Well, then Republicans sure like to break that rule. Enlightened Liberal gave some examples of where Republicans should have apologized for saying ridiculous and offensive things, but to this day, haven’t. Let me add to the list. Tom DeLay never apologized for saying that the EPA was the “Gestapo of government” (and on the House Floor, no less). Newt Gingrich never apologized for saying that Susan Smith drowning her kids was a reminder that people needed to vote Republican. James Inhofe never apologized for calling the EPA a “Gestapo agency.” Strom Thurmond never apologized for running a presidential campaign with a pro-segregation platform (yes, Robert Byrd was in the KKK, but hehas since expressed regret and remorse for having done so). George Bush 41 never apologized for calling Bill Clinton and Al Gore “bozos.” The current President Bush never apologized for making those WMD “jokes” at the White House Correspondents Dinner. The list could go on and on and on.

Yeah. What does that mean, actually?

Did he not make some decision that Davis liked, or was he actually unable to make a decision at all? Was he, I dunno, just sitting there reading a copy of The Pet Goat? Perhaps Davis is confused and mixed Obama up with someone else and a moment of crisis.

Yeah, I was thinking about this last night. Not knowing anything about this “simulation” (and why was he there in the first place), we don’t know the extent of this “threat.” It would seem likely that Obama exercised restraint. And that’s a bad thing. Somehow…

We need us a President who is willing to vaporize half the planet!

Impeccable logic. A first-time racist is automatically not a racist. Who could argue with that?

I’d say that’s a safe bet considering the number of non-white major party candidates running in those elections.

Me? I’m going for the college roommate.

I’m finding the ways in which the different candidates demonstrate their character particularly interesting to watch this time around.

Contrast, for example, Obama acknowledging that he mangled the points he was trying to make when he misspoke with Hillary’s blaming lack of sleep for repeating the same obvious sniper lie several times or McCain’s never clarifying or even acknowledging the many Shite/Sunni-type goofs he’s made.

Yes, I’m planning to vote for Obama and have a bias towards him. But I started off very undecided and it’s how he handles these types of things that has convinced me he’d make the better president.

This is the media’s read on Obama’s remarks but it’s also a total distortion of what we all know to be true.

It doesn’t matter if it’s caused by a bad divorce or a factory closure, people of all stripes tend to react to times of uncertainty by seeking our or reinforcing those aspects of their identity that they feel are secure and solid. When the world presents us with the unknown, we seek out and reconfirm the known and the familiar as a means of rallying whatever strength we need to move forward.

I don’t think there’s any denying this process. It’s deeply ingrained in us as social beings. It’s part of the human condition.

Obama did not denigrate this response as a “cheap coping mechanism.” How could he? In times of uncertainty in his own life, he turned to religion as a means of getting through and moving on. That’s why his comments were placed in an entirely sympathetic context. But he also extended his empathy with a critique.

While turning to the familiar and the certain is a natural response to insecurity, it can also leave us hung up and stranded. It can become a reactionary force which keeps us stuck in place, instead of moving us forward. When clinging to the familiar and the certain becomes an end in itself, that’s when it begins to inhibit our ability to affect real and necessary change in our lives. That’s the problem that Obama was addressing. But he was essentially criticizing politicians for failing to address the needs of rural people, not rural people themselves for acting like human beings. Decades of neglect and broken promises on the part of politicians have created a situation where people have become so entrenched in a reactionary mode that they are willing to vote against their self-interest to continue reinforcing the status quo.

I think that’s just obvious and requires considerable bad faith to read it as an attack on rural people or somehow elitist.

As for Jay and this comment:

The number of accusations of racism that we’ll see coming from Democrats between July and November will probably be more than we’ve seen in the last 3-4 presidential elections.

And this will in no way be connected to the increase in “gaffes” and “misunderstandings” coming from Republicans? You think Dems would have accussed Davis of racism if he had said: “That MAN’s finger does not need to be on the button…” You really think that?

You may be right, and it will be terrible to watch. I’m sure you have been just as dismayed when accusations of terrorist appeasement and attempts to “destroy” the traditional family have been leveled at liberals in general.

In a meeting with the editorial boards of The Inquirer and Daily News, Obama said he had let several thoughts run together when he said nine days ago that people were “bitter” about lost jobs and “cling to guns or religion.”

“The problem was that I just mangled it, which happens sometimes,” he said.

The thoughts that ran together, he said, were that people who feel abandoned find stability in their traditions but also are vulnerable to politicians exploiting wedge issues.

“As a wise older woman who was talking to me the other day said, ‘You misspoke, but you didn’t lie,’ ” he said.

Ok? Enough now?

Which McCain laughed at. And then, or course, he immediately “apologized because that’s the rule for Republicans”.

(I hadn’t heard of him before either.)

It should be noted that I replied earlier to the KKK comment that I didn’t see anything in the photo that should give that impression and several other folks here seemed to agree. All in all I think many regular commenters here do try to be reasonably even handed.

Jay: He’s a good politician and he was able to make it appear like he wasn’t standing by his remarks while essentially repeating them.

Where did he do that? I haven’t followed every story on this since I try to confine myself to paying attention to real news, but in what I have seen Obama has regretted saying something in a way that got misinterpreted, but clearly standing by them. What did he say that made it appear that he wasn’t?

Jay: The number of accusations of racism that we’ll see coming from Democrats between July and November will probably be more than we’ve seen in the last 3-4 presidential elections.

That may well be. Passions are running high and folks tend to not think when that is the case and take offense where none is honestly intended (that whole cotton-picking mess being a good case in point). But I wonder how many incidents of racism will actually come from the Republicans and the right. Just because some may cry wolf too often doesn’t mean the wolf isn’t ever there.

Actually, I think the “bitch” thing came from a McCain supporter first.

Well, that works for me. In any event, it was disrespectful.
He still looks creepy.

Then again, we live in a time when saying “cotton pickin” is racist, so what the hell do I know?

And no, Obama did not stand by what he said. He’s a good politician and he was able to make it appear like he wasn’t standing by his remarks while essentially repeating them.

I’ve said before, we’ve only seen the tip of the iceberg. The number of accusations of racism that we’ll see coming from Democrats between July and November will probably be more than we’ve seen in the last 3-4 presidential elections.