Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[exopolitician]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

[Democratic Hawk]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

That's news to me. Clinton just says things to suit her at any particular point in time

[J. J.]

"The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so," he told the North Carolina newspaper. "And I hear it all the time when I visit these communities."

It is a purely Republican trait to pretend that the economy is doing great and that people are doing better than ever, despite drops in real income for all but the richest, especially in rural America.

It's offensive that they would sit around and do nothing for the well being of Americans and continue to hand our way of life off to Chinese, who treat their own inhumanely.

Snowguy, in the case of Pennsylvania, he's complaining about that started happening under the Carter administration (and there were more reasons that foreign competition).

[Torie]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many as they age, find that excess baggage. Whatever is, is, and one must do the best one can given that. It may be something along the lines of the final realization of relative ignorance, and the modesty that ensues. If one as one approaches senescence remains desperate about belief, that strikes me as rather sad.

[Flying Dog]

Uh oh! The Republicans and Hillary Hacks have the bulldozers out! They must be trying to make another mountain out of a molehill!

I can't believe you of all people are so anxious about towing the line for this guy.  He's a fraud.  The hope he claims to offer is a fraud.  His whole "search for self" is a fraud.  His claims to be able to unify the country and about how he loves and respects everyone are a fraud.  It's all fake.  How can you buy into it?

Then, pray-tell, tell us all naive 18-21 year old, never worked a day in our lives, liberal Internet Obama-Hacks how you know this.

Also, how is expressing my own opinion on the matter "towing the line". Oh wait. I'm just one of those insecure losers who look to Obama as a Demi-God.

I know this because little moments like this are very revealing.  I know this because, as I have said before, the most disturbing thing about Obama is that he is not asking for work, or sacrifice the way great, truly inspiring leaders do, the sum of his message is "vote for me and it will all be better."  He offers a false Shibboleth, a false sense of a community and peace that doesn't exist and that he can't produce, because he doesn't even believe in it; as comments like this and "average white guy" reveal.
Bull Crap. He has said many times that Change won't come easy. Heck, his whole campaign has been about "we" and not him. He's stated multiple times that he tells people what they need to here. He went in front of a bunch of Detroit Automotive Executives and told them that there would be a Emissions cap put on their plants. He went in front of a audience of Peace-Activists and told them that there would be an increase in Military spending in his first year.

People put so much faith in this charlatan, because for some odd reason there seem to be alot of people out there who are desperate to believe in something.  A real leader like Kennedy or Reagan would tell them to believe in themselves.  Obama isn't a leader, he just wants you to follow him, which aren't the same thing.
"Some odd reason" eh? Call it the politicians of the last 45 years. People believe in Obama because he reveals the brutal truth about the most ugly things about America that no self-serving Politician wants to address. He realizes that these issues can't be ignored so he openly discusses them and for some odd reason people hate hearing the truth and would rather here politicians spoon-feed them lies.

"He has a personal story..."  What?  Inane psycho-babble about his search for self-identity?  Big ass whoop.
I don't find it a big deal either. That's not why I'm supporting him.

His wife says that the first time she was ever proud of America was when it cheered her husband... does anyone else not find that disturbing?
Stop beating a dead horse.

Did anyone else lose even a little bit of faith in his sincerity (which is the standard of his brand) when he claimed never to have heard the comments of Rev. Wright when, according to all accounts, he was either lying about not hearing them, or lying about going to church there on a regular basis?  Hell, Gov. Huckabee gave a better statement on the whole affair than Obama, who resorted to another meaningless pep-talk, culminating in throwing his grandma under the bus.
All accounts? What!?! His statements on the issue have not been disproved. Link me to these accounts please.

Obama is "just word".  The difference between his words and the words of others he sited in his ripped off speech are that those words meant something, they made sense, they made a good argument.  Sounding good doesn't make someone's argument better.  The country doesn't need a meaningless pep talk... we've had 16 years of that.  We need substance.
Yes and McCain's pandering Hagee and Parsley and other right-wing wacko's shows he'll definitely bring depth, substance, and substance to the White House.


If Obama were the average run of the mill politician, then I would think "who cares" and move on, but Obama's who image and cult are built around the notion that he is somehow morally, ethically and mentally superior to everyone one else in Washington.  It's the only way he has managed to get this far.
Or maybe the reason he has gotten this far is because we actually know where he stands on the issues. His brutally honest truths show that he actually believes what he say's and his positions are concrete

[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.

[Alcon]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Many as they age, find that excess baggage. Whatever is, is, and one must do the best one can given that. It may be something along the lines of the final realization of relative ignorance, and the modesty that ensues. If one as one approaches senescence remains desperate about belief, that strikes me as rather sad.

I don't know how they manage to not have that beaten into them way before that point.  Thank God for modern medicine and culture.  Senescence comes earlier and I imagine lasts a hell of a lot longer.

Nice weather though.

[J. J.]

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. 

[Torie]

supersoulty, it may be all of this cross pressuring of Obama about race, might make him in a unique position, in the sense that it empowers him, and when he speaks about it as Potus, as to prejudice on both sides, folks will actually listen. I have no intention of voting for Obama, but if life were all about race (thank heavens it's not on the Fruited Plain), he might be just the man. Each candidate has their pluses and minuses, and it would be grand if those who support a different candidate, acknowledged the pluses in others, that seem really to be there. Nobody is going to change their minds on this forum based on what anyone posts, so maybe just letting it all hang out might be the way.

[Person Man]

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.

[tik 🪀✨]

It seemed to me that Obama's intention was to say that people in these economically downtrodden small towns cling to guns and religions as their new passion for civic involvement, by the way. Of course, that was only after his second speech.

Does that thought ring true with you? (Notice the string of monosyllabic words.)

Hurr, hurr.

I am not stating that I believe his clarification was the point or intent of the original quote over which people are getting upset. I am just stating it. Note the word intention. Intention. I-N-T-E-N-T-I-O-N. Intention. (edit note: not trying to be a dick)

It's kind of offensive to me that many on here are so quick to claim Obama supporters are dangerous and ignorant cultists. All that I hear about Obama is that he has zealous followers who sometimes do absurd things (which we can all agree is a fair spot on which to determine the views of everyone else) or that he is an out of touch elitist (frankly, I'd rather have an elitist in the White House than Joe Sweatpants, but either way it's still pretty irrelevant). It's been a while since Democrats have had an inspirational and competent person in the forefront, and to some extent I think the backlash he receives from Republicans is fueled in jealousy. This rabid vitriol is even less substantive than they claim his platform is.

The fact of the matter is that he does inspire a lot of unrealistic ideas in his supporters, but his actual message is grounded in a determined realism. If we want things to change, yes, it will require work. He has proven himself to me to be a competent and open-minded person who will genuinely attempt to improve America and the world's opinion of it. Shallow message? Perhaps, but I believe his intentions are not. This is the kind of platform you have to display in order to gain the support of the public at large. But it's just a theme.

[J. J.]

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.

[Person Man]

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.

[Sam Spade]

I think the thing is that many Dem voters in the swing category, just think Obama is more honest and has a better temperament than Hillary. He exudes a calm and collected personage. His slips of the tongue will have to erode that image, his core appeal, in order for Hillary to break through the Maginot Line arrayed against her.

You may be quite right on this one.  Of course, it is quite possible (as I am currently leaning more and more to believing) that the amount of Dem voters in the swing category during this primary may be as numerous in percentage terms as those voters in the 2004 general.

If you mean, there aren't any swing voters in play relatively speaking as between Obama and Clinton in the Dem primary, I tend to think that is not the case. The key of course is for one of them to appear to run much better against McCain than the other, to break things loose. Most base voters tend to be partisan hacks. Who knew?

Maybe - but what is that point? (the $64,000 question - this comment certainly doesn't help Obama in that regard)

I'm referring to those voters who will swing, absent your stated reason.  My basic theory is that nothing has changed in this regard since SC (with the exception of GOP/Indy interlopers), more than 5% one way or another.

[J. J.]

It's kind of offensive to me that many on here are so quick to claim Obama supporters are dangerous and ignorant cultists. All that I hear about Obama is that he has zealous followers who sometimes do absurd things (which we can all agree is a fair spot on which to determine the views of everyone else) or that he is an out of touch elitist (frankly, I'd rather have an elitist in the White House than Joe Sweatpants, but either way it's still pretty irrelevant). It's been a while since Democrats have had an inspirational and competent person in the forefront, and to some extent I think the backlash he receives from Republicans is fueled in jealousy. This rabid vitriol is even less substantive than they claim his platform is.

It's not jealously, but sanity.  We look at this comment and say, this doesn't resemble what is true.

Here is the Johnstown, PA SMA:  http://recenter.tamu.edu/Data/popmd/pm3680.htm

Major losses of population between 1960-1970 and 1980-1990.  After that, yes, there is in a drop, but it's closer to 1950-60 than these others.

[Torie]

Yes, Sam, there will not be much swing, unless one of the Dems appears a clear loser, and the other not, against McCain. In that, I agree.  The Dems have found their little niches, by and large, at this juncture, and have settled in.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Al, would you elaborate on the inaccuracies of the comment for us pathetic suburbanites?

I can't entirely remember the context in which I wrote that but...

Basically the remarks seem to be founded on an assumption of deviancy; these people should be voting for him, only a minority are, therefore there must be something wrong with the majority group... and from this assumption comes the rest of what he said (including the parts that people seem to be getting most worked-up about).

Further to that, he seems to think that the fundamental problem that these areas face isn't demographic and economic, so much as it's about people in these areas having no "faith" in "Washington" and the political process generally.

Which, frankly, is bollocks.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If someone were to argue this:

"Viewed in the context of voting patterns, assuming that affluent suburban voters are self-loathing hypocrites seems accurate to me. What else explains the bizarre and apparently contradictory electoral record of these places post-Watergate than the fact that affluence has failed to bring these people the happiness that these people clearly feel is their birthright? Clearly the lack of the happiness that they feel entitled to has made them bitter and this is reflected in the petulant voting patterns of such areas over the past three decades"

Would you resent it?

[J. J.]

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.
[/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.

[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.

[tik 🪀✨]

It's kind of offensive to me that many on here are so quick to claim Obama supporters are dangerous and ignorant cultists. All that I hear about Obama is that he has zealous followers who sometimes do absurd things (which we can all agree is a fair spot on which to determine the views of everyone else) or that he is an out of touch elitist (frankly, I'd rather have an elitist in the White House than Joe Sweatpants, but either way it's still pretty irrelevant). It's been a while since Democrats have had an inspirational and competent person in the forefront, and to some extent I think the backlash he receives from Republicans is fueled in jealousy. This rabid vitriol is even less substantive than they claim his platform is.

It's not jealously, but sanity.  We look at this comment and say, this doesn't resemble what is true.

Here is the Johnstown, PA SMA:  http://recenter.tamu.edu/Data/popmd/pm3680.htm

Major losses of population between 1960-1970 and 1980-1990.  After that, yes, there is in a drop, but it's closer to 1950-60 than these others.

I see more attacks on Obama than I do support for McCain. It's a bit like 2004, they won't rally for their candidate as much as they will to oppose the other party's.

And Johnstown, PA? Is it any surprise that a city's population loss is lower after there are fewer people there from which to move? Before you call me an idiot, I did just say that because I found it amusing. Otherwise I fail to see the relevancy, and for that I welcome fingers with 'idiot' painted on the nails.

[12th Doctor]

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.

You idiot.  The population still gained about 400,000, it just gained more slowly than the other states.  If you are a large state and want to keep seats you better gain people hand-over-fist to do so, or you are gonna start losing.

As for the cities here, JJ is right, most of the population loss now isn't real loss so much as it is people moving to the suburbs.  In the 70's and 80's people were moving away all together.

[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.

[Torie]

Ah, here's "Al." Nice to meet you Al. 

Al, there is a correlation between being relative wealthy vis a vis your peers, and happiness, albeit a somewhat loose one. Enjoying hunting, and being a bitter economic loser, probably has zero correlation. Those "Neanderthals" that love recreational vehicles by the way, tend to be relative economic winners, and happy, even as they despoil the desert or mountain micro environments. Those folks probably tend to have guns too. I have seen  them in the desert with my own beady little eyes. The scenes they created were more interesting for my camera then the natural landscape. It reminded me of Road Warrior.  Cheers.

[J. J.]

If someone were to argue this:

"Viewed in the context of voting patterns, assuming that affluent suburban voters are self-loathing hypocrites seems accurate to me. What else explains the bizarre and apparently contradictory electoral record of these places post-Watergate than the fact that affluence has failed to bring these people the happiness that these people clearly feel is their birthright? Clearly the lack of the happiness that they feel entitled to has made them bitter and this is reflected in the petulant voting patterns of such areas over the past three decades"

Would you resent it?
[/quote]

Yes, I would, if I had other issues that I cared deeply about.

[J. J.]

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.