So Many Worthy Contestants (4.00 / 1)

Two OF the most out of touch, perhaps.  But there are sooo many others, David.  You, of all people must know that....'

The HUD Secretary who spent $100,000 of taxpayer money for an oil painting of himself and some lackies, just mentioned in Democracy Now'a news headlines, just to pick one almost at random, as Noam Chomsky might say.

Soooo many worthy candidates.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:18:54 AM CDT

I sure hope SF remembers (0.00 / 0)

Clinton's condescending insinuations about San Francisco as an elitist bastion that she made last night. She is trying to play on conventional divisions and polarization to win this thing and that's just plain shitty.

Michael Bloomberg, prince of corporate welfare

---

by: Will @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:29:41 AM CDT

SF? .. (0.00 / 0)

Lets start with Nancy Pelosi for one ... since she represents some of that area .. as far as Tweety .. I hope Colbert kicks his ass this week .. I laughed when Jon Stewart roasted Tweety about his book a few months ago now .. Tweety is one clueless Mofo.

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:44:43 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

this has to be the worst post I have ever read. (2.29 / 7)

---

by: sk @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:50:13 AM CDT

Agreed. (4.00 / 3)

This is the type of absurd dialog about candidates that has made so many political blogs unreadable for the last few months.

Hilary Clinton is the most out of touch American because she makes a lame political attack on Obama? What about George Fucking Bush, who sends Americans to die because he's too stubborn to end this fiasco? What about Dick Cheney, who cares more about what the Saudis want than a super-majority of Americans.

But why think about them when you can slander her, right? This kind of bullshit makes me wish I'd voted for her.

I don't know whether it is a mistake to move beyond the politics to the policy on this thread, but the fact is that Clinton's plans for the economy are as or more liberal than Obama's. That doesn't mean you have to support her for the Presidency, I didn't, but it does mean you're full of shit.

This type of reflexive support for your candidate is not something that has been a feature of front-page posts at OpenLeft. You should try to live up to the standards that Chris, Matt, Mike, Paul and many others have set.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.

---

by: Sam L @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:13:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Agreed as well (4.00 / 2)

This is the type of absurd dialog about candidates that has made so many political blogs unreadable for the last few months.

QFT.

---

by: corax @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 13:42:20 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Robert Reich is in touch (0.00 / 0)

He was born in Scranton and rose to be Clinton's Secretary of Labor.  He writes about Obama's comments here and concludes that Obama was understating things.  As for Russert and the rest of the pack,

Bitter? You ain't seen nothing yet. And as much as people like Russert, Carville, Matalin, Schrum, and Murphy want to divert our attention from what's really happening; as much as HRC and McCain seek to make political hay out of choices of words that can be spun cynically by the mindless spinners of the old politics; as much as demagogues on the right and left continue to try to channel the cumulative frustrations of Americans into a politics of resentment - all these attempts will, I hope, prove futile. Eighty percent of Americans know the nation is on the wrong track. The old politics, and the old media that feeds it, are irrelevant now.

He's right.  It is shoot-the-messenger-before-anyone-listens, more of the politics of distraction.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:56:26 AM CDT

Not a good post, though I sympathize (0.00 / 0)

There are so many choices for being "out of touch", you really can't finger Clinton and Matthews alone.  What is annoying about them is the pretending that they AREN'T part of an elite.  That's what this post should have focused on.

This whole out of context elitism charge, cut and paste out of context quotes into an outrage - how long will this go on?  How long will democratic candidates be kneecapped like this?  I don't know what the outcome of the Obama comments will be - I got what he was saying, and you have to be operating in bad faith to get "outraged" about what Obama said.  

So - just another example of the vapidity, Heathers lethality of the current political discourse.

It will keep happening until it doesn't work.  We know that.  And even when it doesn't work completely, as with Bill Clinton, it seems to work enough in the media, to continue this vicious, small-minded politics about nothing.

I didn't watch the media at all this weekend, myself.  

I couldn't bring myself to comment on this stupidity one way or another, in any blog or forum, until this comment.  It seemed so utterly in bad faith.

---

by: JC @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:26:15 PM CDT

Nonsense. (4.00 / 1)

Being out of touch has nothing to do with where you live, but how you roll. And last week Obama was rolling foul; otherwise, he would not have spoken those offending, elitist words claiming that economically insecure white, working-class people who live in small towns turn to god, guns and bigotry: "... 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."

This is about Obama. Trying to create moral equivalence with Clinton's or Tweety's wealth is dishonest and irrelevant. Obama must account for his own "words."

---

by: fafnir @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:36:18 PM CDT

He has accepted responsibility (0.00 / 0)

for his words, and he made a genuine effort to clear up any confusion about what he was trying to say.  Not once, not twice, but more--How many times must a person express sorrow about what s/he says?  Shouldn't you and Clinton and the rest of the voting public be open to the possibility that Obama is not perfect?  He said he was wrong to use the words he used to express the idea that he was trying to convey.  He explained many time the meaning he was trying to get across.  I think you need to take the time to try to understand what he meant...and then, let's move on!

Even last night, Clinton went on about it again, during what was suppose to be a forum on religion and values.  Obama had to explain himself yet again.

And today, in Pittsburg, Pennsylvanians even began groaning about Clinton's incessant ranting on this same topic.  They are getting tired of the same old argument--they, like all of us, want real, substantive discussions on policy, economics, education, foreign affairs, etc.  Enough of the crap--let's stick to the issues!

---

by: cabresch @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:53:54 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

No he didn't (0.00 / 0)

He's trying to deflect the really objectionable parts onto the "bitter" part and pretend he didn't say that people cling to their religion because the world has gotten them down.

---

by: Trickster @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 15:07:15 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, he has. (0.00 / 0)

You say the primary offense is the term "bitter".  Interesting that others who do not support him have other complaints: use of the phrase "small towns", "those people", "cling".  Where does it end.  Does he have to make a personal call to YOU so you can know that he has done your bidding?  NONSENSE!

---

by: cabresch @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 15:17:19 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

You misunderstood me (0.00 / 0)

I said that he's trying to DEFLECT the conversation onto his use of the term "bitter" and that he hasn't addressed the real problem with his remarks at all.

At least that's what I thought I said. . . .  :)

---

by: Trickster @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 19:03:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Yes, because people who have been economically downsized (0.00 / 0)

are HAPPY!!!

---

by: Aunt Martha @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 13:16:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

He was too candid, that's all. (0.00 / 0)

There was nothing incorrect in what Obama said. The reason The Machine has responded with such fury is because his remarks cut very close to a major weak spot for the global elite: that globalization has been legislated despite near-zero popularity by tricking working class people into voting against their own economic self-interest through meaningless, bullshit social issues. They fight so viciously to protect that weak spot because the whole globalization racket hinges on it.

And, no, this is not "about Obama." This is about the candidate who is and always was the elitist candidate, Hillary Clinton, pretending to be a populist champion by latching onto this empty cultural imagery. I'm shocked that her fraudulent pandering -- I can drink whiskey! -- has gotten this much traction for so long.

Hillary Clinton will drink whiskey, shoot ducks and fart at a poker table -- but she'll never EVER turn against the global economic Hydra that she serves.

VISA is Hungry! http://www.funnyordie.com/vide...

---

by: mildewmaximilian @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 16:51:55 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Clinton (4.00 / 1)

Hillary's consistent out-of-touchness has been the real wonder of this whole primary season. She's good on some policy, like education, but overall seems to be living in some other universe. Apparently she's trying to cater to a culture based on clinging to old delusions, trying to wring mileage out of dying cliches instead of speaking to current realities.

The Wright blowup was a golden opportunity for her to show that she understood the situation of black Americans, and that there was still much reparation to do. Instead she seamlessly dropped into the role of the spoiled little girl: "See, Daddy, I didn't say a bad word like Barry did -- I'm a good girl!" It ended up all about her.

Then there was the "bitter" hooha. She could have shown that rural and small-town people have much to be pissed about, that the Dem party has underperformed in finding ways for America to work better for them, and will do much better under her. Instead she rushed in to push those Americans back into the bullshit cliche about being the salt of the earth, the good family folks, the true patriots who would never complain about The System.

In both cases, hair-raising condescension toward people who got the short end of the stick. Sickening pandering designed to dissuade them from criticizing the parasite class that she now represents. And then going on to try and tag Obama as "elitist" for speaking to and of Americans who deserve the attention of government more than Bear Sterns ever did.

It's all so obvious and dishonest. The only question is whether she's aware of what she's doing, or is totally blinded by her sense of righteousness and entitlement. She is no longer connecting with Americans, but has gone over entirely to the mindless filters like Matthews and the rest of the "news" bimbos. Like them, she has, in the longer run, made herself irrelevant. She has become an American tragedy.

---

by: DaveW @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM CDT

I call bullshit (0.00 / 0)

"The Wright blowup was a golden opportunity for her to show that she understood the situation of black Americans, and that there was still much reparation to do.". As an African-American, I call bullshit!

"understood the situation of black Americans" - from whose perspective? The crap that Obama spewed out in his fake Gettysburg address on race.

The one line that pissed me off then and continues to irrate me is "I can no more disown him [Rev. Wright] than I can disown the black community." First off, Rev. Wright does not represent nor embody the "black community". So for him to compare the two is completely false and an excuse to step away from truly denouncing Rev. Wright.

The black community is more than Obama's summation of angry old people that are bitter about the way America treated them. The black community is rich and bold. The black community is diverse in its thinking on politics, religion, family, and justice. The black community believes in America and all her faults. The black community also wonders about America and all her faults.

So please tell me how Sen. Clinton should have "understood the situation of black Americans". Obama may be your messenger on black Americans; but he is not every black person's messiah.

---

by: Bernita Smith @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 13:37:06 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Obama is out of touch for ordering OJ... (0.00 / 0)

j/k

Nice to see a front-page blogger on this site giving Hillary the justice she deserves. I know Democrats don't like to attack other Democrats but bloggers are attacking Obama all over the place and Hillary now has proven she deserves our ridicule.

p.s. I remember listening to you on Al Franken you were great on his show my favorite guest

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 13:39:06 PM CDT

what blog universe do you inhabit? (0.00 / 0)

bloggers everywhere attacking Obama.   I had to reread it 3 times to make sure you weren't saying attacking Clinton....which is 90% of the blog universe.


"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 23:50:22 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

I've seen no blog attacking Clinton besides Kos... n/t (0.00 / 0)

End this war. Stop John McCain. Cindy McCain is filthy rich.

---

by: wiretapp @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 01:14:11 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Out of Touch ? Not. (4.00 / 1)

Out of touch and in Government, or reality. Obama was approximately twenty years old when the Internet started taking shape. This was about 1985. Some of my time line might be off a little, but the real happening is something I lived and worked through. I bought that first IBM computer, the DOS operating system from the University of Illinois as a part time student of electrical engineering.  

The common Internet we know today clearly took off during the Clinton / Gore administration. If anybody anytime in recorded history was in touch and connected to America and helped America connect to each other it was during the Clinton / Gore administration and blossomed in to a world wide phenomena that change the way we do things.

This real trustiness is something that all Mainstream Media will not be able to spin into trash talk. At least for me it is, but, there many who will embrace a doubt for the ideal that the Clintons did not have anything to do with making the Internet an integral part of communications in the world's social structure.

An Achievement very hard to top and realized every time one logs on to a Blog express an opinion, or looks at email. The change in the way American government does business operations has changed dramatically. The way education and commerce has changed by leap and bounds. For anyone to dismiss this is a total block head. Here, Obama along with his supporters are deaf, blind, and can not see as they all monkey around and play the game of politics, discounting the huge culture impact and giving the proper accountability.

Much of today's educational connection had stemmed from the Clinton administration. Those who dismiss this are out of touch and disingenuous, or so filled with envy, they rant endlessly with deceit and lies, like Obama and his friends the Obamakins.            

---

by: joze46 @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 14:25:37 PM CDT

Yes, but it was more Gore than Clinton (0.00 / 0)

Remember he invented the internets.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.

---

by: Mimikatz @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 15:03:26 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

also: John McCain (4.00 / 1)

Let's not forget John McCain and his belief that if we just implement the right mix of Herbert Hoover's laissez faire and George W. Bush's tax cuts for the rich we'll experience economic nirvana.

---

by: redwards95 @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 14:49:07 PM CDT

Oh How Tired... (0.00 / 0)

David, why thank you for the let them eat cake bit...wondering when you were going to call for burning her at the stake, like some evil witch (or woman that has spoken up).

I have never seen "Progressive Democrats" so nasty to each other and the candidates. So much personalizing its very disturbing.

Get over it!

Obama made a mistake and its his fault for doing it and thats just the price he pays for it...in politics, and as Obama reminds us "Words Matter"!

Facts also matter...can Obama back up the claim that people in PA fell through the cracks during the Clinton Presidency? Is Obama really trying to tell us the Clinton economy was no good for PA or another state for that matter? Did people do really bad during the Clinton years? If so, that is news to me. Can Obama back up his "words" with facts?

If Obama is going to win the nom...which i am not so sure...when will he actually do this "unity" thing. How can someone who has been so nasty and mean spirited in a campaign actually bring a country together when he has shown us his true colors.

Should be interesting but i don't think he can pull it off. Maybe one day...

---

by: FTLBoy @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 19:55:50 PM CDT

Sirota Is Just Soooo Biased (0.00 / 0)

He won't even admit that his own candidate, Barack Obama, has committed doublespeak on NAFTA on AT LEAST two separate occasions and that both were to newspapers.

Sigh. If this were all I could probably forgive him. But he is now angry that Obama has been seriously wounded by his own poorly chosen comments and instead of addressing THAT problem, lashes out at Clinton and Matthews. (Though how Matthews receives such an honor is spectacularly breathtaking, given Matthews' open shilling for Obama at Clinton's expense every chance he gets.

Frankly, I think this is just Sirota's pathetic and disingenuous way of showing that he really isn't afflicted with "Momism" and isn't really a sexist. ("See? I put Clinton and Matthews in the same box this time").

Way to go, again, Sirota. You don't get it, period. This IS the problem with both the left hemisphere and Barack Obama.  

---

by: mabelle55 @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 22:09:48 PM CDT

No (0.00 / 0)

If Franklin Roosevelt were alive today, he would have more money than Clinton and Matthews put together. Demonizing people for money they made- especially honestly, in Clinton's case- is more a way to make enemies than friends. It's also dishonest, because Roosevelt was a huge elitist, and, well, we know his record. I like how you trash someone for having too much money if they aren't they way you like them, but when you agree with them, you forget they have all this money. Try and be consistent before you decide to rant.

Second, Clinton has talked this whole campaign about fixing trade and economic troubles of individuals and health care and college costs. Calling her a liar on NAFTA is one thing, but pretending like she hasn't made the economy a centerpiece of her campaign is putting the blinders on.

Get your copy of The Progressive Revolution
Me on Facebook

Me on Twitter

---

by: Adam Bink @ Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 23:51:03 PM CDT

This post is so egregious and laughable.... (0.00 / 0)

Chris Matthews and Hillary Clinton are equally out of touch!

You mean the man who has done more to make clear the misogyny of the media is just like the woman he trashes on a daily basis.

Maybe we should be grateful...at least Matthews' fear of powerful women is not hidden the way it is with too many progressive men...who despite  Hillary Clinton having more progressive policies just can't bring themselves to support her.

One wonders why?

Progressive men have no good reason not to support her other than being just like the man who kidnapped Josh Marshall....when referring to the firing of Mark Penn he wrote that Hillary Clinton firing him meant that Penn had been gelded!!!!  What a revealing Freudian slip for that most Freudian fear....fear of powerful women.  In case some don't know gelding is castrating a horse....so Josh let slip his fear of castrating women...like HIllary Clinton.

When the candidate who is more progressive and she is not supported, and the candidate who is less progressive, though male is supported by progressive men...then it is legitimate to deduce their animus is based on something other than their policies.  And they can twist themselves into pretzels saying that when Hillary Clinton says she pro X or anti X..well of course she's just lying...because if you couldn't say tripe like that then you might have to really examine your deeper motivations.

But this post just seals it...it is absolutely valueless...policy empty.  It's only rationale is to throw stuff at Hillary Clinton. It smacks of what one might read in the anti female gossip mongering of FHM, Maxim and the fetid mind of Chris Matthews himself.

A very interesting article on the fear that drives Obamamania....too many woman knocking on the doors where there used to just be men (observation near the end)

Salon by Rebecca Traister
Hey Obama boys back off already

http://www.salon.com/mwt/featu...

"Incrementalism isn't a different path to the same place, it could be a different path to a different place"
Stoller

---

by: debcoop @ Tue Apr 15, 2008 at 00:04:36 AM CDT