Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him?

With all of the hubbub over Barack Obama's comments over the weekend, one might assume that his support within the Democratic electorate might begin to shrink, in the short term, at the least, and perhaps also in the long term. What says Gallup on the subject? Not so much.

Barack Obama, who has come under attack by his presidential rivals for describing small-town voters as "bitter," seems to be weathering the storm to this point as far as voters are concerned. He maintains a 10 percentage point lead over Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination, 50% to 40%, according to the latest Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

That 10-point lead matches Obama's best of the campaign, and even as the controversy has dominated the political airwaves, Obama's support remained strong in tracking interviews conducted on Saturday and Sunday. It is likely Clinton and Republican John McCain will continue to remind voters of the remarks, and the possibility remains that it could affect voters in the coming days, but so far they seem unaffected by the controversy.

Obama has now held a significant lead over Clinton in Democratic voters' nomination preferences for the last eight days, averaging roughly an 8-point lead, compared with the current 10-point spread. During this time, 50% of Democratic voters have supported him on average, matching the latest figure for interviewing conducted April 11-13. (To view the complete trend since Jan. 3, 2008, click here.)

The important thing to note here is that two of the three days this poll was in the field (and thus presumably two-thirds of all interviews) came over the weekend, a period during which the airwaves were saturated with obsessing about Obama's comments. In other words, this was not a particularly low information period of time but rather a period in which Obama's admittedly poorly phrased statement was fresh in the minds of voters. Indeed, as Todd noted earlier today, Rasmussen Reports polling found that a majority of voters (all of whom were interviewed over the weeked) had followed the story at least somewhat closely, with 25 percent following the story very closely.

It is certainly the case that as voters have more time to digest this story their sentiments could begin to change, and they could view Obama in a more negative light and become less likely to support him. Let me emphasize that it could happen, not that I think it necessarily will. Yet judging by these Gallup numbers (as well as Rasmussen numbers that also have not recorded downward movement for Obama), it sure doesn't look like there's much real immediate fallout from Obama's comments.



Display:


Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

His support within the democratic party voters was already less than Hillary

He needs that level of support to go UP to have any chance to win in November.


by DTaylor on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:25:34 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

His support among pollsters with biased results has been pretty solid though...


by DTaylor on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:26:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 5)

The poll clearly disagrees with the most scientifically accurate measure...my own desires.  Therefore, the poll is

[ ] biased
[ ] a media conspiracy
[ ] only includes states that don't matter
[ ] wrong, because Clinton supporters were
    dienfranchised
[ ] not taking into account JEREMIAH WRIGHT!

Please check all that apply.


by coronado on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:41:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 3)

I think the regular posters to TaylorMarsh.com are still waiting for the huge dramatic wholesale abandonment of Obama, once this Wright stuff finally...takes....hold....why....won't. ..you...take...hold...damnit!


by LarsThorwald on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:03:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

MSM Trying To Keep Hillary Afloat (2.00 / 4)

This is merely the latest chapter in an avalanche of BS that included the Wright story. Penn and the media are convinced that they can create a campaign winning "maccaca" moment. There was Reverend Wright, the "typical" flap, and now the "bitter" nonscandal. They are convinced that they can engineer a viral craze, but maybe the GOP had already saturated the market for brain dead soundbites with their flag pin and pledge of allegiance stories.

Nevertheless the media has given Hillary the euivalent of an unlimited media budget to air these attacks, because it lets them basically phone in their stories without doing a bit of actual work. We have the media parsing sentences, words, and no doubt we'll reduce it to syllables.

Basically Hillary is saying "Shut up, shut up, shut up!" But Obama just responds to her attacks, and each time Hillary way overplays her hand and comes up looking foolish. Obama's Philadelphia speech was the best example - his response to the soundbite attack was far more effective than the attack itself.


by bernardpliers on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:44:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: MSM Trying To Keep Hillary Afloat (none / 0)

Yup. Hillary Clinton: Candidate of the Media. rolls eyes


by world dictator on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:08:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Her GOP Talking Points Are MSM Comfort Food (none / 0)

It's like Thanksgiving as Hillary's dishes up the GOP talking points that the MSM love so much. Start with a pound of rancid lard ......


by bernardpliers on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I was hoping that some (none / 0)

Clinton supporters at least would feel a bit foolish after all the agita that was made over this episode.

Clearly, this hope was mistaken.


"This election is not about ideology, it's about competence." -Michael Dukakis
by MBNYC on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:10:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Your use of the past tense (none / 0)

Gives a new meaning to the phrase "wishful thinking."


by Trickster on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:42:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Um...that's utterly ridiculous. (2.00 / 1)

His support within the democratic party...oh, nevermind. Your words make no sense.


by bookish on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:40:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 0)

nope...swing and a miss. they break out the bubbly when Hillary steals the nomination.


by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:35:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

I have a serious question here--

How on God's green earth does EVERYONE get away with  calling people from California (and Boston/New York/pick your coastal major metropolis) irrelevant elitist douchebags?  

I mean, if supposedly Obama's comments are so offensive about rural Pennsylvanians "clinging to guns and religion", what are the comments that seem to universally paint anyone from California as a latte-sipping traitor?  The thing that always seems to get brought up in these issues is the real-estate value in California--yet somehow this issue ignores the fact that for vast numbers of Californians, real-estate value simply means obscenely high rent and a lower standard of living.

I've dealt with this crap in election after election, and I don't know why urbanites put up with it.  It's pandering of the worst kind--who says ANY particular demographic represents "authentic Americans"?


by SoCalRefugee on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 04:55:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They will hurt him in Pennsylvania, (none / 0)

where there's a primary in a few days.

As for the national results, not a lot of people are paying attention. When they do pay attention, and read/hear what he said in context, it will/would hurt Obama. Whether the media will accurately portray what Obama said, and why his remarks are condescending and dismissive, is another story.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:27:25 PM EST

Re: They will hurt him in Pennsylvania, (2.00 / 3)

You keep thinking that.  The primaries will be exactly as we expected before the fake controversy: Obam down by 10 in PA, winning narrowly in IN, crushing her in NC and OR.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:38:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Changing the focus from PA (none / 0)

is a good debating move, but it doesn't help Obama in Pennsylvania. Or in, it looks like, Indiana, another state having a primary soon. The national preference is something to look at in June, when the primary season is over.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:24:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: They will hurt him in Pennsylvania, (none / 0)

Evidence???


by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:36:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Tempest In The Teapot (2.00 / 11)

And the tea in the teapot is seasoned with fake outrage, and is stirred with grasped straws.


Let the children lose it Let the children use it Let all the children boogie
by toyomama on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:28:10 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

This only works to show voters that Clinton is what everyone suspected she was. DESPERATE


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:31:09 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 2)

When a Hillary supporter is polled, they pick McCain over Obama now to send a message to Obama supporters.

When an Obama supporter is polled, they pick McCain over Clinton now to send a message to Clinton supporters.

Once Obama is our nominee, the lying will end on both sides and you will see a 10-15% point swing to the Democrats. McCain will not know what hit him.

We need to unify soon before we implode.


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:35:44 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

Whatever helps Obama's supporters sleep at night. I don't think a third of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain but 10 to 15% won't surprise me at all and really thats all McCain will need.


by rossinatl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:38:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

Sure - and African Americans and the new young Democrats Obama has brought on board will go fight for Clinton? That is 30% of the of Dem base.

Obama made a mistake, Clinton is a liar - several times over. Which is worse or honorable to you?


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:40:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

how can "new" voters be part of the base?

really?


by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:55:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

Fair enough but us African-Americans are the most loyal part of the base and with us she's polling at 50% or so in the GE against McCain. Again. We're the MOST loyal Dems.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:04:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

most loyal democrats (none / 0)

Do you think they are more loyal that women?

Which do you think is a larger percent of the democratic electorate?


by del on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:34:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: most loyal democrats (none / 0)

There is an abundance of emperical evidence suggesting that black folks,are the most reliable voting block in the Democratic Party.


by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:40:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: most loyal democrats (none / 0)

Yes as a group they are more loyal than women. They make up something like 20% of the Dems.


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:09:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 2)

I believe Chuck Todd recently said the same, that once the Dem nominee is clear they will get a 10 point or so boost in the head-to-head polls against McCain.  That will be true whether its obama or clinton.

I continue to believe that McCain has no chance.  He basically tied with both Clinton or Obama?  He doesn't even have a unified opponent yet!  I don't want us to get cocky but we Dems should feel very good about where things are.


by snaktime on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:40:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Stop that. (none / 0)

We're 10 points behind McCain.  Both Democrats.  Nothing is inevitable.  Only hard work and dedication will pull this out for us.

You can be optimistic, but don't assume we're going to win. :)


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:55:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

right (none / 0)

and if Hillary wins through supers all the Obama supporters will be extactic and vote for her.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:19:49 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not all of us (none / 0)

Some will, but if she wins fair and square by winning the majority of the pledged delegates, then I'm sure most would rally behind her.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:24:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not all of us (none / 0)

Definitely....

Except that seems almost impossible at the moment...


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:03:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nearly, yep (none / 0)

At this point my most charitable reason for Clinton staying in is just to toughen up Obama by throwing attacks at him that would normally come from Republicans.  

A bit of an rope-a-dope strategy.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:13:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

Clinton has received roughly 50% of the vote in the primary. If 10-15% of Clinton's supporters vote for McCain in the general, that's only 5-8% of the total Democratic vote.

According to exit polls, 11% of Democratic voters opted for Bush over Kerry in 2004. 11% also went for Bush instead of Gore in 2000.

Given the Democratic advantage in party ID this cycle, Obama wipes the floor with McCain if only 8% of Democrats defect. I sleep fine at night.


John McCain supports dismantling Social Security
by DesideriusErasmus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:19:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Thud (2.00 / 6)

Well, one has to feel bad for alegre. Poor thing had to spend the entire weekend indoors typing the four plus diaries regarding this non-scandal... to no effect.  

Turns out that the whole thing was manufactured outrage, and that voters recognized it for what it is. Underestimating the intelligence of voters, they thought they could misrepresent Obama's words. Instead, understood what he was trying to say, and they see Hillary's an McCain's attacks for what they are.

Hillary looked especially transparent.  She desperately played from the GOP playbook and aligned herself once more with McCain.  She even took a swipe at Gore. She looked desperate, reckless and unlikable.  She goes into Wednesday's debate at a disadvantage.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:36:45 PM EST

Re: Thud (2.00 / 2)

Oh, I doubt if she wrote those things herself. They probably were shipped from the Clinton campaign for her to most. There are just too many of them, too well put together, for it to be likely that a person with her purported lifestyle to be able to pull them all together.

BTW, have you seen the Hillary's Bloggers site she touts? It has all sorts of people who have been so outrageous that they got banned over here.
http://hillarysbloggers.soapblox.net/


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:40:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thud (none / 0)

I find the frequency and volume of alegre's output suspicious as well.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:50:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I think (none / 0)

Alegre is an abbreviation.

That like  writers paid to spew hate.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:23:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thud (none / 0)

She tends to cut and paste from HillaryHub and directly from campaign memos, and inserts little Rah Rahs in between the huge blockquotes.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:38:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thud (none / 0)

I just find it nauseating.


by interestedbystander on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:40:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thud (none / 0)

OMG.  It's like a greatest hits: fleaflicker, owl, alegre... they're all there, one after another.


Stop H8
by mikeinsf on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:53:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thud (2.00 / 1)

I will watch with great curiosity the tone and tenor of that site, NoQuarter, and Michelle Marshall's site to see how their loyal readership reacts when and if Obama gets the nomination.  I suspect they will all become McCain supporters, as yet may Alegre.

 


by LarsThorwald on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:10:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thud (none / 0)

How lame to send people to your opponents events and to record them on a hidden recorder. This tells you all you need to know about Clinton's camp.


Obama 08!
by comingawakening on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:42:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I'm not sure about that. (2.00 / 1)

I mean, that fundraiser was supposedly for maxed-out contributers.  Would someone pay $2,300 to one's direct rival for a chance that they'd get a scratchy, painful-to-listen-to soundbyte?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:53:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Thud (none / 0)

If you do not think that Obama is doing the same thing, then you are living in a bubble and drinking too much of the kool-aid.


by mztower on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:42:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Response (2.00 / 4)

I think it's pretty clear now that the times that he makes missteps or is attacked by either Clinton or McCain, his responses are quick, forceful and definitely hit back.  He is clearly not making the same mistakes that Kerry and to a lesser extent, Gore made in 2004 and 2000 respectively.


A great democracy must be progressive or it will soon cease to be a great democracy. - Teddy Roosevelt
by minvis on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:36:48 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

It hurt him with the general voting population, per Rasmussen's poll today.  But, as I said on Friday (you can check through my comments) this would only hurt him with moderates and conservatives, which disapprove of him comments by a 2 or 3 to 1 margin according to Rasmussen.  Liberals eat this stuff up though, so it won't affect him in the primary that much.

I do think it will hurt him in PA, because a lot of the Democrats there are fairly conservative, but I think it adds 3-4 points, at most.  He's going to lose there, just a matter of whether it's 6 or 20 points.  Probably 13ish


by reggie44pride on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:37:10 PM EST

too many polls are bad for you (none / 0)

er, fixation on polls is dangerous. let pennslyvania vote, then pontificate. hey, maybe this is the new way to success in politics, insult the voters, take em by surprise.


by blackflag on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:38:03 PM EST

It's too early to tell (2.00 / 1)

Whether these comments are hurting or will hurt. And weekend polling tends to be notoriously unreliable.  


by Mayor McCheese on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:40:34 PM EST

Re: It's too early to tell (2.00 / 1)

I agree with you on both of these points.  


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:42:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

First thing we do, kill all the pollsters (none / 0)

I admit it, I have a problem.  I look at gallup.com every day and then head to realclearpolitics.  

What?  HRC up by 7% because ARG shows her +20%.  Didn't they just have BO and HRC as even?

Admitting the problem is step 1.  There are 11 more for me.

Off to compile the list of people I need to apologize to while waiting for VOTERS to vote......


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:25:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/action/ide as/?sc=1774&utm_source=1774&utm_ medium=e


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:41:12 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

oops - an explanation of the above link - It goes to a web page where you can submit comments to the Clinton campaign on how you think the campaign is doing and what they should be doing. I hope all take this opportunity to share their opinions with an eye toward promoting peace among Democrats.


We care about politics because we know politics matters for people's lives and opportunities.
by politicsmatters on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:43:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 2)

Obama: McCain's out of touch

Obama, at the Associated Press annual meeting:

Now, Senator McCain and the Republicans in Washington are already looking ahead to the fall and have decided that they plan on using these comments to argue that I'm out of touch with what's going on in the lives of working Americans. I don't blame them for this -- that's the nature of our political culture, and if I had to carry the banner for eight years of George Bush's failures, I'd be looking for something else to talk about too.

But I will say this. If John McCain wants to turn this election into a contest about which party is out of touch with the struggles and the hopes of working America, that's a debate I'm happy to have. In fact, I think that's a debate we need to have. Because I believe that the real insult to the millions of hard-working Americans out there would be a continuation of the economic agenda that has dominated Washington for far too long.


A former hillary supporter.
by Cristalgirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:41:49 PM EST

The ironic thing about this. (2.00 / 2)

This flap pushed Clinton to make the Dukakis/Kerry mistake of staging fakey photo-ops to seem less "elite."

Even while she was criticizing Obama for doing exactly that.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:43:49 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

Right now, Rawstory has a story up about a post-bitter poll from American Research Group saying Clinton has a 20 point advantage over Obama in Pennsylvania.
by zenful6219 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:44:09 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

Yeah, the same ARG poll that the wall street journal devotes an entire article to de-bunking.


by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:50:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

No wonder team McCain and Clinton are double teaming Obama. He is really a good counter puncher, they give a jab and he gives them a right hook! oh wait he is south paw.... left hook!


A former hillary supporter.
by Cristalgirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:48:11 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

I can't see where this comment will do anything but hurt Democratic chances this fall.  Being from South Carolina, I offen hear the "Democratic elitism" moniker thrown around, that we hate "fly-over country", etc..  Now the GOP has actual video evidence that they will spin however they want saying that the Democratic canidate thinks that smalltown people are "bitter". That will be the entire ad, btw, they will just end it there, no context, move along.  People are bitter and frustrated about the direction our government is taking.  I just don't see what religion and guns have to do with that frustration.


by ND1979 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:52:03 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 0)

Hopefully this will help to clarify.

From Jane Smiley:

Barack Obama tells the truth about conditions as we know them--that the countryside and the small towns are dying in many places in our country, and that the corporatocracy doesn't care enough to do a thing about it. He points out that immigrant-baiting, gay-baiting, gun-baiting, and religious pandering have helped to destroy those towns and that countryside, that those being destroyed have been cynically enlisted by their very own destroyers to provide the votes that help accomplish the destruction.

It's about the bitterness of being left behind in the modern world and finding that your only outlet is in wedge issues that make people feel a certain degree of empowerment, all the while  not helping to remedy their situation. He rightly feels that the frustration they feel from decades of economic and political powerlessness found an outlet in the radical proposals of right wing conservatives. He thinks that if you offer people a real investment in governance through grassroots mobilization, they will focus their energies on finding solutions to their core social and economic problems rather than being distracted by wedge issues.


by bookish on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:37:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 0)

Bingo.  Well said.


I'm as strong as a bull moose, and you can use me to the limit. - Teddy Roosevelt
by fogiv on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:45:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

Thank God we have HRC out there re-enforcing this sad tired argument..Fucking pathetic.


by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:52:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

Jonathan,

You're missing the whole point here.

White Liberals are not offended by his comments.

How do we know? Look at Kos & MYDD. Liberal whites have no problem with Obama's comments. You certainly have no issue with it yourself.

There's only one problem with all this.

Liberals can carry Obama to victory at this point in the democratic primary. Liberals & Blacks are a significant block in the primary.

But come November, you will feel & witness the REST OF AMERICA. Those that were offended by this.

You keep on forgetting that we are in the democratic primary.

You also keep on forgetting that come GE, the entire liberal community united with black voters WILL NOT be enough to win an election.

I know Jerome gets this loud & clear.

The primary is not the "hurt" part for Obama. Its the GE that every liberal democrat will come to the realization of all this.


by latinfighter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:52:14 PM EST

Do you have a problem with liberals? (2.00 / 0)

or Democrats?  Just wondering.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:56:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have a problem with liberals? (none / 0)

No, why?

Are you a liberal ?

You seem to be at a loss.

Are you a democrat?

At least half of our party consider themselves liberals. You should know that.


by latinfighter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:01:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have a problem with liberals? (2.00 / 1)

I do know that but you seem to want to characterize Obama as only appealing to 'liberal democrats'.  That expression is used on rightwing blogs excessively.  They seem to think calling someone a liberal is a negative thing to say.

It seems you are saying Obama is too liberal which contradicts what a lot of other 'Hillary supporters' have been saying lately which is that he is not liberal enough.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:06:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have a problem with liberals? (none / 0)

First of all, you should visit moderate democratic blogs & sites. You should also talk to democrats in red states.

Just because right wingers are using "liberal" to describe him does not mean demcorats cannot.

This is the problem with being "Politically Correct". Its always been a democratic party problem.

We are about to lose an election in November, and so many democrats are still so concerned about  being labeled "Racist".

Ted Kennedy & Jesse Jackson are two of Obama's biggest fans.

What in the world do you expect people to label Obama ?


by latinfighter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:13:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have a problem with liberals? (2.00 / 3)

President Obama


by Mylie on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:25:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

We're about to lose? Really? (2.00 / 1)

How do you know?  What gives you this great insight?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Do you have a problem with liberals? (none / 0)

I'm a liberal progressive. So I can't vote for someone who authorized AUMF and then voted against the Levin amendment, which was a firewall against Bush taking us into Iraq.

You seem to be someone who likes to subdivide Democrats into ethnic categories ostensibly to fortify your elusive points. Do you read "Microtrends" on a regular basis? Pray to Mark Penn?


by bookish on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:44:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

spot on.

the arrogance will destroy us in the GE.

seriously.  But I suppose history has to repeat itself somehow.


by colebiancardi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:56:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 0)

If Hillary were truly concerned obout the affect these comments in the fall campaign,does it not stand to reason, that she would, you know, like, stop bringing it up every time she gets the chance??? Who do you think you are kidding??


by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:57:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

See the ARG Poll (none / 0)

I think the comments will hurt him in smaller towns and among people who were offended by the slight to a huge segment of the American population.  Obama showed what an elitist he is, and I think that will hurt him.  Of course, I will wait until after the primary in Pennsylvania to see what the outcome is.  I think the national poll numbers may be very different if Hillary does very well.


by unabashed dem on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:56:51 PM EST

Re: See the ARG Poll (2.00 / 3)

I haven't heard the word "elitist" so much since I unwittingly followed a blind link to freerepublic.com.


The choice is simple: A President who voted for the worst of Bush's odius agenda, or one who didn't.
by Liberal Avenger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:05:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See the ARG Poll (none / 0)

This seems to be the hardest reasoning for liberals to understand.

They cannot seem to understand nor believe that Sen. Obama is really damaged goods for the fall.

Its like speaking to a wall.

When we lose in November, many of them still won't understand.

That's just the reality of all this.

If Obama losses by a landslide in November, maybe then, many will understand.

Obama will be very lucky if he can perform at even Gore or Kerry's level.

I believe he will lose by a huge electoral margin.


by latinfighter on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:06:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See the ARG Poll (2.00 / 1)

Latinfighter, instead of arguing against Obama you should try and convince those moderates and conservatives to vote for Obama since he will most likely be the nominee and McCain will be a nightmare  if he's elected president.

McCain is really the problem not Obama


by hnic357 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:11:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See the ARG Poll (2.00 / 0)

And when he wins, then what?  We don't have to pretend we are Republicans anymore?  Maybe then we can be openly progressive?  Maybe we can actually be democrats and stop being run by Republican political frames?

The DLC strategy is outdated and never really worked.  The Republican-lite strategy has failed for over a decade....  

This is the year where you can proudly be a progressive and still win!

Do not fear being yourself!!!!  The only thing we have to fear is fear itself!!


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:28:50 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See the ARG Poll (2.00 / 0)

Actually, my reading says that if he takes all the regular Democratic strongholds and adds the growing number of purple states in which he's built incredibly strong GOTV and ground operations coupled with his ability to raise cash from small donors by the boatload, he should roughly double-up on McCain, winning something like 350-190, which is a landslide, just not the one that you're projecting.


by bookish on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:50:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: See the ARG Poll (none / 0)

Yawn...Obama will be the nominee...move on..This shit is getting embarrasing.


by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:58:59 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Since when did talking about wedge issue voters (2.00 / 1)

hurt a candidate?


My candidate lost fair and square. So did yours. Get over it and let's kick McSame's ass!
by RLMcCauley on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:01:38 PM EST

Hillary (2.00 / 1)

I was listening to Thom Hartman and he was saying how Hillary missed an opportunity to use this controversy to speak about economic issues and talk about how the electorate has gotten a raw deal from our gov't.

I think he is correct. Hillary is trying to get people to NOT vote for BO but she isn't giving people a reason to vote for her.


by hnic357 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:06:58 PM EST

Bingo! (none / 0)

We have a winner.

This has been my whole point from the get go.  Imagine if Hillary had taken the approach from the start of 'bitter-gate' along these lines...

'I hear my opponent made some clumsy statements the other day about people being bitter and clinging.....And while I dont agree with the way he put the words together (she could even have added a snarky comment like 'a bit of a surprise for someone who is usually so eloquent') he touched on a very important issue that faces Americans and Pennsylvanians today'.

And then she goes on to take this economic issue head on and she gets to own the issue as the leader on it.

Instead she attacked him and let him come back and clarify and take ownership of the issue.  And since the issue is valid, its to Obama's benefit to own.  Now he gets to take a short term hit for being clumsy with his first statement and the long term benefit for hitting on a serious and real issue that faces much of the country.  And now she gets the short term benefit of a nice little jab but loses the long term issue for being snarky and attacking it.

A big miss for Hillary in my opinion.


by pattonbt on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:04:25 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

As someone who really likes both of our candidates, I was pretty disappointed with Clinton's response to this.  The "I'm not bitter" stickers are probably going to come back and bite her, but in all fairness she really does have to go for the throat to win PA by a large margin.


And so, may evil beware and may good dress warmly and eat lots of fresh vegetables.
by thatpurplestuff on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:07:03 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

Same pattern every time...the pro-Obama blogosphere is very predictable...

1. Obama commits a political blunder

2. MSM ignores it

3. Picked up by pro-Clinton supporters

4. Gets some MSM play

5. Hillary campaigns on Obama gaffe

6. Obama attacks Clinton for mentioning Obama gaffe (I am rubber you are glue)

7. Pro-Obama blogosphere joins in, implying Hillary is hurting the party by pointing out Obama's many flaws and/or mistakes (while ignoring their own behavior on this score)

8. Inevitable headline "I though gaffe was supposed to hurt Obama" 1 or 2 days after the gaffe, and before it could possibly show up in polling.

9. Claims Obama's mistake is actually hurting Hillary

10. Hillary wins primary that was supposedly going to Obama based on the "Obama gaffe hurts Hillary" theory...

We are right on target then for a nice win for Hillary in Pennsylvania...


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:08:21 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 2)

11. Obama retains insurmountable lead in delegates.

12. Hillary still refuses to drop out.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:13:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

13. Obama supporters, in an attempt to change the rules, declare Obama the winner despite his failure to acquire the required number of delegates


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:20:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

No need to change the rules. Obama will reach 2025. He'll only need about 1/4 of the remaining Supers to get there. QED. As we've been saying for months now, the math is the math.
 
"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:25:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

And have the Supers that have yet to decide confided their intention to you?


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:27:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

nope (none / 0)

the trend in supers helps us with that.

Supers gap on super tuesaday: ~90
Supers gap right now: ~24


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:33:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (none / 0)

And of course absolutely nothing could happen in the next 4 months to change the dynamic right?


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:36:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (none / 0)

Seriously, what do you see happening that would cause all the remaining SDs to go to Hillary?


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:38:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (none / 0)

I don't know...a few more comments like those Obama made in San Fran last week might do the trick...

What astonishes me is the brazen change among those who only 4 months ago were bemoaning the fact that the primaries were overly influenced by Iowa and New Hampshire, that later states wouldn't get their say...

Now that Obama is marginally ahead they want to short circuit the process and declare Obama the winner...

If they (you?) are so absolutely sure he has it, why the constant attacks on a supposedly defeated Democrat?


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (2.00 / 1)

When Hillary proclaimed that the primary would be over by Super Tuesday, I didn't hear any of her supporters say "we can't short circuit the process!"

Yes, the race for the nomination is over. The problem is that Hillary continues to throw stones at our nominee. This kefluffle over what Obama said in SF is just the latest example. Hillary's attacks are helping McCain. That's why we're ready to wind this thing up.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:49:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (none / 0)

If there was a more apt demonstration of the arrogant Obama strategy than your post, I haven't seen it.

In fact it is not over...Obama is making a fool out of himself blaming others for his mistakes...and it is that, not Hillary rightly pointing them out that is going to cost Democrats the election...

Perhaps Obama should spend more time watching what he says than attacking others...


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:53:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (2.00 / 1)

So using math is arrogant now. Ummmm... Okay.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:56:54 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (none / 0)

No what is arrogant is the Obama supporters claiming they know what others will do with absolute certainty between now and July...


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:03:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (2.00 / 1)

As opposed to Clinton supporters claiming they know that Obama's unelectable in November?

Between prognosticating 3 months into the future about a contest most of which votes have already been placed, and prognosticating 7 months into the future about votes that haven't yet begun being cast, which looks more arrogant to you?


by Aris Katsaris on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:00:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (none / 0)

No. It's just math. Again, Obama only needs 1/4 of the remaining Supers. And yes, we can project out into the next couple months based on past results. Again, math. Obama easily gets to 2025.

Show me a scenario where Hillary gets to 2025. There just isn't one.    


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:38:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

yeah... (2.00 / 2)

Perhaps Obama should spend more time watching what he says than attacking others...

I am sorry...are you making this post as you are running under sniper fire across the tarmac along side with Hillary?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:57:13 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: yeah... (none / 0)

Actually, I was writing it in the airplane as Obama flies to Tehran to have his face to face with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:00:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

ok I see (none / 0)

cause I was a little worried that you were not spending enough time no watching what you say and a bit too much attacking.

Cause I hear Hillary Clinton has that problem.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:39:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: nope (none / 0)

Or a few more lies like Tuzla?


by danfromny on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:57:23 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I show (2.00 / 0)

you a trend and you say it will be different in the next 4 months.

Got anything to back that up?


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:42:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I show (none / 0)

I of course did not say that...

I simply said that the dynamic could change in the next four months...it might or might not...

You are the one declaring the contest over based on a trend...not fact. Trends change in politics...as this season has shown...


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:44:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I declared nothing (none / 0)

I simply said that the trend has been toward Obama and nothing yet shows that would change.

Hillary is going to need A LOT of super delegates to widen that gap again.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:55:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

So you're hope is that Hillary can win over ALL the remaining Supers. I would point out that three months ago Hillary had 96 more SDs than Obama. Today, she has only 26 more. The SDs have not been breaking in her favor.  


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:37:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

actually that sounds like clinton (none / 0)

in Texas where you know she actually got less delegates and declared she won texas.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:32:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

15. Hillary Clinton throws a hissy fit on the convention floor, gets escorted out by police and is relegated to free speech zone where she gets enough signatures for a third party run.
16.Runs on the Connecticut for Lieberman ticket with Zell Miller as her running mate..Lanny Davis is her communications director.
by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:06:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

no one even said (none / 0)

Obama will win PA.


-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:21:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: no one even said (none / 0)

Hillary will win by 10+ points


by SaveElmer on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:22:17 PM EST
[ Parent ]

um (none / 0)

Hillary wins primary that was supposedly going to Obama

Who even said tis going to Obama?
-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:32:11 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

Yeah I thought the electorate would flock to Annie Oakley. Weird, huh?


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:10:15 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

She's gone electric and that's unexpected.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:28:30 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 0)

Nice Squeeze reference. That took me a second.


"As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where-where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border."
by fugazi on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:40:04 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

Do Hillary supporters really, honestly believe that she will be spared from the "elitist communist" attack if she were nominated?

The right wingers already call her a communist for her health plan, and the Clintons have been called elitists for their entire political careers...

Her attempts to pander with drinking been and whiskey wile playing "Duck Hunt" on the Nintendo Entertainment System is only going to add the same "she is pandering" fuel to the fire as it did to Kerry when he went hunting in Ohio...

*NO** democrat is immune to the attack, especiallly not Hillary.... At least Obama attacks it head on instead of begging Republicans to like him, as every democrat has done since Mondale (and yes, that includes you, Hillary).

It's not 1984.. it's not 2004...  If the "elitist" label really stuck anymore, we wouldn't have won congressional seats in 2006 after the Kerry joke....

The fact that right wing is so giddy about this makes me even MORE confident that it will backfire on them...  Their methods have lost their luster and will not be effective this year...  thank goodness!


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:26:04 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

I was preparing to make about the same comment earlier.  Any Hillary supporter who thinks that she can win the infamous "Who do you want to have a beer test?" with McCain is seriously deluded.  Republicans would endlessly bash her over the head with the $100 million earnings, as well as the rich Hollywood friends like Streisand at no end.  Hillary has barely spent a day out of Governor's, President's, Senator's mansion in the past 40 years.  This "elitism" argument is one of the more ridiculous pot-kettle situations of this political season.


by GobBluth on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:52:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

You at least have to get the cultural stuff right (none / 0)

And Obama displaying his disdain for the opinions of small town and working class whites kills that off for him. The right has his own words now, they have only innuendo against Hillary.

Hillary has done her cultural respect duties, like you're supposed to do. It's relatively small stuff, policy is bigger for her and voters, but you gotta do it right.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:29:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You at least have to get the cultural stuff ri (none / 0)

Beware of cookiegate!  That will come up again... as well as a bunch of other "elitist" stuff the Clintons have been up to for years...


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:56:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

only crazed Limbaughites bought that (none / 0)

crap when it first came out. And they don't matter to electing a Dem.


We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. Martin Luther King Jr.
by fairleft on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:48:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: only crazed Limbaughites bought that (none / 0)

Exactly... just as this thing is crap now!


"This was never part of our arrangement, Specter" "I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!" "This deal keeps getting worse all the time!"
by LordMike on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:03:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 1)

Look at today's polls in PA and IN.  They appear to have hurt him there, and that's where it counts right now.


by markjay on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:37:39 PM EST

it shows nothing of the kind (2.00 / 0)

that poll is from a week before:
1,600 state of Indiana adults were interviewed 04/11/08 through 04/13/08.

-- be excellent to each other
by kindthoughts on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:43:56 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

Nah.....Perhaps these polls would be significant were it not for the fact that they are meaningless insofar as Obama has pretty much wrapped up the nomination at this point.I guess reality can be a pretty tough pill to swallow.


by tommy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:22:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

Clinton is up by 20 in a new poll in PA but will probably win by 30.


by gotalife on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 03:48:59 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 0)

Oh, I think Clinton will win by more than 30 votes.  She could easily win by 152 maybe even 154 votes if her get-out-the-vote organization does its job.


If yer after gettin the honey, then you don't go killing all the bees.
by Fluffy Puff Marshmallow on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:01:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (2.00 / 0)

Hillary Clinton and her supporters should be very disturbed that the only way she can eke out a lead is through Barack's supposed "gaffes" AND NOT ON HER OWN merits or by conveying sound ideas.
Heh, likeability can only be achieved through throwing back shots?
The only people salivating over this sheer and utter "bitter" nonsense are the Hill Shills on this website, the ones connected to her train wreck of a campaign, and the Fox News pundits. Oh my, "arrogance and elitism under the bed, under that rock>>

You guys can finish your "whine" with your beer nuts and I will finish my wine with my cheese, thank you.


"Beauty, more than bitterness, makes the heart break." Sara Teasdale
by april34fff on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:16:10 PM EST

Elitisim (2.00 / 0)

I'm out in California so I'm sure the reactions of the people I know are different that PA's and IN's reactions, but nearly everyone I've talked to (Obama supporters, Clinton supporters, and GOPers) brought up how they thought it was funny that Clinton called   Obama an elitist when she's the one with the 100 million dollar income.


John McCain wants to stay in Iraq for a century.
by jkfp2004 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:24:23 PM EST

Re: Elitisim (2.00 / 0)

What I want to know is if you've made 100 million in 7 years and you're not an elitist, what exactly does one have to do in order to achieve such a title? 200 million?


Voting for John McCain is not God bless America.
by SFValues on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:32:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments (none / 0)

I guess we can forget about the Dream ticket, huh?


by chewie5656 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:24:26 PM EST

Re: Weren't Obama's Comments Supposed to Hurt Him? (none / 0)

I cam across this article by Theda Skocpol that I thought summed up my own feelings perfectly:

"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."


by neverfox on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 12:34:47 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.