Another week, another Pennsylvania countdown thread. I owe Andrew Bolt a link, so see here for a revealing view of the Gallup poll trend as the Reverend Jeremiah Wright affair fades from view.
Reflections on the Miracle of Democracy at Work in the Greatest Nation on Earth
Pennsylvania minus three weeks
Copyright © 2008 Private Media Pty Ltd, Publishers of Crikey.com.au. All Rights Reserved.
Independent news, blogs and commentary on politics, media and business.
Editor: Jonathan Green.
Publishers: Eric Beecher, Diana Gribble.
Level 7, 22 William St, Melbourne, 3000. Ph: 1800 985 502 Fax: (03) 8623 9975
1,141 Comments
Pages: « 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 » Show All
Wow, what have i done to deserve the machine gun spraying of #848, #849 and #850? you Obamaphiles must be worried.
I am petrified, given your track record as an analyst so far Finns.
#849 – Amigo, that is why i like about you Obamaphiles. We are talking about the quality of Obama as a POTUS. You just have to drag Hillary in. Why can’t you, for once, discuss the merit of Obama without dragging in Hillary.
#853 – Amigo, it reminds me of Barry Hall last night. Play the man, not the ball.
Here’s one local’s take on it:
Justin Taylor, 30, the mayor of Carbondale, Pa., has not declared a preference for president. But he said he was leaning toward Mr. Obama and his remarks about small-town voters would not dissuade him. “People are bitter and at the end of their rope,” he said. Referring to Mr. Obama’s comments, he said, “I don’t believe it is a problem.”
…maybe camp Clinton is just desperate?
Finns @854, please. You are a partisan commentator here. You are attempting to construct an argument on the ‘quality of Obama as POTUS’ with the aim of providing comparate supporting Hillary, as you have done here over months. I have no problem with that, but you should acknowledge it, rather than pretend you are providing objective analysis. The is the contest playing out at the moment is Obama vs. Clinton, and what you have presented above mirrors exactly what Clinton surrogates are presenting in the press.
Re 855 – I just saw the punch. Apparently Hall is a pretty fair boxer as well – a class above those washed up league players like Hopoate who are having a shot these days. I don’t see it a problem to mention your constant partisan commentary when you are trying to present yet another in a long line of failed reasons why Obama is about to sink, as well as the fact that each and every prediction so far has been wrong.
Fellow Obamaphiles.
We are going to have to learn to put up with the Chicken Littles running around saying “The sky is falling” every time there is a slight hiccup or controversy from the Obama camp.
The American people, at least the Dems, have shown that they can see through the straw man arguments of the political conservatives and have rewarded Obama with his biggest lead in the campaign BECAUSE of Wright (5.4% on RCP). The endless prognostications here of Wright being the end of Obama and the huge backlash from voters were wrong, and they’ll be wrong again.
I think it’s refreshing to be discussing these “taboo” topics and the only reason we are doing so is that there is a new style of politics changing the landscape in America. The Clinton style of “Vote for me because I’m sort of experienced” doesn’t cut it anymore. Voters want change, original thought, paradigm shift, a narrative and character. Hillary doesn’t offer any of them, and Macca only barely.
Are we heading for another Richardson moment? Below is from the Scotsman, the paper that published the ‘monster’ remarks:
“It’s Obama, stupid: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid
DEMOCRAT grandees Jimmy Carter and Al Gore are being lined-up to deliver the coup de grâce to Hillary Clinton and end her campaign to become president.
Falling poll numbers and a string of high-profile blunders have convinced party elders that she must now bow out of the primary race.
Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.
“They’re in discussions,” a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. “Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence.”
An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton’s rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.”
http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/It39s-Obama-stupid-Carter-and.3976738.jp
sage advice Diogenes.
It is clear that Obama is going to win the nomination unless something unexpected happens . And that won’t be the comments he has made to date.
I think I have underestimated Americans based on the stereotypes engendered by the existing governemnent – stupidity, selfishness, mindlessly violent, and so on. It is incredibly heartnening to see “ordinary” people responding to and wanting more of the realistic assessment Obama gives of their (our) culture and society. And clearly people want a different world. Hillary is simply not able to offer that.
Hillary shoots herself in the foot whilst taking the high ground.
Clinton embarrasses Brown with praise for his Olympic ‘boycott’
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/olympics/article3723291.ece
Pancho #835
Thanks for the blog , think we both have misunderstood which of the 2 Obama speechs (& also which of each others blogs a well) the other was talking about.
There is mutual misunderstanding here which should be clarified.
I may not have said so , but I clearly understood you had quoted Obama’s San Francisco speech in full.
I may not have said so , but I also clearly understood Obama did qualify why the working class were ‘bitter’ in his San Francisco speech.
Yet I said (still correctly) you misquoted me by saying “And you (Ron) say Obama used bitter without qualification” We actually were talking about different things
I was running 2 arguments , one on each of Obama’s 2 speechs , but both speechs had similarities.
At San Francisco it was directed mainly at Ohio & Pensyl. that working class were cynical & felt let down/forgotten and (bitter”) by Governments
At Terre Haute (2nd speech) he generally as a basis extracted ’bitter’ out of the first speech & broadened those affected from 2 states & used Pensyl. as now an example.
Obama also broadened the general message working class are ‘bitter’ that Pollies always promise all and deliver nothing. The basis of his 2nd speech was general of the ‘bitter’
of working class but there is nothing in the overall basis of that 2nd speech to justify the other 3 stereotype nasty descriptions.
Disingenuous at best , although politically clever.
At San Francisco , Obama made 4 ‘negative’ assertions about the hardship
“working class”:
“1/ then they get bitter,
2/ they cling to guns ,or religion or
3/ antipathy to people who aren’t like them or
4/ anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment
as a way to explain their frustrations”
My #800 argument re the San Francisco speech was assertions re 1/ 2/ ,3/ & 4/ re Obama’s eliteness , naïve etc
My #815 argument specifically was referring to the Terre Haute (2nd ) speech
where I said he’d extracted 1/ ‘bitter’ and run an argument why they were ‘bitter’,
but the REST of the words (ie. 2/ 3/ 4/) describing the working class he did not properly explain in that Terre Haute speech .
I said “those words (2/ , 3/ & 4/ ) will haunt him because they came out of his mouth and without any qualification”.
ie. 2/ 3/ & 4/ were statements of FACT according to Obama. at Frisco. They were not even qualified as to they “may” be like that. No, Obama says they actually ‘are’ like that . furthermore , Obama did not even qualify that they may be just a minority like that. No , all of them are like that.
So I think Obama’s descriptions of the hardship ‘working class’ being 2/ 3/ & 4/ are without qualification , of those sterotype type descriptions he made of them.
I think the reason you said “And Ron says Obama used 1/ bitter without qualification” is you thought in my #815 I was referring to 1/ ‘bitter’ in the San Francisco speech , whereas I was referring to 2/ 3/ & 4/ of that speech , the descriptions of which he did not qualify (see above)
THIS was the reason I used the words “the REST of the words describing working class” Obama has not explained & those “rest” of descriptions will haunt him and were made without qualification
And on this point I think with respect you misquoted me due to your misunderstanding I was referring to 1/ bitter instead of 2/ 3/ & 4/ which should now evident..
The exact words I used in #815 are below for you to compare
My #826 I am the one to have made a mistake with you & unwittingly misquoted you. My #826 was addressed to you ‘Pancho’ , and the first 1/3 was an abbreviation of the above reasons to explain why I felt & still feel you misquoted in #816.
Unfortunately , I then decided to address other Obama blogers whose blogs I believed were defending Obama’s speechs but actually pretending he had not even used the nasty stereotype words when his own words showed he had actually done so.
Therefore I said “LETS STICK TO WHAT OBAMA SAID from his mouth”
But I did not say I was referring to anyone or other blogers so naturally it appeared as if addressed it to you because the start of the blog is only addressed to you.
Obviously from my comments here I knew you knew Obama spoke the nasty stereotype words because you had quoted the speech in #816 containing them. I’m sorry I caused this unintended misrepresentation caused by not nominating the other blogers I was refering to.
My exact # 815 words were
“But by cynically extracting ONLY the word bitter’ from his San Francisco speech
and then deivering a very powerful argument based mainly on ‘bitter’.
(and that new argument may be true….its certainly politically brilliant)
However , the rest of the words he used to describe hardship “working class” he did NOT properly explain aay in his subsequent speech
Those words will haunt him because they came out of his mouth and without any qualification”.
I believe my commnet was a politically sound. The price he should pay should be high later in the year but perhaps more Obama disingenuous & oratory may allow him not to pay a big price.
Pancho , I await your comments
A really good meandering essay on the dynamics of the race here, well worth a look:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21231
It covers the dragging on of the ongoing primary season, the different philosophical approaches of the two campaigns, the history and reception of Obama, Clinton’s tactics, shifting reasoning and areas of strength, issues of race, rules and more. More highlights than I could cut and paste, have a look!
Hey Ron, I accept the crossed wires.
I have also said from the outset that I think Obama was pretty clumsy in the remarks he presented. I think there is a fundamental truth to them, but I don’t think addressing Californians about Pennsylvanians, in the way that he did, seems particularly astute. That said, my reading differs from yours – I see Obama’s initial remarks as a direct response to the question posed to him, of how is he going to get Pennsylvanians to vote for him, rather than a smear of the working classes. Again, the remarks were clumsy, and perhaps his intent doesn’t really matter. But I think it is a little early to be seeing a long term trend or predicting how this will play out. Maybe Obama will get a hit, but the tactical nous he has shown so far makes this far from a certainty.
I also see both Clinton and McCain’s responses as pretty high risk. By rubbishing Obama’s comments and claiming people are optimistic (when polls are showing 81% are disillusioned with politics, and their general national outlook) they are both giving Obama a chance to position himself as the empathetic candidate. Remembering that this is playing out against the backdrop of foreclosures and a recession that is only going to get worse, I think they are offering Obama a real opening.
And as a side note, I find it sort of interesting that the RNC has jumped on this one. If they really thought it so damaging a remark, would they not let it slide, then bring it up during a McCain vs. Obama contest, rather than while Obama is still battling Clinton? They hardly made a sound about the Bosnia fiasco. The RNCs actions make me feel they would still much rather be facing Clinton than Obama in the general election.
Sat April 12: NYT Ed., Katy Roberts, says the Message of political cartoons is only fair to medium. Cool Teddy Rall says “Rubbish!”, and proceeds to sink the slipper.
But could Katy be correct? Have Bill Leake and his ilk been wasting our time all these years?
As a regular proselytiser of this form of communication, I apologise to all contributing Bludgers for taking the liberty of forcing people “to work mentally to fill in the missing details”. It’s never fair to over-tax the cerebral churning capacities of the likes of Finn, Growler and Ronaldo. Should they ever suffer a brain explosion endeavouring to suss a cartoon one has here posted, or even if their brains un-necessarily hurt just an eensy weensy bit, I’d never be able to forgive myself.
http://news.yahoo.com/edcartoons/tedrall;_ylt=Arn7mHR.A0ELa_WpQ4OjQkZW_b4F
Pancho
spot on about the RNC’s clear preference to facing Clinton than Obama.
The Clinton’s to the modern day RNC are like blood to a vampyre. They are their lifeforce. Without the Great Satan(a Clinton) to motivate their base , the RNC are in all sorts.
Obama is a double danger to the Republicans. He steals Independants and he doesn’t motivate their base like Clinton does.
McCain was their perfect candidate for Clinton(although i think Hill would have beaten him anyway).
But against Obama, Ol Bomb Bomb aint no match.
Pancho @ 859 – a good bit from that ‘Scotsman’ article that rings true:
“But historically, superdelegates have never gone against the public vote, and party insiders say they would face a revolt, or even riots, if they were to do so now.
Obama’s campaign has been a phenomenon in American politics, bringing in record numbers of new voters and record funding, and few think the superdelegates would dare deny him victory if he wins the popular vote.
It would also invite the unedifying spectacle of a mostly white elite denying an African American candidate a chance for the presidency. “It would cause a scandal to do that,” says one party official. “To turn around to the black community and say, ‘You got the most votes, but no’? Unlikely.” “
Great article Pancho.
Yes Pancho $864 , accept & accepted.
Also was interested for the informative different perspective subsequently on the political fallout re Hillary & McCain to Frisco.
As to Friso & Terre Haute speechs fallout , you said in part
” ….and I don’t think addressing Californians about Pennsylvanians, in the way that he did, seems particularly astute.” and
“I see Obama’s initial remarks as a direct response to the question posed to him, of how is he going to get Pennsylvanians to vote for him rather than a smear of the working classes. Again, the remarks were clumsy, and perhaps his intent doesn’t really matter”
I generally agree with the comment of astutness , although not ‘clumsy’ etc and have additional concerns his comments raise which I’ll mention later
Then you commented on Hillary & McCain’s reaction.
Have a different ‘take’ re McCain’s non “Bosniagate” attack. I think they ignored Hillary’s “Bosniagate” because it was a media beatup of a typical Pollie stunt they ALL do , (even Kevin07 does) which went bad as some do.
So the GOP (correctly I think) knew it was not a big political issue , despite some views here.
Whilst Hillary then repeatedly mis-speaked to get out of it , again this was not a big deal as the deal itself (the “Bosniagate” stunt) was no big deal.
But the GOP do “have” Hillary on ‘mis-speakes” on lots of fair dinkum big political deals alread. Further they already are all on their GOP computors to fire if she is the Nominee
As to the GOP attack on Obama over “Friscogate” , I think (rightly) the GOP
realise this is a damaging issue to Obama in the POTUS race particularly in the crucial mid west but also in swinging middle America type States and will use it to great effect in 3 to 5 months time in those States in the later POTUS election
Re the effect of “Friscogate”:
My points 1/ to 4/ blog # 862 listing Obama’s actual nasty stereotyping words will be played out later in the year by McCain , but perhaps not as bluntly as I’m giving examples of below (with the Obama video running in the TV ads) :
that all ‘working class’ Americans are according to Obama’s own lips without any qualification , are:
gun rattling , bigoted , prejudical , effectively ‘racist’, dumb about trade , dislike all immigrants , anti immigrant so obviously anti European immigrants but not Kenyan,
& religous zealots (compared to Obama’s meanstream church) clinging to religion.
The GOP despite knowing theyll use this issue later anyway , reacted like blood to a shark perhaps more than a fear of Obama. It would have been wiser to say nothing I agree & let Hillary do it. The result I think shows the Repugs machine is not yet on a war footing , probably concentrating on chasing donations
Hillary on the other hand attacked the ‘bitter’ aspect of Obama’s speech. Some blogers then with political ineptitude asserted I was following the Hillary party line of attacking Obama on the ‘bitter’ issue. You know from my blogs that this is false & I was attacking the 3 non ‘bitter’ assertions Obama actually made in Frisco as well as his subsequent Terre Haute disingenuous attempt to hide them with a broad anti Washington all Pollies speech.
In my view my Obama criticism vs. Hillary’s was the politically sounder & the real problem with Friscogate. Further having erroroneously raised ‘bitter’ , a Hillary retort was required (’they are not bitter , they are hopeful’ etc.) .The point you raised of 81% diapproval of Pollies shows how silly ‘bitter’ was to concentrate on
But something to ponder intellectually. Obama is astute & clever , his political ‘machine’ is precision plus , this smart man knowing his ’speech’ was public. He is asked a question how to win Pennsylvania and Obama answers making the most vile stereotyping of all who live in these mid west communities without qualification. It was not an accidental single word like ‘nigger’ but numerous vile words from clever man….so they were not a ‘mistake’ nor with due respect ‘clumsy’
Conclusion
I think what we have here is the reality of what Obama actually privately thinks of hardship working class in US mid west communities , with his politcal atennae
filter turned off.
This demonstrates he is an elitist (at best) , and racial stereotype caster (which I stress is completely different fom being a ‘racist’) and perhaps other ‘attritubutes’ I’m not alittle commfortable with but not sure of.
There have been other POTUS (and PM’s) with these unsavour ‘attributes’ who have been elected , but voters only suspected & some voters therefore gave the benefit of the doubt as to whether they were or not.
The questions are
If I was an uncommitted SD but thinking Obama more risky as I do , I’d be assessing the mid west & other middle American type swing States to see how
effective McCain’s attacks on this NEW issue (plus Patorgate etc) will be on swinging voters & the estimate of electoral damage. I would then vote on who of the Democrat candidates I thought could win POTUS, irrespective of my personal feelings & whoever has the best policys. Is this the role of the SD
Hey Finns -
a woman GG! Does that help with your desire to have a woman as a leader?
no use being policy pure , including a ‘change’ policy , if you are in opposition
Hillary “Duck Hunter” Clinton reminisces fondly about being taught to shoot ducks by her father.
“You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl,” she said.
Does anyone want to bet me that (a) Lake Winola is nowhere near Scranton, (b) Bilary’s dad was never registered to own a gun, or (c) there have never been ducks on Lake Winola.
Clinton touts her experience with guns
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/12/clinton-touts-her-experience-with-guns/#more-6395
872
Diogenes
I’ve suggested she may be ready to hold a seance with Charlton Heston and get his endorsement.
What’s her next party trick? Do some gay bashing? Why not go the whole hog and wear a white sheet?
Tacky does not even begin to describe her behaviour.
Top ten states in the US, by percentage of gun ownership.
1. Wyoming 59.7%
2. Alaska 57.8%
3. Montana 57.7%
4. South Dakota 56.6%
5. West Virginia 55.4%
6. Mississippi 55.3%
7. Arkansas 55.3%
8. Idaho 55.3%
9. Alabama 51.7%
10. North Dakota 50.7%
Among the seven states on this list that have held primaries or caucuses so far, Obama has won 6; Clinton has won only her home state of Arkansas.
#870 – jen – this is my second surprise of you. You should know better that GG does not count a bit. We should be a Republic with our own President. Couldn’t GAF if the GG is a monkey.
Agreed Finns.
Hopefully she is the last GG in Australia before we become a republic.
(btw-what was the first surprise??)
876
Jen
I think Finns was ’surprised’ when you said you owned one of those ‘v’ thingies!
#869
Gosh – would be good to see a POTUS with healthy level of honesty.
But that wouldn’t make any of us feel bitter would it?
jen, the first surprise will come back to me in good time. meanwhile, your boy is in trouble:
By Saturday morning, Mr. Obama was trying to contain the political damage after a series of late-night and early-morning strategy calls in which advisers decided he had to acknowledge that he made a mistake.
His aides made a flurry of calls to superdelegates to explain his remarks and to reassure them about his electability. And Mr. Obama told audiences Saturday that what he had said about people’s economic circumstances was true, if inartfully expressed, but that he was not trying to play down the importance of religion or gun rights.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/us/politics/13campaign.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1&bl&ei=5087&en=e8a5bc530db23329&ex=1208232000
878
junior senator
As opposed to one who fanatasizes about her ducking the bullets?
Yes, it would make a pleasant change from the current POTUS too, who’s lied and lied and lied and lead them into a never-ending war that he’s happy to just hand over to the next Prez.
But let’s kick Obama over a word! LOL
Sheesh, talk about another slow news day.
667
Kirriblli -would anyone be surprised?(being a girl and all..)
Finns-
of course the media is making a mountain out of this: nothing else to talk about except that Clinton is rapidly losing her momentum in Pennsylvania. Obama was right.
Kirri-
I meant #877
Guess who’s gunna be the next centrefold for Guns ‘N’ Ammo?
Elmira Fudd-Clinton, that’s who!! All kitted up with ear-muff hat and shottie, natch. Can’t wait for the cartoons.
Bugs Barack: “Nyaaah……What’s up, Doc?!
Elmira Fudd: “Shhh, be berry berry qwai-ett…… I’m hunting for a Baar-wack!”
I’m not sure why Billary is telling us that she knows how to use a gun. We already knew that. Remember Vince Foster…
Bewdy, found it. The appropriate dialogue happens in the first 70 seconds. That Mel Blanc was a dead set genius. Although scripted, he did both voices, and most of the other Warner ‘toon characters too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8zabHcKxAw
Hillary is a bloody disgrace. For a woman to condone the culture of guns, violence and machismo to try and win the red-neck vote is the biggest sellout of all time. Whatever reservations I had about her before are nothing compared to what I think of her now.
She does not represent me (women) culturally at all.
Next she’ll be lap dancing with the stars.
Blaaah.
I can remember the OO over analysing everything that Rudd said and predicting his end. The vast majority don’t sit down and go through a politicians speech and pull out all the negatives and positives, they go by the impression given.
I would have thought the general impression of Obama’s last speech pretty much sympathised with his audience regardless of the negative angles taken from by his opponents. The same happened with Rudd. If he said something that could be taken in a number of ways the most negative and unintended connotation was emphasised by media and opponent.
His opponents here are trying to depict the negative connotations of the speech. Will the people really think that Obama was intending to produce those negative aspects? I doubt it, they will assume the intended message of support and empathy for the intended audience.
Well said Kina.
Barack’s response.
http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7370613&ch=4226716&src=news
Another difficulty Barack’s opponents have [the same happened with Rudd] is that any mistake he does make or negative event that comes along just puts him in front of the people again and they get to see and listen to him again.
Like with Rudd if you are going to have an issue with your opponent it has to be real one with the people not just nuances of language or unintended implications. Then again who knows how Americans think?
A bit of Pseph stuff from New Scientist magazine.
Why pollsters are flummoxed over Clinton and Obama
30 March 2008
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/mg19726493.800-why-pollsters-are-flummoxed-over-clinton-and-obama.html
Sun April 13: Nobody told ‘em there’d be days like this.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/boondocks;_ylt=A0WTUcIR4wFI1MYAfhQDwLAF
Sun.April 13: Absent-minded Flag Patriots at home.
http://news.yahoo.com/comics/doonesbury;_ylt=Akvda02v2JlRQq79ke.zythL6ysC
Sun April 13: Perception Manager (spin doctor) in training.
http://news.yahoo.com:80/comics/nonsequitur;_ylt=Aq3hNtDGR4TG8uLLxno2prfe.sgF
Yeah, great stuff, Kina. Wonderful to see you slowly being seduced by the Sep scene. Be careful though, it’s the crack cocaine of Psephdom:)
Kina # 899
and that the problem with alot of blogers here.
Important issues here , are often unimportant there. And vice versa.
Which is why Obama supporters here misunderstand that to Americans some things are sacred : guns , patriotism , the flag the military , mainstream religion , ‘white’ immigrants , their lack of prejudice….all the American way
Friscogate & Pastorgate directly attack these sacred American values and when these issues are re highlighted again but in more aggressive ads by the Repugs ,
Obama is guaranteed to lose alot of votes , he otherwise would not have.
From an Australian viewpoint they are non core things at best & not vote changing. To an American they are , which is why Obama spends so much time
making ‘clarifications’.
Rudd never had to make ‘clarifications’ except over Tereize & the Stripper
892 Ron
Can’t agree with you there. Any moron who thinks that “guns, patriotism, the flag, the military , mainstream religion” are sacred would be far too stupid and ignorant to vote for Obama. Everyone knows that Billary’s and the Repugs voting base. He hasn’t lost a single vote and a few intelligent independents will now vote for him.
EC , I note you are here
Never got a chance to reply to your compliment re the media last night , what with replying to about 8 of my Obama supporting friends who were concurrently bloging me also.
My first reaction was to see the trinity of Ronaldo , Ron & Ronnie , allreferred to in the one blog. Then I became alarmed when I re-noticed the “Ronnie”
which can be a females name and thought of another ‘Ferny’ situation. In any event you will be pleased all 3 are well.
Murdoch Press & Fairfax in ‘oz’ (except the ‘Age’) say 80% of market ?
thats a strongly ‘right’ press for the ‘oz’ left to combat.
As for the US Press I’ve found reading previous POTUS Elections US Press , the Democrats get a far better deal than Labor does here , perhaps thats not your experience.
My fundamental objection with the Press is news is an intellectual resource ,
but generally is ’sold’ as a product with the inherrent distortions & is manipulated by Proprietors & Editors & the like frm its original form and context.
So, Obama says people are pissed off about how difficult their lives are, and Hillary says they’re all really strong and anyway she can shoot a duck too.
Hillry for OPTUS.
Or, Hillary for POTUS.
Ron,
as arrogant as it is for me to correct you, it’s blogGers.
sorry- but I figure it’s not just a typo.
Ron # 892: Hence my reluctance to add to this thread, I don’t know what makes them tick.
Have listened/watched the Americans in the Yahoo political chat rooms and it is just like football barracking on cocaine.
Diogenes @893-
(clearly I am the only one here with nothing better to do on a Sunday night, however..).
“Can’t agree with you there. Any moron who thinks that “guns, patriotism, the flag, the military , mainstream religion” are sacred would be far too stupid and ignorant to vote for Obama.”
Is that a pointed comment directed at other fellow Bludgers?
If so, hat tip to you.
Ron,
I am prepared to put a bet on the table, which we can return to in say September, and have a look at the press, reactions and disections of the primary season. I will be very surprised if, along with Mark Penn, Bosnia is not in the handful of the most noted and notable things about Hillary’s campaign.
This is not correct. I have posted the context of Obama’s words at 816. The above comment is hyperbolic, and further, you argue away ‘nigger’ but not ‘cling to guns’ as accidental? By all means argue for Clinton, but I think you would strengthen your argument, and make it easier for others to empathise with your position, if you tried to look at this event, and events like these, from the prespective of an Obama supporter as well. It is obvious that many people, even segments of those so labelled, actually agree with Obama’s comments. As I see it, the words remain ill chosen, but fundamentally true. The issue is the political fallout – of which, judging from past experience I personally believe there will be a great deal – not the ‘vileness’ or otherwise of Obama or what he has said.
from 900 – there will NOT be…
Pages: « 1 … 16 17 [18] 19 20 … 23 » Show All