Leefeller:  More people, individuals the slobs on the street, like what Obama has to offer and say, plus how he says it.

But all the votes aren’t in yet. It ain’t over till its over.

Well Lee, you do not have to vote for Wright, plus the simple fact that wright is not running for president seems to avoid you.  Bigots or not, the differences seems to be your choice. 

Hillary represents the special interests, the Washington establishment, and she is entitled to be president.

What makes you believe that Hillary represents all the people?  Hillary represents Hillary,  first and formost, she could care less about the people, keep Washington status quo, if you like, Obama represents grass roots people more than the other two running. More people, individuals the slobs on the street, like what Obama has to offer and say, plus how he says it.

Thank you, for the kind words, Lee. Much appreciated.

RE: Bert

Bert, I just wanted to compliment you on you mature and thoughtful postings.
Bravo!

I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS

Here is Pastor Wright’s ‘Black Value System’
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm

AMERICANS JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES ...

Cyerna,

A large number of people do not comprehend for many reasons, some do not what to. Others have seen the hand writing on the wall.  As Tao Walker stated “we are all Indians now”. 

We are doomed to status quo if Hillary or McCain wins, we do not know what we are doomed to if Obama wins.

His campaign has brought more truth to the political arena than thought possible.  Attacks against truth from Hillary and company baked by the media have been vociferous.

Something wrong with this picture Bert! Not in your I suppose.

Amen to this Leefeller.

And, just relying on memory, bert has…on more than one occassion, brought quotes to this site from these propagandist outlets run by the likes of Kristol and the others.

If we wanted to read the shit, we could find it.

That is NOT to say that we should be UNAWARE of the kind of stuff they push, like the worst kind of drug dealers with all of the propaganda and hyperbole, because we DO need to be aware of it, so that we can see it for what it is.

For anyone to try to push it here, (or anywhere that thinking people reside) as if it is some sort of TRUTH, is condescending in ALL CAPS and bold italics.

Oh, bert, you’re going soft on us.

The American people don’t need a Democrat in the White House; they need to wake the fuck up and take their government back for themselves.

The two parties, together, have run a shell game for a long time now.  Nothing fundamental or systemic is going to change just by electing someone with a “D” next to their name.

The Democratic Party was right behind the Republicans in marching to war in Iraq (though unlike the Reps, they now have to pretend that they were “duped” instead of saying “so”).  The Democratic Party has done its fair share to sell America to corporations, lock, stock, and barrel.  The Democratic Party won’t lift a finger to protect civil liberties or deny right-wing nuts from getting a job for life on the bench of the SCOTUS.

The Democratic Party is complicit in the criminal nature of American politics…particularly the Clintonian wing of the Democratic Party.

If Obama is successful, it won’t be because he’s a Dem…and it won’t be because he’s so great.  It will be because people will take enough of his words to heart and realize that We have all the power that we need.  And we’ll finally start using it.  Without We the People, no politician - of either party - will change anything.

What we need is not one party or the other in control.  We need the people (all of us) involved and in control.  We need for the people of this country to do something in between presidential elections.

Nothing more than a Democrat in the White House is akin to being molested by your uncle, rather than the creepy guy giving candy away from the back of his van.  You’re still getting molested.

So in other words bert…lying and the creation of alternative realities works SOOOO much better, eh? And you wonder how the lies and avoidance of the truth ‘worked out so well for us before?” Your cynicism which is shared by the destroyers of the nation, is how we got to where we are.

You should take your created polls bert, and shove them where the sun NEVER shines. I’m sure you have a handy place.
Excerpts.

Losing Our Will
  By Bob Herbert
  The NYT
  Saturday 12 April 2008
  I wonder what the answers would be if each American asked himself or herself the question: “How is the war in Iraq helping me?”

  While the U.S. government continues to pour precious human treasure and vast financial resources into this ugly war without end, it is all but ignoring deeply entrenched problems that are weakening the country here at home.

On the same day that President Bush was announcing an indefinite suspension of troop withdrawals from Iraq, the New York Times columnist David Leonhardt was telling us a sad story about how the middle class has fared during the Bush years.

  The economic boom so highly touted by the president and his supporters “was, for most Americans,” said Mr. Leonhardt, “nothing of the sort.” Despite the sustained expansion of the past few years, the middle class - for the first time on record - failed to grow with the economy.

  And now, of course, we’re sinking into a nasty recession.

The U.S., once the greatest can-do country on the planet, now can’t seem to do anything right. The great middle class has maxed out its credit cards and drained dangerous amounts of equity from family homes. No one can seem to figure out how to generate the growth in good-paying jobs that is the only legitimate way of putting strapped families back on their feet.

  The nation’s infrastructure is aging and in many places decrepit. Rebuilding it would be an important source of job creation, but nothing on the scale that is needed is in sight. To get a sense of how important an issue this is, consider New Orleans.

  The historian Douglas Brinkley, who lives in New Orleans, has written: “What people didn’t yet fully comprehend was that the overall disaster, the sinking of New Orleans, was a man-made debacle, resulting from poorly designed levees and floodwalls.”

  We could have saved the victims of the Hurricane Katrina catastrophe, but we didn’t. And now, more than 2 ½ years after the tragedy, we are still unable to lift the stricken city off its knees.

  Other nations can provide health care for everyone. The United States cannot. In an era in which a college degree is becoming a prerequisite for a middle-class quality of life, we are having big trouble getting our kids through high school.

And despite being the wealthiest of all nations, nearly 10 percent of Americans are resorting to food stamps to maintain an adequate diet, and 4 in every 10 American children are growing up in families that are poor or near-poor.

  The U.S. seems almost paralyzed, mesmerized by Iraq and unable to generate the energy or the will to handle the myriad problems festering at home. The war will eventually cost a staggering $3 trillion or more, according to the Nobel Prize-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. When he was asked on “Democracy Now!” about who is profiting from the war, he said the two big gainers were the oil companies and the defense contractors.

  This is the pathetic state of affairs in the U.S. as we approach the end of the first decade of the 21st century. Whatever happened to the dynamic country that flexed its muscles after World War II and gave us the G.I. Bill, the Marshall Plan, the United Nations (in a quest for peace, not war), the interstate highway system, the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, the finest higher education system the world has known, and a standard of living that was the envy of all?

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041208C.shtml

Re: bert April 15 at 1:55 pm

Per your comment:  “Answer this question Outraged - what exactly does post partisan age that Obama wants to usher in, and that ONLY he can usher in, and that you have said repeatedly that you support here at TD mean if not listening to ALL sides of an issue?

I am betting that you cannot and YOU WILL NOT ANSWER because neither you nor your candidate and honestly answer my question because neither of you really mean it.”

> You bet wrong. You Lose.  Bringing ALL perspectives to the table is good thing.  But bert, there is a huge difference between a liar and one who “has a different perspective”.

William Kristol is a liar.  That is what propagandists DO.  They lie.  They accept dirty money for that.  Sleazy, especially in this regard, considering the immensity of the issues here.

As per your assumption that Obama is the ONLY one who could be post partisan.  You’re wrong.  There many who COULD, but they are NOT viable at this stage of the game, THIS TIME.

Per your comment:  “It is just another lie by another lying politician.”

>My question…does that comment INCLUDE Clinton…?

I will read almost anything. And If I agree with all or bits of it I will say so. And if I disagree I will say so and say that as well with as many facts as I can find as I do here with various posts I either agree with or don’t.

So, yes, I would read articles about Mr. Foster. Although I doubt there are too many left I haven’t read.

I am positive the right wing smear machine has new negatives on Clinton too. And they will try to dredge up the old stuff as well. I have never said that Clinton would not be attacked. She will be. I just believe that she will be able to get thriugh it better than Obama. I know you disagree.

However, Obama is an unknown to a large majority of Americans. So I believe it will be easier for the Rs to brand him. This is especially true with Wright and now the PA comments. And again, I know you disagree. But that is my strong opinion and you know I am not shy about expressing.

And just to end with what I oso ften do, I really want, and America NEEDS a Democrat in the WH this Jan. to begin undoing all the Bush crap. I just don’t want to take a chance with someone I think will lose to McCain.

I read that piece too, before you posted it on Truthdig.  I don’t believe in ignoring the Bill Kristols of the world.  What i don’t like is seeing people on a site like Truthdig hyping it up. 

So when others start posting old Scaiffe publication articles talking about how Hillary might have killed Vince Foster because they were lovers, you’ll agree that we really just need to examine how the enemy thinks…right?

Or is that different? It is?  How?

Shall we dissect the numerous ways (both new and old) that the Republicans will attack the Clintons?  Kristol isn’t writing those pieces because the magazines are full and there’s one in the chamber.

Clinton in October will be a firing squad.

Bert your marathon seems to make you an assigned paid for shrill for by the opposition to Obama.  You must be on the payroll, you seem to never have anything of substance, but a pummeling of evasive crap. 

Keep the crap coming, it goes with your ca ca comment.

Baffel them with bull shit, Bert, you seem to excell like Hillary in avoiding the real issues.

Hillary offers nothing for me, except status quo. Obama seems to offer us a degree of substance, as you stated that may not be worthy of support. So be it.

Lets see now, Hillary supports McCain while she attacks Obama with her word games,  Bill’s technique of twisting the words left over from the “depends on what you mean by sex” days and we think Bush has a problem with expressing himself. 

We have her supporters forcing their Karl Rove crap on us as a illusion to avoid discussing real issues, like the war, the economy and the problems carried on from the old Clinton regime, right into the Bush and company screw the Constituion crowd.  Hillary offers nothing, but status quo, the same old Washington elite crowd,  Hillary is supported and paid off, if   Hillary or McCain become Presidents we can see more of what we have now and little change. 

Hillary voted for the war, she had so much experience like every other ass in the Senate that voted to let Bush take us into Iraq.  Was she duped, or did she knew what she was doing?

One does not need to be a scholar to know that Hillary is the condescending one, her supporters seem to be of the same mold with their blind eye to the truth.

Anything to win Hillary, will not win against McCain,  she has an overloaded garbage scow of skeletons in her closet, Obama has not even touched on any of the divisive stuff.

You know David, lots of Democratic Presidential candidates have been speaking the “truth to people clearly and on point.”

How did that work out for those cnadidates?

Let’s take a little historical trip down memory lane: Adlai Stevenson, he was the first of the intellectual snobs to be nominated. LOST 2 times;
Then there was McGovern Carter, Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. That old ‘telling like it is’ really worked out well for them and for the nation.

New Democratic party slogan: Nominating the Unelectable Since 1952.

From Rasmussen Polling:

Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama’s statement that people in small towns “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.” A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% agree with the Democratic frontrunner while 19% are not sure.

Kind of hard to win when 56% of the voters disagree with you on this and so many other issues.

Good Luck.

See my reply to Outraged. Plus your lazy ad hominem attacks are vapid and meaningles and do not count for real debate. You do not answer the valod arguments I make because you can’t. Your post proves my premise in and of itself.

I thought that was what Obama’s post partisan age was all about – bringing all sides to the table. Isn’t that what he says? Or is that just to get elected?

Answer this question Outraged - what exactly does post partisan age that Obama wants to usher in, and that ONLY he can usher in, and that you have said repeatedly that you support here at TD mean if not listening to ALL sides of an issue?

I am betting that you cannot and YOU WILL NOT ANSWER because neither you nor your candidate and honestly answer my question because neither of you really mean it.

It is just another lie by another lying politician.

bert,

your quote:  “I rail against such rigidity in one’s viewpoint. I believe strongly that I am never harmed by listening to Karl Rove or reading Pat Buchanan, or even Bill Kristol”

>Possibly you should rethink your position.  From here it is painfully OBVIOUS how much it has skewed your logic regarding reality.

Also, we’ve all heard these right-wing blowhards, and we’ve heard it and heard it and heard it.  It NEVER changes. If fact we hear WAY TOO MUCH of this side and not enough “the peoples’” perspective.  You know, the side YOU ignore.

The fact that you believe you will get at the “TRUTH” from something the neocons spew is telling.  Again, these guys are PROPAGANDISTS, not journalists.

Bert,

Digging for the truth, is one streach and instead part of your grand plan to smoke and mirrors the real issues.  Great job Bert, you only post devisive views, because you oppose Obama and support Hillary and McCain. You do seem to be a Republican. 

Digging for the truth is an oximorn in your case Bert, because I do not believe you are being honest in your stating so.

If you like their agenda such as Russ and Pat Buchanan and others, why don’t you assimulate and make your own opinon, or is that something you cannot do?  Maybe it would not be a fact? Your job is to support Hillary at any cost support any bogus argument you can force out, to parrot you Queen Hillary.

If I want to read Pat Buchanan, I will find his stuff on my own. Your are being condensending with a capital C.

who writes….............“Ok, seriously, a debate about how we should be listening to Bill Kristol?  Keep in mind that the neo-con movement, at its heart, was originally an amalgamation of Trotskyites and Zionists.”

It is an immature thinker who believes they should never even LISTEN to someone with a different point of view. I thought that was what Obama’s post partisan age was all about – bringing all sides to the table. Isn’t that what he says? Or is that just to get elected?

I rail against such rigidity in one’s viewpoint. I believe strongly that I am never harmed by listening to Karl Rove or reading Pat Buchanan, or even Bill Kristol because — maybe — I’ll learn something. Or even if I disagree wholly with what they say, they will stimulate my thinking about a certain topic. That is never harmful. Never.

That is the essence of digging for truth.

So I will continue to post opposing views in an effort to get at the truth.

Nicely done, lee. You ar eindeed a very fast learner. Keep up the good work.  Grade of B+

Margaret,

I think you have hammered it right where it actually matters the most, (though I have no idea if the ideologues will ever accept it) when you said that the while Clinton is a strong leader, when the Republicans start digging up information, (from the past) she could get buried in the onslaught.

And…(most importantly) Obama is mostly without a past.

In reality, the repugs have ALREADY got every single thing they need to blow Hillary right out of the water, and fast! They would need to be semi-careful, because too much of it would expose too many of them. Still, they’ve got enough stuff on her to make this stupid little stuff like lying about being under sniper fire in Bosnia look like a mere senior moment. I mean UGLY stuff, that would keep all of their own secrets well out of touch.

Meantime there’s obviously NOTHING ON Barak Obama, which is why they have to keep creating BS out of nothing.

That’s it in the nutshell..

Leefeller,

This doesn’t sound like bert. It sounds exactly like Chalmers…

EXACTLY!! Nobody else but chalmers…he’s the only one here that goes on and on about the mother/age/white thing, in varying orders, but it’s always there.

Hey Bert,

How come you are not asking for the facts on this one?

Lets’s see, I will do it for you.

Throwing your white gandmama “under the bus again”, do you have a picture or chart? Which bus?  How big was the bus? Was it a grayhound?

Saying your gradmama was a “scared racist white america”. Which america which has a small “a” are you talking about? How did you hear about this, from what source and what time did Russ quote this? 

“Just plain sad. Just plain untruthful”. Where did you read that, who told you this, what is this opinion or fact?  Do you have a chart or even a graph?  You could be making this up.

“Barrack has it out for Hillary because she is a woman, older”, and well preserved “of course bitter and white.  What do you mean by bitter?  Is this a fact or just your opinion.  Older, how old is old? Where do you get the idea Hillary is a woman, site your source, you never mentioned that she is Bill Clintons spouse?  Nothing about experience?  We want facts, talk is cheap. We need facts or what you say is made up.

Jackpine S.,

Next they will be telling us how great Karl Rove is and why we should vote for Bush again, oh, seems they are already doing that.

What are you talking about, bert?

Here’s an example from Maani:

To suggest that a neocon could not possibly have anything intelligent or cogent to say simply because he IS a neocon is absurd in the extreme.

Thanks.  I was going to provide the link to this Op-Ed myself.  You saved me the trouble…LOL.

You’re not trying to “help” the Obama supporters, you’re aligning with Bill Kristol and trying to keep your distance by saying that he’s “terrible”.  It is the political equivalent of arming the Mujahadin, but getting the Pakistani ISI to run the operation and buying Soviet arms to keep our hands clean.

You’re claiming to be a stolid Democrat and telling people to listen to Bill Kristol at the same time.  And if you’re lucky enough to have Clinton win the nomination, how many Obama supporters do you think will now stand with you to defend her against Kristol’s attacks?

This is a major problem with Clintonian methods, and their supporters have now taken it up: there is no focus on strategy, only tactics.  It’s about winning battles instead of winning wars. 

And no, i won’t cool it with the rhetoric for as long as i come to a progressive web site and see people talking up Bill Kristol. 

The mask is indeed slipping: the Clintons are very much Republicans in Democratic clothing…neo-con style Republicans, the type that believe in big government.

Thanks Dave in Big Pine…

Couldn’t have said it better myself. (Although I’ve tried).

That is…the difference between wealth and rich. It’s called POWER, which is why Oprah was restricted to the South Carolina Primary. There is an academic term for those who control the “mechanics of production” but I can’t think of it right now.

But, one other ‘clue’ is that the rich are always the HIGHLY VISIBLE ones, and the wealthy (ones with all the power)usually remain well in the shadows…think Dick Cheney.

Think..Bill Kristol. Power Politics is about controlling ones envirnoment, and being the ONLY control of it.

NOT Oprah. She didn’t start out ‘elite’ and she’s not ‘elite’ now. She’s just the highest paid saleswoman of the era, and that’s putting it diplomatically. If ever she stops selling, selling, selling, to all the millions who buy, buy, buy, she’s gone, gone, gone.

•  “AGAIN, what makes you imagine that Clinton will fair better than Obama.  ALL INDICATIONS are she’ll fair worse.  The neocons have NOT attacked Clinton yet.  I believe Clinton and the neocons are on the same side election or no election.  Look at all the dirty deals.”

Outraged, there is a inherent error in your message here, at least for the few lose needles in the haystack. Simply, YOU MAKE TOO MUCH SENSE! This is far too logical, based on reason and the reality of the present day circumstances and the mood of the American populace.

In other words, ALL INDICATIONS are that Hillary would be blasted right out of the flippin’ water, once the repugs got hold of her. They’ve got enough shit on Hillary to bury her the moment the her ‘nomination’ might be announced. Does anyone honestly believe that the SAME CROWD that damn near got her husband impeached behind some bullshit, (instead of some valid or legitimate offenses…like unilateral intervention in the former Yugoslavia) won’t light her ass right up?

Yes, yes I know they’d have to be semi-careful, because they’re implicated themselves, in SO MANY of the same crimes, and the same corruption from former decades. Since when has THAT stopped them?

And if the repugs could do so much damage to Obama, why wouldn’t they have already done it? All they’ve been able to do is to help Hillary with the desperate stuff like creating the Wright Controversy, or the other kitchen sink stuff that they’ve had to fashion out of threads similar to the ones the tailor’s used for the Emperor’s New Clothes, and it’s all backfired. They have to resort to stupid stuff like calling him an ‘elitist’ because they’ve spent months trying to ‘swiftboat’ the guy, and it hasn’t worked.

Meantime, if folks think John McCain was hurt back during the last repug operation, (for allegedly fathering a black child, who is actually an adopted child) they can’t POSSIBLY know the sort of stuff Kristol and his pals could, and WOULD put out there on Hillary.

So I have to wonder out loud –again- just exactly what it is that bert thinks the repugs are gonna be able to make-up or drudge-up about Barack Obama, unless it’s the obvious, since she’s apparently judging from her ‘own’ experiences and ideology. Presumably she’s still counting on racism to make sure he loses, even though most Americans seem far more concerned about their own survival.

Consequently, by ALL indications (so far) Barack Obama has a far better chance against John McCain than Hillary does, and THAT’S before they really let loose on her, which they haven’t done yet, and of course the Obama team would NOT do.

So, bert’s never gonna really answer this question that you keep asking her, (about why she imagines that Clinton would fair better than Obama) because she knows that outside of her own imagination, (or diebold manipulation) Clinton CANNOT fair better.

Even more importantly, bert doesn’t CARE about what might befall the rest of the country, or the democratic part, or anybody else for that matter. SHE wants Hillary to be the president, and absolutly nothing else matters.

Matter of fact, bert could actually BE Hillary, writing under an assumed name.

She just wants to win. Whatever it takes. And when you start asking or posing all of these question based on reason and logic, there is no space there for a “Hillary Win”.

I love it. In times of economic hardship, (like the past 30 years) you all provide/share your entertainment talents, and I just want to thank you!

Meantime, this reminds me of a joke…one of the teacher-kid student jokes.

The teacher asked why George Washington’s father, (had to be the father, and not his mother, right?) did NOT punish him after he admitted to chopping down the cherry tree.

The kid responded that it was because George still had the ax in his hand.

I thought it was a most satisfactory answer.

You know the tired old song and dance by the Clinton folks, is starting to kitchen sink in.  If Clinton runs against McCain she will have a much better chance of winning then Obama, only because because Bert said so.  According to the Clintons, Obama is every thing nasty under the sun, from elitist to American hater.  Now that the Clintons have rallied the bigots, Racists Nazis, KKK, evangelical churches, the Mexican haters, the black haters, the gay haters,  tiny tim, popeye and even cold feet Marshalling on their side, Obama has little chance against this infusion of pro Hillary imposing types. 

The kitchen sink is working, like a charm, vote for Hillary, for it will not matter which one wins, McCain or Hillary, the Republicans will love it, and they will have a second Republican primary.

Divisive only in his (Naders) timing; his candidacy is too late to have any meaning.  Great comment though and here are some of my further thoughts:

Over our short history we have devolved to a one party system with two branches; conservative and less conservative.  The reason we aren’t a democracy any longer is because we have chosen not to protect it with multi party (more than 2) diversity.  Why don’t Nader and the other independents get to work and create political parties to compete with the republican/democrat party which could rightfully be called the republicrats party.  Our Oligarchy will never be brought to heel until we get some truly independent parties operational.  I have voted for Nader in the past and would again if he would run a serious campaign.  We the people are as you say directly responsible for our present terminal illness.  Only “we” can fix it and in that I’m very pessimistic.

TDoff, great piece, you should not get the Hillary folks all excited like that and you should really not make fun of George Washington either.

bert,

Kristol as you claim is already doing it, the only difference between NOW and LATER, is right now Clinton is a part of it.  So if Kristol is already attacking Obama, what makes you think it’ll be all that different later.

AGAIN, what makes you imagine that Clinton will fair better than Obama.  ALL INDICATIONS are she’ll fair worse.  The neocons have NOT attacked Clinton yet.  I believe Clinton and the neocons are on the same side election or no election.  Look at all the dirty deals.

Right NOW, Obama is doing well, with BOTH of them attacking him.  So go back to YOUR Fantasy Island bert, maybe there’s a place for you next to Ferraro.

Lauren writes:    “I was at the fundraiser
      where Obama made that statement. 
      A single statement was pulled from
      a talk….”

Just for the record, following is a full transcript of Obama’s SF remarks from Mark Halperin of Time/CNN.

Transcript of Obama’s Remarks at San Francisco Fundraiser Sunday

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

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

But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is so we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — to close tax loopholes, uh you know uh roll back the tax cuts for the top 1%, Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to uh middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide healthcare for every American.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. 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.

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

Lauren writes:    “She has the remarkable
    ability to become whatever she feels she  
    needs to be to get elected.  I find the
    idea of a chameleon candidate terrifying, 
    because who knows what you get tomorrow.”

You know, Obama has that very same ‘remarkable’ ability to change positions too. Since you are talking guns here, let’s take a look at Obama’s changing positions.

From the National Rifle Association web site:

Obama’s Draconian Gun Control
3/4/2008

I’ll give the mainstream media this: They’re consistent. They’re consistently ignoring Barack Obama’s statements that he “supports” the Second Amendment, and they’re also consistently ignoring Senator Obama’s repeated calls for the kind of gun control that would spell the end of the Second Amendment as we know it. 

Back in 1999, Obama called for a laundry list of gun control, including a 500 percent increase in taxes on firearms and ammunition. He called for bans of affordable handguns. He called for mandated “smart gun” technology. He demanded that FFLs not be allowed to maintain their business within five miles of a school or a park. In short, he wanted to regulate the Second Amendment out of existence. 

To my knowledge, not one reporter has asked Obama about the positions he took back then. Nor have they asked him about the position he’s taking now, “supporting” the Second Amendment in speeches while refusing to sign on to the congressional amicus brief opposing the District of Columbia’s gun ban. Fifty-five of his fellow senators signed on to that brief, but Obama still pretends the issue is about “local control,” not constitutional rights. 

When the mainstream media refuses to ask a presidential frontrunner about his position on an issue, you can’t help but wonder why. When the issue is the Second Amendment, it can’t be because the press doesn’t like what Obama has to say. Maybe it’s just that they don’t want you to hear it.

bert, have you lost track of the usual comment from the right wing water carriers?  “America love it or leave it!”  They are always the ones telling those of us who venture to disagree with the status quo corportists and their running dog lackeys:  “If you don’t like it here leave.”

Purple Girl “done good”  -  But how did this comment of BO become such a firestorm?  It looks to me as if the MSM needed another non-issue to distract the public.  Small town America ain’t like vision provided by Rockwell (Norman that is) or Kincaid.  This is a mythic folklore America which never existed as one would like to remember it.

I never said any of these things. And I know exactly who Kristol is. And yes, I am not so stupid as to think he will support anything any Dem in the W.H. would support. I think what he and his neocons have done to this country is criminal.

But for once, will you cool it with your rhetoric just once. And just cool your anger for two minutes and try to read with full understanding and use some reasoning skills.

I will try again - In the last paragraph of his post Kristol outlined for you all to see, and he gave the command to his Repub minions across the nation how they should attack Obama. All Repubs will be on the same page. They are very good at that. They now have their marching orders and armed with their talking points written in that last paragraph they will carry it out their orders like the good little foot soldiers that they are. Already McCain has done it, and very well I might add, on ABC this morning.

Of course in the echo chamber that is Truth Dig, Obama supporters here hear no evil, see no evil, and talk no evil. Everyone, (except for a few of us) is just one happy family where everyone supports Obama and he is all great and all good and no one will say anything untrue and no one will attack and if they do we can deflect it. And while you are living on Fantasy Island Republicans led by Kristol are planning an attack right under your very noses, but you prefer to ignore it.

A serious debate about listening to Bill Kristol??
A debate about listening to Bill Kristol seriously??

WhoTF is gonna take the ‘Pro’ position?

Bush, Cheney, and the rest of the NeoConCabal?

Hillary announced that last night, during her midnight seance, she ‘channeled’ George Washington, and he thanked her for her ancestor, Betsy H. Clinton, being the coxswain on his famous trip across the Potomac.
‘If it hadn’t been for that brave little lady, Betsy’, he told Hillary, ‘We might have lost the revolution, and still be under the thumb of King George, or one of his inbred dofusses’. According to Hillary, he went on to say, ‘If you can steer the ship of state as well as your great-great-great-whatever guided our fortunes, you’ll be a boon to the nation’.
Hillary announced she is introducing a motion with the DNC to have the ghost of George Washington appointed a super delegate, and TV ads about George Washington’s endorsement of her are already in the works.
Bill said he just talked to President Washington ‘For a moment’ (he was in a hurry), but ‘He’s a hell of a nice guy. Noisy teeth, though’.

Dr. Knowitall,

I know that we’ve clashed over Nader before.  But i agree with everything you’ve written above (and agree with you generally).

I wish that Mr. Nader (and others) spent more time between elections building the structures that would make them more successful in elections.

I can’t vote for any of these fools either, and that leaves me very little to vote for.  Nader may actually get my vote this year.

Ok, seriously, a debate about how we should be listening to Bill Kristol?  Keep in mind that the neo-con movement, at its heart, was originally an amalgamation of Trotskyites and Zionists.  So for Kristol to be calling someone a Marxist is pretty f-ing funny.

What strange bedfellows the Clinton supporters keep these days.  Have you people forgotten how instrumental Kristol was in rallying the Republicans against Hillary Care?  Have you forgotten his memo that it didn’t matter if it was a good idea or not, it had to be defeated to keep the Dems from gaining a lock on the middle class for at least a generation?

I suppose that the theory “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” is in play here.  If that’s the way you play the game of life, then that’s the way that you play the game of life.  However, you do realize that Kristol will devote all of his energy to destroying Clinton if she wins the nomination, don’t you? (Yes, i know, you fervently believe that she is immune to right wing attacks…how’d Hillary Care go?)

Maybe that’s not important to you.  But remember that what became Al-queda used to be our good friends because we were both enemies of the Soviet Union.  The same thing will happen to you that happened to New York.

influence concerning the latest fad diet, or the newest trashy novel, or the latest in plus size fashion hardly merits her inclusion among the power brokers. Again Lee, there is a difference between RICH and WEALTHY. Oprah, for all her money, produces NOTHING. She has the power to do NOTHING. She controls NOTHING that has any impact on the macro economy that would give her such power. She is just rich. So is Snoop Dog; is he an elite member?
the people that control Monsanto, conagra, the media conglomerates, the Federal Reserve, the steel mills, the oil companies, etc., are the wealthy ones. they are the elites who make the worlds decisions and impact lives in a real meaningful way. oprah deals in fluff. the capitalists deal in lives.

you don’t think if the powers that be wanted to pull the plug on oprah they couldn’t? she is just an employee, like the rest of us. better paid than most, but just as powerless as the rest of us if the powers that be wanted it to be so.

wealth and rich are not the same thing. rich does not mean power, wealth does.

who has the power: the rich person who can buy a ferarri? or the person who owns the factory and steel that made it? the person who can buy kobe beef or the guy who controls the beef supply?

rich vs, wealthy. there is a big difference.

Exactly!

Elitism is the belief or attitude that those individuals who are considered members of the elite are those whose views on a matter are to be taken the most seriously or carry the most weight; whose views and/or actions are most likely to be constructive to society as a whole; or whose extraordinary skills, abilities or wisdom render them especially fit to govern.

The elite is a select group of people with outstanding personal abilities, intellect, wealth, specialized training or experience, or other distinctive attributes.

By this definition the Bush’s are part of the blueboold elite. So are the Kerry’s and the Kennedy’s.

And felicity is correct. The right hijacked the term and applied it as a prejortive to that small minority of Democrats that make up the ultra-left progressive wing of the Party. The right uses the term to imply that Dem politicians are out of touch with Main Street Americans. And they have been very successful in that endeavor with voters.

It is a populist epithet, carrying an implicit accusation that the people it describes are insulated from all negative consequences of programs they support that are intended to benefit the poor, and that the costs and consequences of such programs would be borne in the main by working class or lower middle class people who were not so poor as to be beneficiaries themselves.

Elitism is also sometimes equated with those with a utopian and head in the clouds attitude and who believe every social ill can be solved with a government program.

Other terms for ‘elite’ are:

  The chattering classes is a generally derogatory term often used by conservative propagandists and political commentators to refer to a politically active, socially concerned and highly educated elite section of the “metropolitan middle class”, especially those with political, media, and academic connections. It is currently applied to persons with alleged leftist leanings.

  Or, O’Reilly’s favorite version of it - San Francisco values is a pejorative used to refer to the cultural, social, and moral attributes commonly associated with the city of San Francisco, California in the United States, particularly in reference to the city’s left-wing politics and pervasive secularism.

When any of us write a post here on TD and use the term ‘elite,’ we may mean any one of these. But then when someone reads the post they read a different meaning which cause much confusion.

Regarding your distinction between being rich and wealthy ...

The original response was to those who criticized Hillary for calling Obama
an elitist, when the Clintons made 100 million over 7 years. Cinton detractors said that she can’t possibly call Obama elitist if she’s made that much money!
Well, Oprah, who is one of Obama’s biggest supporters, is estimated to
be worth a billion, with lots more coming in daily. Plus, she wields so much influence because of her television exposure ... which is continual and far reaching. Furthermore, it might interest you to know that the reason Oprah is so wealthy is because several years ago, she was able to set up her own network of syndicated distribution for her TV show ... so, she is not dependent on the normal TV distributors, as other TV shows are. In addition, you can also add her magazine’s influence, plus the myriad projects she is able to fund, due to her existing wealth, and continuously increasing income.

Expat, interesting you choose the adjective “devisive” to describe Nader.  I agree.  It is too late.  But neither of them will get my vote because no Washington pol has convinced me that their being elected will improve the condition of the middle class, not immediately and not in the forseeable future.  Because of Washington, the condition of the middle class has been on the decline for decades. 

It doesn’t matter to me which of the three gets elected.  They’re not running in my interests at all.  Rather, as can be easily shown, they either support the status quo or they vote according to the D.C. consensus and not in the interests of the middle class worker.  Never mind that they’re happy to allow Bush to get away with his murdering our constitution.

Frosted Flakes, maybe so.  We all benefited from his crusades and we owe him our thanks. Someday, what he is saying about the two-party system, about corporate ownership of our democracy, about the presidential assault on our constitution and people losing control of their government will all have to be addressed, by someone.

I look at our country today, April 14, and lay the blame for its deplorable condition squarely on Congress and the W.H. and therefore, on us.
(Now, it looks like Wachovia is going to get a bailout and it’s among the largest of our banks.) 

How responsible is it, do you think, to believe what he says is true but then to act in a way that perpetuates the status quo?

He quoted a Chinese proverb:  If you know, but don’t act, then you don’t know.  I’m just trying to get smarter.

again Lee….

people like oprah are rich, not wealthy. real wealth means you control the means of production. while oprah can make $250 million a year from her TV show, she doesn’t own the TV station or the conglomerate that puts her on the air. she doesn’t control the airwaves. the people that do are the wealthy ones. ANY capatalist, is by definition, both wealthy and a member of the elite. there is no distinction along party lines.
this is really a simple concept folks.

Oprah is not progressive left. What on Earth are you talking about?

Maani,

Point well taken about the distinction between wealth and elitism.

Dave In Big Pine ... Does your lack of distinction between wealth and elitism
include George Soros? ... or Opra Winfrey, or the other wealthy Icons on the progressive left ... or do they just fall into your ‘sacred cow’ category.

Maani,

Point well taken about the distinction between wealth and elitism.

Dave In Big Pine ... Does your lack of distinction between wealth and elitism
include George Soros? ... or, the other wealthy Icons on the progressive left
... or, are they sacred cows? How about Opra Winfrey?

Elites are blue-bloods, the aristocracy, the haute monde.  Elitist, or elitism, as used today, was originally a term adopted by the righties to divert blame for the sorry state of America’s middle class from those responsible, namely corporate America running what happens or doesn’t happen inside political DC to latte-drinking-Volvo-driving-no-names.

As part of the modern American lexicon, along with ‘liberal,’ the term continues to let the real power brokers in DC off the hook.

He is worse than what most would consider a republican which is why DEMOCRATS could care less what he said!  Hardcore republicans will vote republican anyway.

Again, you completely ignore the growing mountain of manure available regarding Clinton.  This thing could probably wrap the earth a million times if laid end to end.  Your cheap shot is without warrant.  If you want to vote for a republican like Clinton and worry about what Kristol thinks about it, go ahead.  The rest of us KNOW who they both are.  They can use any LABEL they want, but we all KNOW from experience they’re not on our side.

Your quote:  “If you support Obama and want him to win you would pay attention and start finding answers to thse attacks.”

>If Charlie Manson calls us all Obamabots should we care, too….!?  Kristol has killed more people with propaganda and lies than Manson ever had, AND TODAY EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.

Now they start shoving Kristol into their warped world of un reason. You Hillary folks sound more like Republicans than McCain.

Well Maani, construe away, you always do!

once again maani your ignorance is astounding. are you new to America?

wealth and elitism, the kind we are discussing, go hand in hand here. you are not one without the other, regardless of how you “see” yourself, or how the masses see you. the true elites are the power brokers of this country, and the world. they are invariably also extremely wealthy. they have to be. REAL wealth means power, not just being rich. we are not talking about the Edwards of the world: they are not part of the elite though they are rich. they are not however, wealthy. their resources can influence or change nothing on the macr level. The Clinton’s are not part of the elite either. now the Bush’s? they are part of the elite. rupurt murdoch? elite (Carlyle group anyone?). it’s the people who pull the strings that are the elite, not the minions (ie-politicians) who do their bidding. we are talking about the people whose wealth translates into power. and that power far surpasses anything obama, clinton, mccain, or any of the other dancing fleas out there possess.
again, maani, are you new here?

The arrogance of a black man is scary, eh? I wish I could meet coherent supporters of Hillary and McCain because I’m certain there must be something really awesome about either candidate, which their supporters are largely unable to express with their coarse language, poor comprehension skills and inability to express their opinions to a logical degree.

Until the time I meet such a person, I will still see John McCain and Hillary Clinton as inauthentic, lying, pro-war, Machiavellian, Ideology-Driven, Elitist, Entitlement seeking, double-talking, petulant, weak on the issues, unable to run on their true merits, spin-doctoring, Free-Trade Loving, anti-Union, Lobbyist and PAC financed, old politicians with nothing new to offer and no challenging views of the world around themselves.

I read this article and found it very true to form.

I’ve said this all along about Obama, that he is letting his arrogance show more and more.

This latest episode proves it.

Remember this was said in San Francisco, ( a very liberal town) meant for only those in attendance ears.  That makes it worse.

He tries to hush the backlash by emailing support from CNN talking heads to all those who are charging him over it.  CNN?, give me a break! They are the folks who are throwing out the red carpet and salvitating over him.  Hell, Chris Matthews gets goose bumps whenever the “chosen one” speaks.

He also said when asked who he would consider as a VP, he wouldn’t need somebody with military expertise because “foreign policy is the area where I am probably most confident that I know more & understand the world better that Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain”.  Huh?

Now, he is in the explanation mode, trying to convince people what he “really meant” by what he said.  But the truth is he dosen’t really explain anything clearly.

Who is Barack Obama really?...Stay tuned, bits and pieces are coming out all the time.

I hope voters are listening.

Maani -

McCain was on CNN early today talking about the first amendment and reporters. He wound up his talk with some remarks about Obama’s comments on the “bitter” working class.

McCain said the working class in small town America are the people who survived the Great Depression and went on to win WWII; they are not bitter, rather they are strong and will make the US strong again.

I think McCain has really scored a big one with that