen? With guaranteed pensions as well as medical benefits for life...how many of our elected officially are really “feeling the pain” of rising gas prices or even know that milk is now almost $5.00 a gallon and eggs are $3-4 a dozen? Discussing which candidate is “most resonates” with Middle America is about as fruitful as discussing which candidates turd smells most like a flower…let’s just face it – the answer is NONE of them.
The Average American:
- Has a median income $48,600 per household ($26k per individual)
- Does not have a Bachelor degree
- Has never traveled outside the United States
- Carries $10,000 of credit card debt per household

Does the above describe any of the candidates or any politician inside the beltway? As long as it takes millions of dollars to run for office – the “average” American will never be truly represented by one of their peeps…and that's just the way it is and has been for a long time..."Mr Smith Goes to Washington" only in the movies...

Now as these candidates court middle America – which is a necessity as it’s the majority of voters, I've yet to hear any detailed plan of how ANY of these candidates are mitigate the rising gas and food prices, reduce the national debt, help resolve the mortgage crisis - and to what impact to the US taxpayer/homeowner, stabilize the plummeting US dollar, realistically resolve the middle east conflicts, address the education crisis and the fact we are falling behind the world (especially Asia) in the number of trained engineers, address the whole health care debacle, global warming, and the list goes on.

It also would be interesting to find out “which” of the new presidential powers the current administration has usurped the candidates will return? Will they close Gitmo on January 20th 2009? What do they think are the potential risks to the US currency and economy by increasing the powers of the Federal Reserve? (An unregulated private bank that is not a government institution.) How do the candidates think the latest Bush proposal, which would give the drug companies, the second most profitable industry next to oil, "pre-emptive" protection from any liability once the FDA approves the drug, will impact the average American?

This latest “pre-emptive” one's actually a good one…Let’s say the average (or actually any American) takes this new allergy drug "as seen on T.V." which of course was approved by the FDA based on a study funded by the drug company. The average American pays $$$ for this drug since they have limited or no prescription coverage, and now a few months later it turns out that drug also causes irreversible incontinence (oops the study missed that!) and now all American’s who took this drug are wearing diapers for the rest of their life. With this new legislation, no one would have the right to sue the drug company for any damages to cover adult diaper expenses...and those things sure are pricey. (However, don't worry - a whole new cottage industry of "designer adult diapers" will develop.) As I generally don’t condone our “sue” happy ways – given the conflict of interest of the drug company wanting to recoup the $$ already spent on drug research that could compromise study findings; coupled with the FDA’s reputation of overall incompetence…this does not sound like a good idea for ANY American.

So as we bicker about the minor gaffes made by the candidates who speak to countless crowds every day...Let’s try and remember, all of the candidates are actually human beings just like US, therefore bound to make some misstatements…just look at all of the misspellings and typos on this site. ☺

However, I wonder..is putting so much negative energy into dissecting these minor verbal gaffes really solving the major issues at hand? It seems as we’re all caught up flaming each other on presidential candidate rhetoric and completely ignoring the fact that the current president is still screwing things up…Karl Rove must be a happy man!

As both democratic candidates seem to be genuinely empathic to the plight of the majority of American’s – is there any real reason to get into some who’s the biggest "emo” contest? Let’s look at the positive and celebrate the fact that at ALL of the U.S. presidential candidates are able to speak in complete sentences! And it's been a long time since we've had that here in the good ol' U.S.of A.

goldencrumpet says, "Once again, Teresa Kopec rises to cheer on Hillary the Duckslayer. Any news on when she last went hunting - or to church? Or are such questions still irrelevant?"

I'm not cheering on Hillary, I am saying that Obama did something that is incredibly stupid and insulting to a lot of people. I live in the south where a lot of people hunt for fun. I know that isn't palatable to you, but it happens to be true and it has nothing to do with how people feel about government.

Bottom line: The democrat party IS again scraping the bottom of the McGovernite retro-commie barrel, where they've foisted 2 elitist BIGOTS as their champions for 2008.

Run with that in November, libniks.

"I am saying that Obama did something that is incredibly stupid and insulting to a lot of people. I live in the south where a lot of people hunt for fun. I know that isn't palatable to you, but it happens to be true and it has nothing to do with how people feel about government."

I live down south to and a lot people in my area have guns because they feel that no one will protect them (government) when the next idiot with a gun bursts into their classroom, place of employment or home and starts shooting innocent people. Could it be possible for you and all the others down here that are so insulted TO EVEN CONSIDER that Obama could have been referring to the fear people have of that type of thing happening to them and the government being unable to protect them and not attempting to smear hunters.

"Could it be possible for you and all the others down here that are so insulted TO EVEN CONSIDER that Obama could have been referring to the fear people have of that type of thing happening to them and the government being unable to protect them and not attempting to smear hunters."

Given the audience and the related content, he gets no such slack, sorry.

His remarks were and remain elitist, divisive, and retrograde, at best.

At worst?

He's Reverend Wrong, in a fresh (w)rapper.

Lib Reality Check:

Every blessed Time that Hillary or Obama opens their sorry sacks of Hating America First lefty crapola, our current President looks a whole hell of alot better.

Too bad we have term limits.

Bush 43 would beat either of these azz clowns, easily, come sweet November.

Give the audience and related content? I guess if you really want to be insulted which you appear to do. Then he wouldn't have your vote no matter what he said.

"Too bad we have term limits.

Bush 43 would beat either of these azz clowns, easily, come sweet November."

Its a good thing we have term limits and its good you only have one vote.

http://americanresearchgroup.com/

Maybe the mayor of Detroit IS available?