Top Leaderboard, Site wide
Left Masthead
October 23, 2016
Truthdig: Drilling Beneath the Headlines
Sign up for Truthdig's Email NewsletterLike Truthdig on FacebookFollow Truthdig on TwitterSubscribe to Truthdig's RSS Feed


Truthdig Bazaar more items

A/V Booth
Print this item

Obama: ?Shame on Her?

Posted on Apr 13, 2008

In another response to the controversy over his “bitter” comments, Barack Obama ridicules rival Hillary Clinton. He says “it sounds like there’s some politics being played,” and he goes on to jab at Clinton’s recent attempt to portray herself as pro-gun: “She’s running around talking about ... how she values the Second Amendment, she’s talking like she’s Annie Oakley! Hillary Clinton’s out there like she’s on the duck blind every Sunday, she’s packin’ a six-shooter! C’mon! She knows better.”

Watch it:

Read the Clinton campaign’s response here.

Also, Taegan Goddard points out that Bill Clinton made Obama’s argument in his book, “My Life,” in which the former president writes:
“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.”


Square, Site wide

New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

Join the conversation

Load Comments

By Conservative Yankee, April 17, 2008 at 6:38 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“the slobs on the street”  ???

You have it wrong pal!!! The slobs are running for president!

Report this

By bert, April 16, 2008 at 11:19 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 16, 2008 at 7:48 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By bert, April 16, 2008 at 5:57 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By Lee, April 16, 2008 at 2:06 pm Link to this comment

RE: Bert

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


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:

Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.


Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 16, 2008 at 6:17 am Link to this comment


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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 16, 2008 at 5:51 am Link to this comment

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

Report this

By cyrena, April 16, 2008 at 5:50 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 16, 2008 at 5:00 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, April 16, 2008 at 3:05 am Link to this comment

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.

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?

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 15, 2008 at 10:58 pm Link to this comment

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…?

Report this

By bert, April 15, 2008 at 9:56 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 15, 2008 at 9:06 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 15, 2008 at 8:39 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 15, 2008 at 8:28 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By bert, April 15, 2008 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By David, April 15, 2008 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

People can be as cynical as they want regarding Obama’s comments here, but I am SO relieved to have a politician who speaks the truth to people clearly and on point.  The fact that he is being attacked for calling it like it is just goes to show how out of touch the media really is.  What he says here is representative of about 85% of the people in this country to one degree or another.  Hillary is a Republican and has run a campaign that would make Karl Rove proud.  She has disgraced herself and her legacy as a Democrat and cemented her legacy as a ruthless, phony politician.

Report this

By bert, April 15, 2008 at 3:00 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By bert, April 15, 2008 at 2:55 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 15, 2008 at 2:27 pm Link to this comment


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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 15, 2008 at 2:21 pm Link to this comment


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.

Report this

By bert, April 15, 2008 at 12:15 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By bert, April 15, 2008 at 12:00 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By cyrena, April 15, 2008 at 11:39 am Link to this comment


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..

Report this

By cyrena, April 15, 2008 at 11:24 am Link to this comment


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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 15, 2008 at 5:45 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 15, 2008 at 5:23 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 15, 2008 at 5:06 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, April 14, 2008 at 10:52 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By cyrena, April 14, 2008 at 10:37 pm Link to this comment

•  “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”.

Report this

By cyrena, April 14, 2008 at 9:51 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 14, 2008 at 8:22 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Expat, April 14, 2008 at 8:05 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 14, 2008 at 8:01 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 14, 2008 at 5:52 pm Link to this comment


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.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 5:23 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Vitamin A, April 14, 2008 at 5:19 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Barack Hussein Obama…
Good boy…another great opportunity to throw your white grandmama, whom you characterized as scared racist white america, under the bus again…

Just plain sad. Just plain untruthful.

Barack has it out for Hillary because she is a woman, older, and well of course bitter and white.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 5:16 pm Link to this comment

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


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.

Report this

By VillageElder, April 14, 2008 at 5:06 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 4:48 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By TDoff, April 14, 2008 at 3:46 pm Link to this comment

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?

Report this

By TDoff, April 14, 2008 at 3:36 pm Link to this comment

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’.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 14, 2008 at 3:32 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 14, 2008 at 3:28 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Dave in Big Pine, April 14, 2008 at 3:20 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By jackpine savage, April 14, 2008 at 3:18 pm Link to this comment


Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 3:04 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Margaret Currey, April 14, 2008 at 2:57 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Too bad we don’t have a stronger third party because Nader would be that person.

His talk about why third party candidates are not allowed into the debate is because CNN, and all the rest are corporations, and corporations give money to both sides, they hedge their bet as who will be the next president.

The next president could be Obama or it could be McCain or Clinton.

The biggest thing I will face is economy because retired people will be hit very hard, even if people go for food stamps they will not cover the rising cost of food.

Report this

By Lee, April 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, April 14, 2008 at 2:07 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Dave in Big Pine, April 14, 2008 at 1:48 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Margaret Currey, April 14, 2008 at 1:39 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Someone made a comment that Obama is outspending Clinton 3 to 1, that was not allways so, in the beginning Clinton had the edge, and she had Bill she should have had an unbeatalbe combination, but after a while Obama and his message caught on and then he began raising large amounts of cash.

Clinton can be a strong leader but when information is dug up by the Republicians she could get buried under the onslaught.

Obama is (mostly) without a past.

What he said and Pennsylvania may object to will not make or break Obama.  The same people who are the hunting type probably will not vote for him anyway.

Another thing that is noteworthy is that Pennsylvania (especially Philadelphia) is full of corruption.

To get to the point, Clinton is clinging at straws, this remark by Obama is not what the country is all about, although it is important to the “bitter” people, not all of the people in Pennsylvania are in bad shape, but those who cling to what used to be are going to on a sinking ship, the world has changed much faster than the people.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 1:31 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this

By Lee, April 14, 2008 at 1:23 pm Link to this comment


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.

Report this

By Lee, April 14, 2008 at 1:21 pm Link to this comment


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?

Report this

By felicity, April 14, 2008 at 1:04 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 14, 2008 at 1:00 pm Link to this comment

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.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 14, 2008 at 12:24 pm Link to this comment

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

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 14, 2008 at 12:20 pm Link to this comment

Well Maani, construe away, you always do!

Report this

By Dave in Big Pine, April 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment

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?

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 14, 2008 at 12:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Thanks for another of your “elitist” lectures.  Believe it or not, some folks here can comprehend the concept of “elitism” without a view form the pulpit.

Growing up in Westchester County, I had a view up close and personal about the equation of wealth and elitism.  It goes like this WealthXamount/time held (in generations) seems to equal a inverse correlation to elitism.. Had a lot of money, held it for a long time, less likely to look down your nose at those who don’t have it… Doesn’t always hold true, but often enough so I’m weary of new-wealth parties.

and the fantastic spin you put on the HillvsBill income thing.. 25% hers?  that means that while in the Senate, prohibited from lobbying (for personal money) she only made a paltry 27 Million dollars in the last three years. 

Didn’t someone here mention she grew up in Park Ridge, where the median income for a household is $80,000 hardly scraping the old burgers out of McDonald’s dumpster. According to Reality Plus the average home in Park Ridge sells for 1/2 a million. You are semi correct… Obama did have a privileged upbringing money wise. When I was a boy I would gladly live in a poor family rather than give up a parent!

Hey, but that’s just me.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 11:35 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By Sue Cook, April 14, 2008 at 11:23 am Link to this comment

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.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 11:15 am Link to this comment

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 remark. Any time you can praise surviving the Great Depression and the WW II folk you score a touchdown.

I won’t vote for McCain for a lot of different reasons, but I do respect his service and his status as a POW. And when he is ‘on’, as he evidently was this morning, he can be very effective.

There is another excellent analysis of Obama’s remarks over at Slate today entitled, “What’s the Matter With Obama?” The four sins of “cling.”
By Mickey Kaus. There are also a lot of other good links in the article to other writer’s, including Andrew Sullivan, editorials on this matter.

If interested I have included the link:


Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 11:01 am Link to this comment

I’m not confusing elitism with wealth. Yeah, the Clintons are extremely wealthy people, but that isn’t why they are elitist. It’s the whole DLC, top of the Democratic Party and entitlement sentiment I perceive them to hold which reeks of elitism.

To run for president, it is a requirement to be amongst the elite anyway. Not one candidate can claim to be your average American. However, I still think Barack Obama exhibits more human qualities and a great amount of humbleness, which isn’t well-established with elitism.

Of course, he could be lying, but so could everyone else. It’s your Rorschach test, and obviously a lot of you don’t see the authenticity I see in Obama.

Report this

By Maani, April 14, 2008 at 10:54 am Link to this comment


In the discussion re the respective incomes of the Clintons and Obamas, many here are conflating two things: “wealth” and “elitism.”  They are NOT the same thing.

“Wealth” is economic; “elitism” is social.  One can be wealthy without having an “elitist” attitude, and one can be “elitist” without necessarily being wealthy.

“Elitism” is the idea of “looking down one’s nose” at those one feels to be socially (NOT necessarily economically) inferior.  “Elitism” is an attitude or approach; a way of “dividing” society by SOCIAL (NOT economic) class.  “Snobbery” is the appropriate synonym.

That said, keep in mind that the bulk of the Clinton’s wealth accumulated over the past seven years has been BILL’s speaking fees and book advances - NOT Hillary’s.  (I.e., consider that, had she divorced Bill after the Lewinsky scandal, we would not even be having this discussion, since that income would not be “credited” to her in any way.)  The income from her book advances and residuals accounts for less than 25% of their total income over that period.

As well, the “wealth” of a politician per se would not seem something that people should be focusing on; after all, many of you supported John Edwards early on, and he and his wife are even richer than the Clintons.  So it is not “wealth” that is (or should be) the issue here.

That said, although it is true that a couple of Obama’s comments could possibly be construed as having elitist undertones, I do not see EITHER Hillary or Obama as “elitist” in the proper meaning of that term, despite Obama’s comparatively privileged upbringing (certainly academically, if not economically) and Hillary’s relatively newly-accrued wealth.


Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 10:54 am Link to this comment

I don’t need to fight Obama’s battle for him. He’s proven more than capable of handling himself in the face of bogus rumors and personal attacks. The people who drum against him have pretty much always been against his campaign, and I don’t think they will ever change their minds. No big deal to me, though, because I know he is going to be our next president regardless.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 10:51 am Link to this comment

I know who he is and what he belives in. And I strongly disgaree with all of it. That is not the point. Can’t you understand he is still a leader in the Republican Party. And he just gave the OK and marching orders and blueprint to every Republican out there, including 527’s on how to hammer Obama.

If you support Obama and want him to win you would pay attention and start finding answers to thse attacks.

Obama’s campaign is the Titanic and it seems you are the ignoring the iceburg that just put a gaping hole in the hull of your ship. And this is an apt analogy as on this day in 1912 the RMS Titanic hits an iceberg and sinks the next morning.

Obama supporters better stop hoping so much and face reality and brace yourself for the fall. (Pun intentional)

Report this

By Nick, April 14, 2008 at 10:49 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Wow…really?  Do you really believe this? 

If anything, Obama has trancended the race issue.  You can’t say blacks are voting for him just because he is black.  Obviously you don’t know any black people.  If you did, you’d realize there is much love for Hillary in the black community.  I also don’t recall anyone from the Obama camp accusing white people of being racists. 
The whole issue of Pastor Wright is overblown and many people are angry because there’s a bit of truth in some of his controversial statements (not all but some).  You can’t deny that.  Criticising American policies is patriotic by the way…not un-American. Read between the lines and don’t buy everything the media spoon-feeds you.  Save your hatred for another forum.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 10:43 am Link to this comment

bert, he is an advocate of an ideology blatantly anti-American in its push for unitary executive privilege, economic imperialism and pro-destruction of our government and Constitution. Please, spare me.

Also, I do my best to stay away from other people’s ideology, and remain as objective and pragmatic as possible. There are lots of things to loathe about Democrats, Republicans, Left, Right, Center, Communist, Capitalist et cetera. I find all of these labels, and their staunch adherents contemptible and foolish.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 10:40 am Link to this comment

American Research Group Inc. has a new poll out with results taken from April 11-13. (Before SF remarks)

Check out item #3. Obama’s excesive advertising is having the opposite effect. I know last Feb. during the CA primary I heard radio ads for Obama at the rate of about 10 per hour. I love politics and all things politics. But after a few days of this, even I got sick and tired of it and said, ‘enough already.’

The most recent ARG poll has Hillary Clinton leading in Pennsylvania 57%-37%.

This is interesting for the following reasons;

(1) Just a week ago, April 5-6, this same pollster had Clinton-Obama tied at 45% each. A week before that, Clinton led Obama 51%-39%. MSNBC and CNN used this American Research Group poll to clobber Clinton on the airwaves, saying the race in Pennsylvania had “tightened” and Obama had “closed-in”. I am no expert in this field, but it certainly seems anomolous that Clinton would lead Obama by double digits one week, then find herself tied with him, then lead him again by 20 points.

(2) Makes one wonder if last week’s poll coincided with the ad buys Obama made in Pennsylvania leading up to that particular poll. That’s when his major TV pushes started, and it looks like he was on the tips of people’s tongues that week, because they were seeing his commercials a lot. However, when they had time to think about his message and to let those commercials sink in, they went back to Clinton, who appears to have always been their first choice to begin with.

(3) Obama’s spending on advertising is working against him: people are sick of seeing his commercials. American Research Group notes that 23% of primary voters say “excessive exposure to Obama’s advertising is causing them to support Clinton”. Remember, Obama purchased the largest advertising buy in Pennsylvania history. And that’s not just for primaries, but including ALL spending on any campaign, including the General Election. In some markets, every other commercial is a commercial for Obama at certain times of day. The more people see him, the more they dislike him. The “magic” Chris Matthews soons over wears thin quickly.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 10:36 am Link to this comment

Obama wasn’t always spending so much, Lee. Obama didn’t get a free-ride, but since everything he says now is misconstrued into vicious sound bytes… I guess this is his real “vetting” process. Wright should not be a polarizing figure because, though his word usage is coarse, there is a lot of reality in his speeches.

Obama may not represent everyone in America, and you’d be real hard pressed to find someone who does, but he is authentic. Genuineness is something lacking in both Hillary Clinton and John McCain. I’m simply rooting for the guy who has the guts, the campaign and the closest policy plans to mine.

Believe me when I say there is no delusion in my mind Obama is some kind of savior. I do like his bottom-up approach, though. He says a lot of things other politicians won’t say, and I happen to agree with most of his ideas. That’s pretty much the up and down of my support for Barack. He’s better than my other choices.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 14, 2008 at 10:35 am Link to this comment

Re: bert and Maani

William Kristol is a neoconservative CO-FOUNDER AND CHAIRMAN for the Project for a New American Century.  The one with the “plan” for America.  Part of the group many believe have maniacal plans for world domination.  Are you really telling me that you think that people CARE what Bill Kristol says?  No, only hard core republicans do.  Kristol has been outed over and over again.  The people KNOW who he is.

Kristol is a propagandist and all around ass.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 10:29 am Link to this comment


  “......he’s an ideologue. That means
  his opinion is not worth much.”

By definition an idealogue is simply an advocate of a particular ideology, especially an official exponent of that ideology.

How does that make Kristol’s opinion worthless, or not worth much?

You are an idealogue, Aegrus. I am an idealogue. So what? What is your point? Kristol can advocate for his cayse and still be an astute observoe of the political palying fiels.

Plus I simply posted this piece to forewarn you and give Obama supporters some insight as to how the Rs will go after Obama. He is not invincible no matter how much you hope.

Report this

By Maani, April 14, 2008 at 10:27 am Link to this comment


Excellent post.  When you say, “Obama is in the lead because he is out spending Clinton 3 to 1,” even if that is not the only reason he is in the lead, it is a good point.  And isn’t he the one who had such disdain for “money politics” when he started?  As well, despite the claim that all of that money comes from “$5, $10 and $25 donations,” that is simply a canard: lots of that money comes from…(wait for it…)...special interests!  And while lots of Hillary’s money does too, isn’t Obama the one who is STILL claiming that he doesn’t take special interest money?

In fact, he made a statement yesterday that REALLY went over the top.  About Hillary’s response to his gaffe, he said, “This is the same person who who took money from financial folks on Wall Street and then voted for a bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for folks right here in Pennsylvania to get a fair shake.”

Note three things.

First, Obama has taken almost as much from “financial folks on Wall Street” as Hillary has, including ~$450,000 from Goldman Sachs, ~$300,000 from UBS, and ~$300,000 from Lehman Brothers, among others.  His total from the “securities and investment” industry is ~$5.5 million - so far.  [N.B. Hillary’s is ~$5.8 million.]

Second, during one of the debates at which the bankruptcy bill was discussed, Hillary made it clear that she voted for the bill because it put a cap on interest rates, even if that cap was outrageously high (30%).  She stated that, had that cap not been put in place, interest rates could well have gone even higher.  Thus, by NOT voting for the bill, Obama was essentially showing that he did not care how high interest rates might go.

Third, notice the use of “folks on Wall Street” and “folks…in Pennsylvania.”  Whether intentional or not, suggesting that Wall Street bankers (who make millions, sometimes tens of millions, per year) and the average PA worker (who may make tens of thousands - or may be unemployed) are “equivalent” as “folks” is an insult to the Pennsylvania voter.


Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 10:17 am Link to this comment

maani, he’s an ideologue. That means his opinion is not worth much. Same thing goes for any ideologues who are left-leaning. Doesn’t matter. If all you see is black and white, you can’t discuss a topic well.

Bill Kristol is NOT someone whose opinion should be taken seriously.

Report this

By Maani, April 14, 2008 at 10:13 am Link to this comment


“No, bert, we should discount Bill Kristol because he is a neo-conservative ideologue.”

This is the textbook definition of ad hominem attack.  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.


Report this

By Lee, April 14, 2008 at 9:34 am Link to this comment

Re: Aegrus

Although I have to admit that Obama is running a very effective campaign ... I also think Obama and his campaign are disingenuous. First of all, Obama is in the lead because he is out spending Clinton 3 to 1. Second, since the media gave Obama a free ride for a year, and never vetted him, we are just now learning who Obama actually is. Third, if the American Public knew about Obama being joined at the hip with Wright, Obama wouldn’t even still be a candidate, let alone in the lead. Fourth, if this campaign transcended race, 90% of blacks wouldn’t be committed to Obama, simply because he’s black. And, all this spin about Obama being a poor black boy, raised by a single Mom ... when he was sent to an elitist school in Hawaii at a very young age, followed by Harvard. Sure, he was involved with a church, and community assistance, but it was the black community, while he was committed to Wright’s ‘Black Values System’. I don’t believe that Obama represents ALL of America, and as we get to know who he really is, his mask appears to be slipping.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 8:13 am Link to this comment

No, bert, we should discount Bill Kristol because he is a neo-conservative ideologue. I’ve read, listened to and watched enough of Kristol’s commentary to know he believes 100% in his agenda, and only serves to discredit progressives. Not that Barack Obama is somehow the great silver bullet, or even very progressive.

You have your head firmly in the sand if you take any commentary of the nature you’ve posted seriously. There is nothing of any importance in the article, which main message is “Barack thinks he’s better than you.” Ad hominem, non-issue, bullshit which has zero ground in reality.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 7:59 am Link to this comment

I know many of you will discount this because it is Bill Kristol, terrible neo-con. But you shouldn’t.

This article is the blueprint for all Republicans and all conservative 527’s on what and how they should frame their attacks on Obama this fall.

Just look at the title of the piece – “The Mask Slips”

And especially read the last paragraph. You can see the beginnings of the coming attacks right there.

This is just an excerpt. Link to full article from the NYT is at the bottom of post.

“But it’s one thing for a German thinker (Marx) to assert that “religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature.” It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we “cling to ... religion” out of economic frustration.

And it’s a particularly odd claim for Barack Obama to make. After all, in his speech at the 2004 Democratic convention, he emphasized with pride that blue-state Americans, too, “worship an awesome God.”

What’s more, he’s written eloquently in his memoir, “Dreams From My Father,” of his own religious awakening upon hearing the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s “Audacity of Hope” sermon, and of the complexity of his religious commitment. You’d think he’d do other believers the courtesy of assuming they’ve also thought about their religious beliefs.

But Obama in San Francisco does no courtesy to his fellow Americans. Look at the other claims he makes about those small-town voters.

Obama ascribes their anti-trade sentiment to economic frustration — as if there are no respectable arguments against more free-trade agreements. This is particularly cynical, since he himself has been making those arguments, exploiting and fanning this sentiment that he decries. Aren’t we then entitled to assume Obama’s opposition to Nafta and the Colombian trade pact is merely cynical pandering to frustrated Americans?

Then there’s what Obama calls “anti-immigrant sentiment.” Has Obama done anything to address it? It was John McCain, not Obama, who took political risks to try to resolve the issue of illegal immigration by putting his weight behind an attempt at immigration reform.

Furthermore, some concerns about unchecked and unmonitored illegal immigration are surely legitimate. Obama voted in 2006 (to take just one example) for the Secure Fence Act, which was intended to control the Mexican border through various means, including hundreds of miles of border fence. Was Obama then just accommodating bigotry?

As for small-town Americans’ alleged “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”: During what Obama considers the terrible Clinton-Bush years of economic frustration, by any measurement of public opinion polling or observed behavior, Americans have become far more tolerant and respectful of minorities who are not “like them.” Surely Obama knows this. Was he simply flattering his wealthy San Francisco donors by casting aspersions on the idiocy of small-town life?

That leaves us with guns. Gun ownership has been around for an awfully long time. And people may have good reasons to, and in any case have a constitutional right to, own guns — as Obama himself has been acknowledging on the campaign trail, when he presents himself as more sympathetic to gun owners than a typical Democrat.

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?
END QUOTE;&oref;=slo

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 7:56 am Link to this comment

Lee, the first two months of this year were focussed on issues, and it was generally decided the leading Democratic candidates are comparatively similar. No one wants to hear a twenty-minute explanation of Hillary’s health care plan again. Undecided voters are liars. Anyone who has paid more than five minutes of focussed attention on these candidates already knows who they will vote for. The rest aren’t even voting.

Right now, it’s about showing the Machiavellian charisma and character required to lead our nation. It’s very surprising to me how Hillary Clinton and John McCain are getting a free-ride now because Hill bitched at the press and McCain cannot be touched because he was a POW.

Funny thing is, Barack Obama is still kicking ass and taking names. That is why he’s going to be our next president.

Report this

By Lauren, April 14, 2008 at 7:50 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I was at the fundraiser where Obama made that statement.  A single statement was pulled from a talk about middle class and working class people in the United States losing ground economically over the past 25 years and their kids not being guaranteed of a better life if they work hard.  The speech was not at all disrespectful to working people, nor was it elitist.  Someone sympathetic to Hillary came to the event and recorded the message, which then had one sentence taken out of the context in which it was spoken and she used it to say that Obama was out of touch and an elitist.

Suddenly, Hillary is Miss Gun herself.  While growing up she would shoot at her family’s vacation house (elite, anyone?) and loves guns.  No doubt we’ll soon discover she was captain of the Wellesley Shooting Club.  Meanwhile, while running for the Senate in NY she was very anti-gun:

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.

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 7:46 am Link to this comment

Please spare me, DC. I haven’t deciphered the exact combination of Kool-Aid, Tang and PCP you are on, but when I do!!! *raises fist*

Report this

By Lee, April 14, 2008 at 7:42 am Link to this comment

It’s becoming obvious that this election is drifting away from the important issues, and who has the judgement and experience to run this country. It’s also obvious from the postings, that a deep seated hatred towards Hillary Clinton keeps emerging, regardless of what she says or does. One of the reasons that religion is playing such a big role, is because of a ‘smoke and mirrors’ spin over Obama’s 20 year relationship with Pastor Wright. Little by little, it’s becoming ‘politically correct’ to disregard the bigger issues, like the fact that Obama’s skyscrapper is built on a foundation of shit. Whites are characterized as racists, when the real racists are the 90% of blacks that are voting for Obama, because he is black. Obama boasts that he worked with the church to help depressed neighborhoods ... but which church? The one the spewed 20 years of anti-American and racist hate speech ... ‘America created AIDS to exterminate the Black race’, etc..  And, the neighborhoods Obama boasts about, were black neighborhoods, while he was pledged to the ‘Black Values System’ ... and, now as a way to justify their argument, Pastor Wright is attacking our country’s founding fathers. Apparently, anything is ‘fair game’ for the Wright/Obama camp to accuse and criticize, while white America has it’s hands tied by the specter and pressure of fabricated ‘Political Correctness’ ... It appears that the Emperor’s new clothes are now worn by Barack Obama ... and merely questioning Obama, or the black agenda will automatically label you a racist.

Report this

By Douglas Chalmers, April 14, 2008 at 7:30 am Link to this comment

And BO wants to bomb innocent villager in Pakistan….. don’t need the Riflemen’s Association to do that!

Report this

By Frostedflakes, April 14, 2008 at 7:16 am Link to this comment

And what does this possibly show or prove?

Report this

By Aegrus, April 14, 2008 at 7:15 am Link to this comment

The point is, of course, Obama is an ultra-wealthy blue-blood who snubs the poor and hungry by not giving enough to charity (side-note, charity can go to hell as an inefficient and corrupt guilt-scam). j’accuse! Obama, the black miser! He’s not like the working man! He’s rolling in ill gotten gains from his extremist Muslim Homo-brothel flag burning society!!! We don’t need rational or valid points to hate Obama! He’s DIFFERENT!

Report this

By Expat, April 14, 2008 at 7:10 am Link to this comment

^ this very late date.  Yes, Nader is brilliant, but what does he offer at this time besides division?  I’m not enamored of our present choices, but they are all we’ve been given and I do mean “given”.  Isn’t this too late to consider an alternative?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 14, 2008 at 7:00 am Link to this comment

Your point being?

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 14, 2008 at 6:57 am Link to this comment

Agree with your post PG,  illegals are just something to attack, like gays and all the other crap they come up with to keep people from looking at the real problems.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 6:56 am Link to this comment

“let’s review, which candidate is
    richer than god”

Yeah!!!!!! Let’s do that Kendall

Barack and Michelle earned close to $1 million in 2006, paid more than $318,000 in taxes and got a $40,000 refund.

Obama and Michelle also live in a $1.65 million house.

Further tax returns show income for the following years:

2005   1,655,106
2004   207,647
2003   238,327
2002   259,394
2001   272,759
2000   240,505

Report this

By Frostedflakes, April 14, 2008 at 6:55 am Link to this comment

Ralph Nader needs to go and test some seatbelts and door hinges and write a consumer report. Period.

Report this
Outraged's avatar

By Outraged, April 14, 2008 at 6:54 am Link to this comment

I agree Purple girl. 

Your quote: “They are the ones who should be rounded up and shipped out.”

You’re too kind.  These crooks should be indicted, tried and then imprisoned for their crimes.  And they are crimes.  Greed, left unchecked, ALWAYS leads to the most heinous of crimes and although their hands are red with the blood of innocents you won’t find a speck of dirt underneath their fingernails.  They don’t muddy themselves with THAT type of work.

Report this

By Frostedflakes, April 14, 2008 at 6:52 am Link to this comment

Very well put. That is the best that can be said about these three candidates. But the even sadder part is what it says about the state of American presidential politics

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, April 14, 2008 at 6:37 am Link to this comment

The economy Burns….

There may be more angry and bitter people, come November, than any of the candidates can even imagine.

Economically this country is sinking.

And all of the hot air from any of them is not going to change that fact.

Hillary, is not only shameless, she’s pathetic, giving up whatever dignity she had left to beg for the job.

At this point I doubt if any of them can stop our decent into Hell.

Certaintly not the Republican party, after all it was the Republicans who sold our soul.

And now the Devil has come to collect.

Report this

By bert, April 14, 2008 at 6:31 am Link to this comment

You write:          “They are the ones who should be rounded up and shipped out.”

Sounds so democratic. Sounds so Constitutional.

Report this
Leefeller's avatar

By Leefeller, April 14, 2008 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

Expat, your post emulates what I would say, so I do not have to.

Shame is a word the Clintons use on others, but in effect do not know what it means.  Maybe Obama could introduce the Clintons, into the real world of humility and guide the shameless Clinton’s to see themselves for what they are.

But, do not bet on it.

Report this

By Conservative Yankee, April 14, 2008 at 6:19 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Token and the Business-shill point fingers, call names, and occasionally discuss Who’s is bigger.

My take?  There is not much to differentiate these folks absent their skin color and gender. So on they go arguing and fighting over nothing behaving more like emotionally disturbed five-year-olds than adults running for this country’s highest office.

Look at these people.. take off your partisan glasses and really look… Do you truly see ANYTHING that makes them of superior quality?

Compare them to a learned family member, a notable teacher, or a personal mentor… How do they measure up?

Report this

By Expat, April 14, 2008 at 5:54 am Link to this comment

^ it would be laughable.  Hillary and McCain have taken a speck of dust and spun it into a planet!  This theater of the absurd is all anyone can come up with?  Oh please; if Hillary and John and their tag team can make this hot news then what does it say about us?  Personally, I’m not happy with any of the three, but, if you really look at “them”; Obama is head and shoulders above the sophomoric rhetoric of the 2 other pathetic candidates.  Is he real?  I don’t know, BUT, listen to him; he has a working brain and takes their shit and turns it into fertilizer.  Obama does have a gift:  The only question is what will he do with it?  We already know what the other two will do; no secrets there.

Report this

By blueshift, April 14, 2008 at 5:48 am Link to this comment

Unscripted moment will leave him running against his own remarks from here till November. To date, Obama’s strength has been his ability to beat Hillary in red states, states than the Dems cannot concede in in this election oif they want to return to the white house. Unfortunately, he’s made this taks very hard, now.  It’s those biutter gun totin’ bitter folks from the middle of Pennsylvania and Kansas and the Ozarks that will vote against their own interests to elect a drinkin buddy. It’s them that put Bush….and Obama just sent them over to McCain.

Report this

Page 1 of 2 pages  1 2 >

Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
Right Internal Skyscraper, Site wide
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network

Like Truthdig on Facebook