By Ron Chusid
From Liberal Values

"You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment, or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."  -- Sen. Barack Obama

Clinton is sounding an awful lot like a Republican candidate.
Clinton and McCain pounced simultaneously, with identical messages, in large part because this is all they've got. Jeremiah Wright simply wasn't enough. Obama gave them an opportunity with a couple of awkward sentences, but at the same time, he also captured some real, genuine disaffection that exists in plenty of communities nationwide.

If Obama had been reading from a prepared text, or sticking to carefully-crafted talking points, he certainly wouldn't have phrased this point the same way. But he was making an observation about why voters have been willing to give up on voting on economic issues, and here's the kicker: I think he was probably right.

If I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd actually embrace the controversial quote. Of course folks in small towns are clinging to their guns; they've been led to believe the state is coming to take away their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course they cling to their faith; given the economic turmoil in their communities, they have to cling to institutions that give them strength and hope. Of course they're bitter; while millionaires and wealthy corporations have been well represented in corridors of power for as long as they can remember, they've been working harder, making less, and feeling like they've been left behind.

That's not an un-American sentiment. That's not reflective of poor values. That's not elitism. That's reality. As Steve said, "Clinton and McCain pounced simultaneously, with identical messages, in large part because this is all they've got." And in large part because Clinton and McCain represent the same governing philosophy, and would deliver more of the same if either were elected.

Those who want politicians who sanitize every word they say to avoid the risk of offending anyone (and avoid the risk of saying anything of substance) will continue to prefer the Bush/Clinton/McCain Party. Those of us who prefer a leader who is willing to actually say something (and actually change things if elected) will continue to support Obama.
Norm Scheiber also notes the similarities between Clinton's attack on Obama and attacks fron the right, as she has lowered herself to the level of Michelle Malkin:

Strange how the Clinton approach to strengthening the Democratic Party is remarkably similar to the GOP's approachto strengthening the Democratic Party.