« Polls: Obama Beating Hillary In Indiana And North Carolina | Home | Poll: Clinton Ahead By Nine Points In Pennsylvania »

Woman Who Broke "Small Town" Story Says Obama Campaign's Response Was "Classy"

The woman who broke the Obama "small town" story for The Huffington Post may have come under relentless fire from some Obama supporters after the news broke, but she has one word to describe the response she's since received from the Obama campaign itself: "Classy."

I just spoke briefly with the woman, Mayhill Fowler, and she said that though she created the worst and most sustained controversy for Obama since Jeremiah Wright's sermons surfaced, Obama campaign aides haven't directed any anger or punitive action in her direction.

"They haven't denied me any kind of access," Fowler said. "From the time I started following them around last June, they have been a classy operation, and I still think they are. They haven't treated me any differently than before."

Fowler rejected charges -- voiced in the blogosphere and elsewhere -- that she'd deliberately broken the story to harm Obama on Hillary's behalf.

"There are still a lot of conspiracy theories out there, that I'm a Clinton campaign plant. None of that is true," she said, adding that covering the campaign was a great pleasure that consumes her "24-7."

Fowler confirmed that a number of people shot the episode on their cellphones and at least one person filmed it with a video camera -- meaning that it's likely that video of the controversial comments themselves is still lurking out there.

One final tidbit: Fowler rejected the idea that the people Obama made his guns and religion remarks to were rich.

"I'm not sure that it's completely come out, but these were not really wealthy people."


203 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Thanks Mayhew and I have read you've gotten all kinds of nastiness for the question and I think that's wrong and that's what is ruining the potential of the internet for doing good.

You didn't deserve that and you made a very reasoned reply indeed.

Hey there, usually I'm in complete agreement with what you write, but I really think she deserved at least some of the flak she's been getting. I think alot of her offthebus reports have been, at best, deliberately sensational. I don't have time to jot down full thoughts right now -- I'll try and circle back around later and add more reason to my unsubstantiated slanders.

Fowler has shown much distain towards Obama. I have read her on Huff Post and concluded after only one article that she is a Clinton supporter. She is very selective and picky about stupid stuff regarding Obama and making it more than it is. I for one, do not believe her story. She has been out to get Obama for the most minor things with each article she writes. Besides, her credentials are sorely lacking, don't know how she even qualified to write on Huff Post. I think her bio is just pathetic.

All I know is that I can't decide whether the name Mayhill Fowler is the archetypal embodiment of New England Waspiness, a weirdly sensual porn appellation that evokes the light and dark side of sex, or a brand of dryer sheets.

user-pic

Mayhill Fowler? She's the one who writes soap opera scripts, right? Or, she could be the headliner at the porn show I sa.....uh....I mean the one I read about.

Seriously, she seems to have reported what she heard. I have no problem with that.

Hoppy: It isn't a matter of reporting what she heard, it is her "selective" reporting, always going for the non-story, just the sound bites and trying to make mountains out of mole hills to make HRC look better. This is her M.O., and as mentioned prior, her bio is pathetic.

user-pic

Sorry it's Mayhill.

God I sound like a geezer doing that shit all the time. I think it's a different kind of short term memory problem.

;)

We understand. You're 60 years old, it's 11 o'clock at night . . . these things happen

"I'm not sure that it's completely come out, but these were not really wealthy people."

Great. Maybe she could, you know, include it in her article.

Actually...it was HER article that gave off the impression of the people attending the fundraiser being wealthy. Now she is trying play dumb like it was an innocent article. It was a total hit piece and I'm not buying it.

"And when he spoke to a group of his wealthier Golden State backers at a San Francisco fund-raiser last Sunday, Barack Obama took a shot at explaining the yawning cultural gap that separates a Turkeyfoot from a Marin County."

"Obama made a problematic judgment call in trying to explain working class culture to a much wealthier audience."

Those are HER direct words...so for her to sit up there and act like she has no idea how people got that impression shows how disingenuous she is! She has no integrity and she her half-assed "reporting" is what started this whole mess.

user-pic

I hope people stop behaving like jerks with all the threats directed towards her. He's probably going to be able to use it to his advantage.

And that video of him answering the older white male who asked about "uppity" is great stuff.

BTW, readers--if you go to Huffington Post right now (6:19 PM EDT), I have to warn you: a very ugly visual will greet you.

I warned you.

user-pic

yea gods!
That is just SEVERE!

It should be pointed out that Mayhill Fowler is and has always been a strong Obama supporter. Why she chose to break the "bitter" story is anyone's guess. She is a very complex woman. Those who blamed the surfacing of this story on the Hillary camp were wrong.

I don't think anyone can say that's true or not with any certainty. She also has posted a blog at http://junehill.blogspot.com/ where she talks about how she will likely support Clinton (the entry is July 13, 2007). To say she "is and has always been an Obama" supporter isn't really known by anyone. I'm not saying it one way or the other either.

I did some reading and Googling last night to satisfy my own curiosity and didn't come up with anything certain. I'm trying to be fair about it, but I certainly had my own suspicions, especially after reading all of her entries.

Let me add that none of that excuses any threats now or ever. That's ridiculous.

She chose to report the story because she is a journalist.

As I posted below, Jay Rozen explains here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/the-uncharted-from-off-th_b_96575.html

I don't know. I think Jay Rosen talks mostly about himself in the longest blog entry known to man.

and also Rosen said that he was very disappointed TIMMY! on Meet the Press who did not credited her or the huff post - it sounded like he really got his feelings hurt. Aside, the way the headline was represented on the huff post, was misleading. If you were there for the whole thing and listened to Obama, the headline should have been something like, "Obama takes on the economic hardship of the small towns in PA."

Not wealthy people? Billionaires Row? And Arianna is off on Geffen's 450 foot yacht in Tahiti currently? Hard to imagine how the elitism tag is getting attached to Obama.

Simmons: Hard to imagine how the elitism tag is getting attached to Obama.

Yes, after all, the yacht is actually Obama's and Geffen is just borrowing it, right?

Did you ask her if she knew what kind of impact her report might have and, if so, what were her thoughts, being an Obama supporter?

Did you ask her if she, herself, considered the remark "elitist" or some such, or in any other way offensive?

The rest of the stuff you've reported is interesting. I'm surprised, and disappointed, it's all you got.

This is a testimonial to the supporters of Obama and to the gentleman himself. Contrast this to the mean spirited response of Clintonistas to those who dare cross them. Governor Richardson, for example, was mocked, slighted or dismissed. Way to go Big Guy. A politician can be strong and courteous at the same time. What a president he will be.

Class is what distinguishes the Obama campaign from that of Clinton.

Such became evident to me some months ago, before Edwards dropped out, when Axelrod, Trippi, and Penn appeared together on CNN. Axelrod and Trippi both came across as dignified and reasonable, while Penn presented his characteristic porcine, sneering, arrogant countenance.

Just in case you missed Jay Rozen's thoughtful rumination on the "uncharted", and conflicted, territory in which Ms. Fowler, an Obama supporter and contributor, as well as a reporter of the Obama campaign for the Huffington Post's Off the Bus division, found herself, you may find it here.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jay-rosen/the-uncharted-from-off-th_b_96575.html

Rozen also recounts how Tim Russert and other traditional media personalities took up the story without crediting Off the Bus or Fowler.

Porcine's the word, exactly. Good thinkin, Lincoln.

Fowler confirmed that a number of people shot the episode on their cellphones and at least one person filmed it with a video camera -- meaning that it's likely that video of the controversial comments themselves is still lurking out there.

*** Means they are not interested in damaging someone's campaign.Moreover,It seems like they are two kinds of people ,those like Mayhill who previously supported Edwards,are selfish & seeks fame & those who are by nature good people who are not going to post some BS to damage a candidate.Remeber folks this witch was writing that Obama was not Presidential because he ain't southern.

This is Mayhills first true thrust into the political limelight. She was known for her mumbling and grumbling about Obama's possibilities.

Before, her OfftheBus columns were just stuck in the "back of the newspaper" of Huffington. There, she was free to thumb her nose at Obama as the "minor" candidate always taking issue at small incidents and parsing. I believe that she was again looking to create a buzz by poking the proverbial nest but unleashed a full blown killer bee attack.

From her journals it's not far fetched to ssume she was a Clinton supporter. Many things she said I took great issue with because they described scenarios where a danger should be "foreseen" for Obama. She said things that really put me on Scooby alert.

The national attention shocked her, I believe, and she has not been featured in Huffpo since.

Good.

user-pic

Well I didn't have any background on her - I didn't know any of that.


You might want to read some of her posts. I did before I commented. In my opinion it was a *hit* on Obama....no question. She knew exactly what she was doing and there was nothing altruistic about it.

user-pic

I think she suffers from, and indeed actually projected onto Obama, the "elitism" she accuses him of having.

From her post last Thursday:

a well-educated work force with twenty-first century jobs will appraise the beautiful bones of Levittown and Bristol with an eye to tearing down the old tract houses

People live there, and she's talking about "well-educated" people razing Levittown homes in some dreamy vision of the future for her. Sounds pretty condescending to me.

user-pic

Well, I guess I'd be accused of being a mindless Obama-ite if I asked "Nedra, Nedra Pickler? Is that you?"
So I won't. Oops I just did. Damn, blogging is teh hardest...

user-pic
Well, I guess I'd be accused of being a mindless Obama-ite if I asked "Nedra, Nedra Pickler? Is that you?"

LOLOLOLOL!!!!!

The Pickle!

FreeBubba,

Come on!

You know Greg was looking for dirt.

Look at Mayhill's quoted responses and then imagine the questions that could provoke that response.

quasar,

I don't know to what extent her 'answers" may be correlated to Greg's questions, but it's an interesting question.

Whatever, this was a most disappointing "interview."

I am SO not buying Fowler's claims to be an Obama supporter. Has anyone read her stuff at HuffPost? She's been one of the few pro-Hillary voices over there since March. She broke this story for one reason and one reason only: to hurt Obama and help Clinton. In the end, this dust-up is going to hurt both of them. It will convince some people that Obama is an urban elitist. And Hillary's Annie Oakley routine will convince others that she is a say-anything-do-anything hypocrite. Thanks Mayhill! Good work!

am SO not buying Fowler's claims to be an Obama supporter. Has anyone read her stuff at HuffPost? She's been one of the few pro-Hillary voices over there since March.

Apparently, you've misse the Taylor Marsh blogs on HuffPo. Obama-hating bullcrap that makes gotalife appear intelligent.

user-pic

The only people who think the remarks are 'controversial' are GOP and Clinton boosters and chattering class hacks.

I thank you for saying that

Bingo.

"Don't you know, peons, just how offended you should be?!?"

Give me a break. Onward to the GE.
Obama '08

Bingo.

"Don't you know, peons, just how offended you should be?!?"

Give me a break. Onward to the GE.
Obama '08

user-pic
I am SO not buying Fowler's claims to be an Obama supporter. Has anyone read her stuff at HuffPost? She's been one of the few pro-Hillary voices over there since March

That's my problem here - I haven't.

You should check it out -- it's a strangle little imbroglio.

Here's my favorite humorous commentary, which I won't link to, from Bill Kristol in the NY Times on Monday. He's talking about how Obama looks down on the common man, and actually uses this phrase:

"And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans?"

Hauteur? It's hilarious. It's the snobbiest "you're a snob" accusation I've ever seen.

user-pic

Don't you get it? The American People are screaming for an end to hauteur? In fact, it the War on Hauteur is among the top three issues to Joe and Jane Sixpack along with elimination of the Estate Tax and an end to environmental regulation.

user-pic

oops, stray question mark. i meant: "The American People are screaming for an end to hauteur!!!!!!!!111111"

Don't forget an end to superciliousness, too.

I'd really like to see Kristol throwing down a shot and a beer in Western PA, making his case for the end of hauteur, in the most calmly measured expression of willful dishonesty known to man.

user-pic

Why does anyone even listen to Kristol any more?

I always loved how Al Franken, on his old Air America show, would take pains to play Kristol's pre-war interview with Terry Gross -- as often as possible. The snootiness with which Kristol brushed away any concerns that the Shia and Sunni might not get along (as "pop psychology") should have had him banished from the punditry forever. Franken would just keep playing that clip, in the vain hope that anyone talking to Kristol in the future would ask him "How could you say that?!"

You'd think helping lead America into the Iraq quagmire might give the man just a little bit of humility. No sirree.

user-pic

I actually commented on her piece when I read it. I thought it was thoughtful and beautifully written. I was really shocked when I learned that people had taken offense at what Obama had said. Of course, that was before I turned on CNN and learned that there was necromancy involved. Leave it to the Clinton campaign...

user-pic

"Classy."

When was the last time anyone used the word "classy" to describe Hillary's campaign?

Or for that matter Hillary herself?

Hey Greg, I just posted all the related links to the story and looks like the comment is being held for your approval -- I'm not spamming, I swear.

user-pic

Ugh.

On 11/4/2007, Mayhill Fowler, after attending two Fred Thompson fundraisers and a press conference, wrote in her HuffPo column (paraphrasing) that she would never put her name down next to Thompson's (political support-wise).

Four days later, on 11/8/2007, the FEC recorded a $250 donation from Mayhill Fowler to Fred Thompson.

Donations seem to be Fowler's idea of palm-greasing for access, totally unethical.

An article in today's LA Times notes that she has donated nearly $2,300 to Obama's campaign:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/la-na-bitterweb15apr15,0,6695410.story

Is this woman very rich?

From the aforementioned article:

"Fowler, who is married to a lawyer and has two daughters in graduate school, said she began writing at 50. She has written a thriller, a mystery novel and a nonfiction account of caring for her ailing mother-in-law -- all unpublished."

Elitism, huh?

Pot, kettle.

user-pic

Yes, when I looked up her donation history the other day, in addition to the chump change she gave to Thompson, she had given four donations totalling $2,000 to Obama ($250 on 9/27/2007, $1,000 on 1/25/2008, and two donations totalling $750 on 2/19/2008).

user-pic
Hauteur? It's hilarious. It's the snobbiest "you're a snob" accusation I've ever seen.

Isn't it the very definition of irony that Kristol is accusing someone else of Elitism?

This is the same neo-con who has been telling us for years that he knows better than we do what's good for us.

What a fucking joke. It's like Republicans still claiming only they can be trusted with the economy.

[rolls eyes]

It doesn't surprise me at all that the campaign has behaved in a classy fashion toward her; I've been volunteering at the Pittsburgh office and these kids are just so upbeat and always on message. They don't waste time complaining or bad-mouthing anyone.

As far as Fowler goes, my antenna went up when I read that she was troubled by Obama's remarks, thought they were "not right", and felt compelled to report on an event that was supposed to be closed to journalists. That tells me she didn't understand what he said and chose to give it the worst possible connotation; being offended is really a choice, after all. I've said it before, I thought what Obama said was empathetic, not elitist, and he was being understanding about why folks would vote against their best interests, not putting them down at all!

Classy? That's good news, but it's really too bad his blog supporters can't follow suit. About all his bloglodites seem to do is bad-mouth Hillary and McCain and anyone that doesn't support Obama.

Also most of us, including Fowler, are perfectly capable of understanding what Obama said. It seems more likely that people such as yourself don't understand what the criticism is of Obama's comments. The general focus of the criticism is on the WAY he said it, with an implicit suggestion that those folks' values were mindlessly driven by their economic circumstances. To put a one-word label on it, it was SNOBBY.

I don't know. I think it comes down to whether or not you WANT to understand what he was talking about. If you think Obama is insightful, you'll give him the benefit of the doubt. If you're looking for ammo, you found it.

I would rather hear whether or not people find an articulate rendering of the actual argument to be snobby. Is there a point to be made about politics and voting or not? All this elitist/not elitist bullshit is just stupid.

Wow, a decent and fair reply, sort of like a diamond in the rough here. I'll respond by saying that if any people don't understand what he said, then they probably don't understand what the criticism is about either. Conversely, I think that anyone who does criticise what he said as elitist more than likely can manage to understand what he meant. It wasn't quantum physics or string theory by any means.

I'll risk oversimplification, but a lot of voting may come down to gut reactions to the candidates. If you like one of them, you tend to rationalize everything they say, and if you don't like them, you look for faults in everything they say and do. I suppose you've noticed that a lot of people say that they just hate Hillary, period. That's a gut reaction. So I think it's also valid for someone (maybe like me) to be a little put off by Snobama at a gut level.

Thanks, I'll keep with the tone if you will.

"Conversely, I think that anyone who does criticise what he said as elitist more than likely can manage to understand what he meant. It wasn't quantum physics or string theory by any means." I'm with you on this logic, but the implication is that noone is criticizing by implying an ulterior motive behind his words. Maybe I'm not being clear, but let me see if I can say it more directly.

Is the implication that Obama is secretly a snob and doesn't understand or care about poor people? I, really, want to hear the argument, because as a long-time supporter (used to live in Chicago), I find that accusation really out there.

Well, I'll grant you that sometimes smart people don't come off too well, as being a little aloof or snooby, etc. I think Al Gore is a pretty sharp guy, but his sighs and demeanor in the Bush debates didn't help him a lot. So maybe that's the case with Obama.

But on the other hand, is it so wrong to judge someone by what they say (and how they say it)? That does convey a lot of information about them. Assume someone says something really off-the-charts outrageous. His supporters could point out that he has a long history to the contrary. But a cynic could still wonder if maybe he didn't mean exactly what he said, and that maybe he was a little phony and two-faced during his previous history, i.e. intentionally putting up a front with an ambitious long-term goal in mind. Sort of like Bill Clinton was thinking ahead to how his draft decisions would look years down the road when he was in politics.

This site is getting really slow. Must be a lot of "nonpartisan" venom and hatred today.

See me downthread. Can't deal with the indentations.

user-pic

I think the way Hillary went after this - lies and whiskey and guns shots and all - was so revolting and despical and dishonest I have no apologies for badmouthing her. As far as I'm concerned she's scum. And if that makes me a troglodyte or a blogrodyte or even dogrodyte I couldn't care less.

To repeat - she's scum.

user-pic

Holy shit - don't anyone go over to HuffPo right now - the picture on the front page will scare you to death.

They did a computerized image of Hillary and Himmary's faces into one face.

AIYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

user-pic

I warned you.

user-pic

Yeah, she says she's always been an Obama supporter, but if you've read her pieces at huffingtonpost, that's very difficult to buy. They don't simply seem like critiques; they seem like hit pieces.

Or, maybe she's just for Mayhill. If so, I guess she got her 15 minutes of fame.

She's a journalist in the style of so many others... the story has a clear bias and drives the readers to conclusions that the rest of the audience didn't share.

It's called a "hatchit job" and now we all know what kind of support Obama can expect.

I'm glad to see they took the high road. I'd like to know how she funds the travel involved to "follow" Obama;s campaign.

I still see a conspriracy... Hillary had "I'm not bitter" stickers the day after she posted. Will she swear that the HP reader was the first person to see her text? Would she swear to that in court?

Did she also support Fred Thompson when she gave his campaign money. Potentially to gain "undisclosed" access to "supporter" events?

Once we KNOW you're a journalist then we can filter the text through the usual processing.

I expect she'll have a career from this... but I wouldn't expect an Pulitzer.

Read her prior work... judge for yourself:

http://junehill.blogspot.com/2007/07/hillary-clinton-wellesley-girl.html

She's a wanna-be without any training i the craft of reporting. So many of us are. 15 minutes is a lot of fame.

It wasn't classy of her to bring a tape recorder to a closed to the media event. Bet they start checking handbags at fundraisers from now on.

"The worst and most sustained controversy since Wright ?" Huh ? Have you seen the polls today. Voters don't care about this media-concocted story. Bittergate didn't make any dent in his numbers. Today his national lead in Gallup is the biggest ever. He's up in Indiana and NC and Now Bloomberg poll has him gaining ground in PA.

As for the SUSA poll, he's even trending upwards there.

Joseph Palermo has a blogpost on Mayhill Fowler dated April 12th, on his "Faux Obama supporter" colleague at the Huffingtonpost.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/faux-obama-supporter-mayh_b_96379.html

user-pic

Yeah, that whole cocky thing that Camp Hillary folks have been floating forever (a nicer way to say "uppity"). Fowler seems to have found her vehicle to push that angle along even further.

And then Palermo is totally right when he notes...

Fowler is the one who is out of touch with the plight of average working people, not Obama as she claims.

As a Californian myself, I thought the same thing when I read her piece: What world does she come from to think that the CA economy has just been humming along without missing a beat, without any hardship anywhere, without massive foreclosures across the state? I guess if you can afford to fly around the country on a volunteer blog gig in between writing non-published books, you might yourself have a "smug sense of superiority" and yet consciously or unconsciously attribute that to others like Obama.

I read the Huffington Post every day. It has always been my impression that Mayflower has a slight Obama bias.

Joe: I feel just the opposite. I felt she was totally in bed with HRC.

And there you have it: a tie.

Classy? That's good news, but it's really too bad his blog supporters can't follow suit. About all his bloglodites seem to do is bad-mouth Hillary and McCain and anyone that doesn't support Obama.
McCitizen---

Red is blue. White is black. Up is down.

Come on.

No one has done more for the Huffington Post than Barack Obama.

user-pic
Classy? That's good news, but it's really too bad his blog supporters can't follow suit. About all his bloglodites seem to do is bad-mouth Hillary and McCain and anyone that doesn't support ObamaYeah and all you guys do is bash Obama in between constant whining about how badly treated both you and your candidate are.

It's really tiresome.

Vermont Teddy Bear wishes to announce that next week they will release their new Hillary Pander Bear model dressed in a Kevlar Camouflage Pantsuit.

They expect that it will be a hot item with all those elated unemployed small town Americans with money to burn.

It is a limited edition item, destined to be a collectors item, and a bargain at only $199.99 plus S&H.

Don't be too late. Order your very own Clingy The Pander Bear now. Slick operators are standing by to handle you.

Haaaaa!!! :) I like you, liam.

user-pic

O dammit.

Plus, I cannot for the life of me understand what makes you Clinton supporters think we are supposed to agree with McCain?

You nitwit - we are running AGAINST McCAin.

Sad, she thinks a Presidential candidate insults the voters then refuses to apologize is classy.

Then she lies about the donors not being wealthy because that exposes Obama lying about not taking their money.

She belongs at the Obama Post with nothing but hate and lies about the Clintons.

Sad.

user-pic

try that again

Classy? That's good news, but it's really too bad his blog supporters can't follow suit. About all his bloglodites seem to do is bad-mouth Hillary and McCain and anyone that doesn't support Obama


Now for the answer: all you people do is bash Obama in between whining constantly about how mistreated both you and your candidate are.

You are outnumbered on this board. Tough damn luck, that.

Would it then be fair to surmise that on swearing-in day, when Obama levitates up into the air, rising above partisanship and revealing his true wondrousness to all doubters, you bloglodites will still be down there in the partisan gutter?

Sorry, but a campaign that makes such a big fucking deal out of nonpartisanship and uniting everyone, and then all of you people are posting 24 hours a day like deranged Bush supporters on speed, it just seems a little surreal, that's all.

McCitizen to the rescue!

Hillary's Top Gun in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed. Rendell said this about White Pennsylvania voters, on February 12, 2008, in an on the record interview.

Why did Hillary not chastise her Top Gun for talking about White people, in such 'an elitist way". Hypocrite, thy name is HilAnny Oakley Clinton.

Here is what Rendell said about White voters in his state;

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

Hillary's Top Gun in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed. Rendell said this about White Pennsylvania voters, on February 12, 2008, in an on the record interview.

Why did Hillary not chastise her Top Gun for talking about White people, in such 'an elitist way". Hypocrite, thy name is HillAnry Oakley Clinton.

Here is what Rendell said about White voters in his state;

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

Hillary's Top Gun in Pennsylvania, Governor Ed. Rendell said this about White Pennsylvania voters, on February 12, 2008, in an on the record interview.

Why did Hillary not chastise her Top Gun for talking about White people, in such 'an elitist way". Hypocrite, thy name is HillAnry Oakley Clinton.

Here is what Rendell said about White voters in his state;

Tuesday, February 12, 2008
By Tony Norman, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette


Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. Our eyes only met briefly, perhaps because the governor wanted to spare the only black guy in the room from feeling self-conscious for backing an obvious loser. "I believe, looking at the returns in my election, that had Lynn Swann [2006 Republican gubernatorial candidate] been the identical candidate that he was --well-spoken [note: Mr. Rendell did not call the brother "articulate"], charismatic, good-looking -- but white instead of black, instead of winning by 22 points, I would have won by 17 or so."

I know I have a habit of sometimes zoning out in these meetings, but it sounded to me like Mr. Rendell had unilaterally declared Pennsylvania to be Alabama circa 1963. Was he suggesting that Pennsylvanians are uniquely racist in ways that folks in the states Mr. Obama has won so far aren't? By the way, Mr. Obama won Alabama on Super Tuesday, thank you very much!

Third time is the charm.

I realize Hillary must have acknowledged long ago that she probably has lost the nomination absent a major fall from Obama. But, I cannot help wondering why she has adopted a strategy that has little possibility of benefiting her in the span of the primary season. The strategy of recurring negatively loaded codes are intended to build Obama's negatives, but it requires employing multiple memes to recur and reinforce each other over the long term.

It is a kind of very aggressive whisper campaign and it can be very damaging - Eluding again and again to a family of coded memes. In this campaign Hillary has chosen "religious intolerance" (whether it is about a Muslim Identity or Rev Wright), "racial intolerance", "nationalist sentiments", and now cultural "Elitism".

I can not help but wonder if she is intentionally setting this up for a Republican 527 campaign to continue the dirty work against Obama, while allowing McCain to build a positive image for himself in the general?

I realize Hillary must have acknowledged long ago that she probably has lost the nomination absent a major fall from Obama. But, I cannot help wondering why she has adopted a strategy that has little possibility of benefiting her in the span of the primary season. The strategy of recurring negatively loaded codes are intended to build Obama's negatives, but it requires employing multiple memes to recur and reinforce each other over the long term.

It is a kind of very aggressive whisper campaign and it can be very damaging - Eluding again and again to a family of coded memes. In this campaign Hillary has chosen "religious intolerance" (whether it is about a Muslim Identity or Rev Wright), "racial intolerance", "nationalist sentiments", and now cultural "Elitism".

I can not help but wonder if she is intentionally setting this up for a Republican 527 campaign to continue the dirty work against Obama, while allowing McCain to build a positive image for himself in the general?

I thought you guys weren't worried about the Republicans. I thought Obama was going to crush McCain in the GE.

I agree with you.

I don't mind an attack dog. I mind an attack dog that clothes the attack in lofty pretension.

"Journalists" print facts, all the facts, and before they run a "story" (if that's what we're calling this) they contact the speaker and offer a chance to clarify statements.

She did none of that.

Hack.

I hope she enjoys her new-found fame.

user-pic

I read (I think Huffpo) that Fowler claims her great-grandfather was Andrew Jackson's Rove. First, in what sense? Second, can someone verify this?

With friends like her, who needs GOP?

She's terrible. I'm sure the Obama camp is classy, and they have always been perhaps too nice for American politics.

But she doesn't deserves this at all. McCain would have kicked her off the bus long ago, and the MSM would be fine with that. That's why the McCain press corp is so Stockholm syndrome like.

You should ask her:

*why she donated to Fred Thompson, I don't see a lot of overlap

*why she pretended to be a "donor" and then broke the rules by being a reporter

*why she didn't follow up with the candidate or ask for audience reactions like reporters do.

*why she sat on the story for a week

*why her articles were always sneering of Obama -- repeatedly labeling Obama "cocky" " flirting", moneygrubbing, etc. just for doing the usual politicking.

Greg, I'm glad you talked to her, but if she was a plant, would she tell you? I don't think so. All of her protests go up against the facts of her slanted, smear-laden articles, her suspicious donor activity, her violation of journalistic ethics, and her past remarks on her old blog. She's a liar.

We have reached a sort of Twilight Zone in America, where we are surrounded by lies and the press just acts like stenographers. Bush repeatedly assures us "we do not torture" while torturing, and the press nods and jots it down. Headline next day: "Bush says US doesn't torture". Bullshit accomplished.

I agree with you.

I don't mind an attack dog. I mind an attack dog that clothes the attack in lofty pretension.

"Journalists" print facts, all the facts, and before they run a "story" (if that's what we're calling this) they contact the speaker and offer a chance to clarify statements.

She did none of that.

Hack.

I hope she enjoys her new-found fame.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/18714/thumbs/r-MORPH-huge.jpg


Picture of Hillary and McCain after their Vodka shots binge contest.

user-pic
you people are posting 24 hours a day like deranged Bush supporters on speed, it just seems a little surreal, that's all.

Where do you think you are? This is a comments board; this is where people come and post comments. It's open all day.

What is your problem and most importantly - what are you doing here unless you want to post day and night about Hillary?

Please. You can't stand in the middle of the swamp and accuse us of being alligators.

Hillary and McCain aren't campaigning as new, non-partisan politicians, and their supporters aren't going on and on about how wonderful they are for doing so. And the candidate who IS campaigning on that stuff has jillions of little bloglodites (look, there goes one crawling now!) posting hatred 24 hours a day. Can you really not see some irony there?

user-pic

Do you see anything funny about supporting candidates who would readily concede (if they were honest) that they are part of the same old political battles of the past and don't even aspire to anything new?

From CBS News: Looks like Hillary is being put on the pay no mind list. Very sad; she now has come to the point where she is just talking to herself.


From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:

PHILADELPHIA -- Hillary Clinton was forced to cut her normal stump speech short when a chatty and meddlesome crowd kept her from grasping their attention. Clinton, who was addressing the Philadelphia County Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, spoke for just over five minutes, despite having the press arrive almost two hours beforehand.

The crowd never settled down during her remarks. A spokesman for Clinton denied that she cut the speech short, and told reporters that Clinton was advised by her Pennsylvania team to deliver “a short speech" given the set up of the event.

In previous party dinners, most recently in Butte, Mt., Clinton spoke for almost an hour to a crowd that seemed to be paying attention. The aide said this was a “different type” of J-J Dinner, primarily because people were not seated at tables, and were “milling around” the banquet hall.

Whether or not Clinton’s reception at the dinner had anything to do with her recent attacks on Barack Obama remains unclear. Clinton has never delivered a formal speech in such a short amount of time. The most recent abbreviated speech was back on February 15 when Clinton spoke to a crowd at a Lockheed Martin plant in Akron, Ohio. The speech lasted for just 12 minutes, with the first applause line coming 11 minutes into the speech.

From : The New Republic

Woe Is He by John B. Judis

Barack Obama's going to be the bitter one at the end of this.
Post Date Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama's fundraising speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last week. But that's wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.

To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can't carry Florida--and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.

Some Democrats insist that Obama need not worry about these states because he will be able to make up for a defeat in Ohio or even Pennsylvania with a victory in Virginia or Colorado. But in Virginia, McCain will be able to draw upon coastal suburbanites closely tied to the military. These voters backed Democrats like Chuck Robb and Jim Webb, who are both veterans, but they may not go for Obama. And in the Southwest, McCain will be able to challenge Obama among Hispanics. So to win in November, Obama will have to win almost all of these heartland states. Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters "clinging" to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region. A look at the white working class's relationship with earlier Democratic candidates underscores the various reasons why.

Many white working class voters in these states used to be loyal Democrats. The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, swept Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Many of these voters have always been highly patriotic, church-going hunters who were skeptical about the benefits of trade and immigration and--what Obama did not mention--black political assertiveness. But they still distrust Republicans as the defenders of business and look up to Democrats (or at least some Democrats) as being more in tune with average Americans like themselves.

Democrats have won over these voters when their advantage on the economy has come to the fore. And they've lost these voters when their positions on the economy--or national security--were not sufficiently compelling to overcome the Republican advantage on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, or gun control. Why? Because with the exception of a few rabid single-issue voters, the white working class hasn't simply displaced its economic anxiety, or bitterness, onto God, guns, and gay marriage; they're actually quite concerned about the economy.

Historically, there are three circumstances in which Democrats have been able to win over these voters:

The Unacceptable Republican: Republicans have run candidates with whom white working class voters have not been able to identity--either because of their backgrounds, beliefs, or actions. In 2006 that was obviously true of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell--an African American and a far right zealot--and Montana Senator Conrad Burns, who was linked to former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The Acceptable Democrat: The Democrats have sometimes run candidates in these states who are sufficiently moderate on guns, abortion, and religion to neutralize the Republican appeal on these issues. That was the case with Pennsylvania pro-life Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey, who defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in 2006.

The Empathetic Democrat: The Democrats have run a candidate who can connect with these voters in spite of his or her beliefs on abortion and guns. Pollsters try to get at this by asking voters whether a candidate "cares about people like me." Sometimes, voters will think a candidate cares about them because they think he is "one of them." Bill Clinton, of course, was a genius at this. He could be the candidate of Hope, Arkansas, and Yale Law School. Other Democrats have succeeded because they have come off as a father (or mother) figure, who, although from the upper class, still cares about the average American.

If you look at the upcoming presidential election in this light, the Democratic prospects do not appear to be good. McCain is an acceptable Republican--a war hero and a reputed moderate. (His greatest inherent liability, which could make him unacceptable regardless of his ideas or background, is his age.) Both Democratic candidates, whatever their protestations, are seen as coming out of the party's liberal wing on guns and abortion.

That leaves the possibility that these voters will see the Democratic candidate as either "one of them," or as a father or mother figure who understands their plight. Both candidates clearly have problems on these scores, but Obama's may be even more severe than Clinton's. As an African American, he has one strike against him, as has become apparent even in the Democratic primary exit polls. He has tried to appear above race, but he will continually be reminded of his ties to Jeremiah Wright (and his not wearing a flag on his lapel, and his wife's statements about not being "proud" of America) during a general election.

Obama comes from a modest background and has tried to appeal as a candidate of both Harvard Law School and Chicago's Back-of-the-Yards, where he organized laid-off steel workers, but he hasn't been able to pull it off. His manner, his tenor, and his diction are Harvard Law, and when he starts dropping his 'g's," he sounds strained. And Obama is too young, and lacks the stature, to appear as a Franklin Roosevelt-style father figure.

Obama does have an astounding eloquence, and an ability to put a position across, but that eloquence has been reserved largely for anti-war and good-government positions. His stance against the war may resonate (though that will depend on whether McCain's qualification as commander-in-chief trumps his unpopular stance on the war). But where McCain is most vulnerable and where voters are most likely to smile on a Democrat--on everyday economic issues--Obama's heart doesn't appear to be in it.

These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they're much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters' opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological--a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called "false consciousness." On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade--Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement--he was simply pandering to these voters' displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, "I am really one of you, and I am not one of them."

There is even a slight chance that Obama's words in San Francisco could cost him the nomination. Obama is almost certain to have more elected delegates in June than Hillary Clinton, but if he loses Pennsylvania by 15 percentage points (which is not out of the question), that could start a media firestorm around his candidacy that could contribute to other primary defeats and to superdelegate support for Clinton. It's not likely to happen, but after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters' hearts, in San Francisco, it has suddenly become conceivable.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

From : The New Republic

Woe Is He by John B. Judis

Barack Obama's going to be the bitter one at the end of this.

Post Date Tuesday, April 15, 2008

Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama's fundraising speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last week. But that's wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama's pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.

To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can't carry Florida--and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.

Some Democrats insist that Obama need not worry about these states because he will be able to make up for a defeat in Ohio or even Pennsylvania with a victory in Virginia or Colorado. But in Virginia, McCain will be able to draw upon coastal suburbanites closely tied to the military. These voters backed Democrats like Chuck Robb and Jim Webb, who are both veterans, but they may not go for Obama. And in the Southwest, McCain will be able to challenge Obama among Hispanics. So to win in November, Obama will have to win almost all of these heartland states. Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters "clinging" to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region. A look at the white working class's relationship with earlier Democratic candidates underscores the various reasons why.

Many white working class voters in these states used to be loyal Democrats. The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, swept Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Many of these voters have always been highly patriotic, church-going hunters who were skeptical about the benefits of trade and immigration and--what Obama did not mention--black political assertiveness. But they still distrust Republicans as the defenders of business and look up to Democrats (or at least some Democrats) as being more in tune with average Americans like themselves.

Democrats have won over these voters when their advantage on the economy has come to the fore. And they've lost these voters when their positions on the economy--or national security--were not sufficiently compelling to overcome the Republican advantage on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, or gun control. Why? Because with the exception of a few rabid single-issue voters, the white working class hasn't simply displaced its economic anxiety, or bitterness, onto God, guns, and gay marriage; they're actually quite concerned about the economy.

Historically, there are three circumstances in which Democrats have been able to win over these voters:

The Unacceptable Republican: Republicans have run candidates with whom white working class voters have not been able to identity--either because of their backgrounds, beliefs, or actions. In 2006 that was obviously true of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell--an African American and a far right zealot--and Montana Senator Conrad Burns, who was linked to former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The Acceptable Democrat: The Democrats have sometimes run candidates in these states who are sufficiently moderate on guns, abortion, and religion to neutralize the Republican appeal on these issues. That was the case with Pennsylvania pro-life Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey, who defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in 2006.

The Empathetic Democrat: The Democrats have run a candidate who can connect with these voters in spite of his or her beliefs on abortion and guns. Pollsters try to get at this by asking voters whether a candidate "cares about people like me." Sometimes, voters will think a candidate cares about them because they think he is "one of them." Bill Clinton, of course, was a genius at this. He could be the candidate of Hope, Arkansas, and Yale Law School. Other Democrats have succeeded because they have come off as a father (or mother) figure, who, although from the upper class, still cares about the average American.

If you look at the upcoming presidential election in this light, the Democratic prospects do not appear to be good. McCain is an acceptable Republican--a war hero and a reputed moderate. (His greatest inherent liability, which could make him unacceptable regardless of his ideas or background, is his age.) Both Democratic candidates, whatever their protestations, are seen as coming out of the party's liberal wing on guns and abortion.

That leaves the possibility that these voters will see the Democratic candidate as either "one of them," or as a father or mother figure who understands their plight. Both candidates clearly have problems on these scores, but Obama's may be even more severe than Clinton's. As an African American, he has one strike against him, as has become apparent even in the Democratic primary exit polls. He has tried to appear above race, but he will continually be reminded of his ties to Jeremiah Wright (and his not wearing a flag on his lapel, and his wife's statements about not being "proud" of America) during a general election.

Obama comes from a modest background and has tried to appeal as a candidate of both Harvard Law School and Chicago's Back-of-the-Yards, where he organized laid-off steel workers, but he hasn't been able to pull it off. His manner, his tenor, and his diction are Harvard Law, and when he starts dropping his 'g's," he sounds strained. And Obama is too young, and lacks the stature, to appear as a Franklin Roosevelt-style father figure.

Obama does have an astounding eloquence, and an ability to put a position across, but that eloquence has been reserved largely for anti-war and good-government positions. His stance against the war may resonate (though that will depend on whether McCain's qualification as commander-in-chief trumps his unpopular stance on the war). But where McCain is most vulnerable and where voters are most likely to smile on a Democrat--on everyday economic issues--Obama's heart doesn't appear to be in it.

These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they're much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters' opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological--a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called "false consciousness." On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade--Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement--he was simply pandering to these voters' displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, "I am really one of you, and I am not one of them."

There is even a slight chance that Obama's words in San Francisco could cost him the nomination. Obama is almost certain to have more elected delegates in June than Hillary Clinton, but if he loses Pennsylvania by 15 percentage points (which is not out of the question), that could start a media firestorm around his candidacy that could contribute to other primary defeats and to superdelegate support for Clinton. It's not likely to happen, but after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters' hearts, in San Francisco, it has suddenly become conceivable.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

Holy crap, dude. A link would suffice.

Thanks, Otto. Nice counterpoint to liam.

user-pic

Yeah The New Republican - oops - The New Republic has me shaking in my shoes.

Whoa - is this true:

As the wife of attorney James C. Fowler (a UCSB undergrad; UC Berkley J.D. circa 1968), a Mc Cain supporter and boat lover who owns a 43 foot yacht via some kind of revokable trust he established, and who is a partner with the prestigious firm Bingham & McClutchen, which list's Mehran's firm as a client on it's website, specializes in real estate law, does work in the energy sector, and who's clients also ocassionaly include people who buy military bases that have been closed, Mayhill Fowler inhabits that rarified air of the truly rich and truly elite. Evidently the irony was lost on this Wesley Girl, who married so well, when she wrote her article disparaging Barack Obama as an "elitist".

From CBS News: Looks like Hillary is being put on the pay no mind list. Very sad; she now has come to the point where she is just talking to herself.


From CBS News' Fernando Suarez:

PHILADELPHIA -- Hillary Clinton was forced to cut her normal stump speech short when a chatty and meddlesome crowd kept her from grasping their attention. Clinton, who was addressing the Philadelphia County Democratic Party's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner, spoke for just over five minutes, despite having the press arrive almost two hours beforehand.

The crowd never settled down during her remarks. A spokesman for Clinton denied that she cut the speech short, and told reporters that Clinton was advised by her Pennsylvania team to deliver “a short speech" given the set up of the event.

In previous party dinners, most recently in Butte, Mt., Clinton spoke for almost an hour to a crowd that seemed to be paying attention. The aide said this was a “different type” of J-J Dinner, primarily because people were not seated at tables, and were “milling around” the banquet hall.

Whether or not Clinton’s reception at the dinner had anything to do with her recent attacks on Barack Obama remains unclear. Clinton has never delivered a formal speech in such a short amount of time. The most recent abbreviated speech was back on February 15 when Clinton spoke to a crowd at a Lockheed Martin plant in Akron, Ohio. The speech lasted for just 12 minutes, with the first applause line coming 11 minutes into the speech.

The Obama campaign is now sad and embarrasing for him.

Lets do something constructive:

C&L Action Alert: Over 80,000 letters sent on Torture. Going for 100K:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/15/cl-action-alert-over-80000-letters-sent-on-torture-going-for-100k/#comments

Slow news week for the political hack media.

Just another demonstration on how he would govern.

I just had to share this. Not related to the current string, but hopefully TPM will pick it up.
Apparently older voters don't like Obama because he's not heaping praise on Bill Clinton's time in office. Just ask Bill Clinton himself! He'll tell you.
God, could he become more of a caricature of the egomaniac singularly bent on protecting his own legacy at any cost any more than he already is??? Come on, Bill, tell us what your wife's campaign is REALLY about. Sheesh.

Listen to the man in his own words:

“Because once you’ve reached a certain age, you won’t sit there and listen to somebody tell you there’s really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there’s not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.”

And to think how much water I carried for this self-serving jackass for so many years.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/04/15/b-clinton-older-voters-aren’t-falling-for-obama/

Some frank talk on Race from a White Southern Republican Woman and her Mother. It is truly an amazing story. Go to the link to read the entire article. It is worth your while to do so.

http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/stories/2008/04/12/roommate_0413.html

Published on: 04/13/08

Catherine Donnelly shopped at Kmart, settled into her dorm room and soaked up the Gothic stone buildings where, over the next four years, she would grow into her own woman.

But her first day at Princeton held a surprise, too. And Donnelly knew it would mean confronting the past.


She walked into the historic Nassau Inn that evening and delivered the news to her mother, Alice Brown. "I was horrified," recalled Brown, who had driven her daughter up from New Orleans. Brown stormed down to the campus housing office and demanded Donnelly be moved to another room.

The reason: One of her roommates was black.

ATTN McCitizen:

Ok, as someone who comes off as reasoned, do me a favor and break this down for me. Here's the full paragraph of the dynamite quote:

"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, 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."

I didn't post the paragraphs preceding or proceeding or the context of the question. Let's just look at the actual words. Let me ask you, honestly, to break down for me, if this is REALLY revealing of some horrible elitism or snobbitude or just a poorly worded explanation that people find reasons to not vote in their own economic interest because they don't believe it's going to matter?

Well, he's going along nicely with typical politician-speak, until that last sentence. It is getting pretty psychoanalytical on his part, isn't it? He sort of has those small-town people on the couch. He says that these people have frustrations, and that for example they might arrive at an anti-immigration position as a means of dealing with it. So put yourself in the shoes of the people he's talking about. If you're anti-immigrant, or extremely religious, or very pro-gun rights, Obama is saying that your mind did not arrive at those positions rationally, but that you came to hold those positions out of deep frustrations that you can't otherwise deal with at an intellectual level. He's saying "Oh, you're anti-immigrant. That's an invalid position. You're really just trying to somehow express your frustration at your economic plight, but your mind can't deal with that on those terms." And the person might just answer "No, I'm just anti-immigrant, and I can think for myself without help from you, thanks."

I do think that's a fair read if you're already suspicious of Obama, but I think there's another fair reading, too, which would go something like this.

He's not saying they're voting anti-immigration or anti-trade because they're stupid and don't realize what they're doing, he's saying they're voting anti-immigration or anti-trade because that's the only part of their own economic interest they belive they can actually affect. All other things equal, if the piece of the pie open to them is small, which I think we can reasonably say it is, then of course they'd prefer no one else compete for the only jobs left. Fair?

Of course, the people he was talking about may not know they've been insulted. And I may have just insulted them there myself. But I'm not running for office.

user-pic

You know, your objections to what Obama said and your cynicism about what it meant would be justified if he was not on videotape from 2004 expressing the same sentiments only instead saying, paraphrased, "folks in these economically ravaged communities have given up on the idea that anyone in government is ever going to address their economic concerns. And so they vote on issues related to religion, guns, etc. to hold on to what they have left, since they know no one is going to help them economically." And then goes on to talk about how the Democratic Party needs to really address those economic issues for these folks.

The video is widely available; in fact it was posted on TPM's main page just a couple of days ago. I think any fair-minded person who saw that video clip, either before this nontroversy cropped up or after, would conclude that Obama was trying to express the exact same idea in his impromptu comments in San Francisco, which were made in response to a question asked him by a campaign volunteer who was going to go knock doors for him in PA. Could it have been worded better? Sure. But the same idea is there in both sets of comments; only prior bias would lead anyone who has seen/heard both sets of comments to interpret the San Francisco comments negatively.

So go look up that clip, watch it, then come back and tell us again how Obama is a snobby elitist.

user-pic

“Because once you’ve reached a certain age, you won’t sit there and listen to somebody tell you there’s really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there’s not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.”
I don't think wrecking the Clinton years a very good thing for either Hillary or Obama. What is wrong with BC's remark here? It is true. It is understandable and it is essentially what the Democrats must convey. I cannot imagine the joy all this trashing of Bill Clinton gives Rove and the boys. If the Democrats lose in Nov it will be largely sentiments like yours that caused a it...and ensure it happening again. You may not see the importance of refreshing the minds of America about the Clinton years...but I sure do. Hint: Bush's years don't compare well to them.

OMG...it looks like Chuckie!

But really--it's a very creepy image. I scrolled down quickly.

If you really believe that Fowler is an Obama supporter, then you must admit she's not a very intelligent one. Another of her 'articles' is being used by the Conservative Voice to trash Obama's foreign policy experience. You only have to read her postings to see that she uses all the right-wing talking points. In the article about foreign policy, her slant was that Obama was arrogant, that he claims he does not need help in foreign policy issues. She did an unbelievable interview with the New York Times about how, when she heard Obama utter those 'bitter' words, at a fundraiser that she admits she snuck into, she was offended and she 'realized' that he was an elitist. She tried to stop herself from writing the article, but knew that she had to get this information out, if she wanted to be a true 'journalist'. About how she never dreamed that little ol' her could have such an effect on the news; how Friday was the most exciting day of her life besides her marriage and the birth of her children. This woman is either very stupid, or very clever, I can't decide which. Of course the Obama campaign is treating her with class; I wouldn't expect anything less. Unfortunately, she hasn't been returning the gesture.

I think that's a fair summary of what makes me uncomfortable about the whole thing as well. There's just alot of context missing in the whole thing. Rosen and Cooper's explanations were really poor, too, and I think just echo how disappointed I am in all the media analysis of the whole thing. They just don't get the point -- they spend most of their defenses selling the importance of their "citizen journalism" project without addressing any of the underlying questions.

Catch you later.

Enjoyed it.

Wish anyone could say the same about her.

Mayhill Fowler = lying Clinton bottomfeeder

So hubby is a McCain supporter into military bases and oil? And she went to the same school as Hillary?

As the wife of attorney James C. Fowler (a UCSB undergrad; UC Berkley J.D. circa 1968), a Mc Cain supporter and boat lover who owns a 43 foot yacht via some kind of revokable trust he established, and who is a partner with the prestigious firm Bingham & McClutchen, which list's Mehran's firm as a client on it's website, specializes in real estate law, does work in the energy sector, and who's clients also ocassionaly include people who buy military bases that have been closed, Mayhill Fowler inhabits that rarified air of the truly rich and truly elite. Evidently the irony was lost on this Wesley Girl, who married so well, when she wrote her article disparaging Barack Obama as an "elitist".
user-pic

This comment, and many here, display the worst tendencies of the blog commentarati. Partisanship before objectivity. Quick reaction and assumptions of bad motives, before investigating fully.

Wake-up call to lots of people: Fowler did not call Obama an "elitist" in her piece. She reported what he said, buried in PARAGRAPH SIX (in the middle of the paragraph). That is no hatchet job.

So, her husband supports McCain and she went to school with Hillary. Aha! Proof that she is a covert Republican supporting Hillary! That is ludicrous, lazy thinking.

She and people around her say she is an Obama supporter. The money she's given supports it. I also recall an early piece by her about an Obama rally that was very positive. There is no reason to doubt that she supports him.

And to spunout -- she's also a journalist (a "citizen journalist"), and we assume and should hope, not trying to fit her reporting to maximize Obama's advantage. She was there, and decided to report on what was said. I don't see the problem in that, even though the story has hurt the candidate I prefer.

Btw, for ALL of you who never actually read the piece, look at what she says right after reporting on the "bitter" comment:

Obama made a problematic judgment call in trying to explain working class culture to a much wealthier audience. He described blue collar Pennsylvanians with a series of what in the eyes of Californians might be considered pure negatives: guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, xenophobia.

I'm not sure this is what at least this lot of Californians needed to hear about Pennsylvanians. Such phrases can reinforce negative stereotypes among Californians, who are a people in a state already surfeited with a smug sense of superiority and, as an ironic consequence, a parochialism and insularity at odds with the innovation, prosperity and openness for which California is rightly known. (Of course, this is a generalization, and as such does not fit everyone; but as a state characteristic I stand by it.) Californians might be better served by hearing that Pennsylvanians have a strong sense of their place in American history, for here California is wanting. California needs to hear that other Americans have gone through hard times and survived, humor intact. Since Barack Obama sees himself as the candidate best able to unify the country, these are the messages he needs to carry and his frank words about Pennsylvania may not have translated very clearly.

To give Obama his due, he spoke about working class Pennsylvanians likely because he had been thinking about them a great deal. And he spoke, as he often does away from large rallies, in a calm, even, matter-of-fact way. Every town hall meeting I've observed, from California to Iowa, Nevada to Texas, has showcased Senator Obama's core decency and high measure of regard for each individual.

"This comment, and many here, display the worst tendencies of the blog commentarati. Partisanship before objectivity. Quick reaction and assumptions of bad motives, before investigating fully."

How would you know? I've investigated plenty.
I've read all of her articles for a month now. She is sneering, and slanted and smears him at every chance.

To put it bluntly, there's no way in hell she is pro-Obama.

Mayhill Fowler is a liar.

End of story.

Liar. What a vague accusation. Fits us all.

I am a strong obama supporter, but he and every other candidate is responsible for their own words, not the reporter--- even a reporter who may or may not like the candidate.

Come on, this presupposes that every context around the quote is an honest rendering of someone's intentions, headlines are never misleading, etc. Sure, he's responsible for his words, but everyone's responsible for having to look at context and nuance in an honest way.

I agree and am also an Obama supporter, financially, though modestly, and with my vote.

Obama campaign staffers know Ms. Fowler and that she reports for Off the Bus. She reports that she was sitting with campaign staffers during much of the event. Further, to Obama's everlasting credit, and that of his campaign staff, his campaign has not responded to her report with the type of vituperative nonsense posted in some of the comments here.

Additionally, Fowler's report has precipitated another discussion that I've not heard in any presidential campaign since 1964 when I first began following such. Just as the Rev. Wright dust up precipitated a discussion of race, I've not previously heard in a presidential campaign, Ms. Fowler's reports has precipitated a discussion of class.

Early polling seems to indicate that neither voters in PA nor elsewhere are buying into the Clinton campaign's demagoguery relative to the matter. It seems to me that Clinton's responses to Obama's comments are way more insulting to voters than were Obama's comments themselves. After all she's apparently expecting voters to swallow her duck blind, gun toting, whiskey drinking manufactured persona.

So we are seeing the stark contrast between Clinton's traditional phony image manufacturing campaign and Obama's genuine approach.

Fowler was doing her job as a journalist.

You really don't think she's interested in her own fame? I disagree -- I find the whole thing (especially when reading her articles again) more about Mayhill Fowler and Offthebus than I find it about the issues associated with the election.

Further, I'd disagree that we're having a discussion about class or a discussion about race. I think it's on the fringes of the discussion, but like with the Wright and race speech, I find most pundits pushing us AWAY from a discussion of the substantive issues. The issue gets reduced to the lowest common denominator in a few days. All I see is a reduction in the discourse and it's pretty disheartening.

I don't know if she's interested in her own fame.

According to her editor's remarks she often writes in a personal narrative manner.

Having read Fowler's, Rozen's, and Cooper's remarks and the NYT piece on the matter I do not at all think it was a "hit piece". It seems that Fowler was conflicted to the point she held the story back for a few days while she considered the matter and consulted with her editor, without revealing the details of the matter to her editor.

The fact remains that voters are not buying the Clinton/McCain/Kristol/ et al spin of the remarks.


We can agree to disagree -- I'd call that a generous reading. I think there's an air to the whole thing that reeks of promotion both for the Fowler, Rosen, Cooper, and for Offthebus in general.

I wouldn't call it a hit piece, either, but I'd call the whole exercise problematic at best.

I don't read much in Cooper or Rosen's analysis that speaks to the issues actually affecting this country or the election -- I read it as a conversation about journalism in a bubble, which to me is part of the problem with media in general right now and why I tend to read Josh Marshall, who I think is truly different.

Yes we can agree to disagree, and I appreciate your civil remarks.

I think, as Rozen touched on in his "uncharted" piece, Fowler's situation as both a partisan (she maxed out her donations to the Obama campaign) and a reporter is uncharted territory. That, however, doesn't mean her approach is wrong, just different from the traditional media approach.

Fowler made a judgment to file the report, writing from her personal perspective; voters aren't lathered up over the matter; and Obama and his campaign are dealing with the matter responsibly.

In the end I think that it will be Clinton who will be damaged by the whole affair.

Fair enough -- one note to consider before closing. I can't find the source right now, but Fowler herself does admit to donating also Fred Thompson and Clinton in this primary cycle. I don't know the actual amounts, and I am NOT declaring anything as fact, but consider the possibility that her donations are part of her access to events which require contribution.

It's maybe two-thirds of the way down on the first page of this NYT piece.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html

Here's the link to the New York Times article where she talks about donating to Thompson and makes the statement "for the first time, I realized he was an elitist". Now I'm done with her and this topic. Sanity seems to be prevailing, which is always a good thing.

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html

I don't think wrecking the Clinton years a very good thing for either Hillary or Obama. What is wrong with BC's remark here? It is true.

Well put. The Clinton years may not have been perfect, but they were a Hell of a lot better than the last eight.

Obama thinks his administration can outperform Clinton's with respect to the economy. Good for him. I strongly encourage him to give it his best shot, and if succeeds we all win. He's setting the bar pretty high, however. So high that no matter how well the economy does in the next 4 years, it may look like a failure compared to his lofty goals.

user-pic
“Because once you’ve reached a certain age, you won’t sit there and listen to somebody tell you there’s really no difference between what happened in the Bush years and the Clinton years; that there’s not much difference in how small-town Pennsylvania fared when I was president, and in this decade.”

O for god's sake.

Maybe those were good years, and I have never said otherwise, but you don't want to hear Bill himself going on about that.

Jesus - The Clinton Campaign is now officially renamed: The Restoration.

"Obama tries to twist meaning of 'elitist' in
appearance before middle class supporters:

You don't have to be wealthy to be an elitist. But the Ivy League-educated Obama is trying to twist its meaning, implying a person needs to be rich to be one. He must really think the middle class and blue-collar workers are stupid."

It is just sad and embarrassing like comparing him to President Clinton.

He is not even close to being in their league.

user-pic
has not responded to her report with the type of vituperative nonsense posted in some of the comments here.

wanna bet your life on just who it is you are talking to online?

Nobody knows.

And the only people who care are right here right now.

And the only people who care are right here right now.

Yeah. Polling seems to indicate that voters are not at all getting lathered up over the matter.

Oh my goodness. How shocking that the Obama camp is treating her like a human being instead of a like junior high snubfest. Imagine.

the sad thing is that we have become so accustomed to the silly junior high bullshit that it really is surprising.

I also have no problem with a candidate being responsible for their words. Except when those words are spun out of context, and reframed into right wing talking points. Have you read her article? Obama doesn't demonstrate enough 'patriotism'; he misrepresented the midwest in a negative way. In case the reader doesn't get that interpretation from the quote she makes it for us, repeating those certain words together: "guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, zenophobia". She sets it up against the picture of rich Californians, listening to these slights about small town America. (which she now disingeneously clarifies).I'm sorry, but it was not Obama's words that started all this, it was the original spin of the article. The problem is that Fowler is not a reporter. She's a 'citizen journalist', which I assume means that she has no journalism training or experience. Which is fine. However, I would expect that the Huffington Post would at least make sure that she understands the politics of the media. She's a citizen journalist that is featured in a regular column on a very popular website, that is supposedly progressive. This gives her smears, and I'm sorry but I consider them smears, more legitimacy. Her claims to be an Obama supporter make it even better for the msm. If he 'offended' one of his own supporters who writes for the 'left-wing' Huffington Post, then he must be really offensive.
Just as I believe that politicians should be held responsible for their words, I believe that bloggers, reporters, citizen reporters, should also be held responsible, particularly when a solid case can be made for misrepresentation. Fowler demonstrates no insight into this whole affair, she is, as she told the New York Times, at peace with herself even she has negatively affected Obama's campaign. I don't find anything to admire in this woman. I think that her ignorance is dangerous.

Really well said. I'd add that Rosen and Cooper seem to demonstrate the same ignorance of context and impact in their summations and "analysis" of the whole affiar.

Fowler did not misrepresent Obama's words, she reported them and her style, according to her editor, is to write from a personal perspective.

spunout said:

Just as I believe that politicians should be held responsible for their words, I believe that bloggers, reporters, citizen reporters, should also be held responsible, particularly when a solid case can be made for misrepresentation.

followed by:

I think that her ignorance is dangerous.

You're blogging. Yet you use a hyperbolic word like "dangerous." The woman is not dangerous. Please practice what you preach.

Huffington Post, btw, does not rule the world (although it wishes it could). People are allowed to decide for themselves whether Obama is elitist or not, just like they evaluate everything else any candidate says.

You are right, I shouldn't use words like dangerous.

It's just that, watching this happen from Canada is so frustrating. With the rest of the world, I watched with dread as propaganda and fear took over America in the lead up to the occupation of Iraq; WMD, Saddam Hussein ties to Al-Quaida, Axis of Evil, etc. etc. All obvious lies. And that turned out to be very dangerous, particularly for Iraqis. By the 2004 election, over 40% of Americans still believed that Saddam Hussein had been responsible for 9/11, and that percentage tracked until recently. We watched as the Republicans and the media successfully swift-boated Kerry, decimated any criticism of Bush, and were dumbfounded when Bush won again. It is this manipulation of reality and manufacturing of consent that I find very dangerous.

Also, democratic public discourse depends so much on getting out of the narrow right wing frames, in the U.S. and Canada. So yes, I do get a little overwrought when progressives, whether intentionally or not, help to frame progressive candidates with right wing talking points.

I am very active in Canada, but I know that our future depends to a large extent on an enlightened U.S. You are very big and very powerful and you are right next door.

The good news is I think that you finally have a candidate who can start to change the frame. He turned it around again. I am very impressed with Barack Obama, and yes, this is turning into something very hopeful.

I appreciate the thoughtful response, spunout. I hope you'll find your way back to read my response back to you.

With the rest of the world, I watched with dread as propaganda and fear took over America in the lead up to the occupation of Iraq; WMD, Saddam Hussein ties to Al-Quaida, Axis of Evil, etc. etc. All obvious lies.

Many of us here watched in dread too and tried to speak out against the impending and inevitable war. The propaganda was overwhelmingly pervasive and relentless, however, and if you spoke out, you were branded unpatriotic, stupid, terrorist-loving, etc.

I lived through 9/11 in New York City, and while I admittedly acquired a new heightened wariness and alertness on the subway and in crowds at Times Square (where I worked at the time), I never felt fearful. While plenty of New Yorkers must have been fearful, I always thought the people who didn't live in New York or DC were the most susceptible to chain-jerking propaganda, although I have no basis for assuming that. I didn't watch TV or obsess about terrorism, so perhaps I acquired some immunity from propaganda that way. In any case, I wholeheartedly share your frustration with American gullibility.

And that turned out to be very dangerous, particularly for Iraqis.

Yes, thank you for saying that. Not enough Americans mention the Iraqis.

We watched as the Republicans and the media successfully swift-boated Kerry, decimated any criticism of Bush, and were dumbfounded when Bush won again. It is this manipulation of reality and manufacturing of consent that I find very dangerous.

Yes, you're right. You might find this Robert Kennedy article about the 2004 election interesting, although it may be too tediously detailed about Ohio and Florida for you.

Also, democratic public discourse depends so much on getting out of the narrow right wing frames, in the U.S. and Canada. So yes, I do get a little overwrought when progressives, whether intentionally or not, help to frame progressive candidates with right wing talking points.

Yes, here in the U.S. the right-wing frames are so solidly welded into the discourse that American liberals use them and don't even realize it. This is often my criticism in these very comment threads.

I am very active in Canada, but I know that our future depends to a large extent on an enlightened U.S. You are very big and very powerful and you are right next door.

The danger of a president like George Bush is that he helps empower the likes of Stephen Harper. It looks like Canadian progressives are gaining ground now, however. My fingers are crossed for you.

Unfortunately in the U.S. there isn't much that's truly progressive about the Democratic Party. Obama looks progressive compared to Bush, but in my book, Obama is not nearly progressive enough.

The good news is I think that you finally have a candidate who can start to change the frame. He turned it around again. I am very impressed with Barack Obama, and yes, this is turning into something very hopeful.

Thanks for your thoughtful attention to our politics, spunout. Nice talking with you, eh?

I realize Hillary must have acknowledged long ago that she probably has lost the nomination absent a major fall from Obama. But, I cannot help wondering why she has adopted a strategy that has little possibility of benefiting her in the span of the primary season. The strategy of recurring negatively loaded codes are intended to build Obama's negatives, but it requires employing multiple memes to recur and reinforce each other over the long term.

It is a kind of very aggressive whisper campaign and it can be very damaging - Eluding again and again to a family of coded memes. In this campaign Hillary has chosen "religious intolerance" (whether it is about a Muslim Identity or Rev Wright), "racial intolerance", "nationalist sentiments", and now cultural "Elitism".

I can not help but wonder if she is intentionally setting this up for a Republican 527 campaign to continue the dirty work against Obama, while allowing McCain to build a positive image for himself in the general?

Apparently, from analyses I've read, is that Clinton is attempting to convince the super delegates of Obama's inelectability.

What I don't understand is how the Clinton campaign folks could think that the super delegates, elected officials and party officials, don't completely understand what she's up to.

So not only has her campaign insulted the super delegates of every state in which she hasn't prevailed, she is now insulting the intelligence of the remaining 300, or so, uncommitted supers.

Like I said elsewhere, I think her attempt to manufacture outrage amongst the voters over Obama's comments will blow back on her.

user-pic
Yeah. Polling seems to indicate that voters are not at all getting lathered up over the matter.

Yeah that too.

But mainly I meant that people are always accusing others of ruining their candidate's chances by being snarky and rude here.

Honest to god - nobody is paying any attention to us except the rest of the people who are doing the same thing we do and it's a small percentage of people overall.


OK. I now understand. I agree, those participating in these sorts of forums are a minuscule slice of the USA electorate; and far more fervent.

Not particularly wealthy? In SF? Nonsense! I live here and I can tell you: WE ARE ALL RICH FU@KIG LATTE DRINKING GUN-TRASHING HILLBILLY HATERS! Every single one of us. Hell, we pay our nannies more than rust belt jockies EVER made -- BEFORE BONUS!

Buwaaaaaaaaaaa!

Don't come near me or I'll fu@king shoot!

user-pic
OK. I now understand. I agree, those participating in these sorts of forums are a minuscule slice of the USA electorate; and far more fervent.

It's the nature of the medium - I've never seen it otherwise.

:)

The Obama campaign has certainly shown more class than someone who secretly recorded a Q&A session with supporters in a private home. I don't believe for one single minute that Fowler acted without malice aforethought.


Thank you!!

user-pic
Clinton/McCain/Kristol/


AAAaargh! I can't believe that triumvirate - that's what she's come to.

I really wish she hadn't.

user-pic
The Obama campaign has certainly shown more class than someone who secretly recorded a Q&A session with supporters in a private home. I don't believe for one single minute that Fowler acted without malice aforethought.

It's certainly looking less and less likely to me, too.

user-pic

What the Clinton campaign is doing is a good example of the kind of machine she has. Their techniques seem outdated. She's fighting the last war. And she doesn't know what else to do.

What the Clinton campaign is doing is a good example of the kind of machine she has. Their techniques seem outdated. She's fighting the last war. And she doesn't know what else to do.


True dat.

Iraqi born Rezko is Obama’s friend of 17 years and a well known mob figure.

Rezko served on Obama’s U.S. Senate campaign finance committee and raised more than $14 million, according to Federal Election Commission records, helping send Obama to Washington in 2004.

The Chicago Sun Times reports: ‘state senator Barack Obama wrote letters to city and state officials supporting his political patron Tony Rezko's successful bid to get more than $14M from taxpayers to build apartments’.

Obama told the Chicago Tribune that, in all the years he's known Rezko, "I've never done any favors for him.''

How does Obama get away with this? Where is the media on this unbelievable topic?

Thanks for the late-breaking comic relief, jackass.

They are waiting to see if the Dems are dumb enough to run him in the general. Then they will dump all the dirt.

I think this is a good commentary on the whole matter.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-shrake/i-wish-there-were-more-ma_b_96672.html

Is it over? Did Hillary win yet?

Why do I laugh every time?

I laugh every single time.

user-pic
I think this is a good commentary on the whole matter.

Boy I don't.

He just uses what happened as a stepping stone to go right to bashing not Obama, but Obama supporters.

Swear to god, if they aren't whining about Obama HUSSEIN X, they are whining about us.

Jesus -get over it. We like the man - and we are supporting him like 2000% cause we want him to win. Who wants to discuss some fake weakness that someone dreamed up? He used a poor choice of words - which is rare, so what is it with everyone getting all up in our shit because we like our candidate? Why can't people just shut up about it?

True, Obama could have used better words, but admirably he conceded his mistake,thereby notching a couple more rungs in my admiration scale for him.He is more human and typically humans make mistakes.If he did't that would make him a perfect being in which case we would all be required to offer sacrificial lambs in His honour.Respect lies not in not making mistakes but in acknowledging them, just Obama did, which is more than I can say for Sen Clinton who, in the face of criticism offers some winding euphemism when the most admirable thing would be to offer a simple apology.

Dont kill the messenger. Senator Obama admits that he stated it poorly. He was talking in short hand, which is never a good idea. Here is how he spoke about the issue more clearly, to Charlie Rose in late 2004. He covers the same small town loss of jobs.

The clip is less than two minutes and is worth viewing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZHodpyhXFSg&feature=user

user-pic

And I believe Mayhill Fowler is an Obama supporter like I'm Marie, the Queen of Romania.

She snuck a recorder into a private affair, asked him a question and recorded a gotcha. Just cause she's over at HuffPo doesn't mean she's credible.

user-pic

Something like that article is a trap - the trap is this, and I see it over and over: they postulate some mistake he's made according to them then if we don't agree it was a mistake we are zombies who won't admit a weakness.

I'm tired of these stupid traps.

Who does this Obama fellow think he is, anyway? Personally, I'd like to see him choose his words a little more carefully. Otherwise I'm voting for John McCain.

Perhaps he should first have them screened by Little Miss Tuzla Misspeak.

user-pic
Senator Obama admits that he stated it poorly.

Did I not say that? Goddamn.

that's exactly what happened and it has been spun into some kind of statement of elitism that was never there to start with.

Jesus god almighty, when will this damn primary be over?

user-pic

LeroyS - God I wish I had your talent.

:)

There you go; getting all bitter and clinging to God. Snark alert. Have a good night.

Hillary Clinton in "Storm Over Tuzla" (video):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgfWVfmilOM

Brought to you by Crown Royal. Always delightful - especially with a beer chaser.

Crown Royal - where the elite meet to greet the man on the street.

Have to wonder about the veracity of Fowler. I live in San Francisco. I know who these people are. They are all rich by any measure. Some extremely rich. I might even question whether they actually talked to Fowler or a fake. It was held at the house of Alex Mehran, an office park developer. On the same visit Obama attended a fundraiser at Gordon Getty's house, yes that Getty.

These are all extremely rich and by any standard San Francisco elite.

To say otherwise is, well, suspicious.

Check it out:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/14/BA161046G7.DTL&hw=Matier+Ross+Mehran&sn=001&sc=1000


She is trying to cover up the lie that Obama does not get large donors.

He sent a flier out in PA lying about it.

His negatives are really piling up.

When will the candidates start discussing the issues?

Why isn't anyone looking out for me?


user-pic

She's just as rich as the rest of them.

That's how she got in - the guy is a client of her husband's. Or so I read.

Glad to see the Obamaista Cult was able to get the "lost sheep" back in the compound. Kool-aid for Everyone!

Then again ... I'll jot down a few ideas that I have regarding the Fowler episode. They are still raw. I may amend them as more information is gleaned here and there on Mayhill Fowler and "citizen journalism".

I have been reading Fowler's articles on the Obama campaign for quite a while. I have found them interesting, rich in details, touching on aspects, as has been pointed out already, not usually found in journalistic reports on a candidate, quite probably because many of those details, if they did appear, would most probably come out as "gossip", degrading (probably rightly so) the quality of the reporting.

But her columns appeared at Huffington Post, which I did not consider, for all of its qualities, professional journalism. And so, I read her reports in that context.

I must say that I did not get the feeling that she loathed Obama. On the contrary, I felt that she rather liked him. On her personal website, there is a section she has labelled Obamatized that contains a list of quotes of Barack Obama. Of Obamatized, she writes:

I have to thank my husband for this one. When the day comes that I am no longer enamoured of Mr. O, I will put this list out to pasture.

Like I said, I think she genuinely likes him, if not as an individual, at the very least as a candidate whose political vision she seemed to embrace. It may be for that reason that, I think, she was rather severe with him when he appeared to stray away from "his mission". She had, as someone critical of her observed, a "school marm" relation with Obama. That much I, too, have noticed. I found that rather endearing and indeed silently hoped that the Obama campaign would be reading her columns and adjusting accordingly.

Yet one thing bugged me with Fowler. It was the faint impression that remained after I have read some of her columns that she still had issues with Obama's race. The notion that she might harbour feelings of Obama as "uppity" lingered after the read. It made me uncomfortable. That feeling was confirmed after I have read a couple of reports of people who were at the SF fund-raising event. Their impressions differ considerably from those of Fowler. And yet, they saw and heard the same thing.

I'll stop here for now. More will certainly be written on the Fowler episode, which, I'm sure, will be seen as a watershed moment and will be studied, dissected, critiqued. It needs to be.

All that said, I have read quite a few of Mayhill Fowler's posts on her website. I came out with the feeling that here was a very interesting person, genuinely interested in the fate of the World. A born-again Christian, she has embarked on a study of Islam, which, this late in her career, is in itself quite remarkable.

user-pic

Very sad that the blogosphere would be responsible for one of the shallowest and most misleading pieces of "journalism" in a long time to get serious attention. And it has beaten some pretty stiff competition in the shallow and misleading department too.

Reading through Mayhill Fowler's "posts" you almost get the feeling that she's inspired by Drudge of all people. It's all a bit sensationalized and vacuous.

Well said. Her posts are drivel.

I still think she is a shill. A terrible hack shill who can't write her way out of a paper bag.

She loves to smear and sneer over trivialities. A real a--hole.

If she's truly not a shill, let her go cover Hillary or McCain next and write her sneaky, sneering garbage against them? The reason she won't is because she's 100% shill.

Well said. Her posts are drivel.

Then why are you still talking about her? Move on already!

user-pic

Looking up the list it's funny how different a reaction to Ms. Fowler I've had from some others. I do agree though that she's not particularly shilling for one campaign or another -- she seems to me far too hung up on blowing up personal and minor details.

user-pic

I'd give her the benfit of the doubt that she isn't out to hurt Obama, but these off the cuff remarks that are not meant for the press/public should not be placed out there in the public domain. These are the less guarded words and can be taken out of context and their meaning twisted and warped by the unscrupulous players like Hillary. I didn't used to but now I *really* loathe her, and her poll numbers are showing how much this Lee Atwater/Rove is turning people away from her.

At least with Hillary I'm getting someone I've heard about.

As the mother of eight kids, there aren't enough hours in the day to keep up with these crazy names.

hahaha...whaaa?

Too funny.

user-pic

Nothing in Obama's remarks is remotely "elitist", it's how Hillary, McCain and the MSM pundits who are all out for Obama's blood spin this that is "hurting" Obama. It's a manufactured crisis to take him down, the only darn thing that gets manufactured in America these days. "Cling" simply means "hold on to" - this has been a subject of numerous books, interviews, columns, etc. by all manners of authors, politicians, journalists, eg. What's the matter with Kansas?, none of which were attacked as elitist except by the likes of Limbaugh.


To join forces with the people we have long despised for perverting the political process and discourse, how do the HBillary minions posting here and on other threads live with their conscience???

I'm turned off by them too.

Guess you're really worried about it. I can hear it in your voice.

no, journalists are accredited and trained, and try to be objective.

simply blogging your opinions just makes you... a blogger.

now, bloggers can be journalists, too (say, like the TPM folks--they have ethics and adhere to a creed).

but is she?

Simply unbelievable to hear Obama supporters talk about having class. I will always remember Obama supporters cheering wildly as an Obama media shill called Hillary and Geraldine F*cking Wh*res. You have left any chance of being classy about a million miles behind you. Not having the votes count in Florida and Michigan is a travesty in this once proud democratic country. The leaders of the Democratic party have joined the Obama campain proving to be no class people.
Not sure what people remeber of the Clinton years.
All I remember was Peace and Prosperity and I believe we need Clinton's in charge now more than ever.

user-pic

dembilic, Oh, I agree, they should have called them the more befitting "F*cking Turdblossoms" instead.

You've gone OFF TOPIC AGAIN, and AGAIN repeating your STUPID talking points over and over. I guess this failure to warp Obama's words and their meaning to KO his candidacy is making you REALLY BITTER.

You sound elitist.

these might be more telling of HRC's real attitudes towards that demographic

Bimbos, sluts, trailer trash, rednecks, and sh*t-kickers …
Terms Hillary commonly used to describe Arkansans (American Evita, p. 139)

“G*dd*mn L.D., did you see that family right out of Deliverance? Get me the hell out of here.”
To L.D. Brown, her bodyguard, while at a county fair in Arkansas in the early 1980s. They had just spoken to folks in bib overalls and cotton dresses.

“This is the kind of sh*t I have to put up with.”
To a friend after a Clinton supporter had given her earrings shaped like Arkansas Razorbacks (Blood Sport, p. 105).

the link to these and other inspiring quotes from HRC are here:
http://tammybruce.com/2007/02/hillary_in_her_own.php

nice ;)

Great reliable source you found there, chi63. Are you a troll by any chance?

user-pic

It's clear now where Hillary's "classy" strategy is headed. Here is advice from another Bill Clinton brainiac:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/15/AR2008041502664.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

In other news, Obama supporters call Obama's new tie "Sassy"

user-pic

This is rich:

"I'm not sure that it's completely come out, but these were not really wealthy people."

Gee. And who should have brought that out? Could it be... the so-called journalist who "broke" this story?

I really am convinced that Obama supporters are the worst group of candidate supporters ever, they simply like to say that someone is “hating” or a "racist" if someone does not know why they should vote for Obama. The guy has done little for the country at this point and has little experience. Oh, that’s right, you couldn’t exactly say, “Look at all of the work Obama’s done as Chairman of that Senate Foreign Relations Sub-Committee,” because he hasn’t done a damn thing. You Obama supporters also couldn’t say, “Look at how well he organized those neighborhoods and looked out for minorities in Chicago,” because we should all know by now that he and his pal Rezko sold those folks up the river and let a number of his “constituents” freeze their asses off in the dead of winter due to political expediency. Those were Black asses freezing might I add. You could not say I agree with the man spiritually, unless you hate America.
Obama has no chance in the General. Hopefully the blind worthless Love affair with Obama will soon be over.
Hillary for President, if you have a brain.

user-pic

I agree, and I think her journalistic ethics are totally lacking, to say the very least.

That said, good on the Obama campaign for staying classy, although I think they should completely freeze her out for what was basically a journalistic cheap shot. What he said was inartful, but what she did was sleazy.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address