Good morning, Scarecrow.

[…] George Will explaining “condescending” and “out of touch”

Talk about irony. George Will calling someone else condescending and out of touch? Wow. Word just can begin to grapple with this.

I’m mad
Like Al Capone
I’m mad
Like Sonny Liston yea

Morning Scarecrow.

So what else is new?

A few things. Love the pic of Hillary packing heat. She looks so comfy doing it too. Then there’s McSame’s 8 or is it 10 houses? I’d like to know lots more about them.

Elitists? naw. Those items are so important that we all should just forget about the fact that they’re shredding the Constitution.

There’s this one:

“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

And then this one:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

Uh, exactly where does it say protect the people? It would seem to me that their job is to protect the Constitution. It says so right there.

Good morning all…

As I said yesterday (hope you don’t mind me repeating myself) — I’m a Hoosier and when I read Hillary Clinton’s attack on Obama’s remarks, well, you can guess how well that went over…

She and Bill didn’t give a crap about us until the election and NAFTA became a campaign issue…then suddenly, they’re soooo concerned…puhlease. An opportunist, indeed.

Obama made the remarks in a private setting. He was *not* preaching to us, wagging his finger at us, telling us we shouldn’t be bitter. He was analyzing a situation. AND HE WAS SPOT ON.

We are bitter. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing.

If anyone is elitist, it would be the Clintons. They presumed to know what Hoosiers are thinking and our reaction to Obama’s words–and then they spoke for us.

If anyone is condescending, it would be the Clintons. Nothing is more patronizing than to be talked down to like Hillary did to the factory workers.

After reading the link to Hillary’s Prayer from KaylnMaine yesterday, it has pretty much sealed my impression of Hillary Clinton as a republican in Democrat clothing.

Yeah, RevDeb, I think we should send a Constitution-on-tape to them so they can listen to it while cruising around Washington.

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic;

And that is exactly why fancynancy should take impeachment off the table. If the chimp is not an enemy of this country I don’t know who is.

Hillary Clinton as a republican in Democrat clothing

And that is why she is a DLCer.

Barack Obama has been attacked because he said something he’s said better before and has said better since.

I see we’re playing by the “what he actually meant was” Obama rules this morning.

Obama’s problem is that his comments to a roomful of rich (almost entirely?) white people about working class whites did smack of condescesion and contempt for working-class whites — in the exact same way that describing rich white people as “clinging to their double mochachino lattes and self-help gurus” to a roomful of working class whites would.

Obama’s appeal has always been elitist in nature — his emphasis has been on “process” not solutions, and when people who are worried about their futures and who want to know what Obama is actually going to do, are told “you can find that on my website, I want to talk about process”, it doesn’t go over well. Worry about “process” is a luxury that working-class voters can’t afford — its a luxury enjoyed by white bloggers and college students who support Obama, but not the working-class whites who he was discussing.

Obama is not being attacked unfairly here because his comments really do reflect who he is, and where he is coming from.

So my continuing question would be when is the media going to ask questions of substance to the candidates. Things like

“what will you do to restore the rule of law to the US of A if/when you are elected?”

“Do you have a plan to clean out the various government of incompetent hacks that have been hired over the last 7 years? and how will you do that legally?”

“What criteria will you use in choosing judges for lifetime appointments?”

“Have you read the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq? If so, what is your response to it? If not, why not?”

I could go on, but that would be a start.

If Obama is right, as I believe he is, why apologize? He ran into the progressive dilemna. How do you change things without violating the closely held beliefs behind the way things are? Can you say God doesn’t want you to be poor and exploited? Can you say God doesn’t want you to follow leaders off a cliff? Can you say God wants you to think for yourself and do what you want, not what you’re told? That’s not only radical stuff, it goes to the heart of things.

Can you tell the nation the system doesn’t work? that patriotism which contributes greatly to one’s self image led us down the primrose path? It’s a fine line, and unfortunately, Obama hasn’t got the hang of it. The idea is to get elected and then try to work magic. It’s like his wife saying she was proud of America for the first time and all the flack that inspired. She was right. Should we be “proud” of Iraq or Vietnam or sub prime mortgages or any of our numerous ills? I say “no”, but I’m not running for president.

“What criteria will you use in choosing judges for lifetime appointments?”

This is the one question that bothers the heck out of me. Kate Michelman, in a talk in NH, mentioned that the clinton2 health plan put forth during the clinton1 presidency did not cover abortion procedures and now she is doing the clinton waffle on “life possibly begins at conception”. This is a woman that would, I believe, be happy with a Bork if her corporate masters demanded it. Not good.

If you’re not bitter, than you are one who has no idea what is going on over in Iraq, who has not been listening to Americans over the years, and you’re one who owns 8 homes and calls everyone else an elitist to make yourself feel better in the face of the bitter people.

Exactly.

That’s why I so appreciate the information shared here on FDL.

He has only apologize for using the word “bitter”, but he does say that it wasn’t too far from the truth. Here he is setting the record straight:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxmi3e2Vmo

Can you tell the nation the system doesn’t work? that patriotism which contributes greatly to one’s self image led us down the primrose path? It’s a fine line, and unfortunately, Obama hasn’t got the hang of it.

politically, there is no “fine line”. Its a chasm that simply cannot be crossed without paying a political price.

You can talk about what is wrong with “Republicans” or “Democrats” or “the government” all you like. But you can’t talk about “what is wrong with America.”

New judge appointed chief of FISA court. OK Googlers, start your engines.

Obama should stand behind what he said, I think he was spot on. However, he needs to counter what Hillary and McBush are SAYING he said. I saw no insult, but I’m pretty thick skinned.

Once the last states vote, the Supers must step in and end it. If you’re going to go against the popular vote and back Hillary, stand up and say so! But end this sniping that is only helping McBush.

I have sympathy for Hillary, watching her personal ambition of the last decade slowly vanish. She knows if she doesn’t win now, she’s unlikely to get another chance. And it’s not like she doesn’t have a good program, heck it’s hard to tell her from Obama if you just read their positions and proposals. Think about the cabinets each would select, they’d be darn near identical IMO. But on a personal level, Obama is connecting better.

Boxturtle (Disclaimer: I’m an Obama supporter)

So it seems that the Pope is having dinner at the Italian Embassy on Wed. rather than the WH. Better chef?

So it seems that the Pope is having dinner at the Italian Embassy on Wed. rather than the WH. Better chef?

It would seem to me that ratzenbugger would have a great time at the WH discussing torture with the chimp. They could even swap videos?

How did you like the pictures of Hillary drinking with the boys?

Thanks. It’s a good clip and a good reponse from Obama. The PA primary will be a good test of democracy. Don’t see how anyone can prefer Hillary to Obama even if you’re a woman. It’s not about gender. It’s about character.

Obama should stand behind what he said, I think he was spot on. However, he needs to counter what Hillary and McBush are SAYING he said. I saw no insult, but I’m pretty thick skinned.

Lets turn this around bob.

Lets say that Hillary Clinton was talking to a roomful of her wealthy black supporters, and she described poor and working-class urban blacks as “bitter” and “clinging to their malt-liquor, their black preachers, and their racial resentment”.

Can you just imagine the shitstorm?

Maybe Bill Cosby can get away with that kind of rhetoric, but Hillary Clinton would be crucified for it in the middle of a political campaign. And the same rules should apply to Barack Obama.

Doesn’t have to laugh at WMD jokes: “They must be here, no over here, no, they’re not here.” And the press corps all laughed. Titanic, anyone?

So it seems that the Pope is having dinner at the Italian Embassy on Wed. rather than the WH. Better chef?

I’m guessing WAY better. And the dinner conversation will be much less tense. The pope would have great difficulty at thw WH, because any conversation subject other than the weather would eventually lead to The Sins of Bush. That conversation would do Bush a world of good, if he’d just listen.

Boxturtle (Would like to be a judge at a challenge between the chefs at the Italian & French embassies, and the WH. FoodTV, take note)

Good morning.

RevDeb– thanks for the McCain link to 8 houses.

lukasiak. I agree the quote from the Marin meeting comes off as condescending. I’ve now seen about four different versions of the same speech, different places and times. They’re all done without notes, and there are subtle differences each time. Sometimes he fumbles; other times less so. If you see this is as a consistent view of how he thinks, then you have to see all the incarnations to judge what he’s trying to say.

As for Obama being a process thinker, my Cheney reaction is “so?” I think you’re describing one way of how people process information but I can’t see how it defines “elitism” or condescension. Are rural Americans’ incapable of being process thinkers? Are none of them every condescending to their neighbors, or to strangers? I just don’t see how these labels are helpful.

My friends, what we have here is a failure to communicate.

While Barack Obama speaks of the immense frustration and pain and undeserved sacrifice some — repeat — some Americans have made under the reign of George, Hillary Rodham Clinton puts him square in her crosshairs and rips him a new one for telling the truth.

What no one seems to be noting is that this is a woman who is campaigning to become president of the United States of America, not a story-telling Grimm sister. Every day, she morphs into someone different. The tragic figure who tearfully discovers her voice. The media victim. Rocky Balboa. And now Annie Oakley channeling Gunsmoke’s Miss Kitty. The only constant seems to be her willingness to twist truth, bleat and blame, repeat as needed.

Until this week, I have been working hard to become a true believer in Obama. Guess what. I’m there.

By extension, Jim/John are calling us the left-wing freak show. I’m not a freak, I’m a DFH.

“He won’t be reminding Americans that his party increased poverty, caused a serious recession, left millions uninsured, eliminated millions of jobs, stifled the middle class and grotesquely enriched the rich. Instead, those he panders to kept the faithful distracted about attacks on Christmas or gun shows or immigrants, while his party plundered the country.”

Why the hell aren’t the Dems pounding this into the country’s head?

Me, too, Barbara. I don’t agree with everything Obama has done or said, but this hit home. Literally. He doesn’t owe us an apology for speaking the truth. It’s quite refreshing for a change. No pun intended.

I am no where near a true believer in Obama, but Hillary has gone so far off the reservation that there’s no way I’d vote for her in the primary next week. For all the reasons you stated plus the fact that she and Bill and MARK PENN et all ran a campaign of entitlement. Bah humbug.

Why, indeed?! Could it be because the media puts everything of relevance and importance on page A18?

Lets say that Hillary Clinton was talking to a roomful of her wealthy black supporters, and she described poor and working-class urban blacks as “bitter” and “clinging to their malt-liquor, their black preachers, and their racial resentment”.

If you drop the malt liquor clause, she might be spot on. We are NOT going to be able to address problems if we can’t talk about them, regardless if the problem is real or simply perception. I say we start talking frankly and the sooner the better.

Everybody is part of the problem, everybody must be part of the solution.

Boxturtle (FWIW, I LIKE Olde English 800. Malt Liquer gets a bad rap as well)

Thanks. I think bitter is fine. Is it going to cost more the send kids to college, are our public schools going in the tank, do I want this to be the world of torture and lies that my grandson will inherit? Bitter, I think.

I even like to make the comparison that when my daughter was growing up, I surrounded her with lessons and visions and hope and beauty of the Kennedy dreams and years. Think contrast.

And don’t forget MSNBC’s new darling David Gregory, dancing with Karl Rove. I think a good blog could consist simply of a daily photo of a news Anchortainer doing something like that, with Cronkite’s or Murrow’s face photoshopped onto it.

i didn’t hear obama’s recent statement… but i have thought he was condesending and elitst ever since his diaries at daily kos more than 2 years ago.

so, defending him as not elitist or condescending doesn’t work for me. i think we’re better off arguing that that this is a stupid way to choose our president – 1) we don’t have the option of electing someone who doesn’t look down on us and 2) and since when is that the best measure of who would make the best president?

I live in a small town. I attended three events in 2007 where Obama spoke. Two of those were in the small town where I live.
Now, I guess there is nothing wrong with Obama trying to explain my family and neighbors to some fat cats in San Francisco [although in my opinion he missed understanding us by a ‘country mile’], but I wonder why he never felt the need to explain them to me?

I think I posted this yesterday, but one of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of “bitter” is this:

expressive of severe pain, grief, or regret

Then it’s high time for the Dems to kick this up an octave. Time for one of Harry Reid’s ’stunts’ or a mass march to Rayburn to literally raise Pelosi up on our shoulders while she delivers the message. The Right-Wing media is not going to give us the time on the air or the space on the page. We are going to need to take it.

I agree that should be the line of attack. I didn’t understand Clinton’s response. She could have disassociated herself from the apparent condescension and still turned Obama’s poor wording into a way to channeling the anger he was describing — because her own campaign is partly based on the argument the Republicans have trashed and misled the country — so why not say, “I don’t agree with how he said it, but he’s right that we all have reason to be angry at the other party.” I thought it a lost opportunity to come back and say, “all the folks I’ve met are not bitter; we’re optimistic and rolling up our sleeves.” Denying the anger didn’t make sense, when that anger can be helpful to your message.

Good points. All of the people who think that Obama is the messiah had better get a grip. He isn’t and he will disappoint. And we will have to push him to do the right thing.

I have frequently expressed my greatest fear to people within earshot. I fear that he will be elected and then not much will change—at least not enough to please the young folks who look at him and see stars in their eyes. He will turn out to be the moderate corporate shill that he is and a whole generation of young people who had briefly been turned on to politics by his “promise” will be turned off forever. We will lose a whole generation. That is my worst nightmare (other than Darth refusing to leave office and declaring marshall law, of course).

Barbara, this would make great campaing signage. I hope the Obama campaign is reading this thread. Thanks, Scarecrow.

Great Post Scarecrow…..I am sending an email to the Connecticut for LIEberman Party asking them to make Senator Clinton the nominee for President from their Party……she encompasses the values and ideology of Holy Joe perfectly!

Good point, Scarecrow.

Don’t be getting down on folks like Vandehei and Harris too much, Scarecrow.

If they say someone in politics is “out of touch,” you’ve got to respect their opinion. After all, NOBODY knows “out of touch” like the Pool Boy and his ilk.

Except maybe Deb Howell.

I didn’t understand Clinton’s response

I did. She’s not running against McBush, she’s running against Obama. Do you hammer Obama for a poor choice or words or do you hammer him for being elitist and out of touch? Remember, she doesn’t really care if she poisons November.

Boxturtle (In fact, I think her plan is to make Obama unelectable and force the Supers to pick her)

As for Obama being a process thinker, my Cheney reaction is “so?” I think you’re describing one way of how people process information but I can’t see how it defines “elitism” or condescension. Are rural Americans’ incapable of being process thinkers? Are none of them every condescending to their neighbors, or to strangers? I just don’t see how these labels are helpful.

Of course rural voters can think in terms of “process”. But “process” isn’t their priority, feeding their families is.

The fact is that Obama really doesn’t have that much appeal to the average American. Last night, in the Keli Goff thread, I made a point about John Edwards being unable to attract black support in South Carolina. The response was funny — people told me there were “other factors involved” like the lack of media coverage (not true, given that Edwards got 40% of the white vote) or the his “electability” becoming an issue (not true, Edwards had been in the low single digits for Black support since November.) Nobody wanted to say what that “other factor” really was — Edwards didn’t get Black support because there was a viable black candidate on the ballot.

The simple fact is that if Obama was white, and addressed the concerns of Black voters by telling them to check his website for his policies and that it was all really about “the process”, he’d not be where he is today. His “success” in the primaries is based on three things; Hillary-hate, white “elites” who have the luxury of caring about “process”, and positive racial identification voting by the black community. That isn’t going to win a november election, and Obama needs to face up to that reality very soon. At the very least, he’s going to need to tie McCain to the Bush adminitration to exploit BDS in the same way that his primary campaign has exploited CDS.

We can all sit out here in the progressive blogosphere and enjoy the luxury of concern about “the process” all we want to, but the vast majority of Americans don’t live in that “reality”. Obama’s comments exemplified the disconnect between his candidacy, and the way that working class americans see themselves.

i hadn’t thought that far ahead – but your worry about the risk of disappointment, especially for the idealistic young, makes sense to me. do you have any ideas about what can we do to counter that risk?

I’m sympathetic to that. Attaturk’s post this a.m. has a similar theme. Has “elitist” become like “liberal”??

Any one who graduates at the top of his Harvard Law School class is bound to view himself as pretty smart. He’d come off as phony if he pretended to be otherwise — the question is, what’s he gonna do with those brains?

I think what’s at issue here is wedge issues. Most often lately these include God, guns, immigrants. Too much going on to trot out the baby-killer meme.

I thought that’s what Obama might be driving at. When people have a genuine cause for bitterness (think war, economic dive accompanied by inflation, job loss, administrative incompetence and crimes), the tried and true Republican tactic is to divert conversation from the truths and turn attention to the old standbys, i.e., God, guns, immigrants and patriotism.

“But I’ve been out of work for three months!”
“Yeah, and now those liberal bastards wanna take away your guns!”

“But I’ve been out of work for three months!”
“Yeah, well small wonder, with all those aliens sucking up the good jobs!”

“My kid is being sent to Iraq and I’m scared to death!”
“Well, you know, it’s God’s will that he serve his country this way.”

do you have any ideas about what can we do to counter that risk?

Make sure we get very House and Senate seat we can filled with progressives so that they can force obama’s hand

Don’t even suggest such a thing.

Yes, when did analyzing a situation become elitist?

Ideas to counter that risk? I hadn’t thought that far head. Though I think that Darcy Burner has modeled a great piece of work with her Responsible Plan for Iraq. That has to be pushed. Then we need a pile of other responsible plans—one to clean out the DOJ, another for the EPA, etc. They need to have huge groundswells of support in order to push the politicians into doing the right thing.

Alas, even if we “win” this we have LOTS of work to do.

Good points. All of the people who think that Obama is the messiah had better get a grip. He isn’t and he will disappoint. And we will have to push him to do the right thing.

Aye, and all of us should keep this in mind. At the end of the day, Obama is still a politician. He’ll have to make compromises we won’t like. He’ll have to not do some of the things he’s said he’ll do.

We need a new cabinet position: Monkey. The monkey’s job is to get on the presidents back and remind him of all the things he’s supposed to be doing.

Boxturtle (Would really enjoy that job, regardless of who gets elected)

If you drop the malt liquor clause, she might be spot on. We are NOT going to be able to address problems if we can’t talk about them, regardless if the problem is real or simply perception. I say we start talking frankly and the sooner the better.

well the “malt liquor” clause is the equivalent of the “guns” clause in Obama’s statement — a negative stereotype designed to separate the speaker and his audience from the subject being discussed.

But the issue isn’t whether it would be true or not, the issue is what the reaction would be. Do you really think that Obama and his supporters would not exploit the equivalent statement by Clinton to the hilt? After the crap they pulled in South Carolina with perfectly innocent statements made by the Clintons?

In theory, the Chief of Staff is supposed to be the monkey. Some have succeeded in this, some have, well, let’s just say had their hands full keeping the preznit out of more trouble than he has already caused.

Harry and Nancy and both working very hard to return the Permanent Republic Majority to power.

I am reading your comments and Im amazed.
We have a candidate who isnt perfect and says so. We have a candidate who is from the people and not the elite.
We have a candidate who speaks the truth, can apologise, and can use words to educate and inspire. who hasnt degraded and insulted the other Democrat.
We have a candidate who brings the new voter and the young to the party.
We have a candidate who will listen to the people.

And he isnt good enough.

George Bush claims to be religious and patriotic. Count me as anti-religious and un-patriotic.

Scarecrow, “Has “elitist” become like “liberal”??” Yes, and we had better get out in front of this thing. This morning, I read a quote by some Republican calling us ‘the trial-lawyer Democrats’. We ignore these monikers at our own very great peril.

Amen. It all really is a lesson in eating one’s own.

I think what’s at issue here is wedge issues. Most often lately these include God, guns, immigrants. Too much going on to trot out the baby-killer meme.

Well after clinton2’s position in yesterday’s religious forum and her leaving out the right to have an abortion in the first clinton’s health package it seems that choice is a very important issue. Just what sort of Supreme court Justice do you think clinton2 would nominate?

the question is, what’s he gonna do with those brains?

well, NOT lecturing us on how we shouldn’t give our pols a hard time for supporting the roberts nomination to the supreme court would be a a start.

he could have written a diary about ANYTHING – but that was what he thought was the most important thing to write about? jeeze, i’m still peeved.

there’s a big difference between the confidence that comes with true talent, accomplishment and competency. i like that – because anyone who really knows their stuff is also aware of how much they don’t know.

but that’s not what i mean by “elitist” – i’m referring to the condensation shown to others which seems to imply that he knows better than us about everything, that we should just stfu and listen to our betters.

that’s what i don’t like.

and while that might affect who i’d like to drink a beer with, i still think it’s a lousy way to choose a president.

We fight Bushco and the Republicans with the Congressional leadership we have, not the leadership we wish we had!

But the issue isn’t whether it would be true or not, the issue is what the reaction would be. Do you really think that Obama and his supporters would not exploit the equivalent statement by Clinton to the hilt? After the crap they pulled in South Carolina with perfectly innocent statements made by the Clintons?

I think that both campaigns have gone WAY too far. I’m sure that Obama would exploit a similar statement by Hillary, even if he agreed with it.

Sad, isn’t it? That’s why i want the Supers to end it, we’re basically eating each other while McBush looks statesmanlike.

I’ve never consider liking guns to be a negative, so maybe that’s why I don’t equate Malt Liquer to guns. Implying that someone is a street drunk is an insult, saying they like guns is not.

Boxturtle (And I still think he was spot on)

ultimately lost their elections as many voters came to see them as elitist, out-of-touch, phony, and even unpatriotic. . . .

2004

R) 62,040,610……… .D) 59,028,11

2000

R) 50,460,110…….. .D) 51,003,926

Fact Free and Lovin’ It !

what could be more elitist than Pool Boy and Harris chatting up the other beltway lemmings with shiny, What If tales that validate their closely held, patently false templates on the mighty unwashed ?!?!?

Then it’s high time for the Dems to kick this up an octave. Time for one of Harry Reid’s ’stunts’ or a mass march to Rayburn to literally raise Pelosi up on our shoulders while she delivers the message. The Right-Wing media is not going to give us the time on the air or the space on the page. We are going to need to take it.

amen. this i can get behind without reservation.

Amen. It all really is a lesson in eating one’s own.

gosh. I didn’t see any of this concern about “eating one’s own” when Obama (and Edwards) attacked Clinton because she didn’t represent “change” like they did. This idea that Obama has run this entirely “high road” campaign, and has never criticized Clinton in a way that could be used against her in the general election, is complete BS. Obama has consistently attacked Clinton where she is most vulnerable, and in ways that reinforce her “negatives”.

So lets have a time-out on the hypocrisy for a little while, okay?

i’m referring to the condensation shown to others

Yes a little foggy and wet no doubt but condecension is maybe what you are looking for.

Clinton is pro-choice.

Period.

Ah, jeez. Missed that. So it’s the whole bunch of wedge issues, then, being pounded into place by — a Democrat! What’s wrong with this picture?

Could “elite” be code for “uppity”….?

He is neither.

Once can claim all they want…actions do the real talking.

I think Obama is the candidate who can turn these labels around and stick them all over the Republicans. His “Now, who do you think is out of touch?” speech confirmed that to me.

The Democrats in Congress come to a knive fight armed with pea shooters.

ouch!

George Bush claims to be religious and patriotic. Count me as anti-religious and un-patriotic.

By that standard, I’d be proud to join you.

I’ve never consider liking guns to be a negative, so maybe that’s why I don’t equate Malt Liquer to guns. Implying that someone is a street drunk is an insult, saying they like guns is not.

Obama was talking to a bunch of rich San Franciscans. While “clinging to their guns” may not be a negative stereotype to you, the way that “clinging to their guns” is perceived among that audience is probably different from your perception.

*sigh*

Their knives don’t measure up to our torches and pitchforks.

This shameless attack on Obama by Clinton should ice her chances of delegate pickups. So she’s just left with bloodying him until the old man can pick up the ball. Thanks Hill.

Could “elite” be code for “uppity”….?

please, i beg you, don’t got there without a hell of a good argument to back you up.

i’m sick of being call sexist because i don’t like senator clinton. please don’t add to that by implying i’m racist for thinking senator obama’s dailykos diary was condesending.

blech.

I agree. Excellent points. Instead of fueling the Right Wing Wurlitzer, why not demonstrate how you would attack it? It goes back to an observation I have made for a couple of months now; it is hard to differentiate between a Right Wing Hack and a Clinton surrogate. As a former Edwards delegate, I would be more impressed witht the ability to attack the GOP, not help support them with there faux talking points. IMHO.

Rev

I agree with your concerns. Having thought about it quite a bit, here’s my take, faint hope that it is …

It is possible that WE, ‘the people’, can make enough ‘noise’ and thereby influence Obama to make the decisions and choices as President that the nation, and the world, desperately need.

I do not see even that possibility with either of the other two would-be’s.

It ain’t much, admittedly, but then that is the nature of battered hope …

Point conceeded. I’m sure they took it differently than I did.

Boxturtle (According to the GOP, I’m a DFH…but I don’t find that insulting :-) )

Bom dia, pups

Hope all had a decent night of sleep.

I wonder how many more U.S. service people will lose their life today?

How many Iraqis will not see the sun go down on this day?

How many americans will be faced with the decision to declare bankruptcy?

How many more illegal acts will be committed by this administration?

Oh. wait, the candidates don’t care about that…my bad

I don’t think that was directed at anyone in particular. It’s more along the lines Jane discussed once, about how each of us hears different things from the same words without realizing it.

DWB, my hope is that Obama is even more Progressive than he can allow himself to show right now. That once he is in office, he will uncloak further.

Please read George Lakoff’s stuff on framing issues. It’s an essential concept. The Republicans mastered it long ago under the tutelage of Frank Luntz. There is as much power in language as there is in pitchforks.

Stop with the issues. Obama’s being elitist, Hillary is being a b***h and you want us to worry about Iraq?!? Where’s the fun in that?!?

Boxturtle (Next you’ll want the NATION to interrupt their gossip to listen to your issues)

I’m not bitter. I wish some would have bible driven religious self evaluations…. while clinging to their gun. Then upon realizations as to the ill effects they have cause other human beings, they would do the right thing and rid the world of themselves, but more important is their need to avoid accountability since they have realized,, they are going to hell….

I believe this is the primary motivation for the DC gun ban. Reduction in self inflicted mortal gun wounds by politicians in the future…..

Just Joking of course…..ha ha

I don’t think that was directed at anyone in particular.

the problem, imo, with that kind of general statement directed at no one is that it is directed at everyone.

i’d much prefer a statement about a specific event or use of the word “elitist” was a dog whistle for “uppity” because then we would have something to analyze critically to determine if the statement was justified or not. generalized statements about everyone and no one don’t lend themselves to that process and therefore, i think, add to the toxicity of the conversation.

I agree, and am a big fan of Jeffrey Feldman. However, in this Right-WingMedia Age you almost need a pitchfork to get in front of page 18. You are forced to get their attention before you deliver your message.

please, i beg you, don’t got there without a hell of a good argument to back you up.

actually, selise, I do think that there is a lot of “dog whistle” in the whole “Obama is an elitist” frame. (I don’t think you’re doing it at all, but that’s not the point.)

And I’m really unhappy with the Clinton camp playing into that — I’d be a whole lot more pissed off about it had Obama and his supporters not pulled the “Clinton is running a racist campaign” crap they did in South Carolina, a theme they have been ‘dog whistling’ themselves ever since. So, my take is that as long as Obama supporters want to insist that Clinton is going to pay the price for “running a racist campaign”, she might as well reap the benefits from it.

In other words, there was absolutely nothing racist about the campaign that Clinton has run up until this point — but the Obama campaign and his supporters have tried to make it appear that there was something racist about the campaign. So now that the Clinton camp is finally doing what they’ve been falsely accused of doing for months, I’m not all that upset.

Gosh! I never realized how STUPID Obama and All those who would support him are, and must be, by ‘definition’.

However, you represent Hillary Clinton very well…

She never behaves as if we, the people, are stupid or as if she, and she alone, has the handle on TRUTH.

POO(F)!;~D

Nah, I just want them to DEBATE/DISCUSS what is going on in this country.It saddens me that this is even an issue. But it’s politics, baby.

condescending? I have yet to come to that conclusion by the people from small towns. The ones complicit in the situation that small town folks (and many of the rest of us) find themselves in have made their case of elitism. But I tend not to listen to them.

Without the threat of the pitchforks the words have no power. First the words THEN the pitchforks!

Hillary talks ‘cracker’: her days of guns and food stamps
.
Hillary says. “When in Pennsylvania cracker land, talk cracker.”
“That is in no way condescending” she said, “It’s simple political play book, page one tactics. Talk guns and beer.”
“Barack, however, is different” she said. “Even tho’ he was telling a known version of cracker truth, he used a five syllable word plus complicated syntax. That, my friends, is elitist. Knee slappin’ elitist.”
“Back when Momma, Poppa and I were on welfare…….and the revenuers were looking for our stills……..”

Gosh! I never realized how STUPID Obama and All those who would support him are, and must be, by ‘definition’.

I wouldn’t use the word “stupid”.

I’d use “delusional”

:-P

Appear? You know there is always a chance that with everything, people will interpret words and actions differently. Just because you didn’t deem it as racist, does not mean it wasn’t perceived as so.

So now that the Clinton camp is finally doing what they’ve been falsely accused of doing for months, I’m not all that upset.

i’m not so upset about what the campaigns are doing (although maybe i should be), what really get’s my goat is what we are doing to each other here in this thread (only a little bit here, but other threads have been really bad). that’s what i wish i knew how to address.

although I didn’t see it as a gaffe on BO’s part – am glad this didn’t blow up the week end before the PA primary -

the weds after TX/OH, HRC had a 22 point lead in PA, it is now down to single digits

there is plenty of election cycle time bef the primary for him to recover

frankly I keep seeing his campaign attempting to speak to all voters as if they have the intellectual fortitude to figure it out for themselves – and even if it is a ‘cynical ploy’ – it hasn’t hurt him yet

I don’t appreciate being called delusional. I came to support Obama after my first two candidates pulled out of the race.

Hm.

In a fashion, the media frames Baracks statement as out of touch because they imply that it’s naive or even ridiculous to suggest that Americans could possibly be bitter. Rather than look at the cause of bitterness they prefer to change the subject to one of guns and religion, the hot button issues. The Courtesan Class will always promote the myth of American exceptionalism. As long as Americans buy into this the ruling elites have little to fear.

No, it’s bad here this morning. wth? calling supporters delusional? If we can debate issues, great but I’m not taking part in any poo flinging

I’m sure you would. Golly, you just did.

Well good for you!

Cleary, your deep, compassionate insight and ability to appreciate views different from your own, has not stopped you from speaking truth as you see it.

Good on you, again!!

I cant figure it out

Lies,lies,lies and you still think she’d be a great president?
Never mind drinking shots with the boys (ugh)

Appear? You know there is always a chance that with everything, people will interpret words and actions differently. Just because you didn’t deem it as racist, does not mean it wasn’t perceived as so.

you miss the point.

While there will always be people who perceive things differently than the way they were intended, the Obama campaign and his supporters actively encourage the misperception that the Clinton campaign was racist.

And the only reason that I can see that the Obama campaign took that “racist” theme underground was because it was backfiring on Obama — the false accusations weren’t hurting Clinton with black voters in South Carolina nearly as much as it hurt Obama (and helped Clinton) with white voters there.

i don’t mind poo flinging at the candiates – they can take it. it’s the poo flinging at each other that gets me down.

since when does it make sense that our primary loyalty should be with a candidate we don’t know and probably will never meet – instead of with each other?

We have supporters of both (none, all?) candidates here, who all came to their choices in different ways. Let’s respect that. And the rules are, don’t insult other commenters. If you must, direct them at the only one here who isn’t offended by being called an elitist . . . the guy who wrote the post.

Good moanin’ folks….Yes McCrazy’s Conservative Party has destroyed much of our government, but wasn’t that their intention..to drown freedom and government in a bathtub? Now we have Tory Corporate Fascism ( not exaggerating here) to replace it just like before the Revolutionary war. Conservatives are not on USA’s side.

I must agree with Luka to this point: I think we Obama supporters are expecting WAY more out of him than he can ever deliver. Delusional is a harsh word, but accurate.

We’re all going to get a dose or reality after 1/20. But I still think he’ll do better than Hillary.

Boxturtle (And I plan to retain my hope until proven wrong. But I’m a sap)

Just like good old Jack N said: “You can’t handle the truth.” Obama speaks truths and some people, like drunks… do not like it to hear it!!! Then attack him!! He is not the problem folks. Instead “people” suckle on the forever present spinning media “nipple” and think they are informed?? ha ha ha

Kick-Ass FDLers……. Take no prisoners… Some can agree to disagree but one thing is certain on this site…. people think and everyday I’m amazed at the wisdom and insights of the site’s authors and commenting posters.

KUTGW for America!!!!

The Democratic Party suffered a setback with the takeover by the DLC, the Third Way people who aided the rise of Third Way Labor Party leader and fellow Bu$hlerite, Blair, back in 1992. The Republican coup launched by James Baker III in Florida in November 2000 culminating in the SCOTUS decision in Bush v. Core, Dec. 12, 2000, a day that lives in infamy, more so than the highly anticipated attacks about a year later, wouldn’t have been possible without the groundwork done by the Democratic Party infiltrators, the crypto-Republicans, led by Bill Clinton with former Republican, Hillary Clinton. They used their two terms to decimate the party and alienate the progressive party base. Now they are trying their damnedest to see that the seemingly most unlikely outcome occurs, viz., that McCain takes office next January with Hillary at his side. Just a thought.

I’m not missing anything. It is all about perception whether you like it or not. Now while it is your opinion that his campaign did this and that, guess what, other folks aren’t going to see it that way. that is the great thing about folks, we all view, hear, etc. through a filter of our own experiences and background.

the only reason that I can see that the Obama campaign took that “racist” theme underground was because it was backfiring on Obama — the false accusations weren’t hurting Clinton with black voters in South Carolina nearly as much as it hurt Obama (and helped Clinton) with white voters there.

Once again, I will repeat. Blacks are not monoliths. Blacks are not monoliths.
Some other info. Obama had to earn the black vote, it was never freely given to him and beleive it or not, I have the feeling that blacks know racism when they hear it (it’s that whole experience thing)

Lots of exhaust being spewed over a state that’s not even in the cards for the Democrats in November.

KUTGW??

Precisely! Thank you, selise, very much.

I disagree. He doesn’t know me and many of the people that support Obama, so to label me delusional is insulting.

“the only one here who isn’t offended by being called an elitist . . . the guy who wrote the post.”

You can take it, you have a big head broad shoulders. :)

Thanks for a great post, Scarecrow. I’ll check back in later. Bonjournee, all.

Dear ElitistScarecrow,

Ah, heck, Scarecrow, “elitist” rings false with you, too. Sorry. Can’t oblige.

Cordially,
Fat Swede

Keep Up The Good Work

Don’t work too hard

since when does it make sense that our primary loyalty should be with a candidate we don’t know and probably will never meet – instead of with each other?

perhaps when the supporters of one candidate have been relentlessly attacking the other candidate in a way that would damage her prospects in November, then accuse her of damaging their candidate’s prospects when she criticized their candidate.

Or maybe its when the supporters of one candidate demand that the other candidate step aside, and accuse anyone who thinks she should stay in of not caring about the Party’s prospects in November.

Well before I decided that Clinton was the lesser of two evils, I was disgusted by the tactics and rhetoric of Obama’s supporters toward Clinton. Even when I was still supporting Edwards, there was absolutely no question that Clinton was running an entirely positive campaign that was focussed on issues — and only went negative in the face of relentless attacks (spurred on by the media) but the other candidates — especially Obama and his supporters.

So please don’t come here and pretend that Clinton supporters don’t have good reason to be angry. They do.

I’ve been bitter since August, 2002, when I realized my country had been taken from me by a band of fascists. It was a huge shock, but the evidence of policy dictated by the principle that the ends justify the means was too clear to deny. I’m still bitter.

I agree, let’s discuss the issues but as soon as the name calling begins, any meaningful discussion is out of the window. what we get instead is people feeling like they have to defend their choices, themselves, their candidate

I guess it’s different when the Obama side takes pages from the GOP playbook to attack Clinton.

Im interested in why folks are supporting Hillary after the lies and the way she is running the campaign. And with Bill awash in so many shady deals. Why do you think she would be good for this country?
No one says much anymore about why they support her.

As long as they are not ‘bitter’. Hmmm.

Amazing. Simply amazing but then having read your posts on other blogs, I shouldn’t be surprised at the tone.

Tell you what, when you want to discuss issues, I’ll be glad to take part but if this is the route you want to go, enjoy the journey

That’s what Repubs said about both Gore and Kerry (and Bill Clinton for that matter).

Hillary has to be careful about calling other people out for their alleged ‘elitist’ and ‘condescending’ comments, as she’s been caught dissing rural voters for real:

http://www.politico.com/blogs/…..ments.html
http://apnews.myway.com/articl…..8FO00.html

Not only is Hillary’s trying to flog this NOT working (as Bill’s experiences in NC showed this weekend: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com…..82730.aspx), she lays herself open to legitimate charges of elitism, as people with long memories start coming out of the woodwork:

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

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

Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?

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

And Im with you. Got dismissed last night.

I am beginning to understand…in a word Taylor Marsh

I disagree. He doesn’t know me and many of the people that support Obama, so to label me delusional is insulting.

Just to make sure, there was no insult intended from me. I don’t consider either of us delusional, mainly because we’re fully aware that Obama can’t do everything and he will have to compromise. But there are large numbers of us who don’t accept that fact. I know you do, because I’ve read your posts.

Boxturtle (Elitist statement: Firepups are MUCH more strongly rooted in reality than most Dem voters)

And.So.It.Begins. William Kristol likens Barack Obama to Karl Marx.

In a quality (non-Murdoch owned) English newspaper or Le Monde or Der Spiegel, that might be the opening for an intellectual discussion of the populist economic agenda of a future government.

In today’s New York Times, host to Bill Kristol, it is an attack on Obama’s use of religion – the “opiate of the masses” – in politics. Kristol uses “Marx” as code for everything the moneyed classes fear and hate, an attribute they have tried hard to inculcate in everyone else for a hundred years.

Being Kristol, the argument’s intellectual quality is beside the point. I wonder if he’s read even Marx’s short Manifesto, much less his dense volume on Capital. That wouldn’t matter. Because the comparison is intentionally emotional and odious, not rational. It implicitly likens Obama to an “atheist”, with the same hoped for negative effects on his candidacy. As if that were as dangerous to society as a claimed fundamentalist Christian who’s really an incompetent closet sociopath.

Meanwhile, McClatchy wonders whether Obama in his public speaking isn’t as persuasive as a Jedi Master. Who says Rupert Murdoch didn’t really buy the New York Times?

Hey wobbly,

Where ya goin’?

Want some company?

So lets have a time-out on the hypocrisy for a little while, okay?

Wow. That’s comical having just made it through your other comments in this thread.

As a middle-class white American, a group of people you claim to understand so well, I’ve found your entire line of argument extremely condescending and out of touch. Hillary-hate…rich white elitists…and black people voting for the black candidate are why Obama has come out of nowhere and has basically sewn up the nomination?!?

You back arguments up with “if Obama was white…” hypotheticals? I won’t even get started on the problems with that.

Did you know many San Francisco, rich white elites collect guns and like to hunt?

I’ve seen several Obama speeches, and myself and most everyone I know have commented on how many “specifics” he offered, and how he’s given more details than most any candidate I ever remember seeing over the years (yes, on the dreaded web site as well). Early on in the campaign, he was being criticized for being too detailed in debates and needed to speak more in talking points.

Would love to stay and chat, but unfortunately have to get back to salt mine to support my better half and kids. Perhaps you’ll offer up a highly detailed defense of your ideas, with tons of links you found, about us privledged white elites that support Obama with so much time on our hands to only about “process.”

I’ll be sure to check back later to be enlightened further.

Gotta go. Been fun lobbing grenades with y’all.

I’m not missing anything. It is all about perception whether you like it or not. Now while it is your opinion that his campaign did this and that, guess what, other folks aren’t going to see it that way.

There is a difference between different perceptions of the same phenomenon, and ignoring rather obvious facts because they are inconsistent with your agenda.

Obama had to earn the black vote, it was never freely given to him

sorry, but the polling belies that belief. All Obama had to do was prove he was a viable and credible candidate, and African American voters flocked to him.

and beleive it or not, I have the feeling that blacks know racism when they hear it (it’s that whole experience thing)

I agree…and the polling bears that out. Clinton didn’t lose much black support in South Carolina because of the accusation of running a racist campaign, because African American voters can tell the difference between a false accusation of racism, and one that has a basis in reality.

Interesting that Kristol would use the Marx comparison. Last night, CNN used Michael Gerson, former WH flack, for commentary after their “Compassion Forum.” Gerson also used the Marx comparison to describe obama. Coincidence?

Undrstood but my contention was the general statement that his supporters are delusional. Since I’m a supporter (3rd time a charm) that must apply to me as well. I know for a fact that I walk with both feet planted firmly on the ground otherwise I would be one of those 29% that think that everything is going great in this country

and you still havent said why you support Hillary

I’m going to take the pup out for a run before I block up my chatra with some bad karma (I know, elitist). But I will return shortly (it’s a short run)

So please don’t come here and pretend that Clinton supporters don’t have good reason to be angry. They do.

please show me where i “pretended” that clinton supporters don’t have good reason to be angry.

because i don’t think i’ve ever done that.

p.s. i didn’t just “come here”… i’ve been here for a while.

As if Kristol has ANY credibility left.

Coincidence? If so, it would be a first. Rumors of the demise, owing to fratricidal strife, of the Freedom [sic] Watch agenda are greatly exaggerated.

My agenda…hmmmmmmm so your the only one who knows the ‘true’ facts of the matter because of polling and such. Mkay, well I’ll just go sit in the corner and keep quiet.

You are very wise, wobbly.

Have a good, mind-clearing, spirit enhancing ‘run’.

nope.

(i made an awful sound when i saw that axis of evil author appear on the teevee)

What tone do you see in his post? There is no tone.

He’s stating facts. No foul language, no ad hominems, no hyperbole, etc.

I think this is in fact an example of what he’s saying. Even DEFENSE of Clinton, no matter how civil, is considered “Tone” and intolerable by Obama’s supporters, but they seem to be able to say whatever they like about her.

I do see a problem on the Obama side of a double standard: outrage and shock and dismay and horror at any challenge or criticism of Obama even when it isn’t even there, and thrills and chills at shrieking the most vitriolic and hyperbolic vicoiusness at Clinton.

and Id like to know how you feel about Clinton and Mc Cain embracing each other.
You are acting like a troll

Obama is the ONLY Democrat to declare Bush and Cheney HAVE NOT committed impeachable offenses.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/w…..ment_N.htm

I guess it’s different when the Obama side takes pages from the GOP playbook to attack Clinton.
reply

Could you help me out? Although I do know how to use google, I figure that you would have this at your fingertips, since you know all about the GOP playbook attacks on Clinton.

Could you give me a link to the speech, interview, or other public statement made by Barack Obama where he compares himself and John McCain favorably against Hillary Clinton? I need the one where he essentially tells me to vote for McCain if I don’t vote for him.

I saw her do that, with her “McCain and I have the experience, Obama has a speech” more than once. It crossed a line in my mind, and combined with her vote on Kyle-Lieberman and the bankruptcy bill to turn me away from supporting her. Full disclosure – I was a Dodd supporter, then an Edwards supporter, and then undecided.

I expect these two to tell me why they are the better choice, and I expect that in the process, they might go “dirty” and point out “negatives” even if I’d prefer that they didn’t. What I don’t expect and don’t find acceptable, is that they promote the REPUBLICAN in the process.

Please defend those actions, or find me something comparable, meaning that blatant, done by the candidate. Get luk to help you. If you can’t, then please do me the courtesy of not being so condescending as to call me delusional because I don’t see your candidate the same way you see her. Understand that her actions and words have caused negatives in this voter’s mind.

This “bitterness” crap, and her jumping on it so hard when she and Barack Obama should both be demanding that John McCain denounce torture and should be hammering Bush about making us a torture regime, makes me crazy. Recognize that there was truth, even if you perceive it to be condescending, in Obama’s talking about the wedge issues, and realize that Clinton’s choice to tag team with McCain on hammering him about it forces Obama to talk about that instead of about torture – it is Clinton doing the poo flinging, instead of trying to go after the true enemy here, the neocons and their next in line, John McCain.

As with David Brooks, it’s the headline on the New York Times OpEd page that carries the weight, not Kristol’s credibility or the persuasiveness of his writing.

I almost forgot, in these post Evil Empire days of rapprochement and camaraderie, not to mention Russian oil, the Obama v. Marx meme implies that the former is a communist, an epithet that retains more depth than Kristol’s writing has ever had.

Interesting that Kristol would use the Marx comparison. Last night, CNN used Michael Gerson, former WH flack, for commentary after their “Compassion Forum.” Gerson also used the Marx comparison to describe obama. Coincidence?

Of course not.

If you look at Obama’s past, it is pretty obvious that this would be where the right wing would go, because they don’t even have to make stuff up about him (like they did with Kerry), all they have to do is point to the facts, and add a little spin.

People like me have been saying this was going to happen for a long time. And anyone who thinks that the Wright controversy is over is kidding themselves. The only reason that the right dragged out the who “God damn America” stuff was because there was a “use it or lose it” point involved — the question “why doesn’t Obama leave that church” could only be asked as long as Wright was the pastor there — and Wright was just about to retire when that question was raised.

But this whole ‘marxist’ theme fits in with what the GOP will really do with Obama and Wright, because they want the real question to be “Why did Obama join that church, with that radical preacher, in the first place.

Today I am doing something that I really didn’t want to have to do. I am cancelling my subscription to the Times.
I am a Broadway theater addict, go twice a year just for shows and I love reading the reviews of new shows.
Kristol’s column today is the last straw. I cannot take paying out $600.00 a year to read Republican propaganda by stupid, hack war monger.
It demeans the paper to even be associated with him.

The “bitter” part is the better part of Obama’s toxic remarks!

Therefore Obama and Obamedia focus on “bitter.”

Toxic-gate is more descriptive of Obama’s remarks that harm the Democratic Party and downticket races.

People like me have been saying this was going to happen for a long time. And anyone who thinks that the Wright controversy is over is kidding themselves.

I read the Autobiography of Malcolm X in high school.

Wright doesn’t scare me at all.

His schtick is derivative.

and Clinton
why dont you praise her and say how much you like her and her campaign?

Toxic-gate is more descriptive of Obama’s remarks that harm the Democratic Party and downticket races.

Huh? Could you explain that? Everything I’ve seen says that the increased voter turn out he inspires will HELP on the downticket races. Can you give me a link?

For sure, but that is what Repubs do, it’s how they campaign. Does this shock you?

It doesn’t shock Clinton, which is why she’s running as she is. Democrats have been saying that their pols need to fight Repubs with fire, at their own game, etc. Then one does, and she’s pilloried for it.

The Obama desire for idealism and niceness is very enticing, but it’s a losing battle. Clinton knows this.

Apologies, scarecrow. Meant for lukasiak.

Huh?
Losing?

After all, you’ve heard this kind of rhetoric before. Around election time, the candidates can’t do enough for you. They’ll “promise you anything, give you a long list of proposals and even come around, with TV crews in tow, to throw back a shot and a beer.

from Obama today. Complete with well worked out proposals of how how to bring this country back.

Being President of the United States, not only doing the work but juggling and constructively directing dozens of personalities who know they should have your job, is arguably the hardest work on the planet.

I’ve had enough of average guy beer guzzlers in the Oval Office. I’ll take elitist intellectual skills any day.

and you still havent said why you support Hillary

maybe that’s because you’ve been so busy attacking her, you’re just now getting around to asking me.

three reasons

1) she can win in November. Obama is going to get creamed.

2) she actually knows how the federal government works (and doesn’t work), and understands the role of the President. Obama doesn’t.

3) in 2000, when we had peace and prosperity, I would have taken a risk on someone like Obama who offered fundamental change in the system. But there are too many problems today that need fixing, and Obama represents too great a risk. And if you know anything about how systems work and don’t work, changing a system doesn’t solve any problems — and the process of change in the face of very large problems generally makes the problems worse than they already were.

Well said
Having this man who can make our country proud again is a gift. Why are folks afraid of leaving the hate politics behind?

So you want to go back to the 90’s
NAFTA and the blue dress?

She won’t even get to November.

She couldn’t win if she did, because she (and you) have already alienated too great a portion of what would previously have been supporters.

I agree about the existence of the problems, but HRC’s total collapse of what should have been an easy primary makes it obvious that she cannot solve to problems.

Where does this info come from. I think it has been debunked a thousand times. Hillary doesnt think he can win….wonder why?

It has to be explained yet again. Okay.

Clinton was NOT saying McCain would be a better president than Obama. She was saying that his experience with military matters makes him formidible as an opponent in the general election and that she is better equipped to challenge him on that than is Obama. You can disagree with her on THAT point, whether she is or not, but THAT is what she was saying.

I have heard Obama praise McCain’s military service. I did not interpret that as him saying he would therefore be a better commander-in-chief than Clinton. I can only assume you would. I’d suggest you are wrong.

It seems like Obama and his supporters really believe he should not be challenged at all. She should drop out. She shouldn’t compare his lack of experience with McCain’s breadth of experience, etc. It’s ridiculous.

This explanation for what she said has been offered by her own campaign, yet it continues to be rejected by Obama’s supporters because it is not nasty enough. This is what Republicans do too. They reject reasonable explanations of what people say in order to continue running with what they believe is simply the most damaging interpretation. Gore’s Internet comment comes to mind. Have you ever heard a Repub acknowledge not only that Gore was in fact responsible for getting the Internet up and running in America but that they deliberately and for political purposes distorted what he’d said? No. I suspect Obama supporters will do the same w/r/t to Clinton’s statement.

But at the same time, they will express fury that Clinton is using the “bitter” comment politically against Obama. Double standards.

I don’t recall Obama’s supporters insisting we discuss torture instead of her silly sniper story.

And if you want examples of an Obama gathering ground sounding no different than a right-wing site, go spend some time at the Huffington Post (or even here, but people are a tad more civil at FDL…a lot more, actually).

If she cant run a campaign and reign in her husband how can she run the country?

The real enemy, john mccain, is currently live on cspan speaking at the AP Annual Meeting.

Egads, her campaign has been AWFUL.

Lots of reasons for that.

She’d still make a great president, though. Gore and Kerry campaigns weren’t so great, Bush’s was brutal…

Who’s president again?

Frankly, I think Obama has run a very dirty campaign, but he does it under the guise of nobility, which is actually worse.

Politics is a rough sport. Obama knows it, and he plays as rough as anyone, but he’s better at disguising it with seemingly noble sentiments.

No, no, no. Don’t be fooled.

She can not win…do the math.
why does she want to bring down the party?

I’m bitter at:

The “grave diggers of democracy”
Seeing our Constitution going up in flames daily
The flood of Presidential signing statements
Bushie condoning and attempting to dress up TORTURE
Our lazy in-bed-with-politicos media
Our corporate-greed culture where 61% of corporations pay no income tax
The criminal war that we will be stuck in for 100 years
The politicization of the DOJ and the gutting of our justice system
Our government’s horrendous and criminal non-response to Hurricane Katrina
All of the lies and crimes that go unpunished
And that Impeachment is not on the Table!

Good Morning Firepups! What a beautiful day to be “bitter.” And I am going to stay bitter until our lazy in-bed-with-politicos media begins to cover Bush’s admission of war crimes.

1) she can win in November. Obama is going to get creamed.

Speculation. Unfounded.

2) she actually knows how the federal government works (and doesn’t work), and understands the role of the President. Obama doesn’t.

She was “First Lady”. Right.

After watching Obama question Petraeus (with Nelson of Florida to his right, grinning in admiration), I could only come up with three letters: CIC.

3) in 2000, when we had peace and prosperity, I would have taken a risk on someone like Obama who offered fundamental change in the system. But there are too many problems today that need fixing, and Obama represents too great a risk. And if you know anything about how systems work and don’t work, changing a system doesn’t solve any problems — and the process of change in the face of very large problems generally makes the problems worse than they already were.

Who’s the better Bureaucrat? Spare us.

How has it been dirty?
Millions of small donations vs big corporate money.
Unpaid bills and small vendors suing vs a well run campaign

How do you explain the bills left unpaid and “the little guy” suffering?

I have to leave for work.

1. don’t insult each other.

2. recognize each of us has reasons for what we believe and how we feel about it

3. Do not resolve the Hillary/Obama thing while I’m gone. I don’t want to miss it.

are you planning on backing up the accusations you directed at me in your comment #125?

Bad linking. Apologies, Earl.

I read the Autobiography of Malcolm X in high school.

me too. and Soul on Ice

Wright doesn’t scare me at all.

me neither. But we aren’t “the American electorate”.

Which to me summarizes the difference between “progressives” who support Clinton and Obama. Obama supporters see him as someone who represents them, and will pursue policies they want pursued, and don’t pay much attention to issues like electability and effectiveness. Clinton supporters see her as someone who knows what she needs to do to win in November, and how to fix the stuff that is really badly broken when she gets to the WHite House — and while she probably won’t do everything in the way that we would like her to, it will get fixed.

4. John McCain is the real enemy.

I’m not being fooled by Obama nor do I see Clinton as a progressive. Whats a voter to do?

I think Obama or Clinton could outperform the Cheney/Bush Siamese twins in their sleep. We desperately need significantly greater competence, and a wider focus than Bush’s “What’s good for me and my buddies?” in the White House. I’m not naive enough to think those aren’t considerations for any top pol; they just shouldn’t be the only ones, as with Bush; they shouldn’t always be the winning considerations, either.

A thread yesterday brought up comparisons to Thelma and Louise. Mine would be that it’s Cheney driving, with Bush riding shotgun, the convertible is America, and they’re flooring the pedal as they approach the canyon, having exhausted their resources and our hope.

We need street smarts and a vision of hope. And competence, not an administration built on the stilts of dozens of PR hacks masquerading as policy advisers and agency heads.

If she cant run a campaign and reign in her husband how can she run the country?

sexist much?

i’m not so upset about what the campaigns are doing (although maybe i should be), what really get’s my goat is what we are doing to each other here in this thread (only a little bit here, but other threads have been really bad). that’s what i wish i knew how to address.

Me too, Selise. It got so bad that I quit reading at FDL for awhile. I understand it’s worse at some other blogs I don’t read, but I always thought FDL was different. Lately, not so much.

I take it you’re for Hillary. I’m not and I’m not parsing issues. Her “misspeaking” on the Bosnia sniper incident did it. Judges instruct juries that if they find a witness lied on one thiong, that alone entitles them to disregard anything the witness said. It’s tough and perhaps not as complex as some would like, but it works for me. A liar is a liar and a misspeaker is a misspeaker. Who wants to bother deciding what is real and what is fiction. The Bosnia thing makes me wonder who she is and more importantly who she thinks we are. She makes up this incredible tale and when caught says the equivalent of “so?”. That’s enough for me. I don’t know what it will take for you.

The simple fact of the matter is that the United States, and the world, is changing beyond the capacity of certain groups to control the change. One of those groups is the working class, which has witnessed the shift in the national economy from manufacturing to service and technology in a matter of thirty years. They have neither the education nor the skills to make the shift themselves, and those who once rightly saw themselves as the “backbone” of American life (not unlike Jefferson’s “yeoman farmer” of the nineteenth century) are being left behind–either by technology or offshore outsourcing. Income distribution has shifted violently upward, with little hope of relief. Not unlike the Gilded Age, government at all levels appears increasingly deaf to the cries of the working poor. These are not novel phenomena. The working class has everything to lose in this shift, and history has illuminated repeatedly that, when such profound, rapid, and seemingly uncontrolled change occurs, those who stand to lose from change reach for that over which they can exert some power or feel some sense of comfort and control.

The bitterness is real; the “clinging to guns and religion” is real, however awkwardly stated. Obama spoke to authentic historical trends that America has seen expressed in the Know-Nothing Party, the Ku Klux Klan, the Moral Majority, etc. We don’t handle change well, and those who benefit from the status quo will not surrender it cavalierly; they will try to hold back the tide. Increasingly desperate people consider increasingly radical solutions to their problems. I interpreted Obama’s remarks to reflect a concern for the white working class and a desire, however, inferred, to acknowledge their anxiety and seek remedies.

It is alarming to consider the prospect that those we will not permit those to whom we elect to power to stand outside the delusion and reach for real solutions to real problems. Home of the brave, indeed; we haven’t the courage to look in the mirror.

No Im not but Hill told him to shut up about Tuzla already….

Look at the bigger picture (SCOTUS, Iraq war, impending Iran war, economics, healthcare, etc.) and vote D no matter who ends up with the nomination. It’s all any of us can do.

Gravel ‘08!!1!!!!

Hillary has a lying problem. She told that lie and others over and over.
Nuf for me…

Have been looking and don’t see a candidate.

Very nice.
Change is difficult and someone to bring it suspect.

First, thank you for replying, but to give you an example of how things can be perceived, after asking you to NOT be condescending to me because I don’t see your candidate the way you do, you proceeded to be very condescending. My perception. Because I understand this, I understand that although I didn’t find Obama’s comments to be condescending, I could see how others would

While I accept your explanation for what Clinton was trying to say, I’ll tell you that she failed to get her message across, because what I heard, more than once, from her was “vote for me or vote for McCain, but not Obama.” That is in no way comparable to Obama praising McCain’s military service, because in the course of praising the military service he wasn’t saying that made only Obama or McCain the viable choices. And don’t put words into my mouth about what I think.

I have *never* asserted that Obama shouldn’t be challenged. What I don’t expect is for him to be challenged from the right of McCain by the other democrat. I also don’t expect the challenges to be destructive of the party in general, instead of simply being challenges between to people who are supposed to be on the same side in the big battle.

Clinton has known negatives. Her supporters want to ignore them, or think they aren’t there, or that she’s somehow managed to overcome them, but I live in reddest of the red Idaho, and let me tell you, those negatives are real. If you don’t think you’re going to hear about Vince Foster if she’s the nominee, then you need to take off the rose colored glasses as much as the Obama-as-messiah people do.

Obama has negatives too – remember, I said he wasn’t my first choice.

However, I’ll note that you didn’t provide me with what I asked for originally – a link to Obama asserting that the only viable choices were him or McCain.

I don’t think Clinton would be a terrible president. I’d feel better about both of them if they would denounce the unitary executive, but I don’t think she would be horrible. I’m just disappointed that her actions and campaign have managed to make people feel they can say “see, I told you so” about her ambition, etc. I think we are in agreement that she hasn’t run the best campaign.

lol :)

We are anonymous.

All ur vote r belong to us.

let’s not give up! if everyone who doesn’t like the destructive ways we disagree leaves, then we’ll just be aiding the process we don’t like.

and besides, i need people like you to call me on it when i don’t live up to what i claim as my own standards.

otoh, i too have experienced the “to hell with it all” moments….

But it has been msMolly, or rather had been until this morning. i don’t know what happened. We used to stick to the issues, have spirited debates and agree to disagree but the name calling and condesencion (only I know the true facts, etc.) is stomach turning. It will get better again, just hang tough.

And why is she attacking Gore and Kerry?

Have been looking and don’t see a candidate.

tw3k for president!

I wasn’t referring to a candidate of your liking *g* just one that has the D in front of their name.

All ur candidate r belong to suk.

lol! noooooo

selise 4 president!!!111

I could vote for you :)

That puzzled me too but frankly I’ve been puzzled for the better part of this primary cycle.

It doesn’t surprise me. I wouldn’t expect a party built by Karl Rove to act differently. I’m sure more is happening locally or “underneath” that we haven’t heard about. Karl has his fingers in the new Hoover files, the server farms of illegally obtained data. The intelligence community may surf it for national security threats, Karl and his Klones use it for oppo research.

Clinton may be over-selling her street smarts. Her “first chair” experience is as a law firm partner in a regional American city and as the spouse of a president and now, fortunately for us all, as senator for one of the most complex states in America. But I think her direct attacks on Obama are often poorly executed and mimic GOP memes and methods, “What Not to Do 101″.

In avoiding that, I think Obama shows more street smarts. But he has to develop more toughness, and not be so tentative: the rebuilding of our justice system and reform of health care and our economic regulation are sweeping challenges that hope alone won’t address.

lol, noooooo!!!

this has been a reasonable discussion. Id like to hear more about why Clinton would be good considering what is going on.

i could care less if i liked a candidate. i want to see progress.

best slogan this season :)

She’s not. That’s just a silly talking point. Meaningless. Otherwise, if the Dem party would fold because of a close primary, there are bigger problems there than Hillary Clinton.

Again, Obama is welcome to step aside to save the party since it’s his side that seems to think it is in peril due to a close campaign.

He’s young. He can run in ‘12 or ‘16.

i’ll write u in then!

We must go forward. The young want to have a say in our elections. They like what Obama says…so do I

Egads, her campaign has been AWFUL.

actually, its been a very smart campaign — if your ultimate goal is winning in November. And that has obviously been the focus of her campaign and everything she’s done for the last eight years. If her goal was to win the Democratic nomination in 2008, she would have been an entirely different kind of Senator, and run an entirely different primary campaign, won the nomination…

…and lost the November election.

Obama, on the other hand (and with a huge assist from the media) doesn’t seem to have focussed on November at all. I mean, this is someone who didn’t have much in the way of actual policy ideas when he started his campaign — and didn’t know what “his” ideas were when they finally did show up on his website.

I don’t even think that when he entered the race, he was serious about 2008. He was just trying to raise his profile (and maybe get the VP nod) for a future real campaign for president. Hell, he even admitted a couple of years ago that there was no way he would be ready to be President in 2008. But thanks to the media, he became the designated anti-Hillary, and thanks to his own super-heated ego and a coterie of sycophants surrounding him, he started believing his own PR releases, and now he’s all “well, if I don’t win this time, I won’t run again because I’ll have spent too much time in Washington”.

But as far as winning in November goes, Obama has no plan — its all going to be improvised, and its going to probably be a disaster.

Well any D candidate is going to be progress over what we currently have, or?

McCain was just asked if he thinks Obama is an elitist. He said he thinks those comments are elitist but he doesnt know Obama very well but that is not the vision he (McCain) has of americans. Questioner now on the 3rd or 4th question pressing McLame on elitism/Obama. The AP must really want McCain for Prez – it’s turning out to be a great campaign event.

or not

oh and if your waiting around to see if he will address his comment to you, you might just want to move on. he hasn’t addressed my comment either.

McCain “thinks” we are in a recession — but it’s a technical term. “Americans are hurting.”

Huh?
Hes paying his bills and he doesnt lie repeatedly.
You are from Mydd for sure?

Sorry but I’m an optimist. if I wasn’t, i don’t think I’d be here

He’s young. He can run in ‘12 or ‘16.

It’s Hillary’s turn, huh?

That’s getting moldy.

one word: google

I take it you’re for Hillary. I’m not and I’m not parsing issues. Her “misspeaking” on the Bosnia sniper incident did it. Judges instruct juries that if they find a witness lied on one thiong, that alone entitles them to disregard anything the witness said.

Gosh, I guess that means that you stopped considering Obama credible months ago, when he lied about something of actual substance (his former support of single payer health care) in a debate, and not just some silly anecdote.

Judges don’t tell jurors to disregard false testimony that is not substantive, btw. If you lie about your golf score on the stand, unless your golf score is actually relevant to the case, the judge will tell the jury that the falsehood does not impeach the relevant testimony — it may raise questions about the testimony, but lying about non-substantive issues is not grounds for dismissal of a witness.

i’d prefer to give the benefit of the doubt. maybe he missed my first response? that is why i thought it worth while to try a second time. and why i’m hanging out in this thread instead of moving on.

actually, its been a very smart campaign — if your ultimate goal is winning in November. And that has obviously been the focus of her campaign and everything she’s done for the last eight years. If her goal was to win the Democratic nomination in 2008, she would have been an entirely different kind of Senator, and run an entirely different primary campaign, won the nomination…

There’s a contradiction here. She can’t win in November without being nominated in August. Also your suggestion that she would become whatever it takes to reach her goal, does not speak well of her.

I’m not going to provide you a link to Obama making such a claim because you want it in comparison to your insistence that that is what Clinton was saying ,but that is NOT what she was saying, and just because you want to believe that is what she was saying, for political reasons, does not make it so. Desppite my giving you an alternative way of perceiving what she said, and despite your saying you accept it, you do not. You in fact state very clearly that you will stick with your own version and the Obama talking point about Clinton doing the party in.

As for being condescending, I was NOT being consdescending at all, and I am not going to take responsibility for how you read what others write. I HAVE in fact had to repeat this explanation about Clinton’s comments about McCain over and over, to the same person now three times, for the very reason I state above: that Obama’s supporters simply refuse to accept a more benign explanation and will only go with the nastier, more political version, their own. It DOES get tiresome to have to repeat explanations over and over. I got tired of having to explain for Republicans why Gore was NOT saying he’d invented the Internet or why saying torture being wrong was NOT support for terrorists too. IT got me nowhere with them as well because they actually didn’t care about the truth. They cared about hurting their opponent.

You perceived Clinton’s words in the most negative way; you perceived my words in the most negative way. Neither is necessary, but it seems to me you are choosing to do so. That IS your choice ,but don’t put the onus of your own percetions on me. I have no way of controlling how you perceive things.

I’m an optimist. I just don’t see a candidate.

I a certain way I see a McCain win as a way to gain more progressive victories over the long haul.

if mccain nukes iran it won’t be worth it.

((selise)) That is why I am back *g*

Maybe but I fail to see the loss of any more lives or livlihood as a good way to get more progressives. I prefer to work from the inside.

Ohhh thanks I was right the first time.
Taylor Marsh
If you havent been over there folks, hold your nose and take a look. I was appalled to think that they are even Democrats.
Kos is proObama but not hateful.

it would help to destroy the neo-con/gop

why are you here on FDL?

are you planning on backing up the accusations you directed at me in your comment #125?

sorry selise, but given the tactics of the Obama campaign and its supporters, I think its a tad naive to go the “why can’t we all just get along” route at this point. Maybe once the nominee is decided, but Clinton supporters are fed up with the hypocrisy and lies and the rest of the crap that they’ve been throwing at Clinton for months — and now have the nerve to tell us that she is the one hurting the party.

(((wobblybits)))

when we work together and treat each other with respect, i am optimistic.

and when we tear each other down, i despair.

I’m not sure I agree about substantive and unsubstantive lying, but that’s beside the point. And yes, politicians obscure facts. They say so much it’s hard to keep track, but Hillary’s misspeaking on Bosnia goes way beyond anything that can be considered fun and games. I see it as borderline pathological. I cannot explain it any other way.

Cripes, go to HuffPo.

Ick.

Orange overloard has gotten better but to be fair it got pretty nasty for a time. Many came to their senses and it is reasonable if they stick to debating issues but once someone starts with the name calling, all bets are off

I always thought the “gore invented the t00bz” was endearing. Actually, one of the few things i liked about his campaign.

you didn’t call me naive, you accused me of “pretending” that you had nothing to be angry about.

i challenged you to back up that accusation, because i don’t think it’s true.

Hillary Clinton is NOT pathological, borderline or otherwise.

Good grief.

Not me. I thought it went a long way toward getting us Bush.

Gore too was deemed pathological, just as Obamans are trying to do with Clinton now.

So much for changing politics!

Great thing about Kos is that if there is hate just go to another diary.
The Jed report has some great videos.

Agreed and that is why I spend my time here. I have learned a great deal from the people here through spirited debates and just general discussions (I love it that people provide sources when they are providing info, as it allows me to do my own research and reading at a later time)

BTW, you were addressed but your question still went unanswered

it would help to destroy the neo-con/gop

ah, maybe that’s where i disagree… i don’t think the neo-con/gop can be destroyed (or marginalized) without taking on the neo-lib/dems as well.

but in any event, i can’t in good conscience, advocate for a position which requires others to pay with their lives.

Very true. I like the environmental and human rights diaries myself.

Oooh, thanks for the linky *g*

I agree it helped get us bush but i never heard about him being pathological.

To my mind it more about his centrist standing and ties to the DLC.

How do you explain her Bosnia mispeaking? What was her purpose? Do you believe she made a mistake? When it comes to lying, her biggest lie IMHO is holding hands with Bill.

FDL has managed to have a helpful candidate discussion even with the Trolls.
I really want to know how they think the lies will work in the WhiteHouse.
She lied about Ireland too.

I have learned a great deal from the people here through spirited debates

yes, i love “arguing” with ecahn, for example, because she rarely takes disagreement as a personal attack. that’s the kind of discussion i wish for more of.

You haven’t explained shit to me three times, so don’t imply to me that I’m an idiot who can’t understand. If you have to keep explaining this to people, you should be able to recognize that it was damaging to your candidate.

I said I accepted your explanation – I never said I agreed with it. I heard what I heard. Clinton didn’t say it once, she repeated it. She could have made the point that she was the better choice without making the case for McCain. She chose not to. Just because you are trying to rationalize it, and I don’t believe your rationalization doesn’t make me a fool.

I have not attacked your candidate by calling her a serial liar, saying she should drop out, doesn’t deserve to be the nominee or anything else like that. I said I disagreed with her choices in how she is campaigning, and it turned me off from being a supporter. Just like choices Obama makes in his campaigning have apparently turned you off of supporting him.

I perceived Clinton’s words in the most negative way because PROMOTING JOHN MCCAIN AS A CANDIDATE IS A FUCKING STUPID THING TO DO and I’m not the only one who heard it that way.

Selise I look to you for a thoughtful response and others here at FDL but please consider where these posters have come from.

OT – while hanging out in this thread, i am working on the congressional hearings list for this week. almost done.

please consider where these posters have come from.

where?

You know, she hasn’t murdered anyone to become president.

Obama supporters think that Clinton merely campaigning is her “doing anything to win.”

What has she done that is so extreme that it can be labeled doing “anything to win”?

What? Pointing out why she might be stronger against Republicans in the general? That is off limits and “doing anything to win”???

Obama can bowl and call women “sweetie” and accuse the Clintons of race baiting and try to portray her as pathological and accuse her of “playing the victim” over and over, among other things, but that is not “doing anything to win”?

If Obama isn’t doing anything to win, which of course he is, then maybe his heart isn’t in it? What is the horror that Clinton has done that is evidence of the more caustic version, which you clearly imply, of “doing anything to win”? And spare me the BS Obama talking points about damaging the party and saying McCain would be better than Obama.

Sometimes we just have to step back and see it for what it is, an exchange of ideas.

That is where i am left of the FDL crowd. I view the neo-libs and part and parcel of the right.

Taylor Marsh

Cool, what’s on tap?

You know, I knew when I wrote that that that would be the Obama interpretation.

No, it’s Obamans insisting that the party is being damaged by this race, and in particular by Clinton. If it is the party you want to protect, and ending the primary season by thwarting elections, then Obama is welcome to step out and SAVE THE PARTY.

Clinton is much older than Obama, so sure, let’s do it by age. She can have it now ,and he can have it later. IT’s Obamans insisting it should be given to someone, no?

There’s a contradiction here. She can’t win in November without being nominated in August. Also your suggestion that she would become whatever it takes to reach her goal, does not speak well of her.

you miss the distinction between doing what is necessary to win, and doing anything to win. What Hillary did as a freshman senator was establish good national security credential, demonstrate an ability to work with Republicans, and provide as little room as possible for a Republican to run against her in 2008 based on the premise that she is “too liberal” for the country.

She made politically expedient choices when there was no reason not to do so — its not as if her vote on the AUMF made a difference in the outcome — and kept a low profile in the Senate because that is what freshmen Senators are supposed to do. First term Senators who try and take the spotlight from the people who have been there for years — especially those who come to the Senate with national name recognition — don’t get much accomplished.

The simple fact that Clinton got herself a seat on the Senate Armed Services Committee — one of the most sought after committee assignments in the Senate — after only being there for two years, and when the GOP still controlled the Senate, is a testiment to her effectiveness and the quality of her poltical instincts. Sure, someone like Jim Webb, who the party wants to spotlight because of his military background, can get on the committee in his freshmen term when more Democratic seats open up because the Dems take over the Senate. But for Hillary Clinton to get that seat when she did is really pretty amazing.

And when it comes to political expediency, Obama is no slouch either, remember.

And anyone who doesn’t recognize the fact that party politics — the need to run to the left during the primary season (or the right, if you’re a Republican) then veer toward middle once the nomination is assured — doesn’t make it harder to win is kidding themselves.

At least for me that explains the tone of the post but outside of that, I’m not going to add fuel (it will burn out eventually)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ou4JnWQsxKw

I wish I could embed this video!!

here it is in her own words. McCain and Hill vs Obama
Is she a Democrat?
Im sorry this makes me angry.

i don’t understand.

rice, mullen and more…. still working on the last bit…

Geez, calm down.

You say I haven’t explained shit to you, but then you say you accept my explanation.

Repubs didn’t explain the Internet explanation either. Must not have been one, then.

I accept Obama’s explanation for his “bitter comment” and do agree with him on both his meaning and that it is true. I’m not so invested in promoting Clinton that I’m willing to bash Obama and willfully distort his words just to boost her.

I don’t see that from Obama supporters. Obama did praise McCain for his service. That was no doubt magnanimity, right? Heck, Bill Clinton said the same of Dole, and I agreed with him. Didn’t hear him saying Dole was therefore better suited to be president, just praise of his experience.

Obama can praise McCain, Clinton cannot.

Got it. You hear what you want to hear, and just as with Rush Limbaugh, an explantion that suited what you wanted to believe was forthcoming.

Sigh. So much for change.

Understood. It made many angry but there will be some that just don’t see anything wrong with what she said and that is a bit alarming to me but what do I know?

me too.

When Obama had operatives go and challenge voters’ names on a petition to get someone else on the ballot to oppose him in the Illinois State Senate, and was successful in getting enough names tossed to keep her from running (he ran yet again unopposed), was that “doing anything to win”?

I wonder.

where?

snowbird wants you to think that I’m someone who suddenly showed up from over at Taylor’s place, selise.

We both know I’ve been around a lot longer than that (at least, I remember you ;-) )

Its sad when someone thinks that the way to “discredit” someone is to accuse them of being form another blog.

As for the whole “pretending” thing, I apologize. We Hillary supporters hear so much of this “you’re tearing the party apart” and “you’re the reason we’ll lose in November” crap that when we see something reminiscent of that kind of stuff, we react to it.

fair enough. apology accepted without reservation.

looking forward to it

Still hasn’t addressed me but then again, i didn’t expect it.

When Obama had operatives go and challenge voters’ names on a petition to get someone else on the ballot to oppose him in the Illinois State Senate, and was successful in getting enough names tossed to keep her from running (he ran yet again unopposed), was that “doing anything to win”?

I’m sorry, but Alice Palmer is a non-person in Obamaland, and we can’t dicuss what Obama did to her without Obama supporters completely losing it…..

but lets do it anyway. You know who Alice Palmer lost to in the Democratic Primary for the US House seat that made it possible for Obama to pull that stunt? None other than Obama’s campaign chair, race-baiter in chief, and as good of an indictment of nepotism as you’re likely to find in the Democratic Party, Jesse Jackson Jr. (I’ve always found it rather amusing when Obama supporters claim that Clinton is riding on her husband’s coattails, given the fact that JJ Jr got where he is today because of who he was related to.)

Yeah, so?

What is false about that? Where is she praising McCain? For all I know, she’s thinking McCain’s experience he’d bring is bad experience.

She’s running against Obama, who IS running, IMO, on the fallout of the response to that speech. And she is saying that in a matchup for the general, she has the heft of experience that is more equal to McCain and therefore makes her more able to challenge McCain.

That is my reading of it. She said ONE sentence about McCain without ONE adjective in it, yet Obama’s supporters go off half cocked and insist she’s saying McCain would be better than Obama if it came down to that.

Cripes.

Okay fine. Then let me put the video of Obama up saying to a bunch of rich white folks that blue collar workers are bitter and resort to false idols and crutches to survive their bitterness because they’re too unenlightened to be cultured and listen to classical music to releve their economic stress, or some such nonesense!

Easy enough to do.

Ok, I’ll calm down. But read what you wrote – you said you had explained it three times to me, had to keep doing it. That isn’t true, and it’s insulting to me. You explained it to me ONCE in this thread, and I said I accepted the explanation, then had to clarify that I didn’t agree with it, because that isn’t what I *heard* when she made the original comment.

You then lump me in with all Obama supporters who “willingly bash Clinton and willfully distort her words just to boost him” while ignoring the fact that I hadn’t “willingly bashed” Clinton but had disagreed with her statements and tactics – I told you, I didn’t accuse her of being a serial liar or any of the rest of that. If it’s ok for you to disagree with Obama (and his “supporters”) tactics, why isn’t it ok for me to disagree with Clinton’s?

I don’t have a problem with Clinton praising McCain’s service – I have a problem with her doing it in the same sentence where she equates his service with her experience and bashes Obama for not having either – especially when her’s is questionable as being “more” than what Obama has. In doing so, she basically asserted that McCain was the better choice than Obama, and I find that unacceptable. I don’t believe that Obama’s praise for McCain was in the same context.

But we are going to disagree about this. You don’t see it the way I do, and I’m not going to change your mind.

Let me clarify, yet again, because you seem to be missing this. I don’t think that Hillary Clinton is evil, I don’t think that she is out to destroy America, I don’t think she would be a bad president. I disagree with campaigning choices she has made. If you believe that to be an unfair, negative attack, I can’t do anything about your perceptions.

The Rush comment was a low blow, though. I hate that dude.

Bitter?

I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore!

ITMFA

How do I explain it? I don’t. I don’t think it has any meaning whatsoever. It has zero bearing on whether I think she is fit to be president or would be a good one, just as Obama saying his living abroad as a child gives him worldly knowledge, which of course is hogwash, has any bearing on his fitness to be president.

Candidates exaggerate. I’m used to it and can sort the wheat from the chaff.

No, I said I had to explain it three times to the same person (someone else. I did not say you, and I was not referring to you).

Hey guys
I still would like the answer to why its OK that Hillary lies.
Ill go back to Kos until we take on McCain.
I havent even heard a reason why Hillary should be the candidate.

I still would like the answer to why its OK that Hillary lies.

well, why don’t you just explain to us why its okay when Obama lies, and apply the same standard.

Well, I’m not sure why clinton can’t note Obama’s lack of experience, which as she was noting, IMO, will be an issue against McCain the general but Obamans can make it a campaign issue that her claims of experience are bogus.

She is 60 years old, Obama is 46. She has not been sitting at home eating bon bons the last 14 years, nor was she before that. She inherently has more experience than does Obama, if by nothing else than by her age.

Someone posted the link to her McCain comment. She stated a fact, that McCain has a lifetime of experience. No adjectives. She doesn’t say good or bad, just that he does. She equates it with HERS, using “lifetime” as the key word, meaning her resume is stronger against McCain than is Obama’s emptier one.

No, this is a talking point that could have come right out of the GOP playbook. It was ONE factual sentence with ZERO adjectives, yet it somehow became her saying some bigger thing. I hear her saying she’s better fortified to go up against McCain. Who’s right? Who knows?

However, MY interpretation is less harmful to Democrats, but it’s Obamans who are saying SHE’S destroying the party????

Don’t bother, really. Your not going to get an answer, at least not one that is going to satisfy you. Come on upstairs.

They all lie, even Obama.

Idealism and naivete are very sweet, but they are unrealistic and lead to very big problems.

*sigh* yeah because all Obama supporters are the same. we have all said she is splitting the party. mkay

where is the video?

Well, I’m not sure why clinton can’t note Obama’s lack of experience, which as she was noting, IMO, will be an issue against McCain the general but Obamans can make it a campaign issue that her claims of experience are bogus.

Clinton *can* note Obama’s lack of experience. She did. She did it in a way that promoted John McCain. I believe that to be a tactic right out of the GOP playbook, one that is detrimental to the democrats as a whole, and something that will be used against them in the general. IMO, it’s gonna be an issue in the general, regardless of which one is the candidate, and the GOP is gonna use that clip. It crossed a line for me, as a voter, and I made a decision based upon it.

But please note the difference in what you said – the candidate, herself, said this. Then “Obmamans” NOT Obama, but Obamans, can make it a campaign issue that her claims are bogus. There is a BIG difference between the candidate saying it, and their supporters saying it. IMO.

What I see, in this campaign, is Clinton using the Atwater playbook and Obama not. That’s my perception. I’m not alone in that perception, and obviously your perception is different.

Personally, I have no problem with this primary continuing, as it brings more people into the process, and prolongs the interest, and that is all a good thing, as long as the candidates don’t savage each other in this way.

But of course, we Obama supporters are all the same.

The Clintons are just setting the bar, again.

Aren’t you guys exhausted yet? It’s like watching Monty Python, Search for the Holy Grail, only with two Black Knights. Save some for McCain.

The manner in which Hillary Clinton has seized on this issue only goes to show the extent of her own despair and BITTERNESS over her waning candidacy. At the Compassion Forum yesterday, not only did she accuse Sen. Obama of being an elitist, she blamed Sen. Kerry’s and VP Gore’s presidential losses on the voters perception they are elitist as well. She is so blinded with ambition she has no qualms in smearing her Democrat colleagues. Compassion Forum? Please. Neither Campbell Brown nor the other host called her on it. Moreover, CNN has been relentlessly deconstructing and analyzing Sen. Obama’s words all weekend long showing the kind of bias that makes them irrelevant as a news operation. It has already come to light that both Clintons approached the same subject with a detached and cynical tone. Theda Skocpol, the renowned political scientist wrote to TPM to describe meetings with the Clintons and staff which she attended. She also believes Hillary’s comments are not sitting well with the Democratic establishment.
Ultimately, and sooner rather than later, Hillary’s dishonesty and pandering on this issue is going to come back and bite her. During yesterday’s forum Sen. Obama’s fluidity and eloquence was truly something to behold and admire. For almost an hour, it gave us the opportunity to learn much about his brilliant analytical mind. His performance was so much superior to hers.

It is Senator McCain who is out of touch and Hillary is conveniently tone deaf as she and her husband have used similar language in the past to characterize the animus in economically marginalized small American towns. Nothing new. And I, who live in Gotham City, need not go far to run into bitter people. If you are in touch with reality and are a victim, one way or another, of the catastrophic policies of the Bush administration, you have every good reason to feel BITTER and frustrated, enraged, really, Let’s face it, the Billary duo is desperate. This is why Hillary even threw Gore and Kerry under the elitist bus. She is shameless. People are not dumb. They detect her lack of sincerity and are repulsed by her shameless pandering.

scarecrow at 294–
ROFL

”run away!!!!! run away!!!” clop clop clop clop…….

The Clintons are political hacks. Is that a “relevant” statement as the Clintons use the word “relevant”? How did HRC do voter registration in Texas, as she claims to have done, in the McGovern campaign in ‘72 in a district where the citizens and residents speak spanish and do not speak English as a trading or conversant language and HRC does not speak spanish? How did HRC learn to shoot a gun and how many times has she shot a gun? How did HRC run across a tarmac under gun fire when she attended a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac standing still? How can HRC answer a phone at 3 am when she is too tired at 11 pm to remember facts, relevant or not? How did the Clintons make 100mm USD in exchange for what? Does anybody care? Does anybody have any confidence in any of the Clintons?

i have only one thing to say:

Mark Penn Mark Penn Mark Penn Mark Penn ………….

I was bitter for along time…..nobody cared and it didn’t change anything. Myabe Obama should have a talk with his wife about being bitter..Just sayin!

Some people think she had Vince Foster murdered-I’m not one of them, but I don’t think not being a murderess proves much. As for the rest of your post, I don’t know what you are talking about. I don’t see her as the stronger candidate. Rush Limbaugh runs Operation Chaos which has Repubs changing parties to vote in primaries for Hillary. Rush obviously believes Hillary would be easier rather than harder to beat. I’ll take his word for it.

If we use the word “judgment” instead of “experience” Obama wins hands down. He opposed the Iraq war-you can say he was a mere Illinois state senator and he voted present for Kyle-Lieberman. It would have been better IMHO had he opposed it, but not voting was better than Hillary’s affirmative vote. I’d take judgment over experience any day. It is true Obama is comparatively untested, but I prefer the unknown him to the known her.

It is sad but true that politicians fudge things, but nothing Obama said rises to the level of Hillary’s description of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia. By the same token, her holding hands with Bill, which she does at every opportunity, is just plain offensive. If she still loves him after all the water under that bridge, she’s crazier that I thought.

Typical….She holds hands with her husband who she did stand by and you find it offensive sad very sad. Get over your Obama blindness…he is a fraud and a liar…”I never heard Rev. Wright say those things when I was in the church..flip flop flip flop hurry B.O. no one is going to believe you didn’t know what his sentiments were …OK OK I did hear him say those things and now that my wife is finaly proud of me….er I mean America I really find them offensive and if I had been running for presidnet when he said them and if I had heard them, then I would have left the church….Michele are you proud of me yet???”

Hillary’s not proud of Mark Penn any more. Mark Penn Mark Penn Mark Penn Mark Penn ….