when the 527's come out, people will care.

democratic primaries - not so much

GE - you better believe it, baby.

Kerry made that mistake with the swifties - we in MA were use to the swiftboat lies for decades, as they came trotting out every time Kerry ran for his senate seat.  And we ignored them.  Alas, for Kerry, the rest of the US didn't act the way MA residents did and it sunk him.

People don't like being told that the reason why they have faith or guns is because the economic times are tough & they are bitter over it.

and that, amongst a lot of other comments made by the Obama camp, will sink him in the GE.

No amount of liberals will be able to save him

You bet. They're called VOTERS, and they're not going to support Obama if he's the nominee.

Ding ding ding ding ding

We have a winner.

people .... who don't have an interest in undermining Barack Obama's candidacy

heh. wanna name names? Or name nyms?

This was my reaction also.

I think it is only an issue if HRC (and/or the media) finds a way to make it an issue.

That said, there is a danger in this: HRC has been gleeful ever since this story broke. If she overreaches (something she clearly has a tendency to do), then she will negate any political advantage by appearing to play "gotcha" politics. And/or people will start to ask uncomfortable questions about Senator Clinton's own broken promises to the voters in Upstate NY and her record on free trade.

Moreover, it also seems to me that members of the media are the real ones who like this story. They have bizarre attitudes about rural, working class, voters. Chris Matthews, for example, is always trying to present the facade that he isn't an elite and that he is "in touch" with everyday people. I doubt anything could be further from the truth.

Honestly, I am getting sick of this election. I am just tired of it all and I think everyone is. It's going on way too long. It's draining  . . .

It is laughable that nothing they throw at Obama sticks. It is laughable that ever two weeks Obama's candidacy is declared mortally wounded and the masses of his supporters are going to flee and embrace McBush.

and the media treat it as a gaffe. Working people do resent the Washington political establishment. I hope he sticks to his guns.

and independent brother don't see it as a "big deal" because folks like them have a different view of the ills that permeate our society.

If the question is will this be an issue for Obama (assuming he is the nominee), then I believe it will be mentioned more than a few times by supporters of McCain.

When you simply state reality, real people do not take it as a shock.  It's McClinton who is out of touch if they think people aren't angry and bitter about the state of this country.  And as the cost of 91 Octane is sitting above $4.00 right now in California, it's not just Pennsylvanians who are pissed off.

It matters to voters in Pa from what I'm hearing. It'll matter in Nov. if he's the nominee. And it plays right into the narrative the media has for him.

well, it hasn't really gotten the entire full press court and clinton, mccain will surely pummel on this, so it might spread eventually.

i presume.

"Bitter" as a headline does work. Voters will remember that, and we will see it in the results of the Pennsylvania primary.

However, it will be explained to them between now and November--or, if it please God and I hope it does, between now and August--and they will understand.

Unfortunately for Obama supporters, the insulting nature of Obama's words are not just pulled out of the air by the demon Hillary and her legion of robotic media supporters.  They're actually there in the words themselves.  That makes the arguments in favor of their import a lot easier to make and the arguments against their import a lot spinnier and easier to refute.

The people with no other way to win the nomination care.

Other folks, not so much.

Only because some people are absolutely hypersensitive about any perceived criticism of their guns and their faith.  

I think it will be an issue, but I personally don't care about it all.  I do admit that Obama sounded a tad condescending.

what's disappointing is a bunch of so-called Democrats eagerly backing up McCain by building up a fundamentally rightwing smear against Obama.  Have you guys forgotten 2004 already, and how they portrayed Kerry?  Again and again I heard people refer to Kerry as an "elitist"...for chrissake what do you think the Bushes are?

They did the same thing to John Edwards...whenever the media brings up Edwards' 2008 candidacy, they don't talk about his focus on poverty, or the fact that he announced his run in New Orleans, or his commitment to universal healthcare.

They talk about the damn $400 haircut.  A man who grew up dirt poor being portrayed as elitist, while the wealthy McCains are given a pass.

One thing I do remember though is that Democrats, even supporters of other candidates, defended Edwards against the media-driven non-story.  I don't remember seeing diaries claiming Edwards was a snob.

I phone banked to small town Indiana today and it was quite the topic of conversation on many minds.

It was inartful but true.  People are angry.  The thing that folks won't like is the statement that they are clinging to religion and guns and resent "others' because they are angry.  That is also true but not welcome.  Is it enough to stop primary voters from making Pennsylvania close enough to deny Hillary any realistic chance at the nomination?  I doubt it, knowing Pennsylvania having been born and raised there.  The main issue is how Obama responds from now on.  If he stops apologizing, and attacks the wedge politics that take redirects this anger against the interests of those who are angry, Obama might have another chance to change the paradigm.  That also weakens Hillary's attacks on him, since it makes her look like the old politics of wedge divisiveness, not him.  He's smart enough to see this sort of thing, and he's done it before.  Obama was also lucky this broke on a Friday.  It's a speedbump, not a dealbreaker.

My sister who is a Republican who lives in a small town in Oregon said after I read her Obama's comments "So".  She said what he said wasn't that far off from the truth.

I don't know if people really care outside of the people who are focused on politics.

It also depends upon how Obama handles it this week.  Tomorrow night he is going to in a forum on Faith on CNN with Hillary Clinton.  It will be interesting to see what he says there.

On Monday he will be speaking to a thousand union workers who I am sure have guns.

Should be interesting to see how Obama handles all of this.

I am an Obama supporter but if it looks like Obama is unelectable this cycle because of this gaffe, I would rather the superdelegates switch their votes to Hillary at the end of the primary season than for Obama to totally get demolished in the General.  

Of course people don't care. People are sick of the gotcha/gaffe politics. Probably it'll be like other stuff they've tried to throw at Obama, it'll hurt Clinton more in the backlash. Obama will take the opportunity to talk about economic issues facing rural voters, and in a week or two, it'll be a net positive for him.

If the Republicans seriously thought this was a "killer" for Obama in the fall, they'd save it until then. The reason they're trotting it out now is because they want to help Clinton, because they know they'd have an easier time against her.

If they thought they had Obama kryptonite between this or whatever else, they'd be helping him beat Hillary instead of the other way around.

It's clear that Obama supporters will apologize for whatever mistake he makes but pounce on everything Clinton says. If Hillary had made the same remarks, we would have yet another round of "she should quit now".

There are two charges against Obama on this. 1) He's an elitist. And 2) he's too bitter. Both don't work, albeit for contradictory reasons.

As for elitism, ironically enough, it's his blackness that shields him. Most voters just don't see any black man as "elitist", especially when he connects as well as he does with younger (and often white) voters. He could be seen as "too cool for school" or arrogant but that'd be different than elitist, which is what Clinton said.

As for the bitterness remark, his whole campaign is premised on "hope" and the "bitter" remarks only make him more grounded in reality. His persona is decidedly not bitter so this framing doesn't hurt him. It probably helps him.

Then there's the strange contradiction of being bitter AND elitist. Presumably, if you were elitist, you would mock the frustrations of poorer people and not acknowledge them as genuinely bitter at Washington. Either way, this whole frame doesn't make sense.

Not much reaction in rural, NC, evidently

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2 008/04/12/882730.aspx
"On the same day that Obama's opponents keep their eyes peeled for outrage from small-town America, Bill Clinton is doing a marathon six-stop campaign day in rural eastern North Carolina, a swing billed by one supporter as a "Barbeque Tour."

But the issue doesn't seem to be sticking. Clinton himself has been silent on the issue. But at the first two events of the day, the campaign has sent one of Carolina's hometown boys out to push the issue before Clinton takes the stage. Tom Hendrickson, a Clinton supporter and former Democratic Party chairman, included a reading of Obama's comments in his introduction of Clinton.

"Senator Obama, don't pity us and think that we're bitter and frustrated," he said in Winterville this morning. "We are hard-working family folks who are smart, and we get it. We don't need pundits to tell us what to think."

Hendrickson repeated the sentiment at a later stop in Winston, but dropped the direct mention of Obama as the source of the quote.

In both instances, Hendrickson's speech evidenced little reaction from the crowd"

After this gaffe, if the superdelegates give Hillary the nomination, do any of you think that Obama could still be the vice president?

I'm wondering if this would hurt Obama with anyone but those who probably wouldn't vote for him anyway.  I don't know the answer to this - your thoughts are welcome.

By the way, what % of the Dem vote in PA is rural vs. suburban and urban?

>>do people who...don't have an interest in undermining Barack Obama's candidacy even care about Obama's comments?

Um, no.

This has been another episode of short answers...

...wipes her nose in public.

The double standard is breathtaking.

Axelrod: Obama Regrets But Won't Apologize For His Remarks.

Direspecting voters in front of elite donors in San Fransisco is a huge mistake.

Spin it anyway you want it, but watch the voters vote for Clinton.

She is the one that actually gives them hope for their future.

Political websites tend to amplify certain stories disproportionately.  Also, many of the people that come here are probably more sensitive to these types of stories than the average person to begin with.  I'm not saying that that's the case here, necessarily, though it should be considered (as might scandal fatigue).

I don't really care. But it amuses me that amid rumors that Jimmy Carter may endorse him, he made a classic Carter gaffe: publicly mistaking people for fools because they're not interested in what he's saying.

This is a pretty interesting and important question in a lot of ways.  I tend to agree that people outside the politically "obsessed" circles don't care that much because they are likely to focus more on the "bitter" part than the "clinging" part.

Incidentally, I think Obama is wrong on one count: these people don't cling to religion and guns because they are screwed economically, they cling to those things (and I think "cling" is a fair word) because that is how they have always been.  Their grandparents and parents valued these things, and so they do too.  That's not true in all cases, obviously.  But how many children of anti-gun activists become hunters?  How many children of atheists become fundamentalist born-again Christians.  Maybe we liberals "cling" to our beliefs in the same exact way.

It is a very dangerous thing to be stuck in the mindset that anything Obama says or does will always be rationalized or accepted when Clinton is used as the well, look at her argument. Let's not assume that because some Republicans or Independents or even Democrats are sitting back thinking that they don't care what the candidates do to each other at this point because they have already called the race, that the very unfortunate statement that Obama made to a group of wealthy San Francisco donors will not matter.

It reinforces an image. Following the CA delegate fiasco  that had to be fixed quickly - but some big money bundlers are still going to take some other Obama delegate slots as a quid pro quo  - this is disastrous. if you're trying to win over those demographics (and people who go to church or believe in whatever religion they believe in, have lost jobs due to Youth flight or corporate abandonment, or own guns for a variety of reasons is a very big demographic). People in this country don't only associate themselves exclusively with those who believe exactly the same thing politically as they do. We have neighborhoods and towns and many social interactions during which we communicate that don't involve or include internet bloggers.

But let's count on the media to tell the whole story and run the entire speech by Obama. I think I've heard quite a few people hear dismiss Clinton's arguments as too long for that essential and essential soundbite to communicate what she wants to communicate. Expect a few more apologies from the Obamaa campaign. He made some comments that can't be taken back. The fact that they were made in a closed environment is not helpful in any way to this just going away.

Again, here's how AP is playing it right now. http://tinyurl.com/54gxrc

It depends.  Obama cited an into-level concept from modern American history class.  "The government won't fix anything, no matter what I do, so I'll just vote what makes me feel safe/right with God."  It's been the sole basis of Republican strategy since HUAC, when the issue was "Commies!"  Then Nixon changed it to "N!!" and that was the Southern Strategy.  When racism started to go underground, it became "Babykillers!" and then "Gay!Gay! Marriage!"  And of course the NRA has always made sure there was a gun-rights variant.  Regan changed 'won't' to 'can't.'  In 1992, a "Mexicans!" variant peeled off 15% of the electorate, and a guy running on the idea that the government could fix things got in.  Remember "It's the economy..." That's a direct response to the "government is useless" argument, and if Mrs Clinton doesn't know that, then she wasn't paying attention.  But she does know.  No Democrat runs for office without knowing how the Republicans appeal to voters.  So Obama mentioned it out loud, as part of what seems to be a strategy of treating us as adults: B F D.  What concerns me here is not Obama revealing the secret techs of the Party, but the way Clinton locked step with McCain.  He has to hide and deny his Party's exploitation of people's despair, but she doesn't have to cover for the Republicans.  I wanted to believe she was staying in as a sort of loyal opposition, teaching and strengthening her opponent through conflict...It was a pleasant dream, and I need a few of those.  My job sucks and my government wants me to kill and die in the sand.  

I don't think it will have lasting damage in the democratic primaries (although it might prevent him from making PA closer).  I think the lasting damage is in the GE - not because of this particular comment itself, but because of the string of comments from Michelle Obama, Rev. Wright, and Barack Obama.  Standing alone, none is that bad.  But strung together in a commercial, sound bite after sound bite, will be very damaging.  But most people on this site don't care to look past the convention, they just care that their candiate of choice gets the nomination, regardless of their chances in a GE. In the end, it's not about delegates, popular vote, etc.  It's all about the electoral college.

Frankly, I care.  Being one of the people he was talking about, only not bitter, not gun toting, not unemployed, not bigoted, it only emphasized to me the one thing that has been bothering me throughout the campaign.  That is that he is out of touch with people like me, and his arrogance is for real.  He doesn't know the first thing about people who live in states like Pennsylvania.  He can't relax and appear without his suit, and feel at ease with people.  He doesn't know who we are. He talks like he has learned life out of a book. I guess that would only impact people who he was referring to, but who he doesn't know anything about.  

Even the muslim thing is still having some measurable impact, even after the Rev. Wright fiasco.

If we accept the lizard brain theory of marketing (no, I'm not making that one up!), then the key is whether the smear can be spun up into something that threatens a core value of a significant number of voters. Then it stands some chance of getting viral like the muslim story did even if it's not true. It merely need to be plausible on some instinctual level.

Of course, having the media pound on the smear wouldn't help him because it makes those voters feel the threat over and over again. That makes the media a pretty big variable, and we don't know how they are going to treat this yet.

Reading the responses from Obama-haters to this question makes me wonder if their hate for Obama is so pathological that they don't see what's happening.  Hillary Clinton has joined alliances with Republicans to take down a fellow democrat.  Does that not seem strange to HRC supporters?  Does it not make you guys wonder what type of President she will be?  I have no problem with Sen. Clinton fighting until June 7.  I have no problem with the SDs giving it to her if she cuts Obama's lead.  I do, however, have a problem with her Rovian tactics.  I thought we were fed up with 8 years of Rove?  I guess I was wrong.

a few things.  while i believe he was accurate in his comments, he shouldn't have included the guns and religion part, that was stupid.  2, this seems more like kerry's botched joke than anything else.  he can say that he was trying to say that people are mad at the govt because of how bad things are, and he slipped on his own tongue.  that will hurt his "i'm a good speaker" quality, but hey, no one bats 1000 (that is the line right, i don't follow sports).  also, in theory, this could be a way to create an excuse for losing penn.  he might be worried that he can't win, and needed some way to explain his loss.  this way, when he loses penn he can claim it was a rebuke over his comments, and nothing more.  that won't be accurate, but it will be good spin.  

I just find it hilarious that the media is calling this "bittergate" and focusing on his "bitterness" remarks. Obama has already won this exchange. His points about bitterness make him seem more real and grounded than the "hope" message had conveyed before. He comes out stronger with this.

Had the media pushed the elitism side more it could have done more damage only because it's a common anti-Dem trope. But bitterness? So Hillary Clinton is going to mock the notion that Pennsylvanians are bitter (with 81% of Americans thinking we're on the wrong track) and she thinks this will help her? Maybe she needs Mark Penn back.

in pennsylvania.  in fact, most of the comments we heard about this incident (and we are not contacting known obama supporters) were critical of the media for overplaying it.

but that's not much of a surprise.  greg palmer, of keystone politics, had this to say:

Campaign season, as we all know, is a time to try to make hay out of any little gaffe that happens. And even though I'm not his biggest fan, that's what happened with Obama's latest comments about Pennsylvanians. He said what I've been saying for a while, albeit in a slightly less sensitive way: our politics are informed by our economic history.

Let's see how Obama does.  I predict that that debate will determine whether or not Obama is damaged goods for the election or not.

Let's see what he says.  Obama has been doing much better in debates and I am sure this issue will come up early on.  It really depends upon how Obama answers it.  He could even turn it around right then and there for what Obama says in that debate on this subject will be the soundbite for the evening.  

Hillary has to be careful that she doesn't overplay her hand too much in the debate on this subject.  If Obama answers the question well and Hillary looks like she is piling on, she will look bad.  Hillary's biggest problem is that she can overplay her hand which often backfires.  

I get myself pretty worked up every time I see yet another lame attempt to smear Obama peddled here at MyDD. It really doesn't do any good to just shake my head in disbelief.

So what I'm gonna do instead is donate another $20 to the Obama campaign every time I see another hyper-asinine anti-Obama diary make the rec list.

I know I can count on folks here to get me to the legal limit before North Carolina. Heck, if I did it retroactively, I could have maxed out after Xerox-gate, Orange-juice-gate, Bowling-gate and Americans-are-bitter-no-shit-Sherlock-ga te.

What amazes me is all the people who never went near a small town, or the midwest for more than a week in their life claiming what Obama said was the truth.  What part was the truth?  He said a lot of stupid things, all distinct within themselves.  I know people in small towns in PA who have been religious through the booming times, and through the bad times.  There are gun toters here who have been toting for decades whether they had a job, or not through all those years.  Please ask Obama what the hell owning guns or voting guns has to do with the previously declining economy. They are not the slightest bit connected.  And in fact, communtities in this country have been working hard to replace industries slashed by policies that have been put into place by the govt. or completely ignored by them, and they have been often successful in going on with life.  So, what part of the statement is the truth, you all knowing apologists for Obama.  Please let me know when you figure it out.

and think it's a non-issue. Anti-Obama opportunists are trying hard to make it a big deal. As always, he'll turn it into his gain.

There is also the hypocrisy issue. I've attended church services at primarily Black congregations and to say that religion or going to church results from bitterness would be inaccurate. Churches are a big part of many communities, and they are quite important as a means of social interactions. During the whole Wright fiasco we were asked to not paint all Black churchgoers at Wright's church or at any Black church for that matter as being the real reason that Blacks go to church. There is typically a pretty sophisticated social network involved, and it's just not considered appropriate to trash Jesus or say you're there because you lost your job. Some people actually go for the spiritual uplifting they need during difficult times (including deaths, illness, etc.). To say that people go to church in other than Black communities because they are bitter - and that is the essence of what Obama said - is just a little hypocritical. I think some people will feel that sentiment

I suspect the people in Pennsylvania will care very much about what Obama said, one way or the other.

This isn't a gaffe.  Its not a slip.

Its a fact.  And those same people know it.  And the fact that the Clinton and McCain camps are so sure that that isn't the case is why neither should be President.

When I go to French Lick, Indiana, there are Democrats.  They don't like gays, they hunt and many are just on the edge between poverty and destitute but they come from unions and believe in economic fairness.  They have double wides, and they have to work hard just so their jobs don't go away as quickly as they otherwise would.  

How are they supposed to blanking feel?  They feel anger, resentment and yes bitterness.  And many don't bother voting on economic matters now.  Its been decades since the jobs started to flee the "Rust Belt" and the rural Midwest.  Every candidate promises something is going to be done and nothing is ever done.  So they vote on issues that don't touch their day to day life (or their life at all) like God, gays and guns.  

That bitterness and cynicism is what Obama has to overcome.  Acknowledging that it exists - that people are pissed off at having taken it so long - shows that he understands these problems exist and that people are sick of the same old BS.  

My friend works in a suburban Philadelphia insurance office and her co-workers "never" bring up politics, she says. When she went into work yesterday, the claims examiners were all talking about what Obama said, and saying they'd never vote for him.

Oh, and half of them are black.

I live in a rural agricultural community, and small towns are different, more respectful, more religious, and because we're near the woods--and the lions, and tigers, and bears==there are guns.  Bitterness?  We're not bitter.  I felt that he was being very condescending, frankly, and it was a little scary to see how he really feels.  But its good to know now.

LOL if people don't think God and Guns affect politics they have been in a cave for a million years. And I am sure if you watched "NBC Obama News" it wasn't conveyed to be any big deal. If Hillary had said it just imagine the reaction!

1. He says that words matter (a speech he "borrower" from Deval) but constantly asks the voters to give him the benefit of the doubt for his misspeaks.
   
2. Said he has always been against the Iraq war (yet stated and voted otherwise during his time in the senate) and he will end the war immediately (which later, is said by his campaign to be only a best-case scenario)
   
3. Said he will attempt to end the racial divide yet had Wright working for his campaign, a man who is clearly still very divided
   
4. Has accused numerous people that have spoken out against him as racist while he mutters the phrase "typical white person" while describing his white grandmother
   
5. Accuses Clinton of doing anything to win, while he drags his feet and tries to prevent MI & FL from a re-vote, because he is scared of the results
   
6. He continually talks about his superior judgment while engaging in a very long and close relationship with Tony Rezko & Jeremiah Wright
   
7. Condemns Washington and its same old players and then has much of his campaign help come from the likes of Ted Kennedy and John Kerry
   
8. Criticizing Imus and stated that "anyone working for me who made a comment like that about anybody of any ethnic group would be fired" and then installs Wright into his campaign knowing he had made many derogatory comments about white people throughout the 20 years he has known him.
   
9. Has promised a new type of politics that promoted unity but has continually attacked Clinton's character and has gotten more and more negative in his campaign tactics (BTW his wife said she won't support Clinton if she were to get the nomination - how is that unity for democrats?)
   
10. Agreed to serve his full term in the senate before an attempt to run for president.
    
11. Spoke out about how we need to do more in Afghanistan, but did not hold one substantive meeting while chairing the foreign relations committee that had power to make important decisions regarding Afghanistan.
    
12. Had one of his adviser meet privately with the Canadian government to assure them he didn't really mean what he said about NAFTA (that adviser still works for his campaign), yet had the audacity to say that if he were Clinton he would have fired Penn (she removed him from his leadership position within her campaign).
    
12. Agreed to campaign public financing in the general election and is now backing out

I wonder if this might sort of backfire b/c the people who will be most saturated with this "controversy" are the suburban Philly types that might actually be more sympathetic to his message. Whereas the working class folks won't have near as much time on their hands to scour the 24 hour news. This is hardly as sexy as the Wright stuff because, for one, there is no video. The #1 rule of brewing a mini-scandal is you've got to have video. Audio just won't cut it, because then CNN can't weave it in and out of every segment on a constant loop. And with video it gets youtubed and sent around virally through email. Audio just doesn't have the same power.

No.  That's why this whole situation is such a freaking joke.  I watched CNN live when it happened and saw this video: http://youtube.com/watch?v=BwG4BlK8w_Y

That's exactly how I, and everyone else I've personally talked to, feels about it.  This is just yet another case of the vocal minority trying to speak for the silent majority.

Hillary is celebrating :

http://bp1.blogger.com/_UQPUzwdX51o/SAGB Am9YsPI/AAAAAAAAAHU/qtpQt3Gntao/s1600-h/ r-HILLARY-DRINKING-huge1.jpg

I'm a punkass Obama white collar elite, but my family has its roots in the rural Midwest (Iowa). They range from moderate Dems to Republicans who are fed up, bitter you might say, about the Republican party, and will vote for either Democrat this November.

I don't even need to ask my aunts about it because they're completely in the tank for Obama.  They were on the Obama train before I was.

I've only spoken with my father about it, who was a Reagan Democrat, before he became disillusioned, and he said (paraphrasing) "Of course we're bitter!  And people do cling to guns and religion!  It's human nature!"

And sorry concern trolls but a 527 ain't going to change his mind. His mind is set on ending the war and fixing the economy and he knows McCain was an enabler of W's retard wrecking crew.  The only hope Republicans have of getting a McCain vote out of my dad is if he votes on a Diebold-- and good luck with that because I constantly remind my family that paper is better than plastic.

This is such to do about nothing!  Barack Obama told the truth that everyone knows and gets hammered by Clinton.  Even her surrogate Evan Bayh admitted that there is truth to Obama's statement.  I am in PA and let me tell you loud and clear:  PEOPLE ARE ANGRY and THEY ARE BITTER!!!!!!  He now apologizes for the his choice of word and this should be over.  Doubt it, Clinton will try to make a capital offense out of this.  How is this going to solve any problem of this country?  I can't take her, I can't take her!!!  Oh well, I guess I will make myself feel better by donating a little more money to Obama.  

I'm still trying to wrap my head around this one....

Every politico (right wing or left wing) has said this exact same thing for years.  Catfish Hunter, who supposedly denounces these remarks (a Clinton supporter) wrote the exact same thing in his book.

I don't know if Carville's come out about this one, but he said the EXACT same thing on the air during the 2004 election results on CNN....

I still don't get the "scandal"... seems WAY manufactured...  We'll see how the public views this very soon, I imagine...

What bothers me is that many Democrats are now joining in on the Republicans hatred of intellectuals.  We have this interesting conundrum... we want our kids to be educated, yet we despise those who actually succeed in education.  Can you honestly tell me that our society actually honors a PhD. graduate?  If they say anything, they are looked upon with scorn and disdain as being an "elitist", because they went to school and studied hard...  No wonder our economy is in the tanker....  We truly don't value education or culture, and we are being eaten for lunch by countries that do value these attributes.

I think that we are the only country in the world where being educated and cultured actually LOWERS one's social and political standing...

If Democrats are no longer standing up for the smart people who have been disenfranchised by society, who will?

It seems to me that the consensus is that this is going to hurt Hillary more than Obama.

And before you start typing a response, remember what consensus means! It doesn't mean that YOU agree.

... undermining his candidacy.

Say, if people in "small towns" in PA "cling to" religion because they're "bitter," does that mean that Obama clings to his Pastor because he's hopeful?

Just asking....

People will care if they're molded to care. Right now we don't know the GOP summaritive theme of Obama, the '08 version of flip flopper. But Todd's initial instinct wouldn't be a cringe, and there wouldn't be hundreds of comments in the related threads, if this weren't potentially damaging, combined with Wright, and whatever comes next. You know damn well there'll be a next, with a smug free wheeling novice at the mike.

This would be trivial in '06, when we had a wide fairway of margin for error in a second term midterm. And we really didn't care where we won, as long as the net was +6 Senate and +15 House. But in '06 we're needy of narrow escapes in specific moderate states like Ohio and Florida. If not those two, then an unlikely straight flush of smaller states, some of which vote red in historical terms, namely Colorado. Anything that reinforces a downward peering stereotype of Democrats has got to be harmful when so much is at stake, and we're no better than a 55-60% theoretical likelihood of success to begin with.

My reaction was worse than a cringe. But with Obama it's like shopping from a catalog or website. You can read all the fine print, choose view larger size from the fancy photos, and try to convince yourself what a bargain it is. But once the package arrives the actual product may not be what you expected, not remotely close.

I think we're being suckered, specifically by overlooking how vulnerable Obama will be in a general election. Charisma is vital in ousting an incumbent. In an open race with the course of the nation at stake you need rock solid resume, no doubts about readiness. But the pathetic revolving door is when you get it wrong one cycle, that only contributes to blowing it again the next time. We prioritized resume in '04 and that crashed, so now it's charisma and speeches. If Obama loses in '08 we'll be in need of likability against an incumbent in '12, but based on the Obama experience we'll throw out likability and scramble for a resume.

On stories about this and sending e-mails trying, trying hard to find a single objective person who cares about this. So far I have found none.

Lot's of Clinton suporters seem to care about it. A bunch of nativist anti-immigration folks seem to care about it. But all were firmly anti-Obama in the first case.

I have yet to find a undecided voter who cares about this. Frankly I think this is just a desperate attempt at "gotcha" politics by the Clinton Camp and the traditional media and it will do nothing to affect anyone.

... probably also care.

He also managed to insult women, as well as working people, with his line that "Abortion is never a good thing". What? Not "good" even to save the life of the mother? Of course, by this point everybody's used to the misogny, so there's no story here. And then there was the line about the good gays who don't "proselytiz[e] all the time".

Not, all in all, a good week for Mr. Hopey. Is there any part of the Democratic base he didn't manage to piss on this week? Besides the "creative class" [cough], that is?

I know. Many of you will tell me, as you have, that this election has nothing to do with us foreigners. That it is all about America. The American choice. The American future. And you are (mostly) right. This is your choice. This is about the American future. This is about America. But it does have something to do with us Johnny Foreigners. We do have a stake in this. Why? Because most level-headed people in this world still look to America for direction. We still look up to America. We look for guidance. We look to America for leadership in this crazy little sphere of ours. Question is, can America still provide it? And who offers that hope? http://angryafrican.net/2008/04/12/note- to-america-the-world-is-watching/

Well, nobody knows if people care.  That's what we'll find out in PA, IN, and NC shortly...

For someone who has higher "likeable" ratings than Clinton, though, this seems like it would definitely hurt the number of people who want to go fishing and have a beer with him.  

You wouldn't want to have a beer with someone who just called you a provincial idiot, would you?  And that's what the sound-bite says, which is all most people will hear of this...

So how many Mulligans is Obama going to get this primary season?

"But I didn't mean it that way," isn't going to go over so well with foreign leaders.  

Seeing all these little gems that he lets slip out about people in this country, I really don't want to hear how he's going to insult people in other countries.  

the first time on CNN, when the story broke, with a relative who is a Hillary backer and Obama hater.  His reaction?  "Well, what's wrong with that?  He's right."  My reaction, too.  

I think, sometimes, if you have to try really hard to take offense at something, you might be losing your perspective.  I understand that there are a lot of people that would like to USE this flap.  If I were a Hillary supporter, I probably would want to.  But that's different from actually being upset by it.

Great question. I've looked at some other sites such as Politico, CNN, Huffington, Drudge Report and there wasn't too much. If you look at mydd which I love by the way. You would think world war 3 had broken out. With Obama closing in on Senator Clinton in Pennsylvania they are out for blood. But again it will backfire because the comment doesn't live up to the hype.

I am concerned that all this effort at deconstructing Sen. Obama's stereotyping about rural voters in Pennsylvania is diverting from our collective effort to advertise the fact that all of Obama's supporters are unthinking AAs and wine-sipping, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving, Ivy Leaguers.  C'mon people, let's focus on the real unvarnished truth here.

And we all know that the rural Americans that have been neglected and marginalized - in many cases by the Democratic Party itself - and which face in many instances economic devastation, declining schools and local populations are, to a person, inspired and uplifted by their circumstances.  No bitterness to be found anywhere, because as some have said, they are ebullient and marching from one joy to another.

Real people out there DO NOT care about crap like this.  

People DO care if they don't have health insurance, can't keep their house, and they care when their unemployment is about to run out!

Yes, let's insult the dumb, racist rural people in front of the San Francisco billionaires. Perhaps they are too stupid to notice. Too busy shooting small animals, burning crosses, praying for gays to go to hell, etc. They're so dang dumb they don't even know they're being put down!

Anyway, the PA results will tell us if they care. I suspect you will have a resounding answer to your question very soon.

Mr. Singer thinks they don't care about Jeremiah Wright. Mr. Beeton thinks they don't care about being turned into a national joke in front of rich San Franciscans. It's a dangerous game you're playing, to think that your candidate is going to get away with this cumulative poison. A big, fat toxic snowball.

But by all means drink the Kool-Aid until November if you desire. It's going to be a hell of a hangover for you Obama guys.

So far the only reaction that I have seen first hand is that a couple of my independent friends have said that they are MORE likely to vote for Obama because he hit the nail on the head.  They are tired of politicians who aren't trying to do anything for the people.  I work in manufacturing.  We've lost a bunch of our friends here at work to foreign markets.  One of my coworker friends said: "Bitter isn't the right word.  We're pissed off and scared.  My job could be next.  I hope that he really means what he said."

You folks who want to see Obama torn down aren't gonna see it happen as a result of what he said this week.  In fact, as far as I have seen in the responses from the people around me, it will HELP him win in November.

my seventy-something mother is canvassing for Obama in a white middle class neighborhood in Ambler outside of Philly. Not a person in her admittedly very small sample of canvas-ees mentioned his quotes. Health Care she said was the big issue. I found Obama's quotes fairly offensive - but give me a break - these candidates are speaking off the cuff for hours and hours every day and there is bound to be a bit of off-message verbiage now and then. The race has been so fascinating that we have all become addicts - wanting some kind of controversy to keep the high going.

Apparently, some people do.  I was watching the Philly station last night, channel 6 for all you PA people.  They asked viewers to write in with their opinions and it really didn't seem to hurt him too much.  Clinton supporters were beyond offended and it just reinforced their vote for Clinton, while Obama supporters(or that's what they appeared to be) said he spoke the truth.  I'm not sure it'll turn into the brouhaha that some are hoping.

If the primary experience of change and progress you have is life getting harder for you, then of COURSE you're going to fall back on what you know.

Besides the idea that Hillary is more in touch with me than Obama? Laughable.

The Clinton's have made $40,000 per day since leaving office in 2001. $40,000 per day is more than two times the poverty line in the US. And while this is a free country and anyone can make as much money as possible, how can they really represent me, the potentially bitter unemployed profession who lost his job due to NAFTA related out sourcing?

Am I bitter? Yes - sometimes.

if he had actually said what he said in the way that's being spun, i'd find it hilarious, and i make no apology for that.

as it is i'll just have to settle for a distant second; measured, honest and accurate assessment.