I have to agree with people saying the context makes it worse.
Not only do we hear him complaining that his poor reception in Pennsylvania is exacerbated by his race, but the last paragraph gives us what may be even the most denigrating sound byte from the entire speech:
"working-class lunch-pail folks"
I'm not even going to try explaining why that is a put-down. Either you get it or you don't.
A shift in the popular vote leader would be a "reverse" from what I can tell.
Obama's obscenely skewed % victories in February were mostly the product of caucuses, and everybody knows that. The fact that the caucus results don't match the will of the voters in a state is clearly evinced by the results in states that have both, for a direct comparison: Texas and Washington State.
To be fair, Obama did have five very large primary victories in his home state, in Georgia, and in the three Potomac states. That cannot be denied.
I read your initial post, which is the comment towards which my response was directed. You'll have to pardon me for not cyber-hunting you throughout every iteration of this thread and hanging onto your every subsequent word.
How is my direct quote (direct quote referring of course to your OWN language) a "misinterpretation"?
It must be April Fool's WEEK because I find today that a popular votes tally is not an accurate measure of the people's will (allegedly because it is more controlled by "election laws" rather than popular volition) and that a direct quote is a misinterpretation.
Well, quite simply, the effect her victories will have on the "delegate" total will be a compelling increase in her power of persuasiveness for the superdelegates, whose mercurial predilections are (unfortunately, yes) enshrined in the rules of this bizarre primary system.
For an undecided superdelegate, it's difficult to imagine why "pledged delegate total" would be a more convincing metric than "lead in the popular vote."
Note, even while Michigan & Florida's pledged delegates are excluded via rules fiat, there's no basis for discounting the probative value of actual votes cast as a measure of Hillary's popularity.
Obama's lead right now is akin to a John Kerry lead on Election Night in 2004, with the caveat that Texas, Virginia, and eight other states (two arguably being favorable to Kerry) have yet to be counted.
Although the any "intellectual" can construe this event in ways that attempt to reframe it as "merely speaking an opinion" or can argue its finer points, a broader view of what happened, in sum is simply:
Harvard educated Barack Obama, speaking for an audience of wealthy upscale California attendees, insulted the hell out of the less fortunate and less affluent voters in upstate Pennsylvania. The San Francisco audience cackled, cheered, and laughed along with him.
Whether what he said had some "truth" in it is completely irrelevant to the question of whether what he said was condescending (it was), appropriate (it wasn't), or a smart thing to say (definitely not) about a group of people whose votes you're trying to win in less than two weeks.
With all respect, you really seem to be abusing the troll-rate function. It's not designed to be applied to every post you simply disagree with or that isn't "substantiated" to whatever standards your opinion finds necessary to support it. Like it or not, Obama's potential implicit bias against white Americans is an issue in this campiagn, whether we want to discuss how we are personally affected or how, from a removed position, we believe it will affect the many voters who have yet to cast ballots in Pennsylvania, and other nearby states.
Currently... he's ahead but only because he has had the serendipitous fortune of having his most favorable contests under his belt. Things will look very different in a post-Pennsylvania, post-Indiana, post-Puerto Rico environment...
Truly, what you say would be almost the precise analogue of saying "Wow John Kerry is totally beating George W. Bush!" (Oh, except for the fact that we have ten states left to report, including Texas, Georgia, Mississippi, etc.)
The recent string of polls, many from highly disreputable sources, showing an Obama "mini-surge" in PA will ultimately do nothing but amplify the magnitude of his defeat here on April 22. BHO is going to lose every county in the state except Philadelphia County. And surprise surprise! Philadelphia County contains LESS THAN 15% of the state's massive population.
This impending defeat is exactly why so many Obama supporters, in the guise of "the party's best interests" have been calling for Hillary to step down.
Wow. It's amazing how a few short sentences can so clearly evince the exact types of presumption and entitlement that make so many Obama supporters intolerable. Every implication in your comment degrades Hillary.