Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Cross-posted at HILLARY'S BLOGGERS

The Sunday shows were all abuzz over the comments Sen. Obama made in San Francisco last week  And this evening's news (NBC I think) led with the story of the back and forth of it all.  Hillary's campaign posted the following on the Fact Hub this afternoon...

Sen. Obama's Damage Control Letter Omits Controversial Remarks>
4/13/2008 3:24:51 PM

Today, the Obama campaign is circulating a letter describing his controversial remarks in San Francisco last Sunday:

What Sen. Obama said is that over the last 25-30 years, working class people in places like Pennsylvania have been falling behind, and that politicians in Washington haven't been looking out for them. He also said that, as a result, many people have become frustrated, angry and even bitter about all the broken promises.

That is not all that Sen. Obama said. The campaign is attempting to paper over the most controversial portion of his remarks:

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

I think Obama was a bit ticked off at people challenging him over his comments.  The AP posted something an hour ago about some comments Obama made on the campaign trail today.  Seems he's taken up the tone Hillary did in Ohio after Obama sent out those discredited mailers re NAFTA and healthcare.  Top all this off over the way folks have called bullshit on his misleading ads in Pennsylvania with his claims that he doesn't take contributions from big oil (nobody does - it's against the law) - I think the stress is staring to get to the poor guy...

STEELTON, Penn. - Democrat Barack Obama lashed out Sunday at rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, mocking her sudden vocal support for gun rights and saying he understands the concerns of working class people.

"She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her," Obama told an audience at a union hall here.


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

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

Annie Oakley?  Is this guy serious? 

She called him on his BS - and rather than address the honest reaction by people in small towns to his insulting comments he lashes out at Hillary.  Seriously - people are hurting and the only thing he can say is that people are responding to the tough times by favoring his opponent over him, while clinging to their guns and bibles?  She called him on the insulting remarks and this is all he has to offer up in response?

As for his "shame on her" lines... he's taking a page right out of Hillary's Ohio playbook.  It's bad enough he copies her economic plans but now he's copying what she says on the campaign trail.

Well, Hillary's team had a thing or two to say in response.  Apparently, Obama's camp followed up his little outburst with a campaign memo.  Hillary's camp posted the following on Fact Hub - take a look...

Obama Campaign Embraces San Francisco Remarks, Lashes Out With Attack On Hillary
4/13/2008 4:55:27 PM

Sen. Obama and his campaign continue to embrace his controversial remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser where he said small town votes in Pennsylvania and elsewhere "cling" to guns and religion out of bitterness and frustration. At the same time they have released an angry memo attacking Hillary's views on gun rights, trade and lobbyists. Here are the facts:

1. The memo attacks Hillary for "an overly-narrow interpretation of the Second amendment." When he was running for the state senate in 1996, Barack Obama supported a total ban on the sale, manufacture of possession of handguns.

2. The memo attacks Hillary suggesting it might be in the interests of the U.S. for China to enter the WTO. But on September 8, 2004 at the Illinois Farm Bureau, Sen. Obama said China's membership in the WTO could help the U.S. combat unfair trade practices:

So I think it is important for us to negotiate our trade agreements recognizing that the global economy has shifted... What that means then is that when the Chinese government devalues its currency by 40%, we've got to make sure that we bring China before the WTO. The same way that we get brought before the WTO if other countries think that a disadvantage, that they are being disadvantaged by our existing trade policies. [Illinois Farm Bureau, 9/8/2004]

3. The memo attacks Hillary for accepting money from lobbyists. But Sen. Obama takes money from lobbying firms, state lobbyists, former lobbyists and spouses of lobbyists. Sen. Obama has accepted $2.8 million from firms that employ federal lobbyists and ten of his top bundlers have been federal lobbyists. More info here.

They also followed things up with this press release...

Response to Sen. Obama's Outburst

Phil Singer, Deputy Communications Director, issued the following statement tonight:

For months, Barack Obama and his campaign have relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton's character and integrity by using Republican talking points from the 1990s.  The shame is his.

Sen. Clinton does know better -- she knows better than to condescend and talk down to voters like Senator Obama did.  Senator Obama's outburst won't change the fact that he has embraced his characterization of the millions of Americans who live in small towns.

Guys as much as I'm guessing Camp Obama wanted to sweep this story under the rug, it doesn't look like they're going to get their wish.  Between the back and forth of it this weekend, the Sunday talk shows and this evening's news, I think this may continue on into the new week.  

Meanwhile, they're not happy with Obama's comments in Altoona, PA.  They're not bitter, but they're not happy either.  They note BO's initial comments, and then his failed attempt to clarify what he said by repeating his insulting remarks in Indiana yesterday - he even called them bitter again.  Take a look at how folks in Altoona reacted outside his campaign office today...

(That sign by the way says "I am not bitter!")

Protesters- Obama's Comments Offensive

"He is definitely out of touch with the voters in Pennsylvania to blaspheme them the way he did," said Hollidaysburg resident Ted Manna.

Stacey Drugg of Altoona said Obama's comments showed he did represent working people in Pennsylvania or working people period.

Manna said everyone has their own beliefs, but it shouldn't be up to a presidential candidate to tell them their beliefs are wrong.

"All the citizens of Pennsylvania should, rightfully so, be upset that he said we hide behind our religion and our guns," said Manna.

Joseph Antal of Ebensburg said, "With all that's been happening in our area, and in Johnstown with the flood, we rebound back from adversity."

Altoona... isn't that the place where Obama went bowling in his shirt and tie, and near where he fed a baby cow with a bottle with his suit on?

Either way, they're not happy with him in Pennsylvania.  The article finishes up by saying that locals organized 5 other protests at BO's offices around the state today over his "bitter" remarks.

The next round of polls in PA should be interesting - stay tuned.


Looks like the campaign's added something to Fact Hub regarding tonight's forum on faith. Take a look...

Sen. Obama's New Spin On 'Cling': It Was A Compliment

4/13/2008 11:38:10 PM

After several failed attempts to explain the comments he made in San Francisco, Sen. Obama used tonight's faith forum to claim that he was actually complimenting small town America for its faith in God and respect for longheld traditions like hunting. But tonight's explanation isn't consistent with what he actually said in San Francisco.

In his actual remarks (which he stands by), he grouped faith and guns in with "anti-immigrant sentiment,""anti-trade sentiment" and "antipathy to people who aren't like them." Presumably, Senator Obama doesn't think it appropriate to cling to antipathy for others.

More to the point, the remarks Senator Obama made in San Francisco suggest Americans in small towns don't have strength to deal with economic realities so they fall back on what Senator Obama implied is a culture that is backward and outdated: guns, superficial spiritual propping up, and emotionalism that stigmatizes people of different backgrounds.

Sen. Obama on April 13:

Well, first of all, you know, Scripture talks about clinging to what's good... What I was saying is that when economic hardship hits in these communities, what people have is- they've got family, they've got their faith., they've got the traditions that have been passed on to them from generation to generation. Those aren't bad things.

Sen. Obama's original comments on April 6:

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

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

Complimenting eh? Yeah. I don't think the folks in Pennsylvania are going to buy that one. They're smarter than that and I think Obama's adding insult to injury in thinking they're going to buy this newest explanation of his.

Tags: 2008 elections, Barack Obama, Economy, Hillary Clinton, Pennsylvania, president (all tags)



Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

See? Regular folks are pissed too.

by alegre 2008-04-13 07:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Good one! Video embed is broken.  

by ghost 2 2008-04-13 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

It re-affirms BHO's campaign theme:

"Obama: Bitterness you can count on."

Seriously, there's a trick to embedding YouTubes on MyDD which requires the HTML code be revised after the diary is posted.

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Now, the link is good.  The video is awesome!

by ghost 2 2008-04-13 08:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Yeah - it's great isn't it?  A buddy of mine sent it to me this afternoon.  Thought I'd like it given that I've been writing about this whole gaffe over the past two days ;o)

by alegre 2008-04-13 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

One person's gaffe is another person's truth.

Somewhat like Tuzla, I guess...or NAFTA...or the vote for war with Iraq...or...

Ah - never mind.

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Unfortunately, "bitter" voters "clinging to religion and guns" aren't going to say "nevermind" to Obama's "typical white people" slams, throwing his grandmother under a bus, and passively listening to his pastor spew hate and division for 20 years.

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

the problem is that CNN covered it but muffled up what he actually said.  Unless their viewers were fairly astute, they would not have caught the swipe against religion, hunting, and concern about illegal immigrants flooding the country.

by internetstar 2008-04-14 05:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

It's a perfect fun way of depicting the Barack-Hillary back and forth.  

We should all lighten up.  

by ghost 2 2008-04-13 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

This is weird.  While I was watching the video from your link, Alegre, I got an e-mail from a fellow I know who seldom corresponds.  He was sending a link to it!

Looks like that video has legs, too.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 07:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Thanks for fixing the link.  Everyone, the video is great: light and funny.  Give it a look.  

by ghost 2 2008-04-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Heh, you guys say that every time!  You have to post and then go back and re-insert the embed code for videos here.  Takes a minute so patience grassoppa - patience ;o)

by alegre 2008-04-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

As an Obama supporter, I used to really admire your positive pro-Hillary diaries.

I am disappointed at the turn your diaries have made in the last few weeks.

by mefck 2008-04-13 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Try to be understanding...it's all they have left.

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Well... not actually.  But your guy gave us a HUGE gift with that comment of his.  Audio - some video - the whole nine yards.

Are you seriously telling us you wouldn't be all over this if Hillary had made this kind of a blunder?

by alegre 2008-04-13 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

First off it wasn't a blunder.  Secondly, of course not.

by RussTC3 2008-04-13 08:31PM | 0 recs
Only in Clintopia is the truth

an enormous gotcha gift to Hillary.  Pretty thin stuff.  Alegre, let us know with yet another one of your endless diaries when Obama doesn't read an NIE then votes to invade a sovereign nation which didn't attack us, then you have a definite gotcha that will have some real legs on it.

by ReillyDiefenbach 2008-04-13 11:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Wasn't a Blunder

My god, get real.  You candidate's gaffe is all over every media outlet, major and minor.  Even HE admitted he "could've phrased it better".  

That's a terminal case of denial you've got there.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Wasn't a Blunder

Yup, still not a blunder.  Thanks for playing.

I wonder when we'll actually get to discuss some relevant issues in this campaign.

by RussTC3 2008-04-17 05:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

You see, that's how we're different...

This is not a game.  When Hillary messes up (with the sniper shuff), it isn't a "gift".  It's unfortunate because Hillary could be our nominee and I don't want anything out there that could help the GOP in the general election.

Similarly, when Obama says something like that, it shouldn't be viewed as a "gift" but as something unfortunate.

by mefck 2008-04-13 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...
I can seriously tell you I wouldn't be all over Hillary on this. I don't need a poorly chosen sentence when I know she voted for and supported Bush's dirty war.
by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 02:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

I'm disappointed in the insulting and negative tone of Obama's rheoric.

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Well, he is running against Hillary.  When in Rome...

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

More like: When in Rome, make up crap like "Annie Oakley" when you don't have anything else to excuse book for your latest gaffe.

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

The Annie Oakley thing was priceless hysterical.

Obama chewed her up and spit her out.  'Bout time.  He's got to be as sick of this bullshit as many of us are.  Time for her to get behind the winner and stop this nonsense.

And I bet this one pulls Gore and Carter out of the background...that's the rumor anyway.  There's only so much of the Clintons throwing the party under the bus real Dems will take.

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

The Annie Oakley thing was priceless hysterical, alright! It made Obama look like a total dolt. Time for him to get behind Hillary and stop this nonsense. There's only so much of Obama throwing his grandmother and other Democrats under the bus real Dems will take.

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:17PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Wait.  Stop.  Seriously?!?!?

Obama needs to get behind Hillary?!?!?  Holy shit - that is truly priceless.

Let me spell this out for you: Obama is W I N N I N G.  Big time.  Not just a little bit.  Hillary is hanging on and can't win.  Sad, really.  Supers are like a slow Chinese water torture going in Obama's favor.

(Plus, you kinda sorta plagiarized my comment.  I forgive you.  And since when are you the keeper of Barack's grandma?)

This place cracks me up!

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:26PM | 0 recs
He is winning

at this point.  He is not winning "big time".  Let's all lay off the hyperbole.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: He is winning

By all means - prove me wrong...

How in the hell can she make up his lead?  Huh??

By winning all remaining delegates by something like 75%?  No chance.

It's over.  Everyone knows it but Hillary.

Call is hyperbole if you like.  Some of us call it reality.

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:34PM | 0 recs
I was trying to be polite

and reasonable with you.  She has a path to the nomination.  So does Obama obviously.  Neither will have enough delegates at the end of the primary season.  I will vote for whichever Democrat wins:  Hillary or Barack--because McCain is horrible.  How about you?

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I was trying to be polite

Please lay out her path to the nomination with hard numbers. I don't think you can do it. Really. I think that your logic is so inept that you won't even bother putting it into writing. Prove me wrong.

by bookish 2008-04-14 03:33AM | 0 recs
bookish, Does the Word "Superdelegate"

ring a bell?

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 09:06AM | 0 recs
Well, then lay out your scenario

in black and white. I don't think you can.

The problem with your superdelegate argument can be analogized thusly, if you'll indulge me in a bit of baseball, this being the season and all.

So, the fans go to the park in the early season and fill out their ballots for the All-Star game. There are clear winners and losers. But the week before the All-Star game, the MLB commission decides that the fans chose the wrong players and decide to overrule the votes and send the players they choose to the game.

In your estimation, from what I can gather by your argument, you feel this is perfectly okay, fine, whatever. I have a feeling, however, that the vast majority of fans would either not attend, nor watch the game in protest. There may even be some who think that the game has become something of an oligarchy, and decide that their support and interest means nothing to the entire enterprise.

by bookish 2008-04-14 09:41AM | 0 recs
Read Before You Comment

I made no argument whatsoever...just asked if you were familiar with the word "superdelegate".

Sorry I don't have time to respond in depth.  I'm gonna go fly my toy airplane.

Have a nice day.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 12:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, then lay out your scenario

Great analogy.  Looks like it scared away any "real" answers... :)

by sick of it all 2008-04-14 05:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, then lay out your scenario

It is my understanding that the all-star game doesn't actually count, and most fans are more interested in who wins the division/championship, so that is a really weak analogy.

More to the point, I have seen polls where a majority favored allowing the superdelegates to decide rather than requiring them to vote for whoever won their state primary/caucus. As for Hillary's route to the nomination, I expect it would involve Obama really f***ing up or something, such that he became unacceptable as nominee. It's highly unlikely, but possible, especially considering that he is not the overwhelming choice of Democrats...his lead in delegates is largely due to superior campaign strategy (Hillary's loyalty to Mark Penn has been a disaster for her).

by Alice in Florida 2008-04-14 05:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Well, then lay out your scenario

It's humorous that you want to argue that the analogy is flawed, since voting on the All-Star game is the most democratic aspect of MLB; the one part of the season where the fans have a say in the placement of the players. And I'd love to see those polls that show the majority favors intervention of the supers in the nomination process. Please post those here.

by bookish 2008-04-15 03:11AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

And your highly placed source for information on Gore and Carter is.........?

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

The Scotsman, the same paper that broke the Samantha Power story.

by jere7my 2008-04-13 08:24PM | 0 recs
Oh, of course

I should have known immediately.  Lol.  :)

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

The Annie Oakley thing was hysterical, agreed.  In all candor, it makes Barack look even more bizarre and out of touch to be throwing around obscure and seemingly sexist remarks in his tantrum over his insults.

by BPK80 2008-04-13 08:45PM | 0 recs
Lighten up.
the Annie Oakley comment was piquant.
There's a whole lot more damaging things he could have told about HRC.
by barnowl 2008-04-14 12:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

 Except he dose not know that you don`t hunt ducks with a six shooter!
by gunner 2008-04-13 09:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

  And one does not sit on a duck blind, a duck blind is something one sits in. Duck blind-so as not to be seen!?!-hello.

by artsykr 2008-04-14 12:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

You people are priceless.

Let's not talk about real stuff.  Let's pick apart his comments on six-shooters and duck-blinds.

Too funny!

by sick of it all 2008-04-14 03:43AM | 0 recs
Re: "The Annie Oakley Thing"

I'll grant you it was hysterical.  The rising note of panic in the Obama campaign is impossible to ignore.

You'd think a consummate politician like Obama would realize he needs to do some major damage control.  Instead, he just keeps digging himself in deeper.

Barack Obama is a neophyte.  He has neither the qualifications to be President nor the temperament to run a gloves-off presidential campaign, which is what he will get at the hands of McRove.  

That amateurism is beginning to become painfully apparent, after years of his having had a pass by the media.  It will only get worse.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 09:04AM | 0 recs
It's not panic

it's end of patience.

by barnowl 2008-04-14 12:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

"See"??!!  I rather expected that to be followed by a "nah-nah-nah-boo-boo".

I somewhat understand being obsessed, but your track record of diaries here today is just sad, IMO.

They need a limit to how much silliness one person can spew in a day.

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

If that were the test, your comment period would be over at 12:01 AM every day.

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

But only if I comment sometime between 12 and 12:01am. Ha!

::sticks out tongue in keeping with level of discourse witnessed in above remark::

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Considering your remarks began with ""nah-nah-nah-boo-boo....." Apparently that's what you call "discourse." LOL

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Apparently that was kinda hard for you to follow.

I was responding to what I interpreted as a rather juvenile "See?" from the diarist in the first comment.

Ok.  That'd be it for me with you for today.  Have a lovely evening.

Good day, sir.  I say, good day.

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Nice work.

Ignore the naysayers who resort to insulting you personally.  Your commentaries and wonderful amalgams of sources help situate the reader into where the situation stands right now.  And this is highly relevant because it's the most important story in politics at the moment.

And... Annie Oakley?  (WTF!?)  This isn't sexist?  I hate to resort to isms and race/gender-baiting, but if she called him something comparable when he was (ahem) "bowling," imagine the outrage.

by BPK80 2008-04-13 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

It was a overtly sexist. Does Obama really think that the idea of a woman advocating second-amendment rights is so amusing? Look! A girl with a gun. Heh heh. Don't hurt yourself, sweetie.

Hey Barack, did you hear Hillary talking about airline safety last week? Who does she think she is, Amelia Earhart? A girl flying planes! That's rich.

by ryeland 2008-04-14 12:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

LOL!  Your Amelia comparison was delightful.

Thank you for your comment.  Over on InsanelyKos, the idea that he was being sexist has been disregarded as "hypersensitive overfeminist" whatever.  But it seemed pretty overt to me as well!

by BPK80 2008-04-14 03:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...


by Al Depansu 2008-04-14 08:29AM | 0 recs
Outside of Phila and P'burgh...

...the folks in the rest of PA take their sports hunting pastime very, very seriously! (For real.)

To this day, I can't get over how, after I married a woman from the Harrisburg area (I'm from NJ and now live in NY), I realized just how serious these folks are when it comes to their hunting. They actually have a holiday, the day after Thanksgiving, in PA, were tens of thousands of hunters actually take an extra day to celebrate the opening of deer season! When I first found out about this 20 years ago, I couldn't get over it. (It's like a different world, and I was born and raised in the next state over, too!)

Barack has no idea what he's done having criticized these sportsmen. It's close to major sacrilege, as far as politics is concerned. I didn't have a clue back then. And, neither does he, now.

We're talkin' major damage here.

by bobswern 2008-04-14 12:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Outstanding Work, Alegre

Rec'd and tipped, deservedly.

Does anyone else hear a rising note of hysteria from the Obama side?  Between Obama's "running around like Annie Oakley" and some of the comments on the blogs (one even denying he'd lumped Bill Clinton in with the Bushes), I'm sensing panic.

CBSNews had this to say about their appearance togetherlast night:

Obama brushed past Clinton in what truly looked like an uncomfortable moment between the two.

How funny is that?  Obama's own words are what are causing him so much grief right now but he's mad at Hillary!  Like she put them in his mouth?

I was an Obama supporter for a long time.  I fell victim to the pretty words, overlooking completely the paucity of a record or experience.  I also liked the fact that he supposedly opposed the war (we won't discuss all those votes for funding) and Clinton would not acknowledge that the war was a mistake.  By the time she finally stated she would not vote for AUMF again I'd figured out what Obama was lacking and I was able to support the person I knew to be the better-qualified candidate.

Obama is exhibiting the same stubbornness in refusing to acknowledge his own goofs.  If he keeps it up he's through.  Americans will forgive a mistake readily. They're much less tolerant of intransigence and arrogance.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 07:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Outstanding Work, Alegre
I Tivo'd the moment when Obama shook hands with Clinton and brushed by her. She was in the middle of saying something him, when he walked right by her. For a brief second, you could see a startled look on Clinton's face. Reminds me of when he seemed to ignore her during the President's last State-of-the-Union.
by zenful6219 2008-04-14 09:39AM | 0 recs
She's done tthe same to him
even long ago.
Just how much betrayal and abuse is a person supposed to take?
The nastiness needs to stop. The scorched earth needs to stop.
by barnowl 2008-04-14 12:44PM | 0 recs
Alegre, picture on HillaryHub

would be great addition, Obama mocked and got it thrown back in his face by HRC! It's great

by rigsoHC 2008-04-14 08:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

In honor of your 4th diary on this subject, I am donating $40 to Obama tonight.

by mefck 2008-04-13 07:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Hey, your guy said "shame on her"! You expect Clinton and her supporters to sit on their hands and say nothing?

by ghost 2 2008-04-13 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Yeah, I am sure when Sen. Clinton said "Shame on you Barack Obama", you ran to every Obama supporter's defense to decry those comments, right?

by mefck 2008-04-13 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

My point is that on the day he said that, you can't expect Alegre to sit on her hands and say nothing, can you?  

Notice that your guy is inviting the brawl.  

by ghost 2 2008-04-13 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Ahh, good point, she does only have two diaries on the rec list. Time for more copy/pasting.

by ragekage 2008-04-13 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

* waits for inevitable troll-rate abuse *

by ragekage 2008-04-13 08:04PM | 0 recs
If you don't want to be TR'd, then I

would suggest you stop calling out the diarist, which deserves a TR according to the suggested guidelines I've read here.

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-13 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't want to be TR'd, then I

Oh, God.  Here we go.

Self-righteous troll police.  Wheee!!!

There was no "call-out" - only a statement of fact.  How many diaries about this topic can you swallow in one day?

Although, I do understand that any alleged "blunder" by Obama is quite an event.  With Hillary, it's just too common to even try to keep up.

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:16PM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't want to be TR'd, then I

It's the lead story right now.  I don't think on a political discussion forum that it's surprising to see multiple stories on the latest and most prominent story currently in politics.  

by BPK80 2008-04-13 08:48PM | 0 recs
"Most prominent story?!"

Yeah - we wouldn't want to talk about how the torture directive came from the highest office in our land...

Sure.  Obama's comment definitely eclipses torture! /end snark

by sick of it all 2008-04-14 03:47AM | 0 recs
Re: "Most prominent story?!"

Yeah, but the Obama gaffe is news.  Anyone who doesn't know we torture and the president condones it has been living in a hole.

by creeper1014 2008-04-14 09:17AM | 0 recs
Re: "Most prominent story?!"

Oh!  That clearly explains the piling on of Obama.

Thank you for your insightful retort.

by sick of it all 2008-04-14 06:38PM | 0 recs
I was going to uprate you....

until I read the 4th sentence of your post.  Both candidates have blundered.  Both have embellished.  Both have lied.  They're politicians. Don't pretend  your candidate is a saint and HRC is the devil.  Neither is true.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 09:13PM | 0 recs
Re: I was going to uprate you....

No - not angel and devil, but there is a huge difference.  I don't really give a shit about trolls or uprates.  Thanks, anyway.

by sick of it all 2008-04-15 08:21PM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't want to be TR'd, then I

Let's be real. Obama's supporters are the first to cry to the Admins about TR abuse. So, don't go there. I'm not sure you're keeping up for the past several weeks and months, but most of the blunder events have been Obama-related.

by zenful6219 2008-04-14 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: If you don't want to be TR'd, then I

S/he call call out the diarist on content--that does not deserve TRing.  Calling out a diarist personally (I.e., "you're a __") is not acceptable and deserves a TR rating.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:20PM | 0 recs
I like the one source which is

the "obviously" neutral Fact Hub.

(will this comment be HR'ed into oblivion or will it just get hit with TR's and will I still have the power to rate comments and diaries after this? probably not, but it beats reading about rabies... really depressing)

by Student Guy 2008-04-13 08:14PM | 0 recs
Re: I like the one source which is

Yes, we know the only authoritative source in the known universe is Obama.com

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:27PM | 0 recs
I am not saying that

I just like to know the bias of my sources and account for that when I write.  I got that pointed out to me while I was "in school" (don't trust completely what a circa 1250's Sienian says about Florence ;)  )

(referring to a snide comment you made a few weeks ago)

by Student Guy 2008-04-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I like the one source which is

I heard a guy from Slate.com today on CNN also say that, last night, Obama seems to say he was actually  complimenting people. The audacity of Obama! This issues does have legs. By the way, who in their right mind bowls and fedds calves wearing a suit and tie? He couldn't have at least taken off the tie!!!

by zenful6219 2008-04-14 06:35AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

If the shame fits...

And - oooooo - the "shame" card.  Who played that one first?

by sick of it all 2008-04-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Yup, and when she said the same thing to him for pointing out something correctly about her healthcare proposal, you were all over her, weren't you?

by ragekage 2008-04-13 08:00PM | 0 recs
Speaking of Shame,

Do you have any??

Obama's mailout was 'misleading' (a charitable description; lied about Hillary's plan will be the honest way of putting it).

But hey, if you like the kool-aid...

by ghost 2 2008-04-13 08:13PM | 0 recs
Good on ya!

I'm sending her $40 (wish I could send $400).  And if by chance she doesn't win, I'll send money to BHO (it'll be hard, but I'll suck it up and do it).  We can't 'afford' McCain.  Arghhh:  just the thought of him in the WH makes me want to vomit.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 09:00PM | 0 recs
Is his temper as bad

as has been rumored?

by aurelius 2008-04-13 09:15PM | 0 recs
Here's to another Clinton in the WH!

by aurelius 2008-04-13 09:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Good on ya!

I've been sending money to Hillary Clinton every month and I, too, will close my eyes and hold my nose and send money to BO if he's the nominee. Further, I'll hope that we can find some way to counteract the caricatures of BO that will be created by the GOP. He's giving them so much fertile fodder.

by zenful6219 2008-04-14 06:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...
Thanks mefck... I'll follow your lead. I wonder what pseudo-scandal will take up alegre's time next week?
by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 01:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

It is unfathomable that someone could call Obama's bittergate a pseduo-scandal. It's on all of the mainstream media and I doubt they all got their clues from MyDD. This is a real problem for Obama. He has given the Republicans one more way to create a negative caricature of him in the general election, should he be the nominee.

by zenful6219 2008-04-14 06:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

I'm sure you would consider Tuzla-gate a pseudoscandal, yet there it was on the MSM.  This non-story got legs because the rival campaigns stirred the pot and the MSM served as echo chamber.  That doesn't mean it was a scandal, as evidenced by the latest poll. Turns out, Americans are smarter than some give them credit for and understood well what BO was saying.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 11:16AM | 0 recs
Obama was still right by

the sociological standard... just another unspeakable truth.  It is rather a shame to see the Clinton camp jump on this, when they know darn well the comments were completely accurate

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 07:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

So which part of the comment was true?  This is important to me because I live there and I want to find out everything about myself that I can.  Is it true that I'm bigoted and against people who aren't like me?  Do I cling to my religion?  Cause i don't have one and I don't want to be clinging to it to comfort myself when I'm bitter.  When am I bitter, do you know?  

Can you direct me to a Sociology book where I can read somemore?  

Just one more question.  After Obama gets done reading his textbooks for information about us, is he going to come for a visit and find out the real story from the horses mouth?  We have horses here, too.  They could fill him in.

by Scotch 2008-04-13 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Well you are making a big mistake by assuming he said all people in small towns... he didn't.  Now, if you want to tell me that some people from wherever you are from don't hold extreme religious views, don't think guns are to protect them from the government, and are anti-foreign go ahead.  But, what we see in data set after data set is the economic hardship causes religious extremism.  Increased evangelical behavior, an advanced sense of end-times, and a demonization of 'other' persons (be them gay, foreign, etc.).  Over the past 8 years (but more clearly 20) we have seen the numbers rise, mostly through rural voters - Bush voters.  These people are going to be Obama's hardest voting block to get.

I'm from Hunstville Texas, an extremely small town, and just happen to have made a career out of studying religion in public life.  If you want a fairly quick read, which isn't just poll-chalked, check out "What's the matter with Kansas."  I have never seen anything to the contrary in my years of research

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:15PM | 0 recs
Great book

I like Thomas Frank's argument, my area in Western MN votes in it's economic interest, but it is kind of an island in a red sea (it was dark blue in 2002 which was bad out there)

by Student Guy 2008-04-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Great book

Some other books along these lines are "The Rise of Southern Republicans" from Harvard Press by Black(s)... and Kevin Kruse, here at Princeton, as a couple of good books and articles

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: Great book

I think you should read Larry Bartel's (Princeton) "What's the matter with What's the Matter with Kansas" before deciding that that book (and those like it) are good.  

by slynch 2008-04-13 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Great book

I will read it, I like to keep my ID reserved, but am glad to see other Tigers in the house!

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Great book

(I think you gave your id away earlier when you said "here at ..."!)

by slynch 2008-04-13 08:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Great book

I meant my name... I'm always fearful of revealing too much info here

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Great book

Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy by Joan Burbick is pretty interesting too.

by fogiv 2008-04-13 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: everyone agrees with the ks part

So your only problem with the whole episode is the word "clings", and for this you would like to damage him so badly as to make him unelectable?  (He isn't - it's just what you guys believe)

by interestedbystander 2008-04-13 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Well some would say that Obama's church and some of the members practice religious extremism, but they aren't from a rural area and REverend Wright has been employed.  What's making him bitter?  I saw his retirement mansion in a picture too, and he isn't exactly economically deprived.  And I hear they have some guns in urban areas too, and some people have them just in case the government gets after them.  Then there is Philly in PA.  That aint no rural area, but they got guns.  I'm just wondering why he chose to tell those high falutin' donators in San Fran that those characteristics belong to some people in Pennsylvania.  Pennsylvania is far from one of the most economically deprived states in the union.  I'm just trying to get some clarification, that's all.

by Scotch 2008-04-13 08:27PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I imagine Rev. Wright is bitter about the America he grew up in, and the community his Church is in.  I won't discuss his personal life with you.  I live outside of Philly, on the Jersey Side, and am a hunter myself.  I believe he was talking about the strong NRA voters, the protect ourselves from the Government (Huckabee) voters, the guns in the God/Gays/Guns Republican strategy.  

Maybe I know more about PA than you, but when you hit the high-lands it gets pretty rough.  I'd say dairy country has been hit pretty hard, and the mines are near defunct.  The regions of PA which are pulling up the economy are the outside D.C. region and the Philly burbs, and NY/NJ commuters.

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I'm sorry, been a resident of PA for 51 years.  I kinda doubt that.

by Scotch 2008-04-13 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

your likely to know more than me, then.  But I really think he was speaking too the western PA folks who are very rural...from my time there, even rural thank East Texas

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Oh no, he was speaking to the poor people everywhere that he despises. Didn't you read alegre's 5000 other posts?

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 09:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

This is also simply not true.  You do NOT see this in data set after data set.  I challenge you to name ONE.  As a sociologist and statistician, I work with major national data sets on a daily basis, and you're simply wrong.

by slynch 2008-04-13 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I'm not sure where you are a professor of sociology at.  And, perhaps I'm more informed on this topic, since I stick to Sociology of Religion alone.  But, the only dissenting thesis I can think of is Alan Krueger on Terrorism.  Wuthnow, David Martin, and Bryan Wilson, Richard Fenn speaks to end-times belief in highly anomic societies, but all shown data on the link - there are of course a lot of cross-cutting factors - and, there was a great study on snake handlers a while back, but I forget who did it.

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I'm at Princeton.  Wuthnow is one of my colleagues, as is Krueger.  Wuthnow would not agree with Obama's claim, and if you've taken that from his works, I think you've misread them.

I mentioned upthread, and possibly downthread, that you should take a look at Larry Bartel's "What's the matter with What's the matter with Kansas."

It sounds nice to believe that economic uncertainty leads individuals to turn to religion, guns, and bigotry, but this is simply a theory, and it is not universally accepted.

by slynch 2008-04-13 08:54PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

you do not think anomic periods in time leads to an increase in religious expression?  I have not looked back on any of Wuthnow's earlier works, as of late, but the trends are certainly reported in After The Baby Boomers.

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Well, I don't know if religious expression stems from anomie or not.  I could argue it either way.  But, how would you define anomie?  I would argue that we are not in an "anomic time," and so any increase in religious expression (which, by the way, isn't happening) wouldn't be a function of anomie.

(As an aside--it's ironic that the original theory of anomie posits that it's weak religious control that produces anomie).

I haven't actually read that Wuthnow book yet, but I don't recall him saying that was a major thesis in the book when I've heard him talk about it.  I'll have to ask him about it.

by slynch 2008-04-13 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I was going with "State of Exception" anomie, to take Agamben route, so a weeks post 9/11 form.  When the unexpected occurs and often Government moves to fill the void without pre-established boundaries.  I would argue that these period are highly "magical-charismatic" times when religious expression is at its peak (the spike in post 9/11 church attendance shows this).  

(On the side note.  I believe, and could have this wrong, that originally religious institutions were distinct from what was "sacred" or magical, and oft worked against the magical... so highly anomic times were highly 'sacred' but not highly institutionalized.)

Religious Expression on the whole is not increasing, but the Religious Expression is becoming more theologically conservative (Higher beliefs in the rapture, evangelism, denial of past Church institutions) the Baylor study showed that.

It is not a major thesis in Wuthnow's book.  He just has the data points.  If I had to point to a major thesis it would be that youth are more comfortable with chaos and non-systematics than the baby boomers.

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I'm guessing your Dr. Lynch (just a shot in the dark there)...I think you recent article on health and aging a few months back.  I'd really like your opinion on anomic societies and at least end-times behavior.  Do you really not see a tie-in? Perhaps with the US being an exception

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

that was suppose to read "I think I read your article"  It is getting too late to type

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

you guessed it.  (Guess it isn't tough with my moniker :) ).  

I said something about this above.  I think it makes a nice thesis, but I'm not convinced that it's borne out by the data.  Sociology is sometimes called "the science of the obvious," because it seems like much of what we come up with makes good common sense.  But, frequently, things that sound good aren't actually true, and I tend to be a skeptic.  I'm not sure how one defines anomie (indeed, anomie is a state of normlessness, which, to me, implies less religious control).  If anomie simply means economic uncertainty or adversity, I don't believe there's good evidence that economic hardship necessarily increases religiosity, even though I can certainly understand why someone would argue that (in fact, years ago, I would have argued that too--it's a nice Marxist viewpoint, and I used to love Marxism).  

The fact is that economic inequality has increased considerably since 1970, there has been major structural change in the economy (i.e., loss of manufacturing jobs).  However, there is no evidence that religiosity has increased.  Somewhere between 70 and 80% of people claim to have a firm belief in God, but this has been constant for about a century.  And, despite the occasional media story about how Americans are such God-fearing people, church attendance and membership has actually declined over the last decade.  To me, this suggests the thesis is a weak one.

I also question whether there's good evidence that economic adversity leads to bigotry.  (And I know there isn't evidence that it leads to gun-loving).  Literature in the 70's--also very Marxist--started this line of inquiry, and it isn't clear to me that the theory has ever had conclusive support.

Anyway, I have to go to bed now, but we can talk about this another time when I'm more fully awake!

by slynch 2008-04-13 09:34PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the good conversation
You caught me in my frankfurt-esque leanings... However, I don't think we can limit matters to the economy.  I get your point, and think it has validity.  I would look more toward not the fact of religious expression, but the type of religious expression.  While secularization, broad-swipe, has occurred in the U.S. (all be it slower, and much more debated on, than in Europe) we have also seen Evangelicals (however you define them) sky-rocket in number.  More Main-Line members are becoming non-denominational or evangelical than those simply leaving Church all together by PUSA's research.  These are heavily Bush Voters.  I'm not qualified to speak on immigration, or gun-ownership... I think Lou Dobb
s relative popularity may prove a point on immigration.  Anyway, good night.  If I see you around campus I'll flag you down.  Small blogosphere
by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

It may not be universally accepted, but it may well be true.  At least, it is true in my small western PA hometown.  My friends, relatives, and neighbors do not believe that Washington will ever help them.  Instead, they vote on issues of religion, guns, and immigration.  Oh, and schools also give days off for the start of Buck season.

by jacen42 2008-04-13 10:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Got to love that first day of hunting season!  Now that is a voting issue!

I'm going to check out the critique of WTMWK tomorrow...and post a diary with my opinion, Thanks again Dr. Lynch for a great conversation!

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 10:15PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

By the way, I suggest you actually read "What's the matter with Kansas."  Then, go read "What's the matter with What's the matter with Kansas," by my colleague Larry Bartels (Princeton).  The book is hardly factual.  

by slynch 2008-04-13 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I'm a lifelong Kansan, and I approve of this message!

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I have not read Bartels' book... but do you think Kruse and Wuthnow are off, because they certainly make the claim?

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Wuthnow's view--and that of mainstream sociology (and political science)--is a little more sophisticated than simply that economic adversity leads individuals to turn to religion, guns, and bigotry.  I think Obama's mistake was (1) that he oversimplified the issues, which trivializes the lives of rural/small-town folk, and (2) that he even mentioned this at all.  

There's another diary that discusses this point (2) (don't have the link, but it's a recc'd diary).  The point of that diary is: Even if something is true, that doesn't excuse you from the fallout of saying it.  No one likes to be psychoanalyzed, especially oversimplistic-ly.

by slynch 2008-04-13 09:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I'm agreed that he never should have brought it up.  And, if he were to bring it up he would have to parse the issues a lot better than he did.  I think we all recognize that there are many factors which can change religious behavior (I don't know much about guns and bigotry),  but economic hardship and threat of violence are two of the most well demonstrated.  Wuthnow's view is never such a simplistic thesis... and I'm doubtful Obama has gotten very far in reading any of these matters than What's The Matter With Kansas?  I'm going to read the critique of it, but there are a lack of off-the-shelve books explaining the Republican Rise

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I think part of the Republican rise has been due to apathy.  If voters turnout, Democrats win.  About 55% or so of registered voters are Dems.  That's been pretty steady across time.  What's happened is that the Republicans have managed to motivate their base to turnout at a higher rate than Dems have motivated their base to do so.  It isn't the case that Dems have switched to voting for Republicans because of guns, god, gays, etc.  The Repubs have just managed to motivate their base (which already believed in guns and god and against gays).  Dem voters have been demoralized, and it doesn't help when they win Congress and don't do anything.

There's another book (I haven't read it yet) by Nolan McCarty et al (also at Princeton) that addresses this issue somewhat.  Can't remember the title, but I think it's Nolan's most recent book.

by slynch 2008-04-13 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I think your talking about Polarized America... I have not read it yet either.

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:47PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I agree on all those points (and really need to go to sleep)... But, I buy into the thesis that southern whites perceived the Government to be against them during de-segregation.  And, when Reagan came along to say Government was evil and could give examples (Abortion and Gays) they were ready to listen.  There is some gamesmanship here, obviously, by the Republicans to get so many people to vote against their interest.   It would help a lot of Dems had a back bone.  I think events like tonight's faith forum also help.

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Here--try this link below for starters re. "What's the matter with Kansas."  The idea is that, while the WTMWK thesis sounds good, data simply don't support it.

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1012 -23.htm

by slynch 2008-04-13 09:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

And then people go off and wonder why Democrats are seen as "liberal elietists". You're doing the same thing they accuse us of always doing: disregarding the common man because we believe we are far too "intelligent" and must "share our wisdom", with those xenophobic rednecks in rural areas. Throwing the rural vote under the bus to please a bunch of egotistical loaded San Francisco residents is not good general election strategy.

by zcflint05 2008-04-13 08:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Actually, I work with Democrats to help them reach 'people of faith' mostly rural Christian voters.  Understanding how people act, and why the believe what the believe, is important.  Understanding that after an event like 9/11 people are patriotic and angry would have been good to set aside before going to war.  Understanding belief in the rapture, which leads to radical support of Israel is important.  Understanding the factors underlying terrorism and religious extremism is important.  The basis of racism.  etc.  Obama made a mistake by playing sociologist in chief, yes.  But, his comments were on point.

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Bullshit.  I'm a sociology professor, and I can tell you that that was nothing more than his opinion.  It is not a "fact" that people turn to religion, guns, and bigotry as a result of economic disparity.

by slynch 2008-04-13 08:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Do you have sources to the contrary?

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

You're committing a logical fallacy here.  I'm stating you have no proof of your claim.  It's up to you to prove your claim true.  You don't simply get to ask me for proof of denial of your claim.

How's this, though: go read a sociology text.  You won't find one that supports your claim as if it's some sort of social fact, because it isn't.  This is Obama's opinion, and that's it.

by slynch 2008-04-13 08:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

this study indicates that, both regionally and on grand scale, economic disparity and religiosity are strongly linked:

The survey finds a strong relationship between a country's religiosity and its economic status. In poorer nations, religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations. This relationship generally is consistent across regions and countries, although there are some exceptions, including most notably the United States, which is a much more religious country than its level of prosperity would indicate.

We do know from some social science research, namely Congregations in America by sociologist Mark Chaves, that approximately 20 percent of all religious congregations in the United States are located in poor neighborhoods, where an overwhelming majority of the congregations are Christian churches.

In this 2003 study conducted by  Katherine Meyer and Linda Lobao of the Department of Sociology, Rural Sociology Program, at Ohio State University, the differential effects of economic hardship and religion were examined by way of a sample of 800 Ohio farm men and women who reaped the  bitter harvest associated with the Midwestern farm crisis in the 1980s.  Arguably, this economic strife is analogous to other sectors in the Rust Belt where plant closings, job loss, and unemployment have ravaged the electorate, even during the much vaunted Clinton years.  Here's what they determined:

Findings demonstrated that economic hardship was a consistent predictor of stress and depression for both genders.  Membership in Fundamentalist denominations increased men's well-being.  Affiliation with any religious group enhanced women's mental health. Physical health and social support were associated with lower stress and depression.  Coping techniques had mixed effects on stress and depression with both avoidance/denial and support seeking associated with more adverse mental health outcomes.  This study shows that macro-level structural changes can result in a context of economic hardship where factors assumed to buffer adverse mental health outcomes fail to do so and where previously neglected factors, such as religion, become important mediators of hardship.

by fogiv 2008-04-13 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

You're stretching with this.  The first study is macro level work, and you make an ecological fallacy assuming it translates to the individual level.  You know what? Places with high levels of ice cream consumption also have higher crime rates.  Doesn't mean you should watch out for people eating ice cream.  Poorer nations may have higher levels of religiosity.  So what?  It doesn't mean poor people are religious.  Furthermore, it doesn't suggest which way the causal arrow runs.

As for the Chaves cite, here again, I question the relevance.  So what if 20% of churches are in poor neighborhoods?  What proportion of neighborhoods are poor in the US?  This number means nothing without a context.

As for the third cite, I think you haven't read the paper, and the findings don't quite show what you think they do.  That religion becomes a more important buffer of stress (on mental health outcomes) in times of economic strife does NOT mean that relgiosity increased.  It simply means that extant levels of religiosity buffered the effects of stress at one time point but did not at another.  You'd have to know something about stress buffering theory to follow this maybe, but it doesn't prove your point.

by slynch 2008-04-13 09:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

You're stretching with this.  The first study is macro level work, and you make an ecological fallacy assuming it translates to the individual level.  You know what? Places with high levels of ice cream consumption also have higher crime rates.  Doesn't mean you should watch out for people eating ice cream.  Poorer nations may have higher levels of religiosity.  So what?  It doesn't mean poor people are religious.  Furthermore, it doesn't suggest which way the causal arrow runs.

As for the Chaves cite, here again, I question the relevance.  So what if 20% of churches are in poor neighborhoods?  What proportion of neighborhoods are poor in the US?  This number means nothing without a context.

As for the third cite, I think you haven't read the paper, and the findings don't quite show what you think they do.  That religion becomes a more important buffer of stress (on mental health outcomes) in times of economic strife does NOT mean that relgiosity increased.  It simply means that extant levels of religiosity buffered the effects of stress at one time point but did not at another.  You'd have to know something about stress buffering theory to follow this maybe, but it doesn't prove your point.

by slynch 2008-04-13 09:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Fascinating.  I'm no sociologist, that's for sure.  I'm an archaeologist, thus more accustomed to things long past than, shall we say, current...

You, I gather, are a sociologost.  Why then is religiousty higher in poorer nations (excepting the outliers like the US, and wealthy Arab states)?  Lack, or lower standard of education (could this also be linked to poverty)?  How then to explain the findings.  I'm not bitching here, I'd actually like to know.

I see your point with the ice cream analogy, but far fewer inferences can be rationally made between ice cream and crime than poverty and religion, no?

All this aside: the path, as it were, doesn't change the destination.  Are you willing to argue that religion, gun right advocacy, xenophobia, or such similar hot button topics have not been utilized as wedge issues to both capture and maintain coservative political power in rural america (against the economic interests of those people)?

by fogiv 2008-04-13 10:22PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Let's simplify the argument:

Can we agree that economic disparity is cause for distress?

If so, do we deny that faith and culture are refuges in times of distress?

by fogiv 2008-04-13 10:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

your better off looking at studies concerning the Israel-Palestine Conflict in support... as well as the "white flight" thesis' which tie in views of racism with economic conflict.

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 09:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

The US is the exception in the first article.  A few books that would also help back up these claims:

On Secularization: Towards A Revised General Theory - David Martin

God Is Dead: Secularization in the West - Steve Bruce

The Secular Revolution: Power, Interests, and Conflict in the Secularization of American Public Life - Christian Smith

Sacred and Secular: Religion and Politics Worldwide  - Pippa Norris

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 10:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Thanks for the list!

by fogiv 2008-04-13 10:24PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I responded after I cited text downthread

by CardBoard 2008-04-13 08:55PM | 0 recs
He didn't answer...

Sen. Clinton's prayers that he be taken to heaven on Easter.

by tonedevil 2008-04-13 09:49PM | 0 recs
As my sociology proff drilled into my head...

"Correlation is not causation".  "Correlation is not causation".  Repeat as needed until this sinks in.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

Obama's statement is only true by pop psychology standards.  Anyone with a little life experince realizes that choice of religion is a much more multidimensional decision than a trivial inevitability of poverty.  The same goes for hunting and opposition to certain trade policies.

Sorry to Obama supporters and self-styled sociologists everywhere but, concerning,

"they're poor!  So they crutch on God, guns, and bigrotry!"


it's just not that black-and-white simple.  

by BPK80 2008-04-13 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

But that's not what Obama even said in the first place. He didn't say people become religious because of economic trouble. He said they find comfort and support in their religion when in times of economic strife, which hardly seems controversial.

by elrod 2008-04-13 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

He said they "cling to" religion, guns, and antipathy as a way to "explain their frustrations."  

Your interpretation is far more generous than his actual words.

by BPK80 2008-04-14 04:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Obama was still right by

I have to shower every time I realize that I share a party with people who believe that suggesting bitterness due to maltreatment and neglect is an anomalous description. There is a bumper sticker I see around my parts that goes, "If you're not angry, you haven't been paying attention." I think there is a large part of this community that must have blinders on.

by bookish 2008-04-14 03:37AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Alegre, really. I thought you had more sense than this. You're not setting yourself up for much of a post-primary process career. I'm not saying you have to go head over heels and "drink the Obama Kool-Aid", but even Fox News at least PRETENDS to be "fair and balanced".

To take this narrative that he didn't mis-parse his words and meant what you're painting him as meaning is disingenuous at best. As I mentioned to another diarist here, it makes me question why I ever defended people's misconceptions of Senator Clinton whilst I was out campaigning for Senator Obama.

by ragekage 2008-04-13 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Looks like the Clinton campaign has again proven they are more in touch with working class folks by supporting Nafta and keeping Mark Penn on staff who has corporate clients that try to bust Unions.  I certainly cannot imagine someone more in touch with middle class values....

by jakedecker 2008-04-13 07:59PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

That's the outrageous part of it all.  If Axelrod did the things Penn did, we'd have 10+ diaries about it here everyday as proof that Obama has a tin ear, doesn't care about ordinary Americans and talks out of both sides of his mouth.

by mefck 2008-04-13 08:02PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Please google "Gibbes, Dean, Controversial video".  

by ghost 2 2008-04-13 08:14PM | 0 recs
... is not a frame that is going to get better with time. With Obama, it was something people couldn't quite put their finger on, but now have a word for. And like we saw with Kerry, once you get the label, you can't get rid of it.
by Pacific John 2008-04-13 08:03PM | 0 recs
Re: Elitist

You're suggesting if Clinton and McCain pair up, she'll be able to successfully avoid a painting with the term "elitist".

Uh huh.

by ragekage 2008-04-13 08:05PM | 0 recs
I am
More than any Dem since, uh, what was that guy's name, the two-term president from Arkansas?
by Pacific John 2008-04-13 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

The two-term President from Arkansas wasn't worth over $100 million, and didn't have a long track record of making statements and holding opinions which could easily be mistaken for elitism.

Not was his campaign's chief strategist of the highest order of elitist.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-13 08:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I am
Obama gets a 9 on the Kerry scale. Hillary is probably good for a 3.

There are a few points here. First, Obama really is an elitist, just like Kerry. That's why this sticks.

Second, Hillary is not, in that she actually connects with the working class and Hispanic voters we have been obsessed with winning-over for over 20 years.

Third, we already know the attack on Hillary, (she's a *itch, she's divisive, she's unlikable), and like with GWB in '00, the bar has been set so low, she tends to be a lot better than voters expect.

And fourth, people are still trying to figure out who Obama is. They know he's human, and not "the One," or a political savior. His image will be whatever it is once reality sets in (and Axelrod hopes like hell he's long gone by them).

by Pacific John 2008-04-13 08:42PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Sadly, on the electability scale, she's also a 3.

by fogiv 2008-04-13 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I am
If you type in mydd.com and look to the upper left of the page, you see how Obama stacks up before Swiftboating, while the media is still wiping his nose.

On the upper right, you see how Hillary stacks up with no one on her side but 53% of cross-tabbed Democrats.

One of the two has a good chance at still standing come Nov. And a hint, it ain't the one who would go through this.

by Pacific John 2008-04-13 09:16PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Nah, she'll just have to deal with that pesky favorability problem.

"Gallup, which had Hillary's favorability rating up as high as 58% in February, now shows that only 45% of American voters rate her positively, while 52% have negative opinions of her."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/article s/2007/04/huge_increase_in_hillarys_nega .html

by fogiv 2008-04-13 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Sorry, my link above is about a year old.  Mea Culpa.  SO here's something more recent.  Too bad it's more bad news.  Dropped from 45% to 38%.

Clinton's favorability rating, meanwhile, continues to languish at a career low of 38 percent


by fogiv 2008-04-13 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: I am
Again, they are basically tied right now in the metric you are discussing. But in one case, it's before the Full GOP, in the other case, it's after.

This is not a compelling argument you are presenting about Obama's relative electability.

by Pacific John 2008-04-13 09:40PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Explain to me how your electability argument is more compelling PJ.

Are you forgetting overall antipathy in the both the youth and african american demographics that will be born of Hillary getting the nomination via a coup of superdelegates (which is her only path to the nomination)?

Sorry, but there aren't enough 40-85 year old women in country to give her a victory over McCain.  She has to get AA's, youth, and Independents.  Show me how she'll do this, and I'll listen eagerly.

by fogiv 2008-04-13 09:49PM | 0 recs
Re: I am
You must know as well as I do how flawed your construction is.

The people you describe are mostly not casual voters, and we have experience from Jesse Jackson's runs that Nov turnout of our base will be fine.

Now, although 53% of Dems support Hillary, many of those people are casual voters and casual Dems who are more likely than average to stay home. They are the people we should be drawing into the party. Much of the Hispanic vote will be happy to stay home, or vote for McCain, who is fairly sane on immigration. Also, working class whites are not fired up partisans. Also, we have a couple of states that were left out by the 48 state strategy.

Polling shows this. There are two reasons: first, Hillary is activating new voters, especially Hispanics. Second, in case you haven't noticed, Hillary voters keep voting for her no matter the abuse we get online and from the media. Third, the word is out that Obama supporters are more hyper-aggressive than even the GOP. Those 2000 complaints in Texas are emblematic of the campaign, and represent many, many more people who have been abused by Obama true believers. I personally interviewed close to a hundred people regarding the pile of illegalities and irregularities we corrected. I doubt many of the people who saw what I saw will vote for Obama. I say this as a member of my county central committee, AD officer and party organizer.

Finally, Obama will lose because of statements like this:

Sorry, but there aren't enough 40-85 year old women in country to give her a victory over McCain.

Here's a thought problem you should run: why does the Dem electorate vote so differently than the blogosphere? The answer might be that you are both out of touch, and nearly completely irrelevant to states like California, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania.

by Pacific John 2008-04-13 11:24PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Interesting.  So you're suggesting that her now career low favorability number will have no bearing on GE voters?

You say youth and AA are mostly not casual voters, but that 53% of Dems support Hillary, many of whom are casual voters and casual Dems who are more likely than average to stay home?  How does this help?

Jesse Jackson shows the base will be fine? Dems lost the elections in both 84 and 88.  Further, Obama has much higher turnout than JJ did, and he lost the nomination fair and square--not by superdelegate coup.

Oh the whole, your arument makes sense and I see only one significant problem with it:  It's not bearing out.  Even with FL and MI, she's losing the primary.  Evidently, she's not activating enough voters to win.

You suggest that the blogosphere is hyperpartisan.  I couldn't agree more.  The "agressive nature" and TX problems you describe have little traction outside HRC uber-supporters within the blog bubble, so it's hardly "emblematic".

Finally, you suggest that Obama will lose because of a statement I made?  That doesn't compute.

by fogiv 2008-04-14 08:49AM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Believe what you want. Whatever. Ignore all the polls showing how much people hate her. No, I'm sure they're all very scared of campaigning against the candidate they've been planning for since 2000.

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 08:58PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

And lemme get this straight. Your argument is that Obama campaign will suffer greatly when hit with the Republican attack machine.

But the Hillary campaign, which can't withstand the Obama campaign's attacks or (worse) stand on its own two feet WITHOUT being attacked, will be able to weather the storm. Simply because.......... ??? Never seen an answer to that question. Why she can beat McCain when she can't beat Obama.

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 09:01PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Bingo.  She can't even win the nomination against a junior senator from Illinois, who accoring to the MyDD back-patting squad is only a hair's breadth above Satan incarnate.

by fogiv 2008-04-13 09:27PM | 0 recs
Re: I am

Clinton's favorability rating, meanwhile, continues to languish at a career low of 38 percent.


by fogiv 2008-04-13 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: I am
She connects with working class voters? Why? Because you say so? No proof at all.
by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 02:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Elitist

I agree and think the "elitist" frame will boil down even further into outright "snob."

by BPK80 2008-04-13 09:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Is a 4th diary from Algere really needed on this topic?

by Bobby Obama 2008-04-13 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...
Well, they find one little thing and run with it. I mean, they can't very well report on who died in Iraq today, can they? It'd remind us all of that inconvenient vote in '02.
by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 01:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Do I need to go back and look to see if you criticized the umpteenth Clinton-Bosnia story, or can I just assume you are a hypocrite?

by dhonig 2008-04-14 04:47AM | 0 recs
I'm sad that we take such glee

in tearing each other down.  I'm getting really sick of this.    I was hoping for a unity ticket.  Hard to see it happening at this point.  Can we try to be better than all this?  Maybe we can't.  The old saying goes that people get the government they deserve.  If we get President McCain out of this we will deserve it.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:05PM | 0 recs
We will see.

The sad truth is that once again Obama has actually been honest and forthright (not a typical washington pol). Clinton's campaign, her surrogates, and other dems. have said and understood similar things.

This is my question. Why do think it is a -good- thing that your candidate is teaming up with McCain (and using the exact same talking points)? Dont you feel a little embarrased that your candidate truly is willing to do anything to win? I mean, bumper stickers? This is what we are all used to and it is not going to work...not on the latte drinkers and not on those PA folks...they are angry. They are bitter. And Hillary acting like she hasnt lived the life of an elite, acting like she doesnt take money from lobbyists who control her actions, acting like she doesnt support trade deals that hurt america, acting like (beginning today) that she is a hunter, aint gonna fly.

I am wondering when Jim Webb, who said the basically the same thing in 2006 (probably you dont like him, right?) will endorse Obama. Hell, WJC should after his own comments way back when in 1992. OR Carville - remember - 'Alabama' in the middle...who is more pissed by that one? Ala folks or mid-PA folks?

This is crap and she should be ashamed to have a D after her name on the senate floor.

by Newcomer 2008-04-13 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: We will see.

Oh god, get off the high forse. Personally, I'd be ashamed to have a D after my name after the ridiculousness of this party.

by zcflint05 2008-04-13 08:08PM | 0 recs
Re: We will see.

She's always free to join Lieberman and Zell Miller, ya know. Maybe she can even run with McCain?

by ratmach 2008-04-13 08:23PM | 0 recs
Come on

HRC is no Lieberman or Miller and you know it.  And she would never run with McCain.  You know that too.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:53PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on

Yeah, I know that. But she sure does act about as bad as Lieberman sometime.

by ratmach 2008-04-13 09:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Come on
well, all have been cheerleaders for this war... so that's a start.
by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 02:08AM | 0 recs
Re: We will see.

Yup, they're actually right about this one. When the campaign is over, Hillary will back Obama as hard as she can. Her supporters will do whatever they want, but she's a true Democrat and proud to be one.

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 08:56PM | 0 recs
I saw that clip of Obama talking about

Hillary, Annie Oakely, a duck-blind, and a six-shooter. He was trying to laugh it off, but it made me literally cringe. He was definitely off his game, flailing about for something solid to grab onto and pull himself up out of the muck. All I can say is when Obama starts crying, "shame on you Hillary," it's time for Hillary to take a page out of Obama's Ohio playbook and tell him to "...quit whining."

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-13 08:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

He can't quit whining! That's all he knows how to do!

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:12PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

You misspelled 'winning'. Thought you might like to know.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-13 08:26PM | 0 recs
Good one, T.G.W.. I can appreciate

a good catch, even it is against my candidate  ;-]

by Rumarhazzit 2008-04-13 08:47PM | 0 recs
Agreed: that was funny


by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Agreed: that was funny

sipped....Which is what Obama does with his "whine."

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:59PM | 0 recs
Funny as well
Good to know there is still some good natured humor going around.  Cheers everyone!
by aurelius 2008-04-13 09:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

It's spelled correctly. That's the problem with Obama supporters: they can't read.

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 08:55PM | 0 recs

I like you!  But that was mean :(

by aurelius 2008-04-13 09:04PM | 0 recs
Matter of prespective

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAYe7MT5B xM

That's mean.

by KnowVox 2008-04-13 10:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Matter of prespective

I watched the clip---I had to stop watching.  Rev. Wright disgusts me.  But that doesn't mean Obama supporters can't read.  Maybe Rev. Wright can't think clearly though.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 10:24PM | 0 recs
Alegre, I understand why you left DailyKos

I understand that the vitriol that was aimed at Sen. Clinton is hard to take. I left there for three months prior to switching my support to Obama because I found the Edwards supporters truly obnoxious.

Nevertheless, you have become a mirror image of the worst of the people over at DailyKos in advocating for Hillary now. Maybe you feel you need to fight fire with fire, but there is generally an anti-Democratic thread to almost everything written here at MyDD in defense of Hillary. It feels very Liebermanesque.

Truly, I understand your frustration. And perhaps I am not the best one to talk: when Hillary and Bill started to break my heart with their behavior, I turned on them hard. Nevertheless, I did not try to trash the whole party when I turned on them.

by John Campanelli 2008-04-13 08:15PM | 0 recs
To be fair

She's not going after the "whole democratic party": she's going after Barack Obama.  I think we have all gone after each other a little too much.  We'll see what happens I guess.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:26PM | 0 recs
Re: To be fair

No, today she went after Gore and Kerry as well. Her campaign went after Richardson, among others. I'd say she's going after more than just Obama, at this point.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-13 08:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre, I understand why you left DailyKos

I really think what upsets Hillary supporters the most is knowing that the only one to blame for what's happened to Hillary and her campaign is Hillary herself. You invest tons of emotion and effort into supporting a person, only the find out that person is not what you thought they were... well, that has to be really frustrating.

by ratmach 2008-04-13 08:27PM | 0 recs
Thanks for the psychoanalysis


by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:37PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the psychoanalysis


God, you people are such tools!!!

THIS gets recced up, the comment above it with something to say (even if you disagree with it) gets troll rated.

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 08:54PM | 0 recs
I didn't TR it

But I'm really thinking about TRing you for calling Clinton supporters "tools".  Quit with the name calling.  

by aurelius 2008-04-13 09:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't TR it

I appreciate it, I didn't TR you either. I try not to.

But when I see someone making a point that is getting troll rated and someone making nothing but an insult with mojo, "tool" is the only word that comes to mind for who would have done that.

It took me about one minute to read the guidelines and understand what the ratings are for. Some people either didn't read, didn't understand or didn't care. Any one of which makes them tools.

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 09:31PM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't TR it

I didn't mean people who support Clinton are tools. People that troll rate comments they disagree with are tools. Save it for comments that are truly inappropriate. Use the mojo to reward what you agree with and the rest to protect the site from actual trolls. Many of whom would NOT be best described as Obama supporters (at least on THIS blog).

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 09:37PM | 0 recs
Re: I didn't TR it

I completely agree with you that TRing people because they make comments you don't agree with is TR abuse.  Some people have not read the guidelines, or, they just don't care and TR inappropriately anyway.  Thank you for clarifying that you don't think all of us HRC supporters are tools.  There are people who are WAY over the top on both sides of this battle.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Thanks for the psychoanalysis

Thanks. Cause in my comment, I was actually trying to be reasonable. Instead of saying, "Man you Hillary supporters are stupid!", like lots of people say, I was sorta trying to say I can understand their frustration. Oh well...

by ratmach 2008-04-13 09:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre, I understand why you left DailyKos

The same could easily be said about BO.

by JHL 2008-04-14 06:45AM | 0 recs
They adopted the GOP playbook

to campaign against Obama.They try to frame it as their warning that he won't be able to withstand the GOP on-slaught, but in fact they are perpetuating the GOP tactics themselves, whether trying to pigeon hole Obama as merely an black candidate or Hillary now call him an elitist, like so many other Democrats.

They are doing so much damage to our party by reinforcing the unfair mischaracterizations the GOP have used against us.

by John Campanelli 2008-04-14 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

More finger wagging from Obama.  She should be ashamed of herself, hunh.  Just like the people who take their frustrations of being ignored by government, out by buying guns, and clinging to religion.  Shame, shame, shame on them.  Shame on them for having a lifestyle not acceptable to the rich and famous in California.  Well Obama has to have some excuse for not getting their votes, so he might as well point out that they have gone astray because the govt. won't help them.  The bitter people.  

I gotta go.  Have to find my blanky, or maybe some religion to give me comfort for being ignored by the govt.  I am so damn bitter, maybe I'll buy me a gun, instead.  

by Scotch 2008-04-13 08:18PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

LOL at this line:

Altoona... isn't that the place where Obama went bowling in his shirt and tie, and near where he fed a baby cow with a bottle with his suit on?

Great diary, Alegre.  You rock.

by TexasDarlin 2008-04-13 08:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Does Hillary change outfits on the campaign trail - has she got a duck shooting pant suit?  Your pettiness is extraordinary.

by interestedbystander 2008-04-13 10:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...
Good stuff. Sounds like the campaign of that other Texas Darlin': Dubya. Y'all have absorbed their tactics well.
by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 01:51AM | 0 recs
Thank god this primary will be over

in a few weeks, and you all can go crawl back in the hole you've come out of.

Seriously, the Clinton campaign has just brought out the worst in the Democratic Party.

I can't wait unitl I can say, "Good-bye and good riddance."

by LawStudent 2008-04-13 08:22PM | 0 recs
Barack has brought out

just as many jerks on his side (more IMHO).  Both sides have zealous (in some cases overzealous) supporters.

by aurelius 2008-04-13 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Thank god this primary will be over

And if you want to tell us "Good Bye and Good Riddance", then you'll lose around 30% of the Democratic Base and there will be no "President Obama". He will be exactly the same as Kerry--a failure.

That is, if SNOBama even gets the nomination.

by zcflint05 2008-04-13 08:29PM | 0 recs
They seem to think

that they don't need that 30% of the Democratic base, what with all those Republicans and Independents that they are so sure are going to flock to Obama in November.  I'm glad to hear that. Gas costs so much, I can save a few bucks by not driving to the polls in November.

by georgiapeach 2008-04-14 09:20AM | 0 recs
Clinton is sooo bad to team up with Republicans

Why is it that if Clinton comes out against Obama on anything, she's teaming with Republicans ... and if Obama goes after Clinton, he's just being a good Democrat?  Obama was the one who lauded Reagan - Ronald Reagan for God's sake, the man who mocked Cadillac welfare queens!

IMHO, Obama really does think the reason people aren't voting for him in the rural towns is because they're bitter.  Is it possible that he thinks they're bitter because HE'S bitter?  He and Obama supporters all over MyDD say bitterness is an accurate statement AND that they have the right to be bitter.

by Southern Mouth 2008-04-13 08:22PM | 0 recs
Didn't Harry and Louise
get you fired up and ready to go?
by Pacific John 2008-04-13 08:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton is sooo bad to team up with Republican
I suppose people are saying Hillary's aligning with the Republicans because her press release and John McCain's were indistinguishable. I'd be embarrassed if my candidate aped Michelle Malkin. As for the Reagan quote: just as you are purposely misunderstanding the 'bitter' quote, you misunderstood the Reagan one. He was only saying he admired Reagan's communication skills and you know it. This is all manufactured outrage in the best tradition of Dubya and Rove.
by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 01:56AM | 0 recs
Dubya and Rove?

Them's fightin words - after I git home from church, I'm gonna go find my gun!

Face it, Obama has on more than one occasion lauded Reagan and other Republican leaders AND it's been Obama who has used Rovian tactics from the word go!  And he hasn't stopped!

Reagan was a real agent of change - HE SURE WAS!

by Southern Mouth 2008-04-14 04:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Dubya and Rove?

Nope.  Hillary's the Rovian one in this race.  Sorry.

by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 10:57AM | 0 recs
We gonna have to ...

agree to disagree I guess.

by Southern Mouth 2008-04-14 11:14AM | 0 recs
It's official. We can see into the future...
...or at least one version of a couple versions before us.

The loathsome Michelle Malkin, a fully credentialed link in the Swiftboat RM meme transmission belt has it all right here.

Scan down the second column, too. There it is, The Attack: snob, sissy, anti-American demagogue, "God damn America," booing the Pledge of Allegiance.

It's official, the Obama campaign let middle America, who might want to prove they aren't racists, off the hook. They can now oppose an elitist who doesn't respect patriotism or rural values. No matter what the Obama team screams in response (racist!) it won't work anymore.

I choose the version of this years' It's a Wonderful Life where everything turns out okay, the one where regular folks rally to support their gal.

by Pacific John 2008-04-13 08:22PM | 0 recs
Re: It's official. We can see into the future...

Those same middle-American (ok, Pennsylvania) voters gave Trinity UCC, among other things, massive applause tonight. You'll notice that Obama in general drew far more applause than Clinton did.

What we can see in the future is the same 527 garbage we've seen in elections in the past, but a candidate who's extremely gifted at swatting back harder than the initial attack.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-04-13 08:31PM | 0 recs
Re: It's official. We can see into the future...
That's great! You mean Obama has abandoned the media strategy of getting his supporters into the audience? That should free up a lot of staff and volunteers who have been organizing this sort of astroturfing.
by Pacific John 2008-04-13 08:46PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

The truth about this man is leaking out...many of us have know about his elitist attitude for a long time...but the media kept putting a curtain over it. Well...it's hard to spin those words, isn't it? Looks like they're even "bowling" some of the media over!  Hillary is the change America really needs!

by susanclare 2008-04-13 08:34PM | 0 recs
By 'legs' do you mean it shows up at

... at pro-Clinton blogs and in a story about a few pro-CLinton folks protesting Obama?

That's your definition of "legs?"

by Bob Johnson 2008-04-13 08:36PM | 0 recs
Re: By 'legs' do you mean it shows up at

And in Republican blogs. And sites that claim to be unbiased while featuring a conservative tilt like Politico.

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 08:51PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

20 Points Babee !!

by johnnygunn 2008-04-13 08:36PM | 0 recs
You "furious" about this too, Hillary?

There've been reports lately that you and your campaign people are "furious and frustrated" that the Rev. Wright controversy has faded, and that it's not gonna help you one bit. So now that it's clear that the "bittergate" controversy is gonna fade pretty quickly too ... so, you gonna get all furious and frustrated about THAT? We understand how you must feel, especially after this "compassion forum" you had tonight where Obama absolutely blew you away. We understand how that things are looking really dark. But PLEASE try to stop the Rovian tactics. Yeah, they might hurt Obama a little, but there's not a chance they're gonna hurt him enough for you to get the nomination. So how 'bout you show a little self-respect, and just stop it.

by ratmach 2008-04-13 08:39PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

Didn't you make a post after the Wright scandal hit with the exact same title?

by vcalzone 2008-04-13 08:48PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

The real issue here is BO showed the worst side of himself and played into the worst possible narrative that he has help create about him.  That is he is typical northern liberal elitist who thanks he is smarter that working folk and feel comfortable talking down to them.  And to make it worse he thinks he can get out of this by attacking HRC.  The Clinton's are icon's to Reagan dems and insulting her directly is not going to help him.

This was the same problem Reagan dems had with Kerry. Do you remember the wind sailing thing.  It made him look so privilaged and not a regular guy.  Now Bill Clinton did this well because he is a regular guy. And BO is killing himself with this.  He goes bowling in a tie and bowls a 37.  I mean seriously how dumb is that and he looked so John Kerry.  

Then he goes around with this stupid "Anne Okley" nonsense.  Do you really think PA voters dont cringe when they here stuff like this.  Mr. Harvard in a suite and tie talking about a country hero.  STUPID.  Next BO is going to but on a helmet and ride around in a tank.


by giusd 2008-04-13 08:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Looks like this story's got legs...

daaammnn... my favorite part: Sen. Clinton does know better -- she knows better than to condescend and talk down to voters like Senator Obama did.

that was rich. haahaa. i wasnt offended by his remarks, bbut then again im not from rural america and i can see what people do take offense to. I think people are focusing to much on his use of "bitter." people are bitter about how they are being run into the dirt by the current administration but the rest of his remark is where the water gets muddy.

by amde 2008-04-13 08:52PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...
Six-Shooter in a Duck Blind http://politwix.com/2008/04/13/six-shoot er-in-a-duck-blind-2/ Sorry Barack, you got your folk heroes mixed up. But you almost hit your mark.
by everyvotecounts 2008-04-13 09:18PM | 0 recs

why don't you guys all just get this over with and register as Republicans. Can't you see the problem with what Hillary did today? She slammed the last two standard bearers for the Democratic Party. Talking out of both sides of her mouth, she stated that the Republicans would use this against Obama (and let's not wait for that, since we have HIllary right here to do it for them-- Rove and company must be chuckling) and said that they clearly turned Gore and Kerry into "elitists." Now, either Kerry and Gore were elitist or . . . there was something seriously ethically wrong with the campaign of the "decider" tarring these two men, whatever you think of them, as "elitists." And, now, HRC just did the exact same thing to Obama. To the presumptive nominee of our party.

I've been pretty tolerant. I think there are some amazing people supporting Hillary. Smart people. But your diaries on this subject have convinced me of something: Hillary's own actions are turning her supporters--registered Democrats--into Republicans. I've seen people's anger raised by the tone of your diaries, Alegre. While you are not responsible for the anger of those who read your diaries, if I were you I would stop and think about what you are doing here. It seems to me that all of this rhetoric is horribly destructive. It's not creating anything, it's not defending against anything, it's just destroying for the sake of destroying. It's taking pleasure and delight in destruction. If that isn't a description of BUsh and Co. I don't know what is.

If you want civil war within the party, then by all means continue . . . I think this is a sad day for the Democratic Party. And I should add one thing: I do not take any joy in the fact that Obama has returned fire and is adopting Hillary's tone ("shame on you"). It just shows me how destructive all of this has been. It shows me that it is swallowing everyone.

by DrPolitics 2008-04-13 09:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre

I totally agree.  It was a sad day with BO campaign mannager sent out a memo tell his staff to play up statements made by the clintons to be racially insensitive.  It was a sad day when BO supporters CALLED the Clinton's racists.  It was a sad day when the BO campaign said HRC experinnce was "tea with the ambassortors".  It was a sad day when BO called HRC devisive.  It was a sad day when BO and his campaign went around calling HRC a pathological Liar.  Boy those were some sad days.  But suddenly the outrage from BO supporters.  Talk about HYPOCRITES.

What goes around comes around.  

But we all know that neither BO or his crowd will take any responsibility for what BO said.  It is a sad day that BO attacks HRC instead of taking responsiblity for his own words.


by giusd 2008-04-13 09:41PM | 0 recs
Re: Alegre
Oh, yes... Hillary's just an innocent in all this.
by mikeinsf 2008-04-14 02:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

PS - I didn't mean anything by using the word "guys" -- if I had edited more, I would have taken that out. sorry.

by DrPolitics 2008-04-13 09:29PM | 0 recs
In the end...

I still think this is a lose, lose issue for Clinton.  I will grant the clumsy first statement of Obama and for him being called out on it, but his clarification was honest and humble.  But how is denying the shape our country is in a good thing?

This whole bitter thing is amazing.  How many of you have been hanging around the blogosphere for the last 7 years....we are all a very, very, very bitter lot here (Gore losing to the supreme court, Iraq war, tax breaks for the rich, gutting the integrity of our country, Kerry getting swiftboated and on and on and on).  We are as bitter as it gets, even many republicans are bitter.

And you are all amazed and act somehow suprised and outraged that maybe the rest of the US is also outraged and bitter.  Bitter about jobs going overseas, their houses being foreclosed, the government willfully lying to them again and again.

The president is at 28% approval, 81% (or was it 84%) of the country think we are on the wrong track, we are heading into receission, people are losing their houses, the environment is going craptastic, etc.  Of course everyones bitter.  Our country is a mess.

Sure, the gaffe about retreating to guns and religion was clumsy, Obama should pay for that, but for gods sake you people beat it like a sad mournful drum after he set the record staright and basically addressed the issue head on.

Trust me......this thing most certainly does not have legs outside of this little cocoon of Hillary worship fantasy land and has the potential of backfiring hard.  Seriously, people see how bad things suck right now and do you think they are going to dislike a presidential candidate who not only admits it but brings out into the open the frustration so it can be discussed?  

Youre nuts.  Sure the super invested in Hillary will flog this to death, but the average Joe just wont get the 'outrage' and the more the 'outrage' is pushed, the more trivial and crazy the Hillary campaign will look in the face of facts.  Most of us have been bitter for years and the rest of the country has been coming along slowly but surely to bitter as well.

So keep beating Obama on the retreating to guns and religion bit, if thats what it takes for you to believe youve found 'the issue' that will somehow crater Obama and lift Hillary up on high, enjoy.  The rest of us in the real world will simply say 'sounds about right, were pissed off'.

And as for elitism?  Yeah a half black, poor, fatherless kid from Hawaii who earned his own way through the world is the elitist?  Thats gonna stick against political royalty who happened to earn over $100 million the last few years.  Hmmmmm, doesnt sound like a winner to me either, but hey, go for it, feel free to keep beating that drum.  All's fair in love, war and politics.

The delusion here is getting thick.

by pattonbt 2008-04-13 09:31PM | 0 recs
You are going to lose, Alegre.

You know that, right?  

This is going to backfire on Hillary.

by dystopianfuturetoday 2008-04-13 09:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Stick a fork in him - he's done. And if he's the nominee the party is done (congress included).

by owl06 2008-04-13 09:35PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated:

And i totally agree this is in fact really really good for BO.  Playing into the whole narrative of a out of touch northern elitist liberal that is not all over the press is really good news.  Just like losing PA by 15% is in fact really good news for BO.  And then when he loses IN, KY, and WV that will in fact be really good news for BO.

Really what is good news for BO.  


by giusd 2008-04-13 09:44PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated:

You know Chuck Todd? Ok, if you think he's some kind of Barack Obama-loving, left-wing MSM type, stop reading this comment right NOW.  Still here. Alright then, here's what Chuck Todd said: Unless the superdelegates jump over the Hillary in a huge way (which is EXTREMELY unlikely), no matter what happens in the rest of the primaries, it's about a 99% certainty that she has ALREADY lost this race.


by ratmach 2008-04-13 09:57PM | 0 recs
The simple problem is

these accusations just do not pass muster with the electorate or outside of our little coccon world here.

However, what I do agree with is that any Clinton win in PA is not good for Obama.  Ive said that from day one.  While I dont think it would change the primary process outcome (as I still dont see an Obama collapse on the horizon) I think it is a bad narrative for Obama in the media, and that is important whether we want to believe it or not.

After all losing is a huge narrative among the mainstream especially when you have supposedly 'already won' according to the math.  People who 'have won' shouldnt lose in a typical media narrative.

But as far as the 'out of touch northern elitist liberal' attack, I just dont see how it sticks long run.  Sure you'll get a day two cycle out of it in the news because simply there is nothing else out there to discuss.  And of course we bloggers will sweat every silly statement (Obama supporters included) to look for the 'one that will knock out our opponent'.  But to the average person there is no traction for this.  I just dont see how so many of you have hinged so much on something so trivial and nonsensical.  

Trust me, this will not play the way you think it will in the mainstream.  The problem I see for Clinton and her campaign is how hard they push this and with what line.  If this is pushed hard non stop I really do believe it will backfire even harder.  If times were good right now and everything A-OK then this attack would sell easily against Obama.  But times arent good and to attack youre opponent for saying so ad nauseum could really play into your opponents hand.  It would be like an inverted chicken little 'the sky isnt falling' and then it whomps you on the head.

by pattonbt 2008-04-13 11:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

I call for alegre to replace Johnathan Singer on the front page!

by BlueDoggyDogg 2008-04-13 11:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Sounds like the diarist could use some cheese to go with her whine!

Seriously, enough.

Obama made a gaffe.  He even said he didn't say things as well as he should have.  Aides close to him say he is furious with himself for misspeaking.

He probably is a snob.  Who cares?  We didn't care that Kerry was.  

There are plenty of reasons to support Clinton.  Why don't you write about those.

by reggie44pride 2008-04-13 11:17PM | 0 recs
Looks like this story's got legs...
So does a dachshund.
by Liberal Avenger 2008-04-13 11:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

"As for his "shame on her" lines... he's taking a page right out of Hillary's Ohio playbook.  It's bad enough he copies her economic plans but now he's copying what she says on the campaign trail."

As opposed to senator Obama you Alegre have no sense of humor.

Annie Oackley packing her sixshooter, that one will definetly stick.

by hebi 2008-04-13 11:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

I wasn't aware that Hillary Clinton held a copyright on "shame on you".

Now maybe if he had said it with a nodding Gov. Ted Strickland bobble-head doll behind him, you'd have a point.

by Mostly 2008-04-14 04:35AM | 0 recs
Do you just pull this stuff outta yer ass?

  You sound like a broken record. Every time Hillary comes up with some new non-issue, I hafta see you diary-up and start crowing about what an Obama-Killer it's gonna be, like your're some 12-year old watching a schoolyard brawl, and hoping for blood. And, every single time, Obama answers with the same thoughtful, calm good grace, and even more people get a chance to see what a balanced human being we've got here. You won't post this wishful thinking on Kos anymore, because they we're mean to you (people can be assholes; welcome to reality), so you gotta know you're just preaching to the choir here. I've read alot of your stuff. You have, at times, shown yourself to be thoughtful, compassionate, and comitted to the Cause. But this constant, shrieking fantasy-Land you're spiralling into is really getting old fast. Hillary makes the most outrageous and blatanly false claims, and you applaud. Obama tells the truth, albeit as he sees it, and you act like he raped your sister. Grow up....

Obama 08

by Kordo 2008-04-13 11:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Do you just pull this stuff outta yer ass?

Alegre, when the day coms that the almost universally acknowledged as great President Obama has schools, bridges, interstates and even a battleship named after him, you will shudder. And when your cowardly pathetic frame glances up at Mount Rushmore and sees his inspiring face, I hope it is then you realize just how pathetic you were not to have had enough sense to have recognized greatness when it enterered our lives.  And then at that moment I hope your grandchildren are with you and you are forced to admit, tears in your eyes, how big of a fool you were.  And how glad you are to have been wrong.  I hope I am there when that happens.

by Todd Bennett 2008-04-14 03:31AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

As always..there is a the PA debate.
If she plays the "elitist card" in a national forum..do Hillary supporters really truly believe
Super Delegates will go "YES" and flock to her?

Do Sen. Clinton supporters truly believe that Super Delegates this morning are thinking "YES!" We lost in 2000 and 2004 because Gore and Kerry were "elitist." We can not let that happen again.

..You supporters are more aware than I am of her efforts and voice for national gun registration.

from the Scranton Paper today
"We have been working very hard to make it very clear that we have millions of Democrats who are church-going and gun-owning, and we are tired of having Republicans or, frankly, our own Democrats give any ammunition to Republicans," Mrs. Clinton said."

So look for that huge PA win and the flocking of delegates..You may be right.

by nogo war 2008-04-14 03:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Obama has embraced this because in fact people are bitter. He's even running robobocalls on this!  

So let Hillary continue to pound him. It only makes her look negative and out of touch. This will drive up her negatives.

I fully expect Hillary to win PA, maybe substantially. But Obama's willingness to take on these attacks shows that he will not be swiftboated and that he has the agility to turn around attacks on him.  

By the way, the best line of the faith forum -- it might have been when Obama said that Gore WON in 2000.  Shame on Clinton for buying into the line that he didn't when we all know Gore got more votes in the country and in FL.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 03:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

lmao...i wonder what you're going to change your moniker to after Obama gets beaten.

by switching sides 2008-04-14 06:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Apparently residents of Altoona, PA, buy neon green poster-board in bulk, you know, just in case.

"Look guys, a spontaneous demonstration!"

by Mostly 2008-04-14 03:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

That is so funny - good spot!

by interestedbystander 2008-04-14 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: What Obama Really Meant

W.O.R.M. It's the new parlor game sweeping the nation! Barry leads the way by giving us 10 different versions of what he said and why!

Such fun. Only here's the reality:

He said they're "bitter" because the jobs left.

He lied and said the jobs FELL during Bill Clinton's administration. Jobs did not fall; unemployment fell during Bill Clinton's administration.

He insulted them by disparaging their cultural values--they "cling" to their guns and religion.

He called them racists and xenophobes.

And, he denigrated them for being "anti-trade" -- a huge slip-up of epic proportions since he's trying to portray HIMSELF as anti-NAFTA in order to get their votes.

He later said he STOOD BY HIS REMARKS. But, he was sorry if his insulting and offensive comments "offended" anyone.

Barack Obama is nothing but an arrogant, cocky, self-absorbed, self-centered, narcissist who stepped in it and is now outraged that anyone would dare to criticize The Precious.

by Tennessean 2008-04-14 04:07AM | 0 recs
Re: What Obama Really Meant

Manufacturing jobs did decline over the course of the Clinton years and the distribution of wealth continued its tendency for the rich to get richer.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 04:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/227/story/334 11.html

by nogo war 2008-04-14 04:08AM | 0 recs
55 mph In The Passing Lane
....with the left blinker on. That's Hillary's campaign.
by bernardpliers 2008-04-14 04:15AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

I'm trying hard to criticize respectfully here, and I hope this comment won't be taken as inflammatory.

Alegre, I've figured something out about your interpretive methodology. Anytime there's a whiff of scandal, you immediately interpet Obama's words and actions in the least charitable way possible. When Hillary's words and actions raise eyebrows, on the other hand, you immediately adopt the most sympathetic possible interpretation thereof.

If you would make an effort to be a little more even-handed, perhaps you'd see that neither candidate is perfect, and neither one is the devil. If wou were to write from this perspective, instead of repeating everyday that all things Hillary are wonderful and all things Barack are crap, you might be able to make the case for Clinton's superiority more convincingly. I'm sorry to say that, having recognized the pattern in your diaries, I have a hard time taking them seriously. I have the feeling that if it were announced tomorrow that Obama cured cancer, you'd post a diary blasting him for putting oncologists out of work, and if Hillary did it, you'd be lobbying for a Nobel prize.

Again, I don't mean to be an ass. I'm just trying to tell you, in as respectful a way as I can, that whatever legitimate points you might be making in your diaries are lost on me (and, I suspect, others) because your anti-Obama bias completely overwhelms them.

by roseaupensant 2008-04-14 04:20AM | 0 recs
Penn Told Hillary About The Intertubes
And how campaigns are won on "YourTube," because that's what "the kids" are into these days. This stunned Hillary, who thought hula-hoops were still in. So they have spent the whole campaign lunging for "maccaca" moments, and coming off as looking nutty each time they over reach. Alegra has no choice but to join into this misguided strategy, trumpeting how every Obama appearance is a fiasco.
by bernardpliers 2008-04-14 04:35AM | 0 recs
Midwesterners Agree on Truth of Statements

My family in Iowa would completely agree with this comment.  When Maytag left Newton (where it had been for many decades -- my great-grandfather worked for it his entire career) a few years ago so that its products could be manufactured overseas by its now-foreign owners, there was a hell of disgust at "free trade" rules that allowed this to happen. At the same time, there was (and is) a lot of anti-immigration sentiment due to demographic changes and immigrants who were not integrating into English-speaking society.  It all boiled down to job losses, uncertainty over the future, and rapidly changing community demographics.  Even my mother, living in Newton and who had never voted Republican in her life and who like most Iowans is far from what most people would say is a racist, felt this way.

The reason this hits small towns disproportionately are manifold, but the most obvious is where the hell are you going to go for work when the only big employer in town packs up and leaves and suddenly a double-digit percentage of employed adults in the town are hitting the bricks?  That problem doesn't exist to anywhere near the same extent if you are in a metro area. Furthermore, demographic changes are far more apparent in a small town, and unsettling to many even if there was not economic upheaval.  And that's Obama's point, I think.

The people who are shocked at this comment are, I posit, the very elites who are out of touch with the places in America that have been so adversely affected by the economic upheaval that has been created by both trade policy and the lack of a comprehensive immigration policy that is perceived as working for America. Sure, not everyone in small towns like Newton feels this way, but many do.

Obama is not saying the frustration is unjustified.  But it does see outlets and expressions, both justified and not.  (Which is which would take reams of text, so I won't get into my opinions on that.)  In sum, these are the issues that get exploited as wedge issues, while the very ground underneath people falls away in economic demise.

P.S.  I should add that "Economic upheaval" in many places includes the creation of an econonomic demographic composed primarily of immigrants and perpetuated by 1) the disgusting exploitation of undocumented workers and even legal workers; 2) lack of higher-paying employment opportunities; and 3) impediments to integrating into social institutions and services (banking, credit, education, medical) that are essential for success (impediments include such things as fear of ICE, language barriers, and discrimination against both legal and illegal immigrants).  

P.P.S.  I call out any diarist who believes Obama's comments are "elitist" who doesn't or hasn't lived there, or at least have family there who will speak the truth to them about their insecurities and feelings of betrayal.

by Spirit of Fighting Bob 2008-04-14 04:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Midwesterners Agree on Truth of Statements

1) People do not enjoy being called "bitter."

2) Rural America does not enjoy being "critiqued" in front of San Francisco billionaires. Can you blame them?

Once again Obama supporters miss the point. This was a very dumb thing to say about people whose votes you are about to ask for.

He embarrassed them, put them on the defensive, made them feel bad.

Barack Obama does not know how to talk to them. That is why he will lose in November, if he is the nominee.

by cc 2008-04-14 07:00AM | 0 recs
"Them? " Where Are You From?

Your post, referring to Midwesterners as "them," shows that you are not speaking from any position of knowledge, but are another elitist pundit.

A lot of my family and friends in Iowa (where I was born) and Wisconsin are BITTER, and I gave you the firsthand reasons why, as well as why there are increased feelings of resentment towards legal and illegal immigrants in some communities.

Hell, I'm bitter about what has happened to the economy there, too.  I had to leave Wisconsin because the job market was so poor.

Gee whiz.

by Spirit of Fighting Bob 2008-04-14 07:13AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Obama's supporters have their marching orders. Get out there and slam Hillary hard! Hit all the supporters who are for her. Insult and explain away what Obama really meant to say. Get to work, get online fast and hard. Hurry. Hurry.

by glennmcgahee 2008-04-14 04:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Partner, I think you're confused about who's being attacked here.

by Mostly 2008-04-14 04:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

And, as far as I know, Obama folks don't need to have a support group and material from the campaign to do their posts.  There's no equivalent to Hillary's Bloggers http://hillarysbloggers.soapblox.net/ which, by the way, includes folks too inflammatory for mydd.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 05:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Obama's spin noted in your update is beyond incredible.

Really, he's just digging deeper here. How can he possibly assert that he meant "clinging" in a positive way when the item that immediately follows guns and religion in his list is "antipathy to people who aren't like them"? Essentially, they're clinging to guns, religion, and bigotry. How do you even pretend that that is meant as an admirable thing? In fact, what's noteworthy is that there is nothing in that list that could be said to be obviously positive, from the standpoint of the elites to whom Obama was speaking - indeed, they would uniformly be taken as negatives by that audience, and, almost certainly, Obama himself, who has, since his days at Columbia and Harvard, through his appointment at University of Chicago, imbibed fully of the patronizing academic mentality and moral sensibilities.

Trust me, these people really do think that they are better than you and me.

by frankly0 2008-04-14 05:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

I think that a lot of the analysis of this sentence really doesn't quite get at the heart of the problem with it.

People focused at first on the "bitter" part as the most pernicious part. Then they seemed to realize that "clinging" was a more serious issue.

But I think that the real problem is how, in that context, Obama manages to group together the various items he mentions. What is the overarching organizing principle? And it's especially useful to examine the order in which he mentions them, or at least one important juxtaposition.

In a way, the single most telling thing about Obama's remarks is how he juxtaposes religion with "antipathy to people who aren't like them".

There's not a syllable or a sliver of a thought between those two items. No one can dispute that "antipathy to people who aren't like them" is nothing more than a euphemism for bigotry, and that bigotry is a major evil.

How then could Obama so comfortably pass from one to the other, and so readily group them as part of one thought?

You see, that, more than anything else, indicates the sneering attitude that Obama displayed to religion in this context. And the same applies, of course, by extension to guns.

by frankly0 2008-04-14 06:46AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...
Alegre- you are right, this story has legs- it is not going away. W.O.R.M. is not going to work. The remarks were horribly condescending and when you see the vieo and hear him and his buyers laughing it just gets uglier.
Keep it up!
by ProudMilitaryMom 2008-04-14 05:23AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

As an Obama supporter, I am so glad that this story is not going away. Keep handing out those "I'm not bitter" stickers, Hillary!  Because Americans are frustrated and angry and bitter and this shows how out of touch you are!

Obama showed last night how well he speaks to issues of faith. He will do the same on Wednesday. And meanwhile HRC is out there raising her own negatives and off any positive message about what she'd do as president.

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 05:38AM | 0 recs
I think that Obama has confirmed

a character flaw that he has, which is to get imperious and high-handed when he's challenged.   Remember the "you're likeable enough" moment in the debate in NH.   He's a guy who believes that he has all of the answers, and who believes that he has a gift of gab from God.   When he flubs things, he tends to react defensively, which only worsens things.

I'm not trying to crucify the man for this.  We all have our flaws.  But it's something that he needs to work on.  

It's interesting to see the reaction of Obama bloggers (i.e., the Daily Kos site).   They all have their backs arched up and their fur flying over this.  All of their self-righteous indignation.  It seemed familiar to me.  And then I remembered where I had seen this sort of "deflect the blame" behavior - right wing talk radio and BushCo.   It is interesting how the true ideologues on the right and the left behave so much alike despite their different goals.   Now please, I am not equating the goals of fervent Obama supporters with those of Bushies.  I would take an Obama administration over a Bush (or any Republican) administration hands down.   But there is a zealotry about them that reminds me of the rabid right.

by activatedbybush 2008-04-14 05:38AM | 0 recs
Re: I think that Obama has confirmed

haha, yes, he should totally "work on" his characteristic of not backing down when Republicans and Republicans-lite (Hillary campaign) attempt to swift-boat him.

by amiches 2008-04-14 01:25PM | 0 recs
Re: I think that Obama has confirmed

Your observation about Obama-bots being just like Bush-ites in their "deflect the blame" behavior is RIGHT ON THE MONEY!

Like Obama, his followers can not handle criticism.  At this point, Obama feels he deserves the nomination and doesn't want to earn it anymore.  Him and his band of handlers are pissed that Hillary won't roll over for him.

Well Obama, we all weren't fooled by your "nice guy" mask.  Elitist, thy name is Obama.

by stefystef 2008-04-14 01:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Obama's "Bitter" Comment Halts His Momentum

From US NEWS AND World Report.
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/politics/bu lletin/bulletin_080414.htm

And this guy has the nerve to lash out at Hillary for criticizing him on his own words. Can't wait to see what happens at Wednesday night's debate, when the suggest is bound to come up. He can't handle criticizing and acts like a man "out of control" whenever anyone speaks negatively about him. Well how does it feel Mr. Obama, to have voters "looking down on you" for a change. Who is "Bitter" Now?

by steve468 2008-04-14 05:46AM | 0 recs
Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...
Hilarious.  I am from Altoona.  All those "protesters" were from out of state, Ted Manna works for AFSCME, as in, being there was his job.  
http://altoonamirror.com/page/content.de tail/id/506478.html?nav=742
Everyone there was from out of town or was paid to be there.  
So much for the "outrage in Altoona". LOLZ.  Alegre punked again.
by yhf1979 2008-04-14 05:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

"And this guy has the nerve to lash out at Hillary for criticizing him on his own words."

So you'd prefer that the Dems nominate a candidate who doesn't fight back when people mischaracterize and twist his or her words?

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 06:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...
loved the way Obama has handled this.
Who takes the most money from lobbyists? Hillary
Who take no money from lobbyists? Obama
Who cashed and worked for a corporate law firm and sat on board of Wal Mart after Law School? Hillary
Who spurned big law and decided to work at a smaller civil rights firm? Obama
Who is worth 100 million dollars and family is making money off foreign govenments adverse to the candidates supposed position? Hillary.
Obama is an elitist? Give me a break. Al Gore was an elitist, nice job Hillary.
by pennypacker 2008-04-14 06:17AM | 0 recs
Bitterness must be contagious

Is it me or do many of our friends, who support Obama on this site, seem a tad bitter?

by zenful6219 2008-04-14 06:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Bitterness must be contagious

Nope, no bitterness here. Still laughing about the sticky image of HRC packing a six shooter and blasting away at ducks.

by hebi 2008-04-14 10:35AM | 0 recs
no bitter aftertaste

No 'bitter' aftertaste? How Obama gaffe plays
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/el ection2008/2008-04-13-Obama_N.htm

By Ken Dilanian, USA TODAY
JACOBUS, Pa. -- Phil Little seems like just the sort of Pennsylvanian voter who might have been offended by Sen. Barack Obama's comments that small-town residents "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion."

"We believe in God, and I own a couple of guns," said the retired Little, wearing a camouflage Field & Stream cap and waiting with his wife in their SUV to watch their granddaughter's softball practice.

Little says he switched his party registration from Republican to Democrat so he could back Obama in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary on April 22. Hillary Rodham Clinton's criticisms Sunday that Obama's comments were "elitist and divisive" haven't moved him.

"I don't think he put his brain in gear before he engaged his mouth," Little said. "But he apologized. ... I think he has the right ideas, and I like hearing him talk. I put him in sort of the same mold as the Kennedys, JFK and Bobby."

Guns and abortion

Little's support for Obama puts him in the minority in heavily Republican York County -- particularly in the small boroughs, such as Jacobus, which is about 50 miles northwest of Baltimore. People here, as resident Barbara Larson put it, "vote on the gun issue, and the pro-life issue."

Still, in more than a dozen interviews here, even conservative Republicans couldn't muster the sort of outrage over Obama's remarks that Clinton backers were expressing Sunday. For example, Clinton partisan Stephen Reed, the mayor of nearby Harrisburg, said Obama's remarks "lacked judgment. They lack understanding."

Several McCain supporters here said the comments wouldn't play well among rural Americans. But nearly everyone allowed that, in fact, many small-town residents are indeed bitter.

"Hell, yeah, they're bitter," said Harold Creager, a retired phone company technician who was sipping coffee in Rutter's, a convenience store. "George Bush has been a disappointment. The economy. Jobs. Immigration -- we're being invaded."

'Flavor of elitism'

Glen Rock, retired from the nearby Harley-Davidson motorcycle factory in York, Pa., said, "I'm not going to vote at all, because I don't believe in (any) of them."

Politics, Rock said, was just a cycle of broken promises.

Little added that he saw firsthand that racism is hurting Obama in Pennsylvania. "I had somebody say to me the other day, 'Who would have thought that in our lifetime, a woman and an "N" would be competing for president?' " he said, not uttering the slur himself.

No one argued Obama's comments were a good development for his campaign. Far from it. The question was how much.

"The fact that he said it among highbrows, that's going to hurt him," said Scott Renfro, a fifth-grade teacher driving a Ford pickup with a bass boat in tow. Obama made the comments at a fundraiser last Sunday in San Francisco, a city associated with left-leaning politics.

Renfro, who said he's voting Republican, said, "It just had a flavor of elitism about it. In the general election, it will hurt him in this state."

In criticizing Obama on Sunday, Clinton warned the Democrats that the party risked being viewed by voters as out-of-touch and elitist in the fall election.

But Gary Whisler, a retired teacher with an Obama sign in his front yard, called the notion of Obama as an elitist "really hilarious."

Obama, who was raised by a single mother, "had to make his own opportunities. He didn't have anything handed to him, the way Hillary did," Whisler said.

Whisler said he has never before been active in a political campaign.

"He is different from anybody I can remember running for president," Whisler said of Obama. "He's really for the little people, not the special interests."

by politicsmatters 2008-04-14 06:36AM | 0 recs
Re: no bitter aftertaste

Looks like the Obama followers are trying to spin as fast as they can.  Obama screwed up.  The polls in the next couple of days will prove it.

Keep spinning Obama-bots... you will spin yourselves into the middle of the earth.  Buh-Bye!

by stefystef 2008-04-14 01:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Uh oh, back up the outrage truck.  Hillary Clinton in November:

'During the 1990s, I cannot remember being asked about immigration. Why? Because the economy was working. And average Americans didn't have to go around looking for others to blame.' - Time Magazine

by Mostly 2008-04-14 06:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

* crickets *

by amiches 2008-04-14 01:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

This one has got legs alright -  Obama up 5 points in Rasmussen today - must have had huge numbers yesterday to shift 3 day tracking from -1 to +5.  If only Hillary had the brains to realize this stuff always backfires on her.  

by interestedbystander 2008-04-14 06:41AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

really? Link, please!
by roseaupensant 2008-04-14 06:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

"If only Hillary had the brains to realize this stuff always backfires on her"

Hillary has got more political brains than almost anybody of her generation. Indeed it is my strong belief that without her Bill would not have won the presidency.

Her problem is that it is she and not Obama that has to take the big risks because she knows she has almost lost the delegate race.

An additional problem for her is that some of her supporters over egg the pudding and what should work to her advantage is negated or even works to Obama's advantage.

by My Ob 2008-04-14 07:05AM | 0 recs
and the legs just got cut out from under Hillary

What amazes me is how the Hillbots think that just because she says something it's true.

In contrast, Obama is speaking the truth here -- and it resonates. Obama -- a man who spent his life working with the working poor along with churches -- is not vulnerable on this issue. Trying to compare him to Gore...hah! Good one Hillary.

by ksquire 2008-04-14 07:33AM | 0 recs
Hillary up 20 points in Pennsylvania

American Research Group gives Hillary Clinton a 20 point lead over Obama in Pennsylvania. Click here  for more.

by zenful6219 2008-04-14 07:36AM | 0 recs
I've been to one of these things...

I volunteered to help serve the fancy fixin's at one of these affairs in San Francisco for John Kerry. These billionaires are not to be believed.  They are quite up front with what they expect the "possibly elected" to do for them.  The booze flows freely, and the person-du-jour does get loose-lipped.  (People like me in our white shirts and black pants are totally invisble--only the tray we carry with the cavier and crackers are visible enough to be snapped up.  They forget we have ears and brains.)

I know Obama did not pull a gaffe--he said what he thinks to these people, and I can see them now, smilling while slightly shaking their heads up and down in agreement.

by The Smoldering Crone 2008-04-14 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Alegre, again thanks for giving Sen. Clinton a voice on the blogs.

by Zzyzzy 2008-04-14 09:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this

Why don't you go ahead and read "What's the Matter with Kansas," and then get back to us?

by dmc2 2008-04-14 10:04AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Poor Alegre. "Alegre" means "happy" in Spanish.

Gallup shows Clinton dropped another 2% pts over the weekend and Sunday was the worse. It's not 50%-40%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106504/Gallup -Daily-Obama-Numbers-Holding-Strong.aspx

Look at that downward trend for Clinton. Yikes.


by comingawakening 2008-04-14 10:49AM | 0 recs
It's got legs alright, AND boots

But the legs and boots are walkin' all over Hillary Clinton.

Much like for a beheaded chicken, this primary contest is OHHHHHHHHH-ver. But some thrashing about is still to be expected.

Oh, and don't forget to donate more money to Sen Clinton's campaign.  It's a good investment, right?

by Quicklund 2008-04-14 10:51AM | 0 recs
Re: It's got legs alright, AND boots

You WISH it was over... Obama shows his true self and it ain't pretty.  It's uppity and elitist.  As are all the people around him, wife included.

Watching Obama implode is going to be fun.

by stefystef 2008-04-14 01:38PM | 0 recs
"Upiity" you say?

Put them niggers in their place, you say?

Self-coupluate, fecal vent, self-copulate.

by Quicklund 2008-04-15 06:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

I think it has legs, but I don't think it's as big a deal as people are making it out to be.  Clinton has to be very careful not to overplay her hand with this.  For some reason, it tends to backfire and push her negatives up.  She has to walk a fine line with this, just as Obama has to.

by venavena 2008-04-14 12:11PM | 0 recs
Let Me Get This Wright...

No one is supposed to question OBama's church/religion and how he found himself immersed in the teachings of Rev. Wright for over 20 years, but the rest of us little people chose our religion out of bitterness??

Just whose church is bitter???


by Si Ella Puede 2008-04-14 01:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

Poor Alegre. "Alegre" means "happy" in Spanish.

Gallup shows Clinton dropped another 2% pts over the weekend and Sunday was the worse. It's not 50%-40%.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/106504/Gallup -Daily-Obama-Numbers-Holding-Strong.aspx

Look at that downward trend for Clinton. Yikes.


by comingawakening 2008-04-14 01:25PM | 0 recs
Wow Alegre

   after all your diaries whining about Clinton being challenged for her comments (Bosnia, South Carolina..etc..), you're really going to complain that Barack Obama is upset over how his comments are being portrayed?

  Do you have any original thoughts? Or would you write a diary on why we need a 5th President on Mt Rushmore if the idea came out of Hillary's mouth? You don't seem to have any thoughts of your own, you simply repeat what comes out of Hillary's mouth every day!

by southernman 2008-04-14 02:11PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death," (Bill)Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.

My hypocrisy meter just broke.

by jwolf 2008-04-14 05:27PM | 0 recs

Alegre: Do you honestly believe that Obama is elitist? Yes, what he said was poorly phrased and I can understand why people were/are offended. However, I do not for one second beleive that Obama is elitist or 'out of touch'. This is a man who was raised by his mother and grandparents and who just recently finished paying off his student loans. I just don't understand how you can imply that he is elitist.

by ijm7 2008-04-14 06:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

i'll show you a story that's got legs:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/14/2152 25/830

but seriously go read it. if only to  make me happy :)

by amde 2008-04-14 06:07PM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...


She will be the nominee.

Now, she is the one we need to unite with because she brings hope for the future.

What a fighter.  

by gotalife 2008-04-14 06:21PM | 0 recs
Another $20 for Barack Obama

This silly attempt to smear Obama has earned another $20 for the Obama campaign by making the rec list.

by fwiffo3 2008-04-15 04:25AM | 0 recs
Re: Updated: Looks like this story's got legs...

This is as shameless as shame can ever get. A compliment, indeed.  That certainly adds insult to injury.  The problem with that so-called complimentary word "cling" is that he uses it in the same sentence and the same breath as a verb for religion, guns, antipathy toward others, e.g. gay marriage and immigration. That he is trying to make his statment a compliment shows what a pathetic politician he has become. At Hillary Clinton's very worst, she could never be that insulting.  Oh, we cannot have that man as president. I'm sorry, he has to go!

by Folkwolf101 2008-04-15 01:43PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads