home

"He's Not Running for Sociologist In Chief"

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:30:39 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

On MTP the Press, Bob Shrum said:

[Obama's] not running for sociologist in chief, he's running for president. So I think he wishes he hadn't said it quite this way . . .

Indeed. As I wrote:

Personally, I have never seen a pol say what Obama said. Political scientists, bloggers, intellectuals, ME, yes. But pols? Never. See, pols have a different job - get votes. Obama already has trouble getting white working class votes. This statement certainly does not help him.

Fighting for the "truth" of the statement would be simply bad politics. Obama has expressed his regrets and hopefully, will move on. Maybe his online "creative class" supporters will catch up soon.

< What Bill Clinton Said And What Obama Said | CNN Faith Forum With Dem CandidatesTonight >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    "He's Not Running for Sociologist In Chief" | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Shrum also says that Hillary has lived (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:39:31 PM EST
    in a bubble for 25 years. Funny---I don't get that feeling hearing her talk. In fact, while she's not the most polished or charismatic speaker, she's much more refreshing and earthy than many prominent Democrats.

    And Shrum (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:41:13 PM EST
    has such a good track record that we should listen to his opinion, why?

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#4)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:41:53 PM EST
    He is write, imo, in the quote I give.

    Parent
    um RIGHT (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:42:06 PM EST
    not write.

    Parent
    That is what makes it noteworthy (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:41:29 PM EST
    Shrum hates the Clintons and is clearly for Obama.

    even he gets it.

    Parent

    Bill was the only Dem candidate (none / 0) (#39)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:26:45 PM EST
    for President since Carter to not employ Shrum.  Could be why Shrum doesn't like them and one of the reasons Bill won.  :-)

    Casual word:  Bob Shrum is never right about anything!


    Parent

    FWIW (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:50:06 PM EST
    It's not even true.

    From a sociological standpoint, Obama is still wrong.

    Just to point that out.

    Well not that I thing two Pro-Clinton supporters (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:55:44 PM EST
    would say say anyting less but lets give it a stab.  Due to decreased ecionomic status some voters have defered to issues that are not economic in nature.  Such as immigration law, free trade law, Gun rights.  And if you have studied sociolligy then in times of depression, recession or economic durress the % of individuals joining and attending religious services is magnified.  I'm interested in your take on the statements and how you judge them to be untrue.

    Parent
    And to completely refute this argument ; (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by leis on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:16:03 PM EST
    PA is blue.  So, in saying they are voting against their economic interest , you are saying that voting Democrat is against their economic interest.  His comments make no sense.  He is attempting to explain to wealthy donors why voters in PA aren't voting for him.  His comments were clumsy and elitist and no amount of gyrating is going to change that fact.

    Parent
    Now, why didn't I say just this? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:31:52 PM EST
    You are a logician.  Bingo.

    Parent
    and no one seems to be (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by Kathy on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:15:09 PM EST
    concentrating on the words that preceded the slander against middle class, small town Americans, which had a race element--I am too lazy to find the quote, but it was something like, "They don't want to hear it from a 47 year old black man..."

    Parent
    of course not because according (none / 0) (#72)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    to him they are bitter and racist because they are poor.  Also I loved the way he then blames Bill Clinton for it.

    Parent
    The best analysis of this that I've seen (none / 0) (#77)
    by RalphB on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
    anywhere.  Absolutely pitch perfect.

    Anglachel

    Parent

    Thanks (none / 0) (#82)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:19:48 PM EST


    Parent
    The statements where not targeted souley (none / 0) (#105)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:46:04 AM EST
    towards PA although you can see the voting trend in the small towns rural areas he was mentioning ALL voted for Bush in 2000 and 2004.  The populated urban areas make up a majority of voters in which Democrats won at a staggering % hence ensuring victory in the state.  But in other states without these heavilly populated Democratic bases the result is a red state.  Hence Bush victory in 2000 and 2004.  So please attempt to refute my argument if you wish but data says I might be on to something here.  

    Parent
    Stereotyping is not being (none / 0) (#109)
    by tree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    "on to something". To say that ALL the small towns voted for Bush is to stereotype and despite your claim that the "data" is behind you on this, it isn't. This is no less stereotyping than it is to claim that prison "data" shows that all blacks are criminals. (NOTE:I am not stating anything about "all blacks"; I am using a particularly pernicious stereotype to point out that claiming "all small towns" or "all small town voters" voted for Bush is an incorrect stereotype.

     First off, even in small PA towns that Bush won, there were voters who didn't vote for him. And data shows that there was variation in the support for Bush or Kerry among the small towns and rural counties in PA. Kerry won some rural counties.  And remember, Obama was talking about Democratic voters who were leaning towards voting for Clinton, and weren't buying his pitch. He wasn't talking about Republicans in small towns, who were the majority of Bush voters throughout the state in 2004. And while Kerry's win margin in PA was small(about 2%), Bill Clinton won the state by 10% points in 1992 and 1996. I don't have the detailed data with me on those contests, but I'm willing to bet that the difference in percentage was due to Bill doing better with rural and small town voters.

    If you want to look at some data, instead of assuming you just know it all already, here's a link to PA 2004 results by party affiliation, gender, and by county.

     

    Parent

    I never claimed that every individual voted a (none / 0) (#110)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 07:48:47 PM EST
    certain way.  And your map actually proves my point.  Thank you for providing evidence I was actually looking at that when I was writing my post.  Obama also made no direct correlation as to Clinton in his remarks only of the historical economic issues in the community and how its difficult for him to connect to them since they have heard empty retoric for years.  So don't be confused I was not assuming anything please study your map and make a real argument you just sound Yes I'll say it bitter yourself.  Perhaps the truth is hard to accept.  And it's interesting about your point on Clinton one at which I conceed but also mention I didn't reference.  But you need to conceed that his administraion that did increase employment nation wide did little to help these communities. Why are you so angry anyways if you want to debate that's fine, but you read my post then interpret it into a tangled web of your own concept.  Maybe your just following your leaders strategy.  

    Parent
    Um, you think trade policy is not (none / 0) (#23)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:59:35 PM EST
    economic in nature?!
    What Obama said made no sense, nor did this comment of yours, particularly. Why not drop it?

    Parent
    You are correct trade policy is an economic (none / 0) (#106)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:51:09 AM EST
    issue and although I question why you take one point and try to discredit the entire statement I'll bite.  While trade is an economic issue resentment for trade is a feeling one it which causes an emotion and action that may not drive you to vote on what might be in your best interests.  Like the Columbia Trade agreement I believe is sound and could help the economic situation in the mid-west the major issues holding it back are labor and environmental concerns.  But the resentment in these areas and will drive them to vote against it even if it could be in their economic interests.

    Parent
    Simply that (none / 0) (#24)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:00:02 PM EST
    Lets put it this way.

    There could be 100% employment in Pennsylvania, and they'd still be interested in Religion, Guns, Immigration Reform, and Gun rights.

    Capeesh?

    Parent

    Every one of those issues is economic (none / 0) (#27)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    in nature, even economically necessary, to a lot of folks.  How can you say they're not?  That's why there's a hyphen in socio-economic, because so many such issues are embedded in both parts of the term.

    Explicate, please, as to how any or all of these issues are not economic -- to the populace, not to sociologists studying us as if we're bugs under a microscope.  

    Parent

    Shoot! (none / 0) (#29)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:14:47 PM EST
    What was the name of that economics book again?

    Anyway, one of the authors said that economics is just sociology with measurable benchmarks.  I agreed almost immediately.  Pure sociology is hard to research, but economics is much easier.  It's easy to track the flow of resources, much harder to track the flow of relationships.

    Parent

    You are more versed than I. (none / 0) (#51)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:37:23 PM EST
    I'll debate the candidates on horticulture any day!

    But I know just enough about socio- and econo-mics to embarrass myself.

    Parent

    I don't do rabbit food. (none / 0) (#69)
    by Fabian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:12:01 PM EST
    The rabbits eat it.  The dog eats the rabbits though, so I guess I can call it even.

    Parent
    Two problems (none / 0) (#108)
    by BarnBabe on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 08:57:02 AM EST
    First of all, there is a huge population of long time practicing Catholics which BHO has probably never seen before. Thus, he thinks because of the economic problems, they are clinging to religion. That is a wrong assumption. They cling to religion out of tradition and faith. This accounts for other religions also. Economics in Penna is not related to religion or guns. Secondly, Hunting is very big here. Not the Dick Cheney hunting where someone releases the prey in front of him. Because it is the country, people do own weapons for many reasons.

    I use these two as an example. In Hazleton, they have had anti-imigration laws establised and of course, thrown out. And most of the state is white with the exception of the Philly area. And THAT is what BHO was talking about. He was saying it was hard for him to make inroads in Penna. As for bitter, I am sure he ran into people who wanted to discuss issues and that was not the usual case. Like the price of Gasoline, his health care plan, and when are we getting out of Iraq. They didn't want to hear his smooth talking stump speech.

    Parent

    Well, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by frankly0 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:58:59 PM EST
    what's really important about Obama's statement is not so much whether it's true as an objective "analysis" of small town voters, it's whether it truly reflects Obama's own moral and psychological assessment of the beliefs of those voters.

    He essentially asserted that, for these voters, guns, religion, and bigotry are crutches that they use to deflect from their own bitterness. Inherently, that is a moral and psychological judgment by Obama of those voters. It says, on the one hand, that their attachment to these things is deluded. And it's impossible not to read in the statement a moral judgment that the beliefs and values are themselves negatives. What, after all, unifies all the values that Obama lumps together in the list?

    The point is, the real truth exposed in the sentence is not so much one about the voters, it's one about Obama's own moral attitude toward these voters.

    It's the condescension that is unforgivable in Obama's assertion, the utter dismissal of the voters' values as authentic and worthwhile.

    And using it (none / 0) (#66)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:06:31 PM EST
    to explain his own inability to win those voters over.  I think his implication is pretty clear.


    Parent
    Yeah totally agree I've had a few posts regarding (none / 0) (#6)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:44:50 PM EST
    the truth of the statement, but that from a political standpoint it's a dud.  It's to easy for his opponents and warp them exactly into what he was talking about.  It does bother me that Pro-Clinton bloggers fresh off the KoolAide also use this as an attacking point though since these are the sociallogical issues that have caused the last eight years of an oppressive administration.  Not even considering these are real issues and we need to be honest about them so that we can root cause why it happens.  But Obama supporters and independents will look at Clinton statements and her supporter statements and see them as just not being honest in touch with reallity.  This will solidify support against her.  If she would have taken the high road and stayed away from it or acknowledged the truth in the words but not supported the wording used she would have been seen more as an acceptable candidate if these statements do turn the election and she becomes the nominee.  Obama's problem here is not dishonesty its mention the words clinging to religion and guns remove these from the statement and you remove the political land mine.  I do believe he will get through this fine, his speach the following day has almost 500,000 views over the last few days and the more people who see I believe will relate to what he meant.  But with this added to Wright and other minor issues will cause some major hurdles in the GE.

    Okay, if we're going to be honest (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:12:15 PM EST
    about these factors facing Americans, then a few questions arise from reading your comment.

    For starters, doesn't it strike you as at all dishonest for Obama to open this important discourse about people more than 2000 miles away from them, and with people who then laugh at them?

    Also, isn't it then quite honest of Clinton to address these issues openly and with the people being talked about?

    Parent

    And!!! (none / 0) (#32)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:17:29 PM EST
    And, he made the comments when he didn't believe/realize that the targets of his comments would ever hear them.  

    To me, he was trying to be one with the bazillionaire row-ites by belittling the working class.  And he thought he could get away with it, because the little guys would never hear.

    Parent

    scooby reference! (none / 0) (#71)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:19:35 PM EST
    And he would have gotten away with it if it hadn't been for those rotten kids (and their blogs)!

    Parent
    The truth is the truth whether you say it (none / 0) (#85)
    by voterin2008 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:39:41 PM EST
    in New York, Scranton PA, LA or in Portland Oregon. And yes I don't believe he purposely started this as you can see telling the truth isn't always welcomed in our cookie cutter society.  We would like our lies told to us with a smile and sprinkle spread on top.  

    An yes I believe Clinton could address it but not in the framing "I don't see or feel the bitterness and frustration" of the American people.  To me it makes her seem alouf of how the American people really feel.

    I also feel by attacking in that mode it drives Democrative voters and independent voters against her.  Not Clintonites or the Republicans because they don't need any addition reasons to vote for or against but with Obamonites and independents who are fead up with our two party system.  This will only solidify that she will opportunisticly attack and be dishonest regarding the current state that does have many voters and citizens feeling bitter and frustrated.

    Now attack Obama on this issue he said it but attacking it as dishonest, out of touch, not accurate is simply attacking the middle and lower class who are frustrated with our political system that acts outside our interests in the name of self reliance and the ingringes even more on our social liberties.

    Parent

    It's not true, not by a long shot (none / 0) (#100)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:30:17 AM EST
    of the gun I don't have.  But on every other count, he insulted me and mine.

    You are attempting to cleverly deal only with the "bitter" part and evade the rest of what he said about religion, etc.  So you think I'm stoopid, too.

    And you also think that instead of a sincere apology and actually listening to us, talking to us instead of about us, what we want to hear is another attack on the other candidate?

    Uh uh.  He's making it worse, and so are you.

    Parent

    It's not making it worse discussing points of (none / 0) (#107)
    by voterin2008 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 05:08:34 AM EST
    view never make it worse.  You have your opinion and I have mine.  I'm a 30 year old Christian male, democrat, lower income due to my job being shipped overseas after 9 years of service and I see his comments as being sincere.  Now disagree be bitter as I read in your statement and assume that I'm considering you to be stupid but I don't.  I simply see that making my strife and what I feel is an honest interpretation of how I feel and many others feel into an attack one it which you are on the wrong side is not ok.  So if your mad at Obama then fine don't vote for him I will, but after these comments it will be difficult for me to vote for Clinton because obviously unlike you I am bitter and I don't think she is in touch with my concerns.  And I have a feeling with 80%+ of the country saying it's going in the wrong direction that I'm not alone.

    Parent
    Um, it wasn't even true---in fact, what (none / 0) (#8)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:50:35 PM EST
    he said was barely coherent.
    Obama definitely can string words together nicely, but he is far too glib on important issues.

    Parent
    that was my view (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:51:25 PM EST
    But it is immaterial politically if it is "true."

    Parent
    That Obama's statement (none / 0) (#13)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:54:22 PM EST
    Is also a shot at Democrats, while it was a dud with rural voters, it's also solidifying Democratic support against him.

    Parent
    Arrogance (none / 0) (#9)
    by stillife on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:51:07 PM EST
    thy name is Obama.

    From the Newsweek article Jeralyn posted earlier today, he's confident that he can walk into a room of skinheads and win everybody over.  He has said in the past that the more we see of him, the more we like him.

    For a candidate who relies so heavily on his charm (I must have some genetic defect that renders me immune to it), he has a remarkable lack of the common touch.  He seems to view large segments of the Dem base like a scientist looking at a bug under a microscope.

    it's not just you (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by angie on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:56:31 PM EST
    I'm not bowled over by his alleged "charm" either.  "Empty suit" is the best way I've seen it put, but he also strikes me as a cardboard cutout -- what someone "imagined" a politician is supposed to "look like" but without any real feeling or depth.

    Parent
    I think (none / 0) (#88)
    by boredmpa on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:48:22 PM EST
    snark
    I want a "McGovern 08" t-shirt.

    It'd be safer than wearing a hillary t-shirt here in SF (outside the castro)


    Parent

    It's not charm (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by badger on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:04:23 PM EST
    It's narcissism.

    Parent
    Does it make you feel better to call everyone (none / 0) (#11)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:52:39 PM EST
    who disagrees with you "online creative class?" As I said yesterday, i will trade you biographies to see which of the two of us is more closely a part of the elite, and I still disagree with you. The fact is your argument places Democrats in an impossible position. The reality is that no matter how they word it the GOP will react in the same way. They will call us elite. Did it matter what Kerry or Gore did as to what they called them? Did it matter what Clinton did for them to call him slick willy? Your argment , at least to me, woould make more sense if there was no prior history which says that the GOP will do this regardless. For your opinion to make sense, one would have to conclude that a candidate would have to run a perfect storm race in which they never say anything that slightly allows the GOP to spin it. Apprently now, because the GOP can spin the truth (and clinton) into something bad that means we shouldn't be using it.

    I find it fascinating on the level of Democrats getting anything done that now they can't tell the truth or else risk losing. I also find it interesting that you are now citing Bob Shrum.

    So, you probably think Tuzla was the (none / 0) (#14)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:55:12 PM EST
    gaffe of the ages. I doubt it. In fact, I would like to see polling to back up that assertion, because the horrible Tuzla "lie" is not something that will resonate with voters, IMO.
    Obama keeps stepping in it though. That has to bother you.

    Parent
    Have you been reading every other (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:55:17 PM EST
    left blog for the last 4 months? BTD is hardly the only one to use "creative class." In fact, it's pretty clear that when he does use it, he's being sarcastic.

    I think you need to check your reading comprehension.

    Parent

    Bruh is better than his comments today imo (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:58:18 PM EST
    why he is upset with me making fun of people he himself has disagreed with is hard for me to understand.

    Parent
    Because my only team (none / 0) (#40)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:28:24 PM EST
    is the one in which the Democrats move to the left so that the country as a whole moves to the left of center. However, inartful it was, I don't want what was a potential reaching out of Obama's hand toward the left of the party to be destroyed. He should have and did corrected his wording,b ut I don't want him to lose the point of what was really being said. I also want to see policies come out of it that are Democratic rather than spun by the GOP. My fear is that in attacking the thought behind it, the result will be no polcies that get at why this anger exists. Elections maybe short term, but my points aren't. If Democrats want to win not  just this election, but others they need to address these issues. Ia m not convinced that any democratic president who is unable to speak the truth of these sorts of things will be allowed to make any progressive changes. Are you?

    Parent
    I believe that YOU believe (none / 0) (#42)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:31:05 PM EST
    Obama will move the country to the left; however, Clinton supporters believe no such thing, for a variety of reasons.
    I don't see how insulting the people that a more Progressive government would help is good for Obama.

    Parent
    I don't support either candidate (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:43:20 PM EST
    My candidate was Edwards. I am now officially neutral. If Clinton says something thats left ward, I support her. If Obama, I support him. The one thing that is certain is that I want to kick McCain's ass.

    Parent
    Excuse me but how did those statements (none / 0) (#45)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:32:09 PM EST
    help the Democratic Party?  Also when did Mr Obama become the left of the Party?

    Parent
    And also are you saying that what he (none / 0) (#47)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:33:09 PM EST
    said was the truth?

    Parent
    It is not truth (none / 0) (#50)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:36:10 PM EST
    to call people bitter and say they are easily manipulated. How does that help? Rural and poorer voters have responded to Clinton's concrete policy proposals. She says here's how we can make things better. If people are "bitter" about their economic fortune, the candidates need to be addressing their concerns and not criticizing them for voting on social issues.

    Parent
    If you think people who are living in areas with (none / 0) (#57)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:49:43 PM EST
    11 percent unemployment rate like from where I grew up aren't a little bitter, then I don't know if you fully appreciate what that sort of unemployment rate can do to you. You come to accept it, but it does make you angry and not believe the Democrats on economic issues.  

    The reality is we have a 2 party system. If you the two main issues people vote on overall are economic and social issues, and you don't believe them ont eh economic issues, you are going to vote on the social.

    His point was actually about the politicians and their failure to enact policies. Reading the entire comments as wella s the follow up. That's what I got from all of it and others, including CNN , etc got the same thing I did. The idea that my interpretation is just mine is well not backed up. It can be spun either way- thats's what makes it inartful.

    But, that doesn't mean that your interpretation that happens to support whom you support for a candidate is right. Like I said, and I get in trouble for this- I am Switzerland right now.  So i get it from the Obama people and the Clinton people.

    Id on't see a difference between Obama and CLinton. I could careless who gets the nom so long as they beat McCain and will bring progressive policies to the table. To the degree this was at least an attempt to move in that direction it the degree to which I don't want to throw the baby out with the bath water

    Parent

    Black people in urban ghettos have (none / 0) (#74)
    by zyx on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:33:08 PM EST
    high unemployment.

    Has Obama made condescending comments like "bitter, clingy" about black people who have high unemployment and a great deal of economic hardship?

    Parent

    Uhm- do you know who I am (none / 0) (#83)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:26:25 PM EST
    And yeah, he's discussed that. That was the point of his response to the Wright situation. I think you people honestly post day to day, week to week, not knowing to whom you are talking. I am not some low information voter you can throw this stuff at. Jeez.

    Parent
    If he did I would like to see it. Do you (none / 0) (#84)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:29:29 PM EST
    have any links where he called black or white city dwellers bitter and clinging to their faith and guns etc.

    Parent
    What do you think his comments about (none / 0) (#92)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:04:49 PM EST
    Wright were meant to do?  Your comments tell me as I suspected that many of you don't understand the anger that Wright represents. You also don't understand why many AAs were annoyed with Obama even as they understood it. I suspect if you talked to many working class voters they would have the same reaction. In fact, I am certain that if it were not filtered through the spin cycle and they heard him in full context many of them would understand. The only thing that separates this situation from Wright is race, and the fact you understand one, but not the toher.  I see you want to play the childish game of "can you show me the exact wording that he just used here."  If that's the game you are playing- again wrong person. I don't play that. You asked what I thought was a substantive comparison. I gave you one. That of him saying that he disagreed, but understood, with Wright who also comes out of the school of thought amongst a lot of black over anger and bitternness about what's happened to them in this society. If you want to get into that and discuss it, then fine. Because this is substantively the same conversation whether you know it or not. Its the one that quite frankly has been happening since slavery- low income whites and their issues and blacks and their issues, and how in, fact they are very much the same or similar issues. But to pretend that he hasn't at all discussed it just because its you being disingenuious, and I am really not interested in that sort of conversation. if you get back to me with something interesting, I will respond, but if it's more of this sort of analysis, then I won't.

    Parent
    I sort of agree with you here... (none / 0) (#93)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:23:46 PM EST
    but - rerunning the title of this diary...He's not running for psychologist in chief and merely acknowledging the different sides while attempting to straddle a middle line doesn't constititute leadership at all. It stands for nothing except for a politician that merely wants everyones votes.

    When did Obama become our inner voice on race? When he decided to give 'his major speech on race' because the issue of Jeremiah Wright threatened to blow his campaign apart.

    When did Obama dismiss the collective 'bitterness' of mid-western small town folks? When he was in front of wealthy donors in San Francisco.

    When did Bill and Hillary Clinton become the source of all things terrible in the Democratic party? When he decided to run for president.

    The sad, sorry fact is that he has made this all about him and his success.

    How could he not anticipate that the path to getting the nomination which entailed a full throated smackdown of Bill and Hillary Clinton would not leave an angry and damaged Democratic party?

    Parent

    the party isn't damaged (none / 0) (#95)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:40:08 PM EST
    I just saw a post over a daily kos, because I was mostly bored, and wanted to see what hard core obama supporters are saying. they are posting video clips from sites like foxnews- shocking to me. as i suspected, the voters get it. the PA voters, one of whom isn't going to vote for Obama, said he agrees with Obama that voters are bitter over job loses, and he agrees with the reasons why. So when you say what you are saying - you need to take a step back, realize what you are doing , and realize its only you a small subset of voters who have lost the ability to tell whats important here. Sorry, but not buying the whole "you agree with me part." If you did, you wouldn't try to turn this into Clinton v Obama. Neither is particularly without clean hands in terms of what you write.

    Parent
    The thing is... (none / 0) (#98)
    by white n az on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:22:16 PM EST
    that too many Hillary supporters are getting turned off by his attack vectors.

    Just today, he strikes back by comparing her to Annie Oakley in a derisive way. Is he so completely tone deaf that he doesn't realize that every time he uses femininity as a wedge that he loses more support that he will never get back in a general election.

    I'll say this...thus far, McCain has only insulted our intelligence. Barack manages to insult so many in such insidious ways that if he does emerge with the nomination, he will have done so by insulting women, small town mid-westerners, Bill Clinton and voters in FL and MI.

    Every time he loses another 'small subset of voters' it furthers the electability argument that Hillary is making about Obama.

    I think that what we will discover in the upcoming primaries is that Obama has completely capped out and each 'small subset' that he loses seals his fate.

    Parent

    your post as usual from online supporters of (none / 0) (#111)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:53:31 PM EST
    either candidate is over the top. most polls don't suggests voters generally feel as you do, do you realize this?

    Parent
    Obama (none / 0) (#97)
    by zyx on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:04:25 PM EST
    "discussed that".

    In a condescending manner?  He put down black urban voters?  

    Please tell us more about this.

    Parent

    look it up. (none / 0) (#112)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 09:53:58 PM EST


    Parent
    On what issue (none / 0) (#53)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    Do you think Obama is pushing the Democratic Party, let alone the country, more to the left?

    Parent
    I've been seeing opennings of him moving in that (none / 0) (#59)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:53:04 PM EST
    direction lately. My fear is that all these attacks on him will insure he wll not move leftward. that he and others will perceive of it as this isn't what we can do to win. Like any politician, he wants to win. I have no problem with this. I want him to think that he won based on moving a little bit left, and the more we push him in that direction, the more likely his policies will reflect. I see these things as skirmage about the eventual CW as to why he won. Or why Clinton won if you still think she's got a chance. In short, I supported Edwards- he was the only candidate who I felt spoke truth and also had the polcies to back it up. The two remaining candidates aren't that different to me. But anytime they make a gesturein the right direction I want to push them in that direction.

    Parent
    Moving left (none / 0) (#62)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:59:32 PM EST
    involves advocating for policies that will help the unemployed and the working poor.  Standing around and blaming your lack of support among those folks on their bitterness, their church and their hunting culture IS NOT MOVING LEFT.

    Parent
    I have yet to see Obama (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by madamab on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:06:46 PM EST
    stand to the left of HRC on any issue.

    Claiming he has great judgment and is not of the mindset that got us into Iraq, then voting exactly the same as HRC on funding the war, is not standing to the left - it's triangulation.

    I don't support Obama precisely because he has been attacking HRC from the right. Pandering to the rich, the anti-gay, the anti-choice, the Republicans and Independents...these are not the moves of a person planning on a progressive administration.

    Parent

    nice try but the more some of you comment (none / 0) (#87)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:47:39 PM EST
    the more i realize you are playing the same cult of personality that obama supporters play. for the record, the comment wasn't about him per se, it was about how the public view democrats on economic issues. BTD will say I am wrong. I think BTD is wrong. We are at an impasse. The fact is I've never known Andrew Sullivan to have a problem with conscendsion. I've know him to have a problem with left leaning economic thought. Do I thi nk this is enough on the part of Obama? no. Do I think that Clinton is doing enough? No. Do I think its important to fight even for a hint of a real conversation about why Americans might have a reason to have a chip on their shoulders? Yes.

    Parent
    Can you be specific about which (none / 0) (#68)
    by Florida Resident on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:07:58 PM EST
    openings you say he has shown some movement to the left.  Also since I am more of an Edwards populist I wish he was still a candidate but I just see Mr Obama as too far to the right more so than even Clinton.  I specially dislike his pandering to the pro-life( what a misnomer) crowd and too lukewarm and that's doing him a favor to the LGBT issues.  I mean he claims that the so called pro-life crowd are acting out of their moral convictions and that we pro-choice folks just don't or want to understand them.  Now he says that those bitter small town people cling to their faith because of their economic quandaries and that it was the Clinton's fault to boot with the help of the Bush administration.  If you see that as a progressive agenda pleas explain it to me.

    Parent
    This isn't his first speech on this (none / 0) (#86)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:41:02 PM EST
    Whats the Matter with Kansas frame. He made it recently with regard to how gay rights is used as a wedge issue every 4 years, then it's not discussed, and that people should not allow this sort of manipulation of the process.  He framed it in a way that as a gay man I don't particularly want people to think- but as someone who is also a voter  in general- i realize is the correct frame- namely why does gay the right to marriage matter so much when people don't have healthcare? etc. He's not saying that he's not for civil union in that comment (about the best we can get from either Democratic nominee right now). He's saying that we shouldn' t allow the GOP to play the shellgame with the gay marriage issue. Some will vote against my right to marriage thinking they are voting against my right to marriage and end up with an approach that denies them healthcare. He's right.

    You know - I often get accused of condescention too. I've come to realize that what many people mean by that is that they are being challenged in the way they are thinking. I am not particularly conscending, bu tI am blunt, and don't take much b.s. from any of the various factions online.

    You can repeat ad nauseum you interpretation of what he said. It simply doesn't jive with both what he said and what he later said to clarify and what he has since apologized for the spin of what people are saying he said. If this were just my view, of that of those online bloggers , then sure, but it's not. Others got the same things I did from this speech.

    I also find it fascinating to find all these "I was an Edwards supporter" now that he's not int eh race. Sometimes  I think its to push a button they writer think I have on the subject. Of course, they don't get me in doing that.

    Where were all of you when it mattered? Just kidding- well sort of.  It's amazing how people are put up on a pesdal when theya re no longer considered a threat.  I mean we had McCain talking about the virtues of MLK, and , of course, missing the irony that it was his party that spit on MLK's dream for America. My point of this tangent is to say that I am more concerned with Edwards values. To the extent I can move both candidates from right of center to left is the extent I support either. I consider both right of center for different reasons (one will toss me under the bus (and yes there are reasons even in her statements now on say gay rights to believe this, and the other will capitulate (sorry compromise) before even trying-- niether is particulary comforting). So, I am left to take what I can get a hope to influence that by moving it further left. he threw something in this direction. My response isn't to attack him for it completely. Yours is to pretend you can't see the possibility of what it means other than he was being conscending. Again, I repeat, if that were the only possible interpretation fine. But we both know it isn't. That's the problem with these diaries and comments attacking him.

    Parent

    confused (none / 0) (#73)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:26:29 PM EST
    You can talk about economic issues without insulting voters.  I see dem pols do it every day.  Why should every other member of the party be tied to someone who is incapable of that?

    Obama is to blame for this - he stereotyped voters and played into a stereotype himself.  If the party has to embrace these views, we are screwed.  And if we can't talk to voters without insulting them (which - again - most everyone else is somehow able to do), we are also screwed.

    Parent

    Yeah, I don't see Dems (none / 0) (#89)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:49:43 PM EST
    doing it everyday. What I see is that they capitulate to the GOP on almost every turn they can get. What I see is that people don't trust us not only because of what the GOP does, but because they really don't trust us to do what we say we are going to do. Like I said, if you think people will 11 percent unemployment rate aren't a little bit angry over the political process, then it's time to start really talking to them in something other than the normal activist speak.

    Parent
    "Creative Class" (none / 0) (#78)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:59:58 PM EST
    I think I ran into this one over at MyDD or OpenLeft. Chris  Bowers was using it as early as 2006.

    Personally, I think it's an incredibly condescending and narcissistic term -- there are lots and lots of creative people, and many, I would say most, do not fit into the Bowers/Stoller/WKJM demographic. Fortunately.

    It's a term that deserves constant mockery and derision, and I do my own little bit in that regard.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:57:27 PM EST
    No, just the ones who are the online "creative class."

    Psst, I did not invent the term. I find it ironically appropriate when discussing THIS story.

    Parent

    You will excuse me for not knowing who invent that (none / 0) (#37)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:24:32 PM EST
    term. Whoever did was an idiot for doing so. It just plays into the image of democrats as all being elite.

    Parent
    Chris Bowers (none / 0) (#49)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:34:52 PM EST
    coined it online. Richard Florida offline.

    Parent
    Sometimes I look at the Democrats (none / 0) (#54)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:42:12 PM EST
    and wonder am I of the same species. Idealogically I mean we are same in a lot of ways. But, here this language- i don't get it.  It's just really bad language choice and reinforces what people think of as the flaws with the Democrats.

    Parent
    We agree (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:02:53 PM EST
    That's why we use "creative class" with heavy irony.  You know who's adopted it without irony to describe themselves?  Obama supporters.  That's why we use it here.

    Do you want to talk about elitism here or not?  Do you think the "creative class" is terribly interested in the economic lives of those folk out in rural Penn., never mind the rural South?  No, they're interested in bashing on them for their cultural differences and reassuring themselves of their superiority.

    Parent

    We agree (none / 0) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:53:24 PM EST


    Parent
    BTW (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:59:27 PM EST
    Bll Clinton was not attacked for what he said, Nor was your candidate John Edwards.

    Are you SERIOUSLY arguing that what Obama said was not the problem here? Then we strongly disagree here.

    Parent

    I am arguing that it wouldn't matter (none / 0) (#36)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    It would be the same result because its a tactical definitnion -- "Democrats are elitist" - that is the right wing framing.


    Parent
    The evidence does not support you (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:34:21 PM EST


    Parent
    We can go back and forth (none / 0) (#61)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:57:06 PM EST
    I do think the evidence does support my assertion as to how the GOP pushes their definitional tactics with whatever fact pattern is available to make the argument. The approach I believe I mention in this thread about American Hyprocrite isn't new. It was discussed several years ago.  Repetition of short phrases is how the definitions are advanced. Visceral easy to understand language like 'elitist" or "liar" etc. That languages doesn't depend on facts no more than fruit juice is really "100 percent " fruit juice or you are really going to date that woman just because you buy that car in an ad- this is marketing.

    Parent
    Bruh, you're right (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:05:36 PM EST
    The GOP will call the Dems. elitist no matter what.  But marketing has to have a willing buyer to succeed, and Obama's remarks will convince a lot of folks that the GOP is right.

    Parent
    Obama's words doesn't matter with regard the (none / 0) (#90)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:52:14 PM EST
    marketing. This is the part that many of you don't get.  Did a lot of Americans believe Saddamn Hussien was behind 9/11 because of any direct comment from Bush or Chenney? I already the answer to that question is no. They never said it directly, but they worked the marketing campaign just the same. I can find countless examplesin the last decade and a half. to illustrate my point about how the marketing and reinforcing of frame works.

    Parent
    Marketing, framing, pfft (none / 0) (#101)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:38:38 AM EST
    This gibberish is being so misused, and now those who don't understand word one about it but read a book once have gotten us into this mess with a candidate who is framing and marketing to San Franciscans by framing and marketing Midwesterners -- and all for a laugh from the coastal folks.

    Anyone who really knows marketing and framing will tell you that, all the latest buzzwords aside, the old saying still holds true: Sincerity sells.

    Instead, there is nothing more insincere and less impressive on a sell than dissing others just for the sake of the sell.  Those were the ones who went out the door first with me.  And Obama is  next.  After his insincere nonapologies as well, he couldn't sell me a used car filled with free gas, not even as it gets near four bucks a gallon.

    Parent

    Ah Shrummy (none / 0) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:53:15 PM EST
    Even HE knows what Obama needs to do.

    If Shrum is for Obama (none / 0) (#18)
    by Edgar08 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 04:57:13 PM EST
    Edwards supporters should remember:

    In his book, Shrum took the nastiest shot one can take at a politician at Edwards, saying Edwards' support for the war was derived from political cowardice, listening to consultants, instead of going with what he thought was right.

    Remember the old SNL sketch (none / 0) (#25)
    by DaytonDem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:00:50 PM EST
    where Mondale is plotting to win Minnesota? That is what I am beginning to feel this is turning out to be.

    Yes, generally billionaires are not (none / 0) (#33)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:18:22 PM EST
    stupid.

    So in a way (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:20:53 PM EST
    he was talking down to them too


    Parent
    And... (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by michitucky on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:32:41 PM EST
    I find it telling none of those $$$ donors have risen to his defense.....

    Parent
    I don't think that would help, do you? (none / 0) (#52)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:37:53 PM EST
    If I were Obama, I'd send Axelrod to SF to put a muzzle on each and every one of the attendees!

    Parent
    Well, (none / 0) (#35)
    by cmugirl on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:22:45 PM EST
    I've heard that some people on the coasts consider the Midwest "flyover" country in that they don't really think much of most of the middle of the country or their "quaint" values and ways of life.

    Let's do it (none / 0) (#41)
    by Lora on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:30:38 PM EST
    Obama has expressed his regrets and hopefully, will move on.

    I do think we've dealt with this issue plenty, and then some.  Let us also move on.

    Let's see.. how many weeks did Tuzla (none / 0) (#44)
    by MarkL on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:32:03 PM EST
    get? LOL.
    I would like to see if Obama can survive 3 weeks of attention on this subject.

    Parent
    It will go on if the media start looking (none / 0) (#56)
    by Cream City on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:46:51 PM EST
    at some of his "apologies" yesterday.  Yikes, some made it worse.  But we'll see -- I still say that if it makes the Leno monologue, the show that older voters in the heartland watch, it won't go away.

    Parent
    Why move on? (none / 0) (#79)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:02:43 PM EST
    Think about it this way:

    What does Obama inducing laughter by mocking "small town" concerns before an audience of donors mean in policy terms?

    It means that he's written them off.

    That means that their policy concerns -- prime among them, universal health care -- are also being written off.

    That's the message he's sending.

    Parent

    I work in the real world with many people who (none / 0) (#58)
    by WillBFair on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 05:51:35 PM EST
    like guns and/or religion. And I think Obama's words are insulting to them, just as his supporter's words have been contemptuous of the most accomplished democrats of our time. They haven't yet mastered the art of adult conversation. And they think he's qualified for the presidency?
    http://a-civilife.blogspot.com

    Not a career politician (none / 0) (#75)
    by ruffian on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:40:58 PM EST
    It occurred to me today that Obama would be great in a university setting, where he would be the favorite professor and could have a great career inspiring the young, writing, being an activist, etc.  

    I think one reason he is trying to shoot to the top so fast in the political arena is that he really does not see himself as a career politician.

    Personally (none / 0) (#76)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 06:49:23 PM EST
    I think it's because he has an ego a mile long.

    Parent
    Indeed. An ego a mile long... (none / 0) (#80)
    by lambert on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:03:32 PM EST
    ... and heart and soul about an inch deep.

    Parent
    Just today (none / 0) (#104)
    by Rainsong on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 04:46:00 AM EST
    at work, in conversation, a colleague said he thought Obama looks 'surprised' and rattled, as in Obama didn't expect to get this far having to battle his campaign on his own merits.

    It was meant to be over early, by Ohio/Texas. He was meant to be an "upset win", and be crowned presumptive nominee alongside McCain. The Party elders could then have spent this remaining primary season grooming him with fully pre-prepared scripts for all the negatives which would be allowed to come out, -after- Hillary was no longer. But it didn't go according to plan.

    I think one reason he is trying to shoot to the top so fast in the political arena is that he really does not see himself as a career politician.

    No, he doesn't seem 'inspired' does he? Many Dems have lost nominations, or didn't get their seat o their first run, or their 1st preference for career role, ending up working on legislation, or in areas they had no qualifications or interest in - but they stayed-the-distance, and stayed at their political careers and put their energies into it anyway. I can't see Obama doing that.

    Parent

    Obama's consistency (and lack of 'elitism') (none / 0) (#81)
    by AdrianLesher on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 07:14:04 PM EST
    is shown in this clip Andrew Sullivan links to.

    BTD (none / 0) (#91)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 08:02:38 PM EST
    apparently "fighting for the truth" is exactly what the Obama campaign is doing. They are doing robo calls saying that "Obama is right" about what he said about PA voters.

    Fyi, the script today for Clinton's (none / 0) (#102)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:42:29 AM EST
    phone bank said nothing, nothing, about the Obama comments.  Just sticking to the issues and listening to the voters, not telling them who was right and who was wrong.  The voters are always right in these scripts.

    But robocalls?  Really?  I'm not clear on this; I thought those were by machines, not what you have here.

    Parent

    The real truth... (none / 0) (#94)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 09:32:03 PM EST
    From noted political scientist Theda Skocpol

    I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!

    I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination -- and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of "we're not bitter" stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.

    Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?

    This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start.

    actually thats par for the course- the last (none / 0) (#96)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 10:43:22 PM EST
    sentence you write is standard GOP operating procedure. Kerry is an elitist, but bush is down to earth.

    Parent
    Uh, she's a sociologist (none / 0) (#103)
    by Cream City on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:47:30 AM EST
    and apparently you are not -- as a sociologist would be appalled to be described as telling a "real truth."  She just forgot to preface it with the standard statement about assumptions, biases, etc.

    She takes a sociological approach to politics, and to history.  That doesn't make her a political scientist or a historian.  There actually is training involved in each field, for different methodological approaches, which can yield quite different results.

    Sociologists study media, too, for example -- but that doesn't make them journalists.  They'd probably be insulted by it . . . because they also, when they do their work well, preface with their assumptions, biases, etc.

    But then, this clearly is not her scholarly work here.  And a fine scholar she is.  But as a campaign advisor, looks like she just breached the ethics.  So what that makes her here, I dunno.

    Parent

    Obama in the General (none / 0) (#99)
    by tdraicer on Sun Apr 13, 2008 at 11:25:44 PM EST
    http://anglachelg.blogspot.com/

    says it all.

    >From noted political scientist Theda Skocpol

    Yes, it is Hillary's fault Obama screwed up. Again.

    "He's Not Running for Sociologist In Chief" | 109 comments (109 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment