The SF billionaire row comments (and the tone/closed door nature), the not standing up to the pastor issue(or switching churches), the annie oakley rant (Clinton was not pandering), and the race-baiting (im not black, but im queer and there's a difference than bringing your identity to the table and hatchet jobbing your opponent) all turn my stomach from and ethical and political standpoint.

Ethically, I could never do those things.  Politically, I think they are a disgrace to democracy and informed voters.

And that he followed the annie oakley comment with a dishonest portrayal of her bankruptcy position didn't help.

Key quote: "She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith "is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.""

Problem:
1) 700+ comments, 80% plus bagging hillary for pandering (and I mean total rant mode).  

2)Clinton isn't portraying herself because she has been known as "religiously inclined" for years, attended prayer breakfasts, etc.  

3) As to guns, she didn't pander and actually qualified her statement so it wasn't taken as her being an avid hunter.  And I sure don't know of any anti-hunting votes by clinton (thus not portayal). Anyway, her honest qualifier was important because it signaled she knew something about guns/hunting other than the "inner city violence" perspective.

Question: Where are these people coming from in such mass to bash hillary (it's the highest of any of their blogs)?  Is an action alert going out?  It makes the times blogs pointless to visit--at least the ron paul posters werent shifting posts to 400+ "she'll do anything" comments.

And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that 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.

Jobs did not fall during the Clinton Administration. I went and looked at the BLS for the top 100 US markets under Bush 41, Clinton and Bush 43. Bush 41 led in 12 (Gary, Honolulu, Des Moines, El Paso, Little Rock, Fresno, Seattle, Witcha, Riverside/San Bernardino, Tacoma, Raleigh/Durham, Madison). Clinton led in all the rest or 88. None for GWBush.

Here are numbers for Pennslyvania markets:
Allentown
GHWBush 0.59% Clinton 1.72% GWBush 0.00%
Harrisburg
GHWBush 1.18% Clinton 1.73% GWBush 0.31%
Philadelphia
GHWBush -0.95% Clinton 1.51% GWBush 0.14%
Pittsburgh
GHWBush 1.10% Clinton 1.24% GWBush -0.51%
Scranton
GHWBush 0.42% Clinton 1.10% GWBush -0.75%

I have shot a gun a few times since then--I lived in the country and had to get rid of some varmints if I wanted to keep small livestock.  And I got that old .22 Mossberg rifle of my grandad's.  I kept it for many, many years after I had no use for it at all, from sentimentality.

And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that 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.

I won't go into the whole: exactly which administrations can be considered to be successive of the Bush administration thing...except to mention it because it just bugs me.

No, the thing that I want to point out is what hit me as I was perusing a well written Diary at MyDD that asked rhetorically: "Why would anyone be offended?" (You should read it if you haven't eriposte has a direct link to it on the Left Coaster FP, if you're interested)

Anyway, in the comment section of that diary someone wrote ironically or sarcastically:

Well because the PA voters have lived with the failures of the Clinton and Bush [both] administrations and the lies of the Clintons in this campaign they have every reason to be bitter. And angry and pissed off.

And that's when it hit me! I was reminded that Obama's comments were made as an attempt to justify his poor showing in the small towns. What struck me is that his argument is not only insulting it's nonsensical.

Apparently, these people in small towns are so bitter about their circumstances which Obama attributes to Clinton and Bush that they are choosing to vote for another Clinton over him. Huh?

As usual, it wasn't played up in the tradmed.

Mr. Obama highlighted his own ties to the Roman Catholic Church, saying that he had once attended a Catholic school in Indonesia and shared the experiences of a Catholic education with many Americans.

 People who condemn intolerance and yet have no compassion or understanding of economic hardships most people face.    My definition of a Bay Area liberal is they will complain about the homeless guy on the street, but march for a poor person across the world.  

You see this in their objections to affordable housing, in their attitudes about public schools.  It really makes me cringe.  It's this faux liberalism.  

Collegial and quietly diligent, Clinton could be counted on to exhaustively work a bill through and cultivate support from both parties, according to numerous senators and aides interviewed by the Globe. This was, some say, the new Clinton that her presidential campaign wanted to reintroduce to voters - the Clinton who once described herself as "the most famous person nobody knows."

Fifteen months later, however, even some Clinton supporters concede that goal has been more difficult to achieve in the one-on-one campaign against Barack Obama, in which Clinton chose after her loss in the Iowa caucuses to define herself as a relentless fighter

That harder-edged persona - intended to present her as tougher than Obama - has won her greater support among some elements of the electorate, especially blue-collar voters, pollsters say. But it has also come at a cost, as Clinton continues to be hamstrung by public impressions of her as divisive and untrustworthy.

Clinton's supporters say she is the victim of old, unfair images that are reinforced in the media.

Here is one:

But some political specialists and lawmakers say the tone of Clinton's uphill campaign against Obama has underscored the side of the Clintons that some voters do not like.

"Clintons seem to be opportunistic givers. She announced $100,000 to South Carolina library few weeks before North Carolina primary. Giving for fame, votes, etc makes it meaningless."

Now can someone tell me why a gift to (I guess) the USC Library would influence North Carolina?  Those states have been squabbling since colonial times.  Any thing to get another dig in, I suppose.

[Sorry can't find good YouTube.]

a) biased against -alternate race-
and
b) biased against -alternate orientation-
and
c) biased against -alternate class-

Please upload official documentation showing your card carrying membership in -alternate race-, -alternate orientation-, -alternate class- communities.

How many diaries have we seen on the Talk Left front page re: the Obama/Clinton tit for tat speeches versus Bush/Cheney's admission on torture. I'll tell you how many I saw on the TL front page: one.

Since when did outrage over Obama's/Clinton's comments become more important than a story like this? It's more than just Talk Left. That doesn't mean Talk Left should follow the herd.