Quote Of The Day: Will Hillary Clinton Overreach On The Obama Small-Town Flap?

I think Hirllary is making a bad miscalculation.
This isn't the first time that she is seemingly siding with McCain. That could be very awkward in the general election, should she become the nominee.

This kind of thing really iis damaging to the Democratic Party. as well as to herdelf.

"it is exactly the kind of politics that Obama has been trying to transcend"

But making a comment that comes off as amazingly condescending about how people are clinging to guns, racist, and get religion because they are bitter about life/govt is somehow transcendental? Support who you want but Obama screwed up and blaming Clinton for using it is absurd.

Aside the fact that the Clintons blieve only them and McCain are patriotic, which mean that any sensible voter will vore rather for the real McCoy i.e. McCain as he did not dodge the draft contrary to Bill, wheter McCain or Clinton will carry onthe same fantasy of an ideal America , denying the reality. I
t reminds me much of the road many polticians took in Gremany between the 2 World Wars. Refusing to see their population economical woes, they made the hotbed for Hitler goons. We shall probably avoid the nutty racial politics but from what we see about the Coulters and their likes we will not escape a war with Iran and even possibly Syria... because that is what everyone is seeing ; that is everyone ready to open their eyes to Stratfor etc etc.
Are we able to sustain a third war; it is the economy stupid.... Will China bail us out again, I fear not. Just like I fear even our most fervent allies-except for Isreal will let us down.
¨Politicians mix up religion which is a way to live one faith and yes, religion can ave petty sides , people tend to grow bitter if they are only seen as electoral pieces of papers, pawns forgotten 3years out of 4 , by the way, the right to bear arms one of these days just like the death penalty will need to be fixed for once and for all. Obama did not say it properly , but it does not mean what was behind his hazardous sentences was untrue.
I am not blaming Clinton on Obama poor writings, I am blaming her for carrying on the charade of all is well and luch ado about nothing. Economy will make us pay capital and interests. It will not be a pretty picture. If I remember well NAFTA was about the Americas build up a counter-weight to the EU; poor planning got us into that mess. Once again not learning the mistakes of the european market has led us into it. It is all about give and take and it took then some 50ys to suceed and even now, some european countries are not happy about the way it is built up and we hoped to solve everything in 1 treaty ?
EU started with france and germany alone , could not we start with canada alone...build u strength then start discussing with mexico like they did with italy and the BENELUX - Chi va piano chi va sano. We want to go fast, we are certainly crashing fast.
Bitterness is understandable, denying it is a dangerous game.

Runasim said: "I think Hirllary is making a bad miscalculation,,,That could be very awkward in the general election, should she become the nominee."

I disagree. Three days ago, her campaign seemed all but finished...her and Bill were stepping into cow cookies all over the field.

Now, thanks to Obama, her campaign is alive again. She has to get to the GE for this to be awkward, and that means pinning Obama to the mat.

I notice the Indiana Republican Party was calling on state`s Democratic Party to repudiate Obama`s remarks...major squirming ensuing...also comments from Republicans excited about the `down-ticket` prospects of facing Obama in the Fall, when Democratic candidates in small town America are going to have to answer for Obama`s words.

I have read lots of folks here thinking there was nothing wrong with Obama`s comments. But think about it...the only stereotypes of rural America he didn`t invoke were: pickup truck; dueling banjoes; and `Can you squeal like a pig`

Worse, saying this while explaining rural America to wealthy liberals in San Fran.

Obama is in for a world of hurt over this.

Think about how this is playing among the Superdelegates...had this blown up in the media maelstrom a week before the election, not only would Obama be finished, the Democrats would be trying to cling to their majorities in the House and Senate.

This is HRC`s appeal to the SDs: That Obama is not ready for prime time.

Marlowecan said: ""I disagree"

I think that's because you, Clinton, and McCain are imisinterpreting Obama's meaning. Did you even read or listen to his response to the criticism?
But it's not about his meaning at all, is it? It's about what words you can extract from a statement to give your own meaning to and to spin and twist , twist and spin.

The Indiana Republican Party called on Hillary to repudiate Obama's words, and she obliged? That makes you wonder which party she wants to represent or whether she even cares, as long as she wins.

From the beginning, Hillary has been unfairly attacked in much the same manner.
I've wondered whether that was what pushed her to use these tactics herself. Even if that is so, however, two wrongs don't make a right. I, for one, call them as I see them, not according to loyalty to party or candidate.

Speaking of not being ready for prime time, Clinton could have been a great candidate if she would have been ready for the 2008 version of prime time.
There is a great longing in the country to leave this kind of punce-and-attack politics behind. In this instance, had she taken the moral high road and defended Obama, she would have gained new respect among pools of voters she hasn't tapped so far.
For every vote she gains, she loses at least one.
Neither McCain nor the Republican Party will return her favor and defend her.

It's too bad. Hillary is very smart. She has the best health care plan, and is more meticulous about details on many issues. With a little imagination, a little of Obama's vision, she could have been great.

If she wins the nomination now, I think the Dem.Party will be so dispirited, it will fail in the fall, and most of Bush's policies will continue. through McCain.






I

"I think that's because you, Clinton, and McCain are misinterpreting Obama's meaning. Did you even read or listen to his response to the criticism? "

I don't think anyone cares what his meaning was just what the effect will be. Let's face it if he meant exactly what he is being accused of he still would of tried to dress it up to "explain" what he really meant. The part about people being bitter isn't so bad, but the downplaying of peoples beliefs because of it is another story. Why would I care more about the 2nd amendment because the economy is bad? Why if the economy was good would I be ok with him trying to take my guns away? Making honest concerns sound like the fears of ignorant yolkels is a bad thing and he doesn't explain that, it seems he would rather focus on "bitter".

I agree with this statement from runasin:

"But it's not about his meaning at all, is it? It's about what words you can extract from a statement to give your own meaning to and to spin and twist , twist and spin."

I think that unless you are already opposed to Obama that this "controversy" over Obama munging his words shows itself to be OBVIOUSLY contrived. It's hard to see Clinton or McCain's "outrage" as anything other than political theatre, and there is a huge segment of the population that is absolutely tired of the fact that government is often about drama and not about effectively running the country. If Obama had been caught in an off-the-cuff moment saying "I am sick of having to talk to all of these hicks and gun nuts" then that would be damaging. Instead, he mis-spoke and those words were taken out of context in order to manufacture an attack. There is no "there" there in this case.

This incident is the same as the blogosphere's uproar over Clinton saying (paraphrased) "Obama is not a Muslim, as far as I know". I suspect the average American is tired of these sorts of games being played during an election, and just wants to see a candidate who is honest and interested in effectively running the country. Hopefully if the micro-parsing backfires during this election cycle then it will go away for a while as candidates realize that it is a double-edged sword that can alienate many voters.

Senator Obama's statement in a room full of billionaires demonstrates that when he is saying something off script that he is just not that sharp. That in a room full of billionaires he message is that blue collar middle american whites are stupid, ignorant and need us (read the Ivy leaguers and the rich) to make decisions for them.

Of course I guess he would not be talking about CERLCA, NESHAPS, NPDES, local tax rates, workman's compensation, tort liability, and the failure of the public schools as reasons that small towns cannot compete in the world economy.

"That in a room full of billionaires he message is that blue collar middle american whites are stupid, ignorant and need us (read the Ivy leaguers and the rich) to make decisions for them."

You have to willfully ignore every public statement Obama has made, his two books, his record as a legislator, his time spent as a community organizer, AND read his remarks out of context to make a statement such as this one. If you do not support Obama that's fine, but make your argument against him honestly rather than resorting to distortions.

EEllis it was very obvious from his "explanatory" speech that he didn't mean that people cling to guns or religion or any personal value system because of bitterness, but that those intractable fringe issues have dominated politics because of it.

I have thought this for many years. Politics has basically boiled down to a boilerplate of issues that the country will most likely never resolve, and all someone has to do is check which issues they "support" and promise lobbyists to do a bunch of deals and now they are a successful politician! You are liberal if you check the boxes on the left, conservative if on the right and centrist if you just randomly choose.

All analysis of the efficacy of policy and ideas about how to move forward is completely missing from the debate when it comes to: a) focusing on things that are far more relevant to every day life and b) synthesizing new ideas about how to attempt to reconcile the sides on the fringes issues.

The recorded remarks he made completely mangled the point. But if you watch this you'll see that he respects and understands people's personal culture. What he was trying to say (and I fully agree) is that the domination of politics by those issues is poisonous and while he focused on the traditional "conservative" stuff so far, I think he is going to swing it back and hit the "liberal" stuff just as hard too.

ryan,

Senator Obama supported the Louisville school systems program to assign students based upon race for social engineering purposes. That supports what I wrote. Senator Obama supports racial set asides for government jobs, government contracts, college admissions, and magnet public schools. That supports what I wrote. Senator Obama wants the government to have control over mortgages, retirement savings plans, and even what kind of care I can drive.

In Senator Obama's world view, middle class and blue collar whites (along with virtually all minorities) are too stupid to sign a mortage, save for their retirement, decide what to study in college, or even how to commute the work. He is consistent in proposing government programs that give the government decision making authority over others. His everyone is a victim goes along way to justifying his nanny state-ism.

superdestroyer,

He only wants to do that until the mind control drugs he's going to put in our food kicks in. Then that stuff can be repealed.

SD - in your examples you start with examples of things Obama supports, and then ratchet it up with distortions to make him out as an elitist who views "middle class and blue collar whites (along with virtually all minorities) are too stupid". The fact that you disagree with Obama's support for mortgage reform and magnet schools is a reasonable argument to make, but when you leap to the statement that Obama views all minorities as stupid you are making distortions. He has repeatedly denounced the "everyone is a victim" mindset that you accuse him of, and instead has made it clear that his vision is of a country where IF YOU ARE WILLING TO WORK FOR SOMETHING then there should be opportunity available to you. He doesn't propose handouts, but says that schools in the ghettos need to offer a way out for those willing to work. He says that parents need to take responsibility for their kids, but that we need to work towards creating conditions where single moms don't have to work two jobs to support a family. You may disagree with these positions and that's fine, but it is NOT OK to misconstrue these positions and state "his everyone is a victim goes along way to justifying his nanny state-ism."

dear Joe, and your readers

The Hillary Camp's reaction to this flap is EXACTLY why I turned against The Clinton's in January of 2008. I wish my voting records were public, because I thought at the time that I am not the only person who voted for each of them twice, defended them over and over again, and suddenly thought, "Enough!"

Obama did not express contempt for small town America, or anything else. He said people whose jobs have vanished forever, whose life choice went from making 20 dollars an hour to making 7 dollars an hour are frustrated and angry.

Ironically, Obama CANNOT help those people either. We need new models and new solutions. David Brooks is correct about the opportunity awaiting educated and educatable people in the new economy, but many people do not have the ability to be engineers or Registered Nurses, or Analysts.

They have desire to work, gumption, drive, but many jobs in the service sector top out at 10 dollars an hour and that is where some 30 to 40 % of jobs are.

We need a new model. Hillary and the bloggers like Talk Left who occupy her bunker see Obama's truth as a demagogic Godsend to her campaign, and it is both demagogic and God-sent.

But there is Hillary, now the great hunter, the woman whose family income was 110 million in the past 6 years, the former Valedictorian of Wellesley condemning Obama.

Like her namesake, Hillary takes the low road "Because it was there." Except Sir Edmund wasn't whom she was named after, climbed Mount Everest: Hillary climbs into the dumpster.

If anyone reading this is still addicted to The Clinton's: why? They are liars and destructive.

There are some good reasons why people get more concerned about the second amendment when the economy is bad. Hunting can provide meat at a relatively low cost, if you have the time, money, and place to hunt. If your tax base has dried up, your local sheriff or police may to understaffed to protect from crime and people steal more when times are bad. And as for turning to faith--churches help people who need it whenever they can. They might run food banks, provide funding for food assistance, distribute clothes, children's items, help with home repairs, provide child care, help pay for health care. Churches have a harder time bringing economic development to an area and I would guess Obama said that people have lost hope that their politicians can deliver on promises to do that because they have failed in so many places for so many years.

Bill Clinton left office with a 57% favorable rating he had paid down the national debt and left $559 BILLION dollar SURPLUS.
So why is everyone criticizing the Clintons, what are people afraid of Hard Workers who will work for the people give us peace and wonderful economy.
Are all these bloggers so young they have no memory of how great it was.
Our Country was respected all over the world, the Clintons were revered when they went to Ireland to help with the Peace talks.
Stop believing all the hype and open your eyes.
When Bill Clinton retired he opened his office in HARLEM among the black people who greeted him and hugged him because he had been a color blind President and he was respected.
Suddenly the media wants Obam, so to have him win they have to damn the Clintons because he has NO merit.
He can never be President don't waste your vote.

We've talked about this before on here and I only bring it up because I think it's what is driving the spin that McCain and HIllary are putting on this Obama flap.

Americans want to vote for someone they believe understands them. Americans don't want to spend time debating the finer points of the sub-prime bailout or whether the fed should begin to regulate investments banks if the fed bails them out.

So politicians win by saying something subjective like, "Obama is an elite and he is out of touch with your concerns, vote for me because I know you're having tough times and I can help you the most." It's all about connecting with the voter.

That's why Obama must push back and show voters that both McCain and Hillary are out of touch and that he understands their concerns, that he hasn't spent the last 16 years with Secret Service protection and he doesn't have 8 houses. It's fine for Obama to regret his badly phrased statement. But that won't win him any votes.

mikkel you are talking about his response. Wow his scripted response says he's a good guy who understands our pain! So? His original statement clearly said otherwise so I should think he is more honest after the press has shredded him?

EEllis said: "his scripted response says he's a good guy who understands our pain! So? His original statement clearly said otherwise "

Clearly said? I don/t think so.
Even before his respone took place, there was a wide divergence among people as to what he clearly said.

His original statement was clumsy, to be sure. A legitimate criticism is that he was not clear enough about his meaning. But 'clearly' is something that resides only in your personal interpretation, not in his words.