I think it's important to know why the attacks on Obama don't stick: It's because he responds instantly, the same day most of the time. He says people are bitter, gets slammed, and by the end of that day, he's already apologized that he didn't phrase it better, but stands by his "bitter" statements, which are right.

He does this often. Every time he is attacked for something that hits the mainstream news, he defends/corrects his position that day 90% of the time. Rev. Wright's controversy lasted over the weekend. The first day it hit the "24 hour news", he was on Olbermann, and CNN. It continued, He went on other news outlets. It continued, he made a press conference.

And I don't buy the "unelectable" arguement.

If America is dumb enough to elect Mr. "sunii, shiite, uh, sunii?", "I don't know much about the economy", or how about his stance that Americans in the Mortgage crisis "don't need help" or "I'll have to look up what my stance was on that position and get back to you" on Abstinence education, they DESERVE the country they get. McCain, who had to get life insurance to get a loan, since the bank was afraid of him dying before the loan was repaid. McCain, who has broken the Public Finance laws. McCain, who is for torture now. McCain, who is laying at the feet of Hagee and Robertson.

If McCain wants to play "guilt by association" with Ayers or anyone else from Obama's past in Chicago, he's in for quite the battle with the sorts of people McCain affilates with.

This goes for Clinton though, too. Line up either of the democratic nominees against mccain, and they look like perfection, as flawed as they are.

However, i'm not happy with talkleft and this arguement about Obama being unelectable. This arguement HURTS the democrats more than any other arguement, in my opinion. I'd much rather see a 1000 word screed on the unelectability of McCain, rather than playing on the "ohnoes working class people voted for hillary over obama, so they'll choose mr outsource mccain over obama"

Funny how the article only mentions the groups of people that obama isn't winning. The same screed could be written about all the groups Clinton is losing and her "unelectability".

It's all speculation and garbage politics.

So, today's Anti-obama posts criticize him for both his "bitter" remarks and him not being progressive enough when he says although he disagrees with pro-lifers he understands their point of view.

So which is it? Is he a liberal elitist that talks down to those gun toting rednecks or his he a moderate Jesus freak ready to give the rabid right a seat at the table? He can't be both, can he? At the same time that one post claims the criticisms of Obama have been so restrained. If there was even a modicum of restraint involve, the first thing you would see would be some message discipline.

As for the bitter remark, I think the public is getting to the point that they conceded that candidates given enough time will eventually say something stupid. Obama has on a number of occasions has been guilty of stating badly worded truths, while Hillary has repeatedly been then victim of poorly executed lies.

Which is worse?

P.S. The "bitterness gaffe"... I'd rather have a so called "elitist" president. Jesus H., is it too much to ask to have a smart president? Hillary even compared Al Gore's "elitism" to Obama last night. Yeah. Too bad that Al Gore was too smart for 'murica huh, HRC. Maybe Obama should Stupid-up so he isn't so elite anymore. Sheeeeeesh.

"So which is it? Is he a liberal elitist that talks down to those gun toting rednecks or his he a moderate Jesus freak ready to give the rabid right a seat at the table? He can't be both, can he?"

Yes, he has to be both, because Hillary is leaving no talking point behind. He's both too liberal and not liberal enough. It mainly depends on the time of day, and the rhetorical situation. Being a Clinton means never having to make any of your statements coherent with anything. It means that a Wellesley/ Yale grad who's has all of second-wave feminism in the tank for her can call someone a liberal elitist.

What Obama said was sort of dumb. That fact that he said it in San Francisco was even worse. But it was a lot more sympathetic to those working class voters than what a lot of liberals say. Why do Hillary supporters think that poor whites come out in droves to vote to ban gay marriage and protect gun laws? I'd like to hear their explanation for it.

I guess there are a lot of things that Hillary could be saying right now, but she's not. Maybe you could call that restraint. But the thing I don't like is that she's using right-wing talking points. She's buying into and affirming a right wing frame in order to score a very few points against Obama. It really makes no sense to me when HRC supporters say that these attacks are just a way of testing Obama--attack him now and then the attacks will be less effective in the future. I don't see that at all. When a Democratic accepts and affirms a right-wing frame on an issue like gun crontrol and gay marriage, it makes it all the stronger. And it primes people to accept the GOP characterization of the eventual nominee.

The health care debate is totally different. Saying that Obama's plan is not as liberal and not as good as Hillary's does no harm to either nominee in the general. Whatever differences their plans have it's nothing compared to McCain's complete lack of any plan. On the other hand, if Obama were to call Hillary's plan "socialized medicine", it would indeed hurt the Democratic nominee.

Is he a liberal elitist that talks down to those gun toting rednecks or his he a moderate Jesus freak ready to give the rabid right a seat at the table? He can't be both, can he?

Ah, What is it you don't understand, Red? Obviously, Obama is both not black enough and an "angry" black who associates with '60s 'radicals'. He does nothing to defend himself against attacks (and so is a lame sitting duck) AND the moment he opens his mouth to criticize Clinton or McCain's obvious shortcomings, he demonstrates the insincerity of his message of 'hope' and a 'new' politics (and so he's a hypocrite). He is a Muslim AND a fringe wacko Christian AND a crypto-atheist whose appeals to religion are cynical and pandering. He doesn't have enough so-called 'experience' and he's a well-integrated politician in the pocket of big money. He's both far, far too liberal to possibly elected, a naive utopian AND he's already conceded everything to the radical right wing of the Republican party, a cynical, cryto-conservative hack.

Oh, and finally, we should doubt whether he can win in the general election, and ignore the fact that he's winning the popular vote, delegate count, states won, and has brought hundreds of thousands of new voters into the process. Plainly, his chances in the general are pitiful, especially compared to his opponent, whose campaign is riven by factions, disorganization, serious debt and financial problems, inconsistent pronouncements and poor message discipline, and sustained by no general or consistent strategy, other than perhaps to continually smearing her opponent.

his opponent, whose campaign is riven...

You missed the fact that her chief strategists and her own past record seem to completely contradict her public views on things like free trade.

It appears Obama is just "too" for some people. Too what? we may never know. I suspect that he is not enough of a member of Washington royalty, but I don't get why random bloggers seem to buy into that logic.

Some businesses that cater to the superrich report that clients — many of them traders and private equity investors whose work is tied to Wall Street — are still splurging on multimillion-dollar Manhattan apartments, custom-built yachts, contemporary art and lavish parties.

Well, of course. That money that people have been 'losing' had to go somewhere.

This article sums up nicely how HRC's latest attacks aren't doing anyone any favors.

Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants – Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack.

Does Russert really believe he’s doing the nation a service for this parade of spin doctors talking about potential spins and the spin-offs from the words Obama used to state what everyone knows is true? Or is Russert merely in the business of selling TV airtime for a network that doesn’t give a hoot about its supposed commitment to the public interest but wants to up its ratings by pandering to the nation’s ongoing desire for gladiator entertainment instead of real talk about real problems.

We’re heading into the worst economic crisis in a half century or more. Many of the Americans who have been getting nowhere for decades are in even deeper trouble. Large numbers of people in Pennsylvania and across the nation are losing their homes and losing their jobs, and the situation is likely to grow worse. Consumers are at the end of their ropes, fuel and food costs are skyrocketing, they can’t go deeper into debt, they can’t pay their bills. They aren’t buying, which means every business from the auto industry to housing to even giant GE is hurting. Which means they’ll begin laying off more people, and as they do, we will experience an even more dangerous downward spiral.

Bitter? You ain’t seen nothing yet.

Seriously, I'll be happy when this primary season is over, so I can look forward to the otherwise insightful posts with my coffee.

Come mothers and fathers throughout the land And don't criticize what you don't understand Your sons and your daughters are beyond your command Your old road is rapidly agin' Please get out of the new one if you can't lend a hand For the times they are a-changin'

RedSeven - I'll see your "Obama is just "too" for some people." and raise you this:

An anti-Obama listener called in to Ed Schultz on Air America this afternoon to offer his opinion on Bittergate. After lobbing the usual 'out of touch elitist' accusastions, the listener said, of the Senator from Illinois, the following: "He's just too honest, man."

"That money that people have been 'losing' had to go somewhere."

Nope, it has quite literally disappeared.

"That money that people have been 'losing' had to go somewhere."

Nope, it has quite literally disappeared.

I suppose this is true if by "disappeared" you mean shifted over to those who need it the least. What the hell do you think happens when gasoline goes up $1 a gallon or when a barrel of crude hits $100? Tell the OPEC nations that the money middle America is losing just literally disappeared. Maybe they will stop buying apartment blocks in Manhattan or Paris.

OK, I keep looking for a mature and intelligently written article which criticizes Obama on the issues. And these are the best out there?!?!

A petulant gleeful blog obsessed over an Obama mis-statement: "Hey Obama Sycophants, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You".

And

"Shakesville: It's Time to Get Obama-Skeptical": Where Kate Harding rants and meanders out of control about "blindly twitterpated Obama supporters" who she thinks needs to: "WAKE THE FUCK UP" and "Quit getting so fucking butthurt every time a fellow Democrat suggests your candidate isn't perfect ... "

Harding appears all-consumed with bile-filled hatred for any Obama supporters who consider Obama to be a Progressive. Harding can't accept Obama as a Progressive candidate because ... get this:

1) He considers the abortion issue to involve "moral issues". Inconceivable!

2) He believes that a judicial nominee shouldn't be opposed simply on ideological grounds. Obama, by merely CONSIDERING voting for confirmation of Roberts, apparently disqualified himself as a "Progressive". By this standard, an authoritative Progressive like Kate Harding must consider Russ Feingold, Chris Dodd, and Pat Leahy - Senators who ACTUALLY voted to confirm John Roberts - to be anti-Progressive crusading devils.

3) Obama dared to compare today's desire for a new direction with the electorate's mood that existed before Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, and recklessly stated: "Ronald Reagan fundamentally changed the direction of America in a way Bill Clinton didn't". and ... Kate ... can't ... handle ... truth ... too ... much ... honesty ... must curse and swear some more .. you fuckers ... "WAKE THE FUCK UP"!

4) Obama has the audacity to wonder out loud about the possibility that making same sex marriage legislation the lead push of the gay rights movement "might [not be] the best strategy in terms of moving broader equality forward." OK ... good point. Maybe Obama is wrong on this one.

But, why can't a puritanical "Progressive" like Kate Harding see that government shouldn't be involved in "marriage" at all in the first place? "Marriage" is a religious institution and as such, government sponsorship of it is a blatant violation of our constitutional separation of church and state. Instead of leading the fight to get homosexuals married, a "true" Progressive should be leading the fight to get government out of the business of sponsoring marriage.

QUESTION: Why don't atheists lead the movement for a more prefect separation of church and state by pushing legislation to remove "marriage" from government sponsorship?

ANSWER:It may be the right issue, but it's definitely the wrong strategy.