| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
ocugrad
Activist
USA
130 Posts |
 Posted - April 12 2008 : 05:42:13
|
Obama defends 'bitter' remarks
Posted: 10:03 PM ET
Sen. Obama responded to attacks on his recent remarks at a campaign stop in Terre Haute, Indiana Friday night.
TERRE HAUTE, Indiana (CNN) –- Barack Obama was forced Friday to defend comments he made at a recent fundraiser where he described some Pennsylvanians as "bitter."
Obama came under fire from Hillary Clinton and John McCain for his remarks just weeks before the Pennsylvania primary.
"When I go around and I talk to people, there is frustration, and there is anger, and there is bitterness," Obama began. "I want to make a point here."
"[Pennsylvanians are] frustrated and for good reason, because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas, they’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their pensions. They’ve lost their health care."
Obama then said that politicians from both sides of the aisle have promised answers but that "nothing ever happens."
"So…they don’t vote on economic because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them," Obama said, adding that they end up voting on issues that include gun rights, gay marriage, and faith.
He then directly hit Clinton and McCain, mocking their earlier attacks.
"Here’s what’s rich," Obama said. "Sen. Clinton says, 'Well I don’t think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack’s being condescending.' John McCain says, 'Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? He’s obviously out of touch with people. '"
"Out of touch?" Obama said. "I mean, John McCain, it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch?"
"Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch?"
He concluded his argument by telling the audience that it is, in fact, the opposite.
"No. I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what’s going on in Indiana, [and] I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed up."
–CNN's Chris Welch |
Jeremiah Elix
No one can truly realize that we stand on the shoulders of some giants, but we are being supported by the hands of countless Lilliputians. - Jeremiah D. Elix 11/26/2008
|
Edited by - ocugrad on April 12 2008 05:44:41
|
|
|
ocugrad
Activist
USA
130 Posts |
Posted - April 12 2008 : 05:46:11
|
BRAVO SIR! |
Jeremiah Elix
No one can truly realize that we stand on the shoulders of some giants, but we are being supported by the hands of countless Lilliputians. - Jeremiah D. Elix 11/26/2008
|
 |
|
|
Calvin Rees
Administrator
USA
18514 Posts |
Posted - April 12 2008 : 08:10:44
|
| well he told the truth and that makes people nervous especially ones who have something to hide |
Calvin Rees
|
|
|
|
soonersusan1954
Leader
2678 Posts |
Posted - April 12 2008 : 09:52:02
|
McCain Said It, Before He Attacked It
David Sirota/Huffington Post
April 11, 2008
John McCain's campaign is attacking Barack Obama for Obama's rather indisputable comments about the rise of anti-immigrant fervor in small town America. Obama said that the rise of such fervor has a lot to do with bitterness.
But wait - didn't John McCain say something similar in December to The New Yorker?
Anti-immigrant passion also owes much to the disproportionate influence of a few small states in the nominating process. National polls show that, as an issue, immigration is far behind the Iraq war, terrorism, the economy, and health care as a concern to most Americans; a recent Pew poll shows that, nationally, only six per cent of voters offer immigration as the most important issue facing the country. But in Iowa and South Carolina, two of the three most important early states, it is a top concern for the Republicans who are most likely to vote.
"It's the influx of illegals into places where they've never seen a Hispanic influence before," McCain told me. "You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona on this issue. I was in a town in Iowa, and twenty years ago there were no Hispanics in the town. Then a meatpacking facility was opened up. Now twenty per cent of their population is Hispanic. There were senior citizens there who were--'concerned' is not the word. They see this as an assault on their culture, what they view as an impact on what have been their traditions in Iowa, in the small towns in Iowa. So you get questions like 'Why do I have to punch 1 for English?' 'Why can't they speak English?' It's become larger than just the fact that we need to enforce our borders."
Sure, it's not exactly the same, but it's pretty darn similar. In fact, McCain seems to be saying something far more controversial. While Obama is saying economic hardship breeds anti-immigrant feelings, McCain is saying lots of rural people just hate Hispanics. That may or may not be true - but the fact that McCain's campaign is feigning outrage over Obama's truisms when their own candidate has made thematically similar statements strikes me as...what's the word...oh yeah - dishonest.
|
|
|
|
Ownthinker
Leader
1066 Posts |
Posted - April 12 2008 : 10:50:11
|
Obama is telling it like it is. Sometimes the truth is nasty.
The other two should be so forthright! |
|
|
|
Stan McKay
Grassroots
USA
39 Posts |
Posted - April 12 2008 : 12:05:42
|
| Despite being a die hard Hillary supporter, I agree that Obama was simply telling the truth - and so was McCain when he made the remarks quoted by SoonerSusan (It is a little disconcerting to hear a Republican occasionally get something right). I don't see how we can solve our real problems if we cannot even dare to tell the truth. |
|
|
|
Bledsoe
Grassroots
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 08:07:12
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188673.php
Talking Points Memo | For it, Before She Was Against It
For it, Before She Was Against It
04.12.08 -- 11:53PM
By Josh Marshall
Theda Skocpol writes in ...
I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!
I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination -- and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of "we're not bitter" stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.
Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?
This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start. |
|
|
|
Bledsoe
Grassroots
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 08:11:09
|
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188674.php
Talking Points Memo | Obama in 2004
Obama in 2004
04.12.08 -- 11:45PM
By Josh Marshall
TPM Reader GB sent me in the video of a 2004 appearance by Barack Obama on the Charlie Rose show in which he talks about the same issue of rural and working class Americans and the Democratic party. It's from November 23rd, 2004, so just after Obama was first elected to the senate but a couple months before he was sworn in.
It's interesting to watch since it's in a very non-campaign setting and almost four years ago. He makes exactly the same point, but explains it differently. Some of it is likely equally demagoguable, but shows up some of the tendentious misconstruals of what he said. I clipped out the three minutes or so of the hour segment where he addresses this issue ...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M&eurl=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188674.php
YouTube - Barack Obama on Rural and Working Class America, Circa 2004 |
|
|
|
Mecoyle
Organizer
USA
845 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 08:31:53
|
quote:
Originally posted by ocugrad
Obama defends 'bitter' remarks
Posted: 10:03 PM ET
"Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch?"
Is this the same bill Obama voted against that would've put a cap of 30% interest on loans from financial services companies so the poor people who have slow or bad credit wouldn't have to pay interest of 50 to 110% to loansharks? |
|
|
|
soonersusan1954
Leader
2678 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 09:40:26
|
Or you could look at it this way:
CLINTON THINKS 30% INTEREST RATES ARE OKAY
HILLARY CLINTON has taken the bold step of proposing a cap on credit care interest rates. The cap: 30%.
Beginning in the 1980s - as part of the Reagan counter-revolution - interest rate controls began disappearing in this country. Rates that generally were below ten percent would rise as much as three times.
The media did not report this story, the politicians did not deal with it, and the banks got away with murder. This is not your average political or economic change; it altered views of fair interest rates going back to the earliest times. Essentially usury became legal.
A logical approach would be to return to pre-Reagan interest rate rules. The banks would be furious, but the rest of America would be better off. But while the exact maximum interest rate is debatable; what is not debatable is that today's rates are indefensible. |
|
|
|
rottenart
Grassroots
96 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 12:17:19
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mecoyle
quote:
Originally posted by ocugrad
Obama defends 'bitter' remarks
Posted: 10:03 PM ET
"Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch?"
Is this the same bill Obama voted against that would've put a cap of 30% interest on loans from financial services companies so the poor people who have slow or bad credit wouldn't have to pay interest of 50 to 110% to loansharks?
Just because a bill contains a few good items doesn't make it a good bill. The economic cost of making it harder to file for bankruptcy is definitely, IMHO, more dire than a cap on interest rates. those can be dealt with separately. Bankruptcy is now not an option for many of those people you're talking about. Do you think if they can't pay their bills at 40% they'll be able to pay them at 30%? |
http://www.geoffreyk.com/ |
|
|
|
stillwater feminist
Organizer
773 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 13:26:33
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bledsoe
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188673.php
Talking Points Memo | For it, Before She Was Against It
For it, Before She Was Against It
04.12.08 -- 11:53PM
By Josh Marshall
Theda Skocpol writes in ...
I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing. Even more so to see her pretending to be a gun-toting non-elite. Give us a break!
I wonder if she realizes that gaining a few days of lurid publicity that might reach a slice of voters is going to cost her a great deal in the regard of many Democrats, whose strong support she will need if she somehow claws her way to the nomination -- and even more so if she does not clinch the nomination. The distribution of "we're not bitter" stickers to her campaign rallies is the height of over-the-top crudity, and the reports are that very few audience members seem to have much enthusiasm for this nonsense. Not surprisingly, people cannot see the reasons for so much fuss.
Yes, she wants a big break, she desperately wants the nomination she and Bill believe is hers by right. We all know that. But where is her authenticity and her dignity and her sense of any proportion?
This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start.
Those "cats" and their "claws"!
Give us a break, indeed.
This is all very interesting. I find that I don't agree with much of anything I've read about it yet. I don't think Obama was anywhere near as cruel as all that; he was more sympathetic than I could ever be about gun-toting xenophobes. In fact he seems to me to have referred to what I see as lame excuses as if they were good alibis. Economic insecurity is a reason to be a gun-toting xenophobe who hides behind the bible? Then how come there are people who don't have good jobs who don't act like that and plenty of rich people who do? I think his analysis is really not quite accurate. I would chalk it up to the requirements of campaigning if it weren't apparently the case that he's believed that analysis for a while. He is too generous.
So where does that put Hillary? She's obviously living by the requirements of campaigning. She's trying to make hay while the sun shines. What the above post tries to use as a point against her I take as a point in her favor: " I have been in meetings with the Clintons and their advisors where very clinical things were said in a very-detached tone about unwillingness of working class voters to trust government -- and Bill Clinton -- and about their unfortunate (from a Clinton perspective) proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues." "Clinical and detached" makes sense when you're talking about a very serious problem emerging from very warped attitudes that probably don't have a good basis in anything reasonable.
But everything is being distorted here, so that now Obama's error on the side of generosity is being characterized as either the epitome of brilliance or an error on the side of cruelty. It might be good if everyone could just calm down. The whole culture is so inclined to overreact at the slightest breath that it's no wonder everything takes on the feel of a roller coaster ride. |
Edited by - stillwater feminist on April 13 2008 13:28:23 |
|
|
|
progressv
Leader
USA
1786 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 15:07:06
|
"But everything is being distorted here, so that now Obama's error on the side of generosity is being characterized as either the epitome of brilliance or an error on the side of cruelty. It might be good if everyone could just calm down. The whole culture is so inclined to overreact at the slightest breath that it's no wonder everything takes on the feel of a roller coaster ride."
You are right-on StillwaterF !
But it's "A roller Coaster ride" that the 19%'ers love----it takes the un-engaged out by skewing the truth, 527 Swiftboat style.
|
"America---Change it, or lose it".
"The conservative media dreamland, for instance, ensconces its audience in an impregnable bubble -- you eat breakfast with the Wall Street Journal's editorial page, you drive to the office with right-wing radio, you flit between Breitbart and Drudge at work, you come home to Fox News. The ideas bouncing around in this world -- say, ideas about the Obama administration allegedly favoring blacks -- don't seem like propaganda to those inside the bubble. With heavily edited videos of screaming pastors and prejudice-sounding USDA officials, these ideas are cloaked in the veneer of unchallenged fact, leaving the audience to assume its bigoted conclusions are completely self-directed and incontrovertible".
David Sirota, AlterNet
|
|
|
|
edwardwhiteokc
Leader
USA
2333 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 17:33:13
|
| I was originally an Edwards guy, but the more Obama campaigns, the more I like him. He has an innate ability to put his finger right on a crucial issue. He nailed this "bitterness" issue, and given Clinton's pedigree (upper middle income upbringing, if not upper, upper middle income followed by the best colleges), current income ($15 million per year), career choices (selling out to the hightest bidder, including Wal-Mart, at the Rose Law Firm), and history of supporting corporate-friendly policies (e.g., NAFTA), it is quite amusing to see her playing up this issue. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. |
|
|
|
soonersusan1954
Leader
2678 Posts |
Posted - April 13 2008 : 19:20:51
|
Who wrote this 2006 Op-Ed?
"The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet."
Another well-known elitist, superdelgate, and Democratic Senator from the Commonwealth of Virginia, Jim Webb |
|
|
|
Bledsoe
Grassroots
USA
22 Posts |
Posted - April 14 2008 : 06:36:24
|
"If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns."
-- Bill Clinton, in his 2004 memoirs, My Life, making the same argument as Sen. Barack Obama.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/04/13/historical_quote_of_the_day.html |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
