Just wondering if anyone else had heard/read this and what you thought of it...

Mayhill Fowler: Obama: No Surprise That Hard-Pressed Pennsylvanians Turn Bitter - Off The Bus on The Huffington Post

I hope I linked correctly...

Melissa

How could anyone miss it. It is all they(the media) talked about most of the day. What do I think about it. I think he will get a pass as usual. If Hillary had said it she would, as usual, be crucified. Don't get me wrong, I do like Obama, but am somewhat tired of the male (and some female) talking heads beating up on her while giving Obama a pass on most everything. And it does remind me of Bush telling his wealthy supporters at fund raiser in 2004 that they were his base.

I do like his comeback to McCain. McCain said Obama is out of touch with everyday people. Obama basically said McCain is the one who wants to keep the tax cuts for the wealthy. And that it took McCain 3 tries to decide the homeowners need to be helped (only after an outcry) with he mortgage crisis.

“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.” Obama

What a fancy way of stereotyping people.

He might as well have come right out and said that they are gun slinging, racial churchgoers, afraid of people not like them such as black, gays, white, Mexicans,etc.

He was right that people are bitter..but wrong to add the other comment.
Obama is still standing by his comments. He has no idea that some find this offensive.

I agree with what he said.

"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," Obama said. "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."

I don't live in Pennsylvania but in the bigger context about being lied to by successive administrations, he's right. Unfortunately for Senator Clinton her husband's administration is one of those who did not live up to the promises made to communities like those in parts of Pennsylvania.

As an example of such lies (or business as usual), just in the last few weeks while Senator Clinton has been talking about major changes in trade policy we found out one of her campaign staffers has been doing work on a trade agreement with the Columbian government she specifically said she was against. Additionally we found out President Clinton had accepted close to a million dollars for "championing" that trade agreement. Lies or just business as usual for too many politicians?

If some Pennsylvanians are offended by Senator Obama's remarks they should be downright p'd about being manipulated by Senators Clinton and McCain.

You agree with his stereotyping people?
Or do you just agree with his idea about people being bitter without the reference to guns, religion?
There is a difference.

This is the soundbite we are hearing "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."

IMO, its not fair to say he's "stereotyping" people. There are groups of people who say they can't get a job because of immigrant workers. There are racists and homophobes and they come in all colors, not just white. There are people who fear the government wants to take their guns. The commonality in many cases is their mistrust of and frustration with the government. Is he stereotyping or explaining a mindset?

In the larger context I think he's also saying that mistrust of and bitterness toward the government have dragged groups of people down. That not all problems can be blamed on the government -- that it's up to individuals to help themselves. That campaign promises made in the past are not to be relied on.

Would people consider the line in question out of line....if someone else spoke of it in the content of black people?
That blacks are bitter because they have slip through the cracks in the government. "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."

I do not have a problem with him saying people are bitter at the government, but to draw the conclusion
that the bitterness is why people cling to guns and religion is way off. The way he says it makes it sound like all us "country" people who like our guns, our religion, etc is because we are bitter.

I think its silly to think he meant all people who live in the country and who favor guns or are religious are bitter and cling to guns and religion because of their bitterness. If people want to hear it that way they will though.

As for your example using black people as opposed to country people. Again IMO, it's too broad a brush; black or white, country or city. It might fit some but not all.

I'm betting Senator Obama wishes he had said "And it's not surprising then some get bitter ..."

Only copied parts of the article..the link takes you to the entire article.

Obama on Guns and Religion: ‘I Didn’t Say It as Well as I Should Have’ - America’s Election HQ

Barack Obama admitted Saturday that he chose his words poorly when he told a group of California donors that small-town Americans “cling” to guns and religion and xenophobia out of bitterness over lost jobs, but for the second day in a row stood by the comments and weathered pointed criticism from Hillary Clinton.

“I didn’t say it as well as I should have, because the truth is these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important,” Obama said in Muncie, Ind., minutes before Clinton jumped in and called his remarks “elitist.”

“But what is absolutely true is that people want to feel like they’re being listened to. And so they pray, and they count on each other and they count on their families,” Obama continued.

Clinton, speaking in Indianapolis Saturday morning, amplified her attack, saying Obama has no right to challenge gun owners or those who believe strongly in God.
“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. Americans who believe in protecting good American jobs believe it’s a matter of the American dream,” she said. “People embrace faith not because they are materially poor but because they are spiritually rich.”

What a twit.

[quote=forrestlayne;2981005]“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.” Obama

What a fancy way of stereotyping people.

He might as well have come right out and said that they are gun slinging, racial churchgoers, afraid of people not like them such as black, gays, white, Mexicans,etc.

He was right that people are bitter..but wrong to add the other comment.
Obama is still standing by his comments. He has no idea that some find this offensive.[/QUOE]



After listening to someone like Wright for 20 years, he probably doesnt think what he said was offensive, he is used to hearing such garbage and what is it they say...>Garbage in...Garbage out He's just been holding back for a while...the more he talks...the more he shows his true self....Sherri

__________________
"It isn't that liberals are ignorant, it's just that they know so much that isn't so."
- Ronald Reagan

I thought he was getting a pass to some extent yesterday. I only get CNN and they only covered it briefly from what I saw. Not all afternoon that I remember. Anyway...

I don't think it was just what he said that was offensive, but to whom he said it. Like he was taking these wealthier, more rounded group of ppl into his confidence, that they would understand easier, and feel sorry for those poor souls in Pa. It was condescending. I bet those Californians were just feeling so glad that they didn't have to be bitter and turn to religion...LOL (large amounts of sarcasm in last comment!) It felt like he was trying to align himself to Ca. and distance himself from Pa. Kind of like the nerdy kid finally being accepted by the "in" group and turning on his friends. That is how it made me feel......ick.

And as far as Hil and McCain are concerned........I'm surprised they weren't drooling with excitement about how they would get to use Obama's unfortunate choice of words to further themselves............double ick

I can' t wait till this is all over....

From my perspective, God is in control. I vote and try to be educated about the issues....but I believe that ultimately God will seat the next President.......I can't wait to see what He does!!!!


Melissa

Honestly, how anyone can even pretend this is "stereotyping" anyone is beyond me. Who is he supposed to be stereotyping, anyway?

Meanwhile, Clinton's husband is bought and paid for by people pushing a deal she claims to oppose. How convenient, when the people you're supposedly opposing are feathering your own nest. Conflict, much, Sen. Clinton?

And now -- laughable! -- she's claiming to be a big fan of gun rights and to have been a duck hunter.

Hillary, if your lips are moving, you're lying.

That's why she has to continually attack Obama -- because he tells the truth. That's a notion beyond Clinton's ability to comprehend.

Political Punch

"While the description of small town Pennsylvanians as "bitter" is certainly impolitic, many political analysts say it's what follows that adjective that is potentially so alienating -- the notion that small town folks "get bitter" after which "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."

But Obama allies are trying to focus on the "bitter" part alone."

Actually, people do turn to religion moreso during tough times, and Pennsylvania has seen some tough times. His choice of words, however, were not good. As a Dem, he needs to choose every word carefully to avoid having them miscontrued, twisted or taken out context.

Me, I have more trouble listening to McCain mixing up the Shia and Sunni or flat out saying that he doesn't understand economics or saying that victory in Iraq is right around the corner. Then there's his foul language with fellow senators and the way he treats his wife.

I have also had trouble listening to gaffes like, "I know how hard it is to put food on your family." from the current occupant of the White House.

I don't have an opinion on what Obama said, but, did see this on the news last night. This is a company that has created over 1,000 jobs in the "rust belt" of Pennsylvania.


ABC News: Rust Belt Workers Are Going Green

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

It looks like Hillary is not going to let this slide by so easy.
Here is her new TV ad.

YouTube - Hillary New "Small Town" TV Ad In Pennsylvania

Hillary is a bit desperate, but nothing she has done has hurt his numbers.

I didn't find what Obama said to be that terrible, but if you combine it with Michelle Obama and her comments to a group of women in Ohio about the strain of trying to pay $10,000 a year on piano and dance lessons, ( this was in, Muskingum County, where, according to the census, the median household income in 2004 was $37,192, below both the Ohio and national average), and you begin to get a picture of a couple of people that may be out of touch with the a good part of the electorate.

This is the link for the statistics in quotes. It also talks about what was said in the meeting, although I have seen this mentioned in other articles as well.
Byron York on Michelle Obama on National Review Online

If I read the link correctly it also included the cost of sport activities and summer camp. I agree that it is an outrageous amount of money but not out of line considering their current income. I know I sound like an Obama apologist but really I think if I were a member of the group she was talking to I would be astounded at the dollar amount but could relate because I'm likely spending a few hundred a year per child out of my income of $35,000. I expect those women she was talking to would have spent the same as Mrs. Obama if their incomes allowed it because they want the best for their children too.

It's not like Michelle Obama was born into the lifestyle she now enjoys. She and the Senator went through bad times growing up but through hard work and a good dose of "family values" hit the American jackpot so many of us aspire to. Here's a link to a really interesting article about her.

Profiles: The Other Obama: Reporting & Essays: The New Yorker

As an aside can you imagine the fun Senators Clinton and McCain would have had if rather then having Mrs. Obama mention the $10,000 figure during such a meeting it had been "discovered" during a hunt for mud to sling.

Again, IMO these are silly points to argue but ...

I only brought it up because it "feels" like they are out of touch. And frankly, if I were one of those women, I think I would have been taken aback by such a lack of finesse on her part. That's sort of like going up to a blind person and trying to explain how you once had trouble with your eyesight for a few hours because of a sore on your eyelid, or going up to a very obese person, while you weigh in at 125 and saying something about you understand their pain because you once weighed 135 and had a terrible time taking the weight off. The problems are not the same.

I'm not saying that the Obama's shouldn't do what they can for their kids, but they shouldn't be rubbing it into the faces of those that can't. Even my darling husband, who can at times be very obtuse about slights, perceived and real, did a double take when I told him about the comments, and said he thought that was much worse than what Barack Obama said in his speech. Maybe there's hope for him yet..lol..

As for Clinton and McCain, I doubt they would have had anything to say about it. I'm sure their kids wanted for nothing when they were growing up regardless of the cost.

Here is the truth...
https://protectthetruth.us/Home_Page.php

I think you had a moment of fatigue. You must have meant to type "here are the lies." Don't worry, even the great HRC herself makes "misstatements" like that all the time.

While I don't trust that she believes what she said, I do think everything she said there was accurate.

His statement presumes that if the situation were reversed that the opposite state of being would exist.

In other words, if they weren't bitter, they would have separated themselves from religion and guns.

I live in a world with many devoutly religous people and many gun owners, none of whom are bitter. Regardless of the economic state, they would cling to their God and they would still enjoy hunting.

The clinging has nothing to do with bitterness, and to make bitterness the motive for alegiences is a slap in the face to those who hold convictions based upon some of the very freedoms our constitution guarantees us and in fact fiercely protects.

His statement presumes no such thing. If you feel the need to read something into it that wasn't there, no one can stop you.

Really? You don't see it?



He explains the lack of action by previous administrations, and then says, "So it's not surprising then..." and then launches into what appear to me to be a string of reactions to the lack of action:

1. Bitterness
2. Clinging to guns
3. Clinging to religion
4. Clinging to apatipathy towards people who are different from them
5. Clinging to an anti-trade sentiment

And each of these reactions is, according to Obama, an explanation of their frustration.

1 and 5 I can buy as a reaction to what they perceive as an injustice in their lives. If they think Bush and Clinton wronged them, then bitterness can be expected. If they think the trade policies of those administrations has furthered their economic woes then yeah - they'll be frusrtated by them and hang onto that sentiment for all it's worth.

2 is just silly. What was he thinking? I don't get it.

3 is probably factually incorrect. Short-term, people in crisis find religion. Long-term, they usually start to blame God and become less religious. He's talking about 25 years worth of administrative neglect here. It took the Israelites much less time to turn on God than that. I'd say anyone who is clinging to religion now is doing so because they believe it, not because it's a reaction.

4 I don't buy. People who are bigots are just bigots, regardless of their economic status.

I don't see why you are so confused by this.

FWIW, Hillary is a twit. She just happened to say the right thing this time.

I guess I am one of those bitter people from PA. I saw the clip when he gave the speech, and at first I was a little taken back. I was trying to figure out whether he was uppity or whether he just did have the slip of the tongue and meant to word it different. I know I will probably have a lot of hot under the collar people answering this. I know we are sort of bitter, but it is like this in probably every state. All our jobs are going overseas, I will honor the soldiers, but I don't feel we should have went to Iraq in the first place. The gas prices are terrible, and we live in a rural area where we have to drive at least 25 miles to go to a grocery store. Trying to keep your head above water when you are upper lower or lower middle class is hard to do when your hubby has health problems that also takes alot of your salary. I switched over a year ago from Republican to Democrat. Am 57 and this was my first time changing. I am darn sick of the govt. and Bush being friends with the oils companies, and all the big wheels they give contracts too. They don't seem to care for the little guy. I would like to see the Federal and the State Govt. try to get along on what we do, and then maybe they would learn to live within their means and cut all these pork barrel expenses. I do believe that Mccain is out of touch with the people. The election in PA is on Tuesday, and I am still trying to decide between the 2. Either way, I guess we will make history. I think a dog could have even done better than Bush did in these last few years. I can feel my bp go up as I write this, so yes-guess we are a little hurt or bitter, but I know I am not alone. Other states have to feel the same way. Where does it all end or does it just keep on going! I also didn't vote for Rendell. I really vote for who I feel will do the best job regardless of what party. Thanks for letting me vent!

This is what Hillary had to say in the mid-90s about working class southerners:

"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."

The article goes on to say:

"Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."

"I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks."

"If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America."

Entire article at: Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw 'Em" - Politics on The Huffington Post

Instead of saying screw'em as Senator Clinton did, Senator Obama. admittedly inartfully, was trying to convey his feeling about why the democratic party has lost so many voters. As President Clinton said, its hard to convince people who have given up on the government for various reasons to vote for something. It's much easier for them to vote against something and the republican party has mastered how to reach out to that disinfranchised population. They trot out the NRA, conservative religious leaders, tout their "family" values, the "threat" of gay marriage if democrats are elected, etc., etc.

I find it funny that the very people who Hillary said "screw'em" about are now the group she will sell her soul for to get their votes.

Robin, thank you for your post. I understand what you're saying. I was raised in eastern Ohio and have family in western Pennsylvania but haven't lived back there in years. It's a pretty part of the country but has fallen on hard times since I lived there. Whoever you vote for on Tuesday will for sure be better then what we have now. As we say in my family "chins up", it will get better,

Sorry, but this just sounds patronizing. I give the people of PA more credit than that. They don't have the smarts to see through Republican tactics designed to get their votes? Says who?

If any party is guilty of sucking up and asserting that they have all the answers in order to look sympathetic and win votes, it's the "I just wanna help you" Dems.

I don't think I'm confused at all on this one.

I was just thinking this very type thing the other day. You know, how do you get someone to see the "good" when there is so much "bad". Clearly all Presidents have done SOMETHING positive for our country, but, when the overall picture doesn't look so good, how DO you try to show someone the good? That didn't come across as I'd like it to, but, it basically reflects the above statement. It pretty much boils down to whatever President is in Office , Republican or Democrat, if the economy is not looking good, etc, that President's party suffers, no matter the good things they have accomplished.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

If the Dems are the "I just wanna help you" party then the Pubs are the "oh it's scarey out there" party. Patronizing, I don't think so. Which party trotted out the flag amendment, the marriage amendment, manipulated the color coded terrorist threat system, and ignores the laws of our country all in the name of keeping us safe? If I didn't know better and judged us only on the elections up to the last 2 years, I'd think we were all a bunch of cowards.

Or maybe the republicans are the "let them eat cake" party. The Iraq invasion is costing us $5,000 a second. When our economy shows signs of collapsing under that weight we're offered a "check" to go shopping. A distinctly republican sleight of hand which will do nothing to help the economy in the long run. Or, how about a gas tax holiday for the summer months. How ridiculous is that when our bridges are falling down?

Thankfully it appears that a good portion of the population is waking up and recognizing the deceit and corruption of the republican party.

Okay maybe "clearly" is easy for some of you, but I'm having a problem seeing anything positive that has been done in the last seven years. The only positive that I can remember, and it's not directly a benefit to our country, is that Bush greatly increased spending for AIDS prevention in Africa. Of course "clearly" to you and "clearly" to me might be worlds apart.

It matters most which party is controlling Congress..which the Democratics have been since 2006.

Newsmax.com - The Party That Controls Congress Controls

"...this is a year when a third of the senators and every member of the lower House are elected."

"Voters may not be thinking seriously about whom to send to Capitol Hill, but interest-groups ladling out campaign contributions are. They know that regardless of who sits in the Oval Office, who controls Congress controls."

You might want to email the link to President TLSM who is apparently under the impression he is omnipotent.

Controlling Congress isn't as meaningful, however, when the president holds an override proof veto.

Hopefully that will change this year and some real work will be accomplished without President Petulant in the WH.

OMIgosh, President Petulant!!!!!!!!!!

well, now, there you go.....see, you CAN see something positive that has occured . How about the lower Capital Gains tax?? That's a plus, too. The use of clearly is CLEARLY two worlds apart....better choice maybe would have been SURELY. Can you relate better to that word?

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I read an article today by Howard Dean (Dem) who criticized Senator McCain, but said in spite of the gas situation and the economy, that overall we are doing better. I'll try to find a link to it.

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

I'm clearly and surely and almost somewhat certain that, somehow, between my occasional senior brain farts and the fact that there is so much wrong with his admin. that I forgot the Cap. Gains tax... It's easy to overlook stuff like that in the overwhelming wasteland that is the last 7 years. But I suppose a list is much easier and a whole lot shorter, (microscopic), if you go for the positives in this instance.

Dean: McCain's economic plan 'more of the same' - Yahoo! News


Despite the nation's current economic woes, including rising unemployment, lower wages and record gas prices, "Senator McCain believes we are better off," Dean said.

Dean is the Democratic Party Chairman

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.

Howard didn't say we were better off. He said "SENATOR MCCAIN BELIEVES WE ARE BETTER OFF". HUGE difference.

__________________
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God? " ~Epicurus

aha, that's what I get for reading before I've had my coffee

__________________
Doing the right thing isn't always the same as doing the easy thing.