Small Town Pennsylvanians So Bitter That They Give Obama Lots of Money

[midwinter]

Indeed. Small town Pennsylvanians (like SDW2001) are so angry about Obama's remarks about them being "bitter" that they donated $250,000 as opposed to a mere $220,000 for HRC. (link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-outraises-clinton-a_n_96806.html))

Does this finally prove that the "bitter" argument is dead? That it had no effect whatsoever?

[groverat]

The "bitter" comment was very important because it made people that already disliked Obama very angry!

[tonton]

The "bitter" comment was very important because it made people that already disliked Obama very angry!

And intelligent people on the fence admitted that he had a point. Hence the donations.

[Flat Stanley]

More wingnut fodder. Nothing more.

[Jubelum]

Does this finally prove that the "bitter" argument is dead?

I dunno.... we have a bright, shiny new thread about it... me thinks not. :err:

"Bitter" is going to rally a certain part of the Republican base in a way that will make them forget all about how much they loathe John McCain.

[mydo]

If I read this right the analysis is of contributions made before his comments. Hence it's irrelevant to the "bitter" comment. Look at the donations since his comments.

[Jubelum]

If I read this right the analysis is of contributions made before his comments. Hence it's irrelevant to the "bitter" comment. Look at the donations since his comments.

Let's see...


Indeed, through the end of February 2008, Obama received nearly $250,000 in contributions from Pennsylvanians residing in zip codes with populations under 30,000 people. That total, which does not include Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and both city's suburbs, was roughly $30,000 more than the amount raised by Clinton: $220,000.

Another misleading thread title. Pay no mind.

[@_@ Artman]

Does this finally prove that the "bitter" argument is dead? That it had no effect whatsoever?

Who's bitter? How about the 14,759 people commenting on last night's debate clusterfuck (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/DemocraticDebate/comments?type=story&id=4666956).

Last night at the National Constitution Center, at a Democratic debate that was hyped by ABC as a discussion of serious constitutional issues, America got to see exactly what Obama was complaining about. At a time of foreign wars, economic collapse and environmental peril, the cringe-worthy first half of the debate focused on such crucial matters as Senator Obama's comments about rural bitterness, his former pastor, an obscure sixties radical with whom he was allegedly "friendly," and the burning constitutional question of why he doesn't wear an American flag pin on his lapel — with a single detour into Senator Hillary Clinton's yarn about sniper fire in Tuzla. Apparently, Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos ran out of time before they could ask Obama why he's such a lousy bowler.

The Dems (Dems? ABC more likely) Play Trivial Pursuit (http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1731655,00.html)

One of the reasons I like Obama is that he doesn't treat Americans like a bunch of grade-schoolers on a candy binge. He doesn't act as if every problem this nation faces can be boiled down to a sound bite and underscored with a photo op.

Clinton irks me because she is so shameless in her transparency. I keep coming back to how she tried to make her point about Obama's so-called "elitism" by talking about guns and drinking whiskey with a bunch of good old boys. The only message I took out of that was, 'God, she must think we're idiots.'

Yeah, Barack can ham it up for the cameras at the bowling alley. But he doesn't compound the stupidity by boasting that he came from a family of working-class bowlers who would hit the alleys after church every Sunday.