To be honest, outside of Huckabee, there isn't another candidate more comfortable about their faith, not only in expressing it, but making you believe it crafts every answer they make more than OBama. He and Huckabee are the truly Christian candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politic s/2008/04/13/sot.obama.shame.cnn

Watch him.  Watch the duck blind comment.  His true persona leaks through on this clip.

This is a man who is mean in private.

note:  Hillary said "viewed as", not that they were.

so, much ado about nothing from Obama supporters who should know better when reading quotes.

or is that only for Obama quotes, in which we have to analysis, parse, read minds and reframe the quotes?

here it is pretty apparent she stated "viewed as", and not that they were elitist.

Once again, you display a patently ignorant understanding of American political history.  

What Senator Clinton said was most certainly reflected in the attitudes of some in the electorate; enough of a "some" to make a difference in the national outcome.

Whether the characterization was fair or not, both Gore and Kerry did carry the perception of elitism with some voting blocks in their respective presidential campaigns.  

Here's a snippet from the Boston Globe of November 4, 2004:

Nov. 4--Ohio is the reason President Bush won reelection, but Iowa may be a better example of one reason Senator John F. Kerry lost -- a large turnout of religious voters concerned about "moral values."

With nearly all the votes counted, Bush was poised to become the first Republican presidential candidate to win Iowa in 20 years. Unofficial tallies from all precincts showed him ahead of Kerry by 13,250 votes out of about 1.5 million cast, pending a count of up to 15,000 provisional and absentee ballots. Four years ago, Bush lost the state to Al Gore by 4,144 votes.

In line with national exit polls, 22 percent of Iowans identified "moral values" as their most important issues, ahead of the economy (21 percent) and the war in Iraq (20 percent). Of those most concerned about moral values, 87 percent voted for Bush in Iowa, about 7 points better than national responses from values-driven voters. Fully one-third of Iowa voters said they were evangelical Christians, who also went for Bush by a 7-to-1 ratio.

"There was a huge turnout of conservative Christians in western Iowa and northwestern Iowa," said Dennis J. Goldford, a political science professor at Drake University in Des Moines. Bush trounced Kerry in that part of the state. "To them, a Massachusetts Democrat is an elitist, someone who looks down on people of faith."

His windsurfing videos didn't help, either.  

As for Gore, he was mentioned in the elitist sense (along with Kerry) by none other than Joe Biden last August in New Hampshire:

Ask yourself a rhetorical question:
Whether or not you like him, and he had a lot to like and a lot to dislike about him - does anybody doubt that if  Clinton had run again in 2000 that he would not have won WV, KY, MO,ARK etc?

So what happened?

Where all of a sudden is the epiphany?

That somehow we became divided?

I'll tell you where I think it came from and why it has to end: the Democratic Party the last 2 times out has allowed itself to be manipulated OR has actively refused  to engage in, compete, in 2 areas:

1. the first area is- we did not nominate the last 2 times someone who could, in fact, lay on the table unimpeachable credentials on National Security.

Anybody thinks, those few who are Democrats in here, anybody who thinks we are going to elect a Democratic President who cannot table this campaign unimpeachable credentials on national Security, you're kidding yourselves.

It is THE over-riding, over- arching, single, consistent, concern of people from Seattle WA, to Portland ME, to Miami FLA, to San Diego, CA.

And it's not about the war.

It's about getting out of that war. But what are you going to do?

What are you going to do?

Do you have the depth and breadth of knowledge in foreign policy and national security to take us where everybody knows will be a pretty difficult decade.

We didn't table that credential.

But the second we didn't do ... How is it that the Democratic Party- the Party of ethnics, basically, how did we, how did my Party get to be the Party of anti- God?

How did that happen?

I'll tell you how it happened: We Democrats became afraid to talk about Faith.

We are uncomfortable talking about it.

And when they came at us on this grounds that we are not, we are not, people of faith, guess what?And the last 2 candidates didn't respond?

People began to buy it.

Let me ask you a rhetorical question.

I don't think it's about Faith.

I think it's about whether or not the President of the United States  believes and communicates he or she believes that there is something bigger than they are- number one. And number 2, RESPECTS other people's views.

No-body ever accused Bill Clinton of being the Citadel of virtue, even from the beginning.

But how was it that he got 58% of the Catholic vote? How was it he got almost half of the evangelical vote?

It wasn't because they wanted him to believe or thought he believed as they did. When he sat next to you in a Catholic Church or in a fundamentalist church he communicated that he respected your view. Whether he agreed with it or not.

Fair or unfair, when Al Gore sat in that church, when John Kerry sat in that church, the perception was that "maybe he doesn't really respect my view".

The elites of my Party, the elites of my Party took over.

to previous Dem candidates.  She is being pragmatic and political.  This is what the Republicans and our own MSM put out there. They were mercilessly portrayed as effete by certain portions of the press and Main Street.

She is pragmatic politically.  Why would Hillary take a potshot at Al Gore.  He's a bloody Nobel Prize Winner - and now well thought of in the world - though don't think the far right politocos have now embraced him.  Heck no!  but I think the American public has.

And your heading is a kind of suppressed gleeful mocking - no, I take that back, it's not suppressed.  

will it work for her?  I can't say - I live in an urban northern city in Obama's state.  

Why did he make that statement at all.  Why was it necessary?  It was condescending since he was talking to an audience in SF - another demographic completely.  He's not teaching now -he's trying to get votes.  As is she.  

Should he win the nomination, the press will be kinder to him that they had been to either of our last two candidates.   That is to the party's advantage.  Or maybe I'm naive and they will revert to form.

He should have known better when he made the statement - no shame to either of them - they're fighting for our lives - our better lives. Both believe they'd be best for the country.

she would have been remiss if she didn't take up the statement.

Sweet Diary Brit! Thanks for putting it together. And kudos for duking it out with DTaylor so admirably. He (i assume he) is one of the more vitriolic, unpleasant characters on this site.

Agreed about DTaylor. And big mojo back for your rec list triumph. At last some sense being talked here.

I've actually some great self confession moments from some real obvious freepers. I should send your some of the threads (not on this diary) - they're comically transparent. Worth calling them out, and stopping any more havoc and mischief.