Was Obama's "Bitter" statement a gaffe?

[Colobo]

I think he was being honest and that's what the nation needs... but what do you think?

[baldguy]

1. The MSM & the McCain/Clinton campaign want you to believe it was a gaffe.

[gateley]

2. No - he spoke for me and for millions of others.

I'm frankly disappointed that he said he could have worded it better. How better to say it than to tell it like it is?

[Eurobabe]

3. He said the same thing in 2004 on Charlie Rose

and no one pounced on him then saying it was a GAFFE.

11 minutes in: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJut4-dHuV8

[housewolf]

4. How about "The premise is true but was articulated inartfully so that it could be mis-construed"?

n/t

[butterfly77]

5. I believe this is good,,,

the republicons always use these issues to label people and no one never goes indepth when talking about certain issues, this will make the candidates and the people really discuss an issue without just listening to soundbites. Obama is good at hitting back right away...

[PseudoIntellect]

6. I think it was yet another true statement that was taken out of context.

What is this garbage... 71% of Americans are bitter with the Bush administration, but no candidate has the right to actually say that they're bitter? Haha.

[bklyncowgirl]

7. Unfortunately, as Howard Dean has said "A gaffe is when you tell the truth ..."

...and no one in Washington likes it."

I fear that Obama may have finally wakened the mainstream media to the point where they will want to take him down by saying one of the things that must not be said i.e. Americans are getting shafted and are seething about it.

[LTR]

8. Most of DU has been saying the same thing for years!

Amazing how things can change so quickly. Now the same folks feigning outrage over this are the ones spreading RW talking points all over the board.

This is Bizarro DU.

[PurityOfEssence]

9. You're preaching to the choir; they're going to agree with you.

You might examine the nagging worry that compels you to post this and see if the resounding support you'll garner assuages that fear. There seems to be at least a scrap of rationality left in you, so hopefully you'll heed it.

This was a slobbering bit of stupidity. I don't mean "semi-competence" or something like that, I mean STUPIDITY of the sort that only truly intelligent people seem to possess.

The Wright disaster was bad enough, and this isn't WORSE, but that's small comfort.

Where the fuck is the feeling of responsibility that a candidate and his/her supporters should have? If they're going to represent us, they need to do so soberly and with a rational eye toward the traditional grist of the political mill, not just allow themselves to be swept along in a breezy, gleeful pleasure cruise and deny missteps and scorn reality.

You don't piss on the common folk; it's the kiss of death in American Politics. I wonder what Adlai Stevenson would say if he heard about this. Kerry's too much of a dolt to understand it or admit it if he did, but he SHOULD.

The more things that put one on the defensive, the worse. These are not great legendary "Checkers" moments, they're mid-level disasters that aren't being handled well.

Yes, the overwhelming sea of Obama supporters here will flock to your poll and once again "prove" that gravity is an optional thing and that the sun may not necessarily set today if Barack decides to invoke his supernatural powers again, but please listen to that inner voice that worries a bit.

If this guy gets the nomination, it's your and his fault if the campaign continues in a reckless and deluded messianic march of bombastic vagueness and fails. If he DOES get the nomination, please pay attention to reality.

The only thing this guy seems to understand about politics is that you can get a long way by sidestepping controversy and by being on whatever side of a particular issue the momentary audience requires. The problem with this is that it's a recipe for limited success and it's fraught with pitfalls that come back to haunt.

Oh, no, saying that people "cling to religion" because they're "bitter" isn't a bad thing at all. In fact, it's a GREAT thing! What he should do next is say that the downtrodden are seething with angry, knotted defeatism and are burying themselves in superstition and resorting to racist hatred because they've been betrayed by their mommy-government. Why stop there? He should say that they're suckers for believing in the Clinton Administration. The problem is, once again, that Obama's stuck to the ultra-moderate, bland middle ground when he should have taken the fast lane to total sneering haughty dismissal.

You don't sneer at religion in this country; I thought he got that. I thought he REALLY got that with his endless pandering and near-theocratic posturing, but he really blew it here.

There's a reason why this campaign is called a cult, and the endless self-justification and group-denial that we're seeing around this issue is just another clear example of the phenomenon.

You'll win overwhelmingly.

[karynnj]

10. I am an Obama supporter and think it a minor gaffe - but not for the reason usually given

The underlying thing that Obama seemed to want to say is that these people are not voting for the Democratic party due to their econonic interests, because they are cynical about whether the Democrats will be better for them on the economy - considering the past and because of this they turn to other issues. There are likely some in that situation and they might go to McCain, the war hero, because of that. Those people need to be reached by Obama - they need to see that he will work for the needed change.

But for some, it might be wrong to reflexively consider that people vote out of economic self interest. I wish that he hadn't spoken of voting because of religion implying that it was less meritous than voting for economic reasons. It is the opposite side of the coin from the situation described, almost as a very non pc self gratifying joke of Jews - that we earn like Episcopalians, but vote like Puerto Ricans. I've heard this very proudly expressed and it conveys the idea that there are higher values than economic self interest that motivate the Jewish vote.

Here what is a bit wrong is to give people on the other side less credit. There are very likely many Catholics and evangelical Protestants who are well aware that they are voting against their economic self interest when they vote due to their religious believes. It is simply that - even though they may need the economic benefits the Democrats will bring, they are voting for values dear to them.

[TheDonkey]

11. It was a gaffe but one that he explained very well and hardly a "scandal" Hillary and the MSM are

saying it is.

[rzemanfl]

12. It just shows he either read "Deer Hunting With Jesus" or some-

one on his staff did.