onegoodmove

Can you imagine if HIllary had resisted the urge to attack and instead played it as a statesman and made a public appeal to not condemn Obama for a simple poor choice of words?

She would have thrown the entire country for a loop; and likely strengthened her position in the race. I think we've been giving her too much credit in the smarts department.

I would like to believe that if Hillary hadn't found in herself in the position of playing catch-up, she would have taken more shots at her Republican opponent and fewer at her Democratic rival. We'll never know. Anyway, I'm getting pretty tired from all the petty bickering. Wake me up in November and I'll vote for whoever got nominated.

Bitter is putting it lightly. Angry and disillusioned is more like it.

What…a 30% or less approval rating for both congress and the president? Seems a tad more than just apathy from the nation's poor and middle class majority.

I'm a little surprised to see this robust defense of Obama's words here--but it's nice!

I hope this little surprise does not overshadow the marvelous, rich, and wonderfully thought-provoking pieces by Errol Morris, which I highly recommend.

Norm,

I'm interested in your thoughts on Senator Obama's "bitter" remarks.

I agree with the linked article, but of course I support Senator Obama.

yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. i think the facts speak for themselves here. it's weird that clinton jumped on that so readily. i have said some harsh things about her campaign here, and how she's a political opportunist, but even i am surprised by this. talk about grasping at straws.

thanks for that post. i wholly retract my rant from a few weeks back where i said this had become a pro-clinton site.

strange season this is. what next?

yeah, that was pretty ridiculous. i think the facts speak for themselves here. it's weird that clinton jumped on that so readily. i have said some harsh things about her campaign here, and how she's a political opportunist, but even i am surprised by this. talk about grasping at straws.

thanks for that post. i wholly retract my rant from a few weeks back where i said this had become a pro-clinton site.

strange season, this is. what next? obama's response has been strong. i'm glad he's still showing them all what a president looks and sounds like. heaven knows we haven't had one for 7 years.

oops! browser jank. sorry for double post.

I read the story of Obama´s supposed elitism in The New York Times which took the same tone as every other poor-excuse-for-a-news organization in America. Not once did they bother to ask if his statement was elitist. This seems to be what passes for political debate (and reporting) these days: People make ridiculous accusations against a candidate and he is forced to respond. I blame the press for all of this idiocy. They just seem too lazy and stupid to do any sort of actual reporting. They are failing us once again, just like at the outset of the war.

I am so disappointed in Hillary, not at all surprised with McCain, and am waiting to hear something better from the press.

The Errol Morris columns were amazing and let me to some of his prior columns - also amazing. I love his documentaries (including Thin Blue Line) and this made me appreciate the brain behind them. What an interesting, detailed approach to a topic.

I should've added how impressed I am with Obama for his comments and his defense of them.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/12/hillary-becomes-a-gun-lovn96396.html

Hillary Clinton appealed to Second Amendment supporters on Saturday by hinting that she has some experience of her own pulling triggers.

"I disagree with Sen. Obama's assertion that people in our country cling to guns and have certain attitudes about trade and immigration simply out of frustration," she began, referring to the Obama comments on small-town Americans that set off a political tumult on Friday.

She then introduced a fond memory from her youth.

"You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught be how to shoot when I was a little girl," she said.

"You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It's part of culture. It's part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter."

Hillary may be 'grasping at straws' and Obama may be commended for his defense of his words but

to say that "there are a bunch of folks who are bitter"... and..." when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on,” in this case guns and religion,

does that not seem, for someone who has never been in such a position, to be the least bit presumptuous and condescending?

and to top it off, it was said in the context of making a jab at his opponent (how these folks suffered under the Clinton administration, etc)

so, as far as I can see - it's fair game. what's with the whining?

really. fair game?

I think I'll take a comment that COULD be interpreted as 'presumptuous and condescending' by some people (but won't be by most) . . . over blatant and repeated lies, any day. Look on HuffPo today, or Meet the Press. Tim Russert did his job for once and laid it all out about Hillary's Bosnia fabrications. Bill is the more experienced liar; it wasn't just once, it wasn't 'late at night when she was tired'. I'm sorry. If she somehow gets the nomination, it's actually getting harder and harder for me to imagine voting for her. (but I will, goddamn it). Wish Nader had a chance in hell.

yes, it's fair game to criticize Obama on his mistakes. quit with the whining that he is being fairly criticized on something he said.

zdzp, Clinton and some in the press are not merely criticizing Obama for his mistakes, they're trying to form a dogpile and jump on him en masse. A better metaphor, though, is "molehill politics." They're not merely "criticizing" a select few of Obama's decontexualized words, trying to make a mountain out of them.

Sorry, "they're trying to make a mountain out of them."

reminds me of something about the heat and a kitchen.

the more people come to defend him, the less he seems to be able to defend himself and the more of a 'mountain' this will become - with or without hillary's help. if your argument is that hillary and mccain are petty - obama is doing little to deflect it- he'll be owned in the general election when he makes these kind of remarks and then tries to implement this kind of damage control. His defense just makes him appear more elitist (regardless of whether that is true or not).

before the rest of you pile on 'en masse' notice that I am not saying that hillary is right or that obama is an elitist, but obama has done damage to himself and is not doing a good job of righting his ship.

reminds me of his problem with the minister. again whether the ensuing critcism was right or wrong, he brouhg attention to it by trying to bolster his own image (his religiosity or his 'folksiness') and shot himself in the foot. a rookie mistake.

zdzp: By the end of the day, Obama responded to both McCain and Hillary, on his own, without "our help".

ZDZP: I think Obama's remarks were ill-phrased and impolitic, so, to that extent, Clinton pouncing on these remarks seems much milder than some of her other distortions and canards. You are exactly right, also, to point out that there was indeed a barb aimed at the Clinton administration in what Obama said.

That said, consider these three points (1.) A double standard--a woman who just disclosed making 109 million since 2000 is not in a good place to make comparisons with someone who was raised in a low-income, single parent family, and who just finished paying off his student loans within the last couple years. And she is using a key Republican canard--that democrats are elite, effete, and out of touch with working people, while, ironically, it mostly Republicans who support and push through putative 'free-market' (read: corporatist) policies that deepen the economic plight of low and middle income earners.

(2.) The bad strategy-- I regard the substance of what Obama said to be fundamentally true--that the Republican party uses cultural politics as a wedge to get people to vote against their own economic interests. That is hardly a surprising remark to hear from a democrat. To distort his obvious intent, however ill-phrased, with a central Republican talking about that has been used successfully against Democrats for decades is burning your own boat--it's counter-productive and self-destructive.

Finally, (3.) it is the way Clinton criticized Barack, not just that she did, that is particularly disgusting to me. Need I point to the sleeziness of Clinton wearing religion on her sleeve and pretending she's been an avid gun enthusiast since her grandfather supposedly took her hunting as a little girl? Maybe you think religion should be getting a greater voice in American politics, and gun control laws should be stripped, as Clinton suggests, but I have to say I disagree.

Adam, as you and others have noticed, I do not support (nor condemn) hillary's remarks, nor do i believe that her response about being familiar with a gun (not sure she used the word 'enthusiast' there b/c that has certain connotations but feel free to correct me) is the most sincere - and the points that you make are well-taken- I believe however that barack, if he is to be the democrat candidate, cannot open himself up to these types of attacks- what baffles me is to see obama supporters repeatedly call foul for relatively minor transgressions as these- how can he let a few misspoken words derail his campaign? even his response - the youtube link is out of sync with his intended message. of course, it is appealing to most viewers because it is filled with straight-talking rhetoric and no doubt, it is inpsiring as usual - but it difficult to see how that would have much impact on those he has offended - for those in that position, it only reinforces the impression he is talking past them.

another thing - you can make a few million, perhaps even a hundred million and empathize with the downtrodden and 'embittered' (e.g. Bill Gates, John Edwards). so that in itself is irrelevant. but if you do make a 100 million, can you criticize someone else with impunity? look at it this way - barack said something stupid/inappropriate/offensive (pick one) . he needs to be called on it. clinton called him on it. clinton did not say the same s/i/o something. has she done anything s/i/o that would undermine her own position on calling barack? if so, what is it? making 100 million does not automatically make someone offensive so where is the hypocrisy (and I am only talking about this specific case) ? why do you think barack hasn't responded with a simple - "look hillary makes 100 million - she should be so high and mighty" ? it's simple - that's because she didn't say anything s/i/o (at least not in this context).

in the end, obama is very likely to get the nod for the nomination - i am pragmatic about this - as i am about his chances when he makes these s/i/o remarks when trying to bolster his own image. so i would like to see him win the general election. arguments in his defense that the person making them should not be so 'hypocritical' are moot because the general electorate (cynicism alert) don't really care - it is much easier to portray someone as elitist to make themselves feel better (esp in bad times), and obama is not helping himself when he steps in it.

one more thing - my initial viewing of the youtube link was cut short. now that i have seen the whole thing obama comes across smelling less like a rose and more like his opponents.

he vilifies hillary for voting for the bankruptcy bill. but deliberately avoids all context.

the bill was in 2001. hillary has repeatedly regretted voting for it. the bill was never passed.

it came up again in 2005

she was not present because her husband was having heart surgery. she made very strong statements against the bill to the press (much in the same way i imagine obama made strong statements against the war before he voted for it... ok just teasing )

also she voted for cloture on the bill when she could.

hardly seems like someone who supports the bankruptcy bill. obama knows this -he was in the senate when all this happened.

so sad to see obama's defense is to dredge up something completely out of context considering the many other ways he could have addressed this.

and just when i was starting to like him.

ZDZP:

I believe however that barack, if he is to be the democrat candidate, cannot open himself up to these types of attacks- what baffles me is to see obama supporters repeatedly call foul for relatively minor transgressions as these-

Dude, they use his middle name against him. Moral: some people will do anything they can to smear him. Was this a lapse, effectively giving the opposition a good weapon? Yeah, it was. So was HRC's Bosnia story, which undermined her credibility regarding her actual "experience." People have lapses. My point was that it is one thing for a candidate to have a lapse, and another thing entirely for a fellow democrat to use a talking point republican's have used effectively for the past two decades.

-you can make a few million, perhaps even a hundred million and empathize with the downtrodden and 'embittered' (e.g. Bill Gates, John Edwards). so that in itself is irrelevant.

Bill Gates does not have to give people the impress he is like them, he only has to give money to charitable causes--in a sense, how the recipients feel is irrelevant. Presidential candidates--and this is absurd, but true, I feel--need to do more than emphasize, they need to feel approachable to voters, something they can identify with. Hence, George Bush, who most American's said in the last election cycle they wouldn't mind having a beer with. And hence why, as absurd and incomprehensible as it appears to you and I, the story of Edward's $400 haircut was damaging. In sum: the issue is about public perception, not the intentions, status, or even actions of the millionaire--millionaire's can empathize all they want, but what matters in politics is the perception of empathy and commonality, not the fact of them.

Why didn't Obama call her on being a millionaire? Because he has a better argument about her lobbyist support, and voting record on the bankruptcy bill. And it's not relevant to her policy (unlike healthcare), consistency (unlike her past NAFTA positions) or experience (unlike Bosnia).

Above all, what galls me about Clinton's attacks is that she has effectively already lost--so they won't even help her. Thus, they are pointlessly destructive.

hillary has repeatedly regretted voting for it.

Yeah, she "regrets" voting for the war in Iraq as well, but that didn't stop her at the time from calling a

so sad to see obama's defense is to dredge up something completely out of context considering the many other ways he could have addressed this.

OK, honestly? They are both doing this to each other!

but that didn't stop her at the time from calling a

my link got cut off. It didn't stop her from calling a political consultant to see whether it was "safe" to vote against the war. See here:

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/21231

Adam, you know of course that i respect your opinion. so i'll make you a deal- i'll stop saying hillary was right, in fact, i'll agree with you that hillary should not have been destructive in her remarks, if you'll agree that obama is inexperienced in defending himself against these types of attacks which will only get worse in the general election.

none of this is binding of course, but i'll stop there - because that's really the only point i wanted to make. every once in a while what happens just affirms my belief that obama is not up to the task, as hillary, has affirmed your belief that she exhibits 'sleeziness'. fftcm of course.

OK, honestly? They are both doing this to each other!

• yes! I agree ! however, I always thought that was one of obama's appeal - he holds the moral high ground.

(sorry - we are crossing in cyberspace here )

ZDZP. Of course, I highly respect your opinion as well, and frankly, I was glad to hear someone defending Clinton on this-- as I said, Obama's remarks were clearly ill-chosen--because it is a wee overblown (or at least, to my mind, nothing new from her).

But:

i'll stop saying hillary was right, in fact, i'll agree with you that hillary should not have been destructive in her remarks, if you'll agree that obama is inexperienced in defending himself against these types of attacks which will only get worse in the general election.

No dice ;-) Let's lower the terms. Obama's race speech, where he dealt with the Wright association issue, showed me he can defend himself effectively, when necessary, on hard issues. I'll agree that I wish he could have done more in the this instance--you are right to be unsatisfied with that. So I grant your point on the specific issue under discussion, but don't see it as legitimating a more general skepticism.