Inherent to people such as Obama is arrogance, elitism, lack of principles, tendency to hate and disparage. This is not an inexperience charateristic; it down right a fascistic tendency.

Never again should the Democrats be hijacked by shadowy characters.

I think Obama's just a bit green. 2016, when he got some experience and gravitas, would have been fine.

He mistook the country for a Chicago ward, I think. It's the same sort of provincialism that caused other candidates with a narrow base to fail: Dukakis and, for that matter, Dean.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

And it shows not only in his initial comments but also in his campaign’s slow and inadequate response. Just as it showed in the response to his Reagan comments (a controversy which should’ve lasted a day, but went on a week due to an inability to simply say Obama screwed up by not pointing out Reagan was wrong), his initial handling of Wright (in which the campaign treated it as a non-issue initially) and his handling of the Goolsbee/NAFTA thing (where his campaign’s initial reaction was to deny it. If the controversy can’t be diffused by leveraging CDS in the media, they do a horrible job dealing with it. We’re on day two or three and Obama still hasn’t personally apologized. Instead, he sent Bob Casey out to do it for him, apparently.

I am becoming increasingly worried about how Obama would fair in a hostile media environment that doesn’t have Hillary to kick around anymore.

And, via No Quarter, here’s one of those low information voters explaining why Obama’s remarks are so offensive and why Obama’s non-apology apology isn’t sufficient, not that the Obama campaign should need this explained to them:

Of course, if Obama were better known to the American electorate - had been on the national stage longer than a few years - it would also be easier for him to defend himself against these things because Americans would have a better feel for who he is. This is part of the downside of being a fresh face.

Via The Page (I know, I know, but at least it's an official campaign statement):

Hari Sevugan, spokesman for Obama for America, released the following statement in response to remarks delivered by Senator Clinton this morning in Indianapolis:

“We won’t be lectured on being out of touch by Senator Clinton, who believes lobbyists represent real people and is awash in their money and who can’t tell a straight story about her lengthy record of supporting trade deals like NAFTA and China that have devastated communities in Pennsylvania and Indiana. She won’t change the broken Washington system that all too often leaves American workers behind, but Barack Obama will.”

Look, over there, it's a Clinton. Go get her. Reminiscent of what they tried with Wright.

If Obama's going to change the broken system, then a very good place to start would be with a universal health care plan. Instead, he offers a fake plan, and then demagogues the issue with Harry & Louise ads.

Hey rubes! Change!

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

One scorching video.

1. She says, essentially, that it's not the "bitter" it's the "cling to." (Note that our famously free press, and both campaigns, got that wrong, and went with the "bitter." We on the C list knew better...)

2. They hold her on the line, and then read her Obama's non-apology apology, which she eviscerates:

He said what he said...

He said bitter people cling to God and guns, and don't like people that [don't] look like them.

That is what he said, and he said it in an environment where he was seeking money, and he meant what he said when he said it and I do not accept his apology or his explanation.

Yep. Laser focus on that "he said it in an environment where he was seeking money," too.

Somehow, I think that this FL voter isn't going to take too kindly to being disenfranchised by the Obama campaign's resistance to a re-vote, either.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

Was being called a bigot. She wasn't going to be fooled with all this talk about economic frustration. She knows when she's been insulted, she knows why those donors laughed.

And, yes, she saw through the reframing of Obama's non-apology apology with no problem at all.

I'm a strong Hillary supporter, but let's not stoop to the "my opponent eats puppies" level of political "debate."

nails it. It wasn't the word bitter, it was everything that followed and where he said it and to whom and the type of venue. I might add also that it is offensive in how his remarks in SF are different from what he is saying elsewhere.

h/t to Grendel was misunderstood at MyDD

------------------------------------------------
"It's like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

As the grandson of ranchers who spent my early years on the family ranch, I found the comments highly offensive on their own but seeing the video of people laughing is brutal. It is too personal. An entire group of people are smeared as so desperate and bitter that not only are they all bigots, but their psychological condition defines their traditions, values, and very faith! And why are they suspect to Obama? Because they didn't or aren't likely to vote for him. Good. Lord. Obama didn't pull a Dukakis; if anything, he pulled a Rhodes.

One of my close college friends, a Harvard-educated Texan who (barely) voted for Obama, called me up to scream, "Goddamn! I'm gonna kick Obama past the goalpost of life! Jesus!"

How’d that approach to cleaning up a bigoted statement work out for Gerry Ferraro?

Maybe Obama needs to resign.

had Hillary made a similar statement in which she referred to herself as "a 60-year-old white woman named Hillary Clinton," and how being such adds "another layer of skepticism" to voters being appealed to to have more faith in her policy positions, who thinks we'd be hearing accusations from all corners that she was "pulling the gender card?"

I do! I do!

Doesn't that remind you of the Boiz's defense of Randi Rhodes?

"But Hillary IS a fucking whore!"
------------------------------------------------
"It's like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

for real this time--they would have made the week of Tuzla--and the week of that hospital story, etc--look like mere blips on the radar. Tape of Hillary at a millionaire fundraiser in SF saying anything like this (and she wouldn't because she knows better, unlike him)-- and rich people laughing!

I can't wait for Obama's speech on economic disenfranchisement and small town America.

Will he toss grandpa under the bus with grandma?

------------------------------------------------
"It's like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

his followers began displaying in, oh, January or so when they started saying anybody who didn't fall all over themselves to worship the O was a racist.

I agree with Davidson on this. The laughter is what hurts Obama.

But, just to be a mite contrarian about this, isn't that Obama's supporters who are laughing, rather than Obama?

Walking away, for the moment, from the question of whether his comments were impolitic, which I agree they were, and focusing only on what Obama actually said in this video, is there anyone here who would argue that what he said was false?

If I'm right, then Hillary should be careful about passing "I'm not bitter" buttons out to people who are in fact, bitter, for good reason.

Rope-a-dope, anyone? Beware of Obama's proven ability to spin out of supposed gaffes.

1. Any good speaker knows how to induce laughter, and if we can all agree on one thing, it's that Obama is a good speaker.

2. What the laughter means is that the policies important to the targets of the laughter are going to be deep-sixed. That means universal health care above all, but I bet when we look back, we'll see that Obama was demagoging on NAFTA, too.

3. On "bitter" -- see above. The problem isn't the bitter, it's the "cling to." See the lady from FL above. Neither campaign gets this, nor does the press.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

too me, means the opposite of justifiably upset. Bitter means being upset for no good reason. These people are justifiably angry that there jobs are gone. They are justifiably angry that free trade and illegal immigration have taken their jobs, regardless of the fact that the people doing them now, "look different".

Also, this statement, which Obama could also have said is true, "And fat cat Americans bitterly cling to their belief that faith is stupid, guns aren't necessary, and that minorities and immigrants are a lesser people, as a way to justify why they were born with a silver spoon in their mouth."

The point is these statements are wholly true. I would say that the donors sitting in that room would take exception to that characterization. B/c for the most part, is is Republican fat cats and Republican working class who feel this way. But when Obama is trying to explain why he is about to lose Democratic primaries, that means he is talking about why Democrats won't vote for him. And he is insulting Democratic voters. Instead he praises Republican voters with his "moral wrenching choices" remark.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

Walking away, for the moment, from the question of whether his comments were impolitic, which I agree they were, and focusing only on what Obama actually said in this video, is there anyone here who would argue that what he said was false?

It's true the people in PA and OH have been economically beaten down for a long time and are rightly skeptical of politicians making lofty claims of ushering in a better tomorrow.
I don't know why the fact that a pitch to be less cynical about government is delivered by a "46 year old black guy named Barack Obama" would "add another layer of skepticism."
As googly-eyed as people are for this guy, despite his lack of clear policy postions, I'd say the fact that a pitch comes from a "46 year old black guy named Barack Obama" actually has a magical tendency to neutralize skepticism.
People in PA and OH are skeptical of politicians because they've been screwed over by them a bunch of times, not because of any particular politician's age, name, or ethnic background. This, plus the "they cling to god and guns and don't like people who don't look like them" statement implies that the root of the anger and cynicism of these harder-won voters is because they're redneck bigots, not because their real-life experiences give them good reason to be skeptical of talk of Rapture and Unity Ponies.

it's negative always, and means that your whole life is badly affected by it and that it colors your whole outlook.

What he said was false and insulting because he ascribed their faith and their like of guns and their hatred of "others" wholly to politicians lying to them and to unemployment, and didn't even bother to give them the benefit of the doubt he expects. He told others why this group has faith and likes guns and hates brown and black people --- and it was in response to a q on why those very people weren't supporting him, too.

Scrooge is bitter. Snape is bitter. Mrs. Havisham is bitter. ...

They're twisted nasty people whose whole lives are ruined and who dwell on what hurt them. That's how Obama falsely and derisively described millions of voters.

Read the comments. We know they are angry. "They" are "us."

What we object to is the part about being called gun-toting, Bible-thumping bigots.

------------------------------------------------
"It's like, duh. Just when you thought there wasn't a dime's worth of difference between the two parties, the Republicans go and prove you're wrong." - Molly Ivins (RIP)

Walking away, for the moment, from the question of whether his comments were impolitic, which I agree they were, and focusing only on what Obama actually said in this video, is there anyone here who would argue that what he said was false?

Reminds me of that old question, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

Insinuating voters that choose not to vote for you have racist tendencies kind sucks up all the focus from rest of the discussion. Is it true that "a part" of them (the people in small communities in Ohio and Pennsylvania) are racists? You take a big enough sample and your bound to find "a part" that is. But arguing about whether or not there are racists out there is missing the point of the problem.

Obama insinuated that voters not voting for him were doing so because of his race ("46-year-old black man" increased their skepticism). He then compounded his error by saying in Indiana, 'I was right.' Next, he sends out others (like Casey) to say he expressed regret . Then he faux-apologized, "Obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that" adding that (again) what he said was right. So, he's apologizing that some people were offended by the words he used to insinuate that they were racist, but it's understandable for him to do that since, you know, some people are racist.

If this is how Obama is going to handle problems during the general election the Democratic Party is in big trouble. 'I'll apologize, but I'm right.' Do you think that's going to play with anyone that isn't already a member of the OFB? The primary campaign has been gentle compared to what's going to happen in the general election. We need someone who can handle themselves not only when they are getting fawning media coverage, but also when they are hammered. Obama is showing us that he doesn't know what to do at those times, other than keep petulantly claiming he was right.

John Kerry was right when he said he "voted for it before [he] voted against it". Should he have continued to harp on it, just because he was right?

giant rookie mistake.

You know, before Lambert endorsed Hillary, I was basically on board with the criticisms of the Obama campaign and the whole creepiness of the OFB. The campaign still creeps me out and I still find Obama's lack of substance and tendency to echo GOP narratives to be disconcerting to say the least.

BUT...since Lambert endorsed Hillary, the anti-Obama sentiment here has really gotten irrationally over the top. This latest "gaffe" by Obama is a case in point.

Obama didn't say anything that wasn't said by Thomas Frank in "What's the Matter with Kansas?" or by bloggers thousands of times in the past several years. And not once -- not once! -- did I read a single blog post or comment by a progressive that suggested that it was elitist to discuss how rural voters have been manipulated on wedge issues to reject Democratic policies. Not once. Until now.

Apparently it is now not only verboten to point out the primary political strategy of the GOP since Nixon ran in 1968 but we must now adopt the GOP frame that only rural voters are "real Americans" and anyone from big cities like San Francisco is an "out of touch" "latte-sipping" "elitist".

was talking about Republicans, and how they vote against their own economical interests.

Obama is talking about Democrats, and why they won't vote for him in Democratic primaries.

There is a difference.

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

myiq2xu - I'm not a "Mr." and you're pretty much repeating my point. If that was your intention, then cool.

Obama didn’t say anything that wasn’t said by Thomas Frank in “What’s the Matter with Kansas?” or by bloggers thousands of times in the past several years.

Thomas Frank and the progressive bloggers aren't running for President. And I seem to remember people from Kansas being pretty offended by the title of Frank's book when it came out.

And not once — not once! — did I read a single blog post or comment by a progressive that suggested that it was elitist to discuss how rural voters have been manipulated on wedge issues to reject Democratic policies.

No one on any progressive blog has ever challenged the notion that all poor people are bitter, racist, gun-loving, religious zealots? I can't say I've read every post and every comment of every progressive blog, but I like to think the progressive blogs I frequent aren't so classist that no one would speak up against a statement like that.

Prove it by using Obama's own words. Please, tell me how stating that rural PA Democrats* cling to their faith, guns, xenophobia, racism, and anti-trade sentiment out of bitterness, to express their frustrations, is remotely legit in the first place. And since the whole point of Frank's book is that people vote against their economic interests, how does that square with the fact that PA voted Kerry and Gore?

If criticizing his ignorant smearing of an entire group of people--it was more than a mere "gaffe"--is "anti-Obama" than it is impossible to criticize him on legitimate grounds.

*The context was why he was likely to lose the working class and rural vote in the PA Democratic primary.

No one on any progressive blog has ever challenged the notion that all poor people are bitter, racist, gun-loving, religious zealots? I can’t say I’ve read every post and every comment of every progressive blog, but I like to think the progressive blogs I frequent aren’t so classist that no one would speak up against a statement like that.

Indeed - you're quite right. I myself, have FREQUENTLY made such postings. Nothing gets my goat as much as some young educated progressive talking about the working class and how they're "a bunch of racist morons". And yet, here I am, defending Obama and his "condescending" "elitist" remarks. Go figure!

One of the things about the Obama campaign is its lofty rhetoric, supposedly a big negative. And yet, it's been damned hard for Hillary Clinton to exploit, hasn't it? He seems to be really good at digging himself into holes and then digging himself out of them and coming out smelling like a rose. Like him or not, he's forcing us to have conversations about race and now about class that have been swept under the carpet for too many years. And so far, getting away with it.

This is a good thing, I think.

sprays him with rosewater.

[x] Any (D) in the general. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

I am still fuming that no one in the media is calling Obama on his mistatement in San Francisco.
Obama needs to be taken to task over the inaccuracies of his comments:

“And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Jobs did not fall during the Clinton Administration. I went and looked at the BLS for the top 100 US markets under Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. Bush 41 led in 12 (Gary, Honolulu, Des Moines, El Paso, Little Rock, Fresno, Seattle, Witcha, Riverside/San Bernardino, Tacoma, Raleigh/Durham, Madison). Clinton led in all the rest or 88. None for GWBush.

Here are numbers for Pennslyvania markets:
Allentown
GHWBush 0.59% Clinton 1.72% GWBush 0.00%
Harrisburg
GHWBush 1.18% Clinton 1.73% GWBush 0.31%
Philadelphia
GHWBush -0.95% Clinton 1.51% GWBush 0.14%
Pittsburgh
GHWBush 1.10% Clinton 1.24% GWBush -0.51%
Scranton
GHWBush 0.42% Clinton 1.10% GWBush -0.75%

Someone needs to point this out and soon.
The data is from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The US media can surely do a better job of vetting the very junior Senator from Illinois or do I have to do everything myself.

Let's recap: Bush 41 created the most jobs in 12 of the 100 US markets. Clinton created the most jobs in 88 and George W Bush came last with 0.

Like him or not, he’s forcing us to have conversations about race and now about class that have been swept under the carpet for too many years. And so far, getting away with it.

Let's slam the brakes on this talking point. Obama's campaign is not about discussions on race and class that have been swept under the rug. In fact, there are no discussions whatsoever taking place regarding race and racism in America - unless it is about Obama not winning a specific Democratic-leaning state with a closed or semi-closed primary.

Case in point: PA Governor (and former Mayor of Philadelphia) Ed Rendell, in talking about Obama's candidacy, made the point that there are some white voters who are not ready to elect a "Black" candidate - by making a correlation between Obama and Lynn Swann, who ran against Rendell in 2006 for PA Governor. Rendell also praised Obama for his ability to "bring in new voters" in the same article. (Article source here - Foxnews.com (from AP Newswire))

For pointing this out, Rendell was excoriated, called a racist, a bigot, and much more. And that was just in the Foxnews.com comment section. I am afraid to venture out to other sites to see what other colorful monikers Rendell got pasted on him.

Now Obama uses a much broader brush to paint more than just small-town Pennsylvanians as "not ready," but as racist, xenophobic, gun-toting religious bigots, and this is supposed to be a continuation of a serious discussion on race and class? That doesn't work.

Next, going back to the "last" racial hand grenade, Obama in Somali Elder garb. The photo itself was taken back in August 2006 during his trip to Kenya. One of these pictures ended up published in the National Enquirer as "Obama's Shocking al-Qaeda Link!", but can also be found Here (since 2006, btw). The Freepers got a hold of this and ran with it several days before Drudge decided to stick his nose into the Democratic Primary race by insinuating that he got a hold of this from a "Clinton Campaign Staffer." (Note: I'm not direct linking Freeperland; instead I will link to a blog post that has a short chronicle of events regarding the photo. I also had to detox my system after checking the links there to make sure they worked.)

Now Obama's Core Support started scorching Senator Clinton with "Racist! Bigot!" calls and the like. Obama would come out later and disavow the entire brouhaha over the garb and the firestorm - but then insinuates to a campaign audience that it WAS Senator Clinton's campaign that not only published the Kenyan Photo, but also took a still shot from one of the debates and darkened it (ala Time Magazine's OJ Simpson cover).

This is not a discussion on race relations. This is gaslighting.

How about point number three: The "Fairy Tale" comment. When former President William Clinton called Barack Obama out on his "superior judgment in being against the Iraq War (unlike his warmongering opponent being the unspoken insinuation)," President Clinton sought an answer to the question as to why he not only said that he was not sure how he would have voted if he were actually in the Senate in the time (this was said in 2004), but also why he said that there was no difference between him (Obama) and George Bush about the war. (Here's the debate transcript, already on the page you need to look at - for the skeptics)

Well, not only did Obama not provide an answer, but taking a cue from the disingenuous press corps, Obama's core support accused President Clinton of being racist - by insisting that Clinton called Obama's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN a fairy tale. (More Here. Note, the Emil Jones link in the article does not work.)

Then, when Obama supposedly was going to steamroll Senator Clinton in New Hamster, Clinton pulls out a (not so) surprising victory. What is this attributed to? The Bradley Effect. That's right, people: Racist Rich White Bigots vote for the White Woman.

Or how about Geraldine Ferraro, who was, until the early 1990s, considered to be the trailblazer on the national stage for Women in politics? She makes a comment that the nation is caught up in the concept of an African-American man for President and Obama's Core Support is up in arms. Meanwhile, John Kerry insinuates that Obama would be able to talk to Middle Eastern and African Countries more effectively because he is Black...and the crickets take a nap.

This is not a discussion on the state of Race Relations in the US. This is a campaign that is taking advantage of the plight of a population disenfranchised for centuries and using that plight (and them) to exploit for personal and political gain.

Cry me a river.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.

Like him or not, he’s forcing us to have conversations about race and now about class that have been swept under the carpet for too many years. And so far, getting away with it.

Let's slam the brakes on this talking point. Obama's campaign is not about discussions on race and class that have been swept under the rug. In fact, there are no discussions whatsoever taking place regarding race and racism in America - unless it is about Obama not winning a specific Democratic-leaning state with a closed or semi-closed primary.

Case in point: PA Governor (and former Mayor of Philadelphia) Ed Rendell, in talking about Obama's candidacy, made the point that there are some white voters who are not ready to elect a "Black" candidate - by making a correlation between Obama and Lynn Swann, who ran against Rendell in 2006 for PA Governor. Rendell also praised Obama for his ability to "bring in new voters" in the same article. (Article source here - Foxnews.com (from AP Newswire))

For pointing this out, Rendell was excoriated, called a racist, a bigot, and much more. And that was just in the Foxnews.com comment section. I am afraid to venture out to other sites to see what other colorful monikers Rendell got pasted on him.

Now Obama uses a much broader brush to paint more than just small-town Pennsylvanians as "not ready," but as racist, xenophobic, gun-toting religious bigots, and this is supposed to be a continuation of a serious discussion on race and class? That doesn't work.

Next, going back to the "last" racial hand grenade, Obama in Somali Elder garb. The photo itself was taken back in August 2006 during his trip to Kenya. One of these pictures ended up published in the National Enquirer as "Obama's Shocking al-Qaeda Link!", but can also be found Here (since 2006, btw). The Freepers got a hold of this and ran with it several days before Drudge decided to stick his nose into the Democratic Primary race by insinuating that he got a hold of this from a "Clinton Campaign Staffer." (Note: I'm not direct linking Freeperland; instead I will link to a blog post that has a short chronicle of events regarding the photo. I also had to detox my system after checking the links there to make sure they worked.)

Now Obama's Core Support started scorching Senator Clinton with "Racist! Bigot!" calls and the like. Obama would come out later and disavow the entire brouhaha over the garb and the firestorm - but then insinuates to a campaign audience that it WAS Senator Clinton's campaign that not only published the Kenyan Photo, but also took a still shot from one of the debates and darkened it (ala Time Magazine's OJ Simpson cover).

This is not a discussion on race relations. This is gaslighting.

How about point number three: The "Fairy Tale" comment. When former President William Clinton called Barack Obama out on his "superior judgment in being against the Iraq War (unlike his warmongering opponent being the unspoken insinuation)," President Clinton sought an answer to the question as to why he not only said that he was not sure how he would have voted if he were actually in the Senate in the time (this was said in 2004), but also why he said that there was no difference between him (Obama) and George Bush about the war. (Here's the debate transcript, already on the page you need to look at - for the skeptics)

Well, not only did Obama not provide an answer, but taking a cue from the disingenuous press corps, Obama's core support accused President Clinton of being racist - by insisting that Clinton called Obama's ENTIRE CAMPAIGN a fairy tale. (More Here. Note, the Emil Jones link in the article does not work.

Then, when Obama supposedly was going to steamroll Senator Clinton in New Hamster, Clinton pulls out a (not so) surprising victory. What is this attributed to? The Bradley Effect. That's right, people: Racist Rich White Bigots vote for the White Woman.

Or how about Geraldine Ferraro, who was, until the early 1990s, considered to be the trailblazer on the national stage for Women in politics? She makes a comment that the nation is caught up in the concept of an African-American man for President and Obama's Core Support is up in arms. Meanwhile, John Kerry insinuates that Obama would be able to talk to Middle Eastern and African Countries more effectively because he is Black...and the crickets take a nap.

This is not a discussion on the state of Race Relations in the US. This is a campaign that is taking advantage of the plight of a population disenfranchised for centuries and using that plight (and them) to exploit for personal and political gain.

Cry me a river.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The enemy of my enemy is STILL my enemy. Those who forget this end up being Vulture scraps.