« Clinton: When I Last Fired A Gun Is "Not A Relevant Question" | Home | New Hillary Ad: She's "Polished Like Gold" »
Obama On Clinton's Attacks: "Shame On Her"
Barack Obama fired back at Hillary Clinton today, telling the United Steelworkers Union in Pennsylvania that Hillary is the one who is "out of touch," not him and his "bitter" comments:
(Key moment starts at around the 3:45 mark.)
"She knows better -- shame on her," Obama said, before launching into a heckling routine about Hillary's remembrances of being taught to shoot by her father. "She's talking like she's Annie Oakley."
Advertisement















He made me laugh.....HRC in a duck blind, too funny. He actually is very engaging when he smiles and laughs like that. Way to go. Off to donate. :)
April 14, 2008 12:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
That was my response, too. I immediately went to the Obama site and whipped out the virtual checkbook!
April 14, 2008 12:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
Truly fantastic speech. He is the real deal. And we all know if Hillary was really a gun advocate, Bill would have been neutered ages ago.
April 14, 2008 1:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Has it been mentioned that she was a very strong gun control advocate as First Lady and as a candidate for Senate, and as a Senator?
Has anyone asked her her position on gun control now? Has it changed, and why?
Anyone mention that she wouldn't want to be characterized as a flip-flopper, just in case she actually got the nomination?
April 14, 2008 9:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is the Clinton campaign really so out-of-touch that they couldn't have seen this coming?
By the time this is all over, I expect PA to be within 5 points. Perhaps in Obama's favor.
April 14, 2008 12:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
My hypothesis regarding Clinton, which I have formed over the last six months is that she doesn't know how to win gracefully -- to respond to someone's weakness without overstating her own advantage. It's happened over and over again, and it makes it hard to be sympathetic to her.
Apparently, a reporter asked her at a press conference when was the last time she went duck hunting and she told him it wasn't relevant.
April 14, 2008 10:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I've been waiting for this, so now it's time:
April 14, 2008 12:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Imagine Howard Cosell calling it:
"And DOWN GOES HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON!
The self-proclaimed Rocky Balboa...
BUT NO!
April 14, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
O-H-...
April 14, 2008 2:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
IO!
April 14, 2008 10:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Those are the key moments for the MSM to take soundbites to repeat, for America the entire thing was important.
April 14, 2008 12:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Finally the comments seem to work! By the way, I loved this Obama response video!
April 14, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I can understand John McCain saying those words, ...but Senator Clinton....I am disappointed..... Shame on you, Hillary, Shame on you.(/i>
Yessss, Call her out, on her Repug ways. That's the way to hit her and tell the super delegates. Enough with being polite to your democratic colleague when she has proved anything but in this campaign .
April 14, 2008 12:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/hypocrite-hil-1.html Here is the original elitist, dissing the stay-at-home-and-baking-cookies moms. How some things change, and others don't! Digg it!
April 14, 2008 12:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, I'd forgotten about that. Hopefully, the media will also remind everyone of that hypocrisy.
April 14, 2008 2:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama doesn't get it. He can play sarcastic all he wants but he's shown and defined his character so, so clearly in San Francisco that even if The Obama Cult has their heads stuck in the sand, the rest of us can see through his condescending arrogance.
Matthew Weaver
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 14, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Haven't you been saying that Obama doesn't get it all along? And yet, he's been winning all along.
Coincidence?
April 14, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Weaver is just out of touch with America.
April 14, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew: I think it is beyond time to stop being polite and tell you, shut the hell up. No one cares. If Obama could stop wars for all time tomorrow, you would still find something to complain about. Weaver is right, you weave and spin, and never win.
April 14, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cute
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 14, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
As someone else wrote, great campaign, lousy candidate.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 14, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
SPAMMER!
April 14, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't you have a date with Warren Jeffs?
April 14, 2008 11:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
And DOWN GOES MATTHEW WEAVER!
This is Howard Cosell reporting from the TPM lockerroom, and it's not a pretty sight for the Clinton entourage.
April 14, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Y'know Matthew, you should concentrate on those infants, because this politics stuff seems to elude you. The only thing that was made clear in SF is that Obama has a clear view of the plight of rural Americans in economically devastated communities and the ways they have been victimized in previous electoral cycles. He says that he intends to address that and each of us will have to decide if he's capable of doing so. But returning to reality for the moment: you'll have plenty of time to beat the table with your shoe on Hillary's behalf, but you should wait for a realistic opportunity to do so -- like right around the time those little ones are on deck for their 8th birthdays. So my sincere congratulations and best of luck to you. You don't need to worry much about the future of the executive branch right now. Obama's got it covered.
April 14, 2008 12:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Mr. Weaver, perhaps you would rather agree with Mr. Clinton when he said the same thing in 1991:
Or perhaps you'd be willing to agree with Senator Webb who said the same thing in 2006:
The fact is, sir, that they were telling the truth, exactly as Obama has done. And it is Obama's courage in truth-telling that will earn him the presidency...it is time to have someone in the WH with spine, integrity, and a clear understanding of the reality of everyday Americans.
April 14, 2008 1:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Don't feed the trolls.
April 14, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem is you clearly don't like Obama and are looking for any reasons to demean his candidacy. The substance of what he said is true and the people in those communities whose jobs have been sent overseas knows he's telling the truth and weren't offended. After this I'm sure he's going to be the next president, because this is the best the repubs and clinton supporters can come up with and the voters aren't going to fall for it a 3rd time in a row.
April 14, 2008 5:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe, reece2076. But if "they" are like most of the rest of us, hearing assumptions based on demographic stereotypes IS offensive. Forgivable, yes, but still condescending. As flaws go, though, speaking semi-truth to powerlessness isn't the worst. I'm still a solid Obama supporter, but it's best that the star-struck among us may now get that he doesn't walk on water. Fine by me. If a touch of elitism and a bit of the pol is as bad as it gets, he's still the Alpha in this pack.
April 14, 2008 7:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recommended, and thanks for the link. I really enjoyed Obama having some fun with this, getting really angry at this, and doing the whole thing without once looking down at prepared comments!
The joshing about Hillary in a duck blind... that was a masterful piece of teasing her without going over the edge; it's the sort of thing a sibling could say about another sibling, ya' know? And "shame on you" is most certainly fair game, because she used it first.
I know this Wednesday's upcoming debate will be 21st, but I'm really looking forward to it, nevertheless.
April 14, 2008 12:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have a thought that I wanted to throw out. As we know, Richardson finally decided to endorse Obama after the Rev. Wright speech. To my understanding of what's been said through the grapevine, Edwards has been holding back waiting for someone to more forcefully address the plight of the poor and the working class. Could this be the moment that tips Edwards to endorse Obama?
April 14, 2008 12:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
And jump onto a racist, elitist, and arrogant campaign? I really don't think so. There is nothing populist in Obama. And if so, who cares? Edwards wasn't authentic before and is a two-time loser, what does he add now? Does he add legitimacy to Obama's pathetic character? Obama's "clinging to" speech has marked him for defeat in the general election should he make is so far. I'm sure Edwards can see that writing on the wall.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 14, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, I hope those are not your kids you are holding, they won't have a chance.
April 14, 2008 12:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And jump onto a racist, elitist, and arrogant campaign?"
Sounds like Clinton's campaign to me....
April 14, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
...which is why the Obamasnots keep bringing race into the campaign?
Hypocrites and chumps.
April 14, 2008 9:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
matthew, you're not big on obama, are you?
April 14, 2008 1:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Josh, with the understatement of 2008. No others need apply.
April 14, 2008 2:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
"and jump onto a racist, elitist, and arrogant campaign?"
You just accurately described the Hillary Clinton campaign, bravo.
April 14, 2008 7:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'll let you go on the other two, but I do not understand why anyone would call the Obama campaign racist. It has never been anything of the sort.
April 14, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
apparently that's how Cliton supporters are instructed to say on "bitter"! I've listening to talk radios this morning -on 14th- and... it's hillarious!!
April 14, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your thought processes---to use that term very loosely---can only be described as deeply superficial.
April 14, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Does this make Hillary Clinton racist or elitist? See, I don't think it does, but by your logic . . .
-----------
As the Clinton campaign pressed the case against Mr. Obama, reports surfaced of similar comments made by both Clintons to explain voter concerns about issues like religion, guns, and immigration. In an article on Time.com in November, for example, Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying: "During the 1990s, I cannot remember being asked about immigration. Why? Because the economy was working. And average Americans didn't have to go around looking for others to blame."
http://www.nysun.com/news/national/clinton-likens-obama-kerry-gore
April 14, 2008 10:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wonder if Warren Jeffs will let you have the top bunk?
April 14, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress. There has got to be something at work here," she said, theorizing it may be the risk-averse nature of a state built around agriculture.
"I think not only do I have to bring people to me, I have to maybe reassure people here maybe more than I do in New Hampshire, which has had a woman governor," she said.
"I think Iowa poses a special burden, or a special obstacle to me because when you look at the numbers, how can Iowa be ranked with Mississippi? That's not what I see. That's not the quality. That's not the communitarianism, that's not the openness I see in Iowa."
April 14, 2008 12:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nice find, memoryaid.
That's brilliant work by Sen. Clinton there! She manages to simultaneously pander and condescend. Really top notch!
April 14, 2008 7:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
gotta love the guy. I give him major style points for this one =^D
April 14, 2008 12:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is just the fire he needs to be showing.
April 14, 2008 12:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
Her Royal Clinton is gonna have trouble being elected to water boy after this nomination cycle.
April 14, 2008 12:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I wouldn't be so sure.
She brings home the bacon to NY.
And the Senate is famously loyal to its own. Joe Lieberman has made a very successful career attacking his own (former) party all the way to important positions of responsibility. And Harry Reid has recently promised that he'll get to keep his committee chairmanship in the next Senate.
In a party with any sense for self-preservation, the Clintons would have long since been told "good riddance." But nobody ever accused the Democratic Party of having any real sense for self-preservation.
April 14, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary needs an off switch. She had an opening on Friday but then she decided she needed to throw in her gun toting youth, her strong Christian upbringing, downing a shot of whiskey, and then tonight, tossing Al Gore overboard because it seemed to suit her short term strategy of painting Obama as an elitist.
She spent the entire weekend undermining her whole case against Obama by pure pandering.
This is a fundamental reason why she is unsuited to be our leader in this critical age. She is incapable of a sincere public emotion that is not gauged to her electoral fortunes.
April 14, 2008 12:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
We just might be hearing from Gore sooner rather than later.
April 14, 2008 1:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
No kidding. It's amazing how she not only managed to alienate Obama voters in her snarky, pot-kettle-black reply to the comments - she also basically called Gore a wine-sipping pansy who blew the 2000 election. That'll help.
April 14, 2008 2:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
I had to laugh at the Annie Oakley image! And he's very engaging when he's joking and smiling like that.
What I think is great is how he keeps hammering home that this is political gamesmanship. People get that. I mean, honestly, if there had been any real news on the campaign trail the last few days, these comments would have disappeared. But Clinton is the one keeping it alive, and that's obvious.
I also really like how he points out that McCain and Clinton are using the same talking points. Really emphasizes the politicking.
April 14, 2008 12:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
I would need my own website to rebut the "racist, elitist, and arrogant campaign" comment. And if acknowledging what people are thinking counts as "elitist," we need more such "elitists" in politics. I would guess that many of Edwards's admirers do care what he thinks, and I'm pretty sure he sees the writing on the wall--Hillary's campaign is doomed.
BTW, the babies are gorgeous, Matthew!
April 14, 2008 12:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm going to bed now, I'll leave you fine members of The Obama Cult to amuse yourself with your self-congratulatory comments about Obama.
Humor yourself now because he's dug a very deep hole for himself. Do you really think small town America, those 'typical White persons', will like Obama's dismissive comments about them clinging to their religion and guns, accusing them of being racist, anti-immigrant, and all? And don't think for a moment that lots of folks, myself included, won't pass on the opportunity to make sure they hear what Obama really thinks of them.
Matthew
http://www.TheProblemWithObama.com
April 14, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
In the past, our politicians have played along with this inane game of dwelling on appearances. Result? Unconvincing little Kabuki games that mainly work among the people who still care, and still buy the BS.
So long as you play that game, everything becomes about treacherous wordplay, and I think people have come to realize that.
So Obama steps in, and with a few rather well chosen words, talks to people about what being out of touch really is, and what it isn't. He tells them that decades spent as a community organizer and then lawyer among these people hardly qualifes him as an elitist. Then he turns around and rightly roasts Hillary for her NRA pandering, her sudden, convenient little lovefest with gun owners.
And of course, he strikes at the self-contradictory contortions of the Hillary campaign. When your campaign adviser is not only off message, but anti-message, you've got problems.
I won't insult your intelligence by claiming that Obama is a saint. Instead, I'll pose this to you: negative attacks must be chosen well, timed well. Consistent negativity is addicting, and destructive like other addictions. A good politician must know how to make a jab feel deserved, how to make the distinctions sound real, and the virtues in contrast seem genuine. The Clinton Campaign failed to do that. Obama did not fail.
April 14, 2008 2:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matt, cute babies. Congratulations. You look proud.
OTOH, I actually live in a very small, rural, OH town in the Pennsyltucky area. Bitter describes the feeling around here exactly. People aren't stupid. They know the current administration is screwing them royally in order to give more money to their millionare friends. We see the price of gas doubling, we know how much groceries have gone up and how little money our schools are getting. Republicans can run around saying "dey's all happy 'roun' heah and ain't nuttin to look at but dem cheefuh folks workin in de fields", but we're still bitter.
There are still Obama signs all over the place in my OH town and more have been sprouting since the election ended. I know 5 from here working in WV for Obama and people in PA who are getting pissed at HRC for belittling their justifiable anger. The only reason this is making a splash is it was a slow news weekend and the talking heads wanted to amuse themselves.
April 14, 2008 9:31 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew,
No needs to flaunt those kids on the Internet. They have no choice in your sick obsession. Really....stop it!
April 15, 2008 12:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Annie Oakley!!! hehehehe
Maybe this is the beginning of the knock out blow so we can all focus on the general and on helping as many dems as possible around the country get elected so we can get our progressve agenda passed!
Did everyone hear Obama say that he IS ACCOUNTABLE TO US!!!
Yea!!! We are finally going to get what Sirhan Sirhan robbed us of in!
A bright, articulate man of sound judgment and true compassion who also has the charisma we have not seen since that fateful night in 1968!
April 14, 2008 12:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
OH SNAP!
April 14, 2008 12:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama has won it already. Hillary is toast. McSame has no chance once Obama starts coming after him. It's a done deal folks. The fat lady has sung.
April 14, 2008 1:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's salad days are over!
Believe me, I know.
April 14, 2008 2:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course you're a foreign, elitist salad green, so you would think that.
April 14, 2008 7:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
New Bestseller:
Barack Obama and the Ad Hominem of Hope
Ad hominem attacks are for gossip rags, not for news.
April 14, 2008 1:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's sarcasm, not an attack. He is being very generous to her.
April 14, 2008 1:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
For a campaign that claims to be supporting a "fighter", Clinton folks have the thinnest fucking skins in modern times. Seriously, guys - grow a pair.
April 14, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
"And jump onto a racist, elitist, and arrogant campaign?"
Sounds like Clinton's campaign to me....
April 14, 2008 1:06 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong again.
April 14, 2008 2:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
GREAT comeback. I'm convinced.
April 14, 2008 2:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
Shame on both of them! Neither one represents anything close to the best that the Democratic party has to offer: neither one is much more than a marginal candidate at best. And, yet - here we are.
I would not vote for Senator McCain if he were the 'last man standing' so to speak, but I find the thought of voting for either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama revolting.
I'll vote for Vice President Gore in the Oregon primary, and likely not vote in the Presidential race at all in the general election, unless things change markedly between now and then. We tally these 'undervotes' in Oregon, and my guess is that the number of ballots upon which NO choice is made for President and Vice President in the general electionโthe undervoteโwill be larger than it has ever been before.
Maybe the undervote costs us the election. Maybe we all should have given more thought to that possibility many months ago.
Go ahead: fight like kids on the playground over your almost pathetic candidates. Neither one is worthy of serious consideration, and both are only a minimally better choice than Senator McCain would be.
April 14, 2008 1:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
So tell us oh great, knowledgeable one from up on Mt. Olympus, who is the "savior of the Dems" that only you are the wisest to know?
So if you can't get your way, you're gonna hold your breath and not vote?
Talk about it not getting any dumber than that.
April 14, 2008 1:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well are you just a ray o' sunshine... :)
The simple fact is, no matter what you think about either of these Democratic candidates, every reasonable step must be taken to ensure that it is not a Republican president who makes at least the next three Supreme Court appointments.
April 14, 2008 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Quiz timeout:
What's an "Annie Oakley" in baseball terms?
HINT: it has nothing to do with the Bosnian baseball leagues.
April 14, 2008 1:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
Go to the Obama site and push the "Donate" button. There should be an uptick in funds when he has these Jedi-vs-the-Emperor moments...
April 14, 2008 1:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Pitch perfect. balancing genuine amusement (she really has gotten silly--shots with the guys? give me a break!) and genuine outrage (a Democrat literally using Repub talking points). The key word, as always with Obama, is *genuine.*
I think those "I'm not bitter" stickers at this weekend's rallies (supposedly representing an upsurge of indignation from The People) were the beginning of the end. It just doesn't get any dumber than that.
April 14, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I found a picture of Hillary Clinton with a gun in a duck blind!
April 14, 2008 1:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh. My. Laughing so hard my leaves are withering!
April 14, 2008 1:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
(can't stop laughing)
April 14, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Callimaco
With due apologies, I stole that for my avatar. It was too good to be passed on.
April 14, 2008 4:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is this a Callimaco original? I just stoled it, put it up a few places, would like to give credit.
April 14, 2008 9:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I love it when he pivots and punches. He does it with such grace.
April 14, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Obama was amazing tonite. Hillary started off rambling but closed okay. She just talks goes on about "me" and "I" way too much and it becomes boring. And she just loves to hear herself talk. But Obama was so personal and direct. He showed me again that he is the best candidate that we have seen in about four decades. He knocked it out of the park. The audience loved him.
April 14, 2008 1:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Damn, he's good.
April 14, 2008 1:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
"If [Republicans] could cut funding for Medicare, Medicaid, education, and the environment, middle-class Americans would see fewer benefits from their tax dollars, feel more resentful paying taxes, and become even more receptive to their appeals for tax cuts and their strategy of waging campaigns on divisive social and cultural issues like abortion, gay rights, and guns."
-- Bill Clinton, in his 2004 memoirs, My Life, making the same argument as Sen. Barack Obama.
Posted by http://politicalwire.com/
April 14, 2008 1:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
You with those meddlesome facts - silence yourself! Bring me another out-of-context snippet, post haste!
April 14, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Hillary supporters are just bitter that they had the huge political machine ready-made. They had the instant name recognition. They had the money and connections. But after all that failed them, they cling to made-up stories and overhyping sound bytes.
April 14, 2008 1:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I speak for gourmet greens everywhere when I say it's about time he got ticked off!
April 14, 2008 1:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wabbit Season!!
Duck Season!!
Wabbit Season!!
I say it's Duck Season and I say FIRE!!!
Kablooey. I say happy hunting Senator Oakley!!!
April 14, 2008 1:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
You have to love it when he gets a little pissed off. Some of his best moments have come from the times in which he's ticked, and that speaks well to how he'd handle himself in adverse situations in the Presidency (as opposed to, say, Senator McCain, who couldn't even handle a question about Kerry asking him to run with him in '04 without getting testy).
April 14, 2008 2:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama didn't ask him to the prom, and Matthew hasn't gotten over it yet.
April 14, 2008 2:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey Senator Obama...Two words: Grow up. Its thebig time. If you can't play with the big kids without the whining maybe the Illinois legislature could use you again.
What. A. Punk.
April 14, 2008 2:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, because Hillary never whines.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=7_X-RoRghAY
Oh, wait.
April 14, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't know, man. This is more like AAA ball. An elitism charge from a multi-millioniare? C'mon, it's just silly on its face.
April 14, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Remember, somehow Bush got away with it.
April 14, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
Political jujitsu! It's on now! Go Barack!!!!
April 14, 2008 2:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
Periodically, when he's feeling down, Obama launches attacks as a way to boost his appeal.
Nah nah nah nah
Barry Obama
Hey hey
GOODBYE!
April 14, 2008 2:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You truly have a staggering intellect.
April 14, 2008 3:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm thinking that Obama's been saving his "Negative Cards" for this type of situation.
It's time to draw the distinctions and hit her hard.
April 14, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know you might be right! He has only really used negatives when he is attacked first and this is a perfect situation for him to slam Clinton going into and during the debate this week. Obviously it will all depend on how the MSM covers the conversation but this could be a defining moment rather than just typical political damage control.
April 14, 2008 9:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
Game. Set. Match.
What a beautiful thing to watch!
April 14, 2008 3:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
Wooo!!! He needed the opening to deliver the political KO to Hillary and she provided it!! :) I was afraid when he started to apologize that he'll miss this chance to cast into sharper relief the differences between himself and Hillary/McCain, but he did it here. It would be hard to introduce Colombiagate without going on a negative attack, but this is just perfect, tying in the anger and bitterness with NAFTA and the Clintons. Hope this gets played over and over in Penn, though I already suspect the small town folks weren't falling for the political pandering and ass-kissing in the first place.
April 14, 2008 3:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I know Hillary needs something BIG to deliver a Penn. KO, but she's got to realize that if she picks the wrong opening, it can backfire and kill her. This looks like the one - Obama needs to hammer this home, Anger, Bitterness, NAFTA, Colombia, Bill and Mark Penn.
Weaver should perhaps concern himself less with Obama propaganda and more with the urgent business of knocking some sense into Hillary. At least if she plays it safer, she can still cling on to her slim Penn. lead and continue her poker game.
April 14, 2008 3:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
After getting hounded for three days over his remarks Obama decides to try to change subjects by calling Hillary Annie Oakley? Now, that's nasty. So it's ok to make fun of a woman running for president? Does that mean that Hillary can make fun of Obama by calling him the name of some black caricature? I'm getting to really dislike this guy a lot.
April 14, 2008 3:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
Umm, Otto, Annie Oakley is not a caricature, she was a real person and quite a good shot. The joke, and I can't even believe I'm explaining it to you, is that Hillary Clinton is not a sharp shooter. Her experience with firearms is quite limited. Therefore, her attempt to rural-Americafy herself as part of the "I'm not an elistist like that city slicker Obama" narrative is especially funny. Hillary was not being likened to Annie Oakley, she was being contrasted with Annie Oakley.
Something tells me that you already disliked Obama. Nobody "get[s] to dislike" a candidate for such a transparently manufactured reason.
April 14, 2008 3:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not particularly inclined to wade into this absurdly concocted "controversy" but I have to reply to your blithe characterization of Annie Oakley here. Annie Oakley was not only not a caricature, she was one of the most amazing and interesting historical entertainers in American history. She was, by all accounts, one of the most astonishingly accurate marksman of all time whose fame and renown was almost unmatched for any entertainer, man or woman, of her time. To refer to her here offhandedly as some caricature in order to dishonestly try to score some lame political point is really off the mark, so to speak. The fact that you think of her as some caricature, frankly, does not speak well of you.
April 14, 2008 4:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's okay to make fun of a woman running for president.
She's a multi-millionaire senator. She's not some poor victim. Anyone who stands up and runs for president is fair game for comments like this. (And that includes Obama. There are perfectly legitimate ways to make fun of him, and Clinton has used them. They haven't necessarily been effective, but they have been legitimate.)
It has nothing to do with her sex. It has everything to do with running for president. You cannot cry sexism at every remark. There have been some legitimately sexist comments made by intemperate supporters and the media, and I will stand up and denounce, renounce and reject every single one.
But this, it's totally fair.
April 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I see the Rev. Jeremiah Wright is starting to feel comfortable enough to speak up again. On Sunday at a funeral he said the country's founding fathers "planted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic," and said that Thomas Jefferson wrote, "God would punish America for the sin of slavery. I guess that makes Thomas Jefferson unpatriotic."
I think Obama better send his PR man back over to Wright's house for another talk. The last thing Obama wants people to be reminded of right now is that he sat for 20 years and was inspired by a man who just can't let his bitterness over slavery go.
April 14, 2008 4:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
I notice that the truth of Wright's statements have no bearing upon your analysis:
". . .The man must be a prodigy who can retain his manners and morals undepraved by such circumstances. And with what execrations should the statesman be loaded who, permitting one half the citizens thus to trample on the rights of the other, transforms those into despots and these into enemies, destroys the morals of the one part and the amor patriae of the other. For if a slave can have a country in this world, it must be any other in preference to that in which he is born to live and labor for another: in which he must lock up the faculties of his nature, contribute as far as depends on his individual endeavors to the evanishment of the human race or entail his own miserable condition on the endless generations proceeding from him. With the morals of the people, their industry is also destroyed. For in a warm climate, no man will labor for himself who can make another labor for him. This is so true that, of the proprietors of slaves, a very small proportion are ever seen to labor. And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure, when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of god? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just: that his justice can not sleep forever: that considering numbers, nature and natural means only, a revolution of the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation is among possible events: that it may become probable by supernatural interference!" Notes on the State of Virginia by Thomas Jefferson
April 14, 2008 4:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dude, everything Wright said, if you're citing him correctly, is 100% true.
It's so easy for you to talk about "getting over slavery". I can't even get to the depths of how fucking offensive that is. Next time I'm allowd to be offended by anything racial, how 'bout you let me know, K?
April 14, 2008 5:02 AM | Reply | Permalink
BARACKY: THE MOVIE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA
April 14, 2008 4:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
excellent video. Thanks for sharing.
April 14, 2008 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jeremiah Wright won't shut up. This weekend he called Thomas Jefferson a pedophile, and lambasted Fox News, which guarantees him lots more coverage. Just what Obama needs!
Here's an excerpt from Fox:
Wright, who is on sabbatical before retiring from Trinity United, said Americaโs mistreatment of blacks is the result of the founding fathers, who โplanted slavery and white supremacy in the DNA of this republic.โ
First reported by The Chicago Sun Times, Wright told mourners at the funeral that Thomas Jefferson, who partook in โpedophilia,โ would also be considered unpatriotic these days because he wrote, โGod would punish America for the sin of slavery.โ He also quoted Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said that the U.S. has a โcongenital birth defect.โ
Speaking of the seven lessons Pincham taught him, Wright said the judgeโs faith โwas not the jingoistic, chauvinistic โyouโre either with us or against usโ demonizing kind of faith.โ
โFOX News canโt understand that,โ Wright said to rousing cheers and applause. โ[Bill] OโReilly will never get that. Sean Hannityโs stupid fantasy will keep him forever stuck on stupid when it comes to comprehending how you can love a brother who does not believe what you believe."
April 14, 2008 4:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks, Mr. Non-Sequitur. A bit desperate on your part, don't you think?
April 14, 2008 5:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
You posted in the wrong thread, the troll thread is elsewhere, bud. But you'd get some good points for this one I'd say. You should try your luck over there!
April 14, 2008 8:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think it's time for master idiotic to step in and give closure to Matthew and to the whole thread. Let us all join hands and call on him.
Paging idiotic.
April 14, 2008 4:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
How many of the people currently beating up on Obama for this supposedly "elitist" remark are trying to give any context for the remark? How many do you think have actually read or heard the remarks beyond a snippet - or even a paraphrase? More importantly, how many of the people getting so worked up about Obama's "elitism" and accusing him of being "out of touch" really come from small towns themselves? How many are middle or working class? How many politicians or people in the media can authentically relate to life in middle America?
Well, I grew up in Kentucky, and I live in North Carolina now. I've spent a lot of time living and teaching and working in small towns. I think Obama is pretty dead on in the content of his remarks, even if his words could have been better chosen.
Most of my relatives still live in KY, and most of them are also accurately described in what Obama said about people in PA small towns. And you wouldn't get much argument from them, either. My uncle, who is the epitome of a gun-totin, ferner-hatin, bible-clingin' tobacco farmer, is a seriously bitter old man who drops the N word unapologetically and recently said to my mom about Obama "once a Muslim, always a Muslim."
My bitter, racist, anti-immigrant, homophobic, pro-gun, "values voting" uncle is an Obama supporter. Has been since last fall. I nearly fell out of my chair when I found this out, because I would never have believed such a thing possible. I don't know if he's ever voted for a Dem in a Presidential race before, but I know that he hasn't since Reagan at least. He just feels like Obama "gets it," and he's said on more than one occasion that he thinks Obama is "exactly what this country needs right now" - even if he is a N..... and a Muslim.
So I guess what I'm saying is that there's something more going on in this campaign than "the media loves Obama" or a "cult of Obama" or any of the other b.s. lines that Obama-haters use to console themselves because they really don't "get it" like my "bitter" uncle does. It's not about *Obama*. He just happens to be the guy running at the top of the ticket.
He's going to win, and this latest flack over some stupid press-driven foofarah won't matter any more than the last one or the next one because it misses the real importance of his candidacy. The reason the Obama campaign matters is that it's *not* about "guns, god, and gays." It's about government - of, by, and for the people. And so, for the first time in our lives, I share a common political goal with my uncle - whom I love deeply, but with whom I agree on almost no "issue" except that it's time for a change.
April 14, 2008 5:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
Great post! Funny too.
Too many pundits and politician "speak" for various demographic groups with great authority and little knowledge.
I experienced this disconnect when I ran an after school program in the inner city. My white suburban neighbors had plenty of opinions about what my kids felt and needed but because they had never asked them directly were clueless.
I am beginning to hear more snippets like this one about your uncle that indicate working class people actually think Obama "gets it." I just wish the press was listening more to real people than their pontificating pundits.
THis morning on CNN they did a poll: are you offended by the "bitter" comments? It was 76-42% NO!! as they were busy repeating Obama was elitist and out of touch.
April 14, 2008 9:24 AM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the glimpse into your viewpoint of your folks. This would make a great blog post.
April 14, 2008 9:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey vyv vegetable rights n peas...
Anyway this was perfect by Obama nailed her BS to the fence post.
April 14, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I loved it, haha. And he is right to point out how "disappointing" that she is joining in with McCain (actually I'd say McCain was joining in with her) in attacking Obama for this stupid crap.
He is the funniest president, me gusta.
April 14, 2008 7:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Matthew Weaver said,
What exactly was it that is supposed to be untrue in what Obama had said in San Francisco, and why would it reflect poorly on his character...?
Here is what Obama said...
Are we really expected to believe that conservatives don't exploit resentments in order to drive a wedge into the electorate? What are McCain's positions on undocumented labor this week? Where was McCain on the expiration of the assault weapons ban? Gay marriage? The War on Christmas? Is everyone who recognizes the traditionally cynical Republican propaganda value of these non-issues supposed to be an "elitist"?
April 14, 2008 7:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not about bitterness or hurting; that does exist extensively within our country. The stupidity of Obama's remarks is the comment: "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Obama is just an empty suit speaking what he truly believes to his rich Frisco supporters.
April 14, 2008 8:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Look at that list, and remember that the context of that original quote was in a fundraiser where someone asked him what to expect to come up against in Pennsylvania, and you might, if you're thinking with a brain and all, realize that he's talking about the issues of gun control, the use of religion in politics, "antipathy to people who aren't like them (gays) or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
These are the issues they've got to focus on, after decades of politicians using these issues to distract them from the economic ghost-towns they live in, to distract them from the tax cuts and lax regulations and sweet deals to corporations that allow jobs to move out of the country and allow the gulf between the rich and the lower middle class to expand. Basically, a lot of "Hey! Look over there! Two queers trying to marry!"
But keep it up, Marginal. Try to twist this, try to focus on just a few words and ignore the context, ignore Obama's followup statements, pretend that you're too blind to see the rest of the picture. Those that live by these tactics, die by these tactics. If Clinton beats the odds and becomes the nominee, Republicans will hit her twice as hard with disingenuous mischaracterizations, insinuations. And it will all seem the normal way to play the game, thanks to people like you.
April 14, 2008 8:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
It just occurred to me that these are people who had to put up with Senator Santorum. They know what it's like to have heard more concern about the slide into "man on dog" sexual morals, and more concern for one brain-dead woman in Florida, than for their family's economic woes.
April 14, 2008 9:10 AM | Reply | Permalink
When the bottom of your life is falling out you do "cling" to anything you can find as a way to hold on and you can end up being very bitter if you feel no one cares.
April 14, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Too good! Another $100 for you, Obama. You keep this up and I'll be maxed out in another week.
April 14, 2008 8:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was a little ambivalent at some of the shots that were taken, but at least nothing was below the belt. The overall point was very good.
April 14, 2008 8:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
The question is not if, but how many times, your mother dropped you on your head.
April 14, 2008 8:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Freakin' hilarious, and precisely what she's been asking for. She's such a phony. It's great to see him throw a few good-natured spitballs her way.
I wonder if John Cleese is already working for him, or if Obama wrote this material himself.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/08/wcleese108.xml
April 14, 2008 9:04 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hate is good.
Especially when you don't know one thing
about that person, except what rich people who are manipulating
your mind for their own interests, are filling it with.
You don't even realized that your brain has
been programmed? you're a cockroach?
April 14, 2008 9:08 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree, rich people who manipulate the electorate to distract them from their economic troubles suck. Slowly but surely people are going to realize they've been programmed to hate the gays and Hispanics, and fear that the government's going to take away their shotguns and Bibles.
Glad to see you've shaken out the cobwebs (maybe you've come down from all the drugs your namesake enjoyed?) and joined the Obama side, Hunter.
April 14, 2008 9:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's scaring me that no one in this blog has a difference of opinion.
These progressive blogs have turned into hate mills turning kids into droids.
You all sound the same, and with glazed eyes, goose step to toward your fuhrer.
Not a one of you has a thought independent of the mob?
April 14, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you're so independent of thought, why not contribute something, well, thoughtful rather than admonishing posters and branding them all as hateful lemmings with your holier-than-thou tone? Snob.
April 14, 2008 9:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Ummmm.... Maybe because you're all hateful lemmings?
April 14, 2008 10:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
Awesome. I gotta swing by Barak's website and contribute my $25.
April 14, 2008 9:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
um, doesn't this guy have 50 million dollars to blow?
Ever think you might put your $25 where it's needed?
Saving endangered species? Global Warming?
April 14, 2008 9:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's another think I like about Obama. His global warming platform shows some thought. I'm gonna have to toss in another $25 myself. Thanks for reminding me, Hunter. You've become a powerful force for positive change!
April 14, 2008 9:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Eh? Really? I saw a sum-up in Newsweek of all three platforms and there wasn't a dime's worth of space between Clinton's and Obama's plans. Mind clarifying what makes his so much better?
April 14, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
I actually like how he's had the balls to come out for nuclear power -- a poison topic for some -- as one of the methods we've got to choose to generate power without creating more greenhouse gasses. There is all that radiation, but if we improve the technology that is basically rooted in the '50s, we should be able to deal with that better.
Has Hillary said anything about nuclear power? Maybe she did and I just didn't notice.
April 14, 2008 9:36 AM | Reply | Permalink
She said she was "agnostic" about it, that she wanted to see waste problems fixed, etc. Yes, that was one of the big areas of difference, and I have to say I agree with you there. The old plants aren't going to be shut down, and the worst of all worlds is to just have a bunch of old, rickety plants still up and running. Those are the most dangerous. Let's fix all of those up first of all. Most people also don't get that nuclear power has 0 carbon emissions. I'm not saying it's the pure way to go, but it definitely needs to be used in the solution. ^_^
April 14, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, if we're not careful, we're going to end up discussing real issues here.
Let's get back to the topic: My candidate's not the elitist, yours is!!!
April 14, 2008 10:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
LOL!! Did you see The Daily Show? Jon Stewart had a good routine about that.
April 15, 2008 8:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
Easy, thought police. It's a free country, guy - let him direct it where he pleases.
April 14, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh yeah, but Hillary took a shot of real whiskey! In a real bar! Her and her $100 million are just like us!
I just got paid Friday. I'm off to donate to the condescending elitist. Again.
April 14, 2008 9:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought it was against election law to drink and campaign. Pull that woman over to the curb! Lock up her sneakers.
I repeat: her salad days are over!
April 14, 2008 10:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
I just watched the clip - he is a pleasure to watch in a way that no Presidential candidate has been since - geez, I don't know. Some of Kennedy's speeches are better to read than to hear. It almost reminds me - and this may be a stretch - of FDR's speech where he defends his "little dog Fala." Or Truman when he beat Dewey. Beautiful.
I just wish he had hammered her more - IMO, he pulled back more than he should have. But he's the genius, not me (and I know I'm going to hear about that last characterization. But he is, you know.)
The crowd seemed a bit tepid, too...it seemed that maybe they were pretty far from the stage, and so they weren't heard as well. But I was a bit surprised. Any thoughts on why that may have been?
I'm heading over to the website w/$25 too, and up to the campaign HQ later today. Just 8 more days...
April 14, 2008 9:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Just watch:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rulSnAM6gmM
April 14, 2008 9:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now I kinda wish that strong, direct lady was the one running for president. Whatever happened to her?
April 14, 2008 9:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary's use of 'shame on you' was delivered with such haughtiness, the intent being to pump up righteous anger toward Obama.
Obama's use of 'shame on you' was delivered with such humor, the intent being to evoke awareness of wedge politicking.
April 14, 2008 9:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
Way to go, Barack!
He will truly get the best of this dust up.
April 14, 2008 9:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
The truly sad thing here is that not one of you can see just how ludicrous you all are, sitting around agreeing with each other, snorting, giggling, and stomping on anybody who dares to come along and disagree.
The main difference between Obama's cult and Rush's Ditto-Heads? Nothing; least of all, the intellectual level of discourse.
"Yep. Yep. Ditto. Mega dittoes! You disagree? You must be the anti-Christ. Yep. Ditto!"
Chumps.
April 14, 2008 9:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
You're right. We should agree with those we disagree with, and disagree with those we agree with.
April 14, 2008 10:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
I disagree. We should disagree with those we agree with, and agree with those we disagree with.
April 14, 2008 10:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is an inexperienced liberal basking in fame. Michelle Obama's disturbing disseration and Barak Obama's unresolved issues with Reverand Wright have mushroomed for over a decade. Obama continues to circumvent these injustices. His objection to wear the American flag on his lapel and his narrow knowledge base (that is limited to grass roots efforts) suggest that he is not presidential material. Although he changed his name from Barry to Barak to get in touch with his heritage, this may indicate some unresolved identity conflicts. Yes, Obama is bright. He shines in the limelight. However we cannot afford to groom his shortcomings if he's in the White House. His perceived charisma and message of change may be good political ingredients but they are a burden to the United States because he is not well versed in global issues and fundamental federal policies. Obama's deficiencies continue to prove that he cannot go the distance. This election is about an economy that needs to be jumpstarted. It's about developing an effective war strategy that brings our heros home. It's about developing workable immigration policies. Hillary Clinton is committed to these principles. Hillary will be our next president.
April 14, 2008 10:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
His objection to wear the American flag on his lapel...suggest that he is not presidential material.
I just had to highlight this quote. Wow.
Hillary Clinton: these are your supporters. You should be so proud.
April 14, 2008 10:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Methinks it's a GOP troll. Only the GOP puts a high premium on pinning a tiny idol of patriotism to your shirt collar and calling it a sign from above that you are Patriot. Everything else you do in your life -- your acts, words and deeds -- are meaningless sans lapel pin. This is the GOP creed. This must be a troll.
April 14, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think Obama made the mistake of offending people with his first comments. But to me, he just digs himself a deeper hole with his attempt at humor in once again having to defend his own comments.
In front of a bunch of men (Steelworkers Union) he make the Annie Oakley comment which can only be interpreted as "isn't that cute, a girl with a gun".
This guy is completely tone deaf and seems to harbor a lot of offensive opinions of "other" people.
Obama is an obamination. He must be defeated for the good of the party and the country.
April 14, 2008 10:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree - his retort came off as patronizing and sexist. I wonder how this "response" is expected to help him appear less patronizing and elitist and dismissive of "other" people's concerns. Sure I suppose his Hillary bashing is entertaining to his hardcore supporters and to the media, but how does it play to the voters in PA, WV, KY that he insulted with his previous comments?
April 14, 2008 11:37 AM | Reply | Permalink
It was explained before, but here it is again.
Annie Oakley was one of the greatest shots of the West. She made herself into a superstar with her talent, back in the day when women were supposed to not take up such "manly" sports.
Calling Clinton Annie Oakley is like calling, say, an inexperienced and bad driver Dale Earnhardt. A bad golfer Tiger Woods. Or Obama ... whoever the biggest name in bowling is.
But it's not surprising you're going to huff and puff and pretend you don't understand.
April 14, 2008 4:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
yes, I agree. We just need to be patient. Obama will be Nobama because Hillary Clinton can and will get the job done.
April 14, 2008 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am so tired of Barack Obama using diversion to fail to address very serious concerns about his stance on issues. It's all good that he was a union organizer on the South Side of Chicago putting him in touch with "ordinary people," but last time I checked the South Side of Chicago was an URBAN demograohic. His comments at the fundraiser were directed at the rural voters that Obama backhanded and insulted in his unfortunate comments. Where is Obama's credibility with these voters? The shame is noton Hillary for calling attention to his condescending comments. It is Obama's for not coming to terms with his own errors. For someone who believes that words matter, one would think he would take more care in not insulting broad groups of people in the US.
I get it - he's frustrated because he's not getting traction with the middle income voters in PA, WV, and KY and was using that opportunity to prepare his supporters for the coming losses, but you can do so without insulting the people whose votes you can't get. Maybe just maybe they are voting for Hillary not because they cling to guns and anti-immigrant passions, but rather because they remember the 1990s where we had a time of economic growth for all Americans and they believe Hillary is best positioned to turn our economy around.
Disclosure - I spent the weekend on the ground canvassing for Hillary in NE Philadelphia and I can tell you that not one voter I spoke with brought up Bosnia or Jeremiah Wright or Barack Obama's asinine comments about rural voters. They were concerned about which candidate had solutions and they believed could bring back jobs. They were concerned about foreclosures (so many homes had for sale signs on them). They don't have the luxury of HOPING that Barack Obama will fix these problems. They BELIEVE that Hillary Clinton will. That's why it's Hillary Country.
April 14, 2008 10:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well said! I appreciate your insight into the pertinent issues effecting our great country. Thank you for focusing on the real people problems rather than on a huff and puff mentality of the political facades. Hillary Clinton is focused on the pulse of the nation. She is ready, willing and able to serve this country well.
April 14, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is only one of the many reasons I will not vote for Obama: He is arrogant, misogynistic, and condescending. God only knows, he is not a person who should ever condescend to Senator Clinton. She has restrained herself from MANY personal comments she could have made about his lack of character and lack of good judgement, but for the good of the Party has not said many things that point up his weaknesses and poor judgement. His "Annie Oakley" remarks is so obviously misogynistic it is digusting. He like to say "Shame on Senator Clinton"? WELL SHAME WHERE IT BELONGS, ON OBAMA.
April 14, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm pretty sure you meant to go to hillaryis44.org.
That's where the crazies are.
April 14, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm from a small town in the middle of Illinois. Population 1200. Was I offended? No. Does my senator seem like an elitist to me? No. Actually, I thought how wonderful it was that someone has finally noticed that there is more to us besides the fried chicken, NASCAR, and "heartland" analogies. (We hate the term "heartland".) Finally there is someone who sees and understands. I met my Senator O in this same small town back in 2004 -- before he became known the world over. Even then I could sense his sencerity; I could tell that here was the real deal.
April 14, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink