I had this strange conversation with one of my students who argued that Rush's "the ends justify the means" discourse was an acceptable form of argumentation.

::sigh::

The only possible way this gaffe will get traction is if McCain continues to hammer it (a nice response to any attack about McCain having said he doesn't know anything about economics) or if the local news in Pennsylvania runs with it.  

But Obama is a Media Darling and Bill Clinton screwed up today so Obama will get away with it mostly unscathed. That's why he is the better choice for Dem nominee. More . . .

let me assume, for the moment, that you, BTD were alive and conscious during the 2000 & 2004 elections. that being the case, surely you must have noticed the "liberal" media bashing of candidates gore and kerry. to miss it required you to be comatose.

in the case of messrs. gore and kerry, most of said bashing was made up nonsense ("claims to have invented the internet", "elitest sailboarding", etc.), that the repub/right-wingnut smear machine picked up on and pounded into the dirt. of course, the most infamous was the "swiftboaters for truth" gang, flogged incessently by the "liberal" media.

ufortunately, with obama, they needn't even make stuff up, his script writes itself; rezko, wright, throwing white grandma under the bus for "racial" understanding, etc.

my male cat is more electable than sen. obama. he (my cat) freely admits he's lazy, has never listened to me (or a sermon) his entire life, and really just wants his tummy rubbed. what's not to like?

The fact that General Electric wants a Democratic nominee opposed to universal healthcare isn't reason for the Democratic Party to nominate GE's candidate.

versus

2)What about the old repeating cycle--where the GOP recycles the same old complaints?
Actually this highlight on Obama is a recycling of the same ol' windsurfing Kerry kind of theme (see www.dailyhowler.com for long term records--Bob's great on this.) Hey they're even using flip-flopper again!

I personally resent Obama's comments but how do we push back against too much vilification of Obama?

To get elected in America, you have to bow and scrape before the religious people, and tell them how great their values are, how important faith is, and how they're superior to unbelievers.  You have to tell them stories about your own religious belief, and how it's made you a better person (than if you were an atheist).

Bill Scheifer: people will find it untrue, condescending, insulting.... will need an explanation form Obama and MAYBE an apology.  The reporter was bothered, others in the room bothered.

Obama camp responded that they did not have a tape. Second response about anger with govt, politicians saying anything to get elected, McCain, Bush.....  I guess they haven't found anyone to blame yet.

Oops.  Our economy is bad!  And it's those foreigners!

Obama wants to play kissyface with the liberal/wealthy wing of the Democratic party, while the rank and file will sit at home - quite possibly polishing their guns while reading scripture.

"the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them..."

This is not bad. This is the reality. But...

"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."

In one sentence, he's called them bitter and angry, racist, and parochial. He mis-stepped -- badly -- about the rural gun culture, which in PA is based around hunting more than anything else. And he's even managed to imply that their faith isn't about hope or anything positive, but that it's rooted in that same bitterness, and that it's a panacea of sorts. The implication is that the faith of poor people isn't genuine, that it's a last resort.

I'm from a small town in PA.  I know how the people he's describing are.  No one in their right mind will respond to that with, "yeah, you're right.  We are like that.  We do suck.  We cling."  There are so many people who are bitter in PA - what do you think being an Eagles fan is all about! but they are hard workers.  They strive to do better.  And generally I don't know anyone who clings to guns or religion to explain their frustrations.  Not that guns could possibly "explain" frustrations anyway.

This is a completely stupid statement, and it might be good to ask ourselves, if Obama completely misreads a large segment of the Dem demographic this way, should we nominate him?  How would he govern?  This is the kind of thing that will make PA red.  Because right now, PA is blue.  There are many, many principled Dems out there across the class structure.  They're bitter but they're nothing like what Obama described.  And saying that in front of millionaires at a fundraiser?  That's not just pandering...

Regarding Obama's condescending remarks about working-class whites in PA, what I find fascinating is how the media is apparently trying to help him dig out of it--just as with Reverend Wright.

"Oh, we can EXPLAIN this!"

Fine. Explain away. But a few million alienated lunch-pail Democrats will be voting for McCain in November if Obama is the nominee. Don't they understand that?

Isn't it the height of narcissism for people to think that because THEY can explain what Obama says and does to their satisfaction, the issues are all resolved?

When you have to explain something in politics, you're in trouble. Period. The media seems to get this regarding anything Hillary has had to explain. But they really do seem to have this weirdly naive, magical thinking about Obama. I honestly think they believe the hype.

It's creepy. And they are helping to solidify Obama's position as the nominee of the Democratic party. But they are woefully out of touch--as are the Democrats--with working class people in this country, who will object to Obama not because of his race as much as because of his associations with the far left and his Kerry-like cluelessness about the working class.

Can you really be saying that because Obama is getting away with his stupidity that he would be a better choice than Hillary Clinton who is vilified daily - mostly based on her gender?

I don't want to vote for Obama.
I won't vote for Obama.
Statements such as these from Obama only strengthen my total indifference to his candidacy. If he is the nominee, this indifference will transfer seamlessly to the democratic party that put him out front.

I want to vote for someone with character.
I want to vote for someone with integrity.

If your criterion for a good nominee is someone who is teflon coated then you are smiling favorably upon the likes of Reagan, who was a disaster, and Bush 2, an even bigger disaster.

"Barack Obama is a remarkably eloquent man and turning into a remarkably capable politician.  But if the Senator believes it's smart to insult voters from a state critical to your success, he's hit one of the worst false notes yet in his campaign.

Yeah, I know what his campaign said, and that may have been what he meant. But a sophisticated candidate doesn't refer to voters in language that can be construed as derogatory or insulting.  Obama asserted Pennsylvania voters are bitter and so simple and lacking in maturity and intelligence that they address their frustration by clinging to primitive and reactionary crutches rather than addressing their problems in constructive ways.

It's divisive.  And not the way to attract the voters you need most."

But Obama is a Media Darling and Bill Clinton screwed up today so Obama will get away with it mostly unscathed. That's why he is the better choice for Dem nominee.

That may be the case heretofore and possibly through the Democratic Convention but it will not be the case come the general election. The knives will come out and slice and dice Obama into shredded Barack of Weak. Those pesky issues: Wright, Rezko, inexperience, mistatements, the lack of commitment to Democratic values and ideas, the fact that his negatives continue to rise.

But I still don't pick my candidates based on their adoring media profiles. I'd rather lose an election on principles than win one on veneer.

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. Thabout ey feel so betrayed by government that hen thwey hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical 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."

He's all over the place. He starts by highlighting racial 'intimations' (and suggests he disagrees with it) and then turns back around and verifies it's a racial issue.  And THEN he finally makes it to the gaffe in this thread.

I wonder what he was thinking...I mean he obviously wanted to distance himself from the racialization but did his political/campaign side make him interject the qualifier about himself?

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

And for the record, I'm the queer son of a minister, and his campaign has fascinated me from an ethical and identity politics perspective.  So the above comment isn't meant to be a troll, it's meant to highlight what I see as the line minorities walk in the political realm.

Personally I feel obama's campaign has done a disservice by exploiting race time and time again.  On the other hand, part of me feels that Clinton's campaign has been far too weak and too slow in dealing with sexism (there should have been a humorous laden address on the issue, her acheivements, and her many fashions/hair styles back in december).  

Errol: I'm dying to see if this has legs.  Next time he goes to a small town, let's see what he says, what people think.  Wright didn't matter.  The setting is an issue.  One thing to discuss another to say with latte drinking liberals.