Obama Insults PA Voters

[mundame]

As fas as the rest of your post, I could not care less. They seem to be very happy with each other

Well, presumably EXCEPT when she adopts a black Bangladeshi baby and loses McCain the presidential election in 2000 because of it, and when she steals drugs from the "charity" she heads to feed her own addiction. NOT a woman of good character, in my opinion. Not because of the baby, which is okay by me, but the drug stealing was over the top. Not a respectable way to behave, on the same level as screwing McCain while he was married to someone else and plotting with him to dump wife No. 1.

No, I'd be ashamed to see this dubious character as a First Lady.

BTW, all the money is in her name - they have a prenup

It had better be, or he'd spend it all running for president. At least her lawyers had some sense, if she doesn't.

[mundame]

The state of PA has an unemployment rate of 4.9% BTW.

5% unemployment means full employment; it always has. There has to be SOME unemployment to account for people changing jobs!

I remember a few years ago when it got down to 3.5% and we couldn't find anyone to work for our company in Maryland who could read.

We live just south of Pennsylvania, travel through it often, and it seems a very rich and prosperous state. I don't know where all this poverty and joblessness he's talking about IS!

I think Obama just likes to make racist slurs to excuse why Dems in PA are going for Hillary.

I think they are going for Hillary because Obopaloobop is a creep!

[red states rule]

5% unemployment means full employment; it always has. There has to be SOME unemployment to account for people changing jobs!

I remember a few years ago when it got down to 3.5% and we couldn't find anyone to work for our company in Maryland who could read.

We live just south of Pennsylvania, travel through it often, and it seems a very rich and prosperous state. I don't know where all this poverty and joblessness he's talking about IS!

I think Obama just likes to make racist slurs to excuse why Dems in PA are going for Hillary.

I think they are going for Hillary because Obopaloobop is a creep!

Well you have your own problems then living in MD. As soon as he was elected, your lib Gov hit the state with a $1.3 billion tax increase

And the SOB wants more. Now an additonal tax on millionaires

I left that screwed uo state many years ago

Dems have not screwed up PA as bad as they have MD - but they are trying like hell

[Pale Rider]

You are not the only one. I am now a registered Dem, and I will vote for - gasp, gag, choke - Hillary in the primary

AaaAAAaaahhh... "operation caos"....

[NATO AIR]

Dumb comments but those attacking him miss his larger point that bodes ill for McCain in November. There is a lot of bitterness in America, especially after a decade and a half where incomes stagnated and amid rising inflation for everything from flour to tuition (Ongoing from the Clinton years into the Bush years). Obama knows this and is capitalizing on it. His selection of Jim Webb for the VP role will only help him appeal to these people more than McCain can.

Pair this with the disaster Iraq continues to be (and will be worse by the end of the year b/c we don't have enough troops nor the non-military policies to make it work) and you see two tremendously flawed candidates (Obama & McCain) battling it out with the issues (the economy and Iraq) for once trumping personality and values.

I can barely hold my nose and vote for either of them but I do believe the moderate and cohesive economic team Obama has assembled (with the conservative Univ. of Chicago types like Austin Goldsbee) along with the prospective Jim Webb VP slot and the foreign policy types who would join him (Tony Zinni, Bill Fallon) trump the mishmash mess that is McCain's on those two important issues.

[red states rule]

AaaAAAaaahhh... "operation caos"....

Yes, I am doing my part to keep the war within the Dem party going. I will vote for Hillary and do what I can to make Barry's political life miserable

[red states rule]

From the liberal media and their defense of Obama


WaPo: Obama's 'Small Town' Slam Framed as Republican Attack?
By Warner Todd Huston | April 12, 2008 - 13:48 ET

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's "The Fix" blog executed an example of political gymnastics so amazing for its twisting of reality that it boggles the mind. He actually turned comments by Barack Obama from a dissing of "small town" America to one highlighting how mean Republicans are. You heard me right. Obama's comments had absolutely nothing to do with the GOP, yet Cillizza was somehow able to take his derogatory comments against the American heartland and turn it all into a discussion on how Republicans will attack the Democrat candidate! Talk about a bending over backwards to use an Obama gaff to attack Republicans, this one takes the cake and shows how in the tank for Obama Chris Cillizza seems to be.

So, as you may be aware by now, at an appearance in San Francisco where Obama was talking to some far left-wing California donors, he basically said that small town Americans are racist, gun-nuts who are religious fanatics and who just don't get it.

"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. 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."

So, small town, Midwest America is filled with hateful religious, anti-immigrant, gun-nuts, eh Barack? How more harsh can a candidate be against people he wants to vote for him? Who can deny that this is a pretty bald and mean-spirited statement from the vaunted candidate of love and peace?

So, how should we discuss this incident? Should we talk about all the Democrats in small town America that Barack offended? Should we talk about how Barack is obviously only aiming his message at extremist liberals that have disdain for most Americans?

Not for Cillizza. No, for him this is not the time to chastise Barack Obama for his elitist hatred of the folks who live in America's heartland. No, for Cillizza it is time to point a finger at the nasty ol' Republicans and screech that Obama's gaffe is a perfect example of how Republicans will be MEAN to him!

Cillizza's headline for his piece was "Republicans Quickly Pounce on Obama Remarks," as if the only thing to Obama's remark was how the nasty Republicans would treat it. His initial post before the update started like this:

If Democrats are wondering what awaits Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) this fall if he becomes the party's presidential nominee, the events of the past few hours should serve as something of a guide.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-...ublican-attack

[actsnoblemartin]

no no

this is it


republicans slam 2nd coming of jesus

attacks on obama are all racist, because blacks are perfect and whites are scum

new york times

written by american hating, white guilt liberal

From the liberal media and their defense of Obama


WaPo: Obama's 'Small Town' Slam Framed as Republican Attack?
By Warner Todd Huston | April 12, 2008 - 13:48 ET

Chris Cillizza of the Washington Post's "The Fix" blog executed an example of political gymnastics so amazing for its twisting of reality that it boggles the mind. He actually turned comments by Barack Obama from a dissing of "small town" America to one highlighting how mean Republicans are. You heard me right. Obama's comments had absolutely nothing to do with the GOP, yet Cillizza was somehow able to take his derogatory comments against the American heartland and turn it all into a discussion on how Republicans will attack the Democrat candidate! Talk about a bending over backwards to use an Obama gaff to attack Republicans, this one takes the cake and shows how in the tank for Obama Chris Cillizza seems to be.

So, as you may be aware by now, at an appearance in San Francisco where Obama was talking to some far left-wing California donors, he basically said that small town Americans are racist, gun-nuts who are religious fanatics and who just don't get it.

"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. 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."

So, small town, Midwest America is filled with hateful religious, anti-immigrant, gun-nuts, eh Barack? How more harsh can a candidate be against people he wants to vote for him? Who can deny that this is a pretty bald and mean-spirited statement from the vaunted candidate of love and peace?

So, how should we discuss this incident? Should we talk about all the Democrats in small town America that Barack offended? Should we talk about how Barack is obviously only aiming his message at extremist liberals that have disdain for most Americans?

Not for Cillizza. No, for him this is not the time to chastise Barack Obama for his elitist hatred of the folks who live in America's heartland. No, for Cillizza it is time to point a finger at the nasty ol' Republicans and screech that Obama's gaffe is a perfect example of how Republicans will be MEAN to him!

Cillizza's headline for his piece was "Republicans Quickly Pounce on Obama Remarks," as if the only thing to Obama's remark was how the nasty Republicans would treat it. His initial post before the update started like this:

If Democrats are wondering what awaits Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) this fall if he becomes the party's presidential nominee, the events of the past few hours should serve as something of a guide.


http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-...ublican-attack

[red states rule]

Obama's second biggest supporter (MFM is his biggest) is now worried about the PA primary


Chris's 'Concern': Hillary Will Over-Perform in PA
By Mark Finkelstein | April 11, 2008 - 21:01 ET


Not that it comes as a surprise, but should Chris Matthews reveal his pro-Obama rooting interest as blatantly as he did today?

On this evening's Hardball, the man who gets a thrill from Barack expressed "concern" that Hillary might have a stronger-than-expected finish in the Pennsylvania Dem primary. Matthews was reading the tea leaves with two Keystone State pros: Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer and veteran journalist Larry Kane. After Kane reported that the Obama people are more optimistic than they're letting on, and believe it's going to be a "close finish," Matthews let his Obama slip show in this exchange with Polman.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Where are you on this? Can you go, Dick, and say it's about eight points [for Hillary] or you can't do that?

DICK POLMAN: Well, I'm thinking, after New Hampshire, who wants to predict anything? [enough already: NH was three months ago!] But I'm still thinking modest single digits. I think the longer, this is a long campaign here, seven or eight weeks, and I think that helps Obama. It helps him to get known here, like Iowa.

That's when Matthews expressed his pro-Obama angst.

MATTHEWS: I think these undecided votes are undecided Hillary votes. That's my concern and my belief. I think that's what's going on. I think it's going to be a wider spread for Hillary. Because I think these undecided people, I'm looking at all the polls and I can't see the numbers get above 41 for Obama. If I were his people I'd be worried, because people aren't willing to commit publicly, even to pollsters. If 41 is as high as he can get with the polling, he's not going to get much higher on election day.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...ver-perform-pa

[actsnoblemartin]

if obama were hitler, he'd be saying zeif heil. thats how big a hack and a biased dork Mathews is

Obama's second biggest supporter (MFM is his biggest) is now worried about the PA primary


Chris's 'Concern': Hillary Will Over-Perform in PA
By Mark Finkelstein | April 11, 2008 - 21:01 ET


Not that it comes as a surprise, but should Chris Matthews reveal his pro-Obama rooting interest as blatantly as he did today?

On this evening's Hardball, the man who gets a thrill from Barack expressed "concern" that Hillary might have a stronger-than-expected finish in the Pennsylvania Dem primary. Matthews was reading the tea leaves with two Keystone State pros: Dick Polman of the Philadelphia Inquirer and veteran journalist Larry Kane. After Kane reported that the Obama people are more optimistic than they're letting on, and believe it's going to be a "close finish," Matthews let his Obama slip show in this exchange with Polman.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Where are you on this? Can you go, Dick, and say it's about eight points [for Hillary] or you can't do that?

DICK POLMAN: Well, I'm thinking, after New Hampshire, who wants to predict anything? [enough already: NH was three months ago!] But I'm still thinking modest single digits. I think the longer, this is a long campaign here, seven or eight weeks, and I think that helps Obama. It helps him to get known here, like Iowa.

That's when Matthews expressed his pro-Obama angst.

MATTHEWS: I think these undecided votes are undecided Hillary votes. That's my concern and my belief. I think that's what's going on. I think it's going to be a wider spread for Hillary. Because I think these undecided people, I'm looking at all the polls and I can't see the numbers get above 41 for Obama. If I were his people I'd be worried, because people aren't willing to commit publicly, even to pollsters. If 41 is as high as he can get with the polling, he's not going to get much higher on election day.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-fi...ver-perform-pa

[red states rule]

More from the liberal media and Chris

Matthews Accuses Clintons of 'Blaming the Ref'
By Justin McCarthy | April 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET

NBC News has grown so pro-Obama that their coverage of the 2008 election has become rabidly anti-Clinton. Matt Lauer began his interview with Chris Matthews by highlighting Bill Clinton’s revival of the Hillary Clinton sniper controversy and the former president’s inaccurate defense of his wife’s inaccurate statement. Matthews even brought up Clinton’s notorious line "it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is."

Moving on to the Clinton camp’s complaints about media coverage, Matthews drew a sports analogy that "when your losing you blame the ref. When you’re winning you don’t." Matthews, who claimed to have a "thrill running up [his] leg" when he hears Obama speak, is hardly a referee in this game.

At the end, Matthews did offer kind words to John McCain opining he has a good reputation and has "been fighting for this country all these years."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-...ns-blaming-ref

[actsnoblemartin]

nbc has such a hard on for obama, its about to burst

More from the liberal media and Chris

Matthews Accuses Clintons of 'Blaming the Ref'
By Justin McCarthy | April 11, 2008 - 14:27 ET

NBC News has grown so pro-Obama that their coverage of the 2008 election has become rabidly anti-Clinton. Matt Lauer began his interview with Chris Matthews by highlighting Bill Clinton’s revival of the Hillary Clinton sniper controversy and the former president’s inaccurate defense of his wife’s inaccurate statement. Matthews even brought up Clinton’s notorious line "it depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is."

Moving on to the Clinton camp’s complaints about media coverage, Matthews drew a sports analogy that "when your losing you blame the ref. When you’re winning you don’t." Matthews, who claimed to have a "thrill running up [his] leg" when he hears Obama speak, is hardly a referee in this game.

At the end, Matthews did offer kind words to John McCain opining he has a good reputation and has "been fighting for this country all these years."

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-...ns-blaming-ref

[red states rule]

nbc has such a hard on for obama, its about to burst

Almost as big as MFM's

[red states rule]

Why do libs have such a low opinion of rural voters? Now another lib comes out and smears rural folks



Alan Colmes Agrees With Obama: Middle America is Full of Xenophobes
By Warner Todd Huston | April 13, 2008 - 00:18 ET

And now to add to the ever-lengthening list of Obamessiah apologists comes TV and Radio talker Alan Colmes to say that Barack Obama is right, Middle America IS filled with racist, overly religious, gun-nuts.

On his LiberalLand blog (the formerly secret blog he was hiding from the greater world), Sean Hannity's co-host said the following:

And just where is he wrong? Pointing out why people may be bitter or frustrated, that there is xenophobia, that people sometimes cling to religion or feel paranoid about the government and embrace guns doesn’t mean you hate or disdain a portion of the population.

First of all people do not "cling" to guns and religion because of what a government does or does not do. It is especially demeaning to people's religious sentiment to say that government is their reason for "clinging" to their religion. And secondly, Obama did not mean to say that people were merely frustrated. He was clearly trying to paint Middle America as racist, gun-nuts that were too stupid to understand what was going on around them.

for the complete article

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/warner-...ull-xenophobes

[Abbey Marie]

How sad that Obama sees religion as nothing more than a crutch for those who have nothing. Not an expression of true faith and love for our Creator. Obama's belief that people "cling to religion out of frustration", explains why he would stay at that hate-filled racist church for 20 years. It is now crystal clear that Obama's Christianity is something, shall we say, less than sincere.

If I were to guess, I would say that he went there because it was the local church best suited to give him strong political connections, and because it supported his and his wife's scorn for "white America".