• ""Now, like some of you may have been, I was taken aback by the demeaning remarks Sen. Obama made about people in small town America. Sen. Obama's remarks are elitist and they are out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans. Certainly not the Americans that I know - not the Americans I grew up with, not the Americans I lived with in Arkansas or represent in New York."
    ~ Hillary Clinton, 4/12/08

    Doesn't sound like she said they "could be seen that way."

  • Noooo, FL votes don't count because they violated the rules as established PRIOR TO THE PRIMARY.  You may (somewhat rightfully) feel the rules are stupid, but they are the rules we all agreed to from the beginning.  Any ex post argument to say "they should have been counted" is inevitably partisan.  If Obama were demanding for FL votes to count, you'd be arguing from the opposite position.

  • I appreciate your reasoned opinion on this, but don't you agree that the same arguments you make for Clinton hold for Obama as well?

    1) Read the entire statement - everyone has quoted him totally out of context here and has simply not acknowledged his further explanation.

    2) If elitism is an attitude, how is it elitist to say "people are pissed off because we haven't helped them and we should do something about it".  It seems much more elitist to say "don't worry, stiff upper lip, you'll be fine."

  • I wasn't talking about what she said about Gore and Kerry.  She didn't say "people will say Obama looks elitist and out of touch" she said "Obama IS elitist and out of touch."  Thats pretty clearly labeling him herself.  The fact that she says "our party will look this way to people" just adds an extra layer of triangulation.

  • I can at least respect calling a spade a spade like you just did.  But you can't cry foul at this and say "What Hillary meant was" and at the same time tar Obama with a similarly explained sound bite.

  • That doesn't answer my question and merely sets up a straw man.  I'm willing to chalk up what Hillary said to an explanation as thats how other people "percieved" Gore and Kerry if you're willing to say Obama meant that people focus more on social issues   because they grow disillusioned by the lack of response on economic issues.  You can't have it both ways - either both sides deserve some respect for being more nuanced than a sound-bite allows or neither person gets that benefit of the doubt.

  • And he later explained what he meant by this - I'd be happy to link you to the explanation.  Either you now think he is lying about what he truly meant or that its "fair game" to continue to use the original  statement (or rather, the second sentence of the first statement).

  • Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't HILLARY labeling Obama (and the entire Democratic Party) as elitist and out-of-touch this time?  Isn't this a classic definition of triangulation?

  • So if we should understand what Hillary said with a bit more nuance and sophistication, should the same hold true for Obama?  Or should Hillary and her supporters continue to REINFORCE the "elitist meme" by repeating the phrase ad naseum?   How very Lieberman-esque.

  • So that means Hillary supporters will stop attacking Obama by deliberately misconstruing him (even after given a clear explanation) and saying he called all rural Americans bitter?  Looking forward to it!

  • comment on a post Obama Must Win Pennsylvania over 6 years ago

    The sound of the goalposts moving again.  Just plain hilarious.

  • All due respect, your comment doesn't make much sense.

    First, The President (Obama, as you posit) doesn't enact meaningful legislation - that's Congress' job.  If you care about meaningful legislation, you want a strong Democratic President with really good coattails that will help increase the Democratic majority in the HoR and the Senate.  I personally think Obama has better coattails, but I think a cogent argument for Hillary can be made as well.  No argument for Democratic coattails can be made with your other choices.

    Second, voting for McCain and hoping he's elected will actually make it HARDER to enact meaningful legislation because we will have divided gov't with a President likely to veto any and all progressive legislation.  

    Third, don't even get me started on the judiciary picks he could put into place.  Not only will your choice make it harder to enact meaningful legislation, it makes it more likely that progressive legislation will be REPEALED.

    Fourth, a new third party?  Nader or Bob Barr?  Barr was one of the most socially conservative politicians in Gingrich Congress. Seriously?

    Unless you are someone who champions more conservative politics, I fail to see the point you are making.

    P.S.  Not trying to rip on Hillary folks here, just trying to point out the problems with this logic.

  • I don't understand.  You link to a diary by a first timer, which contains a healthy dialogue about (1) whether her comment was appropriate/taken out of context and (2) whether she deserved to be suspended for it.  Of course there were some ignorant comments - just as there are here too - but the majority of people either were trying to explain its context in a respectful manner or agreeing that what she said was inappropriate.

    At the end of the day, I think her comments crossed the line myself and a suspension is appropriate.  But an open convo about that doesn't devolve into name calling seems perfectly fine.

  • Well said.  Its a primary and some people on both sides have said stupid stuff.  At the end of the day, very little divides Clinton and Obama in policy substance.  If you care about pushing the country back towards a more progressive trajectory (especially in the judiciary), then we need to come together when the dust settles.


Advertise Blogads