Obama Explains Away “Bitter” Comments On Charlie Rose

The Whistler • April 17, 2008

Apparently this appearance on The Charlie Rose Show by Barack Obama four years ago is supposed to put Obama’s more recent “bitter” comments into the context all the Obama disciples have been insisting exists.

I’m not buying it.
Even if Obama’s comments to Charlie Rose are how he really feels, we’re left with what he told that audience in San Francisco. When was he telling the truth? When he was talking in front of a national television audience or when he was talking in front of a smaller audience of like-minded liberals?
I’m inclined to believe that Obama was telling the truth in the latter moment, but even if you say he was telling the truth to Rose you’re still left with Obama pandering to a far-left liberal audience by telling them exactly what they want to hear. Not exactly the actions of a unifying candidate who transcends old politics.
Obama either thinks people who like guns and religion and oppose illegal immigration are “bitter,” or he doesn’t mind saying as much to pander to certain audiences. Neither option speaks very highly of Obama himself.

Tags: Asshats, Politics, The Loony Left

http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

you only have insults

And a link to another post where you were either mind numbingly stupid or mind numbingly dishonest or both.
Hannitized

It is but a false choice Rob. Because you take a sentence out of context and distort its meaning does not make Obama a liar. The preponderance of evidence is with us. It is on our side, not yours.

In the face of logic, reason and factual evidence you make a desperate effort to find comfort in denial. It is the only thing you have left Rob.

It would be funny, if it wasn’t so tragic. For now the hard conclusive evidence exists that reveals your willful ignorance or partisan strategy that is founded in hate and intellectual dishonesty.
dirl126

Thanks for your compliment, Hannitized.

Proof, I think hannitized is trying to say that you should drop sarcasm and witty remarks and just have an intelligent discussion with him.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

You couldn’t last even 20 minutes without breaking the agreement.

What a doofus you are, Han-job! I made an agreement with no one, ADD challenged Troll! (Why did I expect that you could follow an argument for twenty minutes?)

Try reading comprehension, or don’t you like things that are novel to you? Try reading things out loud (since your lips are moving anyway!)

And thanks for not even trying to deny that all you do is merely sit on the sidelines and snipe at other people’s ideas.

BTW, call me “Proofypants” as much as you want. It establishes your mental age and reasoning ability in the pre-teens (possibly as low as six! Much as we all suspected!) If you want to show real maturity for your mental age, throw in a few Nyah, nyah, nyah, nyahs!
2Hotel9

todd, Obamoid has no “complicated policy” to be discussed. What, if anything, has he released? Sorry, we been having so much fun kicking sanitized in the teeth we seem to have left you out of the conversation. And please spare us the blahblah about nationalizing healthcare and petroleum, else we will add you to the haha list.
pparets

H: It comes down to what I said to you earlier. If he didn’t said what he meant, or didn’t mean what he said in SF, then what did he mean when he said what he said in SF and why did he say it?
Hannitized

H: It comes down to what I said to you earlier. If he didn’t said what he meant, or didn’t mean what he said in SF, then what did he mean when he said what he said in SF and why did he say it?

pparets,

I am curious why you never tire of your tortured logic on this one?

Why don’t you read his comments from the show in 2004, read the statements he made immediately after the statement in SF and then read what his explanation about what he meant.

Are you really going to tell me that you don’t know? Are you really going to tell me that instead, you cling to a statement that was taken out of context and abandon everything said previously and subsequent to the SF statements……really?
dirl126

Thanks for your compliment, Hannitized.

Proof, I think hannitized is trying to say that you should drop sarcasm and witty remarks and just have an intelligent discussion with him.
Hannitized

What did I tell you RBB? Robs response is one that I accurately predicted. Pathetically predictable.

My prediction is that Robs next move will be to simply quote others harping on Obama's "bitter" comment. Or, hell just mention it in passing in other posts meant to tear down BO.

Well get more posts like this one or some crazed theory that Obama has been lying to us since 2004, and what he really feels was what he said in SF, even thought they are merely taking that one sentence out of context.

I love these guys. They are proving to me why I could never be a conservative, they don't have the true integrity. At least not this bunch.

We didn't expect you to be honest enough to buy it Rob. Nor do we expect you to be intellectually honest enough admit that Obama had a clear cut position on this.

You are bitter, and you are clinging to your distortions as a way of expressing your frustrations about Obama's candidacy and appeal to independents.

The only thing you have left is a statement that you are taking out of context. The statement doesn't even clearly say what you think it says.

You believe this either out of deliberate dishonesty or because you truly aren't sharp enough to comprehend what is being said.

In short, this is clear evidence of your narrow-mindedness. Sorry kid.
Hannitized

Key points:

Obama being interviewed by Charlie Rose back on Nov. 23, 20041 and he gives a fuller description of what he was trying to get at in his Pennsylvania remarks:

CHARLIE ROSE: But they seem too, you know, there`s a book about what`s wrong with Kansas, as you know.

BARACK OBAMA: Right, and my mother is from Kansas, so, yes.

CHARLIE ROSE: And basically, the book argues that people in hardship cases, people who have not gotten the best end of the American dream, are voting on faith issues and morality issues rather than on economic interests.

BARACK OBAMA: Right.

CHARLIE ROSE: Which suggests that that has somehow become a touch stone in a way that there`s…

BARACK OBAMA: Well, I`ll tell you an example. There`s a town that I spoke about in my speech, actually, in Illinois. And it`s I think representative of many towns in the Midwest. Galesburg, Illinois. They`ve got 36,000 people. They`ve lost 4,000 jobs in the last two years; 20 percent of their employment base collapses, because companies move out to Mexico.

So you sit down and you talk to union workers, 50, 55-year-old guys, who — the best that`s being offered to them is retraining to be nurses assistants. Right, these guys with beards and tough guys who are used to handling heavy machinery.

They`re not optimistic about the prospects for them to be able to attain the kinds of economic security that they had under the old system. So they`ve got insecurity in their economic life. They don`t know where their health care is coming from. They don`t know what`s happening with their pension.
What they do know is that they can go out with their friends and hunt and feel a sense of camaraderie. And there`s a connection between hunting and them going out with their father to hunt, just as there is a connection maybe for their wives to going to church and going with their grandmother to church.

And if we don`t have plausible answers on the economic front, and we appear to be condescending towards those traditions that are giving their lives some stability, then they`re going to opt for at least that party that seems to be speaking to the things that are giving — that still provide them something solid to stand on.

CHARLIE ROSE: And some sense that they`re not being looked down on.

BARACK OBAMA: Exactly.

CHARLIE ROSE: Somebody who does not think that they are contemptuous of them and their lifestyle and their beliefs.

BARACK OBAMA: Absolutely.

1The Charlie Rose Show
November 23, 2004 Tuesday
SHOW: THE CHARLIE ROSE SHOW 11:00 PM EST
Interview with Barack Obama
BYLINE: Charlie Rose
GUESTS: Barack Obama
SECTION: NEWS; Domestic
http://sayanythingblog.com robport

I gave you a choice, Hannitized: Either Obama was lying in 2004 or he was lying in 2008.

Either way, he's still a liar. Quite the corner you've painted yourself into.
2Hotel9

He said it, he meant it as said, and you can not prove he does not. Not matter how you spin, nor how he equivocates and lies, his real thoughts on the matter are out here for EVERYONE to hear. You, Democrat, are bitter. That is what he said. And you keep reinforcing it. Too funny.
Hannitized

An interesting aspect into the mind of people who are deliberately taking Obama out of context in order to paint him snob, is that they are in fact the ones who are truly judging an entire group of people and labeling them with negative attributes.

They are left with no choice but to assume Obama was pandering to the "elitist left". Therefore, they can justify taking him out of context, because in their hearts they know that people from SF are nothing but closed minded snobs and elitists.

Batone said something yesterday that suggested when liberals call someone out on a behavior, such as elitism, it is usually because they posses that trait. Well, certainly we see here that the only party jumping to conclusions about a group of people and insulting them is the part to our right. Yes, the conservative party are the ones who falsely assume that the SF crowd is a bunch of elitists, and they have NO evidence to support that statement or claim. They merely make it out of pure emotion.

Is it no wonder then, that the far right is a fast sinking ship that fears Obama, because he stands against what they have based their existence on? No.
todd

Writing about offhand comments is easier than analyzing complicated policy issues; thus, stupid writers obsess over them.

-Reality
http://insanereindeer.blogspot.com/ Kenny

http://tammybruce.com/2008/04/leave_barry_obama.p…
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

Seems to me that if Rob were the dishonest, propagandizing hack that the peevish, whiny, little bitch Hannitized says he is, or if this video proved that he was as big a liar as the peevish, whiny, little bitch Hannitized says he is, the last thing he would do is post this video on his own blog!

Rob is an honest blogger.

Hannitized is, has been, and appears will be, for the foreseeable future, full of shit!
Hannitized

Rob is an honest blogger.

Who completely abandons, reason, logic, evidence all for the sake of throwing a big shit pile at Obama.

And you only have insults Proofypants. You don't have the stones to intellectualize or the ability.
Hannitized

Sorry, we been having so much fun kicking sanitized in the teeth we seem to have left you out of the conversation. And please spare us the blahblah about nationalizing healthcare and petroleum, else we will add you to the haha list.

You must be proud of your offspring Rob. Your commentators can either agree with you, or be added to the "haha list". This is a blog that is desinged for the feeble-minded who never matured past the 7th grade.

This 2Motel6 clown is a classic example of an unadulterated ignorant bully.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

This is a blog that is desinged (sic) for the feeble-minded

The mind numbingly stupid troll tries to insult other people's intelligence! Heh!
dirl126

This video, for me, definitely tones down the comments he made this year about people in small towns.

Yet, it has toned it down only, and not completely eliminated his elitist image.
Hannitized

Dirl,

I know you probably don't care what I think. But I give credit where credit is due. You're intellectual honesty, as it relates to the analysis of this particular statement, is duly noted.
pparets

H: I'm trying to point out to you that not every single statement made by Senator Obama is defensible, nor should be. The same can be said for the other two candidates as well.

I think you feel that you must personally defend Senator Obama from the ravages of Rob and others.

Had you been an advisor to the Senator, would you have advised him to make that comment?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

And you only have insults Proofypants. You don't have the stones to intellectualize or the ability.

Says the troll with a mouth full of insults. See! You lie about other things as well! Heh!
Hannitized

H: I'm trying to point out to you that not every single statement made by Senator Obama is defensible, nor should be. The same can be said for the other two candidates as well.

Well, I really don't know what to say about that. We are talking about a specific statement here. A statement that was clumsy and subsequently taken out of context. Where are you going?

I think you feel that you must personally defend Senator Obama from the ravages of Rob and others.

It is true that I take exception when I think someone is delibaratly distorting what a Politician says in order to take cheap political shots. Soo many Conservatives were outraged by liberals who claimed Bush lied and or took him out of context for the many, many, many, many stupid things he said. I was never one of those people. So I deeply resent the double standard.

Had you been an advisor to the Senator, would you have advised him to make that comment?

Do you think someone advised him to make that comment? I mean, I really dont know how to answer that, because I am not sure you are serious. Of course I would not advise someone to make a gaffe. Who would?

I am literally and honestly surprised that some people are making so much of this. I can't understand how all of a sudden they expect politicians to say things perfectly, 100% of the time.

If you will note, Rob never talks about the many, many, many, many intelligent things Obama says and chooses to challenge them on the merits. He picks the low hanging fruit (sudch as gaffes and stupid statements people around him make) because it is much easier to cling to such non issues in order to tear down your political opponent, than it is to take him on honestly. Much like the difference between me and Proof. I challenge my opponents, usually with long, drawn out arguments. Proof offers two sentence insults.
pparets

Thanks, H. Your response is, as always, reasonable. Just for your info, candidates for President almost always have their speeches vetted by advisors before giving them. Senator Obama got very bad advice on this one.

I appreciate very much your compliment to Dirl.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

I challenge my opponents, usually with long, drawn out arguments. Proof offers two sentence insults.

Thanks for reminding me! I meant to put "diarrhea of the mouth" in my post about Rob Port Derangement Syndrome !

Anytime you want to match wits with me, mental midget, you might want to remind the folks that you have never had the stones to start a single, solitary thread with an original thought. You sit on the sidelines and snipe at people who do. Pathetic!
Hannitized

Anytime you want to match wits with me, mental midget, you might want to remind the folks that you have never had the stones to start a single, solitary thread with an original thought. You sit on the sidelines and snipe at people who do. Pathetic!

First of all, this means you lost the bet. You couldn't last even 20 minutes without breaking the agreement.

Second, its impossible to take you seriously when you start off on the wrong foot, in the wrong direction and end up with the wrong conclusion.

Third……..what?
2Hotel9

I see sannitized came to and starting hit the tube again. Tell us? Does your mom know you spend all your allowance money on meth?
http://Array 2Hotel9

Lets recap, so the drug addict can understand, Obamoid said it, he meant it as said, and you, sannitized, racebaitingpovertypimp, are bitter.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

See! That's my problem with this treaty! While I was still trying to get a clarification of the terms of the agreement over on the RPDS thread, some mental midget accuses me of breaking a treaty that I am not yet signatory to!
I'd like someone in a blue helmet to march right over to that kiddie pool and give the kid with delusions of adequacy a big wedgie!
Hannitized

What a doofus you are, Han-job! I made an agreement with no one, ADD challenged Troll! (Why did I expect that you could follow an argument for twenty minutes?)

My apologies. I had a dinner meeting and then met up with a lady for a cocktail. I was away and assumed you would have agreed to the terms, because I believe it is you who pretends that the left has nothing to offer but insults. Therefore, I thought that you would certainly rise to the challenge.

Obviously this is not the case. Even still…i am doing my best to refrain from insulting you, as I understand the agreement. Because I would like nothing more than to clearly demonstrate the differences between you and I.

And thanks for not even trying to deny that all you do is merely sit on the sidelines and snipe at other people's ideas.

Oh I am sorry. I thought that when someone attacks you viciously and inaccurately, it is safe to pretty much ignore them? Because surely if I did answer, you would take it seriously, right?

First of all, to suggest that I don't create posts, therefore I don't have an original thought is both inaccurate and sort of shallow.

Second, did you expect me to agree? Why not just assume I would disagree. That didn't even deserve a response.
Hannitized

2Hotel,

Are you going to take the pledge? I know you can do it.
2Hotel9

You don't have any original thoughts. You are mentally vacant. Now do another hit, let that sink in, and tell us how it makes you "feel". Because feeling is all you do. You never think, merely parrot the same tired assed socialist shit.
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

ass-umed you would have agreed to the terms

See, Han! That's one of my problems with you is the frequency with which you make unwarranted ass-umptions! We discussed it. I was asked to make the commitment, and I while I pondered the matter and asked questions as to what I was being asked to agree to, some Hannitized ass-umed once again, not on the basis of fact or anything that he had actually read, that something was true when it was not. Such careless, juvenile lack of comprehension is truly annoying to the adults conversing here!

First of all, to suggest that I don't create posts, therefore I don't have an original thought is both inaccurate and sort of shallow.

No, it is 100% accurate and reflects the fact that you do not have the stones to put forth your own original thoughts for the scrutiny and criticism of others, but sit back and loudly criticise those who do. Pathetic!

I typed this before. Read it aloud and sound out the words. Feel free to look up any you don't understand! (Most, I would imagine from your response!)
Hannitized

That's one of my problems with you is the frequency with which you make unwarranted ass-umptions! We discussed it. I was asked to make the commitment, and I while I pondered the matter and asked questions as to what I was being asked to agree to, some Hannitized ass-umed once again, not on the basis of fact or anything that he had actually read, that something was true when it was not. Such careless, juvenile lack of comprehension is truly annoying to the adults conversing here!

Proof, when someone apologizes, you should accept it on its face. I clearly described that I had left for a while.

I think maybe the only mistake I made was that I assumed you would be as dignified as the two lefties. Was I wrong to assume that you would be as dignified as RBB and myself?

No, it is 100% accurate and reflects the fact that you do not have the stones to put forth your own original thoughts for the scrutiny and criticism of others, but sit back and loudly criticise those who do. Pathetic!

You can still scrutinize my comments that include original thought, can you not?

Of all the people at SAB, which one of us presented the idea that what Obama was talking about was representative of a long standing Democrat idea that voters will vote on value issues instead of Economic? Hint: me.

Was that original? Yes. Was I right? Yes.
Hannitized

Proof,

Will you accept the challenge? Yes or no?
http://proof-proofpositive.blogspot.com/ proof_positive

when someone apologizes, you should accept it on its face. I clearly described that I had left for a while.

Yes! And far be it from me, or anyone else to expect you to actually read what what said in your absence before you make an ass-umption and jump back into the conversation! /sarcasm

Was I wrong to assume that you would be as dignified as RBB and myself?

Yes! I haven't crapped myself since I was in diapers! I shall never be as dignified as the two of you again!

Was I right?

In trying to divert attention away from Obama's elitist remarks about people turning to guns, God and intolerance because they are "bitter"? I would try to change the subject, too, if my candidate said such elitist, snobbish things!

As far as "taking a pledge" to what I will or will not say, my history here at SA from the beginning will demonstrate that I do not routinely heap abuse on anyone unless they first demonstrate that they deserve it.
If you temper your language towards those with whom you disagree, and stop your unwarranted, childish whining and bickering about Rob and be content to state your case (if you have one), you will find that I would moderate my comments accordingly.

But, you have made a similar pledge in the past, which you broke with full abandon and continued to spew forth filth and invective without provocation against those with whom you had disagreement.

If you think you can change your spots, feel free. I will watch with skepticism.
2Hotel9

On their knees. Begging terms of surrender.
2Hotel9

Sanni, since you are to cowardly to register and open your own readerblog you will have to ask you fellow leftarded surrender monkey, boob, what message I have for you both. Suck on that.
dirl126

Thanks for your compliment, Hannitized.

Proof, I think hannitized is trying to say that you should drop sarcasm and witty remarks and just have an intelligent discussion with him.
2Hotel9

dirl? Why should anyone do that? In each instance where any of us have done exactly that sannitized has shit all over us, and laughed about it afterwards.

SayAnythingBlog.com

Obama Explains Away “Bitter” Comments On Charlie Rose

Create a SAB Readerblog

Recent Comments