Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- The McCain Lobby Dance
- Could Hillary Force Her Way Onto the Ticket?
- McCain: "We Are Going to Have to Deal With" Hamas
- Stories From the Near Future
- Welcome to the Show
- Women Threaten Obama Boycott
- Tale (of) the Pin on the Donkey
- The Victim Card
- Obama to Reporter: Sorry I Called You "Sweetie"
- Politics of Timing
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« NRA Lobbyist: Despite New Rhetoric, Clinton's "Name is Synonymous With Gun Control, Like Rosie O'Donnell" | Main | Rural Dem Strategist: Clinton 'Bosnia' Gaffe Might Be Worse Than Obama 'Small Town' Gaffe »
Obama Allies Avoid Trying to Explain Most Controversial Part of His Remarks
April 13, 2008 5:51 PM
As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his allies have locked into damage control mode and attempted to explain his controversial remarks about small-town Pennsylvanians, they've attempted to focus their pushback away from the most controversial part of his remarks to an elite crowd at a San Francisco fundraiser.
Obama told the crowd: "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
While the description of small town Pennsylvanians as "bitter" is certainly impolitic, many political analysts say it's what follows that adjective that is potentially so alienating -- the notion that small town folks "get bitter" after which "they cling to guns or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
But Obama allies are trying to focus on the "bitter" part alone.
A robo-call on behalf of the Obama campaign from Mayor John Brenner of York, Pa., says that, "Barack Obama understands us. He's got it right, we are frustrated -- frustrated with polices that enable businesses to leave our community, pensions to be stripped, health care benefits to be taken away and homes foreclosed. Unlike his opponents, who have been part of the Washington establishment that are out of touch with us, Barack Obama will change Washington. It is policies that hurt us. He will take on the special interests and fight for us."
Listen to the call HERE.
On Obama's Web site, a public letter from 21 Pennsylvania "elected officials and community leaders from small towns and rural areas throughout Pennsylvania" defend him, saying, "What Sen. Obama said is that over the last 25-30 years, working class people in places like Pennsylvania have been falling behind, and that politicians in Washington haven’t been looking out for them. He also said that, as a result, many people have become frustrated, angry and even bitter about all the broken promises. He was right."
No mention of the "cling"-ing to guns or religion.
Likewise, when Obama's most valued surrogate in the Keystone State, Sen. Bob Casey, D-Pa., took to CNN this morning, he steered clear of explaining the guns and religion part of Obama's comments, even when pressed specifically to explain it.
"He expressed regret and we understand," Casey said. "I think he understands why some people could be offended by those words. But here's the larger point. He was trying to express the frustration that people feel, not only with this economy, but what has been happening in Washington, where special interests have had a stranglehold on the process in Washington."
Asked anchor Wolf Blitzer: "What did he mean when he said, they become bitter, and then he said, they cling to guns or religion. What did he mean by that?"
"Wolf, I think he's trying to express frustrations that people have," Casey said, "And there's no question that people shouldn't generalize about how people think about these issues. I think he was just trying to express it. He used a poor choice of words. He's taken responsibility for it. And he said he deeply regretted the words that he chose."
Obama, for his part, has tried to explain the most controversial part.
In an interview with the Winston-Salem Journal, he said, "If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. ... What I meant was something that I don’t think any of us can argue with, which is that people feel abandoned after 20 or 25 years of plants closing, jobs not coming back. People feel like Washington’s not listening to them, and as a consequence, they find that they can only rely on the traditions and the things that have been important to them for generation after generation. Faith. Family. Traditions like hunting. And they get frustrated.”
In Muncie, Ind., he said, per ABC News' Sunlen Miller, "There are a whole bunch of folks in small towns ... who are bitter. They are angry. They feel like they’ve been left behind. They feel like nobody's paying attention to what they're going through. So I said, well you know, when you're bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, you know, they vote about guns or they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community, and they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country, or they get frustrated about how things are changing. That’s a natural response. Now, I didn’t say it as well as I should have, because the truth is, is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation -- those are important. That’s what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don’t feel like they're being listened to."
- jpt
April 13, 2008 in Obama, Barack | Permalink | User Comments (202)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/28061528
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Obama Allies Avoid Trying to Explain Most Controversial Part of His Remarks:
Coming from that neck of the Pennsylavania woods of Southwestern PA which literally was named Penn's Woods after William Penn....relatives and others used to have an ongoing joke with a plaque at the Local Yocal Bar that said "WHERE THE ELITE MEET". For God's sakes even the local yocals know who they are and make fun of their ownselves. What's the problem?
Posted by: cheyanne | Apr 15, 2008 10:44:11 AM
Kill Me, you are correct...issues are very important when determining for whom to vote. But so are character and judgement. Will you vote for someone, who by his own words, dismisses your core-to-the-bone beliefs as just something you cling onto because you are bitter? Will you vote for someone who professes to be the only person qualified to unite the country, whose mentor for 20 years has preached segregationism? Maybe you dismiss these questions as "stupid crap," but for many of us these are important questions.
Posted by: James Danley | Apr 15, 2008 8:56:06 AM
Has anyone noticed that elections in this country are a joke? Does anyone stop and think about how ridiculous this is? Why, when the press ignores the ISSUES that affect you (healthcare, education, the economy, obviously the war) and pay attention to nonsense like this that you fall for it each and every time? Ask yourself about what stupid PR crap, drawn up by elites who think lowly of regular people across the board, you are basing your vote on. Are you going to think about this and every other inside the beltway created narrative or are you going to use for FREAKING BRAIN and think about the issues that are going to really touch you? Please people, think about where this nonsense has gotten us as a country. We're stuck in an immoral, murderous and costly war, have a crumbling economic system, an overpriced and underperforming healthcare system, an out of control military budget and for profit war industry, a horrific educational system amongst other things. Could it be this way because every election cycle instead of educating yourself and getting active, voting for the candidate that had plans in your best interest you voted based on corporate press driven nonsense? WAKE UP! The press in this country thinks the public is stupid, it isn't. Don't prove them right by falling for this $hit...again.
Posted by: Kill Me | Apr 15, 2008 4:25:47 AM
Michael Davidson, you wrote: "I'm still waiting for someone to explain to what Obama said that was "impolitic," elitist, condescending or wrong."
I will rephrase what I wrote earlier. Had Sen. Obama just said that some people were bitter and frustrated with the federal government for failing to follow through on promises, that would have been fine. That IS a factual statement. BUT instead, Sen. Obama LINKED that bitterness as to WHY people support issues like: The 2nd Amendment; prayer in school; keeping the national motto, "In God We Trust," on our money; keeping "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance; defining marriage as being between a man and a woman; and the enforcement of our immigration laws. And in doing so, Sen. Obama gives the impression that these issues would not be important (or would no longer be issues) if the federal government had just followed through on its promises. THAT is where Sen. Obama fails to understand these people. Any bitterness that individuals may or may not have with the federal government has NOTHING to do with them supporting these issues. These issues are "life and death" issues to these people.
Posted by: James Danley | Apr 15, 2008 1:31:38 AM
michael davidson writes that the people objecting to obama's mocking of regular people are either clinton apologists or republicans. he then says that either way, "they're irrelevant."
someone might want to explain to the obamaites that they need votes from clinton apologists and republicans if they think they can win a general election. obama's getting about half the vote in the democratic primary race - that's about a quarter of the votes once republicans are included. actually, it's a lot less, since primary votes are much less than general election votes. so obama needs to pick up some votes somewhere. insulting people isn't the way to do it.
btw, no way he can do it.
Posted by: so saddened | Apr 15, 2008 12:20:49 AM
So for the past 25 years rural people have been what, standing by the nearest highway holding onto their guns and only leaving their posts to go to church? They are so disillusioned and bitter that they have chosen to stand in the same spot waiting for their jobs to return? I don't get it. Most of us are a little anxious after 8 years of Bush (and who wouldn't be) but we have managed to get on with our lives. Color me stupid but you cannot lump everybody into the same category.
Posted by: Pat Johnson | Apr 14, 2008 11:12:22 PM
I'm still waiting for someone to explain to what Obama said that was "impolitic," elitist, condescending or wrong.
Every single word was truer and more compassionate than anything Mrs. Bill Clinton has ever said, not to mention any Republican.
Everything in human history has been done by people who were bitter, angry and frustrated. Happy, complacent people have never done a thing.
The people who are objecting are either Cinton apologists at any cost, or Republicans. Either way, they're irrelevant.
Posted by: Michael Davidson | Apr 14, 2008 11:11:12 PM
For being such a gifted Orator, how do people keep misconstruing his remarks?
Posted by: Peaches | Apr 14, 2008 10:22:20 PM
You don't get it do you! It's not the bitter about losing jobs, yada, yada. They always leave out the most offensive remarks. Then ones where he said bitter people cling to guns, religion, AND ANTIPATHY for people not like them. This here ladies and gentlemen is calling them bigots. You don't like people who aren't like you. This is the offensive statement that is totally glossed over by his campaign and the media. I resent and am highly offended by those remarks. If you're not, then continue to let him demean and insult you.
Posted by: mel | Apr 14, 2008 10:19:14 PM
What is there to interpret? He said what he said. Obama himself gave a speech on words..He said what he meant and he can not take it back by saying
"I regret but...
If you hear his speeches you will read inbetween the lines, his litany of complaints agains America! He has insulted us. He did not tell us, he told the elite of San Francisco, did he think he was going to get away with it?
No Obama, the press is tiered of giving you the free pass, and if Obama is the nominee ( Which I pray to GOD) yes I have faith in god that Obama is not the one..No!!!! please not an Anti-American Supporter who is a hypocrite talking about the working Americans to the Elite of San Francisco......I think Obama is a condecending Pompus A--!!
He has diverted the real issue of Hatred Twoards America to racism! and the fools have falen for his empty words.Words, Words, Words he said..meaning that words are very important!!! Yes they are!!!! and it dosen't mean only the words that he want to mean something!
Posted by: VoteResponsibly08 | Apr 14, 2008 10:06:52 PM
If Obama told the truth then why has he used the following tactics...claiming he said something else...explaining part of it....attacking McCain for pointing it out...repeadedly attacking Hillary.
Gee I think he said what he meant...that there are a bunch of people that he wants to vote for him that are bitter bible-thumping gun-toting racists...now lets see if they believe what he said or the spin.
Posted by: Jackie | Apr 14, 2008 9:43:35 PM
I'm really tired of the liberals/progressives/democrats framing gun ownership as a desire of hunters. It is done to avoid the reason many, maybe most Americans have guns. To kill other people in self defense. I own and carry guns. I've never used a gun to hunt. I used a bow when I did hunt. I own and carry guns to protect myself from other human beings. I've never seen the fun of deer hunting with a rifle (not that it is wrong.)
I want my guns to defend myself since all the police can do is clean up the mess after, not protect me during or before a dangerous situation.
The left doesn't want to acknowledge the relevance or validity of this argument so they always frame it as "hunting."
Posted by: Aaron | Apr 14, 2008 7:39:06 PM
I am from a small bitter little bigoted fundie town in S. Oregon… though I wish Obama hadn’t said it, I had to agree that he hit a nerve and described where I grew up perfectly… bitter hell… I thought he was being kind… lets see back home, everyone supports Bush, the war, hates gays, Californians, minorities, and immigrants… this hasn’t changed in years… in fact since the lumber mills closed, they hate environmentalists and spotted owls as well. They are totally dependant on tourism, but hate the Californians who spend money there… another Bush or Clinton or clone of them, no way… give Obama a break and lets move on and focus on the issues that the republicans don’t want us to: there’s a war on that is going to bankrupt us, high gas prices, healthcare problems, inflation, global warming, schools that need help… this is nothing than a media led sidetrack, next!
Posted by: D O | Apr 14, 2008 7:16:27 PM
Let's face it! Obama told the truth! How refreshing! Now, Jake Tapper, how about you telling the truth that you are shilling for Hillary Clinton and will take any opportunity to write articles critical of Obama? That would be refreshing, too!
Posted by: Kate Madison | Apr 14, 2008 7:01:42 PM
I don't see what people are trying to steer away from. You bet everyday people are bitter, and they are clinging to the things that they can still get a grip on, which means the time-honored staples of American life: guns, religion, and dislike of the groups they feel are eating away at whatever foothold they have in a world in which they matter. Why do people try to deny that this is how regular Americans feel? They are ignored by those who claim to represent them; they are shoved aside by those who claim to have their financial interests at heart; their properties are seized for yet another big money building project; their grocery budgets rise while their paychecks shrink or vanish as thousands are "laid off" (the lie being that the work will return). Obama simply spoke the truth. Why can't the politicos and the media face up to it for once instead of nit-picking it to death? Get out of your limos, peel out of your designer suits, and try living like the rest of us do, paying for your own gas at the pump and your own meals instead of dining out on the voters', the lobbyists', the medias'm or the candidates' dime. Maybe then you'll start looking closer at your church, your constitution, and an American face from earlier times for consolation. Maybe you'll start holding close values that are shaky now, but remind you of a time when you didn't feel as if you were nothing and the earth wasn't being eaten out from under your feet.
Obama gets it. Why don't you?
Tamora Pierce
writer
Posted by: Tamora Pierce | Apr 14, 2008 6:43:03 PM
Rick Pickett, you wrote: "Bush ignored on repeated occasions direct intelligence reports and information regarding an impending attack."
President Bush and his advisors did not ignore repeated intelligence reports and information regarding an impending attack. Even the individuals who are claiming such, admit that the intelligence did not include any specifics (i.e., when, where, how). The MoveOn.org talking points frequently bring up the presidential daily briefing entitled, "Bin Laden determined to attack inside the U.S.," as proof that Bush ignored the intelligence. This particular briefing was actually requested by President Bush as he sought information about the possibility of an attack here in the United States by al Qaeda. The briefing was completed just one month before the attacks of 9/11. The Bush Administration had nearly completed a plan when the attacks were carried out.
It is true that there were several "dots" that had they been connected, might have provided enough information to prevent the attacks. But you have to remember, it was the Clinton Administration that built the wall between the FBI and the CIA, which legally prohibited each from sharing intelligence. There is no guarantee that without the wall the "dots" would have been connected since the FBI and the CIA have always had a rivalry that stood in the way of a free flow of intelligence between them. But if they had been legally allowed to, there certainly would have been a chance that individuals within the two organizations might have communicated with each other and made the connection.
Posted by: James Danley | Apr 14, 2008 6:35:35 PM
What is harmful to Obama is that his statement exposes him as being anti-gun despite his protestations. Further, it calls into question the authenticity of his anti-trade rhetoric. And finally, it really brings into relief the Black Liberation Church he attended for 20 years by calling into question the authenticity of their religious commitment - this from the guy who is so Christian he doesn't even notice all the crazy at his church.
Posted by: frege | Apr 14, 2008 5:19:14 PM
We lose our jobs, we lose our homes, we lose our sons in the war without end, and now many of us are losing our tempers! Some are old enough to remember the miseries of the Great Depression and we feel another one coming on as history is repeating itself. It seems that Herbert Hoover was also unconcerned about the plight of the ordinary American and intent on following his own Pied Piper. When the world-wide drought and food shortage hit, the United States was virtually destroyed. Now we are reading about food riots and shortages in other nations and the scientists are warning that another drought is in the making. I don't know about Pennsylvania, Senator Obama, but I know about America and we are not only bitter. We are also sick and tired of elected officials who are lying to us as they betray our trust and their oaths of office
We're mad as hell and we're not gonna take it any more!
Posted by: Boots | Apr 14, 2008 4:56:24 PM
What is so offensive about what he said? The man is speaking the truth as far as I can tell. I used to live in one of those Midwestern, former industrial giant towns and the desire to cling to religion and guns is paramount! One should never have to apologize for telling the truth!
Posted by: Kurt Rose | Apr 14, 2008 4:56:14 PM
"You go into some of these large cities like in Chicago, and like a lot of large urban areas in the Northeast, the traditional ethical values have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the values taught by civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, and despite special programs such affirmative action enforced by the Cinton and Bush administrations, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate their moral compass. So it's not surprising then that people abandoned by their fathers when they were young get bitter, they cling to guns or a liberation theology religion that teaches hatred of the other and scapegoats government, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-smitism disguised sometimes as anti-Zionism, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Any Obama supporter have a problem with the re-worked quote. If you do, and you had no problem with the original quote, if you want to see racism, look no further than your mirrer.
Posted by: Bigben | Apr 14, 2008 2:43:40 PM
The Obama campaign is smart to avoid explaining the gaffe.
For example, here’s the most recent Obama explanation on the ‘clinging to guns and religion" remark.
“People feel like Washington’s not listening to them, and as a consequence, they find that they can only rely on the traditions and the things that have been important to them for generation after generation. Faith. Family. Traditions like hunting. And they get frustrated.”
Huh?
Posted by: mediahack | Apr 14, 2008 2:07:17 PM
Obama has been the only dignified candidate left for the Democrats. Hillary (liar and loser) =McCain.
Go Obama
A white woman who is finally proud that we have someone to be proud of.
Posted by: Me | Apr 14, 2008 1:59:53 PM
Barack Obama continues to try and posture himself out of the truth of the "audacity" contained in the reality of his potential regime.
The truth about Obama will continue to emerge as the August convention date draws nearer, and the Obama scheme for the subjugation of the Constitution and America's majority will become clear.
All the explanations and interpretations of Obama misspeak by campaign surrogates and mantra followers will fail when placed side by side with the logic of truth.
And, Barack Obama will be filed in the same category as McGovern, Dukakis, and Kerry--unelectable.
Posted by: Jayhawk | Apr 14, 2008 12:57:34 PM
For those who say the mainstream media has been pro-Obama should ask themselves one question. Where was mainstream media when millions of people were marching against the invasion of Iraq in 2003? Hillary Clinton was part of the political leadership which voted in support of a preemptive war on Iraq. This leadership shared a very cozy relationship with mainstream media at that time. Those who courageously stood up and opposed the war were shut out of the national discussion.
Posted by: Matt | Apr 14, 2008 12:27:40 PM
I am bitter that Barack Obama has gotten such preferential treatment from the press.
I am frustrated that Barack Obama's campaign is run by journalists who have manipulated the print media, CNN, and MSNBC.
I am digusted that Obama used anti-trade anger as a wedge issue to get votes, but goes to a wine tasting in San Francisco and accuse Bush and Clinton of using anti-trade as a wedge issue.
I am outraged that Obama said people have antipathy to those not like them when he attends a church that spews racial hatred to whites, Jews, Italians, and patriotic US citizens.
I am angry that any dissent of Barack Obama is written off as racism by the manipulated media
I am sick that the media has used the David Axelrod talking points as their story line: Hillary is rich, People are bitter, didn't mean cling, he is not an elitist because he was raised by a single mom and was a community organizer.
Finally, who was richer at age 46 the Clintons or the Obamas? Why is Obama allowed to disparage the Clintons and McCains, but remains untouched by the left-wing media.
Posted by: Karen | Apr 14, 2008 12:21:48 PM
After years of voting for the lesser of two evils, I had an euphony.
This year I'm voting my conscience.
This year I'm voting Thunderdome.
Posted by: sailordada | Apr 14, 2008 12:18:57 PM
Amazing, isn't it, that million-dollar-a-year talking heads are shocked--shocked they tell you!--that Barack Obama said that white people, in smalltown America are bitter and frustrated by twenty-five plus years of downsizing, outsourcing, layoffs, sub-minimum wage jobs chasing down shopping carts at Wal Mart and a neverending war where their kids go off to die.
No, they're not bitter.
Posted by: Ernest T Spoon | Apr 14, 2008 11:58:29 AM
Columbuscharlie, you can blame the Huffington Post for the timing. They wrote about Sen. Obama's comments a week after the fact. The mainstream media saw the comment and then ran with the story! As Leslie points out, no one was supposed to know about this comment except those elitists who attended the fundraiser. I wonder what else Sen. Obama says when the press is not around?
Posted by: James Danley | Apr 14, 2008 11:41:53 AM
I heard on radio this morning that Obama stammered his way to saying he used a poor choice of words. But what the report didn't say is that Precious was speaking at a fundraiser ($2300 per person) at which the press was not allowed. It is simply astonishing that this got out (as far as I'm concerned). We Were Not Ever Supposed To Hear This Speech or Ever To Know Of This Speech's Existence. EVER.
Why not? Because he wasn't speaking to you and me; he was speaking to the ELITE in San Francisco. To the Billionaires' Row folks who don't really mind if you and I struggle to pay for food and hope to goodness we don't get sick before we are allowed to take time off. The same people who put other president's in office.
And yes...I agree that the timing of this coverage is questionable. It's sort of like the *red alerts* that were flown every time a negative story about the GWB machinations appeared.
There are no coincidences.
Posted by: leslie | Apr 14, 2008 11:07:24 AM
Most americans are good and fair people and don't make harsh judgements based on... once again sound bites. Most americans know he told the truth about americans who have been hurt by previous say anything, do anything leadership just to get elected and truth trumps pandering and lies everyday. Why aren't you reporting on the Clinton lies, China link, husband and strategist link to columbia trade deal..those things really do affect all voters and the world. Don't you get it... this election is about true leadership and change this time...not pandering, lies and spin. We have way to many concerns for that now. Hillary Clinton is out of touch.
Posted by: leslie | Apr 14, 2008 10:57:45 AM
No one yet has mentioned the "timing" of this blowback againsr Obama. This happened over a week ago, the right-wing slime machine didn't notice anything wrong with Obama's analogy until after Friday's release of the chickenhawk's WH gathering to discuss torture methods. Anyone; whose brain can be described without using the word "amoeba",would find no fault in Obama's words,unless, of course, they were programmed to do so. What a sick America we live in today, as a dumb-down society squabbles over such issues, as our country continues to slide into the abyss.
Posted by: columbuscharlie | Apr 14, 2008 10:52:28 AM
Oh, and he called us bigots to boot.
Nice way to unify us all, Obama.
Posted by: HoosierSue | Apr 14, 2008 10:51:34 AM
Yes, his team at CNN Sunday night was focusing on the "bitter" part and letting the following words go by.
Here's what the people need to understand. Obama is talking to a bunch of elitist, big money donors in San Francisco. There is no media present. He assumes he's among friends.
He says that Americans cling to guns, religion, anti-ILLEGAL-immigration, and "Made in USA" because of their economic status. The supposed thinking being that if he gives them jobs, they'll give up their guns, Christianity, welcome illegals, and not worry about the USA losing its manufacturing base.
We all know (or should know) that Obama wants to ban handguns, increase access to abortion for minors, issue driver's licenses to illegals, and do nothing to curtail NAFTA. Now that may appeal to you personally. But those attitudes don't win the White House in a general election.
Posted by: HoosierSue | Apr 14, 2008 10:50:00 AM
My wife and I are both professionally employed veterans that who make good money and who understand exactly what Obama was referring to in his remarks. Those who are hurting in this recession are easy prey for those who like to blame immigrants, welfare moms, gun-control advocates, the ACLU - any number of scapegoats - instead of the policies of the "experienced" Bush/Cheney administration. We will be voting for Obama come this fall despite the smokescreens thrown up by weenie right wingers, racists, and tunnel-visioned columnists. Like the Boss says in one of his songs..."fear is a powerful thing". And fear is what feeds the right.
Posted by: 11thCavVet | Apr 14, 2008 10:43:14 AM
James,
We are cursed by Bush, not blessed. While I don't fawn over Clinton, I have to support him in this instance.
Your history is a bit muddled and blinded by party allegiance. When Clinton wanted to bomb al-Qaeda strongholds in Afghanistan, guess who tried to stop him? Republicans in congress who claimed that he was using the attack to bolster his warrior image.
So, don't give credit where it isn't due. Also, Bush ignored on repeated occasions direct intelligence reports and information regarding an impending attack.
If anything, we suffered as a nation at the hands of President Idiot.
Posted by: Rick Pickett | Apr 14, 2008 10:28:33 AM
Obama's choice of words was dead-on, his summation was the truth, that's how it is -- why should he apologize for it? Not everyone in PA actually is like that description yet it is a fair description. Clinton would have done better to apologize on her husband's behalf then gone after McCain and the Bush economic policies which McCain seems to want to continue. Instead, Clinton muddies the waters with non-issue pronouncements. We do not need another president who feels the need to take any opponent down by such tactics, eight years of it is enough.
Posted by: Sumner | Apr 14, 2008 10:21:29 AM
Derrick, I can't speak for Jason. But I, personally, thank God every day for President George W. Bush. Had Al Gore been president on 9/11/2001, he would have treated the attacks as criminal acts (just like President Clinton did in 1993) instead of an act of war. Now he probably would have sent a few missiles into Afghanistan (just like President Clinton did on a couple of occasions), but al Qaeda and the Taliban would still be in power. Furthermore, Saddam Hussein would still be in power, as a President Gore would still be working the diplomatic angle (by now 17 years and counting) in trying to convince Saddam Hussein to comply with the conditions of the 1991 ceasefire. And with Saddam Hussein still in power, the oil-for-food scandal would never have been exposed. So Saddam Hussein would still be raking in billions of dollars at the expense of the hundreds of thousands (by now millions of) poor, starving and dying children; in addition to the hundreds of thousands of additional Iraqis being raped, tortured and murdered. Now I can't say for certain that we would have been attacked again, but all of the elements that are now in place (i.e., the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security and the passing of the Patriot Act) would not have been established or passed. The FBI and the CIA would still be prohibited -- by law -- from sharing information. And al Qaeda would have had another 7 years of relatively peaceful existence (instead of being on the run and hiding in caves) in order to plan and execute additional attacks.
Posted by: James Danley | Apr 14, 2008 10:16:11 AM
uhh what obama said was totally correct from my experience of small-town u.s. (upstate NY and n. western PA).
Posted by: dmt4 | Apr 14, 2008 9:59:50 AM
I was never bitter or frustrated when I was out of work. Why, because I knew that the promises of politicians were empty and I was raised to do what I had to do to find work such as hopping into the old pickup, sleeping in it and once working sending money home to the family for a short period of time until things became settled. This is how I saved my house from foreclosure some 30 years ago.
If government promises and people actually believe that and there is no follow through, then the believers would be bitter. Yes, government can provide jobs; the USSR did for every one as did Saddam; mostly do nothing jobs to quite the masses. And what happened when those governments fell. The people were ill prepared mentally to do for themselves. Are we slipping into that mode too?
Mr. Obama can not have government directly creating new jobs and keep our capitalist system and we our freedoms as we now know them. And yes FDR have government creat massive job programs, but during a time of 25% unemployment with few jobs to travel to and yes we did lose some freedom; not at all as they did in Germany and Italy, but some never-the-less. We have lost more if FDR’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court had worked.
When government grows it naturally intrudes into your life more and more, your freedom is eroded regardless of the intent of the leadership; the bureaucracy seemly has no limits or checks on what they can do to you; a tyranny of the minority; the bureaucrats in this case (think IRS to the extreme armed with administrative warrants). Fortunately, our constitutional workings held government mostly in check in our country during the depression; others were not so fortunate. I’d rather not try that aga
Posted by: Al Reasin | Apr 14, 2008 9:56:29 AM
Isn't it interesting that Bob Casey bemoans the special interests in Washington where a congressman from his own Keystone State of Pennsylvania named Jack Murtha has poured special interest pork into his district like Niagara Falls? My god, these people have no shame and at best only a passing knowledge of irony.
I clung to my religion when I was so bitter after the 9-11 attacks. I guess I'm one of those Obama spoke about, except I live in California.
Oh well.
Posted by: Ken | Apr 14, 2008 9:43:46 AM
"frustrated with polices that enable businesses to leave our community"
These guys really don't "get it." Government isn't here to prevent businesses from leaving - that's not its function. Businesses leave or "outsource" when the US becomes too expensive or too difficult to conduct business in. Most of the expense and difficulty comes from government - taxes (income, sales, inventory, excises) are high, "feel-good" environmental regulations are crippling, tort law is ridiculous, and obsolete social programs like affirmative action are millstones which just won't go away. Obama's absurd conviction seems to be that even more governmental control is the answer.
Posted by: tom swift | Apr 14, 2008 9:36:17 AM
Speaking in front of the Elite who want to live in their mansions while others live poor, that is the Socialist Way!!
Posted by: NotoLib | Apr 14, 2008 9:25:51 AM
Derek I for one an proud to have help put George W Bush in the White House for two terms. Unprecidented economic growth, arguably the best economy in the history of the United States. Islamist facist beaten back after attacking our shores. Iraq liberated by UN and US Congressional sanctioned action by a multi national force, 30 countries boots still on the ground, and progress towards a democratic country being made despite Iran, Syria and opposition politicians in the US. What is not to like if you don't suffer from BDS or are just plain prejudiced by your leftist leanings.
Posted by: jdr | Apr 14, 2008 9:03:22 AM
"you haven't seen nothin' yet!"
That's for sure. I haven't seen one thing at all that tells me what he plans to do, other than a bunch of empty promises that would cost billions of MY dollars to deliver.
Also, for a guy that thinks we should give diplomacy a chance with people that have dedicated their lives to killing or forcing us to live under their ideal society of beheadings and oppression, he sure does have issues with clearly saying what he means, doesn't he?
Posted by: Hogarth | Apr 14, 2008 8:57:04 AM
Bush eliminated taxes on those making 30,000? I want some of what you're smoking!
Posted by: steve davis | Apr 14, 2008 8:43:05 AM
I am amazed that so many posters who claim to feel sympathy for working class people support Obama and Clinton who have promised to raise taxes on the working class. Bush's tax cuts which are characterized as "tax cuts for the rich" eliminated income taxes for Americans making up to almost $30,000. The Dems are promising to do away with that and are fooling the poor by telling them otherwise. I find that appalling. Sorry.
Posted by: Michele | Apr 14, 2008 7:43:46 AM
What Barack meant in Essence, which is, the cold-clear Truth, unlike Hillary's Bosnia Fabrication and Continuing Performances, Small America, due to loss of jobs producing frustration and bitterness and time on their hands, similarly to the Negros in Slavery time, who turned to Relgion & Music for an outlet, small-town Americans turn to Religion, Hunting & yes, some blame current conditions on the Immigrants when they should be turning the blame on Politicians who allow employers to higher immigrants for a much lower wage than Americans would go for. He never said religion or hunting were bad, just that they were an outlet for the bitterness of those who have lost hope in their government and with extra time on their hands.
Posted by: Angellight | Apr 14, 2008 7:17:44 AM
Oh yea.. the Obamamites are in full force this morning. Talk about defense. That's right.... can't you do better defending this racist, prejudice pig than to try to turn the tables and blame Hillary for something he said... that came RIGHT FROM THE OBAMA's MOUTH? Obamamites would follow this creep off a cliff if he jumped... THEN.. they'd blame Hillary for their leap.
I am firmly convinced. Hillary is my first choice and my ONLY Democratic choice. McCain is my second. I refuse to vote for a racist creep who alienates "typical white people" and refers to small town residents as "bible beating" rednecks.
HOWARD DEAN... SHAME ON YOU. Because EVERYTHING you touch turns to SOUR MASH.
Posted by: MM | Apr 14, 2008 7:03:05 AM
dmh -
How can you pin "middle class" and "working class" together? Last I heard, "middle class" IS "working class".
And while we are on the subject. Why even use the term "working class" ?? You're just as bad as Obama. You think that just because people are soooo rich they don't need to work ..... or that people are sooooo poor that they just don't work for whatever reason; be it laziness, or just happy fending off the system, or whatever.
Yep... you are just as prejudice as Obama, himself.... middle class don't work. SHAME ON YOU.
Posted by: MM | Apr 14, 2008 6:51:19 AM
"Words matter..."
- B. Obama
So, if words do matter, why can't you get it right? Oh... you are getting it right !!! You are THAT racist. You are THAT dividing. You are THAT hateful. You are THAT condesending. You are THAT conceited. You are THAT self-centered. You want to see Americans classified into 3 categories; black, whites, and Obamas. You really want to set yourself above everyone else. Now he sees "typical white people" as all being "rednecks"...
Open mouth....... Insert foot...... SHOVE.
Posted by: MM | Apr 14, 2008 6:47:04 AM
Slice and dice it anyway you like, Obama is our next president, and I couldn't be happier. From Chicago and I have friends who have worked for him who say that not only is he as good as you see, but you haven't seen nothin' yet!
Posted by: Chibri | Apr 14, 2008 5:36:00 AM
Didn't Obama say that "Words Matter", and that his speaches are not"Just Words!". I guess that only applies to the speeches someone else wrote for him.
We have to cut him slack whenever he talks off the cuff, and shows us how he really feels. Or we have to understand that when he was in San Francisco, he was just pandering to the California elite.
Once he gets back to Philly, he'll pander to the PA working stiffs again!
Posted by: Scott | Apr 14, 2008 4:43:16 AM
even the quote of obama's words has been misquoted all over the place (to his benefit, as the original was even worse). so the spinners are spinning the new and improved version rather than the original.
no matter what version. no matter what spin. no matter what excuses. simple fact is that obama was mocking pennsylvanians to his rich friends in san francisco. and he got caught.
now his spinners and his media friends and his paid bloggers are having to work overtime to fix it. it may work - all his other fixing has. doesn't change the reality. the man is sure he's better than other people and he's sure he can con us into voting for him.
funny thing is, i bet that, in private, he and michelle not only mock the regular people but also mock the rich ones who loved his mocking of the regular people.
Posted by: so saddened | Apr 14, 2008 3:26:18 AM
Do any of you seriously believe this nonsensical RNC/Clinton interpretation?
Obama does not say here that "religion" or "concern for gun rights" are caused by bitterness (in fact he has commented otherwise in detail). Rather, he says something that he (along with both Clintons) has said numerous times: that religious and 'pro gun' *politics* are outlets for a cynicism toward government that grew out of economic decline (and by extension, such voters are particularly cool to his current message).
stop the presses.
That may be elitist by someone's definition, but has nothing to do with the outrageous claims that Hillary (who of course knows exactly what he meant) has used to take advantage of what probably seems to her to be the last chance to delegitimize Obama.
Posted by: molasku | Apr 14, 2008 2:30:02 AM
Jason, You're sooooo glad you're not a democrat. Noted. Does that delight mean that you're PROUD to have put George W in power? Can you HONESTLY say our country is better off for his having wielded power for the past eight years? This is a question about honesty and about truth, an issue that seems to be getting short shrift in this online debate.
Granted: Obama could have chosen his words better. In particular, he should have shown more respect for the faith that sustains people. I think guns should be banned entirely; no other rich, western or eastern country allows them, and our country has more gun-related deaths than any other BY FAR. It's insane to maintain a grip on this murderous tradition. The only people who really NEEDED guns for self-protection in this country's history--blacks where were systematically lynched [see the excellent documentary "The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow" for starters]--did not have them, and guns were turned on them.
Still, does his poor choice of words mean that the CONTENT of his message is any less true? Does his poor choice of words mean that people are NOT mad that their livelihoods are being eroded? Does his poor choice of words mean that that we are NOT engaged in a senseless war that is cutting short precious lives of men and women who could go on to become lawyers, doctors, mothers, fathers, uncles, teachers, community leaders, carpenters, preachers, senators, and friends? Does his poor choice of words mean that this war is NOT costing precious dollars that could be better spent on health care, education, and reinvigorating the economy? Finally, if he had chosen his words differently would we NOT be resentful when, under the just described circumstances, we see people who look or sound different from us and who have jobs?
Posted by: derrick | Apr 14, 2008 2:05:27 AM
Hilarly Clinton stated that the people she knows do not cling to religion because they are bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor. I would like to know what people is she referring to. Is she speaking of me and every American and not just the people she knows.
Does Hilarly Clinton know the meaning of bitter. Let me explain to Hilarly what bitter means. Bitter means; hard to bear; hard to admit; or accept the truth how our government has treated our lives as inexpendible.
Unfortunately, I am a 40 year old materially poor American citizen. I do embrace my faith with God, my family and my community. I consider that to be "spiritually rich" in order to get through these hard times of our economic issues, health insurance issues and tax increases etc;
So yes, it is hard to bear; hard to admit; or accept the truth how our government has continually left the American people without a voice on these important issues. Instead, we as a people are given what is left at the bottom of the barrel, which are issues on guns, immigration and trade agreements.
And yet, nothing really gets done with those issues. Those issues are ways our government keep the American people busy fighting with each other and out of the governments hair "sort a way of speaking".
Obama is not by far looking down on the American people. Indeed, he is trying to left our voices along with his own voice that Americans need and want a change. Sometimes, it is hard to admit the truth about ourselves and sometimes the truth is distorted. By all means, Hilarly Clinton should know that, while still trying to "save face" with the American people.
Obama is a man that is willing and able to bring the American people together. The American people wants a president that they can trust with the truth, not one that distort the truth. I believe Hilarly Clinton is the one that is "out of touch". (signing out, for your eyes only)
Posted by: Mia Williams | Apr 14, 2008 1:25:47 AM
If someone created a website which allowed us to vote on one simple question, 'are we bitter about how things have been going here in the United States', do you think the happy campers would 'win' or do you think the Americans who are fed up, been pushed down, passed over and trickled on would outnumber those who prefer to wear blinders?
For Hillary to try to twist this comment is beyond her normal campaign games, it's an act of desperation. When more google for information on her pastor and spritual advisor, Doug Coe, they may come to realize it is all a game to her. When they google through all the campaign lies alone, whether it's bullets flying, joining the Marines or simply her stands on issues, they will realize we'll be the losers in these games.
If you want to discuss someone out of touch or elitist, think about the string of unpaid bills Clinton has left in every state she's been in, bills owed to small vendors. Consider why one would fork out $26,000 for an orchestra for a fundraiser yet not pay her workers' health insurance premiums for two months. Is that not elitist?
Bill is now trying to help Hillary again but he needs to clean up his own front porch first. His charities not only support Alibaba, Inc., accused of collaborating with the government in its crackdown on Tibetan activists, his scholarships finance schools in Dubai who won't even accept Israeli students.
Perhaps Bill needs to do twenty years of community service in the south side of Chicago to get a grip on what constitutes an elitist.
Was Bill taking advantage of a young girl in his employ not elitist? Was his putting himself above her interests, the interests of his family, the Democratic Party and our country somehow not elitist?
And btw, we were fooled by a beer drinking party guy trying to act like the common man before, look where it got us. And if using that campaign game is not elitist, I'll eat my hat.
PS: No wonder Hillary thinks her religion should be private. If it were to become public it could cost her the election.
Meet Hillary Clinton's spiritual advisor, Doug Coe:
Posted by: MsSwin | Apr 14, 2008 1:22:19 AM
Thanks Ted good work
Posted by: shyin | Apr 14, 2008 12:59:49 AM
..and as if it's not bad enough that he was dissing the beliefs and way of life lived by blue color workers on the other side of the country...
he was talking them down ... behind their backs! to these billionaire on Zilionaire Row.... just to explain why he was having a hard time getting their votes!
How crass, how boneheaded!
How Obama!
GIVE 'EM HELL, HILLARY
Posted by: questioner | Apr 14, 2008 12:56:31 AM
this is such a non-issue. Hillary makes 15 mill a year...and she is not elitist? McCain owns 8 homes...has no plans for economy...and he is in touch? Barak is the only one with an honest voice and the status quo (GoGirl) nonsense can't understand or accept.
Posted by: annie | Apr 14, 2008 12:55:19 AM
No sir, no elitist or academics for me, give someone who's proud of being the 5th to last in their graduating class. I hate when people use words I don't know.
Posted by: jrs | Apr 14, 2008 12:42:20 AM
jay writes:
"I'm an Independent voter who was for Edwards and is now undecided."
-----
Decide to hang in for Edwards! If the Democrats DON'T nominate him, Cynthia McKinney, Ralph Nader, and Mike Gravel are going to get a LOT of votes.
Posted by: Edgar Cayce | Apr 14, 2008 12:41:25 AM
Hey, John,
What's a "neocon?"
Posted by: ajmalkov | Apr 14, 2008 12:38:43 AM
All the pathetic racists and liars are sure getting desperate ! We got a glimpse of Obama's soul ? Renedered unelectable ? He called small town people white trash ? He is smug , arrogant , phony . I read an opt ed from the New York times entitled " THE MASK SLIPS AWAY " ( talking about Obama and what he supposedly said ) , well surprise surprise , who was the author ? Bill Kristol , one of the lowest forms of humanity in the United States , war mongering , liar and one of the leading neocon the article nothing but twisted words , misquotes and lie after lie after lie . The bottom line is Obama said we working class people are bitter , are becoming bitter and disheartened and hell yes we are ! You people can lie and twist words and smear Obama all you want , fortunately most people in this country are smarter than you are and he will win the DEM. nomination and the Presidency and we will have a good and honest and intelligent man in the White House as President who we can trust and actually listen to and believe! Obama 08 !
Posted by: John | Apr 14, 2008 12:35:38 AM
jay,
if you were for edwards, why are you now undecided?
Have you read sen. clintons plans?
Posted by: jgaw | Apr 14, 2008 12:33:57 AM