Obama Slams Small Town America

[Irvine511]

We seem not to compete on ideas anymore; we compete on semantics.

the Clintons have made sure of this.

the entire process was absolutely STACKED -- by clintonista Terry McAuliffe, no less -- to give her the nomination by the beginning of February. and she couldn't even pull that off!

and then this uppity Negro kid comes along ...

 

[BonosSaint]

Irvine, thank you for your thoughtful response. I admit when I wrote my original response, I had to bite my tongue--several times. But I figured underneath our visceral responses, we both genuinely look for dialogue.

We have a local talk radio station here--three local hosts coincidentally embracing three different candidates. When I talked about thinskinned, I was also talking about the Obama supporters who would call almost en masse everytime a criticism was levelled, saying this host was supposed to be "fair and balanced". I don't recall too many Hillary supporters calling into the Obama host complaining. The Hillary host has actively invited Obama supporters to the show and called the larger Obama campaign offices and had John Kerry on, economists who support Obama, etc. Despite being hard on Obama, he has given the Obama supporters every opportunity to make their case--unlike the Obama host.

We've had Obama supporters tearing Hillary signs from her supporters during her rallies (and to be fair, they got a little payback at Obama's rally which I thought was equally tacky)

One gets a sense that no criticism levelled at Obama is reasonable, which frankly scares me a little bit. With the Hillary Bosnia sniper thing, we thought, yeah, she lied and she deserves the heat.

I've heard Clinton and Republican supporters call for apologies from Obama regarding Wright, etc. I never called for an apology. I never thought one was required or even particularly desireable.

I had a Hillary pin I gave away. But haven't gotten a Hillary sign. If I did, I would think it was funny.

It's hard for me to identify nationwide with a Vote for Hillary because Obama Can't Win, because as I've noted, a lot of people here were pro-Hillary even when everybody else was in the race.
So believe it or not, we do believe we are voting FOR someone.

I will admit for me it's partly a woman who shares a lot of my ideology thing. It's a lot of this always second thing. It's not like we've had an overabundance of women candidates. I've never really had an opportunity to vote for somebody who was, you know, like me. She's strong, capable, intelligent and like you said several times, you would vote for her if she were the nominee. Would you still?

Obama didn't wow me. I wasn't wowed by his speeches, although I often thought they were strong and eloquent. I don't have much real information on him. I like Hillary, warts and all, and after watching her closely for 16 years, I think the good outweighs the bad. I've vetted her. I haven't vetted Obama.
For me to vote for Obama would only be a vote against McCain.
I haven't been convinced he is a step away and a step above. I know that's what his image is. I don't necessarily trust image. I'm not a person of faith, except in my own instincts. (Not to say I'm not wrong --or right--often enough, but I'd rather bet on my instincts than against them.) So in the primaries, I'll vote for whom I prefer, then make my peace in November.

You know a couple of years ago, you castigated me some for my opinion (still held) that not voting is a political statement itself. I believe you said something along the lines that it was a moral imperative (or civil duty or something) to vote. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[anitram]

I will admit for me it's partly a woman who shares a lot of my ideology thing. It's a lot of this always second thing. It's not like we've had an overabundance of women candidates. I've never really had an opportunity to vote for somebody who was, you know, like me. She's strong, capable, intelligent

Interestingly enough, I used to feel like you and feel exactly the opposite right now.

I loved the Clintons and I really liked Hillary. I always defended her for staying with Bill and thought it was obnoxious for people to pass judgments on other people's marriages. I never understood the right's attacks in this respect - for all their talk of the sanctity of marriage, they blasted her for preserving hers. Talk about demented. I also really liked her healthcare plan and felt she was intelligent, strong, educated, etc - all the things you mentioned.

It's 2008 and I'm turning 29 this year. I look at Hillary and see a lot of similarities - she's a strong, independent woman, she's a lawyer, she did a lot of community service type of work, she didn't let her husband define her. And yet, everything I have seen from her this election campaign has left me not only disgusted, but really, profoundly disappointed. That is the thing for me - anger is easy, but disappointment is hard. I don't like this woman that I see. I don't like a LOT of the things she's done, I don't like her sense of entitlement (this is not just directed at her, but her staff in general), I don't like her constant moving of the goalposts rather than recognizing that she ran a shitty, awful campaign (which is inexcusable given her $ and level of influence). When I see her now, I don't see a woman I necessarily respect. She is nothing like my Mom, who is of a similar age and hugely accomplished.

So I don't really sympathize with her anymore, nor do I feel a sense of kinship. I don't care if she is a woman. I never believed I would see a female US president in my lifetime, until Hillary came along. Now, I think, I'd love to see a woman, but not this woman.

I was not initially an Obama fan. I didn't have a dislike for him or anything like that, but I would have been equally as happy if Hillary or Obama were elected. In fact, I kind of liked a lot of Edwards' positions more than either of theirs. So this isn't some kind of inability of me to get past Obama fangirliness. The reason I am in the place where I am is squarely because of the way Hillary has conducted herself. And my position and my views are by no means unique, so you really have to ask yourself how has she contributed to this severe, deep splintering.

 

[Dreadsox]

I would love to be 29 again.

 

[verte76]

Eh, I wouldn't call it a 'slam' as the intent was clearly empathetic, but reductionist dimestore social analysis like that is better left to pundits and private campaign strategy meetings; too much risk of sounding patronizing.

You're right yolland.

 

[verte76]

Obama admitted that the remarks were a mistake. The minute he makes a mistake, his opponents are all over him dammit! This pisses me off dammit!

 

[verte76]

^^oh ya, he's definitely done it now...

This nit-pciking attack is nothing more than desperation pure and simple. It's so funny to me... It never fails, he starts to gain ground in the polls and here comes the SLIME machine!!
I have 3 words for you..... BRING IT ON!!


Please look at his response....
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/

 

[verte76]

You have to remember that Obama's comments were made to wealthy Californian donors at a stop in $an Franci$co. These sort of views on religion, guns, trade, gay marriage, etc are par for the course.

Yeah.

 

[verte76]

His comments certainly don't seem to be the best way to win over the rural vote. Kind of hard to believe he wouldn't know such comments would raise some hackles.


*edit* I want to clarify I don't think he necessarily meant to slam anyone. I don't think he intentionally planned to set up an "us" against "them" situation, but I do think he didn't really give what he said much thought. That he didn't seem to realise that people -- people he is supposedly courting -- might feel slighted by his comment is worrisome in someone who's strong points are supposed to include being thoughtful and knowing how to connect with people.

Overall I think these are "rookie" mistakes, but if he doesn't doesn't stop making them soon they could be what sinks him. They will be exploited -- he or his advisors have to realise that.

Yeah.

 

[verte76]

The Rural Vote has won the last two elections!

True.

 

[verte76]

He needs to think harder about how he phrases everything because absolutely everything he says is under a microscope and will be used against him if at all possible.

Yeah.

 

[VintagePunk]

Eh, I wouldn't call it a 'slam' as the intent was clearly empathetic, but reductionist dimestore social analysis like that is better left to pundits and private campaign strategy meetings; too much risk of sounding patronizing.

I thought the same thing. It sounds like his former community activist self coming out. And while there are probably elements of truth in his statement, I agree, it's vastly oversimplified and does sound patronizing.

Addressing some of the general sentiment in this thread, it seems as though Obama supporters are up in arms, minimizing what he's said. While I agree that his intent wasn't to be offensive, to some he obviously was, and he needs to find a way to do damage control. Plain and simple, verbal miscues and digging oneself out from them is part of politics. Even Obama's not immune.

I also find some of the attitudes of Obama supporters curious. If Hillary had made a similar misstep, she'd be lambasted for it. You know she would.

Disclosure - I'm not strongly on the side of either candidate, I've mostly been watching as an interested observer, although in recent weeks, I've probably been leaning very slightly on the side of Obama.

 

[U2democrat]

Interestingly enough, I used to feel like you and feel exactly the opposite right now.

I loved the Clintons and I really liked Hillary. I always defended her for staying with Bill and thought it was obnoxious for people to pass judgments on other people's marriages. I never understood the right's attacks in this respect - for all their talk of the sanctity of marriage, they blasted her for preserving hers. Talk about demented. I also really liked her healthcare plan and felt she was intelligent, strong, educated, etc - all the things you mentioned.

It's 2008 and I'm turning 29 this year. I look at Hillary and see a lot of similarities - she's a strong, independent woman, she's a lawyer, she did a lot of community service type of work, she didn't let her husband define her. And yet, everything I have seen from her this election campaign has left me not only disgusted, but really, profoundly disappointed. That is the thing for me - anger is easy, but disappointment is hard. I don't like this woman that I see. I don't like a LOT of the things she's done, I don't like her sense of entitlement (this is not just directed at her, but her staff in general), I don't like her constant moving of the goalposts rather than recognizing that she ran a shitty, awful campaign (which is inexcusable given her $ and level of influence). When I see her now, I don't see a woman I necessarily respect. She is nothing like my Mom, who is of a similar age and hugely accomplished.

So I don't really sympathize with her anymore, nor do I feel a sense of kinship. I don't care if she is a woman. I never believed I would see a female US president in my lifetime, until Hillary came along. Now, I think, I'd love to see a woman, but not this woman.

I was not initially an Obama fan. I didn't have a dislike for him or anything like that, but I would have been equally as happy if Hillary or Obama were elected. In fact, I kind of liked a lot of Edwards' positions more than either of theirs. So this isn't some kind of inability of me to get past Obama fangirliness. The reason I am in the place where I am is squarely because of the way Hillary has conducted herself. And my position and my views are by no means unique, so you really have to ask yourself how has she contributed to this severe, deep splintering.

Very, very good post. I've felt essentially the same way.

 

[Irvine511]

I also find some of the attitudes of Obama supporters curious. If Hillary had made a similar misstep, she'd be lambasted for it. You know she would.

yes, she'd get crap for it in the press, and the Obama campaign would do something about it.

but would they do this:

[q]Clinton Says Obama's 'Bitter' Remark Could Cost Party General Election
Email
Share

April 13, 2008 3:12 PM

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., took the opportunity to capitalize on her rivals comments that people in small towns are "bitter" for the third day in a row.

Speaking to reporters outside some homes in Scranton, Pennsylvannia where she has family roots and today was greeted by many supporters holding signs and offering encouragement. She made the argument that Sen. Barack Obama's comments could cost the party the election and that the party has been seen as out of touch by male candidates in the past. Clinton also criticized Obama for not "owning up to his remarks."

Clinton was asked if this moment was her opening in the race – the one that she has been looking for. Clinton responded saying,"I think what’s important about this is that Senator Obama has not owned up to what he said, and taken accountability for it you. You know, first said he was right and attacked me for raising his remarks and referencing them. Then he admitted he may have said what he said in artfully. And now he he’s deeply apologized if he offended anyone. But what people are looking for is an explanation."

Clinton also threatened that these comments could really hurt the Democratic Party – making a veiled comparison to what happened to John Kerry and Al Gore.

"The Democratic party has been unfortunately viewed by many people over the last decades as being elitist and out of touch we have waged elections over that you don’t have to think too far to remember that good men running for president were viewed as being elitist and out of touch with the values and the lives of millions of Americans. So I think this is a very significant concern that people have expressed. You know the front page of the paper today in Scranton is very pointed and the mayor and mayors across Pennsylvanian and people across our country have all reacted," she said.

Clinton repeated the argument she has been making these past days saying, "I do not believe, as Senator Obama apparently does, that Americans in small towns and small cities and rural areas cling to religion and gun ownership out of frustration they embrace them as a matter of faith and a way of life. We are at a point in America where need to be bringing people together."

Clinton also implied that Obama's comments reflect that he does not respect all Americans saying "I believe if you want to be president of all Americans you need to respect all Americans. You need to respect their values and their way of life and that’s exactly what I will do as president."

Clinton has been speaking about her hunting experience recently, but when asked when the last time she fired a gun or went to church – she objected saying "You know what that is not that is not a relevant question for this debate we can answer that another time this is about what people feel is being said about them and you know I went to church on Easter that is not what this is about. This is about how people look at the democratic party and the democratic party leadership."

Clinton also rejected any notion that she was out of touch – due to her not living in a middle class lifestyle and spending so much time living a more privileged life. Clinton said "Well Bill and I have worked very hard our entire lives and I am very grateful for the successes we’ve have had – and I think a lot of the way we live, even today you know my mother lives with us I've met a lot of mothers and aunts who living with people in these houses as we walk down the street. We are obviously very appreciative of the opportunities we have been given we don’t take anything for granted."[/q]



i just don't see the Obama people as willing not just to slit throats, but willing to slice lengthwise down the vein.

and, notice in the above, it's all negative. it's all about how Obama is a black John Kerry.

it's amazing how a black man raised by a white single mother is somehow an out-of-touch elitist, especially when his income is about 1% of the Clinton's net worth, but hey, that's how it goes i suppose.

 

[VintagePunk]

yes, she'd get crap for it in the press, and the Obama campaign would do something about it.

but would they do this:

[q]Clinton Says Obama's 'Bitter' Remark Could Cost Party General Election
Email
Share

April 13, 2008 3:12 PM

ABC News' Eloise Harper Reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., took the opportunity to capitalize on her rivals comments that people in small towns are "bitter" for the third day in a row.

Speaking to reporters outside some homes in Scranton, Pennsylvannia where she has family roots and today was greeted by many supporters holding signs and offering encouragement. She made the argument that Sen. Barack Obama's comments could cost the party the election and that the party has been seen as out of touch by male candidates in the past. Clinton also criticized Obama for not "owning up to his remarks."

Clinton was asked if this moment was her opening in the race – the one that she has been looking for. Clinton responded saying,"I think what’s important about this is that Senator Obama has not owned up to what he said, and taken accountability for it you. You know, first said he was right and attacked me for raising his remarks and referencing them. Then he admitted he may have said what he said in artfully. And now he he’s deeply apologized if he offended anyone. But what people are looking for is an explanation."

Clinton also threatened that these comments could really hurt the Democratic Party – making a veiled comparison to what happened to John Kerry and Al Gore.

"The Democratic party has been unfortunately viewed by many people over the last decades as being elitist and out of touch we have waged elections over that you don’t have to think too far to remember that good men running for president were viewed as being elitist and out of touch with the values and the lives of millions of Americans. So I think this is a very significant concern that people have expressed. You know the front page of the paper today in Scranton is very pointed and the mayor and mayors across Pennsylvanian and people across our country have all reacted," she said.

Clinton repeated the argument she has been making these past days saying, "I do not believe, as Senator Obama apparently does, that Americans in small towns and small cities and rural areas cling to religion and gun ownership out of frustration they embrace them as a matter of faith and a way of life. We are at a point in America where need to be bringing people together."

Clinton also implied that Obama's comments reflect that he does not respect all Americans saying "I believe if you want to be president of all Americans you need to respect all Americans. You need to respect their values and their way of life and that’s exactly what I will do as president."

Clinton has been speaking about her hunting experience recently, but when asked when the last time she fired a gun or went to church – she objected saying "You know what that is not that is not a relevant question for this debate we can answer that another time this is about what people feel is being said about them and you know I went to church on Easter that is not what this is about. This is about how people look at the democratic party and the democratic party leadership."

Clinton also rejected any notion that she was out of touch – due to her not living in a middle class lifestyle and spending so much time living a more privileged life. Clinton said "Well Bill and I have worked very hard our entire lives and I am very grateful for the successes we’ve have had – and I think a lot of the way we live, even today you know my mother lives with us I've met a lot of mothers and aunts who living with people in these houses as we walk down the street. We are obviously very appreciative of the opportunities we have been given we don’t take anything for granted."[/q]



i just don't see the Obama people as willing not just to slit throats, but willing to slice lengthwise down the vein.

and, notice in the above, it's all negative. it's all about how Obama is a black John Kerry.

it's amazing how a black man raised by a white single mother is somehow an out-of-touch elitist, especially when his income is about 1% of the Clinton's net worth, but hey, that's how it goes i suppose.

What I see from that (besides the appalling lack of punctuation - who wrote that piece?) is a politician capitalizing on the mistake/weakness of another. Nothing particularly out of line, or shocking to me. It happens all the time, and I don't think it's necessarily evil. It's not like she's fabricated that he's had an out-of-wedlock, biracial child as a result of an affair, or anything.

The things Hillary are attributing to Obama - elitism, being out of touch with segments of the population, not being electable in the general election - I see Obama supporters saying the same about Hillary all the time. I do agree though, that as far as I know, Obama himself has not done this, but still. Pot, kettle much?

 

[Irvine511]

[q]What I see from that (besides the appalling lack of punctuation - who wrote that piece?) is a politician capitalizing on the mistake/weakness of another. Nothing particularly out of line, or shocking to me. It happens all the time, and I don't think it's necessarily evil. It's not like she's fabricated that he's had an out-of-wedlock, biracial child as a result of an affair, or anything.

The things Hillary are attributing to Obama - elitism, being out of touch with segments of the population, not being electable in the general election - I see Obama supporters saying the same about Hillary all the time. I do agree though, that as far as I know, Obama himself has not done this, but still. Pot, kettle much?[/q]


i'm sorry not to be thrilled by the replaying of the tired, Baby Boom political playbook. she's trying to revive the tired old red/blue divides and exacerbating them at the same time. she is saying, "you see those people? they think you're stupid. i know i spend my life with those people, but trust me, i'm just like you." all it does is drag us all down, and we get subsumed back into the same political morass we've been in ever since i've been old enough to be aware of politics.

you're right, it does fall short of the nastiness of the GOP primaries in South Carolina, but i fail to see how that's much better -- reminds me of another thread in here. no one is saying that she can't do what she's doing, but what she's doing is, to me and many others, is not just gross, but has the potential to come back and make her look incredibly silly.

yes, she's capitalizing on a mistake. for the third day. but she's going beyond what most primary campaigns ever do, possibly because i can't remember a campaign that has gone on this long, but this seems like yet another reminder on her part that Obama is damaged goods and, no, she can't win the nomination, but he can't win in the general, and better a McCain victory so she can be back in 2012 than an Obama victory in 2008.

what this underscores is how the Clintons seem to be only about themselves and their own personal ambitions. nothing about the party, nothing about the country, it's about putting power back into their own hands. all things exist to be manipulated by them to their own ends. i don't see Obama being any sort of pot and kettle to this style of politics. and perhaps it's to his detriment, and if so, that's a commentary on all of us.

now, the "ends" the Clintons seek are ones that i tend to agree with, for the most part. as has been noted, Obama and HRC aren't much different from a political standpoint than one another. but doesn't anyone else have a problem with this? isn't anyone worried about dynasties? isn't anyone else worried that her campaign has been so poorly run that it speaks ill of her future candidacy?

what's been awful and depressing is that this campaign, when it started, was the most inspiring one i've been around for. it was about ideas, it was very positive, and it's been dragged into the mud by the Clinton campaign. yes, obviously the Obama campaign has dirt under it's fingernails as well. yes, it's obviously playing politics as well. but the venom with which she's going after him, the personal nature of the attacks, the personality politics ... none of this is designed to get her to win. it's designed to damage him enough so that he loses in the fall.

and that's why i've turned on the Clintons. yes, i'd vote for her. i have to. no, i will never forgive them for what they've done to the brightest democratic start to emerge since ...

 

[VintagePunk]

I understand and respect your point of view, and I admit that while I do believe in what I'm saying, to a certain extent I might somewhat be taking a devil's advocate stance here.

i'm sorry not to be thrilled by the replaying of the tired, Baby Boom political playbook. she's trying to revive the tired old red/blue divides and exacerbating them at the same time. she is saying, "you see those people? they think you're stupid. i know i spend my life with those people, but trust me, i'm just like you." all it does is drag us all down, and we get subsumed back into the same political morass we've been in ever since i've been old enough to be aware of politics.

you're right, it does fall short of the nastiness of the GOP primaries in South Carolina, but i fail to see how that's much better -- reminds me of another thread in here. no one is saying that she can't do what she's doing, but what she's doing is, to me and many others, is not just gross, but has the potential to come back and make her look incredibly silly.

The way I see it is, Hillary is running the usual type of campaign, it's politics as usual with her. I think it's Obama's uniqueness in his lack of negativity that's making hers stand out so much. Here's a thought, and it's pure speculation on my part, but is it possible that part of the reason Obama is able to stay so unnegative is because, as I pointed out before, his supporters are doing the anti-Hillary work for him, so he's able to stay above the fray and remain relatively blameless?

yes, she's capitalizing on a mistake. for the third day. but she's going beyond what most primary campaigns ever do, possibly because i can't remember a campaign that has gone on this long, but this seems like yet another reminder on her part that Obama is damaged goods and, no, she can't win the nomination, but he can't win in the general, and better a McCain victory so she can be back in 2012 than an Obama victory in 2008.

what this underscores is how the Clintons seem to be only about themselves and their own personal ambitions. nothing about the party, nothing about the country, it's about putting power back into their own hands. all things exist to be manipulated by them to their own ends. i don't see Obama being any sort of pot and kettle to this style of politics. and perhaps it's to his detriment, and if so, that's a commentary on all of us.

Here, I see you attributing a lot of nefarious motivations to Hillary's campaign, and the Clinton family. Here's a thought - maybe it's not that she doesn't care about the party, or the nation, but that she genuinely thinks that she's the best candidate, and she's giving it her all to win. Is that so difficult to believe? Why is it selfish only for her to stay in the race? Why doesn't Obama drop out for the good of the party/nation? Why is no one asking that? Does Obama have no personal ambitions, he's running purely out of altruism?

Also (and this is not necessarily a reaction to only your comments, I think of this whenever someone brings this up), the 'putting an end to political dynasties' argument doesn't wash with me. It's not the fault of the Clintons that Bush Jr won 8 years after daddy, and royally fucked your country, and it doesn't necessarily follow that Hillary winning the presidency would have the same result.

now, the "ends" the Clintons seek are ones that i tend to agree with, for the most part. as has been noted, Obama and HRC aren't much different from a political standpoint than one another. but doesn't anyone else have a problem with this? isn't anyone worried about dynasties? isn't anyone else worried that her campaign has been so poorly run that it speaks ill of her future candidacy?

what's been awful and depressing is that this campaign, when it started, was the most inspiring one i've been around for. it was about ideas, it was very positive, and it's been dragged into the mud by the Clinton campaign. yes, obviously the Obama campaign has dirt under it's fingernails as well. yes, it's obviously playing politics as well. but the venom with which she's going after him, the personal nature of the attacks, the personality politics ... none of this is designed to get her to win. it's designed to damage him enough so that he loses in the fall.

and that's why i've turned on the Clintons. yes, i'd vote for her. i have to. no, i will never forgive them for what they've done to the brightest democratic start to emerge since ...

Sadly, it's been shown time and time again that negative campaigning works. Unfortunately, it seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator - the uninformed who like to have sound bytes spoon-fed to them, and fail to seek out their own information. I don't like it either, but it seems to be reality. Perhaps an Obama win would usher in a new era of kinder, gentler (heh, see what I did there?) politics, proving one doesn't have to go negative to win.

 

[Harry Vest]

Democratic voters in the United States Of America will get what they deserve for helping to keep Hillary in the race when she should of been thrown out along time ago...his name is John McCain. Remember all you Billary Democrats - you did this to yourselves and your country. You fools.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Agreed - From a way outsiders perspective, watching and reading without a built-in bias either way on the Democrat side, it seems pretty freakin' obvious that the Republican side really, really, REALLY want Hillary to be the nominee and for one very good reason only.

I've sort of checked out of the US race for a few weeks, but went on a bit of an Obama reading binge over the weekend - very impressive guy.

 

[Diemen]

Hillary Clinton said:

"I think what’s important about this is that Senator Obama has not owned up to what he said, and taken accountability for it"

I saw this on the news when I was at the gym today, and almost laughed out loud, and I think I did say "oh, come on!" rather audibly.

Clinton, criticizing Obama for not owning up to and taking accountability for his words? I wonder if she'd be satisfied if his response to this was:

"I misspoke."

 

[yolland]

the narrative about the campaign is now about how Obama isn't going to win. so vote for Hillary. because Obama can't win. that doesn't strike me as a compelling reason to vote for anyone, and it's quite depressing to see

But this is precisely the argument most of the Obama supporters in here have been making all along--that Hillary is unelectable, that she unites disaffected conservatives like no one else, that too many people in her own party look at her and are just reminded of Monica Lewinsky, etc. etc. Yes, there are also arguments to be made based on how both candidates have run their campaigns, but "not electable" seems to be nearly everyone's trump card.

What fears do you think we Clinton supporters are embracing? The supporters you cyber-know.

the fear that America won't vote for a black man. that he's too risky. too unknown. and you know us. so vote for the known quantity. don't dream. don't strive to be better.

I get the feeling you're really talking about one person. But cynic's crusade + 'irritable' counter-crusade tends to create a dynamic in here that I think has caused several more moderate posters on both sides to throw up their hands and avoid these threads altogether, which is unfortunate. Your description certainly doesn't sound like most of the Clinton supporters I know in 'real' life.

 

[yolland]

Obama Turns Table on Clinton

By BETH FOUHY
Associated Press, April 13

STEELTON, Penn. — Democrat Barack Obama lashed out Sunday at rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, mocking her sudden vocal support for gun rights and saying he understands the concerns of working class people. "She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her," Obama told an audience at a union hall here.

The Illinois senator has spent two days on the defensive after comments he made at a San Francisco fundraiser suggesting working class people are bitter about their economic circumstances and "cling to guns and religion" as a result. Clinton has pounded him for the remarks, calling him "elitist and divisive."

After reiterating his regret for his choice of words, Obama turned the tables on Clinton—noting that she accepted campaign contributions from drug and insurance company lobbyists and mocking, among other things, her sudden fealty to the rights of gun owners. "She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley," Obama said, invoking the famed female sharpshooter immortalized in the musical Anne Get Your Gun. "Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton."

Obama said the former first lady's history in the White House and Senate proved she was not as sensitive to the concerns of working class voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere as she tried to suggest. Pennsylvania's primary is April 22. "I just have to remind people of the track record," Obama said. "This is the same person who took money from financial folks on Wall Street and then voted for bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for folks right here in Pennsylvania to get a fair shake. Who do you think is out of touch? This is the same person who spent a decade with her husband campaigning for NAFTA, and now goes around saying she's opposed to NAFTA," Obama said, referring to the North American Free Trade Agreement that is widely unpopular in blue collar communities.

The Clinton campaign issued a quick retort to Obama's comments. "For months, Barack Obama and his campaign have relentlessly attacked Hillary Clinton's character and integrity by using Republican talking points from the 1990s," said spokesman Phil Singer. "The shame is his. Senator Clinton does know better—she knows better than to condescend and talk down to voters like Senator Obama did."

 

[U2democrat]

I'm so sick of this infighting!

 

[martha]

I'm so sick of this infighting!

And all the Dems in November will be : Wha'happen?

 

[corianderstem]

And it's only April.

 

[Irvine511]

Why is it selfish only for her to stay in the race? Why doesn't Obama drop out for the good of the party/nation? Why is no one asking that? Does Obama have no personal ambitions, he's running purely out of altruism?

since it's late, i only have time to respond to this.

she has every right to run. of course. but the difference is that she cannot mathematically win, unless she can convince some sort of insurrection amongst the superdelegates. there is no path to the nomination for her beyond the total destruction of Obama.

 

[Irvine511]

But this is precisely the argument most of the Obama supporters in here have been making all along--that Hillary is unelectable, that she unites disaffected conservatives like no one else, that too many people in her own party look at her and are just reminded of Monica Lewinsky, etc. etc. Yes, there are also arguments to be made based on how both candidates have run their campaigns, but "not electable" seems to be nearly everyone's trump card.

i agree that's always been a part of the argument from the beginning, for both camps. but as we see now, this is Hillary's *only* argument against Obama.

why doesn't she talk about health care? she's actually got him on that one.

I get the feeling you're really talking about one person. But cynic's crusade + 'irritable' counter-crusade tends to create a dynamic in here that I think has caused several more moderate posters on both sides to throw up their hands and avoid these threads altogether, which is unfortunate. Your description certainly doesn't sound like most of the Clinton supporters I know in 'real' life.

i understand the dynamic you're talking about, but the "American won't vote for a black guy" narrative has been around since the SC primary and the male Clinton's talk about this "kid" and that hey, Jessie Jackson also won SC.

and if this is how the Democrats are reacting to Hillary, think of the polarization when the Republicans get into the mix.

 

[Irvine511]

Democratic voters in the United States Of America will get what they deserve for helping to keep Hillary in the race when she should of been thrown out along time ago...his name is John McCain. Remember all you Billary Democrats - you did this to yourselves and your country. You fools.

the only thing i'll say is that John McCain isn't *that* bad. he gave a very important foreign policy speech where he repudiated much of what's known as "cowboy diplomacy" and he certainly knows much more about the world than W. he's married to Iraq, and he knows it, but i don't actually believe that a McCain presidency would be a Bush Part 3, excepting Iraq.

back in 1999, i remember thinking that a Bush presidency would at best be a national embarrassment, and at worst apocalyptic. clearly, it's been apocalyptic.

i don't think McCain is in nearly the same category of ignorance and incompetency as Bush Jr.

 

[MrsSpringsteen]

But I've noticed here and elsewhere that the Obama supporters are pretty thin-skinned for likely winners. Sorry, but you can't expect all of us to shut up and fall in line. It's not a divine coronation, it's a bunch of politicians applying for the same job

I have to agree with that, and no matter who your candidate is some objectivity is in order-and it's healthy too.

I'm sick of the infighting too. Say hello to President McCain and four more years of bullshit. Now THAT will be some bitterness. I might even get a gun

 

[Carek1230]

I'm growing tired of the infighting between Clinton and Obama, it's getting out of hand. They are doing a great job of making the Democrats look like idiots and the future of this country cannot afford for that to happen!