Saturday, April 12, 2008

Obama's "Bitter" Remark Draws Duplicitous Attacks by McCain and Clinton. Democratic Frontrunner Hits Back Hard

A week ago Sen. Barack Obama, the front runner in the Democrats' bid for the White House, spoke at a closed-door fundraiser in San Francisco. When someone in the crowd of this elite group of supporters asked why he was not polling higher in the upcoming Pennsylvania primary, the junior Senator from Illinois offered up this theory:

"You go into 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...And it’s not surprising then 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."

As word spread of his comments, the campaigns of both Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, began to condemn and criticize, charging Obama with elitism and for being out of touch with middle America. Even Hillary herself piled on, saying Obama's comments were "not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans....Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a constitutional right. Americans who believe in God believe it’s a matter of personal faith."" Nice. Now she's for guns and God?

She continued: "It’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter; well, that’s not my experience. Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them; they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families." Could she possibly be anymore sanctimonious than that?

And from the McCain camp: "It shows an elitism and condescension toward hard-working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."

Now I'm all for playing rough. Politics is a dirty business. But these attacks are outrageously irresponsible, reprehensible and offensive. Both Clinton and the McCainiacs know exactly what Obama was referring to when saying the nation's poor and middle classes were bitter. And why shouldn't they be? Starting with Ronald Reagan in the 80's, their values were co-opted and their loyalties misused and abused, and they were routinely directed towards hot-button issues like abortion, gay marriage and gun control. These Reagan Democrats, by the time George Bush and Karl Rove got through with them, felt duped, dirty and betrayed. And now they're still without proper health care, jobs, quality education for their kids, and are mired in a housing crisis. You're damned right they're bitter, and they ought to be. They were mercilessly used and abused. And that's what Obama was talking about.

An elitist? Out of touch? Give me a break. Obama and his wife have not been in the Washington power seat for the past 16 years like the Clintons. Nor have they made $109 million since 2000. And for Pete's sake, who is more elitist, more out of touch, than the crusty old Republican relic McCain? Shame on these two combatants for stooping to the lowest common denominator in attacking a rival.

Thankfully, and quite impressively, Obama shot back hard Friday evening:

“Here’s what’s rich. Senator Clinton said, ‘Well I don’t think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack is being condescending.’ John McCain said, ‘How could he say that? How could he say that people are bitter? He obviously is out of touch with people.’ Out of touch? Out of touch? John McCain — it took him three times to finally figure out that home foreclosure was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch?"

Let's hope this sort of animated smackdown is a foreshadowing of how Obama might very well stand up to the vicious Republican attack machine should he eventually win the nomination and go into battle against McBush for the presidency.

On another note, we could use your help at The The Adrienne Shelly Foundation. We are a tax-exempt, non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of assisting women filmmakers. Adrienne was brutally killed in NYC on November 1, 2006. Through the Foundation, her commitment to filmmaking lives on. We've established scholarships, grants, finishing funds and living stipends at NYU's Tisch School of the Arts/Kanbar Institute of Film; Columbia University; American Film Institute; Women in Film; the Independent Feature Project; the Nantucket Film Festival; and the Sundance Institute. We're very pleased to announce that one of last year's grant recipients, Cynthia Wade, just won an Oscar for Best Documentary Short Subject for "Freeheld." We are proud of Cynthia and to have supported this film. Your generous contribution will go a long way towards helping us continue to achieve our very important mission.
Thank you.


Anonymous said...

Andy - Nice one! You laid the story out well. Kudos!. - Barney

Anonymous said...

Exactly. I think no matter who you support (and I'll be up front and honest here, I'm a Barack backer) this is the only way to look at this situation.

Barack is elite, he's not elitist, and there's a world of difference.

Anonymous said...

Great post, Andy. I wonder how many other Americans hear this stuff the candidates spout and think it's petty, small and unworthy of a candidate let alone our president. These guys (Hillary and McCain) need to think about graduating from Jr High sometime soon.

Anonymous said...

The one practicing duplicity is Obama. It is all right for black people who feel mistreated to CLING to a church that HATES people unlike them who are white and preach DAMNATION (verbal "guns"), but when white people do it is weak and unproductive. The people Obama was critizing CLING to religion and guns rather, than I suppose, what???? take political action and -- what????? What does he think they should have done with the tremendous loss of jobs?

It was an insensitive, misinformed and, even you have to admit, stupid observation for a "uniter" and a candidate for a job that is responsible for all the citizens of America, to make. When a candidate has to apologize and explain the words of a minister and a chruch he has attended for years; and, then have to explain his own words of condemnation for a majority of Americans, then we know he is not a good possibility to unite and lead our beloved America in the right direction.

And, yes Hillary is religious. She has always been a Methodist and practiced a lot of the Chistian virtues she believes in. And she says her father was a hunter.

Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sidney Condorcet said...

Bravura performance, Andy!! You really got 'em by the short hairs on this one. This was a "feel your pain" moment as he was clearly saying that government has abandoned the interests of the denizens of the rust belt, and that they were completely justified in expressing their frustration in one way or another. What we have here is yet another manufactured controversy. Sadly our elections are seldom decided on actual policy grounds, but rather on these largely irrelevant faux controversies. Heck, Bill Clinton himself used the economic insecurity and frustration that was felt by these same people Obama speaks of in order to win the Presidency in 1992.

Anonymous said...

The church goers in PA have been BITTER for TWENTY-FIVE YEARS. The church goers in Wright's and Obama's church have been BITTER for over a HUNDRED YEARS.

Anonymous said...

Obama is an elitist. A "street smart" person would have known that somewhere in the audience someone was taping the remarks that he knew would cause him so much trouble if they were heard by others not so "selective" as those to whom he was speaking. The president of the USA has to be smarter than that.

Anonymous said...

Great blog, AO.

Talk about a false controversy. Does Hillary deny that people are bitter so they cling to what is comfortable? Just another example of her despearate and shameless win at all costs mentality. She has no core, no principle. Just ambition (as she ducks sniper fire, of course, and Bill then re-tells the story falsely).

This isn't an issue of elitism. This is nothing more than a manufactured dust up. Does she really think that raising a beer with people in Pa makes her a woman of the people???

Someone please remind me, how did the Rose Law Firm billing records turn up in the White house personal quarters, again? Think the Repiblicans might bring all that good stuff up?

She couldn't be more disingenuous. CB

Anonymous said...

this just shows that was said a week ago of how Obama and his supporters don't understand what the working class and poor is going through in this country is true,Obama don't even know how to talk to them,He's from an elite upbringing and he talks down to 60% of the country,HE'S BETTER than you are and he'll decide whats best for you,told you last week sidney,Obama couldn't understand what it was like being poor and this week he proved the point.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Yeah, this is proof that Obama doesn't understant what it's like being poor, right 11:59? Rather than talk about the frustrations of the poor, as Obama did, he should have just ignored them as Bush and McCain and the entire Republican Party (except for Huckabee), right 11:59? If you're not poor, you should never confront issues of poverty, right 11:59? You would make the absolute worst advocate for the poor of this nation.

"If you ain't poor don't bother talkin' 'bout that poverty. This nation needs politicians who ignore the plight of the poor, unless they be poor themselves. A black man cannot talk about white person issues. A male politician can't talk about the unique set of issues confronting women. No way a politician can talk about something if he ain't lived it himself," said Anonymous 11:59 a.m. last Saturday in a speech before the Conference of Republican Dullards. Of course, 11:59 a.m. did not discuss how the multitudes of Republican males railing against abortion is incompatible with his philosophy that a politician cannot address a particular problem if he hasn't lived through it himself personally. It is this inconsistency and the failed logic of his overall philosophy that has led to the inexorable truth that 11:59am has not one foot firmly planted on the solid ground of reality. ----NY Times, April 13, 2008

Anonymous said...

Clinton never had a core, never had principle. Obama has again proven to be a racist and elitist. He should go back to his Hate Church.

We now can see what Obama does in times of personal challenge. What did Obama do on Easter weekend when people were watching to see if he'd go to his Hate Church? He left the country.

What did Obama do this weekend after insulting middle Americans ? He went 'on vacation' to hide.

What's he going to do when an enemy of America challenges his country? One would have to assume that he goes into hiding if he can't talk his way out of it.

Anonymous said...

Obama was perfectly able to talk about the poor and the mistreated when he was defending Wright's God damn America." He wanted us all to understand where Wright was coming from and to understand why black folks get affirmative action help, although some whites are resentful (bitter?) He just doesn't seem to understandd the "white" condition and how a segment of that population may be suffering. He implied they are indulging themselves with guns and religion to deflect their bitterness.

He also is supporting illegal immigration and thus corporations who give jobs American citizens once held to people who have broken the law. But apparentlty Obama supports this and doesn't mind that it's saving tons of money for corporations. But PA folks are so bitter they turn their rage on illegal immigrants. How unfair. I'm sure Richardson agrees with Obama on this.

No, Obama has shown that whereas he might be a wonderful senator from Illinois who will fight for and support black people's rights, he is not equipped emotionally to represent ALL the people as a president should be required to do.

Unrelated to race, but still troublesome is his support for corporations and the cheap labor of law-breakers.

Anonymous said...

10:26 This is not about the Rose Law Firm or even about Hillary. It is about Obama and how he is not equipped to be president. With all their faults Hillary or McCain have not indicated they cannot preside over all the people without disdain for one group.

We've lived through eight years of a president how hates the poor -- please -- not another one who hates a segment of the population.

Anonymous said...

Don't expect Obama to stand up for women. His Hate Church only supports standing up for black women.

Anonymous said...

Bitter American here,
Bill and Hillary Clinton are two of the most duplicitous, opportunistic and downright tacky people in politics.

This pissed off and betrayed lifelong Reagan Repulican (that changed voter registration Friday to vote for BARACK OBAMA!)has had enough of the corruptness and ineptitude brought to us, the American people, by none other than the Bush/Clinton cabal.

That includes "Crazy Train" McCAIN, too! He, a once great and heroic figure, has thoroughly prostituted himself and his honor to the House of Bush. It makes this war vet wretch.

John McCain is as dangerous as Dubya Bush. Probably moreso, being the fossil he is.

This (white)disillusioned, bitter (but proud) war vet will pray to the God of our Christian fathers, who sustains us in all ways, that Barack Obama dispatches (with ease) these political harlots and demogogues, to become the next great president of the United States of America.

"...Forever and ever amen."

Anonymous said...

This American prays that Obama releases his anti white hatred and discontinues his friendship with his hate filled preacher. Only after he releases his hatred of white people will Obama be able to have peace with himself.

Anonymous said...

What did Obama do on Easter weekend when people were watching to see if he'd go to his Hate Church?
He went on vacation outside the US.

What did Obama do this weekend after insulting small town Americans?
He went 'on vacation' to hide.

What would Obama do when an enemy of America challenges his country?
He has absolutely no political track record (~130 'present' votes) so you must assume that he is going to go on vacation. His wife might even be proud to be an American every once in a while.

Anonymous said...

My friend at 1:36, it seems to me that Obama's comments don't demonstrate disdain or hatred for a segment of our population, but rather they were a commentary on gov't's mistreatment of blue collar, small town America and the resultant frustration and...bitterness. Hillary jumping on the comments is laughable. Apparently, she's just discovered that she used to be a big time hunter in her youth. Her pandering knows no bounds. If you really look at who is best equipped to be President, look at the way they run their campaigns. Then it's not a close call. A little more real thought and less pandering is a good thing, no? Will Hillary start signing tunes from West Side Story and drinking rum shortly before the Puerto Rico primary in ealry June?

Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sidney Condorcet said...

Hey, Grover Norquist at 4:52pm, if you care about stability in this country then you'd be interested in protecting the unsuccessful as well as the successful people. Otherwise, if we keep going along and the chasm between rich and poor becomes increasingly extreme, you'll see riots. When the have-nots aren't able to afford homes, gas, and bread, you can bet that the "successful people" you're so bent on protecting will be shaking in fear within their gated communities. Without economic security, you can rest assured that class-based tensions will be brought to a boil until such time as the top is blown off and violence ensues.

Rather than being a simplistic, condescending prick to the middle class, working class, and outright poor, you'd do better to think about the long term effects of untethered capitalism and the avarice that it legitimizes and exacerbates.

Anonymous said...

3:25 has it right. There are a lot of bitter people in this country, and saying that doesn't mean you are talking down to them. Unfortunately, if a candidate talks about the issues facing Americans today the majority don't have the comprehensive skills to follow. This is mostly the fault of the media. They would rather have a good grade-school fight than have to cover the issues, they're so boring and not "entertaining". So they perpetuate this pitiful situation. While Obama has tried to talk about the issues all Clinton and McCain can do is beat their chests and tell Americans how great we are. Avoid the issues, avoid the problems. Truly shameful.

Anonymous said...

3:25 You obviously are not an American so you don't understand that Americans, like all people in a civilized society, want and need to be reassured that the person they are asked to elect is intelligent, fair, compassionate and, yes, that he likes them and does not hold them in contempt. It is also required that he, as oresident, would not favor one group of people over another. This is not called flattery in our country. I hope if you find this as objectional as you seem to intidacate that you'll soon be able to return to your homeland.

Since you have some command of the English language, you probably have been here long enough to understand that we do know our country's fautls, (I won't repeat your list) but we intend to continue to improve and correct conditions. Again, that depends that our elected officials be chosen wisely. We have made a mistake with Bush and we're trying to be very careful now. That is why Obama's remarks are so disturbing. He isolated one segment of our population and left out another which claims to have the same problems, yet their bitterness is justified in his speeches. Not only that, since he thought he was speaking more or less privately to yet another segiment of our society, we can only conclude he did not mean for his words to become generally public. Not a nice trait. Plus he's being financed by a very powerful milliionaire. He's also made some very stupid mistakes.

I know you're not intetested in this lesson about America, and I hope you have a pleasant trip back to your country.

Anonymous said...

There you go again with spewing bullshit as if you can read the future. All of your posts include you predicting the future as if it is indisputable fact and/or you jumping to baseless conclusions. You just grab shit out of the air.

The "have-nots", as you call them, are where they are because the Democrats like to inject government into free markets. Why do you think we have the subprime mortgage crisis, the total unionization and destruction of the US auto manufacturing industry, and no-tolerance idiots indoctrinating our youth?

Anonymous said...

I totally agree with Sidney's answer to 4:52 who doesn't understand, for starters, what BUsh has done to so many Americans to place them in great need and distress. It was simply not their fault that they are in trouble. It was not the fault of the black people who were roughly freed but had no resources to "succeed" or care for themselves. Look how extremely well they're doing now thanks to wise assistance from the government and their chance to use their abilities. And, you must have noticed we are not all born equal -- we don't have the same good parenting, rich fmailies, high IQs or any of the attributes that ensure success. Instead of condemning the needy you should be asking God to help you with your character deficiences and ask for the spirtiual blessings of love and compassaion and probably joy.

Anonymous said...

My prayer is that we get Hillary (and Bill) into office and I and the rest of my beloved countrymen will once more have peace and prosperity and I won't have to worry about getting sick or not being able to pay my rent because of the mess the economy and the job market are in.

I don't care if she panders, exaggerates, or even "looks like a school bus in her yellow pants suit" as proclaimed by the creep, Matthews. She can do the job.

And that loser Jimmy Carter and Al Gore can forget about meeting with her to get her to stop campaigning. She's the winner and those two losers should keep out of it.

She loves our country and our people. God BLess America. God BLess Hillary.

Bill saved us once. Hillary can do it now.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Ahh, 6:48pm, my bete noire! There is a well-documented basis for my belief that an extreme chasm between rich and poor, a shrinking middle class, will lead to serious civil strife. For evidence of poverty playing a prime role in fomenting violent insurrection see: Russian revolution, food riots in Argentina in 1989, the Astor Place Riot in 1849, the Tompkins Square Riot of 1873, Pullman strike, Bloody Sunday in Russia in 1905, the 12th Street riot, the first French Revolution (our multi-millionaires and their inherited wealth are our aristocracy), the French Revolution of 1848, the Newark riots of 1967. We've seen riots in China in 2004 due to inflation and poor health care, as well as 87,000 riots and demonstrations in 2005 by dissatisfied workers. In 2007-08, we've seen food riots in Mexico, india, austria, hungary, indonesia, uzbekistan, senegal, Yemen, China, egypt, Italy, Pakistan, zimbabwe, and some smaller nations. Not to mention that every socialist/communist revolution was based on the workers or peasants overthrowing the privileged few (russia, vietnam, china, north korea, cuba, etc...).

It is conventional wisdom that civil unrest is largely inevitable when a very small handful of citizens hold the lion's share of a nation's wealth. For your own edification, and so you do not keep looking like a fool, try reading a fuckin' history book, 6:48pm.

And your Milton Friedman-wannabe statement, that the subprime mortgage crisis, among other crises, was caused by government intervention in the market is outright buffoonish and demonstrates that your grasp of political economy is just as weak and tenuous as your understanding of history. The subprime mortgage crisis was a direct result of DEREGULATION. The economy is tanking because of insufficient regulation. The overturning of the Glass-Steagall Act directly led to this crisis.
Robert Kuttner: The Glass-Steagall wall was devised to prevent a repeat of the 1920s' scams, in which banks made speculative investments, turned the debts into securities, and sold them off to unsuspecting investors with the blessing of the bank. With Glass-Steagall, commercial banks were tightly supervised and given access to federal deposit insurance, to keep savings secure and prevent runs on banks. Investment banks, meanwhile, were not government-guaranteed and were free to do more speculative transactions for consenting adult customers.....
Meanwhile, the once staid and socially directed system of providing home mortgages was seized by financial wise guys and turned into another casino. In the early 1980s, exploiting the Reaganite theme of government-bashing, the savings and loan industry persuaded Congress to substantially deregulate S&Ls -- which then speculated with government-insured money and lost many hundreds of billions, costing taxpayers upward of $350 billion in less than a decade.

In 1989 when Congress reregulated S&Ls, the financial engineers just did another end run. Mortgage companies that were exempt from federal regulation came to dominate the mortgage lending business. This loop of the story begins in 1968 with the privatization of Roosevelt's Federal National Mortgage Association. In the wake of that move, investment bankers invented a daisy chain known as "securitization" of mortgage credit. Through securitization, a mortgage broker could originate a loan, sell it to a mortgage banker, who would then sell it to an investment bank like Salomon Brothers, who in turn would package the mortgages into securities. These were then evaluated and coded (for a fee) by private bond-rating agencies according to their supposed risk, and sold off to hedge funds or pension funds. Each of these worthies took their little cut, raising the cost of credit to the borrower. Rather than diffusing risks (a course that economic theory urges on a prudent capitalist nation), however, securitization concentrated them, because everyone was making the same bet on real-estate inflation."

Full article:

Please explain how the subprime crisis is the cause of government ACTION, as opposed to government INACTION, if you know so much Mssr. Friedman. By the way, you should read about the "Miracle of Chile" and the resultant increase in unemployment and poverty when Milton Friedman and the Chicago Boys installed untethered capitalism or you should read about a little, unnoticed moment in America's history known as the Great Depression, which I'm sure you'll say was a consequence of overregulation. Scrap every remaining aspect and outgrowth of the New Deal, and you'll see a crisis that makes the Great Depression look like a minor squall.

Anonymous said...

Now we, or at least I, have to worry about Obama's connection to Bill Ayers, the unrepentent murderer. There is absolutely no chance of OBama being able to withstand the attacks in the general election with his history of criminal associates and those with other defects. I can't believe such a candidate is even being considered in America.

If he's the candidate for the Democratic Party, I'll stay home

Anonymous said...

In his column in the NY Times today, William Kristol says it all about Obama's remarks about PA bitter workmen. Kristol's arguments will be used by Republicans to finally defeat Obama if he's the Democratic nominee for president.

Anonymous said...

It happened again last night on CNN's "Compassion" program with Clinton and Obama. Once again she had to go first and answer the tough questions about when life begins - either at conception or birth - and what part does God play in guiding political candidates. Once again she answered and Obama then later echoed or "used" her answers. After that he was only asked easy questions about what he would do as president. She did not have that easy way out.

He said he was a devout Christian but that was the end of his connection to Christianity. He quoted no scripture nor did he make any reference as to his spiritual experience as a Christian, as did Hillary. He did say the fellowship at his Wirght church was more imporant than the sermons. And it was encouraging to hear him say that we can get along with Muslims who will work things out with us. Seems the Muslims don't hate us or want to kill us. Another Bush lie?????

Anonymous said...

Is John McCain Bob Dole or Dwight Eisenhower?

Is Barack Obama Michael Dukakis or John F. Kennedy?

Excellent analysis from John Heilemann...check it out...

Anonymous said...

It is essential to pay attention to the character of a candidate. Who they are is what we'll get.

Bush was an uninformed, irreponsible playboy before we elected him and that's what he was as president. Are we going to be fooled again????

Anonymous said...

10:34AM is absolutely correct, we can't have uninformed irresponsible as our President. That's why John McCain cannot be elected President. He doesn't know anything about the economy and doesn't care to try to learn about it. He consistently confused shia and shiite, iran and al qaeda. He was one of the Keating Five, involved in the Savings and Loan scandal that cost American taxpayers some $300 billion. He jokingly sings about starting a war with Iran. He has not shown the proper character to be president. He has a violent temper that led him to a physical fight with Congressman Rick Renzi and led him to call his wife a "c*nt" in front of aides and press. Thanks 10:34am, for reminding us why we should vote for Senator Obama.

Anonymous said...

To put this entire issue into a nutshell, the people who Obama were talking to are the folks who have a limited understanding of the costs involved with being a working class person. To speak to the wealthy without an understanding about working class in a way that tries to put that group's issues into perspective requires wording that they can digest without becoming offended, bored or confused. This is what Obama was doing and doing well.

The ideas that he spoke about are factually correct. As a person who has family in Pittsburgh who are all Obama supporters (steelworkers union, SEIU and long term unemployed) and they ALL understand EXACTLY what Obama said.

What I find interesting (and not just a little amusing) is that the people who are raising the biggest stink are people who either are too uninformed of the facts (who understand when they have the CONTEXT explained) or people who are either grotesquely unintelligent and are incapable of comprehension (my great aunt has alzheimer's and dementia and she wants to vote for Mccain) or people who feel hurt by the fact that they feel exposed by this statement and they feel that they're being portayed as weak and/or stupid.

They are being made to feel that way by the campaigns who are saying "oh how terrible that he would try and tell the truth about how bad life here can be." when Obama is the only one of the 3 who is HONESTLY aware of what these people go through and that it is due to the policies and laws and trade deals that have been championed by the likes of Clinton and Mclame.

It's disgusting the way people will leap on what they think is a gaffe and then their blatantly desperate attempt to gain ground through the constant lying and distortion of the words of others.

Obama spoke the truth and sometimes the truth is painful or ugly but it's still the truth. If the people of Pennsylvania can't admit that he is right about a great deal of these issues and that the McCain and Hillary (rethuglican lite) campaigns aren't just pandering but are downright belittling these very same voters by trying to "blow sunshine up their shorts" to pretend these issues aren't the truth.

Only 2 kinds of McCain or Hillary supporters, rich ones and suckers.

So, speak truth to power or enjoy that "warmth in your shorts". Only one way will solve the problem and it doesn't involve sun-warmed undergarments.

President Barack Obama sounds good to a lot of people who can see through the lies and garbage policies of the other campaigns. All that remains is for those of you who CAN'T see these issues for what they are to ask yourself if you honestly understand or if you are simply being a blind follower of twisted talking points that distort the truth.

Those of us who truly DO understand the issues the nation faces will be there for Obama now and when he is elected to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

Anonymous said...



I simply had to force myself to read your drivel. Your characterization of Hillary suporters as only rich onew and suckers is so simplistic as to require totally ignoring any of your comments as viable.

And your audacity to say that the people of PA don't understand what they're going through is beyond comprehension.

You are pathetic and I will CLING to my church and pray for you. We who CLING to our church have learned the lesson of univeral love and understanding.

Anonymous said...

i agree with you 11:35. I'm goingto CLING to my dislike of people who are not like me which is the creep number 11:19.You made a typo and called him 11:10. He's a creep no matter what his number is.

he could be the repug. mole who causes us to respond in anger, but even if he is, he is still a creep.

Anonymous said...

11:35 - your post proved my points, thank you.

Go back and read my post again and try REALLY HARD to understand it.

It's the rich who don't understand what the poor endure and it's those same poor who are made to feel inferior because of defensive stupidity and ignorance.

As far as being a snob? I am a disabled ex-police officer who has served as a UN peacekeeper and who lost my network engineer job with a major chemical company in Pittsburgh (which was 4 years of retraining after I became disabled) to outsourcing and who now lives on what little we can scrabble together with my own odd jobs of computer work and what my wife earns at her PART-TIME hospital job so we can continue to feed, clothe and house our 4 kids.

Don't you dare spout your rhetorical god-guilt garbage at me, I am the very people Obama represents and with as intimate an understanding I think I am better acquainted with these issues than you are.

Disagree if you like but keep you sanctimonious claptrap for people stupid enough to believe it.

Pray for yourself and poor fools like you who would rather wear your pride over your shame and refuse to change things for the better as you are unable to even see the real issues or how to solve them because you would rather pretend to be the masters of your domain in your own minds while you are slapped further and further into irrelevance by you own inaction.

There ARE only 2 kinds of McCain OR HRC supporters and they ARE either rich or suckers.

Somehow you fit that bill because you are either rich or, well, I don`t think you`re rich.

Anonymous said...

I was going to keep out of this because I never write on these blogs. But I read and reread the two comments by 12:17 who is I guess 11:19. I am sorry he's suffered so much and he seems sincere but I don't understand a word he said. Guess I'm one of the stupid he talks about. What does he mean Obama understands the poor people but the poor people themselves doen't understand what being poormeans. What don't we understand? What does Obama, who is rich, know about me who is poor that I don't know myself?

He offended me and my family when he talked about us going to church and not liking the Mexicans. We have gone to church for generations when we were doing alright and had good jobs. We have hunted for years and years and we don't hate the Mexicans because they are different but because they are breaking the law and stealing our identities and taking money from our state.

We are Democrats and have always voted for Democrats. I won't vote for Obama and my family won't because he puts us down without explaing what it is we don't know and should know. I guess he's too smart for us. We need someone who can talk to us without talking down.

My Republican friends who vote like you say against their interests say if they vote the way God wants them to against abortion then God will give them jobs. Does Obama want to insult them too. I expect he does. He just doesn't believe in the power of God, I guess.

Anonymous said...

God is dead...

Anonymous said...

The one who must really feel good about this stirup is probably Wright. At last he gets to witness a rich, black man who could be president insult and belittle a group of white people. I guess the tables have turned and maybe Wright can not say "God Bless America - We have overcome." Even Michelle is pleased. Oh how they'll cheer when Obama is president.

Anonymous said...

Obama can't seem to say what he means. And, after he's explained what he really meant, I don't understand what he means. Obama and his gang are not clear speakers. And I don't understand what he would do about my situation if he is our president. Would he stop sending jobs overseas? Would he reopen the company that went overseas and get me back my job and pension? Would he remove the Mexicans from my kid's classroom so its not so crowded and the teacher has more time for him and not spend so much time trying to make the MExican kids understand what she's saying? Will he stop my landlord from raising my rent every year to more than I can afford? How about gas? He talks a lot but I swear to you I don't know what or how he's going to do anything. He spends all his time on TV trying to explain what he means.

Anonymous said...

You can call me WireHedd (or 11:19 or 12:17 or anything you like)

My point is that Obama DOES understand the poor and what it`s like to have hardship in your life. The poor he speaks of seem to refuse to understand that they have been ripped off, shat on and made the butt end of the policies and trade deals that BOTH HRC and McCain espouse yet they would still vote to continue their own misery on the basis of spin and lies from both said campaigns.

Anyone who would be foolish enough to go along with these corporate prostitutes should really be sat down by the people who DO understand and educate them on just how stupid a vote for McCain or Clinton would be (stupid meaning self-destructive, not in ones best interest and damaging to the working and poor people of PA). They need to enact laws and policy that would do away with just about everything these folks have done to PA in the last 30 years. That WILL NOT HAPPEN with any candidate left but Obama.

Only 2 kinds of Republican or Hillary supporters, rich ones and suckers.

McCain and HRC are counting on fooling the suckers and they rightly fear the ones who see through their deceit and lies.

That would be the ones who supported Kucinich, Edwards and now support Obama.

Sidney Condorcet said...

NEW YORK (AP) -- Steve Tarpin can bake a graham cracker crust in his sleep, but explaining why the price for his Key lime pies went from $20 to $25 required mastering a thornier topic: global economics.
He recently wrote a letter to his customers and posted it near the cash register listing the factors -- dairy prices driven higher by conglomerates buying up milk supplies, heat waves in Europe and California, demand from emerging markets and the weak dollar.

The owner of Steve's Authentic Key Lime Pies in Brooklyn said he didn't want customers thinking he was "jacking up prices because I have a unique product."

"I have to justify it," he said.

The U.S. is wrestling with the worst food inflation in 17 years, and analysts expect new data due on Wednesday to show it's getting worse. That's putting the squeeze on poor families and forcing bakeries, bagel shops and delis to explain price increases to their customers.

U.S. food prices rose 4 percent in 2007, compared with an average 2.5 percent annual rise for the last 15 years, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture. And the agency says 2008 could be worse, with a rise of as much as 4.5 percent.

Higher prices for food and energy are again expected to play a leading role in pushing the government's consumer price index higher for March.

Analysts are forecasting that Wednesday's Department of Labor report will show the Consumer Price Index rose at a 4 percent annual rate in the first three months of the year, up from last year's overall rise of 2.8 percent.

For the U.S. poor, any increase in food costs sets up an either-or equation: Give something up to pay for food.

"I was talking to people who make $9 an hour, talking about how they might save $5 a week," said Kathleen DiChiara, president and CEO of the Community FoodBank of New Jersey. "They really felt they couldn't. That was before. Now, they have to."

For some, that means adding an extra cup of water to their soup, watering down their milk, or giving their children soda because it's cheaper than milk, DiChiara said.

U.S. households still spend a smaller chunk of their expenses for foods than in any other country -- 7.2 percent in 2006, according to the USDA. By contrast, the figure was 22 percent in Poland and more than 40 percent in Egypt and Vietnam.

In Bangladesh, economists estimate 30 million of the country's 150 million people could be going hungry. Haiti's prime minister was ousted over the weekend following food riots there.

Still, the higher U.S. prices seem eye-popping after years of low inflation. Eggs cost 25 percent more in February than they did a year ago, according to the USDA. Milk and other dairy products jumped 13 percent, chicken and other poultry nearly 7 percent.

USDA economist Ephraim Leibtag explained the jumps in a recent presentation to the Food Marketing Institute, starting with the factors everyone knows about: sharply higher commodity costs for wheat, corn, soybeans and milk, plus higher energy and transportation costs.

The other reasons are more complex. Rapid economic growth in China and India has increased demand for meat there, and exports of U.S. products, such as corn, have set records as the weak dollar has made them cheaper. That's lowered the supply of corn available for sale in the U.S., raising prices here. Ethanol production has also diverted corn from dinner tables and into fuel tanks.

Soybean prices have gone up as farmers switched more of their acreage to corn. Drought in Australia has even affected the price of bread, as it led to tighter global wheat supplies.

The jump has left people in the food business to do their own explaining. Twin Cafe Caterers in lower Manhattan posted a letter on its deli cooler: "Due to the huge increase of the gas, the electricity, the water and all the other utilities, we had to raise the prices a little bit." It went on to say that all its food prices have risen, too.

Wonder Bagels, in Jersey City, N.J., posted a letter from its wheat supplier, A. Oliveri & Sons, saying the recent situation was unprecedented.

"The major mills across the country are using words like 'rationing' and 'shortages' if things continue," it said. "We will sweat out the summer together, hoping there will be some flour left to purchase at any price."

The letter called for an immediate halt to exports and a change in farm policy, "stop paying farmers NOT to grow crops." A new farm bill, stalled in Congress, would expand farm subsidies if it passes, however.

For some Americans, the resulting increases might be barely perceptible. The Cheesecake Factory raised prices by 1.5 percent at the end of February, Applebee's by 3 percent.

But for the poorest U.S. families, the higher costs may mean going hungry. A family of four is eligible for a maximum $542 a month in food stamps, which never lasted the whole month before, Food Bank of New Jersey's DiChiara said.

"Now food stamps go fewer and fewer days of the month," she said.

The Food Bank recently got a letter of its own from a key vendor. Its grim message: Sorry, but the prices they charge the Food Bank would be increasing 20 percent, due to food inflation.


The market, without government involvement, may help a small minority of people become very rich and fat, but it will inevitably lead, after the various asset bubbles burst, to the most grievous human suffering. Without government involvement, we are looking at some very chaotic and violent times as traditional energy sources wither away and food and water grow more scarce. We need to quit subsidizing corn-based fuel immediately. We need to invest billions in water desalinization technologies to ensure our long-term supply of fresh water. We need public/private collaborations on a major scale to face the existential problems that threatens our increasingly precarious way of life. Friedmanism is a recipe for disaster.

Anonymous said...

McCain recently said, per Drudge, that he prefers a race with Clinton rather than Obama. McCain fears how an Obama election would play out. "If McCain were to retire from politics today, despite all his flaws, most of the country would still have a positive impression of him.

However, the right-wing spin machine will pull out all the stops this election, trying to make Obama some Anti-American Farrakhan type, doing whatever it takes to destroy him. Watching McCain on TV, it's clear that's not really what he wants out of the election, and he worries about how he will look given what his side of the aisle is likely to do.
Instead, McCain speaks of tolerance, goes to Memphis to talk about Dr. King, is planning campaign events in the inner cities, and generally refuses to attack Obama over things like Wright. There is no doubt that if Obama loses this fall it will be a painful day for large segments of this country, as it is doubtful that there will be an African American in the near future with the chance that Obama has today to be President. In this sense, McCain is running against history. I think McCain is concerned that win or lose, he will be associated with a strategy of race baiting and intolerance. In this sense, McCain faces a potentially tarnished legacy, and I suspect that he fears this as much as he does losing this Fall."

Anonymous said...

I'm the "3:03" dumb ass who likes my chruch and my guns and asked Mr. Wirehedd to educate me by telling me exactly what Obama would do to help me and the coutnry. I got nadda. Then Mr. Sidnely Know-it=all Condorset gives a disertation on the economy that is more or less noticable and well-known to even me and the other dumb shits I know. But not one of them can tell what the blessed saint of hope would actually to help me and those like me. From these two its only "sound and fury signifying nothing" And from Obama it's sound and sarcasm signifying nothing.

Go on feeling superior and we'll go on to church and the fields, bitterly cursing others unlike ourselves all the way.

Anonymous said...

What the f___ has Obama's color got to do with him being prsident? I'm sick of "it's his time", or "it's time for a black president" or any other such stupidty. We're in the worse shape we've been in in years and years and the last thing we should consider is the color or gender of anybody. So what if white males have ruled; so what if Obama is black, so what if Hillary is a woman. The black race and women have been disadvantged for centuries. Women since the Bible story of Eve and black people since a little after that. It is not our duty or obligation to sudddnly make up for centuries of abuse. That's not to say Obama or Hillary shouldn't be president. IT's just to say that it shouldn't be because it's "their time." We need the best president we can get no matter any physical characteristics, including age.

Anonymous said...

Hillary is twenty points ahead of Obama in PA. He can't win the general election now, for sure. He's given too much to the MCCain campaign to use against him. I hope the Super Delegates come to their senses and vote for Hillary. If not they're creating President McCain.

Anonymous said...

The Freak Show that is the modern american media is in full display on this one....

As to the elitism charge, after Bush's terrible mismanagement of this government, I really want someone who is elite, someone who is better than me, smarter than me, more capable than I am. Obama is elite, not an elitist. All he's guilty of is poor word choice. Seriously, the bitter aspect of his comment is spot on. The "cling" aspect was his screw up. But seriously, after the innumerable verbal fuck-ups on the part of Bush and company, and McCain's consistent confusing of shia and shiite, iran and al qaeda, why are we killing this guy over a poor choice of words.

All I want from my President is for him to enact policies that will help average americans, keep our nation free and safe, and enhance our moral standing and leadership in the world. I don't give a damn if he knows how to bowl or likes me. I want competence in my President, I don't want a fuckin buddy to share a six-pack with on a friday night.

Anonymous said...

1:27 Obviously Hillary is your "person". She will fulfill all your needs as president without having the baggage of Wright, Ayers, mis-speaks; criminal landlord friend; inexperience; bad voting record, lies and the cause and benefactor of black racism.

Anonymous said...

Umm, i'm 1:17am, Mr. 9:01, and I'm afraid Hillary has her own baggage and she has a misremembering problem (Bosnia), a husband who gets in trouble with the words he uses and, well, other things. Plus, she's a shameless panderer and elitist herself...

But that's not the point, because if it was Hillary versus McCain i'd vote for her because her policies are better. But she's not getting the nomination. So to speak of her as my "person" is kind of ridiculous. Because everyone knows or should know by now that the general election race is between Barack and John. And since neither of those two candidates are "regular folk", I'm just going to judge them on where they'd take this country, what policies they'd pursue and how that helps or hurts Americans. I don't give a damn about these manufactured media issues...If Hillary were the nominee, I wouldn't vote against her b/c of her bosnia story or her husband's scandals (pardons, impeachment, etc...) just because the media would play that crap up. I wouldnt allow myself to get distracted. And you shouldn't allow yourself to get distracted with the media issues surrounding Obama either. His policies are far superior to McCain's. Don't you see?

Anonymous said...

You want your President to keep our nation free and safe ? The Democrats are the worst choice you can make. Democrats want to control your thoughts via "hate" legislation, Democrats want to control your lifestyle via "universal healthcare", Democrats want to control your money (...or give you someone else's money if you are a liberal), Democrats want to indoctrinate your children, Democrats want to spend tons of money on the Global Warming scam

Democrats will not keep you safe, nor will they keep you free.

Barack Obama says that people turn to religion when they're bitter. Karl Marx said that religion is the opiate of the masses. Do you see any vague similarity between the two comments? Obama, you will remember, was very fond of Marxist professors and student groups during his college years.

Anonymous said...

9:43 Can't believe your values. You'd prefer a man as president whose best friends are terrorists, criminals, racists, and who hate America over a woman whose husband had extramarital sex?

Sidney Condorcet said...

Democrats can't keep you free and safe? Oh, but the Republicans can? Wow, son, you have been sleeping for the last 8 years. The Iraq war has accomplished nothing but led to the waste of $3 trillion in tax payer money and 4,000 dead Americans.

Democrats want to control our lifestyle's by giving us universal health care? Obviously you don't give a shit about the fact that nearly 50 MILLION AMERICANS DO NOT HAVE HEALTH INSURANCE and since they can't afford preventative care they wait until their illness is at its peak and go to the Emergency Room where the cost is even more expensive than it would have been if they were treated by a normal doctor at the onset of symptoms, and that cost is paid by taxpayers. Obviously you don't care that Americans pay way more in paperwork (administrative expenses) than any nation because of the insurance companies.

You are either a disingenous propagandist or a subhuman fool who has been duped by the dogma of the wealthy fat-cat Republicans who care nothing of regular Americans...

Anonymous said...

10:07am, clearly you did not read my 9:43am post. I did not say I prefer Obama over Hillary. I said:

"But that's not the point, because if it was Hillary versus McCain i'd vote for her because her policies are better. But she's not getting the nomination. So to speak of her as my "person" is kind of ridiculous. Because everyone knows or should know by now that the general election race is between Barack and John. And since neither of those two candidates are "regular folk", I'm just going to judge them on where they'd take this country, what policies they'd pursue and how that helps or hurts Americans."

Right there, can't you read? I prefer Hillary, actually, to Obama. But Hillary is clearly not going to be the nominee. And I prefer Obama to McCain. So I'm trying to say that we should get fooled by bullshit issues with Obama, any more than we would allow ourselves to be fooled by bullshit media "controversies" with Hillary if she were the nominee.

Anonymous said...

Only MSNBC reports as if Hillary is out of the race and no longer a contender. All the other networks and newspapers indicate that Obama's support is slipping, that Hillary will undoubted;y gain momentum in PA and that she is a very current possibiility to be the Demonicrat candidate.

It is being reported that the OPRAH show has lost 13% of its viewing audience since she endorsed Obama. Do you know what a huge number of women that represents? They are furious with her because women have made her rich yet she chose to support Obama. We've seen race trumps gender in this choice. And the percentage loss will be higher when his remarks about PA workers has been tallied. It's over for Obama.

Did you hear him say that the problem he had with his "bitter" remarks was his "syntax". PLEASE!!!!!

Anonymous said...

Umm, actually 2:56pm, MSNBC is not alone in saying that Hillary has nearly no shot at securing the nomination. According to a member of Clinton's own circle said they only had a 5 or 10% chance at winning. Nearly every single major newspaper, magazine, objective political blog, Chuck Todd, and cable news outlets have indicated that Hillary has less than a 10% chance at winning. Get your facts straight. She can't catch up in delegates or popular vote. She can only win by winning over the superdelegates in a smoke-filled back room at the convention. And there's no way the superdelegates overturn the will of the people and ensure that African-Americans, the Democratic party's most loyal constituency, and the young, leave the party in droves.

Are you the last person to realize that Hillary stands no chance of winning the nomination? How embarassing is it to be so clueless?

Anonymous said...

2:06 You must be Sidney who always must write an immediate response, in order to have the last word, I presume, and because Sidney always states the obvious. Everyone knows she has to be chosen by the Super Delagates. She will be chosen by that group because they realize Obama cannot win.

And FYI Chuck Todd is one of the MSNBC gang doing the hatchet job on Hillary, so what he says is not to be considered. And you may want to consider that 1) women are the most loyal and constitute the majority of Democrats (2) the Super Delegates probably are not so stupid that they will not pick the one who can win, Hillary, despite the ire of the black people, whom they must think will have sense enough to vote for Hillary and their own interests. As for the young - I'm sure leaving the party will be high on the list of cool things to do. (Ha in case you don't get the joke and would choose to post one of your beligerent reprimands.)

Anonymous said...

Bitter and clinging sounds like the opposite of hope and change. What happened to the original inspirational message?

Anonymous said...

Moron at 3:44pm,

Please give me evidence that the super delegates will break Hillary's way. Since Super Tuesday, even since the Wright controversy, Obama has picked up far more super delegates than Clinton.

"Instead of winning over more superdelegates, Hillary Clinton has been losing them to Obama. Since Super Tuesday, 5 February, Obama has won 69 superdelegates and Clinton has actually lost five."

Now, why don't you show me proof of super delegates moving toward Clinton? Oh, right, you can't. Your supposition is 100% wishful thinking. Great argument, sonny.

Now, please provide evidence that women, as a voting bloc, are more reliable Democratic voters than african-americans.

According to exit polls, in 2004 Kerry picked up 88% of the African American vote and 51% of the women vote.

According to exit polls, in 2000 Gore picked up 54% of the women vote and 90% of the black vote.

Clearly these numbers indicate the African-Americans are a more reliable constituency than women (not to discount how very much Democrats need a majority of the women's vote to succeed). I'd like to see you counter this evidence with your own factual proof.

Thank you, come again.

Anonymous said...

4:23 I believe you're Sidney or his clone or perhaps just another narcissist who thinks everyone who likes Ostroy would also take the time to read your hysterial drivel. Each of your multiple entries are far longer than Ostroy's. Now when I see "Sidney" or another extremely long rant I move on to read something of substance. Or, if you could spare us and write succintly, we might read it, just for the laughs.

Now to the point: Obama cannot win Even Fox is now praising Hillary because they don't want to show anymore of the future campaign attacks they're going would use against him if given the chance.

Anonymous said...

Here's one for the Swiftboaters.

"Obama was for Jimmy Carter visiting Hamas before he was against it."

Anonymous said...

4:14 I read your tripe. What's your point nuthead? If black Dems are so realiable they'll vote for Hillary id she's the nominee. If they are sore=headed-losers over Obama and vote for McCann they will have proved your judgment to be off-base as usual.

Anonymous said...


You have the mental acuity of 12-year old retarded hippo. I was responding to 3:44pm who expressly said that "women are the most loyal.." Democrats. And the point, you moron, was that you don't piss off the most reliable constituency and expect to keep them in the fold in the numbers you need to win. Women won't flock to McCain the aged warmonger who knows shit about economics and doesn't care about health care and is pro-life. However, steal the nomination from Obama and you can bet that the majority of blacks either don't vote at all or vote for McCain (and then Hillary would likely lose NY, NJ, possibly Illinois and California...)

And learn to type, putzo...

Anonymous said...

"Yes, as Obama himself admits, he certainly could have chosen his words more artfully. Perhaps he should have borrowed Bill Clinton's 1992 campaign riff about "economically insecure white people who are scared to death." Maybe "scared to death" is less "elitist" than "bitter." But telling the truth, however inartfully, makes you "out of touch"? Give. Me. A. Break."--Arianna Huffington

Anonymous said...

Anonymous Liberal:

For a while now, I've been trying to figure out what it is about the Clinton campaign that has turned me off from the beginning. It has nothing to do with my support for Obama. I know that because I was turned off by her campaign well before I became emotionally invested in Obama's candidacy. And it doesn't stem from any lingering personal animosity toward the Clintons. Quite the contrary. My pre-campaign opinion of both the Clintons was very positive. I've always believed that both Hillary and Bill Clinton are highly intelligent, competent people whose hearts are generally in the right place and whose policy instincts are pretty good. And my pre-campaign instinct, if anything, was to jump to their defense when they came under attack. After all, I don't know of any two people in history who have had to endure more slander, character assassination, and unfair media coverage than the Clintons.

But this week I finally put my finger on what's been bothering me. The problem with the Clintons is that they've learned the wrong lessons from their years of abuse at the hands of the right wing smear machine. They've come to adopt the tactics of their enemies. What's been turning me off about Hillary's campaign is that it has been run exactly like a Republican general election campaign.

It's paint by the numbers. With every event, you know exactly how her campaign is going to respond. You know exactly how her opponent's words are going to be twisted and taken out of context....

When Barack Obama's clumsy comments about small town America surfaced, all I had to do was close my eyes, and I could see what the next Clinton campaign ad would like like....

When I see Clinton on television mouthing talking points that I know she doesn't really believe or I see her surrogates and operatives look into the camera and tell me with a straight face that that up is really down, I cringe. It's a Republican campaign being run in a Democratic primary. They've clearly decided that this is the only way politics can be played, and that's extraordinarily depressing.

I don't mean to suggest that Obama's campaign or the candidate himself are somehow above the political fray, or that they don't from time to time resort to some pretty furious spinning or some obviously disingenuous talking points. They do. But, for better or worse, the Obama campaign clearly doesn't follow the same playbook. Obama has, at crucial points in his campaign, decided to eschew easily digestible talking points and talk to voters like they're adults. He's refused to boil away the complexity of issues that are inherently complex. And perhaps most notably, when Obama reacts to the latest events or the latest twists and turns in the campaign, you genuinely don't know what he's going to say. His speeches, commercials, and talking point aren't predictable scripts spit out by the Polititron 3000 Computer.

At this point in the campaign, Hillary's individuality has been subsumed completely by the script. She simply says whatever the "right" answer is. You can hear it in her voice when she's voicing the latest attack on Obama's character. There's nothing there. She's just mouthing the talking points that the campaign's leaders have deemed necessary for the occasion (Obama is an elitist snob, I like hunting and beer, etc.). It's sad.

Regardless of what happens, I don't want that kind of soulless, lowest-common-denominator style of campaign to become the norm in the Democratic party. It's bad enough that one of the major parties consistently treats the American public like a bunch of ignorant children. I'd rather not have both parties stoop that kind of manipulative cynicism. Clinton needs to lose if for no other reason than to discourage this sort of campaigning.

Anonymous said...

6"15 You miss the entire point. It wasn't the use of the word "Bitter" per se. It was the accusation that the people turned to religiion their guns, and hatred for immigrants and free trade because they were bitter. It wasn't the word bitter but the accusation that their love of God and sports was a silly way of dealing with their real problems, which he later explained as the negilect by their government.

Second point: Obama faulted them, too, for being bitter about free trade, whereas, he, himself, has faulted free trade and said he would end it Of course that could be a campaign lie which an aide said it was to a rep. of the Canadian government.

Third: He said they were bigots because they objected to illegal immigration.

Finally, Rev. Wright gave 320,000 dollars to his church which is now building a ten million dollar house in a white, yes, white neighborhood where he can live free for the rest of his life. It is a huge house, with an elevator, golf course, and all or even more than a poor, deprived, abused, mistreated, discriminated against, citizen of America could want. I wonder that he doesn't fear his white neighbors may rob him or continue to oppress him and deprive him of the good life because he's black.

Anonymous said...

I'm stunned at the vulgar language of the most ardent Obama supporter who chimes in here. I know so few Obama supporters and wonder if they're all so distasteful. There must be nothing elite about Obaama's followers. Or it may be that this young man is unable to find the appropirate acceptable word to express his ideas. Enough of this lament.

I want to call attention to the black man on TV (I was on the phone and didn't get his name) who supports Hillary and to acknowledge his logic in pointing out that if a white young man who had only a few years as state senator and one stint in the US Senate and who was almost unkonwn, had declared he was running for president, he would not have had 90 percent of the black vote as soon as he begain his campaign. This wise man said Ferarro was right about Obama but since she is white she couldn't a get away with pointing this out He can because he is black.

Sidney Condorcet said...


So what's your solution? Never allow a black candidate to run for the democratic nomination? I mean, any black Democrat is likely to get the vast majority of black democratic votes, just as Dukakis got the vast majority of greek-american votes. So what? Jesse Jackson got the vast majority of black votes, but he was found to be a "black candidate" because ONLY BLACK people supported him for the most part. Obama would never have got on a roll if he hadn't won all WHITE Iowa. He nearly beat Clinton in nearly all White New Hampshire. He beat her among white males in Virginia. He beat her among ALL WHITES in Wisconsin. Sure, African-Americans are a major part of his coalition, but it's not the only part. Will you lambaste the first successful Hispanic candidate who wins California and Texas to a large extent based on the Hispanic vote? "Oh, he wouldn't be here if he wasn't hispanic!!"

Someone sounds awfully "bitter."

Anonymous said...

Once again sidney use's just the facts that support his ever-loving obama a$$-kissing.The reason Obama won Iowa was because of it being a caucas state and all the dems. in it at the time and Obama got 33-34% of the vote. You know a caucas state(you know where mostly the elite coffee and wine drinking crowd can afford to attend,the working class have to work overtime so they can at most find time to vote by ballot and leave).Because he's an elitest right along with them.Thats why the great Obama can talk down to the rest of the dumb poor white folk and their supposed to love it.The problem isn't that he's black sidney, IT'S he's an empty suit sidney.The only reason your for him sidney IS HE"S BLACK.

Anonymous said...

You sound a like a bitter prick.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Haha, you're a joke, 8:37am, for deigning to believe what I think and why I support a candidate. I'm with Obama because he speaks to us like adults and doesn't do the politically expedient thing. Clinton is a hack, she's practically a Republican (see: war resolution, bankruptcy bill) and has run her campaign like a Republican general election campaign would be run. She has no real experience aside from 8 years in the Senate. She's lived in a bubble for the last 35 years. She's the elitist, not Obama. Obama was a community organizer helping the poor on the streets of Chicago in the 80's while Hillary was having tea in the Governor's mansion. Hillary would not be where she is today if not for her husband. If I were as myopic and addle-brained as you, I could say that the only reason you support Hillary, Mr. 8:37am, is because she's WHITE. But unlike you I'm not a total tool, and I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Quit being so bitter, 8:37am, your Republican candidate, Hillary Clinton (R-NY), lost. Deal with your grief in a more constructive way.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Wow, 9:00am, wonderful contribution to the dialogue. I point out why we shouldn't begrudge the fact that blacks are a part of Obama's candidacy, and you call me a "bitter prick." Clearly you are off your medication...

Anonymous said...

Two magazines decided to do a survey on "what do people fear the most?" One magazine, Country Living, had almost a 100% white readership. The other was Ebony/Jet magazine where the readership is somewhat different.

First .. the results from Country Living. What do their readers fear most?

Nuclear war or an attack on the United States
A child or spouse with a terminal illness
Themselves with a terminal illness.
And what do the readers of Ebony/Jet fear most:

Registered mail.

Anonymous said...

YEA,sidney likes obama because he talks to like an adult,must be sidney's the type who can be lead down a dark alley and be mugged and then blame it on the power company because there was no lights,Sidney your the mental midget and the person who needs medication, aren't these your favorite sayings.Your the one who needs to wake up and smell the coffee.Obama's unelectable in the general,The white monster bitch (hillary) as you Obama fans like to call her hasn't laid the meaning of a glove on Obama yet,the gloves will come off in the general against Mccain.Mccain doesn't need all your black votes he only needs the blue-collar worker that you and Obama are pissing off,and he'll get em,KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK SIDSNEY

Sidney Condorcet said...

Wow, that is the most racist comment I've seen on this blog. "YEA,sidney likes obama because he talks to like an adult,must be sidney's the type who can be lead down a dark alley and be mugged and then blame it on the power company because there was no lights.." What does this mean? Other than to allow you to connect a criminal act with my support for a candidate who happens to be black? You sicken me. Also, I've never heard/seen any fellow supporter refer to Senator Clinton as a "white monster bitch." Your insecure white male rage has no place on this blog.

Anonymous said...

Hillary Clinton says "Screw 'Em" to working class whites!!!

Anonymous said...

There can be no doubt now that Obama cannot win the general and it is doubtful that he can be the Democratic nominee. The reason: very simple and very obvious.

Today in her column Maureen Dowed, who has never said a good word about Hillary and has supported Obama, wrote a scathing column about him and his remarks about working people. She listed his attempts to be one of the guys by drinking beer, bowling, etc. and remarked how inept he was. That Obama offended Maureen we know the damanage to him is deep.

The tide has turned.

Anonymous said...

Sidney and the other race pimps are starting to scream "racism" every single time someone not black says anything negative about Barack Obama. After Barrack's absurd San Francisco statement about rural people turning to guns and God out of bitterness, some started suggesting that Obama may be just a bit of an elitist. No sooner were those words out of some white mouth than someone else was saying that the word "elitist" is really a code word for "uppity Negro." Give me a break. And then when John McCain had the audacity to make a speech in Meridian, Mississippi; some Obama supporter was blogging on the Internet that McCain's speech was a "dog whistle" for white racists. That would be because Meridian is only 40 miles from Philadelphia – the site of the murders of three civil rights workers in the 60s. By "dog whistle" for white racists, this Obama supporter meant that only whites would be able to discern the racism inherent in McCain's decision to speak so closely to Philadelphia, Mississippi.

It is apparent now that a white person is not going to be permitted to criticize Barack Obama in any way – on any issue – without various race pimps and warlords screaming "racist." People are going to get sick and tired of this real quick. Voters are going to start thinking about what it would be like if Obama were actually in the White House. Would any criticism of an Obama initiative be branded as racist? Think about it --- if merely making a speech in Meridian, MS is racist --- if calling someone an elitist is racists --- I think you can answer that one yourself.

Obama's biggest enemies in this election process will be his own supporters – eager to find and expose racial bias in every utterance. It's already tiring. Quickly it will become unbearable.

Anonymous said...

anybody who don't kiss Obama's A$$ is a racist to you sidney and if you don't think Obama supports don't use the words monster and white bitch go to buzz huffington post,Or any of the other liberal post and blogs and you will see that these terms being used on a daily base's, sometimes together, sometimes seperately

Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sidney Condorcet said...

Actually, if you could read you'd notice that I said the person was dumb only after destroying their argument on substantive grounds. Guess you skipped over the part where I said it's ridiculous to say all Obama supporters (or most) say/believe something that a few people have said and that it would be equally unfair to do the same to Clinton's supporters.

So either you can't read or you're the LIAR...Which is it?


Anonymous said...

Sidney is grammatically challenged. It should read "... I said the person was dumb only after destroying HIS argument on ... "

Anonymous said...

Sidney's logic is nonexistent. He is mantally challenged in that area, too.

Sidney, just because you say there are only a handful of verbal abusers among the millions of Obama supporters, doesn't prove anything. You have absolutely no way of knowing how many of his supportrs verbally abuse Hillary and you could only know if you were able to "clock" the remarks of all of them all of the time. You can surmise, guess, or even suggest that statistically from those we're heard speak that they are few such abusers. But you cannot logically present it as factual.

Sidney Condorcet said...

Well, doesn't that also mean that the person I was originally responding to couldn't possibly know that ALL of Obama's supporters say Hillary is a "white monster bitch"?? I'm sure he hasn't clocked all of the remarks. And which is more likely to be true? That all Obama's supporters think Hillary is a "white monster bitch" or that only a very small handful think so? Hmm, more likely to be the latter, 6:13pm. It's always so sad to see the supporters of a losing candidate lash out in such counterproductive ways. You'll get better in time. Have some warm milk and take a nap.

Oh, and 5:53, since you're such a grammarian, don't you think it would be a bit presumptuous to think the person I was responding to was a male? I should have said his or her. Thank you for the correction though. Given the myriad typos and grammatical errors on this blog's comments section (as well as most blog's comments sections), I'm sure you're hard at work playing linguistic hall monitor.

Anonymous said...

Thank you Sidney for your typical dumb-ass responce,We now know why you have the time to blog every minute,If you use these type arguments in your practice,you have a very short client list.Have you ever,ever,ever won a case.If so,it's a very,very,very,short list

Sidney Condorcet said...

And what exactly did your response just contribute, 8:34am? It would be in your interest to take a long, hard look in the mirror before labeling someone's comment a "dumb-ass responce" (as you call it). You haven't contributed a scintilla of substantive commentary.

Anonymous said...

"The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more." - Michelle Obama

The Obama's are communists.

Anonymous said...

Democrats are such idiots. In 2 years, you will look back and realize how silly it was to select Obama as a Presidential candidate. The guy has got nothing and you're drinking the kool aid.

He has no track record; he's friends with the likes of Bill Ayers, the Hate Preacher, and Farakahn; and he does not have the ability to take a stand on issues (see his 130+ 'present' votes).

Democrats are selecting a bubble as their Presidential candidate. Please step out of wonderland and into reality. How is Obama supposed to stand up to enemies of America if he is crying about his treatment during a debate.

Obama needs to take the silver spoon out of his mouth and realize he does not have what it takes to be President of the United States.

Anonymous said...


If George W. Bush can be elected President twice, then anyone can be elected President. No one was born with a bigger silver spoon than Bush. No one was more clueless and ill-prepared than George. W. Bush. No one was more of an empty suit elitist than the prep-school, yale, harvard business school, alcoholic, AWOL George W. Bush.

Obama is Superman when compared with Bush. If Bush can get elected, so can Obama.

And since Obama is about a thousand times smarter than Bush, he'll likely govern a thousand times better than Bush.

Anonymous said...

10:53 am,
Believe whatever you want, but this time next year neither Obama nor Clinton will be President and the country will be better off because of it.

Americans will not vote for someone who talks down to them.

Anonymous said...

Americans will not vote for a man who knows crappola about the economy while we're in the midst of a recession and Americans will not vote for the cheerleader of an extremely unpopular war who wants to take us to war with Iran.

You may think that Americans are stupid and that they never care about issues and only care about personality, but this November Americans will prove you wrong...

Anonymous said...

What most Obama fans don't understand or want to acknowledge is that president's don't bring things to the floor of congress,who ever controls congress does,so which they can control the agenda.So democrates quit your snibling you have control of the purse strings.Most dumb americans(as sidney and obama call us)understand that voting mccain is not 4 more years of bush.Its called keeping a check on goverment,exspecially when you have Mr. Obama out there who carries more baggage(even more than monica's mouth and blue dress after bill),between the Rev.Wright,Rezko,and not taking a stand even against porn shops next to schools. He voted present 130+ times so his stance on anything is slim to none and then he even talks down to the very people he needs "I KNOW WHATS GOOD FOR YOU AND AILES YOU AND ONLY I KNOW HOW TO FIX IT." And atleast you know where Mccain stands,you might not agree with him but you know where he stands.And if you don't like him in 2012 vote someone else in.

Anonymous said...

Sidney, since "person" is singular its pronoun must be singular also; and unless the gender is known to be female, the masucline form is used correctly.

And, as for Obama being smarter than Bush -- Bush was smart enough not to make major mistakes during his campagn that alienated a huge number of Americans. He kept his skeletons in the closet.

Anonymous said...

I just read Ostroys latest blog where a contributor says an email is going around saying Obama's cousin received millions from Obama supporters which was a contribution to the cousin's political camgaign, He lost and claimed the election was rigged and caused major turmoil in Kenya. The email says that Obama is really a Muslim and if he doesn't win the election he'll claimm it was fixed and cause race riots in the USA. True or not -- which I believe it is not -- won't matter when the Replicans circulate that during the election. The email was supposedly send my missionaires in Kenya. Obama can't win against the Republican machine Hillary was right -- we know her haggage.

Sidney Condorcet said...

2:48PM=Republican Troll??

If you're not a troll, you are essentially arguing that we should never allow new blood to enter the arteries of power since you are saying that any first-time national candidate will have to deal with completely fabricated rumors and innuendo and that the electorate will believe anything so we shouldn't even bother fighting against these scurrilous lies.

That does not exactly make for a vibrant democracy, though. It makes for aristocracy or monarchy where we recycle through the same few families because we are comfortable with them, they've been "vetted," and we know their baggage.


Anonymous said...

I investigate my surgeon, my dentist, my doctor, my insurance agent, my plumber, my baby sitter, my car mechanic, my financial adviser and then the recommendations he makes. I judge my friends, my pastor, my neighbors, andothers insofar as seeing if I have the same values and wish to associate with them on a more than very casual basis. Everyone I know does this unless they're extremely naive.

Why oh why is it not wise to vett the person who is to affect all the areas of my life, my family's life, my loved-ones lives; and all the citizens of my coutnry and the world, because it is the most important job in the world.

Yes, Sidney, i want someone who has been "VETTED" and if I had the power over the election that I havae over my own affaires, I would insist all candidates be vetted.

Anonymous said...

I'm in high school and we are assigned to read blogs. Iusually don't write becuase somebody might call me stupid if I make a mistake, but I do know one thing I already learned. You have got to be careful who you hang out with. One of my best friends didn't know some kids in the car with him had dope and when the police stopped and caught them, he was accused too and he didn't even know about it. He didn't know they did dope either. He should have vetted them.

Sidney Condorcet said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sidney Condorcet said...

6:55, I agree with you that all candidates should indeed be vetted. Obama has been going through that process, in case you haven't noticed. I just disagree with you in that I don't think what has come out disqualifies Obama. Some are legit issues he has to deal with (Rev. Wright), some are exaggerated (Ayers), and some are just straight-up, fabricated flotsam (muslim, flag lapel pin).

If you want to vote for McCain, go ahead. McCain is an honorable guy, though I think terribly wrong on some of the most compelling issues of our time. I don't think, though, that Obama's issues discount him from doing a bang-up job as President, especially when compared with the Presidents we've had in the last 30 or so years. (Was Nixon so great? Ford? Carter? Reagan? Bush 1? Bush II?)

Anonymous said...

The first attempt to get information about Wright and the other issues was on ABC and the Obama team has gone beserk. Not only that, it didn't turn out to be such a "vett". He has never answered the questions well enough for us to know or understand. What are his connections to his political reliatives in Kenya? Is it true Sharpton is an unoffical consultant with whom Obama speaks almost daily?

And what guaratee do we have that he'll handle the presidency any better than he's handled his campaing? Was it smart to never mention the Wright issue before it blew up in his face? Is it smart to be so indebted to Soros and MOVEON? Is it smart to let Michele rave on about her hard life and her evil country? Those or just a few of his "missteps". We can't afford any more "missteps" from our President.

You neglected to point out the great work of Bill Clinton as president.

Anonymous said...

Your talking points are transparent.
Barack Obama is ahead against McCain in all polls.
Please stop shilling for the Clinton machine.