SUBSCRIBE NOW WELCOME BACK. Do you want to continue reading where you left off? New Republic subscribers can pick up where they left off no matter which device they were previously using. SUBSCRIBE NOW

Go Home Woe Is He

POLITICS APRIL 15, 2008

Woe Is He

BY JOHN B. JUDIS

Some liberal commentators have downplayed the effect of Barack Obama’s fundraising speech at a San Francisco fundraiser last week. But that’s wishful thinking. Along with the revelations about Obama’s pastor Jeremiah Wright, his remarks in San Francisco will haunt him not only in the upcoming primaries in Pennsylvania, Indiana, Kentucky, and West Virginia, but also in the general election against John McCain, assuming he gets the Democratic nomination.

To win in November, a Democratic presidential candidate has to carry most of the industrial heartland states that stretch from Pennsylvania to Missouri. That becomes even more imperative if a Democrat can’t carry Florida--and because of his relative weakness in South Florida, Obama is unlikely to do so against McCain. Ruy Teixeira and I have calculated that in the heartland states, a Democratic presidential candidate has to win from 45 to 48 percent of the white working class vote. In some states, like West Virginia and Kentucky, the percentage is well over a majority.

Some Democrats insist that Obama need not worry about these states because he will be able to make up for a defeat in Ohio or even Pennsylvania with a victory in Virginia or Colorado. But in Virginia, McCain will be able to draw upon coastal suburbanites closely tied to the military. These voters backed Democrats like Chuck Robb and Jim Webb, who are both veterans, but they may not go for Obama. And in the Southwest, McCain will be able to challenge Obama among Hispanics. So to win in November, Obama will have to win almost all of these heartland states. Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters “clinging” to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region. A look at the white working class’s relationship with earlier Democratic candidates underscores the various reasons why.

 

Many white working class voters in these states used to be loyal Democrats. The last two successful Democratic presidential candidates, Jimmy Carter in 1976 and Bill Clinton in 1992 and 1996, swept Ohio, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Missouri. Many of these voters have always been highly patriotic, church-going hunters who were skeptical about the benefits of trade and immigration and--what Obama did not mention--black political assertiveness. But they still distrust Republicans as the defenders of business and look up to Democrats (or at least some Democrats) as being more in tune with average Americans like themselves.

Democrats have won over these voters when their advantage on the economy has come to the fore. And they’ve lost these voters when their positions on the economy--or national security--were not sufficiently compelling to overcome the Republican advantage on social issues like abortion, gay marriage, or gun control. Why? Because with the exception of a few rabid single-issue voters, the white working class hasn’t simply displaced its economic anxiety, or bitterness, onto God, guns, and gay marriage; they’re actually quite concerned about the economy.

Historically, there are three circumstances in which Democrats have been able to win over these voters:

The Unacceptable Republican: Republicans have run candidates with whom white working class voters have not been able to identity--either because of their backgrounds, beliefs, or actions. In 2006 that was obviously true of Ohio gubernatorial candidate Ken Blackwell--an African American and a far right zealot--and Montana Senator Conrad Burns, who was linked to former super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff.

The Acceptable Democrat: The Democrats have sometimes run candidates in these states who are sufficiently moderate on guns, abortion, and religion to neutralize the Republican appeal on these issues. That was the case with Pennsylvania pro-life Democratic Senate candidate Bob Casey, who defeated incumbent Rick Santorum in 2006.

The Empathetic Democrat: The Democrats have run a candidate who can connect with these voters in spite of his or her beliefs on abortion and guns. Pollsters try to get at this by asking voters whether a candidate “cares about people like me.” Sometimes, voters will think a candidate cares about them because they think he is “one of them.” Bill Clinton, of course, was a genius at this. He could be the candidate of Hope, Arkansas, and Yale Law School. Other Democrats have succeeded because they have come off as a father (or mother) figure, who, although from the upper class, still cares about the average American.

If you look at the upcoming presidential election in this light, the Democratic prospects do not appear to be good. McCain is an acceptable Republican--a war hero and a reputed moderate. (His greatest inherent liability, which could make him unacceptable regardless of his ideas or background, is his age.) Both Democratic candidates, whatever their protestations, are seen as coming out of the party’s liberal wing on guns and abortion.

That leaves the possibility that these voters will see the Democratic candidate as either “one of them,” or as a father or mother figure who understands their plight. Both candidates clearly have problems on these scores, but Obama’s may be even more severe than Clinton’s. As an African American, he has one strike against him, as has become apparent even in the Democratic primary exit polls. He has tried to appear above race, but he will continually be reminded of his ties to Jeremiah Wright (and his not wearing a flag on his lapel, and his wife’s statements about not being “proud” of America) during a general election.

Obama comes from a modest background and has tried to appeal as a candidate of both Harvard Law School and Chicago’s Back-of-the-Yards, where he organized laid-off steel workers, but he hasn’t been able to pull it off. His manner, his tenor, and his diction are Harvard Law, and when he starts dropping his ‘g’s,” he sounds strained. And Obama is too young, and lacks the stature, to appear as a Franklin Roosevelt-style father figure.

Obama does have an astounding eloquence, and an ability to put a position across, but that eloquence has been reserved largely for anti-war and good-government positions. His stance against the war may resonate (though that will depend on whether McCain’s qualification as commander-in-chief trumps his unpopular stance on the war). But where McCain is most vulnerable and where voters are most likely to smile on a Democrat--on everyday economic issues--Obama’s heart doesn’t appear to be in it.

These difficulties were clear before Obama spoke in San Francisco, but they’re much more glaring now. In the speech, Obama appeared to say that Pennsylvania voters’ opposition to gun control or abortion or immigration or free trade was pathological--a product of what Marxist philosopher Herbert Marcuse once called “false consciousness.” On the other hand, he implied that when he voiced opposition to an issue like free trade--Obama has consistently hammered Clinton on her support for the North American Free Trade Agreement--he was simply pandering to these voters’ displaced anxieties. He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats, “I am really one of you, and I am not one of them.”

There is even a slight chance that Obama’s words in San Francisco could cost him the nomination. Obama is almost certain to have more elected delegates in June than Hillary Clinton, but if he loses Pennsylvania by 15 percentage points (which is not out of the question), that could start a media firestorm around his candidacy that could contribute to other primary defeats and to superdelegate support for Clinton. It’s not likely to happen, but after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters’ hearts, in San Francisco, it has suddenly become conceivable.

John B. Judis is a senior editor at The New Republic and a Visiting Scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS

Show all 219 comments

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

219 comments

Finally, some common sense in Obamania. Obama's coy little game with pretending to be pro- or anti-free trade especially screws him with these, the 2nd most crucial (after hispanics in the southwest battleground states) voting demographic. If/when he stops preening and starts PERSUADING people to back a set of strongly-held views, he'll come through this. But does the Lifestory Candidate, author of not one but two biographies at the ripe old age of 45, even have any strongly-held views?

- teplukhin2you

April 15, 2008 at 12:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Argument by assertion: The New Republic's favorite pastime this election. It's comforting to know that the general consensus here at TNR, *independent of any evidence* (Nice!), is that Obama's "bittergate" is a significant problem for him. Given your recent track record re foretelling the future (I fondly recall your pregame analysis of Hawaii, Virginia, and Wisconsin, for example), we all ought to bet on Obama sending this dog and pony show of Hillary/Rove's to the gutter where it belongs. Talk to some people in small towns about this nonsense. They aren't nearly as stupid as the mindless media (bowed as you all are before the oracle of Rovian cyncism) assume they are. Hillary's whiskey-drinking inauthenticity is blaring in small towns of PA like the old bomb sirens in Baghdad. "Everybody run, millions of tons of Hillary Clinton's bullshit is headed for Carlisle." We all talk about how much we'd like a candidate with some balls. Now we have one. Time for the old dogs to learn some new tricks. Politics is changing. It's not 2004 anymore.

- ralphnelle

April 15, 2008 at 12:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This column is a string of nonsensical assertions and flimsy arguments strung together. It's a thinly veiled and contemptuous polemic claiming with minimal evidence that white people won't vote for Obama. Yes, anybody can figure out that you can't win an election without low-income white people since the majority of people are low-income (as with any society with a right-skewed income distribution) and the majority are white. Why do the authors so breezily assume a loss by Obama in Florida before the man has ever campaigned in that state? And they assume he can't woo regular voters in pretty much the entire midwest (look at his primary numbers in those states by the way -- from Wisconsin to Idaho). They don't acknowledge that one candidate is 100 year old cranky old man with less charm than Bob Dole and the other is a smart, magnetic orator who can energize masses like nobody since Bobby Kennedy. I continue to be baffled at how anyone takes issue with Obama's statement of fact, which is that poor people vote on culturally divisive issues instead of their own economic self-interest. It reminds me of when everyone piled on Howard Dean for saying that Saddam Hussein's capture didn't make us any safer.

- stgla

April 15, 2008 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We don't deserve Obama. He is too smart, too wise, and too honest for this country. who has not befriended someone with nutty ideas, or spoken with one emphasis to one set of listeners and another to another group. get over it. We deserve 4 more years of Republicans because they got us into this mess.

- babs

April 15, 2008 at 12:39am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is an attempt to write the rules after the fact.

- ONE

April 15, 2008 at 1:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yes anything can happen.. but then what would happen to the African-American voters and the young people that Obama has turned on in such numbers or even such "elite" highly educated senior citizens such as my friends and I...I am not sure that many of us wouldn't take a powder... and some of us would even bring ourselves to vote for McCain. And the way you are telling it, I almost hope that is what happens so we don't have to have Hillary running in 2012 saying: "I told you so." Because whatever one does or does not think of Obama some of us have come to loath Hillary for playing out of the Rove play book, taking Obama's strength and by distortion turning it into a weakness. And I am not sure that the democratic party's most loyal electorate will stand still for having the election stolen. For make no mistake about it. That is how it will be perceived.

- Annabella2

April 15, 2008 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But he DIDN'T speak his mind. That's what's so frustrating about this whole thing. He misspoke. He used clumsy stupid phrasing to make a point that's actually fairly sympathetic to working class rural voters: they turn to the things that are solid and that matter when economic times are tough -- family, faith, and cultural traditions. Okay, so they also turn to some less honorable things (antipathy toward outsiders) -- this just shows that he doesn't romanticize the folks he's sympathizing with. Obama has explained this clearly. But predictably, McCain and Clinton are ignoring the correction (which is pretty galling coming from Clinton who wants us to think her thrice repeated Bosnia lie was just her "misspeaking") and they are repeating and hammering the original erroneous formulation. Talk about disingenuous and nasty. What's less predictable and even more galling is that so many commentators are doing the same thing (as above.) And as for the "false consciousness" reading, which is not even close to what Obama was saying, it was Marx himself who made this point. Marcuse focused more on the "false consciousness" produced by commodification and consumeristic pleasures (the proliferating commodities with which, in his eyes, capitalism "buys off" the individuals it oppresses) than with cultural epiphenomena like guns or god. It's the San Franciscans at that fundraiser whose "false consciousness" Marcuse would be dissecting.

- hemlock41

April 15, 2008 at 1:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The unbiased media is missing the conversations we're having at the kitchen table which is fear of Centralized Government not bitterness over lost opportunities. With Bill Richardson (aka Judas) as VP they will have a good chance of carrying the Hispanic vote. so I wouldn't count them out. Kind of hard to rectify NAFTA with the Unions but apparently Barak Hussain Obama and Bill Judas Richardson don't need those bitter folks. Equality at the Expense of Liberty is Communism.

- Gordito Mojito

April 15, 2008 at 1:31am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Uh oh...I hope you're wrong...But it sure looks like "it's that bad"...WHY can't those voters who were alienated by the comment observe that McCain's no answer for them...No plan for jobs for them, for universal healthcare...I hope they're happy w/their guns and their church and a spiraling deficit, and no new jobs, and MORE trade, and more war, less security etc. with McCain...If they vote against those remarks of Obama's and they are as much the needed electorate for the democrat as you say then the country's really in trouble. Hillary's posing, BTW, she's a total pandering poseuse and if those salt-of-the-earth can't see beneath that fake, tissue thin tough-talking veil she wears when it's convenient - they're still gonna suffer if she wins...Why doesn't the Obama campaign run an ad about her past stance on gun control and trade???????????? This is miserable. Blue collar white voters with their guns and their church and their anti-immigrant defenses up will push us further down the road to hell...

- M. Rottman

April 15, 2008 at 1:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Are ou kidding? Obama is not Kerry, Gore, or Dukakis. This isn't 1988, 200, or 2004. Obama is an infinitely better candidate. The war is unpopular, the economy is in the tank, and we are going to elect a Republican for a third straight term? Look at your colleague Zengerle's post and the accompanying speech as well as the countless other brilliant speeched by Obama. http://blogs.tnr.com/tnr/blogs/the_plank/default.aspx

- Ben

April 15, 2008 at 1:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"at a San Francisco fundraiser last week" "his remarks in San Francisco" "before Obama spoke in San Francisco" "He was saying to these upscale San Francisco Democrats" "Obama's words in San Francisco could cost him the nomination" "after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters' hearts, in San Francisco" Yes, yes, but *where* did Obama say all these things?? Was this written by John Judis or Linda Chavez? I have been pro-Obama, and I am disappointed in him over this and Jeremiah Wright. I agree with many of the doubts and worries expressed here. But I expect better -- much, much better -- from The New Republic. "but after Obama spoke his mind, and, perhaps, lost small-town voters' hearts, in San Francisco"

- Illuminismo

April 15, 2008 at 2:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What a lot of pundits and commentators have overlooked in their response to Obama's words in San Francisco is what they continue to overlook about his candidacy. It's the same thing overlooked by every aging generation when they fail to realize their own dwindling relevance. If it's too real, you're too old. Political candidacies can be compared to each other only so much. Bigger patterns in American culture sometimes outweigh them. That is the case in this election cycle because the baby boomers are falling off the political map. Generation X'ers, my generation, are coming into their own. They are giving Barak Obama unprecedented amounts of money online every chance they get. Just like me. I am politically motivated and excited by the things he says, because no one else even comes close to understanding what I think. Hillary has no clue. Mccain is a dinosaur and most of the pundits don't get it either because they are all so old. Just like John Judis. We will carry Obama to victory on our shoulders, pushing these old people with their old ideas and fears and prejudices out of the goddamn way. You've ruined our planet, our country and our reputation. We are sick of it and we will change it - RIGHT NOW.

- You don't get it

April 15, 2008 at 2:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You may be wrong... then again you may be right. Why not cut to the chase and tell us how much you are betting one way or the other? I have no actual control over how the masses will react to his comment, and neither do you. Can we call this sort of "coverage" out for what it is? It's mental masturbation. It's speculation and gossip-mongering for the hoity-toity set... for all those people who like to THINK (but only barely) that they're too smart and sophisticated to read the likes of Entertainment magazine. Please spare me stunning news flashes like "Obama comes from a modest background..." and "Obama has an astounding eloquence..." Even the barest attempt at pondering the incredible hours of toil and research that must have gone into uncovering these little known facts, makes my brain explode.

- Z

April 15, 2008 at 3:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree, this new incidence of mispeak may well do real damage, not because of what BHO said but rather because of how the media’s shorthand and the HDRC attacks are mischaracterizing it (this article included). He did not say or suggest that rural voters’ views on guns, immigration, etc was “pathological” or even misguided. He simply said that many vote on these “values” issues and against their own economic interests because they’ve no confidence that anyone will actually deliver on the economic issues. E.J. Dionne tells it well elsewhere on tnr. Or better yet, read the entire text of BHO’s remarks. http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=3f1c46a6-a691-4084-b04f-10880727e928

- citizen jane

April 15, 2008 at 3:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I remember when people were criticizing him for noting that he alone was willing to tell tough truths to people - that his one example of talking to auto makers in Detroit about fuel efficiency wasn't enough and that he was all hype. Well here he has done it again. He has stated the truth about the views of a significant voting block and now he is being criticized. The bottom line is, love him or hate him, Obama honestly represents his constituency - white liberals and black people. We are proud because he doesn't kiss ass and that he stands up for the things his supporters believe in, both in terms of goals and processes. If he doesn't win the election than this country has no place for us and we should just leave, because he is the best representative our coalition has had in decades. Honestly, if we have made so little progress in civil rights during the past 40 years that a bunch of union guys would vote against their self interest because the guy fighting for them is black, than what's the point of trying to salvage this shit. We're done screwing around, triangulating and trying to appease Neanderthals. As Bill put it, Obama is a role of the dice. If we lose, than screw it, because at the rate we're going there's nothing to lose at all. If we win though, it would be a momentous victory and substantive improvements to US cities might follow.

- Max

April 15, 2008 at 3:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The premise of this article is extraordinarily weak for the following reasons - First, it presumes that the vast majority of working class whites will automatically be offended by the "bitter" remarks. Second, it fails to consider the significance of McCain's and Clinton's plethora of weaknesses which could result in who knows what. Three, Judis underestimates Obama's appeal(few even thought he'd win Iowa) And finally, Judis is basing his assertions mostly on historical data when we are currently a drift in unprecedented and uncharted political waters. He is making a prediction based on an assertion based on pure speculation. I think it's Mr. Judis who will end up with the bitter beer face.

- KHudson

April 15, 2008 at 3:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

That is an astute analysis by John Judis. Judis understands that the Democratic Party today is about people who listen to NPR and read the New Yorker and the New York Times, and not about its traditional blue-collar constituency. Liberals like Barack Obama (and Hillary Clinton as well) think that the loyalty of the American working class to this country and its ideals is irrational. Surely the workers are brainwashed or else they would sign on to French and German style socialism. The liberal view couldn't be further from the truth. America is the most pro-working class country in the world, culturally, economically, and in every other way. Obama's recent remarks give the game away. Liberals regard the unwillingness of the white working class to have their lives managed by government bureaucracies as a sign of that the workers are victims of atavistic racial and religious impulses. Maybe there is a better explanation. Maybe they have too much pride and self-respect to want to be dependent on the federal tit, and to be told to how to live by their supposed betters among the bien pensant left.

- bulbman1066

April 15, 2008 at 4:44am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Tea leaves. Eloquently read, but tea leaves nevertheless. November is a long way off.

- sullydog

April 15, 2008 at 6:33am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

OUR TIME HAS COME FOR DEMOCRATS TO FULLY SUPPORT SENATOR CLINTON TO WIN IN NOV. VOTERS ARE SICK OF THE MEDIA EXCUSING OBAMA NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES, HIS AWFUL SENATE RECORD, CORRUPT FINANCIAL BACKERS, TERRORIST CONNECTIONS OR WHO HE OFFENDS!!!! Obama camp makes excuses for no-shows in Philly's black neighborhoods! Obamas view of Americans is extremely disturbing! http://www.theproblemwithobama.com/ VOTERS DEMAND OBAMA DROP OUT NOW, WITH ALL THE NEW POLITICAL DAMAGING STUFF COMING FROM HIM AND MICHELLE OBAMA, IN ADDITION TO WRIGHTS CONTINUED OBAMA DEFENDED ATTACKS ON WHITE AMERICA. HE WILL SURLY LOOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR DEMOCRATS. Obama Connection to Terrorists Revealed National Association of Chiefs of Police. http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/31408.html Obama has a dual citizenship with Kenya Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden would be praying for an Obama victory because it would help the militants win in Iraq. Citizen Wells 3/08 Memories of Obama's recent racial stereotype of the 'typical White person' are still fresh. Add to this now his view of the 'typical small town person.' Obama is quoted as disparaging residents of small towns in Pennsylvania as being “like a lot of small towns in the Midwest” where “it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” Obama is unapologetic, even dissing of voters in Florida and Michigan one has to wonder what groups of Americans he really respects? Racist wife, Michelle, saying she was proud of America "for the first time" only because of her husband's presidential run. Obama explained he doesn't wear an American flag lapel pin or hold his hands to his heart during the Pledge of Allegiance because it is a substitute for patriotism, Obama confirms his own moral obliviousness and he seems to have disdain for those who are troubled by his own unwillingness to break with The Great White hater Rev Wright Rev Wright says you don't have to wait for the afterlife for the mansion on the hilltop, he’s right! To shut him up Trinity United Church of Christ is building Rev. Wright a $1 mil house on a lot that was purchased for $345,000. According to federal income tax return Obama gave $222,500 Wright continues his Obama supported attacks on non-blacks Wright states Jesus death on the cross was a public lynching Italian style. Obamas senate record shows he infact did support the war voted against bringing America's troops home, voted for war appropriations giving our money to Halliburton and Blackwater, voted with Bush/Chaney latest bit of posturing S433 to suspend any troop withdrawal, if not suspended, keeps the troops in Iraq for a long time to come. Washington Post- Fact Check- Senator Obama CAUGHT LYING about Kennedy Role in Helping His Father Contrary to Obama's claims in speeches Kennedy family did not. Chicago Daily Herald- Obama refers to himself as 'a constitutional law professor on the campaign trail. TRUTH: He never held any such title!

- DEMS WANT OBAMA OUT

April 15, 2008 at 7:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Of mountains and mole hills. Blah blah blah blah blah. Why don't you wait to see if this has ANY effect on the polls or really anything at all before you put such unfalsifiable claptrap to paper? "Assuming he gets the Democratic nomination" there will be exactly zero down-market, gun-toting white voters who change their votes from Obama to McCain because of these comments. That's MY unfalsifiable prediction and is precisely as valid or invalid as yours.

- aeromonas

April 15, 2008 at 7:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All very well, but does being a "war hero" automatically mean that McCain is not an Unacceptable Republican?

- Marlon Says

April 15, 2008 at 7:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The American people are not stupid. We can make up our own mind. I see to many commentary that take this candidates words or the the context without the content. This is called spin. Please stop discussing the context without the content. Did this candidate lie or did he bring to the forefront an issue that American don't want to talk about. I will say it and say it Loud, "I AM BITTER" with this economy and without our administration and I donot live in small town America. American stop fooling yourself, each and every American is BITTER with where we are as a country, the high gas prices, the falling stock market, he falling housing market. The problem is Obama told the truth and Americans can't "HANDLE THE TRUTH". I am proud to see a politician tell the finally tell the truth. Mr. Obama please donot let the media change you. Continue to tell the truth and you will prevail. I am telling the truth because I am BITTER and not afraid to say it.

- al

April 15, 2008 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It looks grim for the Dems. The Presidency is almost certainly lost. They now have to consider how to prevent the top of ticket dragging down the entire party. In the context of an allegedly unpopular war and almost certain recession most will conclude that the Dems are worse than damaging to the nation, they are useless.

- joebedk

April 15, 2008 at 7:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I respect Judis' views, but I think that McCain is currently at the peak of his popularity and if the economy continues to lead to misery and the violence in Iraq also increases---don't forget that both the Sunni insurgents and Sadr want the US OUT and could have their own October surprise to remind Americans that we're never going to win there---Obama can triumph. I also think that black voter turnout will be off the charts, though I do worry that the Supreme Court will provide license to supress it by it's expected voter ID ruling. The Obama campaign has to start massive voter registration and education drives.

- Milton Mankoff

April 15, 2008 at 7:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow..I am really surprised you would make this argument. I am so tired of words being parsed into something news worthy. It isnt just theliberal media..even Fox

- elizabeth

April 15, 2008 at 8:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Barack has pretty much turned the trajectory of his career upside down by making one short sighted mistake after another. First, he made this run for the presidency too early in his career. Combine his youth with the fact that he is a first term Senator, then add in his liberalism, and it gives the appearance of someone who feels "entitled" without justification. That's why "the time is now" is a horrible slogan for him, because it reminds the voters that his time was "not yet". Then, since he felt he was getting insufficient traction before Iowa, he went on the Oprah road show, thereby giving a racial tinge to his candidacy. It seemed brilliant at first, and the temptation to get all that attention must have been irresistible, but he was no longer the "candidate who transcended race". Then, add in some bad luck- McCain gets the Republican nomination, and who doesn't like McCain? Now, he and his wife open their mouths too much. Bottom line- in November, he's toast. Four years from now, had he waited, he would have been the first African American president.

- dyinglikeflies

April 15, 2008 at 8:01am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow..I am really surprised you would make this argument. I am so tired of words being parsed into something news worthy. It isnt just the liberal media..even Fox news cant make hay out of it. He admittedly used some unfortunate language, but he spoke the truth that has been spoken a million times..this is not news!!!!

- elizabeth

April 15, 2008 at 8:02am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I wholeheartedly agree. This election is all over for Obama. Average American's finally see Obama for what he truely is, ELITIST! The polls are now reflecting that he is going DOWN the tubes.

- Marey Smits

April 15, 2008 at 8:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Years ago, TNR published a memorable essay defining the “political gaffe.” Key to the definition: what the pol said had to be true. Truth is what makes the comment stick; makes it hard to dodge. And Obama’s comment cut right to the truth: of course many Americans are bitter. After decades of getting used to the feeling of climbing, we are no longer a nation on the upswing. And all the “can do spirit” on God’s green earth cannot make an unemployed Detroit assembly line worker bigger than the forces of a global economic realignment. Yes, many Americans feel lied to, betrayed and cheated by life. From a certain perspective, perhaps the only realistic response is, “that’s life.” But maybe, just maybe, the response should be “we can do better.”

- drclifford

April 15, 2008 at 8:06am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's problem is that he is naturally arrogant, and a know it all. Small town people do not cling. They grab with strength. Obama does not see the strength in small town America.

- George A

April 15, 2008 at 8:08am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Muslim! Radical Black Christian! Secular elitest! Pick your right-wing narrative. Obama has shown, especially after Wright, that he writes his own story.

- rhodydad

April 15, 2008 at 8:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It’s not readily apparent to me how Barack Obama’s comments about small towners helps to unite the people together. I also don’t want this guy sitting down with our enemies and after the world blows up, he says, “Apparently, I misspoke. Sorry.”

- Barack Pinnochio

April 15, 2008 at 8:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

According to John, the Dems - whether or not its Hillary or Barack - might as well just give up and forfeit the November presidential race. Kerry got 9 million more votes than Gore, and Gore got more votes than Bill Clinton ever got. Obama should get 5-6 million more than Kerry, and I just cannot see how McCain can duplicate the perfect Bush turnout model of 2004. From a macro standpoint, it isn't as bleak as Judis makes it appear. Additonally, given that a significant number of Clinton and Obama voters are currently defecting to McCain, it's amazing the current narrowness of the general election match-up polls. Once the defectors return to the Democratic fold, 2008 should be a comfortable win to a blow-out.

- Patrick M. McKenna

April 15, 2008 at 8:24am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The concern over Sen. Obama's comments is not so much about the use of the word "bitter". It is that these comments, along with other troubling revelations, begin to reveal the senator's true values and beliefs.

- Uncle Sam

April 15, 2008 at 8:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

please do your homework. Reagan took PA, Oh, KY, and MO in 1980....not Carter

- sofar

April 15, 2008 at 8:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Yeah, well, you could be hit by a Tornado too! This negative article is "wishful thinking" on the part of the author. If people really decide to NOT vote for Barack Obama based on some stupid use of words, then they deserve the lying, non-transparent, drama ridden White House Hillary would bring. But, I think she would lose anyway. She's done a great job in ruining The Dems chances in the fall and her chances should she "win" (steal) the nomination. The real problem is that this primary contest runs far too long. Candidates get tired, supporters get tired and they begin to eat each other. It should have ended long ago. Again, the Dems screw themselves.

- Peggy

April 15, 2008 at 8:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The movie 'the Deerhunter' seemed to depict old school Pennsylvanians well, or have I just been fooled by Hollywood?

- Pridi

April 15, 2008 at 8:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't buy the first part of your article at all. Obama polls ahead of McCain in the Northwest, and in Nevada and New Mexico, and he's in a dead heat in Colorado. The Latino base said in exit polls in Texas and other places that they like Obama, they just have a special tie to the Clintons. As a Latino, I think that's accurate, especially with the older generation. Obama doesn't have to win Kentucky, West Virginia, or Indiana to win because he does so well out west. Recent polling has showed him tightening the race in places like Montana, Alaska, and South Dakota. The most recent poll has him winning North Dakota. The keys for Obama. 1. Keep the Northwest (Oregon and Washington). 2. Win Nevada, Colorado, and New Mexico, which he has a great chance to do. He barely lost to Clinton in New Mexico. 3. Hold the upper midwest (Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan) 4. Flip Iowa (and he will). 5. Hold Massachusetts, and New Jersey. 6. Win PA, Ohio, or Virginia, and he still polls ahead of McCain in PA. That would give him the win even if he lost NH, even if he didn't flip North Dakota, even though he has little chance in Florida, even though the possibility hasn't evn been broaches that he could win NC (where he is within single digits), Montana, Alaska, or South Carolina. Factor in that he has vastly superior grassroots and fundraising capability to McCain, and I think all this amounts to crying over spilled milk. When he goes head to head with McCain, his advantages in these capacities are going to shine through.

- Ted

April 15, 2008 at 8:48am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh shut up.

- jettrichards

April 15, 2008 at 8:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I didn't just recently fall off the turnip wagon so I expect anything and everything from our politicans. Barack's arrogance though, appears to be so completely absolute that his conscience doesn't jolt him in the least when he caters to those he obviously feels the most kinship, and demeans those who do the work in this country.

- Randy 2

April 15, 2008 at 8:51am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Come on mate, as we say in Australia, pull the other leg - it plays a tune. I'm as right-wing as the next man, but even I can see through the fake outrage in all of this. Try telling the real story, which is about how politicians twist words for dishonest advantage.

- Immanuel Cant

April 15, 2008 at 8:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's nice of you to show just how biased and in the dark you are. Want to talk about elitism? Look in the mirror jackass.

- Mike

April 15, 2008 at 9:07am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This contest has moved far beyond the boundaries of civilized behavior.I think the real culprit isn't Hillary Clinton, but race. And that deeply saddens me.

- Charles Bane Jr.

April 15, 2008 at 9:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a great article. I supported B-Obama at around the time of the Super Bowl, but changed my mind and voted for Ron Paul due to B-Obama's flip flopping on the war in Iraq. No one knows the intent of B-Obama on the war in Iraq or for that matter, NAFTA. I will probably vote for McCain in the fall due to the fact that I know the intent of McCain and if we will keep troops in Iraq, then we must keep enough to do the job. I would prefer a complete pull out in Iraq. Yes I know all the troubles that that will bring, but we have lost too many troops and I know some young men fighting there right now.

- Brian

April 15, 2008 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good article. Great analysis but all Democratic leaders, candidates and opinion makers need to loose the 'mother or father figure' concept. The idea that working class Midwest voters need a benevolent, all knowing patriarch/matriarch to guide their lives is pompous and condescending and reeks of the moral superiority that voters find so abhorrent. These are intelligent, thinking adults who are perfectly capable of making decisions in their own lives. Democrats make a huge, tragic mistake in treating them like misguided children.

- MP

April 15, 2008 at 9:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You must have missed the audience booing HRC at her speech yesterday and ignoring her at the dinner last night. I think you could be off the mark on this one, but I guess we will see in a week.

- dm

April 15, 2008 at 9:14am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

His wife's comments about not being 'proud' of America..." Here we go again. Michelle Obama said no such thing, as you well know, and the New Republic ought to be above Fox News. You may not cherish the prospect, but come October and November, when almost 5000 Americans will have died in Iraq and when the United States will be in the midst of a full-blown recession, Barack Obama will crush McCain in a series of debates. Millions of Reagan democrats voted for Bush in 2004, but they will not want more war, tougher economic times, and a health care system that leaves tens of millions uninsured in 2009 and beyond. Once Hillary is gone, and gone she will be, Democrats will rally behind Obama. McCain is not getting any younger and his declining ability to think on his feet and speak extemporaneously is beginning to embarrass even staunch supporters such as Lieberman. What's more, the Clintons' Rovian attacks on Obama's "elitism" are turning off uncommitted superdelegates, most of whom have either read or are currently reading Barack Obama's first book, because they're trying to find out as much as they can about the man. You're in for a surprise.

- Paul Frank

April 15, 2008 at 9:15am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wow, it is now all clear to me. Because he said "cling to" instead of "focus on" Obama was sending coded messages about Marxist philosophy and false consciousness. And here I thought he was just answering a question about voting patterns. Those San Francisco Democrats are so sophisticated! No wonder he wants to be one of them.

-

April 15, 2008 at 9:17am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The bloom is off of the rose.

- ncatty

April 15, 2008 at 9:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama is not a Marxist. I've come to think that it is the pundits and writers who are truly out of touch with America. Yet again, they're trying to throw the election to the Republicans. I love a good smear. It just seems in 2000, 2004 and now in 2008 they seem directed at the Democrats and not the Republicans. The fact that Cindy McCain is a recovering and self admitted drug addict who should have been convicted in a federal court for theft and John McCain is partially responsible for the S&L meltdown of the 1980s and may be entrusted with the stewardship of the economy seem irrelevant points to writers, New Republic or otherwise. Stop. You're hurting America.

- Gabriel Ramirez

April 15, 2008 at 9:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's penchant for lumping people together and judging their behavior or beliefs to be wanting is troubling. His comments about small town America and "typical white people" evidence a deep-seated flaw in his thought. He appears to believe that he is uniquely positioned to scrutinize and judge others, while maintaining that he himself is beyond scrutiny or judgment. Thus, he can comment on the bitterness of others, and their tendency to cling to religion and antipathy toward those who are not like them, while listening to Jeremiah Wright preach black liberation theology's invective against "evil white people" and expecting us to judge him untainted. Over the years, Obama has surrounded himself with radical malcontents like Wright and William Ayers, who believe that America (and many Americans) is fundamentally flawed (or "broken" and "mean" in the words of Michelle Obama). Yes, they are bitter. But while bitterness may be justifiable, it is best taken small quantities, not the 20-year overdose that Obama opted for with Wright. The impact on Obama's thought (and that of his wife) is clear. Obama is not a post-racial, post-partisan miracle. Instead of demonstrating a capacity to transcend our divisions, he has inflamed them more than anyone in recent memory. With transcendence and hope (the initial raison d'etre of Obama's campaign) now dissolving into divisive rancor and bitterness, what is his case for the Presidency?

- NJH

April 15, 2008 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bottom line - If Clinton (or the remaining white superdelegates) "steals" the nomination the blacks will be absolutely furious (and who could blame them) and will finally desert (or at least not support) the dems in unprecedented numbers. They will not accept this position that "he called the rural whites bitter" as a reason to bump him off of the ticket. McCain will win the presidency. Obama has earned the nomination because he's the best candidate. Both candidates have made their serious gaffes. Anything other than Obama spells disaster for the dems.

- Joe H

April 15, 2008 at 9:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It isn't difficult to see why both John McCain and Hillary Clinton are both attacking Barack Obama as elitist. The both see him as the biggest threat to either of them getting into the Whitehouse. McCain is not attacking Clinton because he knows she would be pushover in November. Clinton just doesn't get it yet! Both McCain and Clinton have said and done things much more damaging than Obama, they are just not in the spotlight at the moment because its old news.

-

April 15, 2008 at 10:00am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"I continue to be baffled at how anyone takes issue with Obama's statement of fact, which is that poor people..." are too stupid to vote for their own interests, but idiotically cling to meaningless and atavistic concepts like God and racism. Does that make it less baffling for you?? I think quite a few people here are making the "he's an elitist" argument quite nicely, if unintentionally.

- RB

April 15, 2008 at 10:22am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I disagree with the assertion that Obama has to carry a majority of the "industrial heartland states." He has to carry exactly one of them: either PA or OH. The math for an Obama win is pretty simple. Win the states that Kerry won (PA and MI will be the hardest to hold, as both look like tossups at the moment) and pick up the remaining 18 electoral votes with some combination of CO(9), IA(7), NM(5), NV(5), or VA(13), or just win OH(20). He's polling ahead of McCain in the first 4 of those and even to slightly behind in the last 2. There is no evidence that McCain will win Hispanics in the Southwest; thus far, Obama has been polling solidly ahead of McCain among Southwest Hispanics.

- AlanSP

April 15, 2008 at 10:25am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hello America People! Well, it seems that, at the end, the man of the words does not know how to use them properly. I can see many obamanoids trying to explain what Obama "meant." Wow!!!

- franco

April 15, 2008 at 10:27am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Which is a problem, because even before he uttered his infamous words about these voters "clinging" to guns, religion, abortion, and fears about free trade, Obama looked vulnerable in the region." :: Obama made no mention of abortion in his remarks. This is the kind of slick "journalism" that reveals a transparent agenda. I'm sure it won't be corrected either.

- Craig Hickman

April 15, 2008 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is it really "That Bad", Mr. Judis? I mean, if these comments really were as radioactively offensive as you say they are, wouldn't we expect to see some movement in the polls from where they were last week. Instead: Gallup: No Movement Rasmussen: Obama up Pennsylvania: 2 polls show movement up; two show down. NC: No movement IN: Obama down, but most of the movement from Indianapolis area. Maybe its time for you coastal journalists and think tank fellows to quite playing weekend conscience for Everyman USA. He seems to be a little tougher than you all think. Maybe think twice next time before getting offended by a political science thesis.

- jesse

April 15, 2008 at 10:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

He appears to believe that he is uniquely positioned to scrutinize and judge others, while maintaining that he himself is beyond scrutiny or judgment. :: If that is true then why does he admit when he makes mistakes or employs "bone-headed" judgments?

-

April 15, 2008 at 10:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Amen. The blind support for Obama is clearly fading. In the words of MLK, we should judge Barck on the 'content of his character' not on the color of his skin and his character is being revealed to be lacking. The elitist (raised to be the 'bargainer' of Steele's 'Bound Man') assures the guilty liberal elite the he knows they are not racist - old manipulations in an age where many of us would have voted for Colin Powell ten years ago. The 'bitter' remark is as telling as his latest (and oddly under-reported pronouncement - 'nasa doesn't inspire us anymore' so let's cut funding and give the money to amorphous good works). Barack as pop-psychologist equates the love of god and guns with a neurotic compensation for disappointment. My fundamentalist sister-in-law is not a devout church-goer because she's bitter, it's because she believes. He is wrong - because he is out of touch - yet the shock is that he truly doesn't know it. I'm reminded of Barbara Bush's pronouncement that people were 'better off' in the New Orleans' stadium... somehow she, untried, should know. Barack, a self-admitted beneficiary of the civil rights movement, where affirmative action (rightly) elevated him beyond expectation, is an opportunist who saw that the Oprah approach to complex ideas worked as it did for Dr. Phil, but his facade cracks. Perhaps the most telling indicator of his self-delusion is not his score of 37 at the PA bowling alley - there's no shame in not being able to bowl - but that he bowled at all. But then Obama expects everything he does to be accepted reverentially - no matter his flaws and times are changing. My fear is that he'll get the nomination (I will vote for him despite my reservations) and he will lose for lack of true merit.

- smayhew

April 15, 2008 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

General election '08 in the heartland: Let's see, Mr Judis: No "Unacceptable Republican"; Senator McCain is a moderate. If the candidate is Senator Obama, no "Acceptable Democrat" with this voting bloc. If the candidate is Obama, definitely no "Empathetic Democrat" with this voting bloc. Also Mr Judis, there are other Democratic voting blocs that Senator Obama is in deep trouble with, but I'll just mention one; Last week Rep Brad Sherman (D), CA, and Rep Debbie Wasserman-Schultz (D), FLA, both Jewish and both Clinton superdelegates, expressed deep concerns about Senator Obama's Reverend Wright problem. The Jewish populations of NY, NJ, FLA, and CA are significant enough to impact a close election, and recent polling suggests that McCain has a chance in at least three of those states. No way Obama gets the Jewish vote vs Senator McCain. Might be time to rethink this thing, eh?

- H-Dog

April 15, 2008 at 10:40am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We get the leader that we deserve - so are we a people who gobble up misrepresentations and spin then God help us all.

- Misa

April 15, 2008 at 10:41am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is so ridiculous. The fact is that Hillary Clinton does not have a single hope of winning in November. She is trying to destroy Obama too. If he was fighting on one front not two then the sharp contrast between him and McCain who represents a third Bush presidency would come forward. These people who keep using the term 'Obamamania' are truly disturbing. The man is so palpably more intelligent and empathetic than Clinton or McCain that he really really intimidates and scares people. Why don't you listen to what he has to say? I also think, as history goes forward, people will look back at articles like this that jump on such a ridiculous and factually (experientially) innacurate bandwagon, on such inflated charges, and say that there was something very sinister and very primal t play. Hillary Clinton told elaborate lies to people, detailed lies on numerous occasions. And was there any kind of similar firestorm about her electibility? The fact is Clinton can't win, and the longer the dumb Democratic party allow her to continue to abuse them, the longer they undermine and betray their still just about viable candidate. Why do you think McCain wants Clinton? So disturbingly stupid. Who gives you people jobs? Spouting every cliche that your empty skulls think of as 'analyses'. Enough is enough. Am tired of being reasonable. Thank god it's not me who is runnin 'cos Obama is a diplomat.

- b ryan

April 15, 2008 at 10:42am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The meaning of 'gaffe' is "A blatant mistake or misjudgment." Obama might have made a mistake, but this article reflects a misjudgment. The reason is that all the hoopla is over a comment TAKEN OUT OF CONTEXT. If you read what he said before and after the supposed "gaffe" (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html) you will see that it was taken out of context for specific effect. This article represents cheap-shot journalism at its worst.

- jankvkleve

April 15, 2008 at 10:43am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

THE TRUTH WILL OUT Republicans and their main stream media mouthpieces refer to Sen. Obama’s remarks about small town middle class populations as a “gaffe”. Some synonyms for “gaffe” are bloomer, blooper, blunder, boner, boo-boo, clinker, goof, howler, and slip. Less biased readers might describe it as a Freudian slip - a verbal or written statement in which one says what one really meant, rather than what one meant to say.

- OUTRIDER

April 15, 2008 at 10:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The best journalism we can hope for this election cycle would be no jounalism if this dustup over "elitism" is any indication. A real journalist would have challenged John Sydney McCain, III, son and grandson of Navy Admirals, as being the hypocrite that he is for calling Obama elitist. Pot meet kettle. While McCain was dallying with his mistress leading up to divorcing his wife to marry an heir to the Coors fortune, Obama, a child raised by a single mother, was working as a civil rights lawyer. Now tell me, Mr. Journalist, who is the elitist? Vapid, insipid, dumb, tribal, and deceitful, the theme of Democrats as elites while Republicans are moral, strong, family oriented, in touch with common folk, and compassionate, is a myth that is never challenged by the media, least of all the Washington Post. Next time, send a reporter, if you have one, out to ask John Sydney McCain, III, how he qualifies to spot "elitism" in others given his elitist background and no fair reminding him of his ties to lobbyists, big business or the Keating Five just to get him started. On second thought, why not ask him how it is that his positions on nearly every issue of any interest to the American public matches nearly identically to our wildly popular and succcessful President? Calling John Sydney McCain, III a maverick is a lot like calling what has become of the Washington Post a news organization.

- Chick Dante

April 15, 2008 at 11:10am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I think Hillary has all but given up on 2008. Bill's praise of McCain and her own statement that only she and McCain have the requisite commander in chief credentials support this contention. I believe she is going to sabotage Obama so that he loses and she can run in 2012. She will be old news and as old as McCain by 2016. Hillary will do ANYTHING to be president. Bill's money stream depends on it.

- PA Democrat

April 15, 2008 at 11:11am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sir, Please. Mr. Judas is a smart guy but wrong on this one. This is part of the Belt Way Mindset; the idea that since this is what we're talking about, it is what everyone is talking about. Wrong again. I watch Keith Olbermann most weekday nights. That means I’m one of app. 400,000 people watching MSNBC when he’s on. That also means that 299,600,000 other Americans are doing something else, because they’re not watching. The readership of The New Republic is a significant readership, but weighed against what others are thinking about, fretting about, upset about – like whether they can survive this economy? – it is oh so small. So Mr. Judas is obsessing about Senator Obama’s unfortunate words in San Francisco and concluding they will prove harmful come fall. I think not. By then there will be a whole lot of other issues that will swamp whatever the GOP mean machine can crank out. For at some point in this political drama the Republican record of the past eight years will trump whatever silly thing Senator Obama said at a fund raiser in California. That said, I do find it remarkable that Senator Clinton, a true Democratic Leadership Council acolyte, could emerge as blue collar America’s champion. But after Denver this August, that will change – and the real campaign will be joined. And, when that happens, one hopes for the sake of our country, most Americans will pay attention. George Mitrovich San Diego

- George Mitrovich

April 15, 2008 at 11:12am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am retired and get to read the blogs all day. My observation is that early in the day when all of the college students are around there is lots of pro Obama sentiment but in the evening when the working class adults get home from work and get on it shifts decisively anti Obama. Obama is an academic elitist who sounds as though he views middle America as some curiosity to be examined through a microscope. Please take note that both of the things that he claims we cling to are Constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Also he disparages us for leaning on religious beliefs and yet he trumpets his own religious awakening and his reliance on his religious beliefs. We here in small town America reject this charlatan

- AZOLDTIMER

April 15, 2008 at 11:16am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I love it...Why is it that whenever Senator Obama is in trouble, his supporters say that his critics simply don't understand the "context" of the remarks that have him in hot water. First, it was Reverend Wright and his racist, anti-white, anti-American, anti-semitic rants that Obama sychophants insist were excerpted out of "context"...now it is candidate Obama's own comments about rural Americans that we just can't put into their proper "context". It's actually really hard to get the "context" right with Senator Obama...

- Raconteur

April 15, 2008 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In addition to the other accurate criticisms of this article posted previously, I really must take exception to Judis's assumption of "McCain's qualification as commander-in-chief". With all due respect to his military service and POW bravery, what the hell has he EVER done or said to give the public confidence that he has the awareness, intelligence and reasoning ability to make the big decisions? He probably won't have his Lindsay Graham/Joe Leiberman human flotation devices around him every time he's in deep intellectual water.

- appleton

April 15, 2008 at 11:19am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As a former avid reader of their "The New Democratic Majority" blog over the last two presidential elections may I just respectfully say that Texiera and Judis's predictive track record is about as good as the Bush administration's in Iraq.

- ionaknipple

April 15, 2008 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All the attempts at analysis of how voters "think" or react does not take into account that Senator Barack Obama has the ethos we have so longed for and didn't even know it. The more we get to know him, the more we see his human frailties as well as his studied, thoughtful positions and we want him to be our president.

- Patricia Idaho

April 15, 2008 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

P.S., Hell hath no fury like a woman outvoted, out-debated and politically outmaneuvered.

- jankvkleve

April 15, 2008 at 11:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Both Hillary and Obama are pathological elitist liars. Neither has the experience to be the President. Thay are both pathetic. Who cares which one gets the nomination, as the days go by the veneer is coming of both of them at such a rate neither has any chance of winning in November.

- John

April 15, 2008 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This article is nonsensical. When are democrats expected to win Kentucky and West Virginia? IS the author's contention that a pro-choice and socially liberal democrat has a chance in Haydes of winning appalachian states? Has the decidedly large drift to the right in the past elections been lost on people? Tennessee, Kentucky and West Virginia are gone. Al Gore lost Tennessee. Bill only won Kentucky because of Perot taking away republican votes and West Virginia drifts further and further away each election, Gore losing by about 5 and Kerry losing to an unpopular Bush by 12. Obama doesn't merely bank on Virginia and Colorado of replacing a Ohio or PA. Obama is better suited to win Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada, three more red states Obama is better suited to defend Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Wisconsin, Minnesota, New Hampshire, Delaware, Maine, Connecticut and there 60+ electoral votes than Hillary (as born out in every poll taken in these races when Hillary of Obama is matched against McCain). These are states that Hillary is either trailing McCain in (NH, Ore, Washi, Wis, Minn) or barely leading McCain in. This are polls related by the best state by state polling firm in the country, Surveyusa and these are states with actual battleground tendencies and close elections within the last few cycles. Obama is equally suited to defend Michigan, New Jersey. John Kerry plus Ohio (assuming faithless elector in Minnesota knew what they were doing) is only 272 electoral votes. PA, Mich, Wash, Ore, Minn, Wis etc plus Ohio is only 272...and 270 is threshold. Hillary's campaign is to rerun the Kerry and Gore campaign plus Ohio, and that's an impossible to win situation, because if you lose just 1 single state....winning Ohio won't matter, and Hillary is going to lose at least 1 of Hawaii, Maine, Delaware, Washington, Oregon, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Connecticut, New Hampshire....in fact, she's probably going to lose 4 or 5 of them. She has less monet, defends worse and doesn't have near the potential of adding new states. Obama has a far better chance of winning Colorado, Virginia, Iowa, New Mexico and Nevada and their 39 electoral votes. Hillary is electorally unelectable at this point. Potentially adding Arkansas and Ohio is meaningless conidering what she loses. Let's get nutty and say that Hillary wins Florida in the general. Let's sit here and forget that Florida is trending right, that the Republican Cet Out the Vote in Florida is the most vaunted in the US and the Florida democratic party is nationally regarded as one of the weakest in the US. Let's forget that Charlie Crist, Florida's massively popular governor, is McCain's biggest backer in the country. Let's sit her and pretend that Hillart overcomes societal and institutional advantages of an absolute level in Florida. Heck, let's also give Hillary Ohio....and go ahead and give her Arkansas even. Lets start her out with all Kerry states plus Florida and Arkansas. That leaves her at 305 EV. Well, say she loses Oregon, Washington, Wisconsin, New Hampshire (as polls show). That's already dropping her down to 273 EV. Say McCain picks Pawlenty from Minnesota? Cya Minnesota (if she doesn't lose it anyway) and 10 more votes and the white house. Say, she loses Pennsylvania for having no cross over or indy appeal. Say she loses Maine and Deleware instead of Minnesota. The picture is clear. She must win Ohio, PA, Florida and Michigan to have a shot at winning the presidency to compensate for what she will likely lose and to cover what she can't gain elswhere. Well, her winning Florida is a long shot, winning all three of OH, PA and Mich is a long shot, and even in the unlikely scenario that she wins all 4? She still loses the presidential election if she loses Wasington, Wisconsin, New Hampshire, Oregon and Minnesota. Or if she loses Hawaii, Delaware, Connecticut, Washington, Wisconsin and Maine. She has too many combinations that play against her. This election isn't about Ohio and Florida with Obama. He defends all those mid-sized electoral states far better and is much better suited to win purple states of medium range.

- Dane

April 15, 2008 at 11:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I don't understand why you say that in San Francisco Obama "spoke his mind." He may have mis-spoken because he was trying NOT to speak his mind, because he thinks (see Bob Herbert's NYT column this morning) that the real reason is anti-black sentiment among working-class white people. That sentiment has a long history in our country, and it could cost him the nomination or the election, of course--but for a very different reason than "bitter" etc.

- Henrietta

April 15, 2008 at 11:35am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The amusing part is this so-called controversy is entirely manufactured by the political press, Hillary, and the Republicans. I have yet to read about any voters that have actually changed their minds based on this story. Obama supporters obviously agree with his assessment. The most upset people are those who never intended to vote for Obama anyway. The actual blue-collar, small-town workers supposedly "insulted" by Obama's words have actually come to his defense (read yesterday's editorial in the Philly Daily News). No matter what the Republicans wish, this year's election will be about Iraq and the economy, not gay-marriage or flag-burning amendments, as it has in the past. That's why Republicans are so outraged: The manipulation they've counted on for the past eight years has just been called out by Obama. People are wising up, and whether or not you believe it, you're finally going to have to face the music for the sins of your past. Obama wasn't just telling the truth; he was being prophetic.

- workmonkey

April 15, 2008 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Judis is probably right about much of his big picture analysis regarding the difficulties that Obama may have in November. However, Obama's characterization of the way that voters in the Heartland (I grew up in a small town in Missouri) displace their disappointments/fears by embracing uber-Patriotism, etc. and, therefore, voting against the party who cowtows the least to those "ideals" was right on the mark. We say we want honest politicians. But we will never have that. Why? Because when one dares to utter truths we don't like, they are punished, not just by the voters, but indirectly by the media. As a country we are so individually narcissitic that any candidate who says something that might reflect negatively on us is shunned. If we could accept some responsibility for our own collective shortcomings and have some minimal capacity for personal self-reflection, maybe this could change, but I don't see it happening. It's far easier and more comforting to always assume that the candidate has screwed up . . . than to accept the fact that he might be exposing our own foibles for our own good.

- Allan

April 15, 2008 at 11:47am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with the poster(s) who noted that TNR's habit of preduction gives fair reasoning to ignore thier opinions. At any rate.... Democrats will not lose PA. The constant insistance that PA is a 'battleground' state, all evidence to the contrary be damned, is the sign that the media, including TNR, are way 'out of step' to use one of the most over-used metaphors.

- Jibberish

April 15, 2008 at 11:49am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

As usual most of the MSM and Obamanoids are devoid of any logical thinking. Chris Matthews (MSNBC) has shivers up his leg when he hears Obama speak. Obama's followers are completely delusional and follow him like sheep. Give me a break....Talk about a snake with a forked tongue. But Thanks to you, the party with the DONKEY symbol and logic, we Republicans will win the White House again. Please nominate Obama. He will be so easy to beat. All we needed was 'Swift Boat' for Kerry. But the meterial we have on Obama is just great.....By the time we are done, Obama and all of you losers will be drinking 'Latte' in your country clubs, while we the gun toting, religious working class will be celebrating the win and making sure President McCain is sending you a post card. DEMOCRATIC PARTY - Whiny, Bitter Cry babies - Look at the faces of the losers Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. IT SUMS IT ALL UP. AMEN.

- John0712

April 15, 2008 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Ironic to say the least that in the U.S. that an intelligent, mostly black man should be called elitist by a cabal of right-wing Republicans (elitists by default) and Clintonista. From a white Southerner, gimme a break.

- Hipp

April 15, 2008 at 11:53am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

My fellow commentators: I don't understand the outrage about the bitter comment. It seems so logical to me that the people to whom the senator refers are not "bad, malicious people" rather people who have, by necessity from their perspective, narrowed their priorities to self and family preservation. It is quite easy to be principally altruistic when you have no real worries about money and economic survival. When jobs are tight and resources are inaccessible, people become increasingly less tolerant of many things including other people perceived as competitors. We have seen this over time in this country. It is less likely that early union members opposed to blacks and Asians joining unions were blindly racist though some no doubt were but more likely they feared that were blacks and Asians to have access to good paying union jobs on docks and in other industries, there would be less of the pie for their families. People fear that they will lose out and they become insular and bitter in the process of trying to desperately hold on to their little piece of anything. The author is incorrect; this is not pathological. It is the human condition. As a society, we prefer euphemisms and it certainly seems that Mr. Obama would have been relieved of his current troubles had he said people feel frustrated and frightened because of this, that or the other and consequently less open to other idea. Instead he captured it more honestly and accurately I believe; he said these are not bad people--these people have been battered by life, bull-shitted by politicians and rendered hopeless and frightened by economic conditions. Right now, they are bitter and they are clinging to that which they know and eschewing that and those whom they do not know. Good people, you can continue to dwell on the Jeremiah Wright non issue or actually consider that the many years of political status quo have done little to relieve the plights of so many. One can view the members of the San Francisco fund raiser with suspicion and hostility or feel pleased that a group that does not have to worry economically is actually interested in the conditions and world view of those who do worry and truly interested in helping. Political line dancing has its place but as Hilary Clinton has pointed out many times--whoever wins this nomination will go on and compete for a miserably demanding job which will be truly thankless for the next 4 years and the other-the loser will be just fine. If Obama wins, he will age miserably over the first 4 years and even more if he returns for a 2 time and miss out on the best years of his lovely children's lives. His wife will see less of him and be like Alma Powell--a married, high profile, single mother for the president like the secretary of state has no time for chldren's poor grades, hurt knees, broken hearts, menarche or any of the other lovely developmental milestones that the average father and mother celebrate together. Mrs. Clinton will be so absorbed with the demands of the country that she won't have the luxury of REALLY getting to know the man likely to become her son in law during this time or truly bonding with her daughter as she becomes a mother should she be fortunate enough to have that blessing. The loser of this bitter battle will return to a good job, his/her family, numerous speaking engagements and book deals. The loser will be OK but many of us who are preoccupied with the wrong things will return to our daily struggles and have no outlet for our bitterness as the blogs will no longer be the distraction of the day. Obama may or may not prevail in his efforts to become president but this comment about bitterness will not be the fatal blow. If the country is not prepared for one who is different in every way and here I am talking specifically about this mighty construct we made called race, then the voters wont elect him--pure and simple. If change is what we seek and real progress on many different levels is what indeed we want, with no disrespect to Mrs. Clinton, Obama is the choice. For our sakes, let us please try to see past the political entertainment and ask both of these candidates to throw back fewer shots and beers, bowl less and talk more to us about that which really impacts us.

- KMHerring

April 15, 2008 at 11:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are conflicting new polls.. with Obama down between 6 and 20 points. People cling whichever poll they like. But the fact remains, that Obama is not in trouble fro what he said, but for is all what he is . He has no deep root in this country or its culture. HE is fundamentally flawed candidate. But only now, the leaked 'clinging' speech brought it out for all to see. It is only a matter of time before he realises before he realises that he is finished.

- dsclinton

April 15, 2008 at 11:55am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

obama & jermiah will start a self help course on bitterness.bitterness 101 guns&religon

- pw

April 15, 2008 at 11:56am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

There are 2 primary problems with your argument and they have nothing to with the veracity of his statement. 1. Saying things that can easily be construed as criticisms about the people you are trying to get to vote for you is not and will never be a good idea politically. 2. Putting yourself in a position where you say one thing to a group of people you are trying to woo (say, while bowling in Altoona) then saying different things analyzing those same people in a closed-door fundraiser 2,500 miles away is naive at best and outright deception at worst. In either case they continue to reinforce the currently developing media narrative about Obama, which he is not politically tested and that he is insincere and patronizing.

- Ken

April 15, 2008 at 11:58am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The problem is not Barack's most recent comments in isolation, but combined with his previous ones. For me, the biggest gaffe has been Mrs. Obama's "never been proud of America before now" comment. First his wife has never been proud of America, despite her impressive success at Harvard and as a fantastic example of succeeding when given a chance...why not? Then the whole Jeremiah Wright deal. Now BHO calls folks in my neck of woods "bitter" and paints us as voting on guns, religion, and immigration as a default. It's what he implied in the comments, an extremely condescending idea that blue collar towns vote for "guns and religion" because we're too stupid to understand our economic interests. Even the postings here question why white middle class voters would ever vote against "our own best interests" as if we're in need of a larger government to fix them, and voting Republican shows that we're sheep blind to the majestic savior that is a more liberal government. And, it matters very much to folks in this area that the comments were made at a high ticket dinner in San Fransisco. Take my word for it, that city represents just about everything citizens in this area view as wrong with America; it's not trivial by any means.

- Kentucky Voter

April 15, 2008 at 11:59am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

get your math right. Obama winning in the general is a mathmatical impossibility. It may not be too late to line up behind Clinton. Who would have been the nominee by now .. had this fraud Obama .. not try to dupe the middle America. Now we know what behind the veneer of his rhetoric. There is no character. Prove me wrong!

- dsclinton

April 15, 2008 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a bitter American! I still cannot believe that telling the truth about Amerikkka is the wrong way to go! I am bitter and angry about the our greatest resource being wasted in Iraq. And that the one needs two jobs to fill the gas tank! And for me Hilary represent the same old guard just in a skirt!

- Aisha Faatima Shabazz-Jackson

April 15, 2008 at 12:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

And your comments are just like mine when I was younger and voted for Mondale and Dukakis. We're the party of ideas! We're the party of hope! We're going to tell it like it is! We're not going to play politics! I am going to vote for the Democrat that wins the nomination but the cold, hard political reality of this country is that for either a Democrat or Republican to win the nomination you need to get a certain percentage of the other side to vote for your candidate. Obama and Obama supporters MUST realize this immediately and change your strategy accordingly. If Obama says one more thing that paints himself as elitist, condescending or out of touch with the average American, he will not get that crucial percentage he needs.

- Ken

April 15, 2008 at 12:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Regarding Reagan Democrats and race: I don't think these voters have a problem with an African-American President per se. Rather, they are simply not afflicted with liberal guilt about the "plight" of the African-American community. Specifically, they see no justice in denying their own children opportunities to fix problems in the African-American community that are seen to be internally generated. An African-American candidate who can transcend the narrow perspectives of his own community would be fairly considered. Initially, Obama seemed to be such a candidate. That's why Obama's association with Wright cuts so deeply. It turns him in the minds of many from a man of presidential caliber like Colin Powell to a thinly disguised bigot in the Al Sharpton mode or shake-down artist like Jesse Jackson. His remarks in San Francisco suggest strongly that he simply doesn't respect Reagan Democrats as adults but considers them unhappy children who act out because they haven't been properly nurtured by Washington.

- Charles R. Williams

April 15, 2008 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, God, I hope not!

- Connie

April 15, 2008 at 12:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You are quite right. His relationship with uncle Wright, Bill Ayers, thin resume, Michelle Obama’s comment, elitist, etc will do it.

- Maryam

April 15, 2008 at 12:11pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is a must-read for people who want some more insight into Obama's continual doublespeak: http://obama.senate.gov/news/050923-a_foreign_class/ A Foreign Classroom for A Junior Senator, Jeff Zeleny, Chicago Sun Tribune, Sept. 2005: As Obama stood in front of more than a dozen Ukrainian reporters at the weapons destruction site, he declared: "I'm extremely impressed with the facility." A few moments later, when pressed in a Tribune interview, he said: "I'm being polite. The place speaks for itself. This is a somewhat run-down and not a spick-and-span factory." He said he was attempting to be diplomatic. "Some of that means that in your public statements," Obama said, "you end up trafficking in public platitudes more than you'd want to do at home." Indeed, the education of a senator calls for considerable sensitivity and tact, along with a keen awareness of local culture and a solid grasp of their issues. Yet repeatedly, Obama referred to the country as "The" Ukraine. The U.S. State Department advises Americans to simply call the country "Ukraine," which Lugar and others did. While the difference might seem slight, adding "the" suggests a failure to recognize its status as a sovereign country that no longer is part of the Soviet empire. ******** In the article he admits he is a novice. So much for his claim that he knows more about the world than Clinton and McCain--based on a three week college trip to Pakistan and living in Indonesia as a six year old. Draw your own conclusions.

- PutAForkInObama

April 15, 2008 at 12:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Some of you make a great case for Obama. Erudite would not be too strong a word. The only criticism I can give is that you're ignoring the fact that he's morphed into Jesse Jackson. Whites may put up with the angry black persona in public but, do you really think we're going to vote to be led by them? Naive wouldn't bee too strong a word, either.

- Dimslie

April 15, 2008 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's mistake is one Democrats have made, and it hurts us in the general election. We will see if he gets the toothpaste back in the tube. If he doesn't, the Electoral College view of electability becomes more compelling.

- snarbagel

April 15, 2008 at 12:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

So John, what is a prepared speech or a response to a question? Context is important, and most of it has been lost in translation from the blogosphere to the mainstream press. Obama spoke what was on his mind, something that has become all too rare in politics. To dissect this social observation and portray it as some kind of game-changing gaffe is deceitful and irresponsible.

- SpinDR

April 15, 2008 at 12:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama had apologized for these comments, this matter would not have gone far. And also what makes the matter even worse is that his supporters are keep saying he is right and make it sounds like it is not a big deal. They need to realize that his comments were insulting. I do not go to church as a way of showing my frustration or hunting because I am bitter. He has made a mistake and he will pay for it BIG TIME.

- Maryam

April 15, 2008 at 12:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Obamorons are losing their minds- they can't understand why any redneck yokel from small town America could possibly be offended by Obamessiah claiming they are so stupid and clinging to their guns and g-d and their antipathy towards "others". Uh, America is not San Francisco. You Obamaniacs are about to find that out in Indiana, Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Kentucky. With a final butt kicking in Puerto Rico. Get ready for Denver where Hillary is going to win this nomination!! Go Hillary!!

- JAF

April 15, 2008 at 12:26pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I now regret my vote for Hillary to become my senator. Could she do more to alienate me?

- Mary

April 15, 2008 at 12:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

All this... says the person who gave $3,000 to Hillary Clinton.

- BenjThall

April 15, 2008 at 12:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

THE TRUTH WILL OUT Republicans and their main stream media mouthpieces refer to Obama’s remarks about small town middle class populations as a “gaffe”. Some synonyms for “gaffe” are bloomer, blooper, blunder, boner, boo-boo, clinker, goof, howler, and slip. Less biased readers might describe it as a Freudian slip - a verbal or written statement in which one says what one really meant, rather than what one meant to say.

- Robert

April 15, 2008 at 12:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm no fanatic Obama-ite, but Obama easily has the best chance of the two Democrats to beat McCain, for two reasons (neither of which the authors of this article acknowledge): 1. For the first time in a long time, we have a Democrat who has no trouble raising money. Obama will be able to outspend McCain 4 to 1. 2. McCain is a Mount Saint Helens waiting to happen. He's had a holiday so far, but once into the general, some reporter will ask the wrong question, and McCain will blow -- and blow spectacularly. Once that happens, many voters will see the benefit of having a calm, stable guy like Obama as president, even if he does come off like a professor from the State college at times. I don't think the results will even be close.

- Paul McCarthy

April 15, 2008 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This author adds another poorly supported piece to his list of fiction he has become so well known for. Obviously he is motivated by something other than seeking the truth that in days gone by journalism was founded on. Regardless of who you support in this election don't fall for this rubbish.

- William

April 15, 2008 at 12:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama....the boy who put the 'ninny' back in 'pickaninny'

- Robbins Mitchell

April 15, 2008 at 12:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Posted by babs 4 of 100 | warn tnr | respond We don't deserve Obama. He is too smart, too wise, and too honest for this country. who has not befriended someone with nutty ideas, or spoken with one emphasis to one set of listeners and another to another group. get over it. We deserve 4 more years of Republicans because they got us into this mess. ------------------ Oh please! Gagging over here.

- Destardi

April 15, 2008 at 1:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good article. It's interesting to note that while Obama's grandparents (who raised him) were salt of the earth Kansans, he seems very strained when he talks to white working class voters.

- RCR

April 15, 2008 at 1:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's funny how any attack on Obama is considered misconstrued and unjust and the "Republican attach machine". Yet we see Bush for years being hammered away at on just about every topic under the sun. Evey ill in the world is his fault and all his intentions on every topic is evil. Yet, these attacks on Bush are fine and are not "A democratic attack machine". The Democrats are already rattling there sabres to go after McCain. He will be labeled a Warmonger, a Bush Lackey, an insane old man. Basically, he will be labeled as just about anything that will help the Democrats win. If the Democrats are going to dish it, they have to learn to take it. You can't attack Republicans and call them all kinds of nasty things and then get offended at any questions on themselves(i.e. Swift boat ads). Obama deserves the response on this. When McCain's 100 year war comment was misunderstood, I didn't see any democrats coming to his defense that the Media and Obama were misunderstading his words.

- Josh

April 15, 2008 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Comments #2 and #3 illustrate one of the problems with Obamamania. Both commentators respond to a reasoned argument mostly with insults: e.g. " millions of tons of Hillary Clinton's bullshit is headed for Carlisle." BHO has been presented as a uniter, but to the contrary, his campaign has produced a bitterly divided democratic party.I have been following presidential elections since 1960: i don't recall many cycles in which a leading democratic candidate was denounced as a "monster", or a "whore", where a previous democratic VP nominee was called "David Duke in drag", or cited by her candidates opponent as an exemplar of racial prejudice. But BHO and his supporters have done all these things. What makes these comments so odd is that the commentators seem determined to ignore the obvious possibility that Judis is correct about how the "white working class" voters will respond to BHO in the general election,although as Michael Barone has pointed out, "jacksonian" might be a better designation for the demographic most in question here. Its easy to imagine the ads in the general election, presumably from an independent committee: video of the Billionaire's row mansions where BHO delivered his bittergate comments (still photos linked today at powerline display numerous examples of "Frick mansions minus the good taste", of the valet parking scurying to service those Mercedes that arrived sans chauffeur, with voice over of BHO about the false consciousness of downscale voters. The commentators can talk about "the gutter" all they want, the audio of BHO's comments are out there to be used by anyone who wants to. He said it himself, and he said it to the billionaires, there's no offense in playing it back for everyone to hear

- MikeM

April 15, 2008 at 1:30pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KMHerring.....you are even more condencending than Obama. Geez....you know exactly how we poor white folk feel....you are as stupisd as he is... 1) We love God because of who He is...not because of what govenement didn't do for us 2) We like guns...because... they're guns...we like to hunt, to plink, and to protect our families 3) We do not want governement to do anything for us....except to protect the borders and the GREAT COUNTRY 4) We do not want Obama because he is a radical left wing democrat, a liar, a race baiter (as you have confirmed), and is condecending, and doesn't have a clue about the rest of this GREAT COUNTRY...and WE ARE PROUD OF OUR COUNTRY 5) So stop trying to tell us what we are and what we feel....you libs just don't get it...we are..., and want to remain sel sufficient...we don't want, nor need you condecending CRAP...get LOST

- John

April 15, 2008 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If your concept of "balls" is voting the "commitment avoidance position"(i.e., "Present!") 139 times when major issues were being decided in the Senate, then Obama is definitely your guy.

- Geechee

April 15, 2008 at 1:34pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

" And for me Hilary represent the same old guard just in a skirt! " ...except that Hillary and her fat legs don't look so good in a skirt (as if that would be any qualification for prez, but like these stupid "gotcha" comments, would become a topic of conversation that can't net her votes) which is why she's the same old guard in a pantsuit playing out of the Rove playbook.

- I agree, Aisha Shabazz-Jackson

April 15, 2008 at 1:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Really?

- ade

April 15, 2008 at 2:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

True.

- ade

April 15, 2008 at 2:05pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The whole audience was not booing. The scattering of boos obviously came from the Obama supporters in the crowd. They're welcome to do that, but it's silly to state that the booing came from the entire audience, as it clearly did not.

- jdin2003

April 15, 2008 at 2:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

But that's what Democrats do. Otherwise Obama would already be the Democratic candidate.

- Honest Abe

April 15, 2008 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you shilling for Hillary Clinton you have missed your mark. John McCain will stomp Hillary in Florida, and both dems will not win Ohio. So, to pull it out we dems have to go west, and it is looking like Obama country to me. Also, in a new PA poll, both Obama and Hillary will beat 100 years in Iraq McCain. You Clintonistas get a grip.

- Rebecca A. Illich

April 15, 2008 at 2:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry John, Obama's "gaffe" is trivial, and your analysis won't hold. Unlike previous elections, Americans are in a serious mood. Overwhelmingly, in appearance after appearance, Obama speaks and acts like a serious adult; most people notice this, and his support grows. When attacking him, Clinton and McCain dwell on trivialities that would have worked in past elections -- elections where voters didn't see their choice as being too important. Such is not the case now. Timing is everything in politics. Your piece might have applied to the 2004 campaign, but that era is over. Clinton has already lost, and McCain will lose, because their accumulated experience does not apply to the new reality the country finds itself in. I feel empathy for political reporters who have to try to generate interesting copy out of nonevents that occur within these campaign doldrums.

- Geoff Ryder

April 15, 2008 at 2:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What does Rove have to do with this? The horror you've been witnessing is the same Clinton dirty politics we saw in 1996. And it doesn't matter what your interpretation of the word 'is' is. Now, I know you're feeling frustrated, but please stop clinging to your antipathy for Rove and other conservatives and start accepting the facts about the Clintons.

- Honest Abe

April 15, 2008 at 2:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Finally someone (Mr Judis) calls it like it is and plainly says what Democrats are trying to avoid seeing: Obama does not stand a chance to win in November. It had started to become clear early on in exit polls (particularly after Ohio), but everyone was caught up in the concept (as G. Ferraro acurately put it) and wanted to pretend that Obama was the new voice, the new saviour! Fact is , he is a loser even amongst Democrats and failed THREE times to close the deal, when it appeared he had the thing won. It was not Hillary who "came back" really. It was voters in NH, Texas and Ohio who did not want Obama when they had the chance to have him... And then came Rev Wright and now the "Bitter gate". Obama does not stand a snow ball chance in hell of beating McCain, after he offended the constituency he badly needed and already had trouble connecting with. I doubt he will even get 40% of the White vote across the nation. I am a White male lifelong Democrat and will vote for McCain if he is the nominee. And no, it is not Racism, it is basic good sense , love of country and simple belief that all candidate need experience and maturity prior to letting their blind ambition guide them to run for President before their time!

- Francois

April 15, 2008 at 2:24pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I see Clinton's hate mongers are working overtime today.

- Maryam

April 15, 2008 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If you shilling for Hillary Clinton you have missed your mark. John McCain will stomp Hillary in Florida, and both dems will not win Ohio. So, to pull it out we dems have to go west, and it is looking like Obama country to me. Also, in a new PA poll, both Obama and Hillary will beat 100 years in Iraq McCain. You Clintonistas get a grip.

- Rebecca A. Illich

April 15, 2008 at 2:25pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Gordo, Mr. Fat, where do you get this nonsense ... cynicism reflects a lazy mind ...

- Dino

April 15, 2008 at 2:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama finally lost it - teflon rubbed off. Exposes a man who does not know how to answer a simple question simply. Question: why don't people in PA support you? Answer: Because they PREFER HILLARY. instead, he called them names. Didn't he learn what ad hominem meant while at Harvard Law? You don't call voters names, dude. And then pretend you didn't do it: your "fingerprints" are all over it. You did it. Words matter.

-

April 15, 2008 at 2:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People are calling Obama's remarks in San Francisco a "gaff" or "mistatement?" Obama's comments are exactly what Democrats have been saying for years about the stereotypical recipe for Republican victory: God, Guns, and Gays. It was recited exactly in that order, directly from the Democrat playbook. The most embarrassing part about being a liberal is occasionally having to admit what you really believe but would rather not say openly.

- rmm

April 15, 2008 at 2:38pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

People are calling Obama's remarks in San Francisco a "gaff" or "mistatement?" Obama's comments are exactly what Democrats have been saying for years about the stereotypical recipe for Republican victory: God, Guns, and Gays. It was recited exactly in that order, directly from the Democrat playbook. The most embarrassing part about being a liberal is occasionally having to admit what you really believe but would rather not say openly.

- rmm

April 15, 2008 at 2:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree whole heartedly with your post. I couldn't have said it any better myself. I certainly hope all of this nonsense dies down and that the Democrat party unites after Obama wins the nomination. We can't afford a third Bush term!

- Ed from VA

April 15, 2008 at 2:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Based on the polls, it looks like this had zero impact of the primary. Yeah, zero. Out of touch media elites working in NY yapping about the impact on the American frontier. Oh brother. Nobody really cares about this stuff but the press and a few pundits with nothing to do but sit around talking about this or that. Non-story, Judis. Find a new narrative, hey, I have one: McCain has no plan to resolve the war in Iraq and no plan to address the economic problems facing the country. No? Not sexy enough to grab the public's attention?

- Pat Hendrix

April 15, 2008 at 3:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The author's prejudice is so painfully transparent ---(the name has to be a cartoon pseudonym). But most unforgivable, the author cannot even get his facts straight. He opines that Barack Obama is "too young" to have the "stature" of a Franklin D. Roosevelt. The truth of the matter is that Obama will be 47 at his first election (he has a birthday between now and then), and FDR was 51 years of age (!) when first elected in 1932, just a four years' difference. "Stature" is an odd noun to use for the distinguishing feature of FDR when he was first elected. The truth is he was a one term Governor of New York, confined to a wheelchair because of polio. This illustrates nicely the point of the matter. The people in the 1930s put confidence into Franklin Roosevelt, and he gained stature (psychologically) far beyond what anyone would have thought possible for a one-term Governor, two years beyond his 40s, handicapped and confined to a wheelchair. Equally, if we quit cutting each other down and playing "gotcha'" interminably, and start putting confidence into our 47 year old candidate, we could end up with a leader of the transformative stature of a 21st Century FDR! That is my sincere conviction.

- sbyrd

April 15, 2008 at 3:06pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A common comment by Obama supporters is, "The only people upset about (Obama's recent comments, the Rev. Wright controversy, the Rezko connection, Michelle Obama's comments, his aide's conversation with Canadian officials, etc, etc, etc) weren't going to vote for him anyway" (or some variation of it). This shows they are totally blind to the political reality that he cannot win without attracting moderate voters. The voters who would never have voted for a black man for president (presumably the ones to which they refer) represent a very small percentage of voters in this country. They (along with conservatives) are the ones who were never going to vote for Obama. But Hillary Clinton wasn't going to get their votes either. For Barack Obama to have any hope of winning in November, he must admit to the error in judgment that led him to stay at Trinity for 20+ years. He doesn't have to disown Rev. Wright (the person). It is only by admitting this error in judgment that he can convince Clinton's supporters (as well as a great number of additional voters) that he really represents change and that he transcends the racial divisions of the past. He cannot legitimately claim to represent change by sitting for 20+ years in the pews of a church whose theology is stubbornly entrenched to the past.

- jdin2003

April 15, 2008 at 3:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Dribble

- Jim

April 15, 2008 at 3:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Michelle Obama has said several things that Republicans are already talking about. In talking to a group of working class women in Ohio she attempted to appear to be one of them by complaining about paying off those student loans to Ivy League schools and spending $10,000 on dance, music etc. for their kids. How out of touch is that? (I'm surprised no one told her she might find it easier to afford if she would stop buying all those Jimmy Choo shoes.)She also once said that "America is just plain mean". Just last Sunday I heard a conservative mention these statements of evidence of the Obama's elistism. (I think it was George Will on ABC, but it could have been on Chris Wallace's show.)

- BernieO

April 15, 2008 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How many times does this have to be explained to folks like you? Are you 'present?'

- Jim

April 15, 2008 at 3:18pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

When, after reading a comment one thinks if the person writing the comment is representative of those who are supporting the writer’s candidate, then I am going to vote for his/her opponent, the comment is counter productive. Just as parents are judged by the conduct of their children, candidates can be evaluated by the character of their supporters. Those Obama supporters whose comments are mostly derogatory, demonizing, and disparaging and often phased in gutter language are helping, not hurting, Senator Clinton.

- Robert Castle

April 15, 2008 at 3:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Give me a break, Herring! For all of your rambling, the facts speak for themselves. Wright is a racist and, for the last several decades atleast,without authentic provocation. In another vein,it's in the Donkey dna to assume that we're too stupid to think for ourselves and we really need big brother even though the donkeys will, at times, attack big government when it fits their "you're too stupid" agenda. Last, Obama's a self-rightous, narsasistic, stuffed-shirt who epitomizes everything that the majority (wait 'til november)votes against! (It looks like you guys would review that available history on what works and what doesn't before selecting left wing, liberal candidates (remember dukakis? mcgovern? mondale?), but what can we expect from a party that chose Screamin'Dean, the one-month-wonder, as their party chair while waxing sentimental on what Clintonesque "IS" instead of remembering what "IS" was and what a load baggage accompanied it!

- ncarrizo

April 15, 2008 at 3:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Life is an attempt to write the rules after the fact. A successful attempt too, I might add.

- David Hilton

April 15, 2008 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Best post so far (#15 by Max). I voted for Hillary because of what she says about POLICY, queasily side-stepping the Rove-like desperation in her POLITICS. This piece by Judis though seems to stab at Obama in merciless fashion. I have to agree with Max, he represents the best representation of core liberalism we have, without the nasty political posturing of Clinton(s) and the right-wing-talk-radio types. If the blue-collar racists want to go with McCain, let 'em eat cake.

- kaattie

April 15, 2008 at 3:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdin2003: Hi jdin, we met on the WAPO boards. Since you seem genuinely concerned about the Wright affair and also genuinely a person of good will in these discussions, you might be interested in Lanny Davis' post on Anderson Cooper's blog from two days ago. Davis is an ardent Clinton supporter. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/13/lanny-davis-civil-dialogue-on-the-issue-of-reverend-wright/#more-641

- melissam

April 15, 2008 at 3:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

jdin2003: Hi jdin, we met on the WAPO boards. Since you seem genuinely concerned about the Wright affair and also genuinely a person of good will in these discussions, you might be interested in Lanny Davis' post on Anderson Cooper's blog from two days ago. Davis is an ardent Clinton supporter. http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/04/13/lanny-davis-civil-dialogue-on-the-issue-of-reverend-wright/#more-641

- melissam

April 15, 2008 at 4:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Nice try. It WILL be President Obama. People have wised up since 2000 and 2004. The old swift boating will not work anymore, for the people OR for the candidate who, this time, will fight back. And people will not be swayed by the media who like to feel they are changing the course of events. Are we really going to let the best leader we've seen in a generation slip thru our fingers over "bitter" and "cling to?" Not likely! And certainly not when you consider the lying, corrupt alternatives. An entire generation of new Democratic voters will stay away from politics for decades if this man, who has earned this nomination, loses it because of Clintonista mind-games and bribery of super-delegates. They will stop at nothing. But we will stop them with our votes.

- Patty

April 15, 2008 at 4:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is paradoxically comforting to read the coustomarily astute Judis being so off base. (Homer nods!) In a year when voters go the polls in the midst of an economic depression, paying $5 a gallon for gas, it is extremely unlikely they will shun a candidate who called them bitter. It is equally unlikely that the hydra-haded Hillary willprofit from this media-made "gaffe."

- Miande

April 15, 2008 at 4:10pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

#19 - You have bought into everything they want you to! Good job. I hope you have fun with McCain as Pres. Also, have you read anything about Hillary? I guess all of her lies and Roveian tactics are ok. I'll vote for her if she wins the nomination because four more years of what we have now is too much. Please just get one clue.

- Anna Tachco Jimenez

April 15, 2008 at 4:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Judis, after Barack Obama is elected Presdient of the United States, you will be seeing much of him every time you turn on your TV or your computer. And you'll hear him on the radio. Get over you hatred of Obama and your mental distortions about who he is. Or, don't... be miserable for the next 8 years. Whatever.

- Leslie T.

April 15, 2008 at 4:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The article fails to mention obama has already lost MO to McCain by double digits since Rev. Wright, he will not win MI & FL for disenfranchising them he will never win OH, and he will not win CO because of the Rev. Wright and now obama claiming when answering a question why he couldn't win in PA that people are bitter and cling to guns, god, and bigotry but also the Latino population did not participate in the caucuses at least 98% of them and they will not vote for obama. Obama will never be President even though he believes he is entitled to it.

- Hillary 08!

April 15, 2008 at 4:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Does McCain wear a flag pin? Does the senior Bush? If Obama started wearing one now, what would that look like? what crap. This article appears to have been written in a vacuum. Do current economic conditions not bear any relevance to who might win those Reagan Democrats? Give me a break.

- wagner

April 15, 2008 at 4:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am retired too, and my oservation is that in the morning there are a lot of pygmies who hate women, they complain about Hillary, in the early afternoon the Ents get home from a day in the forrest and they don't like McCain because of his environmental policies. Women called Michelle blog after about seven and they blah blah blah

-

April 15, 2008 at 4:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Between the disgusting pickaninny and the fat legs comments, its easy to see that both of these candidates will have to overcome some form of bigotry to win this election OR the general.

- WandreyCer1

April 15, 2008 at 4:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Another columnist jumping on the non-controversy. It amazes me how conservative columnists never attack the Republican nominee but liberal columnists love to attack Democrats. That's why Democrats have lost the general for two cycles. Obama will not be damaged by this because once he faces McCain the election will be about the economy, getting out of Iraq and change. McCain is on the wrong side of all of these issues. Right know we are living in an alternate reality because Clinton and McCain are attacking Obama. In generic polls Dems beat the Repugs by 10-15%. McCain may make up some of that ground but will not get over the hump. Eventually states like OH, NY, NJ, PA and MI will vote their pocketbooks.

- KQuark

April 15, 2008 at 4:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It is elitest to go on like everyone thinks Obama is an elitest because they are incapable of parsing simple information. How is Obama an elitest compared to McCain or Clinton? Get real. People will elect who they think cares about them and their economic and cultural well being. That sure looks like Obama to me.

- b ryan

April 15, 2008 at 4:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keep in mind that in the general election it will be some Democrat, any Democrat, against the McCain, who will be saddled with the war and a hefty recession. Now, I will grant you, white working class voters have been known, more than once, to vote against their economic interests due to some diversionary issue such as race, crime, "values," etc. But a lot of people will be struggling, come November and will be ready for a change. As far as Pennsylvania -- the Obama strategy has counted on winning the Philadelphia metropolitan area pretty solidly and breaking about even with Hillary in the Pittsburgh area. Nothing about Obama's comments changes any of that. In fact, if he were to go up and down the Pittsburgh mill towns saying "Hell yeah you're bitter, you have a right to be" he will show Hillary up for being the false syrupy sentimental out-of-touch elitist that she is. In any event, Obama never counted on doing well in the small towns in central and the Northeastern part of the state. He's had nowhere to go but up in those regions. If he doesn't go up, so what? If he does, all's the better. But it is important for Obama to spin his comments as reflecting working class anger rather than University of Chicago elitism.

- matthawk

April 15, 2008 at 5:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Keep in mind that in the general election it will be some Democrat, any Democrat, against the McCain, who will be saddled with the war and a hefty recession. Now, I will grant you, white working class voters have been known, more than once, to vote against their economic interests due to some diversionary issue such as race, crime, "values," etc. But a lot of people will be struggling, come November and will be ready for a change. As far as Pennsylvania -- the Obama strategy has counted on winning the Philadelphia metropolitan area pretty solidly and breaking about even with Hillary in the Pittsburgh area. Nothing about Obama's comments changes any of that. In fact, if he were to go up and down the Pittsburgh mill towns saying "Hell yeah you're bitter, you have a right to be" he will show Hillary up for being the false syrupy sentimental out-of-touch elitist that she is. In any event, Obama never counted on doing well in the small towns in central and the Northeastern part of the state. He's had nowhere to go but up in those regions. If he doesn't go up, so what? If he does, all's the better. But it is important for Obama to spin his comments as reflecting working class anger rather than University of Chicago elitism.

- matthawk

April 15, 2008 at 5:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

"Dribble?" I guess the writer must have meant "drivel". If that's what was intended, I would just say that unfortunately, it's this type of arrogance that could end up being Barack Obama's downfall. One wouldn't think that you could dismiss (as "drivel") the concerns of a great many people whose votes you need and still expect to get elected. But maybe you can. We're going to find out one way or the other.

- jdin2003

April 15, 2008 at 5:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama doesnt win and we get another old white man pushing for the beliefs of senior citizens god help us. It is either Hillary or Obama. Of course they want McCain to win because they dont want change. McCain is exactly what we have had since the beginning of this country. Bush failed and his follower John McCain will fail too. Please make a change and vote for Hillary or Obama. Obama being the lesser of the three evils. At some point we have to stop trusting that having all this experience means McCain is better and take chances. Everytime a great leap comes in our society its from a drastic change and the belief that things are not good enough. If you stick with McCain you stay the same. AMERICA IS NO LONGER A PURITAN REPUBLICAN FUNDAMENTALIST COUNTRY. Throw the baby boomers out and lets care about the next generation. The one who has college loans out of their asses, can hardly find jobs, and having meaningless education thanks to the dwindling economy. IT IS NO LONGER ABOUT THE OLD BUT ABOUT THE NEW. WAKE THE HELL UP!

- Daniel

April 15, 2008 at 5:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am just happy Obama will be the next president. Most folks see through all the crap (like BernieO's above)and are happy that Obama shows some respect for the intelligence and ability of regular folks to be a bit more introspective than some give us credit for. We have needed a person like Obama for a long time. So, sorry Bernie and friends, Obama will be the next POTUS. Thank goodness!

- rishy

April 15, 2008 at 5:14pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Hey what’s up whose president? Oh that’s right no one be because the polls haven’t ended yet. Keep up and you’ll see who might be the next president. Why are we fighting and being all racist? That’s not fair to treat people different because their black or white, woman or man we all are different. So take a chill pill and relax and nobody gets hurt.

- Goldmember

April 15, 2008 at 5:19pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

hah so true! rflol

- gmc

April 15, 2008 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

john judis's well-researched & well-thought out piece on obama's woes has a ring of truth to it. seems it's the best article--unemotional, logical, factual, undismissive, well-reasoned out, & objective--to come out to date on obama's chances. (parenthetically speaking, i don't see any hint of a payola intruding into judis's seemingly neutral study, compared to the hysterical and almost sycophantic obama propaganda of some newsmen & columnists which they pass of as news stories or 'analyses.') my reading of it is that it'll be an uphill climb for obama, first, just to beat hillary clinton in the democratic nomination--i'll bet my two eggs hillary will pummel barack before june, given obama's self-destructing "bitter" stint at san francisco; or, worse, it'll be a drubbing for him by mccain, which is unthinkable, because hillary will win the democratic nomination after obama shall have been thoroughly vetted. hello rezko, wright, farahan-what's-his-name?, blagojevich-what's his-name-too?, et.al. hello machiavelli, jekyl & hyde, freud. hello tabula rasa (on foreign affairs/diplomacy, war & history). hello two-timing, deceitful political 'user.' hello--and goodbye, obama.

- jennifer potenciano

April 15, 2008 at 5:22pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Herbert Marcuse would have been flattered to learn that he originated the idea of "false consciousness"---but he would have been quick to point out that it is found in the original Marxist texts (I think in the Matrx-Engels correspondence). The ideological Saint Vitus dance around Senator Obama's remarks on class suggest that the idea has not quite outlived history...

- norman birnbaum

April 15, 2008 at 5:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this true of small town PA residents: "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." ???

- Nell

April 15, 2008 at 5:41pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Is this true of small town PA residents: "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." ???

- Nell

April 15, 2008 at 5:42pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I live in New York City, and I know plenty of social liberals who are struggling financially. Starving artist types who are working a variety of low paying jobs (retail, proofreading, laborers, adjunct teachers, etc). If someone could show them proof that their income would increase by 50% if they voted for a particular politician, who happened to be committed to overturning Roe vs. Wade and outlawing abortion in all 50 states, these social liberals would never vote for them. Whether you're talking about social liberals or social conservatives, some issues are simply more important than money. It's quite illuminating how all these liberals who take it as gospel that social conservatives are foolish to focus on "divisive" issues and vote against their supposed economic self interests are so incapable of being objective enough to realize that if a pro-war, pro-life, pro-big business, anti-gay, anti-environmental candidate could put a few more dollars in their pockets, they'd do the exact same thing as all those Kansans who have "something the matter with them", and vote for the candidate whose social values were in sync with their own.

- The Fop

April 15, 2008 at 5:45pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm always amazed at the wild predictions you so called political experts make. You still don't seem to get it do you? Obama has turned the political scene upside down. His ability to bring in new young voters, his ability to register people that have never voted in their lives, and his ability to energize current voters to get out and vote is unprecedented. These are voters that you guys have never counted and still don't know how to account for. You keep using the same old tired analysis to try to determine what voters are going to do. But the fact is you have no idea. The Obama camp is going to have six months to register new voters and motivate the current ones. So a lot of those so called blue-collar white votes that you seem to feel he can't get, may be neutralized by new voters. But then again some of them might actually vote for him. I notice how you guys always want to dismiss Wisconsin. But I think America (including blue-collar whites) spoke very loudly in Wisconsin.

- Kane from Florida

April 15, 2008 at 5:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

What Obama said in his speech is that when you loose faith in things you should have faith in "government" then you cling to things that won't let you down "Church, guns, etc.". What is it you don't get about that? Churches do most of their recruiting on "lost faith" premise. Is this news to you? Are you so far removed from the bottom that you don't understand how the bottom works ? Apparently you are. My father is a preacher that is a racist does that mean he doesn't have a single redeeming quality? Should I disown him? Does that mean I don't have the ability to think for myself? I guess in your eyes it does. McCain cheated on his wife several times before settling on his current one, why hasn't that surfaced in your columns? They are the party of family values right? Does that mean he's unfit to be President? It hasn't surfaced because he's white. Your issue with Obama is that he's black and you can't be a overt racist so you do what most people do when you can't say what you want to say, you hide behind things that don't matter. Just in case this is something else you didn't know that's called covert racism. He will be President because he's the best qualified for the job and like Bill Clinton before him he has the ability to speak directly to the people. McCain may need you, Obama does not. The job at this point is less tactical anyway (Maybe you forgot Presidents hire people to do tactical work, you know Defense, State, CIA, etc.) and more about being practical and making smart decisions for all of America, something our current President (Less we forget, one term Governor who up until that point spent his time drinking and spending his daddy's money) has no intentions of doing. By the way why hasn't more been written about the Bush's relationship with Osama? Because he's white. Bush got the job because he said I'll take care of the majority race. He screwed his own and it took most whites a few years to realize they were getting screwed. The rest of us minorities could have told you that on election day. We have a pimp in the White House who is using it to make every friend he has rich. The majority race he was talking about "taking care of" is a lot smaller than 200 million. Why didn't we ever find out that Bush or Cheney were invested in the Enron scandal? I think you know why. When you're done with your convert operation you'll still be frustrated you know why? Because smart people see through you and idiots believed you the first time they won't do it again. See you should try what I just did, a little unfiltered straight talk. No keep hiding, you get to hell faster that way.

- redleaf2k

April 15, 2008 at 6:03pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It’s heartening to see that most the posters here are reading this thing correctly, despite the media’s insanity. Those who are frothing at the mouth over this so-called scandal take note: The fact that Lou Dobbs agrees with you ought to give you some pause.

- citizen jane

April 15, 2008 at 6:16pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Good article Mr. Judis, and oh-so-true. Pay no attention to the Obamanites, they are just fuming-mad with the truth.

- kimberly

April 15, 2008 at 6:27pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It would have been nice if this man had actually used all the facts but he didn't. Also using Mark Penn, as he has done inadvertantly, shows that his figures are incorrect. Sad that some in their quest to further their candidate have to resort to distortion.

- Deanna

April 15, 2008 at 6:31pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I really expect better from the New Republic ... not your best work ... well written, nicely argued ... but based on a bad premise. Disappointing ... particularly from a writer and a publication of such repute. But maybe I'm just being a bit elitist.

- Terry B

April 15, 2008 at 6:35pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Bohrer respond by remarking just how completely out of date Judis' methodology is: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bohrer/judis-exaggerates-barack_b_96739.html. But that's the way with Clinton machine sychophants like Judis - they are hopeless mired in the politics of the previous century - and some even stuck in the 19th Century. Well, the rest of us are sick of it, the majority of us are sick of it, the majority of Americans will elect Barack Obama President this November.

- Emmanuel Winner

April 15, 2008 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Wouldn't the other candidates do just as poorly? If Bush's popularity remains high, they might also be trounced. If, however, the economy continues to falter, and if Americans become skeptical about the benefits of the invasion and occupation of Iraq, a Democrat could defeat Bush -- though only if the election pivots on Bush's successes and failures and not on the qualifications of his Democratic opponent. The Democrats would be much better off in that case with a blander, more faceless, less exciting Kerry, Gephardt or even Lieberman (perhaps with Edwards, Florida Sen. Bob Graham, or retired Gen. Wesley Clark as running mate) than they would be with a fiery, controversial Dean. Judis weren't you the same DLCer forcing the "less exciting candidates" down our throat in 2004.. Sit and watch your inevitable candidate disappear... WE WARNED YOU!

- Judis Flashback

April 15, 2008 at 6:47pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

A Bitter Pennsylvanian Obama hater claims that "San Francisco represents everything that is wrong with America" The same San Francisco that gave America Google, Yahoo, Ebay and the entire damn economy since the 1990. PA (except for pro-Obama Philly and Pittsburgh) is dead weight being carried by Silicon valley Signed, Elitist

- Bay Area

April 15, 2008 at 6:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Clinton campaign uses superficial impressions to try to paint Obama now as an "elitist" and portray to Hillary (the Wal Mart/NAFTA queen) as the fighting champion of working people. Apparently based on the philosophy that their criticisms don’t have to be consistent, and don’t even have to make sense, the Clinton machine is simultaneously trying to cast Obama as being: (a) a Muslim planted to destroy America; (b) a black Christian racist (even though his own mother was white); and (c) an anti-religious “elitist.” The Clintons have been part of the political and economic elite for most of their adult lives and Hillary passed up the chance to work as a grassroots community organizer when the job was offered to her because she preferred working with lobbyists and as a corporate “insider.” How can anyone take the Clinton campaign seriously?

- matthawk

April 15, 2008 at 6:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Who gives a @#$, obma said the truth, and he s the only one caring enough to think about those rednecks. If the American electorate is that dumb they deserve to have Dubya declare a state of emergency and declare marshall law and stay in the White house forever

- chaz

April 15, 2008 at 7:09pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Smple electoral math and histry should tell us thst both hillary and Obama can win Blue states that Kerry did. No Democrat has ever won a presidential race without winning Ohio and Pennsylvaia. Hillary is the wone who ca do it and win... Obama is not.

- Debra Foster

April 15, 2008 at 7:51pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Well, I am assuming that you people in here did not read the entire transcript of his speech, nor the accompanying video. Mr. Obama said a lot more than the msm ever showed or will ever show. In fact, when trying to explain why he was going to lose Pennsylvania, he said the things about guns, religion etc., but also delivered it with they don't understand because it is coming from someone not like them, but a 46 year old black man. Now, if I recall, several million white people have already voted for Mr. Obama, so I would take this as a insult, as it was actually intended to be in front of not just merely millionaires, but billionaires. He also was asked about the racial discord going on right now, and he said and I do quote this "When people tell me they've stressed about racial discord, well, you know, try slavery for awhile." Now, I personally find that intriguing, since he asked the American people, I guess those same gun toting, God worshiping people to have a dialogue about race and that those same people need to be discussing race. I guess that is really trying to be a Uniter and not a Divider, but I guess you never know who your friends are, since this was taped by an Obama supporter, who after thinking about his hideous remarks made it public. That's just my take on this. The internet is a marvelous thing.

- LTaylor

April 15, 2008 at 8:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

If Obama doesn't have a chance of winning in NOvember, as some of you argue, then admit that that's the ballgame for the White House in 2008, because Clinton will not - certainly cannot obtain a majority. It's not a great year for us Dems, since both prospective nominees are so flawed it's hard to see how the math can go our direction.

- tomeg

April 15, 2008 at 8:02pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Just turned on Countdown and started chuckling. I can't believe you guys get paid well to write and say this nonsense. It's multi-billion dollar industry built almost entirely on bullshit. "Bittergate" has to be one of the ultimate low points in US presidential politics. It's a scandal about nothing, and yet intelligent people like Judis are foaming at the mouth in their efforts to dignify it with quasi-serious analysis. But it's all BS. All of it. People are pissed at congress, and they're pissed at the president. Some of us are so disgusted with the president that "bitter" only just barely scratches the surface of what we feel. If anyone is out of touch on all of this, it's the chattering class, comfy in its nice DC townhouses and apartments, writing analysis about people they know nothing about, just as they wrote essay after essay "justifying" the Iraq war. Too many of you just don't get it. You don't get the realities on the ground. And you don't realize how much damage your BS does to the democratic process in this country. Next time one of you ought to write a long piece about why it's time to retire the media's collective obsession with non-scandals. Make your jobs mean something. Do us some good.

- ralphnelle

April 15, 2008 at 8:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Marcuse discussed "false consciousness," but the idea (and the term) comes from Engels. Also, as hemlock41 alludes to above, Marcuse's concept of false consciousness hinges on the idea that artificial needs are constructed in modern industrial society, creating stability and control within that system. The suggestion that Obama was leveling a critique this radical is absurd. If he had accused Pennsylvanians of "commodity fetishism" rather than "bitterness," I might agree. What he said, however, was simply a clumsy expression of the "angry white guy" phenomenon that has been widely discussed in the popular media for decades. It's frustrating to see John Judis echoing George Will, Bill Kristol, and Karl Rove. HTH.

- BinkyPing

April 15, 2008 at 8:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The Cult of Obama just gives me the creeps. And it seems the Candidate Himself is even starting to buy into his own messianic siren song. I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid, though. Give me a hard-nosed, clear-minded pragmatist any day -- whether Clinton or McCain -- over a pie in the sky dreamer who spouts aphorisms on "hope" or "change" every time someone dares ask him a straight question. Obama is going to be the Republicans' fantasy opponent by the time November arrives. He's got about as much baggage as a Pullman porter. And come January, just like the porter, he'll still be standing on the platform as the presidential train pulls away.

- J Cline

April 15, 2008 at 9:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The definition of an elitist is anyone who has the time and energy to debate this non-issue. Like this writer. You people need to get a life. Get out into the real world where people actually care about issues not what you think!

- Jesse

April 15, 2008 at 9:29pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm beginning to feel pity for you guys. There's something extremely pathetic about this industry. Right now Dan Abrams is doing a story about a flag pin that Obama put on his lapel at some point recently, and several guests are "analyzing" what it means. What is wrong with the media? What are you guys doing with your power? Don't you feel ashamed? I would.

- ralphnelle

April 15, 2008 at 9:39pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

2004 Obama addresses problems of Rural Working class America, right on! This video is a MUST SEE. You Tube from RepublicansforObama.org blog and Romancatholicsforobama.com Mon, 04/14/2008 - 1:38am — Suzi This video is a MUST SEE. You Tube It's short, but when you realize that it is from 2004, it shows that Obama is NOT just making election year promises. In the video, he addresses the problems of rural and working class America, and frames it in the same way he does today. The reliance on faith, the importance of family tradition in hunting (guns) in times of economic crisis. I think Obama should use this in his campaign to show that his feelings and positions on this matter have been consistant through the years....no flip-flopping for Barack! I find it hard to believe that what Obama said can be so twisted as to become an insult. I'm from Small Town America, and can see the truth in what Obama says. We cling to traditions as a way of life, and in times of economic hardship, we base our votes on those traditions, hoping the be able to bring about change and better times. HRC is playing political word games, all the while slugging back Crown Royal and talking about her experience with guns, trying to appear to be "one of them". Who is really being condescending? ********** Sun, 04/13/2008 - 8:26pm — MaggieCat As a small town mayor's wife, ethnic groups are not the only people taking advantage of public assistance programs. More white, poor and middle classed people take advantage of anything that is offered free by the government than the Hispanics. The majority of Hispanics in this county work two and three jobs per household, by necessity. That does not even take into account the many wealthy ranchers and farmers who take advantage of every USDA rural/free money that is offered either. One could argue that many of them are wealthy because they have been gifted lots of free money through so-called 'subsidy based' programs. They are also the majority of people who employ so many of the illegal aliens in this county and the majority of them are Republicans, by the way. Obama did not say one thing wrong. He spoke the truth. Those of you that have read my many posts on this site will remember that I have been speaking to some of the same issues of disgust in our rural society. Disgust? Disenfranchisement? Disengagement? Bitter? YES, yes we are!

- Dana / Native Texan

April 15, 2008 at 10:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I am a moderate Democratic voter who decided to support Senator McCain in December. I never would have predicted how the race has developed, though. The Democratic Party is on the verge of nominating Senator Obama, a candidate who sat through 20 years of his mentor's anti-intellectual, anti-semitic, anti-American hate speech and who later, in the San Francisco closed session comments, equated religious faith with anti-immigrant intolerance. It was predictable that in 2008, Democratic voters would choose the most anti-war candidate from the electable tier of candidates. After Sen. Kerry's unfortuante positioning on the war in 2004, this could have been seen as the most principled approach. But it appears to be leading to electoral disaster. Unless, of course, Sen. Obama can convince a number of voter blocs (e.g., voters living in small- and medium-sized communities; pro-defense voters; Jewish-American voters; Catholic voters) to vote against their own self-interests.

- Kevin

April 15, 2008 at 10:23pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Re: We don't deserve Obama. He is too smart, too wise, and too honest for this country. I, too, would say we don't deserve Obama. He is too 'Marxist leaning' for us to deserve him. Please read up on this guy, unless the money helps his wife or living arrangements, it seems he is ready to part you from your money for the rest of society's good. I'll say it again, we definitely don't deserve him of all people.

- Thom

April 15, 2008 at 10:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Sorry but who is John B. Judis?

- Fair Question

April 15, 2008 at 10:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

your statement that Obama worked in Chicago's Back of the Yards shows me how little you bothered to research your subject. even the casual observer of this the campaign knows better than that.

- rita forte

April 15, 2008 at 10:49pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's true that most of the country never was going to vote for Obama. Hillary has always been ahead with registered Democrats, with all voters in 50 states, in big swing states, and in most metrics that relate to success in November.

-

April 15, 2008 at 11:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's true that most of the country never was going to vote for Obama. Hillary has always been ahead with registered Democrats, with all voters in 50 states, in big swing states, and in most metrics that relate to success in November.

- Flora Steele

April 15, 2008 at 11:12pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

In response to the comment that Obama won't get the Jewish vote...honestly, as a Jew myself, and I say this with no pride- most Jews in the Northeast would vote for Yasser Arafat if he were the Democratic Candidate. So no, I don't think McCain will get much more than 20% of the Jewish vote in places like NJ, NY, PA. That being said, I think Obama is exactly the kind of man our Founding Fathers feared - ambitious, lusting for power, willing to say and do anything, talk sweet nothings, etc. all in order to achieve glory for himself. Obama has no record, has fibbed, lied, distorted, etc. and the saddest part is that so many people buy into his talk of "Hope" without a clue as to what that means and with a zeal most often found among religious fanatics.

- Ben

April 15, 2008 at 11:20pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Way to plagiarize Billy Kristol with the reference to socialism, dude. I love it when the innaleckshuls fall prey to hysteria.

- Bachelard

April 15, 2008 at 11:48pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I'm sure you find this collection of wishful thinking comforting, Mr. Judis, but it has no basis in the facts.

- Klaus

April 16, 2008 at 12:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I agree with you!

- Shelia

April 16, 2008 at 12:52am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama has more ethics, honesty and knowledge than Billary. She lies, exaggerates and hits personally at the candidates. She is a nasty lady. I am suprised that Senator McCain is joining in personal remarks He was upright like Obama but now seems so anxious to get the nomination he is stooping to low blows like Billary. Dirty politics. Obama has not critized Hillary up until she started it. HE says it is just politics. Souch a gentleman. Hillary is getting frantic but stooping very low even for her. Someone should interview some of her past help(servants) . She treated her help cruelly . She yells, screams and demands . She loves being the boss. She is definitely NOT a nice person . She is not what she says she is.

- Audrey

April 16, 2008 at 9:26am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The polls taken on this issue show that you are wrong, wrong, wrong. Ironic that media elites are screaming about Obama's elitism. You are the A-holes that foisted Bush on us by telling Americans what a "regular" guy he was, as opposed to "effete" John Kerry or "pompous" Gore. Well, after 7+ years with the total destroyer of our country, even ignorant types realize they've been had. The party's OVER, Republicans!

- Mike Filancia

April 16, 2008 at 10:36am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

This is wishful thinking by the McCainiacs. Take a look the endorsement of Obama by The Boss... http://www.brucespringsteen.net/news/index.html

- Keith in PA

April 16, 2008 at 11:28am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Race will always be in issue in this EXTREMELY RACIST country until pubs and people like you decide that you're either 1. tired of hating for no reason 2. tired of seeing all the hate out there 3. tired of being associated with people who hate. Until WHITE AMERICA says NO MORE - instead of "people don't want to vote for a black man" - then we will continue as a nation to spiral down as the hate and malice fester in to a cancer that cannot be reversed. There is not 2 ways about it. I hear people with their subtle racism and they think to themselves well I'd vote for _____ conservative black person - and because of that they believe they're not racist or part of the problem. But for those who sit idly by and allow racism to continue without speaking out against it; without saying "this should not be" and denouncing it every time the issue is raised - YOU ARE PART OF THE PROBLEM.

- LisaHussein

April 16, 2008 at 11:30am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time. Time marches on for Obama.

- Lincolnfan

April 16, 2008 at 12:00pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Bay Area writes: A Bitter Pennsylvanian Obama hater claims that "San Francisco represents everything that is wrong with America" The same San Francisco that gave America Google, Yahoo, Ebay and the entire damn economy since the 1990. Silicon Valley is not San Francisco.

- South Bay

April 16, 2008 at 1:32pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

First...you misquoted him. How can your readers develop an intelligent & informed opinion if you misrepresent the statement. This is not a good year for spin. For example, the Rev. Wright story died as soon as the complete transcripts were made available. Second..he was 100% correct and we all know it. Show me one person who's giddy about being out of work plus facing foreclosure and I'll show you a fool. Additionally, I've talked to many "blue collier" Republicans who regret voting(GOP)in '04 based on fear of gay marriage..they understand now that they were used. This awakening makes Sen. Obama's "gun's and Religion" statement ring even more true to them...they seem determined not to be distracted this year. Hate to say it folks, but Sen Obama is a 21st century politician. Those who attack him using 20th century tactics put themselves in danger of being exposed as "out-dated". He has beaten the unbeatable Clinton Machine...Per the AP polls today, Sen. Obama's poll numbers are up across the board...Sen Clinton is down. Sen. McCain should pull back on this issue before his numbers suffer too...his only chance of really winning now is to become the "Compassionate Conservative" again.

- Will in Ohio

April 16, 2008 at 1:33pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

KMHerring— very well-said. you are spot on. now if we could just get less bowling and more straight dope! John- no one is questioning whether rural folk genuinely love god and/or guns. And no one is making any judgement about it. Whether you’re from the sticks or not, you are no better a spokesman for the rural masses than KMHerring. SOME rural (and urban) voter do in fact feel ignored by their government. SOME do feel bitter because the economic decline has continued through bush/clinton/bush. SOME have given up hope that any party or candidate will do anything to improve their economic circumstances. And therefore SOME do vote purely on cultural issues rather than their financial interests. SOME have said so themselves.

- Clinton/Sinbad '08

April 16, 2008 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

It's about time that someone properly captured this issues. This wasn't a gaffe. It was an outrageous sentence uttered by someone that really doesn't get much of the country.

- stone

April 16, 2008 at 3:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

okay, my two cents, Hillary Clinton is just about the worst campaigner of all time. She paid good money for advisers, so it cannot be that. She punches like a girl, for real. She defined this debate with the word "elitist". How incredibly cruel of her. What was wrong with the truth, Obama exposed himself as a pure, undiluted Marxist. Obama is so great, he cannot even pin the girl with no punch. It is one great big sissy fight. Two heavy weights with midget arms who can do nothing more than slap open handed. Either will get knocked into SF bay by a 72 year old man. At least he is so senile McCain will be humble enough to find the best and brightest as advisers. He just has to stay awake long enough to nod and sign papers. What the ... is wrong with the Democrats. They just have not been the same since LBJ had JFK killed to keep his ass out of jail. The Vietnam thing killed off the minds and bodies of an entire generation. Anyone remember LBJ traveling the world and giving speeches after he retired unexpectedly. NO? That is because his home became his personal loony ward. Since then this country has been run by the second best party. Thanks Democrats, you truly are insane.

- Cool Bobby K

April 16, 2008 at 4:01pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

How do you figure Obama is too young compared to FDR? When FDR was elected, he was just 50. Obama is 46. What's the difference? That he hasn't been a governor? That he doesn't look venerable enough? If that's it, say so, but don't fudge the figures.

- Frank T

April 16, 2008 at 4:55pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

We all have been through a terrible period of war, poor economic conditions for most Americans, dichotimization of class with an attempt to exterminate the middle class, poor healthcare, underhanded doings in government, and constant fear-mongering; and along comes a young, intelligent and good-looking man with an ability to look beyond what IS and see what CAN BE, and all of the pundits established over the last eight years try to disparage everything he represents. The "liberal" press has long ago been pushed aside to be replaced with those who can tolerate (and even revere) what has happened to America. Now is the time for all with the capacity for independent thought to come out of mothballs and support the hope that is generated in Obama's campaign, toss out the hopeless crew, and begin to sound the trumpets, climb the ramparts, and let the world know that America the beautiful is on its way back out of the mire.

- Lois in Illinois

April 16, 2008 at 4:59pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Reading the messages, it strikes me that a common response by the Obama apologists to his latest outrage/gaffe/what you heard me say isn't what I meant to say is to attempt to distract attention by pointing the finger at Hillary Clinton or John McCain's real or imagined shortcomings. How sad for the quality of debate! Distracting attention is a pretty weak argument and doesn't make what Obama says, does, or (evidently thinks) any less distasteful. Obama, not Clinton is responsible for what he says. After a while, one wonders why he need legions of interpreters, excusers and apologists.

- Lincolnfan

April 16, 2008 at 5:37pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

You know there is something that has been bothering me about those pesky McCain polls --they make no sense. I scratch my head, look at the numbers (cherry picked as they are though, because not every poll has McCain in or even near a lead), and they are at odds with logic. The hardcore "tell me anything" rabid republican base is reflected in the 28% or so who will not abandoned GWB in his popularity polling. BUT, some of THOSE 28%'ers are not fond of McCain for many reasons (remember Mike Huckabee?). WHERE does this magical 25-30% come from? It would make sense if the undecided category were swelling, indicating that people are not enthused about embracing either Dem candidate but not all that sold on McCain, but STRAIGHT UP McCain endorsement? BULL. There you go, I said it... what is to stop a number of polling groups who are owned and/or influenced by the same interest that brought us the war in Iraq, the housing crisis, etc. to jury rig a few key polls? Ethics? Professional standards of practice? How well has that worked in the Justice Department or anywhere else? Simplest explanation: the polls (for whatever reason) in regards to McCain are WRONG.

- TorranaTony

April 16, 2008 at 6:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The only people who care about the SF remarks are pundits with too much time on their hands; ridiculous.

- Sean

April 16, 2008 at 8:04pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

nodcwqu-qj7g56y-tw6qf4e3-0 whole life insurance http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/affordable-health-insurance/#1 [url=http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/affordable-health-insurance/#3]affordable health insurance[/url] [url]http://onlineautoinsurance.webalias.com#4[/url] [http://wholelifeinsurance.fun.to#5 whole life insurance] "home insurance":http://way.to/homeinsurance#6 [LINK http://fun.to/wholelifeinsurance#7]whole life insurance[/LINK]

- whole life insurance

April 16, 2008 at 9:07pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Haven't you heard? The military HATES McCain and has gone all Democratic. Apparently the decision to screw them on the GI Bill is going over like a lead balloon. Who was to know?

- Dan

April 16, 2008 at 10:17pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Actually, Obama may win the nomination but his chances for winning the general election went out the window because of the Rev. Wright comments. This latest gaffe, spoken by Sen. Obama himself, is ALL that many voters will ever know or hear about. And as for Rev. Wright, his "God damn America" comments will go down in political infamy along with the parson who wrecked James G. Blaine's chances in 1884 with a comment about "Rum, Romanism, and Rebellion." You just can't bounce back from a blunder like that. Jerry Ford lost because of a moment's mental lapse in a discussion of Poland. Overall, I think Mr. Judis has accurately analyzed Obama's inability to connect to this critical voter group. Maybe if he were to get Jim Webb on as a V-P candidate it might help. BUT people don't vote for the V-P, after all. So where is John Edwards when we really need him? Hillary? She maybe can demolish Obama and grab the nomination with non-stop neo-con smears---but she sure as hell won't win in the fall---and she in my opinion has NEVER had any likelihood of winning the general eleciton, particularly against McCain, because so many people really, really dislike her personality. And now we know why, if we didn't know before.

- Oliver Steinberg

April 17, 2008 at 1:23am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

is a sick old man who is a victim (not hero) of the Vietnam war. He spent almost the whole war as a prisoner of the enemy; this hardly qualifies him to be commander in chief of the military. He is an angry loose canon who never administered anything; ask any member of congress. He is trying to win the Vietnam war in Iraq. A McCain presidency would be a continuation of the Bush administration. As awful as the democrats appear to be, with all the problems now facing the US, it is doubtful that it can survive more of Bush. In fact, who knows what further harm Bush and his cronies can accomplish in the 8 months they have left. What is left to Katrinaize?

- McCain

April 17, 2008 at 3:04am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

John Judis has obviously taken some thought over this article. But regardless of Barack Obama's weaknesses, if Mr. Judis truly believes that Hillary Clinton can create or lead a new Democratic majority, then he should think again. Senator Clinton, in her determination to win at all costs, has shown herself in every way unfit for the leadership of the Democratic Party, let alone the United States. She has no compunction about throwing other Democrats under a bus — not only Senator Obama but Al Gore, winner of the popular vote in the 2000 presidential election. She has repeatedly aligned herself with John McCain, Fox News, and the Republican attack establishment in attacks on Mr. Obama (as in last night's fiasco of a debate). In doing so she has also helped construct the case that Senator McCain and the GOP will make against the Democratic nominee — whoever it may be. In fact, it seems to me that she has thrown herself under a bus, making it almost impossible for her to win the presidency even if she is the nominee. And if she does win, I have zero confidence that she will stand up for anything that I - a 59-year-old white woman and a lifelong Democrat - can believe in.

- Tamsin Willard

April 17, 2008 at 1:40pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Did I miss something here? You tell me that white working class voters are in fact very concerned about the economy, and then you tell me why they will or will not vote for Obama or McCain without a single reference to what either says or is likely to do about the economy. Which makes me think that although they are concerned about the economy, that concern does not play into their decisions vis a vis Presidential candidates. Which is what Obama was getting at. And Thomas Franks as well.

- lurker

April 17, 2008 at 3:08pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

I take issue with a lot of this, but I'm particularly troubled by the comment about Obama's Harvard Law diction. Given the scenario the writers paint, there's no way any black candidate could ever have a chance at the presdiency. You're damned if you happen to be a black person with "Harvard Law diction," but then God forbid if you spoke as if you were straight outta the 'hood. I'm curious: do the writers even recognize the extent of their own prejudice?

- tiredofcynicalmedia

April 18, 2008 at 7:52pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Obama's astounding eloquence is really only on display during pre-written speeches delivered with the help of a telepromjpter. When he's speaking off the cuff in response to a question, particularly one he doesn't like - the eloquence is not so much there. In fact, it borders on inarticulateness.

- fedup

April 18, 2008 at 7:56pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Mr. Judis is giving us an excellent assessment of the facts, and I am ever so grateful to finally read something that makes sense! This is a comprehensive article and anyone who is angered by it, is obviously biased!

- T. Barr

April 19, 2008 at 10:54am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Oh, come on. Is Marty Peretz working the plastic dummy on his lap? I don't know. But I do know that the core of Judis' "argument" is that he doesn't like Barack Obama. If Obama's comments were some sort of an electoral "death sentence", why does he still, after about 10 days of this so-called "Bittergate", maintain a slight lead over John McCain? In April of 1980, Reagan trailed Carter and was considered much "too extreme" to ever be elected. In April of 1992, Clinton was well behind Bush and described as a "DOA Nominee", given his "womanizing" and "draft dodging". It's not 1972, or even 1988, as much as Judis might like that. The electorate has changed and continues to change every day. The "wishful thinking" Judis cites appears to be mostly on his part. Judis uses the same "Marxist" smear which is obviously a new right-wing talking point. Shameful. Can Judis tell us anything except for how much he dislikes Obama? When the data won't go your way, try the slander, John.

- Steve Nesich

April 21, 2008 at 12:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

Notice that Judis uses "San Francisco" a total of six times in this dumb piece. Can anyone else say Demagogue?

- Steve Nesich

April 21, 2008 at 1:43pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

LisaHussein - that works both ways. Until we don't have to walk on egg shells race will be a problem. We need to get past having everything we do and say examined for potential prejudice. Everyone - black white purple - views the world from our own personal bias. That means if it doesn’t directly affect us, we probably haven’t thought about it at all. It does not mean we hate anybody…if something isn’t equal a calm “this is how this makes me feel and why” without a “you bigot!!” works wonders. And yes that means the 20 year mentor relationship with Rev. Wright will matter in November.

- Jenn

April 21, 2008 at 3:50pm

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

The evidence you search for, of whether or not Obama is still electible is in Obama’s book, Dreams from my Father. It’s filled with the same type of rhetoric that we hear in the sound bites from Wright. Obama found a person who best fitted his own ideology perfectly. We even hear it in the statements from Michelle Obama. It is a sad day that this man is still running for the highest office in our land. He makes no apology for this book, or his drug use that he outlines in it, nor his feelings for us when he states what Malcolm X thoughts about expunging his mother’s white blood from his body. Read his book, see if you can actually finish it before you get disgusted, and then let us know how you “think” the man can still be our President.

- Mosie

April 26, 2008 at 9:34am

You must be a subscriber to post comments. Subscribe today.

SHARE HIGHLIGHT

0 CHARACTERS SELECTED

TWEET THIS

POST TO TUMBLR

SHARE ON FACEBOOK

Close