No worries. The people that consider this a big deal (like Loyal ) do so because they want this to be a big deal. The same way certain Clinton insiders were furious that the Wright controversy did not sink the Obama campaign. They're hanging around waiting for political disaster, that's all.

I just see the hypocrisy. Hilary calling Obama an elite. I didn't realize she was some poor, dumb farmer. I guess she rather have mob rule like the French Revolution and lets start cutting off heads of these so called elites.

Settle down sallys.

No worries. The people that consider this a big deal (like Loyal ) do so because they want this to be a big deal. The same way certain Clinton insiders were furious that the Wright controversy did not sink the Obama campaign. They're hanging around waiting for political disaster, that's all.

And the Obama supporters here that don't consider this a big deal, do so because they don't want this to be a big deal.

Funny that...

It's not a big deal unless proven otherwise. Obama slumped in the polls post-Wright, and this time nothing happened. Comprende?

Bad stuff's only bad if someone catches you, eh?



(Remind me not to turn my back on Angela... )

Never tell a Republican to settle down, especially not one extremely frustrated...



... by their Illinois income tax filing not going through the system. It's tax day!

I'm not surprised. You're just a typical bitter white person.

Well, you know, it would be a big deal if he had actually said what they are claiming he said.

Instead, they are taking a comment he made -- a comment that, incidentially, was also made by Bill Clinton when he last ran for President, and a comment that was also made by Senator Webb and was the theme of a popular political book from a few years ago called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" -- and have taken it out of context and completely twisted its meaning to serve their purposes.

Here's what Obama said: Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on.

But the Clinton people have taken this and interpreted it to mean he was insulting people, which he certainly was not. they are stretching the truth to the breaking point, and some of you here are so gullible you're sucking it all up without ever taking the time to see what was actually said. You just follow like sheep (ironically while calling Obama supporters the non-thinking "cult.").

Also I am tired of this elite crap. Every politician is an Elite.

...
Here's what Obama said: Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on.

I haven't been following this closely, but to me its simply a question of causality as an arguement, which I really don't believe is a very good arguement under any circumstance. Its always more complex than a direct relationship between cause and effect. Just because someone is poor does not mean they inevitably become zealots as a product of their financial situation. I have met many poor people that are very progressive. More progressive than most rich people I've met. And I've met many people that are religious but not zealous. I actually found that the most conservative cases of religion I encountered were in sheltered, middle-class suburbs like the one I grew up in.

There is always multiple options available to someone in any finacnial situation and creating a causal effect between poverty and conservativism (hey it could be vice-versa, even, right) just seems kind of simple to me. There are more factors to it. Its like saying that if all apples are fruits, all fruits must therefore be apples. (I.e. if all homophobes are poor, than all poor people must be homophobes). It just not true.

What a great McCain ad!

I know! This has always irritated me. How the hell did Bush manage to market himself as a cowboy when he went to Yale??? Why did he even want to?

Oh yeah, because everyone wants to vote for the guy next door that they would have a beer with. I must be the only person who doesn't want that. Chances are, if they're having a beer with me, than they're not competent enough to run this country, because I'm not competent enough to run this country, and I know birds of a feather when I see it.

Its one of the number one 'slanders' used during the election runs of 'Northerners" like Kerry, etc. Everyone wants their dose of southern charm (Excepting Dean. He was good, I don't know how he got away with not seeming like a stuffy, northern elitist), even though its not like Edwards, Bush, Richardson, and the lot didn't also go to top, private, universities! This never ceases to astound me.

Anyone read this article, even though it is off topic? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/books ... ref=slogin Its from the Times book reviews about a woman who wrote about why Americans are hostile to knowledge. I found it interesting.

well, duh.

I haven't been following this closely, but to me its simply a question of causality as an arguement, which I really don't believe is a very good arguement under any circumstance. Its always more complex than a direct relationship between cause and effect. Just because someone is poor does not mean they inevitably become zealots as a product of their financial situation. I have met many poor people that are very progressive. More progressive than most rich people I've met. And I've met many people that are religious but not zealous. I actually found that the most conservative cases of religion I encountered were in sheltered, middle-class suburbs like the one I grew up in.

There is always multiple options available to someone in any finacnial situation and creating a causal effect between poverty and conservativism (hey it could be vice-versa, even, right) just seems kind of simple to me. There are more factors to it. Its like saying that if all apples are fruits, all fruits must therefore be apples. (I.e. if all homophobes are poor, than all poor people must be homophobes). It just not true.