Bik already pointed this one out on another thread...

'In Iraq, Mr. McCain did not repeat his April 2007 mistake of touring a "safe" market while protected by a small army. (CNN tried to revisit that market last week, but the idea was vetoed as too risky by the network's security advisers.) Instead he made a bigger mistake. As if to emulate Dick Cheney, who arrived in Baghdad a day behind him, he embraced the vice president's habit of manufacturing false links in the war on terror: Mr. McCain told reporters that Iran is training Al Qaeda operatives and sending them into Iraq.

His Sancho Panza, Joe Lieberman, whispered in his ear that a correction was in order. But this wasn't a one-time slip, like Gerald Ford's debate gaffe about Poland in 1976. Mr. McCain has said this repeatedly. Troubling as it is that he conflates Shiite Iran with Sunni terrorists, it's even more bizarre that he doesn't acknowledge the identity of Iran's actual ally in Iraq - the American-sponsored Shiite government led by Nuri al-Maliki. Only two weeks before the Iraqi prime minister welcomed Mr. McCain to Baghdad, he played host to a bubbly state visit by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.' www.nytimes.com

Has there been too little reaction to this? Does it matter that McCain can't get the various factions straight? You'd think that a proespective Commander-in-Chief, running a campaign that sets such store by showing respect for the troops, could be expected to take five minutes to learn who it is the troops are fighting, exactly.

There's also this...

"Today in Iraq, America and our allies stand on the precipice of winning a major victory..." www.earnedmedia.org

Precipice?

I guess the dumbest statement of the week award currently belongs to Clinton, for her 'sniper fire' comments, discussed elsewhere. However, here are Salon.com's quotes of the day:

Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war.

-- Sen. John McCain, March 26, 2008


I must say, I'm a little envious. If I were slightly younger and not employed here, I think it would be a fantastic experience to be on the front lines of helping this young democracy succeed.

It must be exciting for you ... in some ways romantic, in some ways, you know, confronting danger. You're really making history, and thanks.

-- President George W. Bush, March 13, 2008

"The Civil War in Iraq is over." Fred Kagan, March 24

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... ...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, 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." Obama

Is it the verb 'cling' that made this so objectionable?

Romans 12:9-13
Love must be sincere. Hate what is evil; cling to what is good. Be devoted to one another in Christian love. Honor one another above yourselves. Never be lacking in zeal, but keep your spiritual fervor, serving God. Be joyful in hope, patient in affliction, faithful in prayer. Share with God’s people who are in need. Practice hospitality.

What is so bad about saying 'cling'?

What's so dumb about it? Is it 'dumb' because it's true but it's not a wise thing to risk Pennsylvanians hearing it?

People in small towns hit by long term unemployment and the loss of their key industries are bitter. In Britain they blame the government, then they blame foreigners abroad for 'stealing their jobs' when factories or coalmines abroad produce what they once produced, then they blame foreigners who come here for 'stealing their jobs'.

They cling to some image of a time when things were different,the old days.

Here they they don't 'cling to religion', still less 'cling to guns'.Perhaps in America they might to do so, in this nostalgic mood,and present bitterness, if they identified the government with being anti-gun or anti-their religious beliefs, and tied the whole into this picture of the unspoiled past, when guns were a right and religion strong, nobody allowed gays, nobody thought abortion OK and so on. You tell me

quote:

What's so dumb about it? Is it 'dumb' because it's true but it's not a wise thing to risk Pennsylvanians hearing it?

By George, I think you've nailed it, Fred! Who wants to hear the truth about him/herself?

Whether or not you believe there was truth in Obama's statement, it was a dumb one to make.

The statement appeared to be condescenging and patronizing of people who may still believe in their amendment right to religious freedom and their second amendment right to bear arms. At a time when the government seems to be doing little to protect America's job base, there may certainly be cause for antipathy against people who are "not like them." The statement did not play well with voters, and the "what I meant to say" appeared contrived and insincere. What plays well in San Francisco does not play well everywhere! I think he got caught, at a private event, on tape.

CNN had over 250 comments from readers about their article on Obama's statements. After eliminating the rants for the Obama supporters, the Hillary supporters, and the McCain supporters (and one woman who was pushing Christianity and kept pointing out that real Christians can't believe in evolution and must "except (sic) Christ" into their lives), there were just over 100 reasoned comments. Of those, over a third agreed with Obama's larger statement that people are bitter about what has happened to their lives. Quite a few of those said they lived in Pennsylvania.

I read in several blogs and a few other sites that Obama also said that bitter people don't deserve health care. I found no reference to that from any news source, however. Can anyone supply a reliable source for that statement, or should it be regarded as just more lies about one candidate from the supporters of another candidate, regardless of party? (For the record, some supporters of all three of the remaining presidential aspirants gladly and willingly spread lies about the opposition. It's been that way in the US since the election of John Adams.)

Go here where you can click on a small audio snippet, of Obama's health care comments, at the recent CWA event. He surely does not sound like someone who thinks some group is undeserving of health care. I have heard his opponent claim that his plan is not universal but have yet to determine whom he seeks to exclude.

Thanks, Fuse. Obama is described on the link as saying that

every American should have health care comparable to members of Congress because Americans pay Congress’s salary, and “you can take that to the bank.”

Obama's exact words in quotes. He said that the uninsured should have the same health insurance as he does as a member of Congress.

You know, that does make sense. We employ the representatives and senators. Why should they have better health insurance than their employers?

I'm sure we will find a way to mess it up, ut youtube and the like certainly do seem to cut out a lot of questions if you are searching for what someone really said, how they said it, hopefully with a long enough segment for it to be in context. This is a big change from 2004.

It's just a shame that we didn't have youtube to record Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon, and visits by Nancy Reagan to her astrologer.

The remarks sounded like a doctor's, discussing a patient with other doctors. What the doctor says is not intended for the patient's ears.The patient might not think it very tactful or polite. The doctor would not use those words when talking to the patient. What is said is the professional opinion of someone who is both qualified and concerned to help.It is likely to be right.(It may also be that the patient is beyond saving, or beyond an immediate and painless cure, but let's not extend the analogy too far )

What Obama said translated, as I read it, as " What are we going to do for these people? They have lost all hope.They have reached the stage in their depression where they are clinging to God and guns, or raging at the 'foreigners' as the cause of their woes.That's all they have as an answer. They feel deserted and forgotten".In short, it sounded compassionate.

That's the trouble with my being a damn European liberal, of what Bill O'Reilly terms 'the far left'( He has a strange idea of 'left' ) Can't help seeing good in almost anyone and anything

By the way, DG, what did the rest, almost two thirds, of those giving a reasoned answer to CNN say ?

Of the slightly over 100 reasoned comments, about a third agreed with Obama, and most of the rest disagreed. Of those who disagreed, most objected to the turning to guns and the Bible part. Less than half disagreed with with the bitterness part.

Living in a city whose main employer was (and still may be) a steel mill, I know first hand how economic times such as these can turn people bitter. It used to be that working at the mill meant a good job; now it just means a job, and for far fewer workers. The mill just up the hill from my neighborhood used to have 3 full shifts. Now it has 1½. The second largest steel mill in the town, the one in which my grandfather, my father, my uncle, and I worked in closed in about 1974. It is a sad commentary that the mid-late 70s, as bad as they were, were better times than today as far as the local economy is concerned.

At one time in my life, the population was just over 40,000. Now, it is just over 30,000. Most of those that left did so to find work.

quote:

Living in a city whose main employer was (and still may be) a steel mill, I know first hand how economic times such as these can turn people bitter.

Same here where I live. People are bitter as hell. Jobs leaving, layoffs, low wages, people losing homes. It's some hard economic times for a lot of people.

One thing for sure, there's no argument about the economic changes, because people know what's real. This is no maybe, coulda, oughta, I believe, I bet, I think, kinda bologna.

No one is arguing with the fact that many people in Pennsylvania and elsewhere are "bitter", scared, worried, disgruntled, disappointed, or any adjective one might choose. The problem is that he also threw in, for good measure, the gratuitous and unfortunate choice of "God and Guns" by way of identification. To the people least likely to appreciate being so characterized, he might just as well have called them "red-necks"! Successful politicians need to be better hypocrites. IMO.

"Successful politicians need to be better hypocrites. IMO."

As usual, Frank is right.

'Worst of all, Obama's words rendered him an "elitist" in the eyes of his critics, which in American political discourse is akin to being a child molester or a Frenchman.' alternet.org

I think the words that upset people the most were "cling to."