Obama, Arrogant Elitist

[SDW2001]

Last weekend, the artist formerly known as Barack Obama ("Change™" is his new legal name) made these comments:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama was quoted as saying by the Huffington Post.

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

As someone from PA and someone that has been through and spent time in many of these towns, I find his comments offensive. I know people that live in towns like he is referencing, and don't think they are going to like what he said too much. First, it's inaccurate. These people aren't bitter for the most part. They do what they have to do. Yes, their towns aren't what they were in their heyday...but that doesn't make them bitter. Secondly, it's just plainly offensive. He's denigrating their religious and social values. He's denigrating their lifestyles (ones that often include gun ownership for hunting). He's denigrating their intelligence and implying they are both racist and stupid. Well done.

I can't wait to see him speech his way out of this one. Time for another trip to the National Constitution Center, I guess. Maybe this time it can be a speech on poverty and NAFTA. Politically speaking, I think this is going to hurt him big time.

[tonton]

"You go into these small towns in Israel and, like a lot of small towns in the Middle East, the freedom has been gone now for 60 years and nothing's replaced it."

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

What Obama said is kind of true. Does it generallize? Sure. But he's preaching to the Democrats here. The Democrats are the Ahshamed Ones™, not the Bitter Ones™.

[hardeeharhar]

You're beginning to sound a lot like Hillary.

Every time that you post.
...


He is probably right, though. People who are marginalized cling to strange theories.


Regardless, the people in Pennsylvania do sound bitter...

[Jubelum]

He's denigrating their religious and social values. He's denigrating their lifestyles (ones that often include gun ownership for hunting). He's denigrating their intelligence and implying they are both racist and stupid.

I hope he keeps talking like this. It will cost him the midwest faster than a hunting jacket with the tags still on it and asking "can I get me a hunting license."

Not surprising. He's playing to his base. Incredible that an African American would deal in such stereotypes. But again, not all that surprising.

BTW... I think he's making a stab to put down HRC's supporters... the less educated, less well-off folks he'll need to win the general. He's trying to win favour among the snobby, elitist liberals who share his stereotype of gun owners and religious people.

Preach on, Barack, we need more of this rhetoric from you. :D

[Akumulator]

Last weekend, the artist formerly known as Barack Obama ("Change™" is his new legal name) made these comments:



As someone from PA and someone that has been through and spent time in many of these towns, I find his comments offensive. I know people that live in towns like he is referencing, and don't think they are going to like what he said too much. First, it's inaccurate. These people aren't bitter for the most part. They do what they have to do. Yes, their towns aren't what they were in their heyday...but that doesn't make them bitter. Secondly, it's just plainly offensive. He's denigrating their religious and social values. He's denigrating their lifestyles (ones that often include gun ownership for hunting). He's denigrating their intelligence and implying they are both racist and stupid. Well done.

I can't wait to see him speech his way out of this one. Time for another trip to the National Constitution Center, I guess. Maybe this time it can be a speech on poverty and NAFTA. Politically speaking, I think this is going to hurt him big time.

Your false outrage is disgusting.

+1 for attempting to make an issue where there is none.

[addabox]

I'm surprised it took this long for SDW to start the "(insert Democratic presidential candidate here) is an arrogant elitist" thread.

Certainly the right wing noise machine has been working it already, it's the only song they know.

And, of course, the liberal media loves to sing back up:

Drinking orange juice is "weird". (http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110004?f=h_latest)

[SDW2001]

I'm surprised it took this long for SDW to start the "(insert Democratic presidential candidate here) is an arrogant elitist" thread.

Certainly the right wing noise machine has been working it already, it's the only song they know.

And, of course, the liberal media loves to sing back up:

Drinking orange juice is "weird". (http://mediamatters.org/items/200804110004?f=h_latest)

Go ahead, dismiss it. Or, do you have an explanation for his comments? You find them politically irrelevant?

[SDW2001]

"You go into these small towns in Israel and, like a lot of small towns in the Middle East, the freedom has been gone now for 60 years and nothing's replaced it."

I don't see how that's the same...at all.



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

What Obama said is kind of true. Does it generallize? Sure. But he's preaching to the Democrats here. The Democrats are the Ahshamed Ones™, not the Bitter Ones™.

If that's his plan, it's a bad one. He's going to offend the people needs.



You're beginning to sound a lot like Hillary.

Every time that you post.
...


He is probably right, though. People who are marginalized cling to strange theories.


Regardless, the people in Pennsylvania do sound bitter...

Who sounds bitter? Really...I want to know.



Your false outrage is disgusting.

+1 for attempting to make an issue where there is none.

First, I'm not outraged. I said I was offended, and I am. I can only imagine what people that live in small blue collar towns think.

Secondly, you really don't think this is an issue? You can't see how this will offend said people? You don't think it sounds elitist and arrogant?

[hardeeharhar]

Who sounds bitter? Really...I want to know.



The people (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), Mr. Herbert quotes.

Let's see here, your claim was that their was no bitterness.

To falsify that claim, all one needed to provide is evidence of bitterness.

I have done so.

Your claim is wrong.

No, I won't accepted anecdotal evidence that says you know people who AREN'T bitter. That is largely irrelevant...

[groverat]

SDW:

I find his comments accurate. He didn't say that all small-town people were bitter husks. He explicitly qualified that it depended on the area and that only some places were like that. And he's right.

Obama's comments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html) are perfectly justified. You can scream bloody murder all you like, but that doesn't alter the truth of his statement.

You find his comments offensive because you're a virulent conservative and he's a Democratic candidate for president.

Who sounds bitter? Really...I want to know.

You sound bitter, freaking out about something trivial.

Secondly, you really don't think this is an issue? You can't see how this will offend said people? You don't think it sounds elitist and arrogant?

I don't think it sounds elitist or arrogant. People have the feelings and loyalties they do for reasons. Economics is perhaps the greatest of all political motivators.

You see it as elitist and arrogant because that's the meme; limousine liberals and all that crap.

[Jubelum]

I think this should be his finale:

"So, to help them deal with their bitterness more compassionately, we've decided to take their guns, put down their religion, open the borders, and try to walk the line between the Unions and NAFTA-style agreements. Thank you. "

:smokey:

I thought Obama was sharper than this. I'm really disappointed. Methinks this might make the rounds in the Echo Chamber.

[FormerLurker]

Methinks this might make the rounds in the Echo Chamber.

Methinks it's already making the rounds - otherwise, there wouldn't be a thread here about it.

[Jubelum]

Methinks it's already making the rounds - otherwise, there wouldn't be a thread here about it.

I dunno... I think we here at AO/PO are an echo-chamber about the size of a Prius or Vespa muffler. I'm wondering if this ends up the normal beltway politico spin cycle... ironically, an echo chamber that more closely represents a 12" glass pack on Bubba's muddin' truck.

I'm thinking that Mark Penn's replacement is working hard to see if this can be used... but maybe not, because I'm sure HRC has her own puddles to step in just like this one.

What do you think are the chances this makes it to a Sunday show at some point?

[FormerLurker]

Exactly.

I always wonder where the Trumpts and SDWs of the world even get half the stuff they post.

The OP quotes a source, but does not name or link it.

I wonder why that is?

:???:
;)

[Jubelum]

The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html), that damn winger rag... ;)

Full text of his comments there, FYI...

[addabox]

Obama responds. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow&eurl=http://www.dailykos.com/)

I have to say, I really like the way Obama goes right at these attacks, without any equivocating.

[Akumulator]

It hurts so good. :)

[tonton]

The real arrogant ones are the ones who see someone who is obviously a good leader, and would still vote for someone who is a bad leader, simply because they are stubborn.

[Akumulator]

Yep.

http://www.foxnews.com/images/139992/30_25_093004_bush_kerry_shake_450.jpg

[Bergermeister]

An interesting thing about "being offensive" is that it is often a person's choice to understand something as being offensive or not. More often than not, people choose to be offended so that they can argue their own point; indeed, some people seem to go out of their way to be offended. They will likely be offended by this.

Why not just say that what Obama is saying isn't true and back it up and let him waste away in the thereby proven falsehoods he claims? Why the need for the offense and anger? Lacking in something worthy of their own?

[Jubelum]

Yep.


322..

[Akumulator]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW7s8TuvZ8U

[FormerLurker]

The Huffington Post (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html), that damn winger rag... ;)

Ummm.....
Not exactly....

Inside quote tags in SDW's post is the following:
"...Obama was quoted as saying by the Huffington Post"

SDW is quoting an (unnamed, unknown) source that is quoting the HuffPo's quote of Obama. He is not quoting HuffPo directly.

WHEW.... this is undoubtedly the most I've ever used the words "quoted" and "quoting" in any single post, in my entire life.

[Jubelum]

Well, Reuters and Fox and Drudge are on it... Politico and DemUnderground had it earlier today... I guess we have the answer to the echo chamber question... :\

[groverat]

I think it's worth noting that SDW quotes Obama as saying "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania..." when he actually says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html) "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania...".

There's obviously an agenda here to change his words to sensationalize the story.

[BRussell]

This seems to me like it's going to be one of these cases - like the "I'd bomb Pakistan" incident - where McCain and Clinton go after Obama, but it ends up going back in their faces. If the basic distinction is that Obama is saying that lots of people are ticked off, and McCain and Clinton are saying "no they're not everything is fine," that's not a winning battle for Clinton and McCain.

[Jubelum]

McCain and Clinton are saying "no they're not everything is fine,"

I'd have to disagree with that.

Clinton has more stories of desperation in her stump speech than you can shake an intern at. She's from the old school... where we're all living just One Paycheck Away™ from being homeless on the streets, standing in a chow line, and sending our dirty-faced kids off to orphanages. There's plenty of doom in her concept of America. It's most assuredly not "Everything is fine."

All I've heard McCain say is "we have challenges." No shit, Mick.

[BRussell]

That's right. But that's why I think this particular debate - if it's framed from her perspective as "Obama is wrong because everything is fine" - is not going to work for her.

[jimmac]

Ok SDW this is just you trying to reach for something / anything you can to find fault with Obama. When people get pushed back against a wall they do tend to cling to things they wouldn't normally. Also I seem to remember telling you a few years ago that jobs disapppearing in my own state of Oregon had made some people bitter ( logging used to be the main industry ). I'm sorry but I think he's just pointing out the obvious. Also by the way I could have taken great offense when a few years ago I was pointing out to you that Oregon's employment climate was suffering because of fallout from the last recession. Your reply was " Well coming from an out of the way place like Oregon you really can't compare it to the country as a whole ". I mean you really aren't one of those people who pictures Oregon as one of those places where you open the front door, look past the arrows buried in the wood, and your horse is tied up out front are you?

[screener]

Originally Posted by BRussell
McCain and Clinton are saying "no they're not everything is fine,"

I don't remember either one saying everything is fine.
What I remember is more along SDW's take on it,
These people aren't bitter for the most part. They do what they have to do. Yes, their towns aren't what they were in their heyday...but that doesn't make them bitter.

I'd have to disagree with that.

Clinton has more stories of desperation in her stump speech than you can shake an intern at. She's from the old school... where we're all living just One Paycheck Away™ from being homeless on the streets, standing in a chow line, and sending our dirty-faced kids off to orphanages. There's plenty of doom in her concept of America. It's most assuredly not "Everything is fine."

All I've heard McCain say is "we have challenges." No shit, Mick.

Never does she say all Americans, be honest here.
You can't deny a lot of Americans are one paycheck, sickness away from being in trouble.
Issues that need addressing, don't you think?

I haven't heard much more from McCain either.
Another republican with a plan.:no:

[vinea]

Which of the three campaigns is using YouTube better do you think? Or all about the same?

[BRussell]

McCain and Clinton are saying "no they're not everything is fine,"
I don't remember either one saying everything is fine.Jeezus, that's twice in this thread that people misquoted me on that line. I said "If" it gets framed as Obama saying people are angry and McCain and Clinton saying everything is fine, then it won't work. I didn't say they said that exact quote. But I could easily see it becoming about whether things are OK or not OK, because that seems to me to be the essence of the issue.

[SDW2001]

The people (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/08/opinion/08herbert.html?_r=1&oref=slogin), Mr. Herbert quotes.

Let's see here, your claim was that their was no bitterness.

To falsify that claim, all one needed to provide is evidence of bitterness.

I have done so.

Your claim is wrong.

No, I won't accepted anecdotal evidence that says you know people who AREN'T bitter. That is largely irrelevant...

How is that bitterness? It sounds like concern to me, and dislike of Bush. Oh, and since I LIVE IN PA, perhaps I might you know....know a thing or two about some of the people that live here as well.

[hardeeharhar]

How is that bitterness? It sounds like concern to me, and dislike of Bush. Oh, and since I LIVE IN PA, perhaps I might you know....know a thing or two about some of the people that live here as well.
So do I, buster.

Regardless, they are clearly bitter about Bush and the way he has run this country...

[SDW2001]

SDW:

I find his comments accurate. He didn't say that all small-town people were bitter husks. He explicitly qualified that it depended on the area and that only some places were like that. And he's right.

Why, because he used the word "some?" :lol:



Obama's comments (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html) are perfectly justified. You can scream bloody murder all you like, but that doesn't alter the truth of his statement.

No, they are totally unjustified. He just called many of the states residents racist, backwards slobs.



You find his comments offensive because you're a virulent conservative and he's a Democratic candidate for president.

I don't give a damn what party he's in. I find his comments offensive because I know people that live in towns like he's referencing. My grandmother was from a town like that. He's mocking their beliefs and their way of life.





You sound bitter, freaking out about something trivial.

I'm doing no such thing. I simply find his comments offensive, elitist and arrogant.



I don't think it sounds elitist or arrogant.

Then you don't know what the words mean.

People have the feelings and loyalties they do for reasons. Economics is perhaps the greatest of all political motivators.

And Obama knows what their feelings are and knows their motivations for feeling that way? Obama is in a position to say that their "bitterness" is expressed through racism, religion and gun ownership? Shit grover, he's practically sticking his tongue out at them saying "na na na na na na!"



You see it as elitist and arrogant because that's the meme; limousine liberals and all that crap.

Except it's pretty clear that's actually who Obama is.

Ummm.....
Not exactly....

Inside quote tags in SDW's post is the following:
"...Obama was quoted as saying by the Huffington Post"

SDW is quoting an (unnamed, unknown) source that is quoting the HuffPo's quote of Obama. He is not quoting HuffPo directly.

WHEW.... this is undoubtedly the most I've ever used the words "quoted" and "quoting" in any single post, in my entire life.

I heard the the audio as well. The quote is essentially accurate.



I think it's worth noting that SDW quotes Obama as saying "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania..." when he actually says (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html) "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania...".

There's obviously an agenda here to change his words to sensationalize the story.

:lol: Jesus H! The word some doesn't do anything to mitigate the effect his comments have.


This seems to me like it's going to be one of these cases - like the "I'd bomb Pakistan" incident - where McCain and Clinton go after Obama, but it ends up going back in their faces. If the basic distinction is that Obama is saying that lots of people are ticked off, and McCain and Clinton are saying "no they're not everything is fine," that's not a winning battle for Clinton and McCain.

Right...because you know, he didn't really say that. For liberals, there is always an explanation of what they really meant. It's just that their words are twisted by the Evil Conservative Echo Chamber™. But conservatives? John McCain can say "Al-Queda" when he means "extremists" and suddenly he's an ignorant fool.

Speaking of parsing words, Obama did not say people were "ticked off." He said they were bitter for economic reasons. He also said that bitterness is expressed through racism and "clinging" to religion, gun ownership, etc...as if those things are some kind of desperate, false hope. You see, what Obama understands is that they need help from the Federal Government™. Without it, they'll just keeping hunting, fishing, opposing illegal immigration and going to church. And we can't have that.

[BRussell]

OK SDW, he said "bitter" rather than "ticked off." I don't think that changes my point about how this may play out. Obama is going to be seen as saying people are legitimately mad about things, and Clinton and McCain are going to be seen as saying - what? That people are not bitter about things? Or that it's not legitimate? I think they have a tough argument to make if that's how it plays out.

[vinea]

He said they were bitter for economic reasons.


I'm bitter for economic reasons. I'm a saver. I got hosed by BushCo.

He also said that bitterness is expressed through racism and "clinging" to religion, gun ownership, etc...as if those things are some kind of desperate, false hope. You see, what Obama understands is that they need help from the Federal Government™. Without it, they'll just keeping hunting, fishing, opposing illegal immigration and going to church. And we can't have that.

Some of those are false hopes. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, keeps this nation strong and not looking at population decline like most industrialized nations. We've already established that he's religious.

[addabox]

SDW: did you bother to watch the video I linked to? He addresses this squarely: because some voters no longer believe that "politicians" mean anything at all by their promises to help-- to help rural and former industrial towns that have seen their job base dry up and blow away (maybe you'd like to argue that there are no such places in Pennsylvania, that its uniformly vibrant economy precludes any such "negative" talk?), they are more inclined to vote cultural issues than economic.

That they are cynical ("bitter", if you will) about the prospect of real change, and so are left to choose as best they can based on other issues-- which, given the nature of American politics, turn out to be things like gun control, abortion, and gay rights.

The idea that that this is some kind of ugly dismissal of these voters, or constitutes evidence of elitism, is, in a word, elitist.

Why are you so utterly convinced that you represent "America"? That you are the "normal" one? You never hesitate to heap withering scorn on the mentality of "liberals", as if they were an alien species attempting to dictate to "real Americans" what to think, forever decrying their "elitism" while never reconciling that stance to the fact that you're talking about a huge chunk of the country.

Given the polling numbers, "liberal" attitudes are prevalent-- on gun control, abortion rights, Iraq, global warming, tax policy, etc.

What could be more elitist than to assume one's minority opinions constitute "America"?

I'm tired of hearing from elitists such as yourself, in your suburban enclaves, condescendingly explaining what "real Americans" think and who "real Americans" are.

I'm a real American. All my friends are real Americans. And we think people like you are sorta dicks. How is that more "elitist" than your opinion of people like us?

[Flounder]

Then you don't know what the words mean.


Wow, so reasonable people couldn't possibly differ on their interpretation of those words?

"I know what the words means, and the words mean I'm right and that Obama is an arrogant elitist, so there can be no argument against me."

How compelling!

[groverat]

SDW:

The word some doesn't do anything to mitigate the effect his comments have.

The "effect" his comments have is out of his hands, because it is subjective depending of the audience. His comments had no effect on me except to remind me that he's a fairly honest guy as politicians go, capable of saying unpopular things if he thinks they are true. I respect it.

The effect it had on you was quite different, and just as predictable to me as my reaction was predictable to you.

The only thing Obama has control of is the meaning of his comments. He meant that only some areas were like that. So that's what he said.

"HOW DARE HE SAY SOME PEOPLE ARE BITTER MY GRANDMOTHER IS NOT BITTER!!!!!"

[Bergermeister]

I heard the the audio as well. The quote is essentially accurate.


A quote is either accurate or inaccurate. A paraphrase can be essentially accurate.

[SDW2001]

I don't think I know what you think "elitist" is either.

SDW, just because I want to see you suffer in painfully explaining how his comments are "elitist" and "arrogant" (not everyone can effortlessly bull**** as well as Nick), why don't you go ahead and do that?

Elitist: Someone who, based on his background, education or stature in life considers himself to be above those of more modest means, especially those with different, more traditional values than he has.

OK SDW, he said "bitter" rather than "ticked off." I don't think that changes my point about how this may play out. Obama is going to be seen as saying people are legitimately mad about things, and Clinton and McCain are going to be seen as saying - what? That people are not bitter about things? Or that it's not legitimate? I think they have a tough argument to make if that's how it plays out.

That actually might be true in the long term. But in PA, I think it will have a negative effect on him.

I'm bitter for economic reasons. I'm a saver. I got hosed by BushCo.

How so?



Some of those are false hopes. Immigration, illegal or otherwise, keeps this nation strong and not looking at population decline like most industrialized nations. We've already established that he's religious.

Which ones are false hopes? Religion? Gun-ownership? Something else? And by the way, how can Obama mock them for being "anti-trade?" He's not exactly Mr. Free Trade, you know.

SDW: did you bother to watch the video I linked to? He addresses this squarely: because some voters no longer believe that "politicians" mean anything at all by their promises to help-- to help rural and former industrial towns that have seen their job base dry up and blow away (maybe you'd like to argue that there are no such places in Pennsylvania, that its uniformly vibrant economy precludes any such "negative" talk?), they are more inclined to vote cultural issues than economic.

Nice...except that is not what he said.



That they are cynical ("bitter", if you will) about the prospect of real change,

Cynical and bitter don't mean the same thing.


...and so are left to choose as best they can based on other issues--

Not what he said.

[
...which, given the nature of American politics, turn out to be things like gun control, abortion, and gay rights.

Or maybe...just maybe...they actually have different positions on these issues. Imagine that. Of course, that makes them back woods hicks, so....




The idea that that this is some kind of ugly dismissal of these voters, or constitutes evidence of elitism, is, in a word, elitist.

Why are you so utterly convinced that you represent "America"? That you are the "normal" one?

Never said I represented America or that I'm "normal," whatever that means.


You never hesitate to heap withering scorn on the mentality of "liberals", as if they were an alien species attempting to dictate to "real Americans" what to think, forever decrying their "elitism" while never reconciling that stance to the fact that you're talking about a huge chunk of the country.

Because liberals do not comprise the majority of the population, yet they control a good deal of our system...from the news media, to Hollywood, to our education system. And don't dare question their values...they are right. They are untouchable. Just attack their positions and see what you're called.



Given the polling numbers, "liberal" attitudes are prevalent-- on gun control, abortion rights, Iraq, global warming, tax policy, etc.

That's absolutely untrue.



What could be more elitist than to assume one's minority opinions constitute "America"?

My views are not in the minority on a lot of these issues.



I'm tired of hearing from elitists such as yourself, in your suburban enclaves, condescendingly explaining what "real Americans" think and who "real Americans" are.

I'm a real American. All my friends are real Americans. And we think people like you are sorta dicks. How is that more "elitist" than your opinion of people like us?

You might be a "real American," but you're out of touch with a huge swath of the population's value system and beliefs. Most Americans think taxes are too high. Most Americans oppose gay marriage. Most Americans are people of faith. And you mock these values.

Wow, so reasonable people couldn't possibly differ on their interpretation of those words?

"I know what the words means, and the words mean I'm right and that Obama is an arrogant elitist, so there can be no argument against me."

How compelling!

No, I really don't think they can. Here they are again:

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

See, those poor bitter bastards. It's not that they actually oppose illegal immigration, it's that their frustrated...and bitter. It's not that they believe in the 2nd amendment and enjoy hunting...they are just frustrated...and bitter. It's not that they think NAFTA has impacted our industrial base...it's that they are just pissed off. And wow..if someone is different than them...look out. That's what really stirs up the rednecks.

Let's hear your version.

SDW:


The "effect" his comments have is out of his hands, because it is subjective depending of the audience. His comments had no effect on me except to remind me that he's a fairly honest guy as politicians go, capable of saying unpopular things if he thinks they are true. I respect it.

Of course you do, because you're in the tank for Change™.



The effect it had on you was quite different, and just as predictable to me as my reaction was predictable to you.

Whatever.



The only thing Obama has control of is the meaning of his comments. He meant that only some areas were like that. So that's what he said.

Oh, it's only SOME. "Cause that makes it one hell of a lot better. It's only SOME PA towns that are bitter, racist, backwards, gun-toting god-fearing freaks. Gotcha.



"HOW DARE HE SAY SOME PEOPLE ARE BITTER MY GRANDMOTHER IS NOT BITTER!!!!!"

My grandmother is dead. I'm just saying I've been around people from exactly that kind of town he's talking about, and I've never found them bitter. Never.



[QUOTE=Bergermeister;1239561]A quote is either accurate or inaccurate. A paraphrase can be essentially accurate.

It is when it doesn't change the meaning in the slightest. Whatever...go listen to the audio. It's the same thing.

[Akumulator]

Elitist: Someone who, based on his background, education or stature in life considers himself to be above those of more modest means, especially those with different, more traditional values than he has.

Delusional: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

[midwinter]

Delusional: A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

I think technically SDW could also be experiencing cognitive dissonance.

[groverat]

My grandmother is dead. I'm just saying I've been around people from exactly that kind of town he's talking about, and I've never found them bitter. Never.

That's what "some" means. It's the difference between "all" and "none".

[Jubelum]

Hillary is now a pro-gun church-goer. (http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/12/clinton-portrays-herself-as-a-pro-gun-churchgoer/)

She'll do and say ANYTHING to get a vote.

We're not fooled, Hill. We're not fooled.
Oh, and you're still a liar. But what's one more on the pile?

[soulcrusher]

Obama went to Harvard Law, of course he is an elitist.

[Jubelum]

Dear Mr. Obama:

Let's start at the beginning.

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

they cling to guns- Mr. Obama, you and your liberal cohorts do not know much about guns or gun owners. Like John F Kerry before you, you have exposed your own stereotypes of average Americans who own guns. True to the sentiments of your base, many of them in AO, you do not understand the role that guns play in the lives of average, law-abiding people. The desire to save what is left of the Second Amendment, for self-defense, target shooting, or hunting, is not a mere matter of having a blankie to cuddle with. Despite what you may think, and many of your ill-informed gun-hating supporters do think, gun ownership is not an indicator for mental disease or, in terms of the usual psychobabble, "a phallic replacement." Millions of law-abiding people own guns for a wide variety of reasons, and to paint their firearms as some sort of pathetic "crutch" is an arrogant, offensive affront to those Americans. The reason we don't have a Kerry incumbency in 2008 is a huge number of highly offended gun owners in Ohio. I know because I heard from them on a weekly basis during the 2004 campaign.

they cling to religion- Mr. Obama, I know you to be a person who professes faith. I take you at your word on that. I do not understand why you would minimize the role of religion in the lives of others to a position of the "last ditch" in dealing with personal problems. Religion plays an important role in the lives of people during the good times as well as the bad times. Again, like gun ownership, you have seriously misspoken, or perhaps you are just wrong. Do people find solace in religion? Sure. But adding it to a list of things that your ideology has been hostile to in the past is not helpful. Especially considering the audience before which your comments were made. Cozying up to an audience through a perceived shared stereotype is offensive, both to your audience and those you are stereotyping.


antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment - Mr. Obama, I am seriously befuddled with your intent here. Yes, throughout history, economic difficulties do lead to scapegoating. It is a dangerous thing. Are there people who do scapegoat when they lose their union job to a NAFTA-enabled program? Sure. They exist. But some people are rightly offended when they are put into that most-hated category of "racist", or even associated with it.

Also, you statement creates a trap... a trap that tries to get by with the assertion that your so-called "anti-immigrant sentiment" can be attributed to a sense of revenge or scapegoating. You've done little to distinguish between "anti-immigrant sentiment" (that is, "racism") and the sentiment that wants to see our existing immigration laws enforced. I don't expect that, because I am relatively sure that despite the semantic challenges, you see the two as the same thing.

Mr. Obama, as an African American, I am sure you know how stereotypes can hurt. I believe you are an honorable man, and Christian man, and one who thinks he's advocating what is best for the country. That being said, you've stepped in it. Sorry.

You're statement is offensive in that it assumes that people will cling to stereotyped "irrationalities" like guns and church, and the ever-abhorrent racism, rather than intellectually digest them and respond in what you consider a "rational" way. You come across as elitist because you seem to paint important things in people's lives- like religion and gun ownership- as mere crutches for people who are otherwise unable to cope. That is not the reality that many people share. For better or worse, when your vision of their reality does not match their own personal experience, with a little contempt for things they value to boot, people are going to be offended.

Was that your intent? I don't think so. It is a delicate position to discuss and describe people who are having trouble in life's journey... it is easy to reveal your own stereotypes, and some have felt in your comments an underlying contempt. I think you were trying to cozy up to a California audience, who perhaps you thought would share some of the stereotypes you listed of Pennsylvanians. You blew it. It was a rookie mistake.

One last thing, Mr. Obama... what do YOU cling to when things get rough?

[tonton]

One last thing, Mr. Obama... what do YOU cling to when things get rough?

A highly intelligent assessment of the situation and formulation of ideas that have the potential to result in effective, long-term improvements for the widest possible range of highly disparate Americans. Duh.

[Jubelum]

A highly intelligent assessment of the situation and formulation of ideas that have the potential to result in effective, long-term improvements for the widest possible range of highly disparate Americans. Duh.

:lol: Way to get at those Bible-and-gun-totin' bigots in a way they can handle. ;)

Oh, and since I LIVE IN PA, perhaps I might you know....know a thing or two about some of the people that live here as well.

Oh, and SDW, which address there in PA do you want me to send this case of targets, case of Chick Publications tracts, and the dozen National Alliance t-shirts? I'll have them to you ASAP. Clinging materials are in the channel, I promise.

[Jubelum]

.....

(double post - D'oh!)

[tonton]

:lol: Way to get at those Bible-and-gun-totin' bigots in a way they can handle.

Just cause they can't understand it doesn't mean it's not good for the country... ;)

[Jubelum]

Just cause they can't understand it doesn't mean it's not good for the country... ;)

See Sig. ;)

[franksargent]

Dear Mr. Obama:

Let's start at the beginning.

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

they cling to guns- Mr. Obama, you and your liberal cohorts do not know much about guns or gun owners. Like John F Kerry before you, you have exposed your own stereotypes of average Americans who own guns. True to the sentiments of your base, many of them in AO, you do not understand the role that guns play in the lives of average, law-abiding people. The desire to save what is left of the Second Amendment, for self-defense, target shooting, or hunting, is not a mere matter of having a blankie to cuddle with. Despite what you may think, and many of your ill-informed gun-hating supporters do think, gun ownership is not an indicator for mental disease or, in terms of the usual psychobabble, "a phallic replacement." Millions of law-abiding people own guns for a wide variety of reasons, and to paint their firearms as some sort of pathetic "crutch" is an arrogant, offensive affront to those Americans. The reason we don't have a Kerry incumbency in 2008 is a huge number of highly offended gun owners in Ohio. I know because I heard from them on a weekly basis during the 2004 campaign.

they cling to religion- Mr. Obama, I know you to be a person who professes faith. I take you at your word on that. I do not understand why you would minimize the role of religion in the lives of others to a position of the "last ditch" in dealing with personal problems. Religion plays an important role in the lives of people during the good times as well as the bad times. Again, like gun ownership, you have seriously misspoken, or perhaps you are just wrong. Do people find solace in religion? Sure. But adding it to a list of things that your ideology has been hostile to in the past is not helpful. Especially considering the audience before which your comments were made. Cozying up to an audience through a perceived shared stereotype is offensive, both to your audience and those you are stereotyping.


antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment - Mr. Obama, I am seriously befuddled with your intent here. Yes, throughout history, economic difficulties do lead to scapegoating. It is a dangerous thing. Are there people who do scapegoat when they lose their union job to a NAFTA-enabled program? Sure. They exist. But some people are rightly offended when they are put into that most-hated category of "racist", or even associated with it.

Also, you statement creates a trap... a trap that tries to get by with the assertion that your so-called "anti-immigrant sentiment" can be attributed to a sense of revenge or scapegoating. You've done little to distinguish between "anti-immigrant sentiment" (that is, "racism") and the sentiment that wants to see our existing immigration laws enforced. I don't expect that, because I am relatively sure that despite the semantic challenges, you see the two as the same thing.

Mr. Obama, as an African American, I am sure you know how stereotypes can hurt. I believe you are an honorable man, and Christian man, and one who thinks he's advocating what is best for the country. That being said, you've stepped in it. Sorry.

You're statement is offensive in that it assumes that people will cling to stereotyped "irrationalities" like guns and church, and the ever-abhorrent racism, rather than intellectually digest them and respond in what you consider a "rational" way. You come across as elitist because you seem to paint important things in people's lives- like religion and gun ownership- as mere crutches for people who are otherwise unable to cope. That is not the reality that many people share. For better or worse, when your vision of their reality does not match their own personal experience, with a little contempt for things they value to boot, people are going to be offended.

Was that your intent? I don't think so. It is a delicate position to discuss and describe people who are having trouble in life's journey... it is easy to reveal your own stereotypes, and some have felt in your comments an underlying contempt. I think you were trying to cozy up to a California audience, who perhaps you thought would share some of the stereotypes you listed of Pennsylvanians. You blew it. It was a rookie mistake.

One last thing, Mr. Obama... what do YOU cling to when things get rough?

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Obama was talking about a specific area of the United States, known as the Rust Belt, also known as the Manufacturing Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Belt).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Rust-belt-map.jpg

The decline in manufacturing jobs is a hotly debated topic in the region. One popular culprit has been globalization and the expansion of worldwide free trade agreements. Anti-globalization opponents argue that trade with developing countries has resulted in stiff competition from countries with much lower prevailing wages, forcing domestic wages to drift downward to compete. Another likely—but less commonly discussed—cause has been the increased transportation integration and migratory patterns within the United States, as proximity to energy sources has become less important and access to the booming populations and lower-wage labor markets of the Sunbelt has shifted a large share of new US manufacturing investment to these locations. A centuries-old trend to replace expensive labor with cheap technology has reduced the number of unskilled workers necessary to manufacture goods. Much of the manufacturing once done by workers is now done more efficiently by robots, reducing the total number of manufacturing jobs needed for a given level of output.
.
.
.
As the politically pivotal states of Ohio and Pennsylvania are largely contained within this region, presidential candidates have been asked to opine on the economic challenges of these communities. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama suggested that residents of this region held conservative views on religion, gun control and immigration as a reaction to economic decline.

[Jubelum]

SDW, just because I want to see you suffer in painfully explaining how his comments are "elitist" and "arrogant" ... why don't you go ahead and do that?

I dunno, Shawn... The Smartest Woman in the World must be on SDWs wavelength (http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-obamas-bitter-remarks-demeaning/):

"Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist and out of touch," she said. "they are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans, certainly not the Americans I know, not the Americans I grew up with, not the Americans I lived with in Arkansas or represent in New York."

What a mess. And made even better, because despite the fact that HRC probably shares some of these same stereotypes, she threw BHO under the bus, so to speak... AND managed to make a further ass of herself by claiming to be supportive of gun rights. As if people who own guns have no idea about her history. This is better than The Three Stooges.

[Jubelum]

Obama was talking about a specific area of the United States, known as the Rust Belt, also known as the Manufacturing Belt (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Belt).

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/Rust-belt-map.jpg


The decline in manufacturing jobs is a hotly debated topic in the region. One popular culprit has been globalization and the expansion of worldwide free trade agreements. Anti-globalization opponents argue that trade with developing countries has resulted in stiff competition from countries with much lower prevailing wages, forcing domestic wages to drift downward to compete. Another likely—but less commonly discussed—cause has been the increased transportation integration and migratory patterns within the United States, as proximity to energy sources has become less important and access to the booming populations and lower-wage labor markets of the Sunbelt has shifted a large share of new US manufacturing investment to these locations. A centuries-old trend to replace expensive labor with cheap technology has reduced the number of unskilled workers necessary to manufacture goods. Much of the manufacturing once done by workers is now done more efficiently by robots, reducing the total number of manufacturing jobs needed for a given level of output.
.
.
.
As the politically pivotal states of Ohio and Pennsylvania are largely contained within this region, presidential candidates have been asked to opine on the economic challenges of these communities. In 2008, Senator Barack Obama suggested that residents of this region held conservative views on religion, gun control and immigration as a reaction to economic decline.


Um, Wikipedia current events lesson. OK. We all understand what is happening in the Rust Belt economically, and what BHO thinks it leads to:

Yes, throughout history, economic difficulties do lead to scapegoating. It is a dangerous thing. Are there people who do scapegoat when they lose their union job to a NAFTA-enabled program? Sure. They exist.

I have to ask... So what? He gets a pass on his comments because the offense is, well, was possibly intended to be... "localized." :err:
(...and if so, why did he make those comments to Californians?) I thought we were uniting the country after the horror of This Administration™?

As the politically pivotal states of Ohio and Pennsylvania are largely contained within this region, presidential candidates have been asked to opine on the economic challenges of these communities.

I'm not sure what owning a gun, a Bible, and going to church has to do with "economic challenges of these communities."
I'd love to read that position paper.

Change™ made a boo-boo. I hope he has not given Hillary the ammo she needs, as if she has any credibility anyway... It's not hers to win, it's his to lose.

(Trademarked terms, property of SDW, 2007-2008. Any further broadcast or retransmission of these terms, in whole or part, without the express written permission of SDW is strictly prohibited.)

[Hassan i Sabbah]

Well-made points, Right Wing Water Carrier™.

Although denigrating Obama as TEH ELITIST AND ARROGANT™ as if the evidence of a single speech makes him entirely unfit to be considered for President is a bit rich seeing as the business, social and familial history of George Bush and Teh Dick Cheney distinguish them as properly aristocratic, elitist and stinking rich to boot and Obama's work on the frontline in socially deprived communities doesn't really count for shit when there's an election looming and it looks like Your Guy™ might be threatened by the Liberal Change Merchant.™ I don't remember you criticising W or Dick for being elitist or arrogant. You're pulling your definitions out of your rectum.

This thread is Teh Lame™ and Teh Hypocritical.™ Manufactured outrage of the most depressing and transparent kind. ™™™

[Jubelum]

Well-made points, Right Wing Water Carrier™.

Although denigrating Obama as TEH ELITIST AND ARROGANT™ as if the evidence of a single speech makes him entirely unfit to be considered for President is a bit rich seeing as the business, social and familial history of George Bush and Teh Dick Cheney distinguish them as properly aristocratic, elitist and stinking rich to boot and Obama's work on the frontline in socially deprived communities doesn't really count for shit when there's an election looming and it looks like Your Guy™ might be threatened by the Liberal Change Merchant.™ I don't remember you criticising W or Dick for being elitist or arrogant. You're pulling your definitions out of your rectum.

This thread is Teh Lame™ and Teh Hypocritical.™ Manufactured outrage of the most depressing and transparent kind. ™™™

This is about Barack. Not me. And I've been no fan of Bush/Cheney for some time now, for a multitude of reasons. Does agreement in principle to the "Teh Elitist" charge make Hillary a Right Winger Water Carrier as well? :wow: :D

You can do better to contribute here than a lazy ad hom. You're more capable than that, and moreover... I'm not taking the detour bait.
We're talking about this gun-church-racism thing... do you have some meat on that issue?

[Hassan i Sabbah]

This is about Barack. Not me. And I've been no fan of Bush/Cheney for some time now, for a multitude of reasons.

You can do better to contribute here than a lazy ad hom. I'm not taking the bait.
We're talking about this gun-church-racism thing... do you have some meat on that issue?

No, there was no ad hom there.

An ad hom would be 'You, Jubelum, are an ungenerous, intellectually partial, hypocritical, self-serving sack of sophist crap.'

Nowhere did I make an ad hom like that. Where did I make an ad hom in my last post? I was clearly addressing your ideas, albeit vigourously. :???:

Oh, I called you a Right Wing Water Carrier™. I suppose that's an ad hom. Not really a bad one, though.

My point is valid. There is no 'meat' on this 'issue' to address. It's made up outrage. It's bullshit. Discussing it lends this non-argument validity it doesn't deserve. The only 'issue' we should be debating here is: 'The Made Up 'Issue' In This Thread: Horseshit or Bullshit?'

[Jubelum]

The only argument should be 'This Made Up 'Issue': Horseshit or Bullshit?'

I'm from Texas. I can send photos of both for you to compare in a line-up. ;)

You chose to try to make a case against the speaker, rather than make a case in the argument, which we have already established is ****shit (TBD) in your opinion. So no problem. Carry on.

I'd say someone might have a case that this is the Right Wing Noise Machine. Other than the facts that Hillary is playing it for all that its worth and it is getting mainstream play... after starting on the Huffington Post of all places.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

You chose to try to make a case against the speaker, rather than make a case in the argument, which we have already established is ****shit (TBD) in your opinion. So no problem. Carry on.
.Where?

[Jubelum]

Oh, just tell me where or shut the fuck up.

:lol: I'll just leave that one *right* there. Next to the horseshit and bullshit.

[Jubelum]

<door creaking open> (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D900PO700&show_article=1)

Political insiders differed on whether Obama's comments, which came to light Friday, would become a full-blown political disaster that could prompt party leaders to try to steer the nomination to Clinton even though Obama has more pledged delegates. Clinton supporters were eagerly hoping so.

Uh-oh. Better book more security for Denver.

At a campaign rally in Wilson, N.C., former state Democratic Party chairman and current Clinton adviser Tom Hendrickson said rural voters don't need "liberal elites" telling them what to believe.

... and Hillary is not one of the "liberal elite." Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. $109,175,175.00. You don't get to be a Contender without being an elite. From either party. Duh. "These pre-presidents are just like YOU PEOPLE... Pour the senator another beer and shot of whiskey." Both of these two share in an ideology that believes that they know better than everyone else how people should run their lives. The real question is, Mr. Hendrickson, do ANY voters need "liberal elites" telling them what to believe? Try that one on for size...

Bill Clinton... avoided commenting on Obama's remarks. When asked about it afterward, he said simply, "I agree with what Hillary said."

Sit. Roll Over. Stay. Good Boy.

One of Clinton's staunchest supporters, Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., acknowledged there was some truth in Obama's remarks.
Way to go, Evan... hitch your donkey to this PR disaster... :no:

[Hassan i Sabbah]

That's nice.

When you can actually point to the 'ad hom™' I'm supposed to have made and then uphold your half of the deal (to respond to a counterargument without claiming a personal attack or writing 'decaff' and then going on to tick off the points you want to make regardless) I'll actually read your last post.

[Bergermeister]

People really are giving this more wind than it deserves... obviously they have nothing else to use to try to bring Obama down.

Lots of natural gas being spewed by the "main stream" media, Chillary and some other people who desire to to be offended. We could almost solve the energy crisis with it all.

[groverat]

Jubelum:

Um, Wikipedia current events lesson.

When you're writing sophomoric open letters I don't think you have a lot of ground to criticize Wikipasting.

I have to ask... So what? He gets a pass on his comments because the offense is, well, was possibly intended to be... "localized."

I don't know what you mean by "he gets a pass", but he was talking about that area and you are trying to expand that, even though it misrepresents his actual statements.

(...and if so, why did he make those comments to Californians?) I thought we were uniting the country after the horror of This Administration™?

He was asked about Pennsylvania by someone in California. Should he only talk about a state when he is physically in that state?
(I also like your brazen double-standard about not stereotyping... except for California (liberal fruitcakes amirite?!!?!?))

I'm not sure what owning a gun, a Bible, and going to church has to do with "economic challenges of these communities."

Me either. Obama is talking about those people who cling to guns and church as voting issues, not personal issues. Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting his argument.

[Jubelum]

Jubelum:]When you're writing sophomoric open letters I don't think you have a lot of ground to criticize Wikipasting.

It's not a problem with wikipasting. It's a 'what's the point' to replying to me with context we all already know.

I don't know what you mean by "he gets a pass", but he was talking about that area and you are trying to expand that, even though it misrepresents his actual statements.

I was asking if the poster thought that BHO should get a pass. Thus the question mark at the end. Expand that? I guess it's your prerogative to claim that it was "just those people"- I'd say by the response of people who think of themselves as a lot like "those people" BHO was talking about are far beyond the Rush Belt.

He was asked about Pennsylvania by someone in California. Should he only talk about a state when he is physically in that state?

I wonder if he would stand before Democrats in PA, and to their face, say what he said... "times are tough around here, and I understand why you guys cling to guns, church, and even become anti-immigrant to deal with it." That would have gone over real well. Maybe next trip.

(I also like your brazen double-standard about not stereotyping... except for California (liberal fruitcakes amirite?!!?!?))
Meh. Why would BHO say what he said unless he thought it would resonate with his audience? From the Huffington Post original article:

I'm not sure this is what at least this lot of Californians needed to hear about Pennsylvanians. Such phrases can reinforce negative stereotypes among Californians, who are a people in a state already surfeited with a smug sense of superiority and, as an ironic consequence, a parochialism and insularity at odds with the innovation, prosperity and openness for which California is rightly known. (Of course, this is a generalization, and as such does not fit everyone; but as a state characteristic I stand by it.)


Me either. Obama is talking about those people who cling to guns and church as voting issues, not personal issues. Again, you are deliberately misrepresenting his argument.
I can find no evidence of Barack making a disinction between personal and voting issues. Show me:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

[groverat]

Jubelum:

I was asking if the poster thought that BHO should get a pass. Thus the question mark at the end. Expand that? I guess it's your prerogative to claim that it was "just those people"- I'd say by the response of people who think of themselves as a lot like "those people" BHO was talking about are far beyond the Rush Belt.

And I'm wondering what "get a pass" even means.

Further, Obama is from Illinois, which is in the list of places he is talking about. This isn't an outsider criticizing an area with which he is unfamiliar.

I wonder if he would stand before Democrats in PA, and to their face, say what he said... "times are tough around here, and you guys cling to guns, church, and even become anti-immigrant to deal with it." That would have gone over reallllll well.

It went over well in Indiana, which is in the rust belt just like Pennsylvania, and he's gotten at least two standing ovations (in Muncie (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G6_mQ3h8lx0) and in Terre Haute (http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc9PepjyDow)).

Why would BHO say what he said unless he thought it would resonate with his audience?

Because it's the truth and was an honest answer to the question he was asked.

I can find no evidence of Barack making a disinction between personal and voting issues. Show me:

His comments in full, not just one part of them hacked out. I will bold the portions that make it clear he's talking about voting.

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

The entire thing is about voting patterns and how to get people to believe in him as a candidate.

[Jubelum]

That's nice.

When you can actually point to the 'ad hom™' I'm supposed to have made and then uphold your half of the deal (to respond to a counterargument without claiming a personal attack or writing 'decaff' and then going on to tick off the points you want to make regardless) I'll actually read your last post.

I'll keep that in mind. :D

One more time... you tried to divert attention from the meat of my post (Barack's second Little Problem) by calling me and others on the board hypocrites and me a Water Carrier. Turning the efforts to discrediting the speaker, rather than dealing with the argument. K? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)

Oh, and by the way, the Bush and Clinton families exhibit elitism on a scale that Obama has never dreamed of. The Clintons since the 60s, the Bush family all the way back to the days of Prescott. I think some of that elitism has been morphed into its more malicious cousin, unashamed audacity.

[Jubelum]

The entire thing is about voting patterns and how to get people to believe in him as a candidate.

I think if he would have replaced "as a way to explain their frustrations" with "issues on which to decide their vote" it would have been clearly taken to mean voting. Just my 0.02.

I don't really see the point in the personal vs voting behaviour argument. I'd assume that personal opinions generally translate pretty well to voting bevahiour.

[addabox]

Here's what's funny to me: when you read the full text of Obama's remarks, there is more substantiative thought about the actual circumstances of people's lives than in the entirety of Bush's two campaigns put together, which generally trafficked in homilies about "the resilience of the American character" and how the voters were "good people" who knew how to "work hard".

In other words, Obama is actually thinking about economic policies that might actually better the lives of "those people", while Bush (and McCain) want them to know that they can just go ahead and keep "working hard" and "being good" while they oversee policies that continue to transfer wealth to the top 5% or so. No such thing as federal or global economics at all, in fact, just more hard work and solid American character and hey, did we mention we totally dig your guns and churches?

Obama talks to people like they are adults, the Republican party has nothing but infantile platitudes about how great we are and how pious and how hard working and patriotic and well, just super great so get back to work.

And Obama is the "elitist".

By the way, John McCain's campaign is financed by his trophy wife-- doesn't that him gay, or something?

[SDW2001]

I feel like reporting this thread.

It's too dumb to exist.

SDW, how does your definition of elitism actually apply to Obama? You have to connect the dots for us.

Really, Shawn, you must be kidding. Obama is a US Senator. He is Harvard educated. He's well off. He's nationally known. Then he made these comments:

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Let's review: First, people are "bitter," whatever that is supposed to mean. I think that's inaccurate in itself, but let's put that aside. Then, he claims they take out their frustrations by owning guns, opposing immigration in wholesale fashion, or even being religious.

This demonstrates he simply does not understand the people he is talking about. They don't own guns and go to church and oppose illegal immigration because they are "bitter." They do those things because that's who they are. Their values are different than his. But he doesn't understand that...because of who he is. He's a liberal, well-educated, successful and national celebrity.

2+2, Shawn. Being from PA, I find it stunning you can't see why the comments are offensive and elitist.

That's what "some" means. It's the difference between "all" and "none".

Who cares if he said some or all or most. It doesn't change his meaning.

[midwinter]

Here's what's funny to me: when you read the full text of Obama's remarks, there is more substantiative thought about the actual circumstances of people's lives than in the entirety of Bush's two campaigns put together, which generally trafficked in homilies about "the resilience of the American character" and how the voters were "good people" who knew how to "work hard".

In other words, Obama is actually thinking about economic policies that might actually better the lives of "those people", while Bush (and McCain) want them to know that they can just go ahead and keep "working hard" and "being good" while they oversee policies that continue to transfer wealth to the top 5% or so. No such thing as federal or global economics at all, in fact, just more hard work and solid American character and hey, did we mention we totally dig your guns and churches?

Obama talks to people like they are adults, the Republican party has nothing but infantile platitudes about how great we are and how pious and how hard working and patriotic and well, just super great so get back to work.

And Obama is the "elitist".

By the way, John McCain's campaign is financed by his trophy wife-- doesn't that him gay, or something?

"You work three jobs? … Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that." —President George W. Bush, to a divorced mother of three, Omaha, Nebraska, Feb. 4, 2005 (audio (http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushism-uniquelyamerican.htm))

[groverat]

Jubelum:

I think if he would have replaced "as a way to explain their frustrations" with "issues on which to decide their vote" it would have been clearly taken to mean voting. Just my 0.02.

I don't believe that in the least. People are hearing what they want to hear and if he prefaced every sentence with "I am talking about voting behavior, ..." it wouldn't make a damned bit of difference.

There are just some things that politicians are not supposed to say in the course of normal politics, and acknowledging anger and bitterness is on that list of things to not say.

Beyond that, even if I believed you were being honest (which I don't), it already is clear. There's nothing confusing about it. You have spent pages and pages trying desperately to ignore it, so how could I believe that you were interested in understanding it?


SDW:

This demonstrates he simply does not understand the people he is talking about. They don't own guns and go to church and oppose illegal immigration because they are "bitter." They do those things because that's who they are. Their values are different than his. But he doesn't understand that...because of who he is. He's a liberal, well-educated, successful and national celebrity.

He didn't say that they only own guns and go to church because they are bitter, but that those things are the basis of their voting philosophy because they are bitter.

The entire discussion was in the context of voting patterns and how Obama can get votes in Pennsylvania; it wasn't a psychoanalysis of why Pennsylvanians live the way they do.

As he said, "it depends on where you are".

Who cares if he said some or all or most. It doesn't change his meaning.

It does change his meaning, that's what modifiers do.

[@_@ Artman]

Thirded.

Artman could 4th, but apparently he got the "I just want to cuddle" bug and swore off P.O.

4th.

Thought I'd un-cuddle a moment and respond. As someone said, this thread is useless. Like the Wright "controversy" it is a non-story.

Interesting clip here of Obama discussing this very subject 4 years ago on the Charlie Rose Show. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M)

The opponents fear this honesty, this consistently clear headed and pragmatic discussion of issues.

And I wonder when was the last time SDW ventured into the city of Philadelphia. I ride the bus up through northeast Philly every day and the subway at night. You want to see bitter people? Ride the 47, 56 bus or the Broad Street Line sometime.

Goes back to cuddle...:smokey:

[addabox]

That's a very informative clip, and clearly the same point he was making more recently (albeit less gracefully).

[midwinter]

That's a very informative clip, and clearly the same point he was making more recently (albeit less gracefully).

Feh. We all know that consistency is a sign of elitism!

[Jubelum]

"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," Obama said, invoking the famed female sharpshooter immortalized in the musical "Anne Get Your Gun."

Obama continued, saying "Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton."

Link (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080414/D901AGH80.html)

And you both know, as do gun owners, Mr. Obama, that neither one of you supports the rights of gun owners or sportsmen. It's fun watching it, thought. Again, Barack, learn from John Kerry's mistake... and at some point, please remind Hillary of it as well.

[groverat]

And you both know, as do gun owners, Mr. Obama, that neither one of you supports the rights of gun owners or sportsmen.

What makes you think that Obama doesn't support the rights of gun owners and sportsmen?

" “We should be able to combine respect for those traditions with our concern for kids who are being shot down. This is a classic example of us just applying some common sense, just being reasonable, right? And reasonable would say that lawful gun owners – I respect the Second Amendment. I think lawful gun owners should be able to hunt, be sportsmen, protect their families.

“And by the way, Michelle, my wife, she was traveling up, I think, in eastern Iowa, she was driving through this nice, beautiful area, going through all this farmland and hills and rivers and she said ‘Boy, it’s really pretty up here,’ but she said, ‘But you know, I can see why if I was living out here, I’d want a gun. Because, you know, 911 is going to take some time before somebody responds. You know what I mean? You know, it’s like five miles between every house.’

“So the point is, though, we should be able to do that, and we should be able to enforce laws that keep guns off the streets in inner cities because some unscrupulous gun dealer is, you know, letting somebody load up a van with a bunch of cheap handguns or sawed-off shotguns and dumping them and selling them for a profit in the streets.”

[SDW2001]

4th.

Thought I'd un-cuddle a moment and respond. As someone said, this thread is useless. Like the Wright "controversy" it is a non-story.

Interesting clip here of Obama discussing this very subject 4 years ago on the Charlie Rose Show. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M)

The opponents fear this honesty, this consistently clear headed and pragmatic discussion of issues.

And I wonder when was the last time SDW ventured into the city of Philadelphia. I ride the bus up through northeast Philly every day and the subway at night. You want to see bitter people? Ride the 47, 56 bus or the Broad Street Line sometime.

Goes back to cuddle...:smokey:

Hmm...perhaps you'd be interested to know he wasn't talking about Philadelphia. :err:

Also, you say it's a non-story. Of course you'd say that...you're in the tank for the guy. And let's remember...Democrats can say whatever they want. None of it matters. Not if they're caught in a lie, not if they insult huge swaths of the population. They just "misspeak." After all, we should be talking about real issues, like Change™.

[midwinter]

Of course you'd say that...you're in the tank for the guy. And let's remember...Democrats can say whatever they want. None of it matters. Not if they're caught in a lie, not if they insult huge swaths of the population. They just "misspeak."

It is amazing to me that you could say that without a hint of irony.

[tonton]

It is amazing to me that you could say that without a hint of irony.

+1.

The Republicans, through Bush, have painted Americans as complete idiots who cannot communicate properly. But of course, Bush just "misspoke" on all those countless occasions.

John McCain STILL cannot differentiate the players in the Middle East, despite claiming to be a "military expert". If you can't properly identify your enemy, you are no expert, sir. Of course, he just "misspoke" the dozen or so times he confused "insurgents" and "Al-Qaeda", despite being schooled on the difference again, and again, and again.

Obama didn't misspeak. He said what he wanted to say. That some voters were voting on issues that were not related to their livelihood because they were disillusioned and disenchanted with livelihood related politics, on both sides of the political divide. His mistake was in talking to the public as if the majority were able to comprehend what he was saying, and that those who did understand him had enough integrity not to try to twist his meaning for their own political gain.

[Jubelum]

What makes you think that Obama doesn't support the rights of gun owners and sportsmen?


Obama supports (http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826) a ban on the sale or possession of all semi-automatic guns. This would make a dove hunting shotgun illegal, as well as all semi-auto hunting rifles, semi-auto handguns most commonly used in self-defense, et al. It would make over half of the guns in this country subject to confiscation. This is not supporting the rights of gun owners. Quite the opposite.

Obama supports city-wide gun bans like the one in DC.

He supports (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/02/obama-common-se.html) de-facto national registration through mandatory background checks.

When in Illinois, the group Independent Voters of Illinois asked if he supported a ban on all handguns. He replied "yes." They asked him if he supported a ban on ammunition in military calibers. He replied "yes." (Effectively removing the 223, 30-06, 9mm, 45ACP, and 308... among those, the most popular hunting calibers. This is like Mexican gun law) Obama supported the FOID in Ilinois, which created a complete registration of all gun owners in the state. Obama supported the one-gun-a-month legislation in Illinois. Link. (http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/12/sweet_column_obamas_2003_iviip.html)

Obama is opposed (http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/search/s_560181.html) to concealed carry, even though 37 state legislatures have passed it. In effect, he's opposed to one of the two most important self-defense legislative victories in the past 30 years.

He told the Chicago Tribune that he's in favor of renewing the so-called "Assault Weapons Ban" of 1994.

He's in favour of making it a felony (http://volokh.com/posts/1203389334.shtml) for someone to have their gun stolen and then used in a crime. Yes, the theft victim woud ALSO be a felon. And don't forget that 500% tax on ammunition. And also a ban on handguns that lower-income people can afford, which he calls "junk guns."

He also supported putting gun manufacturers out of business by enabling endless VPC and Brady lawsuits.

In fairness, he did support the Vitter Amendment in the Senate, which passed 84-16, which would prevent firearm confiscation during a time of disaster or emergency. This was the Never Again New Orleans amendment. And he has stated that "we need to enforce the laws on the books..." (which I strongly agree with), but will not go so far as to add "before we make more laws" at the end of that phrase.

groverat, Obama is overwhelmingly in favor of gun control. There is no way around that. And no amount of campaign speechmaking is going to make gun owners overlook his record before he was a national candidate. Those of us on the self-defense/RKBA side of things have been passing around Obama's record since the fall. And Clinton's. And McCain's. I seriously doubt he would veto any gun control law that makes it to his desk.

And as a side note, not specifically to you, groverat... I'm glad to discuss Obama and his record re: guns. We've had anti-gun threads for years now, and I don't really care to get wrapped into yet another go-nowhere philosophical anti-gun debate on this board. That's what we have the archives for.

[spindler]

I do think Obama had an idea that came out the wrong way when he said it. But it's laughable that SDW2001 and the Republicans are talking about elitism. I remember back in 2004 when they claimed that the 48% of Americans who disagreed with them on the war weren't
"patriotic" and didn't "support the troops". [Far right] Republicans think nothing of calling the other guy anti-American or a traitor when they disagree with them, but then they also like to claim their just ordinary everyday Americans and the other guy is elitist against them. Just one of the standard lies in the tool chest when they want to create a smoke screen to avoid the real issues.

[Bergermeister]

Hunting and automatics brings to mind the hunting scene in the Eddie Murphy film "The Distinguished Gentleman" when only one bird falls after lots of spraying and Eddie comments that it must have had a heart attack. Guess the guys felt powerful, though.

There are much more important issues when it comes to choosing a president.

[@_@ Artman]

Hmm...perhaps you'd be interested to know he wasn't talking about Philadelphia. :err:

I know that. Just saying that you do live in a bubble out there in West Chester. This goes beyond small towns and reaches farther than suburbia. Bitterness is universal in this country now. The point that is being overlooked is the "bitter" represent the majority of the population of this country now. When the majority population of any country becomes uneasy (accept for the wealthy) it usually isn't good for the minority populations either.

Also, you say it's a non-story. Of course you'd say that...you're in the tank for the guy. And let's remember...Democrats can say whatever they want. None of it matters. Not if they're caught in a lie, not if they insult huge swaths of the population. They just "misspeak." After all, we should be talking about real issues, like Change™.

I admit, Obama's phrasing was less than perfect, leaving his words open for twisting and misinterpretation. But if you lack the intelligence or objectivity to realize what his intent and words were, well, that's your failing.

Hope™

http://images.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/04/14/tomo/story.jpg

[Flounder]

This hunter supports Obama.

edit: no hunter needs a semi-automatic weapon. If one does, well, clearly that person is a bad shot / bad hunter. go practice at the range. Pumping one's prey full of lead doesn't lead to much usable meat, and makes for one bitch of a butchering job.

[tonton]

Obama supports (http://votesmart.org/npat.php?can_id=9490#826) a ban on the sale or possession of all semi-automatic guns. This would make a dove hunting shotgun illegal, as well as all semi-auto hunting rifles, semi-auto handguns most commonly used in self-defense, et al. It would make over half of the guns in this country subject to confiscation. This is not supporting the rights of gun owners. Quite the opposite.

Jesus, Jub. You're so deceptive here. You claim to support gun ownership for self-defense, and for sport. You've shown your true colors here. How many bullets per minute do you need to fire to defend yourself? You know the best answer is zero, since a gun used in self-defense is principally used as a deterrent threat. One bullet at a time is equally as threatening as repeated shots, as it is equally as deadly or injurious. Do you think criminals will be less intimidated by a non-auto gun than by a semi-auto gun? They are facing death by one bullet. Obviously you want more than just "self defense" by pushing for semi-automatic handgun rights.

And for hunting... can you hunt doves with a regular non auto-load shotgun? You bet your life you can.

Dove Hunting Basics (http://www.basspro.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CFPage?storeId=10151&catalogId=10001&langId=-1&mode=article&objectID=30229)

"Pumps, double-barrels and over-and-unders work fine, but because doves are fast and difficult to hit, many hunters prefer autoloaders, which allow three quick shots before a bird gets out of range. Always remember, however, that repeating shotguns must be limited to holding only three shells ("plugged") while dove hunting. Federal regulations require it. (Be sure you understand all dove-specific hunting regulations, particularly baiting laws, to avoid unintentional violations.)"

So basically some hunters use triple-loading shotguns because they don't have the skill needed to hit the fast buggers otherwise, despite the fact that many hunters do have that skill. Therefore... not necessary. By limiting semi-auto shotguns, the safety factor far outweighs the "lack of skill" factor. Want to shoot doves? Practice your skill on the first shot and your quick load action. There's no way doing this will make hunting less "sporting" for the hunter.

Saying that wanting to ban automatic weapons is "not supporting gun-owners' rights" is disingenuous when you claim that all gun owners want to do is hunt and protect themselves and their families. They can do all that without (semi-)automatics. What you really want is to be able to own whatever the fuck you want, regardless of any negative effect on society more destructive (and deadly) weapons present. You hide behind the second amendment to claim it is your right to own any kind of gun whatsoever, which is a right the Amendment can definitely not be argued to grant, no matter how you spin it.

[tonton]

There are much more important issues when it comes to choosing a president.

And that... was Obama's point in a nutshell.

[Hassan i Sabbah]

And that... was Obama's point in a nutshell.

Ah, no. Arrogance and elitism is only a problem when it's evinced by Democrats with a chance of being elected, apparently.

®

[vinea]

The desire to save what is left of the Second Amendment, for self-defense, target shooting, or hunting, is not a mere matter of having a blankie to cuddle with. Despite what you may think, and many of your ill-informed gun-hating supporters do think, gun ownership is not an indicator for mental disease or, in terms of the usual psychobabble, "a phallic replacement."

It's not that they believe in the 2nd amendment and enjoy hunting...they are just frustrated...and bitter.

1st, what does the 2nd amendment have to do with hunting, or target shooting.

2nd, you guys don't believe that gun ownership has become a litmus test for some folks because they're bitter about other stuff and conservatives use that to flog their fears of the Democrats?

Anything can be a crutch. And also, for some of the guys I know it is a phallic replacement. That said, I used to have a .30-30 Contender.

[Jubelum]

Jesus, Jub. You're so deceptive here. You claim to support gun ownership for self-defense, and for sport. You've shown your true colors here. How many bullets per minute do you need to fire to defend yourself? You know the best answer is zero, since a gun used in self-defense is principally used as a deterrent threat. One bullet at a time is equally as threatening as repeated shots, as it is equally as deadly or injurious. Do you think criminals will be less intimidated by a non-auto gun than by a semi-auto gun? They are facing death by one bullet. Obviously you want more than just "self defense" by pushing for semi-automatic handgun rights.

True colors? We all know that you like banning guns, and I don't think we need any more laws. With this post, you're demonstrably uninformed. As usual on this issue. I teach defensive handgun. The answer is that in an ideal world, a non-drug influenced single attacker needs one or two bullets to stop them. We don't live there. And what exactly do you think I want that is "more than self defense?" And, Obama supported a FULL BAN on handguns, including revolvers and single shots- the IVI survey.

So basically some hunters use triple-loading shotguns because they don't have the skill needed to hit the fast buggers otherwise, despite the fact that many hunters do have that skill. Therefore... not necessary. By limiting semi-auto shotguns, the safety factor far outweighs the "lack of skill" factor. Want to shoot doves? Practice your skill on the first shot and your quick load action. There's no way doing this will make hunting less "sporting" for the hunter.

Some people, namely youth, women, and the disabled, find the lower recoil and easier operation to be advantageous or necessary. You're making the same case for a semi-auto gun ban that Obama is. Obama supports further gun control, and you agree with him. Surprise.

Saying that wanting to ban automatic weapons is "not supporting gun-owners' rights" is disingenuous when you claim that all gun owners want to do is hunt and protect themselves and their families.
Automatic weapons are already banned. Tens of thousands of dollars, 3-6 month wait, and a federal permit.

They can do all that without (semi-)automatics. What you really want is to be able to own whatever the fuck you want, regardless of any negative effect on society more destructive (and deadly) weapons present. You hide behind the second amendment to claim it is your right to own any kind of gun whatsoever, which is a right the Amendment can definitely not be argued to grant, no matter how you spin it.
You tell this same lie about my position every time you go off on me about guns. Frankly, the "own whatever the fuck you want" is getting tiresome. As I said, go back to the archives and find, in all of my posts about guns, where I have said that I do not think that there is a limit to what civilians need to possess. Go ahead. I'll wait... .... ...... .......... Didn't get there, did you? Could not find where I advocate rocket launchers, tanks, easily available automatic machine guns, etc?

The question at hand is: Does Barack Obama support gun owner's rights. The answer is that he supports everything that Brady supports, which is a huge slate of new gun and ammunition bans. THAT will be the issue to the gun-owning public. It's hard to say that you support gun owners rights, and then turn around and advocate banning possession of over half the guns in the country, and making ammunition so expensive that gun owners can no longer afford to enjoy their sport. You can "support the right" in theory all day long, but it is the actions that matter, and outlawing half the guns in the country is a strange way to "support the right." Electorially speaking, those of us who support the RKBA are going to have plenty of reasons to rally our voters against either Obama or Clinton. It's an easy sale among gun owners. Both of them, and her more than him, will bring out gun owners in very strong numbers.

Like I said in my earlier post, I'm not really interested in sitting here and typing out my reasons and refutations of your misconceptions over again. And again. And again. This is what the archives are for. Go read... because your position, and my position, have not changed.

[Fellowship]

Now the question will really be..

Is PA more Latte sipping or Beer drinking?


Shawn? SDW? anyone who lives in the area?


Oh and did I mention just how stupid and rather sad it is that we all are able to be ushered into groups by our handlers with such BS as "Latte or Beer"

"with us or against us"

you get the idea..

Fellows

[Fellowship]

I do think Obama had an idea that came out the wrong way when he said it. But it's laughable that SDW2001 and the Republicans are talking about elitism. I remember back in 2004 when they claimed that the 48% of Americans who disagreed with them on the war weren't
"patriotic" and didn't "support the troops". [Far right] Republicans think nothing of calling the other guy anti-American or a traitor when they disagree with them, but then they also like to claim their just ordinary everyday Americans and the other guy is elitist against them. Just one of the standard lies in the tool chest when they want to create a smoke screen to avoid the real issues.

well put.

Fellows

[Fellowship]

It is amazing to me that you could say that without a hint of irony.

It goes both ways does it not?

I have been trying to tell people on both sides this for months and months.

It does look silly when it is pointed out but you know what????

This is not news..

Fellows

[Fellowship]

Interesting clip here of Obama discussing this very subject 4 years ago on the Charlie Rose Show. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M)

The opponents fear this honesty, this consistently clear headed and pragmatic discussion of issues.



That Clip puts the entire thing in perspective. It shows how opportunistic people like SDW and Hillary Clinton appear to be when pouncing on a less than articulate version given by BO in recent days.

Hillary can say about the sniper fire that she was tired.

BO should be able to get a break when he says something akin to what he said in the 04 Rose clip yet he did so in a far less contextual and comprehensively articulate manner considering his high standards of speaking / articulating.

Barrack simply did not maintain his level of articulation several days back.

Give the man a break Hillary and SDW etc...

Fellows

[Outsider]

Here's a list of PA papers and what they think of Bitter-gate(tm).

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/13/111644/425/469/494812

[midwinter]

It goes both ways does it not?

Only when you have publicly stated that you have doggedly supported people you don't believe in and then feigned relief when they lose an election, only to then set about complaining when people are "in the tank" for their political candidates.

It only goes both ways if the claim is honest. This one is not. This one is a statement about voting patterns that people have been misinterpreting, somehow, as elitist. It would be dishonest if folks defending Obama actually thought that he meant that only dumb folks want guns. That is obviously, patently, not what he said or meant, and so we are defending him from inaccurate characterizations of his comments.

[Jubelum]

Barrack simply did not maintain his level of articulation several days back.

Give the man a break Hillary and SDW etc...

Fellows

I agree with you here Fellows. He made a mistake. Most of the things he says seem very well-thought out and based in sincerity. I don't think he's a dishonest person... but this episode, in a closed-door strategy session, he made me wonder just how "everyman" he really is. There are also a lot of people on both sides of the isle who are eager to take the brilliant sheen off of Obama.

I think a lot of Barack Obama personally, I do find him to be likable and sincere... but I thought that about Bill Jeff as well. It's like having a new friend that you really like, but get nervous when you have reason to believe that he's holding out on his "real" sentiment about you. Its given me pause about my personal like of Barack Obama. That intangible, "I wanna have a beer with this guy" is/was a huge part of his meteoric rise.

"Clinging" was probably not a good choice of words, and neither was putting the guns-god-racism axis out front, because it triggers a response that has little to do with Obama. He is not to blame for all of this, but his poor choice of words slapped the beehive among a two groups: people who are sensitive to being denigrated for the god/guns "delusions," (many of which Obama has been trying to woo) and Hillary, who is all too glad to take the opportunity for her own mock outrage... when she probably agrees with him on god/guns/immigrants voters.

Obama: "What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is they've got family, they've got their faith, they've got the traditions that have been passed onto them from generation to generation," Obama said at the forum, which was televised on CNN. "Those aren't bad things. That's what they have left."


That's better than the original. And "enjoyment of their Second Amendment heritage" works much better than "clinging to guns."

Clinton stuck with her criticism of Obama at the Sunday night forum but said she didn't believe his words implied he lacked religious faith. "Someone goes to a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco and makes comments that do seem elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing," she said. "That has nothing to do with him being a good man or a man of faith."

[Flat Stanley]

It's stunning to watch Democrats turn a sure win election into a long shot.

[Jubelum]

It's stunning to watch Democrats turn a sure win election into a long shot.

I'm not sure it's a "long shot", but RCP does have McCain beating both Clinton and Obama at this point, though only slightly.

[vinea]

Some people, namely youth, women, and the disabled, find the lower recoil and easier operation to be advantageous or necessary. You're making the same case for a semi-auto gun ban that Obama is. Obama supports further gun control, and you agree with him. Surprise.


Well lets be honest here...recoil pads, lighter loads and ultimately, even if it were a little wierd, you could reduce recoil with a similar gas system as a semi but without actually doing anything useful and require a manual pump.

I'd be dissapointed in a semi-auto ban but you can still target shoot, hunt and defend yourself. Some folks prefer to carry revolvers anyway although I've never had a semi jam on me. Of course, I haven't put many rounds through one either, don't carry for defense and prefer a pump for the home.

Would I be better off with a FN 5.7 with 20 rnds over a S&W .357 with 6 or 8? Probably since I can't hit the proverbial broadside of a barn with a pistol. But since I don't practice, I don't bother with either.

On the other hand, the rapidity that someone with a semi-auto with a high capacity mag can lay down fire and reload like at VT tech means I can see why some folks favor a semi-auto ban. Not that I agree but I can understand.

[vinea]

It's stunning to watch Democrats turn a sure win election into a long shot.

Yah. Not too surprising though.

Still, when it comes down to it I think Obama will win. The country is just damned tired of Bush and Clinton.

[Flat Stanley]

I'm not sure it's a "long shot", .

Give them time.

[addabox]

Give them time.

It's not the Dems, it's how the national media works.

There's nothing inherently damning or newsworthy in Obama's remarks. Sure, you would expect his political opposition to seize on stuff like this, but that happens all the time in every direction. McCain says all kind of weird shit, routinely, which Clinton and Obama dutifully single out as being evidence of wrong-headedness. You never see any kind of firestorm of controversy about though, do you?

The difference being that "dems are elitists" is already part of the right wing meme that the lazy national media has adopted wholesale, as an alternative to stupid old-school shit like reporting. Anything that plays into a pre-made narrative is much easier to frame than trying to explain particulars, and the they are terminally addicted to snarky commentary on the horse race over any thought at all about boring stuff like policy.

We could, with a different journalistic culture, still be talking about why McCain can't seem to keep the players in the middle east straight (he's done it several times since his initial "gaffe" was originally, briefly reported) and the Obama thing would just be part of the usual campaign background noise.

Certainly you would think it would be the more significant lapse, since a reckless disregard for facts regarding the particulars of the actual war we're actually fighting seems a tad more troubling than how you choose to parse some remarks on voting patterns. Does anyone think that Obama's "elitism" is going to get anybody killed, or even lead to policies that would materially harm the people he has ostensibly insulted?

Obama, or the Democrats, can't be held responsible for the disgusting triviality and laziness of people like Chris Matthews, who thinks that ordering orange juice at a diner is appalling elitism, or all the big "liberal" papers that have deemed "Bitter-gate" to be ongoing front page news, even as they ignore the revelation that the president of the United States personally approved carefully orchestrated torture techniques.

There's nothing quite as nauseating as listening to a bunch of Belt Way dwelling millionaires cluck their tongues endlessly about "elitism" while they play the roll of "regular people" on TV. Oh, and a bunch more people died in Iraq today and the President is fully on board for torture and the economy may be completely melting down but OMFG THE DEMOCRAT IS AN ELITIST TOP STORY OF THE DAY!!!!

[Flat Stanley]

"The Democrats"

Hillary Clinton seems to be making things difficult, but I don't see how anyone else is at fault there.

Shawn and Box.....


Obama's remarks were bad judgment, but are not worthy of the current fuss. What concerns me is the Democrat's apparent inability to circle the wagons and focus on winning the Presidency. Obama has the best chance of beating McCain. I respect Hillary and her desire to be President, but it will not happen. She must step aside and the party must move forward. The current path leads to a McCain Presidency. I blame more that Hillary, Shawn. The party leadership needs to show some leadership!

[BRussell]

So should we blame the media or a voting public that buys what they're saying?

If all of this is just bunk, then a well-educated, sensible, rational, logical audience won't buy it. And if the audience is not well-educated, sensible, rational and logical, who do we blame for that?

Perhaps the problem isn't the "journalistic culture" but, rather, the educational culture. Maybe, but I think that's too deep of an explanation. These elections - and these kinds of "issues" in particular - are about 5% of the voters who don't care about or pay much attention to politics, and just vaguely hear about who has positive or negative media buzz. It's not about the vast, vast majority of voters, I don't think.

[SpamSandwich]

Jesus, Jub. You're so deceptive here. You claim to support gun ownership for self-defense, and for sport. You've shown your true colors here. How many bullets per minute do you need to fire to defend yourself? You know the best answer is zero, since a gun used in self-defense is principally used as a deterrent threat. One bullet at a time is equally as threatening as repeated shots, as it is equally as deadly or injurious. Do you think criminals will be less intimidated by a non-auto gun than by a semi-auto gun? They are facing death by one bullet.

Have you ever actually fired a gun or rifle?

[SpamSandwich]

Yah. Not too surprising though.

Still, when it comes down to it I think Obama will win. The country is just damned tired of Bush and Clinton.

To me, it's plain that eventually Obama will win, despite his hollow "change" platform. Change for the sake of change is just the dose of foolishness the people demand. Meaningful change is beyond the reach of the parade of shylocks, hucksters and pandering shoe gum that