Let's tell it like it is. The ongoing question in this campaign is which candidate is going to make the next stupid comment.
It's unfortunate to use that harsh word, but how else do you describe the clumsy, tellingly elitist construct of Harvard's Barack Obama as he felt the need to describe working class people? After all, shot-and-a-beer alienation can be too remote for the wine-and-cheese non-working class to comprehend. And while we're at it, how would he account for the gun-toting, intolerant trust-fund babies? In any case, it was just a matter of time before the smooth talker tripped over the overconfidence in his eloquence.
How else do you characterize Hillary Clinton's ordained-by-Yale belief that unentitled common folks are so gullible she can get away with fabrications like Tuzla?
As for John McCain, one would think that with all that experience, he'd manage to stop being so mixed up about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq, or lack thereof.
I haven't even gotten to the embarrassingly nasty and destructive comments from highly placed surrogates, spousal and otherwise.
Nor have I mentioned the various pundits who regale us with one ridiculous or poisonous commentary after another. They're somewhat different in that they aren't seeking your vote, although we can elect whether to watch, listen, read or even pay attention to them.
The campaign is a long one, which would be terrific if the politicians used the time to debate the huge issues that make this a vitally important election. Instead, we are forced to listen to small-minded bickering between candidates who are so frazzled they've gone from articulate expression to absurd sputterance.
We in the media are delighted to fan the sparks of controversy to make sure the ratings, circulation and unique hits stay up.
Come to think of it, the pettiness might be a good thing for all of us to witness. This way, we can get over the notion that any of the candidates matches the superhuman image his or her operatives and propagandists try to create.
All we have to do is listen to the dumb things they inevitably say. They're good reminders that our aspiring supreme leaders are just as flawed as anybody else. They are not remarkable even if they believe they are. They're not even as glib as they think. Obviously.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Lets hear from the secret voice recordings of all of Hillary's and Obama's meetings, then we can fairly decide who is really being genuine with the voters. Full transparency please.
Get used to it. One of the things that's broken is the national (read "media") consensus on the things that are true but can't be said. This is one of them.
The problems that can't be discussed can't be addressed, and they're what's wrong. Expect Barack Obama to name a lot more sacred cows than this before he's done.
Well, at least we'll know who the heck he really is.
That beats the insanity of voting someone in based on chanting, "YES WE CAN."
why is it Annin, if you don't support Obama, you are immediately attacked. Isn't this about choosing the candidate that best represents you. Why is it the campaign of hope and change tries to destroy anyone who doesn't agree with them. I notice you are constantly called a liar because you support someone else. It's sad really, that if he is the nominee so many democrats won't be able to support this man.
just like we know who you are, a serial obama smearer and liar.
I have come to the conclusion that the so called mainstream media, all the so called news shows (how can reporting facts be referred to as a show?) are nothing more than yellow journalism. The latest version of the rags you can buy at the grocery checkout to read about alien babies or whatever. These people that are supposedly hired to give cogent analysis instead spew all kinds of distorted judgements based on their own biased opinions. They are not intellectuals. They are people who can only appear self important in the act of disecting what someone else might have meant and the impact it might have. Are these people social scientists? Who give opinions based on historical or empirical fact. Apparently not.
Another hack trying to feed the conservative conventional wisdom machine trying to make Obama out to be cocky and arrogant. It has nothing to do with confidence or overconfidence, he speaks the truth in an intelligent way, and idiots or goons like you try to take him down for it, it is a pathetic display.
The media doesn't want Barrack in...and why is what I want to know
Lost in all this is of course the fact that the GOP still needs defeating once the dust settles on the scorched earth path Hillary has embarked upon.
For once I'd like to have seen her come to his defense. Just once I'd have liked her to say " Barack Obama is clearly not a Muslim." or " I feel Mr. Obama could be entrusted to answer the phone in the case of an international threat., or " Geraldine was out of her fucking gourde to say he's only in this because he's black."
Unless of course that's the only reason Hillary said she was proud to share the same stage as him, but that smacks of such sheer tokenism, it almost defies logic. But she's ridiculed his record, reduced his career to nothing more than a speech, and now has the nerve to call him elitist. 109 million dollar woman is calling Barack "elitist" for saying people gravitate towards guns and religion when centralized government doesn't address their needs. Well, I don't mind pointing out that's precisely what happened in Iraq, and is the major stumbling block to any sort of political reconciliation. Its a matter of trust, and patriotism towards a centralized government these people can't envision.
She must be defeated, totally, and unequivocally, if this party is to move on with its life.
The thing is, she could have defended his remarks, phrased them in a "non demeaning" manner, and scored points with very little danger to her campaign.
Instead, she starts handing out Republican propaganda.
Who's side is she on, anyway? McCain/Clinton '08?
I guess this means she no longer wants Obama as her VP.
You make a great point. She could have taken the time to clarify his remarks for him. I think in doing so it would have demeaned him and scored her points as the parent solving the dispute between children. What did she decide to do, side with one of the children, pathetic.
Shouldn't Obama have come to her defense also when she was in the firing line? Or are we dealing with one set of standards for one candidate and another set of standards for the other?
If nothing else, he refused to comment on the Bosnian Snipers. He usually says gracious things about Sen. Clinton, and insists that he will remain friends with her after this campaign.
Although she's pushing her luck this week.
Oh yeah, it was really gracious when his campaign brought up Monica and the blue dress, who are you trying to kid! Why do you attack Clinton, when Obama says something stupid, did she put the words in his mouth.
I think jeg's point was that in coming to his defense, she could have scored points. Obama didn't come to her aide when she was on the firing line but I'm not sure that he capitalized on it. I actually think his restraint has been admirable.
You mean after she endorsed McCain over her?
Correction over him.
We didn't come to Benedict Arnold's defense in this country either.
I just don't understand how these msm types constantly parse words. They shrink a whole discussion of economic condition for people who've lost their jobs to a single word "bitter". I am very afraid.
The problem was not the word "bitter" of course the MSM got it wrong. The problem was the word "crutch"!
He never used the word "crutch." crind02, I am afraid too.
Bob, thank you for your post. I think you summed up your point in the next to last paragraph, which I quote.
"Come to think of it, the pettiness might be a good thing for all of us to witness. This way, we can get over the notion that any of the candidates matches the superhuman image his or her operatives and propagandists try to create."
You are so right on! I"m just discouraged and more than a little disgusted. Out of all the candidates we began with we are left with the three that understand and care about the American people the least. Obama"s statement concerning the Bible thumping, gun toting, bigots in Pennsylvania and the attempt to blame Huffington Post reporter Mayhill Flowers for it confirmed my darkest suspicions about him and his followers.
Now I understand why he wants to find a way out of Iraq without stepping on any sidewalk cracks, none of the blood being spilled there is his!
He wants to keep the "free" trade agreements, with possible do-overs, because he and his wife are very gainfully employed, thank you. If you lost your job and can"t find work, there must be something wrong with you.
I could go on. It"s an ever growing list, but why? The Obamabots will just unthinkingly jump on it anyway and I"m coming close to the 250 word limit..
"Now I understand why he wants to find a way out of Iraq without stepping on any sidewalk cracks, none of the blood being spilled there is his!"
Um, dude, your comment makes no sense. Obama OPPOSED the war. Naturally he wants to get us out of Iraq. Hillary Clinton and John McCain both voted FOR the war knowing full well that neither their blood nor that of their loved ones would be "spilled" there. Instead, guys like my partner got sent to that hell hole because politicians like Hillary were trying to calculate the most politically advantageous position to take. In 2002, it seemed like being pro-war was the way to go, so that's how Clinton voted. Now that the public's turned against it, suddenly so has she.
He never said they were bigots.
He said that in times of economic hardship, people have a tendency to gravitate to god or guns.
And he's right. Have you ever been to a ghetto in this country? There's a pawn shop selling guns every block, and liquor stores to medicate the miserable. And the churches are filled come Sunday with people searching for some kind of hope, the kind Hillary mocked btw.
Well, this nations small towns are quickly becoming ghettos in a figurative sense. Mistrust of a centralized government who have allowed their jobs to be farmed overseas ( thanks for that Bill btw, brilliant move )have caused people to gravitate to god, and have stoked resentment towards foreign nations willing to do our jobs for less.
And we see the same thing in Iraq, the Shias went to the only people who had their interests in mind, clerics, and their god Allah, and they certainly gravitated to guns.
Not bigotry, economic reality, and the need to protect ones family. But you keep trying to puncture Barack's balloon. It'll be fun when he wins to see you idiots spin yourselves to the center of the earth.
BTW is saying ghettos exist in this country bigotry?
Is saying disillusionment, bitterness, and yes even anger exists within the lower socio economic rungs of society that much of a newsflash. And that within those populations, the underprivileged, disenfranchised who's who are not, people gravitate towards god or guns, and harbor resentment for foreign country's willing to take their jobs at one tenth the pay?
If Hillary isn't willing to acknowledge the existence of bitterness in small town Pennsylvania is she willing to acknowledge it in the slums of Detroit, Michigan? And if so, is she willing to acknowledge it in the one place which necessitates such recognition, Iraq.
Because his words are the key to the problem in Iraq. Sectarian fighting for supremacy due to lack of faith in a centralized government, as no one can trust a rival faction with the keys to power. Iraq makes the case for Barack Obama's screed.
Does she see bitterness there, or are Al Sadr's militia soldiers merely optimists? Once again her words will come back to haunt her, as you can't deny the have nots their right to feel resentful for the way they've been treated. You can't piss on people and convince them its raining forever.
more importantly, he was speaking about when they are VOTING
The difference is, Hillary Clinton's Bosnia lie speaks for itself. There's no needed commentary or spin to show that it's lying, because the video clips contradict each other.
John McCain's weak understanding of the War in Iraq speaks for itself. The video clips show him saying something grossly untrue multiple times until he finally corrects himself. All you need to do is watch the original footage to know he's being a moron.
But if you hear Obama's comments without any spin, you wouldn't think they were elitist. The only reason anybody thinks they were elitist is because of the spin.
Excellent observation. It seems the press is willing to give the story a boost when it serves them. I would argue that they should be reporting on the economic conditions of the country and the Iraq war rather than parsing the talking points of candidates. If they were doing real reporting, the candidates would be responding to those reports instead of playing gottcha all the damn time.
Portraying the media as being the smart "elite" group watching over all of this stupid and making it a game of fun smells almost as bad as claiming to take sniper fire in Bosnia. If anyone is to blame for causing the dumbing down of this campaign you can find follow the bread crumb trail when the media went idiotic over snippets of Reverend Wright's sermons.
Not to take away from the candidates and their pundits, just look at the transformation of Hillary Clinton over the weekend from progressive feminist leader to gun toting, god loving, beer and whiskey shot swilling right winger. Of course it's easy to relate that she's trying to avert the problems of her own campaign but I really don't see her acting very presidential in any sense of the word.
There is really no need to talk about McCain. We know he's wanting to emulate the last 8 years (and is doing a good job by looking stupid on a regular basis).
Maybe it would be a good idea instead that when politicians word things stupidly (although maybe being correct) that the media instead make that a footnote and instead focus on real problems like the war and the economy.
There was nothing wrong, condescending, or stupid about what Senator Obama said. He said people abandoned by the political process in the face of real need tend to get a little bitter about politics. As a result you have to try harder to get them involved in politics again. At the worst it rated a "Duh!".
This is a "scandal" made for media by spin doctors.
Exactly right.
sorry, I mistook you for Al Franken the candidate in MN. You are a decent reporter too ktb
Hello Al, Glad you see the reporters' silliness as I do, When there hundred decent good important things, there to report about these fantastic candidates, why these so called" journalists" and highly paid media guys waste time regurgitating the same sill mis-pronouncements and misinterpretations...
Are they not teaching these guys about our great good old reporters, who made very little money but did not write these silliness!
Lookat UK or other country's reporters, and just not write for publicity'( money$$$) sake
Thanks, Al I am a remote supporter of your candidacy ktb
The McCain campaign implied on Wednesday that Barack Obama's commitment...
Before the largest crowd of his campaign, Democratic presidential contender Barack...
When Katie Couric told Haaretz that "The glory days of TV news...
There is one more John McCain gaffe that...
As we have observed throughout the last several years,...
In a flagrant political act, the State Department has...
**UPDATE 7/25** ThinkProgress now reports that the bar...
** Update below: Nas delivers Fox petition to Stephen...
BARCELONA, Spain — Christian Bale swept into Barcelona on Wednesday night to attend a...
If you're wondering about the recent articles claiming that a study found...
HOUSTON — A "dead zone" in the Gulf of Mexico off...
WASHINGTON — Rescue legislation sailed through the House on Wednesday aimed at...
Loading comments…
Posted April 13, 2008 | 12:38 PM (EST)