-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/obama-on-hillary-annie-oakley-clinton/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
He should see this for what it is. Hillary, being Republican-lite, is a test run for the real deal he'll face in the general election.
Nice to see Obama fight back for a change.
Barack strikes me as one of those people impossible to fight with. He's so good natured, you end up looking and feeling stupid.
It's always interesting to see how people can view the exact same events do differently.
www.ravingblacklunatic.blogspot.com
You have noticed that Politico is becoming an arm of Fox News. Both Hannity and Riley are referencing them now on a daily basis,and many of their "journalists" are now making regular appearances. That would explain why the unearthing of Bill Clinton's '91 ramarks strikingly similar to Senator Obama's isn't getting much play over there (burried in the tid bits sections of Ben Smith's blog). Clinton didn't call them bitter. He said they were "scared to death." I'd rather than be called bitter than scared. But he made the same point as Obama that their economic anxieties often cause them to vote on racial issues. It's amazing that anyone could deny this. How the fuck do they think the KKK sprouted. A bunch of poor as white men blaiming freed Blacks for their economic woes. And now we want to pretend that this age old pattern doesn't exist.
I heard she was ultimately trying to get people to stop talking about Columbia. But yeah, this stuff definitely backfires, for those who are allowed to pay attention.
I wonder how much of this I'm going to see in my local papers this upcoming week.
There has been a noticeable shift in the coverage of both campaigns and it does appear that Obama is being scrutinized much more by the media.
Lastly, this is from TPM:
"This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of "elitism"! (I won't say the only time, because U.S. political history is full of absurdities of this sort.) In a way, it is funny -- and it may not be long before the jokes start."
The Clintons will overplay their hand on this one
As bad-ass as Barack's "Annie Oakley" speech was, this "bitter" debacle presents a serious strategy issue for him.
Since Adlai Stevenson's consecutive presidential bids against Eisenhower in '52 and '56, Democrats have been running away from this charge of being too smart for ordinary Americans.
Remember how Al Gore was "too smart" to be president in 2000?
Stevenson was called an "egghead" in 1952.
Talk about a "dumb it down" culture. Now we've added a softened up the language where "bitter" is an insult.
Obama is being called elitist for saying something not even controversial.
Here's what I wonder. How many important stories will be buried in the avalanche of Barack's bitter comment? No more talk about our policy towards Iran. Forget about Iraq. The energy crisis and home foreclosure and gas prices and national infrastructure and voter fraud are ghosts.
______________________________________
This comment cuts to the heart of what decent, hard-working Americans who happen upon hard times find so offensive in Obama's remarks! This is truly cynical and condescending.
Faith in God and love of freedom are values that reside deeply and fervently in the soul of the vast majority of Americans. These beliefs and values are not contingent upon the promises of a politician and a government!
Further, to suggest that a people may reject or be skeptical of the promise of economic salvation by a politican because they are racist is deplorable.
I am skeptical of any party or politician, Republican or Democrat, who claims to have the solution to my problems.
For those who put their 'faith' in the government to provide of their economic security, health and retirement is to relinquish the individual's right to self determination...to the rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
I'm going to laughing about this for the next week. "anything you can do, I can do better, I can do anything better than you. Like dodge sniper fire and bring world peace to China and fix health care and save your jobs and fight your fights and climb Mt. Everest and go to the moon and and and and"
She sounds more and more like a brown nosing hall monitor from 7th grade, every day.
"Craven shill" is what Jane Smiley called her and I like it.
Faith in God and love of freedom are values that reside deeply and fervently in the soul of the vast majority of Americans. These beliefs and values are not contingent upon the promises of a politician and a government!
Mythological bullshit! If you believed in freedom so deeply, blacks wouldn't have been enslaved for 400 years. There is the myth of America and there is the reality. If you believed fervently in God you wouldn't wage unjust war.
You may not believe politicians can create favourable economic decisions but you clearly see they can create unfavourable ones. Keep thinking this, because there are people who benefit from your mistaken belief. They are busy lobbying the govt to create an economy favourable to them...and they are benefiting from it in the hundreds of billions of dollars! While they do this, you're distracted with the mythology, taking comfort in your guns.
The evidence is right here in your comment. Even though Americans are in a precarious economic situation, you insist in talking about their love of god and culture and self-reliance. These are your sacred cows...you worship the cows while the people starve.
'Bitter' is not the offensive portion of his comments.
He is 'elitist' when he implies he, the Democrat part, government and the state know what is best.
What is truly offensive and condescending is the idea that when Americans reject the Democrat message that one should place their 'faith' in his party and his solutions, and ultimately in the hands of government, instead of calling upon one's God to provide an individual with the strength and determination to overcome obstacles, or to rely upon the freedoms and opportunities available to us as citizens, that we are bigoted and xenophobic!
'What's the matter with Kansas?!!!!'
Dems just don't get it.
For me, it comes down to who is best equipped to improve my life...me or the government?
I believe in myself, my abilities and talents, and I will continue to than God daily for His blessings.
I heard she was ultimately trying to get people to stop talking about Columbia. But yeah, this stuff definitely backfires, for those who are allowed to pay attention.
Well, in that case, mission accomplished! Barack never really goes for the jugular. He brought it up briefly in his Annie Oakley speech, but he resisted dealing a fatal blow. I hope he sends out a mailer and does an ad with all her free trade shenanigans.
For me, it comes down to who is best equipped to improve my life...me or the government?
I believe in myself, my abilities and talents, and I will continue to than God daily for His blessings.
Is anyone telling you to stop relying on yourself?? Are Democrats physically preventing you from thanking god? Why is self-reliance the most important issue when people are literally losing their houses? And by the way, that god you claim to worship ...Jesus was renowned for his compassion and if he lived today would be considered a socialist! Jesus didn't turn his back on the poor and sick.
Well, the most important story getting buried is the Bush Administration's micromanaging of torture.
I find it interesting that you choose to attack the portion of my argument that does not deal with the central issue.
That issue being, "Why are some people offended by Obama's comments. Why do some people see this as condescending?"
I have tried to answer that question from an honest, opposing viewpoint. To imply that I am turning my back on the poor and sick because I don't agree with you or Obama, merely reinforces the initial offense.
I just have more faith in my neighbors and my faith community than I do in my government. I am not so quick to trust the ability of the government over the ability of individuals or communities of individuals to best help those in need. Americans have shown, time and again, they are a compassionate, generous country. One only needs to look at how ordinary people rallied to help one another in the wake of 9/11 and hurricane Katrina.
And no, Democrats are not preventing me from thanking God.
But they are, to a certain degree, asking me to supplant my faith in religion with faith in the state.
I will pray for my country but not to my country.
Jesus was not a socialist. He did not call on governments, he called on individuals, and communities of faith, to love one another, and to do unto others as we would do unto ourselves.
By JAMES TARANTO
April 11, 2008
The NAACP has been known as a venerable civil rights organization--so venerable that the "CP" stands for "Colored People," and everyone understands that is a relic of a time when that phrase provoked no offense. Founded on Feb. 12, 1909, the centenary of Lincoln's birth, the organization fought Jim Crow laws and segregation.
It was NAACP chief counsel Thurgood Marshall who successfully argued the landmark case of Brown v. Board of Education before the U.S. Supreme Court, a court Marshall himself would join 13 years later as the first black justice.
If you respect the NAACP's heritage, you will be disgusted to learn that the organization's Detroit chapter plans to honor a man who says that AIDS is a U.S. government plot to kill black people and that the Sept. 11 attacks were "America's chickens . . . coming home to roost," and who declares: "God damn America." As the Detroit Free Press reports:
Controversial minister Jeremiah Wright will speak at the Detroit branch of the NAACP 53rd Annual Fight for Freedom Fund dinner. . . .
The Fight for Freedom dinner, which annually attracts about 10,000 people, will be held April 27 at Cobo Hall. The gathering is a key fund-raiser for the Detroit Branch NAACP, and is billed as the largest sit-down dinner in the country.
This appears to be a case of circling the wagons: Wright, a black man, is under attack, so the NAACP, an organization that seeks the advancement of black people, is defending him. In doing so, the NAACP is committing an analytical and moral error. Wright is under attack not for the color of his skin, but for the content of his ideas. To defend him is to countenance those ideas.
Through its actions, the NAACP is in effect arguing that anti-Americanism is acceptable, so long as its source is black. The association is sanctioning both invidious ideas and an invidious racial double standard.
Please go play in traffic.
Many thanks,
Junglecat
If you believed fervently in God you wouldn't wage unjust war.
Even though Americans are in a precarious economic situation, you insist in talking about their love .of god and culture and self-reliance. These are your sacred cows...you worship the cows while the people starve.
___________________________________
You have no idea about how I feel about the war. Assumptions about my opinion is irrelevant to this debate and unfair.
Secondly, I have not 'insisted' in talking about my values. I feel that my values have been insulted, reduced to simple notions that blind me from seeing the world according to Democrats.
I do not worship idols. And I am not insensitive and unsympathetic to those who are suffering. Again, you choose to assume you know me. You do not.
I will not back down from my belief that if 'you give a man a fish, he can eat for a day, if you teach him to fish, he will eat for a lifetime.'
Katrina, was a failure of government on a local and national level. So too is the current mortgage crisis. Deregulation led to the creation of the sub-prime market, while laws against discrimination in lending permitted unscrupulous lenders to give loans to those were financially unable to afford traditional, more secure loans.
But in both cases, there is also a failure on the part of the individual. How much did reliance on others, instead of oneself, be it the government or a bank, do great harm?
We seem to have a fundamental disagreement about the power of the government to positively impact our lives vs. the power of the individual to improve one's life.
I favor the individual.
Hillary Clinton, by playing the media game, and handing out "I'm not bitter" buttons has exposed herself to be a total poser. She positioned herself on the side that says the status quo is ok, and that the economy is great. Absolutely stupid from my point of view.
As for why rural Americans are bitter, here's why I, a rural white American, am bitter Damn Right I'm Bitter. We're tired of being screwed over so the wealthy in Washington can have their fancy dinners. We don't want the world, but we do want a little respect, a lot of honesty, and a fraction of real help--like health insurance reform.
"Obama, Bitterness, Meet the Press, and the Old Politics"
http://robertreich.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-bitterness-meet-press-and-old.html
Your arguments are a series of logical fallacies mixed with emotional hot buttons, like religion and self-reliance. It is not rational to be deeply offended by someone saying you're bitter when you clearly are. You perpetuate the deception by feigning offense while ignoring real bitter emotions. You wax poetic about god and other mythologies while people suffer.
There is no evidence that blue collar voters are offended, first of all...people like you use feigned offense to further your goals; you are predatory in that respect.
I have always believed the self-reliance mantra to be a distraction used by predatory individuals who really want to take advantage of others...what better way to accomplish that than by preaching the gospel of independence.
Your philosophy is a predatory survival tactic, nothing more. This is what you and preachers, and so-called community leaders have in common, you're second tier predators.
If I say "you", I'm not necessarily referring you you personally, but to the collective "you" that your ideas represent.
But in both cases, there is also a failure on the part of the individual. How much did reliance on others, instead of oneself, be it the government or a bank, do great harm?
How is taking out a mortgage relying on the government instead of oneself? Are you saying that no one should own a home unless they can pay cash??
The upside of this is, once again, Obama has stirred a dialogue on trying to understand why white working class people have the proclivity to vote on life-style rather than economic issues. Obama’s comments have the potential to lead the nation in turning a corner on how cultural, life-style, and anti-immigration issues are used as political wedge issues. He acknowledges the economic bitterness that has existed in this country for decades, but he sees the solution residing in each of us as American and our ability to seek positive solutions. He sees that part of the problem has been that for too long time, we've had a politics that's been too small for the scale of the economic challenges we face; instead, of having a politics that safeguarded cultural, life-style, and immigration policy, we've had a politics that's used these issues to drive us apart. All this did was to feed the forces of division and distraction, and stop us from solving our economic and social problems. That is why the great need of this hour is much the same as it was when King delivered his “fierce urgency of now” message. Let’s not get hoodwinked. He is forcing us to confront our feelings of bitterness and to transform them into actions of hope. Lets’ get real! Any body growing up on food stamps, black with a single white mother, and having to pay off college loans, understands God’s Grace and appreciates the opportunities that this country has to offer.
The Clinton Campaign is defining elitism according to their definition of is. To say that he is out of touch with these blue collar white people, is it also a way to say that he is a racist. Some of
the last modern vestiges of white power reside in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, and Indiana .It is a way to say that he is a closet black nationalist out of touch with lower middle class white people. Is it a way to say that he is really just like Rev. Wright? There is a subliminal race message lodge in the “out of touch,” elitism line. Black elitism is an absurdity at worst, and humorous at best.
Go To
http://www.jedreport.com/2008/04/hillary-clint-4.html#disqus_thread
Your comments @ 9:32 are no more than a perversion of the values of those (although apparently not me personally) who do not agree with you.
Life on this planet is one big 'survival tactic' and forgive me if I choose to put my faith and trust in God, myself and my freedom instead of buying into the ideology of those who desire me to prostrate myself before the alter of 'the state.'
As to your question:
"How is taking out a mortgage relying on the government instead of oneself? Are you saying that no one should own a home unless they can pay cash??"
Before the creation of sub-prime loans requiring little or no money down, and scant proof of verifiable income or savings, borrowers were required to put a large down payment (usually as much as 20% of the purchase price) in exchange for a lower interest, long term loans.
These strict requirements naturally made it more difficult to own a home but ultimately provided the borrower with a less risky form of long-term debt. These requirements in essence assured that borrowers were living within their means.
You keep insisting that I don't know you....as if "you" is something other than the comments you post here. I am posting to a person known only by his/her ideas. I am referring to that "you" and to the wider community of people who also hold the same beliefs.
Forget the god bullcrap emotional hotbutton. I am not religious. Nobody desires you to do anything. Nobody gives a damn.
The borrower is still on the hook for the loan. So, how is taking out the loan not self-reliance?
You are wrong about the history of mortgages.
There had been a solid business of sub-prime lending for decades before it blossomed into a major segment of the home-ownership financing market.
GreenPoint Bank, headquartered in NY City was a leader in No-Documentation and Low-Documentation loans. The borrowers were typically people who did not want to reveal their full financial profiles. Many ran cash businesses such as dry cleaners or convenience stores.
GreenPoint charged higher rates and demanded higher down-payments from real estate buyers.
But you got the situation backwards. High credit standards are not aimed at protecting buyers from themselves. The high standards are meant to protect the lenders from the borrowers.
Anyway, GreenPoint and its competitors operated successfully for decades. Then GreenPoint was acquired in a takeover. By that time it was operating mortgage offices most states.
Meanwhile, low downpayments have been standard stuff for decades. The standard downpayment for a first home was considered 20% of the purchase price. But many buyers paid 10%, which lenders accepted if borrowers got mortgage insurance. That worked well enough.
Then critics claimed that racial bias in lending kept blacks and hispanics from owning homes. Political pressure rose. Before long downpayments were a thing of the past and special programs popped up to give people with no savings a big hand in the home-buying process.