User talk:Mgmg

Obama campaign

Sorry to be so abrupt, but we have been having the discussion on bitter remarks for a while. Since you are new, I have copied the discussion below. Feel free to delete them when you are finished:

April developments?

I removed this section simply because it reflects something that happens in campaigns on a regular basis: candidates attacking other candidates in hopes that some media will pick it up and make it stick. You know, the "throw enough mud and some will stick" philosophy. The "elitism" tag by McCain is just that; a little more mud. If it is important enough, the reporting will continue; if not it is just a blip on the screen and should not be in the article. We have had this discussion before:

"actually if any of the three of you did your homework you would have seen that there is a long-standing situation with new users not knowing what "recentism" means and trying to add whatever random thing is being spun that day or week. If it has legs, don't worry it will get mentioned . . . either way it will need consistent reporting for a week or more before it will even be considered. and let me tell you the two users you three are starting trouble with are much faster with their rv-buttons than you will ever be." 72.0.180.2 (talk) 22:59, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Marylandstater (talk) 14:41, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would have no problem including Obama's "bitter" remarks so long as it was not described as a blunder or damaging to his campaign or that it proves he is a so called "elitist". I think the remarks he made were fine and he should not even have said they were phrased poorly. The media is siding with McCain and Hillary on this issue which is absurd but I have no problem with a mention of Obama's remarks. JonErber (talk) 14:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this is a notable event in the campaign. There's no need to mention how any of the opposing campaigns have reacted. Simply providing the quote would be sufficient. Additionally, Obama subsequently said that he didn't choose his words well, but added: "I said something that everybody knows is true." Finnegan, Michael. “Obama expresses regret for remarks on small towns”, Los Angeles Times (2008-04-13). I'll edit accordingly, taking out the "elitism" charge.Ferrylodge (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have included information on the 2004 interview he made where he said similiar stuff to provide more context.

short clip of Interview with Charlie Rose
Full interview with Charlie Rose
[1] short transcript of speech. in which he says the same stuff

Mpondopondo (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Sorry, guys. NPOV means that other POVs than your own get a place on the page. Obama was condescending to suggest that the yahoos in PA "cling' to religion and guns" only because they're too stoopid to realize that their real problems are economic.[2][3] Maybe they like guns and religion because they like shooting and are religious, just like the working class white folks he condescended to in his race speech don't like affirmative action and welfare because they don't feel they owe anybody anything, not because they have a false conciousness.[4] This POV, expressed in "how... the opposing campaigns have reacted" and otherwise, can't be excluded. And won't be, I promise.Andyvphil (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fair to say that when you read the transcript of what he said that he intended no slight to the people he was talking about. I suppose that if you take a "soundbite" out of that transcript, spray it all over the media, rinse and repeat, then perhaps the most Republican or racist or simple folk among us might think he was being an elitist. The guy was talking about how he understood their frustrations, and he's getting reamed for some awkward phrasing. And all because of the press release spoon-fed to the media by Clinton. -- Scjessey (talk) 13:41, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Read this one. Fellow liberal. Maybe you'll get it.[5] Andyvphil (talk) 13:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

...oh, and Clinton's tin ear was evident on this one too. She was the one who concentrated on "bitter" before Obama eagerly agreed to make that the focus of the controversy. She was also very resistant to nailing Obama on Wright. They're too alike for her to recognize and exploit his faults, and she may be toast as a result. Andyvphil (talk) 22:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just came across this page and was embarrassed to see that the controversy over Obama's "bitter" remarks were barely mentioned. I appreciate the fact that Obama supporters want to close the door on the issue, but this is an encyclopedia, not CBS News. Covering up such a massive story is as bad as fabricating one. I suggest the editors of this page do some serious rethinking of the message such a cover-up sends. It's a bit shamefully biased when Wikipedia won't even call his remarks what they are. Don't label them disrespectful, or arrogant, or elitist... but at the very least call them controversial. 138.23.2.34 (talk) 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Got an email from Gallup to say Clinton had finally retaken a lead in the daily tracking and came here to find that in this la-la land Obama still had double digits. Fixed that a bit, but the "Comments about small towns" section is truly an embarassment. The remarks are quoted, Obama apologizes, more pro-Obama "context" is supplied, Axelrod accuses Bill Clinton of doing it too. That's it. Not even a clue as to why "Obama subsequently said that he did not choose his words well" or that there's been any effect of his remarks being "widely reported". No time now, but I'll be back. Andyvphil (talk) 02:54, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always be sure to sign your entries with ~~~~. Marylandstater (talk) 13:43, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]