People that are offended by the "bitter" remarks are idiots

[MessiahRp]

I posted this as a reply to a Clinton Supporters' attempt to slam Obama but I thought I'd open this up a bit more.

Every single person who claims to be "offended" by the bitter remarks has taken what he has said and twisted the context around totally. They took it to mean that their (fanatical) love of God and Guns was under attack.

In reality he was pointing out how Republicans use those tools to sucker these people into voting against their economic wellbeing.

Bush and the Rubber Stampers had Congress and the Judiciary for 6 years. Did they try to end Abortion? Nope. How about that Gay Marriage Constitutional Amendment? Nope, didn't go anywhere. What about a serious relaxation of gun ownership laws? Well people might recall tat Bush was actually in favor of retaining the laws put in place under the Clinton Administration.

Republicans blew smoke up everyone's asses to divide them and make them think these were the serious issues of the day. Then once in office they destroyed the economy. They gave contract after contract and giveaway after giveaway to corporations who shipped these people's jobs overseas. They spent more than any so-called "tax and spend" Democratic Congress ever has.

They deregulated everything and allowed predatory lending to go so rampant that now everyone is losing their houses and our economy is teetering on the brink of collapse into a Great Depression-like state.

People have a right to be bitter and Obama is right to say people are.

My personal opinion though is that the people that are angry that he would say that are idiots. They are likely the ones that STILL haven't awaken to see what their hero Bush has left them. If you are not bitter or angry about how our economy is in shambles, our military is overextended and exhausted, our constitution and civil liberties have been trampled and ignored, our world standing erased and our environment getting us near the brink of extinction thanks to the last 8 years....
then you are a fool of epic proportions and deserve to be deported to a country where your blind ignorance and ridiculous defense of it does less damage. We had 8 years of Bush because of a blind, ignorant electorate and I'll be damned if those people, the people who are offended now, have any further control in who runs our country... or as they would have it, who runs our country into the ground.

Rp

[uberblonde]

1. Way to help build "unity" and "hope"!

I wasn't offended by the "bitter" remark. I was offended by his clear implication that people cling to God because they're unemployed. Not only was he wrong, it was a really stupid thing to say.

These moments remind me just how inexperienced he is.

[AX10]

4. Also, owning a gun does not make someone...

and extremist or desperate, as Mr. Obama implied.
There are millions of sportsmen and women across the country.

[Hepburn]

6. Twist, spin, twist, spin....

...:eyes:

[Mandorallen]

22. No one is twisting anything

or spinning anything. You have to realized implied intent is far different than percieved intent. However any who call Obama an Elitist is gravely mistaken. I for one support Hillary and will do so to the "bitter" end cannot find reasoning for her calling him an elitist or Senator John Mccain as well. Both of these two candidates are very wealthy and to call Obama who grew up in the south side of chicago an elitist is preposterous.

Consider this carefully. I have lost my job due to Nafta and bad trade deals but i do not "cling to religion.." because of unemployment. I cling to religion because it makes my life spiritually better. I do not "cling to guns.." because of harsh financial conditions. I dont "cling" to guns at all but to protect myself from those who might do me harm. And to say "cling to anti-immigrant sentiment..." is calling me a racist because I percieved my job was taken from me by some immigrant when in fact my job was taken away by Bill Clinton and other Nafta supporters. And finally "cling to anti-trade sentiment" is ridiculous....I am not against trade because my job is gone. I am for trade but America having an equal playing field. For example: if your corporation is based in the US then your product should be made here in the United states. Not some sweat shop to increase the Corporation's bottom line.

For all who have a problem with Obama's statement in SF above is how it will be percived. What he implied is irrelevant. Instead of apologizing for it now he never should have said it in the first place.

[Exilednight]

12. Yes it does. Guns are for scared little people like gang bangers. n/t

[Mandorallen]

32. Ridiculous

your another one of those people who thinks guns are bad and not people. Has restricting access to guns done ANYThing to stem the wave of violence in this country? It has done nothing. Nothing at all. Banning guns is just like Prohibition. Ban the gun and people will still find a way to get it. What needs to be done about gun control is to eliminate anyone with a criminal background of even a misdemeanor and the ones who have a history of mental instability...ie if you see a counselor your name should be put on a blacklist to prevent you from owning a gun. Only controlled responsible ownership of guns and stricter punishments in crimes involving guns will stem the wave of violence. Murder? death penalty. Assault with guns or other deadly weapons? Life in prison. Harsher sentencing and preventing courts from allowing a criminal to cop to a plea when the evidence is clearly there for conviction. The justice system does this to save tax payer money. It is a constitutional right to own a gun. Many own guns for hunting purposes. Others own guns for historical value. Others own guns for protection. Ban the person not the gun

[Exilednight]

40. First off, none of our gun laws are really enforced.......

Second, Australia, England and many other postindustrial nations have stronger gun laws than we do, and they manage to have a much lower amount of crime despite have more people per square mile.

The answer to to crime is not putting more guns in peoples hands, it's guns out of the hands of people who don't need them.

You can twist and spin it any way you want, but the evidence of other countries with total bans or very strict regulation prove my point.

[benEzra]

75. Australia and England had just-as-low violent crime rates when guns were legal.

In this country, gun-loving New Hampshire (with one of the highest gun ownership rates in the nation) has the lowest murder rate in the nation. Gun-hating Maryland has one of the highest. Gun-loving Florida and gun-hating New Jersey have essentially the same murder rate (4.8-5.0/100K).

It's not lawful gun ownership that is the problem, and going after the lawful and responsible won't do anything about the crime rate. It will, however, manage to turn the House and Senate red. Again.

Leave the gun issue to the states. We are neither the UK, Australia, or Japan; we own guns in this country (mostly nonhunting guns), and we will keep them. One can accept that and look for common ground solutions to criminal misuse--and common-ground solutions to the sociological causes of crime--or one can continue down the trail blazed by the Temperance Party in the early 20th century, and beat oneself into political oblivion pushing to ban people's prized possessions.


----------------------
Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control

Thoughts on Gun Ownership

[Quixote1818]

77. All Obama implied was that people going through hard times turn to

the things that are meaningful to them. For instance many men feel deeply about hunting with the guys they grew up with and when times are tough then they can take solice in things like hunting.

[Hepburn]

5. Is your understanding of politics so superficial that you do not...

...have Clue One as to what is a Wedge Issue?

Please...get informed BEFORE you post, OK?

[Binka]

16. Peroxide Kills Brain Cells

[Mandorallen]

35. Wedge issue?

Where did this stupid term come from. There is no such thing as wedge issues. There are issues that people find important and those who call this or that wedge issues is because they dont agree with their opinon on an issue and wish to impose their opinion on other people.

[depakid]

65. So, you're saying is WASN'T a stupid thing to say

and that it didn't flow from his inexperience?

[Eurobabe]

You are so clueless.

[ellacott]

9. Actually it's not wrong

People do turn back to/cling to their religion when things get hard. There were reports of how church attendance increased after 9/11. They aren't clinging to religion only because they are unemployed but some certainly have turned to their religion because of hard times.

[Bake]

27. But Obama's faith is genuine, of course, because for him it's all good.

It was a dumbass thing to say. Why can't the Obots just admit it? Obama himself admitted it. Why do you all feel theurge to defend what he himself won't defend?

Bake

[ellacott]

53. You make no sense and what's with the childish name calling?

He said he regretted the way he phrased it but stands behind the statement. The statement is not incorrect. I have no idea how this relates to his faith being genuine.

[Bake]

57. Just going by what he said, and what you echoed.

Hard times, bitter (or is it typical?) people clinging to religion and guns. Obama panders to the religious (as do, frankly, all politicians who hope to get elected), and touts his own faith. Is he just clinging to his faith because he's bitter?

"Bitter people clinging to their religion" may be true in some instances, but it was an incredibly poor choice of words for someone on the campaign trail. The issue is not the use of the term "bitter," but the implication that people's faith is less than genuine.

Bake

[ellacott]

61. God, Guns and Gays

People voting against their best interests. Wedge issues. Constitution State Amendments banning gay marriage.

Many people have been voting against their best interests because they've been disillusioned about the political party and they've made decisions based on wedge issues.

It's been said many times over the last few years but I guess if Obama says it it's a problem.

[benEzra]

74. Separate "god and gays" from "guns" and you'll be closer to the truth, methinks.

"God and gays" appeal almost exclusively to the religious right. "Guns" appeals to civil libertarians with a bunch of blue-dog Dems thrown in--many of whom have little use for the religious right, and are in turn despised by the religious right.

Civil liberties interests trump economic interests; if you view gun ownership as a constitutional right, then voting to preserve your gun rights is not voting against your self-interest, but rather is weighting a non-monetary interest higher than a monetary interest.

[ellacott]

79. I do agree

but removing rights to guns is not part of anyone's platform.

[benEzra]

80. As long as the AWB and "no fly, no buy" are kept off the agenda, you're right.

The Bush administration is pushing to deny gun rights to anyone on the administration's secret blacklist, though, and a few Dems (Lautenberg, possibly a couple others) are carrying water for Gonzales on that issue. The AWB is the biggest potential problem I see, though. I don't want a repeat of 1994-2004.

[azmouse]

11. ...

"People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them," Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. "So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."

[MessiahRp]

46. Yes because the experienced Hillary or McCain never say really stupid things...

oh wait...

Bosnia Sniper Fire....

Iran training al-Qaeda....


I take that back. :eyes:

[JasonHill]

51. This sort of attack when candidates run on a slogan of hope

is why gutter politics continue. If you try to run on Hope, you are slimed and it forces you to try to fight back where you are slimed even more for engaging in attack politics despite trying to go against that grain initially. To come from a democrat against another is particularly revolting, but that unfortunately is expected.

[MessiahRp]

52. Also, you can only build unity and hope by understanding the daily struggles

of the people you're helping. Obama clearly understands the daily anger that exists amongst the working class who have been fleeced by Clinton/Bush economic-trade policies just as he is aware of the tension and anger that exists in Black and White communities over racial divides.

I's too bad that Hillary has been insulated from reality for so long that she doesn't see that being a $100 millionaire doesn't make you a voice of the common people.

Rp

[Quixote1818]

78. No, that is not what he said. He suggested that any normal person

turns to the things that are meaningful to them in difficult times.

[jobycom]

2. Is that Obama's newest angle on this? Sounds about right.

And in case you missed it, people aren't upset over the word "bitter." They are upset that he implied their religious beliefs and their deepest political beliefs are just them whining because they don't have enough cash in their pockets.

It would be like Reagan saying you are only a liberal because you got turned down for a corporate job, and your belief in equal rights was just a negative response to bad economic conditions.

[Hepburn]

3. 5th rec....off to the greatest page with thee!

Excellent post and IMO you nailed it 110%! :hi:

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

7. Bitter idiots.

Or just liars.

[Life Long Dem]

8. I'm offended by pretenders. McSame seems to think no one can be bitter.

Well he must forget McCarthy.

[MethuenProgressive]

10. Try to keep up: In AP speech today BO called his gaffe a "mistake"

Quick, ask the mods to delete your thread so you can get back in lock step!

[MessiahRp]

50. He said the WORDING was a mistake

He did not backpedal on the intent of his statement.

Rp

[MethuenProgressive]

56. "Words matter," - Deval Patrick

[Tarc]

13. Good plan there, O-Bot

First the man himself insults working class America with his "bitter" slam, then his little DU minions pile on by calling these that denounce the insult as "idiots".

Welcome to Amateur Hour.

[Life Long Dem]

14. What? Only MSM can attack?

[azmouse]

15. What don't you understand about this:

"People don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody is going to help them," Obama told a crowd at a Terre Haute, Ind., high school Friday evening. "So people end up voting on issues like guns and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. They take refuge in their faith and their community, and their family, and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington."

[GihrenZabi]

18. I agree...

...anyone who is offended by his statements is a moron. Or being moronic.

This is what happens when you live in a country marred by such a lack of proper education. People need things spelled out for them as clear as day and handed to them on a silver platter in order to understand it. You can't cut corners and trust people to fill in any blanks themselves.

What Obama said: People don't vote on economic issues because they don't trust the government to DO anything about the economy, so instead they vote on issues like religion (read: abortion) or guns.

He's absolutely right. Americans do NOT vote on intellectual issues in the least. Americans, as a whole, are not educated enough to be able to do so. I think it is wrong to fault them for that, per se, as topics like world economics are incredibly complex and it take some concerted effort for anyone other than an Economics major or someone involved in finance for a living (just two examples) to understand the issues.

Americans not educating themselves on the issues is another discussion, however...but Obama is correct is that many Americans don't seem to vote on issues of substance.


The only reason his statements are causing any "controversy" is because they were twisted by parties who saw the opportunity for political benefit by playing on the minds of rubes and the ignorant who believe whatever the media tells them. Say Obama is elitist often enough and people will believe it regardless of whether it is true or not.

My 1st-generation grandmother, who doesn't have even a high school education, told my father that she would not vote for Obama because "he was a terrorist" and all her friends, of equal education and common sense, were all voting for Hillary.

This is the sort of person Hillary is aiming at right now - because highly-educated, affluent people are flocking to Obama as he actually has something of substance to say.

[azmouse]

20. Excellent post.

Please post more on DU. In fact, your post should be its own thread.

[Tarc]

23. There is no "twisting", O-Bot

Pretty nice spin there though. Looks like you got one fellow Obamaniac fooled.

[benEzra]

54. I think you may have just underscored the point.

"so instead they vote on issues like religion...or guns...Americans, as a whole, are not educated enough to (do otherwise)...I think it is wrong to fault them for that, per se, as topics like world economics are incredibly complex and it take some concerted effort for anyone other than an Economics major or someone involved in finance for a living (just two examples) to understand the issues. Americans not educating themselves on the issues is another discussion, however...but Obama is correct is that many Americans don't seem to vote on issues of substance."

I'm leaning in Obama's direction, so I'm not being a Hillarybot here. But your characterization of the issues in question is PRECISELY why those unfortunate remarks were seen as condescending--and for urban Dems to understand why it's condescending, and to actually address those misconceptions, is one positive outcome that I hope to see from all this.

The problem with your "rational factors (economic) vs. irrational factors (guns/religion)" characterization is that tens of millions of voters, particularly rural voters, DO see non-economic issues as not just "issues of substance," but issues of supreme importance, and it has nothing to do with lack of understanding of economics. To me, whether or not a candidate supports my continued right to own the contents of our family's gun safe, my right to be free from warrantless search and seizure, etc. is far more important than whether or not that candidate's policies will increase my paycheck. I hold that view because I weight the gun issue and other civil liberties issues as being worth much more to me than mere money.

Further, to ascribe someone's political convictions as resulting from emotion or psychological factors as opposed to rational thought, is objectively demeaning. If I tell you that you are a Democrat because you are a thinking person, that is a compliment. If I tell you that you are a Dem because you are compensating for something, need an emotional crutch, or don't know any better, it's an insult. The same is no less true of, say, the gun issue--which, unlike abortion, is one that cuts across party lines (half of gun owners are Dems and indies).

For a minority of voters, your characterization may be true, but the reason Obama's comments came across as offensive is that they were understood as saying that most people who place guns or religion over economic well-being do so for irrational reasons. Perhaps that's not what he meant, but that's the way it came out--that people for whom guns or religion are voting issues are acting out of emotional impulse, not rational thought.

As I said, I'll probably still vote for Obama (HRC reiterated her promise just this week to outlaw the most popular target rifles in America, so she's hardly an alternative on the gun issue, and there's no way I'm voting for McCain), but I am hopeful that this incident leads him to greater understanding of those two issues, and that it ultimately improves understanding across the board.

[GihrenZabi]

55. It's only condescending if you let someone tell you it was

Obama didn't say that people vote on abortion or gun rights issues irrationally. That's media spin, and it's bullshit. Obama said that people vote on those issues because they don't believe that the government can or will do anything about economic issues - if they had that faith, perhaps they would vote on a wider panoply of issues.

That's what he said, and he is 100% correct.

Just like Obama can choose his words more carefully, Americans also have some choices. They can leap to conclusions like idiots and let the media tell them what to think, or they can slow down, think for THEMSELVES, not assume the worst of a candidate, and try to figure out what he DID say.


In terms of "issues of substance," that's a judgment which is purely a matter of current context. Does anyone seriously wish to argue that gun control or abortion policy is more important than economics right now?

[benEzra]

66. Yes. And please hear me out.

Obama said that people vote on those issues because they don't believe that the government can or will do anything about economic issues - if they had that faith, perhaps they would vote on a wider panoply of issues.

THAT is precisely what is condescending. Please hear me out.

If a candidate wishes to ban half my guns, or subject me to warrentless surveillance, or abridge my freedom to speak out on the issues that are important to me, I don't CARE if that candidate would double my salary. My civil liberties are not for sale, and I don't give a flying fuck about money if my civil liberties are at risk. That is not "failing to understand economic issues"; that is merely saying civil liberties are more important to me than economic issues.

FWIW, I am pro-choice on abortion; I don't particularly like it, but I believe it is not my decision to make for other people. IMO, abortion and immigration issues are largely red herrings in most of flyover country; my state of NC is largely rural, and we have a pro-choice, pro-immigration, but pro-gun Dem governor.

In terms of "issues of substance," that's a judgment which is purely a matter of current context. Does anyone seriously wish to argue that gun control or abortion policy is more important than economics right now?

Absolutely, positively yes. Civil liberties are ALWAYS more important, IMO. If a candidate respects civil liberties, then economic issues can come to the fore.

You say you rate economic issues as more important than abortion policy. Do you really mean to tell me that you would vote for a candidate who would outlaw all abortions after the tenth week, if you KNEW they would return us to economic prosperity within 6 months? If you wouldn't, you don't rate economic issues higher than civil liberties. I don't think many truly pro-choice people would.

If you want to bring economic issues front and center, you don't do so by telling people who view economic issues as second-tier that their priorities are screwed up. What I want to hear from Senator Obama isn't "it's the economy, stupid"; I want to hear that he's going to respect my civil liberties (including my right to own a rifle with a handgrip that sticks out or a post-1861 magazine capacity), and if he will, then sure, let's talk economics. Howard Dean understood this in 2006, and that was a big part of his 50-state strategy. It worked; it took the gun albatross off the table in pro-gun states and let other issues (Iraq, etc.) come to the fore.

If you want to see how these issues really play in rural America, read the following essay by DU's own virginiamountainman:

Alienated Rural Democrat (2004)

Urban strategists (particularly the DLC) have been trying to psychoanalyze rural America--badly--for a decade and a half. We don't particularly want to be told why we supposedly think what the DLC or whoever thinks we think. We'd simply like to be listened to, and our rights to be respected.

I hope that helps, a little. And, as I said, I am leaning in Obama's direction, so don't take this as HRC agitprop; it's not.

[Two Americas]

64. what a perfect example

"...anyone who is offended by his statements is a moron. Or being moronic."

"...highly-educated, affluent people are flocking to Obama"

Right. That is who Obama was talking to, and those are the prejudices he was pandering to.

This "moron" finds his remarks and your defense of his remarks - not "offensive" so much - but rather condescending and arrogant. Not that I care about that, as it is such a common prejudice in the upscale activist community, but I do care that this attitude is destroying the party and contributing to the strength of the right wingers.

Others are defending Obama's remarks with the exact opposite position. I think your post is more honest, though. You certainly heard what he was saying - those uneducated losers out there are the problem. I think that is what most Obama supporters heard, as well.

[WillyT]

69. Exactly GZ.... Exactly !!! - Great Post !!!

:yourock:

[Tarc]

21. Obama just looked down his nose and sneered at working class America

and his little DU apologists just mix themselves another glass of kool-aid and march on.

[azmouse]

25. If that is all you got out of Obama's word then I truly feel sorry for you.

[Tarc]

34. I feel sorry for people too dumb to break out of their blind defense

when the man himself has been bending over backwards apologizing and clarifying and re-clarifying his blunder.

Pick your battles, kiddo. Y'all lost this one.

[azmouse]

42. Yep. Still feel sorry for your lack of understanding.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree 'cause it's beyond me how you can still stand behind HRC after all the lies, blunders, and outright bullshit she's showered you with.

Bye.

[Tarc]

44. And I have no idea how you've put up with

a foot-in-mouth, corrupt, condescending, political neophyte attendee of a virulently racist church. But hey, if that describes you too, then I guess you've found your perfect mate.

:toast:

[azmouse]

45. Hahahaha.... you're actually kinda funny.

:toast: To Hillary's lies and bullshit and all those who enjoy it. It'll be over for her soon enough.

[MessiahRp]

49. Yes because Obama is an elitest rich guy... unlike the $100 million Hillary who is blue collar?

I forget now wasn't it Obama who used his law degree to work for poor people while Hillary used hers to defend Sam Walton's Wal-Mart empire?

Seems to me he would know more about what poor and middle class people are going through. Just because she worked for Wal-Mart doesn't mean she was the $6 an hour cashier or exit greeter.

Rp

[Mandorallen]

17. Then if he is so right

about the context of his position WHY does he need to apologize?

[uponit7771]

19. For the WORDING not the intent behind them.

[Mandorallen]

39. You just dont get it

INTENT is not political reality. PERCEPTION is.

[Texas Hill Country]

24. it's not the bitter part that is the problem... once again. And futher insulting is not smart.

[nichomachus]

26. The only ones offended by Obama's remarks are . .

1. People who wouldn't vote him anyway
2. Cable news pundits
3. Hillary dead-enders
4. Democrats whose only exposure to small towns comes from watching TV sitcoms or from driving through while they're antiquing.
5. Republicans

[Bake]

Which means the only ones who weren't offended

are the Obots themselves. Have another glass of Kool-Aid!

Bake

[Tarc]

30. 6. The majority of American voters

I know some of you Obamaniacs get confused when counting goes beyond one hand, but that's what the rest of us are here for.

[MethuenProgressive]

28. You all cling to your anti-immigrant sentiments out of bitterness?

That's what that idiot Barack Obama wants wealthy California donors to think about you.

[Writer]

29. Wow. I suppose that today equates to the 57% of Pennsylvanians who support Clinton. n/t

[Two Americas]

31. "bitter"

This repetition of the word "bitter" by Obama supporters is a distraction. By making a huge brouhaha over the issue of whether or not people are "bitter" is being used to draw people away from the more important issue. Did Obama's remarks reflect an arrogant and condescending attitude? That is the issue here, not "bitter." That is an issue that should matter to all Democrats. Defending Obama with condescending and arrogant remarks is making it worse, and trying to make the discussion be about "bitter" is an obfuscation. Obama supporters are demonstrating again and again with their defense of his remarks, that they like and support condescension and arrogance in the cause of "progressives," and justify that by saying they are "right" about people being "bitter." The risk we run here is that we are setting ourselves up once again to settle for the consolation prize in politics - being "right" - rather than going for results.

What people are, and should be, bitter about is the failure of the so-called opposition party to defend their interests. That is why people give up on politics, and that is something we could change.

Clinton demonstrated that she doesn't understand this issue, either, when she responded with "people are not bitter."

[knixphan]

47. thanks for that! perfectly put.

[Bake]

60. I agree that the issue is not "bitter"

It's the implication that bitterness/hard times is the REASON they cling to their faith, their guns, and their xenophobia. It's a reductionist argument, essentially: your faith is no more than a security blanket in hard economic times. That may well be true for a very small segment of society, but for a candidate to make that broad brush generalization about "small town people" is foolish, and it does come off as elitist and arrogant.

Obama's own faith, of course, must be GENUINE, because for him, it's all good.

Bake

[Two Americas]

70. more than that

What you say is true, but it goes beyond that. Whether Obama's remarks about "them" were flattering or not, there is an underlying assumption that is condescending: that rural people are a homogeneous group, and that it is up to we the intellectuals to analyze "them" and their behavior.

Also, conflating gun ownership, religion, anti-immigrant hatred, and anti-trade betrays a profound ignorance and contempt toward millions of people. This is an attitude problem, and attitude of arrogance, and has nothing to do with a person's background or upbringing. Some of the newly successful are the most arrogant toward the rest of the population, since the struggle to become "better" is highly personal for them.

The biggest problem, though, is what this does to the party. The activist community is celebrating his remarks and those remarks play very well with the progressive base - educated, successful, suburban and academic people. It reinforces their prejudices. The disconnection between the progressive base and the general public has been growing and growing, and this episode illustrates that. That which plays very well with the progressive base is also that which the general public most thoroughly rejects.

[Bake]

71. Hammer, meet nail.

You just nailed it.

Bake

[smiley_glad_hands]

33. Clinton supporters have convienently forgotten about wedge issues and swiftboating. eom

[Two Americas]

58. nothing to do with Clinton

Doesn't this betray weakness that in response to any and all criticisms of Obama, you attack Clinton and Clinton supporters?

[smiley_glad_hands]

67. Well she attacks all progressives and her party

when she uses republican frames to attack obama.

[Two Americas]

72. ok

So what? I don't support Clinton.

Define "progressives." If by that you mean successful, upscale, educated people from suburban and academic backgrounds, who support libertarianism with an "organic" label slapped on it and call that "progressive," who have a deep and abiding contempt for blue collar people and rural people, and who for the sake of culture war issues have steered the party to the right on true political issues of economics and power, then I do not see why we need to sympathetic to their plight, nor see any critics as using "Republican frames."

There is much more to the party than "progressives." They represent a very small percentage of the party, let alone the general population, and the enforcement of their preferences, tastes, and prejudices on the party are what is destroying the party.

It is the arrogant and condescending attitude of the most dominant people in the party, as well as the complete absence of any true opposition to the right wing and the lack of any commitment to the weak, the poor, the left behind - the complete abandonment of the traditional principles and ideals of the party - that drives people to vote Republican.

Do you really think that what I am saying here is a "Republican frame?"

[smiley_glad_hands]

73. I care not for what you say but it is obvious that clinton is using republican frames. eom

[Egnever]

36. if you aren't pissed off you aren't paying attention.

The fact that he said this actually increases my support for him. He does get it and this statement shows it. He isn't trying to pour honey down our throats so he can shove his crap down behind it he is speaking of realities and it tastes damn sweet after so much of the "i don't see bitter i see positive bullshit".

[Bake]

62. I'm pissed off too. Even bitter about some things.

I'm bitter that the Pukes took us to war. I'm bitter that they've wrecked the economy. I'm bitter about all kinds of things. But that's not why I'm a person of faith. Nor is it the reason I own and enjoy shooting guns. Nor is it the reason I think there is a seriously fucked up problem with illegal immigration (clue: it's the big corporations wanting cheap labor from Mexico).

That doesn't make me an Obama supporter; to the contrary, I support Sen. Clinton.

Bake

[Romulox]

37. So if you oppose "free trade", you are bitter, and an idiot, and likely racist?

[knixphan]

38. Right on target.

"Every single person who claims to be "offended" by the bitter remarks has taken what he has said and twisted the context around totally. They took it to mean that their (fanatical) love of God and Guns was under attack.

In reality he was pointing out how Republicans use those tools to sucker these people into voting against their economic wellbeing."

-well said, MessiahRp

[cooolandrew]

41. Definitely the post of the week.

[hfojvt]

43. one of the worst aspects of all of this

Is that people are not deciding if they are offended or not. They are told, by both McCain and Clinton, that they SHOULD be offended, and the point of the whole charade is that Clinton and McCain feel that by also "pretending" to be offended that they can dupe those small town rubes into voting for them, even though their policies will not do anything for them.

Both candidates are gonna ignore small towns. With limited time to campaign that only makes sense. I cannot find a record of either Gore or Kerry, for example, ever visiting Sioux Falls during their campaigns. Sioux Falls is the largest city in the state of SD. In 1988 it was the 188th largest city in the US. Not only are small towns ignored, but entire states are ignored.

Google does not even show a record of Kerry visiting Kansas City in the 2004 campaign and KC was the 29th largest city in the US in 1988. Hillary has an office (a P.O. box) in Lowville, NY where my grandmother lived, but there's no record that she has ever been there. Face it, the typical attitude of an American who lives in a large city is to look down on the small towns and most of the hicks living there.

[knixphan]

48. this election =

separation of thinking people from sheep.

Power to the thinkers! Power to the truth-tellers!

Obama is channeling some of his inner-Kucinich. Good for him.

[butterfly77]

59. There seems to be a double standard when it comes to Barack...

Didn't someone else say these same things:

"The reason (George H. W. Bush's tactic) works so well now is that you have all these economically insecure white people who are scared to death," Clinton was quoted saying by the Los Angeles Times in September 1991.

A couple months later, Joe Klein, writing for the Sunday Times, reported that Clinton made the following remarks:

"You know, he wants to divide us over race. I'm from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they're gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they've been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country's coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, 'What happened to everybody's job? What happened to everybody's income? What ... have ... you ... done ... to ... our ... country?'"

For comparison's sake, here is Obama's statement, reported by Mayhill Fowler for Huffington Post's OffTheBus:

[ieoeja]

63. But if we want to win a majority in the general election...

... we need idiots to vote for us!

Seemed the appropriate time to channel Adalai Stevenson.

[springhill]

68. Oh boy.........

they're not only bitter but idiots if they are offended by Obama's remarks? Way to load on the shit.

[Swamp Rat]

76. You're just bitter

:D