He'll say, "Billy, the problem is that you're willfully misconstruing what I said and taking out of context to help your preferred candidate. I believe I've made it clear that I was talking about what issues people vote for, and what they base their votes on, when thirty years of broken promises leave them with no reason to hope that voting on economic issues will do them any good. They vote to hold on to what they have left, and in many cases that's their right to bear arms and their religious values. Their understandable bitterness over the failure of our broken politics to address their real economic needs makes them unresponsive to people promising to improve their economic situation, and more responsive to arguments that the people who've broken their promises to them want to take away what they have left. And to answer your question, the people in small towns do not hold on to their religion because they're bitter, but because its the one thing they can always count on to give them hope, when nothing else, and no one else does, and that's why I hold onto my religion."

I suspect he's say something a lot like that, because, well, he already has.

You are misconstruing his words. He wasn't saying that religion isn't something to turn to when one is bitter.

This is what he is saying: For 25 years, politicians have been promising rural Americans a better life. That better life never came. In fact, with NAFTA (thanks Bill & Hill!) it got worse. Rural Americans, in turn, have turned away from economic issues in campaigns because politicians (Bill & Hill & W) have given them empty promises. They become bitter.

So, they turn to other issues to formulate their voting decisions. E.g. gay marriage, guns, religion, immigration, inter alia.

Frankly, this is how the Republicans have been able to establish a stranglehold on rural America. If Bill and Hillary had any backbone in the 1990's, they could have done something about the economy in rural America to win this group back. Instead, they (BOTH) advocated for NAFTA.

It's really a simple, and accurate, concept.

Senator Obama, do you cling to your religion because you're bitter?

Why do I hear Tim Russert's voice when I read that?

And why do I hear that question coming after Russert shows a few Rev. Wright clips?

I guess I'm just paranoid.

The reply to the questioner should be "get a life, you moron".

I only have 2 recommendations. I think the rest of you must not be enjoying this game very much. Maybe it's too late at night. I'll put it back up in the morning. After Meet The Press.

I think Obama doesn't answer patently stupid questions. And even if he does, he shouldn't.

He's undoubtedly more "politic" than I am. I know what I'd say in his place:

"Billy, you're a self-important little PITA. Come back when you can display reasoning skills above a third grade level."

"Senator Obama, do you cling to your religion because you're bitter?

As fantasy football politicos, let's take a crack at it. If you were his chief strategist, how would you advise Obama to answer that question?"

Very few people cling to a religion because they're bitter.

Most people are born into a religion and stick with it because it's so intimately associated with their family and upbringing. Other people adopt a religion in the same way they put down roots and create a family.

What bitterness does is prevent people from seeing clearly where their religious obligations are. Millions of Christians oppose abortion because of their belief in the sanctity of human life. And yet a large number of them supported and continue to support the war in Iraq, which has killed thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

Why is that? Simply that their anger at seeing their country attacked made it difficult to see the contradiction. People like Ron Paul and Chuck Hagel vociferously opposed the war for probably much the same reasons they oppose abortion. Many other Christians believe that life is sacred just as fervently, but their bitterness over the Trade Centre bombing made them rush to a decision that many of them are now regretting.

Bitterness makes people do a lot of things that they end up regretting. Politicians know this, and they use it every election. Every time voters come close to asking why their elected leaders aren't doing their jobs, politicians find an issue that they can use to divert people's attention. One year it will be flag-burning, another year it will be gay marriage.

Do you even realize what the Republican position on gay marriage is? Most Americans don't think much about the possibility that a large Christian denomination might endorse gays being married. But I think if you did ask them, they would tell you that it's not something the federal government should be sticking their nose into.

And yet, if the Republican amendment to ban gay marriage had passed, the ability of any church to make their own policy on the issue would have been taken away by the federal government. Do conservatives really want that? This is why the marriage bill passed in Canada. The United Church of Canada decided to support gay marriage and the federal government was put in the position of having to disestablish that church in order to enforce any kind of ban. The U.S. will be in the same position if a major denomination (such as the Episcopalian church, which has been considering it) decides to do the same thing.

Christians who are concerned about their church's independence ought to be following this closely. Even if they believe that homosexual unions should not be sanctified by their church, I'm sure most Christians believe that it ought to be their church's decision. So why do so many of them support the Republicans' amendment? Bitterness, mainly. A lot of Christians are afraid of their churches being forced to change their policies by liberal activists (as some of them have in the past) and want to see that possibility nipped in the bud. Unfortunately, this has led them to support a political action which will achieve what they are trying to prevent.

The same thing has happened with Iraq, as people supported a war to end the threat of terrorism, but have almost certainly increased it by doing so. And with the economy, as people voted for a party that systematically removed the regulations that helped them keep their jobs, their pensions, and their homes. This can't be what they actually wanted.

You mean that time when the runner-up refused to concede for the good of the party?

Funny you should mention that.

Thank you Lynn Dee. I was looking for a laugh.

He'll say "I don't cling to my religion in the voting booth because I have hope that when I vote on economic issues the person I am voting for has the ability to change things for the better".

You did know that he was speaking in reference to voting behavior, right? Or perhaps you've only listened to a 30 second Hillary soundbite.

Can you point me to the transcript of the whole thing? All I've seen is just the one paragraph, his clarification and comments from someone who was there
that posted in this forum.

IF you are referring to his answer to the question that has been spun into a non-crisis, then you miss the entire point of what he was saying - it was an answer to a question.

This kind of stuff is what is really upsetting people - this making nothing out of nothing instead of talking about what is real.

This is why she's losing.

Looking at the context ("The paragraph... was not a part of the speech itself, but rather a response to a question from someone in the audience (one of us!) who was planning on traveling to PA as a volunteer and was asking about what to expect." from here) of the original quote and Obama's followup statements, it's clear that he's not saying "if you are bitter you literally cling to guns, religion, etc."

What he's saying is that in the context of politics, voters in economically depressed regions cling to political issues involving gun control, religion (often used in political manipulation, such as in separation of church and state issues) and (and here we see the list is a list of issues that keep turning up in politics) "antipathy to people who aren’t like them" (such as gays) "or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Billy? Are you paying attention? (Snaps fingers.) Up here!

You want to ask, "Senator Obama, do you cling to your religion because you're bitter?"

Do you understand that the original quote that started all this is about clinging to certain political issues? Not literally clinging to guns, religion, etc?

Language and abstract thought can be difficult for some. Maybe you have a reading disorder. Or you have some sort of logic "tunnel vision" where you can't place a couple sentences, a few words, within the context of their origins. You can't quite grasp that placing little bits of info in their proper context provides more information, more clues, as to what was being said. And that leads to better understanding of complex subjects.

Learning disabilities can be corrected somewhat even in adults. I'd suggest, Billy, that you find out what resources for continuing adult education you might have in your community.

Or, maybe you're just bullshitting us, and pretending to be daft because it's the only way you can keep this argument going.