He’s saying that those folks in America do not believe they’re going to get any economic help from Washington so they don’t’ vote their economic interests when they vote, they instead vote these other things.

He's saying then that the people aren't smart enough to vote based on issues that, according to Obama and his supporters, are really important to them.

So instead of religion being the opiate of the people, it's now, according to Obama, religion and gun control issues.

I'm sure the people in fly over country will appreciate Sen. Obama straightening them out.

Dear Gary, Have you bothered reading the entire transcript of the speech or just the snippets that Fox News feeds you when you watch the "Fox Report" ?

Gary,

An example of what Sen. Obama was talking about is right before your eyes here in the great state of Tennessee. Tennesseans voted Republican in 2000 and 2004 and look what we got, PRICE OF A GALLON OF GAS APPROACHING $4.00. Check out article in todays KNS - "FEEDING FAMILIES GETTING HARDER", WORKING POOR LINING UP FOR MEDICAL CARE ALA THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES, UNNECESSARY WAR IN IRAQ. RECESSION, INFLATION, etc., YOU NAME IT WE GOT IT.

Against my better judgment, I'm gonna dip a toe into these waters. Here's what I think you're missing. This little ditty insulted a whole lot of people in this country, and Obama has gone and insulted them again, and in the very same way.

One of the worst things a pol can do when running for election is "play to type"; that is, act like the caricature his opponent has created of him. Michael Dukakis looking clueless while riding in a tank and John Kerry windsurfing are examples that come to mind. Republicans caricature Democrats as clueless elitists who have nothing in common with ordinary working folks - "Reagan Democrats", if you will. And then here comes Obama, speaking off the record at a private event that was closed to the press - speaking his mind, in other words, with the observer effect minimized, and when he thinks no one but affluent San Franciscans are listening, utters a phrase that makes him sound like a clueless elitist who has nothing in common with ordinary working folks.

It doesn't matter if you think he's right. It doesn't even matter if he could be empirically proved right. What matters, in an election, is that his statement seems to much of the observing world to be the stereotypical statement of an out-of-touch academic progressive - not an image that sells very well in "Jesusland." And the fact is that no Democrat has yet been able to win the Presidency without winning at least part of Jesusland.

Rail against the unfairness of it all if you wish, but if you think that this is just some blip that's being pumped up by the Faux News crowd, you're fooling yourself. Obama hasn't even started to see the damage these comments will cause him down the road.

People Have Every Right to Be Bitter

Mr. McCain started yelling "elitist." To prove that he is just as apple pie as you or I, his folks even published family recipes on his campaign web site - stolen recipes.

Speaking of recipes, Don't feel too bad Mr. Bush. The Home held a dinner tonight in honor of the Pontiff's visit but he didn't show up here either.

Visit us at

The Home

Dear Gary, Have you bothered reading the entire transcript of the speech or just the snippets that Fox News feeds you when you watch the "Fox Report" ?

I don't have cable, it's too expensive and not worth it, so I don't watch Fox News. I'm glad you have the money to spend.

He is saying not that they aren't smart enough, but that they are smarter than politicians think, and have already figured out that the pols don't give a shit about regular people's economic hardships.

So, people don't think that politicians care about economic issues, but they care enough about the other issues to vote for them?

That kind of goes against the conventional wisdom that people vote based on their pocketbooks, doesn't it?

In the latest poll, seventy percent of Americans feel that the country is on the wrong track economically. And only thirty percent approve of the President's job performance. So where's the apathy Sen. Obama is talking about?

Obama would have been better off he had just said, "I feel that the economic well being of people is more important than these other issues like gun control and other issues that people advocate."

But instead, he tried to spin it with "I could have worded it differently, etc, etc," and that didn't really help him.

He's not the only one who believes the way he does; there are plenty of pols who feel that way in both parties. Obama's mistake was to state it outside of his close circle of advisers. I don't think it will be fatal to his campaign, but it will come back up again.

Re. when people vote their pocketbooks, they vote Republican. They want to be rich and beautiful and drive nice cars and live in big houses just like Republicans. They don't want to be living in Section 8 housing on welfare and foodstamps handed out by Democrats. Besides, Republicans are better businessmen (emphasis on men). They will know how to fix things.

Plus, they won't vote for Democrats because they will raise taxes (it's guaranteed, just ask any Republican) to pay for frivolous stuff like education and health care that creates a smart, healthy work force that is good for business and attracts investment. That kind of stuff is too complicated. A check in the mail from the U.S. Treasury, now THAT'S something a fellow can hold in his hand and understand, before spending it at Wal-Mart.

All of this didn't start in a vacuum. It started in 1972 with Roe vs Wade. And the case can be made that it even started earlier following Goldwater's defeat in '64. That was when the Conservative think tanks started going and in '72 they glummed on the abortion/ERA topics. The book by Thomas Frank "What's the Matter With Kansas" does an excellent job of documenting how the Right did this by aptly manipulating the social and religous concerns/fears of small town America.
On a personal note, despite being politically liberal I am, and attend an Evangelical Church. One that is very conservative politically (it's a long story why I go there and not one I want to share here/now) but yes, "values voters" will vote against their pocket book, easily, readily, frequently and even gleefully. To "vote your values" is to the average Evangelical Christian a vote for God, God's laws and so on. To "vote your pocket book" is to "For, as I often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies to the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction, their god is their stomach, and their glory is in their shame. Their mind is on earthly things" (Php. 3:18 - 19).
This is used to create a false dilemma; vote for god or vote material things, sin, and so on. And I have heard these verses preached on from just that point of view. Many of my fellow church goers will vote for the "pro-life' candidate regardless of where the candidate is on other issues. This is why pro-family, pro-life politicans can be elected and re-elected no matter how many hooker hook-ups they have, why serial adulteers can, and frequently do get a pass on their conduct. Because if we elect "liberal" candidates, babies will die, guns will be confiscated (thus paving the way for "the New World Order", the Anti-Christ and so on), the Gay life-style will be enshrined and encourged and so on. And, yes, people do believe all that, many more than you think (or would want to think), they are taught that, they can buy books at the local Christian Bookstore that teach that and explain that, preachers preach on it and right-wing media spin monkeys masturbate it for all they can get.
And finally, don't make the mistake of confronting them with facts or they'll beat you over the head with: "For the foolishness of God is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than man's strength" (1Cor 1:25). Obama made the mistake of stating a fact and, yes, it might hurt him or it might pass, I don't know.

So for what its' worth ...
Take Care, Be Good and don't play in the street!

SteveMule

Obama made the mistake of stating a fact and, yes, it might hurt him or it might pass, I don't know.

I know several 'Christians' who will only vote for a male WASP.

Oh, they will tell you every 'reason' in the book for their 'logical' choice of candidate except the real one.

Visit us at

The Home

Yeah, I miss Reagan too.

Sure, what's not to miss about stomping Grenada, Salvadoran death squads, and that decent and honest cadre of spooks making nice with the Shi'a autocracy in Iran so that Nicaraguan rapists could have better ammo... those were the days...

Our wars of choice were at least covert then.

Ah, morning in America.

____________________________

With the possible exception of things like box scores, race results, and stock market tabulations, there is no such thing as Objective Journalism. The phrase itself is a pompous contradiction in terms.

Rachel Maddow is a real gem and should not only have her own show but also be running a major network TV news. Smart as they come.

They just keep beating that dog to death and it still won't fly.

Mix metaphors much? :-) Made me smile 'cause I do the same ... won't get fooled again!

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."
Hunter S. Thompson

I, as a strong Democrat, was very pleased with the Bill Clinton presidency. I do believe he had some of the highest approval ratings ever from Democrat voters. It was wonderful that HRC started a dialogue about healthcare for all during his term. It's too bad that the Democrats in their oh so disorganized organization can't make it happen even now.