<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Obama on small-town PA: Clinging to religion, guns, xenophobia Huffpo's Mayhill Fowler has more from Obama's remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, and they include an attempt to explain the resentment in small-town Pennsylvania that won't be appreciated by some of the people whose votes Obama's seeking: 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 toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. That's a pretty broad list of things to explain with job loss.</div> Link
He spends tens of millions of dollars on ads in Pennsylvania targeting that exact audience of blue-collar workers who live in these small towns...and he goes and makes that statement? McCain and Clinton are going to have a field day with this.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 11 2008, 06:34 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Anti-immigrant people do sound bitter.</div> You don't say that about them if you want their vote.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It seems he has little problem categorizing groups of people. That is alarming.</div> I don't think he said all are, just a significant amount.
That certainly was a dumb thing to say. Even if it is partially true, like AEM said, you don't like to hear politicians make generalizations like that. That anti-trade sentiment part is very true, but it just makes him look dumber for saying that he'd rework the NAFTA agreement.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Apr 11 2008, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That certainly was a dumb thing to say. Even if it is partially true, like AEM said, you don't like to hear politicians make generalizations like that. That anti-trade sentiment part is very true, but it just makes him look dumber for saying that he'd rework the NAFTA agreement.</div> I'm sure it wasn't very bright, but what exactly do you mean by generalization in this specific case (haha, don't just repost the official definition by the way, I'm asking in a different sense)? I'm don't think it was, if he was referring to only a "significant" amount of people (not "all"). His comments seem vague enough to be valid.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It seems he has little problem categorizing groups of people. That is alarming.</div> "Typical white person"
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 11 2008, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Apr 11 2008, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That certainly was a dumb thing to say. Even if it is partially true, like AEM said, you don't like to hear politicians make generalizations like that. That anti-trade sentiment part is very true, but it just makes him look dumber for saying that he'd rework the NAFTA agreement.</div> I'm sure it wasn't very bright, but what exactly do you mean by generalization in this specific case (haha, don't just repost the official definition by the way, I'm asking in a different sense)? I'm don't think it was, if he was referring to only a "significant" amount of people (not "all"). His comments seem vague enough to be valid. </div> It doesn't matter if they're valid or not, the people he was talking about are going to make up a sizeable part of the democratic primary contest in PA. If you hurt them, why would they vote for you?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 11 2008, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 11 2008, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Apr 11 2008, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That certainly was a dumb thing to say. Even if it is partially true, like AEM said, you don't like to hear politicians make generalizations like that. That anti-trade sentiment part is very true, but it just makes him look dumber for saying that he'd rework the NAFTA agreement.</div> I'm sure it wasn't very bright, but what exactly do you mean by generalization in this specific case (haha, don't just repost the official definition by the way, I'm asking in a different sense)? I'm don't think it was, if he was referring to only a "significant" amount of people (not "all"). His comments seem vague enough to be valid. </div> It doesn't matter if they're valid or not, the people he was talking about are going to make up a sizeable part of the democratic primary contest in PA. If you hurt them, why would they vote for you? </div> Who's making the argument that they should? Still, I wouldn't let one comment like that determine who I'll vote for, that's pretty dumb to me as well.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It seems he has little problem categorizing groups of people. That is alarming.</div> "Typical white person" </div> That's not the entire quote. Even Chris Wallace defended Obama on that one.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 10:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Chris Wallace, the Democrat of Fox News? </div> He's still not a Democrat from CNN. His comments were very fair. :]
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 11 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It seems he has little problem categorizing groups of people. That is alarming.</div> "Typical white person" </div> That's not the entire quote. Even Chris Wallace defended Obama on that one. </div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Hillary Clinton's strategists are delighted at what they consider Barack Obama's latest stumble in the hypersensitive world of racial politics. Obama is drawing a new round of criticism for his comments on a Philadelphia radio sports program yesterday in which he said his grandmother is a "typical white person" who has fears about black men. He was attempting to explain a portion of his speech on race earlier this week—specifically, the statement that his white grandmother gets nervous when a black man approaches her on the street. Obama told the radio host, "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society." Obama was already drawing flak for his association with a controversial preacher in Chicago who has made anti-American and antiwhite comments. An Obama spokesman noted that the Illinois senator was trying to say that his grandmother has the same fears shared by many in her "generation." Clinton insiders say Obama's remarks stereotyped whites in a negative way and will further alienate white working-class people around the country, including those in Pennsylvania, which holds a key primary April 22. Obama's remarks are being criticized on Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, and elsewhere in the media, keeping the controversy going. Clinton strategists say it's part of a broader problem—that Obama has not been sufficiently "vetted" and there are many areas of his life and background that have escaped scrutiny and might embarrass him later. —Kenneth T. Walsh</div> Link That has to make more than a few people feel uncomfortable.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 11 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 11 2008, 10:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 11 2008, 08:17 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chutney @ Apr 11 2008, 08:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>That certainly was a dumb thing to say. Even if it is partially true, like AEM said, you don't like to hear politicians make generalizations like that. That anti-trade sentiment part is very true, but it just makes him look dumber for saying that he'd rework the NAFTA agreement.</div> I'm sure it wasn't very bright, but what exactly do you mean by generalization in this specific case (haha, don't just repost the official definition by the way, I'm asking in a different sense)? I'm don't think it was, if he was referring to only a "significant" amount of people (not "all"). His comments seem vague enough to be valid. </div> It doesn't matter if they're valid or not, the people he was talking about are going to make up a sizeable part of the democratic primary contest in PA. If you hurt them, why would they vote for you? </div> Who's making the argument that they should? Still, I wouldn't let one comment like that determine who I'll vote for, that's pretty dumb to me as well. </div> Wouldn't at least some of those people Obama were referring to wouldn't be offended? It's a bad thing to say at this time, it's poor decision making. The McCain campaign will use that quote now to stay relevant in the news and maybe down the road too, and the Clinton campaign will use that quote as well. It's not a good thing to say when he has been playing catch up to Clinton in this state.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 11 2008, 11:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (huevonkiller @ Apr 11 2008, 10:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Real @ Apr 11 2008, 10:22 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 06:51 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It seems he has little problem categorizing groups of people. That is alarming.</div> "Typical white person" </div> That's not the entire quote. Even Chris Wallace defended Obama on that one. </div> <div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'>Hillary Clinton's strategists are delighted at what they consider Barack Obama's latest stumble in the hypersensitive world of racial politics. Obama is drawing a new round of criticism for his comments on a Philadelphia radio sports program yesterday in which he said his grandmother is a "typical white person" who has fears about black men. He was attempting to explain a portion of his speech on race earlier this week?€”specifically, the statement that his white grandmother gets nervous when a black man approaches her on the street. Obama told the radio host, "The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society." Obama was already drawing flak for his association with a controversial preacher in Chicago who has made anti-American and antiwhite comments. An Obama spokesman noted that the Illinois senator was trying to say that his grandmother has the same fears shared by many in her "generation." Clinton insiders say Obama's remarks stereotyped whites in a negative way and will further alienate white working-class people around the country, including those in Pennsylvania, which holds a key primary April 22. Obama's remarks are being criticized on Fox News, NBC, MSNBC, and elsewhere in the media, keeping the controversy going. Clinton strategists say it's part of a broader problem?€”that Obama has not been sufficiently "vetted" and there are many areas of his life and background that have escaped scrutiny and might embarrass him later. ?€”Kenneth T. Walsh</div> Link That has to make more than a few people feel uncomfortable. </div> What he's been saying is not PC or intelligent, but has merit to a decent extent.
I'm not sure I see what the merit could be. His comment fails to be slanderous only because it's so vague and ill-elucidated. Nor does it help his campaign in any way. It's a poorly expressed weak ad hominem argument against a group of people.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (AEM @ Apr 11 2008, 11:59 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>I'm not sure I see what the merit could be. His comment fails to be slanderous only because it's so vague and ill-elucidated. Nor does it help his campaign in any way. It's a poorly expressed weak ad hominem argument against a group of people.</div> You've admitted that voters are bitter. That comment has more merit to me than the typical white person one though. I think you're just being sensitive really. We already know it won't help, and? People are babies. There's always been a hint of xenophobia when talking about anti-immigration people, he merely used "bitter" instead of other terms. I don't agree with everything he says, but this isn't an election just based on verbal flourishes.
