God help us if he becomes president that's all I'll say.

What is amazing is that he has made it this far with relatively no platform except this ambiguous mantra of "change". I hate my peers, they are the ones pushing him on (because it is "cool" to vote for Obama).

What a great McCain ad!

Also I am tired of this elite crap. Every politician is an Elite. If you went to college and are wealthy you are an elite. Every one of our founding fathers were elites. I don't have a problem with that term, and it pisses me off when people use in bad way. Dumb poor people shouldn't leading the country.

No worries. The people that consider this a big deal (like Loyal ) do so because they want this to be a big deal. The same way certain Clinton insiders were furious that the Wright controversy did not sink the Obama campaign. They're hanging around waiting for political disaster, that's all.

I just see the hypocrisy. Hilary calling Obama an elite. I didn't realize she was some poor, dumb farmer. I guess she rather have mob rule like the French Revolution and lets start cutting off heads of these so called elites.

It's funny, really. One candidate made over $100 million. Another candidate married someone with over $100 million. The last candidate was raised by a single mother that used food stamps, who could only give her son "love, education, and hope." Who's the elitist?

Again, the people all riled up about this non-story are offended because they don't like Obama; people that came to dislike Obama because of the comment are amusingly rare. In any case, why are Clinton shills louder than McCain supporters? They all sound like high school girls in a pillow fight. The McCain voters in my life are very sober, respectable people.

I knew Loyal would come back to the political forum for this

And I agree with Obama 100% with what he said. Just on a personal level, I think he's right.

Never tell a Republican to settle down, especially not one extremely frustrated...



... by their Illinois income tax filing not going through the system. It's tax day!

And the Obama supporters here that don't consider this a big deal, do so because they don't want this to be a big deal.

Funny that...

It's not a big deal unless proven otherwise. Obama slumped in the polls post-Wright, and this time nothing happened. Comprende?

Bad stuff's only bad if someone catches you, eh?



(Remind me not to turn my back on Angela... )

It ain't bad unless people decide it's bad, especially people that had no prior incentive to consider it bad.

Welcome to the club. Except I'm in Georgia, a liberal and it was my federal return because someone apparently stole my identity.

Anyway. Carry on.

Someone stole my identity before, but not financially. That was dumb luck, as they did have my credit card information.

I gave up on the electronic submission. Mailed the state return to Springfield instead. Anyhow, what the hell does Illinois do with all that state income tax? It certainly doesn't go toward Chicago transportation needs. The quality of our rails and roads wouldn't even impress Franklin Roosevelt.

Back to the topic:
Obama's statement was not tactful, but it doesn't count as a gaffe. We're in a sorry state of being if honesty counts as a gaffe.

Touche.

Well, you know, it would be a big deal if he had actually said what they are claiming he said.

Instead, they are taking a comment he made -- a comment that, incidentially, was also made by Bill Clinton when he last ran for President, and a comment that was also made by Senator Webb and was the theme of a popular political book from a few years ago called "What's the Matter with Kansas?" -- and have taken it out of context and completely twisted its meaning to serve their purposes.

Here's what Obama said: Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on.

But the Clinton people have taken this and interpreted it to mean he was insulting people, which he certainly was not. they are stretching the truth to the breaking point, and some of you here are so gullible you're sucking it all up without ever taking the time to see what was actually said. You just follow like sheep (ironically while calling Obama supporters the non-thinking "cult.").

I'm more commenting on some of his other comments such as "a typical white person", his affiliation with questionable leadership and his lack of a platform. Honestly he didn't insult me by even what he said about small town America because I've got my own set of opinions on them.

I know! This has always irritated me. How the hell did Bush manage to market himself as a cowboy when he went to Yale??? Why did he even want to?

Oh yeah, because everyone wants to vote for the guy next door that they would have a beer with. I must be the only person who doesn't want that. Chances are, if they're having a beer with me, than they're not competent enough to run this country, because I'm not competent enough to run this country, and I know birds of a feather when I see it.

Its one of the number one 'slanders' used during the election runs of 'Northerners" like Kerry, etc. Everyone wants their dose of southern charm (Excepting Dean. He was good, I don't know how he got away with not seeming like a stuffy, northern elitist), even though its not like Edwards, Bush, Richardson, and the lot didn't also go to top, private, universities! This never ceases to astound me.

Anyone read this article, even though it is off topic? http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/books ... ref=slogin Its from the Times book reviews about a woman who wrote about why Americans are hostile to knowledge. I found it interesting.

I haven't been following this closely, but to me its simply a question of causality as an arguement, which I really don't believe is a very good arguement under any circumstance. Its always more complex than a direct relationship between cause and effect. Just because someone is poor does not mean they inevitably become zealots as a product of their financial situation. I have met many poor people that are very progressive. More progressive than most rich people I've met. And I've met many people that are religious but not zealous. I actually found that the most conservative cases of religion I encountered were in sheltered, middle-class suburbs like the one I grew up in.

There is always multiple options available to someone in any finacnial situation and creating a causal effect between poverty and conservativism (hey it could be vice-versa, even, right) just seems kind of simple to me. There are more factors to it. Its like saying that if all apples are fruits, all fruits must therefore be apples. (I.e. if all homophobes are poor, than all poor people must be homophobes). It just not true.

I love the correlation/causation debate.

Time order people! Seriously, it is fundamental to statistical and relational debates.

This will no doubt be exploited in the fall election, as well.

Just watch all the angry Clinton supporters flip flop on this issue the second Obama gets the nomination. This will go from a huge, outrageous comment to a complete non issue for them, trust me.

I am not sure where that connotation started. I think Republicans started saying that in the 80's but it could have been sooner. The funny thing is our founding fathers pretty much set the govt. that way. Also I wouldn't want some dumb, uneducated person who is drinking at bars as president of the U.S.

Just watch all the angry Obama supporters flip flop on {whatever Hilary issue they're selling this week} the second Clinton gets the nomination. This will go from a huge, outrageous comment to a complete non issue for them, trust me.

There seems to be no shortage of smug self-evident statements about the nature of politics in this thread...

where is your brown solidarity Loyal??

But that's not what was said.

Basically, the statement was that these people have stopped trusting politicians who promise to help them financially, so instead on voting on the economy, they vote on other issues (guns, gods, and gays) even when the politcians they vote for hurt them economically.