"You know what, Rich People, God Bless Us. We deserve all the opportunities"

Obamatons (said in kindness): I expect to see every Obama spokesman
harping on this by evening. I expect to see an ad go up.
If you don't, which I expect they won't, you have clearly learned
nothing about how to demolish race/class double standards in this
country, distinctions Clinton/Rove have expertly played upon,
because you cling to the notion that working class whites will
never support an economic populist argument and will always vote race
and arugula. If you don't harp on this for the next week, I will
say you have learned nothing from the Kerry campaign and deserve
to lose in the fall because this is the death knell for Hillary.

"You know what, Rich People, God Bless Us. We deserve all the
opportunities, to make sure our country and our blessings continue
for the next generation."

Clinton said it, and it is a campaign killer

BUT NOT IF HYPOCRITES IGNORE IT LIKE Y'ALL IGNORE HAGEE.

Obama spokesmen need to talk about nothing BUT this
fucking Clinton blunder. I don't expect they WILL
because they have Shrum-itis, as we've seen in the'
tongue tied response to Wright vs. Hagee.

Bob Shrum says tread lightly! Don't want to look un-presidential. Can't look unpatriotic or too "out there". Play it safe damn it! It always works!

always on the defensive, afraid to say anything negative about their opponent,
even when completely justified.

Yes, I'll say it. Obama is a spineless PANSY!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pypZVJQt1Tg

I love hearing Clintonista's complaining that this is out of context or somehow was chopped up and edited.

She spoke these words and now she has to own them.

Then it IS big news and you should MAKE it big news. Period.

Don't give those MSM motherf*ckers an INCH on this. OR on Hagee.

Obama or Wright didn't say it so... not news.

But we all know the MSM will refuse to make an issue of it.

Had Obama said the EXACT SAME THING they would spend the next 4 days straight harping about it.

Im sure glad our MSM is treating both candidates equal......:sarcasm:

That's not what she says on the campaign trail. Many of her voters assume
she is Hometown White Chick running against the Black Man Who Must Be Rich
because Only Elite Black Folks Succeed. They've never met a middle class
black man.

No dice. Fair is fair. In and of itself the quote is the EXACTY WRONG
reason to advocate progressive taxation, saying the wealthy will continue
to benefit proportional to their massive wealth, no one will lose out
because the rich who have succeeded on ill-gotten gains, such as kickbacks
for public appearances, are somehow deserving.

If Obama had said this, this thread would have 100 fucking posts and you know it.

Stop conceding territory!!!!!

It is a fabrication intended to cause your readers to reach the wrong conclusion. A more concise way to say this is "you're lying".

CLINTON: Well, because here's why. I learned a lesson from Ronald Reagan. In 1980, when he was elected, our Social Security system was in a mess. The Democrats weren't agreeing and a lot of the Republicans were nervous. So Speaker Tip O'Neill, another great American politician, the two of them, the two Irishmen, got together and said, let's have a commission, because the only way we're going to fix this is if everybody said, hey, we've got to make some changes. I am not going to raise the payroll tax on people who are already paying more than their share.

O'REILLY: But I could pay it on every nickel I make.

CLINTON: No. I am not in favor...

O'REILLY: So that would be another 8 going on to 6.5. That's 14.

CLINTON: I am not in favor of lifting the cap. That's Senator Obama.

O'REILLY: Oh, you're not?

CLINTON: I am not in favor of lifting the cap.

O'REILLY: OK. So you're going to keep it $109,000?

CLINTON: We're going to see what happens here.

O'REILLY: All right.

CLINTON: We're going to — but...

O'REILLY: So you're kind of waffling here, right?

CLINTON: No, I'm not waffling. I'm saying I'm not going to impose additional burdens on middle-class families. And there are a lot of people...

O'REILLY: But I'm not a middle-class family. I'm a rich guy.

CLINTON: Well, and you know what? Rich people, God bless us. We deserve all the opportunities...

O'REILLY: All right.

CLINTON: ...to make sure our country and our blessings continue to the next generation.

O'REILLY: I'm going to assume — because I'm a saver and I'm prudent — I'm assuming that I'm going to get a 14 percent hit.

CLINTON: Don't assume that. You can't assume that from me.

O'REILLY: All right. Now...

CLINTON: I've not said anything like that.

O'REILLY: OK. You're going to raise taxes on the wealthy, and that's income redistribution. You know what that is. And income redistribution is why some conservatives don't like you, all right? It's because you take from the wealthy and you give to the less affluent. That's socialism. That has a socialist component.

CLINTON: No it isn't.

O'REILLY: Sure it is.

CLINTON: Teddy Roosevelt — was Teddy Roosevelt a socialist?

O'REILLY: Somewhat.

CLINTON: Oh, I think that Teddy Roosevelt was a great American...

O'REILLY: So do I.

CLINTON: ...who understood that our country works better when we're all in it together. Now...

O'REILLY: But you're taking and giving. Robin Hood, taking and giving.

CLINTON: ...90 percent of the benefits of income in the last decade have gone to people like us. Income distribution was much broadly dispersed. You were growing up on Long Island. I was growing up outside of Chicago. You know, my dad got up every day. He was a small business man. He worked his head off, but he didn't feel like the deck was stacked against him.

Looks like we're msatching skill against skill here.

You can't win on this one. You know that, right?

Unless the Obama camp allows the MSM to drown them out like you drowned out Obama on the bitter quote.

You have your debate strategy, I have mine. Obama fans should be harping on this
and let the American people judge who is right. The MSM will not do their work for them...

the MSM has its marching orders for a McCain white house, the rest is WWE stagecraft.

It's up to Obama to bring these serious questions to voter attention, just
as Clinton did with bitter-gate. Let the American people decide if it is
damaging. The MSM won't even let them know who Hagee is, for fsck sake...
my own mother, a religiously NYT-reading, arugula-eating urban academic
who supports Obama, has never heard of Hagee. You can't argue about a
quote like these if you're unwilling to take it public.

I thought we learned that 4 years ago.

Plausible deniability, and all that.

Why should Obama unilaterally disarm when Clinton will not forcefully
denounce efforts to take Wright and bitter comments "out of context"?

The Clinton remark in the OP -- and others she has said like it --
is disgusting on its face, even in context, it oozes lese majeste
which is why Obama would not be allowed to say such a thing!

To the extent that Obama offers a "less confrontational" means
of rallying the white working class to his side by portraying himself
as a "less confrontational" alternative to RFK or MLK, that is NOT
a point in his favor.

In context, it is clear Sen. Clinton is arguing that taxes on the rich should be increased from what they are at present, and indeed, that the 'opportunities' spoken of are the opportunities she would provide for the rich to pay more into the Treasury for the benefit of our country as a whole. In other words, something of a populist message....

it is easier to bash Hillary than read all of the text.

What Kerry lost an election for being accused of the exact same thing.

You can't spin this in Clinton's favor unless you want to.

Hillary's the one who's proud of her immense wealth.

Blacks and public servants like Kerry are not allowed to be proud of
their station in life because they are considered undeserving.

We need REAL populism and not right-wing populism that Hillary is
offering with her references to multiple "elites", a coded phrase
for the socialism of fools. Destroy Hillary's future in the party
and her cronies, or destroy real populism within the confines of
the existing Democratic Party... your choice.

If Obama had said this, would your opponents consider it a big deal?

Think hard -- the only way to stop a double standard is to apply
the "goose rule" of politics.

What's good for the gander, is good for the goose.

I said this after Imus was fired and was ignored. Now folks want
Rush jailed for incitement to riot -- another right-wing populist
viewpoint. Yeah, let's not fire people for what they say, but for
encouraging dissedt at the convention. Play into those hands!

To examine the thing in context and discern what was really meant. In this case what is really meant makes political atmospherics such as you are suggesting certain to fail.

What 'real' populism', as opposed to 'populism' means is unclear to me. The groups of the population traditionally supposed to respond to populist appeal seem to have been, within the Democratic Party, aligned with Sen. Clinton from the start of this campaign. Non one who is getting roughly half the votes in an extended primary process can be properly spoken of as representing merely a faction of cronies who can be expelled somehow from the party and leave it whole and stronger than ever. The support she enjoys is real and deeply rooted in the rank and file of the Party.

Anyone who has read Thomas Frank would know that Clinton and her husband
are not populists. They are abusing right-wing populism -- the ideology
of discontent directed against the stereotypical academic-black alliance
who are presumed to be holding back the working class -- to get elected.

It is the old Horatio Alger mentality -- anti-populist in every sense
save for unadulterated racism.

In this country it has been shot through with nativism and racism throughout its history.

The fact remains that in the conversation you excerpted this comment from, Sen. Clinton was in fact arguing on 'soak the rich' lines. The idea no rich person can be a friend of the working people is rather quickly dispensed with by reference to President Roosevelt and his New Deal.

won't get anywhere with me.

"This is the best world possible: everything in it is a necessary evil."

Or a Churchillian one. (if said approvingly).
US politics has been driven so far to the right by Right Wing guru
Overton's tactics (far more harmful than Rove's mere cleverness)
that good liberals like yourself seem to echo Churchill, at times.
When will Obama reject and denounce Lincoln for what he said
in his 2nd Inaugural address about reparations?

:hi:

Happy hunting....

... lies a great crime. - H. Balzac

Other than leftism (which I'll note both liberals and the "rightists"
you are criticizing here keep rejecting) which seeks to destroy the
injustice of the established social dynamic, which is perpetuated by
right-wing populism and right-wing anti-populism. Right-wing
anti-populists like Hillary, who are further in that direction than
Goldwater, use right-wing populism to maintain the status quo.

Regular populism, as traditionally practised in America before the rise
of terminally incompetent and elitist American Marxism in left thought,
seeks to upend the status quo in favor of true conservatism, which is
a return to the recognition that Americans are free to criticize a
system based on greed and racism, a system that real populists have
been fighting against. Elites invariably side with the right wing of
any popular movement and claim projection, that the presence of a
single elitist on the opposing camp is evidence of the moral bankruptcy
of the left. And if you are black (or jewish, etc.) you're an elitist
if you have any money or education whastsoever because that somehow
makes you atypical under the unspoken double standard.

Right-wing populism is thus a tool used BY elites to divide the
"middle class", i.e. underclass to use Thomas Frank's and
Michael Lind's more accurate formulation.

I'm sick of double standards... air this god damn quote on the news and
you can defend it there.

Call into Larry King and say Obama agrees with it, if you think it will
not hurt Hillary or help his campaign!

that was fine for Hillary to take out of context and exploit, right? I mean everyone who isn't an idiot knows he was talking about wedge issues, that people cling to guns and religion as issues in how they vote. But hey, it was fair game for her to spin it into an attack on "traditional values" and huntin back in Scranton. So you know what? I say tough shit. Play the "God bless the rich" clip all day long. You can follow behind and explain how it was taken out of context. That seems about right to me.

was intended to be explanatory to his SF audience as to why he understands how rural folks acquired such antisocial views, and can thus get their votes.

Obama's statement, in context, was still condescending.

But you're doing a good job of demonstrating situational ethics, but it kind of undermines your campaign's promise of "new politics" as meaning something.

Good luck catapulting the propaganda. Hillary did really well against O'Reilly, and the more democrats you send to see the video or read the transcript, the better.

Sorry. Hillary knew exactly what he was saying. Hell I'm quite sure she agreed with what he was saying, as factually, it is not really in dispute. It's pathetic that any Democrat would campaign on the idea that guns is a bigger issue to the working poor that economic fairness. But hey, he said it, so fuck him. Give it a rest, Hillary Clinton's campaign shouldn't be lecturing anyone about ethics. That's pretty convenient though, Hillary can play as dirty as she wants because she is a "fighter", if Obama fights back he is a hypocrite who is lying about "new politics". I say roll the tape, you will do a helluva job explaining the context. Have at it.

Were odd coming from a candidate who lost my support by pandering to the bigotries of a religious electorate with full blown minority bashing openly spoken by a famour Bush supporter, a man whose gay baiting is so over the top that there was controversy when he was picked to sing at the GOP Convention in 2004. He comes and actually bashes in Obama's name, picks a fight. Religion on parade, a whole multi-city tour of this stuff. Same guy says religious bigots are bitter clingers in Pennsylvania, the same guy who refused to aplogize for his pandering to them in SC, and called them not bitter, but 'good, decent and moral people'? Does he think the SC faithful are righteous and the Penn folk are false in faith? Or, the only alternative, was his original pandering to that crowd a knowing and willful act of minority baiting to grab bitter voters?
I'm just not sure how the Deacon who was running down South fits in with the comments about the quality of other people's religious fatith in Pennsylvania. In SC, he used bigots spewing bigotry and called it an outreach. It looks to me that bad=that which harms Obama, and good= that which helps Obama even at the cost of insulting millions of Democratic voters using a Republican operative.

For their "hypocrisy" in not excommunicating religious homophobes...
something neither POLITICAL candidate is willing to do. Gotcha.

You may be unhappy to learn that Lincoln got elected by refusing
to outright condemn slavery.

Unfortunately from the point of view of Sen. Obama, pressing the thing was not subject to contradiction by examination of the whole statement. That is what gave it legs. This will have none.

The repulsive politics of division at its absolute worst. And again, you people can't have it both ways. Either Clinton was wrong for taking Obama shamelessly out of context or she wasn't. If it was fair game, then so is this.

And takes it and runs with it, when presented with an opportunity to do so.

And that it would be a mistake to press it on the line suggested above.

In your opinion?

If not, then it was "in bounds", however despicable.

The Magistrate says it would be a mistake for Obama to press it. Well...

"How many divisions has the Magistrate?"

It seems to have been effective, judging by press reports, anyway....

You can't claim that because he's a "different sort of candidate" that
what is effective and damning to him is not effective and damning to her.

Unless of course by "different" we mean "he's black, and more educated,
and she's a womsan, and somehow different standards apply"

The riposte will simply be that the candidate was speaking in favor of soaking the rich, however it is phrased, and the attacker will look like the butt in a bad Saturday Night Live routine.

The 'different sort of candidate' thing is just another "The 'NEW!' on the package, that's what's new!" moment. Sen. Obama enjoys the backing of the Daley machine in Chicago, and his campaign is guided by Mr. Axelrod, of local note for years. These are people who have been accused of many things, but never of lacking thorough grounding in, and great skill in the practice of, the ancient craft of politics....

Legitimate or not?

So will have no answer....

You should use one of your girl's favorite lines "That's not relevant." How very Clintonian of you. You come here and spout off, but when forced to either back your candidate or rebuke her shameful tactics, you punt. We'll sorry standing up and being counted doesn't "excite" you, chief.

Appearances here and there to the contrary, this forum is not Harlan County, and there are many neutrals here, myself among them. In my view, either Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama would be an excellent candidate for our Party, and each would make a great President for our country. There is very little difference between them on substantive matters, and a large portion of the reason the clash has been driven to mere points of style is precisely this substantial overlap in policy positions. Whichever of them secures the nomination, the result will be fine with me.

Qualifications aside, are her tactics legitimate or not, in your view? It's not a trick question. Fine, you are neutral. Why would you be afraid to answer a simple question? You are either on board with her tactics or you aren't.

the constest was over the Defense Laywer's attempt to draw the Magistrate into a meaningless debate. By politely declining, the Magistrate prevailed.

Why does Hillary consider herself deserving rich?

Why is Hillary so proud and accepting of her and her
interviewer's wealth, as if everyone knows that everyone
"ready for prime time" must be uber-wealthy?

Doues she actually believe that progressive taxation
is about benefiting all classes equally by voluntarily
having the rich decide to "give back in order to get back"?

there seem to be two competing ideas of what progressives should do.

Hillary believes she should go on O'Reilly and firmly advocate the important liberal principle that the rich should pay more taxes. On Fox News, at a time when the conservative public is disgusted with the Republicans and possibly open to changing their minds about what they think of politics. She might have actually caused actual Americans to rethink their ideas on taxes.

You, on the other hand, think progressives should debate whether and why Hillary thinks she deserves to be rich.

I totally disagree with that. I'm with Hillary.

Another shameless Hillary supporter heard from.

the same about "God Bless the Rich, we deserve it for our generosity."

It struck me as pretty accurate. You may recall Gov. Dean said some years back that in normal life, to say something false or stupid is to make a gaffe, but in politics, to say something true is to make a gaffe. The people he was describing do not like to think of themselves as bitter, and certainly do not view their attachment to their religion as a product of bitterness and disappointment. People generally react poorly to the statement of a truth about themselves they are busily hiding from themselves.

"This pretense of not knowing what any idiot knows has come to dominate our national conversation."

It is anti-populist to assert that religion and working class values are the enemy of egalitarian politics and must be elided or stamped out.

Christianity WAS the fucking left before Marx came along with his
pseudo-religious definitions of who is and is not "working class".

See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_anarchism/

Did you know Plymoth Colony was a religious commune with forced
redistribution of wealth?

Perhaps we can meet in the Theology topic forum, if you want to pursue this line further.

Perhaps we can meet in the Theology topic forum, if you want to pursue this line further.

And he would welcome martyrdom of defeat in the ensuing bloodbath against him.
Trials of Job, turn the other cheek and all that.

By running for President he indicates that he is open to pragmatism, however.
That includes a certain amount of unexpected boldness in challenging
Clinton on her statements.

"We deserve all the opportunities, to make sure our country and our blessings continue
for the next generation."

Makes sense now, huh?

It goes against the "American" values I was taught -- however
you want to construe values, be it secular, religious, etc.

I am just really exasperated that he keeps getting beat up for this nonsense and I am proud of him for taking the high road but I'd hate to see him lose because of it.

and her blandishments.

America likes people only when they stand up for themselves against a
bully. Otherwise, they side with the bully.

There is no "new politics" that ignores this.

*PUNCH* *PUNCH*

(Obama knocks Hillary on the ground, bloodying her nose)

"OWWWWW! He said he was against violence!"

And said the principle did not extend beyond that particular ruling.

Sorry, not only am I not inclined that the Obama camp should "be reasonable",

I am FUCKING SIGK AND TIRED OF PEOPLE LIKE HILLARY SAYING GOD BLESS US FOR OUR WEALTH,
EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD ASPIRE TO BE RICH LIKE US.

That is RIGHT WING FUCKING POPULISM and you know it.

your point is that Obama's campaign staff should use this quote out of context, to their own ends, to destroy Hillary. I don't agree, though, that this is the road they should take. I think Obama's staff and he himself are doing a fine job of running a winning campaign for the nomination. There is no need to follow the path blazed by Rove.

I am tired of undeservedly wealthy public servants praising their own
economic dominance over others and not apologizing for it. It goes
against 5,000 years of history. The people who advocate lese majeste
and support progressive taxation on that basis (i.e. that it will
maintain the present wealth of the super-rich) advocate a potlatch
economy in which arts and civilization are driven by the need of
the super-rich to bedazzle their near-subjects and inspire unrealistic
envy, like you hsad in ancient Sumer where the god-kings were so far
above the peasant that they could not help but admire them for a
quality of life they could never hope to attain. It is the same
attitude that motivates middle class folk to look down upon relatives
and minorities who have not yet "escaped" the working class, as if
working class jobs deserve low pay and the rich deserve to make
100 times as much putting in less hours because they give back to the
community. "I pay taxes, I'm a liberal, I deserve special consideration"
-- I hear it every day in my home town.

Paying their fair share back to the country that gave them so much.

What is with people here today?

<haha...>

Her husband took it from us.

Her wealth stems from all the kickbacks she recieved in return for
the destruction of the New Deal and other corporate giveaways.

The White House is not a profit-making business. She would not
deserve that sort of compensation even if it was. Atlantic had
a great article last fall about the immorality of labor compensation
in this country. Capital gains are not the issue here. We're
talking massive ill-gotten gains, income based, directed towards
people whose husbands and daddies were already a success. Wealth
and power used to create more wealth for the same people. And
Hillary pats herself on the back for lese majeste saying she wants
a tax system less progressive than Roosevelt's or JFK's.

this is taken out of context. In ciontext, it has a completley different meaning. Obama supporters do not have to stoop this kind of nonsense to win the nomination.

But it's kind of fun turning the tables, don't you think?

She is arguing against raising the cap in FICA taxes. She feels like the wealthy should not be subject to the same taxes as the middle class, because FICA, with a cap, is extremely regressive, as it disproportionately affects the lower income workers.

The policy is bad enough. Her quote just adds a heaping load of arrogance and elitism on top of it.

She fucked up in her choice of words and should be pummeled for it--just like Obama when he says something that, taken out of context, could be seen as elitist.

Bullies deserve tough but firm treatment.

Wow. :patriot:

This is a clear distinction between the Obama and Clinton campaigns. Obama needs to start running hard against John McCain.

She has said it many times in the past

"God bless us rich people, we should give back to the community
and watch our incomes rise even more by using our wealth to
direct funding to improve the US economy and thereby help rich
people too."

This is the definition of trickle-down economics.

It says "we, thr rich, who control US politics -- I am one, we
all are one -- a very non-inclusive remark -- will CHOOSE to give
a ceertain amount of our wealth in taxes because it is the RIGHT
thing to do, and it is our CHOICE because us in politics just
happen to be rich -- but we're not FOR the rich!"

Lese majeste.

Obama's going to win big and do it the right way.

something from Reagan and wants to have a "commission" to study Social Security, then says she won't raise the payroll taxes to fund Social Security.

Reagan's "commission" decided that the only solution was to....wait for it...raise the taxes.

This is like her gas tax holiday. She's full of it, knows it, but can't help spouting her crap.

Who advocated forced commoditization of Soc. Security, using it to power
the stock market, just like she advocates forced commoditization of health care,
using gov't imprimatur to compel premiums to private insurers.

HIllary the Republican - playing to her base -- RICH People!!!

Like McCain but with ovaries.

Rich people love that.

You can take it in any context you want. Its fair game, particularly coming from a democrat. Obama needs to use this and her ties to India/outsourcing. Get on the ball already.

Because I'd swear this is a sound edit. Her lips aren't in synch with the audio.

"You know what, Rich People, God Bless Us. We deserve all the
opportunities, to make sure our country and our blessings continue
for the next generation."

And yeah, you rich people you keep on speculating with other people's lives,thieving and screwing over those less fortunate than you the little proles who give up the days of their lives who made you rich..Your next opportunity might be to have your head put on a pike and eaten by maggots.

Yeah, I admit it, I do not defer to rich people as if they are my superiors, I hate the rich,especially ones that think they deserve more than the rest of humanity as if they were special or better quality than the rest of humanity. I hate the parasite snobs,they do not deserve anything,they are not better or special,most rich I met were not how they appeared from afar,they were hypocrites, poor hating, stupid, shallow and puffed up narcissistic assholes.Fuck the rich and to hell with their over sized egos. I can live without the rich taking more than they are worth,hell the world would live better without the rich too.Rich people are the biggest parasites on earth.Time to extract the worms from the gated communities, boardrooms,and country clubs,and crush them until they bleed out enough of their hoarded wealth so poverty is non existent.

But than again he might be of the same sort of rich class himself.
If so it would be a bad move to bash over it.

That quote courtesy of Mickey Kantor, Clinton '08 advisor.