This really IS GOOD NEWS FOR HILLARY and her Bushville running mate McSame.

Barack'll toughen em up

But they don’t believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement-- so, here’s what rich. Senator Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.’

“Out of touch? Out of touch? 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? Senator 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? 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. I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed-up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter. And they want to see a change in Washington and that’s why I’m running for President of the United States of America.

What have the Republicans used in the last two Presidential elections to win the economically depressed rural and small town votes. They have used God, Guns, and Gays, That is how they conned a lot of those voters into voting against their own economic self interests. So while they were duped into being afraid of Gays, and that someone would take away their hunting rifles, all bullshit, the Republican Robber Barons were free to steal them blind, ship their jobs out to near slave labor nations, and bleed the nation and the middle class to death.

Senator Obama speaks the truth. If the voters, who have been conned into letting the the Republican Robber Barons, and NAFTA and Columbia Trade enabling Clintons, do not accept the truth of what has put them in their current desperate plight, then so be it, but at least they will not be in a position to complain that they had not been told the truth by Senator Obama.

If they can not handle the truth, then Hillary and McCain will tell them all the lies that they can swallow, while they fall further and further into a great economic depression.

God, Guns, and Gays, will not make Their Grapes of Wrath taste sweet.

awkward shrillness IS EXCELLENT NEWS!! FOR HILLARY!!!

I wish he hadn't put himself on a petstal. Sometimes I wish he could get down in the dirt with Hillary Clinton.

Cause I would totally slam her on Mark Penn. That would be my out of touch example. I would have left it to the SEIU. I would have personally slammed her on CAFTA. Cause people still think Hillary is a good choice for them.

It would be fun to see clips of McCain and Hillary side by side using the same spin, followed by a clip of Obama making his statement about 'politics as usual'.

I just had what was for me the Eureka moment. Here's the difference between the Old Politics and the New Politics, as personified in the first case by Hillary and in the second by Barack:

The old politics is all about the sham of oh-so-showy pretending that you do not understand and could not in a million years agree with any part of what your opponent is saying, that it's harmful, evil, ridiculous, reprehensible. This style is excerptable for sound-bite gotcha attacks. Perfect for Fox News news cycles.

The new politics is taking the chance to try to understand your opponent's discourse and responding with reason, clarification, and even admission that you can say your point better the second and third time you address the issue. Needs the long form, such as extensive re-viewing on YouTube, elsewhere.

The question is, do we want to walk around pretending we don't want to and do not have to try to understand what other people are saying, or can we move to new ways of discussing issues in news cycles?

Obama's first comeback was much better than today's, where he did sound a little apologetic. He has nothing to be apologetic about and he needs to hit back hard on the elitist smear. Of the remaining candidates, he is the most in touch with regular folks, which is why he was able to tell the truth about their bitterness and desire to turn their frustrations towards gays and immigrants. Obama, in essence, was explaining that those right-wing wedge issues lose their power when more people are economically sound.

Don't apologize Barack! Go after Hillary and McSame, the true out-of-touch elitists!

Out of Touch? Out of Touch?

81% of Americans are bitter. We want a change in the direction BushClinton have taken us

Hillary likes movies?

Take two, cue Howard

Sonofabitch we've struck the motherload

What's going to be extra-specially hilarious is when Obama either wins PA or loses it by fewer than 5 points.

thwaaaaaaaaaaapppp

we need a president who will not look down on us, but take up for us

i didnt say it as well as i should have

quite the understater he is

when obama sees how stupid it looks in print or any other way, he can face reality, sadly, most here, not so much

One thing the brain dead pundits seem to be forgetting is that we are still having primary elections. The "God, guns, gays" voters are supposedly in the other party. Obama needs to remind people that REPUBLICANS are the ones who use these wedge issues AGAINST Democrats. Just keep framing Hillary as a Republican. The truth is the best defense.

As usual Hillary is the duplicitous person and Barack is pure honesty. Please, it was his campaign that said this election is about "politics not policy". Well I don't know about you, but I think "policy" is pretty important to solve todays and tomorrows problems. A "kinder gentler" politics will not suffice, no matter who delivers the message. Did this country not elect a "uniter not a divider"?One thing he said which no one seems to be discussing is what he said about trade, it really sounded as if he were in favor of free trade agreements, I think that needs a little clarification.

Good lord, Hillary, way to double team against your opponent by banding with the Republican. Maybe I should bust out my McCain/Clinton avatar again. Ugh!

I agree with Collegekid. The New Politics is about having a fully formed thought or thesis that cannot be processed into soundbites. I did not hear Obama's comments from the SF fundraiser, but being from SF, and after hearing his remarks in ID, I get the gist of what he is saying. And what he says is true. Just like his comments in the race speech.

The thing is, Obama talks to voters like they are adults. The old guard assumes the general population are idiots. That time is passing.

Obama Concedes Remarks Were Ill Chosen.
http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080412/D900DSC80.html

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," he said.

Da, yep, you got that right empty suit.

Say "G'night" Hillary.

You're desperation to make something out of nothing means you are finished.

Watch out for the sniper fire on your way out, and don't forget the stack of gender cards and kleenex boxes you use as stage props too.

This charge of elitism is truly ridiculous and reeks of desperation. Look at every political poll (presidential approval, congressional approval, etc.) or economic poll (consumer confidence, heading in right direction, etc.), and you see that overwhelming majorities are negative about where we are and where we are headed. It is not difficult to conclude that they are bitter about the situation.

Obama, in these remarks and throughout his other prepared and spontaneous remarks, demonstrates a thorough understanding of the plight of the middle class, and he has detailed policy prescriptions to match.

To assert that the candidate who grew up poor in a single-parent household and has worked extensively with communities that have been devastated by the changes in our economy is somehow elitist is the definition of intellectual dishonesty. This up-is-down logic reveals two candidates who are grasping at straws.

The fact that the Clinton campaign is emailing quotes from Grover Norquist and Ed Rollins to reporters (what a shock! hack Republican operatives denounce Obama's comments!) shows exactly how desperate her campaign has become. Pathetic.

The post says Obama used the flare-up to renew his call for a new politics? Does that mean he's going to stop lying about John McCain's "100 years" remark?

2008-04-09
Jewish philanthropist accuses black pastor of anti-Semitism

Text of Ziman's email

I have to tell you of an experience I had last night that was so anti semitic and frightening:

Last night I was honored by Kappa Alpha Psi fraternity, for my work with Children Uniting nations with African American children who are living out of home care.

I have dedicated my life to saving these children from abuse, neglect and a life of crime. We created 'adoption day' and "Day of the child" determined to recruit caring adults to be mentors and life savers for our at risk children in the inner cities. The mayor was present and City council member Bernard parks, assemblyman Mike Davis Senator Mark Ridely Thomas etc.

I was introduced as a children advocate and a leader in the Jewish community. I began my speech by talking about how I woke up in the morning and listened to Hillary clinton's speech, in the spirit of Dr. King from Memphis, that moved me so deeply. I expressed to the crowd how grateful I was to listen to Sen. McCain apologize to the community for mistakes he has made in the past. I acknowledged Sen. Obama's speech from the campaign trail about Dr. King's mentorship.

After I spoke and thanked the fraternity and their members, Rev. Eric Lee, pres. and CEO of Southern Christian Leadership Conference of greater Los Angeles, was introduced as the key note speaker.

He began his speech by thanking Jesus for Obama, who is going to be the leader of the world. He continued by referring to other leaders Like Dr. King,being that this was the moment of celebrating Dr. King's spirit on the anniversary of his assasination, and Malcolm X.

It was right after the mention of Malcolm X that he looked right at me and started talking about the African American children who are suffering because of the JEWS that have featured them as rapists and murderers.

He spoke of a Jewish Rabbi, and then corrected himself to say "What other kind of Rabbis are there, but JEWS". He told how this Rabbi came to him to say that he would like to bring the AA community and the Jewish community together. " NO, NO, NO,!!!!" he shouted into the crowd, we are not going to come together. "The Jews have made money on us in the music business and we are the entertainers, and they are economically enslaving us"

He continued as to how now the salvation has come and the gates have open for African Americans to come together behind Barack Obama, because now is the time to show them.(meaning thejews). He continued to speak about ' White supremecy' vs the talents and visionaries in the core of African Americans. He demeaned being given freedom, by saying "To what?" to a country that kills women and children.

I could no longer be polite and sit in front of the crowd, so I walked out.

Members of the fraternity ran after me as did my staff, I was not able to contain my tears and I cried.

I cried for me and my family, who have tried so hard to help the African American community, because we adopted children from the same realities and wanted to give back to other children and people. We have been completely color blind, for us it was only helping those children in need.

I cried for our beloved country and the division that Barack Obama has caused with his Rev. Wright opening the gates to 'hate' against the Jews and whites. I grew up so looking at America as the land of Freedom.

I was honored to receive my citizenship accompanied by members of the Kennedy family. Now, I'm afraid for Israel because Barack sat there for 20 years listening and not standing up for what's right, why would he standup for Israel?

I cried for the Jewish community who are so blind that they can't see that there's a movement here that will destroy us.I cried because for the first time in my life I was afraid of the future.

I cried for our world that is moving backwards and not forward. Everyday, I see children so lost, and so deserving of hope and love. I look into their eyes, knowing that it is their lives that are in our hands. I'm crying now, so I'm going to stop writing because it is so painful.

I just had to share this experience with you,

thank you, Daphna

Looks like Obama has many of the rev. Wright type friends.

His true colors are really coming out now.

http://jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=19187

The last time Obama used the word "typical" he was describing his grandmother as "a typical white person". That comment came while he was doing damage control over the fallout from his Philadelphia speech in which he effectively called his grandmother a racist. And his Philadelphia speech itself was damage control over the fallout from video showing the pastor of Obama's church preaching racism to approving parishioners.

Obama keeps getting into trouble when he tries to explain how other people think, because it gives us more glimpses into his haughty, superior and distorted view of humanity.

This morning Hillary said, "I don't think it helps to divide our country into one America that is enlightened and one that is not." I believe that was the most powerful thing Hillary said today, because just as with the race issue, Obama is showing us that he is not the "uniter" he claimed to be.

Yes, JohnMcCSF, the FULL CONTEXT of McCain's remarks. Not just a 5 second clip of McCain saying "100 years" pulled out and used however Obama pleases.

If Obama is really Mr. New Politics like he claims, then he would at least allow McCain to finish his thought on the matter. But what Obama is doing is just what Rove and the right-wingers would do. And that's a fact.

So what's so "new politics" about that?

Even Captain Kool-Aid himself, NYT columnist Frank Rich, said that Obama was libeling McCain and clearly misrepresented McCain's remark. So it must be pretty bad when even Rich admits it.

But Jaysin, you didn't answer the question of when Obama is going to stop lying about what McCain said? You were able to at least half-way understand that McCain was speaking specifically of a presence such as we've had in Germany, S. Korea, etc. Why wasn't that great intellectual Obama able to comprehend that? Even George Bush has a better reading level than THAT!

Obama says we need to get past such distractions. He should therefore stop creating them. Unless he is claiming that this latest flap was jointly created by Hillary and McCain, and not by his own words and attitudes.

I do hope if Obama decides to give another thirty-seven minute speech to explain this one away, his handlers step in and edit out all the parts that give us a clearer glimpse of Obama's attitudes.

Fox News, by the way, is having a field day. Way to go, Obama. Let's give McCain the boost he needs, shall we?

Jodyphile wrote:

Yes, JohnMcCSF, the FULL CONTEXT of McCain's remarks. Not just a 5 second clip of McCain saying "100 years" pulled out and used however Obama pleases.

How many more years of the current situation do we have to go through before McCain's 100 year violence free occupation begins.

Also remember that the thing that got Osama Bin Laden all militant was the peacefully occupation by American troops in Saudi Arabia. No it is perfectly appropriate to mention McCains remarks because in any context we don't want it.

Clinton this morning: “People embrace faith not because they are materially poor but because they are spiritually rich.” What is Obama going to say to that? That he is a man of faith too? Oops. Jeremiah Wright.

Fox News this morning: "But as he did Friday night, Obama on Saturday morning explained that he was only speaking to an evident reality — that Americans who feel the government is not listening to their economic concerns turn to issues they can grasp, a response he said is understandable."

Issues they can grasp. Those poor, stupid Americans. They need Obama to explain life to them, because he understands. How did this country ever become great without him?

Well KenM1, you're trying to distract my attention away from my original question, which was why did Obama say that McCain wanted to continue fighting in Iraq for 100 years?

You see, I am just trying to figure out if all this talk about new politics is just B.S. or not. My nose is telling me that it is.

Once again Obama is standing by his offensive comments and holier than thou attitude, as he did with his pastor and his comments about his grandmother.

If this kind of CRAP gets Hillary the nomination then our political system is really really in trouble.

Hillary is toast. Just ignore her from now on. Focus on exposing McCain for the Bush third term candidate that he truly is.

If you like all of George W.Bush's domestic and foreign policies, then you will absolutely love John McCain. He wants to continue all of Bush's agenda.

How has that worked out for you, Middle Class Americans?

Love the fallout:

Politico: Obama 'bitter' gaffe could reshape fall and even spring
By Mike Allen on April 12, 2008 @ 8:02 AM

http://dyn.politico.com/playbook/

THE DAMAGE: The swipe at small-town voters hurts with the former Reagan Democrats, a promising voters group for Obama, and antagonizes the very people who would have been worried about Rev. Wright. And it will allow the Clinton campaign to argue that she hasn't cornered the market on divisiveness.

***Many Americans (especially potential "Obamacans," as he calls his Republican supporters) embrace religion not because they're bitter but because they believe it and because it brings them daily purpose and comfort.

The comments could prolong the Democratic race as it heads into Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana.

A lot of the networks are using the same photo of an angry looking Obama pointing his finger.

Woah! While hitting Obama's reference to bitterness driving people's faith, Hillary today got in a subliminal reminder about the way Obama trashed his grandmother in his nation-wide speech.

Hillary: "Our faith is the faith of our parents and our grandparents. It is a fundamental expression of who we are and what we believe."

And of course. Mr. Bayh, The Far Right Wing will not throw anything at Hillary since she sat down with the Godfather of "The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy".

They will not say a word about her Bosnia Sniper Fairy Tales, or Her Theft of FBI Files, or of how Bimbo Bill indelibly blue stained the Oval Office, or how Hillary's Brothers were paid huge sums to seek presidential pardons for Drug King Pins, or how the Clintons pardoned fugitive from justice Marc Rich, after his wife bribed them to do so.

Sure thing Mr. Bayh, "Hillary Rambo Clinton's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" will treated her this time like She is a Born Again Immaculate Right Wing Virgin.

Sure they will Mr. Bayh. Keep on with your absurd efforts to bullshit the voters of you state. How stupid do you think they are. Now who is talking down to the people!

Hillary: "Americans are fair-minded and good-hearted people. We have ups and downs. We face challenges and problems. But our views are rooted in real values, and they should be respected."

Oooo Obama, you blew it!

Jodyphile wrote:

Ha. Just what I thought. No one can explain why Obama is lying about what John McCain said.

What exactly are you talking about? I gave you my response and then posted some comments for you respond to, which you conveniently avoided by saying:

Well KenM1, you're trying to distract my attention away from my original question, which was why did Obama say that McCain wanted to continue fighting in Iraq for 100 years?

Let me make this painfully clear to you then. Obama said it because it is true. If that is not enough for you then give me the exact quote Obama said that has you upset and I will respond directly to it.

Btw, while you're at it why don't you try to comment on my original response. Either you agree which means you have no case or you don't and we can discuss further. Claiming my rebuttal is a distraction really in not a good debating technique. I can understand your problem though, what with all those pesky facts getting in your way.

I was surprised to find a pleasant photo of a relaxed, smiling Obama at the Newsweek website. Then I saw that it was an old story, and they haven't run an article on Obama's latest woes yet.

I might add that the notion that a broad group of working class people "cling to religion" in the face of economic "frustration" is classic Marxist philosophy -- "religion is the opiate of the people."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opium_of_the_people#Interpretation

I just do not get it. Hillary's and McCain's argument is that Pennsylvanians are not bitter about the economy. Well news flash they really, really are. They are bitter, upset, angry and mad as h#%@.

Do we have to do a poll to get the proof?

Hillary's inability to see the unrest in America is what caused her to miss the Change Election(TM) sentiment that is out there. She surrounds herself with yes men and women, and only targets the "States that Matter". The audacity of her to proclaim that she represents the people is mind blowing.

Hillary, if you really want to represent the people why don't you start by firing Mark Penn and stop trying to steal Obama's elected pledged delegates.

An interesting interview with Joel Dyer:

ARMED AND DANGEROUS: THE DESPERATION OF RURAL AMERICA

aryan nations...nice snappy comeback there-it is amazing how funny the obama folks can be, but when faced with something other than the run-of-the-mill kneeling and prostrating oneself for obama, well, all of a sudden they hurl epithets.

how decidely newish politics this is, its a page right out of some fascist playbook

Attention all you small town and rural Pennsylvania Voters.

Hillary Rambo Clinton, The Heroine of Tuzla, and the Patron of Mark, Columbia Trade Agreement, Penn wants you to not look behind her curtain, but instead she wants to make you feel bitter toward her opponent.

Think about it: Hillary's camp have promised that she is going to spend the entire weekend campaigning as A Bitter Monger.

Hillary will not rest until you are all full of Bitterness and Resentment toward her opponent.

Hillay needs to be put on a daily Irony Supplement.

I have never felt such affront as after Hillary Clinton's speech this morning calling Barack Obama "demeaning" and "elitist." Yesterday she said "he looks down on you."

Never mind that these are terms typically used against Democrats by truly elitist Wall Street Republicans in order to take attention away from real economic issues.

But the real story here, for anyone steeped in the history of Jim Crow, is that Hillary Clinton's language in context calls out Barack Obama for rising above his station and looking down on less affluent white voters -- her targeted audience.

She has cemented her legacy with me -- as an extension of Sean Hannity's obsession with an African-American who dares to challenge the white establishment with "uppity" language.

Okay, I know the Obama supporters are not the brightest people. So below is a quote from one of the brighter and more literate among you, Frank Rich:

"REALLY, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton should be ashamed of themselves for libeling John McCain. As a growing chorus reiterates, their refrains that Mr. McCain is 'willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq' (as Mr. Obama said) or 'willing to keep this war going for 100 years' (per Mrs. Clinton) are flat-out wrong. What Mr. McCain actually said in a New Hampshire town-hall meeting was that he could imagine a 100-year-long American role in Iraq like our long-term presence in South Korea and Japan, where 'Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed.'"

If Barack Obama wants a new kind of politics, then he should stop lying his skinny ass off. I don't care how long any of you morons think it will take for us to reach 100 years of peace in Iraq, the simple fact is that Obama lied when he said that John McCain wanted to continue the shooting war for 100 years. He intentionally misquoted McCain's comments. So sit on that. You can twist the words all you want, but Obama is a liar.

I agree that when I first heard the snippet, I was stunned. But when I listened to the whole recording from San Francisco. I went from stunned to concerned.
His choice of wording was way off (read: cling). I could see people being offended. When I saw the response from Obama it took another context.

In my humble opinion he was trying to say that people do not trust Washington to change their economic situation. So, instead of voting on economic promises and issues, they vote (cling) to the issues they think they can trust Washington to do something about: gun control, trade, immigration, and issues based on their religious beliefs.

Now everyone can see it differently. That's what great about America. I'll probably be referred to as a "blind" Obama supporter. But if Hillary Clinton can "mis-speak" and her supporters can overlook it, then why can't Obama have put something wrong and her supporters can't do the same?

Why is it wrong to say people are bitter about being made promises during a campaign that get forgotten as soon as that politician is voted into office? If you can't trust Washington to address economics, why is it wrong to say you turn to other issues to base your vote on?

He wasn't saying people pick up a gun, or get religion, or are against the American dream for immigrants because they're bitter. He's saying people turn to the issues they feel Washington can do something about. He is saying that because we already *ARE* religious, *believe* in the second amendment, *believe* in the American dream and the right of all it's citizens to prosper; that we turn to those issues because we are comfortable with them, because they speak to the values so many of us hold dear.

HILLARY RAMBO CLINTON URGES SMALL TOWN AND RURAL VOTERS TO BECOME BITTER ABOUT BEING DESCRIBED AS BEING BITTER.

From Mike Allen:

THE DAMAGE: The swipe at small-town voters hurts with the former Reagan Democrats, a promising voters group for Obama, and antagonizes the very people who would have been worried about Rev. Wright. And it will allow the Clinton campaign to argue that she hasn't cornered the market on divisiveness.

***Many Americans (especially potential "Obamacans," as he calls his Republican supporters) embrace religion not because they're bitter but because they believe it and because it brings them daily purpose and comfort.

The comments could prolong the Democratic race as it heads into Pennsylvania, North Carolina and Indiana.

Sen. McCain is certainly rejoicing. Republicans now have the greatest gift since John Kerry's fateful, "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it." And they plan to use it exactly the same way.

From Playbook's e-mail:

"Massive. A total game-changer. ... The only explanation for being this out of touch is that the man went to Harvard. ... A San Francisco fundraiser looking down nose at guns AND religion!?"

From McCain:

"Instead of apologizing to small town Americans for dismissing their values, Barack Obama arrogantly tried to spin his way out of his outrageous San Francisco remarks. Only an elitist who attributes religious faith and gun ownership to bitterness would think that tax cuts for the rich include families who make $75,000 per year. Only an elitist would say that people vote their values only out of frustration. Barack Obama thinks he knows your hopes and fears better than you do. You can't be more out of touch than that."

Jodyphile,

I'll give you that the term "war" is a mischaracterization of McCain's 100 year remark. The point is that the idea that we could have a Korean style presence in Iraq is so disingenuous that it is hard to take the comment on face value. The lies about Iraq coming from the Republican side have been so numerous and blatant that it becomes natural to not respond to what was said, but what was meant.

For instance how can we believe that McCain "misspoke" on separate numerous occasions about the Sunni Al Qaeda having significant ties to the Shia Iran? People are concerned about these statements not so much by what was said, but by the implication that we could have direct military action against Iran.

Likewise, the response by Obama was not directly towards the "war" of 100 years, but the mindset that would have our troops, and our economic resources devoted to a cause that was self defeating.

Ok, now that I answered your question, answer a couple of mine.

1) If it is true that McCain envisions a 100 year peaceful presence in Iraq, how many more years of the true war do we have to go through before that stopwatch starts ticking?

2) How would that 100 year presence be viewed considering how our presence in Saudi Arabia turned out?

Two Faced Hillary is at it again.

Back in 1992 she looked down on people "who stay home and bake cookies, or stand by their man".

Looks like Hillary has now gone through a election death bed Family Values conversion.

Can you say political expediency and Tuzla Airport Windsock, Boys and Girls?

Hillary says she was "taken aback" by the comments?

In truth perhaps taken aback by an opportunity to pounce on a mistaken word or two, but certainly she could not have been 'taken aback' by the substance of what Obama was saying - that working-class voters who don't vote on economic issues avoid it because of a trail of broken promises.

She knows and in truth I'm sure agrees with what Obama meant. That's why she can go nowhere but further into the gutter of shamless lying by pretending to be offended by Obama's comment.

I am getting so sick of her manipulations!

Someone please stop this ride I'm beginning to feel sick!!!

Politico:
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0408/Where_Obamas_bitter_comments_go_from_here.html

The fun like the Rev. Wright is just starting. Even if Senator Empty Suit Obama wins the Dem nomination, he's lost the GE.

"Where Obama's 'bitter' comments go from here

Typically when politicians want to bury bad news, they put it out late on a Friday -- which is precisely when this story broke.

But for at least five reasons, this story may only gain steam in the days ahead.

First, Obama and his campaign are attacking the problem head-on, seeking to "hang a lantern on their problem." The candidate sought to clarify his comments last night in Terre Haute, Indiana, and did more of the same today.

But this morning in Muncie he also offered something approaching a mea culpa, which he pointedly did not last night.

"I didn’t say it as well as I should have because you know the truth is is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important," Obama admitted.

Such a partial walkback provides a new wrinkle and, more important, new soundbyte sure to find its way onto the evening news and 24-hour cable stations.

Second, it's being amplified by not just one but two entities. It's in the short-term interest of Hillary (the Pennsylvania primary is in 10 days) and long-term interest of McCain and the GOP to keep dousing gasoline on the fire.

Hillary is organizing a conference call with Tom Vilsack (not just a former Iowa governor but a Pennsylvania native) and other Keystone state officials to drive her own aggressive message from this morning (that Obama was being an elitist and that religion is embraced because people are "spiritually rich" and not "materially poor).

The RNC is circulating comments by pundits and reporters that underscore the danger of what Obama said and also enlisting every GOP official from Minority Leader John Boehner to the Pennsylvania Republican chairman to lambaste the Democratic hopeful.

This double-barreled assault, the equivalent of a two-against-one schoolyard fight, offers significant fodder to both perpetuate the story and balance out Obama's version of what he meant.

Third, Obama's comments play directly into an already-established narrative about his candidacy. Why did Hillary's Bosnian gaffe cut deep but McCain's Sunni/Shiite mix-up not seem to leave much more than a bruise? Because, fair or not, questions of honesty are the Achilles heel of the Clinton brand while McCain is perceived as strong and knowing on national security. One fit into a framework and the other didn't.

And much ink has already been spilled on Obama's primary shortcomings and potential general election challenges with blue-collar white voters. For him to an offer an inartful explanation of that which informs these people’s lives and voting patterns only underlines his weakness with this constituency.

Fourth, his observations will, to borrow a phrase, be ones that launched a thousand op-eds. Besides sex, what drives the news and opinion industry more than race, religion, culture and class? In a few paragraphs last Sunday, and then again last night and today, he candidly took on all these American bugaboos. With the Jeremiah Wright affair, Obama called for a conversation on race. He now may have wound up, at least in the chattering classes, broadening that dialogue.

Fifth, simple timing. The Sunday shows will chew over the initial comments, the follow-up explanations by Obama, the punches thrown by Hillary and McCain and ask Democrats, including some Obama backers, for their reaction. This will drive the news cycle tomorrow and lead straight into Monday morning when, as fate would have it, Clinton and Obama will be in Pittsburgh speaking before over a thousand steelworkers. The event is sponsored by a labor/industry steel coalition, The Alliance for American Manufacturing, and amounts to an audition for the endorsement of, you guessed it, the Steelworkers union. A group which includes more than a few members who count themselves as churchgoers and gun-owners.

Also in Pittsburgh Monday and Tuesday: John McCain.

Think he'll find time to talk to local reporters?

By Jonathan Martin 01:12 PM"

One, I've found getting through these comments is much easier if I just skip over all the posts by and responses to Marginal Player, Matthew Weaver and a few others. (I do read Gotalife. His trollings are so short and full of non sequitors that they're easy to get through.)

Second, Obama spoke the truth, and he gave a real and valid argument for why people vote against their economic interests. For the last three decades, people have seen that political promises have no beneficial impact on their lives. No matter what the politicians promise, the jobs keep going oversees, the debts keep mounting, healthcare and education keep getting more expensive, and the American dream gets harder to reach.

This is reality for a whole lot of people, and the natural reaction to this is bitterness and cynicism about Washington.

When you believe a vote will have no impact on your economic circumstances, it is perfectly rational to base your vote on something else, and that something else is usually the wedge issues that the Republicans have been using for years - God, guns and gays as someone so succinctly put it.

That's what he's saying. They're nothing condescending about speaking truth. There's nothing elitist about responding to people's anger, especially when it's justified.

Know what I find elitist? I find this elitist:

"As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children."

Hillary wants an image of happy, shiny people to go with her narrative. But the truth is, that people are not working hard everyday for a better future. They're working hard everyday just to hold on. They're trying not to lose too much ground, but better is tough to envision when the high-paying jobs are gone, when the benefits are cut, when just getting basic healthcare is eating up the money that families might once have used for their futures, when education is getting more expensive, and grants and loans are harder to come by.

Of course, people are bitter. To deny that is patronizing in the extreme.

And it has been the politics-as-usual that has created this situation. We have an economy in deep trouble right now, but even when the economy was strong during the '90s, it wasn't helping a lot of the people in the rust belt. The 90s economy was great for some, but the jobs with good benefits were still bleeding off and heading overseas, especially in places like Pennsylvania and Indiana. The old pension plans were being replaced with self-funded plans that greatly increased risk. The costs of education and healthcare were outpacing inflation and wage gains. The past 25 years have simply not been good to blue-collar workers.

This is reality. We cannot improve it without acknowledging it.

Jodyphile wrote:

My main point is not what John McCain is planning or not planning, but the fact that Obama intentionally misrepresented McCain's words.

You don't have the luxury of parsing it like that.

My reply was that Obama was responding to McCain's planning and future intentions. McCain was trying to boast about his toughness, upping the original questioner's time line from 50 to 100 years, without regard to the military or U.S. capacity to handle that commitment or even if it would be wise to do so.

Later McCain used hyperbole when he claimed Americans would not be "concerned" if the U.S. spends "10,000 years" in Iraq. Do you really believe he meant that. 10,000 years!!! Something tells me that around the year 6500 or so even the most die hard conservative would want a time table for withdrawal.

Are you saying that the only correct response is to take the man literally at his word as I just did? Or maybe, just maybe, the correct response should be better directed at the meaning instead.

Now since McCain, or you for that matter, won't answer the two questions I posed, there is no way to determine the proper meaning of his statement. Given that ambiguity I'll go with the one Obama choose. McCain will stay in Iraq without any criteria for getting out. The consequences of the war do not factor anywhere in his equation for success and failure.

That is a horrible way to conduct the war and McCain deserves to be beat over the head with it as much as possible.

Just say no to the 100 years Bush/McCain war. Yep. Sounds about right to me.

Right you are. I think Obama's next book should be "The Audacity of the Clintons".