"Bitter-Gate is right up there with Allen's Macaca, the Dean Scream and Kerry's windsurfing, faux-hunting, and "I voted for it before I voted against it" campaign moments.

Like the others, Obama has been exposed and defined by his own words and actions. Should Obama get the nod, will hear of Bitter-Gate from now until both the election and Obama are over and done. "

actually, if we're smart, we'll be hearing a lot more about mccain's upcoming century of war. how much more "bitter" is everyone going to be when the US death toll in iraq hits 10,000 under mccain? 20,000? 50,000? can we all grow up, please?

Invalid accusations:
--------(I am a Ron Paul independent.)----------
1) Obama is elitist.
He used "cling" instead of "vote for".
Spinsters are miliking it to death and leading us middle class white folks to 4 more years of slow torture.
2) He thinks he is entitled:

Hillary DID NOT seem to think (a) Florida or Michigan need to be considered, or (b) she needed to campaign beyond first few states .
This explains why: she happily signed the agreement with DNC to exclude MI/FL, was not prepared in many states. Moreover, she attacks like the people she criticizes. Every state there is "new" Hillary with a new story.
He is out best shot..

It's funny how the ObamaBots still refuse to face the truth that their candidate has put the final nail into his chances at winning in Nov. And he can't blame this on anyone else.

And by the way - the "John McCain is a true stud and he's exactly what this country needs as its Commander-In-Chief" comment in the post above my previous one was the perfect example of moronic commentary to go along with vapid media coverage of unimportant trivialities.

Yeah - we need to vote in a warmongering "stud" whose foreign policy views are in lockstep with George Bush's to keep us safe. Never mind that the NIE has said that the Iraq War has actually made us less safe. Or that it is bankrupting the US into spiraling recession.

Isn't being 72 and being a "stud" an oxymoron anyway?

If you're masculinity is so suspect that your vote hinges on whether or not the candidate is a "stud," stay home and read another issue of Maxim or something. Spare the rest of us your vote...

"Bittergate."
This is so profoundly stupid, it boggles my mind....
If you're not bitter after 8 years of Bush recklessly warmongering, torturing, violating the Constitution, racking up record deficits, destroying the US's reputation around the world - and the Republican Congress's rabid support of said idiotic ideas - you're either ignorant or apathetic.

Regarding "elitism" - McCain is married to a woman worth tens (if not hundreds) of millions. Clinton has made over $100 million since leaving office. They are millionaires running for President, for god's sake - not $40,000 a year postal workers trying to catch the bus - they are elitist by default.

Can someone give us some real political discourse that isn't so vapidly idiotic?

How about another article on how Bush and his cabinet are complicit in a torture regime which should get Bush impeached and his cabinet brought up in front of the Hague on war crimes charges?

There are two reasons I won't vote for Barack Obama in the Fall, and neither one is because I see him as being "elitist":

1) John McCain is a true stud and he's exactly what this country needs as its Commander-In-Chief. He sees the world as it is, not as we'd like it to be. He understands what needs to be done to defeat our enemies and keep our citizens safe and he won't shrink from doing it.

2) Barack Obama is, at heart, a dyed-in-the-wool leftist. The people with whom he has associated in his life (Wright, Ayers, etc.), as well as his voting record in the U.S. Senate, tell me what his true beliefs are, no matter how many soothing and sweeping speeches about "change" and "hope" he gives. Talk is cheap. Actions are what matter. And by his actions, Barack Obama has proven that he is nobody I want anywhere near the Oval Office.

CC: have you got the picture yet?

Though partisanship and bias is how you village scribes like to view (and dismiss) your readers criticisms, most of us sincerely think you are just plain cloistered, out-of-touch, petty Heathers who act like a bunch a middle schoolers (MoDo?) with the same critical thinking skills as middle schoolers.

So, Chris, are you sensing a little hostility in these comments to you and your work? Seems that a lot of people here (and elsewhere in the U.S.) see the news corpse as shallow, McCain-sucking ("More donuts, senator?") corporate toadies whose "journalism" is helping to demolish the country. Think maybe you're part of the problem?

Please don't call Springsteen unfaithful or unpatriotic. He is just fed up with Hillary like most of us.

QUOTE OF THE DAY:
"He speaks to the America I've envisioned in my music for the past 35 years, a generous nation with a citizenry willing to tackle nuanced and complex problems, a country that's interested in its collective destiny and in the potential of its gathered spirit." -- Rock star Bruce Springsteen, in a letter in which he endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president Wednesday.

NANCY J CRICHTON
Amen. The established political SUCKING machines on either sides don't like an everyday American rooted in FAITH. He will bring power back to people.

He has to fight 2 republicans who can land on the same ticket.

Look at her record. "Teenager" vow you got real INSIDE information.
____________________________________________
Don't be ridiculous. Claire McCaskill was a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama because her 16 year old threatened not to talk to her. That's what we need, somebody who can't stand up to a teenager..

Posted by: rjv | April 15, 2008 8:07 PM

Lee Giabenelli posted today at 8:01 about the "elitist."

Lee, I couldn't agree with you more. You hit the nail on the head. It is like the pot calling the kettle black. Hillary just doesn't get it. She has always had the attitude that 'this election is mine, I'm entitled to it.' She has repeatedly said that she is the one qualified to hit the ground running her first day in the White House. My question is: What on earth is she so qualified for??? She has not contributed or passed any significant legislation since being in the Senate and she sure as heck did nothing while she was Bill Clinton's First Lady - except make a lot of people upset and agitated. She did absolutely nothing for health care and I don't feel she has the first idea of what needs to be done in the health care field, which is one I work in every day.

I believe that Mr. Obama is a fresh breeze of air. He speaks as though he is really talking and not giving a speech that has been approved by a number of 'handlers.' I am really fed up with the spin that has been put on his remarks from time to time by the news media. Thanks just my opinion.

We are blaming media not Hillary. I am an independent thank you. "Obamabot" interesting....
_______________________________________

To all the Obamabots out there...
Stop blaming Clinton for something that Obama said.

It seems the press is going to insist upon a re-play of the 2000 election.

God help us all.

Bitter, hell! I'm mad! And I'm not gonna take it any more! Chris, you've only added to the press' fascination with The Things That Are Not Important To The Exclusion of Things That Are. And I'm sick of it. We want the media to focus on Real Life issues: the wanton, wasteful war in Iraq; the economy (it IS the economy, stupid!); the fact that almost 50M Americans lack health insurance; the recession we're in. I want more on those issues--the Real Issues. Otherwise, who needs you, Chris?

Oh, and that hick from Kentucky needs to be put out to pasture like Trent Lott and the rest of the haters of his ilk. Boy, indeed. Kentucky

What. The. Hell. Man?!? You've really got nothing better on the campaign trail to write about than this?

But its not just you, Mr. Cillizza. Its this campaign journalism mindset. Its this idea that the television media can set the pace for the presidential election, and drag print along with it. Why would the WaPo slurp up a stepped-on lugi? That's all this story is at this point ...

I thought the press was supposed to give a voice to the people. (I'm a professional journalist myself.) Perhaps you should meditate on several ways to go and do that ... Then go and do that.

Or, you know, sitting in an overflow media corral at some candidate's stop off in LittleTown, Somewhere, listening to the same speech you've heard three dozen times, sucking up to the same campaign manager every day, showing how eager you are for some facetime with the candidate though you're continually rejected until finally you begin to question your existence as you beg for the Public Officials to drop a nugget of nonsense into your mouth ... So instead you find yourself drinking with the same schleps every other night, just at a different bar in a different town.

Yeah, that's the life, right? Who needs the people, anyway? Gosh, the campaign is just so exciting.

In that case, here's a scoop: candidate rolls up sleeves in poor town, rolls them down and buttons up as soon as s/he's returned to bus. Opponent accuses the candidate of being "stiff," causing flap over potential sexual innuendo. Here with an expert analysis is Robert Novak and Newt Gingrich, to tell you why it is okay that our families are dying and our money is gone.

Yay press. -_-'

Has anyone looked at the context of what Obama said...it's ironic that he gets asked about why so many blue collar PA voters aren't supporting him (with a hint that it's because of race) and he defends PA voters by saying it's economic frustration with Washington in general and not race. Now he's being called elitist and taken out of context. Obama said voters are bitter with Washington, Get your facts straight before you fuel this debate!

Don't be ridiculous. Claire McCaskill was a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama because her 16 year old threatened not to talk to her. That's what we need, somebody who can't stand up to a teenager..

To all the Obamabots out there...

Stop blaming Clinton for something that Obama said.

Now to the point concerning bitter-gate...

Again it needs to be put into context.
Everyone knows that there are people all across this country who are bitter for various reasons. But that is not the point. We don't need to be lectured about that-- we know it exists. The point that offends most people is that Obama claims that he has solutions for these folks but they are just too stupid to see it. Now on its surface, this isn't necessarily wrong or offensive in any way--for who would find fault with a person who had the ability to do just that--solve these people's economic problems. But again if you look at the statement in it's context then you get a clearer picture of what Obama is trying to say.

The most egregious thing he said was that people don't vote for him but rather cling to their religion. Well guess what Obama-- most folks in this country who are real believers wont trade their God for your solutions EVER. If it's a choice of putting their faith in their God or putting their faith in a politician that they know very little about- I'll let the reader make their own conclusion of who they will rely on--Get it. They think God will do a better job in their lives than you can do with all your government.

Second offensive thing he said was implying that all these folks who are not voting for him are doing this out of the fact that they are racist--in Obama's eyes how can it be anything else--what an elitist and insulting thing to say to people he doesn't even know. He knows less about these people than they know of him! The insult is actually breathtaking in this day and age.

Third problem with his statement is that he presumes that going out and hunting and buying guns is just something a less educated person would do--how can anyone vote for a person who seems so out of touch with average Americans? This is the people's second amendment rights and they don't buy guns cause they are bitter senator--it's part of some people's tradition-- if he spent more time in rural American and less time in elitist San Fransico perhaps he would have learned this fact by now

Bottom line -- just because someone doesn't vote for you doesn't mean that it has to be their fault--nothing in the discourse was ever uttered that hinted at Obama not being part of the problem why he isn't resonating with them, therefore it implies that they must be stupid--talk about being self centered.

THIS IS CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN??????????

Do you media types REALLY think most Americans care about this story at all? Is there some reason that Clinton's and Obama's sniping -- which seems like nothing more than sibling rivalry, frankly -- is considered newsworthy? Surely their accomplishments as Senators are more important to voters than a few stray words.

Please... give Americans some credit. The Presidential election is not a high school popularity contest -- stop treating it that way. Many of us would actually like to have a competent individual in the office.

Witness puts Obama at Rezko reception

Published: April 15, 2008

Prosecution witness said presidential candidate Barack Obama was at a party in Illinois held by Tony Rezko, an Obama fundraiser on trial for corruption.

The witness, Stuart Levine, testifying at Rezko's Chicago trial Monday, said the party in Willimett was arranged to lure businessman Nadhmi Auci into investing in a Illinois real estate venture. The Chicago Tribune described Auchi as an Iraqi-born businessman living in London who was convicted of fraud in France.

Levine said Obama and his wife, Michelle, put in an appearance at the party.

A spokesman for Obama's campaign told the Trib Tuesday that the Democratic candidate didn't recall the event or ever meeting Auchi.

Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with his relationship with Rezko.

The Chicago Sun-Times said Rezko's dealings with Auchi contributed to the revocation of Rezko's bail. Prosecutors alleged that Auchi had wired an unreported $3.5 million to Rezko for controlling interest in a plot of land in Chicago.

http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/04/15/witness_puts_obama_at_rezko_reception/2599/

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Witness puts Obama at Rezko reception

Published: April 15, 2008

A prosecution witness said presidential candidate Barack Obama was at a party in Illinois held by Tony Rezko, an Obama fundraiser on trial for corruption.

The witness, Stuart Levine, testifying at Rezko's Chicago trial Monday, said the party in Willimett was arranged to lure businessman Nadhmi Auci into investing in a Illinois real estate venture. The Chicago Tribune described Auchi as an Iraqi-born businessman living in London who was convicted of fraud in France.

Levine said Obama and his wife, Michelle, put in an appearance at the party.

A spokesman for Obama's campaign told the Trib Tuesday that the Democratic candidate didn't recall the event or ever meeting Auchi.

Obama has not been accused of any wrongdoing in connection with his relationship with Rezko.

The Chicago Sun-Times said Rezko's dealings with Auchi contributed to the revocation of Rezko's bail. Prosecutors alleged that Auchi had wired an unreported $3.5 million to Rezko for controlling interest in a plot of land in Chicago.

© 2008 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

How can two presidential candidates be treated so differently? For the past week Senator Barack Obama has been thrusted with Hillary's razor sharp tongue.

Although we all,with reasonable intelligence, knows what she's up to. She's keeping alive Barack poor choice of words and want everyone to forget her repeated pattern of lying.. Oh, I mean misspoken words.

She's been on this rampage stating that America doesn't need a president who looks down on them. Hello! America doesn't need a president who regulary lies to them with no conscious or not enough remorse to explain or simply tell the truth.

Read this article about Bill Clinton's words and see if they sound similar to you..Clinton & Obama's Speech Very Similar

How can she honestly reprimand Obama for his statement, and her husband is guilty of the same.

What happen to equality?
Why has the media averted or failed to report indepth on this story?

After Bill Clinton made this statement, he went on to be president. Is this fair?
Hillary is a hypocrite and her husband is out of touch!

How can two presidential candidates be treated so differently? For the past week Senator Barack Obama has been thrusted with Hillary's razor sharp tongue.

Although we all,with reasonable intelligence, knows what she's up to. She's keeping alive Barack poor choice of words and want everyone to forget her repeated pattern of lying.. Oh, I mean misspoken words.

She's been on this rampage stating that America doesn't need a president who looks down on them. Hello! America doesn't need a president who regulary lies to them with no conscious or not enough remorse to explain or simply tell the truth.

Read this article about Bill Clinton's words and see if they sound similar to you..Clinton & Obama's Speech Very Similar

How can she honestly reprimand Obama for his statement, and her husband is guilty of the same.

What happen to equality?
Why has the media averted or failed to report indepth on this story?

After Bill Clinton made this statement, he went on to be president. Is this fair?
Hillary is a hypocrite and her husband is out of touch!

Bill Clinton was asking for five or ten dollars for Hillary because she was being outspent 5 to 1 in PA. Excuse me Mr 109 million!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It is the business of hacks like Cillizza to blow things out of proportion. How else is he to make a living? Why bother listening to them? Is it some sort of perverse pleasure in running after every controversy no matter how phony?

"If those sorts of remarks persist, the story could drastically turn in Obama's favor." - Already has, as polls show; Clinton is facing a party-identity crisis of which she isn't yet aware - and knowing her arrogance, she never will be - namely, most Democrats are now waking up to the sickening realization that she is a Republican who adopted the Democratic party because she thought she could use its liberal base to get herself elected (since the Republicans weren't electing any woman president any time soon). Ideologically, she's a NeoCon, and a traitor to her party - nobody wants her any more; she's unelectable this year, unelectable this lifetime. She should be kicked out, or politely asked to admit her Republican affiliation, so we can get on with the real election here.

Why shouldn't Senator Obama be judged based on his own words or actions? This was no slip of the tongue, "poor choice of words" accident. This is the true Barack Obama showing.

Okay, the Clintons amassed a total of $109 million dollars over the last six or seven years. Wow, what a shock, a former president and first lady, both of whom have written vastly popular books and are famous, hard-working politicians, have made that much money. People need to get over this fact. How much money does Obama have? I'm sure he's not living in the poorhouse himself. He IS elitist. Does that mean Senator Clinton isn't? No, not necessarily. But just the fact that Obama got so defensive over being called elitist shows that he has something to hide. If that statement didn't mean anything to him, and it was as stupid and immature as he's trying to make it sound, couldn't he just be the bigger person and rise above it? Nope, because he's just as bad as he paints Senator Clinton to be.

At least with Hillary we know what we're getting. Does she lie? Yes, as do all politicians, INCLUDING Senator Obama. But at least we know what we're getting with her; we know what skeletons she has in the closet. How can we give someone the Democratic nomination, and possibly the presidency, when we really know little to nothing about him? Does that sound like a good idea to anybody?

I'd vote McCain before I voted Obama.

pj4521 claims: "Fact: Republican candiates win elections by convincing people to vote against their best interests by using gay marriage and the right to own guns."

FACT: And Democrat candidates win elections by convincing wealthy liberals to vote against their best interest by voting for Democrats who will then raise taxes on them and on all other wealthy people.

Don't you get it? YOU upscale liberals are willing to vote against YOUR economic best interest for the hot button issues YOU care about. YOU would GLADLY vote for a candidate who would RAISE your taxes but END the Iraq War immediately, yes?

Yet you seem to think there is something wrong when others vote on moral grounds rather than economic ones.

It's OK for YOU to factor morality (like the morality of war or the morality of allowing global warming to occur in 20 years) into YOUR voting. But it's not OK for anyone else to factor THEIR moral concerns (abortion, gun rights) into THEIR voting.

That's hypocrisy of the highest order.

I am Australian interested in the US presidential election, for I believe that it vital for your country to replace that "tin-pot Ghengis Khan from Crawford, Texas" with someone who understands, and can practise[oz spelling] in office the traits of honesty, integrity and compassion.
However, the furore that has arisen over Obama's "bitter" remark emphasises[ibid] all that is wrong with the political process everywhere.
The point is that Obama has made a correct psychological assessment of human response the world over to ordinary people being put in the position of being denied any level of control over their lives. It is the basis of all the causes of terrorism.
And don't believe that it could not happen on a large scale in your country.
It can happen anywhere.
So, the answer is to fix the human rights problems whatever they are and wherever they arise, and not argue over whether the expression of the idea is or is not perfect.

I have two "thought experiments" for all the antiwar liberals who are blogging here:

1. If folks in the heartland are being "misled" into voting against their economic interest and voting on "hot button" issues like abortion instead, then are wealthy liberals also being "misled" to vote for antibusiness antiwar liberals who will raise their taxes but end the Iraq War? Aren't wealthy liberals prepared to vote against THEIR economic best interest in the name of THEIR hot button issues (Iraq, global warming, etc.)?

2. If economics is really what matters, and the folks in the heartland would abandon their "backward" embrace of religion and guns if they had improved economic status, then would antiwar activists do the same?

Would Code Pink agree to abandon their opposition to the Iraq War if the GOP offered them a million dollars? How about ten million dollars? How about offering to give a scholarship to each child of each Code Pink member, if they will agree to abandon their opposition to the Iraq War? No?

And if peace activists won't sell out their antiwar principles for money, then why is it wrong for heartland folks to refuse to sell out their gun rights and stand on religion for a health care program or other Democrat party promises?

It sure seems to me that liberals believe that only THEY are principled enough to refuse to sell out their most cherished principles for money or a politician's promise of handouts or subsidies.

Don't be ridiculous. Claire McCaskill was a Hillary supporter and switched to Obama because her 16 year old threatened not to talk to her. That's what we need, somebody who can't stand up to a teenager..

"Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy. "

A senior fellow at the HOOVER INSTITUTE, in other words just to the right of Atilla the Hun.... Also, funny how he derides ultraleft San Francisco, seeing as the Hoover Institute is based at Stanford University, about a 20 min drive south. And I don't think anyone's really trying to "clarify" Rev Wright's remarks, but let's not let facts get in the way of his partisan diatribe, maybe someone thinks posting his credentials will give legitimacy to this completely substance-free hit piece.

This is a non-story, period. Won't affect Obama after a week.

Wright will be problematic in the general. But this is totally a media-created problem. And the most recent polls (after remarks went public) show no movement. Even the lapel pin (or lack of one) is more of a liability than this.

Chris, there are post-bittergate polls already out:

PA primary
Clinton + 20 (ARG)
Clinton + 14 (SurveyUSA)

IN Primary
Clinton +16 (SurveyUSA)

This would have been a non-story if Clinton had chosen to ignore it. Because she decided to bring it up and put her own spin on it (e.g., the elitism), the media have reported it as truth. I think it may be Obama's turn to cry, "the media is SO mean to me!" and perhaps have a sketch on SNL. Now Clinton is broadcasting her version as fact all over Pennsylvania with her ad. Of course, Obama has too much tact and grace to stoop to her level, so he won't respond with an equally nasty ad or whine about how unfairly he's treated. I have no problem with Clinton's policies, but I would be appalled to have a Democratic president who employs so many of the same strategies employed by our current president for the past eight years.

A Living Lie
By Thomas Sowell
Tuesday, April 15, 2008

An e-mail from a reader said that, while Hillary Clinton tells lies, Barack Obama is himself a lie.
That is becoming painfully apparent with each new revelation of how drastically his carefully crafted image this election year contrasts with what he has actually been saying and doing for many years.

Senator Obama's election year image is that of a man who can bring the country together, overcoming differences of party or race, as well as solving our international problems by talking with Iran and other countries with which we are at odds, and performing other miscellaneous miracles as needed.
There is, of course, not a speck of evidence that Obama has ever transcended party differences in the United States Senate. Voting records analyzed by the National Journal show him to be the farthest left of anyone in the Senate. Nor has he sponsored any significant bipartisan legislation -- nor any other significant legislation, for that matter.

Senator Obama is all talk -- glib talk, exciting talk, confident talk, but still just talk.

Some of his recent talk in San Francisco has stirred up controversy because it revealed yet another blatant contradiction between Barack Obama's public image and his reality.

Speaking privately to supporters in heavily left-liberal San Francisco, Obama let down his hair and described working class people in Pennsylvania as so "bitter" that they "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Like so much that Obama has said and done over the years, this is standard stuff on the far left, where guns and religion are regarded as signs of psychological dysfunction -- and where opinions different from those of the left are ascribed to emotions ("bitter" in this case), rather than to arguments that need to be answered.

Like so many others on the left, Obama rejects "stereotypes" when they are stereotypes he doesn't like but blithely throws around his own stereotypes about "a typical white person" or "bitter" gun-toting, religious and racist working class people.

In politics, the clearer a statement is, the more certain it is to be followed by a "clarification," when people react adversely to what was plainly said.

Obama and his supporters were still busy "clarifying" Jeremiah Wright's very plain statements when it suddenly became necessary to "clarify" Senator Obama's own statements in San Francisco.

People who have been cheering whistle-blowers for years have suddenly denounced the person who blew the whistle on what Obama said in private that is so contradictory to what he has been saying in public.

However inconsistent Obama's words, his behavior has been remarkably consistent over the years. He has sought out and joined with the radical, anti-Western left, whether Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers of the terrorist Weatherman underground or pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli Rashid Khalidi.

Obama is also part of a long tradition on the left of being for the working class in the abstract, or as people potentially useful for the purposes of the left, but having disdain or contempt for them as human beings.

Karl Marx said, "The working class is revolutionary or it is nothing." In other words, they mattered only in so far as they were willing to carry out the Marxist agenda.

Fabian socialist George Bernard Shaw included the working class among the "detestable" people who "have no right to live." He added: "I should despair if I did not know that they will all die presently, and that there is no need on earth why they should be replaced by people like themselves."

Similar statements on the left go back as far as Rousseau in the 18th century and come forward into our own times.

It is understandable that young people are so strongly attracted to Obama. Youth is another name for inexperience -- and experience is what is most needed when dealing with skillful and charismatic demagogues.

Those of us old enough to have seen the type again and again over the years can no longer find them exciting. Instead, they are as tedious as they are dangerous.

Thomas Sowell is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institute and author of Basic Economics: A Citizen's Guide to the Economy.

CORRECTION:
Bill Kennedy did not endorse Clinton after Obama's "bitter" remark. He chose to endorse her on April 5, and he had been leaning towards her for months before that. See the link below.

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/04/15/montana-pol-clinton-endorsement-preceded-obama-cling-flap/

actually the agreement references campaigning in Fla and Michigan. And you missed my comment that neither the dnc or Dean objected to their revote. The ONLY objection came from the Obama campaign. "Anyone invokng Fla/Mi is basically splitting the democatic party"? Is that some kind of threat? i.e.if you raise Fla and Michigan and we lose its your fault? Seems like the same bullying tactic we have heard from yours side for months. Just shut up and get in line. Lets see how that strategy serves you in the fall.

First, Hillary is so out of touch that she DID NOT seem to think (a) Florida or Michigan need to be considered, or (b) she needed to campaign beyond first few states. She acted as though she was entitled to democratic nomination.

This explains why: she happily signed the agreement with DNC to exclude MI/FL, was not prepared in many states, and she attacks like the people she criticizes.

Secondly, Obama seem to at least apologize even for small things. Hillary's name calling from the beginning, "man of just words", "get real" have never been apologized for. He to me comes across like down to earth everyday American. I have not seen any "elitism".

Anyone invoking MI/FL is basically trying split democratic party and make it a laughing stock. If you do not keep your party rules that you SIGNED in ink. Don't expect independents to vote for you.

shut up. What an absolutely grow up response. Holier than thou are words you and your campaign have promoted. What chutpah.
Apparently the only opinions that count here are the amens to the Obama posts.Don't ever question or challenge an Obama post. By now we have gotten the drill.

Leichtman -

In keeping with my earlier post, no substantive response. Just stop putting words in my mouth that I never said.

And shut up. I've read enough of your holier-than-thou, know-it-all pro-HRC spin.

And you say I'M drinking koolaid.

Obama was standing before a crowd of upscale left coast liberals, people who had maxed out their contribution to his campaign of $4600 and were sitting at this couple of thousand dollar-a-plate dinner... so that they could contribute even MORE of their money to his campaign.... in San Francisco... and he was explaining another group of very far less well off Americans TO them... like a sociology professor would explain the behavior of some far off indigenous tribe of people to a classroom of well off university students.

He's saying to these left coast liberals who already look down their noses at the ignorance of people not like them, that these Pennsylvanians and Midwesterners have GOOD reason for being the God and Guns, anti-immigration xenophobic bigots that they are.

Thanks a lot, Senator. With friends like you...

http://jammerbirdi.wordpress.com/

my point marie is that IF Sen Obama is till the nominee and expects t win my vote and potentially 13 million other HC spporters, the way he treats the voters in Fla will be closely looked upon, and the longer he lets that anger linger the worst it will be for him in the general election. So he shafts Fla at his own peril.

good night

What I am enjoying about this campaign (if there is anything to be enjoyed at all) is watching the media come to realize that they are no longer the power brokers and king makers they have always been. The internet and youtube has reduced their effectiveness in this regard, because candidates can get info directly to voters without having to beg and cater to the big news and media organizations. At the same time, the internet allows a candidate to raise millions of dollars without going in the bag to major donors and corporations.

That kid with the video camera who captured that "Macaca" moment that led to the defeat of Allen in VA revolutionized politics in this country. Now we can look at this primary race and polls show that voters are no longer responding to the old-fashioned TV attacks that swiftboated John Kerry. In years to come, people will look back on this election as a "watershed" in politics.

oh jac how you try to persuade yourself. I fully agree with you sir, if that makes your day. Your bar is that HC will either lose Pa or only win by 2-3% and will lose Indiana. You do understand that there are polls nw showing by 14 ad 0% leads in Pa and by16% in Indiana. ButI don't want to ruin your day or destry your delusions. In fact one of your supporters even posted that the SF statements will help Sen Obama n Pa and Indiana. You are way beyond the kool aid test you are in total lala land, but please lets not get in the way of stpping in it. Sen Obama WILL win in both Pa and Indiana and you got it right here from jac13. Incidentally have you made an calls into Pa for your candidate. I have now made close to 100 calls and spoen with half of thm a lare number who have told me they are stubborny undecided and they don't share your sentiments about HC but you are the boss so we need to pay attention to your predictions b/c you and your followers as always MUST be right.

Leichtman:

Unfortunately, what you are saying is that no matter what the result, people are going to be angry. How very sad. I hope that you are wrong, for all of our sakes, because otherwise we are going to have another long four years.

Have a good night, I'm outta here!

the only rule about Fla and Michigan were that neither would campaign there.In fct the dnc and Howard Dean said that he would hav absolutely no objection to a revote as long as the dnc didnt foot the bill. At no time did he ever tell either campaign you can't revote and I challenge you to show oterwise.

It is my sentiment that if neither are seated 2 hings wil happen: 1. Very few HC supporters, me included, will ever view Sen Obama's nomination as legitimate. Whther you agree with the sentiment or not from the HC volunteers I have spoken with that is the general sentiment. 2. It is unlikey that Sen Obama willthenhave any chanc to carry Fla in the general election and that bitterness like the one you suggested from genY voters about HC, may cement Fla as a Rep state for generations. Fla has a largel elderly and Jewish base of voters who already do not generally like or trust Sn Obama. imho especially with Fla if they are not seated or at least viewed as ben treated fairly, Sen Obama may win the nominatin bu at a very large cost to him and this country in the general election. Do so and do so at his peril. Incidentally polling shows Sen Obama behnd Sen McCain by double digit numbers, wonder why? As for Michigan I doubt that Sen McCain's message will sell there regardless.

Here's something fresh to chew on:

"WASHINGTON -- With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid -- even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll [released 5:00 EDT April 15] has found.

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters.

In North Carolina, an Obama stronghold, he is running 13 points ahead.

The race remains volatile, however, because many likely voters in the Democratic primaries are still undecided -- 12% in Pennsylvania, 19% in Indiana and 17% in North Carolina.

The telephone interviews took place Thursday through Monday, meaning the bulk were conducted just as controversy broke out over an Obama remark widely criticized as demeaning rural voters in Pennsylvania. He suggested that for some residents of small towns, their commitment to gun rights, religious faith and hostility toward foreign trade had its roots in their "bitterness" about economic hardships.

No poll question was asked specifically about the comment.

However, voters were asked about another controversy that has dogged the candidate in recent weeks: racially incendiary comments made by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr., the now-retired pastor of Obama's church in Chicago. The furor prodded Obama to deliver a major speech on racial relations in America last month.

In Pennsylvania, the flap seems to have marginally helped Obama more than hurt him: 24% said his handling of the issue made them think more highly of him; 15% said it made them think less highly of him; 58% said it made no difference in their views.

Looking ahead to the general election, many Democrats -- including some Clinton backers -- appear to have concluded that Obama might be in a better position to defeat McCain. In Indiana, for instance, 37% said they thought Obama would fare better against McCain in November, compared to 18% who said Clinton was more likely to beat the Republican.

"I would prefer Clinton, but Obama has less baggage to throw darts at," said Eric Beiz, a realtor in Indianapolis. "She is going to have a tough time."

Clinton also suffers from being seen as less admirable than Obama. Even in Pennsylvania, 47% of Democrats said he had more honesty and integrity, compared to 26% who thought that of Clinton.

"She doesn't tell the truth a lot," said Brannon Crace, a store manager in Frankfurt, Ind. "We've already been through the Clinton era."

Hillary Clinton completely fabricated a story about landing at an air strip under sniper fire. Obama put his foot in his mouth calling small town folks bitter. One is an outright lie, the other is simply a poor choice of words and yet the media is giving them each equal credence.

policythought.blogspot.com

This issue is already passing, and will get completely killed by thursday. It may have cost Obama a few points, but more likely he simply lost voters he was never going to win anyway.

policythought.blogspot.com

It's deja vu all over again. The latest tempest in a teapot has been stoked into the earth shattering controversy that will finally allow the Clinton campaign to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat.

But didn't this just happen three weeks ago with Rev. Wright?

Yet despite round the clock MSM coverage, the nation has given a collective yawn. Gallup has Obama growing his lead over Clinton. Yesterday was the first day it was at 11 pts.

It seems interminable, but we know the end is near. In the next three weeks we have the three key contests that will likely put an end to all of this chorus of doom for Obama.

For review, Obama is up 27 states to Clinton's 13. He will take NC, and will in all likelihood take OR, SD and MT. Clinton will take PA, WV and KY and most likely IN.

So Clinton's final momentum will be a 4 to 4 draw, giving her a grand total of 17 states to his 31.

Obama's up 164 pledged delegates. Clinton's up 26 supers, a whopping 138 delegate gap.

With 158 pledged delegates, PA is Clinton's last major opportunity. To make a meaningful impact in her 138 delegate deficit, and prevent SC from wiping it out, she will need to pick up or 40 more delegates.

Based on polls, what appears far more likely is that Clinton will wind up with a delegate lead similar to her Ohio victory, (11) one that will make no serious dent Obama's 138 delegate lead.

What is also likely is that whatever she picks up will be wiped out two weeks later in NC. In all probability, when the pledged delegates in PA, NC and IN are tallied, Clinton will have, at best, a gain of single digits.

Another instance of deja vu. 6 weeks ago we had the so-called "firewall" of Texas and Ohio which netted Clinton 6 delegates.

Knowing the mathematical improbability of winning pledged delegates, the Clinton campaign now focuses on the 322 uncommitted supers. Depending on how successful Clinton is with the remaining pledged delegates, she needs anywhere from 65% to 80%.

Unfortunately, since mid-February, supers have been going for Obama three to one.

So to reverse Obama's momentum, Clinton has seized on bittergate, attempting to prove to the supers yet again that Obama is damaged goods and can't possibly win in November. And her campaign obviously believes that this strategy will enable her to pick up the 70% of the remaining supers she needs to win.

Party leaders have been cautious to date, issuing vague pronouncements that having supers overturning the will of the people (through their pledged delegates) just might not be the best idea. (And these party leaders themselves are supers, and probably have quite a bit of influence on many uncommitted supers.)

In her play for the supers, Clinton has not advertized the obstacles she faces. First, not all supers are the same.

Let's take Add-ons, for example. There's 69 remaining, mostly one or two per state. To date, 100% of committed add-ons are supporting the candidate that won their state. And despite Clinton's remarkable persuasion skills, she is unlikely to influence many add-ons since most will be chosen in part because of who they support. In states that Obama won, it is unlikely that Clinton supporters will be selected as add-ons.

Another big block of uncommitted supers are Congressional Representatives, (77 of 253 non-Add-on Supers).

Clinton has a big task ahead trying to persuade the many Reps in Congressional districts that voted for Obama, especially those in states that go for Obama.

To appreciate how difficult this task will be,, consider (of completed primaries) the two states with the largest contingents of uncommitted Representatives: CA and OH. Clinton won both states but clearly is having trouble gaining commitments. In Ohio, Clinton has gained endorsements of only 1 of 6 Representatives. In CA, she has gained endorsements of 16 reps, Obama has 7, but there are still 11 uncommitted reps remaining. If she were making her case, and they are in a state that she won, it would seem that she should have been able to do better with the undecideds.

Another challenge for Clinton will be with the 18 uncommitted senators. 12 come from states Obama won (or will win).

There are 8 Governors and 6 Distinguished party leaders that are still uncommitted, not exactly a big swing block.

That leaves 146 DNC members. Half are from states Obama won and half from Clinton states. I wonder how many think enough of these DNC members are going to be willing to overturn the will of the people in their states. We'll have a better feeling in 3 weeks how this looks, but I forecast that after we have a few more super announcements and the pledged delegate results, that Clinton would have to get 85% of this group to win.

Instead, what we find is that Clinton is having the same difficulty with DNC members that she is having with other super groups. Take OH, which she won. Obama has support from 4 DNC members, but Clinton has an endorsement of only 1. And 4 remain uncommitted. It's worth repeating the question above. If Clinton can't close the deal in the states she has won, how will she be able to make serious inroads in the states she lost.

Overall, the picture is very bleak. 50% of the 322 uncommitted supers are in states that Obama either won or will win (NC, OR, SD, MT). It's very difficult to imagine Clinton picking up half of these supers, while maintaining near 100% of remaining supers in states she won.

I think that many will view this whole "bittergate" nontroversy as the final nail in the coffin. Clinton's real problem with the supers is that she has chosen to stake out right wing positions in trying to paint Obama as elitist and out-of-touch, just as she did with her contention that he is not qualified to be Commander-in-Chief.

And for many of us, it is hard to imagine that this is going to be helpful in her quest for the overwhelming super delegate support she needs to win.

As many have known for a long time, despite Clinton's (and her supporters) denials, she lost this election a long time ago. Obama beat her 13 states to 9 on Super Tuesday, and within 2 weeks, picked up an additional 8 straight. And he's beaten her 4 to 2 since. He's beat her by insurmountable margins in states won, pledged delegates and money raised. Even Obama's popular vote is near insurmountable.

But the ever upbeat Clinton campaign hasn't lost faith yet. They have been painting some mighty fine lipstick on this pig.

Yes the next three weeks before NC and IN will be painful, as the campaign goes through the various stages of mourning. But that sound we hear in the background is the fat lady warming up to sing.

Patrick Bradish.

""Bitter" and "cling" will forever be tied to Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) in the same way that "Tuzla" and "the laugh" will always evoke Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) when a political junkie thinks of the 2008 Democratic race."

And Fred Hiatt's semen will always glisten on Chris Cilizza's lips whenever GOP shills get together to distract the voters from serious issues. Really, sir, you are beneath contempt and your employers are accessories to war crimes.

This is great stuff, Chris, but for me, at least, the harping on Obama's words about Rust Belt victims' feelings is now becoming tedious and wearisome.

Where are we politically with respect to trade policy as such?

Is the Pope's visit going to carry any implications for ending our ruinous war on Iraq?

Leichtman:

May I take from your remarks that you believe that Senator Clinton's campaign should immediately cease complaining that not counting the Florida and Michigan results is unfair? After all, those were the rules that everyone agreed to, including Senator Clinton.

2008 Presidential Election Weekly Poll

http://www.votenic.com

Results Posted Tomorrow!

Check Back Weekly For Updates!

marie from what I have read the suprdelegates were in response to Gary Hart who was on the verge of defeating Mondale until the Donna Rice incident. Don't recall the specifics but it is my belief that Hart had won lot of primaries and the dnc feared hisnomination after Rice would have destroyed the party. That didn't work out so well. It may hav also been a reaction to the 1980 primary battle b/w Carter and Kennedy where Kennedy refused to endorse and which Carter still complais about. Its much like the caucus system. Its flawed but its an integral part of the system which Obama signed onto just like HC. Since she is told not to complain about the flawed caucu system it seems ironic to hear hs side constantly complain about superdelegates r attempt to rewrite the rulesby which they were created. Bill Cinton aparentlywon te nominationin 1992 late in June likely with the hel of superdeegates.

Asfor the SEIU CN claims they were he one'sat the HC vent cusung the disruption and that is hy I poste the question. I would neer imagine as a campaign worker asking my volunteers togo ver to an Obaa event and be disruptive. But they were reportedly uion reps doing their own childish Nixonian pranks who should not be pointed out by the Obama supporters as honorable practices somehow representing HC suppoter' seniments. That is why I asked that question.

But I don't view the superdelegate constant complaining any more justified then complaining about the broken caucus system. Both complaints are euqlly irrelevant.

Never mind that Obama's comments are 100% true and can accurately describe the "not wealthy" in every society that has ever lived on this planet.

Nonetheless, how about we all GROW THE F--- UP and start focusing on real problems ... such as cleaning up the stink of the media and forcing them to start reporting actual news instead of allowing talking heads with fake smiles to create news out of cherry-picked sound bytes.

We are not the greatest country on the planet and it is high time that people started to realize that this insane childishness will NOT reestablish the respect we believe we are entitled to.

Great dedcuctions from our Cilizza.

---------------------------------------
* The Pope: If Obama winds up emerging relatively unscathed from this current controversy, he may just owe the former Joseph Ratzinger a solid thank-you.
-------------------------------------------
VOW.
8 years of Bush.
Hillary.
Job-loss, depression, out sourcing, govenrmental neglect, war etc.
I suspect might also contribute.

GMT
Cillizza and GOP: what can you expect?

What the @#!(*&^ are you talking about?? Do you actually think there is somebody on the planet who cares how Hillary Clinton laughs? Or how much more Romney spends on his hair than Edwards? THE UNITED STATES IS TORTURING PEOPLE TO DEATH. Please get a job.

http://action.aclu.org/torturefoia/released/102405/

kreuz, no problem with privacy, from me.

They have the brochures and have talked to someone in the natural science department. I only wondered if you had any first hand knowledge of the program.

Thanks for replying.

Who is this frivolous fop and why does he have a job as a journalist? Audiences are groaning out loud when Clinton pulls this nonsense, but apparently that's enough to make "bittergate" a watershed moment? To whom?

What a fool.
.

"It will hurt Obama in the general election. Not just in PA, but in places like Ohio, Virgina, and Michigan. And he needs at least 3 of these 4 states, if not all of them, in order to beat McCain"

This thing barely has the legs to make it through to next Tuesday (if then), if Republicans are really counting on this, or Wright, to overcome a huge recession, Iraq, and everything else wrong with both them and theic candidate, they're truly delusional. Obama still beats McCain in Michigan, and pulls even with him in Ohio and close in Virginia right now, even before the head-to-head matchup begins (not to mention leads in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico while holding all the other blue states). Good luck, you're gonna need it.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:45 PM

Yes its true, if only we could end this primary!! We got to start the fight now. Not this "Bitter" b.s. Hillary please get out.

See anti McCain video. http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/15/out-of-touch-first-major-anti-mccain-ad-airs-tomorrow/

kreuz_missile,
Right on.
All GOP can do is pray for Hillary nomination. If not McCain/Hillary is another option.

Most things on Lake Nastywater look like mud, you'll need to be more specific. I'm not familiar with that program at Angelo State, but have only been here a short time myself. For the most part, it seems like a decent school and the programs are good for a lower echelon state school, I can get you more info if you're interested. (and I prefer to keep what I do to myself, sorry).

"It will hurt Obama in the general election. Not just in PA, but in places like Ohio, Virgina, and Michigan. And he needs at least 3 of these 4 states, if not all of them, in order to beat McCain"

This thing barely has the legs to make it through to next Tuesday (if then), if Republicans are really counting on this, or Wright, to overcome a huge recession, Iraq, and everything else wrong with both them and theic candidate, they're truly delusional. Obama still beats McCain in Michigan, and pulls even with him in Ohio and close in Virginia right now, even before the head-to-head matchup begins (not to mention leads in Colorado, Nevada, and New Mexico while holding all the other blue states). Good luck, you're gonna need it.

Sweet Jesus. This is a huge story because journalists are lazy and people are stupid.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:33 PM

Thanks for the info.

Kreuz, Do you live on Lake Nasworthy? What do you do in San Angelo?

There was a dentist, long dead, named Harold Jackson, who built a house out of what looked like mud on Lake Nasworthy. I was in it a couple of times. He kept his ammo in a sack made from a deer's scrotum. Drove a '62 Karmann Ghia and wore a tam-o-shanter. A real character. He was near deaf and 80 when I knew him. Conversations went like: "Dr. Jackson, do you want a coke?" "A GOAT? WHAT DO I WANT WITH A GOAT?"

My secretary's youngest daughter is considering Animal Science at Angelo. What do you know about it?

RTDmd,
You are missing all republicans who are sleeping (pro Romney, Paul etc.). If Hillary gets nominated they will come out of graves and vote against her. Just look at Texas all the Limbaugh people voted for Hillary and destroyed democratic party.

"We show no movement since this nontroversy began. The question is when columnists and bloggers will move on."

Its probably not that big a deal during if you think the democratic primary is all that matters in life. Democrats are, by and large, elitist themselves.

It will hurt Obama in the general election. Not just in PA, but in places like Ohio, Virgina, and Michigan. And he needs at least 3 of these 4 states, if not all of them, in order to beat McCain

Leichtman:

I disagree with anyone who says "get out of the party." Totally out of line. And, I would be upset to be told that. Like you, I am still angry about the last 2 elections.

As for Florida and Michigan, I wish that the Democratic Party had followed the example of the Republicans and allotted Florida and Michigan at least half of their original delegates, and permitted the primaries to go forward on that basis. In that way, Florida and Michigan would not now be in issue.

Also, you ask why these first-timers' votes should be given greater weight than yours. They shouldn't. But neither should your vote be given greater weight than theirs. That's what one man one vote is all about. That's why the Super Delegate System can be so volatile because suddenly certain individuals are "more equal than equals in the barnyard." I'm hoping after this election, our Party examines our nominating process and makes a few tweaks (to say the least!).

Finally, I feel compelled to remark on your comment, "I just can't agree that those voters who have let us down so many times should now now be given special treatment-preference by superdelegates?" I don't think we are talking about special treatment for those who have not participated until now. In my opnion, if the Super Delegates choose to ignore the voters, that would be uniquely "special treatment."

Nevertheless, I am prepared to be educated, can you please tell me if there has been a time since the Party began having this Super Delegate System when the Supers have elected to contradict the Pledged Delegates, and thereby to switch the eventual nominee?

By the way, SEIU supports Senator Obama.

kreuz_missile
Thanks for the context.
However, hate mongerers and GOP will not scavenge it to death. This is how some make living.

Americans will see through them...

People have made up their minds, the polls may change 2-3 points, but the basic story stands -- 4/5ths of the contests remain, and the nominee is chosen.

I actually think this could backfire for clinton since she sounds like mccain and the democrats may look at what obama actually said and agree with it.

If the approval rating for bush is 30%, you gotta believe there is a whole lot of buyers remorse from 2004 for voting with the intangibles of flags, God, and guns instead of their economic interests. Didn't we all agree Bush was the one best to have a beer with. Perhaps we need an intellectual (or an "elitist") in the vein of FDR, what's wrong with that?

Karol-

That's nonsense. Obama is the frontrunner in the primaries, and has been for 2 months. DESPITE all the negativity on the democratic side, MCain has only been able to essentially pull even in the (essentially meaningless) polls. Obama is clearly the front runner for the general election. Obama will get 98% of these so-called small town voters who currently lean toward Clinton, whereas Hillary will go into the general with a deficit of those younger and african-american voters who won't show up at the polls UNLESS Obama is the candidate. Obama probably brings 2-5% points into the election. McCain and Hillary probably leave 1-4% at home. It's Obama's electability that has gotten him where his frontrunner status.

Let's look at the full response (to the question from the audience), and someone please point out how he's not showing empathy for, and understanding of, the issues at hand here, and how he's somehow talking about the community as a whole, not specifically the poltical attitudes of the communities and voting patters. For bonus points, please show me where he's "making fun of" hard working Americans:

"OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing."

"Obama felt comfortable with a group of invited wealthy donors to demean and make fun of hard working families who live in small town America - the heart of this great country."

And now Karol wins the prize for the greatest possible distortion of the actual facts of the matter. Offend, maybe depending on how you interpret the remarks. Make fun of and demean? Crazy.

Posted by: kreuz_missile | April 15, 2008 3:25 PM

FOX TALKING POINTS VERSION 2.O

t is delusional to believe that Obama can win a general election. There are millions of proud, hard working voters in small town America and they will never vote for a man who talks down to them.

Posted by: Karol | April 15, 2008 3:21 PM

Oh boo hooo !!! Poor baby got her feelings hurt. Grow up.

"Obama felt comfortable with a group of invited wealthy donors to demean and make fun of hard working families who live in small town America - the heart of this great country."

And now Karol wins the prize for the greatest possible distortion of the actual facts of the matter. Offend, maybe depending on how you interpret the remarks. Make fun of and demean? Crazy.

i dont understand the logic of this scandal either. I want a president that thinks they're better than me. I'm sick and tired of this egotistical desire from so many Americans to have a prez that likes what they do and is just like them. Screw that, give me the best and brightest.

Obama felt comfortable with a group of invited wealthy donors to demean and make fun of hard working families who live in small town America - the heart of this great country.

Voters need a president who truly understands the serious problems facing them today - not an arrogant, head tipped upward man who looks down on them.

It is delusional to believe that Obama can win a general election. There are millions of proud, hard working voters in small town America and they will never vote for a man who talks down to them.

So some Americans are offended. Boo hoo. Get over it. I loved watching Sean Hannity last night. He said "Obama is saying that small town Americans are stupid and racist and cling to guns and religion". He and others are just fanning the fire to keep this going to get folks angry and vote for Hillary so we can prolong the campaign into the convention and Granpa wins the general election. Suckers

"accommodate new and mostly uunreliable genY voters who because of their laziness in 04 gave us Alito and 4 more years of W. I am still angry that these same voters who refused to come in significant numbers at the Aurora College campus and places like Ohio State are now saying look at me and do exactly as we demand.."

See, you didn't learn your lesson. You ignored young voters, stuck us with Kerry as a nominee, and we didn't show up. If the Democratic elites push their candidate on us, this time AGAINST the will of the primary process, it will be political suicide in the fall. The supers know that, they ain't buying your weak arguments for Hillary.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/15/clinton-backer-trailing-candidates-should-drop-out-by-june-3/#comments

Remember these all were Bill Clinton fans. They are just disgusted by Hillary. Hillary's problems come from herself and not from: race, being female or anything else. In fact without Bill who would care about Hillary.

If you want a competent woman for dems go for Claire McCaskill she will get my vote and win the election without sweat.

Donald W. Bales-

Michelle Obama is not anti-white, and you shouldn't post statements like that unless you have something credible to base that on. Also, Obama may not have made his comments out of 'admiration' but it sure sounds like he made them out of empathy. And as far as Harvard and Colombia are concerned, didn't he get to those schools on his own merits as opposed to family connections or wealth. Neither of the Obama's came from wealthy/elitist backgrounds or were privileged as you seem to imply.

Think about it this way: Would you call your own children 'elitist' if, by virtue of their own hard work and intelligence, they decided to attend Harvard, Yale, etc.?

Ridiculous. Completely ridiculous.

"If the effect is a hit on Obama via the vote next week in Pennsylvania I cannot imagine how if he is the eventual Dem. candidate that his bitter-gate will not haunt him and the democratic party, he'll get locked into the position of check mate, and super delagates"

Maybe because, you know, 35 contests have already been held, the votes of PA don't matter any more than those voters and delegates do, and BTW, those voters weren't just mindless fools voting without seriously examining the issues and candidates themselves?? Even Clinton supporter Barney Frank came out today saying that whoever is behind in the delegate race on 3 June should end their campaign and concede. Since it's almost mathematically impossible for Hillary to overtake Obama (she'd need to win over 60% of the remaining delegates, meaning closer to 70% of the popular vote), I think the Supers have had their say, and this little dust up isn't going anywhere (Ed Rendell, PA gov and ardent Clinton supporter, also noted he doesn't think it will affect next week's vote by more than a couple points and will be irrelevant by November, even implying he thinks Obama will still be the nominee...). The race is over, it's just a matter of counting the final ballots to make it absolutely clear for Hillary and her die-hards at this point.

marie we can agree to disagree but I just don t buy your arguments that superdelegates should simply ignore their independent judgment, select who they feel would make the best Pres and best general election candidate to accommodate new and mostly uunreliable genY voters who because of their laziness in 04 gave us Alito and 4 more years of W. I am still angry that these same voters who refused to come in significant numbers at the Aurora College campus and places like Ohio State are now saying look at me and do exactly as we demand and the hell with boomers and the elderly voters in Fla who's votes will not be counted and now their sperdelegates should apparently ignore their voices because it might hurt our newest and least reliable supporters. Marie a poster actually said that older voters an boomers who support HC shouuld just leave the party because they are not welcpme. And you wonder why so many HC supporters are upset? Its a generational struggle but I just can t agree that those voters who have let us down so many times should now now be given special treatment-preference by superdelegates? And why should their voices be given greater weight then many in my generation who in 30 years have never missed voting and working our asses off for Dems?

'What's funny is Hillary Clinton getting Booed for trying to exploit this non-situation.'

This is now the fifth time this story has been posted. CNN has already broadcast tthat those were selfdesribed SEIU member. Is it funny for you to keep posting that nonsense and will the poster please disclose which candidate the SEIU supports.

I can't believe Mr. Cillizza gets paid to write this nothing-rubbish. Get a real job. Or I dunno, leave your computer for a minute and go out and do some real investigation or research. You know, journalism?

"Firstly Sen.Barack Obama must learn how to respect women. He is vehemently attaking Sen. Hillary Clinton, she is a wife, a mother and a woman."

Wait, women in politics are immune from criticism??? To treat her as a viable opponent is to disrespect women? Wow, that's all I can say...

To get a good idea of the real consequence of this Obama blunder you need to set aside your opinion of it and realize what is in fact happening.

It is a media feeding frenzy that is focusing laser like attention on the question of Obama's until now blameless candidacy.

It is making the question of who the democratic candidate should be for an actual win very prominent in everyone's mind.

More people will tune in and listen closer to Hillary who is prime for the audience and Obama who is defending his comments and lecturing his audiences on the audacity of anyone seeing it different than he does.

There will be a resultant effect to all of this and more, regardless of our personal opinions.

If the effect is a hit on Obama via the vote next week in Pennsylvania I cannot imagine how if he is the eventual Dem. candidate that his bitter-gate will not haunt him and the democratic party, he'll get locked into the position of check mate, and super delagates
will doubtfully collectively think the connotations of that possibility is just no big deal.

We'll see after we move out of this period of mystery.

"He's basically stereotyped small town white people. I'm not white or from a small town, but I can see why it would be offensive."

So, for you guys, what's more offensive: saying this line once off the cuff and then repeatedly apologizing and clarifying the remarks (which most people find acceptable in the clarified form), or trying to identify with you thinking dringking beeer, shooting Canadian Whiskey, and talking about shooting as a child (while disregarding a life pushing some of the strongest gun control measures proposed in this country) thinking that these moves will win over your vote?

The last month of this campaign has really soured me on Hillary. She has been nothing but negative and I don't think she realizes how she has already killed herself for the general election. If she had taken the high road on these little dustups that have occurred along the way, my opinion of her would be much more favorable at this point. But she attacks the silliest things and then won't let it go. She had an opportunity with this primary season to show people her likable side (because I think she was unfairly tagged with being unlikable entering the primaries), but she blew it. I don't think she's tough, or tenacious, or committed, I think she's increasingly being seen by democratic voters as desperate, petty, and shamefully opportunistic.

Firstly Sen.Barack Obama must learn how to respect women. He is vehemently attaking Sen. Hillary Clinton, she is a wife, a mother and a woman. Sen.Hillary Clinton has the courage to fight for what is morally right in setting the course to reaffirm our greatness as a a God-honoring nation and people, she has a vision and wisdom to execute the duties of her office with responsibility and know how to lead our country and people.!!!!

Posted by: Akber A. Kassam. | April 15, 2008 3:02 PM

GIVE ME A BREAK. ANNE OAKLEY IS A TRIP.

I think the Obama "bitterness elitism" controversy is a sympton underlying a more sinister problem for the democrats. There are a lot of white male blue collar democrats who will not vote for a black candidate. These democrat voters may be numerous in the large industrial states that democrats must win to be elected. This may be the reason that Obama has not won primaries in these states. If this trend is strong it could mean that Obama is not electable.

This is not to say that Hillary is electable. There is also a strong bias against women amongst white male blue collar democrats. Perhaps the party should look to a more "traditional" dark horse electable nominee who could snatch the nomination much as Lincoln did in 1860?

Posted by: MurrayN | April 15, 2008 3:00 PM

Yeah, like a 72 year old fart with a trophy wife.

Firstly Sen.Barack Obama must learn how to respect women. He is vehemently attaking Sen. Hillary Clinton, she is a wife, a mother and a woman. Sen.Hillary Clinton has the courage to fight for what is morally right in setting the course to reaffirm our greatness as a a God-honoring nation and people, she has a vision and wisdom to execute the duties of her office with responsibility and know how to lead our country and people.!!!!

I think the Obama "bitterness elitism" controversy is a sympton underlying a more sinister problem for the democrats. There are a lot of white male blue collar democrats who will not vote for a black candidate. These democrat voters may be numerous in the large industrial states that democrats must win to be elected. This may be the reason that Obama has not won primaries in these states. If this trend is strong it could mean that Obama is not electable.

This is not to say that Hillary is electable. There is also a strong bias against women amongst white male blue collar democrats. Perhaps the party should look to a more "traditional" dark horse electable nominee who could snatch the nomination much as Lincoln did in 1860?

The Hillary commercial is disgusting. At least one of the people in the commercial is a known local actor, so they probably all are. No one I know up here, even my gun-toting, church-goin friends thinks that Obama's comments were offensive. Hillary is the one who is going to come out of this looking worse. And I think that's a shame because if she had run a positive campaign I would have possibly voted for her.

lyle -

In all seriousness, so I can weigh your comments, how is that you talk to people "all across the country?" What do you do or where do you go that you have access to such a wide sample of opinion?

Just asking.

Lylepink, you should look at actual polls before asserting the electability argument. In state to state races, Clinton only runs significantly ahead of Obama in Florida, and she still loses by about 6! Meanwhile Obama outperforms her in Michigan, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, and numerous other sites, in most cases he's running ahead of McCain (including all of those I mentioned above, NONE of whihc, including Michigan, Clinton leads). No one who has actually looked at the numbers buys that electability argument, especially with Hillary's negative ratings. Look up some of the polls here yourself:

http://www.pollster.com/08-US-Pres-GE-MvO.php

National average of recent polls:

McCain 45.4, Obama 44.1
McCain 46.4, Clinton 43.3

What doesnt kill you makes you stronger

Here I had been thinking that Columbia and Harvard Law School were both elitist institutions. But they must not be since Barack ("Barry is not a suitable name for a brother") Hussein Obama went there and he is not one of the elite. His remarks about the people in small towns in Pennsylvania were not disparaging, they were said in admiration. He and his wife are poor and have been for a long time. And she is not at all anti-white.

Well, here in small town PA, we don't like being told by Hillary Clinton how to take someone else's comments. I hunt and I go to church, but I know exactly what Obama was talking about, and I didn't find it elitist or condescending at all. It sounds like he actually understands what alot of people are going through, and he's not just trying to make politic