Obama Slams Small Town America

[melon]

How does this pertain to the topic?

Do you really honestly believe that Obama hates rural, poor people? It's just as asinine of a proposition as when some were saying that he hates white people. Never mind he's half-white and once fit into that demographic himself.

And, yet, in spite of everything else that he's stated that makes him a stand-up fellow, you're ready to dismiss him in favor a man with a pattern of severe anger management issues and has stated that he knows very little about economic issues?

I guess there really is such a thing as partisan blinders.

 

[deep]

Make no mistake about it. "Rural folk" might vote for McCain, because they hate Democrats and are now insulted by what Obama said here. But a vote for McCain will just be a vote to put another nail into their own coffins.

I don't disagree

I do believe the GOP has been successful at getting a good portion of the working class vote

and the tax cuts go primarily to the rich

and the working stiffs are left to pay the debt


defending these remarks of Obama's is just plain stupid

these remarks can end up costing the election

 

[martha]

defending these remarks of Obama's is just plain stupid

So is making such a huge deal out of them.

 

[deep]

Do you really honestly believe that Obama hates rural, poor people?

no

but more importantly

is he "smart" enough to think about what he says
so that enough of those people will vote for him to win the election?

 

[melon]

Obama's "small town" speech, was in a room full of people this weekend
as was the Rep. Geoff Davis "Obama boy" speech

So let's get this clear:

If you are a Republican, you can be an alcoholic drug addict who served in a Vietnam-era National Guard champagne unit--with poor attendance--and get a free pass.

If you are a Democrat, even a whisper of an accusation of being "unpatriotic," despite having an otherwise flawless wartime record, you're a traitor that should never be president.

If you are a Republican, you can be an irritable jackass with a bad temper that your fellow party colleagues are loathe to see as president, and a faux-"maverick" with a very conservative voting record and a self-admitted lack of knowledge of economic issues, and get a free pass.

If you are a Democrat, you can have a series of speeches and campaign issues that are considered very friendly to the working class, but if you make one gaffe that sounds bad, then you clearly an elitist that hates poor people.

For God's sake, no wonder we elect such terrible presidents in this country. Maybe Obama should just run as a Republican next time, because then he'll be allowed to be human.

 

[melon]

no

but more importantly

is he "smart" enough to think about what he says
so that enough of those people will vote for him to win the election?

If you're expecting a saint to run for the Democratic nomination, you'll never get it.

We have to stop fixating on semantics and take a look at a candidates entire record and entire platform.

(Of course, if you're a Republican, you can be borderline retarded with a terrible grasp of English and several verbal gaffes ["There's black people in Brazil?"], and get a free pass too.)

 

[deep]

So is making such a huge deal out of them.

why

it might upset the FYM universe?

You and I both know our votes mean nothing to the Nov election

CA will go Dem.


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

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

and now some are saying it could go all the way to the November election


I state these things, not because I necessarily want them to happen

it is only my opinions of how I think things will go

 

[melon]

defending these remarks of Obama's is just plain stupid

these remarks can end up costing the election

I know. We just prefer presidents who blatantly lie to us instead.

 

[2861U2]

Geeze, you might want to calm down.

If you are a Republican, you can be an alcoholic drug addict who served in a Vietnam-era National Guard champagne unit--with poor attendance--and get a free pass.

When/where was the free pass? He was certainly scrutinized for his past behavior.

If you are a Democrat, even a whisper of an accusation of being "unpatriotic," despite having an otherwise flawless wartime record, you're a traitor that should never be president.

Who's calling him a traitor? I don't want him to ever be president, but it's for a million reasons, not just this "bitter" thing.

If you are a Republican, you can be an irritable jackass with a bad temper that your fellow party colleagues are loathe to see as president, and a faux-"maverick" with a very conservative voting record and a self-admitted lack of knowledge of economic issues, and get a free pass.

Again, where's the free pass?

If you are a Democrat, you can have a series of speeches and campaign issues that are considered very friendly to the working class, but if you make one gaffe that sounds bad, then you clearly an elitist that hates poor people.

It's been more than one "gaffe."

For God's sake, no wonder we elect such terrible presidents in this country. Maybe Obama should just run as a Republican next time, because then he'll be allowed to be human.

I'm allowing him to be human. I want him to be human. So far, all I've seen are slogans and empty calls for change and hope and unity. I want to see who Obama really is, and I think I am starting to now.

 

[2861U2]

(Of course, if you're a Republican, you can be borderline retarded with a terrible grasp of English and several verbal gaffes ["There's black people in Brazil?"], and get a free pass too.)

Mr. Obama has had plenty of verbal gaffes, as well. You take away his precious prompter and this guy has trouble putting a sentence together.

 

[melon]

Geeze, you might want to calm down.

Moving on...

When/where was the free pass? He was certainly scrutinized for his past behavior.

Really? You could have fooled me. Take all of Bush's traits and graft them onto a Democrat, and you'd have had the most scrutinized candidate ever. Instead, we just had some shits and giggles on late night TV, and voted him into office twice.

Who's calling him a traitor? I don't want him to ever be president, but it's for a million reasons, not just this "bitter" thing.

Well, I'm referring to Kerry here. "Swift boating," anyone?

Again, where's the free pass?

Where are the ad infinitum news articles questioning whether McCain is fit to be president? Whether he's blown the election? Instead, he gets a brief mention on the equivalent of the C section of the newspaper that few people ever saw.

It's been more than one "gaffe."

If we did a sheer count, I'm guessing that McCain would take the cake. What about telling all those "poor people" that their jobs were gone and never coming back, and they should pretty much just deal with it? What about "Maverick McCain" repeatedly stumping for Bush during the 2004 election? Maybe we need to question not only his temperament, but also his judgment.

But that's right. He's a Republican, so we don't need to fixate on that. He's a good ol' boy who loves America; that's all we need to know!

I'm allowing him to be human. I want him to be human. So far, all I've seen are slogans and empty calls for change and hope and unity. I want to see who Obama really is, and I think I am starting to now.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

There. Read. There's a whole menu called "Issues."

 

[melon]

Mr. Obama has had plenty of verbal gaffes, as well. You take away his precious prompter and this guy has trouble putting a sentence together.

Isn't this the rhetorical equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I?"

Again, if you're looking for a saint as president, you will fail every time. If you use partisan blinders to look for every last flaw in the other party, while neglecting the flaws in your own party, then you can see why we, as a nation, have a flat-out inability to pick competent leaders.

My dislike of McCain is not based on disparate lines from speeches. It's from a consistent pattern of behavior, his long-term voting record, and comments that flat-out cannot be misinterpreted, such as his "glee" in pointing out that he knows little about economic issues. This would represent the totality of a candidate.

Your dislike of Obama seems to be based on general stereotypes ("he doesn't seem to stand for anything") and a handful of verbal gaffes that run contrary to his record and his overall stances.

It just looks like you're looking for any excuse to justify your usual Republican voting pattern.

I'm not asking you or anyone here to vote for Obama specifically. I'm asking everyone here to do their homework, for once, because Americans have a consistent pattern of laziness when it comes to election time. They vote on image over substance, and look where the hell that's gotten us?

 

[2861U2]

Really? You could have fooled me. Take all of Bush's traits and graft them onto a Democrat, and you'd have had the most scrutinized candidate ever.

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.

Where are the ad infinitum news articles questioning whether McCain is fit to be president? Whether he's blown the election? Instead, he gets a brief mention on the equivalent of the C section of the newspaper that few people ever saw.

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.

http://www.barackobama.com/index.php

There. Read. There's a whole menu called "Issues."

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.

 

[martha]

You take away his precious prompter and this guy has trouble putting a sentence together.

You mean yer guy W?

 

[2861U2]

Your dislike of Obama seems to be based on general stereotypes ("he doesn't seem to stand for anything") and a handful of verbal gaffes that run contrary to his record and his overall stances.

Don't worry, it's much more. I'm more worried about his liberal views on issues. That is why he will not get my vote. These other gaffes are just fun extras.

 

[martha]

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.

 

[melon]

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.

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/04/14/mccain.faith/index.html

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.

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.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[anitram]

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.

 

[deep]

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]

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.

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/news/world/us_and_americas/us_elections/article3745785.ece


http://blogs.usatoday.com/onpolitics/2008/04/obama-down-by-2.html

http://www.politicallore.com/presidential-candidates/how-much-will-obamas-elitist-comment-hurt-him/223

 

[anitram]

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?

 

[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



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?

 

[anitram]

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?

 

[deep]

so I did google for your SUSA

and found this

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]

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)

 

[Irvine511]

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.

 

[maycocksean]

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.

 

[melon]

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.)

 

[deep]

perhaps this incident

will not matter


this article says new polls suggest it may not

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.