DEM Primaries/Candidates thread

[HuskyCaucasian]

Is he claiming that middle America embraces religion because they lost thier jobs and the economy is hard? it sounds an awful lot like he is saying that religion is the opiat of the masses, and the only reason people focus on that, and gun rights, etc. is bacuse they are in hard economic times.

He is saying that people find another issue to talk about when something is taken from them or they experience hardship. Remember post 9/11? Church attendance sky rocketed. Well, its going back down again.

[kapkomet]

Of course there is a pattern. He's black and grew up poor. So, he had less advantages in life than some others may have. That pattern isn't racism - its reality. What is more amazing to me is that, if you listen to what he says, he almost never blames it for anything. Further, he's very clear repeatedly that he had a great opportunity as an American to even have a life like his.

 

Its amazing to me that some people are still unwilling to acknowledge that growing up black is not the same as growing up white. Its reality. People have the same legal rights regardless of race - yes. People of all races have the opportunity to succeed - mostly (with the exception that there are still some hard core racists out there). But the climb up for someone poor in this country is a lot further than that of those in the middle or upper classes, and, guess what? The majority of blacks grow up on that lower end of the income spectrum. They have a tougher road to success. Denying that is being in denial of reality.

 

And yet, despite all this, you have NEVER heard Obama say in his books (I've read both) or his speeches (I've seen quite a few) that those people are entitled to something for nothing, or even something that others are not. Not once. What he says quite clearly is he wants the playing field to be level, and I agree with him*.

 

*caveat: I do not support any form of affirmative action or other quota or balance-based program, which is simply institutionalized bigotry. The playing field can be leveled substantially without giving people artificial advantages because of their race.

But what is the message when you take all of these instances as a whole? Again, each fragment that I posted, on its own, doesn't mean much.

 

NSS, I agree that growing up when Obama did, there wasn't an equality. But, I think that he doesn't embrace all Americans like he says he does.

[NorthSideSox72]

But what is the message when you take all of these instances as a whole? Again, each fragment that I posted, on its own, doesn't mean much.

 

NSS, I agree that growing up when Obama did, there wasn't an equality. But, I think that he doesn't embrace all Americans like he says he does.

I see what you are saying. I just disagree. I think he's aware of the economic and educational inequalities that exist, and of course those are and should be priorities. All kinds of progress has been made toward racial equality in this country - but its still far from being a non-issue.

 

If you look at his policy statements and what not, which you can get from his website, you will indeed see an emphasis on certain Americans - specifically, those who are poor and/or undereducated. He does indeed embrace them more than the rest, I would agree. But there is fine, yet important difference between those things - embracing one race over another versus embracing people who have fewer opportunities than others. And I think some of that is needed.

 

Now, I disagree with some of his chosen methods of doing that, such as affirmative action. But I agree with his general push on education and economics. And I think he's a lot more likely to get something done that is actually helpful than McCain or Clinton.

 

[CrimsonWeltall]

Is he claiming that middle America embraces religion because they lost thier jobs and the economy is hard? it sounds an awful lot like he is saying that religion is the opiat of the masses, and the only reason people focus on that, and gun rights, etc. is bacuse they are in hard economic times.

 

Are you referring to the video athomeboy posted? Obama said that people vote on things like gun control and religious issues because they don't believe the government can ever do anything helpful about economic issues.

 

[mr_genius]

It was obvious Obama was saying the Caucasian blue collar worker is often a bitter, small minded, racist whom clutches to religion and guns as a means to cope. I've heard this line of logic often (in college it was a mainstay of many a sociology class). I'm sure when Obama said this to a group in San Francisco he was playing to the crowd. Not a smart move on his part, seeing there is no way a Dem wins by ditching blue collar workers.

[mr_genius]

But what is the message when you take all of these instances as a whole? Again, each fragment that I posted, on its own, doesn't mean much.

 

NSS, I agree that growing up when Obama did, there wasn't an equality. But, I think that he doesn't embrace all Americans like he says he does.

 

I believe both of Obama's parents were well educated. I think his mom has a PhD. I'm not so sure the deck was really stacked against Mr.Obama.

[NorthSideSox72]

It was obvious Obama was saying the Caucasian blue collar worker is often a bitter, small minded, racist whom clutches to religion and guns as a means to cope. I've heard this line of logic often (in college it was a mainstay of many a sociology class). I'm sure when Obama said this to a group in San Francisco he was playing to the crowd. Not a smart move on his part, seeing there is no way a Dem wins by ditching blue collar workers.

I think its very interesting that the people who have read this into his statements lately are people who frankly were never going to vote for him anyway, while those who might, apparently aren't seeing it (or so the polls indicate). If anything, Obama's support among Dems and nationally has been level or gone up a bit in recent weeks. Why is that? Is it that all the conservatives are just looking for cannon fodder, or that the liberals are willing to defend anything he says? Or is it reflective of the difference in the way people see our country and its situation?

 

[NorthSideSox72]

I believe both of Obama's parents were well educated. I think his mom has a PhD. I'm not so sure the deck was really stacked against Mr.Obama.

Yeah, I don't think his statements about growing up black are meant the same way as Edwards' son-of-a-millwoker shtick. Same target audience, slightly different tack. I don't think Obama grew up impoverished - I think he grew up on a struggling family like many Americans.

 

[mr_genius]

I think its very interesting that the people who have read this into his statements lately are people who frankly were never going to vote for him anyway, while those who might, apparently aren't seeing it (or so the polls indicate). If anything, Obama's support among Dems and nationally has been level or gone up a bit in recent weeks. Why is that? Is it that all the conservatives are just looking for cannon fodder, or that the liberals are willing to defend anything he says? Or is it reflective of the difference in the way people see our country and its situation?

 

I'm sure it's a bit of both. Some Dems are voting Obama no matter what, GOP voters aren't voting for him. As far as the polls, McCain closed a 12 point gap on Obama in the general. I will admit though, I find polling to be a very inexact science.

 

We'll see how these comments play out in Penn and Indiana. If Hillary has big wins I would suggest the comments made a difference. I see no way Obama's recent comments help him. But I might be wrong. I do think Dem voters want the primary over and they should vote Obama if that is the case. If they vote Hillary it really is a bad sign for Obama. That would basically suggest that they are willing to run this primary out due to the fact that they strongly oppose Obama.

[lostfan]

I'm sure it's a bit of both.

Yeah that.

 

I put this instance of Obama stepping on his crank about the same as the time he said he was going to invade Pakistan. Going too far trying to make a point and making himself look dumb.

[Balta1701]

I like this.

This may sound odd, but man am I disappointed that stuff is happening again in the presidential campaign. These last few weeks of relative quiet have been terrific. All the older reporters tell me that this is supposedly the greatest campaign of my lifetime and the thing that makes political journalism worthwhile, but seriously, look where we are today: Discussing an off-the-cuff comment in which one of the Democrats suggested that economic anxiety manifests in cultural conservatism. This is not a new idea. And in most forms, it isn't even a particularly objectionable one.

 

It's worth saying that I'm not defending Obama here. I see nothing that he needs defense from. There's no actual attack being levied that anyone can rebut, or ideas being tossed out that anyone can argue. Instead, Obama has said something Politically Damaging. And it will Damage him. And we'll all watch to see how badly.

 

But let's be clear: It's not damaging because we think it foretells him doing something harmful to the country. It's not damaging because it suggests his policy agenda is poorly conceived, or his priorities are awry. If you think of policy and politics as two circles in a Venn diagram, this is damage that only exists in the politics circle, and doesn't even come close to the area of intersection. We reporters have to cover it, of course, because it's Really Important, and matters more than the housing plans of all the candidates put together. But it matters in a completely self-referential way, it matters only because it matters, not because it means anything about Obama, or illuminates anything about his potential presidency. It's a hollow scandal. Those housing plans, by contrast, don't "matter" in a way that convinces the media to cover them, or to relentlessly hound McCain about the inadequacy of his proposal. They don't "matter," but they are meaningful. And this is why I don't like writing about the campaign. It's full of hollow scandals and ignored travesties. But you have to cover the hollow scandals, because they're are blown up until they're definitional in the campaign. And that leaves me writing about high-profile non-events in a way that helps cement their importance, even if I'm writing to deride their legitimacy.

 

If you're ever interested in really getting to the bottom of what's wrong with political journalism, incidentally, spend some time thinking about the fact that most of its leading practitioners came up through campaign reporting, and writing about verbal gaffes and off-the-cuff comments is what they trained to do. The tone of political journalism is set by people who are thrilled -- on a professional level -- that Obama said this thing, and now we can cover this story.

[hitlesswonder]

I like this.

 

So, it's not important if a candidate who espouses unity as his central campaign issue reveals himself to be a bigot? I think that's a actually important thing to cover.

[mr_genius]

I like this.

 

Believe it or not, what a candidate says is important.

 

Just words?

 

Isn't that a major corner stone of his campaign? I believe when he was criticized for being merely a good speaker, he gave his "just words?" speech.

 

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Gotta Love It: Bitter Voters for Obama

LOL

[HuskyCaucasian]

Not sure how legit this is, but:

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.

[kapkomet]

Not sure how legit this is, but:

Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid

Well, if this was before Friday, maybe. But look, cut it any way you want to, but I GUARANTEE you that Clinton gets a HUGE bounce off of this stupid "eliteist" crap.

 

This was EXACTLY the crack that Hillary needed to now go ahead and (re)take control of this thing.

[lostfan]

I actually would like to know what is untrue about people being bitter in this country. Is it really that false of a statement or what? He chose his words pretty poorly IMO but he could have REALLY told it like it is and it would've come off sounding even worse.

 

I'm not sure that this country has ever been more "bitterly" divided at any point in my life than it is right now, for a lot of different reasons.

[iamshack]

Jeesh, this has become such a joke it is almost unbearable at this point...

[Rex Kickass]

You know what I hate about politics? When something is said awkwardly. Because words get twisted enough on their own, and then when someone is ham-handed in what's a valid comment and all of a sudden things blow up.

 

You have someone who says, I think that people are angry and bitter that they haven't had good jobs where they live in 25 years. And because they don't believe that government can help them financially, they cling to social issues (often religious, or gun control, or immigration) when it comes to issues of voting.

 

So Kap, MrGenius and the other GOP water carriers out there, I'd like to know what exactly is so wrong with that statement? Because having read what he said, that's the message I get. I guess I can understand if you think its because the insinuation is that Conservative politics has failed its constituents, and disagree on that basis. If you think it's wrong, why? But I did see someone here all but call Obama a Marxist by making an observation that has nothing to do with Marxism.

 

And I guess the thing that bothers me the most of what I've read about this comes from you, Kap. You sit there and b****, piss and moan about politicians who pander all the time. McCain's done it when it comes to the Evangelicals that he has eschewed in 2000, actually going to Bob Jones University and welcoming the endorsement of John Hagee. Hillary did it in reaction to this comment too, by saying "I don't meet bitter Pennsylvanians, I meet resilient Pennsylvanians." Obama made a rather surprisingly candid observation about what he saw. And where he saw it. And he didn't pander to make the point. And this is a problem, why?

[kapkomet]

You know what I hate about politics? When something is said awkwardly. Because words get twisted enough on their own, and then when someone is ham-handed in what's a valid comment and all of a sudden things blow up.

 

You have someone who says, I think that people are angry and bitter that they haven't had good jobs where they live in 25 years. And because they don't believe that government can help them financially, they cling to social issues (often religious, or gun control, or immigration) when it comes to issues of voting.

 

So Kap, MrGenius and the other GOP water carriers out there, I'd like to know what exactly is so wrong with that statement? Because having read what he said, that's the message I get. I guess I can understand if you think its because the insinuation is that Conservative politics has failed its constituents, and disagree on that basis. If you think it's wrong, why? But I did see someone here all but call Obama a Marxist by making an observation that has nothing to do with Marxism.

 

And I guess the thing that bothers me the most of what I've read about this comes from you, Kap. You sit there and b****, piss and moan about politicians who pander all the time. McCain's done it when it comes to the Evangelicals that he has eschewed in 2000, actually going to Bob Jones University and welcoming the endorsement of John Hagee. Hillary did it in reaction to this comment too, by saying "I don't meet bitter Pennsylvanians, I meet resilient Pennsylvanians." Obama made a rather surprisingly candid observation about what he saw. And where he saw it. And he didn't pander to make the point. And this is a problem, why?

I've not said a word about John McCain.

 

But since you brought it up, personally, I cannot or will not vote for him. I've already decided I'm out on this election. He's as hypocritical as the rest of them, if not more so. So, please, don't accuse me of carrying "GOP water" because I think they all suck. My comments are strictly for those "Obama water carriers" - and you see it once again in this thread - the guy walks on water in their eyes.

 

When Obama clarified his "quote" - sure, whatever, he said it poorly. But I think when you listen to this guy talk and then bounce it off of the company he keeps, and where he's come from, my point is that the guy does not represent himself the way he really is. He's a smooth talker who has a tinge of "bitterness" from the world around him, not a second coming of the glory boy of poliitcs put on a pedistal like most around here like to put him on.

 

And the media has been waiting for a "misspeak" by the smooth talker to pounce on. Guess what? It just happened.

 

 

[Rex Kickass]

I guess my point is that there's no way any politician can win with a lot of people. Either they awful for pandering or awful for being blunt. There's nothing in between.

 

Kap, I didn't say you were a McCain supporter, btw. I just said that every candidate panders. A lot. This scandal seems to be purely about the fact that Obama didn't.

[southsider2k5]

I am actually going to defend Obama here... For someone who grew up poor, and has now officially hit "upper middle" class, I know A LOT of people just like Obama mentioned. The elitists are the ones who have "yes" men feeding them crappy info to fit their campaign agendas, and have no idea about what is going on at the neighborhood level of things. I'd love to see Hillary Clinton step into a couple of the neighborhoods I lived in/grew up in, and ask those people living at/below poverty level if they were bitter and disenchanted with the political system or not.

[Texsox]

SS, there are a few posters here who take the same stance, giving credit when credit is due, no matter the initial after the name. I know I respect those posters, and yourself, a lot for that. Neither party has a monopoly on good or evil. In fact. most of the time it's which way to the same goal.

[NorthSideSox72]

So, it's not important if a candidate who espouses unity as his central campaign issue reveals himself to be a bigot? I think that's a actually important thing to cover.

A bigot? Seriously? He makes statements alluding to the bitterness of rural folks and the good reasons for it (as well as what they do with it), who by the way will mostly be white, and he's a bigot? If there is any bigotry in his statements, to me, its pro-rural and pro-white.

 

[Reddy]

Jeesh, this has become such a joke it is almost unbearable at this point...

 

i completely agree. hence why i haven't been around here much - i'm just sick of it all...