Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Saturday, 19th July 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Gun talk may be high noon of Democrats' nomination campaign



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 15 April 2008
DEMOCRATS Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are attacking each other with some of the toughest rhetoric of the US presidential campaign, with eight days remaining in the fierce battle for votes in Pennsylvania.
Seeking to overcome Mr Obama's advantage nationwide in delegates and popular vote, the former First Lady called the Illinois senator an elitist after disclosure of remarks he made at a San Francisco fundraiser that suggested working-class people are
bitter about their economic circumstances and "cling to guns and religion" as a result.

The first term senator, who would be the first African-American president, retorted that Mrs Clinton is insincere and that her concerns for working-class voters in states like Pennsylvania are a sham. The north-eastern state's 22 April primary is seen as a must-win for Mrs Clinton.

Mr Obama, who still holds a nine-point advantage over Mrs Clinton in the nationwide Gallup Poll, is battling back.

On Sunday, Mr Obama reiterated his regret for his choice of words but suggested they had been twisted.

He said he had expected an assault from Republican nominee-in-waiting John McCain, but had been "a little disappointed" to be criticised by Mrs Clinton, mocking her vocal support for gun rights and saying her record in the Senate did not match her words on the campaign trail.

"She knows better. Shame on her. Shame on her," Mr Obama told an audience at a union hall. Mr Obama noted that Mrs Clinton seemed much more interested in guns since he made his comments than in the past.

"She is running around talking about how this is an insult to sportsmen, how she values the Second Amendment. She's talking like she's Annie Oakley,"

"Hillary Clinton is out there like she's on the duck blind every Sunday. She's packing a six-shooter. Come on, she knows better. That's some politics being played by Hillary Clinton," he said.

Mrs Clinton has told campaign audiences that she supports the rights of hunters. This weekend, she reminisced about learning to shoot on family vacations in Scranton, Pennsylvania, where her father grew up. She's also said she once shot a duck in Arkansas.

Mrs Clinton has pounded Mr Obama since Friday, when tape from his San Francisco appearance was posted on The Huffington Post website.

She hoped the comments might give her a new opening to court working-class Democrats less than 10 days before the Pennsylvania primary on 22 April, which she needs to win to keep her campaign going.

Campaigning in Scranton on Sunday, Mrs Clinton suggested that Mr Obama's San Francisco remarks would alienate voters in Pennsylvania and other states holding primaries in the coming weeks.

"Senator Obama has not owned up to what he said and taken accountability for it," she told reporters during an informal news conference outside a home. "What people are looking for is an explanation. What does he really believe? How does he see people here in this neighbourhood, throughout Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, other places in our country? And I think that's what people are looking for, some explanation, and he has simply not provided one."

Indiana and North Carolina vote on 6 May.

"I think it's very critical that the Democrats really focus in on this and make it clear that we are not (elitist). We are going to stand up and fight for all Americans," Mrs Clinton said.

Mr Obama sees himself at a disadvantage in the Pennsylvania primary and with an advantage in North Carolina. That means that Indiana, where polls show Mrs Clinton holding a single-digit lead, could play a pivotal role in resolving the epic Democratic nomination battle.

According to the latest Associated Press tally, Mr Obama leads Mrs Clinton in the convention delegate count 1,639-1,503, including superdelegates – party elders and elected officials who can vote for whichever candidate they choose, regardless of the popular vote in state primaries and caucuses.

Neither candidate will be able to clinch the 2,025 delegates needed to win the nomination without the approval of superdelegates.



The full article contains 688 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Tom in Belmont,

Belmont 15/04/2008 02:25:44
There is a rule in our political campaigns: don't lay into ordinary people for doing ordinary things and expect to win. Intentionally or not, Obama sounded like the perfect caricature of the left-wing elitist. Think Sydney Webb. He has given his opponents a store of ammo they will not exhaust by November.
By the way: I detest Clinton and harbor no great love for McCain.
2

Nubar Gulbenkian,

15/04/2008 08:41:06
Obama, Clinton and McCain.

Speaks volumes for the US nation if these three are the BEST that a country its size can come up with for president.

I am sure the rogue nations of the world are afraid, very afraid!!!!
3

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/04/2008 09:21:38
2

They are the biggest rogue nation in the world.
International law doesnt apply to them apparently.
4

mike - across the pond,

ah foulkes.... 15/04/2008 10:12:53
if being a "rogue nation" means that we are actually COMMITTED to our beliefs of "life Liberty and the pursuit of happiness"... then I guess we are guilty as chaged... and proudly so....

you on the other hand appear to merely have convictions that those are good things....

its the old bacon & eggs analogy about commitment vs conviction.... the chicken has conviction that bacon & eggs are a good thing.... the pig is committed....
5

Carolyn 1,

15/04/2008 13:00:19
In Pennsylvania polling, Obama is dropping like a rock.
He's 20 points behind Clinton.

(Is The Scotsman not reporting that because of anti-Americanism?)
6

Quiet John,

Tinley Park 15/04/2008 14:18:27
Gun rights beat both Gore and Kerry.

When will the Democrats learn not to tamper with the Bill of Rights.
7

Sandi,

San Diego 15/04/2008 15:17:11
Hillary Clinton didn't mention "gun rights" at all. She recounted a time in her childhood, visiting her grandparents in Scranton, Pennsylvania, when her father took her out behind their house and taught her to shoot a shotgun. She said she had shot duck on one occasion as an adult. (I think I have that right!). Shotguns are not part of the "gun rights" issue. That concerns handguns and assault weapons. Apparently Obama doesn't know there's a difference.
8

oddoneout,

15/04/2008 16:18:56
#7 I don't think anyone who has been shot by any one of them would bother about the difference, just be mighty peeved about being shot! But I do support your right to arm bears
9

Sandi,

San Diego 15/04/2008 16:26:24
#8 I don't know where you live, but hunting is a somewhat revered activity in the US. Many hunters hunt for food. That is what shotguns are primarily used for.

I don't agree with the majority that the Second Amendment gives us the right to bear arms, and to arm yourself to the teeth. I agree with the "militia" interpretation.
10

Biker,

Ayr 15/04/2008 20:33:01
Sandi. good comment.
11

57Nomad,

california 15/04/2008 21:19:57
#9 #10

Sandi and Ayr:

Sandi, your argument concerning the 2nd amendment and the 'militia' are the ones most commonly put forward. Here is the answer.

In contemporary parlance the word, 'militia' is interchangeable with the state national guard units. This is the crux of the dispute. Militia and the National Guard are not interchangeable. The National Guard may be nationalized and incorporated into the regular army. The militia is a term reserved for completely civilian armed citizens who have organized themselves for the purpose of defending their domestic liberty.

This, then, is the distinction. The Guard units are for defense against foreign enemies. The are also routinely deployed domestically to aid in disaster relief. But in every case they are part of regular military units and are paid by the government.

The militia is to defend the citizens FROM the government. Whenever domestic conditions may warrant is the right and duty of the citizens to set this aright. In order to do this the citizens must be armed.

Do you understand the difference? To make it more clear I have included quotations from George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. Washington's comments will spell out the Founders view on the relationship between the State and the People.

"Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action."

and:

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good"

The founders had a profound distrust of government not because of government itself but because the founders knew that human nature never changes and the will to power, illegitimate power, is a perpetual component of human nature and had to be taken into account in advance and provisions made to safeguard against it.

These are the words of the man who wrote the Second Am
12

57Nomad,

california 15/04/2008 21:21:48
#11 contd.

These are the words of the man who wrote the Second Amendment, Thomas Jefferson.

""No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government"

For an historical comparison the militia is exactly the same concept as the Athenian demos. It is every man capable of bearing arms. So every able bodied man is, right now, at least in America, in the militia. The right to own and bear arms is part of what it means to be a free man.
13

CombatVet68,

15/04/2008 21:41:57
#9 Sandi

Its your fundamental right to beleive whatever you desire, right or wrong, as long as you do not force your beliefs upon others. I have read the U S Constitution while in law school (several times). While it does make reference to a "malitia", in truth, you'd have to be illiterate to ignore the specific reference to "the right to bear arms" directed to the average man, not resting solely in the "malitia".

It is indeed a sad state of affairs that we find we have two ego maniacs running for the Democratic nomination. Hillary "Jezebel" Clinton tells us what she thinks we want to hear, true or not. She is a practiced liar, she must have learned the art of lying from Billy boy, who now lies to cover up her boo boo!

Yet, for the life of me, WHY any moral person would want a LIAR to represent their interests in such a high political office is to say the least mind boggling! Her politics is just more and more of the same lies, deceptions, and extreme left wing politics that would make the anti-christ proud. She would fit quite well into his support group.

As for Obama, well, thats a duck of a different color, and I don't mean black. His politics is so far left of center it is scary. This man's politics is pure socialism, yet he caters to the socially elite, To me that makes him a hypocrit, both politically and from a christian perspective.

Both of these egotists support gay rights, abortion (including partial birth abortions), and about everything that Jesus would condemn in a society. Of course, McCain isn't much better, but in my mind, he may be the lesser of the three evils.

As far as being armed to the teeth. Well, let me say that I grew up with guns. I later went to Vietnam, where that knowledge and skill certainly increased my chances of survival in combat. I later became a law enforcement officer, and again, that skill aided me in surviving on the mean streets of this nation. I don't go about shooting people for kicks. So why abridge my ri
14

CombatVet68,

New Babylon 15/04/2008 21:49:41
#9 Sandi (Continued)

So why abridge my rights to own and possess guns merely because a few errant individuals choose to misuse them? Tens of Millions of honest law abiding men and women own guns, yet it is those few who use them against others that bring out the cying towel and embolden the leftist to cry "gun control". If we had laws with teeth and judges who meeted out judgement suited to the cime, we would see far fewer incidents of violence. The moral decay within this country, as in any country, breeds contempt for the law and the society of man. In my grand fathers time, justice was swift and severe.

15

John Blackley,

Florida 15/04/2008 21:55:40
To those who despair of the United States' current presidential candidates as being 'the best we can offer', can you please post the selection process and outstanding leadership candidates of your country?

I'd love to have something to compare.
16

CombatVet68,

New Babylon 15/04/2008 22:01:24
#12 57Nomad

Your point is well taken and right on the mark. The difference between the U S Citizenry and those of the the United Kingdom is that we have not surrendered our individual rights to the governemnt. We do not believe that any man or woman is of "royal blood". There was only ONE who had "royal blood" and they crucified HIM over 2000 years ago. The idea of "royal blood" was sold to the ignorant peasants by the royals, to insure the seperation of classes and you Brits still cling to that ignorance. We do not bow down to a king or queen. And if they should ever try to have one here, it would be over our dead bodies, still clinching our gun of choice.
17

Kelvino,

NY 15/04/2008 23:04:43
WASHINGTON, Pennsylvania (Reuters) - Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, accused of being elitist for remarks he made about small-town American voters. . . .

Obama's comments on Tuesday came in response to a man in the audience who said he felt the label of elitist was not far from the label of "UPPITY," a racially insulting term used against blacks. (End quote)
The "elitist" label is yet another Clinton Dynasty red herring. . . .she should be ashamed ! I once had some faith in her, but no more. She simply lacks good judgement.

Americans have not surrendered all of our rights to the government. Our"freedoms" are restricted to TV watching, what brand of gas to buy, what Christian God to pray to, etc. We are very free to think and behave within a very narrow band of experiences, or so my 60 years on this earth has observed. We do not tolerate real debate very well and are very quick to define the
"enemy" in simple terms that fit our prejudices. We are a very insular, myopic people. . . and we seem to like it that way.

We have, however, surrendered our souls and futures to the multinational corporations, whose profits are
protected by our US world empirical forces. Is this the "freedom" we were taught to protect in school ?
I'm not really sure that we'll pull out of this economic downturn, as with many others, as it appears that Bush and Co. have gotten us all into a jam from which we cannot recover. I pray that Obama can
inspire us to rise above the mess we have inherited from our current disaster of an administration.



18

Kelvino,

NY 15/04/2008 23:35:30
Exactly WHAT were the statements that Jesus made regarding firearms in the home, profiteering, abortion,
prostitution, Terry Sciavo, military domination, empire creation, racial prejudice and all of the other politically-popular "buzz" topics that are intended to divide us from each other ?

I like to think that I attempt to follow the path of Jesus. . . . .but it includes none of these things, only forgiveness and compassion. Am I wrong to believe this way ?
19

Sandi,

San Diego 15/04/2008 23:37:11
CombatVet68 and 57Nomad,

I really didn't intend to get into a discussion about the Second Amendment. I'm not "up in arms" about it. LOL! I would like to see some sensible things like mandatory trigger locks and more control over sales at gun shows.

#17 Kelvino,

Barack Obama's remarks were very elitist and amazingly stupid from someone who is supposed to be so good with words. Of course, ever since they left his lips we've had the WORM patrol out in force. What is the WORM patrol? What Obama Really Meant.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/04/a_living_lie.html
20

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 15/04/2008 23:52:59
#11 #12
57Nomad,
california

Dude,

U are sound more and more like a Dude who lost out in the past, and keeps regurgitating what U missed out on.

U seem to be obsessed with the probability that Hillary will be our next US President.

I am surprised U have not regurgitated her 1969 theses which she wrote when she was 22years old.
And in it referenced ,the thoughts of Saul D. Alinsky,.

Why u are not so obsessed whit Hillary's theses beats me. U should understand that all intelligent 20 year olds, are by nature, rebellious.

But time and life experiences change them . Except for the unique few like Fidel Castro etc.

The US has been ,and is anti women and so I understand your grief should Hillary be our next president.
---------------------------------------
Now to this headline
Gun talk may be high noon of Democrats' nomination campaign

Can any of U elitists explain to me what this headlines means to the general US Joe, who supports , eats and drinks, Micky Dee's, Burger King, Kentucky Fried, Wendys. Bud light, Coors Light, WAL-Mart, Del Taco, 7/11 Slurpies , Coke/Pepsie 64oz.
.

And are just able to waddle to their couch, sit and stare at NFL /AFL games etc .
Look obese and have fat tires weighting down on their fat legs,

Happy Haggis day

GC
21

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta; . CA.....a place in the Sun 16/04/2008 00:02:25
United States Constitution ...We the People;

II Amendment:
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Dudes U can squawk all U want based on the
I Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The II Amendment was written in simple English and has deep meaning for the protection of a country andof the individual .

LIVE with it dudes . It ain't going to be changed any time soon (in this century)

Just keep squawking like the SNP in Scotland.

GC
22

57Nomad,

california 17/04/2008 19:02:09
#20 GC

Your comments here bear no relation to my comments in 11 &12 at all. What the hell are you talking about? The article and the comments that follow it are about the right to bear arms and have nothing to do with Hillary.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.