Obama Slams Small Town America - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 04-14-2008, 07:30 PM   #166
She's the One
 
martha's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orange County and all over the goddamn place
Posts: 42,337
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

I am only having this discussion in light of how these things will effect the upcoming elections

You can say "I only" all you want but you are consistently overreacting to every thing Obama does and says. You look for ulterior motives, you reinterpret what he says and does, and you are very willing to give Clinton the benefit of the doubt every time.

You can pretend to be "observing" all you want.

You don't fool me or many others here.
__________________

__________________
martha is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 07:42 PM   #167
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by 2861U2
We can go back and forth all day on this, though. If a Republican had a 20-year relationship with a Reverend Wright character, not only would he immediately have no chance of winning a primary or general election, but the far left and the media would be calling for his head.
"A Republican"? Why not try a 30 to 40 year party-wide relationship with a bunch of fanatical right-wing Christians? Because that describes the Republican Party to the letter.

Anyone who fixates on Rev. Wright and ignores the Pat Robertsons, Jerry Falwells, James Dobsons, Bob Joneses, and John Hagees of the Christian Right, who have made any number of downright offensive statements over their careers and have had a sickening level of power over the Republican Party, is a hypocrite.

I can understand how one can find themselves attending a church with a priest/minister who does not reflect all of their views. It is very much the Catholic experience. I have no reason to believe that Obama shares those opinions, anymore than I ever shared rather offensive comments made by my priests over the years.

Quote:
Turn on the news. I bet you'll find someone, somewhere talking about McCain's temper or his struggle to win conservatives or his age or his statement about his economic knowledge.
I looked. Here's what I got instead:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/...ith/index.html

Quote:
McCain more private about prayer than rivals

The two Democratic presidential candidates frequently weave religion into their stump speeches, but Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, has been more tight-lipped on the subject.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama both got personal Sunday night, putting politics aside to discuss their faith at Faith in Public Life's Compassion Forum at Messiah College, about 12 miles outside the Pennsylvania capital of Harrisburg.

McCain declined an invitation to the forum.

For years, the evangelical community has largely supported Republican presidential candidates.

However this year, evangelical leaders have split over McCain, who is struggling to mend fences with some evangelical luminaries like James Dobson, who have expressed disappointment with his selection.

Republican candidates rely on support from the evangelical base, but some are hesitant to embrace McCain.

"Honestly, I haven't gotten a good feel for him. I've been to his Web site a few times and I haven't gotten a good feeling about where he stands when it comes to other issues that aren't mainstream issues that Christians look at," said Doug Enders, an evangelical voter at New Covenant Fellowship Church in Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.

McCain was raised an Episcopalian and now belongs to a Baptist church. On the rare occasion he mentions his faith, its usually within his comfort zone -- the military and its men.

"In the immediacy, chaos, destruction and shock of war, soldiers are bound by duty and military discipline to endure and overcome. Their duty and loyalty belong to their country. They find solace in their faith in God. But their strongest loyalty, the bond that cannot break, is to the cause that is theirs alone -- each other," he said earlier this month in Jacksonville, Florida.

McCain, 71, is from an older generation, one that is more private about prayer.

"I'm unashamed and unembarrassed about my deep faith in God. But I do not obviously try to impose my views on others," he said Friday.

But he's equally quiet about his policy positions important to evangelicals, like his opposition to abortion, and has angered social conservatives on a host of issues, such as support for embryonic stem cell research.

He's caused further rifts with conservatives by opposing Bush's signature tax cuts, co-sponsoring the campaign finance reform law that now bears his name and supporting a controversial White House-backed plan to offer a path to citizenship for illegal immigrants.

"He has some problems, no question about it, and if he talks about those things that are important and has a track record behind it, I think he can win people over," said Mike Geer, with the Pennsylvania Family Institute.

Brett Hartman, pastor of the New Covenant Fellowship Church, said he disagrees with McCain on several issues, but he's not bothered that McCain doesn't talk much about faith.

"Sometimes when people kind of use the platform of their faith ... it takes away a little bit from their integrity," he said.

He tells his conservative flock to do what the Gospel teaches and judge a candidate by his actions, not words.


Quote:
But I'm not voting for a well-written, organized website. I'm voting for a person who is continuing to give us insights into his real life and his values. So please, Obama, be yourself. Keep on telling us what you really feel about people in this country. I'm all ears.
And I'm sure the only things you'll hear and remember are his verbal gaffes.
__________________

__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:37 PM   #168
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

I am only having this discussion in light of how these things will effect the upcoming elections


i've been thinking about this.

and the above is why Democrats continue to lose elections.

they nominate people who don't stand for anything. they nominate people who they think others might maybe possibly like, if we play our cards right. they nominate people who pandescend to the widest possible amount of people, and try desperately not to offend, with the hopes that if they're nice enough and inoffensive enough and pander enough, then the masses will vote for them.

this line of thinking has gotten us the 8 year long horror show called the Bush Presidency.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 10:44 PM   #169
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep


and so far
it looks like Hillary will do better in Penn
because of this.

Obama had a good shot at taking her out there, before this major fuck-up
deep, that is just total nonsense, honestly.

She is NOT doing better in Penn because of this and the idea that he had a good shot of taking her out is just an incredible statement. The polls put up up at 20 points ahead a few weeks ago, the SUSA poll which has been the best this primary season still has her up 18 while some of the others have gone down to 6-10 point lead. I have no idea where you are getting this from, honestly it's like you're actually doing the job of moving the goalposts for the Clintons.
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:28 PM   #170
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511




i've been thinking about this.

and the above is why Democrats continue to lose elections.

they nominate people who don't stand for anything. they nominate people who they think others might maybe possibly like, if we play our cards right. they nominate people who pandescend to the widest possible amount of people, and try desperately not to offend, with the hopes that if they're nice enough and inoffensive enough and pander enough, then the masses will vote for them.

this line of thinking has gotten us the 8 year long horror show called the Bush Presidency.
I have been saying for weeks now

I expect Obama to be the nominee

and you, among many others, believe him to be different

so, you should be happy
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:43 PM   #171
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


deep, that is just total nonsense, honestly.

She is NOT doing better in Penn because of this and the idea that he had a good shot of taking her out is just an incredible statement. The polls put up up at 20 points ahead a few weeks ago, the SUSA poll which has been the best this primary season still has her up 18 while some of the others have gone down to 6-10 point lead. I have no idea where you are getting this from, honestly it's like you're actually doing the job of moving the goalposts for the Clintons.

Quote:
Obama down by 20 in new Pennsylvania poll; national lead holds steady

A survey of Pennsylvania Democrats that was done in part after the news broke about Sen. Barack Obama's controversial comment that some small-town folks are "bitter" and cling to religion and guns in difficult times, shows him now trailing Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Keystone State by 20 percentage points.

American Research Group says this morning that its latest poll shows Clinton ahead 57%-37%. The survey of 600 "likely" Democratic primary voters was begun Friday and completed on Sunday. The news about Obama's "bitter" comments broke late Friday afternoon.

In ARG's previous Pennsylvania survey, done a week earlier, Clinton and Obama were tied at 45%. That tie, though, was an "outlier." Most Pennsylvania polls have given Clinton at least a 5 percentage point lead.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle3745785.ece


http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics...down-by-2.html

http://www.politicallore.com/preside...t-hurt-him/223
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:50 PM   #172
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Yes, and as I stated, SUSA, which has been incredibly reliable this time around had Hillary up by 18 just days ago. So you quote an article that admits that ARG was an outlier to prove what?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-14-2008, 11:58 PM   #173
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:30 PM
American Research Group says this morning that its latest poll shows Clinton ahead 57%-37%.

In ARG's previous Pennsylvania survey, done a week earlier, Clinton and Obama were tied at 45%

in one week it went from 45-45 tie to 57-37



in 8 days the election will be over
and exit polls will reveal how much Obama's remarks influenced this primary election

perhaps we should wait and see which one of us is more correct?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:00 AM   #174
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,295
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep
American Research Group says this morning that its latest poll shows Clinton ahead 57%-37%.

In ARG's previous Pennsylvania survey, done a week earlier, Clinton and Obama were tied at 45%

in one week it went from 45-45 tie to 57-37
Yes, I can read.

I also read the part where it said that the ARG poll from last week was an outlier. Did you miss that part?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:02 AM   #175
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:30 PM
so I did google for your SUSA

and found this

Quote:
Tuesday, April 08, 2008

SUSA Out of Step? Strategic Vision Puts Hillary Ahead in PA by 5



The poll, conducted April 4-6, 2008 of 1200 likely Pennsylvania voters, shows Clinton leading with 47 percent to Obama 42 percent. Interestingly, in the general election match-up it shows Clinton 45percent to 42 percent for McCain; and McCain 48 percent to 41 percent for Obama. For the Democratic primary the margin of error is +/- 4.5% for the general election it is +/-3%.
looks more like 5 not 18?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:04 AM   #176
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram


Yes, I can read.

I also read the part where it said that the ARG poll from last week was an outlier. Did you miss that part?
yes the 45-45 tie was an "outlier"

Most Pennsylvania polls have given Clinton at least a 5 percentage point lead. (not 18)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:21 AM   #177
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,496
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by deep

I have been saying for weeks now

I expect Obama to be the nominee

and you, among many others, believe him to be different

so, you should be happy


this seems to miss the point entirely.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 06:02 AM   #178
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
maycocksean's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: The Most Important State in the Union
Posts: 4,882
Local Time: 07:30 PM
To be frank, I’m really disappointed at the level of political discourse in this country. We routinely make mountains of molehills, and—it appears—the leader of our country is often decided based on the most inane kind of nonsense. This whole scenario—“Obama hates rural folk”, “Obama’s an elitist”, “Hillary drinking from a shot class and going hunting”—it’s ridiculous!

I agree that what Obama said wasn’t perhaps the most politically astute thing to say. Generalizations about a group of people you’re trying to court generally aren’t. And it DOES matter who says what. If Obama had made some generalizations about the problems in “black culture” today or the “bitterness” of inner city youth, I don’t think anyone would blink an eye even though such comments could be considered equally unfair. Likewise if John McCain or Clinton made the such comments about minorities they’d be excoriated for their latent racism. Speaking in broad generalities and/or stereotypes is always risky business in the political arena especially if you’re speaking about a group that you’re not perceived as belonging to. Nonetheless there was some legitimate food for thought in Obama’s comments, especially when considered in their larger context. But there is little thinking going on, it appears to me, just a lot of hyperreacting.

I fear that deep is right in his analysis of what’s going to happen in this year’s election with Obama winning the nomination and then losing the election (though I continue to disagree that Hillary would fare better against McCain). He’s been sadly prescient in seeing how there would be a group of Democratic voters swaying towards McCain. It’s sad that he may be right and I sincerely wish he wasn’t. It doesn’t speak well of our country.

It’s not as if promoting an image over substance is new in American politics. It goes all the way back to Andrew Jackson’s populist “man of the people” image and William Henry Harrison’s “war hero” image. The shallow, condescending, manipulative, pandering aspect of electioneering has always been there—it’s just never been more potent than it is now. In the old days, there wasn’t TV to magnify the burnishing or smearing of an image, there wasn’t the internet to magnify every sound bite and misstatement (shoot, it took the country weeks to just to find out what was in a particular politicians speech). In the old days people had no choice to but listen to or read the text of long, dense speeches. In a sense they may have been less susceptible to surface campaigning. I don’t think Americans today are “dumber” than in the past, but it’s much, much easier to be swayed by surface and image and spin than it was.

Finally I would ask rural voters to consider whether they’d rather vote for someone who made some perhaps stereotypical comments in attempt to get the heart of an issue, showing perhaps a lack of political savvy or someone who is shamelessly pandering to you. I would urge you not to be taken in by the pandering. I want to believe our country is smarter than this.
__________________
maycocksean is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 08:46 AM   #179
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 07:30 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by maycocksean
I would urge you not to be taken in by the pandering. I want to believe our country is smarter than this.
The problem is that American behavioral patterns consistently display that we prefer flattery over the truth. Game shows have to be crafted this way too. Americans want to believe that they're smart, when, in fact, they're not, so questions must be crafted in a way to make them believe that they are. If the questions are too hard and make them feel dumb, then they get angry and change the channel.

(Contrast this with the U.K., where they want questions that challenge them, hence they don't mind if the questions are hard and might make them feel stupid, or Japan, where the audiences generally despise the contestants and want them to lose.)
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 04-15-2008, 12:09 PM   #180
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:30 PM
perhaps this incident

will not matter


this article says new polls suggest it may not

Quote:
Pennsylvania Polls Don't Show Any Major "Small Town" Effect
By Eric Kleefeld - April 15, 2008, 11:07AM

The Pennsylvania polls are coming fast and furious today -- and while most show a slight uptick in support for Hillary, they all appear to indicate that Obama's "small town" comments are not yet causing any big movement.

• The new CNN poll of polls shows a slight uptick in Hillary Clinton's Pennsylvania lead from late last week, but only from a four-point lead to a six-point lead. The new figure: Clinton 49%, Obama 43%.

• Meanwhile, the new Rasmussen poll has Clinton leading Barack Obama by nine points, not significantly changed since a week ago:

Clinton 50% (+2)
Obama 41% (-2)

As for primary voters' reactions to the "small town" comments, 51% disagree with the remarks, but on the other hand only 37% of respondents said it represented an elitist view, versus 48% who did not think so.

• A SurveyUSA poll finds that a majority of Pennsylvanians were not offended by the remarks, with Democrats not offended by a 62%-33% margin.

• And a new Susquehanna poll has the race narrowing since a month ago, but with a very high undecided number:

Clinton 40% (-5)
Obama 37% (+6)

Late Update: The Susquehanna poll came out yesterday, but the interviews actually predate the "small town" comments.
__________________

__________________
deep is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:30 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com