Well, according the survey above, 77% of the people were exactly in that situation (or one similar to it) then. I think a more likely case is:

"I have solid coverage. I'm pretty happy with it. But, I turn on the news every night and see all these stories on people without coverage and am told how terrible our health care system is."

I think its far more complicated than that, as QuikSand hypo indicates that people may be happy with their own coverage, but know people who are dire situations because of their health care problems. So the solution isn't one extreme or the other, but a mixture; one where people can keep their own health care policies, but have something to cover everyone who isn't covered currently (or at least be given the option to be covered).

And I don't think its necessarily they "turn on the news every night", because I don't think the news actually reports the horror stories. Maybe I have a bit of bias, since I work in the field, but there are people who have employer health insurance who are just getting screwed, mostly by insurance companies who are putting up ridiculous roadblocks. Perhaps the solution is to have the insurance companies be regulated by the federal government as well as the states (right now only the states regulate insurance companies, the feds, though, regulate employer sponsored health plans, which is a bit of a problem - ie, go after the employer not the insurance company, even though the ins company wrote and administers the plan - but that's what the law says).

When all else fails, blame the media.

Insecurity is the big issue for people. Even those with good jobs now are worried about the lack of security going forward. People with very good incomes only have a couple of months or less of savings to live on if they lose their job. Healthcare is in the same basket. I have healthcare now, but if I'm not renewed next year I won't. What do I do with my three year old daughter? She's very healthy, but what if she wasn't? I could get by on COBRA for a while, but it wouldn't take long before I'd have to choose between house payment and COBRA as my two major expenses.

All of the polls on the economy and healthcare are reflecting a general sense of insecurity that Americans haven't really come to terms with yet. For better or worse we live in an age where change is rapid and can be devestating. Collectively Americans are better off now than fifty years ago, but individually there is a lot of anxiety because our lives are far less predictable.

If a evil regime were to institute a system where one of every four newborn children were slain immediately... you could have 75% of families saying that the system worked fine for them, but still support getting rid of it. I'm not sure there's much substance to the little dance you're trying to do with the statistics here.

I personally, and pretty much everyone I know, have perfectly adequate health insurance. But I also recognize that our system is not a particularly sensible one. I have a healthy skepticism about the government's ability to effectively "take over" much of anything, but I can see that the stripe of people we leave completely uncovered is simply not good for society, regardless of the demerits of any particular proposed solution.

So, I'm part of that 77% or whatever share of the populace you seem to think is full of shit or just a sheep to the evil media. And I'm not actually a complete imbecile, by most accounts.

A new poll on this just came out today.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_c...ral_government

Post more of the article, would you? ;)



So half Americans would support FREE health care for all citizens as long as they get to stay on their own insurance. And it seems that more than that believe the system need overhauling, but they like their own coverage at the moment.

I think this fair - and I agree with it for the most part. The problem I have is the use of these polls by some to justify going to a national health care system. If the question is whether our current system needs some adjustments to improve coverage/reduce cost, I will certainly agree. Heck, you can read numerous posts above and in the old health care thread on what I would like to see happen.

Having a view of a situation inconsistent with your own experience does not make you sheep. It's just interesting that so many people with perfectly good insurance feel that massive changes are needed (according to the poll). Then again, we have 95% employment and there are polls that show 60% worried about their job. Uncertainty always creates worry, but the proper course here is not to panic and start over - it's to see where the holes in the current system are and work towards filling them.

I kinda disregarded that poll question, given that there is no such thing as free health care.

Clearly the American people are somewhat schizophrenic on this issue, which makes me think that most of us (myself included) know enough to have opinions, but not enough to have INFORMED opinions. So you get all kinds of wacky numbers.

A majority of Americans don't think our national security is sufficient and would rather have the federal govt do even more to keep us safe from harm.

Imran, serious question. You been pushing this and similar positions pretty hard in the past year. I think I've read that you are a govt lawyer of some sort? Do you personally gain from expanded govt in this area?

I say this because I have a best friend from HS who has been working in various federal agencies as a scientist (astrophysicists). He has been working for USNO, last I've heard, and before, NOAA. He has always been fairly moderate but hates Bush simply because of the cuts in scientific endeavors at the federal level. He will vote for whomever will increase the stature and fundings of scientists on federal payrolls.

I am, officially, a Pension Investigator. I also investigate Health Care Plans. Basically to make sure that employer sponsored plans follow ERISA.

If there was, say, a single payer health plan, half of my job would be obsolete (and well, that may not be so good in terms of future funding).

So I think it doesn't help me if the situation is solved. Hell, as long as there is a mess in health care, the funding for my agency stays the same or increases. Even a mixed system would probably help reduce some of the participant inquires (because any mixed plan has some federal regulation/oversight on insurance companies).

I think a lot of us are worried about this going away. My health coverage and my parents health coverage (as I'm not really old enough to just go on my own) has gotten significantly worse and cost signifcantly more. Each year my coverage costs go up much more than inflation but my benefits keep getting cut.

I honestly believe that in the next 10~20 years, health coverage will not be one of the benefits that is expected to be on the table when you're going in to get a job. One or two major companies will break the barrier and not offer it except as an extreme perk or say something like "here's your $500 monthly medical insurance stipend" that will be easy enough to phase out over a few years with much less fanfare than when it first happens. So, yeah, I'd like to have an alternative to that in the works.

In fact, I wish people had to have insurance because it's far more of a health risk to me in my everyday life than terrorism or any other "risk" you could come up with. I don't need some idiot I'm working with coming in with TB or pneumonia because they wanted to, as it was put earlier in the thread, "pass on health care coverage from his employer to have more beer money" rather than getting checked out at the doctor.

SI

Yeah, but whether a person comes in feeling sick or not doesn't really depend on whether they have insurance. Insurance and check-ups theoretically prevent or alleviate long-term problems like cancer or heart disease before they become serious and more costly. I think everyone can pretty much tell if they have the flu without going to see the doctor, and the decision to go into work is based on a personal choice and company sick-day policy/standard procedure around the office.


As for the other parts, I think people are depressingly risk-averse these days. It's not a perfect analogy, but the classic is "how much would you need guaranteed to pass up the chance to flip a coin and win $100 - or get nothing". The way people talk about health care these days would it probably run about $20 on average. Way to strive for mediocrity.

11 days until Pennsylvania finally happens. Hillary up ~8 pts on average, but there's one poll with an 18-pt spread that might be jacking that lead up a little.

It will be interesting to see how he navigates himself out of this one.

Obama Draws Fire for Comments on Small-Town America

Hillary Clinton and John McCain both ripped into Barack Obama Friday for reportedly saying residents of small-town America “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” out of bitterness over lost jobs, a remark his opponents interpreted as arrogant.

The Huffington Post reported that Obama made the comments while speaking to a group of wealthy California donors in San Francisco over the weekend. The Post quotes him specifically singling out towns in Pennsylvania, where he’s trying to woo voters and overcome Clinton’s lead in the polls before the state’s April 22 primary.

The comments immediately became fodder for the campaigns of Clinton, Obama’s rival for the Democratic nomination, and McCain, his potential Republican challenger.

“Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them. They need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them,” Clinton said Friday afternoon at a campaign stop in Philadelphia. She said the Pennsylvanians she’s met aren’t bitter, but “resilient” and “positive.”

McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called Obama’s statement “remarkable” and “extremely revealing.”

“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” Schmidt said. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president of the United States who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

Schmidt also said it shows Obama views the people he’s trying to relate to with “contempt.”

The Obama campaign has neither confirmed nor disputed the account in The Huffington Post.

Spokesman Tommy Vietor, though, released a statement chiding Washington insiders for failing to restore those lost jobs Obama reportedly referenced in San Francisco.

“And if John McCain wants a debate about who’s out of touch with the American people, we can start by talking about the tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans that he once said offended his conscience but now wants to make permanent,” Vietor said.

The Huffington Post originally quoted Obama as saying: “You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not.

“And 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 anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

Obama, who consistently leads Clinton among highly educated and wealthy voters, has tried to make up ground with middle-class America, where Clinton is strong. But recent comments from him and his wife Michelle have occasionally been interpreted as too high-minded.

Michelle Obama, for instance, drew criticism in February for saying she was “proud” of her country for the first time in her adult life.

A March 28 article in New York magazine reported that, according to a Democratic strategist, Obama was unable to clinch the endorsement of exiting candidate John Edwards because he was “glib and aloof” when Edwards tried to talk to him about poverty.

“It comes off very badly,” Democratic strategist Kirsten Powers said of Obama’s small-town America remarks. “They are things that I think in a liberal world sound totally normal, and outside of that world I don’t know that he appreciates how it sounds. And it just sounds very elitist, and it sounds like he’s looking down on people.”

Of course, Clinton would have a hard time arguing she’s just like those small-town Pennsylvania voters. She and her husband’s newly released tax returns showed they earned nearly $110 million since leaving the White House, compared with the Obamas’ meager millions earned in the same period.

Full Story

Yeah, I've seen this one resonating around the blogs for the past few hours. It's interesting to see some of the spin from Obama supporters. I've seen similar sentiment expressed in the comments at sevearl blogs.

Frankly, this would normally be a good time for something like this to come out. But Sunday night there's the debate focusing on "spirituality" and "values" on CNN. You know the Jeremiah Wright stuff's going to come up, and now there's another comment Obama will be questioned on. I don't think Obama's current response will work (though Axelrod has 48 hours to craft a good spin).


-

I see visions of John Kerry as he tried to connect outside of his base in the general. Harsh words from a Dem strategist.

Is it just me or did he just spin this whole thing around and turn it into a boost for himself?

http://www.youtube.com/v/Sc9PepjyDow

It does come off badly, but it also sounds exactly like the small town in rural Ohio I grew up in. Does anyone here really disagree with this as a way to explain a lot of people who have seen the world pass them by over the past two or three decades? I grew up watching factories close and families lose their farms. Some of those jobs came back, but not all of them. Now there's a lot of anger that gets manifested in us versus them sentiments.

If you're gonna boil it down to us vs. them, why throw the gun thing in the list? And it's pretty easy to see why saying that small-town people "cling to religion" would be considered offensive by almost everybody. Religious people who actually believe in their faith are clearly gonna be pissed and then people who aren't religious and view themselves as kind of better than relying on it as a crutch are going to be offended they and their (in their mind) legitimate grievances are lumped in with people they don't see as very rational.

F'ing elitists.

That was a pretty smooth come back on his part . And I will have to say this is a real stretch trying to say Obama was slamming the blue collar class. Anyone who reads his actual comments can see what he meant. Coming from four generation irish immigrants originally to the Boston area and myself being the first member of my family to be recieve a graduate degree let alone just four year college I guess I could be classified as one of those f'ing elitists. I for one am proud to have worked my way up and won't apologize for it and neither should anyone else who is college educated which seems to be what Clinton is peddling to middle america. BTW Bishop aren't you a college kid yourself?

The ironic thing is that you can apply the same logic to the city of San Francisco, where he made that remark. There is a lot of us vs them in that city, keeping the undesirables in certain sections. Why single out a selected segment of a selected area of the country?


Yes, if you are looking at a selected set of people and ignoring the vast majority. Why the past two or three decades when it's been like that everywhere throughout our (and other country's) history? Economies change, technologies change, demographics change. Why pick on them and not, say, southside Chicago?

Okay, after listening to it, I don't think he helped himself out among gun owners anyway (and there a ton of gun owning Democrats in PA). He still seemed to suggest that only reason people would vote the gun issue (for example) is because they feel like neither candidate will help them economically.

Frankly, that's a laughable claim to make in a state that just voted down a gun control proposal last week... and a helluva lot of Democrat State Representatives voted against it too. Gun owners are a powerful political force in PA, and he's basically told them they can't really be serious about their passion.

Wow, not sure about that response. Starts off well enough, but by the end his argument is that the American people are angry and bitter and that's why they want change? Also hilarious how he claims to want to avoid pandering the whole time, then his first claim is that jobs have been shipped overseas.

As for me and the f'ing elitist claim, yes I'm a college student, and I'll agree with much of his statement that people in middle america (or anywhere) cling to dumb ideas and vote for the wrong reasons. I wasn't arguing whether he was right, I was arguing it's gonna hurt his perception in rural america and thus his election chances. That was the one biggest thing that tipped the election to Bush over Kerry was the perception that Kerry was an elitist when GWB wasjust as privileged. It's not who you are and what you believe but how it's presented.

And like Cam said, the gun issue doesn't seem to fit in with the rest of that argument - it'd be a lot more innocous if it was just relating to economics.

I get the political damage this may cause, however, I think he was trying to make an argument for why people get caught up in single issue voting. It's an argument that makes some sense to me, but I've always had trouble understanding voters who base a national office vote on one issue only.

As to why he's talking about rural midwestern voters, that's where the election is right now. The contest at the moment isn't about the south side of Chicago or neighborhoods in San Francisco. He was likely explaining how to overcome the deficit in PA and this was a part of his answer.

Isn't Senator Obama the guy who is slamming NAFTA and other proposed free trade agreements? Is Obama trying to explain his frustration?

Here's a more complete transcript:

So, then, I take it most of you that don't have an issue with Obama's comments would have had no problem with these:

I wonder what Obama/Clinton poll numbers on FOFC are these days. I'm guessing Obama is about a 75/25 landslide at this point.

obama is a fucking elitist prick.

Arles: That would be stupid because people in small towns generally aren't pro-choice. If, however, you came up with a sensible pro-choice comparison, I wouldn't have a problem with it. I don't understand single issue voting regardless of what that single issue is.

Looks like another example of a quote being stripped down to a soundbite and then spun into oblivion, to me.

You should listen to the audio at the HuffPo. Granted the sound quality is pretty bad, but no, the whole quote is delivered as if Obama is talking about some foreign land. And the guffaws and bellylaughs delivered by the San Francisco crowd when Obama says these small town people are skeptical of what he's saying because he's a 46-year old black man... well, frankly it's the display of an attitude that liberals have said belongs solely to the Republicans for years now.

Look, there's a reason even some Democratic strategists are saying this was a horrible thing for Obama to say. The only see I see this getting defused is if the majority of the media accounts focus on the fact that Obama said some voters are "bitter" (as if THAT'S a newsflash) and not on his remarks about people clinging to guns, faith, and xenophobia.

Jeez, if the "MSM" gave 10% of the attention to the asinine things Teflon John McCain says, the democrats would be running unopposed this year.

Such as? I'm not disagreeing with you out of hand, I'm just curious as to what McCain's said recently that the media hasn't reported.

Bitter much? :)

No, really. You would prefer to have the MSM only focus on the asinine things the enemy has said and ignore your favorites? Right now, there is one race between two opponents and that's where the focus should be. Later in the general, then you see shit and mud fly everywhere. But even then, you would prefer to have them focus on the shit McCain will say and hae said, and not bring up anything bad for Obama?

Yes he should have, and yes it is. Get used to it. Politicians (and others in leadership positions) have been crucified for saying things less inflammatory. It's part of the game that always have been with us and will always continue.

In general I like Obama, and am rooting for him to win the nomination, and those comments made me cringe. I believe he has damaged his campaign, and is perhaps showing some weakness. "Clinging to religion" is a phrase in particular that I think is really going to be harmful. MOST Americans are religious. I think this is much worse than the Reverend Wright thing.

No, I'm not trying to say what McCain is saying isn't bein reported, but when he says something that completely belies his qualifications to be commander-in-chief, like not knowing the difference between the Sunni and Shi'ia (getting it wrong 3 times), the press seems (to me anyway) to give him a pass. As if he's just Old Man McCain, the Maverick, so it's to be expected.

Give me a few minutes and I'll whip up a list :)

The head to head polls with McCain and Obama have coalesced to about dead even: 45-45. That 90% isn't going to shift much either way, maybe a couple of points in either direction. For the most part, these people have already made up their mind. The election will be decided by the other 10%. A significant portion of these 10% are white, working class voters, and Obama already faced an uphill battle with them. With this latest comment, Obama dug his hole with those particular voters that much deeper,. When asked how damaging Obama's latest comments were on a scale of 10, several political commentators on CNN (including a democratic consultant) said it was a 10.

Going back to that 45 number for Obama. If you keep an eye on that from now until the actual results on election day, it will get higher, but in my opinion it will never get to 50. I’m not talking about the results of any one single poll, but the running poll average on Real Clear Politics.

Can we have a few more posts by people predisposed to not like a candidate talking about how horrible each little 24 hour news blurb that will be gone in a couple of days and feign offense to comments that we all actually understand the context of but pretend not to just to take a whack at the latest news cycle nonsense?

SI

I've been trying to keep an open mind. I consistently defended Obama in this thread regarding the revwright thing. You are, of course, free to disregard my opinion, but it is sincere.

Well, my half-hour of searching came up with plenty of stories *about* John McCain saying questionable things, but no actual quotes. For example:

• McCain has claimed 3 times that Iran is training Al-Qaeda.
• McCain consistently mixes up Sunni and Shi'a.
• McCain railed on the mortgage bailout, suggested homeowners should work 2 jobs and skip vacations to pay their way out, then less than 2 weeks later said the government should do all it can to help lenders and homeowners.
• McCain was against torture, then voted against banning it.
• McCain's "spiritual adviser" claims the United States is founded on destroying Islam.
• Despite claiming he was new to congress and learning his way, McCain was almost 50 years old when he voted against an MLK holiday, and he continues to vote against civil rights laws.

Again, nothing specific, just my general feeling - and a failure on my part to back it up with specifics. However still, it would seem to me if Obama made these same gaffes, the media outrage would be tremendous.

I wasn't speaking specifically to yours but that was all I thought I was reading over the past 30. It just reminds me of the "undecided" voters after the 2nd or 3rd debate- there is no one truly undecided at that point, just people who pretend to so they can get on tv (or those stupid enough I don't want them voting in elections, but I think those are far fewer).

SI

Probably not. If that's what you're looking for I'd try undecidedandnaivevoters.com.

The claim I'm most familiar with is McCain's mortgage plan, which I believe he announced Thursday or Friday. I did see several conservatives upset that he's basically retreated from his earlier remarks focusing on personal responsibility, and saw that Hillary had called his plan something like "luke warm leftovers" of her plan.

I'm unfamiliar with McCain's "continuing to vote against civil rights laws", which could simply mean McCain has voted against affirmative action or hate crime legislation or any number of issues that aren't really controversial.

And who is McCain's "spiritual advisor"? Are you talking about Hagee?

Well, we have days at FOFC where it's good, insightful conversation. We can string together good conversation and bring a lot of angles together where we can sit there and bring together ideas and I learn a ton that I never would have thought of and I don't think anyone thinks of on their own.

Then there are the days where it's the lame, low hanging fruit that CNN, Fox, and whatever other morons like to glom on to that have no real useful information and it's just the same old partisan bickering. That's what this thread devolved into many pages ago.

SI

I completely understand single issue voting. However, there isn't one issue that would move me personallyenough to vote that way, but I get why some do. IMO, the difference between Hillary/Obama and McCain might be an extra 3% either way on my taxes or an extra 10-14 months before troop pullbacks in Iraq. Outside of that, not much will change in the grand scheme - the economy will be similar, as will job creation and most other issues (even health care). But, if someone felt strong enough that either candidate would push strongly to limit a woman's right to choose or a person's right to own/carry guns, I could easily see them voting that way if the issue was important enough to them. Same goes for religious issues or even the environment.

There are a lot of rednecks in PA. Don't touch their guns.

Pennsylvania is a complex state from a political perspective, even though many people think of it as a "blue state". James Carville describes it as "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, with Alabama in between."

We're talking about two different things. When I say single issue voters I'm referring to people who will disregard other issues and make their decision only on one factor. For example, voting for the Greenest candidate regardless of foreign or domestic policy, or voting anti-abortion regardless of all other issues.

You're talking about one issue changing the overall balance and I'm talking about one issue being the sole factor.

The media isn't going to run with these now because the race and attention is for the Democratic Primary. Once that's settled, they'll focus on McCain again. There's also the fact that at least 3 of these (the last 3) haven't happened recently. Partisans love to dig up the old stuff, but the news media generally goes for fresh, new revelations.

Don't want to get this thread off track, but on your first two bullets, the difference between Sunni and Shi'a isn't exactly cut and dry, and it's really about 4th or 5th most important thing after family, tribal affiliation, region and ethnicity. And if you want to look at some crazy sources, like say CENTCOM or Gen. Petraeus' congressional testimony, you'd see that Iran has (probably) been providing training and financial support for many groups in Iraq including al-Qaeda in Mesopotamia and they've even (allegedly) gone so far as to have Qods Force operatives directing tactics on the ground. But I don't want to go down that road in this thread.

So, what you're saying is, we should invade Iran? ;)

If he's saying there are racists inbetween Philly and Pittsburgh, that's true. The KKK is still big in the North Central part of the state. There's no way Obama gets any votes up there.

No, what I'm saying is that if I am a dem in Penn and like Obama's views on health care, environment, economics and the war over McCain. I may still vote for McCain if I feel my right to carry a gun is impacted by Obama. It's not that it was 4-4 on issues and the gun one broke the tie. It's that some may be 8-0 or 7-1 with Obama on other issues but may choose McCain if they are scared enough that Obama may ban guns.

It would be the same for pro-choice conservative women who may vote democrat if a pro-life republican runs. I don't know that there are a ton of people who are like these two, but I bet there are a lot more than we think. And, as I stated above regarding the minimal actual difference between candidates, I think it's fair for someone to throw away difference in other issues if one (gun control, abortion, ..) is that important to them and they feel it is threatened.

Rod Parsley...

"On February 26, McCain appeared at a campaign rally in Cincinnati with the Reverend Rod Parsley of the World Harvest Church of Columbus, a supersize Pentecostal institution that features a 5,200-seat sanctuary, a television studio (where Parsley tapes a weekly show), and a 122,000-square-foot Ministry Activity Center. That day, a week before the Ohio primary, Parsley praised the Republican presidential front-runner as a "strong, true, consistent conservative." The endorsement was important for McCain, who at the time was trying to put an end to the lingering challenge from former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee, a favorite among Christian evangelicals. A politically influential figure in Ohio, Parsley could also play a key role in McCain's effort to win this bellwether state in the general election. McCain, with Parsley by his side at the Cincinnati rally, called the evangelical minister a "spiritual guide.""

That just summarizes the relationship - I'll get specifics on Parlsley if you need them.

So, to keep the spiritual adviser nutjobs straight:

Rev Wright - hates white America
Rev Hagee - hates Catholics and homosexuals
Rev Parsley - hates Islam.

Who is Hillary's adviser? I'm sure that guy's got issues too :)

Yeah, thats a pretty accurate summation IMO.

1983: Voted against MLK Day
1987: Supported AZ governor rescinding MLK day.
1990: Voted against the Civil Rights Act 4 times - primarily aimed at employer discrimination.

And then there are the partisan-ish votes against quotas, affirmative action, tax cuts for the rich, and the estate tax which are party-line issues.

Without getting into the merits (or un-merits) of each of the positions, which one do you think resonates better with the voting public?

Probably a fair assessment, although it's more like Philly or alabama. Pittsburgh has its big democratic regime too I suppose.

Toddzilla,

If you can't stand John McCain because of these things, I don't see any possible way you could like Obama for the exact same reasons.

As for the spiritual advisor....to claim that this guy in Ohio is in McCain's inner-circle like Rev Wright is with Obama is grasping with the hopes that it sticks. It's not even in the same stratosphere. Again, nobody is giving Obama shit because Luis Farrakahn endorsed him. Rev Wright and Luis Farrakahn are two different levels of relationship to Obama (or at least I hope so, since Farrakahn and Wright go way back).

Better define *voting* public, please ;)

On the surface, the hating Islam probably plays better on Main Street, USA. In reality, all 3 ought to be condemned equally IMO.

You're getting a little close to putting words in my mouth - so to clarify, my position is to illustrate how I feel McCain is getting a free-ride from the media, not to illustrate how much I "can't stand McCain".

Because, to be honest, we've all heard a thousand times about Obama and Wright, and I'd wager my post was the first time you'd ever heard about Rev. Parsley. And that isn't because McCain's relationship to Parsley isn't significant or newsworthy - it most certainly is. I haven't even brought up Richard Quinn - look that guy up.

I do think there is a difference when it comes to newsworthyness of known contacts. McCain has been in the public eye for over 30 years, run for president multiple times and been a staple in the senate for decades. Most people have a pretty good idea on his beliefs and character from watching him all these years. Obama pretty much burst on the scene in the past democratic convention in 2004 and has been looked on almost as a Messiah for the democratic party. There's going to be a lot more interest in seeing who he is and who he associates with than there is with someone like McCain or Hillary.

In the end, Obama will probably have the easiest time of it from the media on balance - but this personal beliefs/close friends issue is one where he may take more criticism.

Nope. His name has been all over the liberal blogosphere ever since the Wright story exploded.

Obama talking about the same thing in 2004.

Wow, these people have been bitter for a long time!

Interesting blog post from a Philly blogger.. with an exerpt from a NYTimes piece inside.

http://www.classicalvalues.com/archi.../post_733.html


The natural follow up, is of course, are the other things that Obama mentioned that people "cling to"... antipathy towards people of a different color, anti-free trade sentiment, etc. also traditions that are important and passed on from generation to generation?

The story also says Hillary's been playing up the faith aspect of Obama's comments, because she's been campaigning with Philly mayor Michael Nutter, who just signed five EXTREMELY controversial gun control bills. :)

Ah! Touche`! :)

Does this Wright fellow realize just how much he's hurting Obama?

http://www.suntimes.com/images/cds/MP3/041208wright.mp3

Just shut up already.

There's a neat little piece on Foxnews.com where they send a reporter out into rural Pennsylvana to get reactions to Obama's latest major campaign-ending gaffe.

What they find, basically, are people agreeing with Obama...

hxxp://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/

When I studied cultural and regional geography, the biggest trap was that you will ALWAYS find what you are looking for.

I saw that on TV. Pretty good little piece.

An interesting Op-ed on why Obama's comments rub the wrong way. Now, I fully admit that Bill Kristol is in no way unbiased, but its a very interesting article (and yes, I can fully predict the objections to comparing a statement by Marx to Obama's):

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/op...ristol.html?hp

I love how she was booed today for trying to slam the comments more.

I was shocked when she said Pennsylvania and America. Is she trying to say Pennsylvania isn't part of America? What does The National Review think?

And here's a rebuttal from Andrew Sullivan - probably equally free from bias: hxxp://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/04/now-hes-a-godle.html

First off, can I be amused at Christopher Hitchens calling Andrew Sullivan a "lesbian" the other day? Because that amused me greatly.

Now, here's where Sullivan's off base. What Kristol actually wrote was:

And Sullivan's response:
Um, no. Sullivan's argument really falls apart there, but the fact that he neglects to even mention Kristol's larger discussion certainly doesn't do anything to bolster it.

Another example. Sullivan says:
But here's what Kristol wrote about Obama's "mask":
And again, the immediate paragraph preceding that was Kristol discussing the gun ownership. As a rebuttal goes, Sullivan's really leaves a lot to be desired.

Cam beat me too it. Sullivan is making WAAAY too many leaps in logic in evaluating Kristol's article. Kristol's main point isn't really addressed by Sullivan.

Thank God a bunch of rich, Washington and New York columnists are setting me straight about small town America. They're much more informative than my experience growing up in rural Ohio.

So you speak for all of Ohio? I'm guessing it is you we have to blame for voting for Bush in 2004, giving him the state, then?

DId I say I speak for all of Ohio? I just find it ironic that a bunch of grossly paid newspaper and television prima donnas who have never lived outside of a major city are suddenly the arbiters of life in small town America. Bill Kristol doesn't know shit about about life in the rural midwest. This is just a convenient way to play the same partisan attack game he plays against every Democrat.

Hillary supporters should be very careful about their new found friends on the right. Here's an insight, they really don't like you and will stop at nothing to destroy you if Hillary is the nominee.

And yet, a lot of people in the midwest and small town America like and respect Bill Kristol.

I find this type of argument akin to saying men can't have a valid argument on abortion because its not their bodies that they are deciding upon.

Hillary had better remember her comments about it's okay to have guns and enjoy them. Get the votes any way you can, and then support gun control.

I'd wager the percentage of people in small towns who even recognize Kristol's name is minimal. The vast majority of the people I grew up with and live around now don't subscribe to either the Weekly Standard or The New York Times. He's the elite, writing political opinion for a very good living and hobnobbing on the Washington cocktail circuit. He's certainly entitled to his opinion about small towns, but his column is nothing more than his typical hit piece. He certainly has no insight into the lives of small town Americans.

Using Kristol, who has quite literally been wrong about every fucking thing he's ever written, as a way to attack a fellow Democrat is shameful.

I found it really ironic that Bill Kristol was giving Obama crap for "not having done anything" when the only reason he's where he is because his father was Irving Kristol. (the godfather of the neoconservative movement) (Unless you think there is some merit to having been Chief of Staff for Vice-President Dan freaking Quayle.) There are plenty of well-reasoned ways to dismiss Obama as a cheap suit built on marketing and PR prowess, rather than substance, but...Kristol's piece wasn't a particularly good example of that.

So is he the godbrother of the neoconservative movement?

The Godson, then.

Nah, I think he has to be at least the halfgodbrother. If his father is the NCM's godfather, they would be godbrothers.

I'm not sure where Harshaw or Kaus are from, but they seemingly have a similar opinion:

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com...ml?ref=opinion

Obama needs to release an ad that talks about his history in ways other than how he globetrotted and instead how he earned scholarships to good schools, how his family was poor and how if it weren't for the promise of America he'd be nothing. If John McCain's narrative is "I'm married to a rich chick and my family's business is being war admirals" and Hillary's is "I married well and that gave me lots of experience" then..I don't understand why he's not beating home the point that he's NOTHING like these people and that it has nothing to do with race.

Who are these people running his campaign?

But anger over welfare and affirmative action did help to create the Reagan coalition. Are we not allowed to say that anymore?

You are missing his point... ie, the second quotes part, where attention to welfare was distracting from other aspects. This is why Democrats have failed recently (aside from Bill Clinton who actually "got it"), because they seem to think these social issues are simply Republicans trumping up bitterness over economic losses and directing it somewhere else.

As the ed says, people were upset over welfare because they were upset over the concept of welfare (part of the concept of cradle to grave government caretaking), NOT because of bitterness over other economic issues.

The small town rubes don't understand how much they've been insulted. Three polls out today show no little or no movement from polls taken before Obama's comments.

I guess the elites need to work harder at convincing people Obama's an elitist.

Isddiqui: I'll grant that some of the frustration over welfare was due to the nature of welfare, but it absolutely was caught up in a general anger over economic conditions. Welfare has never been that big of an expenditure, but it recieved oversized attention due to the way it was demogogued. This year the entire social safety net, excluding Medicaid, is roughly equal to the service on the national debt.

Saying people don't always like welfare and that the welfare issue became bigger than it's cost merited aren't mutually exclusive. Remember the whole "welfare queen" idea?

I was debating about whether or not to post it, but I'm hoping to elicit more snark from JPhillips. :)

http://www.stephenbainbridge.com/pun...mas_a_marxist/

And I know, Joe Lieberman's supporting John McCain, blah blah. I just found the awkward pause and "I'd hesitate to say he's a Marxist" comment. It amused me greatly. :)

Lieberman is a turncoat if there ever was one. Obama campaigned for his insurgent campaign and this is how he repays him? Wow. I hope Harry Reid strips him of his chairmanship at the end of this term. He's really lost his mind. And this from a non-Dem, I just think...I can understand being bitter that you managed to lose a primary and then ran on the "name you know" to get elected, but...this guy is off his rocker more than ever. '04 had a worse effect on him than we initially believed.

Some of it was racial motivated, of course, but I'd bet good money that folks like JIMG and other conservatives in suburban/rural America hated the idea of the government supporting folks. There is an idea of what government should do for the people, and to a lot of people in this country, welfare comes close to crossing that line.

I agree completely, but I also think the issue was put to the forefront in a way that was designed to split voters. Some of the same politicians railing about welfare are also the ones who don't have a problem with exempting overseas contractors from fraud regulations. Welfre was never the massive expenditure that it was portrayed as.

I'm thinking this is part of the problem. You are trying to frame it in terms of "massive expenditure", but a ton of people didn't care how much it cost, just that it was wrong. Like I'm sure there are loads of people out there who don't care if its only 1 illegal immigrant who comes in every year, they still believe it to be morally wrong practice.

On an individual level you're right. My point is that it was exploited by politicians who knew it wasn't the cause of budget deficits. Just because some people oppose it on ideological grounds doesn't mean it can't be exploited. I can't find them now, but I remember a number of polls where people grossly overestimated the cost of welfare. The sizable amount of people who believe in a small, temporary assistance program were targeted with misleading and false claims designed to peal off some of them so that they would weigh welfare reform higher in their voting criteria.