Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« And Now, "Bitter" as an Attack... | Proof that Seattle is a Hotbed... »

Monday, April 14, 2008

Re: Re: Cling States

posted by on April 14 at 15:53 PM

As a former Hillary delegate, I Slogged yesterday about how sloppy Obama’s quotes from San Francisco were.

So, Annie, a current Obama delegate, asked: “Were you personally offfended by Obama’s statement?”

I don’t see the relevance of the question. It doesn’t matter if I’m offended or not. I live in Seattle, where, as Annie noted, Democrats just passed a Dept. of Peace plank to the party platform. (!)

My point was that Obama’s condescending quote about clinging to religion and guns will be great ammunition for the GOP in important swing states like Virginia and Minnesota (where weekly church attendance is above the national average) and in Colorado, which has some seriously lax gun laws.

So, whether I’m offended or not is irrelevant. After all, I’m not offended by this quote either:

This state and this society produce religion, which is an inverted consciousness of the world … Religion is the general theory of this world … and its universal basis of consolation and justification. It is the fantastic realization of the human essence since the human essence has not acquired any true reality. Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.

That’s Karl Marx, from 1843. I guess I just don’t think copping Marxist critiques of America is a particularly good presidential campaign strategy.

Seriously, though, what really bugs me about the Obama quote is this: He goes to church. So, does he attribute his churchgoing habits to economic alienation? No, he does not. In fact, he explained his churchgoing in The Audacity of Hope by saying it meshed with his critical thinking abilities rather than distracting from them: “Religious commitment did not require me to suspend critical thinking…”

What’s so special about him that he doesn’t cling to religion but rather sees it as a meaningful mechanism to “spur social change” (as he also explains in The Audacity of Hope) ?

Ohio, Virginia, Minnesota, and Colorado are going to want to know.

RSS icon Comments


Josh Feit = Bill Kristol.

Need anyone say more?

Posted by elenchos | April 14, 2008 4:01 PM

Wow is Bill Kristol writing for Slog now? Because he used that exact same bullshit comparison.

It didn't fly from him and it doesn't fly now. It's a pathetic attempt to take a statement of fact and spin it into a scandal. It has failed completely, yet people like yourself continue to make attempts. Give it up. We midwesterners (I'm from Michigan) ARE bitter and a lot of us HAVE given up on the issue of the economy and cling instead to the issues of guns, religion, gay marriage, et cetera. Obama was stating a fact, and the pathetic Hillary supporters have tried to use it as a last pathetic gasp to try to turn the tides and make her the nominee.

We don't want her, she won't be the nominee. Give it up, loser.

Posted by Dave M | April 14, 2008 4:02 PM

I have said it before...Obama is quickly becoming the newest version of John Kerry. Urban, Northerner, Elitist, Condescending, etc.

Yes, we here in Seattle all love to vote for smart people but obviously there are a lot of people out there in the world who don't.

They like to vote for the dumb frat boy prodigal son (GW), the anti intellectual cowboy (Reagan), and even the good ole boy bubba (Bill Clinton).

I have a theory about these people. They will vote for a ballsy smart woman before they will vote for an overly intellectual man. A lot of them marry women who are way frickin' smarter than them so they kinda know these women.

Thus, when you go to the South, lots of moderate working folks will go for the Hillz (but never Obama).

I like Obama but he has to put a quick end into becoming the next Snooty-Overly Intellectual-Condescending Northerner to run for the Democratic nomination (or even more important, to run for Pres)

Posted by I'm Smarter | April 14, 2008 4:03 PM

Oh, for chrissake. Obama's got a built-in defense against that charge: HE'S A CHURCHGOER. Hillary is not. Who's condescending to churchgoers now?

Posted by Fnarf | April 14, 2008 4:05 PM

Obviously you can be religious in different ways. And since nobody thinks that he or she personally clings to religion, or guns, because of the lack of fulfillment in the rest of his/her life, I would hazard that almost no one will be offended by this statement. Obama doesn't believe it applies to him--and presumably it doesn't--just as voters in Virginia and Colorado won't believe it applies to them. People in rural Pennsylvania or Ohio might be offended, as Obama was literally talking about them, but I just want proof. If there was offense, I want you to produce the actual people who were offended.

Posted by annie | April 14, 2008 4:06 PM

OH JESUS CHRIST! Now the "Kerry was too smart" bullshit gets trotted out? People didn't vote for Kerry because he was "too smart". People didn't vote for him because A) He failed completely to provide a good reason to do so other than he wasn't Bush, and B) He came off as a douchebag. For the record I did vote for Kerry, I supported his campaign, but the failing was his (though I still doubt he legitimately lost Ohio.)

Trying to blame the rest of the country for being -- what -- afraid of smart people? You're an asshole.

Obama is far more popular than Kerry was, and he will very likely win the Presidency for us, thoguh I am ashamed to share a party with people like "I'm smarter" and Mr. Feit.

Posted by Dave M | April 14, 2008 4:06 PM

Jesus told me he loves Obama, this I know.

So he should have no problem with the religious vote.

Posted by kingchiron | April 14, 2008 4:07 PM

Um, as someone who has lived in Minnesota for the past decade, I just want to say that Obama has a much better chance winning this state that Hillary or McCain. While people go to church and like to hunt, Obama's overall message resonates with them much more than Hillary's attempt to further divide and talk down to voters.

Again, were are the actual people who are offended by Obama's comments - the people who were turned off by his recent comments?

Posted by In MN | April 14, 2008 4:08 PM

OK, so you acknowledge that this ultimately isn't about whether he's right or wrong, but whether he'll get in trouble for it. Whatever. Will you feel better if it turns out nothing changes, then?

Clay Richards, who runs the Quinnipiac University Polling Institute’s Pennsylvania poll, said he doesn’t expect his poll [of likely PA Democratic primary voters] that will be published Tuesday to show much difference from the last one, which had a Clinton lead of six points. “I don’t see that much movement in Pennsylvania myself,” Mr. Richards said by phone from Harrisburg on Monday ... Both pollsters agreed that Sen. Obama hasn’t been hurt much by his remarks about small-town Pennsylvania voters last week. Mr. Bennett said few respondents mentioned them.

We'll see next week, I guess.

Posted by tsm | April 14, 2008 4:09 PM

did yall hear that the bat shit crazy Maoist won in Nepal? The Tibet goverment in exile is screwed now.

i know, i know, off topic.

Posted by SeMe | April 14, 2008 4:12 PM

Why is Obama's church going different from others' "clinging" to religion? I guess he's trying to make the claim that people shouldn't vote for a political candidate based on that candidate's religious declarations. And I guess that he's trying to say that people fall back on that when there is a lack of debate about real issues and no "hope" of real change. That's all I read from his statement. Luckily, I read his statement... and not just yours, or else I would be getting nothing but sensationalized re-interpretation.

Posted by John At Work | April 14, 2008 4:13 PM

I'm voting for Josh Feit/Erica Barnett.

Posted by Nessus | April 14, 2008 4:14 PM

I'd hazard a guess that the very people that elitist pricks like Feit think were offended, simply weren't. And, I'm basically operating from the same standpoint as Feit is by speculating. I agree with #2 and the above poster asking where these people are...whatever a Seattle snob thinks about the "cling" quote, the fact is people do cling to the issues they're familiar with in times of crisis. The enlightened Seattle elite just has a hard time thinking Guns and God would be those things. But that's why they live in the navel-gazing echo chamber that is Seattle.

Posted by huh | April 14, 2008 4:14 PM

I hate American elections. Belgium sounds promising.

Posted by Abby | April 14, 2008 4:16 PM

I'm Smarter - there seems to be no hint of irony or self deprecation in the juxtaposition of your self proclaimed "title" and your comments, which makes it neither very smart nor very funny. Just a side note.

Here's another issue: Barak never said "sorry". He has still yet to apologize.

What the heck are people talking about here - "he's so smart this, he's so smart that - people don't like smart people - we're all victims, see you at starbucks". Fine, whatever. He said a dumb, DUUUUUUUMB comment, because he thought it was in "private"? there are SO many dumb things about that.

THis is "HOT FODDER" for networks and the news this week. this has NOT gone away. It will be fun to see how his bunker of 'brains' gets him out of this.

Opinion: sleep. everyone in that campaign is totally sleep deprived making them privy to dumb comments.

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 4:19 PM

damn. beaten to the bill kristol quotes.
even sullivan called bs on that one:

Posted by chops | April 14, 2008 4:20 PM

Newsflash: BHO is a wolf in sheep's clothing. HRC won this thing weeks ago anyway...

Posted by fluteprof | April 14, 2008 4:22 PM

That's simply not Obama's argument. You're misreading him completely.

He wasn't saying people would give up religion if they had better jobs, or that they wouldn't use guns anymore. He was saying that they would be less inclined to politicize their personal choices, to engage in divisive forms of cultural politics, if they felt more economically secure. You're berating him for something he never said.

But you're right that such misrepresentations could hurt Obama in November. No thanks to Hillary and her supporters for fanning the flames of this willful misreading.

Posted by Trevor | April 14, 2008 4:29 PM

fluteprof, are you still going to put up your rebate cheque against mine?

Posted by Bellevue Ave | April 14, 2008 4:30 PM

Not only did you lift your stupid post from the editorical of a right wing strategist, but you also idiotically assume that the Marx quote must me completely wrong. Why? "cuz oh noes, Marx is evil communist? Mayb Obama communist to!" Give me a fucking break.

Why don't you actually try to think outside evil versus good politics for once? Or is that too hard? Republican strategy supplants and gradually becomes Clinton strategy, and you actually think you're smart for playing your part.

Even if this tenuous connection is right, there's nothing wrong with that Marx quote, and nothing inherently "red" about it. You're barking up the wrong tree.

Posted by Jay | April 14, 2008 4:36 PM

i agree with fnarf (and obama). in the end, who's the authentic candidate on this issue? clinton and obama are probably the same on guns, and obama is probably more religious. so this does not spin to favor. no kidding she doesn't want to answer when the last time she shot a gun or went to church wasat this time (though she did slip in that she attended an easter service -- no news on the gun front).

but what obama stated is not a fact. perhaps some people cling to religion and guns out of bitterness, whatever you spin that mean. but most people of faith do not like to have their belief system trivialized in this way. to have a politician say why one chooses to go to church is condescending.

it is not a case of, "the truth hurts", because it is not the truth. it is not a fact. it is at best an opinion. and at best, not a very welcome opinion at that.

Posted by infrequent | April 14, 2008 4:37 PM

people...trevor...elenchos...people...he said "X" in san francisco - im not going to post it here, again. but are we all referncing the same quote? its the quote the media is talking about - the quote that he said, hence it was quoted. now that we have that straight....(so,we're still on that quote) is that being misread? its as clear as it can be - just chillin' in private - here's how it is. honesty. great. but how is his comment being "MISREAD" - are you fking dry humping me? His RESPONSE...that should be held in contempt / suspect more than any jumping on his comments by his opponents should be.

if this gets 'fanned' in the media its because he didn't grab the comment by the horns, say SORRY..say "you know was a DUMB comment. I am sorry. no ifs ands or asses about it...i am sorry. furthermore, here is how I feel" and use his brilliance fromt here on out.

but no. so now its getting fanned. have you turned on the tv today? its ALL OVER the place.

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 4:38 PM

Yeah Raymond, you got it all figured out! Regular fucking Einstein over here!

Posted by Jay | April 14, 2008 4:39 PM

Argument A: If someone clings to religion, they go to church. Obama goes to church. Therefore Obama clings to religion?


Argument B: If someone is bitter about the economy, they cling to religion. Obama clings to religion (by A). Therefore Obama is bitter about the economy?

Josh, this is called 'affirming the consequent', and it's a logical fallacy.

(Fuck, I'm on a roll today.)

Posted by w7ngman | April 14, 2008 4:40 PM

@15 I started using this title about a week ago on a post that did include self deprecating humor and a good sense of irony. Just as a side note.

My point is simple. I went down South recently and was surprised to find that Hillary is not the one people down there consider divisive. Instead they had a very strong negative gut reaction to Obama.

I spent a lot of time asking questions and here is an overly simplistic analysis of what I came away with...

1. For at least some of these folks, they are racist assholes (but that is not the whole story)to varying degree.

2. The John Kerry factor (Obama is an intellectual elitist and can come across as condescending)

3. They will put up more with an uppity woman than an uppity man (esp. one with a good ole boy bubba for a hubby). I account for this because a lot of successful Southern men have wives who are smarter than them (GW for instance, although he is carpetbagger and not a true Southerner).

4. If they have to have a Democrat as Pres, they would take Hillary over Barak because they think she will be 'stronger and tougher'.

My bigger point is that Obama needs to be a little more careful about his audience. He is running for President every time he talks now. He needs to be more careful about not coming across as snobby and condescending.

I like Obama and think he will be the next President and I would like to actually see him able to go in strong and get something done. (I voted for Hillary because I think she has a better chance of achieving my political agenda once she gets in)

Posted by I'm Smarter | April 14, 2008 4:48 PM

over here, not there, jay

jay, you disagree? what are you saying? he shouldn't say sorry or apologize?

Posted by raymond | April 14, 2008 4:50 PM

"Ohio, Virginia, Minnesota, and Colorado are going to want to know."

Speaking of sloppy quotes...Are these states monolithic sentient entities? Or do you object to a reader analyzing each phoneme of your sentence in isolation from its neighbors?

Posted by Smade | April 14, 2008 5:02 PM

It's amazing to watch you people work yourselves into a frenzy about something that you have absolutely no control over.

Posted by Gary Seven | April 14, 2008 5:04 PM

Wow Feit, swing and MISS, badly. You are either being blinded by your crush on HRC or just plain too stupid to understand what Obama was saying. He isnt saying people who go to Church do so because they are bitter. He is saying that people who are bitter VOTE with things like church-goin and guns on their minds. He is explaining why poor whites will consistnatly vote against their economic best interests to support the gun-totin God humping candidates who appeal to their fears and angst. I seriously dont think it was too nuanced even for YOU to understand.

Posted by longball | April 14, 2008 5:06 PM

This just in. . .


Oh, if only Obama hadn't said this one sentence in San Francisco. Now the Republicans have an entirely new and effective strategy that they never would have even thought of! After all, if Clinton were the nominee, the Republicans would have nothing bad to say about her. Now every single voter in the midwest will obey their masters at FOX News and rush to support McCain, because, well, because this one sentence of Obama's has completely changed the entire election.

Posted by kk | April 14, 2008 5:07 PM

Didn't Karl Marx go to church in spite of his anti-church views. Opium still feels good, and many many many people have a dual academic and personal relationship to their faith. It still FEELS comforting to have some higher power looking out for you or have some connection to it.

Posted by OR Matt | April 14, 2008 5:14 PM

One problem here is the assumption that the Clinton campaign seems to have made that the Republicans will not tar her with the same 'elitist' brush if she becomes the nominee. We have seen this exact same strategy for the last several decades. The difference is in how the candidate responds to it. Kerry had his disastrous duck hunting episode- which was definitely the wrong move. Clinton has had her fair share of 'elitist' moments as well. Heck, if she was the front runner right now the Republican spin machine would be going after her for her 'flip-flop' on gun control. I don't know how Obama will play in Peoria, but I do think he has shown capability in handling the attacks.

Posted by Tanya | April 14, 2008 5:19 PM

I don't think anyone has adequately captured Obama's dig at the Clintons in his comment. He was not saying that people cling to guns and religion becuase they're economically insecure. He was saying they do that because they've been lied to and abandoned by both the Bush and Clinton administrations. At least when they vote their guns, the gun-lobby politicians deliver. Obama implied that voting for the Clintons was not in their self-interest because the Clintons did not deliver--they got NAFTA and lost their manufacturing jobs. So (unlike many commentators have stated) these folks are not voting against their self-interest--neither the Bushes nor the Clintons have represented their self-interest. Since there was no difference to them between a Clinton or a Bush administration as far as their manufacturing jobs were concerned, they voted on who best represented their other interests. Their voting pattern has not been irrational or stupid at all--it has, sadly, been extremely rational.

Posted by kansas | April 14, 2008 5:21 PM

It's basic logic, Josh. Obama said that people in economically depressed areas turn to religion. That does not mean that everyone who turns to religion is doing so for economic reasons. Is that really all that hard to understand?

Posted by also | April 14, 2008 5:21 PM

One of the reasons that both Feit and Kristol misread Marx (not to mention Obama) is that opium in the 1840's was pretty much the only pain killer there was. You kept it at home and if you were hurting, it was opium or booze. He was not saying "Church folks is on crack!" He did not mean they were like drug addicts. He was not calling religion a delusion. He was calling it the cure for what ails you.

Marx was saying that the church was the only medicine that people had. So yes, he meant it was comforting, but that does not mean he meant it was merely comforting, or that it was phony and fraught with terrible side effects the way we think of hard drugs.

Posted by elenchos | April 14, 2008 5:24 PM

@29... hmmm... poor people don't even like being called poor. they might realize they are poor. they might themselves say that they are poor. but they might not like it when some rich guy comes along and says they are poor.

josh is saying if obama can see a good reason for going to church, why does obama suppose others are going to church for a bad reason. and, yes, going to church because you are bitter -- even if that really really is the reason -- is a "bad" reason to go.

Posted by infrequent | April 14, 2008 5:25 PM

He never said they go to church for a bad reason. But now I understand why you were offended.

Posted by elenchos | April 14, 2008 5:28 PM

#30 hits the nail on the head.

Except that the Republicans don't really need to do anything. The Democrats appear to be in a desperate race to smear themselves. Nice plan!

Posted by Monty | April 14, 2008 5:29 PM

You know how you open your mouth and next thing you know you're in a horrible fight with your girlfriend? I do that all the time. Sure it's partly because I'm a jerk but still these things happen. First you apologize and then you explain because even though it was insensitive you didn't really mean that she was stupid/fat/lazy/dirty/obnoxious or however it was taken.

The attack ads are brutal but hardly definitive. He needs to come out and apologize and explain and move on. This isn't the end of the world. It's just crap. I think he can deal, he better be able to. He better be able to deal better than Kerry! (FWIW it's not even as bad as Kerry's "you go to Iraq" clinker, though that *was* definitive.)

Anyway, the religion part isn't even the worst of it. There's nothing wrong with "clinging" to religion in hard times. What's worse is that he says "guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment" which puts religion in some pretty dubious company.

The GE will come and let's see what happens when McCain is being engaged.

Posted by daniel | April 14, 2008 5:32 PM

Josh, the Hillary supporter (who didn't disclose his bias at first), attacks the honest and more-electable Democrat AGAIN?

Josh, your credibility is officially at an end. Bye bye.

Posted by Miles | April 14, 2008 5:34 PM

#4...ummm...Hillary is a churchgoer.

I think it's funny that Obama talks about hope and change but he can't quit smoking. It's not necessarily that smokers are bad, I just think that if you are trying to convince people that you can change the country that you can change your addiction to nicotine.

Posted by sugamama | April 14, 2008 5:36 PM

i guess that's partially what's up for debate: is going to church because you are bitter a bad reason to go.

as i understand the explanation of his statement, it sounds like a reasonable thing to say. but when you first hear the quotation, it kind of rubs you the wrong way. this may be something to those who already have doubts about obama. @39 hits on something that contributes to that, which is the company religion keeps in the sentence.

Posted by infrequent | April 14, 2008 5:39 PM

there are 2 quotes: the 1st is the longer, more thoughtful, and harder to take offense at statement, and the 2nd is a boiled down version of the 1st that lacks nuance.

obama's problem is that he's using words, and words scare americans. americans no like smart people! he should stop talking until the convention. just stand at the podium, wave, & look pretty.

Posted by max solomon the unapologetic elitist | April 14, 2008 5:55 PM


So he went to synagogue?

They will vote for a ballsy smart woman before they will vote for an overly intellectual man. A lot of them marry women who are way frickin' smarter than them so they kinda know these women.

Huh? Anti-intellectual men like ballsy, smart women? Huh?

Posted by keshmeshi | April 14, 2008 6:02 PM

Ash karh durbatuluuk
Ash kash gimbatul
Ash kash thrakatuluuk
Agh burzum-ishi krimpatul

Posted by Sauron | April 14, 2008 6:09 PM

@30: I think you're totally right. The endless primary campaign and spin cycle isn't helping anyone but no one speech is important as we make it out to be.

Our attention span as a nation is sadly very short.

Posted by Dawgson | April 14, 2008 6:28 PM

Actually I think Michigan, Pennsylvania, Idaho, Wyoming, and Montana might want to know, but come man... Minnesota? The bluest state in the nation? who are you kidding.

Posted by apttitle | April 14, 2008 6:44 PM

Lessons Learned:

1. Democrats need to be authentic without being snobby when it comes to religion, patriotism, etc.

2. The electability issue is a red herring. Both candidates are divisive to large portions of the population so we'd be better off if we stopped trying to second guess who is more palatable and just vote for the candidate we think is best on policies and effectiveness.

3. McCain has said WAY worse things with very little fanfare (eg. his comments about the 100 year war in Iraq and his admittance that he does not know a lot about the economy). We need to ask why?

Posted by Ruby Flippers | April 14, 2008 6:46 PM

I suspect you don't want to answer the question because you know Obama is right in his quote. Just answer the question. It is relevant and not answering it is a pussy move.

Posted by Suz | April 14, 2008 6:47 PM

@44 - Yes! I know a lot of men like this. These are today's versions of 'men don't eat quiche'. The like football and fart jokes. They are successful former frat boys who are 'purposely anti-intellectual'. They are folksy and charasmatic and they had all of the advantages. They went to college. They met smart wives. We all know these guys.

Posted by Dude! | April 14, 2008 6:58 PM

Yes, all those small town midwesterners who have seen the pride of their communities die in Iraq and Afghanistan are going to vote against Obama because he mispoke. The one nice thing about the campaign is that Obama has now traveled to most states in the U.S. As such, the ability to try to falsely present him simply falls by the wayside because folks don't have to rely on the chattering classes and the hand wringers to get a good take on him. Those of you who don't see that he's the best candidate I've seen in the last three decades aren't looking very hard. lifetime.

Posted by Mike in Iowa | April 14, 2008 7:02 PM

Thomas Frank makes the same neo-Marxist point about religion in What's the Matter with Kansas? With the word cling. The thing is, Thomas Frank isn't running for President, so he can do it and get good reviews.

The real question is when will Hillary quit so we can move on and start asking why crazy old John McCain doesn't seem to know the difference between Osama Bin Laden and the Dalai Lama?

Posted by collie | April 14, 2008 8:02 PM

Hi everyone, I'm Karl Marx. Engels is in the back room shitting on pictures of Bismark and then lighting the shit on fire. Hope he doesn't explode his own farts!

Anyway, I fucking hate Obama. Yesterday my friend Nils the shoeshine boy from Bonn told me that Obama was cribbing my mojo, to frame the issue in the terms of a suitably contemporary patois. He was saying that when jobs vanish people turn to religion. Yeah muthafucka bizznatch! They see me rollin', they HATIN', mothafuckas!

But just like Engels, Obama took a turd all over a perfect picture. Did he say es gibt kein Gott? Did he say Gott ist tot? Did he say the big G lost a lawsuit to Denny Crane and had to sell his house, this stale prominatory? No. HE GOES TO CHURCH! Fucker! And did he say, religion is your opiate because government cannot and will not intervene? NO! He said government should intervene! He's delaying the eventual revolution! He's allowing the inherent unjustice of the lazy unfair system (you guys don't speak French anymore, right?) to propagate themselves and giving you a bandaid where he should be giving you a shotgun and scissors big enough for Dick Cheney's balls. (Jesus! The pendulum in a grandfather clock!)

It's not just that's he's not a full on Marxist. It's that he implied it was OKAY to cling to religion so long as you don't shut out the promise of better living through active government. He thinks they're COMPATIBLE. Fucker. Assmunch. Ni-- what Engels? Why is there a picture of me in your wife's clothing in with the Bismark shots? Why do I have your tie wrapped my cock? Why is your wife wearing nothing but a g-string around her neck?

Why do you think they call it a Hot Karl?


Posted by Karl Marx | April 14, 2008 8:03 PM

Mike in Iowa knows the score.

Posted by some dude | April 14, 2008 8:52 PM

Okay, I got something totally different with that quote. Didn't he say they were promised the jobs would come back by Bush/Clinton/Bush and they didn't? So that made them bitter? I took that to mean bitter at both parties and their failure to deliver on economics. So, lacking an economic incentive from either party they "cling" to the social issues: guns, God, gays (okay he didn't mention gays--just immigrants and "people that are different").

I never took it to mean people were "bitter" so that suddenly makes them religious. Rather, seeing no difference between the parties on influencing their paycheck, they cast their embittered ballots on the social issues.

Posted by Jason | April 14, 2008 9:17 PM

Have folks looked at the polls in Penn lately? The race has gone from a blow-out to incredibly close.

Posted by thefacts | April 15, 2008 3:34 AM

Obama's a closet atheist. Which is why I'll vote for him.

Posted by Atheist | April 15, 2008 6:30 AM

What a load of horse manure.

Obama's comment was right on and bneeded to be said. What is condescending about saying that in teimes of crisis small town folk turn to their tradions ... guns, god eta l because they can not turn to the third g, government?

I do not here any condescension here, what O heard was a crticique of go0vernment for not being there when the people needed them.

Posted by SeattleJew | April 15, 2008 8:30 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).