I had a different take than most of the press:

I did not view Obama's remarks as eliticism.
I saw him as honestly trying to grapple with why white Evanglicals traditionally viewed blacks like him as outsiders.

ie. Obamaw was trying to understand why THEY were the ones acting as elitists.

The saddest thing about the so-called conservative White evangelical Christians, in my estimation, is that they are quintessentially un-Christian in their worldview. They are nominal Christians who seem to be using the garb of Christianity to mask the coarse nature of their unseemly humanity – racism and prejudice. What difference does skin pigmentation make to a GOD before Whom the only quality that matters is an acceptance of Jesus as a Savior?

Well, I guess this aspect of our humanness is a tragedy that afflicts any and all of us at one time or another. That said, though, it is more tragic of people who, while calling themselves Christians, allow their raw humanity to besmirch their claim to being better people in a decadent world. Barack Obama’s sin with White Christian conservatives is that he, as an African American, is perceived to be unlike them, to the degree that they would rather elect an avowed liberal like Clinton whose Christianity, at best, seems to be a matter of political convenience. Why? Because she, like them, is White.

Sad. Sad. Very sad.

The saddest thing about the so-called conservative White evangelical Christians, in my estimation, is that they are quintessentially un-Christian in their worldview. They are nominal Christians who seem to be using the garb of Christianity to mask the coarse nature of their unseemly humanity – racism and prejudice. What difference does skin pigmentation make to a GOD before Whom the only quality that matters is an acceptance of Jesus as a Savior?

Well, I guess this aspect of our humanness is a tragedy that afflicts any and all of us at one time or another. That said, though, it is more tragic of people who, while calling themselves Christians, allow their raw humanity to besmirch their claim to being better people in a decadent world. Barack Obama’s sin with White Christian conservatives is that he, as an African American, is perceived to be unlike them, to the degree that they would rather elect an avowed liberal like Clinton whose Christianity, at best, seems to be a matter of political convenience. Why? Because she, like them, is White.

Sad. Sad. Very sad.

I believe that he was thinking of "What's the Matter With Kansas," Tonio.

I find it ironic that the candidate who made the least amount of money, has just finished paying off his and his wife's student loans, and was raised by a single mother on food stamps is being called an "elitist". The same way that John Edwards was criticized for his haircuts. BFD! Let's talk about Hillary's mansions in Westchester County, NY and in Washington DC! Let's talk about McSame's EIGHT homes in the name of his heiress (second) wife! That's elitist for ya!

Sorry about the double post.

I believe that he was thinking of "What's the Matter With Kansas," Tonio.

I find it ironic that the candidate who made the least amount of money, has just finished paying off his and his wife's student loans, and was raised by a single mother on food stamps is being called an "elitist". The same way that John Edwards was criticized for his haircuts. BFD! Let's talk about Hillary's mansions in Westchester County, NY and in Washington DC! Let's talk about McSame's EIGHT homes in the name of his heiress (second) wife! That's elitist for ya!

"Saying someone is 'clinging' to guns and religion and xenophobia as political issues while supporting those who divert the nation's wealth to the very rich is very different from saying someone shouldn't have religion or guns at all."

I agree. I wonder if Obama was thinking of Thomas Frank's book "What's the Matter With Kansas?" when he made that speech.

Faithless:

"And it's pretty clear that this is plainly a misjudgment, mischaracterization, misunderstanding, misguided, misinformed explanation of why anyone votes "conservative" here in flyover country."

Really. Could have fooled me, from how a lot of folks talk, and what media spin they always seem to go for.

"Look, I like the big O, but Jesus Christ, he actually has to put on some Wranglers, put on a pair of boots, plant them on the ground, spray on some Off, and take a walk outside once in a while."

Well, I certainly have, but if he did, they'd probably accuse him of being a faker.

Ah, Ms Rodriguez, sorry there on the missed-guess on your gender, ...guess it makes a nice excuse not to listen, though, doesn't it?

Paganplace- I am a female. How incredibly rude and bizarro that you assumed I was a man and that you addressed me as "Mr". Perhaps you need to reflect and think a little more before posting on a grown up blog. To assume that I am male, shows that you are completely out of touch with proper blog etiquette and so I will completely write you off as an intelligent person and leave it at that. Enjoy your day.

"I thought it was pretty clear to me from context that Obama was talking about said 'bitter' people clinging to these things as *political issues* ...why they vote conservative when they only get the more screwed by them. He's obviously not anti-religion."

And it's pretty clear that this is plainly a misjudgment, mischaracterization, misunderstanding, misguided, misinformed explanation of why anyone votes "conservative" here in flyover country.

Look, I like the big O, but Jesus Christ, he actually has to put on some Wranglers, put on a pair of boots, plant them on the ground, spray on some Off, and take a walk outside once in a while.

Conrast the Pope coming to the U.S. and many times saying "God Bless America" to Obama's pastor/mentor's bitter sermon(s) saying "God Damn America". Although the Media trys to hide the fact, I'll bet that was in the back of many voter's minds yesterday when they pulled the lever for Hillary.

This whole column is bogus for the simple reason that it quotes Obama as saying something he did not say. Then by trying to analyze the false assertion it goes into never never land.

What Obama said was that the reason people VOTE on these issues is because they have given up voting on the bread and butter issues like the economy or the war because of a sense no one listens to them. That they then VOTE only on things like guns and religion and other hot button issues that the republicans exploit so well. He wasn't saying that people cling to those things because they are bitter or anything like that. Furthermore he said this in what was essentially a political discussion on voting patterns, not a discussion about the issues at hand.

I have listened carefully to his original comments and to his explanations as to his meaning and its perfectly clear. The video is out there for anyone to look at, and the original remarks were reported accurately in the press. But I guess distortions and twisting of the truth sells more newspapers, and attracts more readers.

For goodness sake, I would expect a journalist to do a fact check before printing such a distorted and untrue pile of horse residue.

I don't know if Obama really meant what it sounded like he meant.

To be more specific, I don't think the statement: “cling[ing] 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" necessarily claims "that economic hardship (as opposed to profound, all-consuming spiritual conviction) leads people to cling to religion".

Holding the Bible or going to church can't make a person "religious" (or as I would prefer to put it, Christian) any more than reading Hitchens would make me an atheist. I think those who have experienced the South can tell how a sense of religiosity or self-righteousness can mask the spiritual poverty that lies beneath. It's the same problem Flannery O'Connor would talk about.

But then, that's just a way to interpret Obama. As for whether he is really Christian in a strict sense, I can't say.

Conservative white evangelicals are only conservative in the self-described sense. A better term might be Pastor Ted Haggard's white evangelicals or simply The Christofascists. No, they are not all fascistic but even fewer can be described as conservatives. Or why not call them anti-American white evangelicals because they often preach the opposite of what America stands for. And since they live in the South, can they really be called white? Their necks are red from all the sun, can't they be called rednecked faith-based people of faith with red necks who like to claim they are conservative and trim shrubs? Perhaps I sound bitter. There is a reason for that. Their beliefs hijack the spaces that make America America.

Everyone on this blog suffers because of one self-centered, deeply disturbed maniac - you guys can't control one without controlling all, it would seem.

I know which one I'd bet on!

iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/graphs/graph_DConv08.cfm

Iowa futures has been steady for Obama--betw 70 to 80 for Barrack to 30 to 20 for B's gal--since Feb. announcement that Queen Hill was a bit short of cash. Think of all the energy that could have been saved if you just looked at the futures every day...and skipped all the pundits prose.

Still it's been a good game.

(Since cannot link any who is interested just add www to above ural).

Blind faith is extremely dangerous. Not being able to see the pedophile priest, a tangible weapon of "Mass" destruction, is similar to not being able to recognize a martyr, strapped with 20 pounds of plastic explosives to his or her body...also known as a terrorist who is anticipating an express trip to heaven. Understanding religion is challenging the behaviors of those who have ordained their selves with a moral superiority and responsibility to teach an equality all humans have. It is too simplistic to state that all humans have the equality to believe in any god they create...but this seems to be the tragic irony of human history and the delusions and illusions involved in "holy wars." But clinging to guns and religion as the method of being spiritual and moral is only to perpetuate the reality that humans cannot kill their fears by killing other humans they don't understand because they don't understand their religion or culture in which that religion developed. The audacity of hope is that the spirituality of humans will evolve from dogmatic religious ritual and oxymoronic "holy wars" to an understanding of that equality all humans have.
So...what is the human equality that no American politician can seem to define...the universal human condition that has made human origins a mystery? It is the simple truth that humans are born innocent from any sin or responsibility for anything that has happened before their birth... in the course of human existence...holy wars...genocide...crusades...earthquakes and all natural disasters. Humans do not have a choice of their parents or the culture in which they are born. Humans are totally dependent on those responsible for creating them by sexual behaviors. This paradoxical human equality is that no human has a choice in the beginning. And if the violent and religious contradictions in which they are born create dissonance and confusion, there is a vulnerability and predisposition to being exploited.
What if all of the holy wars were fought over a God that doesn't exist? This is a painful question to ask but it is also painful to think about the questions parents may ask about their child's death in Iraq twenty years from now. What will have changed because of faith in God and people clinging to their guns? Hopefully, someone will create a better sense of spirituality. Maybe you...maybe me. Let's hope so.
Sincerely...Asa G. Tibbs

"a Democrat can’t lose nearly 80% of the White Evangelical vote (as did John Kerry in 2004) and expect to win the presidency"

Why is this false statistic such an article of faith with you? Kerry lost by such a small margin that your statistic is invalid. From what I've read elsewhere Kerry didn't lost "80%" of the "Evangelical" vote anyway, though I guess your definition of "Evangelical" needs some explanation. In any event, Democrats don't need the Evangelicals, indeed don't want to say the things they would have to say to get them, so it's beside the point. Democrats need their committed base and center, which are voters who believe in the separation of church and state as it was practiced before Rove's time, most, and if they have those they will win. Your passionate recitation of your non-factual statistic is a form of self-delusion--or is it a deliberate misstatement used to drum up argument?

Mr. Rodriguez, I just wouldn't read so much into that statement, he wasn't giving a speech, (frankly, the video I've seen seem to show just fatigue and maybe some haste) he just didn't explicate what he meant, but it's not a 'hidden agenda' revealed or something: I can see what he was referring to, pretty clearly.

Saying someone is "clinging" to guns and religion and xenophobia as political issues while supporting those who divert the nation's wealth to the very rich is very different from saying someone shouldn't have religion or guns at all.

I think the fact that some people are so willing to leap to that conclusion actually demonstrates his point quite well. It's something that I might say, myself, among people who know what I'm talking about. I'm religious, myself, and all for well-regulated gun rights, but I don't want the Charge of the Goddess graven in stone in the courthouse or automatic weapons in the streets.

It's not about the guns or the religion, it's about the *clinging.* It's about these things as preoccupations and wedge issues that divert peoples' attentions from the fact they're getting rooked.

What a dilemma - if Obama fails to carry the democratic nomination we're left with two candidates that seem ready, willing, and quite able to nuke Iran.

Out of the two, one candidate seems otherwise capable if she can keep her husband out of the Oval Office most of the time, and the other candidate is pretty much ready for the senior citizen's center - where he can make war on Iraq from the comfort of the TV room as opposed to the War Room....a much better option for us all. Pennsylvania promises to leave the waters murky in the near term.

At this point, he is realizing that he can't say anything that comes into his mind and he does have to watch what he says. I think he got very spoiled by being able to charm the masses so early and so easily, but after the Jeremiah Wright incident, he has been far more slick and wiley. I don't believe a word of any of it. I think he has a very hidden agenda and it really frightens me. He is a loose cannon and potentially dangerous. I think there is much of Barrack Obama hidden and under the surface.

"The irony is that those comments seem to fly in the face of everything Obama has stood for in this election. To claim that economic hardship (as opposed to profound, all-consuming spiritual conviction) leads people to cling to religion is so audaciously un-Obama."

That's because, no matter how many times the media tries to treat this as a 'gotcha,' that's not really what he meant, in context.

I thought it was pretty clear to me from context that Obama was talking about said 'bitter' people clinging to these things as *political issues* ...why they vote conservative when they only get the more screwed by them. He's obviously not anti-religion.

He's only guilty of not explicitly clarifying the statement, and I'm frankly tired of hearing about it.

With some irony I observe the way this and the Rev. Wright soundbytes have been treated actually shows *exactly* what he was talking about in the first place. All of a sudden, everything else he said and proposes doesn't matter: they're afraid he's gonna take their guns and religion away somehow.