Obama is just the kind of guy I would love to share an aperitif with.

...maybe an Orange Juice

aperitif?

Oh...I looked it up. A brewsky! A six pack....on Fridays a half a rack. ;)

of dictionary you're using, but according to mine, an aperitif if a drink of liquor or wine (orange juice?) taken before a meal to stimulate the appetite. The word is strictly hoity-toity.

Obama is just the kind of guy I would love to share an aperitif with.

Well..... not!.

Thank you Donjo,

My computer was on idle and when I opened it again after a lovely dinner with no aperitif or after dinner "whatever" I enjoyed a laugh such as I have not had in months. What you said about Obama is exactly what I have been trying to tell people for months. It's what I feel in my very reliable gut!

That's just what Barack has called the "salt of the earth" in Pennsylvania, Indiana, and in all those other states that were supposed to be inconseq1uential in this primary season:

"There is no outsourcing problem, and no problem with immigrant slave labor, How convenient of you to use those, (and other) groups to excuse your failures to feel better about yourselves. Religion and guns--Just an expression of your bitterness, nothing more.

In effect "Losers and Scapegoaters"

No way out. That is what you said, Obama, and that is what you mean. No doubt about it.

a joke.

you live in the eastern half of the state along with a bunch of meese. :)

Obama is just the kind of guy I would love to share an aperitif with.

no one knows how to "pre-function" like they do! ;)

intellectuals are smart doesn't mean they know anything.

Obama is just the kind of guy I would love to share an aperitif with.

My second wife often asked me, "I know you're intelligent, but are you smart?"

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

because they are similar, according to the dictionary. But I think in woman's world, smart has to do with intuition... but of course, man have intuition as well except it's expressed diff.

Only you Hillary supporters would see 'snob' in Obama's remarks - keep digging for something that is not there - it will occupy your time. And google this subject - you might be able to read the complete story on his remarks as well as who he was talking to. Maybe not understand them, as it seems you can't get anything that goes deeper than the skin of Obama which you obviously do not like (and I am not referring to the color).

Apparently his remarks troubled her also - and she knew exactly who he was talking to.

So, I think maybe you need to re-examine the validity of your charge.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

Obama is just the kind of guy I would love to share an aperitif with.

But he said "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment". Do you not see how that implies that people without money aren't too smart? let alone that it implies that people like himself don't have religion since they have no reason to be bitter...or they DO have religion, yet it's not based on bitterness. ...hence the people he's referring to must not be able to possess the depth of intellect to have religion for religion's sake as opposed to cynicism.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

it looks snobish, but deep down we all know that this is true on some levels, why else would we have Dubya as President? Die bold or not there is a significant portion of the American electorate that are "bitter". When things get tough we cling to our cultural heritages, and our biases because by human nature the last people we want to blame for our sorry state of affairs is: ourselves.

Is Obama so wrong to say this when 44% of Americans say that we should curtail the civil liberties of Muslim Americans, that's nearly half the country. God only knows what we fine and altruistic Americans would do to our Muslim minority population if we were attacked again, internment camps in all likelyhood, we did it to the Japanese after all under FDR, and lets not even get started on what we did to the Native Americans nations that we lied to betrayed, conquered and then subjugated.

Sorry but Sen. Obama is right, Americans are a hard working industrious people, but we have a long history of anti immigrant bias, the Irish, the Chinese, The Japanese, Jews, the list goes on and on. Given the nature of the immigration debate it would seem that the seeds of hate are still there although buried a little deeper. And do the working class tend to be a more than a little more anti immigrant than others, one need not look any further for proof than the fact that immigrants are competing for many of the same jobs held by the working class.

It is exactly what led to nativist sentiments in the mid 1800s during the Irish potato famine, the Irish were taking jobs we had taken for granted, we got mad and took it out on them because by god we were here first so those jobs were ours to keep. Our history is rife with examples of exactly what Obama said, and yet somehow now we are indignant because Barack Obama had the audaicity to point out a politically inconvenient truth.

Elistism, hogwash, elitism is the arrogance of those who pretend that all of the ugly things we have done never happened, or that somehow they don't matter anymore. If we don't grow up and learn from history we are doomed to repeat it and we will have Muslim Americans rounded up and put in camps after the next terrorist attack because we were too gutless to admit that we have a fear problem and a bigotry problem in this country.

Shame on us for ignoring history and slaping the elitist label on any and all who bother to point out the politically inconvenient truth that we Americans all to often are prone to give in to fear, not a trait exclusive to the United States, but before we act all high and mighty we might want to take stock of our own sins before lecturing the rest of the world.

[End Rant]

The problem with Obama's remarks was not so much the pure content of what he said, it was the attitude he conveyed in his choice of words. He implied that if the people he talked about had more character or substance, they wouldn't have to resort to guns, religion, racism, or anti-immigration-ism.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

how about the attitude of the 10% of Democrats who actually beleive Obama is some kind of Muslim manchurian candidate?

I doubt you'll find many "latte sippling gortex wearing volve driving" types who think he is a muslim, no, its the blue collar worker that lives in small town America who just doesn't have the time to look up the truth online and just assumes the worst about Obama for whatever reason and does not look deeper.

LOL! No, that 10% of Democrats think that 9/11 was an inside job.

There's a person for every conspiracy theory.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

but the fact is those people who think he is muslim are supporting Hillary. they may be a small proportion of her support, maybe 12%, but they are there nonetheless and they do have an impact on election day just as there is a segment of Obama's support that comes from people who are voting for him by mere virtue of him being black. It's there, and it does have an impact.

Enough said, this is a mountain being made of a mole hill, you'd think from the talk in the press and on pro Hillary blogs that Barack had just robbed a bank or something...

Unelectable, sheesh talk about hyperbole.

say think that Obama is a Muslim.

And if you have the evidence, have you also considered the possibility that some of them don't hold that against him?

The fact is that I, myself, was initially under the impression that he was a Muslim at a young age, who had converted to Christianity; but I didn't hold either of those things against him. In fact, until I was disabused of that erroneous positive impression, I thought it was admirable that he had converted, because I happen to think that one's religion ought not to be determined by one's parents, but rather by oneself. In fact, many of my fellow Pagans think this way, as very few of us had Pagan parents. I have no evidence as to what percentage of Pagans support Hillary, but (for a number of reasons) I suspect it is rather more than 50%; and I also suspect that none of them would care in the least whether Obama might be a Muslim, or anything else, so far as religion is concerned. Some of them may be in your alleged 12%.

The funny thing is, Obama probably has some supporters who think he's Muslim. I am not kidding. People make mistakes, and many people are simply wrong about the politicians they support. For example, I know lots of people who supported John Kerry who thought he was Irish.

And speaking of the Irish, there was no "Potato Famine". There was a "Potato Blight" and a scarcity of justice in Ireland which led to "An Gorta Mor" (The Great Hunger). The so-called Potato "Famine" is a widely believed cover-up of the true facts of that situation. Briefly, a "famine" occurs when there is a shortage of food. There was no such shortage in Ireland during the period of the worldwide Potato Blight from 1845-51. There was, however, a shortage of justice, as the usual quantities of Irish produce and farm animals were continuously shipped out of Ireland under armed guard to the usual markets in England and elsewhere. Ireland has long been the breadbasket of the "British Isles", and there was more than enough food produced in Ireland to feed the entire Irish population at the time, hence - no famine. But there was a massive violation of the human rights of the Irish people, and millions of them died as a result. Please try to avoid accidentally spreading the cover-up story.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I meant to say potato blight, not famine.

As to the evidence thing, I don't have any specific polls I can cite which say X% of Hillary supporters think Barack is Muslim, but I think it stands to reason that of the 10% of Democrats who think Barack is Muslim even after all of the lengths he has gone to point out his own actual religious affiliation, the plurality of that group would break in favor of Hillary by a significant margin.

After Rev. Wright and all the hoopla that has been made out of that anyone who think's he's a Muslim who was trained in a radical Madrassa at this point in time probably has a motivation for thinking that way, be it a political agenda, racial bias or they beleive it because they got a chain email, and they just aren't the type to go out on their own and do their homework. That may not have always been the case, but anyone who doesn't know Obama is Christian has either been totally unplugged from the news cycle for the past month or just wants to beleive he is Muslim despite any evidence to the contrary, and generally that means they have an agenda otherwise they'd beleive the truth instead of a flasehood.

news cycle to fail to know that Obama is a Christian. There are plenty of people who follow entirely different news than do you or I. News about entertainment, sports, real estate, the markets, etc. They know stuff I've never cared about. However, some of them will say they support this or that candidate for President, without much idea at all as to the specifics of that candidate.

Do you have a link for that 10% stat? If so, please share. Also, believe it or not, there are Democrats who support McCain. No doubt, some of them think Obama is a Muslim.

Then, there are Democrats who are undecided. I'll bet a bunch of them think Obama is a Muslim.

Assumptions, as you must know, are the father of all foul-ups, James. In politics, it's rarely safe to assume that anything "stands to reason". Personally, I think good historical analogies are generally (although not always) more predictive of political realities than our own partisan "reasoning".

And thanks for concurring that it was a "Potato Blight" rather than a famine. Lots of Irish working class people know the truth - even though the cover story is what's most often taught to our "educated" elites.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

and I have a feeling you know how people react to being categorized into any particular sterotype.

Communicating one's thoughts, ideas and plans is what is known in philosophy as a social practice. We all know that the same word can convey different meaning to different groups of people. Cool means something entirely different to an air conditioning repairman than it does to a high school skateboarder.

It goes without saying that the more educated a person is the more practice they've had using words to communicate. In fact, giving speeches comes from the discipline of rhetoric, a field defined as using words in order to persuade. Rhetoric has been developed and used by politicians since politics began.

There are rules to rhetoric, including how to use language most effectively to convince, inspire and even manipulate people. It's a topic worth lengthy investigation, especially when considering Barack Obama's mastery of the subject. As Ben Wallace-Wells writes in the February issue of Rolling Stone, "If you want to understand where Barack gets his feeling and rhetoric from," says the Rev. Jim Wallis, a leader of the religious left, "just look at Jeremiah Wright."

Compare, for example, Obama's use of language to target different audiences by remembering the speeches he gave in Mississippi where he mimicked Malcolm X by using "hoodwinked, bamboozled, and okie doke." Now reflect on Obama telling his wealthy California supporters in Marin county this week, "You go into some of 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 gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that 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."

While Hillary Clinton is right to criticize Obama for calling people "bitter," the insult is much greater than that. By equating owning guns with being religious and being religious with being xenophobic and anti-trade, Obama makes a sweeping generalization that again reveals how he stereotypes people. Obama is giving a more detailed description of typical white people, only this time, the insult includes their class--working class.

Obama seems to be suggesting that owning guns and practicing a religion are both symptoms of bitterness. The people who own guns and practice religion don't trust people who are different than they are, and who might that be? Obama, of course. The conclusion then is that people who don't like him are people who are embittered: gun-totting, religious fanatics who also hate foreigners.

I'm sure the people in Marin County got a big chuckle out of this regional put down. I can see them backing out of the parking lot, leaving their meeting with Obama, waving to each other from their Hybrids, Beemers or SUVS with the "Got Hope?" bumper stickers, and bemused by the bitter rednecks in Pennsylvania.

At the end of this speech, Obama encourages these wealthy Californians to persuade these poor bitter working slobs to vote for him. “ I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.”

It sounds like he’s sending the elite in to convert the "lunch-pail folks"-- and in his caricature of these people in Pennsylvania, I imagine the Californians as characters from the TV sitcom Frasier attempting to persuade TV's Roseanne and family to vote for Obama.

http://thehorizontalworld.blogspot.com/2008/04/obama-told-his-wealthy-california.html

I strongly suggest you read these 2 pieces:

The rubes and the elites at Salon and

Anglachel's Journal, Class Act.

The first piece may give you some understanding of why we know Obama can't and won't win the WH if he's the nominee, and the second piece may give you some idea of why Obama and his supporters are alienating more people than you can imagine.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

Do you think that "only" Hillary supporters will ever disagree with Obama? May I remind you that the Republicans traditionally have had great success with distorting the Democrats' platform to be elitist, snobby, latte-drinking, Volvo-driving wearers of down vests and Gortex whose biggest problem is recycling? This is so incredibly ironic, because the Democrats' platform is STILL the more beneficial to working-class individuals, yet so many of them have been swayed by this idiocy.

If DEMOCRATS - and, yes, we are Democrats - think the Obama is coming across as snobby and exclusionary, perhaps he needs to look at his image, because that's nothing compared to how the other party will try to portray him.

I grow very, very, very tired of being told that I am a non-Democrat, non-progressive, just "don't get it," obstructionist, feminazi (and yes, I have been called that), just because I don't like or trust Obama. Being told "you're just obstructionist" or "you don't understand" is simply not helpful.

The loyalty oath has become so rigid now to pledge allegiance to Obama, that you see bloggers all over the place prefacing their posts or diaries with something like, "I am an Obama supporter but..." , or ending their posts with "And I say that as an Obama supporter"... lest they be perceived as anything but and as so would have to suffer the outrageous slings and arrows of ... well, you know.

It's become almost a "Papers please!" blog pass one needs to show in order to pass Go and collect money. If they don't throw that in there somewhere -I have seen them get brutally pounced upon as suspected Clinton supporters, which is akin to having boiling water poured over your head while your nails are being extracted from the fingers.

People seem to need to reiterate that they are on the 'right side' -- the O! side-- so they can sneak past the velvet ropes of bloggerdom doormen and into that special VIP room... where you can hobnob with the other VIPs ... and feel just that much better than the riff raff... in fact you can make fun of the riff raff and mock them, and-- Hey waitaminute! That sounds elitist!

Sneetches and Plain Belly Sneetches. :D

The story dominated the Friday afternoon and evening talk shows, and we'll see what kind of play it gets on the Brick TV shows.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

the worst attack the GOP would make against him. Not by a long shot.

No one is just calling him one..or pretending he's one. An elitist, blah, blah. He talks and acts like one. One of the biggest parts of this story is the fact he made these comments at a fundraiser with a bunch of rich "folk" as if he were putting average "folk" down or being condescending. Or even blaming these "folk" for not seeing him as The Messiah...The One...God's gift to the Universe. Ya know? I'm honestly not sure there is anyone who thinks more highly of him than he does!

We're beneath him. A vehicle to get where he's headed. And if you don't jump on the Hope Boat...well..you're just not worthy or smart enuff....educated enuff. The guy is starting to show who he is...on the inside....beneath the rock star glitter and the media's pretense. Absent the wrapping paper and pretty bow he doesn't look so hot. What's unfortunate is that it has taken SO LONG! Thanks to our hapless and adoring press.

The GOP doesn't have to make stuff up with this guy. He's the gift that keeps on giving.

Of course O! supporters pooh pooh it as nothing....big shocker there....elitism.

a Pelosi quote about Bill that is going to wipe this gobblety goo off the headlines:

Senator Obama has said many times in this campaign that Americans are understandably upset with their leaders in Washington for saying anything to win elections while failing to stand up to the special interests and fight for an economic agenda that will bring jobs and opportunity back to struggling communities. 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."
Later, Obama responded in person at an event in Indiana:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow&eurl=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/11/clinton-mccain-respond-to_n_96318.html

Obama Responds to McCain and Clinton attacks in Terre Haute

"I haven't paid for lunch in 30 years," Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is struggling a bit to adjust to life as a lobbyist.

into being about the Clintons. What a novel idea.

More WORM.

One thing you're probly right about....the press thinks it "gobblety goo" and will see to it that it's wipped off the map.

and make noise about it to see what gets their ratings higher heh! 

picnic hamburgers and veggie burgers

"I haven't paid for lunch in 30 years," Former Sen. Trent Lott (R-Miss.) is struggling a bit to adjust to life as a lobbyist.

And each time that liberal latte drinking elitist shoe fits the Democratic nominee, the GOP wins the Presidency.

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15190

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

fit Hillary?

The GOP is going to try to shove that shoe on the Dem nominee whomever that person might be, in the case of Hillary they have been strategizing how to do just that even since Bill left office and Gore 'lost'.

The Clintons are not invunerable to such charges, they are rich, powerful, they are of a political dynasty, and there are rumors afloat that the Saudi's donated millions of dollars to the building of the Clinton library, a rather stick issue as many on the left myself included have taken issue with George W Bush's ties to the Saudi Royal family.

There are any number of angles from which the Clinton's are vunerable.

The repubs are going to try to shove the old shoe on whoever the nominee is, and assuming it won't fit Hillary any better than it would fit Obama is wishful thinking.

it's how you act. I've known some really, really rich latte sippers in my time and they were as down to earth as any local yokel whoever puts his fat belly up to the bar in the neighborhood tavern.

We're electing the President of the United States, not some g.d. prom king.

And Bill was great at it, but Hillary... not so much, Bill Clinton was extremely effective at making himself likeable even when he did something incredibly stupid he still in the end came out smelling like roses. Hillary on the other hand while an extremely effective manager does not do well connecting with those on the other side of an issue.

It is her "fighter" side, it's the "my way or the highway" style and while that confrontational style is appealing to boomer generation women, hard core party loyalists and blue collar workers who want a "fighter", the fact is independents, moderate dems who might lean McCain and disillusion republicans that might lean Dem would be turned off by the whole "fighter" thing. It's great for rallying the party faithful in a primary, but it is suicide in a general election against an opponent who is a war hero and has a carefully crafted image as a 'moderate'. And if she gives up being a "fighter", she loses her political identity.

Obama has run on the theme he is the "uniter" and has struck a conciliatory tone when refering to republicans, Hillary on the other hand has run on the theme that she is a "fighter", unfortunately, as a general election strategy the "fighter" strategy of no compromise no holds barred "my way or the highway" on all issues will almost certainly aleinate party moderates, scare away independents. Furthermore, unlike the Republicans we have no comprable group to the Christain Evangelicals that we can call "the base" that we can turn out by throwing Clintonian style red meat.

Also, the Clintons are in deep danger of losing a significant portion of the African American vote, whether you want to lay the blame for that at the feet of the media, or the Obama's is something of a moot point, it is still lurking out there and is a threat as we need that constituency to win the General election.

Hillary Clinton's coalition coming out of Denver would be loose and shaky and could easily fracture under sustained attack from McCain. There are many angles from which to attack and they have been thinking out just how to go about doing it for nearly a decade. It would be a party divided.

Obama is something of a wild card, he is the unknown quanity in this race, everyone is pretty much familiar with McCain and Clinton, the battle lines have long ago been drawn out. In an image battle on national security John McCain will win hands down, Hillary is not a Four Star General SACEUR, and she is not going to have that level of predetermined credibility walking on stage to debate McCain. The gravest miscalculation the Clinton's have made and to lesser extent Gen. Clark has made is that they are banking on the idea that Hillary can out position and out credential McCain on Foreign policy, she can't. She doesn't fit the mold, no military service, limited experience with the military and a Bosnia landing "misrememberence" that will make a fine sound bite in Republican 527 attack ads.

Gen. Clark may be entirely correct in the assessment that Hillary knows the nuts and bolts of military operations. But she is not Gen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, she is Sen. Hillary Clinton, and she will be walking on stage trying to out credential McCain on his strongest issue. That is a fight she will inevitably lose, the image is not one that will work in her favor, Dems have an uphill battle on national security to begin with by mere virtue of not being chest thumping Jack Bauer Republicans, she has been painted as weak on defense that is a bad image facing a war hero. The military suffered massive force reductions and base closings under her husbands watch, that is a very embarrasing fact. And she is a "liberal" Senator from one of the most Democratic states in the country. And she will be trying to out credential McCain, a Vietnam war hero, who has made defense his signature issue. That is not an image battle even a Clinton can win.

But Obama is an opponent which very little is known particuraly how to go about attacking him politically. First he was a closet Muslim, that went nowhere in a hurry, they tried Rezko it totally bombed and the story largely died, they played the Rev. Wright card which flopped after Obama's speech, and now we have "barack the elist" meme. We will see in a week what the voters in PA think, there is going to be a lot of hoopla in the next week to be sure, and the Clintons no doubt will join in the media feeding frenzy in the hope that maybe if Barack Obama is totally and utterly politically ruined the party will have no choice but to grant her the nomination.

It is a political scorched earth leave no survivors policy which is at this point the Clinton's only hope to secure the nomination. In order for Hillary to win she must rack up huge margins in all remaining contests, thus in order for her to win Obama must implode politically, and if she and Bill can give Obama's enemies a helping hand, then so be it. The fact that she has aligned herself with previous enemies from the Monica era to this end is indeed very telling in my opinion.

Unfortunately, I'm running out of steam, so I'll just point out that I agree with you at least in part about one problem our party really does face.

That's the business of angry Dems sitting out and failing to vote for our candidate, whomever that may be.

We did that twice before (at least).

Angry anti-war Dems sat out and let Nixon defeat Humphrey in 1968 (although not by much). Because of the bogus way Obama has framed himself vs Hillary on the war, we now face a similar (although quite unnecessary) challenge in 2008.

Then, in 1972, our anti-war intellectual faction finally had its way, and George McGovern won one state against Nixon the carpet bomber.

We lost both elections because we were hurt and divided, but I think it is quite significant that we were utterly crushed when we ran the candidate who most appealed to our intellectual elite and academia.

So, you are correct that Hillary will be challenged because some of Obamas supporters will desert the party. However, you have completely ignored the even greater challenge Obama will face, because all the polls I have seen indicate that the defections by Dems will be even greater if he is the nominee.

I think Hillary can meet her formidable challenges far more easily than Obama can meet his even larger challenges.

Whatever happens, all Democrats should be trying to find ways to avoid the disastrous divisions of 68 and/or 72.

I applaud any efforts you may make to that end, James, such as continuing to engage in debate here.

With that, good night

and good luck. :)

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

Sorry if I miss something

As I said last night, you make some arguable points. However, since those points follow no perceivable order of importance, I doubt I will be able to frame my response in the most coherent and complete fashion; and I am sure that I am likely to miss responding to some of your points. However, just because I miss some does not mean that I concede that you are correct about those. If it’s important for you to understand what I think about those, you are certainly welcome to raise them again.

Defections

I’ve already spoken to the issue of possible Democratic defections in November. Imo, that is an issue of the highest importance, and one that has negative impacts regardless of whom our nominee may be. I therefore suggest that we should refrain from attempting to use it for any partisan advantage in our debate here, although I am pretty confident that if we do, history and current polling both suggest that it will be more of a problem for Senator Obama than it might be for Senator Clinton.

Senator "wild-card"

Your assertion that the Rezko, Wright, and other matters are now no longer politically usable against your candidate is at odds with your assertion that Obama is an unknown wild card in this race. Both of these cannot be simultaneously correct. I think your latter assertion is closer to reality than is your dismissal of the Rezko, Wright, etc. issues as no longer of any danger to your candidate. Please realize that the right-wing noise machine is not presently running at anything like its full capacity, and that they will indeed bring up everything they can against the Democratic candidate, once they are nominated. Please realize also that many voters (other than the youngest ones) have already heard the right-wing nonsense concerning Hillary, and right-wing attempts to bring all of that back into play will generally fall onto already closed minds (one way or another). However, right-wing attempts to smear your candidate will sound much more like news to many voters (both young and old) who have yet to learn much about Senator "wild-card"; and hence, they will talk to each other about that “new” news (gossip working as it does) far more than they will talk about the old stale attacks on Hillary. In other words, here again your candidate is at a disadvantage.

Winning decisively

Contrary to your “scorched earth” hyperbole, Hillary can win the nomination with relatively modest overall wins in the remaining primaries, simply by means of getting the Democratic Party to agree to seat Florida and Michigan. And Senator Obama can cruise to victory only by means of getting the Democratic Party to exclude the Florida and Michigan delegations from voting at the convention. However, both of these scenarios are problematic and foreshadow some sort of split in the Party in November.

Alternatively, either of them could win decisively by getting the Democratic Party to agree that in order to avoid a crippling split that would harm the Party nominee’s chances in November, the Party should rule that no candidate will be nominated without securing sufficient votes to win a clear majority vote of all the delegates sent to the convention. That figure would be something like 2,250 – we can look it up. Whether or not Michigan and Florida are seated, such a clear and decisive majority would ensure that the nominee was indeed the choice of the majority of delegates selected in the country. Hence, all Democrats would be assured that the Democratic Party nominee really did deserve the nomination. This reasonably fair compromise policy would still be somewhat to Obama’s advantage, as he is currently in the lead; and it would also require both Senators to attempt to secure huge margins in the remaining states, and to also get the votes of the vast majority of the remaining un-committed delegates (whether super or pledged) as well as delegates currently pledged to John Edwards.

Fighters and National Security

As for your contention that Hillary is at a disadvantage running against a war hero, I agree that is a challenge for her. However, it seems to me that it is at least as great a challenge for Senator Obama. Here again, I see no advantage for your candidate. In fact, I find it counter-intuitive that his very “yin” candidacy contains more cross-party national security appeal than does Hillary’s “fighter” image. It seems clear enough that the “yin” approach does appeal to those currently most concerned about the war as their number one issue, but most of these voters are Democrats, so I fail to see how it is likely to help your candidate in the General Election.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

At who is voting for Obama and who is
voting for Hillary. The voters know,
and Republicans can only reinforce
what has already been decided by the
voters on this issue. Obama himself
has done more than any Rebublican could
do to cement the idea in voter's minds
that Hillary cares for the ordinary folk
while Obama appeals to the people who
not only expect economic security, but also
respect from others--including Presidential
candidates. Hillary appeals to those who
are struggling for dignity and for economic
improvement.

brother Democrat. I've made the point before that Obama is a very "yin" candidate. http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/14905
That should help him if the mood of the country remains "yin". However, with the economic downturn, and the increased violence in Iraq, it looks to me like "yin" will not be the new "yang" this November.

Also, as others have pointed out, Hillary quite demonstrably does not come across to the average working class person as elite, effete, latte drinking, snobbish, or unduly intellectual. They see her intelligence as a great plus, because they understand that she is using it to fight for them. http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15056

Wealth and education do not necessarily translate into "intellectual snobbery". RFK (for example) certainly wasn't perceived that way, and Bill Clinton wasn't wealthy, but he certainly is highly educated and brilliant, yet few voters would have thought him an "effete intellectual snob" (which is one of the reasons he was able to win twice).
http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15190

Sorry, James, but Obama himself has sort of been playing the really really smart Cinderella from the start, and the glass slipper apparently fits him rather well.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I'm fairly certain that the tide has turned, and Obama will find the rest of his quest no longer so easy. Then some of his supporters may begin to see that he is not really quite the knight in shining armor so many of them now want to believe that he is.

At the same time, my Party does have a history of nominating the wrong candidate quite often. That's why we must do our very best to make it clear why Hillary is the right candidate for these times. Unfortunately, unless we simultaneously poke some big holes in the media balloons for Obama, those bright and shiny balloons will always upstage our best positive blogging for Hillary. In other words, the only way to beat the pro-Obama media is to explore and exploit every opportunity that comes our way, whether positive for Hillary or negative for Obama. That's why I write both sorts of diaries.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

We do it every time and it breaks my heart.

Obama would've made a great VP nominee right now or would make a fine presidential nominee in four or eight years. But he's held national office for less than a full term.

and it is still possible that he could make amends, step aside and unite the party behind Hillary; and thus ski away from the slowly-breaking avalanche he has set off to become a great VP nominee. However, I don't think he has the good judgment to do that. I think he will instead go down in flames, either to Hillary or to McCain.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

And full of distortions, such as "small meeting of his supporters/donors who would be campaigning for him." Crap. It was a fund raiser of millionaire/billionaire types at one of the richest men on the planet's mansion. It's been documented; please don't spread this Obama b.s. here.

And then read the entire statement where he criticizes small towners as not liking peole that "are not like them" (racist) and then hits on the fiscal policies of the Clinton presidency. The rest of your paragraph just repeats the Obama "spin." Pathetic. I'm a small towner and I'm pissed as hell at this racist, elitist, condescending statement that tells us more about Obama than it does about the people he is talking about.

FROM SOMEONE WHO WAS THERE:

He basically called the people in Pennsylvania gun toting, bitter, racist, religious fanatics.

"He just used prettier words...cuz, you know, he was talking to rich, fancy white folks.

"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 gonna regenerate and they have not.

And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Mayhill Flower, who is an Obama supporter, was at the San Francisco event, when she heard the remarks. She sat on the story for a day or two, before writing about it. She did not like the comments, and they made her very uncomfortable. You can read her article on the event, comments, and even hear the audio of Obama speaking here.

"Obama made a problematic judgment call in trying to explain working class culture to a much wealthier audience. He described blue collar Pennsylvanians with a series of what in the eyes of creamy Californians might be considered pure negatives: guns, clinging to religion, antipathy, xenophobia."

Obama is just the kind of guy I would love to share an aperitif with.

Well Donjo,
Bull?? Sounds just like someone from the lovely town in the midwest (WI perhaps) where I come from...so lets not argue here as we probably graduated from the same great university.
However, if Mayhill FOWLER is an Obama supporter, he is in real trouble. With SUPPORTERS writing the stuff she writes, he won't get anywhere. She said in her comment to the media that she supports Obama - absolutely no proof of that at all, don't know who she supports.
I am relating my post from someone else who was there - granted, the gathering was at the home of one of the wealthiest persons in the country - attended by 250 people (NOT a large gathering as Obama gatherings go) - and there were people there from many walks of life (please don't go by what some paparazzi writes, with photos no less)-not billionaires (and even if everyone there was a billionaire, so what??? That has nothing to do with the reality of who he was talking to and what he was saying. If you just read Mayhill's blog and heard the reactions of Hillary and McCain, then you might think he was disparaging small towners with the 'rich people' he was talking to - but guess what, Hillary, McCain and the media were not there and they took his words out of context - so the intent of his answer was NOT what you read or heard!

If you listened to the audio of this event, you would hear that Obama is clearly answering a question from someone going to PA to campaign door to door.

I am not trying to change your mind regarding who you support - just want you and whoever else is reading this stuff to get the facts.

here is another quote from someone at the previous Bay Area event of that day:

"I admire Obama for speaking the truth. I will say this, he made a point of stating that everyone in attendance were the lucky few in our country who didn't have daily worries about basic life necessities and he made a point of thanking everyone for being involved in change that will effect all classes in our country. There is definitely nothing "elitist" about that. Afterwards, he spent time with people outside of the house waiting on the street including a woman who's son is in Iraq. It's shameful his excellent message is being twisted but I trust that the campaign has a wise response."

please pass the kool aid. We've learned long ago that trying to convince the faithful that their Messiah could possible say something embarrassing is a fool's mission. I'm no fool, so I won't bother. The jist of his statement just goes sailing blithely over your head. Sayonara.

Obama is just the kind of guy I would love to share an aperitif with.

I don't drink kool aid (let's give this remark a rest, okay? its become a little tedious and trite) and Obama is not my Messiah - AND, he says embarrassing things quite often, according to the media and Hillary. I think I understand what he was saying very well - but then again, if you dislike the guy so intensely (as most Hillary supporters do), then I understand that discussion and argument is too much to ask. You have given me the typical 'you are too in love with your candidate to see him for what he really is' Hillary supporter reply and have thus ended any reasonable discussion because I guess you aren't capable of looking at anything you don't want to see.

You may not want to hear a lecture. But I am going to give you one regardless. I gave Obama and Hillary both a real hard look when General Clark said he wasn't going to run. And the other candidates some of which I really liked didn't seem to get traction. I came to this conclusion that Hillary is the one that is best to clean up the mess that the current administration is leaving behind. And believe me it is a big one! I used to like Obama until he started showing his true colors. And I don't mean that as to be a racist remark. What I meant by that is what the man is really about. And I saw this man to be arrogant and snobbish right from the beginning after I started hearing him speak more and more. So yes I have taken a real hard look. And I don't like what I see. I don't think I can even vote for him in Nov. If he is the nominee. I won't vote McCain either. Maybe leave blank or vote Independent if there is one.

of a troll kool aid drinker, whether you drink it or not. And yes, from your comments you do have a new infallible Messiah. Problem is, you don't realize it or even care to. I question why you are blogging on this site. You claim you want a "discussion," but you're just promoting a candidate many of us don't care for. You came on this site trying to "correct" our view of Obama's shameless, insensitive, arrogant remarks. You will convince absolutely NO ONE to support this poseur. Today, there will be plenty of his paid henchmen on the networks explaining in detail what he "actually" meant. However, this time it won't work; he's crossed the line.

At the very least, kindly have the courtesy not to infect Gen. Clark's - strong endorser of Hillary Rodham Clinton, potential VP candidate - web site with your misguided postings. There are plenty places you would be welcome. Not here. Good by.

Obama is just the kind of guy I would love to share an aperitif with.

Someone on a "liberal" blog in the Seattle area called me a "rube" just because I live on the east side (rural/small town) of my state. I know exactly what they meant.....and it wasn't the first or only time. Little do they know.

The bottom line is O! doesn't understand or know how to talk to rural/small town, blue collar, lunch bucket voters. If...IF...he ends up being the nominee.....and he hasn't won anything yet....he damn well better figure it out. Cuz he and his supporters will not have Hillary/Bill around any longer to blame for his every failure. He and his supporters blaming rural/small town "folk" won't cut it. He's going to need them to win my state. Scream like a pig stuck under a gate all you want about no one understanding or twisting the words of your "Precious". That won't bring him the votes he needs.

You've been warned.

He was talking about stupid people in front of smart people as if it was a private meeting. If that had been the case (and obviously it's a catch-22 since then we couldn't be debating it) then, sure, what he said was just fine. But he's not supposed to admit in public that he thinks the group he's referring to is just not smart enough to know better. If he had simply said that the average blue collar worker has a reason to be bitter, then I'd say he said nothing wrong.
And I say this as someone who was for him until I read the whole quote 15 minutes ago.

story? I mean, I am happy that you've now read the entire quote and "totally changed (your) opinion"; but I'm also wondering if you've fully researched the other matter to which you refer. I'm also troubled by your implication that Obama should have said what he said "in private to people who aren't stupid." It seems to me that he shouldn't have said such a thing to anyone. Indeed, if he were any sort of real progressive, he shouldn't even have thought it.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

If new information comes to my attention then of course I'll be amenable to amending my conclusion. Your inference that YOU only reach conclusions by knowing the ENTIRE story on anything is laughable since, most times, people don't necessarily get the ENTIRE story. At what point do you ever know that you've received the ENTIRE story sufficiently to finally come to a conclusion? And should I assume that once you do come to a conclusion you're not amenable to amending your conclusion based on new information since you "already" had the entire story?

As for the other matter, I'm referring to a diary on Daily Kos that was a first hand account by the lead NY activist fighting the fight. Is that not sufficient research?

I'm not saying that he SHOULD have said in private per se, but if he WERE discussing the mindset of the kind of stupid people who would vote for Republicans over Democrats because of things like guns, religion and illegal immigrants, then I don't understand why I should be offended if I had been a fly in the wall of that room. Are you trying to tell me that there are no stupid and/or ill-informed Americans in middle America? (That is not to say they are necessarily bad people.)

"jumping to conclusions". If the info is extensive but incomplete, qualified conclusions may be merited, and many people reach them, myself included. There was nothing wrong with my question, since you said yourself that you had concluded something based on reading only a small fragment of what was said. And contrary to what you say concerning what you imagine me to have inferred, that which you call "laughable" is your inference, not mine.

As for the sufficiency of your research, last time I checked, Daily Kos diaries weren't generally agreed as authoritative sources.

I have no problem with you not being offended. Obama wasn't speaking about you. However, he was speaking about many people who damn well have a right to be offended, and even Obama has evidently realized that.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

Why would you not consider that authorotative? Especially if I tell you it was by a well-known regular.

You didn't answer my question: Do you not agree that there are many stupid voters in America who need to be coddled if we're going to get them to vote smart?

there any evidentiary trail? If so, the account may be examined and possibly confirmed as to its accuracy, thoroughness, etc.. If not, in order to think it "authoritative", one would need to render the remarkably optimistic judgment that its author always tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, even when not under oath. In reality, no one I've ever met does that. Are you saying that "well-known regular" contributors to Daily Kos are in that category?

As for your question, it begs its own answer, which is no, I do not agree. No amount of "coddling" can induce a stupid voter to vote "smart". "Coddling" does not grow brain cells, or increase the knowledge of the person(s) being "coddled". However, experience proves that massive amounts of advertising and media blarney all too often does induce many smart voters to vote stupidly.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

Oh please....you are really digging on this -
is your candidate SO without merit that this is how you have to score points? Heaven help any candidate that goes beyond the basic a - b - c's in talking to americans -
Maybe its about time that the media AND those of us who use these posts to get our thrills, stop interpreting what the candidates are saying - we are just as guilty as the MSM in our analysis and just show our narrow viewpoints.

How of your women friends hunt, Elizab1949?

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

but I have one. Takes off to a cabin in northern MI every now and then and comes home with a trunk full of dead pheasants.

And if you knew her, you'd never in a bazillion years guess. She's a hard-working independent world traveled (many times) city gal. The first time I saw that trunk full o' pheasant, I about fell over from the shock.

We did have a most excellent buffet a couple of days later. She's a wonder, my hunting friend.

Edited to add: Oh! and come to think of it - she is a single mom. Although motherhood has put a crimp in her forays into the woods with a shotgun. ;-)

LOL! Maybe she's the exception that proves the rule.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

:-)

She's really quite extraordinary. I'm lucky to know - and work - for her.

As I'm lucky to know my Clarkie Pals.

Color me one of the Lucky Ones. :-)

I worked with a gal who grew up "in the
country." She loved to deer hunt, and could field-
dress them with the best of 'em. (Blecch!)

I've been wondering why you're here, and you've answered my question. It's NOT because you are a General Clark supporter using his own site to have an intelligent discussion. NO, it's this:

"...AND those of us who use these posts to get our thrills..."

I think I can speak for most of CCN that we're not here to "get our thrills" but for a much higher purpose based on our fervent identification with the moral and intellectual values and standards of General Clark. That is our common connection in this community. By your high number and by your every remark on this thread and others, I leap to the conclusion that you signed up here to push the O buttons. Are you paid for this?

I, myself, am allergic to kool-aid and it took me some time to reach my conclusion to support HRC instead of O.

sexist was it? So I suppose women wouldn't cut firewood to sell in dire economic times either since it is somehow unrealistic to expect that a woman might partake in such activities in dire need?

My Mother may have been the exception not the rule but she did hunt, small game anyway, and she cut and sold firewood, and we survived because of that. So the idea that it is somehow "ridiculous" that a woman might actually be able to do as some call it "a mans work" in order to take of her childern I think is absurd and sexist.