Democrats & Liberals Archives

Paul,

One thing’s for sure. This protracted Democratic primary is harming we Dems chances at gaining the presidency.

Man. we’re good at devising our own early demise!

McCain will be President! Get over it.

Posted by: KansasDem at April 11, 2008 06:15 PM

Paul, you’re right to be proud of your candidate if what you report is in fact true. I would like to point out however, if the roles were reversed and Hillary had a nearly insurmountable lead, would Obama be so righteous? One can wonder, right?

Posted by: Jim M at April 11, 2008 06:25 PM

Up until now, Barack appeared to be the least worst of the 3 worst running for president.
Even though he was very unlikely to ever get my vote any way, Barack Obama definitely will not ever get my vote now.

This is one of the stupidist things I’ve ever heard any politician say:

Obama said:

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. And it’s not surprising then 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.

“religion” ?

“guns” ?

“bitter” about “people who aren’t like them” ?

“bitter” about illegal “immigration” ?

I was already disgusted with Barack Obama’s position on illegal immigration, but these other comments (clearly denigrating gun ownership and religion) are quite revealing.

This may be a good lesson.
We didn’t really know much about Barack Obama.
Now we know more.
Better to find out now, rather than later.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2008 07:27 PM

“religion” ?
“Cling” to “religion”?
What does that mean?

“guns” ?
“Cling” to “guns”?
Hmmmmm … is that an anti-2nd amendment comment?

“bitter” about “people who aren’t like them” ?
In the biggest melting pot on the planet?

“bitter” about illegal “immigration” ?
There’s a big difference between “anti-immigrant” and anti-illegal immigration”.

“bitter” about “anti-trade sentiment” ?
There’s a big difference between “free trade” and unfair “trade”.

It will be interesting to see how Obama tries to back-pedal on this, or spin it a different way, or apologize for saying it.

Either way, it appears that a deep-felt attitude actually finally surfaced for all to see, and it’s going to require a lot of explaining.

At any rate, insulting your audience and voters by calling them “bitter”, and “clining” to “religion”, “guns”, and “anti-trade” and “anti-immigrant” isn’t likely to win many votes.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2008 07:43 PM

I think he was talking about the Rush Limbaugh crowd. A lot of them are very bitter, and they have some strange ideas about guns and religion. They definitely have antipathy to people who aren’t like them. But I never saw the word [illegal] the original quote about anti-immigration..

Posted by: Mike the Cynic at April 11, 2008 08:46 PM

And the spin begins.

“antipathy to people who aren’t like them” ? In one of the biggest melting pots in the world ?
There is a big difference between people that are “anti-immigrant” and people that want illegal immigration stopped.
There is a big difference between people that are “anti-trade” and people that want unfair trade practices stopped.
What does that mean “cling to guns” ? Is that also a criticism of the 2nd Amendment?
And what is wrong with people that “cling” to their “religion” and their religious beliefs? Is that also a criticism of the 1st Amendment?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 11, 2008 09:15 PM

Paul
We are ready for a candidate who is clean. But I don’t think Jesus is running for President. None of the three are clean. Skeletons will come out soon.

Posted by: KAP at April 11, 2008 09:41 PM

Although I’m not usually averse to finding fault with the behavior of Democratic candidates, I don’t really have a problem with this so-called “street money.”

If you’re paying operatives (really just a somewhat sinister name for “employees”) who are working to get out the vote for your campaign, what’s wrong with that? I don’t see it.

Why is it not only okay but expected that you’d pay your staffers, your caterers, your drivers, your advertisers, the pilot who flies your plane, etc, but somehow wrong to pay the people registering voters and rounding them up to vote? I don’t get it.

Paying people to actually vote for you would be one thing and obviously wrong. Not to mention, extraordinarily stupid, because people would gladly take your money and then go right ahead and vote for whoever they wanted. But why one category of campaign workers should be required to work for free while other categories of campaign workers are paid isn’t clear at all.

If people want to volunteer to work for you—great! But a lot of the people involved in any campaign are doing it for money. Do you assume that the guy who flies Obama’s plane and all the people who cater his events, etc., are doing it for free because they just love Obama so much? I don’t think so.

If Obama has enough volunteers to do some of these things for him and doesn’t need to pay people to do them, it speaks to his ability to attract support. It doesn’t, however, mean that everybody working for him is a volunteer or that he has some kind of superior integrity.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 11, 2008 10:01 PM

From this site, more of the speech and the context.

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

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. They feel so betrayed by government that 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, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is so we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide healthcare for every American.

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. And it’s not surprising then 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.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

Full context yields a different picture.

But that context can’t merely be the typical tunnel vision on these matters.

The main thrust of the McCain and other GOP’s immediate response is context in and of itself, because the issues that Obama talks about people clinging to are the very issues that the GOP immediately started making noise about; Guns, Religion, Immigration; and they have been the issues that many of the Reagan Democrats have been diverging from their parties on.

And these wedge issues have been the source of much bitterness and controversy in these swing states, in the general political battleground.

Obama is saying here that he understands the trouble with trying to sell government intervention to people who haven’t really been helped by it. He’s once again pushing his theory that at the heart of much of the division here are anxieties and troubles from years of economic collapse unhealed. And those are anxieties not entirely unfounded in an environment where the past increasingly seems better than the future, where the wish to return to the place as it once was is often overwhelming.

The stereotype, the real one, would be that these people would just all cling to these things, that they wouldn’t be open to change. But that’s not what he’s saying. He’s saying that’s why they have to appeal to them with specifics, with solid arguments. He believes these people can be reasoned with, that they are not merely stereotypes. He’s saying that even if the past has that appeal, that many are already getting beyond it, looking forward to the future, and that others can be won over if they are presented with workable alternatives to the way things are now.

The underlying message here is not elitist, but egalitarian. Go out and talk with people, work with people. Acknowledge the strong divides, but recognize the source of their fears and anxieties, and recognize the mix of folks who could be appealed to, or who are already supporters.

This isn’t partisan warfare. This is getting beyond that, recognizing that there are common wishes, common interests, that Barack’s obvious liberalism and obvious differences with many PA and IA voters might be greeted skeptically, but that much of the time, there is something else underlying it.

So the question here for folks reading this is whether or not they want to fall into the same traps of partisanship, where fault-finding and parsing are the norm, or whether they want to treat this more as a poor choice of words, rather than the poor choice of sentiments it’s unfairly portrayed as. Do we have the maturity to get past the wedge issues that have overwhelmed our politics and distracted us from important issues, or are we just going to kill any discussion beyond school-age word twisting by letting the wedge issues do their cynical work on us. Do we treat the people across different ideological divides with respect, or do we simply assume that they are targets to be attacked, or dupes to be deceived to fit our purposes?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 11, 2008 10:30 PM

LO-
You’re paying precinct bosses, who then pay people beneath them. But for what, and how much? How much “walking around” money is getting to the people doing the actual walking around? There have been quite a few political scandals about this practice.

It’s machine politics, basically, and he hasn’t been playing by those rules since the start of his campaign. Besides, his workers and his volunteers get the food, the transport and the other things done for them. It’s just not paid out to precinct bosses.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 11, 2008 10:36 PM

Obama’s excellent response to those who have been making a firestorm of controversy out of what he said in San Francisco.

Nickel summary: People are angry and bitter all over the country, and with good reason. He’s not putting them down, he’s saying he’s with them, that he understands their frustrations with both the Republicans and the Democrats.

He defines the political context of his remarks, which I brought up, pretty clearly.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 11, 2008 10:55 PM

Stephen, I love it how when Republicans point to issues on which they take a different stand from Democrats, that Democrats call these issues “wedge issues.”

As if there’s something illegitimate and underhanded about pointing out reasons why voters might not want to vote for Democrats and vote for Republicans instead. Apparently, all votes belong to Democrats by some kind of divine right, and it’s nothing but a dirty trick to differ from Democratic dogma and offer alternatives.

What is a “wedge” issue anyway? Nothing more than an issue that separates Democrats from the votes that they think they’re entitled to.

Interesting, isn’t it, that when Democrats talk about Iraq, entitlements, or anything else they campaign on, these are just issues. Not “wedge issues” at all. Democrats would NEVER think of trying to gain votes by advocating the positions they do. For them, it’s just altruism. I guess it’s all just because that Democrats are saints that are too good for this world.

Issues advocated by Republicans, however, are all tricky, sneaky, and sinister “wedge issues” that separate Democrats from the votes that they think belong to them.

Republicans are playing politics. Democrats are not—they’d never think of doing such a thing! When it comes to guns, abortion, taxes, or anything at all, Democratic positions—for Democrats—are the correct ones and anyone who disagrees are assumed to be twisted political perverts attempting to illegitimately siphon off votes from their proper owners.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 11, 2008 11:50 PM

I guess patronage is even more alive in Philadelphia than Chicago. The O candidate is elitist if he thinks democracy has to look the same in all places, or that everything has to change everywhere because some things have changed in some places. I have been looking for good reasons to support this candidate, and they are very hard to find.

L O, “pay your staffers, your caterers, your drivers, your advertisers, the pilot who flies your plane, etc”
, the advertisers being the most important of all.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 12, 2008 12:49 AM

Loyal Opposition-
Oh, so you’re only offering distinctions, right, not negative attacks meant to split the party base.

I won’t try to sell you on the notion that our sides don’t attempt to find issues to split the other party’s base with. What I would say is that like all political tactics, it can be overused, inappropriately used, and used to the exception of that other great political need, the need for consensus.

At a time when this country needed to be united against the threat of al-Qaeda, your side began to use a conflation of that threat and the long-simmering issues with Iraq as a means of both peeling off voters for Bush and other conservative candidates, and for building support for the war.

However, this became a double-wedged sword. When it turned out that al-Qaeda had little to do with the Iraqi government, and the Republicans, including Bush, had mortgaged their unified support on things playing out a certain way. The failure for things to work out as planned changed whose supporters fled where.

Before that happened, though, you had a category of people who, for various reasons, God, Guns, Gays, or on defense issues, you had convinced to vote your way. Were we entitled to those votes?

My. We could say that we expected those people, who often still supported New-Deal programs, Unions and things like that, to otherwise vote Democrat. That’s how you get a John Murtha elected to Congress in that kind of country.

Why do I make the distinction I do on your wedge issues? Their triviality. This isn’t some huge question, typically, just some symbolic corner of it, played up for the sake of influencing voters to vote for Candidates otherwise not aligned with them.

I’ll talk more about this tommorrow. I have to get to bed.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 12, 2008 01:07 AM

What I would say is that like all political tactics, it can be overused, inappropriately used, and used to the exception of that other great political need, the need for consensus.

Now I get it.

There is a “need for consensus” with the Democratic agenda and it is “inappropriate” to have different opinions or vote accordingly.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 12, 2008 01:25 AM

Obama has so far run a good and clean campaign. So has McCain. Clinton acts a little like a Clinton.

The thing I enjoy so much re this election is the Dem on Dem destruction,

We Republicans talk about things like street money and the Dem machines all the time. The Dems did it in 2000 & 2004. They will do it again in 2008. It is a Democratic business as usual.

Then we have the Dem complaint about every vote counting. They brought up alot of bogus issues in 2000 & 2004. It is easy to ask questions if you don’t wait around for answers. Now THEY disenfrancise the whole states of Florida & Michigan. Do they care? It is just Democratic business as usual.

Dems raved and swore about campaign finance reform - until they got piles of swag themselves. Now, they won’t participate in the publicly funded election. It is just Democratic business as usual.

So Paul is right about the corruption. Obama is right to object. But what they are talking about is Democratic business as usual.

Posted by: Jack at April 12, 2008 01:54 AM

Integrity is very hard to find in politics.

One thing’s for sure. McCain will be President! Get over it.

If Obama has enough volunteers to do some of these things for him and doesn’t need to pay people to do them, it speaks to his ability to attract support. It doesn’t, however, mean that everybody working for him is a volunteer or that he has some kind of superior integrity. Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 11, 2008 10:01 PM

I support Ron Paul for President.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 12, 2008 02:55 AM

d.a.n. quoted Obama: “And it’s not surprising then 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.”

Hmmm, I find that statement to be backed by an enormous amount of sociological and psychological research. Obama has done his homework and spoke the truth. Unemployment and low incomes breed distrust, and distrust in others breeds security measures like gun ownership or appeals through prayer to a higher power when human powers, government power, seemed to have abandoned one’s family.

Fact, religious intensity increases inversely with wealth on average. Fact, Urban gun ownership increases with crime levels and sense of personal insecurity at home and in public places. Fact, confidence and faith in government diminish with dropping real wages and unemployment.

I just don’t see any inaccuracy in what Obama said at all. Research demonstrates what he said is entirely accurate.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2008 03:59 AM

WW said: “I support Ron Paul for President.”

Good for you. It is important that America retain minority diversity. :-)

Who knows, maybe next election Ron Paul supporters can apply for affirmative action to help them get their message out. LOL!

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2008 04:01 AM

You jest, because you fear, Mr. Remer.

It may not happen now and it may not happen on Ron Paul’s watch,
But it will happen.
I hope you can survive the “tipping point”.

I’m not a violent person and I’m sure you aren’t either, but I’m really tired of being considered a spoiler, a third person, a fringe candidate, a crackpot.
Over the last 30 years there is no reason any candidate should have been charactorized with these words. They are candidates for our highest office, yet they have been marginalized, by you! By You!, Mr. Remer.

I don’t need to think or prove anything to myself the way you need to prove things to me. I believe in my self in spite of what you think. That makes me stronger than you.

Posted by: Weary Willie at April 12, 2008 04:34 AM

I’m so pleased that finally there is a real fight on for the Democrats, there’s still another five months to go, and I’m looking forward to the situation in, say, October. you ain’t heard nothing yet!

Posted by: Mizpah at April 12, 2008 05:17 AM

We never used to positively have a candidate declared until the party conventions were held…the primaries going down to the wire and the possibility of a Democratic candidate not being declared until the convention is politics as it used to be in this US…big money didn’t buy off candidates until the people had at least had their say at the polls!

Posted by: Rachel at April 12, 2008 08:34 AM

LO-
Look, you can insult me, but what then are the chances for persuading me. If all you want to do is express your opinion, if you all you’re interested in seeing is a debate perpetuated, and controversies continued, then fine, no need for consensus.

This though, is a Democratic Republic, and that means a majority of Americans or their Representatives (whether they be congressional or in the electoral college) must get together to hash out what proposals and ideas win. If you intend to do nothing, this is an irrelevant issue, but if you actually want change, it’s critical.

Is it inappropriate for them to vote their beliefs? What kind of silly question is that. Of course it’s not. But it inappropriate then to go to these people and try and convince them of their own free will to change their minds?

No, that’s how the process works. You try and make out my purpose to be some sinister censorious one, where I’m bent on hushing up dissenters. But what I’m really trying to do is get people to change their minds of their own free will.

Now you folks, and some of mine, have been flailing at other folks, using negative campaigning for years, hoping to wedge people apart from the other candidate. But that is an all-stick, no-carrot approach. You’re discouraging people from showing up for the other guy, not necessarily encouraging them to show up for you. A person can whittle his opponent down, uncaring of whether the voters come back to the polls, so long as he lowers his opponent’s numbers enough.

But what about leading people back, getting them involved, getting people to work together? It’s depressing to see, time and time again, the most divisive political forces, not even ones that represent the rest of us, win time and time again, because they could split votes and carve out constituencies.

People are tired of governance by vocal minority, by a government that’s merely effective at sabotaging the other side. They want somebody who can bring together people of their own free will into working coalitions, who is in touch with people’s desires for their government, and not thinking up excuses as to why the government can’t do anything.

I see Barack Obama respond to this controversy, and I feel actual hope for us, not because he is a messiah or some spiritual clap-trap like that, but because here’s a guy who isn’t hiding behind political pleasantries trying to pump sunshine up people’s asses about how good things are, or how saintly the folks in the audience are.

He’s saying the truth out loud there: we have a s***load of anger, bitterness, and negative feelings about what’s going on in Washington, and we’re not these Stepford people with painted-on smiles, enduring our troubles and travails with saintly patience. We’ve had it!

We didn’t vote people out in 2006 because of polite disagreements. We voted them out because these people are so badly out of touch it’s not funny. Congress and the President are getting terrible ratings for much the same reason. The saving grace for the Democrats has been that they seem slightly less clueless in Washington than the Republicans. We do however need to get our act together, and Obama strikes me as somebody who could do that.

Jack-
You have little room to talk, regarding machines. You folks were running things like ARMPAC, the K-Street Project, the whole Abramoff thing. The story here is Obama not buying into that, instead organizing such things on his own. You can call his campaign anything, but not business as usual.

Regarding Florida and Michigan, these things are an issue precisely because of what Republicans did in the elections you mention. Vote caging, defrauding of voters, interruption of counts by folks like future UN Ambassador John Bolton… the list goes on.

Here’s what happened: we told the states, don’t hold primaries too early, or they’re not going to count. They did so anyways, and we essentially stripped them of their delegates for that. They were warned. Now that’s private party business. We can decide by what standards and how a person is nominated to be a candidate.

Now, Hillary Clinton and all the others agreed and pledged not to campaign in those states. They were never real contests to begin with, and voters knew that the votes would not count towards selecting the nominee. The rules are the rules, and we could could not set a rule at the beginning and change it mid course.

A re-vote was possible, but logistics and security would be major problems. An election that left people standing in long lines at 5 the next morning would not be a fair one, nor would one be where the possibility of fraud was greater than a certain amount. It does no good to give people the vote with your right hand, and take away the value of that vote with insufficient resources, security, and organization at the polls with the left.

Maybe you like the notion of a pre-determined, one-candidate ballot apportioning delegates, or of people being unable to vote or see those votes counted because of badly set up, rushed primaries, but most of us don’t see the merits in that.

As for Campaign Finance? Barack Obama takes 40% of his funds from from those giving less than 200. Your candidate takes only a quarter of his funds from the same level of donations. Barack takes less than a third of his money from those giving more than 2300. McCain takes almost half his money from those sources. Barack Obama has accepted no PAC money and actively refuses money from registered Lobbyists. McCain has taken almost a million dollars from both combined.

Meanwhile, McCain treats public financing in the primary as mere collateral for a bank loan to keep his campaign privately funded. He goes over the spending limits, and only now, with Obama possibly the candidate, does he return such money. Otherwise he’s been spending as if he were intending to run his campaign on private funds. You can mark what he has said, but I will mark what he has done.

Anybody who looks at Obama and says “Politics as usual” doesn’t know what they’re looking at. Politics as usual would not have beaten Hillary Clinton so soundly.

Weary Willie-
Ron Paul and Barack Obama both have renegade appeal in their party, but Ron Paul is nowhere near any tipping point. Your own strength doesn’t figure into it.

Ron Paul, as I see it, was embraced by a few strongly, but rejected by many soundly. He won no states, and his party left him behind for candidates with broader appeal.

The question is, what tipping point? Nobody knows the future, and to trust in some future tectonic shift is an exercise in wishful thinking.

Obama’s success as a renegade candidate has come about because he not merely voiced what one small segment of the country was saying, but what most Americans were thinking. He also approached things with a politics far more conciliatory, far more forgiving of past differences.

For years now, those on the Right have attempted the delicate balancing act of rejecting America’s general culture, while asking it to see things their way, work things their way. Unfortunately for them, the balancing act has failed, and their rejection of other Americans has been greeted by rejection in turn.

You must, at some point, understand that the path to greater influence in the electorate is through compromise and negotiation. You can’t browbeat or threaten your way back into people’s favor.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 12, 2008 08:54 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Full context yields a different picture.

The full context doesn’t explain it away.

David R. Remer wrote: Hmmm, I find that statement to be backed by an enormous amount of sociological and psychological research. Obama has done his homework and spoke the truth.

Perhaps as he sees it. Had Obama said SOME (NOT ALL) people, it would have been an entirely different and true statement. But he said it about entire small towns. That is false. That is something none of us can possibly know and substantiate.

David R. Remer wrote: Unemployment and low incomes breed distrust, and distrust in others breeds security measures like gun ownership or appeals through prayer to a higher power when human powers, government power, seemed to have abandoned one’s family.

You left out the anti-immigrant and anti-trade statements (aside from the “bitter” people who supposedly cling to “guns” and “religion”. Obama’s statement (and a lenghty statement too) said much more than SOME people. It denigrated far more than SOME (NOT ALL) people.

David R. Remer wrote: Fact, religious intensity increases inversely with wealth on average.

I’m not even religious (i.e. I’m agnostic) and find Obama’s statement denigrating.

David R. Remer wrote: Fact, Urban gun ownership increases with crime levels and sense of personal insecurity at home and in public places.

But Obama wasn’t addressing only crime prone citizens. He was addressing “small town America”.

David R. Remer wrote: Fact, confidence and faith in government diminish with dropping real wages and unemployment.

True, but Obama wasn’t addressing only unemployed citizens, since many of the participants paid the $2300 limit to attend. he was addressing “Small Town America”.

David R. Remer wrote: I just don’t see any inaccuracy in what Obama said at all. Research demonstrates what he said is entirely accurate.

I do.

Had Obama carefully said SOME (NOT ALL) people, it would have been accurate.
But he did not.
He painted a broad stroke of “Small Town American”, and that is inaccurate.

Also, I think it was his attempt to spin his pathetic position on illegal immigration (which he called “anti-immigrant”).
And Obama called it “anti-trade” (despite the rampant unfair-trade practices), in which there is a huge difference.

Barack Obama said (In Pennsylvania (on Sunday, 6-APR-2008):
“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. And it’s not surprising then they [OBAMA SHOULD HAVE SAID HERE: SOME PEOPLE, NOT ALL] 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”.
Barack Obama’s statement in Pennsylvania (on Sunday, 6-APR-2008):, even in the entire context, may in fact be what Obama truly believes to be the truth (about entire towns in America), but those statemetns are wrong for several reasons (and revealing too):

• (1) How revealing: “antipathy to people who aren’t like them” ? In one of the biggest melting pots in the world? There is a big difference between people that are “anti-immigrant” and people that want illegal immigration stopped.


• (2) There is a big difference between people that are “anti-trade” and people that want unfair trade practices stopped.


• (3) What does that mean “cling to guns” ? Is that also a criticism of the 2nd Amendment (right to bear arms)? That may be true of SOME PEOPLE, but certainly not all people. Certainly not entire small towns.


• (4) And what is wrong with people that not only “cling” to, but embrace their “religion” and their religious beliefs?

Is that also a criticism of the 1st Amendment? Again, that be true of SOME PEOPLE, but certainly not all people. And what does it matter what peoples’ religious beliefs are as long as those beliefs do not infringe upon others’ rights?

• (5) Saying people “get bitter” about government incompetence and irresponsibility is justified, although voters are culpable too, since the majority of voters repeatedly rewarding all irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, elitist, plutocratic, incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates (one-simple-idea.com/CongressMakeUp_1855_2008.htm).

Obama’s statements are not only condescending, but elitist, arrogant, dishonest, and denigrate entire small towns:

• (1) people opposed to illegal immigration, and Obama’s voting record and position on illegal immigration are well documented. Again, there is a huge difference between people that are “anti-immigrant” and people that want illegal immigration stopped.


• (2) people opposed to unfair trade practices. Again, there is a big difference between “anti-trade” and people that want unfair trade practices stopped. Again, that may be true of SOME PEOPLE, but certainly not all people.


• (3) people who support legal gun ownership, and/or the 2nd amendment. Again, that may be true of SOME PEOPLE, but certainly not all people.


• (4) people who embrace their religion, and/or religion itself, and/or the 1st amendment. What does it matter to Obama what any one’s religion is?


• (5) people are bitter for a good reason. However, voters are culpable too, since the majority of voters repeatedly rewarding all irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, elitist, plutocratic, incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates. Also, anyone that thinks there is a big difference between most (if not all) irresponsible incumbent politicians in Do-Nothing Congress are delusional. If the voters really want to help their country, they will stop repeatedly rewarding all irresponsible, bought-and-paid-for, elitist, plutocratic, incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

Barack Obama will either:

• ignore it,


• apologize for it,


• stand behind it,


• or turn himself into a pretzel trying to twist it, rationalize it, re-explain it, and/or spin it such that what he said wasn’t really what he meant to say, or that he said it poorly.

At any rate, better to find out now, rather than later … and whoever becomes president, the voters will have the government that the voters elect, and deserve.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2008 11:48 AM

WW, I have been in the minority on politics since college graduation. I applauded your minority support. The fact that you feel the need to defend your minority position speaks for itself.

But as Stephen said, there comes a point when minority status must yield to reality in order to promote any part of the minority position. I enormously respect Ralph Nader and voted for him in the past. But, reality has come home to roost. Ralph Nader will never be president. Barack Obama has a realistic chance, and a perspective which refuses to promote the status quo in D.C.

Thus, supporting Obama, McCain, or Clinton is support for reality based potential. Support for Ron Paul denies reality as support for Ralph Nader denies reality. To become realistic, a minority must champion leadership either with growth potential or which promotes just enough of the minority’s principles to make them a clear choice but not so much that their chances of ever becoming leaders are trashed by being the extremes of the minority cause.

Ron Paul’s calls for a return to commodity based monetary system and complete elimination of the IRS and funding government on tariffs, is just too extreme for most Americans and nearly all economists, and certainly everyone on Wall St. Ron Paul fundamentally wants to return to the beginning of the 20th century with 320 million people living in an industrial-technological age.

It’s like the Creationists who display humans riding dinosaurs as archeology. It is neither realistic or even plausible, and thus satisfies only a small minority who reject empiricism entirely for faith in leaders who feed their cognitive and psychological needs, while the vast majority of others embrace empiricism in varying degrees far more readily.

In a democratically elected government, leadership will be chosen by the majority, not the minorities. Such realities exist whether one admits they do or not.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2008 11:59 AM

David R. Remer wrote: In a democratically elected government, leadership will be chosen by the majority, not the minorities.

Hmmmmm … it will be chosen by all voters.

And without the minority, the outcome could be completely different.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2008 12:17 PM

d.a.n said: “You left out the anti-immigrant and anti-trade statements (aside from the “bitter” people who supposedly cling to “guns” and “religion”. Obama’s statement (and a lenghty statement too) said much more than SOME people. It denigrated far more than SOME (NOT ALL) people.”

Only to his opponents, d.a.n. Only to his opponents. Those who support him accept his statement that he could have phrased it better, but the message that rural folks have been let down and therefore cling to traditional values of their parents, and what security measures they can, and seek explanations for why things are so bad in the headline stories of the media covering anti-immigrant arguments and trade agreements that failed to live up to their promises, is both understandable and a guide for how such rural folks will vote.

He goes on to say that there is far more power in people pulling together toward a better way than the divide and conquer partisan approach of the past. And that was the end point and context of what he said and which is now so much quoted out of context by his opponents.

Those who want to know what anyone thinks, must take in and consider all they have to say. Often, people speaking entirely consistently over a series of talks, can have individual sentences from different talking sentences cherry picked out of context and strung together to form a fabricated speech by opponents with entirely different meaning than what that speaker consistently spoke of all along.

Obama has said time and again, the issues that have divided us in the past, like race, wealth and poverty, power and lack of representation, can be overcome as weapons against a United States and people, and a more United people can govern and prevail in the future. That is his central theme and mission in seeking leadership, and to discard all those many iterations of this theme and view this one quote OUTSIDE that context, rather than within that context, is to fail to fairly and realistically represent the intent of Obama’s words and intentions.

What he said was true. Demonstrably so. Why he said it and what its import and meaning were, can only be gleaned by listening to everything else he says, his context, instead of his opponents who adhere to the old paradigm of destroy and win, divide and conquer, tear down opposition to be the least able candidate left standing.

Rural political values clearly contrast with urban political values on issues like guns, immigration, race, abortion, and a whole host of other political issues. But, they need not impede a better future where pulling together on common ground to solve major common problems can unite us. That was his message. The implication was that though rural folks may lean right and Republican, they are nonetheless free to choose a future of unity and solutions by seeking common ground solutions in their candidate of choice. Namely him.

That is the context and full meaning of his quoted text. This is like the reference to Obama by a Republican as Democrats having their “Tiger Woods” but, Republicans have their McCain.

Taken out of context, this can be read as Democrats have their step and fetch it nigger but Republicans have a War Hero on their side. Taken in context, the meaning is entirely different. ‘Tiger Woods is a universally accepted success story and person, but Republicans have their own to match him in John McCain.’

Amazing what context can do for a sentence or two’s meaning.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2008 12:28 PM

d.a.n said: “And without the minority, the outcome could be completely different.”

Nope, by the numbers, a majority without minorities is a supermajority. Same outcome, different margin of victory, is all.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2008 12:30 PM

d.a.n. I think you need to reread his statement with some objectivity this time. You said he did not use the word ‘Some’, yet his quote was:

“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.”

I see the word some used twice here. And when he references the word ‘they’, it is obvious he is not speaking of each and every individual in those towns, but, generally of many of them, when he says:

“And it’s not surprising then 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.”

Anti-immigration and anti-trade explanations are everywhere in the media that reaches small towns and big, and seize upon those explanations as readily available explanations, though the real explanations are far more complex.

Objectively, there is no insult here. Just the depiction and explanation of why Americans not educated in the complexities of foreign trade and economics, or immigration, trade, and job replacements and economics, will seize upon anti-immigrant and anti-trade agreement sentiments everywhere in the media as explanations for what ails their communities and families and work lives.

But for them and him, the answer lies in electing leadership that will approach such problems holistically and with input and concerns of everyone at the table, so that the solutions benefit far more people than they have in the past, and with the status quo politics of the present, benefiting primarily corporations, their agents and their investors and of course their buddies, the bought and paid for politicians.

That was the point Obama has reiterated in many different ways and was the point of his quoted text in Penn. regarding the hard hit people in rural towns. He was addressing them specifically, for very political reasons, that is where the support for him must come from in order to beat Hillary in that state.

Which begs the question: Why would he insult the people he is addressing in his comment for support. OBVIOUSLY, his comments were not intended or phrased in a manner as to be denigrating. But, as a politician, he spoke without first testing what his opponents might do with his words meaning out of context of the thrust and message of his entire campaign.

So, do you want a candidate who speaks contemporaneously and truthfully from what he really thinks and believes, or, do you want a candidate whose speeches are all written for him/her by professionals who have vetted and tested the phraseology as opponent-proof before the candidate speaks them?

He could have made his point with far more safe phrasing against the spinsters. But, objectively, his words spoke truthfully, and become objectionable only when an entirely different motive and context is given those two sentences by his opponents, than the real motive and context Obama gave them.

So it comes down to believing the intent and motives behind those words ascribed to them by his opponents, or, believing the author of those words for their intent and motive.

Bottom line though is, Americans by and large vote with their emotions, not their intellect or advanced education and verbale accumen. So perhaps it doesn’t matter what Obama meant or intended by his words, but how the explanation of those words by pundits feels to voters. One need only witness the election and reelection of GW Bush to see the veracity of this statement.

Ice Cream and Chocolate feel better than fruits and nuts, and a daily diet of ice cream and chocolates will have the same result as voting by the gut.

Posted by: David R. Remer at April 12, 2008 01:06 PM

Dan-
What’s your choice: to be derailed by a choice of words, by brief offense to substantive truths poorly phrased, or to trust your previous instincts?

People are bitter, and they have clinged to visions of the past. I did things like that! I was once a Republican, and basked in the glow of a well-remembered past. But then, it began to occur to me that my few distinctions from most Democrats paled in comparison to what I had in common with them.

The reality of things is, if you vote your issues, you will compromise your general interests for the most part, because poor candidates and those mostly opposed to you will be able to divert you with simple, dumb crap. They will be able to distract you with a pointless controversy, and then turn around and screw you with the general policy.

It’s one thing to sketch this out intellectually, another to resist it in practice.

Barack Obama is not an elitist. That’s just the standard line of those who want to discourage considered, nuanced policy lines which undermine their sensationalist appeals. When people think, the folks shouting insults from the sideline become annoying.

If you read the full transcript, you’ll see that his aim was to educate people about the variability of folks, as well as the roots of that skepticism, this to combat a rather pernicious image that the media has been pushing of working class Democrats as being uniformly closet racists who sacrifice their interests for wedge issues.

He was saying that people are more complicated than that, and that those who do have problems with him might be won over if they could see a concrete benefit coming from his election.

But what’s being paid attention to? The Political Correctness of his references. If you seriously object to this kind of parsing to find faults in what people say beyond what they mean, then it will be necessary for you to look past a few words and recognize that the release of these words is a political manuever by the Clinton campaign largely meant to inflame class divisions, especially at a time when her record on trade is becoming muddled by conflicts of interest within her campaign.

Consider the source, consider the timing. Their aim is to encourage a misunderstanding that yields them the advantage. What part do you want to play in this? The dupe, or the mature voter who won’t get swayed by short-term, pointless controversies into a long-term vote against your interests?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 12, 2008 01:13 PM

American’s are generally a pretty smart bunch of folks. Most of us don’t need someone to interpret what is being said and “meant” by politicians. We can usually figure that out for ourselves.

Whether “book-smart” or “street-smart” I resent those who attempt to tell others what someone meant when they said or did something. None of us are capable of reading minds and nearly all of us can understand the difference between a mis-spoken statement and what someone really thinks.

The more Obama speaks the more we know about the man and what makes him tick. By November we will all have to judge our candidate by his/her warts and strengths, our agreement with or opposition to his/her positions and our “gut” feeling about their authenticity.

Posted by: Jim M at April 12, 2008 01:55 PM

David R. Remer wrote:

d.a.n said: “You left out the anti-immigrant and anti-trade statements (aside from the “bitter” people who supposedly cling to “guns” and “religion”. Obama’s statement (and a lenghty statement too) said much more than SOME people. It denigrated far more than SOME (NOT ALL) people.”

Only to his opponents, d.a.n. Only to his opponents.

No, I think Obama will lose some supporters.

And when Barack Obama was later provided the opportunity to elaborate and explain his position, he said that it was the “truth”, but he worded it badly. That’s not good enough. Quite simply, had Barack Obama simply said it was true of “SOME PEOPLE”, instead of entire “small towns”, and a “lot of small towns”, his statement would have been true. But he did not say that, and he did not rescind it. Thus, it appears that Barack Obama is standing behind his statement as the truth, even though it is obvious and factual that his denigration of a “lot of small towns” can not possibly be true of all people in any entire “small town”.

David R. Remer wrote: … and to discard all those many iterations of this theme and view this one quote OUTSIDE that context, rather than within that context, is to fail to fairly and realistically represent the intent of Obama’s words and intentions.

That might be true, if:

• (1) it were not for Obama’s know positions on illegal immigration,
• (2) and the fact that he addressed entire “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”,
• (3) and the fact when Barack Obama was later provided the opportunity to elaborate and explain his position, he said that it was the “truth”, but he worded it badly. That’s not good enough. Quite simply, had Barack Obama simply said it was true of “SOME PEOPLE”, instead of entire “small towns”, and a “lot of small towns”, his statement would have been true. But he did not say that, and he did not rescind it. Thus, it appears that Barack Obama is standing behind his statement as the truth, even though it is obvious and factual that his denigration of a “lot of small towns” can not possibly be true of all people in any entire “small town”.

David R. Remer wrote: What he said was true. Demonstrably so.

Not true. No one can know if an entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns” are:

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”.

That may be true of SOME people, but not everyone in a “small town”, much less all people in “a lot of small towns”. That is a very important distinction he failed to make, even when given the opportunity to elaborate.

David R. Remer wrote: Why he said it and what its import and meaning were, can only be gleaned by listening to everything else he says, his context, instead of his opponents who adhere to the old paradigm of destroy and win, divide and conquer, tear down opposition to be the least able candidate left standing.

I did, and the context did not change anything. Especially in view of:

• (1) Obama’s know positions on illegal immigration,
• (2) and the fact that he addressed entire “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”,
• (3) and the fact when Barack Obama was later provided the opportunity to elaborate and explain his position, he said that it was the “truth”, but he worded it badly. That’s not good enough. Quite simply, had Barack Obama simply said it was true of “SOME PEOPLE”, instead of entire “small towns”, and a “lot of small towns”, his statement would have been true. But he did not say that, and he did not rescind it. Thus, it appears that Barack Obama is standing behind his statement as the truth, even though it is obvious and factual that his denigration of a “lot of small towns” can not possibly be true of all people in any entire “small town”.

David R. Remer wrote: That is the context and full meaning of his quoted text.

The full context still does not explain it away. It is still quite simply untrue to say an entire “small town” or “a lot of small towns” are:

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”.

David R. Remer wrote: Taken out of context, this can be read as Democrats have their step and fetch it nigger but Republicans have a War Hero on their side. Taken in context, the meaning is entirely different. ‘Tiger Woods is a universally accepted success story and person, but Republicans have their own to match him in John McCain.’ Amazing what context can do for a sentence or two’s meaning.

It may be a partisan thing for some, but not for me, and even in context, the statement is simply false (in or out of context).

David R. Remer wrote:

d.a.n said: “And without the minority, the outcome could be completely different.”

Nope, by the numbers, a majority without minorities is a supermajority. Same outcome, different margin of victory, is all.

You are saying something different.

What I am saying is this (the mathematical proof).
Let’s say one minority (e.g. Hispanic voters) is 10% of the voters and they are for candidate “A”.
Let’s say Democrats are 35% of the voters and they are for candidate “A”.
Let’s say Republicans are 35% of the voters and they are for candidate “B”.
And Independents are 10% of the voters and half are for candidate “A”.
And Independents are 10% of the voters and half are for candidate “B”.

With the minority, the winner is “A”.
Without the minority, the winner is “B”.
Thus, the statement (i.e. “And without the minority, the outcome could be completely different.”) is true.

David R. Remer wrote: d.a.n. I think you need to reread his statement with some objectivity this time. You said he did not use the word ‘Some’, yet his quote was: “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.”

I did see that. It is still false. No one can say that of an entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns”.

David R. Remer wrote: I see the word some used twice here. And when he references the word ‘they’, it is obvious he is not speaking of each and every individual in those towns, but, generally of many of them, when he says: “And it’s not surprising then 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.”

Again, it is impossible to say that factually of entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns”.

David R. Remer wrote: Objectively, there is no insult here. Just the depiction and explanation of why Americans not educated in the complexities of foreign trade and economics, or immigration, trade, and job replacements and economics, will seize upon anti-immigrant and anti-trade agreement sentiments everywhere in the media as explanations for what ails their communities and families and work lives.

I see an insult. It would have been different had he said “SOME PEOPLE”.

But he said “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”, and he still failed to make that distinction later when he had the opportunity.

David R. Remer wrote: That was the point Obama has reiterated in many different ways and was the point of his quoted text in Penn. regarding the hard hit people in rural towns. He was addressing them specifically, for very political reasons, that is where the support for him must come from in order to beat Hillary in that state.

Well, he might not get that support now, and I think we will lose some votes because of it.

It would have been so easy for him to say “I meant only SOME PEOPLE”, but he did not. He insisted it was true, and offered no restatement to make it clear that it did not apply to all in “small towns” and ” a lot of small towns”.

David R. Remer wrote: Which begs the question: Why would he insult the people he is addressing in his comment for support.

Sometimes, people’s real character slips out. It happens all the time. That is one of the few advantages of this lengthy campaign season.

David R. Remer wrote: OBVIOUSLY, his comments were not intended or phrased in a manner as to be denigrating. But, as a politician, he spoke without first testing what his opponents might do with his words meaning out of context of the thrust and message of his entire campaign.

Again, had he simply stated that he meant SOME PEOPLE, instead of re-assertinga and defending his original statement as true for entire “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”, it would have been true.

David R. Remer wrote: So, do you want a candidate who speaks contemporaneously and truthfully from what he really thinks and believes, or, do you want a candidate whose speeches are all written for him/her by professionals who have vetted and tested the phraseology as opponent-proof before the candidate speaks them?

I want one that speaks truthfully, but also does not denigrate “small towns” or “a lot of small towns”. He should have said SOME PEOPLE, but he did not; not even later when asked to elaborate. Instead, he stood behind his statement as the truth. That’s a problem, and it is a false statement, since no one can paint such a broad stroke of people in even a single “small town”. Even small towns have diversity.

David R. Remer wrote: He could have made his point with far more safe phrasing against the spinsters.

But he later defended his statement as the truth, and still failed to make the distinction between SOME PEOPLE and an entire “small town” or “a lot of small towns”.

David R. Remer wrote: But, objectively, his words spoke truthfully, …

That may be what he truthfully believes, but it is most certainly not true that an entire “small town” or “a lot of small towns” are:

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”.

David R. Remer wrote: … and become objectionable only when an entirely different motive and context is given those two sentences by his opponents, than the real motive and context Obama gave them.

Not based on the full context AND his opportunity to elaborate, where he defended it, and still failed to correct his statements by saying SOME PEOPLE instead of some entire “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”.

David R. Remer wrote: So it comes down to believing the intent and motives behind those words ascribed to them by his opponents, or, believing the author of those words for their intent and motive.

I would have dismissed it completely, had it not been for the fact that Obama defended his statement, and still failed to correct his statements by saying SOME PEOPLE instead of some entire “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”.

David R. Remer wrote: Bottom line though is, Americans by and large vote with their emotions, not their intellect or advanced education and verbale accumen.

Emotion is a large part of it. I don’t know if it is the majority. It’s difficult explain the majority of voters when they complain about government corrutpion and then repeatedly reward incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates.

David R. Remer wrote: So perhaps it doesn’t matter what Obama meant or intended by his words, but how the explanation of those words by pundits feels to voters.

I think even some Obama supporters are going to wonder about that statement, and the follow up that defended it.

The thing is, I don’t have a pony in this race, but up to now thought Obama was the least worst of the 3 candidates.
His statement and subsequence defense of it diminished that, and that are logical (not only emotional) reasons for that.

David R. Remer wrote: One need only witness the election and reelection of GW Bush to see the veracity of this statement.

Maybe, but 2004 more likely demonstrates what happens when all of the choices stink.

David R. Remer wrote: Ice Cream and Chocolate feel better than fruits and nuts, and a daily diet of ice cream and chocolates will have the same result as voting by the gut.

Well, I wasn’t going to vote for Obama, Hillary, or McCain anyway, but Obama’s statement and susequent defense of it raises many questions for me; especially when the subsequent opportunity to easily clear it all up by saying “SOME PEOPLE” instead of some entire “small towns” or “a lot of small towns”. To me, that means that he meant exactly what he said, and I have a problem with that, since it can not possibly be true. No one can know that all people in even a single “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns” are:

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”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- What’s your choice: to be derailed by a choice of words, by brief offense to substantive truths poorly phrased, or to trust your previous instincts?

It’s not merely a bad choice of words, since Obama subsequently could have easily cleared it all up by saying “SOME PEOPLE” instead of some entire “small towns” or “a lot of small towns”.

Instead, he defended his statement.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: People are bitter, and they have clinged to visions of the past. I did things like that!

Yes, but the bitter part is only a small part of it. The main issue is the false assertion that it applies to an entire “small town” and “a lot of small towns”. That’s simply not true, or provable.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I was once a Republican, and basked in the glow of a well-remembered past.

I was once a Republican too, but now see no need to belong to any party, since neither are serious about problem solving, which voters are equally culpable for by repeatedly rewarding irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-electon rates.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: But then, it began to occur to me that my few distinctions from most Democrats paled in comparison to what I had in common with them.

And it became clear to me that the differences between the two were almost non-existent.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The reality of things is, if you vote your issues, you will compromise your general interests for the most part, because poor candidates and those mostly opposed to you will be able to divert you with simple, dumb crap. They will be able to distract you with a pointless controversy, and then turn around and screw you with the general policy.

It is a mixture of things. Character is important too. But a person can have character and be completely wrong on major issues.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Barack Obama is not an elitist. That’s just the standard line of those who want to discourage considered, nuanced policy lines which undermine their sensationalist appeals. When people think, the folks shouting insults from the sideline become annoying.

Well, it appears many were annoyed by Obama’s insults, and his subsequent failure to distinguish between SOME PEOPLE and some entire “small towns” or “a lot of small towns”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you read the full transcript, you’ll see that his aim was to educate people about the variability of folks, as well as the roots of that skepticism, this to combat a rather pernicious image that the media has been pushing of working class Democrats as being uniformly closet racists who sacrifice their interests for wedge issues.

I did read it, and it makes no difference. His statement is still false, and his follow-up statement still failed to distinguish between SOME PEOPLE and some entire “small towns” or “a lot of small towns”. Thus, until he does make that distinction, I have to wonder if he is an elitist, and/or simply stubborn, and/or disdainful of some entire “small towns” or “a lot of small towns”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: If you seriously object to this kind of parsing to find faults in what people say beyond what they mean, then it will be necessary for you to look past a few words and recognize that the release of these words is a political manuever by the Clinton campaign largely meant to inflame class divisions, especially at a time when her record on trade is becoming muddled by conflicts of interest within her campaign.

Again, Obama had the opportunity to correct his statement and say that he meant SOME PEOPLE, but instead defended his statement as the truth. It’s quite simply not true that some entire “small town” or “a lot of small towns” are:

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”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Consider the source, consider the timing. Their aim is to encourage a misunderstanding that yields them the advantage.

Obama is the source, and if the timing is bad, Obama has only himself to thank for it.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What part do you want to play in this? The dupe, or the mature voter who won’t get swayed by short-term, pointless controversies into a long-term vote against your interests?

I will call it like it is. Had Obama simply (in his follow-up to elaborate) said I meant to say SOME PEOPLE, I would have dismissed the entire thing.

But he did not. Instead, he insists that he told the truth.
He said: “I said something everybody knows is true”.
Well, it is not true.
No one can know and say that of some entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns”.

I wasn’t voting for McCain, Obama, or Hillary anyway, so I have no pony in the race.
I’m not even religious, but think his statement was denigrating, since peoples’ religion should matter not to anyone else.

Those are valid reasons for concern.
What I think isn’t that important.
Most voters will vote for whoever they want despite what I think.
If Obama loses votes because of this, it will be Obama’s own fault.

Jack wrote: None of us are capable of reading minds and nearly all of us can understand the difference between a mis-spoken statement and what someone really thinks.

That’s my main point in this, and I think it is objective, based on Obama’s follow-up statement:

Obama said: “I said something everybody knows is true”.

I recommend Obama quickly come out and say:

“I meant SOME PEOPLE. Not some entire small town or a lot of small towns. And the comment about religion was uncalled for, since others’ religion are completely of no concern to anyone else as long as they don’t violate others’ rights.”

Then I would dismiss the entire matter. But not until then.

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2008 02:09 PM

“Barack Obama is not an elitist… his aim was to educate people”

I am already pretty well educated, and trying to find some reason to be able to support the Hawaii-O candidate if he is nominated by my party. Lecturing people is elitist. Many of us have actually lived through more of the history that this candidate tries to explain to us, than he has in his 46 years. His knowledge is limited to the theoretical.

If “the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them”, then I guess the people are all dead from starvation, right? Or their bodies are atrophied from 25 years of doing nothing? Maybe they need a President who has “community organizer” on his resume.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 12, 2008 06:20 PM

Barack Obama clarifies his remarks after the utterly bogus firestorm that has ensued after what he said in San Francisco:

“I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter. So I said well you know, when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. “Now, I didn’t say it as well as I should have. If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so.”

Barack Obama is just being honest and truthful, as usual. But really, how dare he! Rather than listen to guy who was raised middle class, indeed a kid who lived in an apartment with his grandparents for a good portion of his childhood speaking about the sentiments felt in most of America’s failing communties due to a lack of jobs and economic opportunity, we should only be listening to Clinton and McCain on these kinds of issues. Only the likes of these two candidates could possibly understand and respect the small town folk of this nation — what with how they both grew up in wealthy privilege, and are both currently worth at least 100 million dollars each.
LOL!

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at April 12, 2008 06:38 PM

Obama’s gaffes—we are learning—are ALL actually our gaffes. He’ll tell us so himself.

Twenty years of being mentored by a hate-spewing preacher? We only object because we don’t understand the history of race in this country. A lecture from Obama from on high will open our eyes.

Small town Americans are all fearful xenophobes who cling to their guns and religion?

Obama didn’t say what we heard him say—the problem is with our ears. What he actually means is that small town Americans don’t actually know their own interests as well as Obama does. Obama will instruct us in what our interests actually are—left wing economics.

This level of condescenscion here is just off the map. Lately, Obama has been lecturing about we need to turn off our video games.

I wonder if he also thinks we should eat our vegetables and get plenty of exercise? Rather than running for President, Obama seems like he’s auditioning for the role of an American Chairman Mao.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 12, 2008 06:43 PM

Video: Obama Responds to McCain and Clinton attacks in Terre Haute, Indiana.

Posted by: Veritas Vincit at April 12, 2008 07:18 PM

Barack Obama is just being honest and truthful, as usual…

That’s not much of an explanation. If he doesn’t make it crystal clear that he meant SOME PEOPLE instead of some entire “small town” or “a lot of small towns”, and continues to say his original statement was the truth, then this will not go away (and justifiably so).

Saying some entire “small town” and “a lot of small towns” are:

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”.

… may be true of SOME people, but not everyone in even one “small town”, much less all people in “a lot of small towns”. That is a very important distinction he failed to make, even when given the opportunity to elaborate. And he then followed up by saying:

Obama said: “I said something everybody knows is true”.

I don’t know anything of the sort. There is no way I (nor anyone) can say some entire “small town” or “a lot of small towns” are:

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”.

Obama has had many opportunities to correct his statement by clarifying that what he actually meant was “SOME PEOPLE” in some “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”.

And why even bring religion into it, when others’ religion is not the business of anyone else?

Posted by: d.a.n at April 12, 2008 08:26 PM

Dan-
You’re quibbling over things that are only a problem because you’re taking this excessively strict, formal view of remarks that you can discern from the plain words around them are not meant to be a categorical universal. Your reasoning is fallacious.

What’s more, you miss his real point: People have voted on these issues out of an general impulse towards preservation of what they once had, economically, culturally, and religiously. His argument was never that people were unjustified in this. He’s said that it is natural. He’s said that there is something deeper behind the distrust and skepticism of government there than some stereotypical irrationality on their part. They’ve been burned before, and therefore are skeptical about big government. He simply says they need convincing.

The bitterness he implies on their part, he doesn’t condemn them for. He says it’s much the same as the anger and frustration on the part of many Americans concerning the government. The clinging he talks about, he says, isn’t irrational, but natural.

So what exactly is he looking down on here, or are people simply trying to reinterpret his words to suit a pre-exist box they want to stuff him in? Seems like the latter.

As for your difference on “SOME PEOPLE”? In common language, it is not unusual to attribute without qualification a quality that cannot be said to be universal onto the citizens. A city can be impoverished. A city can fall on hard times. So, along one line, you could say that such references are figures of speech.

Along another line, The use of plurals and references to groups (“people” for instance), does not necessarily imply a universal statement. So if I said the people of Indiana prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, 1) Nobody will accuse me of speaking for them all, and 2) Most people will take that to mean a majority prefer him, not that the public exclusively supports him there.

Let’s take it a step further, and say People in Indiana. There, the treachery of words makes things even more loopy, because this can be taken to mean, intended to mean the same thing as the previous statement, but it can also mean that he has a community of supporters there. And if aliens ever landed, we could exclude them with this statement, though, since aliens aren’t people.

The words Obama used would typically be taken by others to mean “a significant subset”. He never includes the kinds of words that would indicate that these were absolute categoricals here. There was no reference to all towns, or all people in those towns. It’s rhetorical hairsplitting to take him to task for this.

Ohrealy-
The flaw of sounding like a lecturer is known as being didactic. One way to bring that label upon yourself is by taking figures of speech far too literally.

It is, by that definition, didactic to lecture people on the fact that there are indeed jobs there to maintain folks living. We know this, Barack knows this. The reason most people don’t complain, is that just as before, people take a generalized term to mean a more specific thing. Small Towns refers to a known set of towns where a significant amount of the population, due to industrial flight from those areas, have fallen on hard times. Jobs means the good paying jobs, not the service-sector, Wal-Mart, May-I-take-your—order sort of jobs. Sure, people can get along, but they only have to look back to their childhood or to their young adulthood to remember better times.

The elitism here? This notion that years among the party elite somehow better qualifies you for office. This notion that experience, that is being part of club for long enough, is the measurement of a candidate’s ability as a leader, and not their actual actions.

From where I’m sitting, skill has beat experience. Experience had Clinton and McCain resting on their laurels, or having to ressurect their campaigns after being complete blindsided by their own mismanagement. These people did not have plans for dealing with unexpected, counterintuitive events. They stuck to old methods of waging their campaigns, and got left behind in the dust by a rookie.

We can talk about what his knowledge is limited to, but knowledge is a transient thing. Wisdom matters most. Judgment matters most.

LO-
The last thing I need is some lecture on how Barack’s serious, thoughtful, positive, forgiving rhetoric is somehow an imposition on people. You know, a lot of people have been waiting for somebody who could open their mouth, and not inspire folks to pity by the way they mangle the language.

I can’t tell you how satisfying it was for me to hear in Obama’s response and open recognition of just how frustrated, bitter, and angry many Americans are, and how right they are to be. It was vastly preferable to the happy talk coming out of the Clinton campaign, that no, Pennsylvanians didn’t have a bitter bone in their bodies. No, we can’t admit people are mad. They have to be stoic, it has to be morning in America.

And no, we can’t say there’s a recession, or that the war’s going badly, or that the last capitulation was truly shameful.

How many things have American’s learned not to say, been told not to say? How much bulls*** do we end up having to remain silent about? I started on this site in no uncertain terms because I feel like saying something, even if it put me at odds with a popular president who seemed to have little compunction about dealing harshly with dissenters. That’s why I sign my real name to my articles.

Oh, you must not lecture, some say. But you know what? I’d like to hear my president say illuminating things, to learn things for once from him, rather than feel my brain cells go off into a corner of my skull to drown themselves in my cerebrospinal fluid out of despair at the drek they’re assaulted with.

I mean, you talk about condescension! When my current president speaks, I feel like he thinks I’m a kindergartener. This is how teachers in grade school talk to very young children who don’t know any better. And then there’s those occasions that just make you proud to be an American, when your president messes up words grammar that grade school students probably could do better. Believe me, it’s a double insult to your intelligence. There’s nothing worse than being spoken to as if you were an idiot by a man who can’t seem to distinguish himself from one.

So pardon me if I endure the occasional well-structured, well-spoken lecture at the hands of former professor of Constitutional law Barack Obama, who is reputed to be one of the teachers whose lectures students would clamor over one another to attend. Pardon me If I don’t admire a candidate who can turn around and respond as fiercely as he did, as well as he did. Pardon me if I don’t mind having a liberal progressive in the White House, given the fact that I think this is what the country needs.

Pardon me for not bowing at your feet and giving you the respect due to all the Republicans who come down from on high to tell us what a mistake we are making.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at April 12, 2008 10:07 PM

Dan, I think you’re making too much of whether Obama meant ‘all’ or ‘some’ when he was casting aspersions on the dumb yokels who live in fly-over country.

Even if he actually meant “some” but failed to say “some,” it’s not something he ought to be saying at all. No matter how you cut it, it’s not only condescending but flat out wrong. Not to mention terrible politics for somebody who claims to be some kind of grand “uniter.” The MOST generous interpretation of Obama’s remarks is that he, Obama, and his fellow Democrats—such as the Bay Area liberals he was addressing—know what’s best for the rest of the country economically and socially.

So pardon me if I endure the occasional well-structured, well-spoken lecture at the hands of former professor of Constitutional law Barack Obama…

If his remarks were so “well-structured,” then it’s rather curious that he would now say “I didn’t say it as well as I should have” and apologize for offending people.

Also, Obama was never a professor of Constitutional law. Or a professor of anything. When he claims to have been one, he is lying. But since Obama never lies, maybe this is just another example of him not saying things as well as he should have? It’s becoming a pattern.

Keep the excuses coming. For Obama supporters, the ability to spin, evade, and obfuscate is sure to prove a very important skill as we move into the general election season. He’s going to need a lot of help in convincing all of us that somebody who is sinking before our eyes is actually walking on water.

Posted by: Loyal Opposition at April 13, 2008 12:06 AM

The illuminator, the teacher, “serious, thoughtful, positive, forgiving”. Isn’t it a little odd that so many of the followers have a less critical opinion of him than his own wife? Maybe he can teach a few things to the Dalai Lama and the Pope.

“Jobs means the good paying jobs, not the service-sector…” in 21st century America? If you can’t create your own work, you have to move to a more prosperous area, work for a government agency or a charitable group, or get public assistance to stay poor.

“the party elite”, has accepted the man from Honolulu, Hawaii B O, and he has become one of them, because of proportional representation and affirmative action, IOW, changing the rules to benefit a minority. They don’t call him “articulate” any more, but the praise is for the same reason.

Affirmative action mostly works for the children of immigrants, and people with other connections, not for the underclass for whom it was intended, who might actually need it.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 13, 2008 12:35 AM

Stephen:

Wow!! That is pretty bad stuff that he said, even in context. I can understand from your point of view that you think differently.

From a small town point of view, people pretty much want to be left alone. They want to be protexted FROM liberalism. In the town that I am right now, life is pretty simple. People like to hunt as their grandparents did. Holding on to a gun has nothing to do with bitterness, but everything to do with raising their children the way they were raised. Bringing home and Elk is part of how they feed their family and raise their children. It’s heritage.

As for faith, they have always had faith. Their grandparents had faith when they came to this country and homesteaded here, and started the churches. Faith is far older than the new deal.

Why do people take huge paycuts to move to small towns? It’s to get away from much of what the left is pushing. So here comes Obama and says that no, you who live in small towns are bitter. (If we didn’t like it here we would leave by the way). He is just the latest arrogant liberal.

He needs to shut up and listen. He needs to sit in a modest country home and listen to why people choose this lifestyle. He needs to respect this lifestyle before he generalizes about it.

Obama is doing just what I thought he would do. HE is like Barry Goldwater only on the left instead of the right. He is going to say some pretty stupid things. “It’s only just another Bomb”.

You will be defending him from these things clear up until the election. It’s not the terrible right doing this to you, it’s because you have a candidate that is outside the mainstream.

Posted by: Craig Holmes at April 13, 2008 04:25 AM

Stephen Daugherty wrote: d.a.n- You’re quibbling over things that are only a problem because you’re taking this excessively strict, formal view of remarks that you can discern from the plain words around them are not meant to be a categorical universal. Your reasoning is fallacious.

No Stephen, you’re reasoning is falacious, because in Pennsylvania (on 6-APR-2008), Barack Obama said:

• “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. And it’s not surprising then 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”.
• And then on 12-APR-2008, he defended his statement by saying: “I said something everybody knows is true”.

Well, it is not true. Not even for any single entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns”.

Had Obama quickly come out and said:

“I meant SOME PEOPLE, not even for any single entire ‘small town’, much less ‘a lot of small towns’

… it would have made a huge difference. Yet, he still refuses to make this very important distinction that would make his statements true. Instead, his statement is obviously false, since it can not possibly be true of any single entire ‘small town’, much less ‘a lot of small towns’.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: What’s more, you miss his real point: People have voted on these issues out of an general impulse towards preservation of what they once had, economically, culturally, and religiously.

False.

That’s not the point at all. That is another dodge and rationalization, just like Obama now turning himself into a pretzel while trying to re-explain and defend a statement that is false.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: His argument was never that people were unjustified in this. He’s said that it is natural. He’s said that there is something deeper behind the distrust and skepticism of government there than some stereotypical irrationality on their part. They’ve been burned before, and therefore are skeptical about big government. He simply says they need convincing.

False.

That may be true of SOME PEOPLE, but not all, and certainly not any single entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns”, which Obama subsequently defended as the “truth”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The bitterness he implies on their part, he doesn’t condemn them for. He says it’s much the same as the anger and frustration on the part of many Americans concerning the government. The clinging he talks about, he says, isn’t irrational, but natural.

That may be true of SOME PEOPLE, but not all, and certainly not any single entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns”, which Obama subsequently defended as the “truth”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: So what exactly is he looking down on here, or are people simply trying to reinterpret his words to suit a pre-exist box they want to stuff him in? Seems like the latter.

That may be true of SOME PEOPLE, but not all.

They are his own words, and his own subsequent defense of those words. It is quite simply untrue of any single entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns”, which Obama subsequently defended as the “truth”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: As for your difference on “SOME PEOPLE”? In common language, it is not unusual to attribute without qualification a quality that cannot be said to be universal onto the citizens. A city can be impoverished. A city can fall on hard times. So, along one line, you could say that such references are figures of speech.

False again.

Obama had many opportunities to make the clear distinction between SOME PEOPLE and any single entire “small town”, much less “a lot of small towns”, and he strongly defended his original statement:

On 12-APR-2008, he defended his statement by saying: “I said something everybody knows is true”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Along another line, The use of plurals and references to groups (“people” for instance), does not necessarily imply a universal statement. So if I said the people of Indiana prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton, 1) Nobody will accuse me of speaking for them all, and 2) Most people will take that to mean a majority prefer him, not that the public exclusively supports him there.

That is entirely different. Especially since Barack Obama subsequently defended his original statement:

On 12-APR-2008, he defended his statement by saying: “I said something everybody knows is true”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The words Obama used would typically be taken by others to mean “a significant subset”.

False, since Barack Obama subsequently defended his original statement:

On 12-APR-2008, he defended his statement by saying: “I said something everybody knows is true”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: He never includes the kinds of words that would indicate that these were absolute categoricals here. There was no reference to all towns, or all people in those towns. It’s rhetorical hairsplitting to take him to task for this.

Not true.

And as Loyal Opposition wrote:

Even if he actually meant “some” but failed to say “some,” it’s not something he ought to be saying at all. No matter how you cut it, it’s not only condescending but flat out wrong. Not to mention terrible politics for somebody who claims to be some kind of grand “uniter.”

Loyal Opposition is correct too (especially on the comment with regard to religion), because:

• (01) It was a dumb thing to say, even if he really believes it.


• (02) Regarding the comment by Obama: “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”? In one of the biggest melting pots in the world ? Is that true of entire “small towns” in America?


• (03) There is a big difference between people that are “anti-immigrant” and people that want illegal immigration stopped. Is that true of entire “small towns” in America?


• (04) There is a big difference between people that are “anti-trade” and people that want unfair trade practices stopped. Is that true of entire “small towns” in America?


• (05) What does that mean “cling to guns” ? Is that also a criticism of the 2nd Amendment? Is that true of entire “small towns” in America?


• (06) And what is wrong with people that “cling” to their “religion” and their religious beliefs? Is that also a criticism of the 1st Amendment? Is that true of entire “small towns” in America?


• (07) People are bitter? People have a right to be “bitter” with government irresponsibility, incompetence, and Do-Nothing Congress. However, the voters are culpable too, since the voters repeatedly reward irresponsible incumbent politicians with 93%-to-99% re-election rates. Still, is that even true of entire “small towns” in America?


• (08) Had Barack Obama said “SOME PEOPLE”, he would have been correct, but Barack Obama was addressing entire “small towns in in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest”.


• (09) Do “small town” Americans have to “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” ?


• (10) And when Barack Obama was later provided the opportunity to elaborate and explain his position, he said that it was the “truth”, but he worded it badly. That’s not good enough. Quite simply, had Barack Obama simply said it was true of “SOME PEOPLE”, instead of some entire “small towns”, and a “lot of small towns”, his statement would have been true. But he did not say that, and he did not rescind it. Thus, it appears that Barack Obama is standing behind his statement as the truth, even though it is obvious and factual that his denigration of a “lot of small towns” can not possibly be true of all people in any entire “small town”.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Ohrealy- The flaw of sounding like a lecturer is known as being didactic. One way to bring that label upon yourself is by taking figures of speech far too literally.

False again, since Obama’s subsequently defended his original statement by saying:

On 12-APR-2008: “I said something everybody knows is true”.

Again, he still failed to make a clear distinction between SOME PEOPLE and some entire “small towns”, and a “lot of small towns”. But, as Loyal Opposition also points out, parts of it (such as “clinging” to “religion”) is simply wrong. Does one have to be bitter to “cling” to “religion”?

Trying to defend the indefensibile will turn one into a pretzel, and that appears to be the path Obama has chosen too.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: The elitism here? This notion that years among the party elite somehow better qualifies you for office. This notion that experience, that is being part of club for long enough, is the measurement of a candidate’s ability as a leader, and not their actual actions.

A necessary quality of any leader is to not paint broad strokes of some “small towns” and “a lot of small towns” as being:

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”.

Again, that may be true of SOME people, but not everyone in a “small town”, much less all people in “a lot of small towns”. That is a very important distinction he failed to make, even when given the opportunity to elaborate.

You are going to have to come up with a much better explanation and rationalization than you have so far to be convincing.

Otherwise, you may be hurting your candidate (Obama) by turning into a pretzel trying to defend the indefensible.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: From where I’m sitting, skill has beat experience. Experience had Clinton and McCain resting on their laurels, or having to ressurect their campaigns after being complete blindsided by their own mismanagement. These people did not have plans for dealing with unexpected, counterintuitive events. They stuck to old methods of waging their campaigns, and got left behind in the dust by a rookie.

Well, after this gaffe, that is debatable. Obama may still win. I don’t much care, since I see all three candidates as about equally dismal. All three have pathetic grades on illegal immigration. All three have no record of good economic policies, all three have questionable voting records, Hillary and Obama have bad pork-barrel voting records, McCain wants to continue nation-building and policing the Iraqis’ civil war, McCain fear mongers about the terrorists following us back to the U.S. if we leave Iraq, all three are pandering (e.g. economic stimulus) in ways that grow the federal debt to ever larger nightmarish proportions, and all three have failed to address, much less stop these 10 abuses hammering most Americans.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: We can talk about what his knowledge is limited to, but knowledge is a transient thing. Wisdom matters most. Judgment matters most.

Therefore, what does it say about his judgement to paint broad strokes of some “small towns” and “a lot of small towns” as being ?:

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”

Stephen Daugherty wrote: I can’t tell you how satisfying it was for me to hear in Obama’s response and open recognition of just how frustrated, bitter, and angry many Americans are, and how right they are to be.

It was much more than an acknowledgement of SOME PEOPLES’ bitterness.

It was an indictment too of not only SOME PEOPLE, but some “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”. And what is odd is the four things he picked to demonstrate that bitterness:

• (1) clinging to guns;
• So? What is wrong with gun ownership? It is our 2nd amendment right. The fact is, some (maybe a lot) of the people Obama is criticizing are actually for increased gun control.


• (2) clinging to religion;
  • And denigrating anyone for clinging to their religion is totally out of line, no matter which way you cut it, since others’ religion is of no concern to anyone else, as long as their beliefs do no infringe upon others’ rights.


• (3) clinging to anti-immigrant sentiment;
  • Well, we already know Obama wants to give amnesty do illegal aliens. Obama has a “D-” voting record on illegal immigration (grades.betterimmigration.com/compare.php3?District=IL&Category=0&Status=Career&VIPID=1162). And there is a big difference between anti-immigrant and anti-illegal alien.


• (4) clinging to anti-trade sentiment
• There is a big difference between anti-trade and anti-unfair-trade. Some of the people Obama was addressing in small town America are not anti-trade; they are against unfair-trade. There’s a big difference, and Obama’s failure to make these important distinctions (for someone who supposedly is supposed to be uniter and a good speaker) is a huge problem … . especially when he subsequently defends his original statement (Obama said: “I said something everybody knows is true”)

Stephen Daugherty wrote: It was vastly preferable to the happy talk coming out of the Clinton campaign, that no, Pennsylvanians didn’t have a bitter bone in their bodies. No, we can’t admit people are mad. They have to be stoic, it has to be morning in America.

I agree that happy-talk is equally disgusting, since some (perhaps many) people in some (perhaps many) states are fed up with too many irresponsible incumbent and incomptent politicians and these 10 abuses that are hammering most Americans.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: And no, we can’t say there’s a recession, or that the war’s going badly, or that the last capitulation was truly shameful.

I agree with that part … happy talk is equally frustrating.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: So pardon me if I endure the occasional well-structured, well-spoken lecture at the hands of former professor of Constitutional law Barack Obama, who is reputed to be one of the teachers whose lectures students would clamor over one another to attend. Pardon me If I don’t admire a candidate who can turn around and respond as fiercely as he did, as well as he did. Pardon me if I don’t mind having a liberal progressive in the White House, given the fact that I think this is what the country needs.

No one said you can’t admire Obama. That’s your right.

Stephen Daugherty wrote: Pardon me for not bowing at your feet and giving you the respect due to all the Republicans who come down from on high to tell us what a mistake we are making.

Who said you were making a mistake in supporting Obama.

The issue is what Obama said, and then subsequently defended.
Whoever you choose to elect is your choice.

However, not only Republicans are disdainful of Obama’s statements and subsequent defense of those statements.
There are some from all groups (e.g. Democrats, Independents, Republicans) that do not agree with Obama’s statement and subsequent defense of those statements.
Thus, it isn’t strictly a partisan issue, despite your targeting Republicans only.

Loyal Opposition wrote: d.a.n, I think you’re making too much of whether Obama meant ‘all’ or ‘some’ when he was casting aspersions on the dumb yokels who live in fly-over country.

Maybe, since that is not the only issue.

I think you are right that there is more than one issue with Obama’s statements. It’s just that one thing that is definitely incorrect with Obama’s statement and subsequent defense, is painting such a broad stroke of “small towns” or “a lot of small towns”, and then saying (as Obama did on 12-Apr-2008) “I said something everybody knows is true”.

Loyal Opposition wrote: Even if he actually meant “some” but failed to say “some,” it’s not something he ought to be saying at all.

I personally agree with that; especially with regard to the part about religion, since others’ religion is not any others’ business, as long as their beliefs do not infringe upon others’ rights.

Loyal Opposition wrote: No matter how you cut it, it’s not only condescending but flat out wrong.

Agreed. It’s not just the part about bitterness, or guns, or religion, or anti-immigrant sentitment, or anti-trade sentiment.

It is also the failure to make the important distinction between SOME PEOPLE and some “small towns” or “a lot of small towns”.

Loyal Opposition wrote: Not to mention terrible politics for somebody who claims to be some kind of grand “uniter.”

Definitely terrible politics, and exacerbated by the subsequent defense of the original statement, and then the lame apology that still failed to make a distinction between SOME PEOPLE and some “small towns” and “a lot of small towns”.

Loyal Opposition wrote: The MOST generous interpretation of Obama’s remarks is that he, Obama, and his fellow Democrats—such as the Bay Area liberals he was addressing—know what’s best for the rest of the country economically and socially.

Perhaps.

Loyal Opposition wrote: If his remarks were so “well-structured,” then it’s rather curious that he would now say “I didn’t say it as well as I should have” and apologize for offending people.

Interesting. Obama also said “I said something everybody knows is true”.

So which is it?
Had Obama simply apologized and also made the important distinction between SOME PEOPLE and some “small town” and “a lot of small towns”, this issue would have gone away.
Instead, Obama and his supporters are turning into pretzels trying to re-interpret, rationalize, explain, and defend the indefensible.

Loyal Opposition wrote: Also, Obama was never a professor of Constitutional law. Or a professor of anything. When he claims to have been one, he is lying. But since Obama never lies, maybe this is just another example of him not saying things as well as he should have? It’s becoming a pattern.

Well, senior lecturers are sometimes considered on par with professors, so I’m not going to quibble the professor status thing too much.

My bigger beef with anyone teaching Constitutional Law and claiming to be a champion of the Constitution is their blatant violation of Article V and other Constitutional Violations. But all Congress persons are on record as violating Article V in Walker vs. Members of Congress.

Craig Holmes wrote:
Wow!! That is pretty bad stuff that he said, even in context.

True, since it was subsequently defended by Obama as “true”.

Craig Holmes wrote: Holding on to a gun has nothing to do with bitterness, … As for faith, they have always had faith. Their grandparents had faith when they came to this country and homesteaded here, and started the churches. Faith is far older than the new deal.

The denigration