Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[Beet]

What a joke this whole manufactured controversy is.

Look at this comments in context, and they were basically the same as J.J.'s comments above.

Can we talk about the issues, the themes? No. The only thing interesting is the dirt. And how to spin it. This is how the future of great superpowers is decided.

When will Democrats learn that the media is controlled by the establishment and the same media that destroyed Gore and allowed Kerry to be swiftboated and then destroyed both Clintons is not going to give Obama a free pass?

[Beet]

Hilllary Rodham Clinton: "Pennsylvanians Don't Need A President Who Looks Down On Them"

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_on_guns_and_religion_in.php

Dave

Oh yeah? Why does Pennsylvania suddenly count now but not every other caucus/primary state doesnt? Shes the last person to talk about somebody looking down on other states.

Hillary Rodham Clinton disgusts me more and more with each and every passing day

Dave

Lets hope for the sake of America that most Democrats who actually live in this country don't feel that they candidate who is not their first choice "disgusts them more and more with each and every passing day" for waging a campaign.

[Beet]

Hilllary Rodham Clinton: "Pennsylvanians Don't Need A President Who Looks Down On Them"

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/04/obama_on_guns_and_religion_in.php

Dave

Oh yeah? Why does Pennsylvania suddenly count now but not every other caucus/primary state doesnt? Shes the last person to talk about somebody looking down on other states.

Hillary Rodham Clinton disgusts me more and more with each and every passing day

Dave

Lets hope for the sake of America that most Democrats who actually live in this country don't feel that they candidate who is not their first choice "disgusts them more and more with each and every passing day" for waging a campaign.

The time it's taking Democrats to settle on a presidential nominee, I'm beginning to wonder whether they want to win at all

The right will be making the most of this, I expect better from Clinton - a Democrat

Funny how this story breaks the day Rasmussen reports Obama leading McCain, handidly, in PA; while other pollsters have him snapping at Clinton's heels in PA Democratic primary

Dave

You're right. Now that I've become neutral in the primary, the danger is that people choose sides and then see things through tinted glasses- myself included at times- they become so entrenched in that side that they never come around. But you're right, I'm sorry for snapping at you.

[Beet]

After this I would advise any Obama supporter to think good and hard about supporting Hillary in November.  This is a coordinated attack with the Republicans in order to knock him out of the race.  Just look at the NRCC attacks on Democrats trying to pry SD's away from Obama and towards Hillary.  http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/nrcc-continues.html

Err, there's no mention of the Clinton camp. Just because they are going after a freshman Congressman who is a superdelegate in Pennsylvania who also happens to be in a tough re-election rematch, and whose district base isn't exactly Obama's base, doesn't mean there is some kind of conspiracy, which I doubt the Clinton people could pull off anyway. Besides, if they tried it and made it to the GE, the NRCC could just offer proof of a conspiracy and that would divide the Dems even more, so it'd be stupid even if possible.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one is a little more than "regret."  It tells us something of his ideology.

What would that be, pragmatic progressivism?

Dave

Try regressive to atavistic.  He's talking about an issue of 25-35 years ago.  You might to took at the Billy Joel song Allentown (written in 1982).

It started 25 years ago, but those places are still losing population.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one is a little more than "regret."  It tells us something of his ideology.

What would that be, pragmatic progressivism?

Dave

Try regressive to atavistic.  He's talking about an issue of 25-35 years ago.  You might to took at the Billy Joel song Allentown (written in 1982).

It started 25 years ago, but those places are still losing population.

They are losing population because the local jobs are not there (though that is changing).  There are not hoards of unemployed.  What you generally have now is an older population (that is dying off).

You're splitting hairs now. Obama didn't say there are hordes of unemployed.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Ah...I see Hillary still has her lips firmly pressed against America's ass.

She should have done this months ago instead of that line about "false hopes". I don't see why she didn't. It was very disappointing. I guess Mark Penn was saying that you must draw a contrast between yourself and Obama. O/c, agreeing with the message of your primary opponent worked for Kerry and Edwards in 2004. I'm confident that Hillary will find her themes if she is able to stay in the race (still in doubt). It just takes time. She has her core beliefs, it's just a matter of translating them into political themes. Sole reliance on the whole "experience" thing was a disaster b/c Democrats were hungry for change.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

This one is a little more than "regret."  It tells us something of his ideology.

What would that be, pragmatic progressivism?

Dave

Try regressive to atavistic.  He's talking about an issue of 25-35 years ago.  You might to took at the Billy Joel song Allentown (written in 1982).

It started 25 years ago, but those places are still losing population.

They are losing population because the local jobs are not there (though that is changing).  There are not hoards of unemployed.  What you generally have now is an older population (that is dying off).

You're splitting hairs now. Obama didn't say there are hordes of unemployed.

No, what he has been complaining about stated in the late 1970's.  In terms of population, some of the major drops were in the 1970-80 and the peek year was 1950.  Pittsburgh's big drop was in the 1970's, as was Phila's and some NE cities actually experienced growth in terms of population. 

http://www.demographia.com/db-city1970sloss.htm

IIRC, Johnstown, PA topped out in about 1960 and I think had it's major years of decline were 1970-1990.

Obama just got it wrong on so many levels. 

Then again, he just got it in wrong in Jimmy John's world, someone who could one day make the Anti-Bush crowd look extremely reasonable.

No, Obama got it wrong in the real world, one he doesn't understand.  The world he describes was party real, in the 1970's and early 1980's, but not today.

So, that's why Pennsylvania lost 10% of its congressional seats in the 2000 census.

And most of Pennsylvania outside the southeast lost population in 2000-2006. Obama didn't say anything about "hordes of unemployed" or local jobs vs. non-local jobs; he didn't classify teaching as a service job vs. professional job. He didn't say it didn't start in the 1970s. The fact is that these areas having been economically depressed and losing population for a long time, and these trends have deeply shaped how the political process needs to respond to address the needs of these communities. J.J.'s attempt to paint Obama as "out of touch", Obama's not out of touch, he's accurately describing how people who lose hope on economic issues (or aren't offered clear contrasts on economic issues) can turn to social issues.

[Beet]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

No, Obama got it wrong in the real world, one he doesn't understand.  The world he describes was party real, in the 1970's and early 1980's, but not today.


[/quote]

So, that's why Pennsylvania lost 10% of its congressional seats in the 2000 census.
[/quote]

Ah, PA's population has grown every decade since 1950; it actually grew by more than 100K in the 1990's.  http://www.demographia.com/db-statenum50.htm

I know, Bill Rhinestone (an ersatz diamond), that you might not understand this, but congressional districts are assigned based on percentage of the population, and PA is not growing as fast[ as other states.
[/quote]

It's the rural parts of PA that have been losing J.J., and that is why PA has been losing its Congressional representation. No one has claimed that suburban Philly and Butler county haven't been growing.

[Beet]

And most of Pennsylvania outside the southeast lost population in 2000-2006. Obama didn't say anything about "hordes of unemployed" or local jobs vs. non-local jobs; he didn't classify teaching as a service job vs. professional job. He didn't say it didn't start in the 1970s. The fact is that these areas having been economically depressed and losing population for a long time, and these trends have deeply shaped how the political process needs to respond to address the needs of these communities. J.J.'s attempt to paint Obama as "out of touch", Obama's not out of touch, he's accurately describing how people who lose hope on economic issues (or aren't offered clear contrasts on economic issues) can turn to social issues.

According to Obama, this dated back to the Clinton administration.

Actually, now that you mention it, Pittsburgh unemployement was 8.2 in January 1993.  February's number 5.7.  It was 5.2 when Clinton left office.

http://www.economagic.com/em-cgi/data.exe/blsla/lauMT42383003

We have reality and Obamality. 

Yes, Allegheny and Westmoreland county and 16 non-southeastern PA counties losing population from 1990-2000 is just a complete and utter fantasy
http://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01-2.pdf
Although I will have to give you the unemployment; the Clinton boom was the only economic growth period since the 1970's when the incomes of the lowest quintile of Americans saw significant, lasting gains. However, even then, the 1990s growth was accompanied by massive increases in inequality and both post- and pre- ceded by "jobless recoveries".

For the starting date... he said that it happened during the Clinton and Bush administrations, but he didn't reach back enough to Reagan. I'm sure if someone asked him "did they fall through during the Reagan years too" he would have said something like "yes, the basic dynamic was the same then too. It's been a long time."

[Beet]

This is amazing!  Thirty-eight pages!  I didn't even catch the sound-bite on the news till after Sam posted the topic, and even then I didn't think it was worth a thread.  Am I out of touch or what?

Sam, you ought to be giving stock-market advice.  By the way, you got any?  I'm tanking over here.  Not bad enough to take up hunting or attending mass, but it's been a rough quarter. 

I bought Citi near the start of January... someone told me that, it had gone down so much it couldn't possibly go down any further.