Very well put.

AMEN !

Well said.

P.S.  People here can brush this off all they want. Its not going to change the damage done.

I'm not even white nor from some small town. But I'm offended.

If any white politician said something like this about Blacks committing crimes because they are bored & bitter - We would have the NAACP, Jackson, & the entire White Liberal base of the party crying racism.

This is the "politically correct double standard" that killed the Democratic party in the 80's & 90's. This is why we lost millions of white reagan democrats for for almost two decades.

Red state democrats who endorsed Obama must be having nightmares.

This is a great diary.  Very well demonstrated, and I appreciate your point.

Also, I admire your gutsiness posting this on DKos--I bet it's going over like a lead balloon over there!

Rec'd!

Great diary.  I think your point about the importance of avoiding offensive language, even if based on an element of sociological truth, is very well taken.

I remember when Jesse Jackson said that he became more afraid when young black men were walking behind him.  He could get away with a such a statement as a black leader himself.  And the statement is based on the rational fact that young black men commit more crimes than other demographic groups.  Imagine, though, if Hillary said she became frightened every time there were black men on the street, because they are more likely to be criminals than white men or women.  That would be the end of her campaign.  

"It doesn't matter if what he said was arguably "true."
It is inappropriate to say something disparaging and then blithely defend it solely on the basis of its truth. "

This is it!!!

When I heard Obama defending himself by saying he was just telling the truth I just have to wonder if he's purposely sabotaging his campaign.

It's disappointing to see any liberal defending any broad stereotype of this nature as 'the truth'.

I think this has been the best diary on the subject I've read here. Thank you BPK80.  Keep writing 'em!

Great diary.  I was watching CNN yesterday, and they obviously though their viewers were as dumb as dirt.  They kept questioning how anyone could be offended by Obama's saying PA voters are bitter, when they in fact are.  Obviously if they listened to the entire comment, they would see it was the latter part of the comment that offended.  Some of the earlier part of Obama's comment were accurate, but you don't end by insulting an entire group of people - especially when you need their vote in 10 days.

Sen. Obama will be at his very best in the next week. He is going to use the controversy as a way to connect deeply with voters (including rural Pennsylvanians). He has a plan. I don't expect miracles in the Pa. outcome. But just watch: Many people will marvel at his political skills.

is that the hillary club of mydd has taken it upon their shoulders to explain to rural pa's that they are indeed the ones who should be deeply offended. (as if any "deeply religious" read evangelical fundamentalist frequents these blogs)

talk about elitist crap...

The reason I go to church and believe in god is not because I'm bitter, but because it gives me hope.  

My faith in god gives me hope.  How dare Obama belittle faith!  

You don't seem to being honest, as you give this example:

Example 3:

"Big city voters vote for trendy fad du jour candidates because it gives  them a sense of self-identity otherwise lacking in the overwhelm and anonymity of congested urban life."  

I am not big city voter, live in a mid-sized city (40,000) in central massachusetts.  However, this has been a central argument.  Bill Clinton, these people aren't looking for a president, but a feeling.  Obama supporters derided as the kool kids or cultists, did you find that offensive?  Don't pretend that you think this would upset people because that's all I have heard on this site.

Excellent diary.

However, I think maybe you are denying us rural people self-awareness. That can be another form of elitism.

The comments were poorly phrased, although they might be well phrased for explain a different people to the audience- to build bridges of understanding.

I don't see the rural people I know being offended. Yes, there are people who have a deep faith independent of economic circumstance, but loss of hope does lead to faith. The usual routes
addiction-> AA or NA -> "a higher power".  Pointing this out would offend few.

The gun thing seems less well grounded, but to most democratic primary voters would appear a minor misunderstanding.

Most rural people I know have guns because they are useful tools, like chainsaws.  I have guns because I don't like coyotes eating my sheep or cougars eating my horses.

I hope to put an elk in my freezer, but I've yet to manage it, mainly because I don't enjoy killing things.

But I expect Barak or Hillary to have no more knowledge of that than I have of NY subway lines. No big deal.

Excellent diary.  Welcome to myDD.  It's refreshing to see a new and sane voice.

I have recommended your diary.

Please come back frequently.

Excellent points.  Obama graduated from Harvard Law School which has one of the best dispute resolution programs in the country.  Most law students take a class in conflict resolution as part of the law program.  Conflict resolution teaches that semantics are important. The words one uses can either anger people or encourage positive dialogue on the topic.  

This is exactly what I am thinking, too.  Some other questions of mine are, if O is saying that people in PA don't vote economics, but vote single issues instead out of frustration, what was the big deal with NAFTA in Ohio, and why is Health Care one of the leading issues that Pennsylvanians care about?  The idea that people in smaller areas don't vote on economics and work their frustrations out otherwise is just not true.  

I don't defend the gun loving people in rural and suburban areas, but the fact is that they like hunting and shooting and always have.  It is a big pasttime, plus there is sortof a libertarian element to it.  They believe they have a  right to have guns, but guns aren't a substitute for them.  They like guns and vote guns when the economy is booming and when it's not.  What the hell do guns have to do with bitterness with what the govt. has done, for most of these people?  They would love guns if a govt. didn't exist.

And actually, I don't understand how Obama ties strong religious beliefs in with bitterness.  I mean he is not exactly the one to talk about that.  Is he bitter?  Is his minister bitter?  Well obviously so, to the second question.  So that doesn't exactly reflect on small town people, does it?

And what would he know about immigration and the views of people in PA?  Small towns are actually the last to be affected by those who don't have papers to work and are working anyway, although farming sure has been and bringing in food from places like china and south america has decimated a lot of small farmers who have grape farms for instance.  This directly affects people, so why is it not a ligtimate concern.  It's economic not bigoted.  But then what does Obama really know about this whole senerio?  

The only truth that remains in his statements is that people are bitter, and they are bitter all over the country.  Evidently, right in Chicago, too.

People aren't offended.  It's faux outrage.  You see, if Obama was the nominee and Clinton was no longer running, guess who wouldn't have made it an issue?

It's all nonsense and just the same old BS old-style politics.

I can't wait to see the bounce that Obama gets from this BS non-issue.

at the dailyKobama?

You posted this at DKos?
And you are still wearing unscorched pants?

Merciful heavens!

This is an interesting diary, and a well said point. I'm an Obama supporter, and from a larger city, and, in many ways, I didn't--and don't--see what the fuss is about.

I think you've provided a very coherent explanation for the uproar, and have done so in a non-vitriolic way. For that, I thank you.

I disagree, however with some of your points, and am hoping to ask a couple questions so that I can get a better feel for your arguments.

I'm going to grab lunch now, but, for now, I just wanted to say thank you for this clear, respectful diary on this issue. It was illuminating for me.

By making the Rec list, this diary earns another twenty bucks for the Obama campaign.

It's already of the radar of the general public.  MyDD and FreeRepublic are the only ones talking about this anymore.

You say, "In each case, the initial comment should have not even been thought, let alone outwardly spoken."  This is where I stumble.  It sounds like you're saying we shouldn't speak truth, or even think it, if it might offend somebody.  I agree that Obama's choice of words was not the best, but it's undeniable that there are wedge issues (like gay marriage and illegal immigration) that bring people into the voting booth to vote against their best interests.  That's what we on the left have been railing against for decades.  Are you really saying we shouldn't talk about it, shouldn't even think about it?

...is the incredible amateurism of Obama in voicing these ideas, and then later defending them because they are "true."

The examples used are an excellent illustration of the point. One of the first things that politicians know is that you can't go around insulting people just because you think it is true. The analogy about telling people that they are fat is spot on. I actually don't think the ideas behind Obama's comments are true, but for him to defend them as such just compounds the political damage.

This lack of political sophistication is actually my greatest concern about Obama. The media is doing everything they can to get him the nomination and eject Clinton from the race. Even with this tail wind he keeps making these naive political mistakes that hurt his campaign. A truly opposition media would rip him apart, and that's what will be the case as soon as they have succeeded in dispatching Clinton.

I just have this horrible feeling that the Republican corporate owned media is promoting him, because they know they can tear him to shreds in the general election and win another term of lax Republican oversight for their corportate masters.

Intellectual honesty - a 10!
Ranting and raving - a 0!
Mud slinging - a 0!
Snark - a 0!

Perfect score.

Very nice effort...thanks!

Hi and welcome to mydd. And enjoyed your diary. as are many ohers. have to say I laughed out loud at this comment:

"I live in PA.  I asked a friend at a birthday gathering on Saturday if she had heard what Obama said about Pennsylvanians and she replied,

"No I'm not cultured enough to follow the news but I am going to church tomorrow with my gun to spread hate on immigrants.  And naturally, I do this all because I am poor."

"...look at his actions. That is, until he misspeaks, then hang him on his words, regardless of what he meant, or what his actions say."

Yes, Obama expressed himself poorly. He apologized, and clarified his point. Apparently, though, only Hillary should be forgiven for "misstatements."

Nevermind that corporate-loving Blue Dog policies have helped to create the economic mess in the rust belt, or the fact that this devastation may be Clinton's most memorable legacy.

Make it about the distraction, the smoke and mirrors, not the substance. Campaign like a good Republican.

Thank you for this diary.  Recommended.  

This conversation reminds me of the conversation about Obama's "speech" against the war that is so often used as a basis of his judgemental superiority.  He made that speech (or whatever part of the re-enacted speech) in front of a selected crowd in an area in which he knew it would be well-received because that was the politics of the area (anti-war).  He then caused the information to disappear from his website when it was considered questionable whether it would benefit his political career or not then he brought it back with a vengence when he thought it would help against the other Democratic candidates.

I am guessing that Obama believed that this arrogant assessment of rural Pennsylvania voters would help him with the group in San Francisco and because he has been given a free pass on whatever he says, he believed he could handle it later on by another pandering speech.  It doesn't seem to have worked as well this time around.  I wonder if the wheel of fortune has turned and now it is time for him to begin to suffer some of the consequences of his words, deeds, and associations.

In the face of widespread outrage, Obama's continued instance that what he said was true demonstrates his status as an amateur on the national political scene.

Will Rogers said it best:  "When you find yourself in a hole, the first thing to do is stop digging."

First, Obama's comments are not "arguably true", they are just true.  Obama DID say that it would not be surprising if rural Pennsylvanians were bitter about the state of the economy--an accurate assessment.  Also, anyone who has followed elections in the last decade realizes that Republicans use wedge issues like guns, race, and religion to get rural voters to vote against their self interest--it is an empirically true fact.

Second, I agree Obama could have been more tactful in phrasing his accurate depiction of reality--he has said as much himself.  But the supporters of a candidate who claimed to have been the target of imaginary sniper fire should be sympathetic to the fact that sometimes -- in a long campaign -- candidates don't say things in the best way possible.  

Third, it is NOT always inappropriate to say truthful things that could be construed as disparaging, especially when you are shedding light on a harmful phenomenon that you are seeking to fix.  Take your first hypotheitical for example.

MY DOCTOR-- "Its not surprising you are fat because you eat too many carbs and it may be detrimental to your health.  Here are some healthy meals you can make to improve your wellbeing."

ME-- Oh great(thankful for the astute observation and ready to change things for the better).  I thank you doctor for your interest in my health, from this point forward I will vote against those Republicans who don't care about working class people like me...er...I mean, i will eat salads and exercise.

MY DOCTOR-- Oh, by the way, I'm sorry I suggested you might be fat.  I should have said overweight. I did not mean to offend you with my poor phrasing.  Its just that its been a long campaign and ...er...I mean I've been working long hours here at the clinic.

I am an avid supporter of Obama and I agree with almost everything in your diary.  As you stated, although his comments may be true, nobody likes to be generalized and simplified, and that's exactly what he did with his cling to guns and religion quote. Its a mistake that Obama realized he's made and now he's trying to correct.  

I also believe that the quote is fair game for Clinton to attack.  She can go after Obama for being out of touch and stereotyping a class of people so easily.  The only problem I have with Clinton's line of attack is she always tends to take things too far and she did that labeling Obama as elite, which no doubt is pandering and the part of your diary that I disagree with.  The labeling of a candidate as 'elite' is a typical republican party attack line thats hides the fact that its their policies support the rich and shit on demographic that this 'elite' dribble is directed at.

BPK, you wrote a great diary which I recommended and I agree with 99% of it, but do you believe that labeling Obama as elite by another democratic candidate wasn't a typical republican talking point and form of pandering that was over the line?

Very nice diary--well done!

It is dumb an amateurish, since it automatically turns attention to Hillary's elite status.

Well written diary, but to what purpose? Yes, he came across as condescending. Yes, he could have made his point better. Yes, those rural white voters in McCain country are ticked off.

Should he therefore disband and hand the baton to Hillary? Or to McCain?

"One Pissed Off Liberal" puts it best when he diaries about how he isn't bitter, he's OUTRAGED:

"Those things we hold most dear, our freedom, our democracy and our claim to be a nation of laws have been stolen, sullied, abridged or rendered moot.

We have foolishly allowed unethical politicians to steal elections outright - we even tolerated the Supreme Court getting in on the act.  There has been no democracy in the USA since Bush v. Gore in 2000.  There may never be again.

How did we ever become so depraved as to tolerate what has been done in our names?  And if anyone is bitter - so fucking what?  How are we supposed to react to the dismantling of America?  The shipping of our jobs overseas?  The open predation of Big Business on the American people?  The deteriorating condition of our cities, bridges, and national infrastructure?  The growing number of unemployed, uninsured, and homeless Americans?  

How deliriously happy and hopeful are we supposed to be about the trashing of the Geneva Conventions, the shameful abandonment of New Orleans and the Gulf Coast, extraordinary renditions, the first official US torture program in history, aggressive war, the rape of the middle class, the looting of the treasury, war profiteering, war crimes and government officials who smugly smile as they blatantly lie to us all with utter impunity?"

See http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/13/ 124534/485/425/494864

The problem is that Obama used these "truths" as an explanation for why he is not winning in Pennsylvania - in other words, if you don't vote for him, you are a bitter racist, as if there couldn't possibly be any other explanation for why you might find a different candidate preferable.

This is pretty offensive no matter how you slice it.

Are you kidding me?  He was in Pacific Heights and you refer to that as a potentially hostile audience.  He was in his base's backyard.  There was nothing hostile about that audience.  Obama was pandering to his audience, just as he always does.

seriously. one day in politics is like 50 days in real time. I decided that i wouldn't follow this race on the news anymore and i come back after a party last night(it got raided!!)and find out everyone is pissing themselves over some type of offensive remarks by obama. i dont even care to read them, although i have and thought that it was a bad move, it doesnt change anything for me...

these comments wont make me like him anymore, and i'm still voting hillary. i cant listen to the offensive things he says, it only makes my support for hillary grow stronger and decreases my likely hood of voting for him. although that isnt to say people should not critisize him for his own remarks.

is reserved for anyone who isn't Obama.

You cling to that which comforts you in your time of need or that you've been manipulated into thinking you must preserve. People commit crime to gain resources they can't otherwise gain, or think they can't.

This latest episode is just one of many in which the central target of Obama is white Americans. Jeremiah Wright's rants focused on white KKKAmerica.  THe "typical white" comment of his grandmother who raised and financed his private school education but whose outstanding quality is that she is white.  And these small town-clinging-to-guns-and-religion folks who are overwhelmingly white.  White Americans may not be too troubled by one or two of these comments, but they are beginning to add up. Why Obama so actively dislikes whites is a topic I'm not qualified to psychoanalyze, but at some point it became overwhelmingly evident.  Does it disqualify him from becoming a US president?  I don't know the answer, but I don't think it helps his cause to keep displaying his contempt, whether deliberately or unconsciously, for people whose votes he needs.  

I "cling to" my religion out of my faith in God...but SNOBama wouldn't understand!!

... on this subject, regardless of what one thinks of what Obama said, Hillary and her surrogates, particularly a hack like Vilsack who is counting desperately on a Hillary win so he can be the next Secretary of Education (or, who knows, maybe even VP pick), are at risk of overplaying their hand on this.

Hillary has high negatives for a reason. If voters don't think this as serious as Hillary and company continue to claim it is, this may come back to bite her.

We'll see. Judging by the Sunday morning shows and today's PA newspaper endorsements, Clinton and her pals may be in danger of simply looking desperate.

Finally, someone speaks the truth.  It's so obvious.  The fact is, people who like Obama are going to defend him no matter what (and probably vica versa vis-a-vis people who like Hillary).  

From today's scranton endorsement

"Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton is an extremely talented politician who already has secured a unique place in U.S. political history. She repeatedly has proved her political death notices to be premature. She also has demonstrated that she is a master of public policy. And -- this is not and should not be taken lightly in an area that prides itself on family and a tradition of supporting its own -- the Rodham family has deep Scranton roots.

But Mrs. Clinton also is a political lightning rod. There is little doubt that a second Clinton presidency would further the deep divisiveness that characterizes American politics -- a divisiveness that dug itself deep during the Clinton presidency, and even deeper during the Bush-Cheney years.

The first task for the next president is to get past that. And it might not be possible if the presidential cycle goes Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.

In a sense, Mr. Obama's clear lead in the national race itself is proof of a changing party and a changing electorate. A generation ago, it would have been inconceivable for two history-making candidates -- either the first African-American or first woman to be a major-party presidential nominee -- to be locked in a nomination battle this late in the game. Party leaders simply would not have allowed it, and Mr. Obama would have had to "wait his turn."

Mr. Obama decided not to wait his turn, however, and neither have Democratic voters. Democratic registration and voter turnout have soared in most of the states where he has been in play, including in Pennsylvania.

Mrs. Clinton has dismissed much of what Mr. Obama has had to say as "just words." But they are words that millions find inspirational. Therefore, they are words that can be translated into action.

On policy matters, there are more similarities than differences between the candidates. The real difference lies in their likely ability to build the consensus needed to realize their vision. The advantage, in that regard, clearly lies with Mr. Obama."

http://www.thetimes-tribune.com/site/new s.cfm?newsid=19480144&BRD=2185&P AG=461&dept_id=418218&rfi=6

The word choice ANTIPATHY stood out and bothered me the most of anything in Obama's shockingly badly worded statements in SF.

Clearly, Obama doesn't understand, cannot comprehend how anyone wouldn't support him... and he tries to explain it in the most politcally tone-deaf way imaginable.

Well, let me explain from my own perspective, and the perspective of every other Hillary supporter I know personally why he is dead wrong.

Nothing in my own support of Hillary Clinton is rooted in pessimism or antipathy or racism or negativity or bitterness etc... my support of Hillary Clinton is rooted in genuine enthusiasm, excitement, optimism, pride and the hope and belief that she is BY FAR the best candidate to re-establish a Democratic presidency and lead this country. For me, it is not an anti-Obama vote, it is not an anti-anything vote (except an anti-GOP vote)... it is 100% a pro-Hillary vote. As Gov Rendell said, "She'll make a SPECTACULAR President". But, I basically feel positively about Obama and hope he's President someday, just not in 2009.

Obama and his supporters cannot seem to understand that. To them, anyone who doesn't support Obama is doing so for a sinister reason or lack of understanding/education or other fundamentally insulting-to-her-supporters reason. I cannot even count the number of times I've been personally insulted, stereotyped and belittled for my support of Hillary Clinton by fellow blogosphere users. I think that much of the pro-Obama vote is fueled by an irrational hatred of Hillary Clinton (which Obama himself has perpetuated in my view) and therefore Obama supporters assume that Hillary supporters also hate their candidate or are fundamentally racist or backwards or bitter or hopeless etc. That is not my experience of Hillary supporters at all.

Obama's comments perpetuate this notion which I have felt for a long time. He's got to stop this notion of "if you're not with us, you're against us" and realize that it might just be that we have made a different first choice who we feel passionately about. Once again, he's figured out how to divide the Democratic Party with a negative, divisive message instead of a positive, unifying one.

Thanks- very nice first diary. You have set out a very nice case with the examples that should clarify this for those who can not see why we are offended.

My DD - home of the Bitter people. Bitter because H Rodham Clinton has turned into a poisonous candidate and is losing her campaign to be President.

She is the 'dead parrot' of politics. She will never be President and the influence of the Clinton mafiosi will finally be expunged from the Democratic party.

Malcolm

He should have worded what he said a little differently.  How big of a mistake remains to be seen.  I can see this effecting him in the remaining contests in states like Indiana, West Virginia and PA.  He'll still win big in NC and Oregon.

Hillary needs to careful and not take this too far.  Once people start looking or thinking about it, they might say "who's the elitist here?  The one who's made $100Million over the last few years or the one who could have had any job he wanted after law school, but went to work for his community."

She's already the I know how to use a gun card.  If she goes hunting this week, I'm gonna puke.

Ow my god, a candidate that tells the truth. That's really awfull.

No, we much rather have a candidate that only meets optimistic and positive people in the gutted towns of Pennsylvania. Lovely !!!

Dear BPK80:

Thank you for your spin on this story.  Essentially, you say that Obama is insulting the working class in PA (and I guess, by extension, parts of the mid-West).  You claim that:

(1) Obama dismisses faith as being a "crutch";and
(2) that Obama is condescending about gun rights; immigration; and trade.

Let us attempt to agree that the essence of Obama's message was that bad economic conditions lend to scapegoating and projection.  Obama's analysis is that this is occurring in areas that he described.

Lets next agree that the word "bitter" should not be a "swear word" in politics.  Just go to a town hall meeting, listen to some of the vitriol and spew, and then try communicating your conclusion without using that word or worse.  

Frankly, it doesn't take a member of the elite to recognize that there exists a lot of confusion, misinformation, disinformation, ignorance, and unsophisticated thought and analysis, which is often vented in such town hall style meetings.

You propagate the notion that Obama is dismissive of people's religious beliefs.  This is ironic, given the amount of press that Obama's own religious beliefs has generated.  Certainly you do not truly believe that Obama disrespects the notion of faith?  Likely, you're just shilling for Hillary.

It appears that Obama was attempting to explain the frustrations that have led to radicalism (i.e. militias), and other extremist arguments and belief, which complicate the debate on immigration, gun rights, and trade.

As a matter of academic interpretation, Obama's comments were somewhat dull.  But gladly for Hillary and her ilk, Obama's comments can be used to enrage and mobilize such less sophisticated persons and distract from her tax returns, the fact that she has lost this race, etc.  Politics as usual from Hillary.

Hillary said: "You know, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it¹s a matter of Constitutional rights. Americans who believe in God believe it is a matter of personal faith. Americans who believe in protecting good American jobs believe it is a matter of the American Dream."

Doubletalk Hillary strikes again.  She is on all sides of every issue, no matter what side of the trade debate, immigration debate, or gun debate that you're on.  

I wonder if Hillary will next be fighting against the right to choose.

Simply put, this whole "issue" is political.  Nothing else.  The day after the nomination is announced, I assure you that Hillary will not take advantage of Obama's "mis-speak" but will rather, be lining up on CNN etc., to buttress and/or elaborate upon the intended message.  

This afternoon a young fellow (30 years old or so) came to me.

His uncle used to work for me. He was perhaps the most brilliant operator of logging equipment I've ever known.  He could back a truck and trailer down a logging road at 60 mph. Physics in real time.

Anyway. Jasper is a good and thoughtful guy. Not some right-wing or Clinton rural parody.

He'd accumulated, coming out of a dysfunctional family, by age of 30, heavy equipment worth $500,000 in good times. Then he worked to pay it off.

He has only $6,000 left to pay. And in two weeks he will lose it all.

Is he wrong for being bitter?

What should I do?

I don't need a fucking politician to tell me how hard I work.

Brilliant first diary. I did mine yesterday. I just figured out the way to track responses. I can't believe how supportive people have been. mydd.com is certainly a place where everybody gets to have their say.

I wish more people would understand why Obama's comments were not just words that can be taken back. I've seen comparisons to something similar to what Bill Clinton said in 1991. He was talking about Republicans, and he didn't trash anyone's religion, Field and Stream habits, or (as I contend) race.

Brave of you to post at DailyKos. You may hear some of the same things here as there (oh, I'll just call it Obama stuff), but at least more than a few people here recognize that Obama decided (and he was specifically given the opportunity not to) to disenfranchise the states of MI and FL solely because it would weaken his campaign. Here, quite a few people have intelligent, wise and honest things to say.

I like the points you've made here.  I also think that Obama has a sense that many young Democrats are becoming more comfortable with socialist positions.  Like it or not, the rural middle income whites are going to continue to lose influence in the Democratic party as more young people move away and adopt increasingly far left positions.  I for one hope it happens even faster so we can finally get somewhere on gun bans (not control), fixing the way public education is funded, repealing Bush's ridiculous tax cuts and reinstating a huge estate tax.  It may take a while, unfortunately.  

And I agree that Obama made a mistake with both how he said this and whom he said it to.  However, I don't think this is going to stay around in the media narrative for very long.

Thank you to everyone who responded so far.  I will try to get back to as many as I can but I'm currently tied up w. a bunch of "obligations" and "responsibilities" right now.  :-)

Sen. Obama's campaign may benefit by looking deeply inside these PA poll numbers if they have not already done so.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl e/0,8599,1729500,00.html

Great post!

Big Orange.  Maybe you will get a reasonable response; 'tis to be hoped for, certainly.

Peace.

Why would Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton be offended that Obama took the opportunity to disparage Bill Clinton at the same time he disparaged and denigrated all those "lunch-pail" and "bitter" working class rubes who won't vote for a black candidate because they are "anti-immigrant" and racist and "cling" to their cultural values, like hunting and religion?

What's the problem with that?!

Well, Obama lied.

Jobs increased in PA during Bill Clinton's administration, and unemployment was cut by half.

Barack Obama is a liar, as well as an arrogant, self-centered, self-absorbed malignant narcissist.

Love yours too!  I'm middle class, with a nice life but nothing that elevates me to the 'elite status', regardless, I don't cling to guns, religion, anti-immigration/trade sentiment.  I DO CLING TO HOPE...as in HOPE that HRC is able to pull it out and return to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

I could care less if she is polarizing.  I like the fact that she is a strong leader.  Pray that we can get our economy, worldwide reputation, and years of peace (among others) back to the way they were in the 90's!  "Don't stop thinking about tomorrow!"

What a shame this story has turned out to be. I see nothing here but hyper-sensitivity and seeking to paint a candidate with the broad brush of elitism for saying something that is actually true. This encapsulates the recent liberal tradition of being quick to be outraged and quick to be insulted by what amounts to a hill of beans. Don't say lunch pail, that is too insulting to people. Don't ever say a person or a group of people is bitter lest their delicate sensiblities be thrown for a loop.

The one truism of our modern politics is that the GOP has convinced the rest of the country that liberals are soft, easily offended and deeply pessimistic. On this side of the aisle, progressives to this day make the claim that had John kerry been just a little tougher, shown a little more fortitude in the face of Swift boats he would have been President. He didn't though, did he? Al Gore didn't fight hard enough for the election in 2000, did he? These two great politicians didn't fall because they were elitist but because they weren't tough enough. Maybe its one and the same. Is this not the general concensus?

But my point here is that if their progressive base is so deeply offended when a politician says their bitter, or you can no longer say that someone is a lunch pail blue collar worker then the entire progressive movement has indeed become soft and much too quick to trigger outrage and already has become much too pessimsitic. And thus we will get the one politician who best personifies our weak sensibilities and will play only to pander so as to not rock the boat. We play right in to the GOP's hands, is that lost on everyone here?

It seems that this group wants nothing from politicians but protecting them from reality, pandering to every base fear and summoning all the fake outrage they can muster. They can then take no comfort when their lives go decidely unchanged and all they can hang their hat on is that at least President Clinton or McCain didn't say I was bitter.

This columnist in the Philadelphia Daily News begs to differ with your analysis.

http://www.philly.com/dailynews/columnis ts/john_baer/20080414_John_Baer_Decades _of_working-class_neglect-_now_that_s_i nsulting.html

A lot of people have connected crime with poverty, and it's not controversial at all. If anything, the more conservative amongst us will say that you are somehow excusing crime, and that it's possible to be poor and law-abiding. But I don't think there's any blacks who would be offended if you said that crime rates are high in many black communities because the people are desperately poor, and thus turn to what seems to be the only option available to improve their economic situation.