Obama steps in it! Gives Hillary second wind?

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by 7960

cliffs: they were waiting for a reason not to vote for him, so it's really not going to hurt him because if it wasn't this it would have been something else.

To play devil's advocate, they could have potentially just sat out this election. So rattling their cage and giving them a reason to come out and vote isn't exactly in his best interests either.

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

``You go into some of these small towns....It's not surprising then 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,''

Really I don't see what is so wrong here...some people do indeed use religion, guns and anti-immigration to express their frustrations. And its the reason we are so divided in this country, our politicians on both the democratic and republican side use scapegoats to get easy votes, yet it does a disservice to helping the people.

Now we have a candidate that has honestly said that some black and white people are bitter (no pandering here) and in an awesome speech lay out the real source of our ills and how everyone, regardless of race or income, hurts and he gets blasted for it. This election I thought was going to be different, but its the same old politics, no one wants to look in the mirror, we all want the same PC crap that got us GWB in the first place...we love words, we ignore the reality.

Oh by the way "the starbucks crowd" label is insulting to people who might be well off but still care about other people - I came from a working class family and I know this - I guess we still have class warfare after all eh?

[Rouger2]

Originally Posted by Scrum

Again, what did he say that was false?

Someone who thinks that people in the rust belt are bitter are wrong? Or are they wrong to think that bitter people cling to god, guns and xenophobia?

I don't think bitter people cling to god maybe guns but not god, but like I said there is always a minority I am sure who cling to god because of bitterness.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

To play devil's advocate, they could have potentially just sat out this election. So rattling their cage and giving them a reason to come out and vote isn't exactly in his best interests either.

I don't think anyone was driven to the polls to vote against Kerry even though he eventually, just by his actions, came off as elitist

In 4 years it went from 105k to 122k...factor in normal population growth, and 9/11...and you got your reasons there

I agree with what is quoted above, but I think it's good, now people will be more truthful in polls, and when the "post nomination" bounce comes, we're much more likely to see the real numbers that we should see on election day

[RMNIXON]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

don't underestimate the republican war machine

Monday, April 14, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows John McCain leading Barack Obama, 49% to 42%. The presumptive Republican nominee also leads Hillary Clinton 47% to 43%. Daily tracking results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time (see recent general election results).

[IminWonderland]

Originally Posted by Scrum

He didn't say they went to church because they were bitter, he said they cling to god, guns or xenophobia because they are bitter.

I don't see how what he said was wrong. People who are unhappy with their economic situation usually cling to something that bring them hope or make them feel empowered.

I agree. Because I am unhappy with the econimic situation, so I am clinging to Obama becoming President.

Does this mean that I'm going to be bitter if it doesn't happen? Damn right it does.

And the reality is, that people cling to God, guns, have put their troubles onto the responsibility of other races (i.e. Jews, Blacks, Italians, Irish, and every other immigrant group that has graced our borders), or they might cling to recycling, reading, or many of the other things people do when they feel like the world is caving in, and they don't know what else to do.

And I think to misrepresent the idea that he is REALLY presenting with an assumption to interpret it at pointing the finger at middle America's stereotypes is too easy of a read of his point.

Next week I'm sure he'll say something else that he will need to restate, or worse, apologize for. And the shitty thing is that every week one of them is apologizing for saying something. Last week it was Bosnia, something about a c*nt remark, next week I'm sure it will be someone else.

[kinggovernor]

Originally Posted by David Octavius

Really I don't see what is so wrong here...some people do indeed use religion, guns and anti-immigration to express their frustrations. And its the reason we are so divided in this country, our politicians on both the democratic and republican side use scapegoats to get easy votes, yet it does a disservice to helping the people.

Now we have a candidate that has honestly said that some black and white people are bitter (no pandering here) and in an awesome speech lay out the real source of our ills and how everyone, regardless of race or income, hurts and he gets blasted for it. This election I thought was going to be different, but its the same old politics, no one wants to look in the mirror, we all want the same PC crap that got us GWB in the first place...we love words, we ignore the reality.

Oh by the way "the starbucks crowd" label is insulting to people who might be well off but still care about other people - I came from a working class family and I know this - I guess we still have class warfare after all eh?

He didn't say some people, he said "they". Imagine the firestorm if John McCain had given a similar speech about blacks in the inner-city, and he used "some of you people" in his speech.

As an idiot posting on the internet I can make fun of the "starbucks crowd" all I want, but if I was running for President I currently wouldn't mock them or question their lifestyle.

[kinggovernor]

MR. RUSSERT: James Carville, is this a real issue (Obama's statement)?

MR. CARVILLE: Yeah, I think it is at issue, and, and the other thing is just some slight historical inaccuracies in here. Jobs in Pennsylvania went up substantially under Bill Clinton. Most of these jobs were lost in, in the early '80s in fact. The gun culture has been part of Pennsylvania forever, for a long, long time. I remember "The Deer Hunter," which is one of the really great movies in 1978. I don't think that Senator Obama really understands the relationship of Pennsylvanians or Midwesterners or Southerners and, and their guns. I mean, I, I have eight guns myself. I'm hardly bitter about things.

And also that the, the people have been going to church in Pennsylvania for a long time, a really long time. I can take you to Catholic churches in Scranton where my--Governor Casey was both before and after the Quecreek coal mines flooded. But I don't know if it's devastating. I think it was a poor choice of words. I think the forum in San Francisco, like he was explaining, these people or somebody else, it was, was unfortunate and he's, he's going to have to do some more explaining about this. But his cultural history is way, way off, way off.

MR. RUSSERT: Bob Shrum.

MR. SHRUM: Well, he's not running for sociologist in chief, he's running for president. So I think he wishes he hadn't said it quite this way. I think he wishes he'd said it the same way he did the second day around.

Now, the truth is, James and I, starting 25 years ago in focus groups in Pennsylvania and polling etc., heard a lot of anger, a lot of frustration. Jobs did go up in Pennsylvania when Clinton was president, but not in places like I was born in--Connellsville, Uniontown, those small towns that have been abandoned. So there's an element of truth in what he said. But the underlying question here is whether McCain and Clinton can tag him with the term elitist, which is what they want. I mean, here's a guy who just finished paying his student loans, who was raised by a single mother and his grandparents, who doesn't know what it's like to have $100 million. So I think Senator Clinton has to be a little careful in pushing this because, frankly, she hasn't lived in the real world for 25 years; she's lived in a bubble. At a certain point I think it'll come back on her, but right now it's a blessing because it got the whole attention of the press off Bill Clinton's rewinding and replaying the tale of Tuzla, the tape that came back out of the network vaults about Mrs. Clinton's visit to Bosnia.

MR. RUSSERT: Mary Matalin.

MS. MATALIN: Well, the damage here is that what he said accurately reflects the current Democratic Party. It's more affluent. It's more liberal. That's the way it's moving. He was saying it to San Francisco Democrats, rich San Francisco Democrats, and it reflects the kind of Democrat that loses at the presidential level. In the last half century--greater than the last half century--Democrats have not won at the presidential level unless they have a centrist southern--a centrist Southerner. This is in the, in the, of the ilk of endives, Belgian endives, remember that...

MR. SHRUM: Right.

MS. MATALIN: ...in the '88 campaign? We didn't know what endives were, let alone Belgian endives. Now he's talking about arugula from Whole Foods or, with respect, the Wind Surfer, the Wind Surfer and Speedo. Those are not the kind of Democrats that Americans are going to elect. And that's what this is in the, in the tradition of. This is not--and he may be lulled into a false sense of "We can get past this," because the people he's talking to, as was the case with the Wright incident, will not react to this. But this is a general election nightmare for that candidate.

From Sunday's Meet the Press. I think James Carville hit the nail on the head, these comments offend many moderate and conservative democrats. Bob Shrum does not answer the comments but rather talks about Obama being a regular guy. Most Americans disagree, and many consider him a liberal. And then Mary Matalin goes to the heart of the issue, the democrat party is not the party of the working union members anymore. They are the party of liberal environmental elites, and that is not electable in this country.

April 13: James Carville, Bob Shrum, Mary Matalin, Mike Murphy - Meet the Press, online at MSNBC - MSNBC.com

[David Octavius]

Originally Posted by kinggovernor

He didn't say some people, he said "they". Imagine the firestorm if John McCain had given a similar speech about blacks in the inner-city, and he used "some of you people" in his speech.

As an idiot posting on the internet I can make fun of the "starbucks crowd" all I want, but if I was running for President I currently wouldn't mock them or question their lifestyle.

One - He said "some small towns" different then "they"

Two - this elitist nonsense is tiring, I want someone who is smarter than me , it is the most powerful office on the planet, it needs a person of the highest order (smart, ethical and has leadership capabilities). BTW, Leadership is contrarion in nature, good leaders have to make decisions that sometimes are not popular or politically correct but will be good for us long term, Hillary is proven to pander, Obama is not afraid to speak honestly.

Jefferson, Adams, Madison, FDR, Regan (not to say he was that smart) et all were all elitists - Regan was a hollywood one, yet people kiss their ass all the time. GWB is an elitist too for god sakes!

I rather have an elitist that makes good decisions than an "every man" that takes us down the path of uncertainty

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by RMNIXON

Monday, April 14, 2008

The Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll for Monday shows John McCain leading Barack Obama, 49% to 42%. The presumptive Republican nominee also leads Hillary Clinton 47% to 43%. Daily tracking results are updated daily at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time (see recent general election results).

We havn't even put it in gear yet, it's still idling in the driveway.

[Thorgrim]

Tank I don't know whether you are talking about McCain or Obama?

McCain because of your political leanings, but Obama because he has so many campaign advantages with his huge network and record-setting finances from 1.5 million people and growing, the vast majority of which are not tapped out...while mccain is raising peanuts

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

Tank I don't know whether you are talking about McCain or Obama?

McCain because of your political leanings, but Obama because he has so many campaign advantages with his huge network and record-setting finances from 1.5 million people and growing, the vast majority of which are not tapped out...while mccain is raising peanuts

I was referring to the entire entity of the RNC, not just McCain. McCain's campaign is going to be squeaky clean, Mr. Nice guy. It's going to be ads and grassroot campaigns funded by outside supporters that are chomping at the bit to go after Obama.

BRB, going to go forward the "Obama is Muslim" e-mail to 30 more people. "

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

I was referring to the entire entity of the RNC, not just McCain. McCain's campaign is going to be squeaky clean, Mr. Nice guy. It's going to be ads and grassroot campaigns funded by outside supporters that are chomping at the bit to go after Obama.

BRB, going to go forward the "Obama is Muslim" e-mail to 30 more people.

That was actually a great post because

Bob Dole came off as squeky clean (more so than Keating5 McCain) and he ran a well funded campaign...McCain is like him with a lot less moeny...a ALOT less

Dole outraised Clinton, Obama is going to smash McCain with finances

At the time of Clinton, email wasn't as popular, but AOL email still hit all the right middle-classers, the rest was word of mouth, and they were all about "all the people bill clinton had killed!!!" and so forth

So, it's looking like Obama is headed to at least a 10 point win

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

That was actually a great post because

Bob Dole came off as squeky clean (more so than Keating5 McCain) and he ran a well funded campaign...McCain is like him with a lot less moeny...a ALOT less

Dole outraised Clinton, Obama is going to smash McCain with finances

At the time of Clinton, email wasn't as popular, but AOL email still hit all the right middle-classers, the rest was word of mouth, and they were all about "all the people bill clinton had killed!!!" and so forth

So, it's looking like Obama is headed to at least a 10 point win

Yes, because Obama is the incumbent after a prosperous first 4 years in office. Great analogy!

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

Yes, because Obama is the incumbent after a prosperous first 4 years in office. Great analogy!

I don't remember early 1996 as being particular prosperous...but I was young...and 1993 and 1994 went very badly for him, 1995 saw the GOP pass it's new contract with america no one has really decried...

but i think it was a good analogy regardless of your comments

[TankRizzo]

Originally Posted by Thorgrim

I don't remember early 1996 as being particular prosperous...but I was young...and 1993 and 1994 went very badly for him, 1995 saw the GOP pass it's new contract with america no one has really decried...

but i think it was a good analogy regardless of your comments

What analogy? Dole ran a squeaky clean campaign and they had AOL mail? How is that even an anolgy, let alone a good analogy. The parallels are weak at best, especially considering internet usage was still in it's infancy and you were considered a geek if you used it.

Besides, I wasn't only inferring internet smear, there will be plenty more from backers not directly affiliated w/ McCain that will allow him to keep his distance from the dirt and still have the mud, a la swiftboat vets for truth.

[Thorgrim]

Originally Posted by TankRizzo

there will be plenty more from backers not directly affiliated w/ McCain that will allow him to keep his distance from the dirt and still have the mud, a la swiftboat vets for truth.

Just like Dole did in 96...

Old clean warhorse trotted out...does well in early polls...then sinks like a rock no matter how much dirt his minions throw

ive seen republicans use it as an analogy, famous ones, I think it was either the WSJ editorial board or Bob Novak

[JaJae]

Despite this, Obama is pulling away from Hillary nationally with the largest lead of the year 51-40 according to the latest Rasmussen polls. And he's within 5 points in PA. If Hillary doesn't get an obscene blow out in PA none of this will matter. Hillary hasn't received a second wind from this, but McCain has. Hillary seems like she is going to keep pushing at this "bitter" issue despite it seeming to fail at her speeches (she was booed), which isn't helping her at all, but it does seem to be helping McCain. I think that's what's going for at this point anyway to be honest. She knows she can't finish with the popular vote or the delegate count and her idea of "big states" has been considered absurd by all super delegates. Her last ditch effort is to persuade the super delegates that she has a better chance of defeating McCain at any cost, even if it means she loses even worse to Obama. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out. It's definitely interesting politics. Hillary has the dirtiest campaigning strategy I think I've ever seen in a presidential primary. I don't think it'll work, but it will be interesting to see how it pans out for the national election and where it puts Obama and McCain. I think if Hillary stays in and keeps this kind of campaign running through the summer and Obama ends up losing to McCain, Hillary would get the blame.