This past weekend I decided to get away from the blog. I just checked out and rest my brain from the insanity of politics and spent time with Kate in Asheville. I unfortunately turned on the TV for a short while and I mistakenly turned to CNN, and there the news bleaters were, talking about this scandal of Obama using the term “bitter” to describe blue collar voters disillusioned by the turn of the economic tide against them, and finding solace in clinging “to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them….”
As this was breathlessly reported on at least twice while I had the TV on, I turned to Kate and said — “is there nothing else to report?” and flipped it off. I was serious — aside from the predictable reaction that he is being elitist or out of touch, no one with any credibility can say that what Obama said wasn’t true. It appears to me, as I was not willing to watch any more news over the weekend while away, that the issue was less about the word “bitter” than Obama’s politically blunt truth-telling.
For instance, did any reporters do any digging to see whether incidents of hate crimes, discrimination and such increases in these blue-collar towns when joblessness rises? Is there a correlation between economic discomfort and a lashing out at the “other?” I’m pretty sure this is likely, and I’m sure that Obama was making an observation many do about these situations. His real “crime” — one not articulated in the reporting I saw — was the fact that he was calling out the low-information voter demographic, those who are swayed by emotional appeals to the base biases and instincts by Republicans (and of late the Clinton campaign).
Oh, by the way, does Hillary have a problem with Bill’s even more blunt statement in 1991:
“You know, he [Bush] wants to divide us over race. I’m from the South. I understand this. This quota deal they’re gonna pull in the next election is the same old scam they’ve been pulling on us for decade after decade after decade. When their economic policies fail, when the country’s coming apart rather than coming together, what do they do? They find the most economically insecure white men and scare the living daylights out of them. They know if they can keep us looking at each other across a racial divide, if I can look at Bobby Rush and think, Bobby wants my job, my promotion, then neither of us can look at George Bush and say, ‘What happened to everybody’s job? What happened to everybody’s income? What … have … you … done … to … our … country?’”Again, she opens the door to race-baiting, without even a hint at any deeper analysis of why blue-collar, economically disenfranchised white voters might drift toward racial animus and xenophobia as a response?
But back to the present day…what Obama could have done as a PR move (and perhaps he’s done it already), is to point the blame for the economic woes on the GOP, which shipped a ton of those blue-collar jobs overseas, and left industrial states to pick up the pieces. Or the foot-dragging Congress, and this President, ready to concoct ways to bail out financial institutions from bad business decision and send out meaningless rebate checks rather than consider extending unemployment benefits.
Of course the GOP is masterful at avoiding blame for the mess that they created and this sense of bitterness/disillusionment in lunch-bucket America. Clinton was happy to capitalize on that because, at this point, she has a lock on the “fear of the black man” vote. No one wants to say that, but that’s the bottom line.
BTW, Barack Obama is coming to Raleigh on Thursday for a town hall. Just received some 411 on this (after being my brief internet hiatus), and I would really like to cover the event, so I’m trying to see how I can snare press credentials to cover the event. If there are Obama staffers reading - help a local citizen journalist out (pam at pamspaulding dot com)! The Obama HQ in Raleigh registered 1,000 on Friday alone, an indication of enthusiasm that the town hall will be jam packed.
Stereotyping is stereotyping, no matter how statistically “true” it is or who is spewing it.
I grew weary of my son’s teacher’s travel blog as he was cycling through Colorado and constantly overgeneralizing the people in the area he was in. It was totally ridiculous coming from an otherwise progressive person, but he somehow felt justified in tarring everybody with a single fundy gun nut brush.
I finally lost it when he took a picture of an antler sculpture and whined about “all the beautiful animals that died for it”.
C’mon!!! Even a Brit 5th grade teacher should know that deer and elk SHED their antlers yearly! I pointed this out, and noted that my brother and I used to gather them for money in the spring after the snow melted. He retorted with “I know what child labor is like”, which was totally aside from the question of massive, grandiose stereotyping and building fairy castles of stereotyping around your ignorance.
That’s what Obama’s remark made me think about - massive stereotyping, partly true partly not, but still as ignorant as stereotyping typically ever is.
Yes there is truth to what Obama said at his fundraiser. That is the problem that I have- he chose to use the negative connotations of a margnalized group to Fundraise. He sold people’s pain for gain and he isn’t acknowledging that now. This is what people hate about politics and politicians.
About Bill’s atatement- it is more than 10 years old and was BILL’s statement, not Hillary’s. It also was an attack on Bush Sr. in the context of his campaign and how he uses people’s insecurities against them and not how we, as groups, become embittered and xenophobic.
So Obama- give me money so I can sell myself to hicks versus don’t let the other guy divide us using our fears and insecurities. Both could have been worded differently but they aren’t really comparable in intention.
“is there nothing else to report?”
Nope, except for the suspension of the 4th amendment, the information about the White House principals choosing who to torture and how, and the economy.
I sure hope the next president of the united states doesn’t think working class people are bitter. That would be unthinkable!
Honestly, I think he made a good point up until the “cling to guns” part. He could have just ended it at “And it’s not surprising then they get bitter.” Because there is a lot of resentment that the jobs in manufacturing sectors have disappeared, and that there are a lot of people who are bitter about that, in that they really have trouble looking for work. But it really depends on the person, as to who they blame for that - some people blame the government, some people blame “The Mexicans”, others put the blame squarely on the shoulders of the corporations. But that’s not the sole reason people “cling” to religion or guns or homophobia. There are many factors that go into that, of which the resentment would only be a part, if at all.
Just my two cents.
I’m more offended at Hillary and John promptly announcing that the voters are happy and optimistic about the future. That’s out of touch.
And that’s what Barack said in response–that he knows the people in the Midwest, and we’re not happy.
And I am bitter. Not just about the state of the economy and the illegal war to profit BushCo & friends, but also that the President can admit to planning to subvert the Constitution by
allowinginstituting torture and next to none of my fellow Americans give a shit!Where is the press? Where are the Dems in Congress? How the hell do we sit back and let them get away with it? Are we too scared to be locked up in Cheney’s concentration camps? What the fuck?
Well, Sporkey, if you’re afraid of the gov’t or the black/brown/yellow/red/orange man or the corporate man, you might just get yourself a gun and cling to it for protection.
It won’t actually solve any of the problems, unless you have a revolution and unseat the gov’t, but it might make you feel better if you’re bitter.
You don’t really “cling” to your guns if you’re just going hunting. You cling to them if you feel threatened and want to protect yourself.
I actually admire a guy that can get up and speak some truth, without running it through focus groups, vetting it in front of million-dollar political “consultants”, etc.
If The Villagers (as Digby calls them) are upset, I’m inclined to think it hit even closer to the truth than I already believe.
OTOH, this is really just a very minor thing.
Now, declining coffee in favor of orange juice, avoiding a Philly Cheesesteak sandwich, and listening to that Rev. Jeremiah Wright as he hates America, not wearing a US flag pin - THOSE are really important and substantive things to criticize B. HUSSEIN Obama (closet Islamist) for…*eye roll*…
“And I am bitter. Not just about the state of the economy and the illegal war to profit BushCo & friends, but also that the President can admit to planning to subvert the Constitution by
allowinginstituting torture and next to none of my fellow Americans give a shit!”…and not only not saying much/anything about it, many of them, if asked, cheer on our American “inquisition”. We are sick, and it’s really embarrassing…
All valid points above; Obama’s remarks were not politically useful. That’s why an analysis by the press of the stereotyping of this demographic would be a more productive use of reporters than what we are seeing. It would be refreshing to know 1) whether Obama’s statement bears any resemblance to the demographic truth, and 2) if so, does that translate into racism, xenophobia, homophobia and all of the rest of the pathologies in reaction to economic woes.
I’m not holding my breath for the MSM to get a clue.
And the point of raising Bill’s comments, it would be interesting to know if Hillary agrees or disagrees with him, not whether she believes it herself; she was on the campaign trail with him, after all. Once you open the door to something like this, you have to be prepared to respond with a query like this.
I don’t think it’s going to hurt Obama to acknowledge the bitterness that exists in this country– although it’s certainly not limited to small towns in Pennsylvania. A lot of us are seriously bitter about the past 7+ years. Actually I think I passed the bitter mark years ago, it’s more like a low level seething. It would be smart of him to talk about channelling that bitterness into hope and taking our country back from the beltway corporatocracy.
I can’t help but wonder if this is going to backfire on Clinton because it makes her look like she doesn’t “get” it, she appears out of touch AND is echoing GOP talking points– again.
Obama’s mistake was the very clumsy “guns and god” reference that had to be explained. I don’t think he made up that people are bitter, he just spent nearly 2 weeks traveling across PA in a bus. He could help clear this up if he talked about some of the people he met and talked to, where he got that impression. It’s hardly an elitist impression, if anything it’s elitist and out of touch to pretend that poor, struggling people aren’t bitter or angry, that we’re all full of a special brand of dignity that only the poor possess. Now THAT is condescending.
Frankly I think that talking about the bitterness that DOES exist in this country isn’t going to hurt him in the long run– many of us are bitter and angry, especially after the past 7+ years. Obama’s campaign would be well served to talk about channelling our collective bitterness and outrage into positive, serious change.
Obama’s mistake was the very clumsy “guns and god” reference that had to be explained. I don’t think he made up that people are bitter, he just spent nearly 2 weeks traveling across PA in a bus. He could help clear this up if he talked about some of the people he met and talked to, where he got that impression. It’s hardly an elitist impression, if anything it’s elitist and out of touch to pretend that poor, struggling people aren’t bitter or angry, that we’re all full of a special brand of dignity that only the poor possess. Now THAT is condescending.
Frankly I think that talking about the bitterness that DOES exist in this country isn’t going to hurt him in the long run– many of us are bitter and angry, especially after the past 7+ years. Obama’s campaign would be well served to talk about channelling our collective bitterness and outrage into positive, serious change.
It would be interesting if she was there when he made them. Then as now, their routine is to divide to cover the most ground and both have never met a script that they couldn’t jettison between one breath and the next, not always to their advantage but they think on their feet.
Obama needs to rein in Daschle because if I hear him comparing Obama’s elementary school years in urban Jakarta with adult concerns in the rural Rustbelt one more time I’ll puke. Obama has found a better track with his time in Illinois and he needs Daschle on track.
Obama’s mistake was the very clumsy “guns and god” reference that had to be explained. I don’t think he made up that people are bitter, he just spent nearly 2 weeks traveling across PA in a bus. He could help clear this up if he talked about some of the people he met and talked to, where he got that impression. It’s hardly an elitist impression, if anything it’s elitist and out of touch to pretend that poor, struggling people aren’t bitter or angry, that we’re all full of a special brand of dignity that only the poor possess. Now THAT is condescending.
Frankly I think that talking about the bitterness that DOES exist in this country isn’t going to hurt him in the long run– many of us are bitter and angry, especially after the past 7+ years. Obama’s campaign would be well served to talk about channelling our collective bitterness and outrage into positive, serious change.
No surprise here, but this is all about fear.
IMO, Obama’s “mistake” was to point to the fear, to make it the subject of discussion. People don’t like to talk about (or hear about) their fears. Hell, most people won’t even admit to being afraid (or they honestly don’t experience their fear as fear). To discuss this stuff publicly is akin to dragging out the most embarrassing family (or personal) baggage in public. It can all be very true, but airing it’s not gonna get you any love!
But I also think that this is the a necessary first step towards acknowledging and releasing the fear. Now if we could just get people to realize that there is enough to go around, and that no one needs to hoard or otherwise be greedy, since there is enough to go around …
I was watching this whole brouhaha on C-Span’s Washington Journal Saturday morning. The comments were disgusting, many of which were along the lines of Obama was being “uppity.” Having the Journal on speed dial, I dialed and dialed until I actually got through.
My comment was: “What did he say that wasn’t true?” Read Christopher Hedges’ book American Fascists and what the Senator said pretty well tracks with the research Hedges did, a lot of which was in the Rust Belt, where Obama was speaking. When people lose their jobs, homes, stability and economic mobility, they too often cling to god and guns.
There are a lot of things seriously fucked up in this country right now, and we finally have a presidential candidate who speaks to those issues instead of constantly blowing sunshine up our asses. And what kind of reaction does the truth get? They called him “uppity.”
Jesus fucking christ, I never thought we could sink so low.
I’m wondering why people in denial don’t see the disconnect between 75% of the country saying “we’re on the wrong track” and yet nearly half being willing to vote for McCain, who represents nothing more than a third GW Bush Administration, but with more angry outbursts.
#9: But Daschle’s huge with the tweens!
Obama’s big mistake was the very clumsy “guns and god” reference that had to be explained. I don’t think he made up that people are bitter, he just spent nearly 2 weeks traveling across PA in a bus. He could help clear this up if he talked about some of the people he met and talked to, where he got that impression. It’s hardly an elitist impression, if anything it’s elitist and out of touch to pretend that poor, struggling people aren’t bitter or angry, that we’re all full of a special brand of dignity that only the poor possess. Now THAT is condescending.
Frankly I think that talking about the bitterness that DOES exist in this country isn’t going to hurt him in the long run– many of us are bitter and angry, especially after the past 7+ years. Obama’s campaign would be well served to talk about channelling our collective bitterness and outrage into positive, serious change.
I agreed with Obama’s statement, and I saw empathy in it. I didn’t get the controversy until it was explained to me. I think it’s a big deal because he dropped the “America is perfect.” line that presidential candidates are supposed to have. He’s pointing out real problems and their causes and the punditry doesn’t like it. I also don’t see why it’s a gaffe since he wasn’t going to get the god, guns, and gays votes anyway. A Democrat looking for those votes is going to lose.
As a side note, Why does it always feel like there are two candidates running against Obama instead of two candidates running against McCain?
People don’t like being told how they think, even if it is actually how they do think.
What baffles me is how ineptly McCain and Clinton attacked Obama’s words. I mean, if your opponent says this-
-and you leap on the bold part, the truest and most easy to defend part, then what are you thinking?
I had the same reaction as you Pam. CNN was pretty nauseating. I finally turned off the tv when Candy whathername breathlessly said “And believe it or not, we have other news to report.” That gaffe was that big of a deal? really?
While Obama’s statements may ring “true” to coastal liberals, coastal liberals are not an electoral majority in this country. He needs the votes of people who he is insulting here if he is going to beat John McCain.
This is certainly an important statement to people who feel it indicates Obama is contemptuous toward them, or condescending toward them, or cannot relate to them.
The point he was trying to make was that there are people who vote Republican because of social issues when they’d be better served by Democratic economic policy. And the Democratic party needs to court them if it wants to build the kind of national electoral majority that the Republicans have had for most of the last several decades.
But the way Obama made the point was contemptuous and condescending toward these voters, rather than welcoming. You don’t get these people to vote for you by insulting them.
That’s why an analysis by the press of the stereotyping of this demographic would be a more productive use of reporters than what we are seeing.
I wouldn’t hold my breath for it either, but aren’t they the ones who feed into this stereotype? Kerry drinks that elitist green tea!! That they acted like the rubes wouldn’t know what green tea is? Never mind the fact that it’s found only at exotic specialty retailers like Target. If anything, I really think it’s the press doing the stereotyping, so I really don’t expect them to actually try to investigate the deeper reasons for the bitterness and resentment, seeing as how they perpetuate the stereotype.
I really think it’s the press doing the stereotyping, so I really don’t expect them to actually try to investigate the deeper reasons for the bitterness and resentment, seeing as how they perpetuate the stereotype.
Given how often I see stereotypes perpetuated in the MSM (and on progressive blogs) that nearly all southerners are ignorant, backward and have poor hygeine, I never expect any in-depth reporting any more.
I would really love to see a CNN Special Investigation on regional and class stereotypes and what lies behind them. THAT would make for an interesting program.
I’m so glad you wrote about this. I wanted to start, but I kept getting a headache from anger.
In the short run, this statement will bite Obama in the ass in Pennsylvania. It will slow whatever momentum he may have had in overcoming Clinton’s lead. But in the long run, this will be fodder for the Republican hate machine in the general election. The very tactics of fear-mongering he is criticizing - or attempting to criticize - in this statement will exploit Obama’s blunt and sloppy phrasing to make it mean the opposite of what he intended.
All predictable. What really matters is how Obama deals with it. Every politician says things that will haunt them later - “I voted for it before I voted against it” or “Read my lips.” At least with the poor wording of this statement (and the early timing), he can pull off a quick, sensible explanation; but he doesn’t want to waste too much time explaining. So far he has turned the criticism back on his opponents for playing the same old games that he is attempting to overcome. Fair enough. It would be great if he could actually address the realities underlying his poorly worded statement and then talk about how his Presidency will transform them into something consistent with his message of hope.
Of course, that depends also on the news media paying attention.
I guess I’m just one of those urban coastal elites, because I still don’t get what the big deal is or where the “insult” is. When 81% of people polled say the country is on the wrong track, things are not hunky-dory. People are not happy. Pointing out that when people are not happy but can’t fight the system, they turn to the things they can control and point fingers away from the system is not some bizarre statement out of nowhere.
Hey, I’m in the Midwest. It rings true here. Even though the stereotype of the midwest is a bunch of redneck rubes, we have blue states here–which means we have liberals (gasp) in large numbers here in the heartland.
And he wasn’t insulting anyone–he was stating the fact that when times are tough, people get scared and bitter and the worser part of our nature comes out.
He didn’t say God or being religious was bad. He didn’t say guns were bad. He said people cling to these things as explanations for their bitterness.
As in “life would be great if I could take an AK47 everywhere” or “life would be great if everyone was a Southern Baptist” or “life would be great if we could just get rid of the Mexicans”. None of it is true nor does any of it address the real issues. But we need to acknowledge the bitterness and the clinging to excuses that are not helping us move forward.
But it’s so much easier just to jump on the fact he said the words “people are bitter” and “cling to guns” etc. and not focus on the reality of what he said or reality in general. Our press, especially, is loathe to acknowledge the fact-based community if it’s not all roses and ponies.
Read it. It shouldn’t be a ‘hit’ at all. It takes a powerful spin to make his words meaningless–>and we have that a plenty.
Okay…the comment itself was interesting. But the response…the response still has me chuckling.
Obama is ELITIST.
From both John-married-into-money-McCain and Hillary-109-MILLION-Clinton.
Seriously? Obama’s elitist? Really? That’s the hill you want to die on?
No doubt there is bitterness in many places in America. That said Obama was flat out wrong that working class whites “cling” to guns because of economic conditions. Many working class whites were into guns long before NAFTA, stagnant wages and what have you. Many simply enjoy hunting, it’s part of their culture and it goes back generations.
I don’t think this will hurt Obama too much, however. It’s great Obama went to Harvard but maybe he should mention his own working class background a bit more. McCain is from the upper class, and Clinton the upper-middle class, so who’s an elitist?
I would say that if the PC left is interested in really changing things, in really taking on the 1% who own 70% of the countries wealth they need to at least be dialoguing (if not forming a coalition) with non-college educated whites who make up close to half the electorate. Yes, that’s a little simplistic but this a blog not a book.
People who think that significant progressive change will happen minus working class whites are deluding themselves. Whatever way this rather large group swings will determine the next president.
Caren: I tend to agree, but I think the problem is not the “bitter” part (pace McCain and Clinton), but the implication that this is a phenomenon that affects only small towns. Big cities have their fair share of xenophobic immigrant bashers, racists, homophobes, etc. They don’t stand out there because the communities of people of color, immigrants, queers, etc. are big enough to defend themselves.
Clinton is also making what she can out of “religion” as something to “cling to” out of desperation, as opposed to a wonderful, glorious, hifalutin Provider of Meaning in the lives of the faithful. While I chalk this up with her equally ridiculous “wouldn’t have been my pastor” take on the Rev. Jim Wright meme, that won’t stop it from feeding into whatever stereotypes voters might have of Obama as an (tick ‘em off) elitist, anti-American, Manchurian Muslim come to take away your guns, abort your babies and burn your churches.
I said the same thing about Gore and Bush, yet somehow Bush managed to fool many ordinary people that he was just like them. It’s a ruse, but if you can pull of a convincing performance, it’ll work.
Which is not to say that Obama should start clearing brush or wear a cowboy hat.
If you tell me a hard truth to my face I can accept it. You go behind my back to people that I think don’t get me and I’ll be pissed.
The man did not make those remarks to a roomfull of Pennsylvannians looking at foreclosure and another year of joblessness. He said it to a roomful of donors in a secretive fundraiser that was never supposed to come to light. The man was selling their pain to strangers to raise money. As true as it may be it was old style politics of the most acidic nature and he needs to recognize that he was not only off-message with this one, he was off the foundations of the campaign that he started.
“In the short run, this statement will bite Obama in the ass in Pennsylvania. It will slow whatever momentum he may have had in overcoming Clinton’s lead. But in the long run, this will be fodder for the Republican hate machine in the general election.”
Dude, grow up.
It doesn’t matter what Obama says/does/thinks/wears, where he was born, where he lived, where he went to school, what church he attends, what eats and drinks - all can and will be attacked by the Reichwing. THAT’S WHAT THEY DO.
I’m waiting to find out that he brushes his teeth wrong - using a back-forth-motion instead of up-and-down, he uses the wrong hand, chose an “elitist” toothpaste, brushes too many times each day, or not enough, uses the wrong toothbrush, etc.
There is no bottom to the absurdity that will be dragged out and placed on Obama, because there is no limit to the evil of the Reichwing.
So, Mr. Obama, carry on. You’re doing just fine. You have the strength and the character to handle these idiotic piles of bullshit with grace. You’re the best choice in this election, and I look forward with great enthusiasm to placing my vote in your column…
“I was serious — aside from the predictable reaction that he is being elitist or out of touch, no one with any credibility can say that what Obama said wasn’t true.”
What I heard from Obama’s private talk in San Francisco is that people love their guns, or love their God, because they are economically depressed.
The gun assertion is wildly unhistorical, in that rural people have ALWAYS hunted. Only an elite who grew up in Hawaii, then New York, then Chicago, then Boston, and then Chicago again would be so out of touch not to have a clue that hunting and fishing have always been part of rural America.
The religion assertion will go down even harder. I know that Pandagonians just. do. not. understand. that religious people hate being insulted about their religion.
So, to answer Pam’s question, neither of Obama’s point was true. The problem is that so few in the netroots have any idea how the other half live.
I too fail to see how Obama’s remarks are an insult to anybody.
Ms. Kate probably makes the best point that the problem is that it’s an overgeneralization, but what political language isn’t? How do you talk about populations and trends without broad brush strokes?
I think his real crime here, as far as Clinton and McCain are concerned, is that he directly stated that Washington has not been working for working people. Hillary viscerally and vocally objects to the notion that the Beltway isn’t serving the best interests of the nation.
And I’m sure it doesn’t help that Obama mentioned that the working class has been neglected not only by the Reagan/Bush Republicans, but by the neoliberal Clinton administration as well.
Caren,
“Bitter” is generally not viewed as a sympathetic adjective. “Angry,” can be righteous. “Outraged” can be wronged. “Put-upon” can be unjustly burdened. But these “bitter” people are adopting prejudices spitefully.
And “clinging” to guns or religion is a characterization inherently critical and implies that their positions on those things are not valid.
If you are pro-guns, or devout, or anti-immigration, what Barack is saying here is that he doesn’t respect you and he doesn’t think the issues you care about are important.
These kinds of statements do not expand his tent.
“So, to answer Pam’s question, neither of Obama’s point was true.”
Bullshit.
“The problem is that so few in the netroots have any idea how the other half live.”
I guess my lower-class blue-collar upbringing - a son of lower-class, blue-collar parents, who were the same in turn, and so on, as far back as anybody has been able to research - I guess that life experience is of no value in your tiny little world, eh seroj?
I was born and raised in the blue-collar, all-white world of the lower class in America. (I was also raised a fundamentalist too.) I’m the first of my family who went to college, right after high school, and then got a job in my field, and still work in my field. And I’m not alone either, especially on Pandagon.
Your wingnut talking points are no more valid here than the blithering of the MSM idiots decrying choosing OJ over coffee.
So take your claims that we don’t understand the “other half” and stick ‘em up your ass…
Well, as one of the rednecked God and guns hicks from small town Pennsyltucky, I can say that we knew what he meant, but it doesn’t matter: he wasn’t counting on us’ns for votes nohow.
In the meantime, Bill Clinton came to my home town and made his pitch. I didn’t attend — I’ve heard the Clintons lie on television enough that I don’t need to have them lie to me in person — and the people were lined up outside the high school, in the off-and-on rain, for three hours waiting to get in. I don’t hear much support for either candidate here — or for John McCain, for that matter — but I’ve seen a few signs in support of Mrs Clinton, and none for Mr Obama.
I grew up in the (upper) Midwest and still live here. The statement rang true to me, and not insulting because of that, but then I’m one of the overeducated myself, and a woman. Oh. And an atheist. So despite living here, he really wasn’t talking about me. Which means if people who he was talking about were offended, they were offended and that will have to be dealt with.
On the Obama is out of touch front, I’m not even sure the statement about rural folk ‘loving’ their guns more now than in the past is true. Not because they didn’t love them in the past, but because the classic explanation for rural gun use - hunting - is rapidly fading from the US.
At least according to DNR numbers, hunting is rapidly declining in popularity - all across the country.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ea_1206896137
http://legalruralism.blogspot.com/2008/03/hunting-on-decline-and-what-to-do-about.html
There are lots of proposed reasons for this, but I can’t help but suspect the combination of fees and loss of leisure time are way up there as explanations.
“Cris
April 14, 2008 at 10:21 am
I too fail to see how Obama’s remarks are an insult to anybody.”
Probably because you weren’t one of Obama’s targets. It’s easy for those on the receiving end to know exactly where he was coming from.
“These kinds of statements do not expand his tent.”
That’s not clear. But I’d be willing to guess that attacking Obama for the most asinine things expands YOUR tent, eh Mitchforth?
God if there was only some way to attack Obama WHILE defending needlessly torturing some middle-eastern guy in the name of “freedom”, you’d spooge your pants so badly Pandagon would be sticky…
MikeEss, Obama transcends unidirectional teeth-brushing. He doesn’t go up-down or left-right, he goes round and round.
Fair enough. But I certainly am bitter.
ARG polls show a steep drop in support for BO since the comments.
http://americanresearchgroup.com/
What do I know about this group? Nuttin.
But, if correct, the poll seems to show that his comments are resonating with someone.
It’s not surprising that people “here” don’t get what the controversy is. Pandagonians are the same type of audience as the one BO was talking to in San Fran when he was remarking about those “other people” back in PA.
A big part of this is just context. If he had made the remarks in PA (which he wouldn’t do, he basically got “caught” making them to people in San Fran who laughed about it), then hashed out his thoughts with the audience, no big deal. No one likes to be made fun of or belittled 3,000 miles away.
“MikeEss, Obama transcends unidirectional teeth-brushing. He doesn’t go up-down or left-right, he goes round and round.”
…goddam fancy-ass elitist tooth-brushing America-hater! He thinks he’s better ‘n me just because of the way he brushes his teeth! Who the hell does he think he is anyway?…
…grumble, grumble…
Pam, you asked for it, and John Cole’s got it, correlating the states that in 2004 passed anti-gay marriage amendments with census figures showing the state rankings for unemployment, per-capita income, persons below the poverty level and health insurance.
The whole dustup reminds kac90b of Hedges in American Fascists, but it reminded me more of Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter With Kansas? and his analysis of the endless bait-and-switch tactics that created the so-called “values voter.”
MikeEss: Like you, I come from a blue collar, lower-income working class background. Raised by a single mom. Spent some time on food stamps. I even have fundies in my immediate family (the bible boot camp was quite an experience.) So you don’t have a monopoly on such experiences on this blog or in the blogosphere. But you seem willing to misconstrue what people are saying in order to insult them. That we don’t have in common.
You’re right that the Right Wingers will grasp at anything to attack Obama. They already have - madrassa, anyone? But that doesn’t mean they won’t be effective. I support Obama, but I think he has to be careful not to throw the fascist mongrels anymore bones.
Kevin Moore, I never claimed to be the only scion of blue-collar America here. In fact I said as munch in the same comment.
Regarding my behavior toward seroj and Mitchforth, unless you have seen and remembered their past “contributions” to discussions here, it may seem extreme. But trust me, compared to what they have often earned, i was handling them with kid-gloves.
As far as wingnut attacks go, the “fascist mongrels” are perfectly willing and capable of creating their own bones. I honestly don’t think there’s much that can be done/avoided/etc. that will help. Obama needs to keep communicating, not cower in fear that he will accidentally provide talking points for the Reichwing.
The haters will hate. It’s inevitable. There are people in this country who will vote against Obama - not in favor of McCain, but specifically against Obama. They will find some justification for doing what they already want to do. They cannot be changed.
The key is to have strong enough GOTV efforts to raise the percentage of non-wingnut voters, overcome the Reichwing hate machine, and get somebody decent into office. And if we can’t? - history will not be kind…
I live in northeastern PA and I’m more than frustrated and bitter. I’m furious at all the damn politicians who stuff their pockets with our tax money while ignoring serious problems. And I’m pretty pissed off at the average American who has no idea of what’s going on and doesn’t want to know until their lives go down the toilet or their kid is killed in Iraq. We need to take back our country–that’s why we have all those guns….
I was born and raised in the blue-collar, all-white world of the lower class in America.
Belches assent.
Picks up 40 ounce Lucky Lager sans rebus cap, 2/3 consumed, and whacks Seroj upside the presumption with it in time to
Hello, concern trolls! Most of this is wankerific, both in the media, and in the laments of the concern trolls in this thread.
This highlights something for me that drives me insane: the media (who ALL live in liberal costal cities) love to go on and on about how those us who live in San Francisco, New York, Los Angeles aren’t “real” americans, we represent some kind of aberration. To hear the media (and a fair number of concern trolls and other bloggers) the only “real” americans are small town working class white men over 35 years old.
That’s bullshit. More than one in five americans live in one of the coastal cities (metropolitan areas, source: wikipedia, excluded well known non-liberal coastal areas of Orange County and San Diego for fairness). 58% of americans live in cities of over 200,000 people, and about 10% of americans live in small towns. More people live in the New York/Los Angeles/San Francisco metro areas than all the small towns in america combined!
Of course, this is going to be the first gotcha of many on the way to the white house. That makes campaigning as a democrat really difficult. But the demographics don’t lie: if anyone is a “real” or average american, they probably live in one of those liberal coastal cities.
heart- * $
It’s unfortunate. The religion comment is sort of like saying religion is the opiate of the masses. Not something that endears religious folk. Would he apply the same analysis to members of Trinity Church?
Hilary (graduate of Wellesley College and Yale Law) calling Barack an elitist is rich.
Right wing radio this morning is spinning Obama as saying he thinks all Americans are bitter. “Tis the silly season.
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.
This statement really disappointed me because it put distance between Obama and regular working folks. His attempt to spin it did not make it any better. If Obama can’t relate to regular working folks, why should they vote for him?
A little rephrasing would have saved it, I think, by eliminating the references to irrational xenophobia:
Pennsylvanians have lost the jobs that provided hard-working men and women a comfortable living. These jobs have gone to people willing to work for less — considerably less — than Pennsylvanians used to earn. Cheap shoes and TVs have not made up for this loss of income. Thus, free trade has not worked for Pennsylvanians. Immigrants willing to work for less than the minimum wage has not worked for Pennsylvanians. Further, loss of their well-paying jobs and their middle class lifestyles has made Pennsylvanians all the more resistant to losing the things they have left - their faith and their firearms.
By supporting NAFTA, the Clintons helped send these good jobs out of the country. Mrs. Clinton’s chief strategist worked to send jobs to his client, Colombia. The Clintons are not the friends of the hard-working men and women of Pennsylvania. Thank you, and good night.
I grew up in the (upper) Midwest and still live here. The statement rang true to me, and not insulting because of that, but then I’m one of the overeducated myself, and a woman. Oh. And an atheist. So despite living here, he really wasn’t talking about me. Which means if people who he was talking about were offended, they were offended and that will have to be dealt with.
On the Obama is out of touch front, I’m not even sure the statement about rural folk ‘loving’ their guns more now than in the past is true. Not because they didn’t love them in the past, but because the classic explanation for rural gun use - hunting - is rapidly fading from the US.
At least according to DNR numbers, hunting is rapidly declining in popularity - all across the country.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ea_1206896137
http://legalruralism.blogspot.com/2008/03/hunting-on-decline-and-what-to-do-about.html
There are lots of proposed reasons for this, but I can’t help but suspect the combination of fees and loss of leisure time are way up there as explanations.
(apologies if this is a second post.)
Mr Ess wrote:
In my home county, we voted, just barely, for George Bush in 2004. Now, y’all want to take this mostly Democratic county on non-presidential votes, and turn it blue in November’s presidential race. Well, Senator Obama just gave us God and guns rednecks every reason to vote for John McCain in November.
Will that be enough to offset Philadelphia and Harrisburg and Pittsburgh? Don’t know the nswer to that one yet.
But one thing is clear, and has been clear for years and years: when a politician has to explain what he meant, it’s too late, he’s already fouled up.
I agree that it’s unfortunate, for Obama at least. What’s even more unfortunate is that people like Pam honestly don’t understand why those comments would upset people. That’s not only unfortunate, but a pretty major liability when trying to appeal to a country as large and diverse as the U.S.
To be hateful is bad; to be clueless is almost as bad.
Mike,
I don’t understand how you can attack John McCain so mercilessly and then quiver with anger when anyone suggests that there might be some flaws in Barack Obama.
The things Obama said have nothing to do with Muslim rumors or racist dog whistles or any of that stuff. Obama’s statements create a clear concern among people who care about guns and religion and immigration that the things Barack Obama cares about are not the same things they care about. He also called these people “bitter,” said that they “cling” to these values and implicitly equated those values with racism. This is not a small thing.
How can you criticize coverage and criticism of this here, when you I’ve seen commenters here accuse McCain of being a warmonger repeatedly, which appears to be a mischaracterization and a gross exaggeration of his position. I’ve seen people mock his age.
I started hating Bush in 2000 because of his South Carolina dirty tricks against McCain.
I admired McCain’s attempts, in conjunction with Russ Feingold and other Democrats, to disrupt the settled practice in this country of selling legislation for cash.
I remember Democrats leaping for joy at the prospect that this guy might bolt the GOP and cross the aisle. Now Joe Lieberman, who was the Democratic nominee for Vice President in 2000, is in McCain’s inner policy circle.
And now that he’s gotten the Presidential nomination, which astonishingly, he managed to do without running hard to the right, he’s Satan incarnate.
John McCain is, apparently, a pretty nice guy who has accomplished a great deal and has sacrificed a lot for his country, and who I disagree with on some political issues. I don’t understand how people who have spent eight years attacking George W. Bush’s binary worldview can turn a presidential campaign against this guy into the ultimate battle between good and evil.
Just as clinging to religion is different than clinging to “antipathy toward people who aren’t like” you, criticizing Obama for the things he says and the positions he takes is different than criticizing him for his middle name, and McCain is different from Bush.
A nuanced worldview is what is supposed to separate us from the dittoheads. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi does not prove your point.
“A nuanced worldview is what is supposed to separate us from the dittoheads. Calling everyone who disagrees with you a Nazi does not prove your point.”
Yes it does. MikeEss is a living, breathing embodiment of Godwin’s Law. Nazi references aren’t a bug in his posts, they are the feature. Often the only feature.
I think the very fact that the spinners are emphasizing the “bitter” part over the “cling to guns and god” part suggests that they’re too scared to have that conversation. You can’t go after someone who’s just been yelled at for not leaving his church by saying he’s mocking other people’s religious faith.
And clinging is exactly the right thing to call it — what else should you say when someone tells you, “You can have my decent job, you can have my health and my liberty, just let me keep my rifles and the right to beat up queers”?
Stephen wrote:
Except, as Vice President Gore discovered, having all of those Democrats concentrated in too-small areas leaves a presidential candidate vulnerable to losing in the electoral college. More people may live in “New York/Los Angeles/San Francisco metro areas,” but those are in only two states.
Little-appreciated fact: in 2000, Mr Gore won the popular vote by about half a million; subtract California, and George Bush won the popular vote by about ¾ million votes. Having a huge concentration of votes in one state won that state for Mr Gore, but it didn’t win the election for him.
For the Democratic nominee to win in November, he’ll have to carry at least one large state or a few smaller states that George Bush won in 2004, and hold all of the “blue” states. Your problem isn’t solved by having more people living in New York City and Los Angeles, but by persuading voters in Ohio and Kentucky and Alabama.
“MikeEss is a living, breathing embodiment of Godwin’s Law. Nazi references aren’t a bug in his posts, they are the feature. Often the only feature.”
…and I take pride in the fact that I can recognize when things are headed into the toilet of fascism - instead of pretending (like our “favorite” trolls) that either Everything Is Great!, or claiming somehow anything bad is purely the fault of libruls and the last Democratic president.
If only the trolls could turn that awesome talent for derailment into a way to stop the shredding of our Constitution, rampant fearmongering, and thievery of the public purse by the rich and powerful.
But I guess it’s so much more important to fake outrage over Obama’s use of the word “bitter”, his choice of breakfast beverage, his choice of sandwich, and his choice of minister.
Good Show!!!…
MikeEss
What do you do for a living?
I’m just curious.
Pam
I love the word brouhaha.
It always makes me think of Firesign Theatre and Nick Danger.
“What’s all thaz brouhaha - ha ha ha?”
“What do you do for a living?”
IT, specifically PHP programming currently, although I’ve done a hell of a lot of system admin, network admin, and PC support over the years.
Does that improve my standing in your eyes or diminish it?…
Mitchforth: when you’re reduced to splitting hairs over how, technically, bitter was a poor choice of words compared to other, similar words which are synonyms, then your argument is failing. You’ve fallen into the “if you’re explaining, you’re losing” trap.
At worst, Obama loses PA by single digits, coming back from a 20 point deficit against Clinton and fights things to a tie in the delegate fight for PA.
Casting Obama’s statement as a scandal lacks “legs” and won’t be able to be used as genuine fodder for the McCain campaign. So, I put it in the category of “minor story.” After the PA primary, attention will be focused elsewhere.
seroj, unfortunately, you’re coming from a very rarefied, very naive viewpoint. People in rural areas, under normal circumstances, don’t “love” their guns any more than they “love” their power drill. It’s a bizarre stereotype of what many ignorant people think it’s like in “real america” to think they have some kind of emotional relationship with their guns. What Obama was pointing out was that Republicans have exploited guns to turn them into emotionally charged issues in order to turn them into idols of emotional and political worship for the purpose of exploiting voters in search of power. When neither party is addressing those voter’s bread-and-butter issues, it’s natural for them to turn to politicians who demagogue them on other issues.
I know plenty of people who own guns. The people obsessed with the idea are, generally, 20-something libertarians who think it’s “cool”, and others whose gun is next to the black helicopter books. To develop a relationship with firearms that becomes tantamount to idol-worship is not healthy yet at the same time is aided and abetted by a group of demagogic, dangerous politicians in search of power while at the same time pursuing an economic agenda which serves to stomp on the necks of those very voters. I’m not sure why you, seroj, would be in favor of such a think, but I’ve noticed that Republicans come from all over the moral spectrum.
In addition, I find that republicans don’t mind if voters are complaining about changes in gun laws but become very hostile and angry at voters who complain about their economic situation, so it is in their interest to keep them complaining about the “right things.” Part of the anger by Republican elites towards Obama for his statement is that they find it morally odious for voters to complain about their economic circumstances, which they regard as their own fault and a sign of moral failure. I generally regard this attitude, of course, as one that stems from a combination of ignorant and self-loathing, and I appreciate the fact that Obama didn’t back down from his statement but used it to attack the republicans who are trying to take him to task over it.
Wow, the trolls are out in force today!
Well, at least the concern trolls have moved on from concerns that all Obama supporters must be cultist towards Obama has no respect for “heartlanders”.
Oh well.
Just remember one thing, this was started by some Taylor Marsh analogue who attended a session “undercover” at a place that had open admission, and spun some “This is what Obama *really* believes” spiel out of what Obama really believes. Because of course, what Obama said was absolutely correct. If you want the fun version, check out Bowling For Columbine.
This is stupid, as stupid as the whole Kerry “electibility” meme. This is a crowd of people who want people to distance themselves from the truth, because the truth would free too many people.
That truth is…it’s time to end the tribalism of American Politics. The people who would be most offended by Obama’s statement, are people Obama shouldn’t want the votes of. They’re the mass that herded everyone into the dismal place the US is in now. Part of any saving of America reputation in the world lies in rejecting people like Lyddie England.
What really burns me is how much being black has meant Obama has gotten the Carter second run treatment, before even getting a chance to do much. It strains my credulity that in any other election, with a white frontrunner, that the party leadership would allow the loser to stay in the race and try to benefit from an unforced error when the guns need to go on McCain. It is like and not like the situation with the CT Senator’s race with Lieberman.
Look, if Clinton manages to pull out a win, I’m not voting for her. It’s one thing to not be a sore loser and rally around the winner come the general election. It’s completely another thing when it comes down to the party invalidating the primary process at will. It didn’t work for people living in Conneticutt, and it won’t work for us, because fixing elections are almost always about engendering corruption and spending money in places people don’t want money spent.
When are some of those “feminists” going to realize that the race is over, and H. Clinton is acting in a progressively more Republican fashion. That a victory for Clinton will damage our electoral process more than ever? Primaries are our only shot at getting someone decent. That Clinton isn’t Abzug or Guineer or some other woman with a real record for activist participation. That when it comes down to it, Obama is probably more feminist than Clinton is, when it comes to helping actual women. Obama’s most famous advisor is Samantha Power. Clinton’s most famous advisor is Mark Penn. Both are notorious for the things they have said, but which one is a feminist and which one isn’t? I bet Penn isn’t.
ehh, I’m ranting now. I’m just getting seriously tired of this primary fight. I’m tired of good people like Zuzu parsing comments by Obama that, if it is sexist, it’s of the person living in a patriarchal society version, and which there are many comparable statements by Clinton. I’m tired of virtues like honesty and straightforwardness being thought of as liabilities.
Obama is a person, not a frikkin’ handpuppet that represents “President Man?”. Nobody is going to be exactly what we want. Edwards was my first choice, because Obama is a classic person-type who hails from West Indies or Africa who doesn’t have a deep root-concept of what it is to be black in the US. In other words, Colin Powell is a very good base analogue. Not insensitive to race by all means, but tends to have the same lack of perception of the structural issues of race. Furthermore, Obama is running a race very much as Colin Powell would have, had he run in 1996 or 2000. Reform the system such that people can rise by their bootstraps. Of couse Powell is more conservative. I would have preferred John Edwards because he would have challenged the system more (which is why he didn’t get his message out well–beyond the whole “I’m not the poor guy” phenomenon). But Obama won, and I like him well enough, and certainly preferred him to H Clinton by some margin. However, I accept that he’s not going to do what I want him to do.
I just don’t see that attitude with far too many democrats.
Now, end rant
I don’t like his support for the “Employee Free Choice Act” and it’s proposed banning of secret balloting in unionization votes, but most of the Dems are for it (Clinton, too) and what McCain might try to bring to the Supreme Court is more frightening.
Oh for the love of Pete! I’m a life-long Midwesterner, college educated but lower-middle class by income, and about half of my relatives are blue or pink collar workers, including my husband. My grandfathers were working class union men, and each of my parents was the first in their family to go to college. There, my bone fides more or less established?
Hell yes, I’m bitter. My DH is bitter. My father is bitter. My uber-conservative, working-class uncles are bitter. We’re all feeling the pinch.
The problem is, most folks don’t have the time, and some don’t have the resources or the education either, to actually evaluate why things are in the crapper. They’ve got two jobs and three kids and a mortgage that they can no longer afford. They feel scared and powerless, and they don’t have a lot of time or energy to figure out why or what to do about it.
So, they cling to their guns. They cling to their prejudices. They cling to their religion. That’s not to say, nor do I think Obama was saying, that these things are bad in and of themselves (well, prejudices are). It’s just that when the world is chaotic and against you, most people tend to seek comfort in those things that give them a sense of power.
Unfortunately, hiding behind religion (which is not the same as having belief) or guns or what have you means that you’re not working to solve the actual root of your problems. That takes time and energy and effort. I can spare those, because I don’t have kids and I don’t have two jobs anymore.
So yes, people are bitter. And yes, people who feel out-of-control will cling to things, even though those things will not solve their problems. Why is that such an insult to point out?
The thing is, voting for the lesser evil because the more evil scares you is a limited tactic. If you do that on a consistent basis, the system will game you, and you will vote for the more evil–in just a slower fashion. I am making a process protest.
I’m simply saying that the more people like Lieberman and Clinton can contest elections after primary defeats, the less our votes our worth and the less our ability to monitor what our politicians do. That *is* the greater evil. Think long term. Nip the attitude in the bud.
It would be like the Architect said…There are certain levels of existence that I am prepared to accept. In any event, the 2012 election is the one that’s going to matter.
Yeah. Being, you know, raised here, black, and working in politics here, black…he has no idea what it is to be black in the U.S. I mean, he’s only HERE. And BLACK.
buzzzz. Wrong. But thanks for playing.
sez someone who knows plenty of black people?
Dude, black people are as multicultural as anyone else, with plenty of cultural differences among various groups. I’d suggest at least read up on that stuff before implicitly blasting me as racist.
And for any other white jokesters who think crying reverse racism is a valid rhetorical strategy, try googling this stuff about tensions with jamaicans, africans, and different attitudes about “the american dreams” etc, etc. Not to mention that there is a high degree of colorism implicit in the whole mess.
Conflating a man with his wife is not something we needed feminism for. We could totally do that in the old days.
MikeEss
I find that impressive.
I am impressed by people who build things, fix things, work with their hands (or minds) to build/fix things, and consider that kind of work to be similar, or in the same vein.
I don’t really buy that people want to hear that they turn to God because they’re bitter and unhappy with life. It doesn’t matter whether or not it’s true, when your belief system (or even belief in gun ownership) is chalked up to your sense of disillusionment, I don’t think it’s going to incline you to say, “by God, he’s right! I’m voting Obama now!”
You know I would actually like him better for this if I thought that this had anything to do with elitism but I don’t. This is, by my reckoning worse, this is the geeky kid with glasses dissing the kid with cancer to the kids at the cool table, AFTER playing up to the kid for two weeks to get an invite to his party. So if that kid decides to invite the girl with Tourette’s instead, good for him.
Obama was counting on not getting caught being the mean kid, he got caught and instead of taking the rap he is playing the ‘I’m a poor kid too’ card. It doesn’t wash with me with my autistic son, I sure as heck don’t buy it from a Presidential candidate.
implicitly blasting me as racist
didn’t implicitly blast you as racist. EXPLICITLY blasted you as FACTUALLY WRONG.
Obama’s FATHER hails from Africa. He himself hails from here, and has lived and worked here the large portion of his life.
That is all. I’m not discounting the tensions between the myriad ethnic populations that we, ignorantly, classify as “black.” Just saying, you have incorrect information on Obama, and it makes you sound dumb to repeat it.
Um, “largER” portion. Sorry.
also, i meant to note: the prevalence of the “colorism” you accuse me of showing only makes it MORE likely, not less, that Obama would have much the same experience in the United States as someone descended from U.S. slaves.
I am impressed by people who build things, fix things, work with their hands (or minds) to build/fix things…
Whereas if he were a teacher, or something, we’d know he was a totally worthless drain on society.
I acknowledge I have my own prejudices about what constitutes “real work,” but I nevertheless hate these pissing matches over “my profession is more authentic labor than yours.”
Pondering what Vegan said: Even if Hawaii was a raceblind paradise, from age 18 on, Obama lived in LA, NYC, Boston, and Chicago, all places where one would be constantly reminded that you were a black man first and foremost.
Tyro
Why do you find it necessary to make an argument out of a compliment?
I didn’t “piss” on anyone’s profession or job. I happen to think that virtually (prolly a few exceptions in there, particularly in the gov’t arena) all honest work is admirable. In Mike’s case I was curious because (1) he is always available to comment and (2) the style/substance of most of his comments.
Ya know, there is difference between having guns and using them for hunting, or having and practicing a religion, and deciding how to vote based on these factors more than on education, the economy, health care, etc. In context, I did not interpret Obama’s remark to refer to the first group in each case, but the latter.
I don’t know how much it directly correlates to homophobia, but absolutely there is a link to racism and xenophobia.
America gets lots of immigrants from lots of countries for lots of reasons. I live in a city with the largest Bosnian immigrant population in the United States (St. Louis), and few people seem to have a big problem with this group - in many ways, they have been welcomed with open arms, because they are viewed as hardworking people who have come from horrific conditions to make a better life for themselves - the so-called “American Dream”.
But we single out the Mexicans. And anyone who thinks it doesn’t have anything to do with the amount of melanin they have is living in fantasyland.
Now… and not to be dismissive of the prevalence of homophobia in these regions, I think it is less directly linked to the economic woes of these folks than it is to the tendency for the downtrodden to turn to enthusiastic fervent evangelical religions to give them some sort of solace in their woes. It is these institutions which foster and cultivate the homophobia. But with the racism and xenophobia, there is a direct linkage… blue-collar jobs have become scarce, and rather than see that as the result of GOP economic policies which have allowed the blue-collar set to get brushed aside, they see it as the result of the Mexicans “stealing” their jobs.
I do agree with the notion that speaking disparagingly of these people doesn’t help anything, and I think Obama was right in standing by his sentiments, while at the same time acknowledging that he should have phrased his position better.
Oh God, I hate concern trolls. Dana, I’m not stupid, I know how the electoral college works and I know why rural voters are way over represented in the system. I wasn’t talking about why Barack Obama has to appeal to those voters (he does). I was talking about the media (and concern troll) obsession with this mythical everyman sitting in a diner in rural somewhere, loving his gun, jesus, hunting and whatever else.
I am a real american! I freakin’ count. So when the Chris Matthews goes on about how barack obama is losing “regular people” I get a bit annoyed.
Aside from concern trolls, is anyone really offended by this, or would they be if it wasn’t contextualized by a media and opponents looking to create controversy? @Hawise, you seem to be reading an awful lot into this, from the context here Obama was trying to explain to his audience (in San Francisco) why people in other communities seem to be easily persuaded by arguments about guns or Jesus to vote against their own economic interest. He wasn’t “dissing” them as far as I can tell, maybe the choice of words wasn’t perfect, but I have trouble seeing how any of the people in question, if they were in the audience, would have been terribly offended by this statement.
Actually, Hawise, everything you have said in this thread makes me think you want to be offended by Obama. I mean, he wasn’t actually trying to “sell out” the poor to the people he was fundraising from. And all the candidates have to fundraise, so its hard to fault him for doing that.
One True Vegan, do you, truely and honestly believe that I didn’t know that Obama was born and mostly raised in the US?
Or were you saying that I was trying to decieve others for some rhectorical reason?
Or were you just trying to distract the audience from my larger points by nitpicking?
Fine, conceded that Obama was raised by grandparents in Hawaii, and that he does not hail from africa. What I do not concede is that his personality makeup is largely akin to creoles of various stripes and some african nationalities, rather than the typical strain of american people of slave descent.
Happy now?
Ms. Kate:
well, if you read the full transcript, the paragraph about bitterness and clinging to guns etc. is immediately followed by
Not to mention that the whole point of the remarks was to explain that white working-class voters’ reluctance to support Obama wasn’t primarily motivated by racism.
While I wish that were true, and I agree that for people who those are the MOST IMPORTANT issues it is, you can’t completely write off the entire voting block who has any care about these issues at all.
This is a pretty progressive blog, and I think that Obama’s base will be comprised largely by the type of folks who visit and post to blogs like this.
But that alone won’t be enough.
I’m not a religious person, certainly not a Christian, and I get disgusted by the amount of influence that the religious fundamentalists get to leverage on our political system. Not that it matters, but I consider myself an agnostic - maybe there is a God, maybe there isn’t.
That said, according to Pew Research, as of 2002, 82% of Americans identify themselves as “Christian”. Now within that group, the beliefs and politics range wildly, and it is a group which contains polar opposites like Pat Robertson on one end and Jeremiah Wright on the other.
If a presidential campaign got into the business of making fun of people or denigrating them simply because they care about their religious beliefs or adhere to a particular faith, then they may as well drop out of the race, because they have NO shot of winning.
I wish we were at a point in which a staunch atheist could run for the Presidency and not suffer because of his/her ideology… but in reality, we are nowhere near that point. Not when 82% of the population identifies themselves as Christian.
Now… and not to be dismissive of the prevalence of homophobia in these regions, I think it is less directly linked to the economic woes of these folks than it is to the tendency for the downtrodden to turn to enthusiastic fervent evangelical religions to give them some sort of solace in their woes.
Are you kidding? I’ve posted about homophobes bleating that all gays are wealthy (when the data is to the contrary) and thus there is no need for civil rights legislation. When these folks turn to the bible, somehow it falls open to Leviticus right quick for those who feel abandoned by the system, and the Man.
I’m not making the case that xenophobia, racism and homophobia are equally ranked in this instance, but that those who are being perceived as “bitter” usually flog the homostraw man as part of what’s all wrong about society - they lash out at the “other” out of insecurity.
Amy Sullivan, is that you?
I grew up in the (upper) Midwest and still live here. The statement rang true to me, and not insulting because of that, but then I’m one of the overeducated myself, and a woman. Oh. And an atheist. So despite living here, he really wasn’t talking about me. Which means if people who he was talking about were offended, they were offended and that will have to be dealt with.
On the Obama is out of touch front, I’m not even sure the statement about rural folk ‘loving’ their guns more now than in the past is true. Not because they didn’t love them in the past, but because the classic explanation for rural gun use - hunting - is rapidly fading from the US.
At least according to DNR numbers, hunting is rapidly declining in popularity - all across the country.
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=8ea_1206896137
http://legalruralism.blogspot.com/2008/03/hunting-on-decline-and-what-to-do-about.html
There are lots of proposed reasons for this, but I can’t help but suspect the combination of fees and loss of leisure time are way up there as explanations.
(apologies if this is a second post.)
his personality makeup is largely akin to creoles of various stripes and some african nationalities
k- huh— BWUH?
Personality makeup??!? Yes. Because all people from any given nationality have a single hivemind.
Never mind. you’re too absurd to debate. And yeah, now i AM calling you out for racist. Or at least racially ignorant beyond a reasonable pale.
Here’s a genuine observation about pretty much ALL high-level politicians…
They’re ALL out of touch, to the extent that not one of them has had an experience that could be considered “common” when speaking of the “common” American.
Obama went to Harvard. Hillary went to Yale. McCain went to the US Naval Academy.
These are all highly prestigious institutions that 99% of the population will never experience firsthand.
Hillary’s little “I remember as a little girl, when paw-paw took my behind the cabin my granddaddy built to teach me how to shoot a gun like a good bumpkin” story is what I find more offensive.
Quit pretending that you grew up in “average”, “typical”, or “common” circumstances. Quit saying that you’re “just like me.”
None of them are. No person who has the fundamental hubris and wealth of political connections necessary to mount a Presidential Campaign is just another average Jane or Joe.
Hillary’s little “I remember as a little girl, when paw-paw took my behind the cabin my granddaddy built to teach me how to shoot a gun like a good bumpkin” story is what I find more offensive.
Finishes last third of Lucky Lager.
Screws up rebus.
Shoots the 0.22 that granddaddy built at some bean cans on the back fence
Whups mitchforth upside the haid with the bottle.
Never mind. you’re too absurd to debate. And yeah, now i AM calling you out for racist. Or at least racially ignorant beyond a reasonable pale.
IIRC, shah8 is himself African-American. So I think he may have a point here since he’s viewing from the inside.
The goal of a presidential election is to capture the median voter. The forty-eighth to fifty-second percentile. The people who are undecided between Democrats and Republicans.
They’re not the most educated, not the most conscientious. By definition, they’re the people who don’t care enough to put themselves out of play.
Democrats need God and guns voters to win a presidential election. It’s winner-take-all, and if you don’t get these people in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Missouri, the Republicans will drink your milkshake.
“The goal of a presidential election is to capture the median voter. The forty-eighth to fifty-second percentile. The people who are undecided between Democrats and Republicans.”
All three of them?…
…
This election will involve two groups of voters: Those who are happy or don’t mind if the Black man wins. And those who are afraid the Black man will win.
The only remaining question will be which group is larger and/or gets more voters to the polls…
All three to four percent of likely voters. Think about people who have a high school degree or less, no regular internet access, no daily paper.
If you took a random poll of a hundred people asking which party supported abortion rights and which party opposed them, three or four people would get the answer wrong. That is who they are trying to reach.
Do you think that campaign advertisements are purchased for the benefit of people who know what is going on?
Mitchforth’s point illustrates why you don’t see candidates spending much time in Texas and California in the final month of the campaigns, despite both states being electoral gold mines.
Spending valuable time in those places is either preaching to the choir or trying to convert the uncovertables, depending which side of the fence you sit on.
My home state in middle America (Missouri) has voted on the winning side of all but one presidential election in the past century. How Missouri goes, so goes the nation.
The same people who liked Roosevelt’s new deal, JFK’s youthful charisma, and Bill Clinton’s empathetic “I fill yer pain” also liked Nixon’s conservatism, Reagan’s shining hill platitudes, and Bush’s aw-shucks-ness.
“Think about people who have a high school degree or less, no regular internet access, no daily paper.”
I thought you were talking about undecided voters, not Bush/McCain voters…?
Let’s face it - there are almost no truly “undecided” voters. Either you think the last 7+ years were great, or at least the best anybody could do under the circumstances. Or you are appalled and disgusted by the shenanigans and want change.
“Do you think that campaign advertisements are purchased for the benefit of people who know what is going on?”
Actually, they are meant to reinforce the “correctness” of a decision you already made months before. They rarely change any minds. In fact, as they get more negative, their purpose is simply to make the other guy look even worse.
What Americans know is gas is damn near $4/gallon, they haven’t seen a real increase in wages in 20+ years, their jobs are being eliminated in favor of some other country. The only healthcare they get is via an ER. They aren’t sure whether the food they buy is okay to eat, or whether some uninspected airplane will fall out of the sky and smash their house. The president of the company they work for just made $50-million on questionable business practices and now is leaving and cashing in his $200-million in company stock. Right after he lays off another 10,000 workers to raise the stock price.
These facts will be clouded with claims Saddam/bin Laden/al Sadr is going to come over here and kill them and their families, Mexican hordes are coming here and taking the pissant jobs they have now, Libruls want to shut down their churches, “welfare queens” want to steal their money, and LGBT people are running wild in the streets. Oh, and some snooty Black guy who doesn’t bowl well, has orange juice instead of coffee, won’t eat a Philly Cheesesteak, and is probably a secret Muslim is trying to snatch the presidency from the old white guy.
Which storyline will sell best?…
“The gun assertion is wildly unhistorical, in that rural people have ALWAYS hunted. Only an elite who grew up in Hawaii, then New York, then Chicago, then Boston, and then Chicago again would be so out of touch not to have a clue that hunting and fishing have always been part of rural America.”
Yes and no. I grew up in rural Ohio, and people certainly hunted. But guns were more of a tool than a preoccupation. You used a gun to kill varmints, and to get food. But now look at the claims that all should be able to own guns that have nothing to do with these tasks — you don’t need an automatic weapon to shoot rabbits or deer. Much of the NRA’s propaganda includes appeals to images of macho manliness.
Obama needs to do some clarifying, but I read his comments a critically sympathetic. Certainly not insulting.
well, considering that what he apparently “sees” is that all people from a given ethnic group have