Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...

[12th Doctor]

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

1) People who have attended the church have stated on interviews with CNN, Fox, NPR, etc that comments such as these coming from Wright were almost a weekly occurrence.

2) McCain's foibles are irrelevant.  No one is holding him up as a Messianic figure.

3) ""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."

"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"

There you go again.

[Alcon]

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.

Fairly put.  Thank you.

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?

I don't really understand what the sentence says.  In any case, no I wouldn't, but, quite honestly, I have that luxury.

I'm a little tempted to say that I want to not dismiss Obama as an elitist because, in a similarly grueling election campaign with a demographic aligned up against me, I might be tempted to say something of comparable idiocy.  But, then again, I have the luxury to forgive that too, because it's probably much easier to dismiss that sort of thing when I'm not a frequent victim of it.

[Alcon]

1) People who have attended the church have stated on interviews with CNN, Fox, NPR, etc that comments such as these coming from Wright were almost a weekly occurrence.

I've listened to numerous examples of Wright's sermons, and none of them make me think, this guy is so awful that I would refuse to associate with him.  I mean, I have some pretty whacko leftist friends and neighbors who say some things I politically deplore, but as human beings many of them are worthwhile.  If I were running for president, though, I guess I'd be expected to drop them like a bag of potatoes.

Would you mind linking me to these quotes, by the way?  I'd like to see them contextually.

2) McCain's foibles are irrelevant.  No one is holding him up as a Messianic figure.

Sure they are.  Fewer, probably, but sure they are.  And I don't see how that makes his foibles irrelevant either way.

[Person Man]

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?

Yes, I would, if I had other issues that I cared deeply about.
[/quote]

I hear that all the time from conservatives, what's your point?

Maybe everyone is bitter...

[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

1) People who have attended the church have stated on interviews with CNN, Fox, NPR, etc that comments such as these coming from Wright were almost a weekly occurrence.

2) McCain's foibles are irrelevant.  No one is holding him up as a Messianic figure.

3) ""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."

"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"

There you go again.

Okay-Dokey Ronald Reagen.

[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.

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.

Yeah, but isn't the fact that its not growing as fast as everyone else an issue. Crist....and now you are devolving to name calling? Yup, this anti-Obama cultism is a threat to our well being.

[J. J.]

I don't really understand what the sentence says.  In any case, no I wouldn't, but, quite honestly, I have that luxury.

I'm a little tempted to say that I want to not dismiss Obama as an elitist because, in a similarly grueling election campaign with a demographic aligned up against me, I might be tempted to say something of comparable idiocy.  But, then again, I have the luxury to forgive that too, because it's probably much easier to dismiss that sort of thing when I'm not a frequent victim of it.

In many ways, most serious presidential candidates are elitist at some level.  GW Bush, a Governor, son of a president, great education.   Clinton, phenomenal education and former governor.   We don't grab someone off the street an make them President.

We do look at how they relate to those things important to us, collectively.  It's this test that Obama is currently failing.  We also, somewhat like with Wright, not back away from the remark.

[Spaghetti Cat]

As someone from small town PA, I'm a little put off by the fact that he generalizes.  He just groups everyone together.  I mean, he acts as if everyone here lost their job when the coal mines and steel mills closed down and haven't found work since.  This is so inaccurate.  My uncle worked in the mines and was layed off.  He went back to school and worked odd jobs and now is a mechanical engineer.  My science teacher worked in the mines and lost his job, but went back to school and found work.  Obama seems to be putting it as we're all struggling to get by or these mines and factories closed down recently.  Newsflash:  These places shut down in the eighties and early nineties.  Everyone who can take care of themself moved on years ago.

[Alcon]

In many ways, most serious presidential candidates are elitist at some level.  GW Bush, a Governor, son of a president, great education.   Clinton, phenomenal education and former governor.   We don't grab someone off the street an make them President.

Nope.  And there's probably demand for a certain unerring conviction of beliefs and faith in self that I'd normally find unattractive as a personal characteristic.

We do look at how they relate to those things important to us, collectively.  It's this test that Obama is currently failing.  We also, somewhat like with Wright, not back away from the remark.

I don't understand the last sentence.

[12th Doctor]

Chris,

A few points.

Obama has repeatedly said "there will have to be sacrifice" as part of his platform.  I don't for a moment believe he can enact it, but the vision of America he's putting forth is one in which people have to sacrifice for their community.  It's all pretty trite and transcendentalist, but it's hardly akin to "vote for me and it will all be better."  If anything, I think that's the message that McCain and Clinton give off more (especially Clinton).  Then again, that is essentially the traditional political message.

But I don't hear much talk about it.  For someone who is all talk, like Obama, to not hear him talk about it is fairly telling.  As a disclaimer, I have, in fact, listened to the vast majority of Obama's speeches.  There is no "ask not what your country can do for you" rhetoric.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Again, its the way he chooses to focus it.

I'm having trouble articulating the distinction, but its there.  It's more like he is saying "believe in me and you can believe in yourself"... there is just something missing there that you hear from Reagan and Kennedy that you don't get with Obama.  His cult seems to think that once he is elected they will have cleared the hump and he has done nothing to discourage that thinking.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What can I say, he called Western, PAers white trash because they want to vote for Hillary.  I think you would be pissed too.  And its just a reflection of the fact that he is not truly a uniting figure, he just wants you to think he is.  He is just as eager to label others and turn people against one another as anyone else and the media gives him a free ride on it.


Anyway, I did miss campaign season on the forum and how brutal it can get.

[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?

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

I hear that all the time from conservatives, what's your point?

Maybe everyone is bitter...
[/quote]

That most voters are not one issue voters; we look for people that we generally agree with, though not on everything (see my Schiavo posts).  In this case, we also are not looking backward at the 1970's and 1980's and assuming that the problems of then are the problems of now.

[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."

[12th Doctor]

1) People who have attended the church have stated on interviews with CNN, Fox, NPR, etc that comments such as these coming from Wright were almost a weekly occurrence.

I've listened to numerous examples of Wright's sermons, and none of them make me think, this guy is so awful that I would refuse to associate with him.  I mean, I have some pretty whacko leftist friends and neighbors who say some things I politically deplore, but as human beings many of them are worthwhile.  If I were running for president, though, I guess I'd be expected to drop them like a bag of potatoes.

Would you mind linking me to these quotes, by the way?  I'd like to see them contextually.

2) McCain's foibles are irrelevant.  No one is holding him up as a Messianic figure.

Sure they are.  Fewer, probably, but sure they are.  And I don't see how that makes his foibles irrelevant either way.

But it's not what Rev. Wright said that bothers me so much as his insincere dissociation with him.  If he had simply said "I had heard the comments.  I didn't agree" then it would have been fine.  He lied his way out of it.  Again, that would be par for the course if Obama's whole persona were built up on him being better than everyone else.

As for McCain... far fewer.  I see him being a honest and effective public servant and nothing more.

[Democratic Hawk]

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.

There's something profoundly wrong when a presidential candidate seeks to address to the economic concerns of small town communities only be vilified and smeared for being some out of touch elitist. Obama is campaigning in Pennsylvania and other states meeting, talking with and listening to voters and their concerns after all

Now my great hope come November would be for pragmatic progressives be they of a liberal or populist hue, be they Democrats, Independents or even Republicans, unite to take America forward on a change of course from what is a failing status quo

I've often wondered who the apathetic non-voter really is. Are they those who are happily content enough in their lives that it makes no difference who is in power or are they those who are so disconnected that they feel that no party truly represents them?

Dave

[J. J.]

In many ways, most serious presidential candidates are elitist at some level.  GW Bush, a Governor, son of a president, great education.   Clinton, phenomenal education and former governor.   We don't grab someone off the street an make them President.

Nope.  And there's probably demand for a certain unerring conviction of beliefs and faith in self that I'd normally find unattractive as a personal characteristic.

We do look at how they relate to those things important to us, collectively.  It's this test that Obama is currently failing.  We also, somewhat like with Wright, not back away from the remark.

I don't understand the last sentence.

He really hasn't backed away for questions on this, not a "I misspoke."  He said "I regret," if it caused "offense."  He didn't say, "I withdraw it." or better yet, "I was wrong." 

I would be like me saying "Alcon, I think you're a pig." Then I say, "Alcon, I regret if calling you a pig caused you to be offended."  I still have not said, "Alcon, I don't think you a pig." (I think you're one of the better posters and not a pig, BTW, but that's not relevant to the example.)

[Alcon]

But I don't hear much talk about it.  For someone who is all talk, like Obama, to not hear him talk about it is fairly telling.  As a disclaimer, I have, in fact, listened to the vast majority of Obama's speeches.  There is no "ask not what your country can do for you" rhetoric.

I hear a lot of "there will be sacrifices"-type rhetoric.  Maybe we've just heard different speeches, but I'm surprised to hear you say that.  To what extent can he really emphasize that without sounding paranoid?  I wouldn't blame McCain for not conceding the flaws in America in his speeches often enough when running for the GOP nomination.

Again, its the way he chooses to focus it.

I'm having trouble articulating the distinction, but its there.  It's more like he is saying "believe in me and you can believe in yourself"... there is just something missing there that you hear from Reagan and Kennedy that you don't get with Obama.  His cult seems to think that once he is elected they will have cleared the hump and he has done nothing to discourage that thinking.

What could he say that he hasn't, or hasn't enough (to you)?  Within the context of someone running for President, of course.

I think you would be pissed too.

Annoyed, not piss, and certainly telling no one to go to Hell.

And its just a reflection of the fact that he is not truly a uniting figure, he just wants you to think he is.  He is just as eager to label others and turn people against one another as anyone else and the media gives him a free ride on it.

Turn people against one another, how?  I can see this as elitism resulting from pandering.  I cannot see this as a calculated attempt to send two classes upon each other...or whatever you're getting at.

Anyway, I did miss campaign season on the forum and how brutal it can get.

I miss being too young to see certain parallels to things that actually matter, myself

[Alcon]

He really hasn't backed away for questions on this, not a "I misspoke."  He said "I regret," if it caused "offense."  He didn't say, "I withdraw it." or better yet, "I was wrong."

I would be like me saying "Alcon, I think you're a pig." Then I say, "Alcon, I regret if calling you a pig caused you to be offended."  I still have not said, "Alcon, I don't think you a pig." (I think you're one of the better posters and not a pig, BTW, but that's not relevant to the example.)

I do understand that without an analogy (I'm not quite that dumb), and I think your analogy is misplaced.  He said something elitist and condescending.  He followed up by trying to explain it away in a way that essentially proves he meant what he said.  What he said was wrong.

I partially reject the idea that this is exclusively an indicator of elitism.  It's just a total mis-understanding of a culture and their motivations.  It doesn't necessarily demand a feeling of superiority...it just demands an ability to try to explain away why people disagree with you, intellectually and culturally.  That's not a matter of elitism.  That's just a matter of human jackassery.

And Obama is being a jackass about this.

[Alcon]

But it's not what Rev. Wright said that bothers me so much as his insincere dissociation with him.  If he had simply said "I had heard the comments.  I didn't agree" then it would have been fine.  He lied his way out of it.  Again, that would be par for the course if Obama's whole persona were built up on him being better than everyone else.

Again, it's not that I don't believe you, but I like to read quotes for myself so I can see whether he was double-talking (something all politicians do, as far as I can tell) or plain lying.  And it just helps me sleep better at night when I know I did the work for myself...I tried to Google what you're referring to and got no results.

I disagree with the concept that "Obama's whole persona were built up on him being better than everyone else."  Besides, that seems an odd complaint to make about politicians, who invariably run on the pretext of their ideas being better than anyone else.  Or maybe it's OK to be the vessel of purity, just so long as you don't think yourself the purity itself.  That's a tough distinction to make, but that's a separate discussion, right?

As for McCain... far fewer.  I see him being a honest and effective public servant and nothing more.

Nothing more?  That's a pretty polarized view of humanity you have here (hell-worthy vs. "honest and effective...and nothing more")

[J. J.]

He really hasn't backed away for questions on this, not a "I misspoke."  He said "I regret," if it caused "offense."  He didn't say, "I withdraw it." or better yet, "I was wrong."

I would be like me saying "Alcon, I think you're a pig." Then I say, "Alcon, I regret if calling you a pig caused you to be offended."  I still have not said, "Alcon, I don't think you a pig." (I think you're one of the better posters and not a pig, BTW, but that's not relevant to the example.)

I do understand that without an analogy (I'm not quite that dumb), and I think your analogy is misplaced.  He said something elitist and condescending.  He followed up by trying to explain it away in a way that essentially proves he meant what he said.  What he said was wrong.

That's not necessarily an indication of elitism, or that a president shouldn't be elite.  I actually think Obama is being sincere.  I think that this was a window into his ideology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and too much of one to be President.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Obama is a bigger elitist than Kerry ever was during this campaign. I am really getting tired of this crap. I am tempted just to support Obama so he can get in the White House and screw up and watch all the blame go to former President Bush. We let the Democrats take control of Congress and they have been abysmal.

[exopolitician]

Obama is a bigger elitist than Kerry ever was during this campaign. I am really getting tired of this crap. I am tempted just to support Obama so he can get in the White House and screw up and watch all the blame go to former President Bush. We let the Democrats take control of Congress and they have been abysmal.

He really hasn't backed away for questions on this, not a "I misspoke."  He said "I regret," if it caused "offense."  He didn't say, "I withdraw it." or better yet, "I was wrong."

I would be like me saying "Alcon, I think you're a pig." Then I say, "Alcon, I regret if calling you a pig caused you to be offended."  I still have not said, "Alcon, I don't think you a pig." (I think you're one of the better posters and not a pig, BTW, but that's not relevant to the example.)

I do understand that without an analogy (I'm not quite that dumb), and I think your analogy is misplaced.  He said something elitist and condescending.  He followed up by trying to explain it away in a way that essentially proves he meant what he said.  What he said was wrong.

That's not necessarily an indication of elitism, or that a president shouldn't be elite.  I actually think Obama is being sincere.  I think that this was a window into his ideology.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, and too much of one to be President.

hahaha.....sorry just had to take the time to laugh at both of you.

[Alcon]

That's not necessarily an indication of elitism, or that a president shouldn't be elite.  I actually think Obama is being sincere.  I think that this was a window into his ideology.

Ideology on what?  I think this is a window into his failure to "feel the pain" of the people of Western Pennsylvania.  I don't actually think this would affect any policy whatsoever.

Yes, and too much of one to be President.

Heh.  Well, if this level of jackassery is enough to disclude one for the Presidency, I'm going to live a life full of write-ins.

[J. J.]

That's not necessarily an indication of elitism, or that a president shouldn't be elite.  I actually think Obama is being sincere.  I think that this was a window into his ideology.

Ideology on what?  I think this is a window into his failure to "feel the pain" of the people of Western Pennsylvania.  I don't actually think this would affect any policy whatsoever.

I think it could, on gun rights issues, economic issues, and some religious tolerance issues.

Yes, and too much of one to be President.

Heh.  Well, if this level of jackassery is enough to disclude one for the Presidency, I'm going to live a life full of write-ins.
[/quote]

I'd rather have a liar that is competent (Clinton) than an honest jackass (Obama). 

[Math]

The reaction of some small-town mayors in Pennsylvania. All are democrats (ok, as far as I know, all are Clinton supporters too).

Steve Reed, Harrisburg mayor

We happen to like our small town values. We think they’re the bedrock of the American values that have built this nation and the people of our towns embrace their religions out of faith, not out of bitterness or frustration. I have found our small town citizens to be decent. They are hardworking. They are friendly. They are giving. They are caring. They are patriotic.

They don’t deserve to be categorized as they were in the remarks made out in California. It’s a very unfortunate stereotype of the citizens of our towns in this state, and in every state across the nation, to have them unfairly categorized as they were. Frankly, the remarks of Sen. Obama lacked judgment. They lack understanding.

Frankly the remarks are condescending, they are negative, they are hurtful.

Chris Doherty, Scranton mayor

I can tell you in Scranton and Northeast Pennsylvania, we’re optimistic. We’ve seen over 400,000 million invested in our city over the last seven years and we’re doing real well. It’s disappointing that Sen. Obama doesn’t realize that. He’s spent some time here and you could see the changes in our state and how well we are doing.

As to people in our area turning to guns or to God or the perception that things are bad, the truth is what the governor said, people in Northeastern Pennsylvania like to hunt. We worship our God regardless of our religion and that doesn’t happen in bad times necessarily, it happens as part of who we are, as people from Northeastern Pennsylvania. That tradition was passed down to us from our parents, from our grandparents, people in Pennsylvania have been here for three to four generations.

Robert Lucas, Sharon mayor

The furthest thing from the truth is that we are bitter. To say that we cling to our religion and guns because of that – I can’t understand that. In this small city of 15,000, we have over 35 churches. Those churches weren’t built because we’re bitter and we don’t go to church because we are bitter.

Tom Leighton, Wilkes-Barre mayor

Today’s the first day of fishing, and fishing and hunting brings families together. It allows time for fathers to spend time with their children. On top of other things that go on, whether it’s soccer or going to church, the people of Wilkes-Barre and the surrounding community have a strong faith and attend mass and their congregation daily.

The people of Wilkes-Barre are not bitter. They are very optimistic about the future… We need leadership that is going to help us improve things here, not put us down.

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/04/obamas_bitter_taste_of_own_wor.html

[Alcon]

I think it could, on gun rights issues, economic issues, and some religious tolerance issues.

I think we already know Obama's position on gun issues.  Which economic issues does this cast new light on?  And what "religious tolerance issues"?  I'm curious about specifics.  What don't we know about Obama already that this could indicate, is what I'm getting at.

I'd rather have a liar that is competent (Clinton) than an honest jackass (Obama). 

Cool.