Barack Obama recently caled rural Pennsylvanians "bitter" and made several other remarks that many rural Americans found condescending[ such as calling then gun clingers and bigots].

Nobody but Obama himself can be blamed for this dumb move.

The bloom is off the rose.

Link : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/11/obama_calls_smalltown_pennsylv.html

Stupidest much-ado-about-nothing ever.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain: Two Washington insiders each worth $100 million + attacking Barack for being "out of touch" with the common man. Hilarity.

The only dumb move he made was trying to apologize for it.

Every candidate is out of touch with the common man. Every candidate has done something awful, like take money from lobbyists. Was what Obama said stupid? Yeah. I mean, c'mon-- a Harvard-educated man running for president is going to publicly over-generalize the population of small-town PA as gun-toting hicks. Yeah, there are going to be a few people upset. However, in the scheme of things, there are a lot more important things we should be keeping in check, with all candidates. How about our economy is completely ****ed? I'd like to hear something somewhat intelligible on that, and I've yet to.

Was what Obama said stupid? Yeah. I mean, c'mon-- a Harvard-educated man running for president is going to publicly over-generalize the population of small-town PA as gun-toting hicks.

That's...not what he said. :nonono:

okay ... so he is up to a whopping .02 on the Gaffe-O-Meter .. so what .. he needs to gaffe more to catch up?

okay ... so he is up to a whopping .02 on the Gaffe-O-Meter .. so what .. he needs to gaffe more to catch up?

It only counts if someone other than Hillary does it.

Just like all those states that don't count.

Pennsylvanians with half a brain are bitter (for good reason). That's why many will vote for Obama.

Barack Obama recently caled rural Pennsylvanians "bitter" and made several other remarks that many rural Americans found condescending[ such as calling then gun clingers and bigots].

Nobody but Obama himself can be blamed for this dumb move.

The bloom is off the rose.

Link : http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/11/obama_calls_smalltown_pennsylv.html


The drama and ugly jubilation are noted, and now for a dose of reality.
Obama in fact said:


"you go into 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 feel 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," he added. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."


Clinton and the GOP are jumping on Obama for this, but there is NOTHING condescending about this analysis whatsoever. He is not belittling the members of such ailing communities by recognizing their situation and their frustrations, and it is sickening that you should try to distract from the truth of his words by twisting them to your petty agenda.

Note how the GOP has seized on this to try to dampen enthusiasm for Obama, as noted by the article? That's a sure sign they see Obama as the candidate to eliminate - as the candidate that represents the biggest threat to McCain. They would be siding with Obama and not stooping to this idiocy if they felt he was the easiest candidate to beat.

Your backing of the losing candidate, and the despicable, manipulative smear tactics you happily employ show I didn't dream the whole bizarre past three weeks on DA and the behavior this election has brought out in you. Everyone here knows that if Hillary had said these words, you would have easily found praise for them.

To be frank, this thread and the focus you chose for it reminds me forcefully of the threads Contra used to start. Absurd, pitiful attempts to throw mud at liberals that were immediately, and humiliatingly countered by everyone else on the board. This thread is the same approach except it represents a detrimental in-fighting trying to pull down the Democratic candidate with the best chance at the presidency... but the base nature and weakness of the premise is the same, and so is the humiliating result.

I'm just thankful that there are people with stronger insight and ethics on this board that it isn't left to the antics of the Contras and TT's.

M.

And on that happy note, I'm off to donate 50 bucks to Obama's campaign.

M.

The part of his statement that annoyed me was the "anti immigrant" part of his remark.

Being opposed to illegal immigration, which is a huge problem in PA, as anyone who has been to York and other places well know, and has driven overall wages and salaries down, is not equivalent to being "anti immigrant", There is a huge distinction between the two. Overall, legal immigration is a good thing, and illegal immigration isn't. Obama should make the distinction, and stop lumping people into groups under inaccurate descriptions of the facts.

It's the same as when politicians accuse those who don't support federal funding of embryonic stem cell research of being against stem cell research, when they know full well that nothing could be further from the truth. Politicians are notorious for failing to make distinctions, and the fact that they think people don't know the difference is very condescending.

This won't hurt Obama one bit in the eyes of his supporters, and like the Rev. Wright fiasco, the issue will be gone in a week or two.

Yea, he said "anti-immigrant", not "anti-illegal alien"... and he was referring to rural Pennsylvanians' perceptions, not his own perceptions. Follow? I know a lot of rural Pennsylvanians, and I can tell you that his generalizations are largely correct. While there are those who don't fit the bill described above, they are the ones progressive enough to not be offended by Obama's spot on comments.

About illegal immigration in PA: we're not in bad shape at all. New York and New Jersey soak up a bunch - If you stay away from Home Depot or Wawa you'll never see one. According to this data (http://www.statemaster.com/graph/peo_est_num_of_ill_imm-people-estimated-number-illegal-immigrants) PA has 50,000+ illegal immigrants out of a total illegal population of 9,000,000 - 11,000,000. That's not bad at all, and it's 20th in the US. .394 illegals per 100 pennsylvainians? that's 37th in the US. The issue of immigration in general in PA is largely based on race and not on prevailing economic or social issues, and the demographics support this hypothesis.

If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns.

- Bill Clinton in his 2004 memoirs, My Life

my take is he meant what he said . people are not religous because they believe in God or want something more in life. but only turn to religion when things are bad. That comes across as extremely condescending from a candidate who has worn his religion on his sleeve.

my take is he meant what he said . people are not religous because they believe in God or want something more in life. but only turn to religion when things are bad. That comes across as extremely condescending from a candidate who has worn his religion on his sleeve.

THAT'S NOT WHAT HE SAID.

He said people's VOTES go to candidates they can relate to on things that they can cling to--guns and who's more religious--and NOT to candidates better for their economic interests because they (voters) are disillusioned by Washington's repeated failures on the economic front. Which, by the way, is entirely true.

CHRIST no wonder this country elects dumbshits like George W Bush and winds up in wars in ****ing Iraq if people can't take three seconds to understand a pretty simple concept.

Stupidest much-ado-about-nothing ever.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain: Two Washington insiders each worth $100 million + attacking Barack for being "out of touch" with the common man. Hilarity.

The only dumb move he made was trying to apologize for it.

Pennsylvanians with half a brain are bitter (for good reason). That's why many will vote for Obama.


These elitist remarks ^ are why the only Democrats who have won the popular vote for president during the last 32 years are white,moderate Southerners [and I include Al Gore in that].

Obama was losing the blue-collar vote long before this,he's now lost it period.

And one needs the blue-collar vote to win the White House.

Not only that,he's a hypocrite talking about "biterness" and clinging to religion and disdain for people who are not like them after calling Reverend Wright his mentor.




Clinton and the GOP are jumping on Obama for this, but there is NOTHING condescending about this analysis whatsoever.


I suggest you come back to the United States and ask the people he was refering to [people I grew up amongst] if they feel condesended or not.

They do.


As I told you earlier,he did not grow up in the same America that I did,this proves it.



and it is sickening that you should try to distract from the truth of his words by twisting them to your petty agenda.






Your backing of the losing candidate, and the despicable, manipulative smear tactics you happily employ show I didn't dream the whole bizarre past three weeks on DA and the behavior this election has brought out in you.


:topic:

I am not the topic,so leave me out of this.

Obama stuck his own foot in his own mouth,that is no one's fault but his.


Everyone here knows that if Hillary had said these words, you would have easily found praise for them.


That is a lie.

If she had been stupid enough to say this,I would have withdrawn my support for her.





And on that happy note, I'm off to donate 50 bucks to Obama's campaign.

M.



Like that will make a major difference.:rolleyes:

TT you are the most out-of-touch-with-the-average-voter left wing psycho nut on this web site. WTF.

That is a lie.

If she had been stupid enough to say this,I would have withdrawn my support for her.

Hahahahahaha, oh what a bunch of bullshit. *wipes tear from eye*

TT you are the most out-of-touch-with-the-average-voter left wing psycho nut on this web site. WTF.

I'm a moderate,it's almost everyone else here [left and right alike]who goes to extremes.

Anyway,you are :topic: I am not the issue.



Hahahahahaha, oh what a bunch of bullshit. *wipes tear from eye*

1.You are wrong.
2.:topic:,I am not the topic.

You're right. The topic is Barack's perfectly benign (and true) comments. And since it's nothing, I guess we're done with the topic.

You're right. The topic is Barack's perfectly benign (and true) comments. And since it's nothing, I guess we're done with the topic.


^Spin.:nonono:

LOL. Okay.

You're right. The topic is Barack's perfectly benign (and true) comments. And since it's nothing, I guess we're done with the topic.There was truth behind Obama's comments, but you've got some severely rose-colored glasses on if you think this is the last we'll hear of those words. Sometimes, people find honesty to be highly offensive. See Bill Cosby for a good example of this phenomena.

Once painted an "elitist" it's hard to shake. Ask John Kerry.

"Liberals champion the poor and the weak but do it in such condescendingly bureaucratic ways that the po' illedumacated Cleti would rather eat their own shotguns than associate with the likes of them."

Obama has managed to avoid seeming like a bureaucratic robot very well, but getting stuck with the condescending, "elitist" label is a very real danger, because there are a lot of folks who will happily vote against their own interests if they start perceiving him that way.

Obama has handled all his dings satisfactorily so far, but they are adding up and creating an opportunity for the GOP to twist his persona into something middle-America (i.e. moderate to liberal hicks) find really unpalatable. Wifey's comments, association with Wright, the "huddlin' with their guns" stuff, bad bowling score*, etc...

I guarantee we'll see Obama's most recent comments in a general election campaign add. If he wants to win, he's got to be more careful with his words. Even if he's telling the truth, as in this case.


*why the fact that he can't bowl worth shit makes him an "elitist" or has anything to do with his leadership ability is beyond me, but just ask Kerry if he could redo his huntin' and throwing pitches photo-ops from '04...

"Liberals champion the poor and the weak but do it in such condescendingly bureaucratic ways that the po' illedumacated Cleti would rather eat their own shotguns than associate with the likes of them."

Obama has managed to avoid seeming like a bureaucratic robot very well, but getting stuck with the condescending, "elitist" label is a very real danger, because there are a lot of folks who will happily vote against their own interests if they start perceiving him that way.

Obama has handled all his dings satisfactorily so far, but they are adding up and creating an opportunity for the GOP to twist his persona into something middle-America (i.e. moderate to liberal hicks) find really unpalatable. Wifey's comments, association with Wright, the "huddlin' with their guns" stuff, bad bowling score*, etc...

I guarantee we'll see Obama's most recent comments in a general election campaign add. If he wants to win, he's got to be more careful with his words. Even if he's telling the truth, as in this case.


*why the fact that he can't bowl worth shit makes him an "elitist" or has anything to do with his leadership ability is beyond me, but just ask Kerry if he could redo his huntin' and throwing pitches photo-ops from '04...

You make a compelling argument.

M.

I suggest you come back to the United States and ask the people he was refering to [people I grew up amongst] if they feel condesended or not.

They do.


Some people will feel it was condescending. It does not mean it WAS condescending. There is a difference you know. Like when you throw the word around this board when it isn't warranted. You are always feeling 'condescended to'. Since you now claim people you grew up with feel this way about Obama, maybe its something in the water in your area?

Jokes aside: I uinderstand perfectly how what he said can be interpreted as condescending, but its a choice of interpretation and if you stop for two seconds and actually THINK about what he said, you will know he does not think less of the people he was describing: on the contrary, he understands full well where their prejudices and obsessions come from, and his expression of this understanding is in a spirit of compassion.
It is one thing to misread this spirit of compassion, but in your case, you know damn well what he was saying, and it is a rare breed of devious, manipulative inclination that pushes you to portray his intent and his words as something bad.


As I told you earlier,he did not grow up in the same America that I did,this proves it.


So who we elect as president should be determined by whether the candidate shares your socio-economic upbringing? Give me a break. Everyone here knows you're not that stupid. You are more elastic than a rubber band: you'll say anything to attack Obama.


That is a lie.

If she had been stupid enough to say this,I would have withdrawn my support for her.


Haha: thanks for the laugh TT. She was stupid enough to lie about being shot at in Bosnia, on SEVERAL occasions. Rather than withdrawing your support for her, you passionately defended her.
I wish you could see us physically as a room full of people, so you could see how many hands raise to say they believe you on this one. You'd be lucky to get a single one.


Like that will make a major difference.:rolleyes:

Who's elitist now, huh? Discouraging the small supporters of our candidates as if only the corporate mega-bucks can get you elected? My 50 bucks donation will make a difference. My single vote, will make a difference. That's how our democracy works, TT.

The beauty of Obama's campaign is the enormous surge of financial support from people just like me and you: ordinary people who have given his platform a chance in a nation where previously, it was virtually impossible. And you choose to spit on this democratization of our campaign process?

What has Hillary spent on her campaign, and where did that money come from? What has Obama spent on his campaign and where did the monmey come from. Provide us with an honest account of these sources, and then try to claim that donations from ordinary Americans don't make a difference to Obama.

To paraphrase you: TT stuck his foot in his own mouth. It is nobody's fault but his.

M.

I suggest you come back to the United States and ask the people he was refering to [people I grew up amongst] if they feel condesended or not.

They do.


Some people will feel it was condescending. It does not mean it WAS condescending. There is a difference you know. Like when you throw the word around this board when it isn't warranted. You are always feeling 'condescended to'. Since you now claim people you grew up with feel this way about Obama, maybe its something in the water in your area?

Jokes aside: I uinderstand perfectly how what he said can be interpreted as condescending, but its a choice of interpretation and if you stop for two seconds and actually THINK about what he said, you will know he does not think less of the people he was describing: on the contrary, he understands full well where their prejudices and obsessions come from, and his expression of this understanding is in a spirit of compassion.
It is one thing to misread this spirit of compassion, but in your case, you know damn well what he was saying, and it is a rare breed of devious, manipulative inclination that pushes you to portray his intent and his words as something bad.


As I told you earlier,he did not grow up in the same America that I did,this proves it.

So who we elect as president should be determined by whether the candidate shares your socio-economic upbringing? Give me a break. Everyone here knows you're not that stupid. You are more elastic than a rubber band: you'll say anything to attack Obama.


That is a lie.

If she had been stupid enough to say this,I would have withdrawn my support for her.


Haha: thanks for the laugh TT. She was stupid enough to lie about being shot at in Bosnia, on SEVERAL occasions. Rather than withdrawing your support for her, you passionately defended her.
I wish you could see us physically as a room full of people, so you could see how many hands raise to say they believe you on this one. You'd be lucky to get a single one.



And on that happy note, I'm off to donate 50 bucks to Obama's campaign.


Like that will make a major difference.:rolleyes:


Who's elitist now, huh? Discouraging the small supporters of our candidates as if only the corporate mega-bucks can get you elected? My 50 bucks donation will make a difference. My single vote, will make a difference. That's how our democracy works, TT.

The beauty of Obama's campaign is the enormous surge of financial support from people just like me and you: ordinary people who have given his platform a chance in a nation where previously, it was virtually impossible. And you choose to spit on this democratization of our campaign process?

What has Hillary spent on her campaign, and where did that money come from? What has Obama spent on his campaign and where did the money come from. Provide us with an honest account of these sources, and then try to claim that donations from ordinary Americans don't make a difference to Obama.

To paraphrase you: TT stuck his foot in his own mouth. It is nobody's fault but his.

M.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, Malcolm. TT has too much Clinton jizz in the ears to hear you.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, Malcolm. TT has too much Clinton jizz in the ears to hear you.

Hehe, yeah - sorry for the double post...

M.

Clinton jizz in the earsThat's either the best or worst visual I've had all night. Probably both.

The only dumb move he made was trying to apologize for it.

Not so much apologizing as trying to unspin the spin on what he said.

He's right though. These small Midwest towns are pretty bitter about how f-ed up the economic picture is, and that anger does find expression - at times - in provincialism, racism, ethnocentrism, and leaning on things like guns and/or my-God-can-kick-your-god's-ass mentality to help these folks feel less powerless in their lives.

I grew up in a small town, and that crap was just the normal way we all grew up. Now that I live in Ohio, I see it all the time here, and recognize it immediately. Barack's only dumb move was thinking that the average idiot was ever going to admit just how powerless he/she really is, and what they do to compensate for that powerlessness.

These elitist remarks ^ are why the only Democrats who have won the popular vote for president during the last 32 years are white,moderate Southerners [and I include Al Gore in that].

Clinton won because he knew how to play the divide and conquer game like a Republican. That's the only reason he won. They called it "triangulation", and Hillary is still trying to use it to tear Obama down so that she might get a shot in 2012. Bill's campaign depended on splitting the GOP vote with the help of that idiot Ross Perot thinking he could ever win the WH.

That pitted the hate vote against itself and Bill took the game without ever winning 51% - twice. Oh yeah, and he did pander to the dumbest and lowest common denominator, and then he screwed them with NAFTA and other "corporate-friendly" policy adjustments that have been screwing the blue-collar worker ever since.

Obama was losing the blue-collar vote long before this,he's now lost it period.

And one needs the blue-collar vote to win the White House.

They're called the "downscale white voter", referring to the fact that they don't make shit for money and they don't make much of a difference in the way things turn out. They also are prone to screwing themselves when ever they do try to have an impact on things. "Downscale" is a good description of them.

By the way, I grew up a "downscaler" and have lived my whole life below the median income level. the only difference between me and the "downscale white voter" is that I'm not stupid enough to let some jerk with a 2,000 dollar suit convince me to screw myself in the voting booth.

Not only that,he's a hypocrite talking about "biterness" and clinging to religion and disdain for people who are not like them after calling Reverend Wright his mentor.

There are a lot of different people who are fed up with the kind of people that guys like you keep defending with foolishness like this. The most pathetic part of this is that you're probably getting screwed over by the same people that you're defending, and don't even understand anything other that what you've been fed. Just stupid talking points that you regurgitate, as if you're on the same team with them. In reality, they'd just laugh at you if they ever bothered to log on and read this crap.

I suggest you come back to the United States and ask the people he was refering to [people I grew up amongst] if they feel condesended or not.

They do.

As I told you earlier, he did not grow up in the same America that I did,this proves it.


Y'know what? I wouldn't vote for a meathead who grew up in the America you grew up in. You don't find brilliant statemen in trailer parks, and we need better people than you to get things back under control in this nation.

I sort of figured out what you meant by "feeling condesended", but maybe a quick look at http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/index.htm the next time you take a swing at a compound sentence might help you get a little more wood on it. As it is, your entire post works against you, and would make most people claim that they didn't grow up in whatever America you grew up in. Even if they did.

These elitist remarks ^ are why the only Democrats who have won the popular vote for president during the last 32 years are white,moderate Southerners [and I include Al Gore in that].

Obama was losing the blue-collar vote long before this,he's now lost it period.

And one needs the blue-collar vote to win the White House.

Not only that,he's a hypocrite talking about "biterness" and clinging to religion and disdain for people who are not like them after calling Reverend Wright his mentor.

There's so much idiocy packed into this post that it's hard to know where to begin.

As a thought experiment, try to imagine a political culture in which one isn't embarrassed and called stupid names for actually using one's mind and saying things that are universally known even if unstated. Imagine a culture in which speaking intelligently about reality is considered a virtue instead of a source of shame, that must be immediately explained, apologized for and ultimately retracted.

That would be a political culture in which people like Hillary Clinton have little hope of success.

As I told you earlier,he did not grow up in the same America that I did,this proves it.

The assumption here is that Hillary Clinton, unlike Obama, did grow up in the same America that Truth Teller did -- which is a childish, totally immature assumption.

Bill and Hillary Clinton made $109 million over the last eight years and sold the Lincoln Bedroom to the highest bidder when in the White House.

When Clinton was on the board of Wal-Mart and McCain was getting reprimanded for his role in the Keating 5 scandal, Barack Obama was a civil rights lawyer in Chicago. Which experience better prepares one to understand the struggles of working people?


What about the "elitism" charge?

The contemporary conservative obsession with the "liberal elite" has its origin in the campaign of 1964, when Ronald Reagan crisscrossed the country in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential aspirations, accusing liberals of believing that "an intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves." Richard Nixon took up the cudgel in his second State of the Union speech, complaining that "a bureaucratic elite in Washington knows best what is best for people everywhere." But it was Nixon's Vice President, Spiro Agnew, who, aided by speechwriters Pat Buchanan and William Safire, showed right-wingers what political potential lay in this line of attack, with his orgies of alliteration regarding the evildoings of various "pusillanimous pussyfooters," "hopeless hysterical hypochondriacs of history," "nattering nabobs of negativism" and "effete corps of impudent snobs," to pick just a few of his favorite epithets for liberal opponents in the media and academia.

Since then, no right-wing campaign has been complete without some form of repudiation of what former Vice President Dan Quayle named the liberal "cultural elite," whose avowed purpose is to undermine all that is admirable and virtuous in Middle America, or as Quayle termed it, "the rest of us." (Asked to define the evildoers, Quayle responded, "They know who they are.") Quayle's addition of the word "cultural" to "elite," coupled with his attack on a popular television character, single mom/anchorwoman Murphy Brown, was a stroke of genuine genius, as it allowed conservatives to continue to feel themselves oppressed even as they gained control of virtually all of the levers of political power in the United States and much of the news media. Liberals' power, conservatives continue to insist, trumps political power because we allegedly control the "culture." Today it is all but impossible to hear the word "liberal" without the word "elite" attached.

More: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080414/alterman

Nor'easter: Great post, dude.

Jane Smiley's reaction:

So now, Barack Obama tells the truth about conditions as we know them--that the countryside and the small towns are dying in many places in our country, and that the corporatocracy doesn't care enough to do a thing about it. He points out that immigrant-baiting, gay-baiting, gun-baiting, and religious pandering have helped to destroy those towns and that countryside, that those being destroyed have been cynically enlisted by their very own destroyers to provide the votes that help accomplish the destruction. And this is what Senator Hillary Clinton says about it: "Senator Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans."

From Senator Clinton's remarks, I infer that to actually see what has gone on in the US in the last 20 years is unAmerican. It doesn't matter who you are, where you were born, what you pay in taxes, what else you might have contributed to the culture, how you vote, who you support. If you don't support fundamentalist religion, job outsourcing, and free access to guns, then you are not even American.

I cannot believe how angry this makes me. I cannot believe that after the last seven and a half years, I can even get this angry. Yes, I know she is pandering to her audience. Yes, I know she will do anything to get elected. Yes, I know that she and Bill Clinton are corrupt to the core, and that I should have never expected anything better of her. But, please, any of you angry white women who still support this craven shill, don't mention it to me. Do me the following favor -- apologize to your children for not stopping the war that HIllary voted for, the war that is going to impoverish them. Then apologize to them for the effects of global warming that are going to make their lives hell. Then apologize to them for the school shooting they may someday see, the one where the kid gets the guns out of his father's gun case, or buys at a gunshow. Apologize to them for the meaningless wars they are going to fight and pay for. Then tell them that "American values" killed their hopes and maybe killed them. And ask them if they think it's going to be worth it.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/here-we-go-again_1_b_96374.html

This is the most ridiculous non-issue yet. I wonder if they'll manage to get even more ridiculous as the campaign wears on further.

I'm sure they will.

Wait until Obama gets nominated and then the GOP will start its fall offensive (in every sense of the word).

He was right to a great extent, but it still smacks of elitism just a tad. Of course, for Hillibitch to accuse him of being elitist is like the proverbial pot calling kettle.

This will be costly.

It only smacks of elitism because the GOP has run a good campaign against doing or saying anything intelligent. They try to tell you that anyone who actually uses their brain is an elitist. What I don't get is why don't the Democrats stand up and point out to people that the GOP is claiming the average American is stupid?
As for the Obama thing, he was dead-on right and it was too long of a statement for a media sound bite, so the media took a few words out of context to attack him with it. Not surprising given that Hillary and McCain are basically one party running against America and anyone who thinks that thinking doesn't make you an elitist. He could have phrased it better, but he doesn't like attacking people for some reason I can't explain. What he should have said was that politicians and corporations like to take the middle-class pains and twist them into religious concerns, or immigration concerns, etc. And he did say that, but you had to have an IQ over 50 to understand it and that is apparently asking too much of the people who support Hillary or McCain.

And he did say that, but you had to have an IQ over 50 to understand it and that is apparently asking too much of the people who support Hillary or McCain.You're painting with a pretty broad brush. Their supporters are not personally repsonsible for those campaigns.

I don't understand why so much is made of these out-of-context snippets from Ferraro, Wright or Obama. What was said was dead-on in each case, except Wright got a little carried away.

You're painting with a pretty broad brush. Their supporters are not personally repsonsible for those campaigns.

I don't understand why so much is made of these out-of-context snippets from Ferraro, Wright or Obama. What was said was dead-on in each case, except Wright got a little carried away.

In each case the snippet of the message was used to derail the message itself. And it is the media and the campaigns that want to treat us like we are mildly retarded by drumming on six to ten words out of a paragraph and pretending that was the entire message. But if that is what is giving Hillary a bump in Pennsylvania, then doesn't that indicate that their assumption that the people who vote for them are idiots is valid?

You're painting with a pretty broad brush. Their supporters are not personally repsonsible for those campaigns.


This is true, but the most vocal supporter on this site is certainly owning what Hillary said, of his own free will and with an enthusiasm which I find disturbing considering the importance of the truth Obama was voicing, and considering the interests it serves to try to obfuscate that truth.


I don't understand why so much is made of these out-of-context snippets from Ferraro, Wright or Obama. What was said was dead-on in each case, except Wright got a little carried away.

I agree.

M.

But if that is what is giving Hillary a bump in Pennsylvania, then doesn't that indicate that their assumption that the people who vote for them are idiots is valid?Only if your premise is correct. Demonstrate that, first.

Only if your premise is correct. Demonstrate that, first.

Which one? That they are treating the people listening to their campaigns like idiots or that Hillary got a bump?

That the bump is due to her elitist message.

That the bump is due to her elitist message.

Did either of them say something else last week that would account for a 16-point shift in polling in Pennsylvania this weekend?

It could also be due to voters liking to see Hillary on the offensive. They like a fighter, as most of us. It portends well for a future president.

It could also be due to voters liking to see Hillary on the offensive. They like a fighter, as most of us. It portends well for a future president.

She's been offensive most of this campaign. I grant you that it is impossible to divine a specific cause/effect relationship, but over the last few months both candidates have fought to move the polls a point or two. Now, Obama says something that the media goes on a feeding frenzy over and one in six Obama supporters in PA jumps to the Clinton camp the following few days. It ain't scientific, but it looks and quacks like a duck.

It could also be due to voters liking to see Hillary on the offensive. They like a fighter, as most of us. It portends well for a future president.

Yes, a fighter picking up dirt and throwing it, not in her opponent's eyes, but in the eyes of the very public she is vying to serve.

The angle she chose to attack Obama with obfuscates his important message about the true state of our rural communities, and protects those who are at fault for withdrawing their vital employment opportunities and infrastructure from these communities.

That kind of fighter is the last one we should want in the White House because her actions are demonstrating she won't use those devious fighting skills for us.

M.

you've got some severely rose-colored glasses on if you think this is the last we'll hear of those words.



This and Reverend "God Damn Amercia" Wright will have him swift-boated quicker than a New York Minute.




Once painted an "elitist" it's hard to shake. Ask John Kerry.


One hour ago I saw a bumper-sticker I've never seen before,it read : "Re-Elect Al Gore In '08".


Some people will feel it was condescending. It does not mean it WAS condescending. There is a difference you know. Like when you throw the word around this board when it isn't warranted. You are always feeling 'condescended to'. Since you now claim people you grew up with feel this way about Obama, maybe its something in the water in your area?

Jokes aside: I uinderstand perfectly how what he said can be interpreted as condescending, but its a choice of interpretation and if you stop for two seconds and actually THINK about what he said, you will know he does not think less of the people he was describing: on the contrary, he understands full well where their prejudices and obsessions come from, and his expression of this understanding is in a spirit of compassion.
It is one thing to misread this spirit of compassion, but in your case, you know damn well what he was saying, and it is a rare breed of devious, manipulative inclination that pushes you to portray his intent and his words as something bad.



So who we elect as president should be determined by whether the candidate shares your socio-economic upbringing? Give me a break. Everyone here knows you're not that stupid. You are more elastic than a rubber band: you'll say anything to attack Obama.



Haha: thanks for the laugh TT. She was stupid enough to lie about being shot at in Bosnia, on SEVERAL occasions. Rather than withdrawing your support for her, you passionately defended her.
I wish you could see us physically as a room full of people, so you could see how many hands raise to say they believe you on this one. You'd be lucky to get a single one.



Who's elitist now, huh? Discouraging the small supporters of our candidates as if only the corporate mega-bucks can get you elected? My 50 bucks donation will make a difference. My single vote, will make a difference. That's how our democracy works, TT.

The beauty of Obama's campaign is the enormous surge of financial support from people just like me and you: ordinary people who have given his platform a chance in a nation where previously, it was virtually impossible. And you choose to spit on this democratization of our campaign process?

What has Hillary spent on her campaign, and where did that money come from? What has Obama spent on his campaign and where did the monmey come from. Provide us with an honest account of these sources, and then try to claim that donations from ordinary Americans don't make a difference to Obama.

To paraphrase you: TT stuck his foot in his own mouth. It is nobody's fault but his.

M.

It doesn't matter how many times you post it, Malcolm. TT has too much Clinton jizz in the ears to hear you.


You two guys are so totally lacking in objectivity it's pathetic.:nonono:

You two guys are so totally lacking in objectivity it's pathetic.:nonono:

I note, once again, your complete lack of argumentation to back up your position, let alone your 'assessment' of other people's objectivity.

:)

M.

that anger does find expression - at times - in provincialism, racism, ethnocentrism, and leaning on things like ...........my-God-can-kick-your-god's-ass mentality to help these folks feel less powerless in their lives.


Isn't it hypocritical for someone who went to a church with someone like Reverend Wright to be judgemental of that?



Clinton won because he knew how to play the divide and conquer game like a Republican. That's the only reason he won. They called it "triangulation", and Hillary is still trying to use it to tear Obama down so that she might get a shot in 2012. Bill's campaign depended on splitting the GOP vote with the help of that idiot Ross Perot thinking he could ever win the WH.

That pitted the hate vote against itself and Bill took the game without ever winning 51% - twice. Oh yeah, and he did pander to the dumbest and lowest common denominator, and then he screwed them with NAFTA and other "corporate-friendly" policy adjustments that have been screwing the blue-collar worker ever since.



They're called the "downscale white voter", referring to the fact that they don't make shit for money and they don't make much of a difference in the way things turn out. They also are prone to screwing themselves when ever they do try to have an impact on things. "Downscale" is a good description of them.

By the way, I grew up a "downscaler" and have lived my whole life below the median income level. the only difference between me and the "downscale white voter" is that I'm not stupid enough to let some jerk with a 2,000 dollar suit convince me to screw myself in the voting booth.



There are a lot of different people who are fed up with the kind of people that guys like you keep defending with foolishness like this. The most pathetic part of this is that you're probably getting screwed over by the same people that you're defending, and don't even understand anything other that what you've been fed. Just stupid talking points that you regurgitate, as if you're on the same team with them. In reality, they'd just laugh at you if they ever bothered to log on and read this crap.



Y'know what? I wouldn't vote for a meathead who grew up in the America you grew up in. You don't find brilliant statemen in trailer parks, and we need better people than you to get things back under control in this nation.

I sort of figured out what you meant by "feeling condesended", but maybe a quick look at http://www.englishclub.com/grammar/index.htm the next time you take a swing at a compound sentence might help you get a little more wood on it. As it is, your entire post works against you, and would make most people claim that they didn't grow up in whatever America you grew up in. Even if they did.



1.Ross Perot took as many votes aways from Clinton as he did Bush 41 and Bob Dole.

2.I am not the topic,so leave me out of your bullshit.


3.The elitist [and manipulative]cheap shots you have made on this thread to everyone who merely disagrees with you are a major symptom of why Democrats can't win the White House popular vote unless a white,moderate, Southerner is on the ticket.

4.I am out for one purpose and one purpose only,to get the canidate who comes closest to my values elected.

Obama can win with African-Americans and with college students in Democratic primaries and he can win in Blue States,but he can't win in the general election with Middle America who lives in the swing states,Hillary can.

And it's the Middle Americans who live in the swing states that will decide the winner of the election.

It's that simple.



Wait until Obama gets nominated and then the GOP will start its fall offensive (in every sense of the word).

That's what scares me.

I know the Republicans have a "October Surprise" for him,I can feel it in my bones.




I don't understand why so much is made of these out-of-context snippets from Ferraro, Wright or Obama. What was said was dead-on in each case, except Wright got a little carried away.


It should not make a difference ,but it does.

The fact is we live in a soundbite society where most people have short attention spans.

It's sad,but that is what decides political winners.


Obama already has more than enough soudbites that can be used against him to easily cost him the election.



This is true, but the most vocal supporter on this site is certainly owning what Hillary said, of his own free will and with an enthusiasm which I find disturbing considering the importance of the truth Obama was voicing, and considering the interests it serves to try to obfuscate that truth.


I am not the topic,so leave me out of this.




It could also be due to voters liking to see Hillary on the offensive. They like a fighter, as most of us. It portends well for a future president.


I prefer a fighter to a passive person,then again I've had that mindset in me most of my life.


I wouldn't have been able to fight illness [and other dysfunctions]if I didn't.

I
I am not the topic,so leave me out of this.


I was merely responding to Chach's mention of Hillary's supporters. You did become the topic in this way because you are one of only two such vocal supporters on this board.

:)

I find all this very entertaining.

M.

You two guys are so totally lacking in objectivity it's pathetic.:nonono:

We are not the topic. Please stick to the topic.

We are not the topic. Please stick to the topic.

A taste of his own medecine... Somehow I doubt it will effect a cure, but it sure as hell is funny. :nice:

M

One hour ago I saw a bumper-sticker I've never seen before,it read : "Re-Elect Al Gore In '08".

Wouldn't that mean that Bush could serve another term?

And it's the Middle Americans who live in the swing states that will decide the winner of the election.

Word. Which is exactly why Barack Obama MUST be nominated.

It only smacks of elitism because the GOP has run a good campaign against doing or saying anything intelligent. They try to tell you that anyone who actually uses their brain is an elitist. What I don't get is why don't the Democrats stand up and point out to people that the GOP is claiming the average American is stupid?
:yeahthat:

why don't the Democrats stand up and point out to people that the GOP is claiming the average American is stupid?

if they did they would be opening themselves to the GOP then saying that democrats keep minorities ignorant and under their thumb because if blacks were trully treated as full citizens that they really are and were told the truth that they dont need someone to "save" them (muych like sharpton and jackson do as well!) the democratic party would lose one big voting bloc in a hurry.

see both sides do this, they play upon your ignorance and fears and user them agaisnt you to make you think that without them you are left to the mercy of the other party and blah blah blah.

if anyone doesnt cant or refuses to see that both parties are using us to get and keep themselves in power you deserve to be kept under their thumb.

so basically if you just teach people this basic tactic both parties use, both parties wouldnt be so damn popular with people much longer.

democrats do it to women, blacks, latinos, gays. republicans do it to christians, big business owners, etc. what bullshit.

I just spent an hour reading the comments of "regular people" on a variety of blogs featuring this issue, and came away with the distinct impression that human beings just plain suck. So much raw ignorance, stupidity and hatred from comment to comment.

You'd think that the people in this society would be sick and tired of shilling for the rich jerks who will stick it to them even harder over the next 4 years if they get the chance, but they're like crack addicts who just can't put the pipe down to save their own lives. I really think the game is over. This nation doesn't have a future. It gave it away and is lost in its own hatred of itself.

I guess there really is a God.

I just spent an hour reading the comments of "regular people" on a variety of blogs featuring this issue, and came away with the distinct impression that human beings just plain suck. So much raw ignorance, stupidity and hatred from comment to comment.

You'd think that the people in this society would be sick and tired of shilling for the rich jerks who will stick it to them even harder over the next 4 years if they get the chance, but they're like crack addicts who just can't put the pipe down to save their own lives. I really think the game is over. This nation doesn't have a future. It gave it away and is lost in its own hatred of itself.

I guess there really is a God.

BASICALLY!

Obama like Clinton (both) only removes his foot from his mouth long enough to insert the other in its place......:not:

Obama like Clinton (both) only removes his foot from his mouth long enough to insert the other in its place......:not:

So, he's not an articulate negro anymore? Man, that guy can't hold onto a stereotype for more than a few weeks.

Whatever happened to Barack the Muslim terrorist that I grew so fond of back in March? This new elitist limousine liberal Barack just doesn't do it for me in the same way that the Radical Islamic boogeyman Obama, or the radical Afro-centric madman Obama did it for me.

Then again, I hate America for very specific reasons, and I need my subversive Obama presidency to serve those specific hatreds in very particular ways.

I'm looking forward to the crack-smokin', ho-pimpin' Obama. That one's gonna rule.

iso basically if you just teach people this basic tactic both parties use, both parties wouldnt be so damn popular with people much longer.

democrats do it to women, blacks, latinos, gays. republicans do it to christians, big business owners, etc. what bullshit.

Apparently Democrats now do it to everyone. Ever wonder why Hillary and McCain are running the same campaign?

I was merely responding to Chach's mention of Hillary's supporters. You did become the topic in this way because you are one of only two such vocal supporters on this board.


So now you are stereotyping all Hillary supporters?

I just wish you [and other Obama partisans ] had the balls to admit that you have no objectivity on Barack Obama.




I find all this very entertaining.


That is a very immature attiude.:nonono:




Word. Which is exactly why Barack Obama MUST be nominated.

A unobjective Obama partisan like you can say that in Vegas,but I'm actually out in the field and you are wrong.

A unobjective Obama partisan like you can say that in Vegas,but I'm actually out in the field and you are wrong.

A significant majority of polls support my claim and debunk yours. From comparing the "Obama/McCain" polls to "Clinton/McCain" polls in swing states like Nevada, Michigan, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. to Hillary's 48% negatives and anecdotal evidence like crazy. There's no need for your baseless and condescending "I'm actually out in the field and you are wrong"

So now you are stereotyping all Hillary supporters?

I just wish you [and other Obama partisans ] had the balls to admit that you have no objectivity on Barack Obama.


How exactly is that stereotyping? There was mention of Clinton supporters, and I mentioned you because you are the most vocal supporter here. As for objectivity, I am now satisfied that anyone who took the time to vote on the poll thread agrees that of you and me, it is you who lacks any objectivity, and potentially a whole slew of other things that were voiced in that thread.


That is a very immature attiude.:nonono:


:) That really is your favorite put down, isn't it? You see immaturity in just about anyone who disagress with you. Are you asking me to make a little poll thread for people to express who of you and I acts more immaturely on this board?

Having fun isn't immature: not if you age well :) I feel sorry for those who feel adulthood means they can't get some entertainment out of life.

M

How exactly is that stereotyping? There was mention of Clinton supporters, and I mentioned you because you are the most vocal supporter here.


Does that make me represtive of all Clinton supporters?

Do you represent all Obama supporters?

I see people as individuals,you clearly do not.





As for objectivity, I am now satisfied that anyone who took the time to vote on the poll thread agrees that of you and me, it is you who lacks any objectivity, and potentially a whole slew of other things that were voiced in that thread.


That bogus poll of a handful of biased people wasn't worth the cyberspace it was posted on.:rolleyes:




Having fun isn't immature:


Mean-spirited fun is as immature as immature gets,and you are very mean-spirited to anyone who disagrees with you on Barack Obama.:not:

I can at least understand why TLG has a crush on him,but your immaturity I can't comprehend.:scratch:

I can at least understand why TLG has a crush on him

My dick is racist.

Does that make me represtive of all Clinton supporters?

Do you represent all Obama supporters?

I see people as individuals,you clearly do not.


Well clearly you're missing the point here: I'm telling you I never said you are representative of all Clinton supporters, and I never claimed to be representative of all Obama supporters.
Why do you feel the need to just make this stuff up?

If I recall, you are the one who not so long ago created an entire thread the premise of which was that Obama supporters were victimizing you here, and that seemed to be representative of the way things are happening at large.

Don't you find it to be a special, creamy, lumpy kind of rich for you to be making up this sort of accusation against me?


That bogus poll of a handful of biased people wasn't worth the cyberspace it was posted on.:rolleyes:


Sorry to see you feel that way about the other board members. Of course: anyone who doesn't agree with you must be bogus and biased.
It would of course be more appropriate for you to tell them how you feel about them there in that thread, instead of here... but I'll do you the favor and quote you there since I doubt you'll do it yourself. It will make a nice conclusion to the thread.


Mean-spirited fun is as immature as immature gets,and you are very mean-spirited to anyone who disagrees with you on Barack Obama.:not:


I find everything on DA entertaining and fun, and it is not out of any sort of meanness of spirit. You just assumed I was finding this thread entertaining in a mean way because, as per usual, you feel victimized.

It would be refreshing for you to, just once in a while, take responsibility for your own behavior and realize I'm being much more civil towards you than you deserve considering how you approached me when I returned here.
I understand you were in heated discussions with other people when I showed up, but that is no excuse for giving me crap when I address you respectfully and sincerely. Until you acknowledge that you messed up, you'll stay locked in this pattern of whining when I don't give you any love.

Thing is though, it is probably too late to take back all the 'immature' put downs you've thrown around. No matter how much you own your past disrespect, I'll always find it funny how much you throw that one around, and will probably continue to call you on it :)


I can at least understand why TLG has a crush on him,but your immaturity I can't comprehend.:scratch:

It must be so hard to see so much immaturity in the world. Good luck with that.

M.

As a thought experiment, try to imagine a political culture in which one isn't embarrassed and called stupid names for actually using one's mind and saying things that are universally known even if unstated. Imagine a culture in which speaking intelligently about reality is considered a virtue instead of a source of shame, that must be immediately explained, apologized for and ultimately retracted.


That culture does not exist and will not exist this year.

I'm out to get any Democrat elected period,you Obama supporters either want him eelcted or you don't care who wins if he can't win.



The assumption here is that Hillary Clinton, unlike Obama, did grow up in the same America that Truth Teller did


She went to a public school in the Midwest and so did I.

Obama went to a expensive private school in Hawaii.



Bill and Hillary Clinton made $109 million over the last eight years


And their tax records show that Bill and Hillary paid way more in taxes than Barack and Michelle did and gave over 10 million dollars to charity [while Barack and Michelle gave virtually nothing to charity].



Jane Smiley's reaction:


John and Jane Six-Pack [who will decide the election] don't give a shit about Jane Smiley.


Wait until Obama gets nominated and then the GOP will start its fall offensive (in every sense of the word).

I agree.


In each case the snippet of the message was used to derail the message itself.


That is poltical reality dude.

If you can't play the game,stay off the field.

I just spent an hour reading the comments of "regular people" on a variety of blogs featuring this issue, and came away with the distinct impression that human beings just plain suck. So much raw ignorance, stupidity and hatred from comment to comment.

You'd think that the people in this society would be sick and tired of shilling for the rich jerks who will stick it to them even harder over the next 4 years if they get the chance, but they're like crack addicts who just can't put the pipe down to save their own lives. I really think the game is over. This nation doesn't have a future. It gave it away and is lost in its own hatred of itself.

I guess there really is a God.

Elitist attitudes like this ^are why Obama probably will lose to Mc Cain.


A significant majority of polls support my claim and debunk yours. From comparing the "Obama/McCain" polls to "Clinton/McCain" polls in swing states like Nevada, Michigan, Colorado, Washington, Oregon, etc. etc. to Hillary's 48% negatives and anecdotal evidence like crazy.



Those polls don't mean shit at this stage in the game.

And they especially don't mean shit until Obama gets full scrutiny [which he is finally getting]



My dick is racist.


That's a shame,good love comes in all colors.

Those polls don't mean shit at this stage in the game.

And they especially don't mean shit until Obama gets full scrutiny [which he is finally getting]

It doesn't matter that 55% of people find Clinton dishonest and trustworthy compared to 39% who find her honest and trustworthy? It doesn't matter that 48% of people would never vote for her, meaning McCain would only need to fight for 3%?

Wait'll you see how many won't vote for Obama if he's nominated. I suspect it'll make Hillary look about as dishonest as Mother Theresa.

Wait'll you see how many won't vote for Obama if he's nominated. I suspect it'll make Hillary look about as dishonest as Mother Theresa.

Could you please elaborate on how Obama's success or lack thereof after his nomination would reflect in anyway on Hillary's dishonesty?

I'd be very interested to see exactly what you mean by this.

M.

OK, got me. I had reservations about it after I posted it.

Suffice it to say that I have grave doubts about the electability of Obama if he's nominated that I don't have about Hillary. It is my experience that there are too many voters in this country who wouldn't vote for a negro for President of the United States to save their mother's life, and that will be shown to be the case if he's nominated.

That's my opinion no matter how tortured the way I try to express it.

OK, got me. I had reservations about it after I posted it.

Suffice it to say that I have grave doubts about the electability of Obama if he's nominated that I don't have about Hillary. It is my experience that there are too many voters in this country who wouldn't vote for a negro for President of the United States to save their mother's life, and that will be shown to be the case if he's nominated.

That's my opinion no matter how tortured the way I try to express it.

That's what I thought - we did after all work hard (you and I) to get you to finally voice your deepest sentiment on this.
Its ok to feel that way - in so far as it does not make you a bad person.
Its just a shame that race and gender should come into your voting strategy because you feel it comes into other people's. It is that dynamic that has held African Americans back (and by which we have held ourselves back) for centuries.

I personally think there are more men in America who would rather vote in a black man than a woman, but it is not factoring into my vote at all.
I'm more interested in voting for a person than for a party, particularly when Hillary's outlook is so similar to McCain's on issues that are very important to me (and to the American people).

M.

OK, got me. I had reservations about it after I posted it.

Suffice it to say that I have grave doubts about the electability of Obama if he's nominated that I don't have about Hillary. It is my experience that there are too many voters in this country who wouldn't vote for a negro for President of the United States to save their mother's life, and that will be shown to be the case if he's nominated.

That's my opinion no matter how tortured the way I try to express it.


Well you've already seen the racism come out of the McCain people, but I suspect after 8 years of Bush/Cheney, that tactic will backfire.

That's what I thought - we did after all work hard (you and I) to get you to finally voice your deepest sentiment on this.
Its ok to feel that way - in so far as it does not make you a bad person.
Its just a shame that race and gender should come into your voting strategy because you feel it comes into other people's. It is that dynamic that has held African Americans back (and by which we have held ourselves back) for centuries.

I personally think there are more men in America who would rather vote in a black man than a woman, but it is not factoring into my vote at all.
I'm more interested in voting for a person than for a party, particularly when Hillary's outlook is so similar to McCain's on issues that are very important to me (and to the American people).

M.I cannot ignore what I see around me. I didn't get as far as I have in this world being oblivious to my surroundings.

I hope to hell I'm wrong about the way things seem to me. I'd like nothing better than to say on Nov 5, "Boy, did I read that wrong!".

I dread having to say, "You IDIOTS AND YOUR IDEALISM! You handed another election over to the forces of evil by your inability to see the big picture."

You have no idea how much I hope you're right and have the more sensitive finger on the pulse of the electorate these days. Aside from the Internet, my circles are mostly people of my age, seniors, a huge voting block in this country, and I cannot help but be aware of how my peers feel about things.

Edit for PS: This was one of my two concerns with Obama. My primary concern was his ability to do the job as well as Hillary. As the election nears, the other one is working its way to the forefront.

That is poltical reality dude.

If you can't play the game,stay off the field.

Yes, but what is amusing here are the people who know that it is slimy Rovian politics and still play the same game. It is one thing to just follow the media when they do this kind of childish exercise, another to be part of it, like the OP, who is being part of the problem by posting stuff he knows is nonsense to try to slander a political opponent. One can only guess that is because his candidate has nothing of real value to offer....

Obama supporters: If Obama doesn't win then I don't care who wins.

Clinton supporters:I want a Democrat to win.

Obama supporters: If Obama doesn't win then I don't care who wins.

Clinton supporters:I want a Democrat to win.That is also the impression I've got from the majority of Obama supporters. They've put the man above the mission.

It doesn't matter that 55% of people find Clinton dishonest and trustworthy compared to 39% who find her honest and trustworthy? It doesn't matter that 48% of people would never vote for her, meaning McCain would only need to fight for 3%?

I've seen Bill Clintron come form third place in 1992 to win the White House.


Wait'll you see how many won't vote for Obama if he's nominated. I suspect it'll make Hillary look about as dishonest as Mother Theresa.

I cannot ignore what I see around me. I didn't get as far as I have in this world being oblivious to my surroundings.

I hope to hell I'm wrong about the way things seem to me. I'd like nothing better than to say on Nov 5, "Boy, did I read that wrong!".

I dread having to say, "You IDIOTS AND YOUR IDEALISM! You handed another election over to the forces of evil by your inability to see the big picture."

You have no idea how much I hope you're right and have the more sensitive finger on the pulse of the electorate these days. Aside from the Internet, my circles are mostly people of my age, seniors, a huge voting block in this country, and I cannot help but be aware of how my peers feel about things.

Edit for PS: This was one of my two concerns with Obama. My primary concern was his ability to do the job as well as Hillary. As the election nears, the other one is working its way to the forefront.

Excellent posts ,you do live in the real world.


Yes, but what is amusing here are the people who know that it is slimy Rovian politics and still play the same game. It is one thing to just follow the media when they do this kind of childish exercise, another to be part of it, like the OP, who is being part of the problem by posting stuff he knows is nonsense to try to slander a political opponent. One can only guess that is because his candidate has nothing of real value to offer....



As of now there is no other game in town.


You either work with the system you have or you abstain,there are no other choices as of now.

As of now there is no other game in town.


You either work with the system you have or you abstain,there are no other choices as of now.

Nonsense, there are a lot of us on this board that don't generally buy into the silly hype crap and certainly don't intentionally spread it. You're part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Obama supporters: If Obama doesn't win then I don't care who wins.

Clinton supporters:I want a Democrat to win.

That's why 30% of Clinton supporters will vote McCain if Obama wins the nomination.

Obama supporters: If Obama doesn't win then I don't care who wins.

Clinton supporters:I want a Democrat to win.

That is also the impression I've got from the majority of Obama supporters. They've put the man above the mission.

WTF? I will put $5 down that EVERY poll that asks the question of Clinton supporters and Obama supporters "How will you vote if your candidate loses the primary" has MORE Clinton supporters than Obama supporters saying they will either not vote or will vote for John McCain. Why do you continue to just pull myths out of your ass?

In any case, it tends to be like 15-25% of Obama supporters saying they will defect, and 25-35% of Clinton supporters saying they will defect. Not extraordinarily size-able, and I'm not worried about it either way. But **** if it isn't annoying that you keep just making shit up.

I've seen Bill Clintron come form third place in 1992 to win the White House.

LOL. You evidently just flat-out don't know how to carry on a linear conversation. I never said "Hillary Clinton can't win" or insinuated that. I said Obama's chances are better. Your counterpoint would only be an appropriate rebuttal if I had said the former.

And ask any football team whether they'd rather be ahead in the 4th quarter or behind. Or a basketball team. Or a tennis player. Ask any contestant on Jeopardy whether they'd rather be leading going into Final Jeopardy or be behind. Ask any politician whether they'd rather start with good numbers--with 50% + supporting them and saying they're honest and trustworthy--or whether they'd rather start at 39%. Or don't. Just keep on dreaming. Whateva.

That's why 30% of Clinton supporters will vote McCain if Obama wins the nomination.No, that's why Obama is toast if he gets nominated. Consider how many non-Democrats are even more opposed to an Obama presidency.

No, that's why Obama is toast if he gets nominated. Consider how many non-Democrats are even more opposed to an Obama presidency.

LOL. Pick an argument and stick to it. The two things you're saying right now are exact opposites:

1) More Obama supporters are disloyal and will defect from the party and ZOMG THEY'RE SO IMMATURE!!!

2) We can't nominate Obama 'cuz more Clinton supporters will defect and then he can't win ZOMG!!!

I cannot ignore what I see around me. I didn't get as far as I have in this world being oblivious to my surroundings.

I hope to hell I'm wrong about the way things seem to me. I'd like nothing better than to say on Nov 5, "Boy, did I read that wrong!".

I dread having to say, "You IDIOTS AND YOUR IDEALISM! You handed another election over to the forces of evil by your inability to see the big picture."

You have no idea how much I hope you're right and have the more sensitive finger on the pulse of the electorate these days. Aside from the Internet, my circles are mostly people of my age, seniors, a huge voting block in this country, and I cannot help but be aware of how my peers feel about things.

Edit for PS: This was one of my two concerns with Obama. My primary concern was his ability to do the job as well as Hillary. As the election nears, the other one is working its way to the forefront.

Hey Chach,

You don't have to rely on my ability to read the electorate. Polls are a far more accurate method than relying on my opinion, or your's for that matter.

Your age group does tend to disfavor Obama according to the polls.
There are two very strong trends the polls have identified: older people disfavor Obama while younger people favor him (the midpoint being around 65 so barely an advantage for his opponents). Specifically, Obama is favored by ALL age groups below 65, above McCain.
Clinton is further behind than McCain.

The other interesting trend is that support for Obama increases drastically the higher the education level of the voter. People with masters degrees favor Obama over Clinton virtually by 2 to 1. Clinton only has a clear lead amongst those with only some highschool.

Anyway, the polls place Obama solidly in the lead for the presidency and I think it is rather obvious you are letting your entourage sway your opinion of our country far too much.

Needless to say, racial prejudice exists in stronger concentrations in your age group. No offense to you but I'm glad that generation of prejudice is ailing and on its way out. As for you in particular, you can choose whether you want to cling to a fear of the values of your entourage, or step boldly to join the newer America, and add your support to someone who, despite your strange pessimism, is showing every sign of being our next president. Your pessimism (or feigned pessimism, its hard to tell), could actually make him lose. Convince enough people he has no chance because he's black, and you'll actually bring about that which you fear.

M.

Obama supporters: If Obama doesn't win then I don't care who wins.

Clinton supporters:I want a Democrat to win.

Who was throwing wild (and entirely false) accusations at me about not seeing supporters as individuals, and trying to define them according to what is said on this board?
Either you have the memory of a gnat, or you simply don't have the self-awareness to realize how much of a hypocrite you are being here.

M.

LOL. Pick an argument and stick to it. The two things you're saying right now are exact opposites:

1) More Obama supporters are disloyal and will defect from the party and ZOMG THEY'RE SO IMMATURE!!!

2) We can't nominate Obama 'cuz more Clinton supporters will defect and then he can't win ZOMG!!!
You're wrong.

1) You have me confused with someone else.

2) We know what percentage of Clinton supporters might defect. I said that's just the tip of the iceberg of voters who will support McCain rather than Obama.

Hey Chach,

You don't have to rely on my ability to read the electorate. Polls are a far more accurate method than relying on my opinion, or your's for that matter.

Your age group does tend to disfavor Obama according to the polls.
There are two very strong trends the polls have identified: older people disfavor Obama while younger people favor him (the midpoint being around 65 so barely an advantage for his opponents). Specifically, Obama is favored by ALL age groups below 65, above McCain.
Clinton is further behind than McCain.

The other interesting trend is that support for Obama increases drastically the higher the education level of the voter. People with masters degrees favor Obama over Clinton virtually by 2 to 1. Clinton only has a clear lead amongst those with only some highschool.

Anyway, the polls place Obama solidly in the lead for the presidency and I think it is rather obvious you are letting your entourage sway your opinion of our country far too much.

Needless to say, racial prejudice exists in stronger concentrations in your age group. No offense to you but I'm glad that generation of prejudice is ailing and on its way out. As for you in particular, you can choose whether you want to cling to a fear of the values of your entourage, or step boldly to join the newer America, and add your support to someone who, despite your strange pessimism, is showing every sign of being our next president. Your pessimism (or feigned pessimism, its hard to tell), could actually make him lose. Convince enough people he has no chance because he's black, and you'll actually bring about that which you fear.

M.M., your patronizing is rather annoying.

What's with this "cling to the fear of the values, etc..." nonsense? I'm making an observation of what I see around me.

I'm not supporting Hillary because Obama is black, I'm supporting her because I think she'd be the more effective Democratic president. She's my candidate of choice versus any of the other announced candidates.

I'm concerned that the Democratic party is apparently ignoring the fact that Obama is black like it doesn't matter among the electorate and may give him the nomination. I don't think that will pan out in November because I think all the Republicans and a significant number of Independents will go with the Clinton defectors and vote against Obama. That's what I see from where I stand.

I may be wrong. If I were still in the workforce I'd have a better feel for a wider range of viewpoints on this. Similarly, if you schmoozed with my peers more than you perhaps do you might have a broader view of this, yourself.

You may be spot on, but your condescending way of expressing yourself doesn't make your argument very palatable, and I suspect that you are in the same position as I - aware primarily of what we see from where we are, which isn't from on high looking down.

I've expressed my concerns. You've attempted to speak to them. One of us will end up being proven right if Obama is nominated and faces McCain in November. Sincerely, I hope it's you. If so, it will mean this country has turned a major corner. If not, it will be hard not to become bitter for having pointed out the obvious and being ignored.

I cannot ignore what I see around me. I didn't get as far as I have in this world being oblivious to my surroundings.

I hope to hell I'm wrong about the way things seem to me. I'd like nothing better than to say on Nov 5, "Boy, did I read that wrong!".

I dread having to say, "You IDIOTS AND YOUR IDEALISM! You handed another election over to the forces of evil by your inability to see the big picture."

You have no idea how much I hope you're right and have the more sensitive finger on the pulse of the electorate these days. Aside from the Internet, my circles are mostly people of my age, seniors, a huge voting block in this country, and I cannot help but be aware of how my peers feel about things.

Edit for PS: This was one of my two concerns with Obama. My primary concern was his ability to do the job as well as Hillary. As the election nears, the other one is working its way to the forefront.

Excellent post.:nice:


That is also the impression I've got from the majority of Obama supporters. They've put the man above the mission.
They will deny that,but I haven't heard a single one of them say they will support Hillary if she gets the nomination.

You and I have said we will support Obama if he gets the nomination.
That's why 30% of Clinton supporters will vote McCain if Obama wins the nomination.

Polls mean nothing six months before the election.:bang:

That was most likely an instant emotional response to the shit that many Hillary supporters have had to take from many bad mannered Obama supporters who have treated many Hillary supporters like shit.




WTF? I will put $5 down that EVERY poll that asks the question of Clinton supporters and Obama supporters "How will you vote if your candidate loses the primary" has MORE Clinton supporters than Obama supporters saying they will either not vote or will vote for John McCain. Why do you continue to just pull myths out of your ass?

In any case, it tends to be like 15-25% of Obama supporters saying they will defect, and 25-35% of Clinton supporters saying they will defect. Not extraordinarily size-able, and I'm not worried about it either way. But **** if it isn't annoying that you keep just making shit up.

At the vey least,that number can be changed in six months, it's not set in stone.

I still haven't heard any Obama supporter say they will support whomever gets the Democratic nomination.:scratch:


LOL. You evidently just flat-out don't know how to carry on a linear conversation. I never said "Hillary Clinton can't win" or insinuated that.


I said Obama's chances are better. Your counterpoint would only be an appropriate rebuttal if I had said the former.


That's according to present data [which can be manipulated to back up any conclusion that one wants it too].

That data can change in a New York Minute.

The fact is there is nothing on Hillary Clinton that can be used as a "October Surprise",Obama is unkown and the Republicans are so big to have him as the nominee tells me that something is rottten in Denmark.



No, that's why Obama is toast if he gets nominated. Consider how many non-Democrats are even more opposed to an Obama presidency.


Excellent point.

It is those very swing voters who will decide the election,nobody else.

M., your patronizing is rather annoying.


100% agreement.


What's with this "cling to the fear of the values, etc..." nonsense? I'm making an observation of what I see around me.


And it is an accurate observation,but don't tell that to someone who hasn't been in the US for years,but thinks he knows it all because he read a poll.:nonono:


I'm not supporting Hillary because Obama is black, I'm supporting her because I think she'd be the more effective Democratic president. She's my candidate of choice versus any of the other announced candidates.


Same here.

Wesley Clark is who I'd like to see be president,but he didn't run so I had to choose from the others.

Hillary impressed the most in the debates,so got my nod.


I'm concerned that the Democratic party is apparently ignoring the fact that Obama is black like it doesn't matter among the electorate and may give him the nomination. I don't think that will pan out in November because I think all the Republicans and a significant number of Independents will go with the Clinton defectors and vote against Obama. That's what I see from where I stand.


I think a Black man can be president ,but I have my dobuts that he is Barack Obama.

You are I are middle-age moderates who make up a lrage part of the country,most of Obama's support is by youthful extremists who go by ideology more than pragmatism.

M., your patronizing is rather annoying.


Excuse me? You speak of idealistic idiots, meaning me, and then you chide me for being patronizing when I label your fear of elderly racially conservative views for what it is? I said it before, and I will say it again - for the way you are addressing me, you're getting a hell of a lot of respect back that you do not entirely deserve.


What's with this "cling to the fear of the values, etc..." nonsense? I'm making an observation of what I see around me.


No, you are letting what you see around you, in your age bracket, unduly sway your appraisal of Obama's chances. And that influence of your environment can only be described as having induced a fear in you that America is too racist to elect a black president. I'm not announcing anything earth-shattering here: you've admitted this fear yourself. Can you own it for more than two seconds at a time, or do we have to fight again and again only to get you to recognize it again?

You are clinging to the fearful perception induced by your age group peers because you still prefer it over embracing the far more empirical evidence of the polls. In a nut shell, you are demonstrably and obviously out of touch with the state of our nation in this regard, and you are clinging to that condition because the polls are staring you in the face, and you are willfully ignoring them in favor of the diminutive reality of your racially conservative acquaintances.


I'm not supporting Hillary because Obama is black, I'm supporting her because I think she'd be the more effective Democratic president. She's my candidate of choice versus any of the other announced candidates.


We've had a long and involved discussion on this, and what your resistance to Obama boiled down to, once I painstakingly confronted you on all your objections, was the fear that America would not elect a black president.

I'm not going to assume you remember the thread even though it was only a couple of weeks ago, so I will ask you: do you remember our conversation? I would rather not have to relive it word for word - I think you would understand how I might find that a waste of time.


I'm concerned that the Democratic party is apparently ignoring the fact that Obama is black like it doesn't matter among the electorate and may give him the nomination. I don't think that will pan out in November because I think all the Republicans and a significant number of Independents will go with the Clinton defectors and vote against Obama. That's what I see from where I stand.


Yes, I understand that's what you see, and that is the very point of my words to you in this thread. That perception is demonstrably warped, unnecessarily fearful, and yet you are clinging to it.


I may be wrong. If I were still in the workforce I'd have a better feel for a wider range of viewpoints on this. Similarly, if you schmoozed with my peers more than you perhaps do you might have a broader view of this, yourself.


No, I would not, because unlike you I am recognizing what the polls are telling me, and they are telling me (I REPEAT) that your peers feel the way you say they do. So actually meeting them would not broaden my horizons on this particular topic, although I'm sure it would be a worthwhile and interesting experience on other fronts.
Did you skip my entire last post? Were you too busy feeling patronized to actually read it? Or is your blind spot for the poll results so powerful that you don't actually read posts that address them?


You may be spot on, but your condescending way of expressing yourself doesn't make your argument very palatable, and I suspect that you are in the same position as I - aware primarily of what we see from where we are, which isn't from on high looking down.


Look, I don't blame you for feeling upset about the honesty of my expression. You probably don't like hearing that I'm glad to see the racist element of your generation die away - even though I told you not to take it personally since you aren't an offender on that front yourself.

I simply invite you to take responsibility for your own way of expressing yourself before feeling patronized. TT makes the same mistake. You both repeatedly patronize others, but a taste of your own medicine sends you crying foul.
Most people I know, when it becomes clear that they are thought of as idealistic idiots, give vent to far greater animosity than you're getting from me. So quit whining about the way I'm talking to you and debate with as much integrity and intellectual honesty as you know how.


I've expressed my concerns. You've attempted to speak to them. One of us will end up being proven right if Obama is nominated and faces McCain in November. Sincerely, I hope it's you. If so, it will mean this country has turned a major corner. If not, it will be hard not to become bitter for having pointed out the obvious and being ignored.

Why do you persist in clinging to your perception despite the polls spelling out precisely that your age group is the only one to favor McCain over Obama, providing a flawless explanation for why your personal experience is warped?
Not only that, but you say 'pointed out the obvious' in relation to your warped perception, when we have conclusively seen that it is obvious only because you refuse to see a picture larger than the elderly, racially conservative crowd you are surrounded by.

Something is obvious here: you simply aren't paying attention. To the polls, or to my efforts to serve them to you on a platter.

You don't have to agree with me, but ignoring the evidence is simply weak.
Forgive me if I conclude that you aren't going listen, and bid you farewell.

M.

You are I are middle-age moderates who make up a lrage part of the country,most of Obama's support is by youthful extremists who go by ideology more than pragmatism.Be that as it may, I notice Malc has readied himself to blame an Obama defeat by McCain on us for having pointed out a problem with his electability, making us responsible for his waterloo.

This long before the election, that's really laying groundwork. He must play chess.

Be that as it may, I notice Malc has readied himself to blame an Obama defeat by McCain on us for having pointed out a problem with his electability, making us responsible for his waterloo.

This long before the election, that's really laying groundwork. He must play chess.

TT accuses me of political 'naivete', and you see in me a Master Strategist. I am neither. And I absolutely do not plan to blame you if Obama loses. You are the one who SPECIFICALLY stated you would blame people like me for being idealist idiots if McCain wins against Obama... so its rather rich of you to try to turn the tables on me.

I have merely pointed out that belief creates its own reality: if you believe a black president cannot be elected in this country, and if you contaminate enough people with that fear, then you manifest that which you feared. You can either face this fact, or not.
I see you don't have much left to say, and still staunchly avoid the substance of our discussion... so its my guess this last snipe projecting your own desire to blame is just another sign you're not going to actually face the music.

Bye
M

1) You have me confused with someone else.

Really? Post #83 above by you sez diff'rnt.

No, that's why Obama is toast if he gets nominated. Consider how many non-Democrats are even more opposed to an Obama presidency.

It is those very swing voters who will decide the election,nobody else.

Independents don't like Hillary.

TT accuses me of political 'naivete', and you see in me a Master Strategist. I am neither. And I absolutely do not plan to blame you if Obama loses. You are the one who SPECIFICALLY stated you would blame people like me for being idealist idiots if McCain wins against Obama... so its rather rich of you to try to turn the tables on me.

I have merely pointed out that belief creates its own reality: if you believe a black president cannot be elected in this country, and if you contaminate enough people with that fear, then you manifest that which you feared. You can either face this fact, or not.
I see you don't have much left to say, and still staunchly avoid the substance of our discussion... so its my guess this last snipe projecting your own desire to blame is just another sign you're not going to actually face the music.

Bye
M"Your pessimism (or feigned pessimism, its hard to tell), could actually make him lose."

That sounds like blaming the messenger, to me. Publicly observing that something exists and might be a factor in the election doesn't garner it any additional support. That seems a rather suffocating, censoring approach to political dialogue.

I suspect that you see Obama as a man long overdue on the political scene and this opportunity to do great things and make big, necessary changes in the way things are done is just too good to let slip by without fighting for it fiercely. I respect that. I hope your passions are realistic. If they turn out to be so, you and your fellows will have brought about positive change. To what degree? That remains to be seen, but change there will be.

In any case, I've already caucused for my candidate and will vote for the Dem nominee in November, so having given my point of view on the candidates, their potential effectiveness in office and their electability, don't have much more to say on that matter.

Be that as it may, I notice Malc has readied himself to blame an Obama defeat by McCain on us for having pointed out a problem with his electability, making us responsible for his waterloo.

This long before the election, that's really laying groundwork. He must play chess.


Today on the TV series This Week ,Sam Donaldson talked bout how Obama supporters feel that they are "entitled",that's also what I get from Obama supporters here and elsewhere.


And it's that very arrogance of theirs that hurts Obama,but Obama supporters are so myopic they can't see that.




Independents don't like Hillary.


Bob Casey [top Obama supporter] said on Face The Nation today that the polls mean nothing at this stage in the game.



"Your pessimism (or feigned pessimism, its hard to tell), could actually make him lose."

That sounds like blaming the messenger, to me. Publicly observing that something exists and might be a factor in the election doesn't garner it any additional support. That seems a rather suffocating, censoring approach to political dialogue.

I suspect that you see Obama as a man long overdue on the political scene and this opportunity to do great things and make big, necessary changes in the way things are done is just too good to let slip by without fighting for it fiercely. I respect that. I hope your passions are realistic. If they turn out to be so, you and your fellows will have brought about positive change. To what degree? That remains to be seen, but change there will be.

In any case, I've already caucused for my candidate and will vote for the Dem nominee in November, so having given my point of view on the candidates, their potential effectiveness in office and their electability, don't have much more to say on that matter.


:nice:

"Your pessimism (or feigned pessimism, its hard to tell), could actually make him lose."

That sounds like blaming the messenger, to me. Publicly observing that something exists and might be a factor in the election doesn't garner it any additional support. That seems a rather suffocating, censoring approach to political dialogue.


No, its not blaming you or anyone else. It is stating FACT - the mroe people believe a black president cannot win, the less people will vote for Obama because they will feel it is a wasted vote. If this belief is based voluntarily on limited data rather than the big picture, then it is not an observation, but a damaging fear clung to unnecessarily.

Obama can win, and I have demonstrated that your pessimism is NOT an observation of the state of our nation, but an observation of the state of your entourage, which we have established is clearly shown by the polls to be the only one that favors McCain over Obama.

I see you have nothing to say about the hypocrisy of leveling this accusation of blaming you - par for the course. Don't admit your mistakes. Would you see it as weakness to do so?


I dread having to say, "You IDIOTS AND YOUR IDEALISM! You handed another election over to the forces of evil by your inability to see the big picture."


Now THAT sounds like blaming.
Who the hell are you to accuse me of anything?


I suspect that you see Obama as a man long overdue on the political scene and this opportunity to do great things and make big, necessary changes in the way things are done is just too good to let slip by without fighting for it fiercely. I respect that. I hope your passions are realistic.


You are spot on.


If they turn out to be so, you and your fellows will have brought about positive change. To what degree? That remains to be seen, but change there will be.


Agreed.


In any case, I've already caucused for my candidate and will vote for the Dem nominee in November, so having given my point of view on the candidates, their potential effectiveness in office and their electability, don't have much more to say on that matter.

That's fine with me. I will retain from this exchange a regret that you did not face the data presented to you with integrity, and simply ignored that which contradicts your position as well as throwing accusations you yourself are obviously guilty of. Its a shame that you would prefer to leave people of good faith with that impression of you, just for the dubious satisfaction of not conceding a point. Your reputation is more important than any one issue you may be wrong about. It defines the types of exchanges you will have here.

I wish you well.

M

No, its not blaming you or anyone else. It is stating FACT - the mroe people believe a black president cannot win, the less people will vote for Obama because they will feel it is a wasted vote. If this belief is based voluntarily on limited data rather than the big picture, then it is not an observation, but a damaging fear clung to unnecessarily.

Obama can win, and I have demonstrated that your pessimism is NOT an observation of the state of our nation, but an observation of the state of your entourage, which we have established is clearly shown by the polls to be the only one that favors McCain over Obama.

I see you have nothing to say about the hypocrisy of leveling this accusation of blaming you - par for the course. Don't admit your mistakes. Would you see it as weakness to do so?

I will retain from this exchange a regret that you did not face the data presented to you with integrity, and simply ignored that which contradicts your position as well as throwing accusations you yourself are obviously guilty of. Its a shame that you would prefer to leave people of good faith with that impression of you, just for the dubious satisfaction of not conceding a point. Your reputation is more important than any one issue you may be wrong about. It defines the types of exchanges you will have here.

This supercillious manner you exhibit makes it very difficult to remain empathic to you point of view. For Obama's sake, I hope you don't assume a position of spokesman on his behalf. Not everyone will separate their feelings about a candidate from the tactics and behavior of his supporters.

I understand that you have a compusive need to have the last word and get in the final dig at whomever opposes your viewpoint, so have at it. I'm moving on to other things.

Shalom.

This supercillious manner you exhibit makes it very difficult to remain empathic to you point of view. For Obama's sake, I hope you don't assume a position of spokesman on his behalf. Not everyone will separate their feelings about a candidate from the tactics and behavior of his supporters.

I understand that you have a compusive need to have the last word and get in the final dig at whomever opposes your viewpoint, so have at it. I'm moving on to other things.

Shalom.

Do you think that after calling people idealistic idiots, they should be in the slightest concerned with keeping you empathic to their points of view? I'm no fool: I know I've done more than my share of maintaining good will towards you despite the way you address me. It is, once again, rich to hear accusations from you that my way of expressing myself alientates you.

Man, it seems like it would kill you to admit you're at fault in any way.

M.

Continuing the discuusion from another thread( which Feenix rightly noted was off-topic) despite your repeated attempts to say I am playing a game that is not the reason I requested an example.

I could be a wise guy and say I am from Missouri so SHOW ME. That would be a lie and playing games. But I learned fairly early in life that actions speak louder than words AND there is more than one way to look at things. During my childhood years my father would say "I love you" before and after beating my mother. So which should I believe? As I became a young adult I was able to look at that whole time period differently once I learned that he was a damaged person due to the abuse he suffered as a child. But that actions speak louder than words is still a valid premise. Obama has a way with words- you in your way do also- and though for the most part I sense he is sincere and honest, I was just hoping that there was a demonstrable example. But don't fret it, Malcolm

Let me explain how I come to the point I am as regards this election. I have made little secret that I am against big government and nanny politics. I am prolife, personal responsibility and accountability are very important. I tend toward the Republican more than the Democratic.

I am not happy with the Republican nominee. So when Obama began making his bid for the nomination and appeared to have a great deal of support I too began to examine him. He most certainly has a way with words but my early childhood lessons have had a lasting effect. Do the actions match the words?

AS time has gone on there have been some inconsistencies.

Wright- we have had this discussion. I still maintain in MY EYES he has shown poor judgement, Not only did he first deny having heard the things Wright had said ( he later corrected himself on that) but he made him part of his campaign advisories and THEN threw him under the bus. Wright said G-D America. Wright blamed the al- Qaeda attacks on US terrorism. I'm definitely for free speech but come on.
The comment his wife made about for the first time being proud of America set me back more than a little. I can only begin to imagine what it must be like to be a black person - I can empathize partially and experienced my own battles as a woman in a man's world early in my working career BUT THERE IS MUCH ABOUT AMERICA TO BE PROUD OF.

The Pennsylvania gaffe sounds quite elitist but maybe there are some