Pennsylvania Governor and outspoken Clinton loyalist and supporter Ed Rendell thinks the Clinton people are making a mountain out of a molehill:

Boston Globe: About that supposedly major flap over Barack Obama’s comments about "bitter" Pennsylvanians? Well, Hillary Clinton’s top surrogate here, Governor Ed Rendell, just told reporters that it’s not terribly significant – either in the primary, or the general election.

"I think it will cost a couple of points at the margin," Rendell said of the primary race here, "but it’s not a sea change."

And Rendell said it would mean even less in the general election if Obama is the nominee. "By the time November rolls around, I think this comment will be long forgotten," he said.

To highlight a point made by Deeapk, consider the new Clinton message: "Obama Can't Win, He's Just Like Gore and Kerry."

She says Al Gore and John Kerry lost because they were perceived as elitists:

"The Democratic party has been unfortunately viewed by many people over the last decades as being elitist and out of touch we have waged elections over that you don’t have to think too far to remember that good men running for president were viewed as being elitist and out of touch with the values and the lives of millions of Americans."

Clinton supporter and Indiana Senator Evan Bayh says the same thing:

"(The Republicans are going to say) that we are cultural elitists, that’s what they are going to say about us regardless of who our candidate is. The question is have we given them some hope to hang their hat on to make that argument. These comments... might be that hook that they use," he said. "There’s this cultural divide that exists...I think it’s an issue the Democratic party is potentially vulnerable on and has to address."

Clinton and her surrogates are obviously trying to insinuate that Obama can't win. Of course, Clinton CAN'T win the nomination, and the only way she'll become the nominee is if Obama collapses because he's deemed by pretty much all Democrats as "unelectable". So to do that, they're saying he'll lose, just like John Kerry and Al Gore (never mind that Gore actually won the election, and would probably have won by enough that the Supreme Court wouldn't have gotten the chance to overturn it had it not been for the residual "Clinton fatigue").

Also, Hillary Clinton is the wife of an ex-president, with whom she's made $109 million in the last few years. Politically, Evan Bayh may think he started out life on third base because he hit a triple, or he may realize that having a father who was a U.S. Senator and presidential candidate means he was born on third base. Whatever the case, I'm sure glad Hillary Clinton and Evan Bayh are around to tell us hoi polloi about elitism.

Re. 2. Indy:

I am so goddamn tired of Democrats looking over their shoulders at "what Republicans might say" and whimpering, or in the case of Sen. Evan Bayh, pissing in their pants. Jesus Christ. The Republican noise machine has gotten so loud and omnipresent that Democrats are starting to form their responses around IT. When are we gonna wake up?

Hillary says:

"The Democratic party has been unfortunately viewed by many people over the last decades as being elitist and out of touch"

because the goddamn Republicans framed it that way!! And there was no response!

Gore trots out his financial plan, Bush the moron smirks "voodoo math," Gore does nothing. How about, "Mr. Governor, I understand you may not understand basic arithmetic, but I'm sure you can find a 4th grader to explain it to you."

Here's Sen. Bayh pissing in his pants:

"(The Republicans are going to say) that we are cultural elitists, that’s what they are going to say about us regardless of who our candidate is. The question is have we given them some hope to hang their hat on to make that argument. These comments... might be that hook that they use," he said. "There’s this cultural divide that exists...I think it’s an issue the Democratic party is potentially vulnerable on and has to address."

How about the Democrats responding, "The Republicans are Cheap Labor; they protect the rich ruling class that's screwing the harding working American; they are war mongers; they are liars; they have no platform of their own, just a vicious attack machine; they are racists; they have lost touch with what America really means; they are filled with hate for anyone who disagrees with them; they are un-American!"

Instead we get what Bruno Gianelli (fictionally) said in West Wing:

" ... someone came along and said that liberal means "soft on crime." Soft on drugs. Soft on communism. Soft on defense. And we're gonna tax you back to the stone age because people shouldn't have to go to work if they don't want to. And instead of saying, 'Well, excuse me, you right-wing, reactionary xenophobic, homophobic, anti-education, anti-choice, pro-gun, Leave-it-to-Beaver-trip-back-to-the-fifties!' we cowered in the corner and said, 'Please. Don't. Hurt. Me.'"

When are we gonna f--king wake up? Evan Bayh, go piss up a rope.

Republicans are in the minority, yet they win elections because Americans respect guts, and the Republicans say what they think, and it resonates.

Democrats accuse Republicans of fear-mongering -- Christ, Democrats live in fear of hurting someone's feelings, or expressing an opinion that might find disfavor.

Why, in all the hoopla about Obama'a "bitter" remark (I still don't know how "elitist" arises from that), doesn't someone say, "HEY! Stop de-railing the comment. The political rhetoric is not the point! Those people are hurting! America has forgotten them! When is America going to start paying attention to its poor?!? We got a problem here!" And yes, raise your voice! Get in someone's face!

Yes, and this fall the probability is that Iraq will be the least of the world's worries.

Imagine that. What could be worse?

The winning candidate will be the one articulating the detail executable plan.

The failed messiah's bitter pill

20 point swing in Clintons favor in recent polls.

Someone is paying attention

Cheers,

Steve (I'm not bitter are you?)

#5

Think you are an smart aleck aren't you?

"20 point swing in Clintons favor in recent polls."

Really?

Not "polls", one poll(ARG)

At the same time Obama is still strong on the daily Gallup poll, a 10 point advantage nationally. While Clinton numbers are going down to the undecided category. (He expanded his lead to 20 points in North Carolina.)

The ARG poll, is the only major poll that is not even listed on RCP average. The more reliable Quinnipiac Univ. poll is expected tomorrow, and they say not to expect big difference.

To the stupid ambadude who made false statement about "20 point swing in polls" based on one ARG poll, which showed the swing over 7 days, not just the weekend of "bitter" remarks:

Carl Bialik at WSJ has a nice assessment of the ARG poll in Pennsylvania that includes this tease of the new Quinnipiac numbers due out tomorrow:

"Other pollsters’ numbers disagree with ARG’s. Clay Richards, who runs the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute’s Pennsylvania poll, said he doesn’t expect his poll that will be published Tuesday to show much difference from the last one, which had a Clinton lead of six points. “I don’t see that much movement in Pennsylvania myself,” Mr. Richards said by phone from Harrisburg on Monday. He declined to comment specifically on his rival’s contradictory numbers."

http://blogs.wsj.com/numbersguy/is-clintons-pennsylvania-lead-really-20-points-319/

The fact Deepak mentions that we are in the doldrums and people are not paying attention raises a major red flag to me, which is precisely why is very important to listen very closely to all candidates, because perhaps the real candidate shows up when the guards are down. Certainly this is case with Obama and his bitterness that turns to religion comment, which is exactly what Karl Marx said about Religion being the opiate of the masses. In other words, religion gets in the way of the far left dogma.

Obama has only one explanation of life; an economic basis for all things. Values emminant from economics. His solution are pure Marxist, right Craig? People turn to religion because of economics. Times are tough, turn to religion and guns. Pure and simple.

So please don't pay attention to the man behind the curtains folks, please don't peek, it doesn't concern you. You are idiots, we know better, thus spoke the elitist.

Please Barak fight for me, please don't let me turn to God or Guns!!!

Har Har!!!

Cheers,

Steve

Have I ever called you stupid or make fun of your name Irvine?

Please no bitterness Irvine,

Cheers,

Steve

I have a suggestion:

If you are bitter please vote for Obama
If you are NOT bitter please don't vote for Obama

Sound fair?

Because apparently if you are happy or are having a good life or are grateful, Obama can't really help you.

Sadly, if you expect to have someone else bail you out, you will always be bitter.

Cheers,

Steve

"Have I ever called you stupid or make fun of your name Irvine?"

I call you "stupid ambadude" in the context of you showing stupidity by making claims in your ego gratifying remarks WITH false(or ignorant) and misleading evidence.

"Please no bitterness Irvine"

dude, your attempts at humor are just as moronic.

now you call me a moron

nice one Irvine Welsh

No elitism here

#10, nice to see your idiocy of logic in full display.

Please make up your mind, am I an idiot or moron?

Now I will let you attack me in any way you wish, sorry I have to leave and miss all the fun for a bit.

I'm sure the others will enjoy your posts

Steve

Too bad, you don't want to own up to your mistake about "polls" but stick to the 'you are name calling me' high-ground.

"I'm sure the others will enjoy your posts"

Don't be so sure. It seems you are thrilled by savoring your own pseudo-witty remarks, and ego gratifying rebuttals and knocking down straw men about Obama and Deepak.

damn! amba...u deserve all the insults dude is crappin' u with...if u were not so out of it, u wouldn't be saying this..."If you are bitter please vote for Obama. If you are NOT bitter please don't vote for Obama." how can dude vote for Obama when he's not even American? damn...shake it, slow poke! it's bery easy to see why u are such a big bushman supporter...yikes! where is ur sidekick flabs?

Dear Deepak

Some Democrats have given up on HC. But not the entire party, and not all Democrats.

It's not words, on either side. It's a war of character, and each side is using appropriate tactics to try to convince voters that theirs is the more substantial character.

This worth reading in the context:

Politico: Barack Obama's counterpunching style
By AVI ZENILMAN & BEN SMITH | 4/14/08 6:46 PM EST

Sen. Barack Obama’s instantly infamous remarks on how small-town Americans “cling” to their faith, their guns, and their xenophobia began drawing attention around 3:30 p.m. Friday.

Obama’s aides went into radio silence, rebuffing requests to explain or respond while his rivals attacked him. At 6:30 p.m., his campaign put out a statement that, instead of explaining his words, threw the criticism back at his rivals. Then, just before 9 that evening, the candidate himself responded during a speech in Terre Haute, Ind., with an attack of his own, expressing incredulity that his rivals had called him “out of touch.”

“Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain — it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem,” he said, while also criticizing Hillary Rodham Clinton for her vote on to make declaring personal bankruptcy harder.

“She says I’m out of touch?”

The response was signature Obama: Attack first, sort out the details later, if at all. No apology, no immediate regret, just a sharp counterattack. For a candidate sometimes mocked for being too soft to win a political fistfight, he has shown an uncanny ability to take a punch and then rear back and deliver one in return.

When Obama responds this way, it leaves him open to charges that he's undermining his so-called politics of hope. But, showing remarkable dexterity, he has a knack for using these flare-ups to pivot back to the central theme of his candidacy: that politics is broken, and he knows how to change it.

Obama, it turns out, has been a devout observer of a philosophy future President Bill Clinton laid out in 1981.

"When someone is beating you over the head with a hammer, don't sit there and take it,” then-Gov. Clinton told Time magazine. “Take out a meat cleaver and cut off their hand.”

Many Democrats believe their two most recent nominees, Al Gore and John F. Kerry, ignored that rule, and they are loath to nominate another candidate susceptible to being portrayed as weak. So Obama and his inner political circle — strategist David Axelrod and campaign manager David Plouffe — have observed it religiously, dispelling an early perception that the candidate would wilt under fire from Clinton or Republicans.

Instead, when under attack, the candidate rarely acknowledges any fault — for such a move would offer critics an opening. In the case of his San Francisco remarks, perhaps the worst gaffe of his career, he conceded Saturday only that “if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.”

Obama’s unexpected pugnacity also extends to include personal responses to tactical assaults, a level of sparring often left to spokespeople.

The examples are many, but the pattern first began to take shape last summer, after a debate in South Carolina at which Obama said he would personally meet foreign dictators.

The remark appeared to be a slip, and in the spin room after the debate, Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, tried to explain it away.

But the next day, Clinton told the Quad City Times, an Iowa daily, that Obama had been “naïve and irresponsible” to offer meetings, an attack reported on the paper’s website. That afternoon, Obama himself placed a call to the reporter who wrote the story.

It was Clinton, he said, who had been “irresponsible and naïve” to vote to authorize the war in Iraq. And he embraced his promise to meet the hostile leaders, casting Clinton’s reluctance — a line his campaign continued to amplify throughout the fall — as similar to the Bush administration’s stance.

Obama has eagerly pursued other attacks. He memorably mocked Clinton for finding evidence of untoward ambition in his elementary school writings. When Clinton called to “turn up the heat” on the Republicans, Obama suggested “more light” instead.

In late February, reporters traveling with Obama in Ohio learned — before the story hit the wires or the blogs — from Obama’s staff that McCain had accused the Illinois senator of ignorance of the presence of Al Qaeda terrorists in Iraq.

Obama, taking the stage at Ohio State University minutes later, responded with vigor.

"John McCain thought that he could make a clever point," said Obama. "I have some news for John McCain. And that is that there was no such thing as Al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq.”

More recently, when faced with the incendiary video of his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, attacking Clinton, followed by more video of the minister’s criticism of America, Obama eschewed the counterattacks. But nevertheless he hewed to a familiar course: no apology, no concession of wrongdoing. His position was that he hadn’t been in the pews for Wright’s reported controversial statements.

Obama’s immediate responses, the campaign quickly decided, were insufficient. And so, just six days later, Obama sought to cast the issue in his own terms with a major speech addressing race, while ignoring Wright’s anti-American comments.

But the most recent flap over his remarks about small-town Pennsylvanians represented a return to form as he moved first to attack Clinton and McCain.

Then came what seemed to be a departure. In a slow-motion rollout that may have slightly prolonged the story, Obama tiptoed up to an apology before returning to his comfort zone. On Sunday evening, with particular glee, he turned to Clinton’s discussion of her childhood hunting.

"She's running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment, she's talking like she's Annie Oakley!” he said at a stop in Pennsylvania. “Hillary Clinton's out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday, she's packin' a six shooter! C'mon! She knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton. I want to see that picture of her out there in the duck blinds.”

Lets hear from David Coleman a noted Attorney from California, who was there when Obama spoke for over 40 minutes about Pennsylvania:

Last Sunday evening I attended the San Francisco fundraiser that has been the center of recent political jousting. The next day, when asked about the talk Obama delivered, I too commented about his answer to a question he was asked about Pennsylvania. Over the past week, though, I have had a Rashomon-like experience concerning those remarks.

Clinton, McCain, and media pundits have parsed a blogger's audio tape of Obama's remarks and criticized a sentence or two characterizing some parts of Pennsylvania and the attitudes of some Pennsylvanians. In context and in person, Senator Obama's remarks about Pennsylvania voters left an impression diametrically opposed to that being trumpeted by his competitor's campaigns.

At the end of Obama's remarks standing between two rooms of guests -- the fourth appearance in California after traveling earlier in the day from Montana -- a questioner asked, "some of us are going to Pennsylvania to campaign for you. What should we be telling the voters we encounter?"

Obama's response to the questioner was that there are many, many different sections in Pennsylvania comprised of a range of racial, geographic, class, and economic groupings from Appalachia to Philadelphia. So there was not one thing to say to such diverse constituencies in Pennsylvania. But having said that, Obama went on say that his campaign staff in Pennsylvania could provide the questioner (an imminent Pennsylvania volunteer) with all the talking points he needed. But Obama cautioned that such talking points were really not what should be stressed with Pennsylvania voters.

Instead he urged the volunteer to tell Pennsylvania voters he encountered that Obama's campaign is about something more than programs and talking points. It was at this point that Obama began to talk about addressing the bitter feelings that many in some rural communities in Pennsylvania have about being brushed aside in the wake of the global economy. Senator Obama appeared to theorize, perhaps improvidently given the coverage this week, that some of the people in those communities take refuge in political concerns about guns, religion and immigration. But what has not so far been reported is that those statements preceded and were joined with additional observations that black youth in urban areas are told they are no longer "relevant" in the global economy and, feeling marginalized, they engage in destructive behavior. Unlike the week's commentators who have seized upon the remarks about "bitter feelings" in some depressed communities in Pennsylvania, I gleaned a different meaning from the entire answer.

First, I noted immediately how dismissive his answer had been about "talking points" and ten point programs and how he used the question to urge the future volunteer to put forward a larger message central to his campaign. That pivot, I thought, was remarkable and unique. Rather than his seizing the opportunity to recite stump-worn talking points at that time to the audience -- as I believe Senator Clinton, Senator McCain and most other more conventional (or more disciplined) politicians at such an appearance might do -- Senator Obama took a different political course in that moment, one that symbolizes important differences about his candidacy.

The response that followed sounded unscripted, in the moment, as if he were really trying to answer a question with intelligent conversation that explained more about what was going on in the Pennsylvania communities than what was germane to his political agenda. I had never heard him or any politician ever give such insightful, analytical responses. The statements were neither didactic nor contrived to convince. They were simply hypotheses (not unlike the kind made by de Tocqueville three centuries ago ) offered by an observer familiar with American communities. And that kind of thoughtfulness was quite unexpected in the middle of a political event. In my view, the way he answered the question was more important than the sociological accuracy or the cause and effect hypotheses contained in the answer. It was a moment of authenticity demonstrating informed intelligence, and the speaker's desire to have the audience join him in a deeper understanding of American politics.

There has been little or no reaction to the part of the answer that was addressed to the hopelessness of inner city youth who have been rendered "irrelevant" to the global economy. No one has seized upon those words as "talking down" to the inner city youth whose plight he was addressing. If extracted from an audio tape HuffPost Blogger Fowler, those remarks could (and may yet) be taken out of context as "Obama excuses alienation and violence by urban youth." But in context, Senator Obama's response sounded like empathetic conclusions and opinions of a keen observer: more like Margaret Mead than Machiavelli.

As the week's firestorm evolved over these remarks at which I was an accidental observer, I have reflected upon the regrettable irony that has emerged from Senator Obama's response to a friendly question: no good effort at intelligent analysis, candor -- and what I heard as an attempt to convey a profound understanding of both what people feel and why they feel it - goes unpunished. Such insights by a political candidate might otherwise be valued. In a national campaign subject to opposition research, his analytical musing has instead created an immense amount of political flak.

Now and "in this time," to invoke one of the candidate's favorite riffs, such observations and remarks shared among supporters are just a push of a record button on a tape recorder away from being spread across the internet to be dissected by political nabobs. What struck me immediately after the fundraiser as so refreshing turned out to be a moment Senator Obama is forced to regret. Today we marvel at de Tocqueville insights about American communities. Apparently, such commentary is valued as long as it is three centuries old and doesn't come from the mouth of a contemporary observer who might be elected president.

So much for the political ironies. But there is one more personal observation that was missed.

I happened to be on the balcony when Senator Obama's vehicles arrived and he emerged from the Secret Service SUV. Obama shouted the friendly greeting "How are you guys up there doing?" to the group of us looking down from the balcony and then said, "You have to excuse me, I need to call my kids in Chicago now."

All of us stood and watched the leading candidate for the Democratic party nomination for president have a short conversation with his kids before he entered a fundraiser to make his remarks.

No tape of that conversation has emerged as yet. Who knows how casual remarks of a father to his children or his wife on a cell phone could be spun to support the argument that as a father speaking to his kids two time zones away before they go to bed, his comments sounded as if he "looked down" upon them. Given his relative height and the age of his kids, he probably does. But that would be precisely as relevant to his capacity to unite and lead this country as were the remarks at the fundraiser that have been so deconstructed over this past week.

The IB archives are great.

For example, in the past Ambasteve was asked on several occasions whether George W. could screw up to the point where he, Steve, would stop supporting the man who went to war because God told him so.

Poor Steve could never find the courage to answer.

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:L6aL4UQ2yUIJ:www.dubyaspeak.com/+George+W+Dubya&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=ca

Sadly, I have left my parents behind so I cannot, in this world, correct the misinformation that soured our relationship.

Dudes, all this political crap tells me is how you relate/related to your parents....with some egoistic modifications along tha way.
Dat's my homespun view and I'm a more-on.
Good day, Ruth x

Dear Deepak

BO's words, made behind closed doors, seem to tell many that he's not as simple and pure as he portrays himself to be.

Here's an opinion piece that makes that point:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/opinion/14kristol.html

I think it's the sense of some hidden truths about character coming to light at last, that has pro-HC Dem's so vocal, and pro-BO Dem's on the very load defensive, with BO apologists springing up left and right even thought BO himself still isn't apologizing. Pro-HC Dem's are having I-told-you-so moment.

"BO's words, made behind closed doors, .."

For your info, that isn't "behind closed doors." There were 100's of people with cell phones and recording devices, not to mention many more with their ears and mouths who shared openly with media the impression they got.

"I think it's the sense of some hidden truths about character coming to light at last, that has pro-HC Dem's so vocal, and pro-BO Dem's on the very load defensive, with BO apologists springing up left and right even thought BO himself still isn't apologizing. Pro-HC Dem's are having I-told-you-so moment."

And that opinion piece is by Bill Kristol, the wily Republican pundit and a neo-conservative and son of one of the founders of neo-conservative movement in the US. It is a disgrace that he is hired by NY Times recently. Comedian Jon Stewart once quipped "Oh Bill Kristol, are you ever right?"

Should I post Newsmax and TownHall commentary about Hillary Clinton and her character?

It is amazing that some HC supporters are willing to repeat the republican talking points and character smears hoping some label (racist, aloof, elitist, arrogant, etc) might stick, to reinforce and bring validity to their bias.

Indeed, The NY Times columnist, William Kristol, gave Karl Rove a run for his money in his column: "The Mask Slips".

It is amazing that Bill Kristol in the same artcile compared Obama to Karl Marx.

Glenn Greenwald in his latest book 'Great American Hypocrites: Toppling the Big Myths of Republican Politics' writes:

"From the time I began blogging in October, 2005, I've written about many different topics, but almost all have a similar undercurrent: the Limbaugh/Kristol/Fox-News right-wing faction that controls the Republican Party and has dominated our political life for the last 15 years, and the multiple ways that our political institutions -- and particularly the Drudgified establishment press -- enable them. Marketing packages aside, this book is about them; how they function; the weakness-driven bloodthirstiness, dishonesty and sleaze which defines them; the indispensable eagerness of the establishment media to be used by them; and what can be done by those opposed to them to change all of that."

Kristol is a right-wing neoconservative who could not be more out of touch with the issues that true politicians care about.

He has been consistently heaping scorn on Barack Obama, and in one instance during the Wright controversy he reported misleading information about Obama, which he later retracted.

In the latest crisis, right on cue, this leading neoconservative steps up with an assault that merits the Karl Rove Prize for turning Up into Down, Left into Right, White into Black. That Mr. Kristol was so wrong about the Iraq war, that he advocates low taxes on the rich and no help for the less fortunate among us, renders his moral judgement on Senator Obama's motivations and intentions is almost laughable.

Before George Bush vetoed legislation to expand the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP). Kristol had this to say, reported by his colleague Paul Krugman in the NY Times : "First, of all, whenever I hear anything described as a heartless assault on our children, I tend to think, it's a good idea. I'm happy that the president's willing to do something bad for the kids."

The people, including those from rural areas, are a good deal smarter and far more honorable than these pundits.

Irv, there's nothing either conservative or Republican about the opinion piece. If you don't like the conclusions the author comes to based on BO's record, you're entitled to your opinion.

The words were spoken off the campaign trail, at a private fund-raiser. That is considered behind closed doors.

No one is smearing BO. He did the job himself, with a light but sure hand.

"The words were spoken off the campaign trail, at a private fund-raiser. That is considered behind closed doors."

There is nothing behind "closed doors" on the campiagn trail. There is always some one to report anything, and Obama knows that.

"Irv, there's nothing either conservative or Republican about the opinion piece. If you don't like the conclusions the author comes to based on BO's record, you're entitled to your opinion."

Oh, great, Karl Rove's opinion pieces have nothing conservative and republican as well, and I won't be amused by similar peices written by the same people when Hilalry was seen as the presumptive nomineee.

You agree with "conclusion" great. Just state the conclusions yourself, don't stand on the opinions of Kristol, Karl Rove, Limbaugh and clan.

It is a pity you have to see someone degrade to even quote Kristol to reiterate their opinions.

Ref. hgquinn Re: Kristol NY Times Op-Ed

Since this was a opinion piece by Kristol, it valid to consider his motivations and intentions.

What Kristol thinks he is, is a clever, even brilliant commentator who has his finger on the political pulse of the nation. What he actually is, is a venal gasbag shilling for the worst administration this country has ever seen.

He thinks he's a guy who makes millions of dollars, no matter how wrong or inaccurate or false his work is, off of being an intellectually dishonest hack because "liberal" newspapers like the New York Times hold him to a different standard (and give him credibility that rags like the National Review and Weekly Standard can't) because he's a conservative.

And he's right.

Some of you Intent readers if you didn't read op-ed and have no clue -- If it is Kristol, it is pretty much given to be wrong. His writing is so full of errors that I don't usually bother seeking his writing out.

Sure, Hillary supporters like hgquinn think Kristol's opinions are not conservative or republican. Yes, in his Op-Ed Kristol is giving us a real window on what the themes are that the conservatives are going to be using in the General. They will claim every "soundbite sized" comment Kristol jammed into that column. Kristol used all of the following:

Obama is elitist
Out of touch w/ "little people"
Overeducated snob (like Kristol himself,isn't -ha)
20 year "commitment" to J. Wright (muslim?)
Wearing a "mask"
Secretly very cynical and slick (snake-oil)
Accommodates bigotry to get votes
Looks down on his fellow Americans
Has not accomplished much (outright says this)
Not patriotic enough
Flatters the wealthy for favor
Patronizing, does not really care
Exploiting sentiment to his advantage

And on and on and on. Coulter, Malkin and their evil ilk are all working on anti-Obama themes. There is a push to go after Obama's wife as well. They are saving a lot of the juicer stuff for later and putting people like Kristol out there to set the table- so that when they bring on the major BS, people will be more primed to accept it.

This is the tip of the iceberg on the Rethug attacks. Get ready.

I just re-read the NY Times column "The Mask Slips" by Kristol, courtesy of hgquinn and found this gem of an insight from the author who seems... tipped by Obama's remarks went scurrying back to re-read Marx's words, "Die Religion ... ist das Opium des Volkes," after which he concludes that:

"...it’s one thing for a German thinker to assert that "religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature." It’s another thing for an American presidential candidate to claim that we "cling to ... religion" out of economic frustration."

Of course the neat use of ellipses makes it easier for Kristol to make his hyperbolic comparison, but it does serve his purpose; to be a part of the pseudo-outrage chorus and to suggest Obama is some sort of Communist who hates God and guns. And to make it all even scarier to real Americans, Kristol manages to throw in the dreaded words, "San Francisco," three times. Oh, ouch.

Seriously, Mr. Kristol, is this the best he can do? I realize that this isn't cheerleading for a war based on non-existent weapons of mass destruction, so his heart probably isn't in it, but Marx? Perhaps he should take a page out of another Marx's book and run with it. I'd suggest Harpo.

First Obama is a muslim terrorist, then he is a...christian radical, now he's a godless communist(and a Regan worshiper at that.)

Obviously Barack Obama is all of these things at the same time. God knows that they've had enough time to get good at compartmentalization and cognitive dissonance.

It is disappointing for me to read the comments by hgquinn.

While the Presidential primary is pretty irritating, I did find that the elitist charge from Clinton and the racist use of the word 'boy' found a sort of operational unity within the Republican operative class. Lets put the pieces together and see how this works, since the pattern it suggests about the McCain campaign will be repeated. Here's the new ad from Clinton hitting Obama on elitism.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AAXucMY7Dvk

So first of all, a Democrat is laying down an attack on the Democratic nominee. While right now it's Clinton, during the general election, any liberalish person will do.

And here's racist Rep. Geoff Davis, Kentucky Republican, talking about Obama.

"I'm going to tell you something: That boy's finger does not need to be on the button," Davis said. "He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country."

And finally, to unify the charges of racism and elitism, check out what Soren Dayton, the McCain operative 'suspended' after circulating a racially charged video about Obama is distributing on Facebook.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3019/2415209214_5d3c86b087_o.jpg

This episode reveals so many aspects of our corroded political system. For one, while I find the whole 'don't repeat right-wing frames' kind of tired if useful, Hillary Clinton's charges of elitism are explicitly reinforcing right-wing charges. How do we know this? Well, because right-wingers are attacking him with her rhetoric. Two, Soren Dayton is a Republican operative who was apparently 'suspended' from the McCain campaign, but he's out there spreading the same old political arguments about Obama as he did before he was suspended. The whole disavowal thing for McCain is a neat trick, isn't it? Three, the use of elitist snob and the use of racist rhetoric is intimately tied together.

As Glenn Greenwald has demonstrated in his important book 'Great American Hypocrites'(Ref. Irvine Welsh #24), male Democratic candidates must always be presented as feminine, elite, aristocratic, savage, and untrustworthy, for fear that substantive arguments will actually present the electorate with a choice on larger questions of national direction.

And no conservative is ever held accountable for their activities, no matter how dishonorable. It really doesn't matter if it's Ann Coulter calling for the assassination of a New York Times reporter or describing John Edwards as a fag, or Soren Dayton being 'disavowed' by the McCain campaign while explicitly continuing to push out anti-Obama right-wing messaging, the conservative machine marches on without fear of consequence.

George Bush has openly admitted that he signed off on torture, along with Condi and the whole senior staff, and yet the media is abuzz with silly arguments about elitism and bitterness and bowling scores. It's just remarkable. And John McCain can transparently exchange people in his political operation for one another and 'distance' himself from them by swapping his operatives into consulting or marketing shops without fear that he will be unmasked as the deceitful smear artist he clearly is.

Hello Deepak and Everyone,

Really, I wasn't EVEN going to bother, but...okay, I'm game.....

Deepak you write..."The Clintons are trying to inflict death by paper cuts to Obama in the face of mounting apathy. "Bitter" and "cling" aren't news. Obama doesn't hide his education and intelligence, even if they are dubbed elitist. While the Clintons try to pretend that their own $100 million income makes them working class heroes, the polls move incrementally up and down. The bald fact is that Obama's integrity has registered with almost everyone he might attract, and the Democratic party has silently given up on Hillary."

WOW, you are getting serious and taking the gloves off, now :)), I don't think I have ever seen you write something this NEGATIVE towards the Clintons.

Poor Obama is getting all "trashed" by those money-grubbing, integrity lacking, non-idealists Clintons, who have entitlement written all over them.

No, Obama, does not hide his education or intelligence but not every Democrat is as impressed as his supporters nor do all Democrats see any proff that Barak Obama is a man or politican with any more or less integrity than any other Candidate in this race, since, he is, in fact, SO VERY NEW and JUNIOR in his actual government or legislative experience. Some very wise, knowing:) Democrats believe he is too inexperienced to be the President of the United States and that his inexperience could cause more damage, inflict deeper wounds than we are already experiencing as a Nation as a result of the Bush Administration, and, because of this very Junior's lack of political know-how, especially, in foreign policy, and, really, all areas he needs to go back work, class, and continue learning and proving himself to US very wise and knowing Democrats who understand the impatients of the Barak Obama supporters since it reminds them of their own children's impatience when anticipating a new treat:)))

And, you can look at the whole thing this way, IF, he does pull off a win, a least the Clintons challenged his, you know what, because his supporters, and the press and media sure haven't during this Campaign...god, the man will think the WHOLE world is one big Barak Obama Love Fest ready to get weak-kneed every time he opens his mouth:)))

Soon we will know who will take home the gold, the impatient Democrats for Barak or the wise and knowing Democrats for Hillary:))))))))))

have a wonderful day, everyone, ruth

Dear Deepak

The democratic party perhaps is giving up on Hillary Clinton and it's deja vu all over again just like 2004 when, in addition to his very human scream of joy, Howard Dean said the democratic party needed to return to its roots and appeal to those "good ole boys who drive pick-up trucks that have gun racks in the back." The other candidates were so apaled and self-righteous and proceeded to chastize him. Well we know that happened in 2004. Perhaps those were ill chosen words also. But he was talking about the hardest working most obedient and faithful people in America--the traditional working class.

We're all Americans, some of whom attempt to think and some of whom refuse to, which in either case leads to its own prejudices. But above all we are all human beings. Now you say "In relality there are many forms of bias, prejudice, hidebound self-interest and inertia that fight against renewal." Yes it is easy to see 'other people's prejudices, but it appears that among the lieral left so called thinking Americans it is an acceptable prejudice to be anti-Christian fundamentalism along with anti-redneckism.

I am around a lot of fundamentalist Christians and I have witnessed men and women be quite convincingly "born-again" in the very same sense of Buddhist examples of liberated men and women. Don't ask me how they do it but they do. One thing I am sure of is they did not "think" their way to inner liberation. Nonetheless, even as half of the voting public has come to gag at the term born again millions are genuinely born again in the spirit-that same spirit that so many educated American leftists who talk of world liberation deny exists. Its Ok to speak in terms of say Buddhist liberation but White American fundamentalists, well that's another matter. As far as the left sees it, what they need is a good public stoning.

As a life long lefty, I for one am offended by what Barack Obama said and my heart goes out to my brothers and sisters, who like their brothers and sisters in the third world know that the economic "cures" they are subjected to are worse than the sickness. They are out there right now, stocking the shelves of the supermarkets, buffing the floors of the nation's universities and banks, checking in on the calf-cow pairs in late season snows of Montana and likely as not they are gun-owning, non-drinking Christians doing solitary jobs with lots of time to think. And they experience things like lonliness, modern alienation and inner emptiness within that now quaint concept called the soul. Which drives so many of them to the last place that even addresses the soul of such people as themselves--fundamentalist churches.

Is that a matter of bitterness or clinging....I don't think so.

Irv, I could filter what I read based on the usual bias of the writer. (If I did that, I wouldn't read what you write.) I prefer to keep an open mind. That opinion piece has valid points. One proof of that can be found in your vigorous attempts to trash the piece, its author, and now even me.

I appreciate learning (from that piece) that BO voted for the Secure Fence Act. That act is a terrible bill, from moral and ecological viewpoints. Yes, HC voted for it too. But HC is not touting herself as the worlds most immigration-supportive candidate, as BO is.

That's the double-faced quality I can sense in BO. He is pretty honest, but not as honest as he makes himself out to be. I'd rather see him simply be more forthcoming about himself. I'd take more lies from him, as long as he were more forthcoming about what he really is and how he really thinks. We get along with all kinds of people. We can take him as he really is. He doesn't have to pretend to be an upcoming god.

He sets the bar too high for any man to jump, even himself.

He gets caught up in his own rhetoric. You can see him self-editing when he speaks extempore. He's always ready to modify his words based on his sense of what's going on. He should be a little more grounded than that. He needs to lose a few, he needs to have some pretty tough times. Then his authenticity will be more realistic and reliable than it currently is. And he'll have a bit more experience, as well. If he weren't trying to be such a goody-two-shoes, half the criticism of him would slide away. He creates his own opposition. Like one of those packaged meals that makes its own sauce when cooked. That he hasn't yet learned not to put himself up so high, even though he's been in public service and politics for two decades, says he's still pretty raw -- and arrogant.

Here's to Ambasteve who made false claims about PA "polls" and self-gratifying speculations, to put his foot in its rightful place; in his mouth:
(This seems to be a pattern with this dude; he has a some problem with quoting poll numbers, he made a similar mistake in the past at IB about President Bush's then current approval ratings.)

(Politico:)Penn race unchanged by Obama remark

"Barack Obama’s “bitter” comment may have had little immediate impact in the Democratic primary race in Pennsylvania, according to a poll out this morning.

The Quinnipiac University poll found that Hillary Clinton leads Obama 50 to 44 percent, a margin unchanged since the organization's last statewide poll at the beginning of the month.

The poll, conducted Wednesday through Sunday night, revealed no noticeable shift in support for polling done on Saturday or Sunday. It is the first indication that Obama’s controversial remark may not dramatically change the head-to-head match-up in Pennsylvania, which holds its primary next Tuesday."

For anyone who wants to check HC's voting record, it's here (or click on my name):

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=55463

Her positions, bio, etc. are at the top of that page.

For anyone who wants to check BO's voting record, it's here (or click on my name):

http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=9490

His positions, bio, etc. are at the top of that page.

"..says he's still pretty raw -- and arrogant."

All roads of argument and trains of your thought seem to lead lead to "arrogant." And he seems to be "more" arrogant, "intermittently" arrogant, and/or arrogant in a "negative" way than the "arrogance" that's a part and parcel of all presidential candidates.

He is not a saint, and he doesn't claim to be one. Although some prefer it that way which make sit easy for them to criticize. All politicians have negatives and positives, it is the balance and vision that matters.

"That opinion piece has valid points. One proof of that can be found in your vigorous attempts to trash the piece, its author, and now even me."

You keep repeating this argument, well this might give you some personal rationale to convince the validity of your beliefs or opinions, this really makes my hair pull..WTF. See, just beacuse I use my energy to be passionate about something doesn't mean that I am "insecure" or I am trying to "defend" something that is flimsy. People don't react or behave the same way as each one of us do. That's why sometime I feel you are so full of yourself with your opinions and judgment of others chance, motivations and intentions.

What you say about Obama in your comment are all valid points to be considered but they are not the end all of opinions and judgment of character. As a politician you make mistakes, you find yourself in a catch 22 situation, and you make choices, its the larger balanced picture that matters. I am open minded-- Hillary is utterly incompetent, untrustworthy and incapable as a present -- Obama is the best the country has to offer, his negatives are far less an fewer, and shows great character and is an astute politician -- I would never say this, and support it with highly convincing arguments.

Anyway, all these perception games will be in a different dynamic had it been Hillary leading, she would have been the one who would be "exposed" by Kristols of the world...the dynamics and media narratives will change too, as the nomination is secured and we head into the general.

For now, lets all not be too opinionated and judgmental about a candidates character, whoever that is.

What you mean is I shouldn't be "...too opinionated and judgmental about a candidates character, whoever that is...", but it's OK for you to be, as in your:

"...Hillary is utterly incompetent, untrustworthy and incapable as a present -- Obama is the best the country has to offer, his negatives are far less an fewer, and shows great character and is an astute politician..."

BO smells wrong to me. HC isn't perfect, but she smells a bit sweeter. The more you try to convince me otherwise, the more my sense of BO being somewhat more wrong than HC increases. (Referring to smelling good/bad, danger/safety, as near the end of Midnight's Children.)

If we ever arm-wrestled, I wonder who'd win. Arm-wrestling is 50% strength, 50% determination & self-confidence.

"BO voted for the Secure Fence Act. That act is a terrible bill, from moral and ecological viewpoints. Yes, HC voted for it too..."

Talking of record,

Clinton

(1)has supported the Iraq war,

(2)voted for Kyl-Lieberman,

(3)opposed needle exchange programs,

(4) favored strict sentences for drug use (while Obama has favored retroactive changes)

(5) supported legislation to ban flag burning

(6) supported censorship of video games

(7) opposed the banning of cluster bombs.

These are just some of the areas where I feel Clinton was wrong and Obama was right. Clinton’s experience certainly does not mean having better judgment on the issues.

#37 "but it's OK for you to be"

I wrote that as an example and said, I won't say any such absurd and extreme things.

And please... have your opinions, just don't solidify them based on mine.

Re. Voting record

"(7) opposed the banning of cluster bombs."

To note one of the differences between Obama and Clinton, read David Rees at The Huffington Post:

" Cluster bombs and landmines are particularly terrifying weapons that wreak havoc on communities trying to recover from war. They are fatal impediments to reconstruction and rehabilitation of agricultural land; they destroy valuable livestock; they disable otherwise productive members of society; they maim or kill children trying to salvage them for scrap metal.

Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Analysts say Clinton did not want to risk appearing “soft on terror,” as it would have harmed her electibility.

I’m not a single-issue voter. But as Obama and Clinton share many policy positions, this vote was revelatory for me. After all, Amendment No. 4882 was an easy one to vote against: Who’d want to risk accusation of “tying the hands of the Pentagon” during a never-ending, global War on Terror? As is so often the case, there was no political cost to doing the wrong thing. And there was no political reward for doing the right thing.

But Senator Obama did the right thing."

This is just one more issue, but it is also part of a pattern that's seen in comparing the views of Obama and Clinton. Just as on this issue, Clinton frequently favors the status quo, while Obama has done the right thing in supporting change.

Talking of voting record,

"(3)opposed needle exchange programs"

The Politco found a difference in their attitudes on needle exchange programs when both appeared before the Community Service Society of New York on July 2007.

This difference also provides a reminder of the triangulation of the Clinton administration, raising fears that this is what we will see if Clinton should become President.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0707/A_needle_exchange.html

Ben Smith writes that, “In the unusual 1998 compromise, Clinton Health and Human Services Secretary Donna Shalala announced that the administration’s scientific review had found needle exchanges safe and effective — but that the administration would nonetheless maintain a federal ban on funding them.”

Hillary Clinton stuck with this position while Obama supported lifting the ban, but things get interesting as Ben Smith describes the exchange:

"Clinton responded to King’s question [1:10:40 in the video at the link above), after some prodding, by saying, “I want to look at the evidence on it” to see whether needle exchange would prevent the spread of HIV without increasing drug abuse.

Shalala, King responded, had “certified” the safety and effectiveness of the programs.

“And then she refused to order it, as you remember,” Clinton said.

King replied that that had been her husband’s decision.

“Well, because we knew we couldn’t maintain it politically,” Clinton said, and went on to discuss the trade-offs in that dispute with Congress. “I wish life and politics were easier,” she said.

King then referred back to Clinton’s opening remarks.

“You made a great comment earlier about how our next president needs to have some spine,” he said.

“We’ll have as much spine as we possibly can, under the circumstances,” Clinton responded."

Andrew Sullivan gives his thoughts on the differences between Obama and Clinton:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2007/07/clinton-obama-a.html

"Obama is different. He wasn’t mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn’t carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.

In my view, the call is not a close one."

Its clear that Obama shows spine where Hillary does not on Needle Exchange programs.

On Voting record,

Clinton "(5) supported legislation to ban flag burning"

Richard Cohen in Dec of 2005 in the Washington Post "Star-Spangled Pandering" writes:

"Clinton, apparently, could not agree less. Along with Sen. Robert Bennett, a Utah Republican, she has introduced a bill that would make flag burning illegal. "

"She has also articulated a moderate, somewhat ruminative position on abortion. It is rueful, insistent on "choice" but regretful about abortion in general. The same holds for the war in Iraq. Clinton voted to authorize it, and she has yet to call for a pullout of U.S. troops. If she is uncertain, hesitant -- not sure if a withdrawal would do a lot more harm than good -- then I welcome her to the club of Iraq agnostics.

In this and other examples, political observers discern political posturing. Maybe they are right. Whatever the case, though, the flag bill along with other examples of Clinton's willingness to court political reactionaries raises disturbing questions about who, exactly, she is. Consistency is not always to be admired in a politician, but when a supposed liberal is one of only two senators to sponsor a bill to restrict freedom of speech, then we are talking about something basic. If this is a pander, it is in the worst possible taste.

The First Amendment is where you simply do not go. It is sacred. It protects our most cherished rights -- religion, speech, press and assembly -- and while I sometimes turn viscerally angry when I see the flag despoiled, my emotions are akin to what I feel when neo-Nazis march. Repugnant or not, popular or not, it is all political speech. Her sponsorship of the flag measure calls for reconsideration all around -- either by Hillary Clinton and her support of the flag bill or by liberals and their support of her."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html

Talking of record,

Clinton "(6) supported censorship of video games"

Wired reports that Hillary Clinton is continuing her crusade against video games and is now taking on cartoon sex(Wired):

http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/12/clinton-would-c.html

"Hillary Clinton is still outraged that Rockstar Games left a sexually-themed mini game nestled in its best-selling Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas in 2005.

You’ll recall the kafuffle when the deactivated love scene was found buried in the code for the otherwise wholesome car jacking, cop-killing shooter. The unfinished mini-game featured clothed characters simulating sex acts. To access the scene, randy teens had to download and install a special patch developed by a Dutch coder, expending more effort than it takes to find real, human adult content on the web.

That all led some cynics to suspect Clinton of grandstanding when she called a press conference to denounce Rockstar and demand a Federal Trade Commission investigation into San Andreas. The ESRB re-rated the game to AO for “adults only,” raising the minimum age of purchase from 17 to 18 years old — a crucial year in which a teen develops the necessary psychological defenses to resist the Siren song of polygon porn.

But in a response to a questionnaire from the watchdog group Common Sense Media, Clinton reveals today that she still sees the affair as a victory for child safety. She describe her introduction of the doomed Family Entertainment Protection Act as a response to the “illicit” sexual content in San Andreas, and says, as president, she’d support regulation of the gaming industry.

“When I am President, I will work to protect children from inappropriate video game content,” she told CSM."

***

This position has Hillary Clinton aligned with Mitt Romeny and Joe Lieberman but on the opposite side as many of the other Democratic candidates(Wired):

"That puts her on the same page as Republican candidate Mitt Romney, who told CSM that the U.S. needs to “get serious against those retailers that sell adult video games that are filled with violence and that we go after those retailers.” Clinton’s fellow Democrats John Edwards, Barack Obama and Bill Richardson said they’d rather give the industry a chance to self-regulate, at least initially.

Clinton’s Family Entertainment Protection Act would have made it a federal offense to sell adult-rated video games to minors. It never passed, but similar state laws have been struck down as unconstitutional. Clinton’s co-sponsor on the bill, Joseph Lieberman, had his own video game nemesis: Stubbs the Zombie, who, like too many politicians, needs braaiiiins"

Obama has a strong support for separation of church and state and there are differences in Obama's and Clinton's views on presidential power and executive privilege as Clinton supports decreased transparency and would be more likely to continue, and perhaps abuse, the powers taken by George Bush.

Check this The Boston Globe artcile from Dec 2007 that has an excellent article where they researched the views of the candidates on an important issue which received far too little attention.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/12/22/candidates_on_executive_power_a_full_spectrum/

The Democrats show far more respect for the Constitution than the other Republicans but Clinton do indicates less respect for limiting presidential powers than the other Democrats.

Excellent material, Irvine Welsh. The conventional wisdom regarding the Democratic primary campaign is that there is very little difference between Obama and Clinton on the issues, and the differences come down to matters of style and feelings about change. As is so commonly the case, the conventional wisdom is totally wrong. There is a tremendous difference between the two, which explains why many informed people say they will vote for Obama in November, but not Clinton.

Hillary Clinton is a self-described government junkie who sees more and bigger government programs as the solution for all problems. Barack Obama is a liberal and his goals overlap with Clinton’s on issues such as expanding health care. However when the specifics are reviewed, on issue after issue it is Obama who takes the side of freedom and justice while Clinton falls on the opposing side.

On foreign policy the most obvious difference is over Iraq. No matter how Clinton supporters try to distort the issue, the simple fact is that Obama opposed the war from the start and Clinton supported it. Clinton appears ready to make the same mistake on Iran with her vote for Kyl-Lieberman. Clinton frequently repeats the neocon line connecting the Iraq war with 9/11 and tries to use fear of terrorism.

There are differences in foreign policy in less high profile areas as Irvine Welsh Pointed out in #41. David Rees compares the views of the two on cluster bombs in civilian areas:

"Over 150 nations have signed the 1997 Mine Ban Treaty. It pains me that our great nation has not. But in the autumn of 2006, there was a chance to take a step in the right direction: Senate Amendment No. 4882, an amendment to a Pentagon appropriations bill that would have banned the use of cluster bombs in civilian areas.

Senator Obama of Illinois voted IN FAVOR of the ban.

Senator Clinton of New York voted AGAINST the ban.

Once again, Barack Obama takes the side of justice, while Hillary Clinton takes the opposing side."

Besides the disastrous war in Iraq, we have a foolish war here at home as the war on drugs has been a terrible failure. While Obama has shown signs of willingness to change US policy, Hillary Clinton is as much a hawk on the war on drugs as she is on foreign policy. For example, Barack Obama has supported needle exchange programs while Hillary Clinton has been opposed.

Hillary Clinton has a well-deserved reputation for being a supporter of the nanny state. Hillary Clinton wants to use the power of government to protect us against all sorts of dangers. This includes the dangers from cartoon sex and video games. Hillary Clinton has even introduced legislation to ban flag burning.

After George Bush, it is important to have a president who will scale back the increases in presidential power. While Obama’s experience as a professor of Constitutional law will be valuable here, Clinton has been a backer of executive privilege. When the Boston Globe surveyed(Ref. #46) the candidates on their views of presidential power they found, “Clinton, a veteran of congressional investigations of her husband’s administration during the 1990’s, embraced a stronger view of a president’s power to use executive privilege to keep information secret from Congress than some rivals.”

The Washington Post compared the candidates on ethics reform, finding that, “On this issue, Obama leads the pack.” When Obama pushed ethics legislation, Clinton was opposed. Once again, Obama is on the side of justice as well as change, but Hillary Clinton is opposed.

For those who think Obama is portraying himself as a saint... at least unlike Hillary Clinton he is not claiming he has all the solutions worked out and that he is there to save the people; he believes in providing the chance for everyone so they have a good shot at saving themsleves. That's why he stresses individual responsibility in many of his views and policies.

Obama would ask his AG to "immediately review" potential of crimes in Bush White House.

Will Buch[Monday, April 14, 2008]: Tonight I had an opportunity to ask Barack Obama a question that is on the minds of many Americans, yet rarely rises to the surface in the great ruckus of the 2008 presidential race -- and that is whether an Obama administration would seek to prosecute officials of a former Bush administration on the revelations that they greenlighted torture, or for other potential crimes that took place in the White House.

...The bottom line is that: Obama sent a clear signal that -- unlike impeachment, which he's ruled out and which now seems a practical impossibility -- he is at the least open to the possibility of investigating potential high crimes in the Bush White House. To many, the information that waterboarding -- which the United States has considered torture and a violation of law in the past -- was openly planned out in the seat of American government is evidence enough to at least start asking some tough questions in January 2009.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Barack_on_torture.html

Irv, this is about BO's recent words, how he handled the situation, and what to do about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/opinion/15herbert.html

Well - I dont think Bush and company are going to let him get elected. Unfortunately they are going to swiftboat him as an America hating muslim -
so he is not going to get a chance to investigate any of them!
The American people are naive to believe that big money and corporations have not stolen their country from them. Have you ever seen such an usurption of executive power in this country!!
By the way - Obama is trying to make it to 1.5 million donors this month - let's all support him and try to take back our democracy!
www.barackobama.com

Heather

That's a good article. I cannot speak to how the people of PA. feel regarding Obama being black. But where I am, race is not even an issue. It is that he says one thing to one group of supporters and something else to another leaving people wondering if he himself is wise enough to understand what he says.

"It is that he says one thing to one group of supporters and something else to another leaving people wondering if he himself is wise enough to understand what he says."

He is saying the same thing he said in San Fransisco, on the other hand you have Clinton who says she has been a gun lover all along and values second amendment(contrary to her record), says she was against NAFTA from the very beginning in blue collar quarters(contrary to her enthusiasm for the deal)

I planted some lettuce today. No one ever died eating lettus. The laudanum in them does help you sleep, though. It's akin to hopium, and "I have a dream."
I did nearly die laughing at the news paper and I may keep the cuttings for future reference and another good laugh.

So you've never had a fatality, Dr Deepak? ;)

Irvine

It's all in the perception dear, as we travel on the road toward the long promised kingdom of sanity and justice.

B

forgot to say...

Hey Eddie...:)))))))))

also having lots of trouble with typekey...this is a test.....

Irv, this is about BO's recent words, how he handled the situation, and what to do about it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/opinion/15herbert.html

*****

The author makes important points, but like many others he is concentrating on the few quotes which have been widely reported. Obama actually addresses many of the things the author criticizes him for. And I disagree with him on "addressing" racial prejudice starkly and with the "extent" to which hurts him in PA.

>>"Some Perspective on ‘Bitter’"

>>"Maybe Barack Obama felt he couldn’t afford to give the correct answer."

Lets see...

>>He was asked at a fund-raiser in San Francisco about his campaign’s experiences in the run-up to next week’s Democratic primary in Pennsylvania. One of the main problems, of course, is that he hasn’t generated as much support as he’d like among white working-class voters.

Yes.

>>There is no mystery here. Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it’s pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere — will not vote for a black candidate for president.

I agree.

>>Pennsylvanians themselves will tell you that racial attitudes in some parts of the state are, to be kind, less than enlightened. Gov. Ed Rendell, Hillary Clinton’s most powerful advocate in the state, put it bluntly last February: “I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”

This is well known(even in San Fransisco circles)

>>This toxic issue is at the core of the Clinton camp’s relentless effort to persuade superdelegates that Senator Obama “can’t win” the White House. It’s the only weapon left in the Clintons’ depleted armory.

That's a flawed argument. There will always be a whole lot of Republican whites who will never vote for Obama anyway in the southern states and in the Midwest. The exact same people most of whom will never vote for any dem candidate, and some of them won't vote for a woman whatever be the party.

NOTE 1: Racial prejudice was not an issue in many states where over 90-95% of people were White, where Obama won by huge margins.

NOTE 2: Obama won 5 out of 6 top 10 gun owning sates.

>>Senator Obama has spent his campaign trying to dodge the race issue, which in America is like trying to dodge the wind. So when he fielded the question in San Francisco, he didn’t say: “A lot of folks are not with me because I’m black — but I’m trying to make my case and bring as many around as I can.”

Well I disagree that it is purely a race thing. Teh author uses "a lot of folks", how lot is teh question. Penn is a complex and diverse region. He did point out his disadvantage as a Black man in his remarks at SFO:

"So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre…they’re misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to ‘white working-class don’t wanna work — don’t wanna vote for the black guy.’ That’s…there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it’s sort of a race thing.

Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism."

>>Instead, he fell back on a tortured response that was demonstrably incorrect. Referring to the long-term economic distress of many working-class voters, Mr. Obama said: “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 antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

>>He danced all around the truth. Unless you’re Fred Astaire, if your dance steps get too intricate you’re bound to make a misstep. This was a big one.

What the author seems to have missed is this part that followed immediately after the sentences he quoted above:

"Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing."

>>But there is something perverse in the effort to portray Senator Obama — who has tried hard to promote a message of unity and healing — as some kind of divisive figure. He has spoken with great insight and empathy, most notably in his race speech in Philadelphia, about the anxiety and frustration of middle- and working-class Americans.

>>In his San Francisco comments, Senator Obama fouled up when he linked frustration and bitterness over economic hard times with America’s romance with guns and embrace of religion. But, please, let’s get a grip. What we ought to be worked up about is the racism that still prevents some people from giving a candidate a fair chance because of his skin color.

I disagree with this assessment. Its not just racism in PA. I tend to believe that those who are overtly racially prejudiced belong to republican and independents who cannot vote in the dem Primary PA, as it is a closed one. PA has 51% Democratic voters. 37% Republicans. One in three own a gun. Obama was right, "The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing." That is his message of unity, that hasn't f laundered. He cannot expect to win over racist vote and everyone knows that. But Amercia has moved over compared to past decades and Americans are willing to accept a black man as present, as can be seen in his large margin of victories in 'mostly' White states, where the racists divisive politics won't work as in other mixed states.

>>Are working people bitter? There’s no doubt that many are extremely bitter over the economic hand they’ve been dealt. Those who believed that America’s industrial heartland was secure and everlasting have been forced to adjust over the past several years to an extremely bitter reality. Jobs and pensions have vanished. The value of the family home is sinking. Health care is increasingly unaffordable. For many, the cost of college is out of reach.

>>But “bitter” has a connotation that is generally not helpful in a political campaign. Bitter suggests powerlessness and a smallness of spirit. Most people would prefer to be characterized as “angry” — a term that suggests empowerment — rather than “bitter,” with its undertone of defeat.

I agree, that could be misinterpreted.

>>So this was not a good episode for Senator Obama, however you look at it.

Surely a challenge.

>>If I were advising him, I would tell him to confront the matter head-on, meeting as often as possible with skeptical, and even hostile, working people in Pennsylvania and elsewhere. Let the questions rip, and answer them honestly.

>>No one has an obligation to vote for Mr. Obama, and it’s certainly not racist to vote against him. But the senator can make it clear that it is wrong to dismiss a candidacy out of hand solely because of the race or ethnicity or gender of the candidate.

I think, he made that point clear several times consistently in the days after he announce this campaign. To repeat the same point over and over when it as given is naive.

>>One of Mr. Obama’s strongest points early in this campaign was his capacity to make people feel good about their country again. If I were him, I’d try to re-ignite that flame.

>>During his victory speech after the Iowa caucuses, he told a tumultuously cheering crowd: “They said this country was too divided, too disillusioned to ever come together around a common purpose.”

>>Mr. Obama needs to get back on that message of unity and hope, appealing to the better angels of the working classes, while at the same time fashioning an economic message more compelling than what we’ve heard to date.

I agree, that enthusiasm is lacking, but the circumstances are different now. When some throws the kitchen sink at you don't go back to "rousing" speeches, the campaign has evolved as it must and he is giving a whole lot of Town Hall meetings where he is more on specifics and in tune with his audience.

>>The various groups, ethnic and otherwise, are not interested in being characterized. They’re interested in being led. "

He did not characterize all small-town Pennsylvanians as one group, he acknowledge the diversity and does go back to the message of unity again and again ...just try to follow his speeches and the campaign strategy, you will notice...

PA is dominated by small-town gun loving people who are right demographic for the Republicans. PA is a swing sate, and dems damaged to have a strong presence. This they did by moving to the right to attract the rural folks by wisely using guns, god and guts. Gov. Ed Rendell(who supports Hilary) and Bob Casey(who supports Obama) and his father (PA dems call themsleves Casey Democrats), have invested decades of service to win over the people of PA. Obama cannot just walk in PA and win over them in a month when most of the party machinery, mayors and elected members are behind the Hillary campaign from many many months ago. He cannot win over the independents as it is a closed primary.

evening everyone,

since that did go through I'll add another just for fun.

I am coming to the conclusion that it will either be Hillary or Barak as the next Presidential nominee, don't ask me how I figured that out but let's just say, I'm smart. And, although I am for Hillary, for all the wrong reasons...I am not voting for her integrity, her idealism, her dashing looks, youthful figure, honest to the core eleoquent preachy speechs that inspire me rise above my dysfunctional personality and who when I get caught with my mind in the bitterness of it all doesn't scold me and point the way clear with her depth of wisdom and she hasn't hollered from her political pulpit to muster her...I promise to tell the truth, the whole truth....so help me GOD!!! to America and the Whole Wide World like the other guy....does, I am just voting for her becuase her resume is good, real good, she is absolutely qualified to do the job, with more than enough experience and know how and more than anything else being President of the United States is a job, unless, of course, you are President Bush who contracted out to Vice President Cheney.....:)))

good evening all, ruth

Thank you Deepak Chopra!!!

I agree that this is a significant turning point in human development - a WE vs. ME leap. McCain and Hillary are about ME.

If McCain becomes president, it's going to be a flat 4 years as the masses 'under' him grow beyond his understanding.

If Hillary becomes president, it's going to be civil war, between the fear-mongering people-haters and elitist holier-than-thous.

The best way for us to take the next step in grandness is to elect someone who understands the new WE (not ME) generation.

...and look, Obama has a real chance! How inspiring.

:)

ruth! a well-written satire with a very sharp truth barb at the end.

Bonnie, I sense something in your words that I can't describe. But I respond to it. It's something about knowing what it's like to be there.

Irv, when I was a kid, a teacher asked us to describe how to get from school to home, without using our hands. He had us sit on our hands, in fact. It was hard to do. That's when I learned the value of spareness. The kids who managed to give their directions without using hand gestures told a much more lucid, descriptive story than those who combined words and body language (some kids couldn't get through the exercise without coming off their hands).

I think cutting words and phrase are like hand gestures, for you. If you ever write a piece without the use of cutting remarks, I'd love to read it. I bet it would sizzle.

Stick it up Amba:

The national daily Gallup for April 15 shows Obama extending his lead to 11 points 51-40

The daily Rasmussen shows he extended his lead to 9 points(50-41) from 4 points yesterday.

PA polls suggest no "bitter" after effect:
The poll'S' relased today after the 20 point lead reported by ARG yesterday:

Rasmussen
4/14/08
50 -41

Change from last pol:
4/7/08
48-43

***

SurveyUSA
4/12-14/08
54 -40

Change:
4/7/08
56-38

**

Times/Bloomberg
4/10-14/08
46- 41

(first poll)

***

Strategic Vision (R)
4/11-13/08
49-40

Change:
4/6/08
47-42

***

Quinnipiac
4/9-13/08
50-44

Change:
4/6/08
50-44

***

Remember the base line for Hillary Clinton is 30-20 points just a month ago.

As the polls approach the D day she is expected to widen her margin, as a lot of 'soft support' for Obama will have to vanish. If she fails to do Obama has made some major inroads into her traditional support.

****************
Poll Updates
****************

Rasmussen (4/15 daily tracking)

Favorable:Unfavorable

McCain- 53:45

Clinton- 43 :54

Obama- 49 :49

::::

CBS/NYT (3/28-4/2)

Favorable: Unfavorable

McCain - 35: 29
Clinton - 38: 39
Obama - 43: 24

:::::

NBC/WSJ (3/28-31)

Positive: Negative

McCain - 45: 25
Clinton - 37: 48
Obama - 49: 32

********************************

Daily Kos: PA Polls Indicate Reaction to "Bitter" Flap is a Big Yawn

Quinnipiac 4/9-13. MoE 2.1% (4/3-6 results)

Clinton 50 (50)
Obama 44 (44)

SurveyUSA 4/12-14. MoE 3.9% (4/5-7 results)

Clinton 54 (56)
Obama 40 (38)

Rasmussen 4/14. MoE 4.0% (4/7 results)

Clinton 50 (48)
Obama 41 (43)

Susquehanna 4/6-10. MoE 4.4% (3/5-10 results)

Clinton 40 (45)
Obama 37 (31)

...The polls were stabilizing last week, and now there's no discernible movement. The race has tightened dramatically since a month ago, when most polls showed Clinton with a 10-20 point lead. But now things appear locked in. The debate could shake something loose, as might some last minute development, the way the NAFTA thing did against Obama in Ohio. But short of some big development, this race looks like it will come down to GOTV. Clinton has the clear advantage going in, and should be considered the favorite, but Obama's close enough that it's not inconceivable that he could pull off a major upset.

*ARG is excluded from this list because I don't trust them. I excluded them from my last polling roundup when they had the race tied, so it's not a matter of cherry picking, I just don't trust them.

***************************

Daily Kos: Democratic Primary Polls: PA, IN, NC and KY

Pennsylvania

LA Times/Bloomberg 4/10-14. Likely voters. MoE 4%

Clinton 46
Obama 41

Indiana

LA Times/Bloomberg 4/10-14. Likely voters. MoE 4%

Obama 40
Clinton 35

North Carolina

LA Times/Bloomberg 4/10-14. Likely voters. MoE 4%

Obama 47
Clinton 34

Insider Advantage 4/14. Likely voters. MoE 4%

Obama 51
Clinton 36

Kentucky

SurveyUSA 4/12-14. Likely voters. MoE 4%

Clinton 62
Obama 26

LA Times:

" With three crucial Democratic primaries looming, Hillary Rodham Clinton may not be headed toward the blockbuster victories she needs to jump-start her presidential bid -- even in Pennsylvania, the state that was supposed to be her ace in the hole, a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll has found.

The survey found the New York senator leading Barack Obama by just 5 percentage points in Pennsylvania, which votes next Tuesday. Such a margin would not give her much of a boost in the battle for the party's nomination.

What is more, the poll found Clinton trails Obama by 5 points in Indiana, another Rust Belt state that should play to her strengths among blue-collar voters."

LAT/Bloomberg has PA a little closer than most other polls. Their sample is mostly before the "bitter" flap about Obama and small town voters, but so far no polls have shown any movement, and indeed, the polls from the week before hadn't shown any real movement. Some have tried to spin the flap as stopping Obama's momentum, but it's not clear there was any momentum prior to last Friday. PA has appeared stable for about 10 days or more.

Even if Clinton wins PA by more than what the LAT/Bloomberg suggests—and right now, that's probably where the safe bet is—she isn't expected to post much of a net gain in delegates. According to a CQ Politics analysis, of the 103 delegates awarded by Congressional district, they're projecting a Clinton lead of only 53-50. If the margin statewide is close, the remaining 55 pledged delegates will be split almost evenly. So the best Clinton can probably hope for is a net gain of maybe 10 or so delegates.

With Obama likely to win NC by a healthy margin, and with the possibility of winning Indiana, a win by Clinton in PA won't mean much. (There's never been any reason to expect Obama to do well in Appalachia*, so even if Clinton hangs around through Kentucky, a big win there won't mean much either in delegates gained or in creating a perception of momentum.)

What matters most for the next few weeks are the polls in states with upcoming primaries. But for what it's worth, the national Gallup tracking poll has Obama opening up his biggest lead over Clinton, 11 points, and in the Rasmussen poll he holds a a 9 point advantage.

:::

*... The afternoon of the Potomac primary I suggested keeping an eye on the results in the mountains of Virginia and Maryland as an indication of what might happen in later contests such as OH, KY, WV and PA. The results for Obama were dreadful. Despite his huge statewide win, in the Appalachian counties Clinton pulled as much as 80% of the vote. The same thing happened in Ohio, where Clinton racked up huge margins in Southeastern Ohio. Obama has lost to Clinton in every part of Appalachia that's voted, including northwestern Georgia, northern Alabama, northeastern Mississippi and eastern Tennessee.

The polling shows that Obama will continue to have a difficult time getting votes in Appalachia. SUSA reports that in eastern Kentucky Clinton has a 4-1 edge.

In PA, the questions will be whether Obama can cut the margins in the rural center of the state, whether he can do better in the Pittsburgh region than he did in nearby Youngstown Ohio region, and whether he can win big in the Philadelphia suburbs. If Clinton performs well in the Southeastern PA, she should win. If Obama performs much better in the Appalachian parts of PA--which are much more ethnically and religiously diverse than the rest of Appalachia--he should win.

And Obama fans, don't count on him winning West Virginia.

I think we've gone beyond the point where this primary is of any use to anyone.

They've both clearly stated their positions (they aren't really all that different at all), and the only thing left to do is to tear into each other viciously, defaming each other while a bemused McCain looks on.

The Republican coronation was--to be sure--way to quick. Somewhere in the middle is the goldilocks place.

I see there's some discussion above on candidates' changing their tunes according to the audience and the direction of political winds, right? How about considering some 'evidence' to support such arguments, rather than mere 'perceptions' and assertions?

Here's some news for you:

Hillary Flip-flops on Iran Talks

Not many of you are aware of it, right?

How has the MSM missed this? Oh, that's right, they're preoccupied by the bitter thing. Here is yet another case of Hillary changing her tune in response to the changing tide (like being for the war when it was popular, and then being against it when she started running for president). NOW, Hillary says that she WOULD have discussions with Iran with no conditions. Let me see, where have I heard that before? Oh, that's right, Barack Obama said it first, way back in July.

Remember back last summer when Hillary called Sen. Obama naive because he wanted to sit down and talk with Iran with no conditions? Remember how derisive she was, how she almost laughed at his childish, hopeful ways? Now she says it's the right thing to do. Obama was right afterall. So much for all that experience she was touting at the beginning of the campaign.

But where is the uproar? Where are the talking heads? This is actually a substantive issue here. She is/was/might-be-again running on experience, and yet she now admits that she was wrong on a major foreign policy issue, and that her opponent, an in-experienced, unelectable, elitist was right. Isn't this a bigger story than bittergate?

John Kerry never lived down the(Clinton's)"I actually voted for the bill before I voted against it" line, and had to endure the flip-flop-flap throughout the entire general election campaign; yet I would wager that this flip by Hillary will never see the light of day. She flip-flopped on the Michigan and Florida pledge, she flip-flopped on the war in Iraq, and now she's flipping and flopping on talks with Iran. Does she even know the meaning of the word consistency?

Surprise surprise!

Obama Outraises Clinton Among Small Towns in PA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/15/obama-outraises-clinton-a_n_96806.html

"Sen. Barack Obama's political opponents charge that his recent remarks on the economic woes and bitterness of low-income voters put him gravely out of touch with small town Pennsylvanians.

But a review of campaign finance records -- conducted for The Huffington Post by the Spotfire Division of software firm TIBCO -- reveals that it is Obama, not Sen. Hillary Clinton, who has received the majority of donations from these very same Keystone State communities.

...(Obama's advantage may in fact be even stronger than these numbers show, since campaigns do not provide information on donors who gave under $200, a subset where Obama has excelled.)

...the figures also cut against some conventional political wisdom: mainly, that Clinton has been challenging Obama almost strictly on the large advantages she has in rural, white communities."

As one who is far removed from this election and as one who is not even involved remotely in the process I must admit to reaching the conclusion that the Obama and Clinton campaigns have run aground. I agree with Dana, there is really nothing substantive being discussed, just repititious mud slinging. As an observer from the sidelines, the Obama supporters certainly seem to be g