PeterDavid.net

I think the reason people may not want a President who thinks he's smarter than everybody else is because we have something like that right now.

We have, in office right now, a guy who thinks he knows best. A guy who thinks he's right about everything. A guy who doesn't listen to or consider other people's opinions; he thinks he knows better than they do.

Me, I'd prefer a leader willing to acknowledge that he may not know everything, that he may sometimes make mistakes, that he may sometimes be wrong.

Is Obama such a person? I don't know. We'll have to see.

But that, I think, is why a President who believes himself/herself to be smarter than everybody else is considered a bad thing. They may feel that the people are too stupid to know what it best, and thus won't listen to the people.

On another subject, while Obama is definitely the guy I want to become the next POTUS right now I'm disappointed that he said he wouldn't talk to Hamas. I had previously been impressed when he stated that he would be willing to engage in dialogue with anybody, anybody at all. Ally, enemy, other, whatever. But all of a sudden he says he won't talk to Hamas because ther bear the label of a terrorist organization?

IMO, listening to what the other guy has to say is not a concession. Sitting down with them and saying "here's what we want to do, you tell us what you want to do, and let's see if we can't work something out," is not a sign of weakness. There is nothing to lose by talking to people, even murderous people.

The worst case scenario if you talk to the leaders of Hamas is that you get up at the end and say "You guys are crazy. Fuck you, it's obvious we can't come to an agreement and that you're not reasonable in the least."

The best case scenario is that you convince them to give peace a chance.

Thanks PAD, this is what I've been thinking all weekend.

Every President is a megalomaniac. Not joke, no exageration. America is constantly saying that our President is the most powerful man in the world. We tell kids that from the moment they're born. So of *course* the people who think they can actually do the job think they're better than everyone else, they literally think they're capable of running the world.

And they all know it. Every so often someone asks a Presidential candidate why they're running for office. The answer is always the same: patriotism. They want what's best for the country. And what is best is for them to be in charge.

When Hillary Clinton is yelling about elitism, does anyone honestly believe that she *doesn't* think she' smarter than everyone else in the room? That's not even an insult, they *all* think they're the biggest, baddest thing around.

Here's the other thing people aren't saying about Obama. What if he's right? He didn't say that everyone was bitter, he said that *some* of the people that have lost jobs are bitter that the jobs aren't coming back. That sounds pretty likely to be true. But then Hillary immediately responded that everyone she's met has been optimistic. Everyone? Seriously, in financially strained areas there aren't any bitter people at all?

The problem is, the media is more important than the truth. If they're constantly showing Hillary saying that people are outraged by Obama's statements, people will start believing that there is a lot of outrage. Never mind the fact that she started saying, "The voters are outraged!" immediately after the story broke, meaning she didn't actually have time to ask anyone if they were outraged.

Luckily, it's not total insanity. She brought up Obama's remarks to a crowd in Penn today and got booed.

We have, in office right now, a guy who thinks he knows best. A guy who thinks he's right about everything. A guy who doesn't listen to or consider other people's opinions; he thinks he knows better than they do. Me, I'd prefer a leader willing to acknowledge that he may not know everything, that he may sometimes make mistakes, that he may sometimes be wrong.

I think you're confusing smartness with smugness. I don't think that Bush thinks he's smarter than everyone else; in fact, I think he knows that he isn't. But he believes that he's getting his marching orders from God, and that doesn't require intelligence, just faith. That he has in abundance.

PAD

"We have, in office right now, a guy who thinks he knows best. "

Actually, I see Bush as the ultimate example of people not wanting their President to seem too smart.

You're right in that he thinks he knows what's best to the point of not listening to anyone. But what got him into office was his "awe shucks" persona. The accent that's just a little thicker than what someone with his parents should have. The dopey grin when he leans on the podium. Bush has worked the good 'ole boy routine materfully.

If this country was willing to admit that the President should be the smart guy, not the guy they want to have a beer with, Al Gore would have been President.

Maybe the crowd in Penn had the same thought I did - that it's pure chutzpah for Clinton to speak of "elitism" in such a manner, after previously maintaining that $200,000/year was a "middle-class" income. Dunno about your neck of the woods, but around these parts, that's "pretty well off", not "middle class". (Unless you're trying to buy a house in a nice part of Seattle, but that has more to do with the fact that the housing bubble hasn't popped around here - yet.)

Personally, I'd still rather have an "elitist" than a "regular Joe" in office - after all, that was the image Bush's handlers cultivated, probably because they knew he couldn't put "brainy" across for more than a couple of minutes after opening his mouth.

I'm also not so sure Obama wouldn't talk to Hamas - he just might not be willing to say so right now. Look at the flak he took for saying he'd be willing to talk with the governments of Iran and North Korea! And they're actually, you know, governing their parts of the world. If he admitted he would talk to Hamas now, the right-wingers would burn him in effigy - and some on the "left" would help!

Personally, I think both sides are making too much of this. So, he said people are bitter and angry. Big deal. Some people ARE bitter and angry. I think the most disgusting thing about our 24-hour newscycle is how one word or phrase gets psycho-analyzed to death.

Look at the context of what he said. Look at what he means. Quit being offended by something and understand the man!

That said, I'll still never vote for him. He reminds me of Bush-43's first election. About the only difference between the two is their party and Obama's command of the language. Otherwise, they are the same: generally inexperienced so there's only a small track record. That makes is so easy to pour hopes into the vague speeches on ending bipartisanship and renewing hope:

This is a remarkable moment in the life of our nation. Never has the promise of prosperity been so vivid. But times of plenty, like times of crisis, are tests of American character. Prosperity can be a tool in our hands used to build and better our country. Or it can be a drug in our system dulling our sense of urgency, of empathy, of duty. Our opportunities are too great, our lives too short, to waste this moment. So tonight we vow to our nation: We will seize this moment of American promise. We will use these good times for great goals. We will confront the hard issues threats to our national security, threats to our health and retirement security before the challenges of our time become crises for our children. And we will extend the promise of prosperity to every forgotten corner of this country. To every man and woman, a chance to succeed. To every child, a chance to learn. To every family, a chance to live with dignity and hope.

-- George W. Bush - 2000 Republican National Convention

If you didn't know any better, though, that could just as easily be an Obama speech:

The genius of our founders is that they designed a system of government that can be changed. And we should take heart, because we've changed this country before. In the face of tyranny, a band of patriots brought an Empire to its knees. In the face of secession, we unified a nation and set the captives free. In the face of Depression, we put people back to work and lifted millions out of poverty. We welcomed immigrants to our shores, we opened railroads to the west, we landed a man on the moon, and we heard a King's call to let justice roll down like water, and righteousness like a mighty stream. Each and every time, a new generation has risen up and done what's needed to be done. Today we are called once more — and it is time for our generation to answer that call. For that is our unyielding faith — that in the face of impossible odds, people who love their country can change it. That's what Abraham Lincoln understood. He had his doubts. He had his defeats. He had his setbacks. But through his will and his words, he moved a nation and helped free a people. It is because of the millions who rallied to his cause that we are no longer divided, North and South, slave and free. Because men and women of every race, from every walk of life, continued to march for freedom long after Lincoln was laid to rest, that today we have the chance to face the challenges of this millennium together, as one people — as Americans.

--Barack Obama - 2006 presidential run announcement.

Personally, I'm not thrilled with the potential slate of candidates this time around. None have ever run anything except a campaign and a Senate office. I really don't think the next President is going to make a huge difference - except maybe to the base of their own party.

Hey, thanks, PAD! I got a whole blog posting out of this one.

In a nutshell: the problem is not that Obama said (or showed) that he was smarter, it was that he said some people were dumber -- and just why he thought they were dumb, for "clinging" to religion and guns and anti-illegal-immigration and whatnot.

And I've seen some compelling arguments that Bush isn't dumb. He tends towards inarticulateness (at a legendary level), but the guy passed flight training and managed to fly one of the nastier jet fighters the Air Force has ever fielded, mastering all sorts of things -- including instrument operations and air navigation and combat systems in a single-seat plane -- and not killing himself or crashing even once. That is NOT something any idiot can accomplish.

But Obama did not just misspeak. One misspeaks a word or two, or even a sentence. He stated his position, and cited examples to back it up. One does not do that accidentally or inadvertently.

J.

Actually Jay, one *does* misstate a position sometimes. Just a few words can change the context of something entirely.

Here's an article from slate.com

http://www.slate.com/id/2188963/

They examine what Obama was trying to say. Most importantly, they cite an interview from awhile back where he said almost the exact same things, but without the condescending phrasing.

Does Obama have a lower opinion of some Americans than others? Of course he does. *Everyone* considers somebody to be wrong about something that's important to them. Most politicians in both political parties consider themselves to be inherently better people than everyone in the opposing party.

Obama's comments weren't good, but they weren't the big deal that the media and his rivals are making them to be.

Hey, thanks, PAD! I got a whole blog posting out of this one.

Yes, and I responded to it, because your posting had nothing to do with what prompted my blog entry. I was responding to what the Democratic strategist said, and you asserted that I asked "the wrong question." No; I just replied to the claim of the strategist.

PAD

Where's Bartlet when you need him?

Jay,

You can give up on trying to convince PAD that Bush-43 is smart. Whether it's true or not, it won't matter to him. Bush's constant mangling of the English language is guaranteed to send a professional writer over the edge. The fact that his politics are so different takes it from irritant level to the realm of "cannot stand seeing or hearing him".

As a computer professional I cringe whenever someone in politics or the news talks about computers or networks. Think of Al Gore's "invent the internet" bit. Just about everyone in the industry was outraged at the arrogance of the man.

PAD - I think Clinton is off base for calling Obama's comments elitist, but I do understand why it makes superdelegates nervous. For better or worse, if Obama did indeed say that, it's a very dismissive and alienating attitude towards a potentially large segment of the population. He's labeling a large/vocal group of people as bitter, and that's just not a smart move if you want to get elected.

I don't dispute that Bush was smart enough to learn how to operate a plane. Heck, he was even smart enough to make sure he'd never have to fly it in combat. And if we're ever invaded by flying saucers and we need a president to jump into a plane and lead the charge, just like in the movies, then I'm feeling pretty good about Bush being right for the job.

But his ability to fly an airplane has nothing to do with the job for which he was put into place, and in every practical skill that job does require, he remains dumb as a box of rocks.

For better or worse, if Obama did indeed say that, it's a very dismissive and alienating attitude towards a potentially large segment of the population.

I didn't see it as dismissive, but merely descriptive. Dismissive is, "They're bitter, but who gives a crap?"

PAD

Wait, so people are blasting Obama for saying that people who LOSE THEIR JOBS are BITTER?

.......

Well, yeah. Like if you lie in the sun, you tend to get burned. If you don't sleep well, you'll be tired. You lose your job, I'd imagine you'd be a bit less-than-sunshiney.

It's official: no one can say anything. Next President's gonna have to be a deaf-mute.

since my understanding is that the remarks were made in private, I find the violation of confidences to be more alarming.

Presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign has been in full damage control mode since the senator's blunt remarks about the nature of small town Pennsylvania voters were secretly recorded by a Huffington Post blogger at a recent San Francisco fundraiser that was supposed to be off limits to the press.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/14/BA161046G7.DTL&hw=obama+bitter&sn=011&sc=434

I for one think there ought to be no presumption of privacy at a fundraising event and I'm glad for any chance we get to see what the candidates really think.

The thing that gets me is that last week it was revealed that all the top players in the Bush Administration sat around and approved horrid, illegal torture. The President confirmed it. All the press wants to talk about is that in a country where 81% of the populace thinks we are going in the wrong direction, a candidate used the word bitter.
Last week, the two men who Bush says will determine policy in Iraq said they can't define what success there will be. And all the press wants to talk about is that a candidate used the word bitter.

Gee, Ed...you sound pretty bitter.

PAD

Peter David: ...this country's anti-intellectualism has become so pervasive, so suffocating...
Luigi Novi: THANK YOU.

Peter David: To put it in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" terms, we should want to elect Mr. Hand; instead we opt for Jeff Spicoli.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, you'd think the American public would side with Mr. Hand, if for no other reason than they'd get a free slice of pizza. :-)

So he's being chewed out for pointing out the truth. Again.

This man's going to end up as the United States' answer to Pierre Trudeau if he gets the job. He'll be respected and despised forever, and will have earned both.

It'll be worth it for the USA, I swear.

What did Douglas Adams say on the subject? Those that want to be president shouldn't be allowed to have the job.

And it's really true: if you want this job, you have to think you're better than everybody else.

Clinton making the "elitism" claim is just another hypocritical remark on her part. But then, that doesn't surprise me either... after all, this is politicians we're talking about. Still, she dserves just as much criticism for her comment of "elitism" as what Obama originally said.

Think of Al Gore's "invent the internet" bit. Just about everyone in the industry was outraged at the arrogance of the man.

Yeah, if only Gore had actually said that. But he didn't.

His original, FULL quote was: "During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

Open to interpretation? Obviously, but then, what isn't these days? At least he uses proper grammar, unlike some others in office right now.

Either way, Gore did just that: while in Congress, he put forth measures that helped lead to the creation of the internet.

So, perhaps the outrage has always been just a bit misplaced. Particularly since Gore never said "I created the internet".

The way Hillary has been harping on this, milking it for all it's worth, despite the fact that it's doing McCain's November job for him, is the last straw. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for her. It's clear she'll be no better than McCain, possibly even worse. And I say that as someone who would rather the Democrats run thing than the Republicans.

Obama speaks truth to panderers, and gets smacked down for it. Good thing the tracking polls seem to indicate the actual voters don't give two shakes of a campaigner's tail....

Peter, I do not know what the original statement or its source is, but I notice that either you or Newsday quoted it, yet you say the remark was made in private. If it was in private, how can there be a quote? Normally this would be a relatively trivial matter, but I notice that the remark sounds like a description of what he publicly said at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow.

He not only explains why it is understandable for some people to be bitter (rather than dismissing them as such, which is the connotation being reported), but makes mention of guns, except that it's a comment about people voting on gun issues, and not "clinging to guns". Is the speech in this video the source of the quote?

Let's just say that I'm 99.9% sure that, particularly after 20 or so years of living in Arkansas and changing her name from Hillary Rodham to Hillary Clinton for Arkansas electoral purposes, a certain Wellesley and Yale graduate feels exactly the same way about the mass of PA voters.

Being blunt, if you look at both Hillary and Barack's track records, both educational and afterwards, frankly I'd be worried if either one didn't realize they were smarter than the average bear, er, voter.

Now, there is a difference between intellect and Presidential performance (see Carter, Jimmy), and intellect and arrogance in a refusal to consider the opinion and take by others. I've met incredibly smart people who are also arrogant as all get out, and incredibly smart people who are humble as all get out (A favorite quote of mine by a Google co-worker went something like "One thing I love about Google is that I'm the smartest person in the room only when I get there first"...and I and others considered this person smarter than us and the average Googler). Personally, I don't think Obama was being arrogant at all when he said that.

Mark L said:

"Think of Al Gore's "invent the internet" bit."

Al Gore never said that. It is a bastardization of what he said, a bastardization trumpeted by the right so that they could say Gore was a liar, a bastardization that keeps getting repeated by those who heard it somewhere and keep repeating it as the truth.

"Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth."

Agreed, Mr. David. I heard once, though I can't recall who said it, that they liked GWB because he was "the type of guy you could sit and have a beer with." Well, I know the types of guys I sit and have beers with, and I would not want them at the helm of the U.S.S...er...U.S.A. I would much prefer an extraordianry man as Commander-in-Cheif to an ordinary one.

Kudos. (i'm a big fan, please continue writin "stuff").

John Studniarz

Craig: "Particularly since Gore never said "I created the internet"."

I don't see a lot of difference between, "I took the initiative in creating the internet," and, "I created the internet." Taking the initiative in doing something is still doing something.

I've even seen the interview where he said that, so I know the context of the statement. It was a smug statement that inflated his role. It was not a power grab, it was not an outright lie, it was not anything that actually *mattered*, but it was definitely an exaggeration.

Luigi, I can't find anything at that video link.

As a resident of a small town in central Pennsylvania, all I have to say is that Obama is right; when it comes to the economy, we are bitter. Extremely so. And cynical, especially when it comes to politicians. So the fact that I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt should say something.

I dont particularly care for Obama, But I have to say I saw nothing wrong with what he said. I've been trying to dissect it every which way in order to somehow take offense to it, :) but I just can't figure out what was wrong in what he said. I've seen it in all the newspapers saying how he is digging his grave, and I personally don't get it.

The only thing I saw that was bad, was that he didn't say it directly to the people of Pennsylvania (right?...he said it to the people of San Francisco?). With that being the case, It was kind of like trying to explain to one group of people why they were better off than the other group of people.

To me, if he would have delivered this speech in Pennsylvania first, and then repeated it *anywhere else*, citing how he spoke in Penn. first, I don't think there would have been any media fallout like there was. I think he needed to say it to them first: Hey, You are bitter, you deserve to be. You have gone through hell...I'm going to get you out of it.

Instead, its like he went behind their backs and was gossiping about them, and almost made fun of their situation to a group of people *not* in that situation.

That said, I'll still never vote for him. He reminds me of Bush-43's first election. About the only difference between the two is their party and Obama's command of the language. Otherwise, they are the same: generally inexperienced so there's only a small track record. That makes is so easy to pour hopes into the vague speeches on ending bipartisanship and renewing hope...

If you didn't know any better, though, that could just as easily be an Obama speech...

What makes Obama's campaign different from Bush/Cheney is that Obama can either do what he's already doing, or he can go more radical -- like he forced John Edwards to do. Those are his options.

If you're going to hold against him simply having the sense to win his party's nomination, Obama would be a fool to expend any effort to secure your vote.

As I was reading this, they were discussing it on THE DAILY SHOW, with Jon Steward commenting "Doesn't 'elite' mean 'good?'... I want a president who's better than me! I want a president who can speak 17 languages."

The general problem with appearing "elitist" is that you want the votes of as many people as you can -- and that's hard if you're saying they're dumb (or at least less intelligent than you). The specific problem for the Democrats is the perception that their "elitism" makes them out of touch with mainstream America (such as the so-called Hollywood Elite).

I don't think what Obama said was insulting, or even wrong. Desperate people can turn to numerous areas when they fall on hard times, and some people turn to whatever group seems to offer them support and understanding (and, often, a scapegoat for their problems). This doesn't mean all folks who support gun rights, go to church, or dislike folks who are different are all bitter -- but it doesn't mean they're not, either.

Peter, I do not know what the original statement or its source is, but I notice that either you or Newsday quoted it, yet you say the remark was made in private. If it was in private, how can there be a quote?

My understanding, Luigi--although I admit I haven't heard it--is that one of Huffington's people was tape recording it without Obama's knowledge and posted an audio of what he said. Again, I'm depending upon my patchy understanding of it, but that's what I think happened.

PAD

Okay, Jason pointed out to me that the above link doesn't work, which I believe is because this site incorporated the period at the end of the sentence as part of the link. I'm going to repost it now without the period:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow

It works now, as I tested it in the Preview stage.

I'm a Democratic supporter this year, but quite honestly all this PR sniping over the most innocuous comment is pushing me to the point where I'm about ready to wash my hands of the whole presidential election. And if I'm getting fed up, I hate to think what the average voter must be thinking of the Dems right now.

Why can't we just get those last few states out of the way and get on with it already! Seems like this has been going on forever.

Meanwhile McCain sits inoffensively off to the side.

I'm starting to worry we're going to blow it again.

Whats that old saying? 'You get the representation you deserve?'

HERE'S THE SCOOP

http://tinyurl.com/4xb9og

The link is to the Huffington Post site. A recording was made by an Obama supporter at Off The Bus. The story was picked up and mis-attributed after that.

"...by an Obama supporter AND POSTED at..."

Damn, I'm tired. I'm going to bed.

"...by an Obama supporter AND A WRITE-UP WAS POSTED at..."

but it was definitely an exaggeration.

But it wasn't sniper fire while being lead from the chopper to the bunker, either. ;)

And yet, from the way people *still* believe that's what Gore said, 8 years later, people aren't interested in the truth, much less context.

PAD,

Nice of you to admit your an elitist! ;-)

Do you really think if John McCain said something like this in "private" that it would not have been leaked? I am not sure I would consider it in "confidence" when I am speaking to a group of people. Does he think this is 1908? Oh, wait, politics was just as vicious then.

You do make a valid point. I think our country tends to be anti-intellectual in a way that is very unhealthy. But that can be different than being elitist. Even hearing the full context, Obama at the very least made a huge blunder in how he worded things.

So what is wrong with elitism? The problem is not necessarily that an elitist is smarter, it is that (at least in perception) he or she is out of touch. That is why this is potentially damaging for Obama. We can handle someone smarter -- I want an expert to fix things. What I don't want is someone who has no clue what I really think and believe.

That said, for Hillary Clinton to jump on this is the height of hypocrisy. She is as elite as they come (national health care anyone?). Truth be told, I think McCain is just as elitist. So all of this just cancels itself out in my opinion.

Iowa Jim

An interesting comparison between Obama's remarks and a quote by Bill Clinton in 1991 is being made at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html

Posted by: Peter David at April 14, 2008 07:47 PM

And if we're ever invaded by flying saucers and we need a president to jump into a plane and lead the charge, just like in the movies, then I'm feeling pretty good about Bush being right for the job.

But his ability to fly an airplane has nothing to do with the job for which he was put into place, and in every practical skill that job does require, he remains dumb as a box of rocks.

If we were invaded by flying saucers 30 or 40 years ago, I'd feel pretty good about Bush being in a cockpit. But now I'm sure his reflexes and vision are shot, and he's not even good for that any more. :P

Posted by: Queen Anthai at April 14, 2008 07:47 PM

It's official: no one can say anything. Next President's gonna have to be a deaf-mute.

Which is why the longer this fight for the nomination goes on, the more I believe it'll hurt the nominee's chances. The longer it goes on, the more times something will come out that some voters don't like, or most voters don't like, and the more ammo McCain gets.

Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 14, 2008 08:55 PM

Yeah, if only Gore had actually said that. But he didn't.

Yeah, I was gonna say...

The problem with Obama's statement has more to do with the context of the campaign. His wife has said some things that are inopportune to say the least. His pastor is a baying loon. Obama has been able to keep these issues from sticking to him by assuring us that his wife misspoke and that he didn't always agree with his pastor. The words he spoke, off-the-record, now shows that he may have more in common with his wife's "misstatements" and Jeremiah Wright's rants than he previously owned up to. The fact that what he said was off the record is more damning in the eyes of most.

The context of his comment was why he was having problems attracting working-class America. The man has been running as a "political messiah" and now he just cast those not his constituents as a fear-crazed Sanhedrin. As a conservative who "clings" to religion in good times and bad, and owns more than a few guns, offense at his remark is easy to take. That said, I'm not really offended. His comment may reaffirm to my resolve to write-in my vote for Cthulu, but it doesn't offend me.

As for the elitism issue, I don't think most people are as egalitarian as they believe. Most people believe deep-down that they have the answers. If someone you disagree with thinks he's smarter than you, what's your normal reaction? If you're in politics, this translates on a mass scale. It's easier for a candidate to just play the fool rather than to seem condescending.

there is a difference, i think, between being elite and being elitist, though admittedly the difference is subtle. being elite has more to do though with your position and ability - being elitist has to do with your attitude - the best way to describe an elitist is via marie antionnette's - "let them eat cake"...

i don't think that too many people would have balked at obama simply saying that some people in pennsylvania are bitter about politics and the economy. but first of all that's not all he said. he equated religious belief and gun ownership to bitterness about the government/economy. as if gun ownership/hunting/support of the 2nd amendment, and being a devout religious person were the result of bad economic times.

i'm sorry, but people in pennsylvania and throughout "middle america" have "clung" to their guns and religious beliefs ever since this country was founded, through good times and bad. even james carville himself made this point over the weekend.

i mean, you may disagree on whether gun ownership should or shouldn't be allowed. you may not believe in god, or may not be overly devout. but when you say that the only reason people hold those beliefs is because, poor souls, they're bitter about the economy/politics, you're going to come off as elitist.

add to that where and when he said these comments - at a private fundraiser in san francisco. now it really starts to come off as sounding elitist. as if he is saying "gosh, if can improve the economy those poor simple-minded rubes in middle america will realize how silly their enjoyment of guns and belief in god is."

mind you, i think it's very funny that hillary is jumping on this, trying to make it look like she is someone "of the people" in the week after it was revealed how much money she and bill have been making the last few years. but i'm sure she's just happy that this event distracted everyone from bill bringing up the sniper fire incident again - she was able to muzzle him with little impact.

anyway, i don't think americans want spicoli as president. but i do think americans want someone who seems to respect them, not trivialize their beliefs or try to explain them away to make political hay...

Nice of you to admit your an elitist! ;-)

That's "you're an elitist."

And I suppose I am. Personally, I just think that twelve typewritten characters to an inch is simply the easiest to read.

Do you really think if John McCain said something like this in "private" that it would not have been leaked?

Depends who was there, I suppose. And if it had been, my reaction would have been exactly the same.

PAD

i mean, you may disagree on whether gun ownership should or shouldn't be allowed. you may not believe in god, or may not be overly devout. but when you say that the only reason people hold those beliefs is because, poor souls, they're bitter about the economy/politics, you're going to come off as elitist.

But that's not what he said. What he was saying was that because they were angry over things they couldn't control, like an economy that was causing them to lose their jobs, they were placing greater and greater emphasis on things they could control. I don't even think the comment about guns or religion was the most significant; it's just what everyone keeps zeroing in on. I think the most significant was when he said they clling to "antipathy to people who aren't like them." And he's right. There's very much a growing us vs. them mentality. It's the "two Americas" that John Edwards was talking about, except Edwards phrased it better.

God, I miss Edwards.

PAD

I'm sorry if I missed something in all this, but...isn't what he said at least partly true? Isn't it more or less human nature, when we lose control of major aspects of our lives, like employment, that we turn to those things we can control in order to seek some form of stability? Don't we see this kind of thing everywhere? From the battered wife who keeps returning to her abusive husband because that's easier to face than the uncertainty of going things alone to the laid-off factory worker that spends more time at church, humans seek some form of stability and control, even if those things are illusory or even harmful.

Why is that elitist or degrading to anyone? It's an observation on human nature, and it says to me that Obama is aware of a problem, which is the first thing you need to know before you can try to fix anything.

Do you really think if John McCain said something like this in "private" that it would not have been leaked?

McCain has had to be corrected a handful of times that by the account of all known intelligence there is no evidence Iran is supporting al-Qaeda -- and the media has demonstrated their bias by volunteering the McCain has been "misspeaking" without quoting anyone. For his campaign, McCain has only benefited from the selective application of principle. For all anyone knows, McCain is free to call Pat Tillman an Iranian and reporters will come to his defense.

As a conservative who "clings" to religion in good times and bad, and owns more than a few guns, offense at his remark is easy to take.

How have you not just literally confirmed Obama's account of what's going on?

The only observable basis for you to take offense seems to be that Obama hasn't honored your taboo against saying something you believe yourself. Why should anyone else care? If you were coworkers and he said this, would this all it would take to create a hostile environment for you?

Personally, I just think that twelve typewritten characters to an inch is simply the easiest to read.

Geez, how would you feel if Obama said he was going to make everyone else look like picas?

And I have to agree with Bobb -- other than the fact that it was phrased somewhat indelicately, what little I've read of this comment makes me think that Obama was pretty much just saying true stuff. Clearly that means he's doomed.

TWL

I'm sorry if I missed something in all this, but...isn't what he said at least partly true?

Actually, I think it's completely true. That's why it strikes so close to home and gets a lot of people upset. It's easier for people to dismiss something patently and demonstrably untrue, and the coverage can be defused by, "He misspoke" or "He was taken out of context." Say something that's true, and that can sink you. Again, people want presidential candidates who are as unthreatening as any other television personality who is, as Red Skelton used to say, welcome into their living rooms. They want someone who will say things they want to hear, ideally in small, easy to digest sound bytes.

PAD

Gee, Ed...you sound pretty bitter.

PAD

Yes, after 8 years of the worst Presidency in our country's history, I'm bitter.

I don't turn to God or guns. I turn to comic books and inane blogs:-}

As was pointed out, I think there is a difference between how people percieve intelligence, verses elitism.

Elitism is not knowing the price of milk, or how to use an ATM. It's the inability to relate to the people you're supposed to respresent. At least I feel that's how most people respond to percieved elitism.

Elitism is not knowing the price of milk, or how to use an ATM. It's the inability to relate to the people you're supposed to respresent. At least I feel that's how most people respond to percieved elitism.

See, whereas I think that someone who is an elitist would make it their business to know something like that.

I hate to bring up a fictional character, but "West Wing's" Bartlett was not only an elitist, but he was depicted as showing precisely how much milk cost and even, as governor, vetoing legislation that would have caused the price of milk to go up even though it hurt his standing with dairy farmers.

PAD

An elitist is someone who knows the price of gas, or a loaf of bread, but can't understand why everyone's complaining. Obama may have been harsh in his comment, but I think a little harsh is what is needed right now.

Well, it seems to me tht Obama must know something to be in touch with the folks if he understands that folks who lose their jobs and homes might not be feeling real happy these days.

H.R. Clinton obviously doesn't get it. A "middle class" income is $200,000? Not even my recently departed CEO made that much.

An elitist is someone who knows the price of gas, or a loaf of bread, but can't understand why everyone's complaining.

No, it's really not. That's not an elitist. That's just an asshole.

An elitist is someone who knows the price of gas or a loaf of bread and, because he has that knowledge, believes that his opinion on such matters are inherently superior to someone who has opinions on the price of gas or a loaf of bread without actually knowing what they are.

PAD

My understanding, Luigi--although I admit I haven't heard it--is that one of Huffington's people was tape recording it without Obama's knowledge and posted an audio of what he said. Again, I'm depending upon my patchy understanding of it, but that's what I think happened.

Huffington Post has a long essay on how they reported on the quote. The fundraiser is described as something that many people were recording, and one writer with a pulpit on Huffington Post broke the story of Obama's speech. The essay highlights the problem of "citizen journalism" — campaigns like it, because they feel it benefits them with the grassroots supporters, but they also don't know how to control it.

I just caught up with Jon Stewart's take on "Daily Show" and loved it:

"You're running for President of the United States, a job where--if you really do it right--they carve your face in a mountain. If you don't really think you're better than everybody else, what the f*ck* are you DOING here?!"

PAD

Completely right. I asked a British friend of mine what they care about in a politician and they said "postitions on issues like walfare and public transportation." In America, all we care about is if the politician is a "cool guy who can hang out with us." I'm really sick of this. Gag me with a spoon while I watch CNN's comapssion forum.

To put it in "Fast Times at Ridgemont High" terms, we should want to elect Mr. Hand; instead we opt for Jeff Spicoli.

Don't know about you guys, but I'm voting for Phoebe Cates getting out of the pool...

I'm just surprised that it took so long for you to bring up Bartlett in the comments. I actually thought you would go with a west wing analogy instead of fast times at ridgemont high.

Don't know about you guys, but I'm voting for Phoebe Cates getting out of the pool...

Not for president, no. Some sort of cabinet post for her: Surgeon General? Certainly I'd listen to her on certain topics way more than I did Joycelyn Elders.

TWL

PAD, I stand sorta corrected. We agree an elitist is an asshole.

Got to love that Jonny Stew!

PAD, I stand sorta corrected. We agree an elitist is an asshole.

Uhm...no. We don't.

PAD

I don't think the issue is whether Obama believes he's smarter than everyone. I would think that most people realize that same is true for all the candidates. I think the real issue is that Obama stereotyped a significant portion of the population. Even if he's mostly right(especially in regards to his antipathy comment), that doesn't excuse him. He's right in the same way a security guard is right to pay extra, special attention to the African-American shoppers, or a cop is right to stop them more often than other drivers. That's the problem, in my opinion.

I think the real issue is that Obama stereotyped a significant portion of the population.

No, he didn't. He described them based upon his personal experiences.

Even if he's mostly right(especially in regards to his antipathy comment), that doesn't excuse him.

I actually kind of think it does. But I'm probably in the minority in that regard.

PAD

I don't think America minds elite politicians so much as they want to make sure that the politician in question has a clue of the people they're representing. For example, somebody mentioned that McCain is an elitist--and he probably is. But the man did fight in a major war and became a POW. Thus he has a first-hand experience about the atrocities of war. This is just an example, but note that McCain's war record helps him favorably in the polls.

So, I don't think an elite or even elitist politician is as big a problem as one that is competely disconnected from those he represents.

I don't think America minds elite politicians so much as they want to make sure that the politician in question has a clue of the people they're representing. For example, somebody mentioned that McCain is an elitist--and he probably is. But the man did fight in a major war and became a POW. Thus he has a first-hand experience about the atrocities of war. This is just an example, but note that McCain's war record helps him favorably in the polls.

So, I don't think an elite or even elitist politician is as big a problem as one that is competely disconnected from those he represents.

Mark L: I don't believe you're right about the similarities between Obama and Bush, but for all I know you are right. It's not as though I can read Barack's mind or anything.

I used to think John McCain was a pretty good guy, but apparently that was all an act.

Still, I believe we can take Obama at his word. If I'm wrong, that would mean that after 8 years of GWB and the chance for things to start getting better, we don't have a single good person running to replace him. That possibility is horribly depressing to consider.

Even if he's mostly right(especially in regards to his antipathy comment), that doesn't excuse him.

Wha-hut? Being right is no excuse?

Wha-hut? Being right is no excuse?

Robert Heinlein's Lazarus Long once recommended, "If you ever know beyond question that you are right, apologize immediately." The reference was to male/female relationships, but it seems to apply to politics.

PAD

"I don't think America minds elite politicians so much as they want to make sure that the politician in question has a clue of the people they're representing."

Are you sure they want a President who understands them? If that was true, people would have loved Obama's comments.

Let's be honest. How much of an issue has gay marriage in the last decade? There were people in the Republican party who made it out to be a giant threat to American institutions, but on election years. Part of that was based on people's religious beliefs.

How about second amendments rights, isn't that something that has been used as a big issue? And aren't those immigrants reeeaaallly scary?

All the stuff Obama talked about are things that have been voting issues even when they shouldn't be. He said that people are voting on those things because they don't feel like they have any control over the more important issues, like the economy.

This scandal isn't about elitism at all. It's about tact. And tact is lying to avoid talking about someone's bad qualities, something Obama forgot to do for a moment. Does America want a President who understands them, or does America want a President who only mentions the good stuff?

I think the Chicago Tribune had a good editorial on this. Here's a quote from part of it:

"The notable thing, wrote Melinda Henneberger in Slate, was Obama's 'ability to pack half a dozen unintended insults into a single sentence.'

It didn't help that Obama was speaking behind closed doors, in comments he may have thought would remain private, in a setting that could hardly be more removed culturally from rural Pennsylvania. He wouldn't have made those comments at an American Legion hall in Uniontown—because he would have known they sound dismissive of perfectly legitimate sentiments. You don't have to be "bitter" to value gun rights, go to church or oppose free trade and illegal Immigration.

Obama soon apologized, more or less, saying, 'If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.' But the damage may be hard to undo, coming as it does after the revelations of his former pastor's over-the-top criticisms of America ("the U.S. of KKK-A") and Michelle Obama's claim that because of her husband's political success, 'For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country.' Then there's Obama's decision not to wear an American flag lapel pin.

Taken together, all these factors are bound to raise a question even among many voters who were open-minded about Obama: Does he really understand what makes ordinary people tick?"

source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0415edit2apr15,0,4690697.story

I'd say this was a fairly objective view. The Tribune has not exactly been anti-Obama in its coverage.

I think the man is completely wrong, but even if you agree with Obama, you have to put some store in the proverb that states, "a wise man does not tell all he knows."

Rob Brown: Still, I believe we can take Obama at his word. If I'm wrong, that would mean that after 8 years of GWB and the chance for things to start getting better, we don't have a single good person running to replace him. That possibility is horribly depressing to consider.

Unfortunately, things like Obama's "cling" comment - in combination with the 24-hour news cycle - are creating this problem. We have created a system where only when you offend the fewest people and say the fewest controversial things can you be elected. Perception is everything. There are people on the right refusing to vote for McCain because he - gasp! - struck a deal that kept the Senate from implementing a 50%+1 rule on votes. There are people on the left that won't vote for Clinton because she refuses to apologize for her Iraq War vote.

Obama and Bush (and most of the recent Supreme Court nominees) step into this world trying to be quiet and inspirational - and above all non-confrontational. No track record? No problem - you go to the head of the line for President!

I just don't think we get "good people" running anymore. They aren't interested.

I absolutely do not think Obama is wrong. Nor do I think we was stereotyping people.

I most certainly blame people for deliberately misunderstanding him and continuing to do so when everything is pointed out to them.

That's what makes politics so depressing--that deliberate drive to be stupid.

Again, how can remarks made at a fundraiser be considered private? It's not as though he made the remark to some close personal friends; he invited strangers in to ask for money. He can try to bar the press, but if they manage to get in, where's the basis for crying foul?

PAD, I stand completely corrected.

Mea Culpa.

Posted by roger Tang at April 15, 2008 03:47 PM I absolutely do not think Obama is wrong. Nor do I think we was stereotyping people.

I most certainly blame people for deliberately misunderstanding him and continuing to do so when everything is pointed out to them.

That's what makes politics so depressing--that deliberate drive to be stupid.

So everyone who thought the comments were out of character or demeaning for Mr. Change is stupid? And apparrently deliberately stupid. So we all know what Mr. Change really meant when he made those comments but we are deliberately ignoring that and playing the stupid card?

Im not sure why everyone (well at least the stupid folks)is so surprised. So it turns out Mr Change has been a liberal all this time. huh who would have thunk it?

He's been outed, his true colors were flying that day. Behind closed doors when the "bitter" folk cant hear it. He turns out to be the same "big government" "more taxes" "Globel Warming" liberal as Hillary but way better at it then she is.

Big deal. The real show starts when he tries to talk is way around it. The more he explains the worse it gets.

Now Im going to go pray for my gun and Im from Minnesota.

I don't know that Americans, or most people for that matter, really hate an intelligent person so much as they hate someone who is smarter than they are...and lets them know it.

I don't think that's what Obama did but that's the perception that is being criticized.

It's like beauty--there can be no question that we love beautiful people and treat them better than the average person. But if most people even get a whiff of the idea that the beautiful person is lording over the fact that they are the most attractive person in the room that love vanishes real fast.

Now add to that the fact that a politician is essentially coming to us hat in hand asking for our support, our time, our money...and only an idiot would in any way try to pull the "i'm smarter than you are, vote for me!" card.

Which again, I don't think Obama did. When you talk as much as these peope do it's a wonder all kinds of stupid things don't come out. I remember when Dan Quayle was on the Today show and Katie kept on him about why people thought he was stupid and he wouldn't acknowledge the fact and I thought, "wow, you really ARE stupid". Because I would've just shot right back "Hey, Katie, suppose every Friday they strung together every mistake you ever did on the show--every stutter, every bit of bad grammar, every error of fact--how smart would you look?"

This is the challenge they all face--do 2 or more of the same kind of mistake and it becomes the narrative. McCain-has a bad temper. Clinton--lies like a dog on a rug. Obama--bit of a snob. It doesn't even have to be true for it to get out there and become the Thing People Watch For. Gore--serial exxagerator. Kennedy--pampered rich boy. George Bush the first--wimp.

It can also work to your advantage. George Bush should have been thrilled to be tagged as a wimp--when people found out he had fought in WWII it defied the negative expectations (Dukakis doing an uncanny impersonation of Snoopy when he rode in that tank helped as well). On the other hand, if you do anything to reinforce the impression it really really hurts. The impression that Dukakis was a passionless policy wonk got a big shot in the arm when he botched the question on what he would have done if his wife were raped--it wasn't that he gave the wrong answer on the facts, it was that his way of answering fed right into the negative perception of him. And Hillary has sure hurt herself badly with these idiotic lies about insignificant events.

The good news for Obama is that this can work for him. So the meme is that he's a snob? thinks he's better than the people whose votes he needs? well, just add a bit more selp depreciating humor into his speeches. Take a page form Hillary and talk more about specific examples of people who are in need, people he cares about--I'm sure he can do a far better job than she has of actually sounding like she cares. DON'T try to make lemonade out of the quote, don't even USE the word "bitter". Accept that the quote has been used against you and bringing it up will only hurt you further (WHY the hell did Bill Clinton revive the sniper story??? Does he WANT her to lose?)

McCain seems to get this, appearing very much like a happy guy who would NEVER lose his temper and, oh, launch a nuclear strike at Guam. He must know that they are just waiting for him to snap. If he so much as stubs his toe and yells out an obscenity the headlines will be MCCAIN LOSES IT! At some point someone, maybe at a debate, will really yank his crank and a nation will hold its breath. How he responds may well decide if the negative branding sticks or is rejected. Now Obama has the same opportunity.

Hillary is screwed in this regard though. It's really hard for a politician to overcome the perception that they are a liar since it's their nature to HAVE to lie, on a regular basis. Bill pulled it off but whatever magic he once had seems to be gone and it probably wasn't transferable anyway.

"Big deal. The real show starts when he tries to talk is way around it. The more he explains the worse it gets."

Untrue. He's been talking about it all weekend. Polls from Pennsylvania taken after the story started are beginning to come in. So far they're showing that the people of Pennsylvania don't care. Some show Hillary's lead slightly higher than before, some slightly lower. Overall, this hasn't actually affected anything.

This is entirely a manufactured scandal. The people he was talking about aren't particularly offended by his words. They're not particularly offended by the fact that he said them to someone else instead of to them. The only people who are offended are the ones who are looking for ammunition against him instead of asking what he actually meant.

Haven't read the entire post, nor have I read the entire list of comments, Peter, so apologies up front if I repeat someone else.

The key word is "think" they are better/smarter than everyone else. Bush, in all his smugness, has consistently proven in action/word/gesture/smirk/chuckle/poor-excuses-for-war that he believes himself to be the very thing you think is OK with being a president. Egotism. Not a healthy characteristic/attribute I want in my president. I'd prefer my voice being heard, rather than ignored.

He turns out to be the same "big government" "more taxes" "Globel Warming" liberal as Hillary but way better at it then she is.

Pat, don't take this the wrong way, but do you have any critiques on substance? So far they're all just sound bites (and ones with spelling/grammar errors as well -- when you hit one every ten words it really blunts the ideas).

This is the challenge they all face--do 2 or more of the same kind of mistake and it becomes the narrative.

A very cogent analysis from Mr. Mulligan there. I think I've agreed with you about Dukakis blowing it before, but I agree with a lot of the others, too.

I'm surprised you didn't mention Kerry -- the narrative there very quickly became "effete flip-flopping snob" when that's really half-true at best. But boy, did he do a good job feeding that myth time and time and time and time again.

I also agree that self-deprecating humor could work wonders for him. He should bring his wife out to speak more often -- I seem to recall that she's pretty good at it.

(And as I think most teachers would agree, self-deprecating humor can work REALLY well in the classroom.)

TWL

Jason M. Bryant says:
This is entirely a manufactured scandal. The people he was talking about aren't particularly offended by his words. They're not particularly offended by the fact that he said them to someone else instead of to them. The only people who are offended are the ones who are looking for ammunition against him instead of asking what he actually meant.

Sarcasm aside, I agree 100% but, He's going to feel the need to "Explain" like he did with the lovely rev Wright. I would have been content with something along the lines of: "those are his words not mine" but he had to go and feign ignorance to the good rev's beliefs like it was the first time he heard such nonsense come out of his mouth.
Hes playing right into the hands of the talking heads. He's his own worst enemy.

Mike T says:
Pat, don't take this the wrong way, but do you have any critiques on substance? So far they're all just sound bites (and ones with spelling/grammar errors as well -- when you hit one every ten words it really blunts the ideas).

opinions Mike, not critiques, not ideas but opinions. You dont have to like them. Most (not all but most) of the spelling/grammer errors we're
part of the sarcasm of my post. Not all of us are writers, yes I have a dictionary, thesaurus and if I can find it, a style book somewhere but we're posting on a blog not writing a term paper. If I could afford an editor....is i clear nuff?

If only the young Mr. Barack Obama were to strive to be the intellectual honest person he claims to be and just admit to himself, if not the world that he is but a human, a humble human however and is prone to make mistakes.
I feel this would greatly stifle the spirits of the talk radio proletariat and the like. Thus ending the unnecessary debate and allowing himself to move forward onto other topics that could very well further his goal of becoming the President of these United States.

Sorry Mike T. that should be Tim Lynch as the author of the above qoute. Though you may feel that my post are sounds bites also, you didn't
write the post.

See, I really need that editor

"Hes playing right into the hands of the talking heads. He's his own worst enemy."

I really don't see how you can say that. When Obama addressed Wright's comments directly, it was a huge gain for him. Polls that showed him losing ground immediately swung around. The media changed their tune and things got better for Obama quickly.

Now we're seeing Obama explain what he said to crowds in Pennsylvania. Check the link that Luigi posted. He repeated everything he said in that meeting, but put it in context and explained what he meant. The result was the people of Pennsylvania nodding their heads as he spoke and cheering agreement at the end.

Obama is not his own worst enemy. I think he's shown a remarkable ability to address things directly and get people to come around. While everyone is saying that he should just let it blow over, he's talking about it and the results are actually very good. So I think he should keep doing what he's doing.

i don't know what any of what obama said has to do with the claim that what he said means he thinks he's smarter than other people. what he said is the truth -- people are pissed off and don't vote because they feel like they're getting screwed. that's pretty much the truth. i for one was REALLY glad to hear someone running for president say that! he freaking gets it! hooray!

but that is precisely why the punditocracy has declared it an evil statement -- no one is EVER allowed to say anything other than that the united states is the best country ever and our (republican) elected leaders are golden boys.

well, there's nothing new there.

what IS new is my discovering peterdavid.net! i just want to give a shout-out to three of the best "arthur" books ever written -- "knight life," "one knight only" and "fall of knight" -- by mr. peter david! (whoo! whistle! clap!)

thank you, mr. peter david, for several utterly delightful afternoons NOT thinking about the country and my life coming down around my ears.

He's been outed, his true colors were flying that day. Behind closed doors when the "bitter" folk cant hear it. He turns out to be the same "big government" "more taxes" "Globel Warming" liberal as Hillary but way better at it then she is.

Pat, don't take this the wrong way, but do you have any critiques on substance? So far they're all just sound bites (and ones with spelling/grammar errors as well -- when you hit one every ten words it really blunts the ideas).

opinions... not critiques, not ideas but opinions. You dont have to like them.

Hey, as long as you admit your opinion that Obama is deceptive is based on your need that it should be so -- and not rooted in any facts -- it isn't exactly like there's an urgency to challenge what you say.

A very cogent analysis from Mr. Mulligan there.

Always good to see us agree on something since I find that it significantly reduces the odds that I've gotten it totally wrong :)

I also agree that self-deprecating humor could work wonders for him. He should bring his wife out to speak more often -- I seem to recall that she's pretty good at it.

mmmm, I don't know. An awful lot of women I know actually didn't like it when she made references to his stinky feet or something...I didn't think she was all that bad, it's obvious that they have a much more loving relationship than, well, others running for office.

Obama's audience for his remarks in question were pale worm-like things encased in the Darth Vader armor of their own privilege. If they didn't hear it from Obama, they would have been left to attribute religious- and gun-nuttiness to agendas compatible to those portrayed in Deliverance.

thank you, mr. peter david, for several utterly delightful afternoons NOT thinking about the country and my life coming down around my ears.

Glad I could help, and thanks for the kind words.

PAD

The one thing that really, really bugs me about this whole mess is where at first I had no negative opinion of Senator Clinton, I really dont see that much in how she's handling this campaign that makes me want to elect her. And as her wacked out uber supporters, well, any Democrat who throws out that "If Obama wins, I'm voting for McCain or Nader" bulls#!t should tear up their voter card, because you are NOT a Democrat. You need to stop and look around, at how people look at you for talking that garbage. You are not helping the process, except in sorting out true Democrats from a$$kissing bootlickers.

What a lot of people are angry about is not that Obama said (correctly) that a lot of people are bitter, but that they cling to their guns and religion out of bitterness. I'm not particularly religious, but it has to rankle anyone who feels strongly about his faith to have it reduced to a Marxist opiate of the masses. Pro-gun forces must also believe that belittling of a legitimate constitutional question to nothing more than bitter grasping is arrogant and logically slipshod. As to the question of whether truth excuses Obama's statements, yes, in a philosophical or even a moral sense, it would. Practically and politically, it is stupidity to say anything that alienates the voters. No one owes Obama, Clinton or McCain a vote in the general election: All of them are free to be truthful, insightful private citizens should their truthfulness cost them the election.

It is my experience in life that those who cling to their guns ARE bitter.

So it turns out Mr Change has been a liberal all this time. huh who would have thunk it?

Speaking of that deliberate drive to make politics stupid, your post is an excellent example, Pat.

And as her wacked out uber supporters, well, any Democrat who throws out that "If Obama wins, I'm voting for McCain or Nader" bulls#!t should tear up their voter card, because you are NOT a Democrat. You need to stop and look around, at how people look at you for talking that garbage. You are not helping the process, except in sorting out true Democrats from a$$kissing bootlickers.

How is someone who votes for the Democrat regardless of who they are in a stronger position to call someone as asskisser or a bootlicker than someone who votes for the candidate they prefer??? Maybe they really think that McCain is the better choice.

Granted, voting someone just because you're doing it out of spite is a silly reason but I don't see it as all that sillier than doing it just because of the D or R after their name. But to each their own.

You are not helping the process, except in sorting out true Democrats from a$$kissing bootlickers.

Speaking of another example...

"How is someone who votes for the Democrat regardless of who they are in a stronger position to call someone as asskisser or a bootlicker than someone who votes for the candidate they prefer??? Maybe they really think that McCain is the better choice."

True, voting for McCain because he's their second choice is perfectly reasonable. I think any democrat should be willing to consider a republican candidate and vice-a-versa.

However, there are a lot of supporters for both Hillary and Obama (though more seem to be this way for Hillary) who are saying they will vote for McCain out of spite, not because he's their second choice. It's not that they're saying they want to vote for McCain, but that they'd never vote for the other democrat. This comes from surveys asking those supporters how they felt several months ago versus polls asking the same things now. The results show that the competition between the two candidates has led to a lot of bitterness.

No pun intended about the bitterness.

Again, I thank Mr. Nolan for supporting my point.

Alan Coil: It is my experience that when one wants to limit a constitutional right it is best to make a coherent argument rather than to simply say those in opposition are bitter (or stupid, or ugly, or insane, or whatever). I suspect that unlimited freedom to bear arms is not in the public interest, but the Second Amendment does exist, and does promise something. Any argument that goes no further than "Those gun lovers are bad" is not helpful.

In the present case of Senator Obama, I suspect he will face more trouble from the small-town religious than the pro-gun forces, because his being intolerant of pro-gun thinking is no big surprise, while he had previously been running his campaign as one very tolerant of all religions.

Posted by roger tang at April 16, 2008 01:34 PM
Again, I thank Mr. Nolan for supporting my point.

Your welcome, glad to be of service. How about something with substance?

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the old Adlai Stevenson quote:

(Random supporter): Congratulations on a great speech! You're sure to get the vote of every intelligent American!"

(Stevenson): That's not enough; I need a majority.

Anyway, I personally consider myself an elitist. And by that, I mean I want to deal with people who know what they're doing and are good at it. For example, when my car needs repairs, I want a good auto mechanic, not just some random person off the street (or even worse, myself. I'm terrible with cars). That doesn't mean I look down in general on people who aren't good at fixing cars; it just means I don't want them trying to fix my car.

And in pretty much every field beyond tic-tac-toe, there are people who, whether due to experience, or brain structure, or physical attributes, are just better at it than the average person. Some folk are fortunate enough to be better in multiple areas, or in areas with wide generality such as intelligence.

Personally, I'd be pretty dumb not to think I'm pretty intelligent; I've got a long list of accomplishments indicating such, the opinions of people I consider intelligent, etc. But I'm also well aware there are numerous areas where I'm not knowledgeable or good at, and that there are a fair number of people much more generally smarter than me. And I'm going to tend to listen to and go with the opinions of folk smarter than me, particularly in their specialist areas, unless I can come up with a flaw in their reasoning which they can't explain.

So, I consider myself elitist, but not in the sense of looking down on people. Rather, in the sense of recognizing and admiring and appreciating people's skills and abilities.

"intolerant of pro-gun thinking"

At least he opposes unconstitutional Katrina-style gun confiscations. HRC supports them.

So...what did Obama say that wasn't true? I am a white liberal living in small town Indiana, and I see it every day. People here in "The Bible Belt" will always vote for fear driven and outdated notions that have kept this country from progressing to the potential that it truly holds. In fact, Obama pretty much hit the nail on the head. How else do you think Bush and his administration have kept such a stranglehold on the country for the last 7 plus years? Because small town voters do INDEED come out and vote for the very fear-rooted issues Obama named.

In fact, its nothing to see bumber stickers in my town that read things like: "God, Guns, Guts and Glory" Lets keep em all!" Need I say more??

Kudos to Obama for calling it as it really is!!

Alan Coil: It is my experience in life that those who cling to their guns ARE bitter.

Really? That'll come as a shock to people who know me. I keep trying to be bitter, but it doesn't stick. I've got a lovely wife, a comfy job, a couple of nice sets of wheels, 2 dogs, three cats, and a nice collection of firearms.

Why do I have guns? Simply put, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. I always held strong pro-2nd amendment views, but didn't see fit to own any guns myself until someone tried to break into my house when I was in it. Since then, I bought a few guns and trained extensively with professionals in their use. It wasn't bitterness that caused me to become a gun owner, it was the reality of the world we live in regardless of which party is in power. That reality is rooted in human nature and no amount of government meddling is going to fix it.

Well, now the national news programs are actually talking to people from small-town Pennsylvania.

It's very interesting; once you filter out the right-wingers who couldn't find anything nice to say about Obama (or any other Democrat) if he cured cancer, you're left with a lot of people who are saying, in essence, "Yes, I'm unemployed. And yes, I'm a little bitter about that. You folks are just catching on?"

The big furor seems to be among those who want to get infuriated on behalf of those Pennsylvanians - as if the people themselves can't tell whether or not they should be insulted.

Who's the elitist here again? :-)

Oh, as a total aside: Mr. Nolan, this shall be my sole response to you - you provide no substance to discuss. You present your opinions as if they are Revealed Truth, handed down from on high carved in tablets of gold. How can one reasonably debate such? Further, you litter your posts with such basic errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation that I begin to wonder if you are, in fact, a student at one of our nation's lesser high schools. (Hint: you don't need an edit function, you just need to read over your post before clicking on the Post button.) Until such time as your writing improves (which will have to be reported by some soul more tolerant of barbarisms than I), you are shrouded. Good day, sir.

I LIVE in Western PA, and from where I sit (and teach) I think he called pretty accurately. As far as it damaging him, in my limited observations, the folks who supported him prior to the comments still seem to support him, and the people who didn't still don't. I have yet to run across a single person who was turned off by this "controversy."

"The big furor seems to be among those who want to get infuriated on behalf of those Pennsylvanians - as if the people themselves can't tell whether or not they should be insulted.

Who's the elitist here again? :-)"

That's what I thought would happen. Hillary started forcefully declaring that nobody was bitter and everyone was full of hope as soon as she heard what Obama said. Of course people noticed that she was saying they were outraged without first asking them if they actually were.

Hillary is now in Bitter-gate-gate.

Did anyone catch the debate tonight? Good lord, they both looked terrible--this race is killing them. Somewhere, John McCain is smiling.

Posted by Jonathan (the other one) at April 16, 2008 09:02 PM

Until such time as your writing improves (which will have to be reported by some soul more tolerant of barbarisms than I), you are shrouded. Good day, sir.

and you are? oh please, please respond to me...

Its funny, my spelling and grammer doesn't bother anyone when im agreeing.
I have never had folks put so much emotion and attitude into my own posts, its as if you were in the room with me when I wrote them but then of course you would realize how wrong you are.
Being shrouded you will not get this but how about you grow some skin (or a pair) and get over yourself.
We grammatically challenged folks have opinions too.

my spelling and grammer doesn't bother anyone when im agreeing.

Not true, kiddo. Not true.

In a written medium, being a lousy writer does neither you nor your points any favors.

Don't mistake people ignoring the errors for people thinking they're okay.

TWL

Pat---turn the other cheek
_____
Maclom Robertson---I don't own a gun. My Father did, and both my brothers do. I don't think the Second Amendment gives any sole person the right to possess a gun, but I think that common law at this point DOES say that individuals have the right to own a gun. I would speak against AND vote against any law that tried to state otherwise. Even a law that would limit how many guns a person could own. If someone wants to own 75, as long as s/he is responsible, I have no problem with that.

I stand by my statement that in my experience, those who cling to their guns ARE bitter. I live in southeast Michigan, and worked in a factory in northwest Ohio that has been closed. I have rubbed elbows with many bitter gun owners whose sole response to crisis is "That sonova&&^^&! I'll get my gun and we'll see what he thinks of that!" However, 2 of my best friends at work, one male and one female, owned multiple guns, yet I never heard them say anything about resolving problems with guns. They did not cling to their guns. Showing proud gun ownership and respecting what they can do is not clinging to the gun.
_____

Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all in the same sinking boat. (And there may be other states, too.) Jobs are being lost at alarming rates. Jobs that paid good wages to people who never got higher education. Those people have little future in the work force other than working cashier for a gas station or Wal-mart. There are houses for sale on nearly every block in Toledo, Ohio. Many of them have been marked down 10-20% and still there are no buyers. People are afraid. People who are afraid and see no future do indeed become bitter.

Tim, Im sorry but I don't really care if people think my grammer challanged posts are ok. I would hope folks would look past that and disagree with what Im trying to say or if it wasn't clear ask me to further explain.

Posted by: Alan Coil at April 16, 2008 11:04 PM
Pat---turn the other cheek

If only i would have hit refresh one more time before that last post. My cheek is now turned.
Thank you for the advice.

How is someone who votes for the Democrat regardless of who they are in a stronger position to call someone as asskisser or a bootlicker than someone who votes for the candidate they prefer???

By the accounts of the democratic contenders themselves, their platforms are nearly identical. That's how.

Maybe they really think that McCain is the better choice.

For the 15 million or so who'll get left out of Hillary's universal healthcare if Obama becomes president, you're going to switch your vote from a democrat to the guy who's staffing his campaign with people who ran Bush/Cheney 2004? This seems to only demonstrate how disingenuous your support for Hillary has been all along.

Hey Peter! You writing for Jay Leno now? He just asked the same question: What's wrong with having a President who's smarter than everyone else?

As useless as discussions with Mike inevitably become, let's try:

By the accounts of the democratic contenders themselves, their platforms are nearly identical. That's how.

Even assuming that were true--and in your very next line you indicate that their healthcare plans are not, in fact, even close to identical-- one does not always vote for a candidate based simply on their positions. There are a myriad of factors--trustworthiness, for example. A person who can't be trusted is as likely to stab me in the back as not, even if they profess to believe the same things I do. Maybe I'd be better off with someone of integrity who I have honest disagreements with. There are plenty of valid reasons for a Democrat to vote for McCain or a Republican to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nod.

This is all so obvious it staggers the imagination that it needs to be explained. As you occasionally ask, usually in totally inappropriate circumstances; are you unwell?

For the 15 million or so who'll get left out of Hillary's universal healthcare if Obama becomes president, you're going to switch your vote from a democrat to the guy who's staffing his campaign with people who ran Bush/Cheney 2004?

I don't recall ever saying Hillary had my vote--I said I would certainly consider voting for her. And, in fact, nowhere have I said that McCain now has my vote. You made that up. Misspoke, as they say these days when they mean lie. I was responding to the idea brought forth that anyone who supports Clinton or Obama MUST throw their support to the other or be an asskisser and/or bootlicker.

This seems to only demonstrate how disingenuous your support for Hillary has been all along.

Yes, it was all a trick to...um, well, I don't know what the purpose of the trick was but rest assured, it was pretty darned tricky! Moo hoo hoo hoo hwah!

No, seriously, I have no desire to lead Mike Leung astray through calculated insincerity. Just being honest seems to throw you off sufficiently.

As for Hillary...sigh. I thought she was by far the most competent of the Democrats running. I thought her campaign would demonstrate that level of competence. I thought she would be able to handle her opposition without needing to resort to desperate tactics. I thought wrong. Jusding from the way she went from a tremendous lead in the polls to clinging by her fingertips to stay in the race I am far from alone.

In the words of Keynes "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

Feel free to respond with the typical nuttiness but don't expect I'll feel obligated to continue. Been there, done that, got the "I won an argument with Mike Leung and all I got was this lousy T-shirt"

i didn't watch the whole debate, but there was one hilarious moment right at the beginning, when the moderator asked them if they would both commit to taking on the other as a running mate no matter who won.

their stunned reactions and hesitation to say anything at all made me wonder if i was watching an snl skit....:)

NPR reports that while newspapers and so-called "elitist" journalists are fumfarawing about Obama's remarks, small-town newspapers in the very areas that Obama was talking about are basically saying that his assessment is pretty much accurate.

PAD

Yeah, it was a huge tactical mistake on Hillary's part to focus on the "bitter" angle--given PA's economic state it isn't hard to find lots of folks who more than fit the description. It would have been better to try to focus on the clumsy way he conflated religion, guns, bigotry and, oddly (given his own positions), opposition to trade deals.

This could still hurt Obama in the long run since every word he says from now on will be parsed for any hint of snobbishness. He has to weigh his words carefully now and I think he is someone who enjoys using his eloquence without worrying about being pounced on. He definitely didn't look like he was having any fun last night.

But Hillary has apparently damaged herself too much to capitalize on it. You can't count her completely out of it yet but it will take far greater mistakes than this on Obama's part for her to pull it out. So she's managed to hurt him in the long run with no great gain for herself. Some think that's the plan--help McCain now and run again in 2012 on the "I told you so" platform. I kind of doubt this--if Obama loses and she is perceived as having been in any way part of the problem there are going to be a lot of angry people who will not be forgiving.

Bill and Hill have exhibited incredible tone deafness for people who had previously shown some real savvy but they MUST know this. I don't see any grand strategy, more of a "let's throw everything but the kitchen sink and pray to God something sticks".

Nothing is, so far. But it's wearing him down. I'd have rated his chances against McCain as excellent but if the Obama of last night shows up against the relaxed McCain we've seen lately it won't be pretty (admittedly, McCain has been able to coast these last few weeks. That will change.).

Watching as this has unfolded, I find myself thinking that maybe at no point did either Clinton or any of her team? Staff? Supporters? Whatever the term, really consider the possibility that maybe she isn't a guaranteed in for the White House.

Even assuming that were true--and in your very next line you indicate that their healthcare plans are not, in fact, even close to identical-- one does not always vote for a candidate based simply on their positions. There are a myriad of factors--trustworthiness, for example. A person who can't be trusted is as likely to stab me in the back as not, even if they profess to believe the same things I do. Maybe I'd be better off with someone of integrity who I have honest disagreements with. There are plenty of valid reasons for a Democrat to vote for McCain or a Republican to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nod.

This is all so obvious it staggers the imagination that it needs to be explained. As you occasionally ask, usually in totally inappropriate circumstances; are you unwell?

Obama has promised less than Hillary, Hillary has been asking people to believe there's no conflict of interest in rolling out her healthcare plan and receiving more money from the healthcare industry than all of the Iowa candidates combined, and she's been busted by footage of her strolling on an airstrip. Literally.

If you want Trust™ here's a clue: trust the candidate who imposes on your trust the least.

Maybe they really think that McCain is the better choice.

For the 15 million or so who'll get left out of Hillary's universal healthcare if Obama becomes president, you're going to switch your vote from a democrat to the guy who's staffing his campaign with people who ran Bush/Cheney 2004?

I don't recall ever saying Hillary had my vote--I said I would certainly consider voting for her. And, in fact, nowhere have I said that McCain now has my vote. You made that up. Misspoke, as they say these days when they mean lie.

Thank you for vehemently underscoring how implausible it is for someone to skip Obama by jumping from Hilllary to McCain, Nurse-Ratched- please-don't-tell- my-mother. Yet again, it's a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.

[some guy] And as her wacked out uber supporters, well, any Democrat who throws out that "If Obama wins, I'm voting for McCain or Nader" bulls#!t should tear up their voter card, because you are NOT a Democrat. You need to stop and look around, at how people look at you for talking that garbage. You are not helping the process, except in sorting out true Democrats from a$$kissing bootlickers.

How is someone who votes for the Democrat regardless of who they are in a stronger position to call someone as asskisser or a bootlicker than someone who votes for the candidate they prefer??? Maybe they really think that McCain is the better choice.

This seems to only demonstrate how disingenuous your support for Hillary has been all along.

Yes, it was all a trick to...um, well, I don't know what the purpose of the trick was but rest assured, it was pretty darned tricky! Moo hoo hoo hoo hwah!

No, seriously, I have no desire to lead Mike Leung astray through calculated insincerity. Just being honest seems to throw you off sufficiently.

I've seen a dictionary definition listing calculating as a synonym for disingenuous, but not insincere. You seem to have literally criticized that other guy for not being disingenuous enough.

By hypothetical analogy: you don't believe cannibalism is wrong, but because you like Hannibal Lecter you think cannibalism shouldn't be held against him? That makes no sense.

Disingenuous is the New Black.™

As for Hillary...sigh. I thought she was by far the most competent of the Democrats running. I thought her campaign would demonstrate that level of competence. I thought she would be able to handle her opposition without needing to resort to desperate tactics. I thought wrong. Jusding from the way she went from a tremendous lead in the polls to clinging by her fingertips to stay in the race I am far from alone.

In the words of Keynes "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?"

I had her pegged at the simple fact Edwards shoved her into third place in Iowa. With you, it's in one ear and out the other.

Mike, you have exposed yourself as a liar and a fraud better than I ever could. I won't tell your mother. She knows.

Seriously, are you unwell? That was painful, even by your standards. I mean, you lie about me, I call you on it, you can't deny it and you still trot out the Nurse-Ratched and the "it's a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say."

Then again...maybe you're right. Since nobody takes you seriously why SHOULD anyone disagree with you? Point taken. Carry on.

It's difficult to understand Alan Coil's comments on gun ownership - Perhaps even he doesn't have much of a grasp on them. First he says that those who cling to their guns are bitter. That may or may not be so, but it doesn't address the question of whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms. Later, he says "I don't think the Second Amendment gives any sole person the right to possess a gun, but I think that common law at this point DOES say that individuals do have the right to own a gun." It isn't clear what he means by "common law," as there are more than fifty state, city and territorial laws determining local gun rights. There is no "common law" governing firearms possession, unless it is the duty to obey the requirements of the Second Amendment, whatever those requirements are. Understanding just what the Second Amendment does and does not guarantee is contentious and difficult to settle, but Mr. Coil is wrong to suppose firearms laws are not fundamentally a matter of constitutional law.

PAD has said in the past (and I disagreed, of course) that he is a First Amendment absolutist. My own approach to the First, Second and other Amendments is (horrors!) essentially identical to his regarding the First - but I won't call it "absolutist." The Constitution reserves certain rights to the people, and any infringement of any of those rights needs to be narrowly drawn and amply justified by reason or necessity. What Mr. Coil seems to be saying is something like this: "The Second Amendment? That doesn't mean anything. There is a general custom of permitting gun ownership, and I like that. But, you know, those people who really care about gun rights are a bunch of malcontent yahoos [and maybe THEY shouldn't really be allowed to have guns - 'cause they're low lives without MY kind of wisdom].

Gun ownership is the new black.

Re: the Second Amendment:

"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "the right of the States". Nor "the right of the Government".

It says, in plain language, "the people".

Why is this difficult to understand?

It also says that the purpose of that right is for maintaining a militia to defend the state.

If you're gonna quibble about exact wording, then the purpose of that right is for defending the country and nothing else. Not hunting, not target practice, not traditions passed down through families. Holding to the exact wording of the amendment isn't worth much if you only look at half the words.

Jason, isn't that pretty much consistent with how the laws have been done? There are plenty of laws regulating hunting, shooting, selling, etc. I think many hard core gun fans would be thrilled with an interpretation that says they are allowed to have guns for defending the country. They’d probably argue that such defense would require even bigger and more lethal guns than currently allowed.

One thing this mini brouhaha has made it clear is how completely the once powerful gun issue has been muted. It appears that the NRA has pretty much won. Give Obama credit; he's the first serious Democratic candidate I've seen in a while who didn't feel the need to be photographed in hunting gear or reminiscing fondly back on his childhood shooting varmints. But even he isn't talking much about expanding gun control and the recent Supreme Court case has many court watchers speculating that the individual right to own guns is about to get a serious stamp of approval.

"Jason, isn't that pretty much consistent with how the laws have been done?"

Yes and no. If everyone accepted that wording to it's full extent then there would be no problem saying that guns can only be bought for military use, nothing else. It's a matter of degree.

However, what I want to get across is not that the exact wording defines one specific way of doing things. My point is that looking at two words, "the people," and ignoring other words does not give a clear picture of the amendment. It's not accurate to try to take that state out of the picture when it is clearly part of the amendment.

How is someone who votes for the Democrat regardless of who they are in a stronger position to call someone as asskisser or a bootlicker than someone who votes for the candidate they prefer??? Maybe they really think that McCain is the better choice.

For the 15 million or so who'll get left out of Hillary's universal healthcare if Obama becomes president, you're going to switch your vote from a democrat to the guy who's staffing his campaign with people who ran Bush/Cheney 2004? This seems to only demonstrate how disingenuous your support for Hillary has been all along.

I don't recall ever saying Hillary had my vote--I said I would certainly consider voting for her. And, in fact, nowhere have I said that McCain now has my vote. You made that up. Misspoke, as they say these days when they mean lie.

Thank you for vehemently underscoring how implausible it is for someone to skip Obama by jumping from Hilllary to McCain, Nurse-Ratched- please-don't-tell- my-mother. Yet again, it's a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.

Mike, you have exposed yourself as a liar and a fraud better than I ever could. I won't tell your mother. She knows.

Seriously, are you unwell? That was painful, even by your standards. I mean, you lie about me, I call you on it, you can't deny it and you still trot out the Nurse-Ratched and the "it's a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say."

Then again...maybe you're right. Since nobody takes you seriously why SHOULD anyone disagree with you? Point taken. Carry on.

Nothing I've said depends on the casual comment you have provided only your own neediness as evidence was submitted with intent to deceive. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Fortunately for me, calling you on your bullying is more wellness than those at the mercy of your professional privilege are permitted to demonstrate. Freedom is not unwell.

Nothing I've said depends on the casual comment you have provided only your own neediness as evidence was submitted with intent to deceive. I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Fortunately for me, calling you on your bullying is more wellness than those at the mercy of your professional privilege are permitted to demonstrate. Freedom is not unwell.

Hey, who stole my idea of creating the Mike Leung random comment generator? It's not bad, though it needs a little bit of tweaking--even he usually makes a little more sense than that.

Also, you need to stick a reference to Vonnegut or Jung in there somewhere—it doesn’t have to be relevant, just something to look deep. But pretty good for a first try. Kudos!

It's like that Tolstoy line about happy families resembling each other but unhappy families finding their own path to unhappiness. While your vulnerabilities are endless, taking your wrongness hostage requires the simplest of discipline. That isn't my sucktardness, but yours.

Thank you for not invalidating my rebuttal.

Much better--the Tolstoy reference was spot-on. Now just add "lennie-like" and a threat to call CNN.

Much better--the Tolstoy reference was spot-on.

Thank you for owning up to your suckitude. Was that so hard?

I'm getting the impression the primary next Tuesday will be a little more decisive than we figure. I wouldn't be surprised that Pennsylvania goes to Obama with major numbers, given how many people really hate this negative campaigning on Clinton's side. Unless, of course, you support the candidate who's obvious VP choice will be Joe "Droopy Dog" Lieberman. But hey, I do think all this was good, since it shows that she isn't qualified as she thinks she is to be president. But it's starting to hurt the Democrat's chances of getting the clean sweep into the White House they should get.

I don't know that he'll win PA--though it would almost certainly be the final nail in the coffin for her if he does--but it isn't looking like the big victory she needed is likely.

he had a bad night at the debate but the post debate spin has been more about what a bad job the moderators did, not how poorly he did. If I were him I'd put an end to this--why risk going on CBS and getting reamed by Katie Couric? Unless he can be assured of friendlier questions there's little to be gaine