This is the first post by you in a long time that I can 100 percent, absolutely endorse as right.

I see nothing that he needs defense from.

You can't be that foolish.

He said that religion and guns are bad, that people cling to them because they don't have jobs, that once they are "cured", they won't need religion.

That might be what you genuinely believe, but you can be stupid and spout such idiocy. Politicians who really hold such negative views about religion would do well to keep those views to themselves.

Besides, didn't you notice that Obama revealed that he was lying about gun rights, free trade, and his beliefs in religion?

On one level Ezra's right - we should never relax on criticizing the poor job the media does in telling these stories around the campaign; how they turn speeches into "gotcha" moments and take useful discussions - like the struggles working people face - and turn them into soundbites.

That said, though, there is also something here: and it's that what Obama said, not just the way he said it, deserves some examination and some criticism. There are disputable assertions within it, and it's fair, really, to dispute them. He will probably have to, in more detail, explain what he meant and just why, really, working class people should support him more than they do now. And I suspect, as "gotcha" or as real issue, this will hurt his chances in PA.

And in the end, that's a story. Which is why campaign writers write about it. We can and should challenge how they write about it... but I don't think it's entirely fair to say that there's not a story here. Just that they're not reporting it well.

"He said that religion and guns are bad, that people cling to them because they don't have jobs, that once they are "cured", they won't need religion."

Wow, that's...a remarkably deluded way of interpreting his comments.

Actually that's not true. You just made shit up that you would LIKE to think Obama said, since you don't like him.

Actually what he said is, since people have pretty much given up on their votes helping them, so they identify politically even more strongly to their social issues.

But of course, that's *correct* and we can't admit Obama saying anything correct, so obviously he said that guns and religion are bad...

...adding, that the "cling to..." phrasing was rather unfortunate, and certainly does come across as condescending.

But the substance was pretty much right. And his follow-ups have been excellent and astute.

This incident is reminding me that Obama supporters aren't the only ones capable of spinning like tops when the situation suits them. I agree 100 percent with ResumeMan. The idea that anyone can reach the conclusions that some have is just another example of why people don't trust politics. They think of you as liars. by lying like this about what Obama actually said and meant, you only confirm his point. I certainly lost a little respect for some of the bloggers misusing what is a comment that we all readily agree is true- that Americans have voted their social views over their economic interests because they didn't think they could trust us. This silly primarycontinues to amaze me with how much people are willing to distort their party's candidates (well assuming you are Democrats- lying about your own candidates should be per se a no-no).

I agree particularly with Klein's conclusion about the main problem with journalism today. The elite comes almost entirely from people practicing 'boys on the bus' type journalism. I strongly suspect a big part of the reason mortgage plans don't get covered is because few, if any, political reporters know anything about policy. They do understand 'gotcha's' and exit polls though, hence that's what they cover.

I also agree with this post. And I think that it's a good example of why the Clintons' (highly self-serving) arguments about how a long primary process is good are wrong: people who are tired make mistakes. Mistakes that might otherwise not have happened. Mistakes that could hurt in the general election.

Then again, I wonder if this is going to be a huge deal. There's no video, at least. At least now the wingnuts aren't going to have to go searching through Obama's books to find a reason to justify their hatred of him.

Sound "odd"!!
Good god!
NO! NO!
Sane! Sane! Sane!

Conservatives are conservative because they are poor?
You clearly have not been to Alberta or Texas.

What makes people liberal is not education and wealth it is a sense of entitlement and arrogance. Most of those who really earned their wealth support more conservative principles. If we were to make the conservative poor dependents on the state like many African Americans are then of course they would become more liberal. But if they suddenly become more wealthy through hard work and luck they would maintain their conservative values.

Remember political ideology is shaped by our experiences.

Why is it that the wealthy middle class blacks (Cosby and other black business owners) tend to be the more conservative while the poor blacks are seen as more liberal? Why are single dependent moms in big cities more liberal? Are they not in economic anxiety?

The poor rural whites enjoy their autonomy even if that means poverty. They freely choose to be conservative. This however can not be said for urban poor who are bribed by the state to support liberal values.
As liberals I don't think you understand how insidious comments like this actual are. I am more an urban libertarian but my heart rate is probably over 100 bpm.

"...people who are tired make mistakes. Mistakes that might otherwise not have happened. Mistakes that could hurt in the general election."

Then people should take naps.

Obama speaks at one of his own fundraisers. An Obama-sympathetic reporter finally, reluctantly, releases what he says, and, somehow, Clinton is to blame. Classic.

Gordon Gekko: yeah, sure. We fucking love being poor. We love not being able to send our kids to college. We love having to work 2 part time jobs. We hate the idea of being able to take care of our health problems.

I'm just trying to figure out if you're a joke or not. I'm voting yes, but I figure I'd slam you once just for kicks.

What makes people liberal is not education and wealth it is a sense of entitlement and arrogance.

Actually, the phenomenon of describing liberals that way is known as "projection."

yeah- especially since the examples he gives doesn't prve his point. Cosby isn't a conservative. Most of the self made billionaires in the public eye aren't conservatives either. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, etc. Most will tell you that they got to be billionaires due to the resources given to them, not simply because of their working up by their boot straps. The thing is your comment a) has nothing to do with this diary (and is something that neither democratic candidate would agree with) b) would be hard pressed to find McCain outwardly agreeing with- if he wants to win and c) is factually inaccurate. I don't know where to begin to argue with such ignorance. I think its better if i just ignore you and suggest others do the same.

Very astute observation, Ezra.

Acknowledging that the problem exists is the first step in making it better.

Indie, Clinton is attacking Obama long after she has any hope of winning, and she's using the right-wing 'elitist' frame to do it.

She is to blame for this. This would have died if she didn't jump into this. If Obama loses in November, she's never going to be Majority leader and her weakness in the black vote will likely make her seat an obvious target for the Republicans in 2012. But who gives a fuck, right? Obama must be made to pay for his insolence in denying Hillary Clinton her god-given right to the Presidency.

Sorry, soullite, even Olbermann admitted it was a tie the other night in his rant against Elton John.

Clinton did not start this. Obama and a reporter did. Are you honestly saying Obama (and you) wouldn't be making hay out of this if Clinton had said it?

I live in Pennsylvania and know people exactly like those whom Obama is speaking about.

For the most part they have worked hard all their lives, and are now having trouble making ends meet financially.

I doubt that many would see themselves the way Obama has described them.

I shall vote for Obama on April 22. But, I am concerned about a McCain-Obama race.
Last Sunday's remarks are not the first time Obama appears
to be drawing conclusions without much first-hand experience. (I feel the same way when he talks about health care.)

There is a touch of Gore & Kerry in Obama, and I want the Democrats to win this time.

Alan Mc: "There is a touch of Gore & Kerry in Obama, and I want the Democrats to win this time."

Who is more like Gore or Kerry, Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton? Seriously.

You run with the candidates you have, not the ones you would like to have.

I dunno. I thought he was just quoting Tom Frank's 'What's the Matter with Kansas?'.

You're just realizing this? They've been doing this to Hillary for months. And guess who ALSO has been doing it to Hillary?

The liberal blogs and Olbermann.

Grow up, boys. If Obama is the candidate, he's going to learn how to deal with it. You can't expect to be treated as a Golden Boy all the time.

Lmao, Hillary isn't going to be the nominee no matter how much you pray mini-scandals like this sink Obama. Before this, it was the delegate purge. Before that, it was Wright. Before that it was 'periodically'. Before that it was Rezko. I'm sure I've forgotten a few things in between.

Give it up. At this point, it's pathetic.

JeffivNYC: and TalkLeft, Taylor Marsh, MyDD, Corrente, Suburban Guerrilla, and Dan Abrahms have been slamming Obama for months.

The difference is that Obama rolled with the punches and didn't take half the damage, while Clinton fought everything even when it would have been put to bed earlier with an apology and some humility. Being a fighter is a good thing, but only if you know when to fight and when not to.

As a former political reporter, I appreciate your dilemma: Your editor (well, maybe not yours, Ezra) demands that you cover the faux controversy because everybody else is covering the faux controversy. The bigger the herd, the less likely any one sheep is likely to drift away from it. That's why it's good for America that the old hierarchies of journalism are crumbling. Still, you just had to write this blog item, didn't you?

Indie, at what point did I say I gave a fuck what Olberman said? I don't watch Cable News. I watch normal TV like normal people. I don't find Tweety and friends to be all that entertaining. I'd rather spend my relaxation time playing Marvel: Ultimate Alliance or watching South Park.

You sound like a right wingers saying 'Even Ted Kennedy said..". Most of us could give a fuck about your lame appeals to authority. I'm my own man.

I basically agree with this post, Ezra, but as an Edwards supporter turned Obama supporter, I can't help but remember you saying that Edwards's 400 dollar haircut and blogger fiasco
told us something important about the political operation Edwards was running, so important that you cited these gaffes as reason not to support Edwards. (Even though both things were out of his control.)

But this gaffe of Obama's was his fault. Which is to say that no, this tells us nothing substantive about his view or his character, Obama's, but it tells us something about his political skills which seem to fail him only when he's talking about working class and rural Americans. Remember his surprise that Iowans weren't "ingrown."

I'm frustrated--wait, who care how I feel?--this episode is a shame because he was getting at something very important (Thomas Frank is basically but not entirely correct) and because it shows Obama is believing his hype and his poll numbers to the extent that he he's not sufficiently worried about the elitist-un-American-Jeremiah Wright-effete smear campaign about to be launched against him. Otherwise he would've kicked Wright off his campaign before the crisis and he wouldn't have gone to a San Francisco (San Francisco!) fundraiser and lumped guns and religion (not conservative religion, mind you, but religion) in with anti-immigrant sentiment. (This from the man who lectures Dems on their lack of sensitivity toward religion and religious voters.)

Obama better up his game before the general election and realize the storm of shit he's up against. Otherwise we're looking at a McCain landslide and Midwest full of McCain Democrats.

Oh, and I always play Captain America, I don't give a fuck if you all think that he has lame super-powers.

(this isn't aimed at you Indie, it's about an older post a few days back)

"Before this, it was the delegate purge. Before that, it was Wright. Before that it was 'periodically'. Before that it was Rezko. I'm sure I've forgotten a few things in between.

Give it up. At this point, it's pathetic."

No truer words. For the good of the party, Obama should drop out.

BTD calls out Ezra on his BS:
http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/12/191838/014

Ezra- why worry about policy now? It isn't exactly going to help your guy Obama to focus on it.

BTD is at TalkLeft is calling you out on your bullshit, Ezra.

And you look like a fool.

Actually, I challenged BTD to explain exactly what's new here substantively that hasn't been said by "Whats the matter with Kansas?" or "elitist", which is the charge, about it? he couldn't do it. All he kept doing was saying it was a gaffe because it was a gaffe, but because Obama is a media darling Obama will over come it. I readily agree Obama is a media darling, but that doesn't explain why the basic assumption is true that this is a meaningful discussion other than the "gotcha" politics being played here. It is entirely based on, as even BTD admits, voters using Clinton and McCain's spin as a basis for understanding what was actually said, not the substance of what was actually said. BTD basically admits as much in his own diary. So do other posters who say "it's not what he said" but then parse particular phrases to say "well, but this shows he meant something else." That something else being their spin on the facts. He said "these small towns" and that's a perorative. Why? becuase they have decided its one. So it is. Therefore, it's elitist. This is the level of analysis passing for thinking here. Sorry, but as a guy who thinks of himself as Switzerland on these fake controversies it doesn't pass the smell test of being really about substance.

You are a reporter? I thought you were another Dk or John or Josh,just another blogger who spreads this stuff around and gets upset and verbal when something is said about your candidate.

Obama will probably get thru this by all of your support and the media who have so much love for him they can't stand themselves.

Oh Ezra. I didn't know you were a reporter.

Maddie,

Here's a clue, the masthead on the site reads The American Prospect.

ah, and the trolls attack...
a linked article strikes the messageboards again.

I agree that the media is useless at this point for anything more than sensationalism. see: UK newspapers.

Ezra, take my advice and don't post on the nomination any more. There wasn't one comment out of ten on this post that wasn't a troll.

Just a quick point.
Obama didn't ever say anything about Tuzlagate.
And it lasted a week.

It took Hillary an hour after Drudge posted the story.

That, Benjamin, is the essence of the kmrrtjdifference between the two. Obama's not right all the time but he does have a lot of class. Can Americans recognize that and vote accordingly? We're about to find out.

Gee, I was wondering where that damn kmrrtj went..........

Lmao Anonymous, you're a joke.

I predict that average folks of all races aren't going to see a problem with this remark, and will instead wonder why the fuck the media thinks this is the apocalypse.

Maddie, Ezra is a reporter, but this is his blog. He often links to his articles on the main site, but I think it's pretty clear that this place is here for him to pontificate. He isn't doing anything remotely unethical. I don't even understand why people can't see the obvious walls of separation here. I can understand disagreeing with him (obviously, I do that a lot. I'm not remotely nice about it.) but I find it unsettling that people think he shouldn't even voice his opinions. Being a reporter doesn't mean you lose your rights as a citizen. It's not like his opinions just go away if he doesn't voice them.

Nice article, Ezra. The culture of political journalism is a prime source of the debasement of American political culture. It'd be nice if some of the up-and-coming practitioners moved in a more serious direction.

I do think you are wrong, though, that the only question here is how damaging this will be. (Or were the caps meant to signal a bit of sarcasm?) It could prove to be Damaging, or even Very Damaging -- but there's a non-trivial chance that this could backfire hard on the McCain/Clinton campaign and the media. Obama got a standing ovation last night in Terre Haute. And so I say there's some chance that small town Americans might well respond to the populism this 'gaffe' sets Obama up for AND that the real insult will be perceived as coming from the faux outrage on the part of McCain/Clinton and the media.

It'll be interesting to see which way it breaks. But I'd say which way it breaks is highly substantive. Either we continue with a politics which focuses on Gotcha and wedge issues in a way that distracts attention from the real issues confronting our country or we really do move to a new style of politics. Any shift towards a politics that rewards serious engagement signals a chance that there will be real change in a country in which there has hitherto been substantial indifference to political matters.

. Most of those who really earned their wealth support more conservative principles.

Like George Walker Bush, of Walker's Point, Maine? Or John McCain, who dumped his crippled wife to marry a trust fund?

Clinton Campaign: jump!

Clinton supporter: how high?

Clinton Campaign: be offended!

Clinton supporter: how much?

(repeat ad nauseam until mathematical elimination)

Most of those who really earned their wealth support more conservative principles.

Ordinarily, I'd say don't feed the troll, but this "logic" is laughable on its face. For starters, from the standpoint of economic incentive, what does it bloody matter what the source of one's wealth is with respect to political ideology? On one level, you could argue that any rich dude or lady has an incentive to oppose what you've described (in ignorantly adolescent fashion) as liberal principles, and on another level, your ad hoc hypothesis utterly fails to account for the George Sororsses and Bill Gateses of the world.

Shorter version: you're claim fail both on a priori and empirical grounds. Put down the Ayn Rand, read a real book on this stuff, and let's reconvene.

Amazing. Just flat out amazing. Hillary Clinton gets caught on videotape four separate times lying about her Bosnia experience, yet here we are sorting through Obama's words and speculating how damaging they might be. Ezra, the only reason crap like this has any legs is because MSM pundits and some bloggers choose to give it legs.

Clinton Campaign: be offended!

Clinton supporter: how much?

That's funny.

It is astounding that Obama supporters got tagged with the 'cultish' label.

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/12/191838/014

Ahh, someone expresses an opinion on Obama and the Boiz rush in to do a group haka.

What are y'all gonna do if Obama wins the nomination and the media turns on him like a bad dog?

This was fair game, he said it, Hillary jumped on it.

If this gets your collective panties in a bunch, you better hope Hillary is the nominee.

yeah, but akaison is a long known dipshit. As is Ezra.

Count me in as someone that never knew Ezra Klein considered himself a reporter. I figured you considered yourself a pundit, blogger, health policy wonk, but actually never a reporter.

Can you tell me the beats you've covered as cub reporter, reporter, etc.?

I may have to change my opinion of you, because I often have respect for honest, hard working reporters.

If you're a reporter, what are you doing on Hairball?

If this gets your collective panties in a bunch, you better hope Hillary is the nominee.

Thanks, but I wanna beat John McCain.

akaison-
In case you hadn't noticed, while it may be fine for a pundit to go around talking about what is wrong with Kansas, it is not exactly something the politicans would typically expected to be saying out loud. There may be some truth to what Obama said, but it is not a respectful way to approach the electorate- lecturing them on what is wrong with them that is. For you not to see that is laughable. What makes it worse is that Obama is not even consistent on this issue. When he is trying to win votes in rural PA or IN he taks about how liberals needed to do more to respect the pro-life viewpoint, etc; yet when he is rasing big bucks in front of rich people in San Francisco he is saying that people only focus on those issues because they are bitter about their economic hardship, impying that one would have to be under some sort of impairment of thought to believe such a thing.

Benjamin-
First off the story broke on Huffington Post, so trying to tie it to Drudge is just a manipulative ploy to attempt to change the issue and distract from the substance that you claim isn't there. Some may even be dumb enough to fall for it. And as for Obama not talking about Bosnia, he may not have directly himself, but his campaign does at every opportuntiy. Just another sign of the man being a decietful hypocrite.

the lecturing is coming from those of you who are so expert at politics that you say that this is this or that, but non e of which is what he actually said. what it will do politically will depend on whether you spin of the facts rather than the facts themselves become public understanding. the rest of your post ignore as the usual bullshit that passes for analysis here. you know no more than i do what impact this will have other than what you hope your manipulations and those of others like you will produce. you are the GOP with a hidden real name.

How could any pol worth his salt let a voter adjective like "bitter" leave his lips without a qualifier in front of it? This is the age of sound bites, after all.

You don't say voters are bitter, you say they are rightly bitter, or justly bitter, or correctly bitter, etc. etc. etc.

BOb kicked in his own teeth on this one. I'll vote for him anyway, but yeesh.

If Obama's "gaffe" is the kind of comment that bunches the undies of people on a supposedly progressive blog, I think I AM better off as a socialist. At least they're not afraid of suggesting that our so-called values are influenced by material conditions, that there's no such thing as ideological purity, and that politicians on the right AND left often exploit these sentiments in order to obfuscate the thornier reality of economic and social stratifications.

But then again, there was a tizzy over Obama's Reagan comment, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised.

BTW, he said almost the exact same thing re "values voters" in his first Charlie Rose interview in Dec. 2004. This idea is also alluded to in the "conservative talk radio" segment of his Philly race relations speech. And I'm willing to bet that he talked about it in his books.

The media is doing its darndest to protect Obama from himself, but the wheels are falling off the Obamamania Train.

The guy has run a campaign based on us trusting his JUDGEMENT...so he has invited us to review his judgements and we have found them pretty poor.

From trying to hide Jeremiah Wright, to bitch slapping his white Grandma, to labelling middle age white women typically racist, the guy lacks basic judgment on people.

Now to attack the very voters that are going to the polls in a two weeks and labelling the bitter haters who only go to church because government hasn't provided for them...ITS JUST VERY, VERY POOR JUDGEMENT ON HIS PART.

I must have missed it, were alot of Democrats in Pennsylvania voting for Bush??

Because as I read the results, and granted I did not go to Harvard, but both Al Gore and John Kerry BEAT Bush in Pennsylvania.

The state has a Democratic Governor and Democratic Senator except for the dinosaur Republican for life Specter. There are 11 Democratic House members and only 8 Republican.

So what exactly is Obama talking about, the people he is berating aren't voting Republican, they have voted Democratic every election.

So is he saying Democratic politicians have been playing the gun, religion, hate and anti-immigrant cards???

That appears to be his implication, because Bush certainly never carried PA.

So if they are turning to their guns, their opiate religions and they hatred of people not like them...IT IS MAKING THEM VOTE DEMOCRATIC EVERY TIME.

Not only is Barack statement condescending and elitist, it is also innaccurate and given the election results, it makes no logical sense.

I agree with you, Ezra. I think some of the politic coverage have reach the same level of self-fulfilling the market shows sometimes. It's a totally virtual conversation.

A lot of blinded Obamaniacs have stated here that Obama has it exactly right, so PROVE IT!

Name for us the politicians that got voted into office in PA based on guns, the opiate religion, hatred of others and anti-immigration?

Was it Rendell? Was it Casey? Was it Gearge W Bush? NO, because he lost in PA to both Kerry and Gore.

Was it Specter? Well he's about as left wing a Republicans as you can find.

Every major city is run by Democrats, the House members are 11-8 Democratic.

So if Obama is correct as you proclaim, you must be saying all these Democrats won by running pro-gun, religious zealot, anti-immigrant, hate campaigns.

If you can't name them, then admit Obama is either a liar, or simply has no clue about the people of Pennsylvania and is ignorant.

I will ignore your insults and clarify my answer.

What I am most troubled by is the contention:
"economic anxiety manifests in cultural conservatism"

This is similar to what Obama implied. I disagree with this statement because it ignores the true causes of conservatism and it is emprically inaccurate. First economic anxiety doesn't exclusively cause conservatism in the religious, gun totting sense since otherwise the urban poor dependents should be more conservative. Do you honestly believe that if the economic situation for poly sci students weakened they would become more conservative or less? Is it so outrageous for something else (which I will admit I don't know for certain) to determine your cultural ideology other than economics. Furthermore, once this economic anxiety is alleviated does this make someone less culturally conservative? I, the Republican party, the middle class, and many others who do not suffer from economic anxiety would disagree.

I even agree that economic anxiety causes fear of immigrants and fear of trade (which was part of what Obama said). But I don't agree economic anxiety makes you care more about your family, religion and any other personal conservative principles. I only wish Ezra would have offered some support for this contentious statement other than a book whose thesis I agree with.

So what exactly is Obama talking about, the people he is berating aren't voting Republican, they have voted Democratic every election.

That's right, because no voters ever vote for Republicans in PA, PA is never a contested state, there are no Republicans in PA's congressional delegation, and at no time have political strategists described PA as "hiladelphia and Pittsburgh with Alabama in between."

Nope, no possible reason for Obama to talk about his experience in "You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest," that way.

Seriously, are you some kind of idiot that you couldn't figure out that stuff on your own?

Heh, ocasional reader here, but you yourself seem a little condescending.

It is just as important as the Bosnia flap that you covered, or the effect of Obama's soaring speeches on the audience: not only can he educate thru speeches, he can play folk psychology or sociology with some section of Americans. The latter may not be a quality in a President, and that's it all about.

Why don't you try voting for a candidate that explains away blogging when away from bloggers? And blogging is not even the same as God, trade,
religion etc

Wow, the absolute dementia of Hillary supporters is breathtaking. Nobody cares about this but you. I live in a town so small you can't find it on local maps. Nobody here is deeply insulted to the point of hatred. Hell, most of them were Republicans to start with and they still don't think this is a reason to hate Obama.

Give it a rest. Hillary lost, get the over it.

And, like I said before, thats all this is about. You people expressing your deranged anger at Obama because he beat the candidate you support. Grow up.

Name for us the politicians that got voted into office in PA based on guns, the opiate religion, hatred of others and anti-immigration?

Rick man on dog Santorum.

Can I ask why all of the pundits all over Obama on this keep saying, "and in San Francisco of all places?" Am I supposed to be reading an anti-gay snark there? If not, what's the implication?

Really, it's not damaging because it's offensive on any level. It's damaging because it offends certain media rules (Rule #1: Never say anything of substance. Rule #2: Democrats are always wrong.) and they're going to misrepresent it as punishment.

"Hillary lost, get the over it."

bwa hah hah hah!

the over?

Amanda, you are right, except that in this Democratic silly season you have two camps more than willing to play the part of the GOP when it suits them in the race. This time it happens to be Clinton, but in the past Obama. This is, at this point, my main problem with both camps. They are damaging our chances in the GE through their strategies.

I'm surprised it's even a big deal. In comparison to a lot of class prejudiced and thoroughly atavistic social liberals who attack the "conservative" social values of the white trash because it gives them a (usually undeserved) sense of their own superiority in their so-called liberal identity, Obama comes off looking positively enlightened.

But, if his comment is a problem amongst the rural poor and working class (and not just his political opponents and the punditocracy) then what Obama needs to do is connect this bitterness and hatred toward others on the part of society's losers to the Reverend Wright's own list of complaints and enemies.

Otherwise, Obama comes off looking like this sort of bitterness is okay for black people (because they're black)but not for poor whites (because they're white). This *will* make him a "liberal elite"-- because that *is* one of the things the "liberal elite" does, out of it's own sicknesses-- and Republican operatives will opportunistically have a field day and walk off with the class resentment vote again.

I know it's hard to stop doing yourselves in, but you might try.

Who the hell laughs like 'Bwa hah hah hah'. Who the fuck are you, Kefka?

jj, the point about highlighting San Francisco is the perception of it as being more liberal, and more elite-ly liberal, than the rest of the country. Obama was speaking at a high-end fundraiser there, meaning a lot of Silicon Valley money, and it doesn't help the perception of making remarks about the people not in the room.

Contra Amanda, I think there's more to it than what she suggests - I don't think Obama was wrong to say what he said... but I think it was a mistake to say, in the way he did, that bitterness and anger define and explain the kinds of choices working class voters make in elections. It's overly simplistic, and fails to credit the genuine sentiments that animate either the "social issues" or the sense of economic peril. If Democrats want to win working class voters... then they need to figure out how to win them, not how to blame these voters for making choices that don't seem like the right ones. It was amistake, because it makes strategy, not policies and proposals, the center of the debate. And I think it was the assumption that these remarks would not get out widely that was the real lack of foresight. In any case, I think it can't help in Pennsylvania, because that election has become all about whether Obama can appeal to working class voters. Whatever else, this wasn't the way to go about that.

Weboy, you think everything Obama does is a mistake. At some point, it becomes hard to really take these statements seriously.

In a week people can declare the effect of this. Trying to do so now IS Elitist and condescending. Do any of you actually think you know what it's like to be one of the people Obama was talking about? You don't. Most of you graduated from college. Most of you are upper middle class. Most of your parents were upper middle class. Yet you think you know how people are going to react to this.

You know how Ezra wrote a post a while back saying men should STFU because we'll never know what it's like to be women? Well, you all should STFU because most of you will never know what it's like to be poor. NEVER. It's just beyond your experience.

Thanks, weboy; I guess I always assumed Seattle had that claim to fame.

And no, those college years where you had to eat ramen noodles don't count. Back then you had hope and a future. Some of us never really had either, yet you expect to tell us how we're going to react to a candidate who came from very little and promises to give the rest of us a hand up too?

Go fuck yourselves. You're the elitists.

Seriously, I'm really sick of Clinton supporters saying they speak for people like me. They don't. They never can.

It's pretty clear they don't even think we exist on the internet. Hell, they probably think we all live in Trailers, watching Dane Cook specials all day while sipping our kool-aid and eating off the dollar menu at McDonalds. You don't speak for us, you've never lived like we have. You've never felt insecure. You've never gone hungry. You've never been afraid a girl would laugh at you because you drove a shitty car or because your clothes sucked. You never had to worry about guest worker programs soaking up the few service jobs that were available in your area. You never knew what it was like to grow up and know the best you could hope for is community college. You don't speak for us, and you don't know how we live or how we're going to take this shit.

Don't tell us we're fucking happy about being shit on by the rest of society. A black guy who's father ditched out on him is likely a hell of a lot more likely to understand us than some upper-class white girl from a well connected family. You all so clearly don't have a fucking clue. Hillary can go fuck herself if she thinks we're all shiny, happy people. But then, she's never given a shit about anyone but the elite no matter what her god damned campaign commercials say. I live in the area she promised to revitalize, and all she got us were wal-mart jobs and a few Rite-Aids.

"You know how Ezra wrote a post a while back saying men should STFU because we'll never know what it's like to be women? Well, you all should STFU because most of you will never know what it's like to be poor. NEVER. It's just beyond your experience."

I sure do remember that post. It's called "Historicity" or somesuch, and it's in the March archives here, and here was your response then, Soullite:

"This is moronic. this is a Democracy and anyone can say whatever they want about whoever they want. I didn't even bother reading on, after all, what does a jewish guy have to say that matters about feminism or black politics? By his own statement, he has no right to be talking about this.

Posted by: soullite | March 31, 2008 5:00 PM "

Which is it? Are we in a democracy free to say what we want or not?

Soullite, as usual, you take one comment, and leap off onto a breathtaking rant, assuming a lot of things I, for one, have not said; I think the comments were a mistake, a bit of a rookie one. I don't think it's the end of the world, or the end of his campaign. I can't - and don't - claim to speak for every working class person (by the same token don't assume; I happen to be part of that group, right now, but never mind). And yes, we shall see how it plays out. But going on a number of sources, not just you, I'd say what he said so far does not appear to be playing well. And more to the point of what I said, Obama's had a running problem, which is magnified by Pennsylvania's electorate, of appealing to working class voters. This may not fatally damage him... I'm simply saying, it probably won't help. It also can't help, I think, to continue to see this as all "us vs. them", which is where I think Obama is right - there's a "we" here and we should, really, be focusing on it. Broad brush swipes at either side - yours about rich college kids, or Obama's about bitter unemployed factory workers - don't help. That's really all I meant. And yes, I support Clinton, but I'm not some rabid Obama hater, either. Nor, as I've said before, do I feel the need to get as irate about this as you do. I'm sorry you don't like that people disagree, some of this we just see differently. I can accept that. Can you?

Weboy, BS. You're in here and on various other blogs making these kind of lame remarks all the time. So are plenty of other Hillary supporters. You may not be an 'Obama Hater', I'll give you that. You're not one of the demented Anonymous types. That doesn't change the fact that I don't think I've ever seen you have a positive thing to say about him.

As for the broader point:Can you actually say that a bunch of rich, white elitist Hillary supporters HAVEN'T been pretend to be 'common people' and labeling Obama as an elitist? Can you really say that those of us who aren't really doing so well DON'T have a reason to be pissed that these elitist DLC fucks pretend to speak for us? The later statements weren't aimed specifically at you. Thats why they were made separate from the one aimed specifically at you. They were broader points that I thought of while addressing you, but that I specifically did not want to aim just at you.

Mara, if some of you want to make actual, well thought out points then go ahead. But most of you don't. You say BS like 'Obama is a latte sipping Liberal elitist' and leave it at that. If all some guy wants to say about women is 'women are dumb bitches, who care what they think?', then by all means tell them to STFU. You may remember that I made that same argument in that comment thread as well.

But the hypocrisy goes both ways: IF you think men can never speak about women, then you MUST think that white people can never speak about black people. That rich people can never speak about poor ones. That Christians can never speak about Muslims. You all seemed to think that that's a legitimate argument to make, and when trying to explain something to people you have to use their own frames of reference. I don't really think that ALL of the elite are clueless (These candidates are all 'Elite'. They are US Senators, it's hard to get more Elite than that.). But it's clear a great many of these Hillary supporters have convinced themselves that they are 'Average people' in much the same way Tweety and friends have. They aren't, and until they understand that they will NEVER be able to understand 'common' people.

Weboy,

Far be it from me to agree with Soullite here, but you are incorrect about this situation. The fact is there were media outlets such as CNN in which the talking heads began to spin this in the positive light of what Obama actually meant. It's only with the sustained effort of Clinton, McCain, and the various talking heads bent on using the usual "Democrats are elitists" meme that we see what we are seeing. This isn't ulimately about Obama. It's about do you get that the bigger point of what's happening? Paul Rosenberg over at open left just posted this, which I think is applicable:

STEP 1 A new Drudge-dependent gossip (Ben Smith) at a new substance-free political rag (The Politico)--or some rightwing talkradio host (Rush Limbaugh) or some credibility-bereft right-wing blogger (a Michelle Malkin)--seizes on some petty, manufactured incident to fuel clichéd caricatures of Democratic candidates.

STEP 2 The old right-wing gossip (Drudge) employs his old, substance-free political rag (The Drudge Report) to amplify the inane caricatures.

STEP 3 National media outlets, such as AP and CNN, whose world is ruled by Drudge, take note of and begin "analyzing" the "political implications" of the gossip, thus transforming it into "news stories."

STEP 4 Our Serious Beltway Journalists and Political Analysts--in the Haircut Case, Tim Russert and Brian Williams and Adam Nagourney and the very serious and smart Substantive Journalists at The New Republic--mindlessly repeat all of it, thereby solidifying it as transparent conventional wisdom.

STEP 5 When called upon to justify their endless reporting over such petty and pointless Drudge-generated matters, these "journalists" cite Steps 1-4 as "proof" that "the people" care about these stories, even though the "evidence" consists of nothing other than their own flocklike chirping"

This is what happened to Gore, Kerry and Clinton when they ran. This happens to every Democrat. There is no protection against it in the way in which you mean. It's not about being rookie or seasoned- unless seasoned means not doing or saying anything unless its moves our candidate toward the right. I really wish some of you could realize the damage you are doing. It's not new at this point. Or rock science. I must assume you are just not interested.

Basically, I doubt the actual honesty of most people making these arguments. People who make stupid statements like 'Hillary is only here because she was First Lady' actually did believe them. They didn't think it through, and an argument might be able to show them why they are wrong.

Most of these people don't really think Obama hates blue collar workers. Some just hate Obama because he's beating Hillary. Others think this might actually get her the nomination (fat chance. Al Gore would be more likely to benefit from HRC knee-capping BHO than Hillary herself is), and some (okay, pretty much just Anonymous) aren't really saying 'OBama is an elitist who doesn't understand you' so much as he (she? who knows or cares) is saying 'Do you really want to risk what will happen to you if we let a black man be in charge'(those of you who think this is unfair should review some of Anonymous' other statements outside of this thread).

Like I said: Most of these people just hope this hurts Obama. Just like they hoped purgegate would hurt him. Just as they hope not bribing local politicians will hurt him. Just like they prayed Wright would hurt him, and before that Rezko. They aren't being honest, and theres a huge difference between disagreeing with people who are honestly mistaken and can be argued with and disagreeing with people who are just playing politics and who need to be told to shut the fuck up.

So the best name anyone could come up with that Obama is supposed to be talking about is Rick Santorum....which makes NO SENSE because Santorum lost tow years ago by like 20% to Casey, so the voters did not rush to the polls to elect gun-toting, religious zealot, hater Rick Santorum, just the opposite, they went to the polls and rejected him.

Nice try, Obamaniacs, but you should now admit Obama lied or has no clue about Pennsylvania voters.

When the thread becomes a pissing match between weboy, akaison, soullite, and some guy who can't even bother to pick a pseudonym, we pretty much know it's dead.

the voters did not rush to the polls to elect gun-toting, religious zealot, hater Rick Santorum,

So what you're saying is no one voted for rick santorum. How fascinating!

cling (klng)
intr.v. clung (klng), cling·ing, clings
1. To hold fast or adhere to something, as by grasping, sticking, embracing, or entwining: clung to the rope to keep from falling; fabrics that cling to the body.
2. To remain close; resist separation: We clung together in the storm.
3. To remain emotionally attached; hold on: clinging to outdated customs.
n. Botany
A clingstone.

If Obama had said people adhere to their religion they hold fast to their guns, epople would be alright with it, if he had said they resist people who would try and take their guns or faith away people would be fine with what he said, and yet they mean the exact same thing

Tyro,
making the case for anonymity one name-calling post at a time.

So, Obama is a closet Muslim who belongs to a whitey-hatin' Christian congregation and thinks that religion is bad. I'm amazed the poor guy hasn't driven himself crazy yet.

anonymous, I'd say you have no clue about lower-income voters. Rural, upstate NY is very similar to rural, central Pennsylvania. Thats besides the point though, as this is a national story and Gallup hasn't noticed any change over the last few days. Todays number are identical to yesterdays numbers and very similar to Fridays numbers. It's still too soon to tell, but I think I was right. This isn't going to hurt Obama and most people won't see what the fuss is about.

Tyro, while I'm sure you meant that to be some kind of slam, but when a comment thread anywhere becomes nothing but a pissing match between the regulars, it's pretty much dead.

Axt113: people don't have a problem with this statement. Hillary and McCain supporters do. There's a big difference, as Obama could have said 'God Bless America' and Hillary and McCain supporters would have a problem with it.

"""So what you're saying is no one voted for rick santorum. How fascinating!

Posted by: Tyro ""

No, what I'm saying is Obama has no clue about who has been elected by the voters of PA. He claimed that the voters were voting for, and thus electing people based on guns, their religious bigotry, they hatred towards others because the politicians have not been giving them a economic help or economic policies that will help them.

My point is that if you look who PA has ACTUALLY VOTED FOR, ITS BEEN ALL DEMOCRATS, FROM THE LOCAL TOWN, TO THE CITY TO THE GOVERNOR, TO THE SENATE AND FOR PRESIDENT.

So Obama could only be saying that all these Democrats have been running on hate and bigotry.

soullite rebranding himself as a champion of the poor man is priceless. Since NH he has been screaming that lower income/education voters only support Hillary because they are racists. That she had the better healthcare plan and was more liberal on economic issues didn't matter. Economics didn't exist in college boy's world.

What a lying hack you are. Putting on the po' mouth as you sit in your Cornell dorm room typing on the Macbook daddy bought you pretending to be a blue collar worker. Fuck you.

Anonymous, why don't you look at a County by County map of pennsylvania before shooting off your mouth about how PA has voted for "all democrats." You seem to be claiming that Republican-voting citizens in PA don't exist. In fact, large swaths of the state are republican-leaning, especially in the "small towns" that Sen. Obama was referring to. Dare I say it's "elitist" of you to deny that these people actually exist, when in fact they make up a significant part of the PA electorate?

Seeing Ana Marie Cox on cspan I was amazed by how dumb she seemed. She started off a question by asking "Did race play a factor (sic!) ..in accusing Dukakis of being soft on crime" and went on to congratulate the panelists for talking about race and gender. What a ditz and airhead. A reason this whole campaign is so tedious, interrupted by the occasional bombshell, is the endless blather about race and gender, race and gender, etc.

The Working Man- Rebranding myself? I'm a person, not a brand. And I've ALWAYS been a populist. I was just never stupid enough to fall for Hillary's BS. I'm one of her constituents you fucking moron, I know what she promised and I know what she failed to deliver. in 2000, I was a really big supporter of hers. I remember how she promised to give young, upstate folks like me jobs. Then I remember her working tirelessly to leave no credit card company behind.

But like I said, so many of Hillary's supporters think they know what they are talking about. Because she's beaten Obama by all of 8% in my demographic, she's supposed to be some glorious god of the working man, while they pretend NOBODY supports Obama.
Obviously, thats BS. You sound like the same people who used to support Clinton.

I went to Adirondack Community College, that great bastion of snotty elitism and endless Lattes. I work on a Dell XPS Desk machine that Daddy did actually buy me as a graduation present. He's still making payments on the damn thing. I make 18k a year. So go shove it up your ass when you act like I'm some fucking trustfund brat. I know a hell of a lot more about what I'm talking about than you do.

Yeah, I'm starving all the time so I can afford some dental work I need because I want to be. I could always ask my rich, IBEW mother or my privileged, retired enlisted-Navy dad to tap their MILLIONS of pennies to help me out. Dear god, why didn't I think of that?

I'm sorry if I actually learn about a mulititude of subjects, that I've taken plenty of courses and read a lot of books. I'm sorry that, despite my lowly birth, I have a high IQ and good research skills. I know you 'Champion of the people' Hillary supporters think thats impossible to do without going to Yale or Harvard, but it's really not. I'm sorry you think that I worked full time so I could buy books, and as a result took 4 years just to get a crappy associates degree. I didn't realize that being poor wasn't enough for you. I apparently have to be 'authentically' poor. I have to chew tobacco and strum a banjo and let swill some moonshine, or it doesn't count.

I suppose just getting dental work makes me an elitist. It's apparently not enough that I wasn't able to go to a dentist since my dad graduated from the Navy. I should just ignore the plaque build-up under my gums and the pinhole cavities in my teeth until they all rot out. After-all, thats what all the rest of us poor folk do and god forbid any of us step out of line and forget our place.

lol, retired, not graduated. Niether of my parents did that.

Mr Working Man, please provide some substantiation to the idea that Hillary Clinton is "more liberal on economic issues." Inquiring minds would like to know.

Tyro

exactly where did I turn this into a pissing match? Do me a favor, if you can prove whaty ou say- cut and paste it, or otherwise leave me out of your fights with others here.

From soullite's greatest rants compilation, "I am a Worker and Hillary is a cunt: How Mexicans and Feminazis are Destroying the Democratic Party" published by Regency and available at DKos.

No matter what you say, the only way to get new leadership in a party is to force that party's defeat. I'll actively work to that ends, even though that means voting for Republicans.

Hillary Clinton is a racist

sometimes I think we should just ban white democrats from criticizing black politicians

As far as I can tell, feminism holds men collectively responsible for rape and domestic violence. So I have no problem holding women collectively guilty for the wrongs they've committed against me. Feminism seems to be more about infantilizing women and rendering them irresponsible for every action they take than it is about equal wages, access to the best jobs, and being treated equally by society.

At this point, feminism is about little more than putting rich white women on equal footing with rich white men.

I am growing increasingly disgusted by the Democrat's captivity to the immigrant lobby. Treating Americans of spanish and native descent with respectful fairness is one thing. Importing untold numbers of cheap labor is quite another.

I'm sick of people like Ezra putting foriegners and businesses ahead of Americans. this program just rewards criminal businesses by making their illegal labor legal.

I know that the left doesn't seem to care much about that these days, but it might go a long way with Americans if you DIDN'T make them compete with mexican slave labor.

An early review of soullite's work

"Oh, and please develop a new schtick. If you're going to play the proler than thou card and deride "tapped liberals", it kind of dampens the effect when you spend your whole time visiting such haunts. Wouldn't want the effete, cosmopolitan disorders of the bougois left to taint your working class heart would ya? At the very least, if you can't develop a sticky parlor populist catchphrase or two, I would recommend just hanging out and bemoaning the mexican invasion with the other reactionaries over at VDARE."

Lmao. someones too cowardly to put their own name to what they wrote. I think you need to go back to the nuthouse. Or maybe MyDD. Pretty much the same thing at this point, though.

amazing how fast the Hillary supporters go from 'it's elitist to tell small town folks how to think' to calling them racist because we don't like guestworker/slave programs. But then, Hillary supporters are pretty much the most pathetic people on the planet at this point. Pretending to love the common man while pissing in our faces and telling us it's raining, then getting ticked when we dare smack them down. Fucking. Scum.

Seriously, are you Mara or are you FH? I'm guessing you're Fh, because Mara doesn't strike me as a sniveling, piece of shit coward like the author of that screed. Fh, however, just points a finger and screams 'SEXIST!1!' like a reject from Invasion of the Body Snatchers.

Tyro, Your argument is silly, everyone knows some people vote Republican, that was not Obamas point, he was claiming that PA was voting for and thus electing right wing/Republican due to guns, religious bigotry and hatred because Democrats weren't offering good economic plans.

THAT IS SIMPLY A LIE. And the poll results prove that PA is overwhelmingly voting for Democrats, from Gore, to Kerry, to Rendell, to Casey.
It has been voting Democrat for decades.

Your argument that some guy voted Republican is morononic because they didn't win a majority of the state. It doesn't match his argument that the people are electing candididates based on gun rights, their religious bigotries and hatred or foriegners...ITS JUST NOT HAPPENING.
So either Obama is just as ignorant of the voting results as you are, or he was intentionally lying to his San Fran buds about those stupid hick small town Pennsylvanians. He was basically sdterotyping people for his high brow west coast clientele.

All part of the big con.

"From soullite's greatest rants compilation, 'I am a Worker and Hillary is a cunt: How Mexicans and Feminazis are Destroying the Democratic Party' published by Regency and available at DKos."

Rush?

Hilarious, and I hope to buy it! I would not call the Clintons racists, because they have no core beliefs, and the belief that blacks or any minority is inferior would be, after all, a belief. However, they DO use the racism, and the fear of being called racist, of others. For instance, they tried to post minorities at the door (in high cabinet positions) of the cabinet departments they ran the most corruptly, to prevent accusation and inquiry into certain activities. Commerce dept. was an instance of this.

"the point about highlighting San Francisco is the perception of it as being more liberal, and more elite-ly liberal, than the rest of the country. Obama was speaking at a high-end fundraiser there, meaning a lot of Silicon Valley money, and it doesn't help the perception of making remarks about the people not in the room."

Obama has to constantly justify himself and his electibility. Ultimately, his electibility does depend on a portion of the white trash that elite pundits keep insisting won't vote for him, to turn around and vote for him anyway.

It almost sounds to me like this is a case of Obama defending both himself and (ironically) the white trash from a group of socially liberal elitists, who doubt his electibility with the white trash because they are class prejudiced against them. Obama caved to that prejudice while also attempting to explain it.

Sadly, social liberalism is the only thing that makes these people Democrats. The last thing a Silicon Valley global free-trading audience (you don't think they still innovate out there, do you?) wants to hear is economic arguments about why the white trash leans Republican.

Maybe that's Obama's real gaffe, here. Maybe that's why Hillary "my daughter is a hedge fund manager" Clinton is still in the race, despite her relative disadvantage in primary elections thus far.

Think about it: Obama has to justify himself when he's actually ahead? Who is it that's going along with Hillary's efforts to take him out?

Lmao, did they really say that? I didn't actually read their screed.

Apparently, that person thinks women are incapable of engaging in bad behavior and would NEVER take a males income in account when deciding when to date them. I mean, we all know that shit never happens in reality. If you want to criticize patriarchy, you don't just get to talk about men's part in perpetuating it. A lot of misogyny among lower income voters comes from a tendency of women to look at men as either workhorses or ATM machines. I'd bet anything the author of that piece makes 80-100k a year and just wants to keep her own privileges, even as she argues for the dismantling of every privilege she doesn't posses.

Out of touch, upper-class white feminists don't know shit about what it's like to be poor or the resentments it causes. Another stuck-up elitist for Hillary. Pretending to be a champion of the downtrodden and an enemy of patriarchy, but then braying like a jack-ass when someone mentions women's part on perpetuating that patriarchy and when the poor get out of line.

Come on FH, have you ever actually put any thought into your so-called feminism? The mechanism of patriarchy? The role that class oppression plays in perpetuating racism, sexism, and homophobia? No, instead you reflexively attack people for making statements like 'have you ever worried about being laughed at by a girl because your car is shit and your cloths suck.'. Can you honestly say that would never happen? Are you that convinced that women are nothing but victims that you can't see how many of them buy into the same sexist elements in our society, usually under the same guise of 'instinct and evolution or tradition' that men use to justify the worst aspects of their own behavior? These are two sides of the same coin, even if you're too blind to see that.

From what I can tell, you view feminism as a handy bludgeon to use on your enemies and a security blanket to prove that you're 'better' than other people. You've convinced yourself that all the problems in this society are the result of evil men, and not larger institutional and cultural forces. Because of that you will NEVER understand anything about the cancers that riddle our society.

Hillary's advantage with the "working class" is that they don't know know enough about Clinton I's actual record and its impact on the economy. They buy the argument constantly (and erroneously) made by the liberal punditocracy that Bush II is the sole cause of economic decline over the past 7-8 years. Horse shit. Most of Bush needed was already in place. He just made sure the rich got their super charged tax breaks.

Obama should take out the Clintons and the DLC once and for all. 10 to 1, he *is* going to be the Democratic nominee. He needs to start playing to win against Republicans. Short of out right offending socially conservative voters (he should take a lesson from this), the only card Obama has with general election swing voters is the economic card. He needs to learn it forwards and backwards and start playing it.

Frankly, a lot of the middle class wants to see that card, too. Anyone who thinks the blue collar rust belt is the only demographic concerned with global trade and outsourcing needs to go get a day job.

Obama's elistis remarks will not hurt him that much.

The real damage is that he has exposed, once again, the beliefs of the Democratic Party today.

Owning a gun is stupid
Following a religion is stupid
It's stupid to live anywhere other than a select few metropolitan areas.
The people in small towns are stupid.
Their voting record is stupid
They're a weight to be dragged into the progressive utopian future.

That's why every Democrat that wins the presidency has had to distance himself from the Democratic party in some way. Carter was protrayed as a simple peanut farmer when the reality was he was a millionaire corporate farmer sucking off subsidies. He also held a Phd. Clinton had to call himself a "New Democrat" to distance himself.

Obama's remarks lift the veil for the voters to see that he is not different after all.

Great Post Ezra

Thank you so much for saying the obvious. I get so disgusted with the "gotcha" attitude when we have so many unaddressed issues in this country.

Owning a gun is stupid
Following a religion is stupid
It's stupid to live anywhere other than a select few metropolitan areas.
The people in small towns are stupid.
Their voting record is stupid
They're a weight to be dragged into the progressive utopian future.

Can you point to the exact words in his original reply and his following defense where any of these things came out of his mouth?

Look, you're reading that quote in what I would call (in my own elitism) a Typical Bumper Sticker Liberal response to social conservatism that fails to make distinctions between the Falwells and Robertsons of the world, who use it as a wedge and hammer, and those who look to the structures of religion because it's one of the few social institutions that have proven reliable.

There are practices that come out of religious and social conservatism that should be questioned, like homophobia and strict gender role conformity, but the role of the church should be seen in various facets. On the one hand, they believe a lot of things that Obama and you may not agree with privately, but he recognizes that these rituals also have had a stabilizing and, more importantly, a community-building role. They provide service to the poor and guidance to those in crisis. They have mixers and pancake breakfasts and pot luck dinners to facilitate face to face contact with their neighbors. Beyond this community, what has proven similarly consistent and trustworthy?

Regardless of whether left-leaning people agree about the metaphysical, they are fundamentally hamstrung if they refuse to to acknowledge that religion is MORE than just "ignorant people reciting dogma whom we nevertheless must condescend to respect because they don't know any better". It's deeply formative and real and constructive. But it's also true that the aspect of "dogmatism" tends to overtake what is good about religious practice when people like Karl Rove raise the volume of the divides to the point where they overshadow the problems that people have in common and must overcome together.

Clinton and McCain and the media pander using the high-class-educated conceit that religion consists of either expendable ideas like "Jesus=Savior" or "values" like "family" writ so broad that they could be claimed by anyone; that it doesn't matter what or how people practice their faith as long as they vote (for them). If they imply that the specific substance of their faith has no real effect on national culture, then who's being elitist?

[Same line of reasoning applies to metropolitan centers, substituting "Liberalism" for religion and Rove and Falwell for, well, ill-informed Hollywood stars.]

Anonymous sez:
his argument that the people are electing candididates based on gun rights, their religious bigotries and hatred or foriegners

Uh, when did Obama ever say "electing"? How about, some voters in small towns vote for? Doesn't mean they end up on the winning side.

How about you show some proof that Obama is so wrong that you should be offended. IOW, is it false that there a lot of poor, bitter voters in small PA towns who vote social issues in part because no candidate looks like he's going to help them economically? So far, all you have shown is that Democrats usually win in Pennsylvania as a whole.

P.S. Obama's comment was dumb and elitist. But get over it. One dumb remark is probably not a secret window to his soul.

Senator Obama's remarks to a group of fat-cat donors in San Francisco are so revealing. Watching Obama campaign in PA and IN, the Senator always gives the impression that he views rural America as quaint, insular and parochial. It now appears that he further regards small-town Democrats as bitter, xenophobic, racist, gun-loving religious zealots.

I guess we can now add small-town America to a growing list of Democratic voting blocs that won't support Senator Obama. The list already included blue-collar whites, Hispanics, Jews, and Catholics of any ethnicity, and apparently, is still growing. It's simply unimaginable that Senator Obama will do well in the upcoming PA, IN, WV, and KY primaries regardless of how much television ad money he heaps on Democrats in those states...Obama is already culturally alien to those voters...his condescension simply crystalizes the opposition to him and his divisive message.

Obama supporters cannot seriously believe that Senator Obama will prevail over Senator McCain in the general election with a Democratic Party base comprised primarily of African-Americans, young people, and upper-income voters when he has attracted only about half of the Democratic primary electorate. That's simply delusional.

Wake up, Democrats...

It absolutely amazes me that more people cannot see the truth in his remarks - and it is a truth that's being shown over and over and over again in every blog, every soundbite from Hillary and McCain and every news outlet available.

Politicians drum up other "issues" to distract people from voting for their own economic interests or, because those interests have been pandered to only for votes and then forgotten after the election time and time and time again, they feel like "Why bother - It's not going to change anyway!" Numerous times I heard my late father-in-law say "I'm not going to vote because it doesn't count anyway." Basically, he was saying that nothing will ever change.

Sen. Obama did NOT - DEFINITELY NOT - disparage ANYONE's religion, right to gun ownership or label anyone as a racist. What he did was say exactly what I said in the second paragraph above - That politicians drum up other "issues" (like Candidate "X" is "elitist" or "out of touch" or "doesn't understand blah, blah, blah") to deflect voters away from the economy.

While not his usualy eloquent self (even by his own admission), Sen. Obama showed more empathy and understanding in that statement than any politician I have every seen in my 48 years. What's more, the resulting "firestorm" over those comments has been a textbook example of what he meant in full action for all to see - as long as you are looking for it. It you want to simply see Sen. Obama as a "racist, out-of-touch, liberl, elitist snob, then that is exactly what you'll see. If, on the other hand, you look at the complete "issue" in FULL CONTEXT, you will see that he is EXACTLY SPOT ON!

Talk to the police departments in Illionis about how he reached across the table to listen to, comprehend and have the ability to ask for opposing opinions from them over a bill he pushed through the Illinois State Legislature concerning the video taping of confessions from murder suspects. You will begin to understand what a different approach it truly is. He listened to their opposition, understood where they were coming from and offered acceptable compromises to those sticking points. That is a true leader - not some elitist snob!

Go Obama!

This was what Obama really want to say: You guys do not
vote for me because you are
poor and have no college education.

"No, instead you reflexively attack people for making statements like 'have you ever worried about being laughed at by a girl because your car is shit and your cloths suck."

Dude, your money troubles ain't no reason to go hating on women. Lighten up. get a better job. Or better yet, JUST DON'T CARE.

Senator Obama's remarks to a group of fat-cat donors in San Francisco are so revealing.

Yea, what he told them was for their ears only and he was not aware that he was being recorded. That's when you get the REAL Obama.

Politicians drum up other "issues" to distract people from voting for their own economic interests

Unbelievable that you don't understand that there are issues that are important to people that are not necessarily economic...like what kind of society do we want to live in? These people simply don't want their towns and cities to be little San Franciscos. Why is that so hard to understand?

Obama better go study some American history, and not the kind of marxist, black panther history he obviously subscribes to, but some actual US history. While he's busy disparaging the Clinton economic legacy he should go look at the numbers and he'll find that the US was booming from 1996-2000 because of the free trade deals. For a Proffessor, Obama has a remarkably undergraduate view and understanding of the world. Looks like it's back to back boneheads.

So let me get this straight: Obama's statement (of fact) regarding small-town America, made in the context of an argument about how these people have been left behind, and how we need to change our politics so they are not left behind any longer, is evidence of his elitism and condescension?

And how should we describe Hillary Clinton's argument that the millions (and majority) of Democratic voters who have expressed a preference for Obama should have their votes overturned by Democratic party insiders who "know better"?

What disgusts most Obama supporters about Clinton is not her gender or her policies; it is her arrogance and her willingness to do or say anything to win. The entire rationale for Clinton staying in a race she cannot win (other than by having party insiders disregard the candidate who won more pledged delegates) is predicated on elitism and condescension. Only Hillary and her supporters know what's best for the party, even if a majority of voters feel differently. THAT, more than anything Obama has said is elitist....

This is not a single incident. It cannot be analyzed as such.

People see patterns in Obama's condescending and patronizing ways. His tone, his mannerisms, his attitude. It's not easy to hide, and it's not hard to detect.

There have been way too many apologies or re-explanations to believe anything he says anymore.

It's in the frequency and in the patterns.

Some posters here would behoove themselves to cease the profanity and generally rude demeanor. It would facilitate treating them like adults, as opposed to emotionally overwrought adolescents. Then, perhaps their arguments could even be taken seriously.

Not until they behave like grown-ups, however.

Listen to what Sen Obama has said previously on this exact issue: Guns, Religion and Small Towns

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M

Obama was an atheist until he joined Trinity Church in the 1980's to gain street cred.

Obama's remarks to a private gathering of millionaires in San Francisco exposed his true belief that religion is a scam for the weak-minded masses (just like his campaign).

The notion that only the poor love guns is absurd. James Carville pointed out he has 8 guns and he is neither poor nor bitter.

The theory that people vote based on social issues rather than economic issues due to mistrust of government is still just a theory. However popular, it's not fact.

Further, what's so bad about voting based on social issues? Aren't reproductive rights, gay rights, the war, etc. social issues? When the rich vote their values against their economic interest, it's progressive. When the poor vote their values, it's delusional and they must have been fooled?

It's the problem of the Democratic Party to figure out how to reach out to these voters. You can't do that by stereotyping them.

There are several problems with Obama's statement:
1. He was not telling PA voters a hard truth. He was talking about them behind their backs where he believed these comments would not get back to them. Further, he was saying this to relatively well-off donors to get laughs.
2. Bitter. Saying it is not their fault alleviates some of the sting, but it's still not a compliment.
3. They cling to guns and religion out of bitterness. This trivializes their faith and values.
4. They cling to xenophobic and anti-immigrant sentiments. Adding that it's not those poor racists' fault that they are racists does not help.
5. They cling to anti-trade sentiment. As an excuse for why they are not voting for him, it doesn't make sense.
6. They cling to these things as a way to explain their frustrations. Because they don't know any better and can't discern the TRUE cause of their bitterness?

What Obama needs to do is to just say "I'm sorry". Not get defensive. Not try to explain it away. Not give half-apologies like "I regret if anyone was offended", because that imputes blame on the insulted party for feeling insulted.

"I'm sorry." Period.

Mr. Klein, you are a lightweigt.

It's evident that you don't quite grasp just how big of a deal the senator's comments are.

Perhaps it is due to your youth or the naive ideologies which come along with liberal thought.

If you or any of your readers would like to stop by my blog and see a common sense analysis of this very important story, you are more than welcome.

zhanghe wow goldwow power leveling

The rest of Americans who aren't old enough to be on Medicare or poor enough to be on Medicaid (which equals about 150-200 million Americans) will be locked into junk insurance, where we pay ever increasing and insufficiently regulated premiums, co-pays and drug prices only to be denied/delayed health care when we actually need it to heal our suffering and save our lives.

Your article is write very well, I like it very much ~
I wish you have a wonderful day!Thank you.

Bing is a really overlord!! support Bing~~

Your article was very well written, I am very like it, I wish you happy every day!ugg boots london soup

UGG Boots UK & Classic UGG Boots-To ensure your toes are in heaven,UGG Boots made by UGG Australia are your must-have boots.50-70% off.Free shipping.