I used to be that voter
I grew up in a small town in ohio on the border of Pa. and WV. I know who and what obama was talking about in his comments because i use to be that voter. My town dried up in the 80's when the steel industry took a hit, everybody hit hard times and it didn't seem like washington would or could do anything to revive us. So out of a desire to feel like my vote really did matter I voted for Bush Sr. the very first time and the only reason i did was of the pro-life movement. i didn't look at economics or foreign policy or healthcare the only thing i looked at was who was pro-life and who was "pro abortion". i now refer to that as pro-choice. it wasn't until i started working in manufacturing and spent ten years watching the work force shrink and my healthcare cost skyrocket that i realized i may need to vote for more than one issue. so all the clinton supporters out there please stop pretending you don't know what obama was talking about because you do, you know those voters. this is the first time i've ever attempted to put my own thoughts out for comment so if it is a little rough i apologize
Advertisement
Great job for a first post! No need to apologize.
It is former republican voters such as yourself who give me hope that we can finally dispense with the labels this year and vote for our own best interests.
The "divide and conquer" strategy seems to be losing its luster at long last.
April 16, 2008 10:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
No one is pretending saundra. Obama supporters as well need to stop pretending that they don't know that how he said the words he said was condecending in the worst form. "these people".....clinging to guns and religion....in other words "these people" are idiot sheep that need a shepherd. Yes, everyone knew what he was saying alright. He was looking down on all those folks...big or small town that he feels that aren't in his "class". And, yes, class matters to Mr. Obama.
April 16, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yet another person seeking to keep this "controversy" alive despite all the available evidence to the contrary. Have you actually taken the time to read the entire speech in context or read anything from people who were actually at the event?
For anyone who actually took the time to examine this issue critically, rather than accepting the spin as truth, it is quite clear that he was speaking to the very notion that Saundra was expressing. That is was about how people vote for these wedge issues instead of in their own best interest.
It is a painfully obvious point to anyone with at least one functioning brain cell and one that Barack (and Bill Clinton and Jim Webb and many others) has made before, albeit with a little more eloquence on Charlie Rose in 2004.
The only people who are running on class conflict of Hillary and McCain, both of whom have been very good to their class and very bad for the people Barack was speaking of. I prefer the person who has actually rolled up his sleeves and went to work at the local level providing solutions over the plutocrats who shipped those same people's jobs overseas.
April 16, 2008 10:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Read it Jason. As I said he logic was fine. Its the way he said it and the WORDS he used. Words do matter. I think someone said that in this campaign.
What he said as an idea has been said millions and millions of times by Democratic politicians since I was pissin my pants. Its not novel or new or courageous.
But was new was saying it in the way he did to the audience he did. Was dumb and hurtful of the total message. Another reason why he can't be the nominee. If your going to set the expectations bar that high you better be able to jump over it everyday. He has proven he can't. Just MHO
April 16, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, words matter. ALL of the words, taken together, provide context. It's called English Grammar and is what allows us to comprehend what is being said.
If you remove the context, words are meaningless and don't matter at all.
Let's take this sentence for example:
"Hillary is a whore for corporate America and has sold her soul with her votes for the War in Iraq, the Kyle-Lieberman Amendment and the bankruptcy bill." A fairly good point, though in rudely expressed. Shorten it to "Hillary is a whore!" and someone loses their job.
Context is everything.
April 16, 2008 12:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, not sure if I got your point. What context was he putting that statement into?
April 16, 2008 12:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Guess that goes to show that you aren't paying attention to all the news.
Randi Rhodes was fired (or quit if you prefer) for calling Hillary a whore. Had the entire context of what she was trying to say was reported that it would have been rude, but hardly news worthy.
It is what we call an analogy in the world of English Grammar - comparing one example of missing context to another.
Once again, perfectly understandable points are met with a feigned, "Huh? what are you getting at?"
April 16, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
You gotta try, I guess. I simply substitute "hold fast" for "cling", as in "and so they hold fast to..."
Nothing in that implied either causation (bitterness --> religion) or condescension. Remember when Obama was too religious? When he maybe held fast to his pastor?
And there is this choice quote from Jim Webb's 2006 Wall Street Journal piece: 'Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet.'
Surely a former Reagan Cabinet Secretary and successful Virginia pol knows what he is saying.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246
April 16, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. This point is so easy to get that anyone who doesn't see it must be doing so willfully.
April 16, 2008 3:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, your kidding right? I heard all of the act and it was complete shit. She was at a Company sponsored event trying to be cool with the other folks in SF and call her a whore. Funny....sure it was. If she was working for me...Her ass would be out looking for work. Completely inexcusable from someone who says they are a Professional. Come on Jason..pick something better than that to compare with. You'd don't have a leg to stand on there.
April 16, 2008 4:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Once again, you are purposely mistaking my point in order to make some sort of point that I can't quite fathom.
I wasn't defending the chick. I think she was completely out of line or should have at least added the additions that I wrote, since that is what her real opinions are - Hillary is a Corporate Whore.
Whether or not Rhodes is out of line wasn't my point at all, though. Let me slow it down for you:
Context matters more than the individual words.
Clear enough?
April 16, 2008 5:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jason, I have been trying to tell you over and over that the context that he had was worse than the actual words. If you don't want to take off your Obama glasses and see the light of day thats fine. As any democrat can tell you "those people" either makes us or breaks us in general elections. Him, saying those words in that CONTEXT was the greates problem. Get it? Or should I stretch it out further for you to understand?
April 16, 2008 6:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then we will have to agree to disagree, because the vast majority of people agree with me and think that you are continuing to neglect the actual context of the words in favor of some fabled backlash with voters.
April 17, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
In reply to Louisville I just thought I'd let you know that Randi Rhodes is back on the air on Air America where she was before. She just left the production company where her contract was up. They also asked her back after a short while. Nevertheless she is back on the air with increased notoriety and new fans.
So far Obama hasn't taken a hit in the polls for this either. Most people know it was clumsily worded. But really I think it has caused more people to examine, like the poster here, their motives behind their votes and the totality of the effects of that vote.
April 17, 2008 3:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look, I'll take you at your word that you're saying it was his delivery, not his content, that was the problem, but I still do not see how this means "he can't be the nominee." Of the three candidates, Hillary is the only one whose negatives outweigh her positives. She had a 54% negative opinion in a poll today. (Yes, I know: the media! The MEDIA!)
Neither one of them is going to just waltz into the White House, so isn't it naive to not vote for your preferred candidate based on a spurious electability argument?
April 16, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cause, although we may think this is rough and tumble now, it doesn't compare with the fall. He will prove his lack of experience and have these foot-in-mouth moments when can't afford them. She won't
April 16, 2008 5:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let me rephrase the question. Why is Clinton, with her 54% negative opinion rating, such a sure shot? Why, when she blew a commanding lead going into the primaries, would her general election campaign be smooth as silk? Is she going to fire her campaign managers and hire Obama's (at least his web guy)?
April 16, 2008 10:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH/PA/MI/FL - states of which some combination has to be won by the Democratic nominee to be elected. He is DOA in most of them.
April 16, 2008 11:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tee hee, you listed list MI where Obama polls better than she does. Besides, he picks up many more states where she didn't even try. He could take VA, she can't. You're under the assumption that the traditional DLC map (which worked so well for Gore and Kerry) are the only ways to do this. That's fine, that's one way to see it. But it's not the only way, and her prospects are far from certain.
April 17, 2008 10:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
They don't care what he actually said. It's what he meant to say that matters.
April 16, 2008 4:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
It takes an interesting grasp of reality to assert "no one is pretending" in one sentence and then accuse Obama supporters of pretending in the very next. I'm going to give Hillary credit and assume this particular argument reflects only on you and not her.
April 16, 2008 11:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
The way you guys are able to devine what's in his very heart and soul based upon his word choice at this one event is truly amazing to me. It's like you're magic psychics, like Bush was when he "looked into the soul" of Putin and found a great guy in there.
Obama lives his whole life one way, but, because you support Hillary, you "just know" that he must be a big elitist condescending fake because, in this one event out of several thousand, speaking he said "these people" instead of "the people you are asking me about," "bitter" instead of "angry" and "cling" instead of "hold on to."
April 16, 2008 12:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your misrepresenting what I said Steve. I said the way he said it and the words he used were wrong. Its a long held Democratic idea what he said but I have never heard anyone put it that bad. Another reason why he shouldn't be the Nominee IMHO.
April 16, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then who should? Which candidate hasn't made a bigger blunder than this one? Surely you're not thinking of the Tuzla Terror are you? ;)
April 16, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps the reader will soon be thinking about Hillary Sniper Fire Clinton's reaction to working class voters, in 1995: screw 'em.
That's sort of a blunder, I think.
April 16, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
You'll look good with her picture as your avatar Ben. Just keep going.
April 16, 2008 5:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Eloquent response. Loss for words?
April 17, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care how you read it or how you parse it. What is on the soundbite the repubs will use was Obama saying that small town, rural people:
Cling to religion out of bitterness,
own guns and hunt because they're bitter and
become racists/xenophobes out of bitterness.
That he said it to a SF crowd of wealthy contributors who laughed heartily at the expense of the rubes doesn't help either.
I don't think it will matter much in the nomination battle because many people who live in big cities agree with these comments. And Clinton's gang that can't shoot straight strategists will probably overreact. One things democrats have learned to recognize is republican style negativity, and they won't like it.
Nevertheless, during the three months following the nomination, you will hear about a million times, via the rethugs extensive surrogate shill network. "Obama said people go to church because they're bitter." The NRA will have posters and mailers telling people that "Obama says, 'People own guns and like to hunt because they're bitter.'" And middle American voters who either live in small towns, come from small towns or have extended family in small towns will be reminded over and over again of Obama's "Rubes are racists" inference.
April 16, 2008 3:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
[blockquote]That he said it to a SF crowd of wealthy contributors who laughed heartily at the expense of the rubes doesn't help either.[/quote]
Absolute rubbish. Read the original article and listen to the audio. Nobody is laughing at the plight of small rust belt towns.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b_96188.html
April 16, 2008 3:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Huff post is more pro-Obama than this site. The sound bite that has been used by the media is a short version. In the longer version you can hear them laughing.
As to the NRA, here is quote (see Simon on Politico).
The National Rifle Association is very good at exploiting this. Wayne LaPierre, the executive vice president of the NRA, blasted Obama on ABC News this week.
“American gun owners have for years understood the elitist concept of special privileges for the few, the same few who look down their nose at the people who respect basic American traditions like flying the flag, going to church, owning a gun and believing in the Bill of Rights,” LaPierre said. “Obama’s statement is a crack in the door that gives all of us a peek as to how the ‘special’ people look at the rest of us. Americans can read that code.”
April 16, 2008 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I could care less how "pro-Obama" The Huffington Post is. The audio evidence is there, in the rawest form possible. If you heard laughing in another version, you might want to question the source.
BTW: Your NRA quote just shows how Hillary and the far right are reading from the same playbook. Honestly, I can hardly tell the McCain camp's quotes from Hillary's anymore. I know she's not the same as McCain, but you could hardly tell it from her past week's campaign rhetoric.
April 16, 2008 6:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Both Obama and the rethugs have made the Annie Oakley reference and both have made funny of her "drinking with the boys." Are they then the same? Playing out of the same playbook?
April 16, 2008 6:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
You sir, are a naive dupe...if there is such a person.
April 16, 2008 6:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
According to your thinking we should not bother with primaries, and just ask the Republicans to choose our nominee. What is the point of saying that they will play this sound-bite over & over and being afraid of that? I guarantee you they have a MULTITUDE of Hillary sound-bites to play, and I don't think that she should be eliminated because of that either.
I believe that our nominee should be the one we think can do the best job. I happen to believe strongly that Barack Obama is that person, and that Hillary would not do a good job at all, based on her past history and her secrecy, and her very basic dishonesty.
April 16, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
We need someone who can win. Obama hurt his chances mightily.
April 16, 2008 5:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Then why aren't the polls reflecting what you assert? He's holding steady in PA, and gaining ground nationally in polls taken after the 'bitter' brouhaha.
It's one thing if YOU'RE offended. Fine, then say it. But don't assume you speak for thousands of others. They will make their own decisions.
Oh, by the way... did you predict Obama's downfall prior to this? Wright, the start of the Rezko trial, etc.? How well are your predictions holding up?
April 16, 2008 7:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I did say early on, before Wright, that Obama can't win. I've also said that I didn't think Rezko would amount to much (I don't even think they can convict Rezko, much less connect Obama to something criminal). I've also said that Wright thing, in and of itself, isn't that big a deal.
I think you can find all of this in my profile on the off chance that you're still interested.
April 16, 2008 9:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
American Myth vs. American Dream
The myth makers (Clintons) take the American experience and pervert it.
The dreamer (Obama) takes the reality of the American experience and weaves it into a vision of a better future.
April 16, 2008 6:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are taking offense over nothing. I'm sorry you find yourself offended, but he didn't dis you.
He answered a question with a truthful if not necessarily well-worded answer.
And you are taking offense at what you have been told he said, not what he said.
Sorry.
April 16, 2008 11:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
So, he didn't say what he said? Who's on first?
April 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Have you ever said something in a way that others have misunderstood? It does happen - to all of us.
I'm not trying to make excuses for Obama. But the logical thing to do is investigate a little. What was the context within which he was speaking? In other words, what was the main point he was trying to get across, and how does that sentence fit in with it? When one does that, it becomes less clear that his comments were elitist or condescending. Maybe not enough to offer total vindication, but enough to cast reasonable doubt about the notion that Obama is looking down upon small town folk and blue-collar workers.
So, the next logical step is to investigate further still. Look at his words and actions over time. Watch his interview on Charlie Rose from a couple years ago, where he spoke on this topic much more eloquently. Read his books. Take on the totality of his life's deeds and articulated convictions.
An analogy: My wife said something the other day that I took offense to. She was angry, and so was I. We cooled off, and made amends. There was a misunderstanding, and we got over it. But I never assumed the worst of my wife in those comments. I knew she was angry, I knew what she wanted to say came out badly in the heat of the moment, and I didn't reevaluate her entire character based on a single moment where she chose her words poorly. I know who she is because of the totality of my experience of her. I would be a fool to sever our 8-year relationship based on a turn of phrase which wasn't consistent with everything else she and our relationship has been up to that point.
I'm suggesting the same be done with Obama. Is the comment part of a pattern, or a single moment where the a poor choice of words seem inconsistent with everything else he's said and done up to that point? I'll let others judge for themselves, but in my experience, it is the latter. And under such circumstances, I'm inclined to trust my personal experience of the man rather than hand over my judgement to others who tell me Obama's cad and elitist based on one single poorly articulated sentence.
April 16, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
But D, look on this post you have at least 10 different people "explaining" what he said. Do you find that a little rediculous for someone that said they were going to change the way we do politics in this country?
April 16, 2008 11:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never mind - I misread you.
Sorry.
April 16, 2008 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for your perspective and great post! I have talked with many single issue voters over the years and the issues usually end up being things that Washington (either party) isn't really planning on doing anything about (abortion, gay marriage, & illegal immigration). Once they see that a vote on that issue alone is a throw away they often tend to look at the bigger picture. It may not change who they vote for, but at least they are voting for a platform and not a single wedge issue.
April 16, 2008 12:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
mmmmmmmm Guiness
April 16, 2008 12:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, we can see eye to eye.
April 17, 2008 2:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
All Obama was saying was that working class voters who don't believe that Washington will do anything to help their economic situation will vote on the basis of other issues and that it is natural for people under duress to rely upon the things that give them comfort.
He put it together in a way that lent itself to being misconstrued. It happens. He apologized for the misstatement and clarified his remarks.
Great post, Saundra!
April 16, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's not what he said. That's what you wish he'd said.
April 16, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, that IS what he said. You just wish he'd said that all small-town voters are stupid hicks.
April 16, 2008 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is a great post Saundra. I found your story very moving and would definitely like to hear from you more.
April 16, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post, thanks for being honest. I voted for Bush Sr. too. It was my first vote. Looking back, I can't even tell you why I did. Just being a teenager in Texas, I guess.
April 16, 2008 2:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
To the original poster, I want to welcome you to the progressive side.
But you misunderstand what Obama said.
Did you go to church out of bitterness? Do your husband or dad own guns and like to hunt because they were bitter. Were most of the people you knew racists?
I live in the same type of area and the answer to all three of these is no.
April 16, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, you're putting to fine a point on what Obama said. "Cling[ing] to guns" means, more exactly, "Cling[ing] to the NRA" or, as shaundra rightly shows us, "Cling[ing] to one issue". It's a metaphor.
April 16, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, after hearing the comments brought up ad nauseum by the extensive rethug surrogate network in the fall, many people will interpret it directly, rather than metaphorically.
Even Steven Colbert opened his show Tuesday night with "Obama said, 'People in Western Pennsylvania cling to religion and guns because they're bitter.'"
April 16, 2008 10:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
You don't seem to understand the difference between demeaning people's cultural values, and an analysis of voting patterns. If you actually read the entire statement that Obama made in SF, it's clear that he's explaining why people vote on issues like religion, gun rights, and immigration rather than economic issues that affect them directly. He's not saying that people "cling to" their faith, guns, or other beliefs because they are bitter about life in general, but rather they're bitter about politicians who promise economic help but deliver nothing. So if a politician supports their values, they figure it's all they can expect from politics, and ignore the economic promises, thus clinging to old voting habits. Obama's challenge is to convince them that he can actually stand up to the corporate lobbyists and change things. That's a hard thing to sell to people who are rightfully bitter about being sold out by politicians for years.
I know your mind is made up, and I don't expect to change it, but I refuse to allow you to be ignorant as well as stubborn.
April 16, 2008 5:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
redstateleroy says the original poster, no,no, you really don't get it. You MUST be offended!! Quit trying to find common ground and understand why you voted the way you did in the past, he says. Hmph...
April 16, 2008 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saundra,
Well said.
Thank you!
April 16, 2008 4:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Nice first post.
There's people all around me that have been upended in careers, pensions, health care - the discontent is palpable.
Smacks in a way, of the old robber-baron tradition
April 16, 2008 4:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
great post. it ought to be posted at every far right blog that has been fabricating smears about obama for five days.
April 16, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Excellent post, and recommended. If the Bush years can drive the Democratic party to becoming a stronger, new entity instead of sticking with the old DLC politics that seemed to distasteful to some of us in the past, then at least we will have that to be grateful for.
Thanks for speaking up.
April 16, 2008 5:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Saundra's post perfectly captures the meaning of Obama's undoubtedly ill-chosen choice of words. Is it any wonder that, as time goes on, politicians learn how to answer questions with meaningless and bland answers that could not possibly offend anyone.
At the same time it is amazing that people can decide what kind of person Obama is by a single sentence spoken off-the-cuff; while ignoring 1) that his father left him when he was two, 2) that he was raised by a young, single mother, 3)that he lived much of his youth with his definitely middle-class grandparents (who apparently did not even own a home), 4) that he went to college and law school on scholarships and student loans, 5) that he worked as a community organizer after college, and 6) that he turned down job offers in big firms to practice law in a small civil rights law firm. Is that a description of an elitist who is out of touch with "real people?"
April 16, 2008 6:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
The function of the corporate media in America is to DISTRACT the people from what is REALLY going on and what REALLY matters.
Redstatelroy and Louisville1975 think for yourselves and not how the media suggests you should think.
Let me attempt to break this down so you guys can understand. First, lets define "bitter". Bitter is defined as resentful and disagreeable. Now we can substitute bitter with resentful and disagreeable in Obama's speech and it would read something like this ....as a result of failed policies and broken promises by the government small town Pennsylvanians are resentful and disagreeable of politicians. Because of this they cling to what is familiar or turn to what is familiar and brings a sense of well-being. Whether the sense of well-being comes in the form of religion, doing something that they like doing such as hunting or whatever their favorite pasttime is and lastly, some do blame others for their economic condition i.e. illegal immigrants, blacks were the poster child for this for a long time.
Its a shame that the empathy Obama was displaying for the small town workers in Pennsylvania during his speech gets overshadowed by a word and a phrase that are taken completely out of context all in the name of politics. Nevermind the truthfulness of the statement concerning the economic plight of working class whites, lets just focus on "bitter and clinging to religion, guns and hostility towards others not like them" without the context.
Truth always prevails and telling the truth is sometimes hard to hear and deal with especially when its an introspective encounter, just ask Hillary, she seems to dodge the truth every chance she gets. I would much rather have someone tell me the truth and hurt my feelings rather than tell me a lie to spare my feelings and I end up in a much worse situation than I already was.
April 16, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but I disagree. He turned the phrase the way he wanted it turned. Either that or he wasn't prepared. Or he is simply bad off-the-cuff without a telepromper. No matter which one your in a contest that you said yourself was of the highest moral standards and you were going to elevate the conversation past politics as usual. This, my friend, is politics as usual.
That said, my real issue is the way the words came out. The ideas are not new. They are long held ideas of every Democratic politician and supporter for decades. He said them poorly and came across as talking down to "those people". I am not saying his ideals aren't correct or that isn't what he actually thinks. I am talking reality of what happened.
April 16, 2008 11:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you Saundra. Life's a journey and we can all learn something along the way if we keep our hearts,minds,and eyes open.
April 16, 2008 7:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
By some accounts, BHO was trying to answer a question about why he couldn't get the lower income/unemployed, less educated white vote in PA.
What he wanted to say, but was afraid it might be leaked and he would have trouble spinning it, was that in small town PA there are a bunch of white racists who just won't vote for a black candidate.
So, he said what he thought he could get a pass on, and probably un and, and uh, spin effectively.
And a bunch of ObamaDupees have been trying to help him, and he has had some success. Sorta like his "typical white person" grandma.
But , small town PA may just see him for what he is.
April 16, 2008 7:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
if he had said that he would have just been repeating gov. rendell's take on those very same people. and every other pundit who talks about the "white blue collar worker"
April 16, 2008 8:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, you're a mind-reader? (*Yawn*)
That's patently false. He was answering a direct question from someone in the audience regarding how to talk to PA folks about the campaign. In that context, why would Obama even want to say something as stupid as you suggest? Your assertion makes absolutely no sense given the question he was answering. You either made it up, or someone else made it up and you bought the fraudulent assumption, line, hook and sinker.
April 16, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't say people cling to guns and church because they are bitter. He said they VOTE for republican candidiates on issues of guns and church (aka gay marriage)against their own economic interests, because they are bitter.
And like puppets on a string the TM has harped on this issue all week. I heard an interview with two talking heads on a local NPR show in Philadelphia and when asked why they were talking about this they said -- 'because its news' and they became aware it was news because 'I received over 50 email on Saturday, most from the Clinton campaign'. So its news because the other candidates say its news and again like the lazy press release whores they are -- they start to dance around the pole.
April 16, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
ObamaDupees sure know how to spin. You are the one who has been suckered. You can admit it, there is no shame in being sold "snake oil" once.
If he had simply said what he really felt, he would at least have been honest about it, and possibly even the new kind of politician he claims to be.
"why would Obama even want to say something as stupid as you suggest? "
Because he simply is stupid, but very clever.
April 16, 2008 10:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that what Obama perhaps meant, in my opinion, is that since jobs were taken from their communities, etc. then people only had their faith to hold on to, to sustain them, or that people used the gun issue sort of out of denial, no?
Ofcourse anyone would be bitter if they lost their job to a foreign country with the US government stamping approval (NAFTA, WTO).
As far as clinging to guns, I think he meant that, yes, people make gun rights a big voting issue at the polls, but yet don't vote on let's say tax policy, foreign policy, education, etc. They don't vote on a candidate for overall issues perhaps. I mean, why did Bush get elected? The faith community got him elected.
I think many people do vote on just one issue because Republicans have used this tactic (and as you see in a post above, admit to using this tactic). I think it is a cultural thing, the gun rights issue.
And I think Obama was saying how people are bitter because of their economic situation and government inaction, but yet they vote Republican because Republicans will hook them on faith and gun rights issues. Yet, once elected have these Republicans done anything on these issues? No.
i.e. Bush controls the Supreme Court, yet has he outlawed abortion? All of these good, faithful evangelicals voted for Bush on this issue. Bush has done more Anti-Christian things than any president I know, isn't that ironic (He lied, went to war, etc.)?
So now, people are bitter, and their bitterness should be directed towards BUSH AND CLINTON (for war, NAFTA etc). Penn going to Colombia to peddle Clinton and the Colombian Free Trade Agreement is a big issue, I mean come on, first NAFTA, now this.. I know that the American people will wake up this time, because we have no choice.
Obama's grandparents were from small town America and he grew up working class. I think he worded it wrong but clearly, he was a community organizer for the poor. Clinton is the one who grew up with money. I don't think Obama meant to be rude or mean to anyone, which is why he apologized. I do think he means well though.
April 16, 2008 10:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
So, once again he gets a pass.
A lot of us made a bad mistake with the current President Bush, the "compassionate conservative".
I hope we don't make a worse one with Obama, the weaver of dreams.
"Barack is one of the smartest people you will ever encounter who will deign to enter this messy thing called politics," his wife said a few weeks ago, adding that Americans will get only one chance to elect him.
Both Obama and his wife, Michelle, ooze a sense of entitlement.(don't know who said that)
April 16, 2008 10:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
ObamaDupees?
It has recently come to my attention that we should treat the Anti-Obama clones fatuous peuplade for what they are, a stuck-up group of sordid, intellectually challenged lazy do nothings.
Here's a quick review: They possess no significant intellectual skills whatsoever and have no interest in erudition. Hell, this particular one can't even spell or define erudition much less achieve it.
Misguided trouble-makers like these are not only annoying, but they commonly lack the self-control necessary to conform their behavior to reasonable norms. Communicate with them? It's like trying to make sense with a puppy whining in a cardboard box.
In such a brief comment as this, I certainly cannot refute all the sophomoric smear tactics of babbling, vexatious nabobs of revanchism but perhaps I can brush away some of their most deliberate and flagrant reinterpretations of events.
But why would I waste the time on a waste of time?
It's just too bad that the world is not free of petty, arrogant sideshow barkers. But after six decades on this dirt ball hurtling through the universe I am not surprised that there are folks like these who wallow in the demonization of all who do not agree with them.
~OGD~
April 17, 2008 12:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
The source of that oozing, slimy quote is Rich Lowry. Known by the company you keep.
April 17, 2008 10:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Apologize?
Not on your honor as a citizen!
I am a 100% disabled veteran & Ranger school graduate who knows what it means to be the target of hostile fire.
I still have not summoned the intestinal fortitude you have with your post.
Thank you for exercising your right to speak to these issues.
I stand impressed!
April 17, 2008 3:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Good comment OGD. er-u-dite, out + rudis, rude, are you er-u-dit'ly yet?
Or perchance you mis-spoke and meant e-rup-tion, as in spewing forth. Do you have a rash yet?
Get over it buddy, this true red-neck country, not a lot of el-o-quence,or el-o-cu-tion either, or even proper punc'tu-a'tion. we tend to e-lon-gate our prose and to hell with spelling. We've even been known to e-lope on Sat nites, right after bath time.
The point is ole Barry-o has been able to e-lu-ci-date his thoughts/dreams. Does it help when I speak sl-ow-ly like th-is?
April 17, 2008 11:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here cr1992:
I've rewritten what I left earlier so as to be more decipherable for a person from, as you say, true red-neck country.
Enjoy!
ObamaDupees?
Is done do's recently come t'mah attenshun thet we sh'd treat th' Anti-Obama clones fatuous peuplade fo' whut they are, a stuck-up group of so'did, intelleckually challenged lazy as a houn'dog does nothin's.
Here's a quick review: They postess no significant intelleckual skills whutsoevah an' haf no interess in erudishun. Hell, this hyar particular one kin't even spell o' define erudishun much less 'chieve it.
Misguided trouble-makers like these is not only annoyin', but they commonly lack th' se'f-corntrol necessary t'confo'm their behavio' t'reasonable no'ms. Communicut wif them? It's like tryin' t'make sense wif a houn'dog whinin' in a cardboard box.
In sech a brief comment as this, ah sartinly kinnot refute all th' sophomo'ic smear tackics of babblin', vexatious nabobs of revanchism but perhaps ah can brush away some of their most deliberate an' flagrant reinterpretashuns of events.### But whuffo''d ah waste th' time on a waste of time?
I's jest too bad thet th' wo'ld is not free of petty, arrogant sideshow barkers. But af'er six decades on this hyar dirt ball hurtlin' through th' unyverse ah's not surprised thet thar is folks like these who waller in th' demonizashun of all who does not agree wif them, dawgone it.
~OGD~
ps: In th' future, when addressin' yo', eff'n ah even wish t'bother addressin' yo', I'll emplo' da' dialeck thet bess sueyts yer wishes.
April 22, 2008 2:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, dumb ass, should have read ,Ole Barry-o HAS not been able.......
April 17, 2008 11:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
cr1992
I appreciate the candor used in your self-evaluation.
To whit:
> > "Oh, dumb ass . . ."
I'd agree, but that's just too easy an opening.
~OGD~
April 22, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink