Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

"Bitter-gate": Where Do We Go Now?

Critical mass has been reached. "Bitter" and "cling" will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that "Tuzla" and "the laugh" will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race.

The important question -- in the immortal words of W. Axl Rose (an Indiana native) -- is where do we go now? The story is everywhere -- television, talk radio, the Web -- for a fourth straight day and it seems extremely unlikely that it will go away before the two Democrats debate on Wednesday night in Philadelphia.

But, amid the talk-a-thon that Obama's comments -- suggesting that many small town voters cling to their religion and guns because of bitterness about their economic hardships -- have set off, one has to begin to contemplate what the story will look like in a week or even a month's time.

Broadly, the story can go one of two ways: it can disappear and join thousands of other blips on the campaign radar screen to date or it can persist and become a larger narrative about the problems with Obama's message ala Clinton and the driver's license issue earlier this year.

Below we outline the major developments that could drive the story down one path or the other. Did we miss anything? If so, leave your own thoughts in the comments section below.

* Ads: This is one of the few elements that will determine the direction of the controversy that is within the control of the candidates. Obama went up with his first post-bitter spot yesterday -- an ad featuring Sen. Bob Casey Jr. (D) in which the junior Senator from Pennsylvania makes only oblique reference to the controversy. "Barack Obama knows Pennsylvania is hurting," says Casey. "He can unite America and bring change."

Clinton, on the other hand, took the issue head on with an ad that went up last night.

Not only does the ad repeat the questionable quote but it also features Pennsylvanians condemning it not Clinton. "The good people of Pennsylvania deserve a lot better than what Barack Obama said," says one man; "Hillary does understand the citizens of Pennsylvania better," a woman insists.

What's clear from the first two ads after the initial thrust and parry over the bitter comments is that Clinton is going to do everything in her power to make sure every voter in the state has heard Obama's remarks before the primary next Tuesday. Does Obama respond -- a strategy that could escalate the debate over what he said? And does Clinton take this ad to Indiana and North Carolina?

* Polls: Polling holds the key to understanding which direction this story is headed. Everyone in the political world is waiting expectantly for some good data from states --Pennsylvania, Indiana and North Carolina in particular -- and national polls that ask voters what their impressions were of Obama's words. (Quinnipiac University will be out with Pennsylvania numbers tomorrow although it's not clear how much of the poll was in the field prior to Obama's comments were made public.) Until then, the political class and punditry (including, sigh, the Fix) is flying blind.

If a series of polls come out in Pennsylvania that show Clinton with a far wider lead over Obama than she enjoyed the last few weeks, it will further drive the idea that this is a seminal moment in the campaign and questions will start to be asked about whether the Illinois Senator can weather the storm.

On the other hand, if polls come out in the next week that show little (or no) movement in Pennsylvania and elsewhere, all of this will quickly be relegated to the dustbin of history as much sound and fury signifying nothing.

* Superdelegates: For the last two months or so, there has been a story circulating just outside of the public view that there are a large number of superdelegates who are privately committed to Obama and waiting for the right moment to pledge their allegiance. Do Obama's comments freeze these superdelegates in their current undecided pose? Or, more problematic for his campaign, do some significant number of undecided superdelegates side with Clinton -- citing Obama's comments as their prime reason for choosing the New York senator?

The Clinton campaign is circulating an Associated Press story that notes that Yellowstone County (Mont.) Commissioner Bill Kennedy has endorsed the New York senator after hearing Obama's remarks to a group of donors in San Francisco. (Kennedy IS NOT a superdelegate; the three Montana superdelegates that have endorsed have all chosen Obama.)

* Pennsylvania: Heading into last weekend, as the controversy was festering, the general consensus was that Obama was closing the gap with Clinton in the Keystone State. If Obama loses by a significantly wider margin in next Tuesday's Pennsylvania primary, it will almost certainly be ascribed to his ill-advised San Francisco comments. That's because of Pennsylvania's considerable blue-collar population, many of whom live in small communities dotted across the central part of the state.

If that scenario comes to pass, Pennsylvania could be the domino that triggers a broader problem for Obama. A blowout loss in the state could provide Clinton a bounce headed into Indiana (a must-win for her) and North Carolina two weeks later.

* The Pope: Pope Benedict XVI arrives in the United States today -- spending three days in Washington before heading to New York City. The arrival, the procession from the airport and the Thursday mass at Nationals Park are red meat for daytime cable television. The more attention the Pope gets, the less time cable television will have to devote to Obama. There are VERY few things that can crowd out a story of this magnitude in the presidential race, but a papal visit happens to be one of them. If Obama winds up emerging relatively unscathed from this current controversy, he may just owe the former Joseph Ratzinger a solid thank-you.

* X-Factors: In a story drawing this much media attention, there are bound to be side stories that crop up that could -- if played right -- turn into main stories and take away time and attention from the initial comments. Case in point: Rep. Geoff Davis (R) telling a group of Kentucky Republicans that he recently participated in a national security simulation with Obama: "I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country." (Hat tip: Ben Smith.)

That comment could -- and we emphasize could -- turn Obama into a sympathetic figure in the eyes of many Democrats who might otherwise have been offended by what the Illinois senator had to say. There is no quicker way to rally the Democratic base around a candidate than for that candidate to come under attack from Republicans. If those sorts of remarks persist, the story could drastically turn in Obama's favor.

By Chris Cillizza  |  April 15, 2008; 7:00 AM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: 'TamCam:' Obama and the Olympics
Next: Branding McCain: Straight Talker or Bush Clone?

Comments

"Bitter-Gate is right up there with Allen's Macaca, the Dean Scream and Kerry's windsurfing, faux-hunting, and "I voted for it before I voted against it" campaign moments.

Like the others, Obama has been exposed and defined by his own words and actions. Should Obama get the nod, will hear of Bitter-Gate from now until both the election and Obama are over and done. "

actually, if we're smart, we'll be hearing a lot more about mccain's upcoming century of war. how much more "bitter" is everyone going to be when the US death toll in iraq hits 10,000 under mccain? 20,000? 50,000? can we all grow up, please?

Posted by: mike | April 17, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Invalid accusations:
--------(I am a Ron Paul independent.)----------
1) Obama is elitist.
He used "cling" instead of "vote for".
Spinsters are miliking it to death and leading us middle class white folks to 4 more years of slow torture.
2) He thinks he is entitled:

Hillary DID NOT seem to think (a) Florida or Michigan need to be considered, or (b) she needed to campaign beyond first few states .
This explains why: she happily signed the agreement with DNC to exclude MI/FL, was not prepared in many states. Moreover, she attacks like the people she criticizes. Every state there is "new" Hillary with a new story.
He is out best shot..

Posted by: Independent | April 17, 2008 12:06 AM | Report abuse

It's funny how the ObamaBots still refuse to face the truth that their candidate has put the final nail into his chances at winning in Nov. And he can't blame this on anyone else.

Posted by: NOtoOBAMA | April 16, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

And by the way - the "John McCain is a true stud and he's exactly what this country needs as its Commander-In-Chief" comment in the post above my previous one was the perfect example of moronic commentary to go along with vapid media coverage of unimportant trivialities.

Yeah - we need to vote in a warmongering "stud" whose foreign policy views are in lockstep with George Bush's to keep us safe. Never mind that the NIE has said that the Iraq War has actually made us less safe. Or that it is bankrupting the US into spiraling recession.

Isn't being 72 and being a "stud" an oxymoron anyway?

If you're masculinity is so suspect that your vote hinges on whether or not the candidate is a "stud," stay home and read another issue of Maxim or something. Spare the rest of us your vote...

Posted by: edsbowlingshoe | April 16, 2008 4:31 PM | Report abuse

"Bittergate."
This is so profoundly stupid, it boggles my mind....
If you're not bitter after 8 years of Bush recklessly warmongering, torturing, violating the Constitution, racking up record deficits, destroying the US's reputation around the world - and the Republican Congress's rabid support of said idiotic ideas - you're either ignorant or apathetic.

Regarding "elitism" - McCain is married to a woman worth tens (if not hundreds) of millions. Clinton has made over $100 million since leaving office. They are millionaires running for President, for god's sake - not $40,000 a year postal workers trying to catch the bus - they are elitist by default.

Can someone give us some real political discourse that isn't so vapidly idiotic?

How about another article on how Bush and his cabinet are complicit in a torture regime which should get Bush impeached and his cabinet brought up in front of the Hague on war crimes charges?

Posted by: edsbowlingshoe | April 16, 2008 4:25 PM | Report abuse

There are two reasons I won't vote for Barack Obama in the Fall, and neither one is because I see him as being "elitist":

1) John McCain is a true stud and he's exactly what this country needs as its Commander-In-Chief. He sees the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. He understands what needs to be done to defeat our enemies and keep our citizens safe and he won't shrink from doing it.

2) Barack Obama is, at heart, a dyed-in-the-wool leftist. The people with whom he has associated in his life (Wright, Ayers, etc.), as well as his voting record in the U.S. Senate, tell me what his true beliefs are, no matter how many soothing and sweeping speeches about "change" and "hope" he gives. Talk is cheap. Actions are what matter. And by his actions, Barack Obama has proven that he is nobody I want anywhere near the Oval Office.

Posted by: Dan R. | April 16, 2008 3:36 PM | Report abuse

CC: have you got the picture yet?

Though partisanship and bias is how you village scribes like to view (and dismiss) your readers criticisms, most of us sincerely think you are just plain cloistered, out-of-touch, petty Heathers who act like a bunch a middle schoolers (MoDo?) with the same critical thinking skills as middle schoolers.

Posted by: Morris | April 16, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

So, Chris, are you sensing a little hostility in these comments to you and your work? Seems that a lot of people here (and elsewhere in the U.S.) see the news corpse as shallow, McCain-sucking ("More donuts, senator?") corporate toadies whose "journalism" is helping to demolish the country. Think maybe you're part of the problem?

Posted by: NoOneYouKnow | April 16, 2008 1:20 PM | Report abuse

Please don't call Springsteen unfaithful or unpatriotic. He is just fed up with Hillary like most of us.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit." -- Rock star Bruce Springsteen, in a letter in which he endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday.

Posted by: Patriot | April 16, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

NANCY J CRICHTON
Amen. The established political SUCKING machines on either sides don't like an everyday American rooted in FAITH. He will bring power back to people.

He has to fight 2 republicans who can land on the same ticket.

Posted by: American | April 16, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Look at her record. "Teenager" vow you got real INSIDE information.
____________________________________________
Don't be ridiculous. Claire McCaskill was a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama because her 16 year old threatened not to talk to her. That's what we need, somebody who can't stand up to a teenager..

Posted by: rjv | April 15, 2008 8:07 PM

Posted by: Claire is better | April 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Lee Giabenelli posted today at 8:01 about the "elitist."

Lee, I couldn't agree with you more. You hit the nail on the head. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. Hillary just doesn't get it. She has always had the attitude that 'this election is mine, I'm entitled to it.' She has repeatedly said that she is the one qualified to hit the ground running her first day in the White House. My question is: What on earth is she so qualified for??? She has not contributed or passed any significant legislation since being in the Senate and she sure as heck did nothing while she was Bill Clinton's First Lady - except make a lot of people upset and agitated. She did absolutely nothing for health care and I don't feel she has the first idea of what needs to be done in the health care field, which is one I work in every day.

I believe that Mr. Obama is a fresh breeze of air. He speaks as though he is really talking and not giving a speech that has been approved by a number of 'handlers.' I am really fed up with the spin that has been put on his remarks from time to time by the news media. Thanks just my opinion.

Posted by: NANCY J CRICHTON | April 16, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

We are blaming media not Hillary. I am an independent thank you. "Obamabot" interesting....
_______________________________________

To all the Obamabots out there...
Stop blaming Clinton for something that Obama said.

Posted by: Independent | April 16, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

It seems the press is going to insist upon a re-play of the 2000 election.

God help us all.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 16, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

Bitter, hell! I'm mad! And I'm not gonna take it any more! Chris, you've only added to the press' fascination with The Things That Are Not Important To The Exclusion of Things That Are. And I'm sick of it. We want the media to focus on Real Life issues: the wanton, wasteful war in Iraq; the economy (it IS the economy, stupid!); the fact that almost 50M Americans lack health insurance; the recession we're in. I want more on those issues--the Real Issues. Otherwise, who needs you, Chris?

Posted by: granby01 | April 16, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

Oh, and that hick from Kentucky needs to be put out to pasture like Trent Lott and the rest of the haters of his ilk. Boy, indeed. Kentucky

Posted by: sentheru | April 16, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

What. The. Hell. Man?!? You've really got nothing better on the campaign trail to write about than this?

But its not just you, Mr. Cillizza. Its this campaign journalism mindset. Its this idea that the television media can set the pace for the presidential election, and drag print along with it. Why would the WaPo slurp up a stepped-on lugi? That's all this story is at this point ...

I thought the press was supposed to give a voice to the people. (I'm a professional journalist myself.) Perhaps you should meditate on several ways to go and do that ... Then go and do that.

Or, you know, sitting in an overflow media corral at some candidate's stop off in LittleTown, Somewhere, listening to the same speech you've heard three dozen times, sucking up to the same campaign manager every day, showing how eager you are for some facetime with the candidate though you're continually rejected until finally you begin to question your existence as you beg for the Public Officials to drop a nugget of nonsense into your mouth ... So instead you find yourself drinking with the same schleps every other night, just at a different bar in a different town.

Yeah, that's the life, right? Who needs the people, anyway? Gosh, the campaign is just so exciting.

In that case, here's a scoop: candidate rolls up sleeves in poor town, rolls them down and buttons up as soon as s/he's returned to bus. Opponent accuses the candidate of being "stiff," causing flap over potential sexual innuendo. Here with an expert analysis is Robert Novak and Newt Gingrich, to tell you why it is okay that our families are dying and our money is gone.

Yay press. -_-'

Posted by: Stephen C. Webster | April 16, 2008 5:50 AM | Report abuse

Has anyone looked at the context of what Obama said...it's ironic that he gets asked about why so many blue collar PA voters aren't supporting him (with a hint that it's because of race) and he defends PA voters by saying it's economic frustration with Washington in general and not race. Now he's being called elitist and taken out of context. Obama said voters are bitter with Washington, Get your facts straight before you fuel this debate!

Posted by: tel | April 16, 2008 2:57 AM | Report abuse

Don't be ridiculous. Claire McCaskill was a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama because her 16 year old threatened not to talk to her. That's what we need, somebody who can't stand up to a teenager..

Posted by: rjv | April 16, 2008 2:55 AM | Report abuse

To all the Obamabots out there...

Stop blaming Clinton for something that Obama said.

Now to the point concerning bitter-gate...

Again it needs to be put into context.
Everyone knows that there are people all across this country who are bitter for various reasons. But that is not the point. We don't need to be lectured about that-- we know it exists. The point that offends most people is that Obama claims that he has solutions for these folks but they are just too stupid to see it. Now on its surface, this isn't necessarily wrong or offensive in any way--for who would find fault with a person who had the ability to do just that--solve these people's economic problems. But again if you look at the statement in it's context then you get a clearer picture of what Obama is trying to say.

The most egregious thing he said was that people don't vote for him but rather cling to their religion. Well guess what Obama-- most folks in this country who are real believers wont trade their God for your solutions EVER. If it's a choice of putting their faith in their God or putting their faith in a politician that they know very little about- I'll let the reader make their own conclusion of who they will rely on--Get it. They think God will do a better job in their lives than you can do with all your government.

Second offensive thing he said was implying that all these folks who are not voting for him are doing this out of the fact that they are racist--in Obama's eyes how can it be anything else--what an elitist and insulting thing to say to people he doesn't even know. He knows less about these people than they know of him! The insult is actually breathtaking in this day and age.

Third problem with his statement is that he presumes that going out and hunting and buying guns is just something a less educated person would do--how can anyone vote for a person who seems so out of touch with average Americans? This is the people's second amendment rights and they don't buy guns cause they are bitter senator--it's part of some people's tradition-- if he spent more time in rural American and less time in elitist San Fransico perhaps he would have learned this fact by now

Bottom line -- just because someone doesn't vote for you doesn't mean that it has to be their fault--nothing in the discourse was ever uttered that hinted at Obama not being part of the problem why he isn't resonating with them, therefore it implies that they must be stupid--talk about being self centered.

THIS IS CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN??????????

Posted by: Dennis | April 16, 2008 1:20 AM | Report abuse

Do you media types REALLY think most Americans care about this story at all? Is there some reason that Clinton's and Obama's sniping -- which seems like nothing more than sibling rivalry, frankly -- is considered newsworthy? Surely their accomplishments as Senators are more important to voters than a few stray words.

Please... give Americans some credit. The Presidential election is not a high school popularity contest -- stop treating it that way. Many of us would actually like to have a competent individual in the office.

Posted by: Lisa T | April 16, 2008 1:09 AM | Report abuse

Witness puts Obama at Rezko reception


Published: April 15, 2008

Prosecution witness said presidential candidate Barack Obama was at a party in Illinois held by Tony Rezko, an Obama fundraiser on trial for corruption.

The witness, Stuart Levine, testifying at Rezko's Chicago trial Monday, said the party in Willimett was arranged to lure businessman Nadhmi Auci into investing in a Illinois real estate venture. The Chicago Tribune described Auchi as an Iraqi-born businessman living in London who was convicted of fraud in France.

Levine said Obama and his wife, Michelle, put in an appearance at the party.

A spokesman for Obama's campaign told the Trib Tuesday that the Democratic candidate didn't recall the event or ever meeting Auchi.

Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with his relationship with Rezko.

The Chicago Sun-Times said Rezko's dealings with Auchi contributed to the revocation of Rezko's bail. Prosecutors alleged that Auchi had wired an unreported $3.5 million to Rezko for controlling interest in a plot of land in Chicago.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/15/witness_puts_obama_at_rezko_reception/2599/

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by: Rezkogate | April 16, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

Witness puts Obama at Rezko reception


Published: April 15, 2008

A prosecution witness said presidential candidate Barack Obama was at a party in Illinois held by Tony Rezko, an Obama fundraiser on trial for corruption.

The witness, Stuart Levine, testifying at Rezko's Chicago trial Monday, said the party in Willimett was arranged to lure businessman Nadhmi Auci into investing in a Illinois real estate venture. The Chicago Tribune described Auchi as an Iraqi-born businessman living in London who was convicted of fraud in France.

Levine said Obama and his wife, Michelle, put in an appearance at the party.

A spokesman for Obama's campaign told the Trib Tuesday that the Democratic candidate didn't recall the event or ever meeting Auchi.

Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with his relationship with Rezko.

The Chicago Sun-Times said Rezko's dealings with Auchi contributed to the revocation of Rezko's bail. Prosecutors alleged that Auchi had wired an unreported $3.5 million to Rezko for controlling interest in a plot of land in Chicago.


© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Posted by: Rezkogate | April 16, 2008 12:04 AM | Report abuse

How can two presidential candidates be treated so differently? For the past week Senator Barack Obama has been thrusted with Hillary's razor sharp tongue.

Although we all,with reasonable intelligence, knows what she's up to. She's keeping alive Barack poor choice of words and want everyone to forget her repeated pattern of lying.. Oh, I mean misspoken words.

She's been on this rampage stating that America doesn't need a president who looks down on them. Hello! America doesn't need a president who regulary lies to them with no conscious or not enough remorse to explain or simply tell the truth.

Read this article about Bill Clinton's words and see if they sound similar to you..Clinton & Obama's Speech Very Similar

How can she honestly reprimand Obama for his statement, and her husband is guilty of the same.

What happen to equality?
Why has the media averted or failed to report indepth on this story?

After Bill Clinton made this statement, he went on to be president. Is this fair?
Hillary is a hypocrite and her husband is out of touch!


Posted by: Gwen | April 15, 2008 11:37 PM | Report abuse

How can two presidential candidates be treated so differently? For the past week Senator Barack Obama has been thrusted with Hillary's razor sharp tongue.

Although we all,with reasonable intelligence, knows what she's up to. She's keeping alive Barack poor choice of words and want everyone to forget her repeated pattern of lying.. Oh, I mean misspoken words.

She's been on this rampage stating that America doesn't need a president who looks down on them. Hello! America doesn't need a president who regulary lies to them with no conscious or not enough remorse to explain or simply tell the truth.

Read this article about Bill Clinton's words and see if they sound similar to you..Clinton & Obama's Speech Very Similar

How can she honestly reprimand Obama for his statement, and her husband is guilty of the same.

What happen to equality?
Why has the media averted or failed to report indepth on this story?

After Bill Clinton made this statement, he went on to be president. Is this fair?
Hillary is a hypocrite and her husband is out of touch!


Posted by: Gwen | April 15, 2008 11:28 PM | Report abuse

Bill Clinton was asking for five or ten dollars for Hillary because she was being outspent 5 to 1 in PA. Excuse me Mr 109 million!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Givemeabreak | April 15, 2008 10:41 PM | Report abuse

It is the business of hacks like Cillizza to blow things out of proportion. How else is he to make a living? Why bother listening to them? Is it some sort of perverse pleasure in running after every controversy no matter how phony?

Posted by: Jeff | April 15, 2008 9:48 PM | Report abuse

"If those sorts of remarks persist, the story could drastically turn in Obama's favor." - Already has, as polls show; Clinton is facing a party-identity crisis of which she isn't yet aware - and knowing her arrogance, she never will be - namely, most Democrats are now waking up to the sickening realization that she is a Republican who adopted the Democratic party because she thought she could use its liberal base to get herself elected (since the Republicans weren't electing any woman president any time soon). Ideologically, she's a NeoCon, and a traitor to her party - nobody wants her any more; she's unelectable this year, unelectable this lifetime. She should be kicked out, or politely asked to admit her Republican affiliation, so we can get on with the real election here.

Posted by: Emmanuel Winner | April 15, 2008 9:47 PM | Report abuse

Why shouldn't Senator Obama be judged based on his own words or actions? This was no slip of the tongue, "poor choice of words" accident. This is the true Barack Obama showing.

Okay, the Clintons amassed a total of $109 million dollars over the last six or seven years. Wow, what a shock, a former president and first lady, both of whom have written vastly popular books and are famous, hard-working politicians, have made that much money. People need to get over this fact. How much money does Obama have? I'm sure he's not living in the poorhouse himself. He IS elitist. Does that mean Senator Clinton isn't? No, not necessarily. But just the fact that Obama got so defensive over being called elitist shows that he has something to hide. If that statement didn't mean anything to him, and it was as stupid and immature as he's trying to make it sound, couldn't he just be the bigger person and rise above it? Nope, because he's just as bad as he paints Senator Clinton to be.

At least with Hillary we know what we're getting. Does she lie? Yes, as do all politicians, INCLUDING Senator Obama. But at least we know what we're getting with her; we know what skeletons she has in the closet. How can we give someone the Democratic nomination, and possibly the presidency, when we really know little to nothing about him? Does that sound like a good idea to anybody?

I'd vote McCain before I voted Obama.

Posted by: Drew | April 15, 2008 9:38 PM | Report abuse

pj4521 claims: "Fact: Republican candiates win elections by convincing people to vote against their best interests by using gay marriage and the right to own guns."

FACT: And Democrat candidates win elections by convincing wealthy liberals to vote against their best interest by voting for Democrats who will then raise taxes on them and on all other wealthy people.

Don't you get it? YOU upscale liberals are willing to vote against YOUR economic best interest for the hot button issues YOU care about. YOU would GLADLY vote for a candidate who would RAISE your taxes but END the Iraq War immediately, yes?

Yet you seem to think there is something wrong when others vote on moral grounds rather than economic ones.

It's OK for YOU to factor morality (like the morality of war or the morality of allowing global warming to occur in 20 years) into YOUR voting. But it's not OK for anyone else to factor THEIR moral concerns (abortion, gun rights) into THEIR voting.

That's hypocrisy of the highest order.

Posted by: sinz52 | April 15, 2008 9:32 PM | Report abuse

I am Australian interested in the US presidential election, for I believe that it vital for your country to replace that "tin-pot Ghengis Khan from Crawford, Texas" with someone who understands, and can practise[oz spelling] in office the traits of honesty, integrity and compassion.
However, the furore that has arisen over Obama's "bitter" remark emphasises[ibid] all that is wrong with the political process everywhere.
The point is that Obama has made a correct psychological assessment of human response the world over to ordinary people being put in the position of being denied any level of control over their lives. It is the basis of all the causes of terrorism.
And don't believe that it could not happen on a large scale in your country.
It can happen anywhere.
So, the answer is to fix the human rights problems whatever they are and wherever they arise, and not argue over whether the expression of the idea is or is not perfect.

Posted by: Ron Tuckwell | April 15, 2008 9:28 PM | Report abuse

I have two "thought experiments" for all the antiwar liberals who are blogging here:

1. If folks in the heartland are being "misled" into voting against their economic interest and voting on "hot button" issues like abortion instead, then are wealthy liberals also being "misled" to vote for antibusiness antiwar liberals who will raise their taxes but end the Iraq War? Aren't wealthy liberals prepared to vote against THEIR economic best interest in the name of THEIR hot button issues (Iraq, global warming, etc.)?

2. If economics is really what matters, and the folks in the heartland would abandon their "backward" embrace of religion and guns if they had improved economic status, then would antiwar activists do the same?

Would Code Pink agree to abandon their opposition to the Iraq War if the GOP offered them a million dollars? How about ten million dollars? How about offering to give a scholarship to each child of each Code Pink member, if they will agree to abandon their opposition to the Iraq War? No?

And if peace activists won't sell out their antiwar principles for money, then why is it wrong for heartland folks to refuse to sell out their gun rights and stand on religion for a health care program or other Democrat party promises?

It sure seems to me that liberals believe that only THEY are principled enough to refuse to sell out their most cherished principles for money or a politician's promise of handouts or subsidies.

Posted by: sinz52 | April 15, 2008 9:26 PM | Report abuse

Don't be ridiculous. Claire McCaskill was a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama because her 16 year old threatened not to talk to her. That's what we need, somebody who can't stand up to a teenager..

Posted by: rjv | April 15, 2008 8:07 PM | Report abuse

"Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy. "

A senior fellow at the HOOVER INSTITUTE, in other words just to the right of Atilla the Hun.... Also, funny how he derides ultraleft San Francisco, seeing as the Hoover Institute is based at Stanford University, about a 20 min drive south. And I don't think anyone's really trying to "clarify" Rev Wright's remarks, but let's not let facts get in the way of his partisan diatribe, maybe someone thinks posting his credentials will give legitimacy to this completely substance-free hit piece.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 7:43 PM | Report abuse

This is a non-story, period. Won't affect Obama after a week.

Wright will be problematic in the general. But this is totally a media-created problem. And the most recent polls (after remarks went public) show no movement. Even the lapel pin (or lack of one) is more of a liability than this.

Posted by: John in PA | April 15, 2008 7:02 PM | Report abuse

Chris, there are post-bittergate polls already out:

PA primary
Clinton + 20 (ARG)
Clinton + 14 (SurveyUSA)

IN Primary
Clinton +16 (SurveyUSA)

Posted by: Ernie | April 15, 2008 6:58 PM | Report abuse

This would have been a non-story if Clinton had chosen to ignore it. Because she decided to bring it up and put her own spin on it (e.g., the elitism), the media have reported it as truth. I think it may be Obama's turn to cry, "the media is SO mean to me!" and perhaps have a sketch on SNL. Now Clinton is broadcasting her version as fact all over Pennsylvania with her ad. Of course, Obama has too much tact and grace to stoop to her level, so he won't respond with an equally nasty ad or whine about how unfairly he's treated. I have no problem with Clinton's policies, but I would be appalled to have a Democratic president who employs so many of the same strategies employed by our current president for the past eight years.

Posted by: kater | April 15, 2008 6:47 PM | Report abuse

A Living Lie
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie.
That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.


Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.


Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

Posted by: msb | April 15, 2008 6:24 PM | Report abuse

CORRECTION:
Bill Kennedy did not endorse Clinton after Obama's "bitter" remark. He chose to endorse her on April 5, and he had been leaning towards her for months before that. See the link below.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/15/montana-pol-clinton-endorsement-preceded-obama-cling-flap/

Posted by: William Burdett | April 15, 2008 6:21 PM | Report abuse

actually the agreement references campaigning in Fla and Michigan. And you missed my comment that neither the dnc or Dean objected to their revote. The ONLY objection came from the Obama campaign. "Anyone invokng Fla/Mi is basically splitting the democatic party"? Is that some kind of threat? i.e.if you raise Fla and Michigan and we lose its your fault? Seems like the same bullying tactic we have heard from yours side for months. Just shut up and get in line. Lets see how that strategy serves you in the fall.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 6:18 PM | Report abuse

First, Hillary is so out of touch that she DID NOT seem to think (a) Florida or Michigan need to be considered, or (b) she needed to campaign beyond first few states. She acted as though she was entitled to democratic nomination.

This explains why: she happily signed the agreement with DNC to exclude MI/FL, was not prepared in many states, and she attacks like the people she criticizes.

Secondly, Obama seem to at least apologize even for small things. Hillary's name calling from the beginning, "man of just words", "get real" have never been apologized for. He to me comes across like down to earth everyday American. I have not seen any "elitism".

Anyone invoking MI/FL is basically trying split democratic party and make it a laughing stock. If you do not keep your party rules that you SIGNED in ink. Don't expect independents to vote for you.

Posted by: Average Joe White guy | April 15, 2008 6:10 PM | Report abuse

shut up. What an absolutely grow up response. Holier than thou are words you and your campaign have promoted. What chutpah.
Apparently the only opinions that count here are the amens to the Obama posts.Don't ever question or challenge an Obama post. By now we have gotten the drill.

Posted by: Leihtman | April 15, 2008 6:04 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman -

In keeping with my earlier post, no substantive response. Just stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

And shut up. I've read enough of your holier-than-thou, know-it-all pro-HRC spin.

And you say I'M drinking koolaid.

Posted by: jac13 | April 15, 2008 5:58 PM | Report abuse

Obama was standing before a crowd of upscale left coast liberals, people who had maxed out their contribution to his campaign of $4600 and were sitting at this couple of thousand dollar-a-plate dinner... so that they could contribute even MORE of their money to his campaign.... in San Francisco... and he was explaining another group of very far less well off Americans TO them... like a sociology professor would explain the behavior of some far off indigenous tribe of people to a classroom of well off university students.

He's saying to these left coast liberals who already look down their noses at the ignorance of people not like them, that these Pennsylvanians and Midwesterners have GOOD reason for being the God and Guns, anti-immigration xenophobic bigots that they are.

Thanks a lot, Senator. With friends like you...

http://jammerbirdi.wordpress.com/

Posted by: jammerbirdi | April 15, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

my point marie is that IF Sen Obama is till the nominee and expects t win my vote and potentially 13 million other HC spporters, the way he treats the voters in Fla will be closely looked upon, and the longer he lets that anger linger the worst it will be for him in the general election. So he shafts Fla at his own peril.

good night

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

What I am enjoying about this campaign (if there is anything to be enjoyed at all) is watching the media come to realize that they are no longer the power brokers and king makers they have always been. The internet and youtube has reduced their effectiveness in this regard, because candidates can get info directly to voters without having to beg and cater to the big news and media organizations. At the same time, the internet allows a candidate to raise millions of dollars without going in the bag to major donors and corporations.

That kid with the video camera who captured that "Macaca" moment that led to the defeat of Allen in VA revolutionized politics in this country. Now we can look at this primary race and polls show that voters are no longer responding to the old-fashioned TV attacks that swiftboated John Kerry. In years to come, people will look back on this election as a "watershed" in politics.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 5:57 PM | Report abuse

oh jac how you try to persuade yourself. I fully agree with you sir, if that makes your day. Your bar is that HC will either lose Pa or only win by 2-3% and will lose Indiana. You do understand that there are polls nw showing by 14 ad 0% leads in Pa and by16% in Indiana. ButI don't want to ruin your day or destry your delusions. In fact one of your supporters even posted that the SF statements will help Sen Obama n Pa and Indiana. You are way beyond the kool aid test you are in total lala land, but please lets not get in the way of stpping in it. Sen Obama WILL win in both Pa and Indiana and you got it right here from jac13. Incidentally have you made an calls into Pa for your candidate. I have now made close to 100 calls and spoen with half of thm a lare number who have told me they are stubborny undecided and they don't share your sentiments about HC but you are the boss so we need to pay attention to your predictions b/c you and your followers as always MUST be right.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 5:53 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

Unfortunately, what you are saying is that no matter what the result, people are going to be angry. How very sad. I hope that you are wrong, for all of our sakes, because otherwise we are going to have another long four years.

Have a good night, I'm outta here!

Posted by: Marie | April 15, 2008 5:51 PM | Report abuse

the only rule about Fla and Michigan were that neither would campaign there.In fct the dnc and Howard Dean said that he would hav absolutely no objection to a revote as long as the dnc didnt foot the bill. At no time did he ever tell either campaign you can't revote and I challenge you to show oterwise.

It is my sentiment that if neither are seated 2 hings wil happen: 1. Very few HC supporters, me included, will ever view Sen Obama's nomination as legitimate. Whther you agree with the sentiment or not from the HC volunteers I have spoken with that is the general sentiment. 2. It is unlikey that Sen Obama willthenhave any chanc to carry Fla in the general election and that bitterness like the one you suggested from genY voters about HC, may cement Fla as a Rep state for generations. Fla has a largel elderly and Jewish base of voters who already do not generally like or trust Sn Obama. imho especially with Fla if they are not seated or at least viewed as ben treated fairly, Sen Obama may win the nominatin bu at a very large cost to him and this country in the general election. Do so and do so at his peril. Incidentally polling shows Sen Obama behnd Sen McCain by double digit numbers, wonder why? As for Michigan I doubt that Sen McCain's message will sell there regardless.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 5:42 PM | Report abuse

Here's something fresh to chew on:

"WASHINGTON -- With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid -- even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll [released 5:00 EDT April 15] has found.

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

The race remains volatile, however, because many likely voters in the Democratic primaries are still undecided -- 12% in Pennsylvania, 19% in Indiana and 17% in North Carolina.

The telephone interviews took place Thursday through Monday, meaning the bulk were conducted just as controversy broke out over an Obama remark widely criticized as demeaning rural voters in Pennsylvania. He suggested that for some residents of small towns, their commitment to gun rights, religious faith and hostility toward foreign trade had its roots in their "bitterness" about economic hardships.

No poll question was asked specifically about the comment.

However, voters were asked about another controversy that has dogged the candidate in recent weeks: racially incendiary comments made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., the now-retired pastor of Obama's church in Chicago. The furor prodded Obama to deliver a major speech on racial relations in America last month.

In Pennsylvania, the flap seems to have marginally helped Obama more than hurt him: 24% said his handling of the issue made them think more highly of him; 15% said it made them think less highly of him; 58% said it made no difference in their views.

Looking ahead to the general election, many Democrats -- including some Clinton backers -- appear to have concluded that Obama might be in a better position to defeat McCain. In Indiana, for instance, 37% said they thought Obama would fare better against McCain in November, compared to 18% who said Clinton was more likely to beat the Republican.

"I would prefer Clinton, but Obama has less baggage to throw darts at," said Eric Beiz, a realtor in Indianapolis. "She is going to have a tough time."

Clinton also suffers from being seen as less admirable than Obama. Even in Pennsylvania, 47% of Democrats said he had more honesty and integrity, compared to 26% who thought that of Clinton.

"She doesn't tell the truth a lot," said Brannon Crace, a store manager in Frankfurt, Ind. "We've already been through the Clinton era."

Posted by: jac13 | April 15, 2008 5:37 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton completely fabricated a story about landing at an air strip under sniper fire. Obama put his foot in his mouth calling small town folks bitter. One is an outright lie, the other is simply a poor choice of words and yet the media is giving them each equal credence.

policythought.blogspot.com

Posted by: policythought | April 15, 2008 5:27 PM | Report abuse

This issue is already passing, and will get completely killed by thursday. It may have cost Obama a few points, but more likely he simply lost voters he was never going to win anyway.

policythought.blogspot.com

Posted by: policythought | April 15, 2008 5:22 PM | Report abuse

It's deja vu all over again. The latest tempest in a teapot has been stoked into the earth shattering controversy that will finally allow the Clinton campaign to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

But didn't this just happen three weeks ago with Rev. Wright?

Yet despite round the clock MSM coverage, the nation has given a collective yawn. Gallup has Obama growing his lead over Clinton. Yesterday was the first day it was at 11 pts.

It seems interminable, but we know the end is near. In the next three weeks we have the three key contests that will likely put an end to all of this chorus of doom for Obama.

For review, Obama is up 27 states to Clinton's 13. He will take NC, and will in all likelihood take OR, SD and MT. Clinton will take PA, WV and KY and most likely IN.

So Clinton's final momentum will be a 4 to 4 draw, giving her a grand total of 17 states to his 31.

Obama's up 164 pledged delegates. Clinton's up 26 supers, a whopping 138 delegate gap.

With 158 pledged delegates, PA is Clinton's last major opportunity. To make a meaningful impact in her 138 delegate deficit, and prevent SC from wiping it out, she will need to pick up or 40 more delegates.

Based on polls, what appears far more likely is that Clinton will wind up with a delegate lead similar to her Ohio victory, (11) one that will make no serious dent Obama's 138 delegate lead.

What is also likely is that whatever she picks up will be wiped out two weeks later in NC. In all probability, when the pledged delegates in PA, NC and IN are tallied, Clinton will have, at best, a gain of single digits.

Another instance of deja vu. 6 weeks ago we had the so-called "firewall" of Texas and Ohio which netted Clinton 6 delegates.

Knowing the mathematical improbability of winning pledged delegates, the Clinton campaign now focuses on the 322 uncommitted supers. Depending on how successful Clinton is with the remaining pledged delegates, she needs anywhere from 65% to 80%.

Unfortunately, since mid-February, supers have been going for Obama three to one.

So to reverse Obama's momentum, Clinton has seized on bittergate, attempting to prove to the supers yet again that Obama is damaged goods and can't possibly win in November. And her campaign obviously believes that this strategy will enable her to pick up the 70% of the remaining supers she needs to win.

Party leaders have been cautious to date, issuing vague pronouncements that having supers overturning the will of the people (through their pledged delegates) just might not be the best idea. (And these party leaders themselves are supers, and probably have quite a bit of influence on many uncommitted supers.)

In her play for the supers, Clinton has not advertized the obstacles she faces. First, not all supers are the same.

Let's take Add-ons, for example. There's 69 remaining, mostly one or two per state. To date, 100% of committed add-ons are supporting the candidate that won their state. And despite Clinton's remarkable persuasion skills, she is unlikely to influence many add-ons since most will be chosen in part because of who they support. In states that Obama won, it is unlikely that Clinton supporters will be selected as add-ons.

Another big block of uncommitted supers are Congressional Representatives, (77 of 253 non-Add-on Supers).

Clinton has a big task ahead trying to persuade the many Reps in Congressional districts that voted for Obama, especially those in states that go for Obama.

To appreciate how difficult this task will be,, consider (of completed primaries) the two states with the largest contingents of uncommitted Representatives: CA and OH. Clinton won both states but clearly is having trouble gaining commitments. In Ohio, Clinton has gained endorsements of only 1 of 6 Representatives. In CA, she has gained endorsements of 16 reps, Obama has 7, but there are still 11 uncommitted reps remaining. If she were making her case, and they are in a state that she won, it would seem that she should have been able to do better with the undecideds.

Another challenge for Clinton will be with the 18 uncommitted senators. 12 come from states Obama won (or will win).

There are 8 Governors and 6 Distinguished party leaders that are still uncommitted, not exactly a big swing block.

That leaves 146 DNC members. Half are from states Obama won and half from Clinton states. I wonder how many think enough of these DNC members are going to be willing to overturn the will of the people in their states. We'll have a better feeling in 3 weeks how this looks, but I forecast that after we have a few more super announcements and the pledged delegate results, that Clinton would have to get 85% of this group to win.

Instead, what we find is that Clinton is having the same difficulty with DNC members that she is having with other super groups. Take OH, which she won. Obama has support from 4 DNC members, but Clinton has an endorsement of only 1. And 4 remain uncommitted. It's worth repeating the question above. If Clinton can't close the deal in the states she has won, how will she be able to make serious inroads in the states she lost.

Overall, the picture is very bleak. 50% of the 322 uncommitted supers are in states that Obama either won or will win (NC, OR, SD, MT). It's very difficult to imagine Clinton picking up half of these supers, while maintaining near 100% of remaining supers in states she won.

I think that many will view this whole "bittergate" nontroversy as the final nail in the coffin. Clinton's real problem with the supers is that she has chosen to stake out right wing positions in trying to paint Obama as elitist and out-of-touch, just as she did with her contention that he is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

And for many of us, it is hard to imagine that this is going to be helpful in her quest for the overwhelming super delegate support she needs to win.

As many have known for a long time, despite Clinton's (and her supporters) denials, she lost this election a long time ago. Obama beat her 13 states to 9 on Super Tuesday, and within 2 weeks, picked up an additional 8 straight. And he's beaten her 4 to 2 since. He's beat her by insurmountable margins in states won, pledged delegates and money raised. Even Obama's popular vote is near insurmountable.

But the ever upbeat Clinton campaign hasn't lost faith yet. They have been painting some mighty fine lipstick on this pig.

Yes the next three weeks before NC and IN will be painful, as the campaign goes through the various stages of mourning. But that sound we hear in the background is the fat lady warming up to sing.

Patrick Bradish.

Posted by: PatrickBradish | April 15, 2008 5:19 PM | Report abuse

""Bitter" and "cling" will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that "Tuzla" and "the laugh" will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race."

And Fred Hiatt's semen will always glisten on Chris Cilizza's lips whenever GOP shills get together to distract the voters from serious issues. Really, sir, you are beneath contempt and your employers are accessories to war crimes.

Posted by: SomeNYGuy | April 15, 2008 5:08 PM | Report abuse

This is great stuff, Chris, but for me, at least, the harping on Obama's words about Rust Belt victims' feelings is now becoming tedious and wearisome.

Where are we politically with respect to trade policy as such?

Is the Pope's visit going to carry any implications for ending our ruinous war on Iraq?

Posted by: First Mouse | April 15, 2008 4:57 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

May I take from your remarks that you believe that Senator Clinton's campaign should immediately cease complaining that not counting the Florida and Michigan results is unfair? After all, those were the rules that everyone agreed to, including Senator Clinton.

Posted by: Marie | April 15, 2008 4:55 PM | Report abuse

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Posted Tomorrow!

Check Back Weekly For Updates!

Posted by: votenic | April 15, 2008 4:40 PM | Report abuse

marie from what I have read the suprdelegates were in response to Gary Hart who was on the verge of defeating Mondale until the Donna Rice incident. Don't recall the specifics but it is my belief that Hart had won lot of primaries and the dnc feared hisnomination after Rice would have destroyed the party. That didn't work out so well. It may hav also been a reaction to the 1980 primary battle b/w Carter and Kennedy where Kennedy refused to endorse and which Carter still complais about. Its much like the caucus system. Its flawed but its an integral part of the system which Obama signed onto just like HC. Since she is told not to complain about the flawed caucu system it seems ironic to hear hs side constantly complain about superdelegates r attempt to rewrite the rulesby which they were created. Bill Cinton aparentlywon te nominationin 1992 late in June likely with the hel of superdeegates.

Asfor the SEIU CN claims they were he one'sat the HC vent cusung the disruption and that is hy I poste the question. I would neer imagine as a campaign worker asking my volunteers togo ver to an Obaa event and be disruptive. But they were reportedly uion reps doing their own childish Nixonian pranks who should not be pointed out by the Obama supporters as honorable practices somehow representing HC suppoter' seniments. That is why I asked that question.

But I don't view the superdelegate constant complaining any more justified then complaining about the broken caucus system. Both complaints are euqlly irrelevant.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 4:39 PM | Report abuse

Never mind that Obama's comments are 100% true and can accurately describe the "not wealthy" in every society that has ever lived on this planet.

Nonetheless, how about we all GROW THE F--- UP and start focusing on real problems ... such as cleaning up the stink of the media and forcing them to start reporting actual news instead of allowing talking heads with fake smiles to create news out of cherry-picked sound bytes.

We are not the greatest country on the planet and it is high time that people started to realize that this insane childishness will NOT reestablish the respect we believe we are entitled to.

Posted by: Paulb16 | April 15, 2008 4:35 PM | Report abuse

Great dedcuctions from our Cilizza.

---------------------------------------
* The Pope: If Obama winds up emerging relatively unscathed from this current controversy, he may just owe the former Joseph Ratzinger a solid thank-you.
-------------------------------------------
VOW.
8 years of Bush.
Hillary.
Job-loss, depression, out sourcing, govenrmental neglect, war etc.
I suspect might also contribute.

Posted by: Am I The Only One | April 15, 2008 4:21 PM | Report abuse

GMT
Cillizza and GOP: what can you expect?

Posted by: Average Joe White guy | April 15, 2008 4:05 PM | Report abuse

What the @#!(*&^ are you talking about?? Do you actually think there is somebody on the planet who cares how Hillary Clinton laughs? Or how much more Romney spends on his hair than Edwards? THE UNITED STATES IS TORTURING PEOPLE TO DEATH. Please get a job.

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

Posted by: jw | April 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

kreuz, no problem with privacy, from me.

They have the brochures and have talked to someone in the natural science department. I only wondered if you had any first hand knowledge of the program.

Thanks for replying.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 4:03 PM | Report abuse

Who is this frivolous fop and why does he have a job as a journalist? Audiences are groaning out loud when Clinton pulls this nonsense, but apparently that's enough to make "bittergate" a watershed moment? To whom?

What a fool.
.

Posted by: GMT | April 15, 2008 4:02 PM | Report abuse

"It will hurt Obama in the general election. Not just in PA, but in places like Ohio, Virgina, and Michigan. And he needs at least 3 of these 4 states, if not all of them, in order to beat McCain"

This thing barely has the legs to make it through to next Tuesday (if then), if Republicans are really counting on this, or Wright, to overcome a huge recession, Iraq, and everything else wrong with both them and theic candidate, they're truly delusional. Obama still beats McCain in Michigan, and pulls even with him in Ohio and close in Virginia right now, even before the head-to-head matchup begins (not to mention leads in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico while holding all the other blue states). Good luck, you're gonna need it.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:45 PM

Yes its true, if only we could end this primary!! We got to start the fight now. Not this "Bitter" b.s. Hillary please get out.

See anti McCain video. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/15/out-of-touch-first-major-anti-mccain-ad-airs-tomorrow/

Posted by: gws | April 15, 2008 3:50 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile,
Right on.
All GOP can do is pray for Hillary nomination. If not McCain/Hillary is another option.

Posted by: Common Sense | April 15, 2008 3:49 PM | Report abuse

Most things on Lake Nastywater look like mud, you'll need to be more specific. I'm not familiar with that program at Angelo State, but have only been here a short time myself. For the most part, it seems like a decent school and the programs are good for a lower echelon state school, I can get you more info if you're interested. (and I prefer to keep what I do to myself, sorry).

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:48 PM | Report abuse

"It will hurt Obama in the general election. Not just in PA, but in places like Ohio, Virgina, and Michigan. And he needs at least 3 of these 4 states, if not all of them, in order to beat McCain"

This thing barely has the legs to make it through to next Tuesday (if then), if Republicans are really counting on this, or Wright, to overcome a huge recession, Iraq, and everything else wrong with both them and theic candidate, they're truly delusional. Obama still beats McCain in Michigan, and pulls even with him in Ohio and close in Virginia right now, even before the head-to-head matchup begins (not to mention leads in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico while holding all the other blue states). Good luck, you're gonna need it.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Sweet Jesus. This is a huge story because journalists are lazy and people are stupid.

Posted by: lowellfield | April 15, 2008 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:33 PM

Thanks for the info.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

Kreuz, Do you live on Lake Nasworthy? What do you do in San Angelo?

There was a dentist, long dead, named Harold Jackson, who built a house out of what looked like mud on Lake Nasworthy. I was in it a couple of times. He kept his ammo in a sack made from a deer's scrotum. Drove a '62 Karmann Ghia and wore a tam-o-shanter. A real character. He was near deaf and 80 when I knew him. Conversations went like: "Dr. Jackson, do you want a coke?" "A GOAT? WHAT DO I WANT WITH A GOAT?"

My secretary's youngest daughter is considering Animal Science at Angelo. What do you know about it?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 3:42 PM | Report abuse

RTDmd,
You are missing all republicans who are sleeping (pro Romney, Paul etc.). If Hillary gets nominated they will come out of graves and vote against her. Just look at Texas all the Limbaugh people voted for Hillary and destroyed democratic party.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 3:41 PM | Report abuse

"We show no movement since this nontroversy began. The question is when columnists and bloggers will move on."

Its probably not that big a deal during if you think the democratic primary is all that matters in life. Democrats are, by and large, elitist themselves.

It will hurt Obama in the general election. Not just in PA, but in places like Ohio, Virgina, and Michigan. And he needs at least 3 of these 4 states, if not all of them, in order to beat McCain

Posted by: I is for independent | April 15, 2008 3:40 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

I disagree with anyone who says "get out of the party." Totally out of line. And, I would be upset to be told that. Like you, I am still angry about the last 2 elections.

As for Florida and Michigan, I wish that the Democratic Party had followed the example of the Republicans and allotted Florida and Michigan at least half of their original delegates, and permitted the primaries to go forward on that basis. In that way, Florida and Michigan would not now be in issue.

Also, you ask why these first-timers' votes should be given greater weight than yours. They shouldn't. But neither should your vote be given greater weight than theirs. That's what one man one vote is all about. That's why the Super Delegate System can be so volatile because suddenly certain individuals are "more equal than equals in the barnyard." I'm hoping after this election, our Party examines our nominating process and makes a few tweaks (to say the least!).

Finally, I feel compelled to remark on your comment, "I just can't agree that those voters who have let us down so many times should now now be given special treatment-preference by superdelegates?" I don't think we are talking about special treatment for those who have not participated until now. In my opnion, if the Super Delegates choose to ignore the voters, that would be uniquely "special treatment."

Nevertheless, I am prepared to be educated, can you please tell me if there has been a time since the Party began having this Super Delegate System when the Supers have elected to contradict the Pledged Delegates, and thereby to switch the eventual nominee?

By the way, SEIU supports Senator Obama.

Posted by: Marie | April 15, 2008 3:39 PM | Report abuse

kreuz_missile
Thanks for the context.
However, hate mongerers and GOP will not scavenge it to death. This is how some make living.

Americans will see through them...

Posted by: Hardworking American | April 15, 2008 3:35 PM | Report abuse

People have made up their minds, the polls may change 2-3 points, but the basic story stands -- 4/5ths of the contests remain, and the nominee is chosen.

I actually think this could backfire for clinton since she sounds like mccain and the democrats may look at what obama actually said and agree with it.

If the approval rating for bush is 30%, you gotta believe there is a whole lot of buyers remorse from 2004 for voting with the intangibles of flags, God, and guns instead of their economic interests. Didn't we all agree Bush was the one best to have a beer with. Perhaps we need an intellectual (or an "elitist") in the vein of FDR, what's wrong with that?

Posted by: dood | April 15, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Karol-

That's nonsense. Obama is the frontrunner in the primaries, and has been for 2 months. DESPITE all the negativity on the democratic side, MCain has only been able to essentially pull even in the (essentially meaningless) polls. Obama is clearly the front runner for the general election. Obama will get 98% of these so-called small town voters who currently lean toward Clinton, whereas Hillary will go into the general with a deficit of those younger and african-american voters who won't show up at the polls UNLESS Obama is the candidate. Obama probably brings 2-5% points into the election. McCain and Hillary probably leave 1-4% at home. It's Obama's electability that has gotten him where his frontrunner status.

Posted by: RTDmd | April 15, 2008 3:34 PM | Report abuse

Let's look at the full response (to the question from the audience), and someone please point out how he's not showing empathy for, and understanding of, the issues at hand here, and how he's somehow talking about the community as a whole, not specifically the poltical attitudes of the communities and voting patters. For bonus points, please show me where he's "making fun of" hard working Americans:

"OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing."

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

"Obama felt comfortable with a group of invited wealthy donors to demean and make fun of hard working families who live in small town America - the heart of this great country."

And now Karol wins the prize for the greatest possible distortion of the actual facts of the matter. Offend, maybe depending on how you interpret the remarks. Make fun of and demean? Crazy.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:25 PM

FOX TALKING POINTS VERSION 2.O

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 3:32 PM | Report abuse

t is delusional to believe that Obama can win a general election. There are millions of proud, hard working voters in small town America and they will never vote for a man who talks down to them.

Posted by: Karol | April 15, 2008 3:21 PM

Oh boo hooo !!! Poor baby got her feelings hurt. Grow up.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 3:26 PM | Report abuse

"Obama felt comfortable with a group of invited wealthy donors to demean and make fun of hard working families who live in small town America - the heart of this great country."

And now Karol wins the prize for the greatest possible distortion of the actual facts of the matter. Offend, maybe depending on how you interpret the remarks. Make fun of and demean? Crazy.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:25 PM | Report abuse

i dont understand the logic of this scandal either. I want a president that thinks they're better than me. I'm sick and tired of this egotistical desire from so many Americans to have a prez that likes what they do and is just like them. Screw that, give me the best and brightest.

Posted by: cokane | April 15, 2008 3:22 PM | Report abuse

Obama felt comfortable with a group of invited wealthy donors to demean and make fun of hard working families who live in small town America - the heart of this great country.

Voters need a president who truly understands the serious problems facing them today - not an arrogant, head tipped upward man who looks down on them.

It is delusional to believe that Obama can win a general election. There are millions of proud, hard working voters in small town America and they will never vote for a man who talks down to them.

Posted by: Karol | April 15, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

So some Americans are offended. Boo hoo. Get over it. I loved watching Sean Hannity last night. He said "Obama is saying that small town Americans are stupid and racist and cling to guns and religion". He and others are just fanning the fire to keep this going to get folks angry and vote for Hillary so we can prolong the campaign into the convention and Granpa wins the general election. Suckers

Posted by: gws | April 15, 2008 3:21 PM | Report abuse

"accommodate new and mostly uunreliable genY voters who because of their laziness in 04 gave us Alito and 4 more years of W. I am still angry that these same voters who refused to come in significant numbers at the Aurora College campus and places like Ohio State are now saying look at me and do exactly as we demand.."

See, you didn't learn your lesson. You ignored young voters, stuck us with Kerry as a nominee, and we didn't show up. If the Democratic elites push their candidate on us, this time AGAINST the will of the primary process, it will be political suicide in the fall. The supers know that, they ain't buying your weak arguments for Hillary.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/15/clinton-backer-trailing-candidates-should-drop-out-by-june-3/#comments

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:19 PM | Report abuse

Remember these all were Bill Clinton fans. They are just disgusted by Hillary. Hillary's problems come from herself and not from: race, being female or anything else. In fact without Bill who would care about Hillary.

If you want a competent woman for dems go for Claire McCaskill she will get my vote and win the election without sweat.

Posted by: ObamaBatsMyth | April 15, 2008 3:18 PM | Report abuse

Donald W. Bales-

Michelle Obama is not anti-white, and you shouldn't post statements like that unless you have something credible to base that on. Also, Obama may not have made his comments out of 'admiration' but it sure sounds like he made them out of empathy. And as far as Harvard and Colombia are concerned, didn't he get to those schools on his own merits as opposed to family connections or wealth. Neither of the Obama's came from wealthy/elitist backgrounds or were privileged as you seem to imply.

Think about it this way: Would you call your own children 'elitist' if, by virtue of their own hard work and intelligence, they decided to attend Harvard, Yale, etc.?

Ridiculous. Completely ridiculous.

Posted by: SDDC | April 15, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

"If the effect is a hit on Obama via the vote next week in Pennsylvania I cannot imagine how if he is the eventual Dem. candidate that his bitter-gate will not haunt him and the democratic party, he'll get locked into the position of check mate, and super delagates"

Maybe because, you know, 35 contests have already been held, the votes of PA don't matter any more than those voters and delegates do, and BTW, those voters weren't just mindless fools voting without seriously examining the issues and candidates themselves?? Even Clinton supporter Barney Frank came out today saying that whoever is behind in the delegate race on 3 June should end their campaign and concede. Since it's almost mathematically impossible for Hillary to overtake Obama (she'd need to win over 60% of the remaining delegates, meaning closer to 70% of the popular vote), I think the Supers have had their say, and this little dust up isn't going anywhere (Ed Rendell, PA gov and ardent Clinton supporter, also noted he doesn't think it will affect next week's vote by more than a couple points and will be irrelevant by November, even implying he thinks Obama will still be the nominee...). The race is over, it's just a matter of counting the final ballots to make it absolutely clear for Hillary and her die-hards at this point.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

marie we can agree to disagree but I just don t buy your arguments that superdelegates should simply ignore their independent judgment, select who they feel would make the best Pres and best general election candidate to accommodate new and mostly uunreliable genY voters who because of their laziness in 04 gave us Alito and 4 more years of W. I am still angry that these same voters who refused to come in significant numbers at the Aurora College campus and places like Ohio State are now saying look at me and do exactly as we demand and the hell with boomers and the elderly voters in Fla who's votes will not be counted and now their sperdelegates should apparently ignore their voices because it might hurt our newest and least reliable supporters. Marie a poster actually said that older voters an boomers who support HC shouuld just leave the party because they are not welcpme. And you wonder why so many HC supporters are upset? Its a generational struggle but I just can t agree that those voters who have let us down so many times should now now be given special treatment-preference by superdelegates? And why should their voices be given greater weight then many in my generation who in 30 years have never missed voting and working our asses off for Dems?

'What's funny is Hillary Clinton getting Booed for trying to exploit this non-situation.'

This is now the fifth time this story has been posted. CNN has already broadcast tthat those were selfdesribed SEIU member. Is it funny for you to keep posting that nonsense and will the poster please disclose which candidate the SEIU supports.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 3:15 PM | Report abuse

I can't believe Mr. Cillizza gets paid to write this nothing-rubbish. Get a real job. Or I dunno, leave your computer for a minute and go out and do some real investigation or research. You know, journalism?

Posted by: cokane | April 15, 2008 3:12 PM | Report abuse

"Firstly Sen.Barack Obama must learn how to respect women. He is vehemently attaking Sen. Hillary Clinton, she is a wife, a mother and a woman."

Wait, women in politics are immune from criticism??? To treat her as a viable opponent is to disrespect women? Wow, that's all I can say...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:10 PM | Report abuse

To get a good idea of the real consequence of this Obama blunder you need to set aside your opinion of it and realize what is in fact happening.

It is a media feeding frenzy that is focusing laser like attention on the question of Obama's until now blameless candidacy.

It is making the question of who the democratic candidate should be for an actual win very prominent in everyone's mind.

More people will tune in and listen closer to Hillary who is prime for the audience and Obama who is defending his comments and lecturing his audiences on the audacity of anyone seeing it different than he does.

There will be a resultant effect to all of this and more, regardless of our personal opinions.

If the effect is a hit on Obama via the vote next week in Pennsylvania I cannot imagine how if he is the eventual Dem. candidate that his bitter-gate will not haunt him and the democratic party, he'll get locked into the position of check mate, and super delagates
will doubtfully collectively think the connotations of that possibility is just no big deal.

We'll see after we move out of this period of mystery.

Posted by: Leea | April 15, 2008 3:09 PM | Report abuse

"He's basically stereotyped small town white people. I'm not white or from a small town, but I can see why it would be offensive."

So, for you guys, what's more offensive: saying this line once off the cuff and then repeatedly apologizing and clarifying the remarks (which most people find acceptable in the clarified form), or trying to identify with you thinking dringking beeer, shooting Canadian Whiskey, and talking about shooting as a child (while disregarding a life pushing some of the strongest gun control measures proposed in this country) thinking that these moves will win over your vote?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:08 PM | Report abuse

The last month of this campaign has really soured me on Hillary. She has been nothing but negative and I don't think she realizes how she has already killed herself for the general election. If she had taken the high road on these little dustups that have occurred along the way, my opinion of her would be much more favorable at this point. But she attacks the silliest things and then won't let it go. She had an opportunity with this primary season to show people her likable side (because I think she was unfairly tagged with being unlikable entering the primaries), but she blew it. I don't think she's tough, or tenacious, or committed, I think she's increasingly being seen by democratic voters as desperate, petty, and shamefully opportunistic.

Posted by: MaryAnn65 | April 15, 2008 3:06 PM | Report abuse

Firstly Sen.Barack Obama must learn how to respect women. He is vehemently attaking Sen. Hillary Clinton, she is a wife, a mother and a woman. Sen.Hillary Clinton has the courage to fight for what is morally right in setting the course to reaffirm our greatness as a a God-honoring nation and people, she has a vision and wisdom to execute the duties of her office with responsibility and know how to lead our country and people.!!!!

Posted by: Akber A. Kassam. | April 15, 2008 3:02 PM

GIVE ME A BREAK. ANNE OAKLEY IS A TRIP.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 3:04 PM | Report abuse


I think the Obama "bitterness elitism" controversy is a sympton underlying a more sinister problem for the democrats. There are a lot of white male blue collar democrats who will not vote for a black candidate. These democrat voters may be numerous in the large industrial states that democrats must win to be elected. This may be the reason that Obama has not won primaries in these states. If this trend is strong it could mean that Obama is not electable.

This is not to say that Hillary is electable. There is also a strong bias against women amongst white male blue collar democrats. Perhaps the party should look to a more "traditional" dark horse electable nominee who could snatch the nomination much as Lincoln did in 1860?

Posted by: MurrayN | April 15, 2008 3:00 PM

Yeah, like a 72 year old fart with a trophy wife.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

Firstly Sen.Barack Obama must learn how to respect women. He is vehemently attaking Sen. Hillary Clinton, she is a wife, a mother and a woman. Sen.Hillary Clinton has the courage to fight for what is morally right in setting the course to reaffirm our greatness as a a God-honoring nation and people, she has a vision and wisdom to execute the duties of her office with responsibility and know how to lead our country and people.!!!!

Posted by: Akber A. Kassam. | April 15, 2008 3:02 PM | Report abuse

I think the Obama "bitterness elitism" controversy is a sympton underlying a more sinister problem for the democrats. There are a lot of white male blue collar democrats who will not vote for a black candidate. These democrat voters may be numerous in the large industrial states that democrats must win to be elected. This may be the reason that Obama has not won primaries in these states. If this trend is strong it could mean that Obama is not electable.

This is not to say that Hillary is electable. There is also a strong bias against women amongst white male blue collar democrats. Perhaps the party should look to a more "traditional" dark horse electable nominee who could snatch the nomination much as Lincoln did in 1860?

Posted by: MurrayN | April 15, 2008 3:00 PM | Report abuse

The Hillary commercial is disgusting. At least one of the people in the commercial is a known local actor, so they probably all are. No one I know up here, even my gun-toting, church-goin friends thinks that Obama's comments were offensive. Hillary is the one who is going to come out of this looking worse. And I think that's a shame because if she had run a positive campaign I would have possibly voted for her.

Posted by: JhB | April 15, 2008 2:58 PM | Report abuse

lyle -

In all seriousness, so I can weigh your comments, how is that you talk to people "all across the country?" What do you do or where do you go that you have access to such a wide sample of opinion?

Just asking.

Posted by: jac13 | April 15, 2008 2:55 PM | Report abuse

Lylepink, you should look at actual polls before asserting the electability argument. In state to state races, Clinton only runs significantly ahead of Obama in Florida, and she still loses by about 6! Meanwhile Obama outperforms her in Michigan, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and numerous other sites, in most cases he's running ahead of McCain (including all of those I mentioned above, NONE of whihc, including Michigan, Clinton leads). No one who has actually looked at the numbers buys that electability argument, especially with Hillary's negative ratings. Look up some of the polls here yourself:

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php

National average of recent polls:

McCain 45.4, Obama 44.1
McCain 46.4, Clinton 43.3

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 2:50 PM | Report abuse

What doesnt kill you makes you stronger

Posted by: nclwtk | April 15, 2008 2:49 PM | Report abuse

Here I had been thinking that Columbia and Harvard Law School were both elitist institutions. But they must not be since Barack ("Barry is not a suitable name for a brother") Hussein Obama went there and he is not one of the elite. His remarks about the people in small towns in Pennsylvania were not disparaging, they were said in admiration. He and his wife are poor and have been for a long time. And she is not at all anti-white.

Posted by: Donald W. Bales | April 15, 2008 2:48 PM | Report abuse

Well, here in small town PA, we don't like being told by Hillary Clinton how to take someone else's comments. I hunt and I go to church, but I know exactly what Obama was talking about, and I didn't find it elitist or condescending at all. It sounds like he actually understands what alot of people are going through, and he's not just trying to make politics out of everything. He really seems like he wants to do everything he can to get this country on the right track, but Hillary Clinton and John McCain just want to be president.

Posted by: TomArl | April 15, 2008 2:46 PM | Report abuse

Finn said:

"Why is this man being denounced for pointing out that people often vote against their own economic interests? Am I missing something here?"

Thats the thing, he did not MERELY "point out" that people often vote against their own economic interest.

He insutled the culture of americans like those in small town PA (of whom there are tens of millions across the country) by asserting that is based on resentment and bitterness.

By saying "point out", its obvious that you agree with him, and have a bias coming into this discussion.

Finn also said.

"And don't get me started on the laughable "elitism" charge. A guy raised by a single mom, who put himself through school, and then gave up much more lucrative job prospects to be a community organizer -- elitist?"

All of that is irrelevant to the charge of elitism. Elitism is an attitude, a world view, and hence can be held by anybody, regardless of their life experience.

Not that its entirely surprising that someone from harvard law school, who has worked at a high powered law firm, has more money than the clinton's did when they entered the white house, and has been endorsed by john kerry is elitest.


Still being elitest comes down to world-view and ideology. And we know that he has the most liberal voting record in the senate, and the liberal tent has been known to be a safe haven for those with elitist prediclictions


Posted by: I if for Independent | April 15, 2008 2:45 PM | Report abuse

This is so stupid. How many more months of this? Same old s..t.

Look vote for your candidate and shut the hell up.

Posted by: greg | April 15, 2008 2:42 PM | Report abuse

Is Crown Royal a Canadian blended whiskey?

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | April 15, 2008 2:41 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman:

Please do not misunderstand. I am in no way asking for new voters to be coddled and indulged, or for boomers to "bend over." On the contrary, I am asking for people to engage in a healthy, robust discussion (which, yes, can get animated). It is NOT a good reason to vote against a candidate merely because your child asked you to vote for him or her! THAT would be silly.

Also, it is my understanding that these new voters include more than only GenXers -- but also other potential voters who have previously been disaffected. Would I prefer that these first-timers had tune in before? (Don't get me started on the Court, and the disaster that is named Alito!) Of course. But, now that we have a chance of establishing a new "permanent majority" (to coin a phrase), I would merely ask that people consider the consequences of asking the Pledged Delegates to ignore those voters they were selected to represent. And, after having considered those consequences, whether they still want to urge such an event. If yes, well then, this Fall could be very interesting indeed.

Posted by: Marie | April 15, 2008 2:40 PM | Report abuse

Just had an Aah haa moment...this Presidential Campaign is just the next in a series of Reality T.V. shows--Yes, Reality Politics. The cast is perfect, an African American Male portrayed as an Elitist, a White Woman who morphs into whatever the flavor of the day is, and an old...did I say "OLD" White Man who says one thing one day and changes his mind the next and says something completely different all the while excusing his flip flops as "senior moments" expecting that no one will notice because he was a prisoner of war and his "hopeful" predecessor "Dubya" is dumb as a skunk which makes him look like the smartest man alive. Now here's were it will get to be really good, when the "OLD" man runs up against the Elitist African American man who hopefully won't dummy down himself to make the "OLD" man appear at least as intelligent as he for the sake of not offending the "bitter people". Man I will miss the hysterical woman who gave us something that the next possible female candidate for President will never give us...a media bit of her gulping down a shot of Crown Royal chased by a mug of beer...It don't get any better than this, lol...

Posted by: AHH HAA! | April 15, 2008 2:37 PM | Report abuse

"I find it interesting that people say that people who are pro-Obama are automatons who follow the man blindly. Honestly, I am a college-educated white man from Virginia and I would not say that I am blind at all."

I'm a college educated white man in Texas with 2 masters degrees and a Iraq war veteran, no blind automaton here.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 2:29 PM | Report abuse

"Agreed, and just wait till the Republican "spin wagon" gets to the fact that the Senator Obama has played "hooky" from the Senate and has MISSED 224 of 1188 votes (19%) since Jan 6, 2005. Of course, Obama never took being a Senator with any real seriousness, as it's just a "stepping stone" to the White House."

It's going to be hard for them to do that AND tag him as a liberal based on his NJ rating- McCain didn't even get a NJ rating- HE DIDN'T CAST ENOUGH VOTES.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 2:26 PM | Report abuse

"Hell, yes, I'm bitter. Among other things, I'm bitter about how the press consists of a bunch of shallow morons."

Amen to that. It's like watching a pack of sixth-grade girls. "Oooh, did you hear what Hillary said about Barry in study hall?!?!"

Actually, make that *retarded* sixth-grade girls.

Posted by: Brian | April 15, 2008 2:25 PM | Report abuse

I find it interesting that people say that people who are pro-Obama are automatons who follow the man blindly. Honestly, I am a college-educated white man from Virginia and I would not say that I am blind at all. Rather than taking my own personal feelings and projecting them on the situations and statements in this election cycle, I have taken the time to read and listen to the points made by both sides. The media is definitely in the game of making money and will spin everything in any way they can. Everyone who posted here needs to think critically about this election.

The full context of what Barack said about being bitter is not an insult to anyone. Saying that in the face of adversity people cling to guns or religion is actually quite true. We do seek, in hard times, that which grants us comfort. I would also be highly skeptical of any white Republican from Kentucky calling a black man "boy."

I do not think anyone needs to justify anything but if people consistently want to take information out of context and misrepresent ideas based on personal preconceptions then how can those who support a candidate not stand up and try to mitigate any misconceptions?

Posted by: James | April 15, 2008 2:24 PM | Report abuse

Bitter" and "cling" will ONLY be tied to Obama among the six people that you talk to at the DC press club. The level of incestuous navel gazing is unbelievable, particularly when you realize that all these rich Beltway are getting righteously indignant on behalf of the "regular guys" about whom they know virtually nothing. You guys are officially on some other planet now and I see no reason to take anything you write or say seriously anymore.

Posted by: The Frito Pundito | April 15, 2008 2:21 PM | Report abuse

The president admitted to OKing torture and THIS is the story that's been dominating the media for the last week? The economy's sliding into recession, gas prices are through the roof, and food costs are doublign -- but "bittergate" is the top issue?

You idiots in the media better start worrying about the American people waking up to just who the real elitists are, and then marching on your damn offices with torches and pitchforks.

Posted by: Brian | April 15, 2008 2:20 PM | Report abuse

Sorry, media/punditry types, but this is a prime example of a media-manufactured and media-sustained "controversy" note the scare quotes... I happen to live in PA, in a small, conservative town that isn't yet economically depressed, though the writing's on the wall, and you know who's talking about this whole "bitter" deal? Nobody, that's who. The whole 24 hour onslaught of election coverage is leaving people bitter, no question about it. The Obama story, meh, not so much. I'll hazard a guess that within 48 hours somebody else in one of the campaigns will say something mildly out of line and the media will be tripping over themselves to report THAT particular "controversy" and we'll get the same speculation and media-fueled outrage that we've seen here all over again like some acid-inspired flashback that'll have the press all agoggle... until the next one after that. Rinse. Lather. Repeat.

Posted by: JP | April 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Anyone that thinks this latest blunder by Obama isn't a big deal is detached from reality. Remember what happened to John Kerry four years ago? Kerry didn't even come close to making such a misstatement as Obama made in San Francisco and the Republicans successfully labeled him a liberal elite that was out of touch with mainstream Americans. There is more dirt to come on Obama and much of it is tied to his liberal voting record in the Senate and especially the Illinois State Senate. Add to this his lack of experience and the gaffs he will continue to make and his prospects in November are looking dim. Wait until someone brings up his refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin. This will be the icing on his anti-American cake. Also, the Rev. Wright won't be going away any time soon. He is still in the news and is making new incendiary statements. It looks to me like it is Obama's chickens that are coming home to roost."

Agreed, and just wait till the Republican "spin wagon" gets to the fact that the Senator Obama has played "hooky" from the Senate and has MISSED 224 of 1188 votes (19%) since Jan 6, 2005. Of course, Obama never took being a Senator with any real seriousness, as it's just a "stepping stone" to the White House.

Posted by: sibwalker | April 15, 2008 2:19 PM | Report abuse

"Hillary is the candidate for the working class, blue collar people without formal educations."

How so? Her lifelong support of gun rights? Her time spent abroad as a key peacemaker? Oh, maybe you're talking about her policy stands, like the only major difference in healthcare plans, mandating all people buy Health Insurance whether they can afford it or not? IDK, I still don't see how the Goldwater Girl represents the Common Man.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 2:18 PM | Report abuse

marie your post sounded like you were a first time voters, sorry.

You basically said that if GenY voters don't get their way they will stomp their feet and become disenchanted. As you said Tough. I couldn't get university students in Denver's Aurora campus to get off their duff and cast a vote in 2004 even when I brought up the war. And now that they are engaged we are supposed to say whoopie let's now just coddle them. No way.

And then when I mentioned bullying tactics your response:Finally, as to your point about young people supposively "bullying" their parents. Tough.

I am thrilled this generation is finally engaged in politics, but the idea that that means that boomers should just bend over and abandon everything we believe is best for this country just to accomodate our kids b/c otherwise they might just pick up their marbles or xboxes and leave is truly enlightening and tdoesn't speak well for that generation. My comment: Grow up. Politics is Hardball and just b/c you stamp your feet doesn't mean you get your way. I see that same sentiment you communicate with young hires at large companies. My generation of boomers just doesn't understand that attitude, but these comments have nothing whatsoever to do with YOUR apparent passion for your candidate and the Democratic party. Thank you for your participation Marie.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Where do WE go now? Speak for yourself. I just go on with my life. If you're an Obama-phile, I suppose you go off to sulk after he loses the Democratic nomination.

Posted by: The Old Gringo | April 15, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

Jesus Francisco Cardenas, as a resident of the major metropolis of San Angelo, Texas, I'd advise you to go and actually read his full comments, not just the excerpt posted by Clinton and Obama detractors, it shows a far better understanding of the plight of small town America that either the $109 million Goldwater girl or the senator-for-life with the $100 million trophy wife could ever figure out.

1. He didn't say they are only religious/pro gun because of economic plight, he made clear (and has repeatedly) that they already hold those values for a number of good reasons, but in hard times, and when all politicians, Democrats especially who claim to be fighting on their behalf economically, let them down, what do they do? They turn to the things that have never let them down (religion, community, etc) and vote on those issues rather than an economic issue that would benefit them, because they have no faith that anyone at the federal level really cares about them anymore, no matter what they say on the campaign trail.

This gets me back to again why I will not vote for Hillary. I don't care what she says about her policy positions, it doesn't matter how good they are if she cannot enact them. Her campaign has shown that a Hillary white House will be much like Bills, full of triangulation, backstabbing, hyperpartisanship from both sides, and stagnation of the federal government and inaction on key porgrams that demand a resolution NOW. She'll get back to washington, fight for her position, find it blocked by the senate, then triangulate a worthless but syymbolic bill that wins her some political support, but costs the Dems seats in Congress, makes her position weaker, and causes her to focus on her legacy and not working through the morass to find real solutions. With Obama, I at least have the hope that we can move beyond the politics of the past 30 years and build new coalitions. They might not be broader than they were in the 90s, but the flux they would bring on and the potential that politicians will actually be trying to listen to the people while sorting out the new political realities will open the door of opportunity and give us a chance to finally do something good for America, rather than retrench to the same political battle lines of 2001, 1998, or 1993.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 2:14 PM | Report abuse

elitism:(American Heritage dictionary)

"The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources"

It has nothing to do with who has earned the most money. Hillary is the candidate for the working class, blue collar people without formal educations. Bloggers and Obama supporters are constantly criticizing her supporters for being uneducated and clueless. I have yet to hear a good arguement on why I should vote for Obama. Everything about Obama screams elitism just like John Kerry and his wealthy wife. Obama has paraded out Oprah, the Kennedy's and John Kerry. The very essence of liberal elite. That does not represent ordinary Americans. That is what is meant when Obama is called elite. We all know how liberal he is.

Posted by: granny | April 15, 2008 2:11 PM | Report abuse

Obama's "Bitter" Defense Now Part of his Stump as it changes to 'Hope and Anger' Go Hand in Hand.

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=2111

.

Posted by: Jeff, Austin TX | April 15, 2008 2:08 PM | Report abuse

Catherine...you have nailed it with your comments.

I am an Obama supporter but was more interested in the exclusive interview (on CNN's Anderson Cooper 360) with one of the women at the Fundamental Mormon church in Texas where nearly 170 children were removed.

Obama should use the Philly debate tommorrow to get back to important National issues that impact the upcoming primary states. He needs to fine tune his solutions for the remaining primary states. He should epouse on the "bitter" and "frustrated" comments to encompass many Americans with the Bush regime and its policies, and then tie McCain to Bush. He should come prepared to confront Hillary with her elitist claim.

The debate tomorrow gives Obama the national media spotlight to try to correct some of the damage done by his San Francisco fundraiser comments.

Posted by: AJ, PA | April 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

I, personally, am getting extremely po'ed at hillary and her willingness to do just about anything (including take down the entire democratic party) to give herself a better chance at winning a very uphill battle. Fine, she can still keep running, but she is willing to do and say anything in order to win. It is very very unappealing.

There are a litany of things she did in order to (as Frank Rich described) 'have the rancid spoils of the democratic nomination'
Can you imagine more Billary in the white house? No way!

Posted by: ann | April 15, 2008 2:05 PM | Report abuse

Rep. Geoff Davis' comments would only matter if he was connected with Clinton or McCain. He's not, so they won't.

Juxtaposing a candidate's own words to that of someone not even connected to either of his or her rivals is rarely bought by the public - regardless of their respective ideologies.

Normally in politics, comparisons like these need to be "apples-to-apples," not "apples-to-lawn furniture."

Posted by: Roger Ellesworth | April 15, 2008 2:03 PM | Report abuse

The laughable thing about all this is that you are the one making it into a massive story. there is noting about the measure of his point that is objectionable. Bill Clinton made almost exactly the same statements. This kind portentous article did not attend the Bosnia fiasco which was truly disturbing. The media does not just report the news, it makes the news. The fact that this story is being handed legs by you and others with such insistance is that you are buying the subtext of the Clinton attack which is, it is OK for us to do it, but someone like him? You really need to start asking serious questions of a Clinton candidacy. What does it mean that she attacked Gore and Kerry on Sunday, calling them both elitest. At that moment she crossed a rubicon in modern Democratic politics and declared a coup on her own party. The real issue is a 'Democratic' candidate using Republican talking points to oust a candidate who is decent and truly cares (as anyone can see) for the American people whereas she (demonstrably seeing how she is unelectable and is making Obama unelectable too) cares only for her own power. The real story is the deep frustration of people in America at their increasingly dire economic circumstances. Why don't you actually stop and think for a moment about what you are doing when you word and write articles like this...I can't stop you but if you contribute to the derailment of a very good and strong and important candidacy like this, on such trite issues (on the substance of the remarks), then you will be part of a very sad period in American and world history. There is responsibility here.

Posted by: b ryan | April 15, 2008 2:02 PM | Report abuse

Bitter! Tuzla! Obama fed that pig wrong!

Chris, other than group onanism, what would you say that your profession is?

Posted by: HeavyJ | April 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

People who think this is a non-issue or no big deal, have little understanding of the thought process behind these words. Unless you are part of the mid-West or small-town America, you probably don't understand what a put-down this is. And unless you love your church and enjoy your guns, you probably don't get it either. It is an elitist remark that reveals someone so self-absorbed they have little empathy for those who think and live differently than they do .. especially those who do not share their values.

Posted by: Jesus Francisco Cardenas | April 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

We show no movement since this nontroversy began. The question is when columnists and bloggers will move on.

Posted by: Polls | April 15, 2008 2:01 PM | Report abuse

And, for those who are interested down the road in North Carolina:

PPP 4/12 - 4/13 (4/5 - 4/6)

Obama 54 (54)
Clinton 34 (36)

Not much traction there right now either, how much will there be a couple of weeks from now? (Ed Rendell doesn't seem to think much...)

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 1:58 PM | Report abuse

The "bitter" story will have "legs" in the media right up to the Pennsylvania primary. After the primary, it will lose its legs as it potential impact is associated with the Pennsylvania primary.

The media survives on fresh controversy--old controversy is the death of journalism as yesterday's news will not entice an audience. No audience, no advertisers. No advertisers, no money for the news outlet. It's all about the advertising money.

Any media outlet stupid enough to play the "bitter" story after the primary will be totally "scooped" by its competitors. In the age of nanosecond news distribution, the news of the moment is already old news.

A story loses its power when hundreds of news outlets simultaneously report it. The public simply shuts down after seeing the same old story, hour after hour, for 24 hours straight, reported on every news outlet in the country.

The best stories are the exclusives--but exclusives are rare in today's news market.

Posted by: Catherine | April 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

Not far from where Obama campaigned in Pa. State College to be exact here is a good example of how bitter we are. A barn burned fifty seven of the fifty eight cows were saved and to the family that was a god send. A barn will be raised in less than a week by neighbors family friends strangers. All working together, no money no paybacks just you need a hand we all pitch in. This is rural Pennsylvania we cling to our religion we cling to our guns but no we are not bitter we take care of our own! When was the last time your neighbors took care of you? Gave a helping hand asking nothing in return? I do not know where he got that impression it was NOT in rural Pa. maybe the cities where you do not know who lives next to you and could care less. So when Obama makes a slip of the tongue make sure your slipping on the true place and time. We true rural Pennsylvanians do not like being labeled. And if you think this will have no impact you are dreaming the dream my friend do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Oh I forgot if we said some thing in this nature we would be labeled racist!

Posted by: rural pa. redneck | April 15, 2008 1:56 PM | Report abuse

The 1:42 post was not mine.

You clowns have picked the right candidate, that's for sure.

Barama falls right in line with the loony left that finds smug condescension entertaining.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Spin all you want. As simple as it may sound come November we'll still have guns and religious and many other wedge issues driving the campaigns and I'll say I told you so. Either way I'll still vote in November, if Obama wins well and good, if he doesn't my ballot will have earned me a RIGHT to complain.

Posted by: Manasseh | April 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

New polls out:

Survey USA 4/12-4/14 (4/5-4/7)
Clinton 54 (56)
Obama 40 (38)

Rasmussen 4/14 (4-7)
Clinton 50 (48)
Obama 41 (43)

Quinnipiac 4/10-4/13 (4/3-4/6)

Clinton 50 (50)
Obama 44 (44)

It looks like "bittergate" isn't getting Clinton anywhere, other than stopping Obama's gains. The question now, will she continue to push it and will that result in a negative backlash? As of right now, it looks to me like about 55-45, and a near even delegate split, any takers?

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 1:53 PM | Report abuse

Perhaps Senator Obama's choice of words was poor. Yet, I don't for a moment think Senator Clinton thinks they are somehow untrue. She's merely trying to divide and conquer. If she doesn't believe the reality that Obama was speaking about, she will end up losing the important key "swing states" (to which she claims a special affinity)and the presidency in the same way that John Kerry did in 2004. The whole Bush/Rove re-election strategy then was based on appealing to economically frustrated and squeezed middle class voters by diverting their attention to social issues (such as same-sex marriage) that had little or no impact on the quality of their lives. Clinton needs to think how she can build the party up while she campaigns for the nomination, not rip it apart so in the end she becomes the nominee because she's the only one left standing.

Posted by: John H, Columbia, MD | April 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

As I see it, Senator Obama only stated the truth. The republicans, especially Ronald Regan, were very successful in getting working class people to vote on wedge issues and against their economic self-interest. The irony is that the well-off continually vote for their pocket books, i.e., republican, while those not well-off don't. As someone who started out as blue-collar, union in Pennsylvania, this continues to amaze me. The republican war against the middle class continues unabated. Sooner or later enough people will suffer enough to wake up. At this point we will return to a middle of the road, possibly even populist, economic policy. In the meantime I will support whoever the democratic nominee is, even though I've really been repulsed by Senator Clinton's attacks upon Senator Obama.

Posted by: John | April 15, 2008 1:52 PM | Report abuse

Where we go is to HONESTY! Honesty in the press as this topic is discussed would be a good start.

OF COURSE poor people are bitter! DUH!
OF COURSE people who feel embattled, and under seige will close ranks! DUH!

OF COURSE talking heads and newspeople will MISS THE ENTIRE POINT THAT THE MIDDLE CLASS IS GETTING HAMMERED to focus on a one or two-word statement!

DUH!

Posted by: JBE | April 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I understand people are frustrated by politics and the media.

But if you watch all the major cable news channels, even a comedy one, and realize that they are all full of hot air, and are talking nonsense, it's not so bad. It can even be enjoyable as you laugh at their analysis.

Don't get stuck on any "truth" comment. Don't get attached to any commentator or host.

It's all opinion and spin. Like a big game.

The election is not a game. But the tv/news stuff tends to be.

Posted by: Comment | April 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I may be a minority, but personally i don't think elitism is the exclusive right of the wealthy.

Intellectual elitism knows no financial boundaries.

Posted by: sodumn | April 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

I'm an immigrant (white, legal resident) in the United States. I can, with certainty, say that Senator Obama's comments were SPOT ON.

There is widespread bitterness among, primarily, white US citizens towards the immigrant population. I see it everywhere. I read about it in every single discussion about H1-B visas. I even see it in action with the city councilman from my district.

Senator Obama spoke the truth. It's telling that panderers like Senator Clinton are spinning it to suit their own agendas and pretending all is well in US.

Posted by: Immigrant | April 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

"Bittergate" is the most lazy and misplaced nickname I have heard in quite awhile. It is so far removed from "Watergate" as to be laughable. It makes about as much sense as "Fixgate".

Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 1:50 PM | Report abuse

Eric: "Our country is at a very treacherous crossroads, and you're covering this campaign like it's a high school popularity contest."

You are exactly right.

Posted by: John Losetheking | April 15, 2008 1:49 PM | Report abuse

It just utterly boggles my mind that the WaPo has as its second headline online the suggestion that "Bitter-gate" (have you lost all capacity for creative titling of "scandals"?) can only go one of two ways.

How about if it evolves into a narrative about the economic plight of our increasingly out-of-work manufacturing employees? Are you in this press game for the good of the country or for the good of your bottom line? Are you seeking to shed light on the state of our nation, or seeking to retain your centrality in this election?

These are very difficult times for our country. A president has admitted to approving torture, and "bitter-gate" and the pope dominate the headlines, with Bush's admission nowhere to be found.

The only thing wrong with what Obama said is that he singled out blue collar Americans as being bitter. I'm not blue collar, nor do I know many who are, and yet, I know almost no one who isn't bitter.

WAKE UP, WaPo! Our country is at a very treacherous crossroads, and you're covering this campaign like it's a high school popularity contest.

Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 1:46 PM | Report abuse

As an Indiana voter, it's interesting how the people on the coasts just don't seem to understand the midwest.

Having money doesn't automatically make you an elitist out here. Heck, even showing off your money with the newest and coolest truck or boat doesn't make you an elitist. Inferring and acting like hunters and religious people are simpletons DOES make you an elitist.

Posted by: Wolfcastle | April 15, 2008 11:35 AM

I agree with an earlier poster, who write that it is not what we, as people who live in the city and don't carry guns, think. It's the people who live in small towns, who go to church regularly and happily await hunting season. They're the ones who have been insulted. It's not just a question of being "bitter," but saying that bitterness causes you "to cling" to church, guns, and hate others who are different.

He's basically stereotyped small town white people. I'm not white or from a small town, but I can see why it would be offensive.

Posted by: deb | April 15, 2008 1:44 PM | Report abuse

You limp-wristed, light-in-the-loafers, soft-on-crime, weak-on-defense, Liberals all need to do a reality check!

Only John McCain can "win" the War in Iraq (which we think we have made the frontline in our War on Terror).

It is true that we have not -- yet -- been able to define what we mean by "win". But as soon as we figure it out, we will tell you. Until then, stay the course...

Go McCain. Win ! ! !

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 1:42 PM | Report abuse

I am so sick of apologists having to explain what this Harvard educated lawyer "really means" and "really believes." He insulted the very people who have politically, and financially -- through their tax dollars -- the programs that made an ivy league education an option for this very middle class kid. This is the return on their investment.

Posted by: jaywpat | April 15, 2008 1:38 PM | Report abuse

Another piece of junk journalism. Let's just try to pump this up as much as possible to tar Obama and spread republican talking points.

I especially like the one at the end, spread from an invisible republican to the hack Ben Smith to Cilizza to this artice.

Why not cover the enormous scandal involving approval of specific torture methods by the whitehouse Pincipals including Bush???? Because the media is corrupt and complicit.

Posted by: dderryberry | April 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

This manufactured "controversy" is going nowhere. It's accomplished nothing but made Hillary look shallow and rather foolish. Criticize Obama for pointing out that working class people in small town America are fed up with economic hardship?

Mmmm..okay, Hill. Keep 'em coming. You're only helping Obama.

Posted by: CarolBG | April 15, 2008 1:37 PM | Report abuse

Matt - what this country really needs is fewer voters like you whou would rather take it up the a$$ economically and vote for elitists so long as they protect your guns and Bibles from the homosexual and lesbian cabals. Because that is exactly what has happened to this country. The so called "values" voters apparently don't value their own economic interests, and take the rest of us down. The end result is that they will vote against themselves and allow themselves to be duped by GOP fearmongering and wedge issues.

Call me elitist, but where was the outrage when the economic collapse was bubbling below the surface and the thing George Bush and the GOP were concerned about was defending traditional marriage?

Posted by: Shrillary Cliton is LIAR | April 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Ok Mr. Cillizza - after seeing the raft of PA and national polls come out are you ready to, in your own very words, consign this whole thing to the dustbin of history? You yourself said that this would no longer be a big deal if there was no serious movement in the polls..

Posted by: reader | April 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

Another day, another thread (and ~1000 posts) about "bitter". Sigh.

MoreAndBetterPolls:
You're right. I like all three candidates better than the current administration. I also like the choice among them better than having to vote for Bush or Kerry four years ago.

proudtobeGOP:
Almost missed your post in the weeds ... Clearly, you're in a different tax bracket than I am, if you're not eligible to be "stimulated"! And thanks for outlining some of your support for McCain. Those are the issues I'd rather talk about anyways. (Simplify the tax code!).

Posted by: mnteng | April 15, 2008 1:36 PM | Report abuse

You notice John Kerry isn't going to the media defending his comments....John Kerry's comments about if you're smart you go the college and if not you go to Iraq...are probably what kept him out the presidental race this year. No matter how he meant it...they sounded terrible. The truth is...it's not what you say, but how people perceive it.
I've said this before...the trouble with politicians is they love to hear themselves talk so much, they don't know when to shut-up....this explains Hillary's Bosnia story, Obama's comments on the middle class...Kerry's comments on Iraq. They all need to learn to "put a sock in it."

Posted by: Badger | April 15, 2008 1:35 PM | Report abuse

Amen to this post! Why are we pretending that the average American voter is informed and educated? Maybe that's why they keep voting against their own economic interests. How many of these people can accurately describe NAFTA? They can't but they know it's to blame.


"I am from a small town in Central PA. No I have not lost my job or house, but know enough people who have or who are really struggling. I am also an Obama supporter (let's get that out of the way). I think his remarks could have been better worded, but whether some of you like it or not, he spoke the truth. People are bitter--they are damned mad!
But as one poster pointed out already, many, if not most of them would not vote for Obama because he is a Black. For example, our local newspaper (Centre Daily Times) reported a while back on a HRC rally in Hazelton PA, I believe, and some of her blue-collar supporters were interviewed. One older man said "I'm not crazy about voting for a colored" (which is why he intends to vote for HRC in the primary) and an older woman said "I won't vote for him because I don't want to be a Muslim." When told that Obama was a Christian, she replied then why did he go to "Iraq and visit that lama or whatever".
So much for the informed American electorate in PA and elsewhere--judging by many posts. Bob Herbert got it right in his NYT op-ed piece today."

Posted by: Former PA-er | April 15, 2008 1:34 PM | Report abuse

The latest Polls do not confirm what I see from all across the country. Obama cannot win the GE and Hillary can, is what I have been seeing for months. The latest Gallop has it 51-40 Obama over Hillary, and I have yet to find even one person that actually thinks he can win.

Posted by: lylepink | April 15, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

What is this, the forth or fifth day of this idiot "story" on the front page of the WaPo? Wow, you guys should get another Pulitzer for this crack reporting.

Maybe you'll find the time to put a story about "enhanced interrogations" on the front page this week. If it's not too much trouble.

Posted by: dirtdawg | April 15, 2008 1:33 PM | Report abuse

Is that an accurate quote? Did a member of Congress just call a black, sitting US Senator boy? Guess Clinton can count on Kentucky.

As for bitter-gate I rather doubt the words will harm Obama. The make believe fury over the words, however, could reinforce prior held beliefs about Obama and cement undecideds into the Clinton camp.

As for voters who vote Republican for evangelical and/or pro-gun reasons, why are you trying to court them? I know them, personally, and you are not going to win their vote. They don't like their job, but that's their problem. And they are the only ones realistic enough to know this. Even if a new factory opens up with a big sign saying courtesy of the Democratic party, they will have the same life but with newer stuff. Meaning, they'd still vote for the same Republican.

Posted by: muD | April 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

You're a hack, Chris.

Posted by: gavin930 | April 15, 2008 1:32 PM | Report abuse

Leichtman @ 12:23:

Thanks for assuming that I am a young first-time voter! Actually, this will be far from my first election. In fact, last time I worked my butt off as a Delegate to the National Election, and tried to get Senator Kerry elected. (Not easy for a basically shy person to stand up as a surrogate at more-than-I-can-count Town Committee meetings!)

To address your points:
(1) You are absolutely right, not all disenchanted young voters will swing over and become Republicans. It could be worse than that: they could become so disenchanted with the entire system that they choose to ignore it, believing that voting does not make a difference. (A fact which we all know -- or should know -- is not true. After all, here in my home state of Connecticut, we had a race for Congress some years ago that was decided by a mere handful of votes.)

(2) I absolutely understand the purpose of the Superdelegates. I still think from a RealPolitik point of view, it will never happen. (Though I stand ready to be surprised.)

Finally, as to your point about young people supposively "bullying" their parents. Tough. A lively discussion that can get a little heated at times is good for both sides. Particularly if it forces the kids to really think through their points of view -- parents should require their kids to point out particulars of why they support Senator Obama, or Senator Clinton. And, if their parents disagree with them, they, too, should be prepared to offer a reason why. Unconsidered support (for either candidate) makes no sense to me.

Posted by: Marie | April 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Is it his bitterness for his economic problems that have made him cling to guns or religion? How about his stance on free trade or Illegal immigration? Does his bitterness make him distrustful to people different from him? Keep in mind that he is also a millionaire too. In one year the Obama's made just under a million and he is a Jr. senator so don't think for a minute he is poor or lives paycheck to paycheck.
Lets look at what he said when it first hit the news. He and his campaign had no commit they had to see if it happened and the tape. His first response was anger and pointing a finger at others. This was followed by "I worded it wrong" but was right. When this did not work his spin team crafted a response changing around. Now it has been sanitised, he meant it to be an economic statement not a slap in our faces. By itself it could seem just a slip of the tongue. Add it with Rev. Wright(who he credits to bringing him to Christianity) , his wife's statements about first time in my adult life I am proud..., and her America is mean interview, a pattern is forming. He points to Clinton at the bar and tells us its phony politics that she is condescending, trying to make you think she is one of you. Funny he did the same thing when he went into a sports bar a month ago with the press rolling to have a beer. He followed it up with his bowling trip. So who's really pulling the "demeaning" political stunts? I guess he felt bowling is a snap and it would be an easy public relations stunt. After all how hard can it be Mike Hucklebee did it. All you have to do is roll the ball down the lane, the pins fall down and its back to you table for a bit more beer. I guess he felt if us average folks can do it it take little skill and less brains to boot. Guess he found out us small town working class hicks do have some skills after all. To me his honeymoon is over and his glossy shine is tarnishing.
Does he know how to go duck hunting. How many of you hunt with a six shooter. Clinton tells voters in PA how her dad taught her to shoot when she was little. He demeans it and tries to make her look small. After all a girl learning to shoot or hunt such a farce right. To bad my dad taught me too. Obama he may not do it now but in many small towns across this country fathers teach their kids both boys and girls to shoot. I guess you would have left it alone if you had known that or she was a he. I have one last question why is it fine for you to tell stories about your youth Sen. Obama but for her its pandering.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Wow... how sad is it that in the year 2008 the big story isn't how do we get that IDOT Davis out of office... Just another reason to VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!

Rep. Geoff Davis (R) telling a group of Kentucky Republicans that he recently participated in a national security simulation with Obama: "I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said.

Who is he to call ANYONE a boy? And why isn't the press all over his a**?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 1:30 PM | Report abuse

Hell, yes, I'm bitter. Among other things, I'm bitter about how the press consists of a bunch of shallow morons.

Posted by: Dean Booth | April 15, 2008 1:29 PM | Report abuse

Just wondering, Chris: did you pitch in to buy McCain donuts and coffee?

Posted by: Bitter Green | April 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Jeez.. Chris, doesn't it bother you to report shallow, meaningless nonsense as political analysis? Is this People magazine? Obama said some people are bitter? Did he disturb the poor sheltered journalists with his bluntness? Did he rock the boat with unforgiveable honesty? Guess what Chris, a lot of blue-collar (not to mention lots of white-collar) Americans are bitter! And everyone knows it! So stop wallowing in this nonsense and go find something real to report!

Posted by: Aaron Dellutri | April 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

OBAMA'S PLAN "D"

DENY AND LIE
DEFLECT, BLAME AND POINT
DISMISS AND RIDICULE
DEFUSE AND MINIMIZE

HE NEVER TAKES RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANYTHING

HIS MOTHER SPOILED HIM - IT'S REAL OBVIOUS SHE BOUGHT HIS CHILDISH PLAN "D"

HE APOLOGIZED ONLY FOR HIS "CHOICE OF WORDS"

TODAY OBAMA IS SAYING THE OUTRAGE OVER HIS INSULTING COMMENTS IS "FAKE".

WOW.

OBAMA THINKS HE'S THE SMARTEST MAN IN THE ROOM

SMARTER THAN

THE BILLIONAIRES

THE BOWLERS

THE PRESS

THE TV INTERVIEWERS

THE BITTER WHITE FOLK

THE SUPER DELEGATES


OBAMA IS WRONG


HE'S AN ELITIST SNOB

LOOK AT ALL THE PICTURES OF HIM LOOKING DOWN HIS NOSE

CAN ANYONE SEE THE COCAINE STRAW UP THERE?


GOD DOES BLESS AMERICA

GOD IS MELTING OBAMA'S PLASTIC MASKS

Posted by: Todd | April 15, 2008 1:28 PM | Report abuse

Chris:

Our president just admitted he and his senior staff sat around a table in the White House discussing various combination of torture. To the MSM? (crickets chirping .. . . . .)

Orange juice vs. coffee? OMG! Bowling scores? OMG

What Obama was saying however in artfully was about why people vote against their economic interests. THis is a story worthy of analysis but you and the MSM only want to fixate on his poor choice of words. For shame on all of you.

Posted by: tricia | April 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

It shows how desperate Hillary is that she keeps harping on this ridiculous play on words for days on end. Enough already! Can't she think of anything weightier? Does she have no more to offer to the Presidency of the United States? Why not discuss her plans for the future of the US instead? Is this petty nit-picking all we are going to get from her?

Posted by: Bodo | April 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

its just goes to show how much of an agenda the media has. Do anything to get Hilary elected. But are we suprised...? Its just sad that the media can't support two politicians equally...

Posted by: jjwuzup | April 15, 2008 1:27 PM | Report abuse

Even if it goes away with Hillary, the Republicans will remind the voters of it in the Fall. They have his comments recorded, they don't sound good. Right or wrong it gives the GOP something to go rabid with and they will....plus it also will take Obama off message and keep him on the defensive. Combine this the Rev deal...the Rezko deal...Michelle's comments (about how it's hard to pay for piano and camps for their daughters) on their salaries....Yes, I think he'll have some problems.

Posted by: Badger | April 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

Stupid fake controversy.

Shame on WaPo for their own contribution to fake news -- basically a GOP smear campaign dressed up by the right-leaning media.

---------------

From TPM:
Sound and Fury?

Following up on TPM Reader AY's note below, we seem to have a pretty good read now, which WaPo's Chris Cillizza says he was waiting for, on the effect of "bitter". We have three polls out today -- one shows a 2 point gain for Hillary, one shows a 2 point gain for Barack, and one shows no change at all.

So after four days of the story nonstop it appears to have had zero effect on public opinion.

Now, there is one possible counter-argument. Obama had been gaining ground up until this last run of polls, though SUSA had him falling. So it's plausible to speculate that he would have continued gaining if not for the latest controversy. That would suggest a parallel to Texas and Ohio, where Obama appeared to be making headway until the Nafta controversy and (possibly) the 3 AM ad blunted his momentum.

But based on what we know today it appears that all the sound and fury has signified nothing.

(ed.note: You'll note that two polls came out yesterday. ARG has a huge Clinton lead and huge Clinton gain and Susquehanna had a very small Clinton lead -- 3 points. ARG's record this year has been very poor however; and the Susquehanna sounding was a small sample, which in any case stopped sampling on the 10th, before controversy erupted. Here's the full list of all recent polls.)

Posted by: Jim | April 15, 2008 1:25 PM | Report abuse

This is really nuts, I can't believe people are still talking about this. I don't get why Obama's comments were offensive. We are in an economic recession which is fueled by an endless war that's eating up our taxes, rising gas prices along with rising unemployment, 47 million without healthcare, an administration that puts out scandal after scandal every other day (ala the 03 memo). What's not to be bitter about?! People in small towns with no money or healthcare or jobs are going to be bitter and yes they're going to "cling" to their church more because that perhaps provides them with a refuge. Hell, people in big cities are probably doing the same. All Obama did was tell the truth and honestly I wasn't sure until this week who to vote for, but I think I know now. Clinton and McCain with their hefty bank account and their silver spoons are truly hypocrites for calling Obama an elitist. The only thing he's guilty of is perhaps not being PC, but then again being PC is WAY overrated.

Posted by: Nikki | April 15, 2008 1:23 PM | Report abuse

I am just a couple days into following this blog, and as a longtime viewer of cable news and Chris Cillizza's appearances on same, I am wondering:

Chris, to do read all thise postings, or do you just kind of ignore these rants as the illogical mutterings of the too much time on their hands crowd?

I ask because I am impressed by the diversity and quality of the thoughts expressed herein. Some of the posts seem to be the lonely ravings of lost souls. But a surprising number reflect reasoned opinion and a staunchest anti-elitist sentiment (in the pre-Bittergate sense).

Chris, you not only should study your readers' posts... you should arrange some face to face forums with them. Guys like Chris Matthews are so out of touch... don't become one of them. Your blog posts should keep you centered and grounded... I hope you recognize their overall value and excuse the rantings of the lunatics any such forum is bound to attract in some minor numbers.

All this by way of saying... Yes, Chris, you are blowing a lot of this out of proportion. Truly embittered people don't take real offense at someone who recognizes their pain... ooops, a bit Clintonian, there...

But keep on keepin' on, just consider the possibility that you've taken Bitter-gate to the Bitter end and now it's time to move on. The polls will show that this incident is not a game-changer. That doesn't change the fact that neither Clinton nor Obama can win in the fall, and that the Dems once again have proven that they fall in love, not in line...

Posted by: scrivener | April 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

This is going to be great . Obambi's gets his conversation on race by making inflamatory statements , then when called on it , counter attacking with charges of racism . McCaine has the same technique perfected years ago . His position is the moral patriotic one and to oppose him you are by definition unpatriotic , or at least impugning his patriotism and of course corrupt .

Posted by: nat turner | April 15, 2008 1:19 PM | Report abuse

By any means necessary, right? That's what you blacks say!

Clinton/Limbaugh 08 !

Change We Have Seen Already.

Posted by: BraBurner | April 15, 2008 12:16 PM

**********************
When you burned your bra, did you stick your head into the barrel to check on it? Otherwise, I can't figure out how the brain damage occurred.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 1:15 PM | Report abuse

That above post by "Carrie" was by me. Referencing Carrie's comment.

Comment.

Posted by: Comment | April 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

The idea that Obama does not go negative and nasty needs to be debunked.

Obama, in offering his antidote for the future, always talks about the horrible past. Like some drug company ad, "you have x problem? Take Obam X"

Just before he made his mistake, he prefaced the bitterness by saying Clinton and Bush were the cause of economic stagnation.

Obama was on the trail ridiculing and mocking Hillary. Talking about "Annie Oakley", etc.

Just because he says it with a smile, and is your guy, doesn't mean he's not negative.

They ALL go negative.

Posted by: Carrie | April 15, 2008 1:14 PM | Report abuse

Obama knows that he can fool white people and can say whatever he wants to say...blacks are in his pockets. Obama's remarks about small town america smells like black recism.

Posted by: George | April 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

We need to know Obama's true position on trade. When Obama said people cling to their guns and religion as well as being anti-immigrant and anti-trade. This last part anti-trade deserves some attention and Obama should be questioned. He has promoted himself as anti-trade to people in Ohio, North Carolina and PA in his speeches. Yet, when he is talking behind closed doors in San Fran he criticizes people in PA for being anti-trade. He knew what he was saying, so when he critizes someone for being anti-trade does it mean he is pro-trade.

Posted by: skinsfan1978 | April 15, 2008 1:13 PM | Report abuse

I have yet to hear a good explanation of how Obama's comments aren't true. Fox (they call themselves Fox News) interviewed people in Pennsylvania who said yes, we're bitter.
Is a gaffe really just when a politician tells the truth?


Posted by: Tom | April 15, 2008 12:58 PM
**********************
Yeah, it is real convenient for the media to focus on the word and not the truth behind it. It might force Chris and the rest of his ilk to get off their fat arses and actually find out what the hell is going on this country. But I imagine there is some self congratulatory media event that needs to be attended - those martinis don't drink themselves, you know!

Posted by: LABC | April 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

Count me as another voter who's not sure why this is a big story and who thinks all the pearl-clutching by pundits is rather disingenuous. I'll agree that Sen. Obama didn't put his point in the best way, but it's quite clear to me that he has compassion and not disdain for these people and their situation.

He said they vote on these cultural issues because they've seen that voting their economic interest has not worked. This is not a novel argument; Bill Clinton and many other people have made the exact same case.

So why is this still a story? It's easy to chalk it up to a bored press corps that needs to "feed the beast" of the 24-hour news cycle, but I think there's something more to it. I think it's because Obama's comments go directly to issues of economic class, and that is one issue the millionaire pundits and their corporate networks do not want us to discuss with any clarity or honesty.

Anyhow, if this verbal gaffe is the worst thing they've got on him, I'd say he's in pretty good shape.

Posted by: WhatIsTheBigDeal | April 15, 2008 1:12 PM | Report abuse

" It's really hard to say what level the simulation was at based on his comments but easy to say that he should have refrained from stating anything on it."

You must be joking. There was no 'simulation.' It was just another nutball Republican remark, BOY.

Posted by: Cal | April 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

I am a Ron Paul independent. I see only Paul/Obama as viable.
1)Obama earned 13K after graduating and still did public service.
2) He is devoutly religious
3) He was trying to sympathize with small towners, not disdain them. in fact, he is the closest candidate to their experience.

I truly believe this. Believe me I can spot liars. Also, I like Huckabee, he speaks his mind ( I do not like his policies though).
Best regards. God bless you.
_____________________________________________
He like many on the far left have a disdain for the working class that stick to religion, guns and their small town values and don't convert to their way of thinking.
Posted by: Matt | April 15, 2008 12:55 PM

Posted by: LogicTeacher | April 15, 2008 1:09 PM | Report abuse

Chris, one scenario you left out: that Hillary's scathing negative ads will backfire on her. Anyone who's been paying attention to this race knows that Obama has chosen not to go nasty and negative on Hillary. Did he release a nasty ad about her Bosnia gaffe? No. Has he ever questioned her ability to be commander-in-chief? No. I think all those nice, church-going, blue-collar voters in Pennsylvania might end up being attracted to the candidate who isn't nasty. These voters don't see themselves as nasty, and might not want to be associated with such a candidate. So they might reward Obama for his dignified tact and restraint.

Posted by: Carrie | April 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

Pennsylvania: Pittsburgh at one end, Philadelphia at the other and white Alabama in between; if Obama's "bitter" comment sinks his candidacy, it will simply mean that we as a country haven't advanced as far past Nixon's Southern Strategy (which Hillary is adopting!) as we need to in order to elect a black man president. "Elitism" has nothing to do with it, this is code word city....
I remember the campaign slogan for the white candidate for mayor of Chicago in 1983 against Harold Washington: "Epton: Before It's Too Late." Subtle! Look for some variation from Hillary and/or McCain if needed....They won't stop at anything.

Posted by: Tom | April 15, 2008 1:08 PM | Report abuse

wallace2 - "That's about as racist as you can get short of the n word."

Neither stating the n word or the "boy" reference is in and of itself racist. They are offensive but that does not make the man or the sentiment necessarily racist. If that were the case, that would make John Lennon, who wrote the song "Woman is the N-word of the World", a racist and I don't think that was the case. Now whether Mr. Davis is racist or not is a legitimate question but your assertion that simply using that phrase equates to racism is not.

Posted by: Dave! | April 15, 2008 1:07 PM | Report abuse

I cannot believe this post.

I am part of the VAST majority who is sick of our political "leaders"; but this post has convinced me that our pathetic excuse for a press corps is an even bigger problem.

I want to see numbers on public approval ratings for our media. I'd bet they are even lower than those for congress.

Posted by: EK | April 15, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

enough already. aren't there truly significant issues to discuss? why does the press always take the easy way out? institutionalized laziness.

Posted by: frieda406 | April 15, 2008 1:03 PM | Report abuse

Chris, take a look at this article full of interesting comments from Bill Richardson about why he endorsed Obama, and about the Clintons and his relationship with them at: http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/campaign08/la-na-richardson12apr12,0,311877.story
From the Los Angeles Times
CAMPAIGN '08
Why Gov. Bill Richardson didn't endorse Clinton
The New Mexico governor says he was dismayed by pressure from the Clinton camp, and impressed by Obama's optimism. Besides, 'you don't transfer loyalty to a dynasty.'
By Mark Z. Barabak
Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

April 12, 2008

SANTA FE, N.M. -- Before he endorsed Barack Obama, before he drew the wrath of the Clintons and was likened to Judas, New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson nearly endorsed Hillary Rodham Clinton for president.

But Richardson hesitated, and as the Democratic campaign turned ugly, he grew angry.

There was that "3 a.m." TV ad, in which Clinton questioned Obama's personal mettle. "That upset me," Richardson said.

There were some ham-fisted phone calls from Clinton backers, who questioned Richardson's honor and suggested that the governor, who served in President Clinton's Cabinet, owed Hillary Clinton his support. "That really ticked me off," Richardson said.

Still, even as he moved from Clinton toward Obama -- "the pursuit was pretty relentless on both sides" -- Richardson wrestled with the question of loyalty. After 14 years in Congress and a measure of fame as an international troubleshooter, Richardson was named Clinton's U.N. ambassador, then Energy secretary: "two important appointments," Richardson said.

He finally concluded that he had settled his debt to the former president: He had worked for Clinton's election in 1992, helped pass the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his administration, stood by him during the Monica S. Lewinsky sex scandal, and rounded up votes to fight impeachment.

"I was loyal," Richardson said during an extended conversation over breakfast this week at the governor's mansion in Santa Fe. "But I don't think that loyalty is transferable to his wife. . . . You don't transfer loyalty to a dynasty."

He was impressed by the mostly positive tone of Obama's campaign, and grew to appreciate the substance and depth of their private conversations. The more Richardson heard from the Washington heavyweights backing Clinton, the more convinced he became of the need for a change inside the Beltway.

It has been three weeks since Richardson embraced the Illinois senator, an endorsement that continues to rankle and resonate -- the significance, it would seem, going far beyond the preference of a governor from a poor, rural state.

But this is a family fight, between kin of the Clinton years, so perhaps the raw emotions shouldn't be surprising. "They're very similar in personality," said Art Torres, chairman of the California Democratic Party and a friend of both Bill Clinton and Richardson. "There was a bond established, and I think [the former president] feels a little hurt."

Attention to the endorsement might have quickly passed but for the strenuous protest of Bill Clinton and others. Speaking for the campaign, advisor Mark Penn suggested Richardson's endorsement came too late to be much help to Obama. "Everyone has their endorsers," he said.

But then James Carville, the pundit, strategist and Clinton loyalist, hurled a lightning bolt by comparing Richardson to Judas and his surrender of Jesus for 30 pieces of silver.

Soon after came an odd back-and-forth concerning a private conversation in which, supposedly, either Hillary Clinton or Richardson dismissed Obama as unelectable. (Neither party will discuss particulars, but Richardson said he never made that statement.)

Days later, just when interest in the endorsement seemed to wane, former President Clinton exploded in a rant about Richardson at the California Democratic Party convention. He later apologized, but his tirade in a closed-door session with superdelegates rekindled the story for several more days.

People close to Clinton said he views the governor's action as a personal betrayal. "I think [Richardson] really owes a big chunk of his success and his career to the Clintons," said an associate who has discussed the matter with the former president and requested anonymity to speak candidly.

"Look," Richardson responded, "I was a successful congressman rescuing hostages before I was appointed. I was a governor afterward, elected on my own."

Even more than the endorsement, Clinton's associate said, the former president was angry because he thought Richardson broke his word. The two men watched the Super Bowl together at the governor's mansion -- Clinton made a special trip from California in bad weather -- and the former president walked away convinced that Richardson would endorse his wife or, at least, stay neutral.

Richardson was, in fact, close to backing the New York senator that day, though his advisors -- many of whom backed Obama -- urged him to wait. "I remember talking to the president and saying, 'I'm leaning. But I'm not there yet.' He denied pledging neutrality if he changed his mind. "Sometimes people hear what they want to hear," Richardson said.

Normally the most gregarious of politicians, the governor during the interview this week was subdued as he slowly worked his way through a plate of scrambled eggs, bacon and green chiles. His voice was soft, and he rarely smiled.

His endorsement had been highly coveted, due largely to his stature as one of the country's most prominent Latino leaders. The pursuit began soon after Richardson quit the presidential race on Jan. 10.

He retreated to New Mexico and the governor's adobe mansion. He sulked a bit, grew a beard, rode his quarter horse and tended to state business. "I didn't want anything to do with national politics," Richardson said, figuring he would keep out of the nominating fight until it was over. But slowly he reengaged, watching the debates and fielding calls from Clinton, Obama and their surrogates.

Their manner of courtship -- one wooing, the other arm-twisting -- seemed to reflect the candidates' different personalities and campaign styles, he said.

Obama preferred the soft sell, calling Richardson every three days or so -- "dialing the phone himself, no operator" -- for long discussions about policy and campaign issues. The two developed a bantering relationship, building on the camaraderie they shared off-camera during debates, when they would roll their eyes at some of their rivals' statements.

Clinton was more persistent and tactical. There were eight or more phone calls a day, Richardson said: "Bill calling, Hillary calling, friends of mine that were in the Clinton administration, Clinton operatives, Clinton Hispanic operatives, New Mexico Clinton Hispanic operatives."

Some callers, who suggested Richardson had an obligation to back Clinton, did more harm than good. "I think the Clintons have a feeling of entitlement . . . that the presidency was theirs," Richardson said, and the persistent lobbying from "Washington establishment types" convinced him of a need for some fresher faces on the scene.

He began admiring Obama back when they were rivals, and the sentiment grew the more they talked about foreign affairs, the environment and other issues. "I saw real growth in the guy," Richardson said, "a tremendous growth in policy and expression and experience."

And no, Richardson said, there was never talk of the vice presidency, or any other job in an Obama administration. "I never say never in politics, but I'm not pining for it," he said. (Nor, he suggested, would he settle for just any Cabinet post, having served before.)

With his mind made up, and dreading the conversation, Richardson called Sen. Clinton a few hours before his endorsement of the Illinois senator was announced. He sat in his den, smoking a cigar with ESPN in the background. Their discussion, Richardson said, "was proper but heated."

The two have not spoken since. Nor has he heard from Bill Clinton, who told people he was upset that Richardson did not call him as well. (The governor said he tried but never got through.)

The response from the Clinton camp -- "the ferocity, the intensity" -- has surprised him, Richardson said, though he knew he risked fracturing his relationship with the couple. His wife, Barbara, had warned him, he said: Richardson moved his hands apart, as if to signify a break.

"She also has great affection for the Clintons," the governor said -- she decorated their home with photos of the two couples together.

"He's very much a part of my life," Richardson said of the former president. The pictures are still hanging in the mansion's private quarters.

Posted by: Mary Chavez | April 15, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

What's the problem with Obama's analysis? The Republicans have been feeding these sentiments to the working classes since Reagan. A.K.A. the politics of division. Why else do working class voters continue to vote against their economic interests? Remember the gay marriage issue? That little nugget even caused Bush to get more of the black vote than any other Republican since reconstruction.

Now Obama should finish the message..."yeah I said it, now what do you want to do about it? Continue to vote for the people who continue to offshore your jobs or vote for a change and take your country back?"...

Goes back to 2004 when Howard Dean said "we need to get back the votes of the guys with the gun racks in the back truck window who fly rebel flags".

See that's what Obama's words meant to me. I grew up in the Pittsburgh area and the only elitists are those, who think that I can't figure out what he means when he speaks.

Posted by: H. Simon | April 15, 2008 1:01 PM | Report abuse

I have yet to hear a good explanation of how Obama's comments aren't true. Fox (they call themselves Fox News) interviewed people in Pennsylvania who said yes, we're bitter.
Is a gaffe really just when a politician tells the truth?

Posted by: Tom | April 15, 2008 12:58 PM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin,
There is also non-classified material (not Top Secret/Secret/Confidential) that is restricted (i.e, Sensitive or For Official Use Only, etc). People frequently blur the lines and when they say things like highly classified, don't necessarily mean S or TS, simple more than FOUO. It's really hard to say what level the simulation was at based on his comments but easy to say that he should have refrained from stating anything on it.

Posted by: Dave! | April 15, 2008 12:57 PM | Report abuse

YAWWWWWN... This was over before it began. Wake me up when someone says something that matters...

Posted by: Mobedda | April 15, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

Logic Your right on until you write about my hunting I didn't say he was talking about my hunting. What he is doing is classifing people he believes will not vote for him. He like many on the far left have a disdain for the working class that stick to religion, guns and their small town values and don't convert to their way of thinking. This becomes a big issue beacuse he says he can unite and help America when in fact his record has shown that he does not. What we need in this country are politicians worried about what is best for this country not whats best for them and I am talking about both dems and rebublicans


If voters cannot depend of the government to solve their economic issues they will note vote or vote on other non-issues. They
dislike foreigners who get their outsourced jobs (as opposed to the government that let it happen). They become suspicious of government. Moreover, they bank upon what they can depend on: their family, church etc.
This does NOT mean:
1) They suddenly become religious
2) They suddenly love their parents etc.

You have a master's. So please see the entire speech and if you still think he is talking about your hunting then we really need to teach more logic in schools.
However, if you are trying to just hurt him I understand. Some will fall for it. BTW. There are other criticisms against Obama that are valid.
____________________________________________


Posted by: LogicTeacher | April 15, 2008 12:29 PM

Posted by: Matt | April 15, 2008 12:55 PM | Report abuse

The only people that give a rat's a-- are obviously the talking-head newsmongers. No one else cares, because people know that what he said is true. The politicos in this country have managed to give away this country's manufactureing base to places like China,India and various South American countries through NAFTA. Once you do that, you destroy the Middle Class in this country, and that is exactly what's happening now.

Posted by: George | April 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

The interesting thing about this "event" is that it reminds me of the Hillary comment about LBJ and Dr. King. At that time, the media and the Obama camp were so intent on making those comments about race. Remmeber, that was right before the SC primary. Now, what's interesting is that I understood what she was saying,and it wasn't about race. But, that didn't stop the media pounding away at her. I understood what Sen. Obama was saying, but I still dont' agree with his premise. People don't "cling" to their guns or their religion because they are bitter. They dont't simply vote "against their best interest" (as he would think) becuase they are dissenchanted with government. They vote that way because it's their culture and their upbringing.
Remember in the American President, their was agreat line; "People will walk through the desert and drink the sand ...because they don't know the difference"
Of course the insight into that comment showed that the President( Martin Sheen)figured that the people were too stupid( or out of touch) to know what really matters in their lives.
Obama must think that the American people don't know the defference between good policy and guns or religion.
I think the insight into what Sen. Obama was saying is that he thinks that these people should just assume that he is going to take them to that mountain and lift themn up out of their dulldrums, simply because he says he will.
Now that strikes me as arrogance( same arrogance that Martin Sheen as ther President had).
You see, the problem isn't in what he said( or meant) it is in what he accually thinks...of himself...and his "followers".
I have seen this same arrogance in our current president. That kind od "trust me becuase I know what I am doing even if you don't".
That doesn't say alot about a leader or a candidate.

Posted by: Samuel | April 15, 2008 12:54 PM | Report abuse

Hillary, aka Tracy Flick, looks ridiculous given the eager desperation with which she grabbed this lifeline, running to every microphone she could find to remind voters how insulted they should be. She's treating us like children. It's a telling irony that the candidate who's willing to speak to voters as adults is branded the "condescending" candidate by his opponent who falls over herself in a last-ditch effort to dupe voters into believing she cares about them.

Posted by: John | April 15, 2008 12:53 PM | Report abuse

ProudtobeGOP ably makes the point about why we're talking about this retarded "bittergate" (and underscores Obama's original point about why this crap is so appealing to the right), but has the temerity to toss this non-issue aside and try to get at the important stuff. I'm happy to address your points and am incredibly thankful to find a GOP'er who can see the big picture and avoid stupid wedge "issues."

---------------------

That is a big reason why I support McCain; with him at least my taxes won't go up. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II.

Among other proposals, McCain said he would:
-Raise the tax exemption for each dependent child from $3,500 to $7,000.

-Require more affluent people -- couples making more than $160,000 -- enrolled in Medicare to pay a higher premium for their prescription drugs than less-wealthy people.

-Offer people the option of choosing a simpler tax system with two tax rates and a standard deduction instead of sticking with the current system.

-Suspend for one year all increases in discretionary spending for agencies other than those that cover the military and veterans while launching an expansive review of the effectiveness of federal program.

Sounds pretty good to me.

--------------------------------------

With all due respect, ProudtobeGOP, don't you recognize that your taxes (or someone's--I don't know your bracket) will have to go up to pay for the war Bush has put on your credit card? I hope you don't think, like McCain and the other trickle-downers (or is it just plain "downers," as in a feedlot metaphor?), that "economic expansion" will pay the debt?

All candidates have proposals on the table to reduce the tax burden on middle and lower income Americans. McCain's proposal for increasing the child exemption will have to be offset elsewhere, but he won't say where.

Reducing unneeded breaks enjoyed by the wealthy is a good start; how about having them shoulder their former tax load, not just on Medicare?

Simplifying the tax code is good: we had a great start at that in the '90s, only to see it get more complex under the GOP in this decade. Methinks your party would rather it be that way because that's how they can insert the loopholes that get the wealthiest of the wealthy completely out of their responsibilities.
All presidential candidates call for "suspension" of discretionary programs. Unfortunately, that'll never pass Congress, which depends on those programs to demonstrate how effective they are to their own constituencies. The better approach is to do the kinds of things Gore did in the '90's to "streamline" programs. But we also have to face a brutal fact: most discretionary programs have been severely underfunded by Bush to divert money to the war and its profiteers. Those programs need to play "catch up" so it'll be very difficult to really gain budget benefits this route.

We disagree on approaches, ProudtobeGOP, but I sure appreciate you talking about something interesting!

Posted by: abqcleve | April 15, 2008 12:52 PM | Report abuse

It's news when Ms. Clinton goes all slimy and claims Mr. Obama is "elitist" (why is that a bad word?) and looks down on small town dwellers but there's no outrage when Geoff Davis (R) calls Mr. Obama "boy". That's about as racist as you can get short of the n word.

"Bitter" has certainly produced a tempest in a teapot and a ridiculous concentration of "news". Meanwhile few papers or networks seem concerned that members of the highest levels of the administration with the knowledge of the President spent time defining just how much torture was "appropriate" to use.

SHEESH! I have one sick country.

Posted by: wallace2 | April 15, 2008 12:50 PM | Report abuse

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24122833/

Who will vote about guns against their on best intrest? I think Obama was spot on and the truth hurts.

Posted by: Edmond | April 15, 2008 12:49 PM | Report abuse

We Have Met The Enemy and He Is Us - Pogo

What's interesting is that the true elites are probably reading all this and laughing all the way to the bank. The way they keep power is by divideing and turning the masses against each other.

Posted by: Mike | April 15, 2008 12:47 PM | Report abuse

so brad in your world if HC stops talking about Sen Obama's misstep it poof goes away and we will never ever hear it again?
I am just thankful we heard his sentiment now rather than in Oct.while we could still do something to stop another Dukakas repeat. And no I don't take instructions from Obama supporters to pledge my feilty to him.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 12:46 PM | Report abuse

Hi Chris Cillizza,
Why can't you make a living honorably. Try working hard for once.

Posted by: Hardworking American | April 15, 2008 12:45 PM | Report abuse

"That boy's finger does not need to be on the button."

All i can say is:

"Boy?"

So a Republican senator from Kentucky calls Obama "boy..." and that's not news?

I wonder, did he start to say, "That n... uh, I mean, that boy..." Or maybe he said "That cotton-pickin'... uh... that boy?"

Posted by: flick harrison | April 15, 2008 12:42 PM | Report abuse

Dan Someone
Amen.

Posted by: StopTheHype | April 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

A story about "whether the issue will go away" only ensures that the issue doesn't go away. If you guys in the media were worried that you were too soft on Obama before, you can rest well tonight. You've more than compensated ...

Posted by: Sparrow | April 15, 2008 12:41 PM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton is doing lasting damage to the Democratic Party by continuing to push this line of attack, which only reinforces and legitimizes the Republicans' longstanding talking points about the Democratic Party in general. Clinton herself slapped the "elitist" label not only on Barack Obama but also on both of the Democrats' last two presidential nominees and on the Democratic Party as an institution. This is going to hurt a lot of downticket Democrats in swing states and districts who have to work hard to woo culturally conservative blue-collar voters. She doesn't care: it's all about her.

The ironic and unfortunate thing is that going back to Barack Obama's speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, his U.S. Senate campaign (in which he racked up a ton of votes from rural, small-town, culturally conservative and religious voters), and throughout most of this campaign until Clinton joined the Republican line of attack on Rev. Wright and Obama's recent "bitter" gaffe, Sen. Obama has done more than probably any other figure in the Democratic Party to begin to close the gap with "faith and values" voters. Tearing him down on these issues does nothing to build up Hillary Clinton or the Democratic Party. It just leaves the Party and its front-runner diminished, and gives Republicans a stronger hand at all levels of the ticket going into November. It's time for superdelegates to step forward and put an end to Hillary Clinton's circular firing squad approach to politics. Pledge for Obama, and put a stop to it.

Posted by: Brad K | April 15, 2008 12:40 PM | Report abuse

Dear Andy R,
My heart goes out to you and other siblings of our great country. I sink when I see utter lack of compassion to the suffering. I am a proud Independent. I do not like to start a war recklessly or withdraw recklessly.
If we cannot save our own with our medical system "NOW" what is the point of tackling tenuous/unsubstantiated threats ( Iraq, while ignoring Afghans, Paks and N Korea).
I also know people with Fibromyalgia etc. who never get the physical therapy they need. They just have to suffer.

I hope the best thing happens to your daughter and America. Being a prof. in Math I see that Obama seems to be our best shot, event hough I am a staunch supporter of Ron Paul. God bless you.

Posted by: Math Professor | April 15, 2008 12:39 PM | Report abuse

comeon: the gig is up about that story. CNN went back and interviewed those folks supposedly booing. They were all SEIU representatives. I wonder who they are supporting? But I am sure you knew that answer before posting.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 12:38 PM | Report abuse

I'm starting to think that CC gets paid by pageviews, and he lobs these kinds of posts out there just to watch the clicks climb high. I'll bet CC is laughing at us right this very minute.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

You've done it! Months before the election, I now no longer care whether it even takes place or not. I admire the ability of the 4th estate to crush all relevance out of the system even as I read those who deplore it. Such trivialization will likely be found to be the most effective tool for creating despotism since lapel-flag patriotism.

Posted by: Electitician | April 15, 2008 12:37 PM | Report abuse

What the Journal meant by 'vibrant' market is that insurers will be, literally, making a KILLING.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:36 PM | Report abuse

Every President was a great President.
There was never a great President.

Reagan was a great President.
FDR was a great President.

There are no truths, it's just what you believe.

Now we could, for the sake of peace and harmony, groom one perfect candidate, who looks perfect, talks perfect, acts perfect, and then have the media brainwash us to agree with his/her views.

Blissful election?

Or we can live in a nation of individuals, with free will, competing ideas, and diverse factions who debate, argue, attack, kick, and fight their way to try to get the views across and accepted.

While the above can be generally avoided, it is a necessary component to a vibrant democracy...in my opinion.

Long live Democracy

Posted by: Comment | April 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

'the person above GOP likely who posted'

clip from WSJ-their words.

unless you're young and healthy, Leichtman, no insurer will cover you in McCain's glorious future.

It's the new eugenics.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:35 PM | Report abuse

the person above GOP likely who posted
"Consumers could then use that cash to buy their own insurance in what Gramm foresees as a vibrant, consumer-driven marketplace."
that the McCain campaign promises at least a $2500 credit to buy healthcare, please get in touch with me so I can go out and buy that $200/month healthcare. I am sure that there are millions who will want to now join me in purchasing that great coverage with likely a $50,000 deductible. Incidentally is that the same lousy coverage that Sen McCain has a US Senator?
and GOP if you lose your job will you be running out to your nearest community college to be retrainied as a roofer or auto mechanic?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 12:33 PM | Report abuse

I used to really like Hillary. Now I just turn off the radio or television whenever I hear her voice.

Posted by: Homer | April 15, 2008 12:32 PM | Report abuse

It would be great if our national press would cover issues of substance in the lead-up to electing our leader instead of trivial silly BS like this. Is it any wonder that we keep getting morons and clowns as Presidents, when this is the sort of thing that passes for election journalism?

For God's sake, Post, take a step back and realize exactly what you're covering here and how important it is. Do you think that, in light of the economy, Iraq, the mortgage crisis, employment, and education, people really need to know about Hillary's laugh.

Grow up, please. Most voters are out of high school.

Posted by: Dave Lartigue | April 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Here the press is, talking about some word Obama said, but refusing to discuss the fact that

MCCAIN WILL TAKE AWAY YOUR HEALTHCARE.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:31 PM | Report abuse

Hillary will scorch the earth behind her losing this erection.

She will bring down anyone who she feels has 'turned against her' by not putting her ample hind region in the White House.

I do not think she can be counted on to help her party in the general erection, either.

Talk about Bitter!

She's a walking Lemon!

Posted by: Slash and Burn Politics | April 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

you really think that allowing insurers to charge as much as they want for older or sicker people is okay?

It's f*cking inhuman is what it is.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

I'm a Dallas Cowboys fan, but I've always admired Dan Rooney. Clearly this is a very intelligent man.

Posted by: Gharza | April 15, 2008 12:30 PM | Report abuse

You're kidding, right? "Critical mass has been reached"? I have not seen a more cowardly use of the passive voice since the Reagan Era's "Mistakes were made."

Here's a clue, Chris: critical mass is not reached until someone jams enough stuff into a small enough area to achieve a self-sustaining chain reaction. In this case, the "someone" is you and your cohorts in the media, who can't seem to find anything newsworthy in a hotly contested political season. Perhaps if you all weren't so fixated on hearing the sound of your own voices echoing off the walls of your own colons you could get out there and find some news with actual substance to report. Like maybe you could find out if people really are bitter, and if so, why.

Posted by: Dan Someone | April 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse

If voters cannot depend of the government to solve their economic issues they will note vote or vote on other non-issues. They
dislike foreigners who get their outsourced jobs (as opposed to the government that let it happen). They become suspicious of government. Moreover, they bank upon what they can depend on: their family, church etc.
This does NOT mean:
1) They suddenly become religious
2) They suddenly love their parents etc.

You have a master's. So please see the entire speech and if you still think he is talking about your hunting then we really need to teach more logic in schools.
However, if you are trying to just hurt him I understand. Some will fall for it. BTW. There are other criticisms against Obama that are valid.
____________________________________________

It is not only a Penn problem it is going to be a national problem. Obama is classifing people with the old traditional leftist view of the world. he knows whats best and peole that hunt and go to Church need to come in from the stone age. Well I am educated, I have a Masters degree and a good job and I cling to my hunting guns and look forward to the next hunting season. It doesn't mean that I am not concerned about the US economy and jobs for the future. This has been a constant with his campaign, if you are not on board with Obama then something is wrong with you. No explaining gets him out of this.

Posted by: Matt | April 15, 2008 12:18 PM

Posted by: LogicTeacher | April 15, 2008 12:29 PM | Report abuse


'The Democrats wouldn't allow insurers to charge lower rates for young workers who cost far less than older Americans. McCain favors allowing insurers to charge rates based on actual cost.'

It's EUGENICS in action. The Nazis themselves couldn't have thought of a better way to get rid of the sick, poor, disabled and elderly.

Brilliant! It's the audacity of market-driven murder.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse


'The Democrats wouldn't allow insurers to charge lower rates for young workers who cost far less than older Americans. McCain favors allowing insurers to charge rates based on actual cost.'

It's EUGENICS in action. The Nazis themselves couldn't have thought of a better way to get rid of the sick, poor, disabled and elderly.

Brilliant! It's the audacity of market-driven murder.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:27 PM | Report abuse

.....
What's funny is Hillary Clinton getting Booed for trying to exploit this non-situation.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/24109989#24109989


Contrast that with Obama getting a question about Obama Bin Laden:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1324985242556546301&q=associated+press+obama+bin+laden&total=3&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0&hl=en

The Guy is Smooooooth. He should be President.

Obama 08

Posted by: ComeOn | April 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

Dave! - Thanks for the reply. I do know that there is no such classification as "highly classified" but I took it as the speaker's shorthand for "secret", or a more secure classification. You understood my point, of course.

Andy R., my best wishes go out to you and to your adult daughter. This race means so much more to you than sound bites. I understand that.

I think that McC's approach to health care is a better starting place than the Ds', but I understand that the goal line must be crossed only when Andy's daughter, and others like her, are able to afford health care. So I understand that the Ds' promises of affordability have an immediacy that McC's tax credit proposal does not.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 12:26 PM | Report abuse

People have been asking for the last four days "will this stick". Well guys from the polls it appears it hasn't. Can we stop friggin talking about it 24 hours a day yet? We're to the point were the media looks like it's trying to influence the election. Talk about it, YES, but the "non-stop BitterGate" crap is looking pretty desperate to me and it believe that people will see through it. Saying something over and over again doesn't make it true (the "Elitist" BS) and it's time to end it.

Posted by: Kristen | April 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

We hear the argument all the time that the reason the media covers meaningless stories is because readers want to read about them and the media is just giving it's readers what they want. Judging by the comments on this blog it would appear that it's not the readers who are clamoring for these non-substance stories but the faux "journalists" who write them.

The last time I read this blog I was so fed up that Chris was once again writing BS about John Edwards that I haven't read it again until today. I see some things never change. I sure wish the Washington Post would hire someone to replace Mr. Cilliza. It's obvious that Mr. Cilliza is more interested in copying the vapid story lines that emanate from cable than he is in upholding the high standards that the Post used to stand for. If the Post's readers wanted substance free content they could just watch cable. Is the Post really striving to be just like cable minus the visuals?

Posted by: pmorlan | April 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

It's Hillary and McCain who are making a big deal of Obama's statement to divert everyone's attention from the real issues that face Americans today. So far Obama has better identified the problems facing America than they have and he has a better grasp of the entire picture than they have. Voters should not be hoodwinked by one statement. We need to look at everything the candidates represent and stand for.

Our economy is in shambles. We need new and better trade agreements, Obama sees and knows that and will work on that. We won't get that from Hillary or McCain. The imbalance of trade is hurting our economy and hurting our pocketbooks.

We already are in debt to China because of the Iraq war. China produces almost everything we use, wear or eat on a daily basis and the quality of their products is poor. We need to penalize American companies from setting up shop in China and find a way to keep these companies in America. I'm a third generation Chinese American and I'm tired of buying things made in China that don't work or work for only a short period of time. On the rare occasion that I do find something made in America, I buy it without hesitation.

I didn't find anything elitist about the statement. It's funny that the two people who are among the wealthiest people in the county would view someone who makes considerably less than they do as an elitist.

Posted by: nevadaandy | April 15, 2008 12:25 PM | Report abuse

Obama needs to do with these comments what he did with Jerimiah Wright -- not run from them, but embrace them. He caught wind...now sail!

Posted by: John Bailo | April 15, 2008 12:24 PM | Report abuse

marie you make 2 incorrect assumptions. 1. That unless the Dem party cowtows to Sen Obama that young voters become Republicans even though it is against their interest.
2. You call it overturning pledged votes. Your assumption that superdelegates automatically follow pledged delegates was never the intent of creating superdelegates by dnc rules. they were established in 1984 to express an independent voice to avoid the stampede to Gary Hart' irresponsible conduct being rewarded the nomination.
While Dems appreciate your involvement in the process I wonder why your generation was not there in 2004 to stop W; and I also ask why some, not you, often think they can bully their parents into voting the way their kids think even when their parents clearly disagree with that judgment? I honestly spoke with 2 undecided Pa lawyers this weekend who are leaning towards HC but are receiving constant attacks by their children.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 12:23 PM | Report abuse

I can't take it anymore. Senator Clinton is making this whole entire process 'bitter'. She's negative, divisive, and is throwing my party under the bus to get on the ticket.

I mailed my absentee ballot home to PA yesterday.

Obama '08!!!

Posted by: Lee P | April 15, 2008 12:22 PM | Report abuse

What Price Freedom?
Single-entry bookkeeping is bad economics and even worse national security.

By Larry Kudlow


Surprise, surprise. Having failed to puncture General Petraeus's story about great improvements on the ground in Iraq, liberals are now saying the cost of the Iraq war has somehow undermined the economy -- even caused the current slowdown. What complete nonsense.

First point: The U.S. has spent roughly $750 billion for the five-year war. Sure, that's a lot of money. But the total cost works out to 1 percent of the $63 trillion GDP over that time period. It's miniscule.

But here's the real question we ought to be asking: What is the cost of freedom? While the Left refuses to acknowledge it, the U.S. homeland has not been attacked since September 11. Right there is a big economic plus. Since President Bush went on the offensive and took the battle to Iraq, al Qaeda and other extremist terrorist groups have been utterly routed by U.S. forces. But in tying the jihadists down on their home turf, and keeping them from mounting another coordinated attack on the U.S., our economy has benefited incalculably.

Then again, the anti-war forces might want to recall John F. Kennedy's inaugural address, in which he called on Americans to "Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to ensure the survival and the success of liberty."

Do these folks actually think 1 percent of GDP is too large a price, too heavy a burden? I sure hope not.

The leader of the "Iraq is sinking the economy" school is Joseph Stiglitz, a former Nobel Prize winner who worked for President Clinton and now teaches at Columbia University. Even Stiglitz admitted to me in a recent interview that the U.S. can afford the Iraq war. His real agenda, however, is to cut Iraqi funds and defense spending in general in order to launch a Keynesian big-spending campaign here at home.

Of course, the liberal government-spending appetite is insatiable during wartime or peacetime. And for nearly three decades voters have rejected it, opting instead for the low tax rates that spur economic growth while allowing them to keep their money.

And by the way, despite the current slowdown, the U.S. economy has performed remarkably well during the five years of the Iraq war. Real GDP has increased by 16 percent, or 3 percent annually. The unemployment rate has hovered below a historically low 5 percent for quite some time. Nearly 10 million jobs have been created. Household net worth has increased by $20 trillion. Industrial production has expanded by 13.5 percent. Even home prices, despite the current correction, have increased by 20 percent.

Lest we forget, anti-freedom, anti-capitalism jihadists were attempting to drive a dagger through our economy. That was the point of hitting the World Trade Center, wasn't it? But they failed miserably to stop the rising tide of free-market capitalism throughout the world. Global GDP has averaged nearly 5 percent annually in the last five years. The capitalization of the world's stock market has increased 159 percent -- or $35 trillion. New emerging-market economies have seen their stock markets collectively rise by 223 percent.

Incidentally, the CBO estimated that if troops in Iraq were reduced to 75,000 by 2013, war costs will amount to just over $1 trillion for the entire period -- roughly one-half of 1 percent of $177 trillion in newly created GDP. Still a tiny amount.

And how can anybody truly approximate the cost of permitting Saddam Hussein to remain in power? In 2006, several economists at the University of Chicago estimated that in certain scenarios the containment of Saddam might have produced security costs that are similar to the actual expenses of the Iraq war.

But what of the benefits of removing the totalitarian Iraqi dictator? How are we calculating those? It was Saddam who launched a ten-year war against Iran, invaded Kuwait, and gassed and killed hundreds of thousands of his own people. And it could well have been Saddam who blew up the entire Middle East had he been left in power.

Where is the liberal price-out of the potential consequences of not going to war? And should the Iraqi surge continue to safeguard an American ally and promote the kind of 7 percent economic growth that is now occurring in Iraq, how does one estimate the economic benefits to that nation, the region, the U.S., and the rest of the world?

Liberals like Professor Stiglitz have blinders on when it comes to the strategic course of U.S. civilian and military operations in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. They're only willing to evaluate the negatives, rather than think through the positives.

This is called single-entry bookkeeping. It makes for bad economics and even worse national security.

Posted by: Lib economics = bad | April 15, 2008 12:19 PM | Report abuse

Marie... We don't want to destroy the surge of young voters registering as Democrats, but Hillary seems more than willing to.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 15, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

It is not only a Penn problem it is going to be a national problem. Obama is classifing people with the old traditional leftist view of the world. he knows whats best and peole that hunt and go to Church need to come in from the stone age. Well I am educated, I have a Masters degree and a good job and I cling to my hunting guns and look forward to the next hunting season. It doesn't mean that I am not concerned about the US economy and jobs for the future. This has been a constant with his campaign, if you are not on board with Obama then something is wrong with you. No explaining gets him out of this.

Posted by: Matt | April 15, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

I'm wondering when anyone will notice and take offense at the scripted nature of Hillary Clinton's "back at ya" comments following Senator Obama's off-the-cuff poorly planned remarks. Am I the only one who noticed that, when she was waxing poetic about her grandfather teaching her to shoot as a little girl, that she was turning pages as she spoke? And another thing, I live in a very rural community; how many men does she want us to believe teach their LITTLE GIRLS how to shoot? Particularly back in, what, 1958? Many may teach their YOUNG MEN how to shoot, NOT their LITTLE BOYS; and certainly NOT their LITTLE GIRLS! I am a feminist! She would make a fine president without all these theatrics. She shames herself and all women with these attacks and misrepresentations rather than addressing substantive issues! She needs to get real. She reads these heartwarming stories off sheets of paper! We can see her turning the pages! Someone sit up and take notice, PLEASE!

Posted by: Laurinda in NH | April 15, 2008 12:18 PM | Report abuse

-

By any means necessary, right? That's what you blacks say!

Clinton/Limbaugh 08 !

Change We Have Seen Already.

Posted by: BraBurner | April 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

'The Democrats wouldn't allow insurers to charge lower rates for young workers who cost far less than older Americans. McCain favors allowing insurers to charge rates based on actual cost.'

It's EUGENICS in action. The Nazis themselves couldn't have thought of a better way to get rid of the sick, poor, disabled and elderly.

Brilliant! It's the audacity of market-driven murder.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

So what happened to Obama's "brilliant" speechmaking ability?

Actually, he does not even know how to talk without causing division.

he is unelectable in November.

Posted by: JohnAdams1 | April 15, 2008 12:16 PM | Report abuse

'The Democrats wouldn't allow insurers to charge lower rates for young workers who cost far less than older Americans. McCain favors allowing insurers to charge rates based on actual cost.'

It's EUGENICS in action. The Nazis themselves couldn't have thought of a better way to get rid of the sick, poor, disabled and elderly.

Brilliant! It's the audacity of market-driven murder.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Well when does telling truth became "criticisim". Then be happy with BUSH. Re-elect him, pass an amendment.
__________________________________________

You know, I do care. People do not need to be critized. People do not need to be seen as uncapable of making decisions because things are economically bad. This just shows what has been in question about Obama. Is he a player? Yes...he is. That race speech did it for me. The shoe dropped. He was trying to sell us. I could see that.

Posted by: cyberaim | April 15, 2008 12:09 PM

Posted by: NoMorePandering | April 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

In a revision of history, Hillary asserts that a Gore-Kerry wing of the Democratic Party lost presidential elections because of elitism; that Obama is another elitist, out of touch with long-suffering voters whose jobs, homes and health needs are under great pressure; and that only she, heading the Clinton-Lieberman wing of the Party, can save Democrats from extinction.

Posted by: FirstMouse | April 15, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Mr. Cillizza... anyone else... please explain what the controvery is? Why is this offensive?

I'm completely, utterly confused by this. I have read, and reread Obama's comments 100 times and I cannot find what part is offensive. All I see is pundits working themselves into a lather without ever specifying what they are in a lather about.

Posted by: Dave | April 15, 2008 12:12 PM | Report abuse

Shrillary - let's hope you know more about politics than you do about drinking. You don't follow a shot of sipping bourbon with a beer chaser.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | April 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

WEhat's truly radical about the plan is that it eliminates the tax exclusion for healthcare benefits offered by companies to their employees, and replaces it with the $2500 to $5000 rebates.

Consumers could then use that cash to buy their own insurance in what Gramm foresees as a vibrant, consumer-driven marketplace.

By contrast, Clinton and Obama want to leave the employer-based system in place; Clinton would make big companies either fund packages for workers, or pay a tax to support a new Medicare-like system.

The Democrats wouldn't allow insurers to charge lower rates for young workers who cost far less than older Americans. McCain favors allowing insurers to charge rates based on actual cost.

Gramm adamantly supports that policy allowing insurers to tailor their premiums, and their packages, to their customers. Says Gramm: "Most people without coverage are young and healthy. We shouldn't penalize them by forcing them to pay for someone else's coverage."

What about taxes? McCain now advocates extending the Bush tax cuts that he twice voted against.

McCain pledges to balance the budget by 2012, not by increasing taxes, but by curbing outlays for Social Security and Medicare.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

__________________________________________

The Emperor has no clothes...

The Queen has no Shame.

__________________________________________

Hillary / McCain 08 !

__________________________________________

Posted by: OhWell | April 15, 2008 12:11 PM | Report abuse

Well that requires "work"
______________________________________________

Please Cillizza, can you write about something substantial next time?

Posted by: Ardmore | April 15, 2008 12:09 PM

Posted by: SickOfHype | April 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

One more Billionaire for Senator Obama hunter. That is ceratinly a story I appreciate your promoting now for the third time.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 12:10 PM | Report abuse

Vote for Hillary.

Posted by: GOP | April 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Who knew how instrumental McCain was in murdering single-payer healthcare?

On the economy, McCain's most daring manifesto is his healthcare plan. Not surprisingly, it bears the Gramm imprint. The two senators bonded when they linked arms to fight Hillary Clinton's ill-fated healthcare program in 1993. "We couldn't get any press coverage in Washington, DC, so we traveled all over the country, to the regional media markets," says Gramm. In 150 meetings at hospitals and clinics, McCain and Gramm relentlessly pounded the Clinton plan, helping to kill the plan in 1994.

Today, McCain is advocating a plan that's radically different from those of Clinton and Barack Obama, and - if he goes all the way by following Gramm - could revolutionize America's healthcare system. For McCain and Gramm, the problem with our healthcare system - and the reason why over 47 million Americans are uninsured - is that it's excessively, expensive. The solution, they say, is to let Americans shop for healthcare with their own money. McCain advocates giving tax rebates of $2500 per individual or $5000 per family. With that money, families could purchase policies on their own.

What's truly radical about the plan is that it eliminates the tax exclusion for healthcare benefits offered by companies to their employees, and replaces it with the $2500 to $5000 rebates.

Consumers could then use that cash to buy their own insurance in what Gramm foresees as a vibrant, consumer-driven marketplace.

By contrast, Clinton and Obama want to leave the employer-based system in place; Clinton would make big companies either fund packages for workers, or pay a tax to support a new Medicare-like system. The Democrats wouldn't allow insurers to charge lower rates for young workers who cost far less than older Americans. McCain favors allowing insurers to charge rates based on actual cost. Gramm adamantly supports that policy allowing insurers to tailor their premiums, and their packages, to their customers. Says Gramm: "Most people without coverage are young and healthy. We shouldn't penalize them by forcing them to pay for someone else's coverage."

What about taxes? McCain now advocates extending the Bush tax cuts that he twice voted against.

McCain pledges to balance the budget by 2012, not by increasing taxes, but by curbing outlays for Social Security and Medicare.

That would accomplish the seemingly impossible, reducing federal spending as a portion of GDP, a holy grail for conservatives. Could Gramm be the Treasury Secretary who spearheads the McCain plan? He says he'd be reluctant to return to public life, but doesn't rule it out. Indeed, he says that he and McCain talk every day.'

Here's your future, people. Your employer will no longer offer health insurance. You will be left to the tender mercies of the 'markets' to buy your insurance, and if you are not young healthy, you might as well just kill yourself now, and get it over with. And if you are disabled, well, if you aren't wealthy, you won't live to see your first birthday. This will completely destroy the middle class. And oh, yes, the elderly as well. Let's just kill all the poor and the struggling, and the sick and the old. Who needs them? They aren't 'productive' and that's all that counts, isn't it?

McCain will 'limit outlays' on Social Security, you see. And limit access to health care. What a wonderful world that will be.

"McCain favors allowing insurers to charge rates based on actual cost. Gramm adamantly supports that policy allowing insurers to tailor their premiums, and their packages, to their customers."

And imiagine how much healthcare you can buy with $2500 annually for your family, when premiums will skyrocket? Maybe one month, if that. Goodbye, middle class. You're dead meat now.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Please Cillizza, can you write about something substantial next time?

Posted by: Ardmore | April 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

You know, I do care. People do not need to be critized. People do not need to be seen as uncapable of making decisions because things are economically bad. This just shows what has been in question about Obama. Is he a player? Yes...he is. That race speech did it for me. The shoe dropped. He was trying to sell us. I could see that.

Posted by: cyberaim | April 15, 2008 12:09 PM | Report abuse

Bitter-gate?

What a total non-issue!

It really is a media generated
pile of bull.

Posted by: Trab | April 15, 2008 12:08 PM | Report abuse

Yesterday the Pittsburgh Steelers owner Rooney endorsed Obama.

Uncommitted superdelegates from Pittsburgh and NC think the "bitter"-flap is much ado about nothing and agree with Obama's point that small town America has been left in the failed-political-promises corporate dust.

Even Hillary shill Gov. Rendell doesn't think the comment has legs.... so enough already CC.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Posted by: Truth Hunter | April 15, 2008 12:05 PM | Report abuse

Boutan @ 8:25:

Thank you. I have been waiting for someone to state the obvious: Hillary Clinton only wins the nomination by convincing the super delegates to overturn the pledged delegates. Does anyone truly believe that is going to happen? Does anyone truly believe that can happen without destroying the party for a generation? If you agree that such an event in unlikely, then all this speculation over Senator Clinton's current chances to win the nomination is nonsense.

An interesting piece of trivia to keep in mind for Democrats interested in growing the party: a large percentage of people who vote for the first time, and do so with the sense that they are voting for one party over another, tend to keep with that party affiliation over their life time. This year, the Democratic Party has the chance to attract a lot of first-time, young voters. Do we really want to destroy that?

Posted by: Marie | April 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

.

And what if Obama loses by a small margin in PA, a small margin in Indiana, and then blows her doors off in NC?

THIS is more likely, yet you seem to omit it from possibilities.

Because, then, the story is Dead, no? Hillary loses by vote count, delegate count, and super delegate count, time to move on to the general election.

She can cry and act offended and turn blue, but the facts are the facts.

She Is Losing.

She Has Lost.

She Will Lose.

How's THAT for a compelling story! lol!

.

Posted by: On The Other Hand... | April 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

Because the manipulable masses are easily given a "false consciousness" (another category, like religion as the "opiate" of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:

First, the consent of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false consciousnesses, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats.

The iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still permeated that school when Obama matriculated there in 1981. Hofstadter pioneered the rhetorical tactic that Obama has revived with his diagnosis of working-class Democrats as victims -- the indispensable category in liberal theory. The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you disagree.

Obama's dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.

Posted by: will | April 15, 2008 12:03 PM | Report abuse

I just read the first few sentences above and I gotta say it: no one cares. The only people who do are the relative minority who write this tripe.

Posted by: useless | April 15, 2008 12:02 PM | Report abuse

I think the real issue is how Obama reacts to the controversy. So far, he's employing a good offense as his defense, and, unlike Hillary, with humor and grace.

It's bound to come up during the debate on Wed. so I'd like to see the post-debate polls. Hillary and McCain both will try to make hay out of this but I do not think in the end it will get much traction with most voters. Barack will weather this storm.

Posted by: Toubab in ATL | April 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

I am from a small town in Central PA. No I have not lost my job or house, but know enough people who have or who are really struggling. I am also an Obama supporter (let's get that out of the way). I think his remarks could have been better worded, but whether some of you like it or not, he spoke the truth. People are bitter--they are damned mad!
But as one poster pointed out already, many, if not most of them would not vote for Obama because he is a Black. For example, our local newspaper (Centre Daily Times) reported a while back on a HRC rally in Hazelton PA, I believe, and some of her blue-collar supporters were interviewed. One older man said "I'm not crazy about voting for a colored" (which is why he intends to vote for HRC in the primary) and an older woman said "I won't vote for him because I don't want to be a Muslim." When told that Obama was a Christian, she replied then why did he go to "Iraq and visit that lama or whatever".
So much for the informed American electorate in PA and elsewhere--judging by many posts. Bob Herbert got it right in his NYT op-ed piece today.

Posted by: frank | April 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

MarkInAustin,
If the program/simulation itself was highly classified, then he could and should be in trouble (whatever "highly classified" means as that is not an official term). There are instances where there are programs that are publicly known and the details are what is classified. For instance, we know there is a plan in place to protect the White House and its chief occupant should there be an attack. People are free to acknowledge that plan but what those measures are and what the plan is would be "highly classified". There are also programs that are "highly classified" which the mere mention of it is problematic. Just the knowledge of it puts people, the country or state secrets in jeopardy. All that said, what the security people tell you and what you get trained on and review periodically is to keep your mouth shut when it comes to information that is restricted in any way(Loose lips sink ships as they used to say). If there actually was a simulation like that, Mr. Davis needs to spend some time reviewing his security training materials. I actually probably think there was a program. People, unless your profession is security, don't spend a lot of time discerning the various levels of security and using the correct terminology. So my best guess is that I think his use of the phrase "highly confidential" meant there was something that was not for general public disclosure and he just termed it that way.

Posted by: Dave! | April 15, 2008 12:01 PM | Report abuse

Because she is everyday gal from heartland who earns a minimum wage. And her supporters are so OPTIMISTIC (Only i nPA though) that they can take another BUSH term. Nope, no one is PA is bitter. Look at the nice posts here.
____________________________________________

Has anybody bothered to ask why ShriLIARy's drink of choice is Canadian Whiskey? Why Crown Royal, and not real American booze like Jack or Jim? More proof this lying POS will say anything to get elected.

Posted by: Shrillary Cliton is a LIAR | April 15, 2008 11:51 AM

Posted by: Country gal | April 15, 2008 11:58 AM | Report abuse

Former President Jimmy Carter embraced a leading Hamas figure Tuesday, according to participants in a meeting that infuriated Israeli officials already upset by Carter's freelance Mideast peace mission. Carter also laid a wreath at the grave of Yasser Arafat, whom the Bush administration and many Israelis blame for the breakdown of peace talks seven years ago and the violence that followed.

Posted by: Obama's Sec of state | April 15, 2008 11:56 AM | Report abuse

Despite his claim that he is "a consistent supporter of educational benefits for the men and women of the military," Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) indicated yesterday that he will not support the bipartisan 21st Century GI Bill, stating that he is working on his own proposal. McCain has been largely absent on the issue, even though Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) -- the bill's chief sponsor -- had been urging McCain "to get on the bill." Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans of America has now taken out a full-page ad in a South Carolina newspaper pressuring Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) to support the legislation.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Of note from the Rasmussen poll via Politico:

"A strong majority of Americans, 56 percent according to a released Monday, disagree with Obama's "bitter" remark.

But Rasmussen also found that a plurality of politically liberal voters, 46 percent, agree with Obama's remark while a third disagree. A slim majority of moderate voters, 51 percent, disagree while 27 percent agree. Not surprisingly, three in four conservatives disagree with Obama's comment but only 12 percent agree.

The negative sentiment expressed by moderates is likely to concern Obama's campaign looking ahead to a possible general election matchup against John McCain. Obama owes a significant portion of his victories to the support of moderates and independents.

Posted by: MSY | April 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

"Get use to it. It will only get worse. The MSM loves McCain. Just wait from now to the general. Obamanites, it will not be fun

Posted by: | April 15, 2008 11:42 AM."

Nobody said running for President was going to be easy. McCain will slip up to and badly, c'mon the dude is old. Personally I'm glad this 'bittergate" NON-story broke. If those poll numbers don't move it helps build Obama's case and that is exactly what is happening here. Go to Youtube and look at the the most viewed videos of the day, there's some girl showing cleavage talking about the root origin of words, girls hitting each other in the head, and Obama getting his message out whether it is a "a more perfect union" over 5 Million views or his "annie oakley" speech #3 most viewed video of the day. Those poll numbers aren't budging after an onslaught of media coverage so that says to me Obama's message is getting directly to the people in more ways than one. The Clinton campaign looks like a dinosaur of elections past.

Posted by: johnny b | April 15, 2008 11:55 AM | Report abuse

Has anybody bothered to ask why ShriLIARy's drink of choice is Canadian Whiskey? Why Crown Royal, and not real American booze like Jack or Jim? More proof this lying POS will say anything to get elected.

Posted by: Shrillary Cliton is a LIAR | April 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

From another thread, mnteng writes:

"If you can afford it, you could donate the "economic stimulus" check to your favorite charity"

mnteng, I'm not eligible for one, but thanks anyway. It's a good idea. My 'favorite charity' today is the IRS.


That is a big reason why I support McCain; with him at least my taxes won't go up. Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II.

Among other proposals, McCain said he would:
-Raise the tax exemption for each dependent child from $3,500 to $7,000.

-Require more affluent people -- couples making more than $160,000 -- enrolled in Medicare to pay a higher premium for their prescription drugs than less-wealthy people.

-Offer people the option of choosing a simpler tax system with two tax rates and a standard deduction instead of sticking with the current system.

-Suspend for one year all increases in discretionary spending for agencies other than those that cover the military and veterans while launching an expansive review of the effectiveness of federal program.


Sounds pretty good to me.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

What will it take to end this stupidity. Four more years of Bush...the stale old version named Mccain?

Or how about four years of a liar, race-baitor, evil woman named Hillary.

I call her a liar because she lies,

I call her a race-baitor because she seeks to turn the races against each other

I call her evil because that is her name

You want to ruin this country...then keep ignoring the next generation...

YOU are killing us with your stupidity

Posted by: Over the Media and Hillary | April 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Hillary Clinton '08

I was on the board of Walmart for six years. While I was pushing aggressively for Walmart to become more environmentally friendly, many of the board members still don't realize I was quietly fighting for unions. Listen. You hear that. That's me fighting for you.

Solutions for the American Corporation

Posted by: UncleRemus | April 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

It would sure be nice if journalists would grow up and talk about the issues.

Posted by: Sara B.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Like hope and change,words matter(I guess they do), and I was against the war. Are you sure those are issues. That's Obama's platform.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 11:51 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Obama has prospered in Democratic primaries. But as John Harris and Jim VandeHei note in Politico.com, that's in part because these primaries have "been an exercise in self-censorship" about Mr. Obama's weaknesses. It is "indisputably true," they write, that "Obama is on the brink of the Democratic nomination without having had to confront head-on the evidence about his general election challenges."

There are many. His statements that he wants to withdraw U.S. forces from Iraq, combined with his lack of foreign policy experience, could hurt him. And his aides are hard pressed to come up with any deviations in a voting record the nonpartisan National Journal calls the most liberal of any U.S. Senator.

As a state legislator he was even more off-center. In 1996, he opposed the Defense of Marriage Act, which the Senate approved 85-14 and President Clinton signed into law. He twice voted "present" on a bill to ban partial-birth abortions. In 1999, he was the only state senator to oppose a law that prohibited early prison release for sex offenders.

Mr. Obama also backed a total ban on handguns, a move his campaign now says was the result of a rogue aide filling out a questionnaire. But Mr. Obama's own handwritten notes were found on the questionnaire, calling into question the campaign's version of what happened.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120821921853714665.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

Posted by: the truth will out | April 15, 2008 11:50 AM | Report abuse

I really wish MSM would give equal time to Sen. Clinton's problems. How about donations to the Clinton Foundation as payments for speeches to Chinese firms involved in the repression of Tibetan dissidents? Bill Clinton receiving million of dollars for supporting trade deals in opposition of U.S. policies? Should Sen. Clinton be elected, will her husband continue such practices? If so, will he be conducting any personal business from the White House, where he will be living on the taxpayer's dime?

Or how about Sen. Clinton's problem with the truth? After 8 years of Bush, do we want a candidate with a truthiness issue? Let alone a First Gentleman with the same problem?

Posted by: JR | April 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

If his comments were no big deal, why are Obama supporters sending DEATH THREATS to the Obama supporter who broke the story?

This is the pattern: If you do not agree with him, you are racist.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-bitter15apr15,0,1810964.story

Posted by: joe | April 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

"Bitter," et al remains and issue because you pundits continue to talk to each other in public venues pretending you are informing and reflecting the public view. You are an irritating, self-serving, reckless pack who do no service to the public. Oh, I'm not bitter yet. But for now I am mad as hell and absolutely sick of Thee media.

Posted by: Lilta Browne | April 15, 2008 11:49 AM | Report abuse

How can anyone but an out-of-touch elitist think that folks in the heartland might be a tad bitter about the economy? Here's another example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_vN0--mHug

Posted by: crspratt | April 15, 2008 11:48 AM | Report abuse

GUNS, GOD, and GRITS!

OBAMA: I am "BITTER" they used MARGARINE instead of BUTTER on MY GRITS!

Can't they afford real butter? How long have they been using margarine? 25 years?

Don't they know that Margarine is basically "BITTER" butter?

I know that Pennsylvanians and Americans are P.R.O. Hillary, that is POSITITVE, RESILIENT, and OPTIMISTIC about a woman that will work hard for them and stand by them.
Yep, please pass an amendment to re-elect Bush and continue your OPTIMISM.
Good luck
__________________________________________


So, I want to say to small town America: KISS MY GRITS!...I think the folks in San Francisco will like that, not grits, but the "SENTIMENT"!

****
HILLARY, will you be my BAMBINA?

Posted by: cheersdk | April 15, 2008 11:42 AM

Posted by: Voice of Reason | April 15, 2008 11:47 AM | Report abuse

Enough of this story. It's overplayed by the press and by Hillary(millionaire times 100) and McCain(descendant of a line of generals).

I'm getting bitter over the coverage this annoying story is getting.

Posted by: mimi | April 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

Count me in as one of the bitter...I just had to deliver almost $10,000 in taxes to help pay for a needless war and deteriorating economy that allows for outrageous profits by big oil and medicine but my 23 year old daughter can't get affordable health insurance in this country because she has rheumatoid arthritis...The only medicine available to her that has worked costs about $50,000 a year...The drug manufacturer provides it for free but she can not have any health insurance under this plan even though the disease is one of the immune system which always has complications...We tried social security benefits and other resources to no avail...So, I am just a little bitter and fortunately for some I am not clutching a gun...We have never needed a change in my lifetime more than we do now...It isn't McCain, it could be Hilary but I hope it is Obama...

Posted by: Andy R | April 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

BO and McCain will be OK even if they do not win. If Hillary is not elected she might be indicted in Peter Paul.
Please vote for her.

Posted by: Compassion for Hillary | April 15, 2008 11:46 AM | Report abuse

great McCain is calling for the end of unemployment insurance and sending the unemployed to community colleges. Great idea that should do wonders for unemployed, cpas, engineers, lawyers, and phds. I am glad that he thinks we need to learn a new skill like roofing or mechanics to now replace our post graduate degrees and take away our meager unemployment benefits as compesnation.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 11:44 AM | Report abuse

GUNS, GOD, and GRITS!

OBAMA: I am "BITTER" they used MARGARINE instead of BUTTER on MY GRITS!

Can't they afford real butter? How long have they been using margarine? 25 years?

Don't they know that Margarine is basically "BITTER" butter?

I know that Pennsylvanians and Americans are P.R.O. Hillary, that is POSITITVE, RESILIENT, and OPTIMISTIC about a woman that will work hard for them and stand by them.

So, I want to say to small town America: KISS MY GRITS!...I think the folks in San Francisco will like that, not grits, but the "SENTIMENT"!

****
HILLARY, will you be my BAMBINA?

Posted by: cheersdk | April 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

A living lie

By Thomas Sowell

http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie. That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.


Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.


There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.


Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.


Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.


Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."


Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.


Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.


In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.


Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.


People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.


However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.


Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.


Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.


Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."


Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.


It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.


Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.

Posted by: Howl, howl | April 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

This was a CLASSIC definition of a MEDIA story.

Posted by: johnny
----------------------------------------

Pees you Obamanites off doesn't it. You are getting a dose of what Clinton supporters have been facing from the MSM for months.

Get use to it. It will only get worse. The MSM loves McCain. Just wait from now to the general. Obamanites, it will not be fun.

My opinion, it couldn't happen to better folks.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

Where we are now in this controversy is the part where the limousine liberals bash each other and both claim salt of the earth status.

McCain supporters enjoy the show.

Posted by: Ed | April 15, 2008 11:40 AM | Report abuse

The "bitter" flap is a non-starter. It really is silly to discuss the matter. Obama is head and shoulders above the other candidates and this thoughtful man has run an organized campaign. People really need to stick with the issues. These attack ads make the other candidates look desperate.

Posted by: sentheru | April 15, 2008 11:38 AM | Report abuse

tunaman your post is absolutely hillarious
"Obama supporters here are generally very positive" if you had actually been here and read what has been said about HC you might understand how far fetch that is. So its positive for Obama supporters to call HC evil, the b****, old, a pole dancer, a monster, sagging, a w***, I am sure I can go back to my index of inappropriate remarks made here over the last 3 weeks but to call Obama supporters positive defies reality. The only sentiment they have been positive about is that their guy is absolutely right and anyone who does not agree with him or their supporters should just get the h*** out of the democratic part b/c they are nothing but evil traitors(that post has been directed towards me and every other HC supporter). Exactly which of those words tunaman would you call positive? Or how how calling her a liar at every turn that is certainly a positive statement or truth's labeling every HC supporter this morning as evil and Hateful? That certainly sounds positive and optimistic, right?

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 11:37 AM | Report abuse

As an Indiana voter, it's interesting how the people on the coasts just don't seem to understand the midwest.

Having money doesn't automatically make you an elitist out here. Heck, even showing off your money with the newest and coolest truck or boat doesn't make you an elitist. Inferring and acting like hunters and religious people are simpletons DOES make you an elitist.

Posted by: Wolfcastle | April 15, 2008 11:35 AM | Report abuse

This story is about to fade. The polls coming out, with the exception to the ARG poll yesterday which shows wild swings weekly, are showing very very little impact. Rasmussen showed a a 4 pt bump in PA for Clinton, but a 5 pt bump for Obama nationally. Obama improved in the SUSA poll for PA although he still down 14 pts in that one. We will see what Gallup has today but yesterday Obama held his lead nationally by 9 pts and that was with interviewing on Sat and Sun. This was a CLASSIC definition of a MEDIA story.

Posted by: johnny b | April 15, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

"To hell, that's where you can go. We have a President who is a self-admitted war criminal, and this kind of crap is what MSM "reporting" is filled with? You have some goddamn nerve cashing your paycheck, moron."

Exactly. Why not look for a more honest line of work, Mr. Cilizza? ou have some goddamn nerve cashing your paycheck, moron. There's always a need in DC for streetwalkers.

Posted by: The joke that is the media
=========================================

Is this Dr. Wright speaking? Why did your
your follower say those small town Penn. voters were racist. They had antipathy for those who didn't look like them. Race baiting to the highest degree.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 11:33 AM | Report abuse

A former Republican, I prize a candidate who will speak the truth and add nuance to the complexity of life rather than one who focuses on political expediency. Obama's comment actually acknowledges root reasons for animosity and yes bitterness among Middle America (of which I am a part) rather than the normal liberal elite that dismisses and condescends we po' white folks as "ignorant" but then lauds "the hardworking middle class" solely for votes -- another form of even more offensive condescension. Let's elevate our discussion to ideas and honest speech rather than @$$-kissing. How else are we to progress as a civil society if we can't acknowledge the sources of our disagreements and contention? Are we saying we Americans excuse outright lies (snipers, anyone? WMD?) but shriek in horror of truth-speaking?

Posted by: Please | April 15, 2008 11:32 AM | Report abuse

As liberal media, commentary, and Obama's superior fundraising position have been able to keep Obama ahead of Hillary overall, his numbers against McCain have slipped.

The damage from his comment must not just be looked at in terms of what it means for the primary, but what it means for the GE.

With this statement, Obama has, or is close to passing the Rubicon as a polarizing figure.

He is fast becoming just as big a lightning rod as Hillary.

It's not surprising, I've seen repeatedly on these posts that hardly anyone knew Obama a year ago. That's right, and we're getting to know him now.

It is because of the state of our politics, our media, ourselves.

It is also because of the way ALL of the candidates conduct themselves.

Hillary may be on the attack on Obama now, but Obama's mistake was right after he bashed Bill Clinton for causing economic stagnation.

Posted by: Comment | April 15, 2008 11:30 AM | Report abuse

I suppose if Senator Obama would reveal his intentions in such areas as the economy, the war, the foreclosure crisis, health care, or any number of other important issues, maybe there would be something else to report. Maybe the media has gotten tired of showing "Yes, we can!" over and over again. But there's nothing of substance to show, because he says nothing of substance.

It doesn't matter anyway. We Democrats have already given this election away. I'll probably even vote for McCain myself, even though I think he's insane and I've never voted for a Republican before.

Posted by: RGS TNR | April 15, 2008 11:29 AM | Report abuse

All I have to say, is PLEASE let this "bitter-gate" be over and done with before the campaigns move to Indiana and NC. I'm in Indiana right now and I don't want every opportunity to interface with these candidates to be all about mispoken words at some fundraiser in California. I want to hear health-care plans, economic recovery plans, foreign policies, and actual issues of substance. Not a childish game of "he-said, she-said". I thought these canidates were suposed to be adults! Act like it!

Posted by: Pete | April 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

"Tuzla" and "the laugh"

What? I never heard about those. I thought the laugh was Howard Dean's launch/scream thing... Please stop spinning with a HRC jab when the point of this news and your article is about how Obama expressed his indifference to HARDSHIP (he never been through it for him to comment on it). In the end, thanks for letting us know... bitter --> Obama. His comment is simple: "I'm not poor, was never poor nor poorly educated and I THINK poor, working class people are just bitter." And that's all he said, nothing more. The media is over analyzing this.

And reading a lot of the comments, there is a class difference in Obama supporters--the affluent and the young have likely never been through the hardships of the working class. That in some case this country has left them no choices to this date.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

Back in March Newsweek starting digging around the relationship between rezko and Alsammarae, and mentioned that after some reluctance Obama's campaign "released e-mails" from October 2006 between his U.S. Senate office and U.S. officials "on behalf" of Alsammarae, who was still "imprisoned in Iraq."

Obama did this apparently after he was sent a request by Alsammarae's nephew. I find it amazing that Sen. Obama would get involved based soley on the request of a nephew and no other connection. Except now we hear that Rezko and Alsammarae knew each other.

What a coincidence.

Is there any link between this man and Obama's alleged plan to have Iraqi security forces trained in Illinois?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 11:28 AM | Report abuse

I agree with most on here. I think the media has nothing JUICY to report on the campaign trail and are going over board with remarks that DO ring true. Heck, upper middle class Americans are pissed off and frustrated with the government, especially the executive branch. As someone pointed out, a 29% approval rating for the current moron in the White House. Come on. Report something real. The people who are all over this issue support John McCain and Hilary Clinton. And for those Democrats on here who ACTUALLY think this is a big deal and relate it to John Kerry, you have to be kidding right? John Kerry lost to G.W. because G.W. and Senator Obama's cousin, Dick Cheney, scared up votes by painting a picture that if a Democrat is elected President of the United States, terrorist would feel unafraid to attack the U.S. They played upon the fear of many Americans. Look what America got in return. I REALLY hope we are not that STUPID again.

Posted by: Citizen AJ | April 15, 2008 11:27 AM | Report abuse

So Hillary and McPain are both hammering on Obama - I guess that makes him the front-runner.

Posted by: Yuri Lipitzmeof | April 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"To hell, that's where you can go. We have a President who is a self-admitted war criminal, and this kind of crap is what MSM "reporting" is filled with? You have some goddamn nerve cashing your paycheck, moron."

Exactly. Why not look for a more honest line of work, Mr. Cilizza? ou have some goddamn nerve cashing your paycheck, moron. There's always a need in DC for streetwalkers.

Posted by: The joke that is the media | April 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

"The Obama "Bitter" debate is one of style, not substance"
---excuse number 10 and counting----

An above question was asked about HC and whether she just paid attention to small towns in large states. Doubtful since she won the small towns in Ark and Tenn and will likely win the small towns in Indiana, W Va, and Ky hardly large states.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 11:25 AM | Report abuse

Not many, but some in the press are trying to accurately tell the story:

Obama Allies Avoid Trying to Explain Most Controversial Part of His Remarks
April 13, 2008 5:51 PM

As Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and his allies have locked into damage control mode and attempted to explain his controversial remarks about small-town Pennsylvanians, they've attempted to focus their pushback away from the most controversial part of his remarks to an elite crowd at a San Francisco fundraiser.


http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obama-allies-av.html

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 15, 2008 11:23 AM | Report abuse

Liberals continue to insist that "The problem that people are having with Obama's bitter remarks is that he spoke the truth"

The truth is that Obama believes average working class Americans are gun-toting religious-nut xenophobic bigots. This is the real Obama - the one who denigrates small town Americans while sipping cocktails with fatcat donors in SF.

He stabbed a large chunk of Americans in the back. But he meant it in a good way.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 11:22 AM | Report abuse

I'm pretty sure Obama was just answering a question. Why do you think small-town Pennsylvanians (and other midwesterners, not to mention everyone else) are upset?
What do you think they do about it?
Why in the world did they keep voting for Bush?

Posted by: michael4 | April 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

When the truth hurts, so be it. Long ago the GOP decided to use the God, guns and gays as a tool against the democrats and it succeeded. They played the religion factor to the degree where it actually became a force in politics, questioning opponent's religious beliefs and equating ones belief in GOD to be a main issue in elect ability. They also played to the NRA and gun owners in the view that the democratic party wanted to roll back the second amendment or even outlaw gun ownership altogether. Nothing could be further from the truth; they only wanted to halt the sale of automatic weapons to the general population. Also to control the number of handguns sold with real background checks. The second amendment will never be overturned in this country and as a liberal I personally would fight for people to have the right to bear arms. The last issue of Gay people is one of complete intolerance and hate GOP representatives and Senators have long fought against gay rights from marriage to healthcare benefits to the detriment of the Unites States, all citizens whatever their sexual choices deserve equal treatment from the Congress and Senate regardless of ones own personal beliefs. We are one nation and these GOP persons who play to the fears in these issues serve only to divide a nation and not to unify it. In closing what Barak Obama said regarding the bitterness felt by people left out of the political loop is indeed true, and to turn to your God in times of difficulty is not a sign of weakness nor is ones wish to direct energy of frustration to the sport of hunting, so wake up and stop being played upon your fears by people who wish only political gain for themselves who cannot speak of the economic issues at hand. We have over the last twenty years watched from afar as our elected officials in Washington refuse to answer the hard questions, the time to act is now and vote for real change not the status quo as Hillary Clinton will surely be. A vote for Obama will bring hope and as for his quote unquote inexperience, some of our great leaders were called the same like JFK and FDR so maybe its time to look toward the future and not the past.

Posted by: Tom McMahon | April 15, 2008 11:19 AM | Report abuse

To hell, that's where you can go. We have a President who is a self-admitted war criminal, and this kind of crap is what MSM "reporting" is filled with? You have some goddamn nerve cashing your paycheck, moron.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | April 15, 2008 11:18 AM | Report abuse

Hillary is writing a book about this campaign, called "The Audacity of Hopelessness."

Posted by: tunaman | April 15, 2008 11:17 AM | Report abuse

Hillary has become a polarizing, unelectable figure to her own party as well as to the national electorate.

Obama did a phraseology foot-in-mouth and the national media, which prefers fishing in a barrel rather than doing real enterprise reporting, pounces. And Hillary, as usual, goes way too far to seize the moment and looks like a venal fool.

Fact is, Obama has had to run a perfect campaign in order to prevail. As he himself said at the AP dinner moments after the "Obama bin Laden" remark -- one of the most shameful moments in journalism history -- it's amazing he's come this far, given the improbability of his candidacy.

But just as Clinton can't win, Obama most likely can't win either. He's inexperienced, too new to the national scene, and there is a certain a "splash" of wind surfer in him, too (apologies to Poppy). Who in his campaign suggested that he go bowling?

There is also this unspoken truth: Obama simply has not been on the national scene for a time sufficient to win the confidence of the ensconced power elite -- the faceless bureaucrats, the intelligence community, businesspeople and their minions, who really run the country day-to-day.

Obama not doubt realizes this stark truth. So what is so wrong with eight years as Al Gore's VP? Should he do well as Number Two, he then will have earned a shot at the top job. He's got no politically viable claim to it now.

How about some audacity of long-term strategy? After PA, Obama should play the kingmaker: throw his delegates to Gore, take the VP slot, checkmate Hillary, unite the party, and set himself up for a real "downtowner" -- a possible SIXTEEN years in the White House.

If he's not thinking that way yet, the Clintons surely are. Why else would they already be attacking Gore as an "elitist"?

Posted by: scrivener | April 15, 2008 11:16 AM | Report abuse

This is an idiotic non-issue that has been blown out of proportion by the idiot campaign of Hillary the Snake, as they run out of time and options to bring down Obama.

So Hillary the multimillionaire is not an elitist? McNasty the Navy scion married to a megarich heir is not an elitist? This is all posturing and BS based on a person's perhaps unfortunate (but ultimately true) choice of words. Sounds to me like a bunch of academics nit-picking on words. What's more elitist than that?

And did I say Hillary is running an idiot campaign? NO WAY I'm voting for her in November if she gets the nomination. She's a destructive serpent that needs disposal into the trash can of history.

Posted by: Fed Up With Idiotic News | April 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

It looks like a blip.
Gallup has a "daily" poll, which actually reports three days rolling average. From April 6 to the 13th, it has Obama up 7-10 points over Clinton. The 13th, the last published and covering three days since the blip hit the media, has him up 10 -- as high as he's been for months.

Posted by: Frank Palmer | April 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

One thing I have noticed: Obama supporters here are generally very positive and optimistic, whereas people who say they are for Hillary are GOP-like in their negativity and eagerness to bust out whatever blogpost they can find to justify their hate. They remind me of bigots who used to produce all sorts of hack data to justify separate-but-equal, slavery, etc.

Posted by: tunaman | April 15, 2008 11:14 AM | Report abuse

The ironic thing is, if Hillary had just decided to run for Senate from her own home state (sort of), Illinois, instead of NY, she would have prevented Obama's rise in politics in the first place.

Posted by: JD | April 15, 2008 11:12 AM | Report abuse

Obama truth vs Hillary's lack of integrity.
She spins one stupidity after another, and the media sucks it up like gospel.

Posted by: michael4 | April 15, 2008 11:11 AM | Report abuse

having "antipathy to people who aren't like them" - that would not include jeremiah [H's spiritual leader], would it? Because that applies only to European-Americans?

Posted by: Robeste | April 15, 2008 11:09 AM | Report abuse


'drindl, you look at many web sites. Have you found anything about this so-called "classified national security simulation"?'

No. Nowhere. I know lots of bloggers and political folks. Everyone is just scratching their heads over this one -- a big WTF?

Mark, the truth is, Republicans today, especially Southern ones, just create their own 'reality.' They just make sh(t up. You've been around long enough to know that the very idea of this is absurd on the face of it. If this bizarre 'simulation' actually occurred, why did this nobody clown from Kentucky have access to it? If it was 'classified' why is he talking about it?

It's just a complete fabrication and you know it. I mean, what? Maybe they lock up the candidates in a room with a red button and waterboard them?

Listen, there is creeping madness on the rightwing end of the scale. Paranoia, delusion, madness. Southerners had lynching parties right up into the 60s. Nothing has changed. For a dumb redneck white man to call a Harvard educated black man HIS OWN AGE a 'BOY' tells you everything you need to know about this country today. And you know people ['proud', etc] will come on here today and defend it.

I am sickened by the whole spectacle. This whole election makes me feel like I'm watching a slow motion rape and murder.

Posted by: drindl |

*******************************************************************

Is this what Obama supporters call uniting? This is CHANGE? I guess Obama supporters can't practice what they preach and they love to preach. The only defending going on is your childish post's spin of Obama's comments and of course your insulting others that don't agree with a first time voter. Oh, just because you can't find any documentation for Barry's meltdown at the exercise doesn't make it a falsehood. It just means that you have to spend more than 5 minutes looking for it. Besides, Barry has more to worry about with his crony, Antoin "Tony" Rezko and his corruption trial.

Posted by: August West | April 15, 2008 11:08 AM | Report abuse

It looks like Obama's chickens are coming home to roost.

Posted by: Lynn | April 15, 2008 11:07 AM | Report abuse

Where do we go now? Apparently nowhere, as long as we insist on running this "issue" into the ground.

When did intelligence become a liability in the election process? Call me an elitist snob if you will (I consider it a compliment), but I actually WANT my president to be a little smarter than that guy at the bar who likes to light his farts while singing "She'll Be Comin' 'Round the Mountain".

Posted by: Bitter Elitist | April 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

We are certainly in molehill territory with this non-story.

The clumsy comments by Sen. Obama are not news at all. The media has (unsurprisingly) swallowed the Clinton campaign line that this issue means something to someone somewhere. It only means something to Sen. Clinton who has truly stooped to new lows in her squalid attempt to put a spike in Obama's march to the nomination.

Sen. Obama was correct in pointing out that people in small towns (and in big cities) feel bitter, angry, and frustrated about the lousy lot dealt them by the current economic downturn. They can see that their political leaders are failing to adopt strategies to deal with the economic calamity and they feel bitter about that. How is this analysis controversial at all?

Obama was also correct in noting that when people (white, black, brown, purple and polka-dot)are stressed they turn to those things (guns) and institutions (religion) which traditionally have provided them with comfort and explanatory powers over their dire circumstances. Why is this kind of astute analysis considered elitist? It is common sense and has been true since the dawn of humankind.

What is news is that Sen. Clinton is trying desperately to undermine her opponent. She is no longer capable of running a positive campaign built upon her achievements and vision. That way leads to sure defeat. So she is turning to aggressive misrepresentations and exaggerations of Sen. Obama's words to get the job done.

When will the media stop abetting her dubious behavior? When will journalists start asking how a multimillionaire, born to a wealthy family in a comfortable Chicago suburb, educated at Ivy League universities, feted around the world as First Lady can possible present herself as a champion of working class people? Why is Mark Penn still working for the Clinton campaign?

Why is anti-intellectualism a good thing? Why is Obama condemned for trying to shed light on difficult circumstance? This bogus stance must be punctured.

Clinton is the true snob,because she believes that working people will accept being pandered to by yet another old-style politician who uses sensitive issues to divide us for her own short-term gain.

Please tear down this molehill and help Obama rebuild America.

Posted by: dee | April 15, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I don't think any well-meaning person would honestly think that Obama's comments are an indication of some sort of stereotyping and/or elitism. His entire career record bespeaks of a person far ahead of McCain or Clinton in terms of relating to the struggles of the lower/middle/working classes, and his message has consistently been one of inclusiveness.

Obama is the only candidate that could plausibly be described as a self-made individual; i.e., he didn't use his public notoriety as a first-spouse or a war hero as a foundation to his political career. It's his intellect, ideas, vision, and character that have made him the best presidential candidate of either party for decades.

That said, I suppose I'm not surprised that Clinton is overplaying her hand on this one given that she's in the midst of a campaign in its last throes, but ultimately it won't stick because it's pretty clear that Obama, like any person/candidate, has his imperfections, but elitism and prejudice are surely not among his weaknesses.

Clinton should, however, for the good of the party, begin realizing that Obama is a democrat as well and stop this ridiculous political opportunism and nitpicky spin of every Obama utterance. Primary battles should point out policy differences but remain respectful. She's running as if she's running the general election campaign and it has contributed to the ugliness of the primary season.

Posted by: CDC | April 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

The political consequences of ill-worded statements of one or another candidate is a legitimate story to a media obsessed with such things. But, after a time, it ought to be small potatoes compared to the very real challenges confronting the nation. The media these days remind me of the organ grinder who keeps turning the crank to pump out the entertainment. I believe there are actually people who'd appreciate more substantive coverage. Instead we get Yellow Journalism. I fail to see how this advances the country. I hope ordinary citizens want more than the narcotic they are fed. Of course, the candidates could do a better job of stoking meaningful dialogue, but I have a feeling that they become victims of the media carousel and the party apparatus and sometimes lose sight of the fact that all of the tit for tat becomes tedious. This is why we think government is failing us. It is also why segments of the media are held in low esteem. The campaign is filtered through partisans and talking heads, and then the media refracts all of this, pretending that it means anything beyond the day's headline. I don't think you guys understand how sick we are of your useless maundering. Now, Dana Priest, she did us (and the nation's military) a service.

Posted by: LT | April 15, 2008 11:01 AM | Report abuse

I am a Pennsylvanian by birth and long residence and immediately noticed that the "Pennsylvanians" in the Clinton ad, with one possible exception, did not speak with any of the regional Pennsylvanian accents. These are paid actors, of course, and hired from agencies out of state.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Hahaha... I never read comments before my first post. This mess written here is comical. It never ceases to amaze that this mess is the same whether it's on Politico, Huffpost, Slate...etc...
I don't care whom anyone is voting for. My choices will not waiver and it will never change no matter what any political hack, non journalist or deranged supporter of the opposition has to say. My beef is with these tabloids pretending to be NEWSPAPERS (including all cable and "network" news) and the yellow journalist that we are subjected to. I don't care about their opinions one wick. I can't stand their spin. The conspiracy is for them to stay employed and keep mess going. Yet they want to convince me "when and if" I read a column of theirs that they are to be taken seriously. HA! lol

Posted by: Tia | April 15, 2008 11:00 AM | Report abuse

Some of the hyper-response of the media to the sucesses of the Obama campaign MUST be due to their growing realization that print media and TV is simply no longer controlling the agenda among voters. This whole "bitter-gate" thing is a perfect example of how impotent the media has become in swaying the voters one way or the other. For five days, we've heard non-stop nonsense about what Obama said to a few people in CA. ANd the net result of all that sound and fury appears to be that it has not changed the polls in PA one iota.

Look at what that means for the media and elections. If voters are not swayed by TV ads and commentators, then the media will no longer be the recipient of all those millions in ad buys. If the candidates don't need millions for media buys, then financing campaigns is not nearly as expensive, making the electoral process more available to candidates of modest means, and reducing greatly the effect of lobbyists and donors on political campaigns. Elected officials will not need to raise as much money for their next campaign, and will be able to focus on legislation instead of raising money for their next run.

It will be very interesting to see how influential cable TV, talking heads, and advertising are in the general election. If voters consistently go to the internet and obtain information selectively, the opportunity for swiftboating and other dirty tricks will be greatly reduced.

Posted by: Susan E. | April 15, 2008 10:59 AM | Report abuse

We can see now the raw, ugly face of Republican racism. And we can just watch while the media does its part in lynching Obama. Hey BOY, you got uppity -- with that fancy education of yours. Who do you think you are, boy? A white man?

We'll teach you. How does it feel to be part of the lynch mob, CC? Did you bring a picnic lunch?

Posted by: sickened | April 15, 2008 10:58 AM | Report abuse

You know the world has been turned on it's head when words of truth from politicians become fodder for hack political analysts.

Posted by: napperfat | April 15, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

I agree with what I am seeing as the majority of comments here - this is a non-story. Much ado about nothing.

Posted by: Magothy96 | April 15, 2008 10:57 AM | Report abuse

This "dust-up" over Obama's comments on "Gods and guns" provides an opportunity for Obama to make his case on gun control. The religion issue was partly handled in the CNN Compassion Forum, but not the gun issue.

For instance at tommorrow's Democratic debate, his "bitter" statement will be re-stated by the moderators with 100% certainty. Obama needs to have a grasp of Pennslyvania statistics in regards to murder rate by guns and weave that message into a broader one that gun control is not to penalize sportmen and those enjoying recreational shooting, but to control the irresponsible use of automatic weapons.

Posted by: AJ | April 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Why not discuss how a billionaire Republican Oil man, Ray Hunt was placed on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board only two weeks after 9-11 and he got the first illegal oil contract from Kurdistan because their oil is still nationalized? How about that Republicans? Rather than attacking Obama for a comment about the Guns and God voting block, why not discuss how One Nation Under God can chemically bomb a defenseless oil reserve for five years to force the privatization making billions and billions in cash for the invading Big Oil Crackers from Crawford? Why not brunch on some substance Republicans. You lie. You murder. You steal oil. You write bad checks to pay for all of it. Period. Happy Hunting hunter-gatherers with B-52's!!

Posted by: bob | April 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I don't care about the term 'bitter' because it is EXACTLY how so many people are feeling these days, myself included. Maybe Hillary and John need to go out and ask the question themselves and see what they hear. Non-issues such as this is exactly how we ended up with the government, and the president in particular, that we have. One of the many reasons I've supported Barack Obama is the excitement he provides to this country's next generation. I could have never supported Hillary due to her war vote. The people have to reengage and remain engaged in the process, or what precious few freedoms and choices we have left will go to the corporate state as well as our others did.

For the MSM to try to spin this as an issue is so bald-faced in its condescension it is unbelievable. People 'should' know when they've been insulted, it shouldn't take the various corporate news outlets to tell them so. I am consistently frustrated by the MSM to report on matters of substance, so I do what any informed, responsible voter must do: I research my candidates and their positions. I believe if more people had done this in the beginning, we wouldn't have ended up with GBII. I'm from TX so I knew what we were getting.

Finally, as far as elitism, I'll be guided by my own perspective. However, someone who owns 8 houses (McCain) in the middle of a foreclosure crisis but basically tells the struggling homeowner to eat cake, and another who earns over 100 million in the past 7 years (need I mention her name???) all the while busting unions, exporting jobs through NAFTA/trade deals but smiling and telling me that I'm resilient, shouldn't be offended when I tell them to kiss my @ss.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

How does "where do we go now" become Axl Rose' immortal words? Of all of his/GNR songs, that's what sticks?

Personally I like, "Take me down to the Paradise City".

Thanks,
- Ajay

Posted by: Ajay Gupta | April 15, 2008 10:55 AM | Report abuse

I wish some of the posters would look up the definition of elitism. It has nothing to do with money per se or college loans. Most folks would probably accuse me of being elitist (I'm a PhD college professor with very middle-class income.) And who cares whether he used "bitter" or not. The worst characterization in my mind is that the PA rural folks are racists. They may be but isn't it possible that they might see Hillary as a better president. It's really offensive to be told you are are racist if you don't fall for his charm.

Posted by: Mary Ann | April 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

This is the McCentury/Clinton team in absolute desparation to stop the Obama train. They keep trying to turn these mole hills into mountain and it backfires on them everytime.

Obama is right. He is speaking the truth and it hurts. If honesty is elitist then call me elitist! But I thought honesty was one of the highest traits of being American. Maybe I missed the lesson that said winning is higher than honesty.

Posted by: martiniano | April 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

The obviously unbiased Jack posts:
"What radio station? You are the ONLY one who heard. But, being an Obama supporter, I sure you hear things others do not. I thought Obama was a candidate of the future. Yet all his supporters write about ancient history."

Have no clue about the radio station mentioned, butthere certainly are a bunch of commentaries that are easily Googled, if you really wanted to know the truth:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/4/14/18194/9204

www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/14/bill-clinton-claims-to-se_n_96643.html

weblogs.newsday.com/news/local/longisland/politics/blog/2008/04/bill_saw_bitter_signs_or_did_h.html

digg.com/2008_us_elections/Bill_Clinton_Claims_To_See_Nonexistent_I_m_Not_Bitter_Sign

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5503143

Will these do for you? Probably not - I'm sure they're all Obama supporters, right, Jack?

Posted by: jk5432 | April 15, 2008 10:54 AM | Report abuse

I would suggest that all the candidates for President, Obama, Clinton and McCain could be called elitist. The difference being that Clinton and McCain are more seasoned and understand what their words mean to others.

This is the same problem that Obama has shown on foreign policy and in other areas. I don't say he doesn't mean well but he is a neophyte on the global stage and it is showing.

He also often speaks in a condescending way. There is a quote of his today in the Post talking about not Democrats not hurting each other in the primary. " I'm sure Senator Clinton feels like she is doing me a great favor because she has been deploying most of the arguments the Republican Party will be using against me in November, and so, it's toughening me up. And I'm getting a run through the paces here".

If I were Clinton I would use that to raise millions of dollars from those who think that for Obama to say that is not only sexist but silly. The Republican Party doesn't need Hillary Clinton to develop their message and they will really attack all out. Hillary is just swatting at him because he is a Democrat.

Obama has given the Repbublicans all the amunition they need to run against him. Revs. Wright and Meeks, clinging to religion and guns, punish my daughters with a baby, I don't want anymore widows crying on my shoulder, why I won't wear an American Flag lapel pin, and his wife has added why she was never before proud to be an American.

He is either totally naive or really not prepared for the onslaught he will get if he is the Democratic nominee.

Polling today shows Clinton can beat McCain in Florida, Obama loses by 14%, and if the same holds true in PA and OHIO we won't win the Presidency.

Posted by: peter DC | April 15, 2008 10:53 AM | Report abuse

I'm a country boy who lives in the city. I am white, middle aged, libertarian who is going to vote for "O". I am more educated than some, and less than others. I took time to actually listen to what "O" had to say, and I must say is that it was right on. If you polled the "bitter" people you would understand that if they would give an honest and truthful answer. He is not anymore elitist than the other two candidates, and a case could be made that he is less so. What I have grasped is something that the media has barely hit upon, is that Hillaries base are people clinging on to what they hope will be what it was. I grew up in the "50's" and would sure like a more simpler time, when all we had to worry about was being "nuked" by Russia, gas at 20 cents a gallon, food cheaper, cars cheaper,etc. etc. But alas this ain't going to happen. We live in a dynamic era and what was will never be again. If you Polled most people, what you do in harder times is to reminisce about the past,cling to your church if you go, and cling to what you can change for the better or the worse. If I'm not mistaken, "O" has said that he is going to tell us what we need to hear, and not pull punches and tell us what we want to hear. I want my elected candidate to not just tell me what I want to hear, but what I need to hear. As stated before, "O" may or may not "sway" these people, but he is actually telling them how it is, end of rant

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The problem that people are having with Obama's bitter remarks is that he spoke the truth about how people feel about the poor economy and resulting job loss, housing loss, mortgage crisis, lack of healthcare. Should Obama have said frustrated and angry vs. bitter? Maybe, but that still doesn't solve the reality of the problems that Pennsylvania and the county are facing. Media pundits know that Obama was right and that's a problem in itself.

Posted by: Natalie | April 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

The good news is, week to week, Obama is up in the polls, including the whole truth be told 'bitter' thing. I have yet to run into anyone who didn;t say he spoke the courageous truth, as a real leader should.

Interestingly, the last Hillary holdout I knew bailed on Sunday, said she could no longer support her. too much of an opportunist.

The race is over. Obams wins in November 53.7-45.2. As to Hillary, I can't wait to vote against that carpetbagger in her next "Senate" race.

Posted by: Rob Littell | April 15, 2008 10:52 AM | Report abuse

This whole issue is utterly ridiculous.

had this not being a hotly contested primary by a Democrat acting more like a republican, this would have been dismissed as poorly chosen words.

But thanks to this self-apppointed savior of the Nation and nobody else is better qualified in the form of Clinton II, this issue is going to be brought over and over again.

Even the Republicans are jumping on board this train as they see an opportunity to pin down the Democrats in a quagmire.

Somebody PLEASE put these Clintons out to pasture already.

Posted by: justsayin | April 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

How hideous that a compassionate remark by Obama, about the bitterness of PENNSYLVANIA not enjoying trickle-down economics, gets distorted. This one sentence is getting more 'play' than his astounding speech on race, just a few weeks ago. America is becoming SOUNDBITE NATION.

Posted by: Mark Heitner | April 15, 2008 10:51 AM | Report abuse

Chris, you started the Fix with the best of intentions, I'm sure, and it's been a pleasure, for the most part.

But now you guys are so obviously bored with the campaign that you all are in nit-pick mode.

No offense, Chris, but it seems to me, from where I live, that "bittergate" exists only inside the beltway...and the Washington Post.

If anything, Obama should elaborate on his remarks. I live in a small city in the south and boy, I'm not only "bitter" about the elites--you know, like Chelsea Clinton making $250K before she's 30--I am royally pissed off.

In any case, thanks!

Posted by: tony the pitiful copywriter | April 15, 2008 10:50 AM | Report abuse

First, Obama was never expected to win Pennsylvania. I know you media types want to project the close race in Pennsylvania false hood to give Clinton "momentum" to keep her in the race.

If Clinton does not win by at least 10%, it's a loss for her. Just like the Wright blow up, once the PA voters settle down about the media and Clinton created "bitter" blow up, the gap will close again to about 8% (A LOSS FOR QUEEN CLINTON).

Posted by: Ann C | April 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

Another factor in maintaining balance involves the element of time. As we peer into society's future, we -- you and I, and our government -- must avoid the impulse to live only for today, plundering, for our own ease and convenience, the precious resources of tomorrow. We cannot mortgage the material assets of our grandchildren without risking the loss also of their political and spiritual heritage. We want democracy to survive for all generations to come, not to become the insolvent phantom of tomorrow.

Down the long lane of the history yet to be written America knows that this world of ours, ever growing smaller, must avoid becoming a community of dreadful fear and hate, and be instead, a proud confederation of mutual trust and respect.

Such a confederation must be one of equals. The weakest must come to the conference table with the same confidence as do we, protected as we are by our moral, economic, and military strength. That table, though scarred by many past frustrations, cannot be abandoned for the certain agony of the battlefield.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.""

yet here we are today -- Eisenhower's worst nightmare --a community of dreadful fear and hate

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:49 AM | Report abuse

As most of you astute bloggers and commenters extraordinaire know, Obama's statements on this topic of small towns and frustration were BROADCAST ON NATIONAL TELEVISION in November, 2004.

Yes Folks (and CHRIS),Obama's comments were all very public ...not hidden away or whispered in posh cocktail parties, but stated on national television -- they were just not noticed by the troll and her minions.... way back then.

See the clip from the Charlie Rose show by merely googling the following topic,

- "Barack Obama on Rural and Working Class America, Circa 2004"

or, by clicking on this link -

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

See the proof - just the best three minutes in Obama's story -- what do you have to lose? 3-minutes.

Posted by: GandalftheGrey | April 15, 2008 10:48 AM | Report abuse

Since when would bitterness be such an unusual artifact of a presidency dwelling in the 28% favorability level?
"Did we miss anything?" asks Cillizza. Yes, "we" missed being responsible journalists and missed putting this non-story in its place...the dumpster. The mainSTEAM media, eager to keep Obama from winning Pennsylvania, made an issue out true statements in order to keep the Clinton losing effort alive. Cillizza hasn't any integrity as he hasn't pointed out the many distortions of the Obama comment. This "story" has less merit as controversy than the entirely bogus Swift Boat Attack ads.

Posted by: Richard Harris | April 15, 2008 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Why does the media want to echo Obama's opponents rather than asking: If Obama is wrong, then why, exactly, are some voters more afraid of gun control (even though no gun control proposals have outlawed traditional hunting weapons, and care about that issue over issues like health care and education? Has anyone actually come up with an answer for why owning an assault weapon is more important than making sure someone isn't bankrupted by falling off a ladder in his home, or some such?

Posted by: Diane | April 15, 2008 10:44 AM | Report abuse

with the problems facing this country - this is what we are talking about?!?!

and, as the daily show pointed out last night, why is it bad if we elect someone so damn smart?

haven't we learned our lesson after electing the dolt from texas...

Posted by: michael | April 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

"Truth" and "Michael G." are so committed to bashing that they must have a difficult time swallowing the post-partisan message of Sen. Obama. Many posters who support Sen. Obama or who like him really do seem to want to get beyond the bashing. For example, "Novamatt", and "bsimon" who is not related to "dsimon", to my eternal discredit, and "jac13" exhibit a more open spirit, and "mnteng" actually likes all three candidates, compared with the current Administration, probably, but that is my guess, only. "Truth" should probably become "svreader"'s penpal.

Posted by: MoreAndBetterPolls | April 15, 2008 10:43 AM | Report abuse

Obama just said what everyone already knew and nobody that was really going to vote for him has changed their mind. There are some people that just won't vote for a Democrat, because they want to be rich and they think that even though they somehow haven't gotten any better off in 20 years, lightning will strike and they will be rich like the Republicans. They are so worried about the estate tax, and they probably don't have $100,000 if they died and their house was paid for. They wouldn't be touched by an estate tax. But somehow the Republicans have convinced them that when they die the federal government will come in and take their old house and their used car and their old gun and the used toaster and their meager bank account. This is not true, but they believe this.Hillary is only perpetuating this and it is ironic that if she were to somehow steal the nomination, she would face these misconceptions by voters and they would be used by the Republicans against her.She is only aiding and abetting the Republicans. It is not sitting well with a lot of the Superdelegates.She is truly as much a traitor as Joe Lieberman.

Posted by: majorteddy | April 15, 2008 10:42 AM | Report abuse

to the Clinton supporters:

After pushing the argument that only the big states matter; Does Hillary only care about the small town people from the big states?

-waiting to read your opinion...

Posted by: jlm062002 | April 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

We need to analyze how much Black Liberation Theology Obama really believes - because it falls into these comments.


Politico has a story today about a paper which Obama's father wrote - maybe his father was a communist.

Apparently the younger Obama has been hiding the economic thinking of the fater.


Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

All of you who are saying that Clinton is the "only" electable one now seem to forget the legions of anti-Clintonites out there. The GOP is still disheartened, and with the news from Iraq not getting better and their general dislike for McCain, they don't seem to be getting more energized. However, I would submit that nothing, not even Obama's statements, will energize the GOP base to come out and vote for McCain more than Hillary's candidacy. In all of the talk about Obama's statements, the utter irrational hatred that some people have for the Clintons seems to have gotten lost. If you still think that Hillary can best the irrational hatred not only from the GOP, but from independents (who will go for McCain) and from many in the Democratic Party, then you're living in Bush's Iraq.

Posted by: alterego1 | April 15, 2008 10:41 AM | Report abuse

I can't believe people are still saying that Obama is only winning because he gets a high percentage of the black vote. They make up a small percentage of the electorate, so he has had to win votes from all races to get where he is. The desire of the media to make this a 24/7 race where every little thing is politicized is killing the Democratic parties chances in Nov.

Posted by: Scott | April 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

THETRUTH - KEEPING IT REAL ONCE MORE! HATERS IS EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE! REALIZE THAT IT IS MORE FUN FOR THEM TO HATE ON OBAMA. NEVER A POSITIVE WORD ABOUT CLINTON, JUST HATE HATE HATE FOR THE ONLY GENUINE ARTICLE RUNNING.

OBAMA 08! OBAMA 08! THE HATERS HAVE TO HATE! OBAMA 08!

Posted by: MISTER CAPS | April 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

This is not an issue.

If this is the best Clinton and McCain can do, they should quit now.

I didn't hear so much as a peep about McCain's "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran".

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Not only are these "small town blue collar" people bitter, they must also be stupid to continually vote against thier own interestes, because of things like guns, gays, abortion, etc.
These things do not out food on their tables, or send their kids to college, or pay for their mediacal care.

How many times must these people be exploited by the true "elitists" like McCain and Hillary.

Grow up and stop acting like fools.

Posted by: Bud in Texas | April 15, 2008 10:39 AM | Report abuse

Isn't it funny? It's groundhog day. It's dejavu. It's every election for the last 30 years played like a broken loop of tape. It's a cat toying with a dead mouse.

That dead mouse, friends, is Obama. Before that it was Howard Dean. Remember that? Remember how the republican-owned press [oh yes, friends, just 6 CEOS, all republicans, control 97% of the media outlets in this country] built him up, made him, fawned on him? Just so they could tear him apart when it was time.

Just until he actually became a threat to the incredibly wealthy Republican power brokers who run this country. Then it became time to take him down. And they did it swiftly, with a single fang to the jugular, the way cats and the media always do. You've watched them. They play with the mouse, they bat it around a little, they almost let it go, but then -- bam. Altogether. Orchestrated. Every media outlet runs with the eerily same story. You just watched it happen.

Dead mouse time. McCain will be president. And we will stay 'at war'-- Iran, Syria, France -- who cares, as long as Halliburton and Blackwater have their fangs sunk into our jugulars, as long the gigantic, monstrous military industrial complex can bleed this country dry. Just as Eisenhower warned.

"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Here we go again . . . Americans die in Iraq, the dollar falls, unemployment rises, and the discussion is about Barack's comments on small town America.

Obama is about five thousand miles ahead of the game, so far ahead it doesn't even matter if he wins or loses this thing. If the election is going to turn on what kind of lapel pin a candidate wears, then the American electorate isn't ready for change.

Michelle Obama has said it well. It is not a question of whether Barack is ready. It is a question of ... are the voters ready? Maybe not yet. Perhaps they will have to see their own children hungry, or themselves unable to get health care, before they will be ready for change.

And that is the way it should be. America is a representative democracy. It is difficult to confront, but George W. Bush is representative of what the majority of American's deserve for a leader.

Posted by: Matthew | April 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Michael G., My vehicle proudly sports a McCain 2008 sticker, since you asked.

BTW, is this the 'new kind of politics' you are using here, because I don't note much unity or attempts to end divisiveness on your part. When is all that supposed to start?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 10:15 AM

A new kind of politics presumes that most people with intelligence would finally recognize that your party has done its very best to destroy America for many many years. And you're proud of that. Well good for you.

The GOP. The last 8 years were so great, why not try 4 more of McBush?

Personally I have no interest whatsoever in unifying with the American Fascist Party (GOP).

Posted by: Michael G. | April 15, 2008 10:38 AM | Report abuse

Jesus... Chris,

Do your job and find something important to write about.

"Bitter-Gate?" Are you kidding me? Because a candidate says there are some bitter voters (which there are, by the way), THIS is an issue to write about? NO! It's not. It's only a word that other campaigns are trying to spin. Happens everyday with a new word. For you to even write about it is to be a willing dupe in someone's campaign spin.

Do your job and stop being yet another aimless press hack who has to invent controversies (or keep them going) to keep their jobs.

Posted by: Sam | April 15, 2008 10:37 AM | Report abuse

Here's where the lack of logic comes in again on the part of Obama supporters.

Racism doesn't just come in one flavor: white. There's also racism by blacks against whites.

The surge in the PA support for Obama is 86% Black. Why aren't they voting for Hillary? Blacks used to be Clinton supporters and many still are.

But this primary race has shown that Blacks have consistently voted on racial lines. It's an incontrovertible fact.

Yet, Obama and his supporters call white people racist, because they won't vote for him.

It's totally a double standard?

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 15, 2008 10:36 AM | Report abuse

Speaking of Obama's buddy Tony Rezko....turns out there is a very interesting connection between him and a crooked counterpart in Iraq.


A 60 Minutes report Sunday evening that focused on corruption in Iraq mentioned a Chicago area man with connections to Tony Rezko. He is Aiham Alsammarae, former minister of electricity in Iraq who was jailed on corruption charges. He somehow escaped prison there and is back living in a Chicago suburb. (Sort of like how Obama ended up with a big new house he couldn't afford, somehow.)


A court filing in the Rezko case indicated that prosecutors in a closed session alleged that Rezko had paid Alsammarae a $1.5 million bribe in connection with an Iraqi power plant deal, which ultimately never happened.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Sounds like everyone's forgotten about the good voters of FL and MI. That's great for the O-man.

This silly "bitter" controversy helps the O-man keep the greatest issue of the campaign in the closet.

The longer he can stall these votes from being counted, the longer he can continue claiming to be far ahead and the more chance he has of making this perception a reality.

But, these votes will eventually be counted. Everyone knows the DNC will not turn it's back on these critically important states and their voters.

The DNC will NOT split the difference, 50 / 50 with the candiates - taking votes cast for Lady H and awarding them instead to the O-man, as if it's some type of candidate affirmative action program. That's never going to happen.

Playing games with these votes from FL and MI, awarding them in any way other than those recorded by the MI and FL Sec of States, will be viewed in the USA and internationally as being no different than a Zimbabwa election.

The longer the O-man stalls and the more he attempts to keep these votes from being counted, the more he'll begin to look like a Mugabe-type of pol.

So the O-man is walking a dangerous line. The longer he stalls, the easier it is for him to gain Superdelegates and the greater the chances of him being viewed like an African dictator.

For now at least the "bitter" isue has stopped the clock on the MI and FL vote issue. That's good for the O-man and bad for Lady H.

Posted by: 7_of_9 | April 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman - you need to realise that the results of the primaries from here are just entertainment for pundits and a way for Clinton to pay off her debts.

The supers simply will NOT come out and overturn a delegate lead. Clinton needs to win EVERY state from here by more than 10%. It's not going to happen.

Markinaustin - I would also LOVE to know what the hell is going on with these comments. They have potential to get some good media attention.

A "confidential" security exercise? Publicly spoken about with the word "boy"?

He either made it up or is in BIG trouble...

Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 10:35 AM | Report abuse

Can we stop using the suffix "-gate" to describe every political dust-up? I get it, Watergate, etc.. It isn't a word or a suffix, it's part of a name of a hotel. "spygate" "bittergate" "bluedressgate" "cleveland'scloserisawfulgate". Please, stop the madness.

Posted by: Danny | April 15, 2008 10:33 AM | Report abuse

The Truth, interesting name.
I find it amusing that you slur every single HC poster that disagrees with you and Sen Obama as a 'hater'. That is really getting old and is very open minded and does a lot to contribute to a civil discussion.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

I like how Hillary says that she is the one in touch with the small town people, after pushing her argument to the super delegates that only the big metropolitan states matter. I guess she only cares about the small town people if they happen to be in a "big important state" that may swing her way. Too bad for the small town people of Alaska, or Montana.

Posted by: jlm062002 | April 15, 2008 10:30 AM | Report abuse

April, your venom is showing again! I haven't seen one of your posts that doesn't come equipped with a deadly sting mechanism...Actually I haven't seen you apply logic or reasoning to one thing you've said. An example in point:

" Viewers of FOX have already made up their minds."

And you haven't? You've maintained an open mind, and try to see both points of view?


"Watching FOX reinforces their beliefs. Those 15 seconds revealed a lot about Barry's true feelings. Let's not forget where Barry was when he made the comments. He was in a CLOSED DOOR fundraing event with his grassroots fat cat supporters. The type of grass root supporters who are billionaires and multimillionaires and have jets, mansions and Bentleys. His response was an answer to a supporter's question as to why Barry could not get the blue collar vote. He could have said he needed to work harder, but it was much easier to paint the voters as the problem. Barry, who obviously will sell his soul for donations, chose to insult, demean, and stereotype all Pennsylvanians. The FAT CATS got a real laugh out of this one, Americans didn't."

Posted by: | April 15, 2008 8:44 AM

April, you're right Americans did not find this funny. But what you haven't touched on is the fact that Barack would demean small town white voters to his donors, explaining it may be because he's black that they won't vote for him and because they have racist, soceital, cultural hang-ups and then go right back and ask for their votes; it's duplicitous. If Hillary did it, I'd call it the same thing.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

Wealth has nothing to do with "elitism". A persons comments (yea the poor choice of words) speak volumes about them. Obama seems to have problems when he speaks without his script. These words speak volumes about him and his character.

Posted by: liwop | April 15, 2008 10:28 AM | Report abuse

and Erin you know this why, you looked into your chrystal ball or read your taro cards?

The only person to blame for this controversy Erin is Sen Obama for not appreciating that his words were being recorded and that he could not hide behind his wealth contributors. I am sick to death of his supporters spinning and blaming HC, the media, everyone but their candidate who made the boneheaded remark. If you are angry with anyone Erin you should direct that anger to Sen Obama.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 10:27 AM | Report abuse

The mentality in this country is just astounding. The country is sinking, and people are picking on every single word being spoken by a candidate but not the messages he brings.

I can clearly understand now why people voted for GWB.

USA, Stop whining about the war, about the economy, about the weakening of the country. You deserve this President, and GWB II in the years to come.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Simply put


Millions of racists in america. Very not PC to admit your a racist.

You wonr ever vote for Obama, but you need a reason other that racism.

Hillarys job... Put out little branches for these folks to hold onto to vote against obama.

Obama surely does not help by the "bitter" comment.

But you cant even imagine the bitterness if Hillary slimes her way to the nomination, or if she torpedoes Obamas chances.

Posted by: pvogel88 | April 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Chris asks "Where do we go now?" I'll tell you: you and all these punk-a$$ haters like leichtman, vammap, hispana can go straight to hell.

Posted by: TheTruth | April 15, 2008 10:25 AM | Report abuse

Can the media survive its own manufactured narratives?

That's one I'm wondering about.

At the grocery store there is clearly a market for more than one tabliod.

However, on cable -- is there really an audience for 3 infotainment "news" channels? How about the web? Which audiences are sites like the Politico trying to attract? Is there a need for the Drudge Report, or has that part of the spectrum become oversaturated?

Posted by: JP2 | April 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

Anon - you seem confused. Is Chris in the bag for Obama or is he a water carrier for Clinton? Methinks it's time for the Post to stop allowing unsigned comments. Hey, it can't be that big a deal to think up a handle.

BB

Posted by: Fairlington Blade | April 15, 2008 10:24 AM | Report abuse

This is a big story and it is only going to get bigger unless Obama can eat a little humble pie and deflect it by maybe admitting to being a little snobbish at times (Harvard education, being a US senator, and running for prez can do that to you).

For a man who is mostly defined by his word and inspirational speeches, his "bitter" quote, together with the Rev W. "speeches" controversy (among others), and his thin resume makes this more important than it would normally be.

Finally, Obama supporters you cannot blame this on Hillary. Your attack of Hillary and Bill at EVERY turn HURTS your candidate chances of getting the vote of Hillary Clinton's supporters (i.e. the rest of the democratic party) For the General election. It is better to explain, through policy positions and bills past, why this quote may not truly reflect your Candidate's Beliefs.

Remember "macaca" was only one word that really wasn't.

Luckily for Obama the Pope's visit might save him.

Posted by: David M | April 15, 2008 10:22 AM | Report abuse

It's frustrating to get so many echo-chamber posts, which essentially say, "sites like this one and cable 'news' shows keep chatting about this, so there is no sign in a let-up in us chatting about it, so therefore it's a story . . ."

The self-justification is circular, and comical.

Posted by: Dave Cullen | April 15, 2008 10:21 AM | Report abuse

Do the Washington insiders and mainstream media understand that the American people see right through the desperate attempts to bring down Barack Obama? For weeks now, we have been subjected to one lame attempt after another to fling mud at Senator Obama so as to see what sticks. But nothing sticks. And yet, the attempts to knock him down keep coming, as the insiders are panicking at the thought of a progressive outsider claiming the Presidency. Hillary and McCain, regardless of their different parties, represent the status quo which will cling to power with everything it's got. Obama is a real threat to such status quo insiders, which is why they will try one dirty trick after another to bring down Obama's candidacy.
Thing is, none of this is going to deny Obama the Democratic nomination, and he will go on to trounce McCain in the general election. It's a done deal, as history (and anti-GOP sentiment) is on his side.

Posted by: ErrinF | April 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Apparently, Hillary is choosing to hang
with the drunks, rather than the
people that are frustrated in their
efforts to recover from a declining
economy.

We all need to wake up to the REALITY
that Hillary - McCain - and the media
are nervous about Barak Obama talking
about the true state of the nation.

'Bitter' is a term that equates to
devestation - The above detractors
do not know how to address people
that have been victims of bad legislation.

For Hillary, McCain, and the media - you
are either rolling with the punches
or you are a complainer - the complainers
are disposable. That's how their system
works, get rid of the compaints and
enlist a whole new group that doesn't
complain - when they start complaining -
they are then shuffled to the side...(repeat)

We need to speak with our PEERS, PARENTS,
and Grandparents in the remaining States.
We need to ask them about these politicians
that we've continued to lend our trust
in, 'How has our trust in the media,
and voting for these so-called fiscal conservatives hurt out country?'


Could it be that Barak Obama might be
the Change this country needs?

PA has suffered long enough, could the
people of industrial states such as
PA use a shift in power?


Texas recieves huge benefits through
the production of oil, maybe PA could use
some support from the coal companies
that are reaping record profits?


Obama is going to fix things in a way
that they haven't been fixed in the past.

Are we going to stand up and Be That Change?!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:20 AM | Report abuse

Boring. I understand why the Hillary crowd would be pushing this. It's something, maybe not much of something, but they have nothing to lose, so why not push it as hard as you can as long as you can.

But the media really needs to figure out whether it still wants to be a gatekeeper and sort the wheat from the chaff, or whether it's just a bunch of stenographers mindlessly repeating whatever the people talking to them are pushing.

If the polls coming out in the next few days show little or no movement, there really needs to be some soul-searching among the national political media. If I were one of them, I would be professionally embarrassed at being played like a toy piano by the Clinton camp.
At the very least, the media (and it is a singular, not a plural, unfortunately) needs to do a better job of talking to people outside of their little tight circle. If you're a reporter and you're writing or opining about the political fallout of this, and you haven't talked to at least a dozen real actual small-town Pennsylvanians to get their reaction first, but you have talked to a bunch of your colleagues in the 202 area code about it, stop. Just stop. Go be a reporter for a while, just like they taught you in j-school.

Posted by: novamatt | April 15, 2008 10:18 AM | Report abuse

This is off topic, but will be the next truth that Obama supporters will whine about.

FROM LA TIMES 4/14/08
Barack Obama's name pops up unexpectedly in Rezko trial

Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama's name came up unexpectedly again at the Antoin "Tony" Rezko corruption trial today in Chicago and Tony Rezko an early political patron of Illinois senator and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama held a lobbying party that Rezko's federal trial testimony court testimony discloses Sen Obama attendedin a way that earlier filings in the case did not telegraph.

Stuart Levine, the prosecution's star witness, said he and Obama were at a party Rezko threw at his suburban Chicago Wilmette mansion on April 3, 2004, for Nadhmi Auchi, a controversial Iraqi-born billionaire whom Rezko was trying to get to invest in a South Loop real estate development.

Auchi, now a citizen of the United Kingdom, has faced criminal charges in Europe. He also figured in the revocation of Rezko's bond early this year after attempting to wire him more than $3 million. Upon learning of that attempt, U.S. District Judge Amy St. Eve declared Rezko a flight risk and ordered him held in a federal jail in the Loop.

The Rezko party in 2004 was designed to induce Auchi to pour money into the South Loop investment. Obama's presence at the party of one of his major early fundraisers and political supporters was not previously known.

At the time, Obama was fresh off a surprise win in the Illinois Democratic primary for the U.S. Senate and was riding a crest of national publicity. The freshman Illinois senator is not accused of any wrongdoing, but this is yet another unknown aspect of his relationship with Rezko, which Obama has said he now regrets. LA Times 4/14/08.

Start WHINING.

Posted by: August West | April 15, 2008 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Michael G., My vehicle proudly sports a McCain 2008 sticker, since you asked.

BTW, is this the 'new kind of politics' you are using here, because I don't note much unity or attempts to end divisiveness on your part. When is all that supposed to start?

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 10:15 AM | Report abuse

'drindl, you look at many web sites. Have you found anything about this so-called "classified national security simulation"?'

No. Nowhere. I know lots of bloggers and political folks. Everyone is just scratching their heads over this one -- a big WTF?

Mark, the truth is, Republicans today, especially Southern ones, just create their own 'reality.' They just make sh(t up. You've been around long enough to know that the very idea of this is absurd on the face of it. If this bizarre 'simulation' actually occurred, why did this nobody clown from Kentucky have access to it? If it was 'classified' why is he talking about it?

It's just a complete fabrication and you know it. I mean, what? Maybe they lock up the candidates in a room with a red button and waterboard them?

Listen, there is creeping madness on the rightwing end of the scale. Paranoia, delusion, madness. Southerners had lynching parties right up into the 60s. Nothing has changed. For a dumb redneck white man to call a Harvard educated black man HIS OWN AGE a 'BOY' tells you everything you need to know about this country today. And you know people ['proud', etc] will come on here today and defend it.

I am sickened by the whole spectacle. This whole election makes me feel like I'm watching a slow motion rape and murder.

Posted by: drindl | April 15, 2008 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Chilliza is a bias hack that loves to be on TV and so is that insufferable Jonathan Caphart(?). These men live on TV I'm surprise they have to write. My god can you say ABSOLUTELY NO OBJECTIVITY? Are you really letting what this paper's opinion numbskulls sway you? Please.

Posted by: Tia | April 15, 2008 10:12 AM | Report abuse

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 10:02 AM

proudtobeGOP? How embarrassing. Do you have one of those stupid W stickers on your vehicle and the word Idiot tattooed across your forehead too?

Posted by: Michael G. | April 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

I disagree.

I do not see "bitter" and "elitist" sticking to Obama. Why? The bitter part is true, and it is not a crime to be bitter. Even those who do not like the word applied to themselves have no reason to object to those who are actually bitter. "Elitist" would have stuck, had it come from a man or woman of the people, which neither Clinton nor McCain is. [Just my hunch, we shall see soon enough.]

Posted by: hollywoodog | April 15, 2008 10:08 AM | Report abuse

First,
Will Clinton go to Jail soon?

Posted by: Concerned | April 15, 2008 10:07 AM | Report abuse

I truly believe that this entire kerfuffle has been media-driven, and that it is the media keeping it alive. Granted, I'm sure some people were offended by what were undoubtedly some ill-advised words. However, the notion that the entire election is going to hinge on this is thoroughly ridiculous. Particularly given that what Obama said is largely true (and no, that does not make me an elitist, that makes me a realist). The truth is that historically, all over the world, when people find themselves in desperate economic situations, they do take comfort in "clinging" to the familiar, and they do often take out their frustrations on those who are different (read, other races, immigrants, etc.)

Were Obama's comments inartfully phrased? Absolutely. But the basic gist of what he said is true, and I think a lot of people understand that. The only way I can see this having a major impact on the election is if the pundits keep blowing their collective gaskets over it (as if most of these pundits are so in touch with "the people" anyway) to the point where it is brought up every time Obama's name is mentioned.

And on a separate but related point, the notion that Obama is somehow the elitist candidate of the three left in the race is laughable. First of all, Hillary Clinton and John McCain, the multimillionaires, are supposed to somehow be more in touch with those of us making less than $50,000 (or even $100,000) a year? Ha. Based on income alone, the idea is ridiculous. But more importantly, both Clinton and McCain have spent a lot of years living the rarefied existence of the powerful. McCain has spent the last 25 years (longer than I've been alive) in Congress. Clinton has been in the Senate for seven years, spent eight years living in the White House, and spent a total of 12 years living in the Arkansas Governor's mansion. That's 27 years of living in a different stratosphere than us commoners. I'm sorry, but when you're in a position of power for that long, no amount of hand shaking constitutes a true experience of living like Average Joe America. Of course, Obama has been in power for some time, too, but it's worth pointing out that when McCain was in the House of Representatives and Clinton in the Governor's mansion, Obama was earning $12,000 a year as a community organizer. i'd say this puts him closer to the regular people than the other two.

Posted by: ASinMoCo | April 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

Hey media,
I have a suggestion: cover the news. Here are some stories that were missed:

1. March 6th, Toronto Star reported that the NAFTA gate scenario was wrong and that it was actually Clinton's campaign that contacted the Canadian embassy. Did that get covered? Yes, on a small blog at MSN.

2. Mark Penn, who was 'fired' as campaign manager of Clinton's campaign is apparently very much in charge. How do you feel about that, PA and OH? CAFTA, here we come.

3. Clinton (all three, in fact) are supposedly going to court in October 2008 for campaign fraud. Wouldn't that bode well for a general election one month later.

4. Bill Clinton's use of political leverage to get his buddies in on uranium mining in Kazakstahn.

Yes, Obama's statement was a bit dim but just think about the stuff you would be saying after MONTHS on the road and very little sleep. I realize that the job of President is also very tiring, but NOTHING comapares to an extended primary campaign. Look how well rested McCain looks and he is STILL making stupid statements.
Come on media, we are bored with this primary. Stop flogging a dead horse and move on!

Posted by: phorse | April 15, 2008 8:48 AM

Posted by: OH MY GOD | April 15, 2008 10:05 AM | Report abuse

michael I dare you to find a single post from me since I have been here posting anything even closely parrotting those slanderous remarks about Sen Obama that I have ever made. As a HC supporter I have the utmost respect for Sen Obama, I simply do not want him to be my President for multiple reasons, none of which include any of the ugly things you post. Someone calling themselves svre, though I agree has made dispariging comments and typed in my name and others which is find dispicable.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 10:04 AM | Report abuse

Most of Obama's supporters hold graduate degrees and they understand the SPIN.

Posted by: Clarity from the Heartland | April 15, 2008 10:03 AM | Report abuse

Where do we go now? To the voting booths, that's where!

While the Democrats dither, there is actual policy being discussed and planned to turn Washington on it's head with a bold new economic plan....


PITTSBURGH -- John McCain wants the federal government to free people from paying gasoline taxes this summer and ensure that college students can secure loans this fall, a pair of proposals aimed at stemming pain from the country's troubled economy.

In contrast, Barama and Hillary would impose the single largest tax increase since World War II.

"Both promise big 'change.' And a trillion dollars in new taxes over the next decade would certainly fit that description," McCain said in remarks prepared for delivery Tuesday.

"All these tax increases are the fine print under the slogan of 'hope:' They're going to raise your taxes by thousands of dollars per year -- and they have the audacity to hope you don't mind."

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | April 15, 2008 10:02 AM | Report abuse

It would sure be nice if journalists would grow up and talk about the issues.

Posted by: Sara B. | April 15, 2008 9:53 AM

They won't nor do the haters/paid guys.

Posted by: A Patriot | April 15, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

What's apparent is Hillary supporters tend to do that; Obama supporters have a blind allegiance that indicates several things: they are not using logic, reasoning or objectivity in forming their comments.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 15, 2008 9:55 AM


LOL pretty Hilarious stuff coming from one of most illogical, unreasoning, non-objective Hillary trolls in the swamp.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 10:01 AM | Report abuse

So let's get this straight
Three polls out today (including two from the best pollsters in PA).

Quinnipiac shows things staying even.
SuSa shows Obama +4
And Rasmussen shows Clinton only +4 (from 5 points to 9 points difference).

So basically this whole collective frenzy of piling on is a wash in the polls. Nothing. No impact. PEOPLE DO NOT CARE (I refer you to Chris' "has the potential to hurt so we have to cover it". Well, it doesn't hurt even after four days of media frenzy. So CAN WE MOVE THE HELL ON now ?

Posted by: Benjamin | April 15, 2008 10:00 AM | Report abuse

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/04/hrc_gets_pushba.html

HRC Gets Pushback In PA For Slamming Obama's Small Town Comments

Posted by: Hate begets the same | April 15, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman,

I have tried to reason with you and keep our dialogue civil, but you seem incapable of doing so, continuing to impute all Obama posters' statements and positions to me, and addressing me in an insulting and personal tone. I prefer to debate with opponents who are willing to look at the other side of questions and keep discussion on the issues without ad hominem attacks, which you cannot or will not do. So this is the last response you're going to get from me.

I don't save my -- or anyone else's -- posts, so I cannot argue with your so-called "record" of my past positions (curious why, if you saved them, you didn't paste one into your post to prove your point). That said, I believe I have been realistic all along about Obama's chances, in PA and elsewhere. I am not "clinging desperately" to anything; just pointing out that the much-awaited Quinnipiac poll didn't show any big change in the race.

I also note for the record -- in case you need something to "cling to" -- that a new Rasmussen poll shows HRC adding 4 points to her 5-point lead in their last poll, and now lead by 9. Their web site doesn't say when the poll was taken, but I presume it was after the controversy over Obama's remarks. Happy now?

Posted by: jac13 | April 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Boutan the expectations game and bar was started last week by a poster bonjedi who was projecting here that a 2% lead by Sen Obama in Pa should lead to an Obama win in Pa, which was preposterous even then. HC will win Pa I am sure that even the Obama campaign understand that spending $5, $10 or even $15 million will not win Pa for them, maybe only limit HC's lead. Her campaign started their tv ads 2 weeks later and with less resources but maybe it was fortunate they didn't burn their money 2-3 weeks ago.
Indiana and N Carolina will be critical and I am hoping she can keep the margin down under 10% in N Carolina and strongly feel that if she closes to 5% or less which is highly unlikely, that that will close the deal for her. I guess next tues we all get to spin whether a 4%, 8%, 12 or 15% point win will be necessarry to be viewed as a win. My hunch is the true test will be how it is viewed by Indiana and N Caolina voters will be critical.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said

Did he really just call Obama "boy"?

Uh oh.

Posted by: Nealmanac | April 15, 2008 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Obama and Iraq:

On Iraq, asked whether he would deviate from his 16-month troop-withdrawal timetable if things seemed to be falling apart there, he said he reserved the right to listen to commanders on the ground and "adjust to changing circumstances." - Obama or Bush

Spineless false messiah

http://www.philly.com/philly/hp/news_update/20080415_Obama_says_he__mangled__Pa__remark.html

Posted by: Seed of Change | April 15, 2008 9:57 AM | Report abuse

many of us on the otherside presumed from the posts here over the weeks were being fed that Sen Obama was the reincarnation of the mesiah.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008
9:45 AM

Who has ever implied that Obama was the reincarnation of the messiah? More often what I read from troll land is Obama is a Muslim, a racist, an "elitist" (funny), or even, in all seriousness, a mass murderer (courtesy of your fearless troll leader svreader)

Or is that just what your troll feeders told you to spew forth as if it actually ever happened?

Posted by: Michael G. | April 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

We are not BITTER.
Just look at these "compassionate" remarks.

Posted by: An American | April 15, 2008 9:56 AM | Report abuse

Yes Charles, Obama has had a surge in black voters by 86 percent in PA.

Otherwise Hillary retains the lead.

Regardless of who you are for, it's really important to get a lot of information from different sources and try to analyze for yourself, rather than depend on the spin of any of the candidates, even your own.

What's apparent is Hillary supporters tend to do that; Obama supporters have a blind allegiance that indicates several things: they are not using logic, reasoning or objectivity in forming their comments.

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

The trouble is that Obama, in his now famous race speech, first condescendingly stereotyped typical white people of middle America as having color prejudices similar to that of his grandmother who raised him, sometimes making him cringe. That was a blatant attempt to defend Rev. Wright's rants by invoking middle class American prejudices, as he sees it. Now this about the rural folks clinging to their guns, religion and other middle American values because of their economic deprivation through successive governments' failure to safguard their jobs and livelihood. Economic deprivation is true, but he had to connect it to the prevalent way of life of ordinary folks. He added Bill Clinton's failures to the loss of American dreams (a pitiful rundown of the only successful democratic president in the last few decades!). Haven'e we heard enough from this man to know what his views are? I think that the more we know his views, the more he will come out as a condescending elitist who, with his Harward education, thinks that middle class Americans are a bunch of bigots lacking his previleged liberal education and broader vision of the world. And by the way, you don't define an elitist by the money you make, but by how you view the common people. I think that Obama did not mis-speak as he claims, he spoke his real thoughts and opinions. That is what he is. Do we want him as a president? Wait for Pennsylvania to vote.

Posted by: Nathan | April 15, 2008 9:55 AM | Report abuse

It would sure be nice if journalists would grow up and talk about the issues.

Posted by: Sara B. | April 15, 2008 9:53 AM | Report abuse

My last post:

Again, if any of you can shed light on the peculiar "confidential national security simulation" allegation, please do.

This is the "new" info here and it sounds completely bogus, but someone must have some insight about it, somewhere.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 9:50 AM | Report abuse

I think Hillary may already have overplayed her hand with the "Bittergate" flap, especially after launching her TV ad on the topic (the tone of which is far more condescending to Pennsylvanians than anything Obama may have said). And the debate on Wednesday could be payback time: Not only is the "Bosnia sniper fire" incident likely to come up, but her new role as a gun-totin', shot-tossin' Jo Sixpack certainly leads her open to ridicule. (I recall reading that she has an "F" rating from the National Rifle Association.)

In any case, if the "Bittergate" flap does kill off Obama, it seems pretty clear that John McCain will be the next president. A lot of people thought Hillary was divisive before she went negative against Obama; in the aftermath of her nonstop nastiness, many Democrats who would have found her acceptable six months ago may be willing to survive a third Bush term (albeit with a McCain label) in the hope of getting something better than Bush, McCain, or Hillary in 2012.

Posted by: Durant Imboden | April 15, 2008 9:49 AM | Report abuse

Re:

"Rep. Geoff Davis (R) telling a group of Kentucky Republicans..."

Geee... a white guy republican calling a Harvard educated african american US Senator "boy"...

Now, THAT is offensive.

Posted by: Steev-O | April 15, 2008 9:46 AM | Report abuse

Peg thank you for the refreshing comment that Sen Obama is "not perfect". Sincerely,that is the first time I have read that honest assesment by an Obama supporter. Is HC perfect, absolutely not Peg. I was a stauch Edwards supporter, felt he was a better candidate and had a better position on the war, but honestly feel that with all of the porblems that W will leave this country that she has far superior intellect about policy issues and what it will take to actually repair the breach. Honestly, I was hoping for a faux paux by Sen Obama to keep him from getting the nomination, just didn't expect such a damaging gift. I am not going to spin my partisanship otherwise but thanks for your honest assesment of Sen Obama many of us on the otherside presumed from the posts here over the weeks were being fed that Sen Obama was the reincarnation of the mesiah.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 9:45 AM | Report abuse

Fact: Republican candiates win elections by convincing people to vote against their best interests by using gay marriage and the right to own guns.
Fact: The overwhelming majority of these voters live in small towns and rural areas.
Fact: Republicans will say and do anything to take voters minds off the war, the economy and republican sex scandals.
Fact: Voters most easilly distracted are those who week after week sit in places of worship and listen to preachers who preach anything but tolerance and compassion.
Fact: These tactics worked for bush and they will eventually work for McBush, because of the biggest fact of all...
FACT: Republican voters are IDIOTS.

Posted by: pj4521 | April 15, 2008 9:44 AM | Report abuse

I should have said that whoever screws up last LOSES the split...

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 9:43 AM | Report abuse

The readers, columnists and pundits are equating being rich with being an elitist.

The connection is not automatic.

In my view, Bill Clinton, with his millions doesn't come across like an elitist. So does Warren Buffett.

OTOH, Michelle Obama, as well as her accessory certainly do.

Posted by: Krishna | April 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

drindl, you look at many web sites. Have you found anything about this so-called "classified national security simulation"?

Leichtman, as jac13 intimated, this may be the kind of issue that pushes the undecideds to split in favor of HRC. So if 50-44 became 54-46 or 55-45 I would not be surprised.

But whoever screws up last - and last has not occurred yet, will probably get the split on the undecideds. If HRC screws up again, maybe it goes 53-47 or even 52-48.

As you say, it is likely that voters really mean it who say they are going to make up their minds next Mon or Tue.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, there is a reason realclear will not use AMR in their averages - and that is extremely inaccurate polling.

So, I'll buy a gap of "up to 12%"... but not 20%.

What that means though is that the expectation should be HRC will win by 12 or more. Surely this "scandal" would mean more, right?

My tip: she wins by 5-7 points, and declares it a landslide and the USA "reconsidering their options".

And to the cowardly anonymous poster who earlier suggested I am a first time voter... at least post a name and have some serious discourse. If you disagree with something, lay out your argument. The article I linked to was by Carl Bernstein. In case you are not familiar with his name - it is fair to say HE is not a first time voter.

Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 9:42 AM | Report abuse

Furthermore, the Democrats have CLEARLY PROVEN that they do not have the judgement to govern the nation properly.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 15, 2008 9:09 AM

Ummm, what exactly have the last seven years of republo-fascist rule shown you?

Or have you been in a seven year coma?

You really need to change your name. Something like Words of a Republican Idiot would be a little closer to correct.

Posted by: Michael G. | April 15, 2008 9:41 AM | Report abuse

MC and Hill have a common enemy -> BO. Only one dem left.

Posted by: PA white working guy | April 15, 2008 9:39 AM | Report abuse

Whether anyone, black or white, wants to admit this or not, the 2008 DEM race isn't about gender, it's about RACE...

Star Tribune on the Poll shows a surge in black voters in PA...not white voters. This poll shows that his one true voting block is blacks; so much so according to local news in PA Obama hasn't even campaigned in black districts.

"One week before Pennsylvania's presidential primary, Clinton is holding the line as front-runner. After three weeks of shifts in Obama's favor, the percentages in this survey remained unchanged from one taken a week earlier. Support for Obama among the state's black voters surged to 86 percent, compared with 75 percent a week ago, while Clinton maintained her advantage among whites, 57 percent to Obama's 37 percent.


CHARLOTTE, N.C. (AP) -- The billionaire founder of Black Entertainment Television says Barack Obama would not be a leading presidential candidate if he were white and that the Illinois senator's campaign has "a hair-trigger on anything racial."

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/O/OBAMA_JOHNSON?SITE=RIPRJ&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Posted by: VAMMAP | April 15, 2008 9:38 AM | Report abuse

How much does McCain pay you, Chris? Or do you shine his shoes because you enjoy it so much?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:37 AM | Report abuse

Mr. Cilizza,
We see how you make a living ;)

Polls are fine HRC:BO = 50:44, in fact he seems to have gained. Please write something that has substance next time.

Posted by: Dr Charles | April 15, 2008 9:36 AM | Report abuse

'OBAMA: I am "BITTER" they used MARGARINE instead of BUTTER on MY GRITS! What they don't know that Margarine is basically "BITTER" butter?'

you see the sickness, the hatred, the racism -- BOY? GRITS?

aren't you proud to be an american? let's go out and kill someone!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:35 AM | Report abuse

Then, while escorting a delegation in Honolulu en route to China, he met Cindy Hensley, the daughter of a wealthy beer magnate. He divorced his wife and married Hensley three months later. She was from Arizona.

Political strategist Jay Smith remembers a request to meet with a Navy captain who wanted to run for an Arizona House seat.

Sitting with McCain at a Washington restaurant, Smith marveled at his nerve. He wanted to run in Arizona, but he didn't live there. "I don't know for sure that he had set foot in the state. . . . I'd say the odds were virtually impossible," said Smith.

In the days before the 1982 primary, McCain's powerful connections paid off. A potentially disastrous telegram was released saying that Arizona Sen. Barry M. Goldwater believed McCain's Republican opponents were more qualified.

Tower, who happened to be traveling in London with Goldwater, persuaded him not to talk to reporters until election day, leaving them to wonder about its authenticity.

"The whole thing just kind of went away," Smith recalled.

The following Tuesday, McCain won his first election.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Its Amer Research Group at 20% for HC.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
and a local Pa poll had her at 12% lead earlier last week.

My sense from my limited calling around 95 calls this week into Pa is that there is still a significant Undecided level still left in Pa. A large number of my calls were answered by voice mail. Of the 50 or so people I actually spoke with b/w 10-20% told me they were honestly still undecided. When I probed a significant number said they were leaning HC but of course that might be skewed to the portion of the state I was calling and that these leaners could change again in 8 days to support Sen Obama. My guess is that most of the soft leaners for Obama or HC are not being counted by most of these polls as a vote for either candidate. I would also be curious to know how they account for most GenY voters who are proObama using only cell phones without a landline for pollers to call. Its amazing that many of the undecides I spoke with still had not heard enough about the candidates to decide and assured me that they likely would not decideuntil next Mond. or Tues and a major reason that I honestly don't put much faith in any poll done started before next weekend. Would be curious about other's reasonable thoughts about Pa Undecided numbers and leaners.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 9:32 AM | Report abuse

Guns, Gods and Grits!

OBAMA: I am "BITTER" they used MARGARINE instead of BUTTER on MY GRITS! What they don't know that Margarine is basically "BITTER" butter?

****
HILLARY, will you be my BAMBINA?

Posted by: cheersdk | April 15, 2008 9:30 AM | Report abuse

PArt of CC's post refers to:

Case in point: Rep. Geoff Davis (R) telling a group of Kentucky Republicans that he recently participated in a national security simulation with Obama: "I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

I have "googled", and the eleven links all deal with the use of the word "Boy" and the ensuing apology.

Cong. Davis actually called the exercise "highly classified".

IF it is not a complete fabrication, Davis may be guilty of a federal misdemeanor and BHO CANNOT answer the charge. Suppose it is a partial fabrication. Suppose there was a "highly classified" national security simulation in which BHO participated and did WELL. He CANNOT refute Davis.

Even HRC and McC supporters [McC is my current choice] should see this as utterly obscene.

I am still betting on "complete fabrication".

Cannot imagine why a Congressman from KY not running for Prez would have been privy to such an exercise, at all.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 9:26 AM | Report abuse

Bill Kristol and Hillary Clinton have come to have many things in common. One is that they both look hilarious standing up for the hurt feelings of the little guy against the big elitist who thinks he's so smart.

Posted by: aleks | April 15, 2008 9:25 AM | Report abuse


'For those interested in a little McCain history, the LAT fronts a look at how he went from being a POW to a lawmaker, representing a state where he had never lived. The key was his position as the Navy's liaison to the Senate. The job didn't have much prestige ("a glorified valet") but it helped him see how Congress worked from the inside and he befriended some of Washington's most powerful lawmakers who were ready to help him once he decided that he wanted to go into politics.'

With the help of his rich wife's family. His rich young wife whom he had left his first wife, for, his first wife who raised his children and then was crippled in a car accident. So what good was she to him then? So he dumped her for the rich young wife whose family, along with lobbyists, helped him get into and stay in office.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse


Obama on Auchi in his own words

U.S. Presidential candidate Barack Obama sat down with Chicago Sun-Times reporters March 14th and answered a laundry list of questions regarding his relationship with Tony Rezko.

At that time, reporters also asked Obama about whether he had a relationship with Nadhmi Auchi.

Read on for the Q & A...

Q: . . . Have you ever met Nadhmi Auchi or Dr. Aiham Alsammarae?

A: I have to say I do not recall meeting them. It's been reported that a dinner that Tony hosted at the Four Seasons -- I don't have the exact date, so I don't know whether it was before November '04 when I hadn't been elected but had already won the primary or whether it was after the election, in which I was . . . Tony called and asked if I could stop by because he had a number of friends that he had invited to dinner and he wanted me to meet them. I told him that I would be happy to come by if my schedule allowed it. And it did. Although I couldn't, I think, stay for dinner, so I remember meeting a bunch of people who I had not met before. I frankly don't remember what their names were. Business was not discussed at the meeting. It was more of a social meeting and they asked me questions about the Senate race and so forth and so on.

Q: But you have no specific recollection?

I have no specific recollection. But again, they may have been there. So I can't say unequivocally that I did not meet them, but I just don't recall.

Posted by: lucygirl1 | April 15, 2008 9:24 AM | Report abuse

"Critical mass has been reached. "Bitter" and "cling" will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that "Tuzla" and "the laugh" will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race."

WELL, LET'S SEE, CHRIS. WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO TO DESTROY THE DEMOCRATS, HUH?

WHAT ELSE CAN YOU DO FOR JOHN MCCAIN TODAY? MAYBE YOU'D LIKE TO WASH HIS CAR OR LICK HIS SHOES CLEAN.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:20 AM | Report abuse

You Hillary, non-Obama supporters ie: Jack and Leichtman are so excited, you can hardly restrain yourselves. You really think this issue will somehow negate the years and years of Negatives and lying by Hillary and her coat tails husband? His choice of "words" (a term Hillary herself put down......"his speeches are just....word." I thought she didn't think "words' were very important anyway. So why is she making this into a big issue....? One can only guess....HA!

The polls change daily, who cares. Bottom line, Barack Obama is not perfect, but he is a refreshing alternative to the same old, same old politician who lies and lies and lies and plays dirty just to win!

The real problem here is the Democratic leaders and their stupidity. Why would they ever let this campaign go on like it has. These candidates (and their supporters) are exhausted and beginning to "eat their own." It should have ended weeks ago. The idea this makes for a "stronger candidate" or registers more Dems (which was done in 88....and we still lost)is truly stupid. Again, Democrats will lose if they don't put a stop to this in fighting.

Posted by: Peg | April 15, 2008 9:19 AM | Report abuse

VAMMAP, saying that Obama is harsher to whites than blacks sounds like the ranting of a bitter white person.

"Bitter-gate" (the name makes me vomit a little in my mouth every time I see it) truly unveils the depraved nature of the political press. They'll try to turn anything into a scandal. How many more months of this?

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

Go directly to Quinnipiac's web page to find out that they are saying from a poll taken today that she has stalled Obama.

"there was no noticeable in the matchup in polling April 12 - 13, following widespread media reports on Sen. Obama's 'bitter' comments.


But, today on the 15th, they say "Hillary Clinton has stalled Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's drive in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary and holds a 50 - 44 percent lead among likely primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today, unchanged from April 8 results.


POLL: Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania
Quinnipiac University Pennsylvania - 4/9 through 4/13 Clinton 50%, Obama 44% - unchanged from 4/3-4/6

POLL: ARG Pennsylvania Dems
American Research Group Pennsylvania 4/11 through 4/13 Clinton 57, Obama 37...


The numbers that portend future problems for Obama are more worrisome for the party..

"A bigger problem for Democrats looms in Pennsylvania. One out of four Clinton voters, including a third of men, say they will vote for Republican Sen. John McCain in November if Obama is the Democratic candidate.


Posted by: VAMMAP | April 15, 2008 9:18 AM | Report abuse

I find it amazing and the height of selective memory that a black man - the most discriminated against person in America - can be portrayed as an elitist who is out of touch with average Americans. And it is being done by Clinton who earned over $109 million in the past sever years.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:17 AM | Report abuse


To get elected a politician needs to do two things: (1) Make the voters see something they don't like about the other guy and (2) Make the voters see something the DO like about himself/herself.

People may not have liked what Obama said -- or how he said it -- but that doesn't mean they like Clinton because of it.

This story will be over after next week's Pennsylvania election. Clinton will win by single digits -- as expected -- and the delegates won will be roughly even. The storyline will be, "Much ado about nothing."

Posted by: egc52556

***********************************************************************


Thanks for sharing you vast knowledge and experience in spinning. I think your future lies in Las Vegas. Anyone with such foresight should be cashing in on it. But as a first time voter, your thoughts are garbage.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:14 AM | Report abuse

So Ed Rendell the Clinton supporting Governor of Pennsylvania says that no one in small town Pennsylvania would vote for a black man, stereotyping them all as racists and no one blinks. Obama actually tries to understand how people are feeling about losing jobs and pensions and he is the bad one? This is all just politics by the Clinton machine, she who is so real that she now talks about killing ducks.

Posted by: Lynn | April 15, 2008 9:10 AM | Report abuse

Chris:

Normally you are right on with your analysis however on this issue you are way too focused on how this small town John Cougar situation is going to go away.


HHHHMMM I am surprised.


The truth is that the public does NOT know Obama - he does not have decades of public statements, he does not have a legislative record in Washington, he was in Washington about 2 years before he started running for President, during which time he did a book tour, and prepared to run for President.


Who is this guy?


That is why these comment are amplified - People love to say Obama comes from two worlds, however is that really true? Too much has been projected onto Obama, and he has just gone with the flow.

It's true.

There was a story on PBS recently about an Eskimo child brought to New York City from Greenland - many years later the child tried to return to live in Greenland - he found that he was no longer like the other Eskimos - at the same time, he never felt like he fit in in New York City -


The boy was stuck between two worlds - belonging to neither.


He eventually went to a logging camp in New Hampshire, which I guess he thought was the closest thing he could find to half way.


I don't know what to say about Obama - my general thoughts is that affirmative action has done a disservice to those who it seeks to benefit.


It is difficult to put someone where they do not belong - you change their surrroundings, you change them - however you have disrupted the natural order of things.

People say Obama is qualified to be President because he was head of the Harvard Law Review - I ask those people have you looked at the resumes of any of the OTHER people who have been head of the Harvard Law Review ? Why do you think that Obama is the MOST qualified among all those people ??? I can assure you that group has MANY MANY people who have more impressive accomplishments on their records.


I'm sorry however the Democratic Pary is way way off course if these two candidates are the best they can come up with.

The American people have to question the judgement of the Democrats if these are what they say are their two best people.


Furthermore, the Democrats have CLEARLY PROVEN that they do not have the judgement to govern the nation properly.

Posted by: Words of Wisdom | April 15, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Wow Chris - you are getting a royal shellacking here. Not just one or two crazies claiming bias... you are getting a pile on of people.

Is it not just possible that when you devote 18 hours a day of your brain space to this stuff and we are in a big lull between nomination battles... is it not just possible that something small seems like something big just because it is well, it is something to write about?

I'm sure you have read Bernstein's article on CNN. Perhaps it should give you pause for reflection about eating out of Hillary's hand?

It's here in case anyone missed it. (Thanks to Markinaustin for originally posting)

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/

Posted by: Boutan

**********************************************************************************************


Thanks Boutan, but I came to this site to read the Post, not to receive advice from a first time voter om what I should be reading. Barry said what he said, get over it. Believe me no one will forget when it comes time to vote.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:09 AM | Report abuse

Leichtman, could you identify the polls you are talking about that have Clinton ahead by 12-20% anytime in the last 10 days?

realclearpolitics shows an average of less than 7% and no poll has put it at 20% since mid March.

On that note - amazing comeback would you say? Going from a gap of 20 to a gap of 7 in such a short period of time?

But seriously, please identify the polls you are talking about... because you are discrediting yourself without a reference.


Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 9:06 AM | Report abuse

It is very important that we do not identify those who are disaffected, marginalized, angry, upset or bitter as anything but good Americans, happily striving to achieve their dreams.
Signed x
The Politician

Posted by: Tony Lopez | April 15, 2008 9:04 AM | Report abuse

This is so f*cking stupid.

Posted by: TMo

******************************************************************


So are you obviously.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 9:02 AM | Report abuse

marc you are correct about the word hubris being pretty universal, what really seems to get under my skin is not only the excess of hubris but hearing the same kind of stubborness at times that so irritates me abot W. I am always right we sense from Sen Obama, and a sense that everyone who doesn't agree with him is delusional. The other element I look for is humility which honesly I never see from Sen Obama and only ocassionally hear from HC. I think the country is ready for some humility by our politicians after 7 years of W's arrogance.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

Jack, the story about Bill Clinton and the sign lie is true.

I read it here:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/04/bill-clinton-ke.html

So the former President just clean makes up a lie about seeing "signs everywhere" that no one else saw.

And this is the couple claiming the moral high ground?

Let me go and puke...

Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 9:01 AM | Report abuse

I think this controversy could start (and is starting) to go a third way, which is that Obama uses this situation to turn the tables on Clinton and make her look bad, instead. In my opinion, the larger point Obama was trying to get at is valid - he just presented it poorly. I think he has come up with a great way to counter criticism on the stump (highlighting his opponents' record, contrasting them with his, and then asking "who sounds out of touch to you?"). Also, we've seen Gov. Rendell come out and say Obama's words were not that big a deal and will not be an issue by the time of the general election, and we've seen crowds boo Clinton when she brings up 'Bitter'-gate at her campaign rallies (see Mark Halperin's The Page). I think that the Clintons are starting to overplay their hand and the more the Clinton campaign focuses on this issue, the better it will be for Obama in the long run.

Posted by: Schuy2 | April 15, 2008 9:00 AM | Report abuse

JD, welcome to the world of the Ds in their Shia-Sunni mode where you have been accused of being a BHO supporter.

I will join you. A cardiologist friend has suggested to me that WJC has "slipped" since his bypass because 32% of bypass patients exhibit loss of mental acuity years after bypass. So he does not lie with the same facility that he demonstrated to Bob Kerrey back in '91 when Bob called him the best liar he ever met.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 8:59 AM | Report abuse

At Developer's Trial, Witness Recalls Seeing Obamas at 2004 Party for Investor
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
Barack Obama's campaign has said that he does not recall meeting the investor, who has been convicted on fraud charges in Europe.........................................................

Posted by: lucygirl1@mac.com | April 15, 2008 8:58 AM | Report abuse

I don't see a speech on the subject as one of the scenarios. Why is it seen as a foregone conclusion that it will either disappear or remain a drag on his moment? He should give a huge speech on it TONIGHT. Before the debate. The issue (primarily job loss to overseas markets) underlying his comments is almost as problematic and endemic in today's America as racism, and would be just as well served by someone with his publicity tackling it head on.

Posted by: Eric | April 15, 2008 8:57 AM | Report abuse

VAMMAP... I simply do not buy your faux outrage.

It is clear from the context of the comments that this was not meant to be patronising. He was simply suggesting that when people are disillusioned by economic issues and the governments response, they vote on other wedge issues - God, guns, and gays.

Obama's only sin was stupidity in his timing, and a poorly worded statement.

In my mind, "cling" was the worst word.

If anything, an intelligent press would call it "cling-gate" - and this would actually be worse for Obama.

Why?

Because as it turns out, loads of people AGREE that they are bitter. So ironically, Obama should be thanking CC for his 7th post on this issue.

No turnaround in the polls.

It turns out that Pennsylvanians are bitter - but they aren't stupid.

Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 8:55 AM | Report abuse

jac13 you desperately cling to the Qunipiac poll, certainly you know that other polls have HC up by 12-20% in Pa after been outspent 4:1. Just like your campaign you repeatedly post the same thing hoping against hope that its correct. Weren't we hearing predictions from your side, which you understandably now deny (and I actually saved what was said) claiming that Sen Obama was surging in Pa, was ahead by 2% points and that his supporters would not be shocked if he actually won Pa. Seems like your side's predictions change daily almost like your excuses for his misstatements. Any Obama supporter ready for excuse or spin number 9 and counting.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 8:53 AM | Report abuse

Diane W., While I sympathize with your eye for the relevant - the substance and not the style should be what is relevant - CC is running a blog on politics, not a blog on issues.

This is what "The Fix" does. And that Q Poll does indicate that BHO's momentum has been blunted, as it was near the end of the TX and OH Primary contests. So within the narrow world of political machinations, this has a certain "relevancy".
-----------------------
I really want someone to explain this "classified national security simulation"
allegation.
--------------------------
leichtman, good morning. Saying that anyone running for Prez is guilty of hubris is like saying that Pope Benedict is a Catholic. One might, equally, assume that hubris led to the retelling of the embellished Bosnia story, or to McC having been shot down over 'Nam by careless flying. Really. So?

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 8:52 AM | Report abuse

To get elected a politician needs to do two things: (1) Make the voters see something they don't like about the other guy and (2) Make the voters see something the DO like about himself/herself.

People may not have liked what Obama said -- or how he said it -- but that doesn't mean they like Clinton because of it.

This story will be over after next week's Pennsylvania election. Clinton will win by single digits -- as expected -- and the delegates won will be roughly even. The storyline will be, "Much ado about nothing."

Posted by: egc52556 | April 15, 2008 8:51 AM | Report abuse

What this political junkie is going to take away from this is how pitiful, predictable and easily led pundits like Cillizza are. A Republican nominee who was tortured himself supports the policies of an Administration who choreographed torture sessions at, literally, the highest levels and who cares? No need to ask him about it. You guys are obviously too stupid to handle more than who said this, who said that stuff. Shameful.

Posted by: John Howard | April 15, 2008 8:50 AM | Report abuse

Heard on the radio this morning that Bill Clinton claims he was travelling about North Carolina, and he said he saw a bunch of signs that said, "We're not Bitter"

But when they asked the reporters who were with him, they all said that they didn't see any signs.

Bill's a liar? No way!


*************************************************************


What radio station? You are the ONLY one who heard. But, being an Obama supporter, I sure you hear things others do not. I thought Obama was a candidate of the future. Yet all his supporters write about ancient history.

Posted by: Jack | April 15, 2008 8:49 AM | Report abuse

Hey media,
I have a suggestion: cover the news. Here are some stories that were missed:

1. March 6th, Toronto Star reported that the NAFTA gate scenario was wrong and that it was actually Clinton's campaign that contacted the Canadian embassy. Did that get covered? Yes, on a small blog at MSN.

2. Mark Penn, who was 'fired' as campaign manager of Clinton's campaign is apparently very much in charge. How do you feel about that, PA and OH? CAFTA, here we come.

3. Clinton (all three, in fact) are supposedly going to court in October 2008 for campaign fraud. Wouldn't that bode well for a general election one month later.

4. Bill Clinton's use of political leverage to get his buddies in on uranium mining in Kazakstahn.

Yes, Obama's statement was a bit dim but just think about the stuff you would be saying after MONTHS on the road and very little sleep. I realize that the job of President is also very tiring, but NOTHING comapares to an extended primary campaign. Look how well rested McCain looks and he is STILL making stupid statements.
Come on media, we are bored with this primary. Stop flogging a dead horse and move on!

Posted by: phorse | April 15, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Abviously this molehill is a mountain. The press says so!!!!!!

Posted by: | April 15, 2008 7:35 AM
---------------------
Do you retards know what spell check is? Regardless of which side you are on, read your posts before you submit.

Posted by: patrick nyc | April 15, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

Shorter Chris Cilizza: this is the gamechanger, unless something else comes along and makes it not the gamechanger.

This creates a real problem for Obama...unless it doesn't.

Well, at least it's a step removed from the rest of the inane coverage, which is entirely focused not on the rather inoffensive comments themselves, but instead who the rubes out in the hinterlands of America will believe concerning the comments.

Insane.

Posted by: Starscream | April 15, 2008 8:48 AM | Report abuse

what's really sick is that Obama doesn't call those working class and poor blacks who vote for him "BITTER". YOu're only bitter if you don't support him.

Posted by: Trey | April 15, 2008 8:46 AM | Report abuse

I have to admit last night when I saw the utter frustration on the face of CNN's Campbell Brown, I zinged the TV screen with a clenched fist and said back to her...after she said, "When will Hillary stop this."

"Campbell, it's your guy Obama who did the deed. It was the first time when I really felt there's finally an issue, something said beyond the media's control to SQUELCH, SPIN it, BURY it, or do whatever they do to distort the truth..

This time, this time...something was said so damaging in principle, that it's not going to go away. Yes, the media is trying and Obama is trying to spin "Bitter."

But, the press hasn't come around to discusssing truly what's behind his words. And Obama hasn't come close to it, instead he flatly denies any meaning beyond them.

The problem is he clearly drew a cultural and racial line between middle class working whites and blacks. A lot of white people are thinking, Obama was harder on us than he was on Reverend Wright. He said we were antipathetic, clung to guns and religions, wouldn' t accept a black guy.
We've never heard him say anything about his own people. What are their cultural and soceital problems. Why not talk about them too?

In the past Obama has reacted much more harshly to Imus remarks than he did to Reverend Wright's own racially tainted remkarks. It's clear there's a double standard. And the PEOPLE see it. Hard to make that go away....


Posted by: VAMMAP | April 15, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Quinnipiac, this morning:

"New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has stalled Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's drive in the Pennsylvania Democratic primary and holds a 50 - 44 percent lead among likely primary voters, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released today, unchanged from April 8 results.

"There was no noticeable [change] in the matchup in polling April 12 - 13, following widespread media reports on Sen. Obama's 'bitter' comments."

If the best HRC gets out of this concocted faux "controversy" is a "stall" in Obama's momentum, she should be disappointed. I had my doubts that it would blow the race open and, apparently, it hasn't so far.

(And, BTW, never mind what Rendell says: she still needs to win by 15 or so for PA to make any appreciable difference.)

Tomorrow's debate now looms large.

Posted by: jac13 | April 15, 2008 8:45 AM | Report abuse

Why wait for polls? Why not do something novel for a change and put your boots on the ground and ASK Pennsylvania voters how they're feeling about losing their jobs, losing their homes and having no health care? That's what reporters used to do in the not-so-distant past.

Also, why not take an objective look at the entirety of Obama's comments? Clearly, the man was giving an in-depth treatise on why Pennsylvania voters were feeling disillusioned about government and "clinging" to things that made them feel better. I guess the media is so dumbed-down by sound-bytes that they can no longer analyze a discussion that goes on for longer than 30 seconds.

Shame on the media for making a presidential nomination look more like bad reality television than the nobel quest it is. Obama is--sometimes clumsily--seeking to elevate discussions about difficult topics. I, for one, had no idea about how frustrated small-town voters were, and I'm thankful for the enlightment I got from Obama's remarks.

Posted by: Angelique | April 15, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Obama spends a lot of time in a state his poll numbers go up, he spends the same amount of time as Clinton, polls steady, he spends less time his poll numbers go down.

Thank you Quinnipiac poll for this data. Now can we find a "bitter" pundit who can draw a conclusion from this data ?

Posted by: DrK | April 15, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

diane I guess we can now ad "ill chosen words" as explanation number eight and counting. Don't think we have enough space here to keep listing all of the spin words.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse


You're leaving one event out CC:

The Fix: the Washington Post's political analysis blog has demonstrated an Alex Forrest-esque obsession with about 15 seconds of Obama audio over the past five days. His inability to see the larger context of the race, or to see the imbalance in his coverage of this event vis-a-vis the dozens of other gaffes in the history of the race, demonstrates one of the following: a lack of a comprehensive understanding of modern American politics (ed. note-I doubt it), a bias towards Hillary Clinton (ed. note-I doubt it slightly less), or a need to stoke the fires of the primary season just when it appeared to be smoldering to a solution (ed. note-ding ding ding!) Will the Fix continue unabated, or will it come to its senses (particularly its one of dignity)? Stay tuned.

Posted by: crt12

******************************************************************************


When all else fails, blame FOX. If you watch FOX, that is your problem. Republicans watch FOX and they are no concern to me. Viewers of FOX have already made up their minds. Watching FOX reinforces their beliefs. Those 15 seconds revealed a lot about Barry's true feelings. Let's not forget where Barry was when he made the comments. He was in a CLOSED DOOR fundraing event with his grassroots fat cat supporters. The type of grass root supporters who are billionaires and multimillionaires and have jets, mansions and Bentleys. His response was an answer to a supporter's question as to why Barry could not get the blue collar vote. He could have said he needed to work harder, but it was much easier to paint the voters as the problem. Barry, who obviously will sell his soul for donations, chose to insult, demean, and stereotype all Pennsylvanians. The FAT CATS got a real laugh out of this one, Americans didn't.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

Heard on the radio this morning that Bill Clinton claims he was travelling about North Carolina, and he said he saw a bunch of signs that said, "We're not Bitter"

But when they asked the reporters who were with him, they all said that they didn't see any signs.

Bill's a liar? No way!

Posted by: JD | April 15, 2008 8:44 AM | Report abuse

If the media would stop talking about this 24/7, I don't think it would be such an issue. Mrs. Clinton made up her story about Boznia. Mr. Obama used some ill-chosen words. Big deal. I don't want to hear about the "guns/religion" story anymore!!!!! It's as bad as the Anna Nicole Smith story and equally as irrelevant.

Posted by: Diane W. | April 15, 2008 8:41 AM | Report abuse

as I posted on Sunday, John Kerry's statement was a poorly worded joke, that he Fully and Immediately Apologized for, neither of which has been done after 4 days by Sen Obama. Its now about Sen Obama's hubris.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 8:40 AM | Report abuse

The respected Quin poll CC referred to is OUT:

RESULTS

Hillary makes no gains, holds steady at 6% lead.

WOW.

And the poll was taken AFTER the Obama comments. You can read about them here:

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

If I were Hillary, I'd be bitter about these results.

Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 8:36 AM | Report abuse

We are now on about the seventh explanation for the SF statement. We have heard him disingenously fixate on the word bitter, claim it was a "poor choice of words",that its HC's fault, we heard that the media just misunderstood what he was saying, that he is the only candidate who knows anything about Pa values, claimed the comment was "clumsy" yesterday and today's word, its all about the "syntax". Maybe by next Monday we will finally hear the words wrong or offensive. Its laughable how for 4 days he has desperately tried to spin his words rather than just showing some humility and saying he was wrong. The other accurate word word is hubris.

Posted by: Leichtman | April 15, 2008 8:35 AM | Report abuse

Wow Chris - you are getting a royal shellacking here. Not just one or two crazies claiming bias... you are getting a pile on of people.

Is it not just possible that when you devote 18 hours a day of your brain space to this stuff and we are in a big lull between nomination battles... is it not just possible that something small seems like something big just because it is well, it is something to write about?

I'm sure you have read Bernstein's article on CNN. Perhaps it should give you pause for reflection about eating out of Hillary's hand?

It's here in case anyone missed it. (Thanks to Markinaustin for originally posting)

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/carl-bernstein-what-a-hillary-clinton-presidency-look-like/

Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 8:30 AM | Report abuse

Anyone that thinks this latest blunder by Obama isn't a big deal is detached from reality. Remember what happened to John Kerry four years ago? Kerry didn't even come close to making such a misstatement as Obama made in San Francisco and the Republicans successfully labeled him a liberal elite that was out of touch with mainstream Americans. There is more dirt to come on Obama and much of it is tied to his liberal voting record in the Senate and especially the Illinois State Senate. Add to this his lack of experience and the gaffs he will continue to make and his prospects in November are looking dim. Wait until someone brings up his refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin. This will be the icing on his anti-American cake. Also, the Rev. Wright won't be going away any time soon. He is still in the news and is making new incendiary statements. It looks to me like it is Obama's chickens that are coming home to roost.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 8:29 AM | Report abuse

Bitter-Gate is right up there with Allen's Macaca, the Dean Scream and Kerry's windsurfing, faux-hunting, and "I voted for it before I voted against it" campaign moments.

Like the others, Obama has been exposed and defined by his own words and actions. Should Obama get the nod, will hear of Bitter-Gate from now until both the election and Obama are over and done.

Posted by: JackESpratt | April 15, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

This is so f*cking stupid.

Posted by: TMo | April 15, 2008 8:28 AM | Report abuse

At Developer's Trial, Witness Recalls Seeing Obamas at 2004 Party for Investor
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
Barack Obama's campaign has said that he does not recall meeting the investor, who has been convicted on fraud charges in Europe

Posted by: lucygirl1*************************************************************************

"I can't recall." Isn't that the mantra of the Bush administration? But I thought Barry was the new politician. Sounds like the same old BS to me. I guess that is what he meant by CHANGE. We will CHANGE the LIARS in the White House from Bush to Obama. Obama is the better LIAR, hands down.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 8:27 AM | Report abuse

One more observation.

I am a city boy, and I also think this whole thing is a whole pile of nothing.

I suspect many of the posters here are city dwellers too (this is WaPo, right?)

So, the question is: are we a little city-centric in our thinking (i.e. "those poor folk ARE bitter, aren't they?")

Is this going to play worse in Pennsylvania than it does on the blog?

Alternatively, maybe a legitimate response is "heck yeah! I am bitter! I'm going to vote for this Obama guy!"

FINALLY

Why is anyone pretending this can actually affect the outcome of this nomination? CC come one man. Do the math on this. We all KNOW that the supers aren't going to overturn the pledged delegates. I understand the front page of your paper needs to pretend it is a contest to sell papers, but what is your excuse on the blog? This is meant to be serious political discourse, and it honestly discredits you for future analysis of elections.

Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

Jack,

Ben Smith writes in Politico:
--------------------------
In a letter to Obama, which a Davis aide provided to Politico, Davis apologized for his "poor choice of words."

"I offer my sincere apology to you and ask for your forgiveness," he wrote.

The letter makes no reference to the substance of Davis's remarks, that Obama's behavior in a classified exercise had convinced Davis the Illinois Senator is unready to be president.
-------------------------
But I would be very curious about this "classified exercise" and how a KY Congressman knew about it.
Was it merely "Classified"?
Was it classified "Secret"?
It sounds bogus to me.
If it was classified "Secret" or "Top Secret" the Congressman violated the classification by speaking of it.
Again, sounds bogus.

Posted by: MarkInAustin | April 15, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

You're leaving one event out CC:

The Fix: the Washington Post's political analysis blog has demonstrated an Alex Forrest-esque obsession with about 15 seconds of Obama audio over the past five days. His inability to see the larger context of the race, or to see the imbalance in his coverage of this event vis-a-vis the dozens of other gaffes in the history of the race, demonstrates one of the following: a lack of a comprehensive understanding of modern American politics (ed. note-I doubt it), a bias towards Hillary Clinton (ed. note-I doubt it slightly less), or a need to stoke the fires of the primary season just when it appeared to be smoldering to a solution (ed. note-ding ding ding!) Will the Fix continue unabated, or will it come to its senses (particularly its one of dignity)? Stay tuned.

Posted by: crt12 | April 15, 2008 8:24 AM | Report abuse

A Dem who has not yet chosen betweeen the two candidates, I am disappointed at the coverage these issues are getting. How about getting back to aWol's war, the economy, health care and so on?

Posted by: Bartolo | April 15, 2008 8:23 AM | Report abuse

I HATE TO SOUND BITTER CHRIS BUT WHO GIVE A FLYING EFF ABOUT YOUR "BITTER GATE."

YOU ARE DOING HILLARY'S DIRTY WORK, SHE CONTROLS AND CONTINUES TO CONTROL YOUR SHALLOW MINDS............DISGUSTING


YOU SHALLOW POLITICO WANNABES, FORGET THAT MOST OF THE ELECTORATE ARE BITTER.

I AM BITTER OVER THE IRAQ WAR, I AM BITTER OVER THE ECONOMY, I AM BITTER ABOUT THIS RISING GAS PRICE, FOOD COST, HEALTHCARE COST

I AM BITTER THAT YOU DUMBA$$E$ IN THE MEDIA FAIL TO REPORT ON IMPORTANT ISSUES, YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT FOLKS ARE REALLY BITTER. YOU RATHER PREFER TO SPEND YOUR TIME COINING DUMB WORDS LIKE "BITTER GATE"


WE ARE BITTER!!!!!!!!! LOOK AT G.W. BUSH APPROVAL RATING. 29%

Posted by: Pope | April 15, 2008 8:21 AM | Report abuse

All we will hear today from Obama supporters will be attempts to trivialize Obama's condescending remarks and his stereotyping of Pennsylvania. Obama supporters have no problem when Barry stereotypes all Pennsylvanians. "All Obama supporters are brain dead hypocrites, who have no thoughts of their own. They only parrot what Barry tells them" How do you like stereotyping, now?

Posted by: Jack | April 15, 2008 8:20 AM | Report abuse

I HATE TO SOUND BITTER CHRIS BUT WHO GIVE A FLYING EFF ABOUT YOUR "BITTER GATE."

YOU ARE DOING HILLARY'S DIRTY WORK, SHE CONTROLS AND CONTINUES TO CONTROL YOUR SHALLOW MINDS............DISGUSTING


YOU SHALLOW POLITICO WANNABES, FORGET THAT MOST OF THE ELECTORATE ARE BITTER.

I AM BITTER OVER THE IRAQ WAR, I AM BITTER OVER THE ECONOMY, I AM BITTER ABOUT THIS RISING GAS PRICE, FOOD COST, HEALTHCARE COST

I AM BITTER THAT YOU DUMBA$$E$ IN THE MEDIA FAIL TO REPORT ON IMPORTANT ISSUES, YOU FAIL TO SEE THAT FOLKS ARE REALLY BITTER. YOU RATHER PREFER TO SPEND YOUR TIME COINING DUMB WORDS LIKE "BITTER GATE"


WE ARE BITTER!!!!!!!!! LOOK AT G.W. BUSH APPROVAL RATING. 29%

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 8:19 AM | Report abuse

I think another few options have to be considered:

1. Bill says something stupid to turn the media against Hillary's campaign again (rather than eating out of her hand like they are right now)

2. The media wait until 19 April to start selling an "Obama comeback" in Pennsylvania (this IS all about selling papers, right?)

3. This raises expectations SKY high in Pennsylvania for Hillary, when the story HAD been that Obama was catching her. Suddenly, a 7 point victory looks like a loss - and she is in trouble.

4. Footage comes out of Bill or Hillary saying similar things in the past. The whole thing flips.

5. George Bush says something intelligent, and it dominates media coverage for days.

6. Or, more likely... George Bush gooses the pope, dominating media coverage for weeks.

Posted by: Boutan | April 15, 2008 8:17 AM | Report abuse

At Developer's Trial, Witness Recalls Seeing Obamas at 2004 Party for Investor
By CHRISTOPHER DREW
Barack Obama's campaign has said that he does not recall meeting the investor, who has been convicted on fraud charges in Europe

Posted by: lucygirl1@mac.com | April 15, 2008 8:15 AM | Report abuse

The only reason this story is in the news is because Senator Clinton wishes that it will have an impact on the race in her favor. To deny that the poor in Pennsylvania or anywhere else are bitter is ridiculous. Obama simply presented an unpleasant but honest truth. As Bob Herbert said in the NYT today "Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it's pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters [white, working-class] -- in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere -- will not vote for a black candidate for president." The truth is not always pleasant.

Posted by: Jordan Davies | April 15, 2008 8:14 AM | Report abuse

If an elitist exists in this campaign, it is Hillary Clinton. She has received all of the big-money endorsements, and the small donors, the grass roots voters, have backed Obama. Clinton may SAY she'll work for the average voter, but she'll stand for the oath of office in the name of the people, then she'll sit right down and govern for the special interests that OWN her. Remember she supported NAFTA, until she had to campaign in places where it hurt the people she needs to have voting for her! She is elitist to the very core. The Obama remark is a non-issue. If we're going to attack elitism, let's look at the record and go after the real elitist. Two-faced Hillary Clinton.

Posted by: Realist | April 15, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

Like The Fix said; an opportunity for Barack.
He is a pretty good pol.
Is it that big a deal?
I say it is not.

rlf

Posted by: Ricky from Omaha | April 15, 2008 8:12 AM | Report abuse

finn- You are missing something. Barry demeaned and insulted all of Pennsylvanians and the blue collar workers of our country. Additionally, we don't need someone coming to our state pointing out ours and our countries problems. Any fool can point out the problems. We need someone with solutions, which is quite harder than criticism. Unfortunately, Barry has no solutions, but demeans Pennsylvania's voters because they won't vote for him. This exposes Barry's true colors. Also shows that he is an egotistical liar that Americans can't trusted........................Heard Obama was absolutely stunning at a national security simulation. Heard he wet his pants. That is the type of person one wants in the White House.

Posted by: Jack | April 15, 2008 8:10 AM | Report abuse

For someone who supposedly knows voters, your projections about whether Obama might lose big in Pennsylvania are so screwy. Um ... were these lunch-pailers going to vote for Obama in the first place? I think not. If Obama was "closing the gap" in Pennsylvania, it wasn't with this group. So, put another way, no one who was going to vote for Obama in the first place, or in response to his Penn. campaign, would be offended by the remark.

Posted by: Daphne | April 15, 2008 8:05 AM | Report abuse

Obama tried albeit somewhat unsuccessfully to answer a question in a heartfelt way that like Negros of slavery time who also turned to Religion & Music due to oppression and hard times and that small town America has very little to look forward to and so too turned to religion and hunting as a normal outlet and sometimes blamed their plight on immigrants! This excercise in "honest" judgment has been blown out of all proportions and taken up by Hillary & McCain and some in the Media to exploit for political gain, albeit with dishonesty and distorted statements to demean Obama for being honest. We have to asks ourselves as Americans "would we rather have politicians that lie to us or ones that tell us the truth no matter what?" Now we have Bill Clinton going around with his new false assertions and another example of another "lying politician", excuse my blatantness... the following...

B. Clinton "[s]ays at campaign railly in Corydon, Indiana that throughout seven stops in North Carolina, 'Everywhere I go there are all these people with signs, saying I'm not bitter - I'm not bitter.' ABC's Sarah Amos says his comments were well-received but 'not entirely accurate.' For instance, she says there were no signs at his rallies saying 'I'm not bitter,' as he claimed."

(Mark Halpern, The Page)

However, in light of the current fire storm and questionning and psychoanalyzing about the "bitterness" of small town America, maybe Obama has done us some good and we can finally bring or shed some light on just how bitter (or not) we really are and better yet -- the "Root Cause"!

Posted by: Angellight | April 15, 2008 8:03 AM | Report abuse

As Rachel Maddow said on David Gregory's "Race to the Whitehouse" last night, the media is treating Clinton's misrepresentation of Obama's words as the reality.

Obama tries to bring light to issues while Clinton brings heat.
Obama unites, Clinton divides.
Obama is genuine, Clinton will say or do anything to get elected, even if it means doing the Republican Party's job for them.

Posted by: flaxponder | April 15, 2008 8:02 AM | Report abuse

Let Me Get This Straight The Clinton's and McCain's personal wealth exceed $100 Million and OBAMA is an "elitist?" What is "elitism" is both campaigns thinking that they can "hoodwink" the public to believe this outrageous pandering. (Especially the Clinton Camp!!) It's a fairy-tale and the American people have been duped twice the past eight years - YES SOME OF US ARE BITTER WITH A DO NOTHING CONGRESS AND PRESIDENT. We won't fall for polarization, not this time, not this election, not this year. Now say it with me - BOOMERANG!


I am an Arizona REPUBLICAN - lifelong - from a small town of less than 5, 000. YES I AM PISSED!! My money in this race is on OBAMA. I am riding this horse all the way to the general - And that you can put in the bank!

Posted by: Lee GIABENELLI | April 15, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

This is a non-story being blown way out of proportion. I think you pundit types need to go on holiday.

Posted by: Brendan | April 15, 2008 8:01 AM | Report abuse

This blog is issues-free. It is *only* about politics. If you can't say something that is susbstance-free and/or a reflection of the MSM's voracious hyping of piffle (except in the case of St. John the Apostate, who can do no wrong), you will kindly restrict your remarks to the weather.

Posted by: elroy1 | April 15, 2008 7:59 AM | Report abuse

Cillizza is again trying to divert attention away from Obama's devastating remarks. Why doesn't Cillizza apply for employment with Obama's campaign? He parrots everything they say. Blatant, biased journalism is all one can expect from the pathetic Cillizza.

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 7:53 AM | Report abuse

Abviously this molehill is a mountain. The press says so!!!!!!

Posted by: Anonymous | April 15, 2008 7:35 AM | Report abuse

I am still flabbergasted that this is even an issue. Why is this man being denounced for pointing out that people often vote against their own economic interests? Am I missing something here?

And don't get me started on the laughable "elitism" charge. A guy raised by a single mom, who put himself through school, and then gave up much more lucrative job prospects to be a community organizer -- elitist?

Where do I even begin?

Posted by: finn | April 15, 2008 7:25 AM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company