Bittergate: Going Forward

1. As one Democrat who opposes Obama points out, "elitist comments like these are like catnip for the GOP." It's not reality that drives these characterizations, it's perceptions. Without putting too fine a point on it, nothing energizes the conservative political machine more than the scent of liberal elitism. Think of John Kerry and windsurfing; John Kerry and dirty jokes at his fundraisers; and then the pivots to simplistic morality plays by Republicans.

2. But Obama is not John Kerry; he is not Michael Dukakis. 2008 is not 2004. Obama is certainly much more comfortable in his skin, more confident, more "agile," as one observer put it. "Let's see him fight his way out of this one."

3. It's going to be a helluva fight. The onus is on Obama to figure out how to explain his elitist-sounding comments, stand by them, and not come off as condescending, elitist-sounding, Dukakis-esque or patronizing. His campaign faces its biggest political test since Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Can he pass it?

4. Is this the moment where 80% of the remaining superdelegates switch to HRC? I doubt it.... but once again, this controversy is not one ginned up by Clinton. So you can't blame her for it.

Comments

Nobody cares.

Posted by observer | April 12, 2008 2:29 PM

Not real sure why he needs to fight out of anything. I am from south central PA and I feel bitter. Obama is right. The bitterness exists and should exist after 8 years of a Bush presidency. I don't have a single problem with his comments. My reservations on Hillary are real. I have reservations because we have had a liar in the WH for 8 years, I don't want another one. When you listen to Hillary you really don't know if your getting stuff that is made up. No offense taken here. This whole thing solidifies my support for Obama.

Posted by Mark | April 12, 2008 2:39 PM

80% of superdelegates are going to bolt over "Bittergate"? Are you serious? "Bittergate". Can you even say that word out loud with a straight face.

If Obama can video of an angry black guy screaming "God Damm America", I think he can survive paraphrasing What's the Matter with Kansas.

Seriously, this is a complete non-story.

Posted by jesse | April 12, 2008 2:40 PM

I doubt it.... but once again, this controversy is not one ginned up by Clinton.

Are you sure about that? I mean, the timing was awfully convenient for her...

Posted by DaveWoo | April 12, 2008 2:42 PM

You know, I think that the big thing for me watching this is how quickly the Obama campaign has jumped on these stories and started working them immediately.

They put out a statement and then they got video out there for people to see right away Friday night: that's the big thing. In this election it seems to me the number one thing is getting video of your side out there and fighting the perception game. That's what went wrong on the NAFTA issue in Ohio IMO. And I think that affected them in Texas.

The things working in Obama's favor: there's no video, the audio isn't great, he got in front of this fast, he's working the story before it hits the morning talk shows, and he's got time til the election and a debate this week to break the hold of this story on the news cycle.

The things working against him: he's getting hit on the left and the right on this issue, he's dealing with an electorate that doesn't have that open a mind towards him in PA, and the goal is to make Hillary the conversation not him which is going to be harder to do now.

But yeah, this is a big battle. A lot like Wright-gate.

In the future, hopefully, they keep recording devices and video out of his fundraisers.

Posted by Rhoda | April 12, 2008 2:44 PM

Obama tells the truth again and people can't handle it.

We've had Bush-Clinton-Bush for 20 years and it hasn't helped blue-collar folks in the rust belt one bit. Time for someone new. John and Cindy McHeiress ain't it either.

Posted by Jack | April 12, 2008 2:45 PM

Obama's response is so good, I almost hope this goes on a bit. It will surely come up at Wednesday's debate. The reason is that it allows him to strike at his opponents within the context of answering his critics. Of the three candidates, he not only is th least wealthy - no more than 5% of Clinton/McCain wealth - but he also has lived amongst the poor and struggling working class.

Context has to be remembered here. I'm from the SF Bay Area and, for better or worse, a lot of people do live in a bubble. They don't understand Middle America's embrace of guns and conservative social values. I do not believe Obama was denigrating these issues. Instead, he was trying to help these donors understand.

If Obama is questioned on this, I surely hope HRC is asked at least two questions:

1) Since your personal wealth exceeds $100 million, why are U.S. taxpayers paying over $1 million annually to subsidize your husband's expenses?

2) Should you be elected President, will your husband suspend his personal business activities during your administration, or will he continue to rake in millions of dollars bolstering trade deals in opposition to U.S. policy?

Posted by Judy | April 12, 2008 2:47 PM

I don't blame HRC for it, but it's one more thing for her to talk about that's off her message. On the other hand, it's better for her than continually explaining how a confused 60 year old who suffers memory lapses at 11 p.m. can be alert at 3 in the morning. I think she got pretty lucky with this one.

On the other hand, Obama let no grass grow under his feet and I don't see any of that bewildered Kerry defensive crouch here. When the Clintons hit him hard earlier in the season on something (don't even remember what now) and he said he felt like he was running against both of them he was not nearly as adept as he is now in responding. Really, this campaign has made him a much better candidate, even if he does occasionally get his foot caught up in his dental work.

He seems to me to be doing a fine, calm, on-message job of explaining himself. I don't see a hell of a fight coming off of it, frankly. He'll incorporate this into his stump speech, probably to good avail to those who hear it; she'll keep at it as long as she can and it may change the polls at the margins for a bit. I still think she is going to win big in PA anyway, so I don't think this changes much there.

On the other hand, the math is on his side, his handling of this is likely to convince superdelegates that he has matured as a candidate and can take a punch and, as you say, in no John Kerry.

So I tend to doubt that this is the manna from heaven that HRC has been praying for.

Posted by Christine | April 12, 2008 2:49 PM

How is this possibly worse than Tuzla-gate? It's interesting that when Obama makes a "gaffe" people speculate whether he can possibly recover from it. But when Hillary puts her foot in her mouth, there's nobody questions whether her campaign can survive.

Posted by BR | April 12, 2008 2:51 PM

If it were called 'Elitegate' this would be a problem.

But since you and everyone else keep calling it 'Bittergate', nobody will care.

People are bitter. Surprised? Maybe you should take a break from the internet if you are.

It's the MEDIA that comes off as elitist, tsk-tsking Obama for not treating the voters of Appalachia as little golden children, incapable of complex thought or 'bitterness'.

Posted by lampwick | April 12, 2008 2:51 PM

DaveWoo is ascribing a great deal of power to Sen. Clinton: Apparently she can force Sen. Obama to make comments of this kind!

What's interesting to me, but not surprising, is how no one in the media wants to call out this comment for its racial implications. "Small-town Pennsylvanians" is certainly code for "white," just as "inner city" is code for "black." In this case "redneck" can also be thrown into the mix.

I'm one of the inside-the-beltway liberal elites who is probably supposed to think this is a non-story, as Jesse puts it. But I think it has serious implications. These comments, coupled with Obama's embrace of Reverend Wright, will be all many working- and middle-class whites (and Asians and Latinos) need to solidify their distaste for Obama.

Posted by ezr | April 12, 2008 2:53 PM

"A complete non-story"

You can say that again.

"Nobody cares"

Except, of course, the ones rooting around the bottom of the story barrel because they need to write about *something* during this boring in-between stretch.

Posted by gruseom | April 12, 2008 2:54 PM

Oh, you poor media hit people.

You tried so hard to ghettoize Obama, now you want to make him into an elitist.

What your feeble minds can't comprehend is that you won't be able to paint a black guy as an elitist.

It doesn't fit the narrative low info voters have of black people.

And you in the media know better than anyone else that unless something fits the narrative, it doesn't stick.

So go ahead and try...this should be pretty entertaining.

Posted by RKA | April 12, 2008 2:54 PM

People talk a lot these days about how getting the "news" from the million-and-one so-called "new" sources has been good for politics and might continue to be. This new made up "controversy" points to why the opposite might happen. Like you, a lot of the new, news outlets are made up of "journalists" who sit behind their computers and, rather than going out and doing some real reporting, pick on non-issues like this and try to make a big deal out of nothing. Look at the way middle America has been voting the last 20-30 years and tell me Obama is wrong. We all are in a boat load of s**t because we, as country, have been keeping our eyes off the ball. Our economy is crumbling, affordable healthcare is nonexistent, K-12 education keeps getting worse, college is getting more and more expensive for the average Joe and this "gaffe" is what you think is "the biggest political test" for Obama? Hopefully, the voters Obama was talking about will not fall for you jokers one more time...if they do, there will be no one to blame but us for the next 4 years of economic hell.

Posted by Nana | April 12, 2008 2:54 PM

So Barack is getting standing Os for his response to this in IN, and Hillary's bending over backwards to do everything she can to agree with McCain... and this is a loss for him, somehow?

How could she ever possibly even hope to pivot and run against him, after sounding like she's his running mate for so long? I really hope the superdelegates are taking that into account.

Posted by Dan Ancona | April 12, 2008 2:58 PM

Marc,

I used to think this was a fair and balanced kind of blog. Your pimping for Hillary in trying to make an issue out of nothing is disgusting. Her candidacy should have ended the minute she got caught lying about Bosnia. Watch this video and listen to the comments from some people who get it-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G8dRMofHNs

Posted by eagleye | April 12, 2008 2:59 PM

Ambinder is acting like we're observing a tennis game played in a glass cage. In fact, this is a game that anyone can take part in and since Ambinder and the MSM won't get involved, we need to do it.

Please go to Obama's appearances and try to get into a conversation with him about his remarks, and then upload the exchange to Youtube and other sites.

For instance, ask him whether there's really "anti-immigrant sentiment", or whether there's actually opposition to the massive illegal activity that he supports.

Or, ask him whether he said there's "anti-trade sentiment" because he supports a highly questionable and highly secretive Bush trade scheme (spp.gov).

The MSM isn't going to ask these questions, we need to do it.

Posted by TLB | April 12, 2008 3:00 PM

this controversy is not one ginned up by Clinton. So you can't blame her for it.

Are you out of your mind?

Posted by Joe Lisboa | April 12, 2008 3:01 PM

Obama doesn't have to fight his way out of this one, because the vast majority of people do not care about this issue, and certainly won't come general election time.

And his comments do not lend themselves to a sound bite...it's a more complex issue and so most people who pay cursory attention will not even understand what the controversy is about. All they know is that Obama correctly pointed that people are angry at their govt.

Notice how when Hillary or Bill lie, no one writes about how they have to pass some test. The media just kind of drops it.

As for blaming Hillary, of course she is to blame. One of her supporters recorded this on her cell phone and leaked it out. And she is the one stoking the fires.

Of course she cannot defend her vote on Iraq or the blood on her hands, or her multiple lies, or how she and Bill amassed over 100 million dollars from selling out, but hey, she can sure sound a lot like Rush Limbaugh.

In fact, Hillary has done more to legitimize racism and right wing talking points in this campaign than anyone. If her propaganda were coming only from the GOP, no one would stand for it. But the Clintons unfortunately still have too much influence over the media.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 3:01 PM

Let's see if we understand Marc correctly: the black guy is the "elistist," and he's going to fallto two white millionaires? Get real.

Posted by Miande | April 12, 2008 3:05 PM

this controversy is not one ginned up by Clinton. So you can't blame her for it.

It's the most absurd "controversy" I've seen in a long time. Everybody knows what he meant, and everybody knows it's true.

This "controversy" is ginned up by the media, including you, Marc.

Posted by justinb | April 12, 2008 3:05 PM

Bullshit, this controversy is absolutely being ginned up by Clinton. She's got her campaign launching a coordinated push on it today, and she's sending around Republican quotes on it today to the press and superdelegates.

It is pathetic, and embarrassing, for "Democrats" and Republicans to launch a coordinated attack on the likely Dem nominee.

I've had it with the Clintons and wish they and their mindless followers would shove their heads back up their asses, where they've been for the last seven years quietly acquiesing to Bush.

Posted by BillB | April 12, 2008 3:08 PM

Got to say Marc, your reporting disappoints me lately. I may need to find another blog. Your bias is pretty clear. Sad to say because I thought you used to do a pretty good job.

Posted by Mark | April 12, 2008 3:09 PM

Given Hillary's attacks on Obama, one can say that the hatred for her within the Democratic party only grows.

She is working to destroy the party, and comes off every day sounding like Rush Limbaugh.

She circulates Republican talking points, as if they don't have any to use against her if she would be the nominee.

Hillary has permanently lost a huge chunk of Democratic voters no matter what happens.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 3:12 PM

Mr. Ambinder,

You appear to have lost your mind over the past 24 hours. Take the rest of the weekend off. If you feel the need to post additional stupid stuff on your blog regarding this "controversy," take a walk instead.

Posted by mcarlson | April 12, 2008 3:13 PM

obama needs endorsements from john edwards and jim webb. hrc is going crazy and if these southern working class heroes stay silent, this will stick and obama will lose the general election

Posted by mejhova | April 12, 2008 3:20 PM

Meanwhile, soldiers die in Iraq, or are maimed for life...people lose their homes...gas goes to $4/gallon...and people like Marc have this obsess over.

Obama is right; people are frustrated and angry, and one thing they are angry about is the media press coverage and its tabloid media style and focus on the trivial.

Hillary and McCain have the blood of US soldiers on their hands, but hey, that's no big deal. Let's instead distort a very generous and insightful line by Obama...that's the ticket to improving American lives.

Posted by cn | April 12, 2008 3:21 PM

This will backfire on Clinton who epitomizes an "elitist." First, they tried painting him an angry Black man. THat didn't work, so now they're trying to portray him as an elitist?? Huh?!?! Are people in the U.S. stupid enought to buy this "controversy??" Here we have a politician who is genuine in his remarks and we're going to crucify him for being honest?! Again, HUH?!?! How should an Obama supporter view all these negative "hit" jobs from the Clinton/McCain camps and the media? Possibly racist? Oh no, never that...

Posted by Jane | April 12, 2008 3:21 PM

I am stunned by the posters on this board who call this a non-issue when it's all that the press is talking about. Newsflash: IT'S ALREADY A CRISIS. I'm reminded of Kevin Bacon's small scene in Animal House when he's screaming "REMAIN CALM! ALL IS WELL!" while he's being trampled by a stampeding crowd.

When will you folks realize that perception is reality? It doesn't matter whether or not Obama's comments are true or not. What DOES matter is the clinical, detached, aloof manner in which he relayed them to a crowd of limousine liberals in San Francisco. It was like an intrepid explorer reporting back on the new territories he'd explored.

It's. Over.

Posted by Potfry | April 12, 2008 3:23 PM

Marc- what are you smoking? You think, HRC didn't gin this up? It happened a week ago, why is it coming out now? The fact that a dem is a attempting to politically destroy another dem is GODAWFUL -MARC. How will this unify the party? And if the SD's didn't go to HRC after Wright, you think they are going to jump after this non-story. You know-u guys in the media are the elites and you are making a big thing out of nothing. Its FREAKIN UNBELIEVABLE! ARE U ALL SCARED THAT O MIGHT HAVE ACTUALLY WON PA.

Posted by am | April 12, 2008 3:24 PM

If Hillary or McCain want to argue that no one is angry or bitter out there, they can go ahead and they will be the ones out of touch.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 3:24 PM

Jane: I hear you. I urge people to look at the crowds and supporters during any Clinton or McCain event. I urge them to really pay attention. See for yourself how multi-cultural and all-embracing she/he is. "Blue-collar" workers seems to have become a code word for White people.

Posted by Maria | April 12, 2008 3:24 PM

ok, so hillary supported nafta and wal-mart in the 90s, mccain was enjoying living the high life in the world's most exclusive club while obama was running around in southside chicago organizing voters for a church for $12,000 and paying off his student debts and he's the elitist? the teamsters supported this elitist? SEIU supported this elitist? hillary votes to send working class heroes to iraq, mccain wants to keep them there and obama voted against sending them there...he's the elitist? what is going on here?

Posted by obamamama | April 12, 2008 3:43 PM

Ah Potfry, another hysterical chicken little declaring another round of THE END OF THE OBAMA!

"Ignore the truth," he cries, "the media defines reality! Voters don't have the capacity for independent thought, you elitist liberals!"

The irony and hypocrisy of these absurdly condescending statements, of course, being lost. The sense of history, as always, nonexistent. The respect for the actual reality, naturally, proudly discarded.

How many times do we have to go through this cycle before you guys realize you're never right about this stuff? Infinity and one's my guess.

Posted by Klaus | April 12, 2008 3:43 PM

Why are we not freaking? Because you Clinton fans have been screaming "It's over" since before Iowa. Before Super Tuesday, Wisconsin, Virginia, Maryland, after Texas, Ohio, Reverend Wright, somehow Obama always survives controversy.

When will you guys realize it? Politics is not about not being controversial it's about surviving controversy. Ask any politician or president ever. Everyone has mistakes and scandals, it's how you hit back that matters. And for Democrats that's the only way to beat Republicans.

So please keep screaming, "It's over" everytime you do Obama wins something else.

Posted by John | April 12, 2008 3:48 PM

I long for those sweetly fragrant days when the jackals howled "REZKO IS THE END OF OBAMA!" Oh, how the kids change...

Posted by Klaus | April 12, 2008 3:53 PM

I was a-settin’ on my porch, a couple days ago
Just chewin’ some tobaccy, and a-whilin’ time away
When I heard from inside the trailer, on my radio,
That nice young colored boy Obama, from Chicago way.
That negro feller talked so sweet, just like an angel’s voice
T’was like he’d almost read my mind, my bitterness he knew
He talked about th’conomy, and how I had no choice
Except to hate them commie faggots, and them wetbacks too.
But since I heard him, I have felt right poorly ‘bout myself
Starting this Sunday, to my church, I never will go back
I won’t watch NASCAR, and I’ll put my guns up on the shelf
And in November, swear to God, I will vote for Barack.

Posted by Omaha1 | April 12, 2008 4:04 PM

Marc, what's the definition of ginned up?

Hillary may not have uttered the words but her and her surrogates have created their own echo chamber distorting and mischaracterizing Sen. Obama's comments and it seems that at least quite a few journalists, conventional and uncoventional are falling for it. Plus, why aren't you all reminding the public about the hypocrisy of both Clinton's and McCain's vociferous objections?

Posted by Sean | April 12, 2008 4:12 PM

This bitter business is a big deal? American workers are too out of it to realize that they have been had by corporate-loving Democrats--like the Clitnons--and almost every Republican including McCain, so that they will be offended like some tea-party going socialites when Obama says that they are "bitter" about losing their jobs?

He is elitist because he says they are bitter, or because he (correctly) says that they turn to religion and social activities to brunt the pain of their losses and their biterness about it? With the governments we've had, they might as well turn to God to help them out, or guns. It's evident that politicians like Clinton and McCain aren't going to provide them with the kind of help they provide global corporations.

Calling Obama's statements elitist implies that working class Americans are too stupid to see the truth in them. Now THAT is elitist.

Posted by Barbara | April 12, 2008 4:42 PM

You know, maybe people like the Clintons aren't bitter or angry or frustrated. I mean, they've made $109MM in the past 7 years. What do they have to be bitter about (apart from the fact that they're being beaten for the nomination by Obama)?

Dammit, I AM bitter. I'm pissed off every time I have to pay $3.32 per gallon for gas because I know it was only $40 per barrel when Bush came to power. I'm ticked off that our leaders took us into a ridiculous war and that thousands of our young men and women have been maimed or killed or mentally scarred for life as a result. I'm angry that the politicians in this country are so out of touch that they don't even freaking realize how much gas, or milk, or much of anything else costs. How can you not be angry or bitter at things like this, unless they don't affect you?

Posted by Amy | April 12, 2008 4:53 PM

Thank goodness we live in a country like America, where the only thing we have to worry about is whether Obama said some people in PA is bitter in the 'correct' way.*

*And you know, not have to worry about the highest public officials meeting to find a deliberate way to skirt international treaty in order to 'interrogate' prisoners.*

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 5:03 PM

As usual the third paty crazies who love Obama don't understand.
It is funny how RKA can castr stones about low information voters when he is so damned low information that he fails to understand that linking people's attachment to religion to their bitterness is elitism and vulgar. Equating religion with xenophobia and gun ownership and fear of people unlike oneself is elitism that reminds people that he is from private school, second generation harvard, that he is a snob.
That's what is "low information" about RKA's comments.
And RKA's use of that term and his snobby insistance that it isn't condescending is what makes him wrong so often.
The commentators who usually defend obama couldn't defend him this time. Chris matthews and Keith Ohlbermann and half the talking heads on CNN couldn't help him this time. Only idiotic Roland Martin even tried.
3 talking heads on CNN, asked if this was closer to one or ten on the 1 -10 scale, labelled it eleven.

Posted by Michael C. | April 12, 2008 5:08 PM

YES I am bitter.
Am I better off than I was 8 years ago? NO. 67% of the people in the US feel the same way I do. Check out the latest PEW poll.
Obama is in tune with what middle class and main strret America thinks and feels. I am bitter that Clinton and McCain are playing the usual textbook politics to score cheap points against him. Next week, both McCain and Clinton are going to stand in front of audiences and say the exact same thing Obama is saying now and that makes me bitter.
Let's face it, from the start of this campaign, Obama has been a trend setter. everything he talked about including his "Change" MOTO and stance has been copied by every Democratic and Republican contender. That's the true measure of a real leader.

Posted by Sam | April 12, 2008 5:26 PM

You have to be kidding me if you think that this is a non-story. This is a big challenge for Obama, perhaps his last. If he gets through it the nomination is probably his, but he cannot sweep it under the rug. He basically attached faith and gun-ownership to feeling left behind by society. Forget the people are bitter part, that's just your spin, that's not the part that's upsetting people, that is totally non-controversial. The big thing is attributing worldviews to this bitterness. It's condescending and weird. It says that these people believe they way they believe only because of where they are in society. I happen to agree that that is always a huge factor, but it is a dumb dumb thing for a politician, particularly a Democrat, to say. It denigrates free will and, as a story, it matters.

I would love for an Obama supporter to explain why this doesn't actually matter without ignoring facts or pretending that this is the same as Obama's message always has been or calling Hillary names. Let's see it y'all.

Posted by Jonathan | April 12, 2008 6:44 PM

This too shall pass, notwithstanding the McCain-Clinton tag team effort - for these reasons among others: http://acropolisreview.com/2008/04/top-reasons-to-give-barack-obama-your.html

Posted by Tina | April 12, 2008 8:13 PM

Right. I'm done with this blog (as I was done with Ben Smith recently, too).

Posted by Yuppers | April 12, 2008 9:58 PM

Is that you, Mark Halperin? I love the frame...The onus is on him to explain why he explained reality?? WTF...

Posted by Coltrane | April 12, 2008 10:18 PM

This reminds me of the 'reject or denounce' issue that came up between Obama and Hillary in an earlier debate.

In the debate, Obama hesitated to use 'reject' because it was the wrong word. Farrahkan hadn't offered Obama anything, so there was nothing to reject.

Here, 'bitter' is the right word. It captures the idea of strong cynicism, which is exactly how many in the rust belt and elsewhere feel about their government.

But as the post said, it's about perceptions. It doesn't matter what bitter actually means, it only matters what people perceive it to mean. Bittergate and the reject/denounce kerfuffle show how Obama's precision in his use of words can be a liability.

Posted by Joseph | April 12, 2008 10:30 PM

The fact that the controversy was not ginned up by Hillary Clinton doesn't mean that it's not still immensely stupid.

Political journalists just love preening as salt-of-the-earth types more than anything else in the world.

Posted by lowellfield | April 12, 2008 10:53 PM

This article by Ambinder shows very poor reasoning skills.

1st) Ambinder doesn't seem to know the meaning of the word "elitist". I suggest a dictionary for Christmas.

2nd) The only contend that needs addressing is just how accurate was Obama's statement take in it's whole context. Here Ambinder fails on this reasoning as well. No accuracy research was done, ie, How many people fit the "bitter" position; None, Some, is it 50-50? No research at all was done before posting the article.

I suggest Ambinder do some background on what Obama was talking about. It requires real journalist work, but it may well save Ambinder from looking foolish and displaying low quality reasoning skills to the public.

Posted by James | April 13, 2008 12:23 AM

Who says you can't blame her for what is happening over the misstatements of Senator Obama? She once again has done the work of the Republicans for them. She is riding the elitism point,she was the first to bring it up and she continues to use it over and over again. One problem though, Senator Obama sounds much more in tune with the people of small towns than she does. Come on, her and Pres. Clinton had an income of 109 million last year. And, her comments that Obama is an elitist hurts our party and our potential candidate proving once more she is self serving and would sell us all down the river for more power and money.

Posted by MAC | April 13, 2008 12:34 AM

Who says you can't blame her for what is happening over the misstatements of Senator Obama? She once again has done the work of the Republicans for them. She is riding the elitism point,she was the first to bring it up and she continues to use it over and over again. One problem though, Senator Obama sounds much more in tune with the people of small towns than she does. Come on, her and Pres. Clinton had an income of 109 million last year. And, her comments that Obama is an elitist hurts our party and our potential candidate proving once more she is self serving and would sell us all down the river for more power and money.

Posted by MAC | April 13, 2008 12:35 AM

Clinton's record shows trade support
http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-trade12apr12,1,2301897.story
Since 2001, Clinton has backed pacts with Jordan, Chile, Singapore, Australia, Morocco and Oman that were opposed by numerous labor, farming and environmental groups concerned that the deals contained insufficient safeguards for American workers and consumers. As recently as November, Clinton supported a free trade agreement negotiated by the Bush administration with Peru.

God don't like ugly baby...

Posted by kravitz | April 13, 2008 2:42 AM

Obama doesn't have to fight his way out of this one, because the vast majority of people do not care about this issue, and certainly won't come general election time.

What the "vast majority" cares about is irrelevant, because there is seldom any single issue or controversy that bothers the vast majority of anybody. We're dealing with the margins here: will 5, 10, 15% be bothered by Obama's comments? Enough, perhaps, to turn Clinton's narrow victory into a blowout? Quite possibly.

I am from south central PA and I feel bitter.

Does anyone detect the irony here? Obama's got most of the bitter people in his column already. The bitter people are the folks with an entitlement mentality; people who feel like the government owes them a handout. They're solidly in the Democratic column already.

The people Obama mentions who vote based on second amendment rights, abortion, religion, immigration, and whatnot don't want handouts. They're willing to work hard. They just don't want a system that's stacked against them.

The so-called xenophobes aren't anti-immigrant or racist - they're just tired of being underbid by people who don't even belong in the country. The so-called homophobes are perfectly happy to put gay marriage to a vote - they win every time. They just don't want elitist, arrogant judges imposing it on them without so much as a fig leaf of legal justification. The so-called "theocrats" are perfectly willing to live and let-live religiously. They're just fed up with every speck of religion being snuffed out of public life, quite frequently in an effort to please people who immigrated here last week.

That's the strange part about this whole controversy. The bitter people were in the Democrats' camp from the start.

Posted by Chris Roland | April 13, 2008 5:14 AM

her comments that Obama is an elitist hurts our party and our potential candidate proving once more she is self serving and would sell us all down the river for more power and money.

In 2000, Democrats everywhere were all in a tizzy over the "failure" to count a bunch of votes by people who didn't know how to vote. Now they're screaming that Hillary has no right to continue to contest the nomination. Ignore 2,000 miscast ballots in Florida: gross human injustice. Tell millions of people in 10 states they shouldn't have a say in the Democratic nomination: perfectly hunkydory.

Reminds me of the old line by Stalin: "One death is a tragedy; a million is a statistic."

Posted by Chris Roland | April 13, 2008 5:34 AM

First things first. Obama's comments will offend some Pennsylvania voters. But certainly not prevent him from winning in Pa.

This is an election about the economy,management of the war,and the total lack of response to Katrina.
The list is endless. People want an change in the way Washington handles things.

Obama very well maybe able to change Washington.

That is what voters in Pennsylvania 'are holding on to".

Posted by frank in nc | April 13, 2008 7:38 AM

This has already been said by smarter people than me, but listen: I'm a 38 year old man living in Quakertown, PA. The economy sucks around here. There's nothing to do on the weekend other than hunting and church, both of which I look forward to all week. My high school friends have mostly moved away, and I don't expect our kids will choose to raise their families here.

Bush is killing PA. Rendell has done absolutely nothing for us here.

Read my lips: I AM BITTER.

Posted by Jonathan in PA | April 13, 2008 10:31 AM

I'm a 38 year old man living in Quakertown, PA. The economy sucks around here. There's nothing to do on the weekend other than hunting and church, both of which I look forward to all week. My high school friends have mostly moved away, and I don't expect our kids will choose to raise their families here. Bush is killing PA. Rendell has done absolutely nothing for us here.

This is a perfectly natural phenomenon. Towns are born, grow up, grow old, and sometimes die. In the Old West they're called ghost towns.

The natural, normal, historical response to a town where the economic opportunities dry up is to move away. Usually economic opportunities in other regions beckon. But thanks to illegal immigration those other places, usually in the Sunbelt, have no incentive to recruit in places like Pennsylvania and offer wages respectable enough to live in their locale. Another response, if it's possible, is to relocate their business to the dying towns.

Now, instead, they recruit illegals in Mexico and keep their wages low. This it's what's driving economic inequality and it's what's making life in the Rustbelt even worse.

FWIW, life in Pennsylvania can't be all that bad. I have 3 friends all from Pennsylvania who had good jobs here in the West but who all decided to move back to small towns in Penn. Purely anecdotal, I know.

Posted by Chris Roland | April 13, 2008 1:27 PM

Chris, your last comment strikes me as pretty intensely out of it, especially for someone who is so eager to jump on the anti-elitist bandwagon. Your solution for Pennsylvania is for everyone to move away? WTF? I mean, yes, lots of people (like me) do move out of PA, but that's part of the problem, not the solution. Families who have lived in an area for generations don't necessarily want to leave. Parents don't want to see their kids have to move away because there aren't any economic opportunities.

And, yeah, your anecdotal evidence about Pennsylvania is completely worthless. I grew up in northeastern PA, and my area of the state was a mess, and had been for decades. Of course there are some jobs there -- it's not a bombed out wasteleand. But it's not in good shape either, and hasn't been for a long time.

Also, ghost towns were a result of incredibly poor planning, unsustainable growth, and, often, giant corporate boondoggles (involving thing like railroad land rights.) Citing them as part of some kind of natural economic evolution is pretty silly.

And finally, illegal immigration is only part of the problem, and not a very big one. Much more important in the long run have been trade deals which have shipped industrial jobs overseas. I mean, if you got all the illegal immigrants out of the country tomorrow, we'd suddenly have a healthy auto industry again? Um, I don't think so.

But, hey, who cares, right? If you can't find a job, just move to South Korea. Or China. Or whatever.

Posted by NoahB | April 13, 2008 5:09 PM

But thanks to illegal immigration those other places, usually in the Sunbelt, have no incentive to recruit in places like Pennsylvania and offer wages respectable enough to live in their locale.

Inane analysis. Most jobs being created in the service economies of Sunbelt states cannot be filled by illegal immigrants. You'll find illegals working in hotels, restaurants, and constructions sites, to be sure. But not many at all in the office parks of suburban Atlanta, Charlotte and Dallas. And anyway, Sunbelt states have attracted literally millions of domestic migrants from such places as Pennsylvania, Ohio, New York, New England, and Michigan. Employers haven't needed to "recruit" rust belt transplants. The transplants come to them.

Posted by April | April 13, 2008 5:25 PM

this controversy is not one ginned up by Clinton

Marc,

are you out of your fucking mind?

Posted by nattyb | April 13, 2008 11:44 PM

EZR, clinging to religion and guns.... Obama could have used the same words to describe the urban black poor...

Clinton, if she had any class at all, would have gone out and said something like: "Y'know, I think Barack tripped over his phrasing a little, but here's the point he was trying to make... When people suffer loss after loss, they fall back to what gives them stability... their traditions, trying to take things back to how things were... we're all looking for ways to help work with these communities to help them recover - to give them hope".... Something along the lines of what Webb said.

Instead, she runs around and hands out "I'm not bitter" buttons...

Posted by Joe | April 14, 2008 11:26 AM

EZR, clinging to religion and guns.... Obama could have used the same words to describe the urban black poor...

Clinton, if she had any class at all, would have gone out and said something like: "Y'know, I think Barack tripped over his phrasing a little, but here's the point he was trying to make... When people suffer loss after loss, they fall back to what gives them stability... their traditions, trying to take things back to how things were... we're all looking for ways to help work with these communities to help them recover - to give them hope".... Something along the lines of what Webb said.

Instead, she runs around and hands out "I'm not bitter" buttons...

Posted by Joe | April 14, 2008 11:27 AM

Joe, Barack was responding to a question about PA. He was discussing, at that point, small towns in PA and the voters mentality. I think that urban areas do deal with different issues and such comment would relate that well because urban voters do not use the bible and the second amendment to defend their ideological beliefs. There are real issues that are going on in different parts of this country and he was attempting to explain the phenomenon in rural PA to someone in San Fran. Sure, he could have explained it better, but Clinton did not have to jump on it at all. It is for the voter to decide whether or not what he said is something they want his/her next president to say.

Posted by Sandy | April 14, 2008 11:57 AM

It is time for people to get real. Obama is the first politican that I can remember that is revealing his true self to the American people. He will say what he means and not make excuses or apologies.
Rev. Wright said out loud what many black Americans feel, and if white America was honest, many feel the same way about black America. Get real!! You know it's true. I am glad that Obama didn't kiss ass or apologize for Rev. Wright or his freedom to express his feelings. Rev. Wright said what he felt at the moment.
What is now being refered to as "bittergate" is what many Americans feel as well. Don't try to twist it into political mumbo-jumbo. Obama is trying to tell the American people who he is and what he believes. Don't put anyone elses words in his mouth. Listen to what Obama is saying!!! LISTEN and you might learn something!!!

Posted by barryfan | April 15, 2008 12:33 AM

What was so elitist about the comments? Anyone who thinks that Obama's statements were elitist has never been to Flint, Michigan and seen what an economically destroyed town really looks like. Why should we listen to someone like Hillary Clinton, a product of the white 'burbs during the prosperous fifties talk about the "elitism" of a guy who worked a an organizer on Chicago's south side. Hillary Clinton is just another yuppie sleazebag who doesn't give a damn about any of us who worked blue collar jobs. In the end she just figures that most of us blue collar guys won't vote for a black guy. She's wrong!!!

Posted by Robert Willett | April 15, 2008 5:46 PM