What a pompous, self-righteous, collectivistic attitude.

"You are what we say you are."

[sarcasm]Now see you are just being racist.[/sarcasm]

If a white person were to say that about blacks living in say...detroit than yes, they would be "pompous" and "self-righteous". They would be torn apart by the media.

Actually strike that. If any republican said that about any group they would be torn apart by the media.

Obama gets a pass though. Not saying what he said was inappropriate, just the fact that if McCain were to say that there would be hell to pay.

Also I am really really really really sick and tired of the bulls**t claim about "anti-immigration" feelings. Yes, there are some people of all political parties and races that are prejudiced. However, the vast majority by a huge magnitude are not anti immigrants. They are anti ILLEGAL immigrants.

Of course when you accuse your opponents of being against those that breaking the law you don't look good. Accuse them of racism and you gain mega points while they lose points. Of course it is a huge lie.

He should have stuck to bowling.

Bowling or politics - either way he's spending his share of time in the gutter.

But all the dems are eating it up.

Am I missing something? He didn't say all Pennsylvanians are like this. Or even that all of those that have lost jobs are like this. If any of you are taking it that way, I think you're taking it wrong.

It may very well be that the majority of these people are this way (which is what I believe he is implying). Has political correctness come to the point that you can't make statements about a group of people?

No, we're not taking it that way. He didn't say all of Pennsylvanians. No one is saying he did.

I merely said that if a republican had made a statement like this or if a white man had made a similar comment about the people in detroit there would have been a huge uproar. Even if s/he said the citizens of detroit people would claim it was code for african-americans.

Also, fyi, a majority of the people are not like he said. Not in the least. And again, if a white man or a republican tried to paint the majority of any group in such a negative manner he would have been lucky to be burned in effigy.

First of all, I was referring more to 1thirteen3's comment more than what you said. I agree with what you said, but I think in the opposite direction. I believe that you believe that the same response should come to him that would have come to a Republican, etc. I don't think that type of response should come to either of them.

I don't quite understand how you could possibly know that unless you live in one of these towns or travel through them frequently. That is, of course, not to be taken offensively. Merely a statement/pseudo-question as to how you would know that.

Totally agree.

I don't understand why anyone should be annoyed that someone can tell it as he thinks it is without being stoned. An honest opinion from a candidate that apparently can be more honest than we are accustomed too.

The "fact" that a Republican or anyone else for that matter would have been censured for these same remarks is one of the problems in this country.

Obama's looking better and better.

I am not talking about what response SHOULD come to him or to a republican or any white person. I am talking about the reality of what response IS/WOULD result. In that regards I am correct. A republican or any white person couldn't say something like this. Which sort of response SHOULD be given is immaterial.

I am not saying anything against Obama, just that anyone else would have been drawn and quartered which is not Obama's fault.

No, I don't have to live there to know that the majority of the people are like you, me, the family that lives a block from you, etc.

Think about how wrong it would sound to say the majority of the people living in detroit/dc/etc are a bunch of welfare cheaters who are all drug users, who don't want to work because of a sense of entitlement, and criminals. That would be untrue of the majority. Would it be true of a percentage? Even a large percentage? Who knows. It would differ for each neighborhood and each city.

Still I can say with 100% conviction that the majority of the people as a whole are people who want to provide the best for their family, who struggle to keep a job, to provide a home and decent education for their children, who hate the criminals and drug users that are tearing down their cities.

I was agreeing with you...

I don't quite think that's what Obama meant when he said what he did.

We aren't going through the same thing as some of these towns though. When a large group of people go through the same exact thing I think it is safe to say that the majority of them will deal with it in the same way. Either by the fact that we are programmed in basically the same way, or by copying their neighbour's way of coping with the same problem. "After all, from the outside, it seems like it's working for them."

I don't equate all of that with what Obama said. he was talking in more of a "all of these people are going through a tragedy" sense. Would it be wrong to say that the Iraqi people, after their country has been destroyed, "cling" to one thing or another if the person saying so had noticed that a large majority of these people indeed do?

I never said anything to the opposite effect.

This goes beyond the honesty question. What he said was an overly simplistic generalization tailored to gain a positive reaction from a target audience while forgetting that those he generalized will also hear his words. Standard issue political rhetoric that came back to bite the politician.

actually if any outsider makes a comment that even smells negative about detroit the next time they visit they're car would get stolen and they'd be shot at.. even with their bodyguards, lol.. so yea.. don't be messin wit my city, lol

I'm taking a shot in the dark here, your not a Obama supporter then Imnotblue?

You guys just proved his point and did what he wanted! He is smarter than I could've imagined!

No... not as such.

I assume you’ve come to this conclusion because I’ve posted a number of stories about Obama. Well, I'm not posting these articles with the intent of attacking him. Just discussing the “likely Democratic candidate.”

I do, however, dislike the "pro-Obama" stance that many in the media have taken towards him. In watching and reading, it's obvious many 'journalists' have already built homes in "Obama Town." Because of that, I think a lot of negative Obama stories either get ignored, or haven't been investigated to the lengths they should be... or at least the lengths they would have been for any other candidate.

With that in mind, I find these stories interesting, and important to post.

No, It wasn't that you've posted about him before, I hadn't noticed you have, it was the ever so slightly slanted headline and description that made me think you weren't Obama's biggest fan. lol ;)

It is disturbing to some people that journalists, who have listened to hours and hours of political discourse, have a tendency to report favorably on the candidate that either seems more honest, shows more intelligence, or has impressed them the most. Doesn't seem to bother them when it's their candidate though.

I do agree that the media does seem to pick and choose what stories to follow. There's one or two McCain stories that would have been hotly persued if they involved Bill Clinton.

Really? I wasn’t trying to. I thought I summed up the “What?” part well with the headline. Especially because it was a long article, I wanted to highlight the "area of discussion." And it looks like I was ahead of the curve... this story is all over the place!

1- “Journalists” are supposed to be unbiased, and able to report both the positive and negative about a candidate. Some “journalists” have become activists, hiding under the cover of “journalism.” It is historically “normal” for journalists to be biased towards the Democratic candidate (surveys, dating way back, of journalists show they are overwhelmingly Democrats)… but in this election cycle, it’s particularly interesting because they are so obviously pro one Democratic candidate over another.

2- The stories you’re referring to (if I’m assuming correctly) would be pursued differently because of the context of the stories. McCain being accused of “infidelity” many years ago, with no actual proof, is only a “meh” interesting story. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, has a personal history of such “infidelity,” and so the story becomes more compelling. However, do note, that the same such stories were not as interesting (at least to journalists) back when he was running for President. But since much of the media has taken such a hard-line stance against Hillary Clinton, a negative Bill Clinton story gets a little more airtime.

3- Lastly, yes… when it’s “your candidate” it’s easier to ignore. And I suspect, as the election season rolls on, there will be a lot more “it’s unfair” claims from both sides. Especially (IMO) from those who have spent the last 7 years bashing, berating, and unfairly attacking President Bush… who will all of a sudden be really upset when someone starts doing the same thing to one of their guys. But I guess, as they say, turnabout is fair play.

We are boring any unfortunaate sole that has happened to stumble on this endless thread.

I am going to agree to thoroughly disagree with you and only respond to one of your misstatements.

Bush has been our president for over 7 years. In that time he has created an historic mess. To list all his actual blunders, and it's a kindness to catagorize them as blunders when there is evidence of potential lying, would take up incredible space. Surely one who is as well versed in our history as yourself would accept that to be a truth and not argue the point that his administration has not been a monumental failure.

There is no need to blame Bush for anything other than what he is responsible for. He is the president, the decider, the commander in chief the leader of the free world, the buck stops with him. No?

I would be interested in seeing a list of important things that Bush has been blamed for and he was not responsible for in some way. Please don't include nonsense from some two bit website that no one sees.

You may be bored,frustrated or annoyed at people listing his failures but if they are true then it is not bashing.

On the other hand you accept/repeat/post anything
that puts Obama down with little or no verification at all. Isn't that what bashing is?