TNR BLOGS

August 19, 2008 | 11:10 PM
August 19, 2008 | 9:13 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:53 PM

August 19, 2008 | 5:17 PM
August 19, 2008 | 5:12 PM
August 19, 2008 | 11:32 AM

August 19, 2008 | 6:06 PM
August 19, 2008 | 3:49 PM
August 17, 2008 | 9:21 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

August 19, 2008 | 1:59 PM
August 19, 2008 | 12:43 PM
August 18, 2008 | 6:20 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
11.04.2008
Obama's None-Too-Bright Remarks

A predictable but basically understandable firestorm has begun over Barack Obama's comments on the "bitterness" of Pennsylvanians. Here is Obama's original statement, made at a fundraiser in California:

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 they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. 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.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

Here was part of his response Friday night in Indiana:

Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement-- so, here’s what rich. Senator Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.’ “Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain—it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch?

The second statement at least has the virtue of being semi-coherent; Obama is making Thomas Frank's 'What's the Matter With Kansas' argument, while at the same time playing defense against his rivals. But go back and read the original comment. It ain't pretty. Maybe he was trying to make the Frank argument all along but it is terribly, terribly phrased:

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.

That's why people cling to guns and religion? As for anti-trade sentiment, perhaps Obama is talking about...people like himself, who have spent the last 3 months bashing free trade. Not only is this pretty darn condescending on its face, but the trade comment adds another whole layer of insult. He's almost admitting that he does not believe his previous trade talk!

The other problem is this: Obama was essentially claiming that the reason people are not voting for him is because they are bitter:

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government...They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism.

Only a cynic, in other words, could doubt that Barack Obama is going to radically change Washington. I suppose the Obama folks are lucky that this is breaking on a Friday night--and going after McCain is probably the smartest thing they can do--but this is not the story he needs ten days before Pennsylvania.

--Isaac Chotiner 

Posted: Friday, April 11, 2008 11:08 PM with 136 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

jmkerr said:

And people wonder why Clinton stays in the race.

Jon Chait can munch a few diatribes now.

April 12, 2008 12:10 AM

William-g said:

"The other problem is this: Obama was essentially claiming that the reason people are not voting for him is because they are bitter:

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government...They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism."

Please show me where he claims that THE reason people are not voting for him because they are bitter. Complete nonsense.

April 12, 2008 12:19 AM

jkolic said:

You must admit though, Isaac, that plenty of voters opting not to support Obama have a predilection towards cynism - not that one really needs to be a cynic to doubt that another Slick Willy-style politician will reform Washington with swooping, transparent, honest-to-goodness-ethical measures. You sound like a cynic yourself. And I, a non-Obama girl, certainly confess to being one.

April 12, 2008 12:24 AM

stgla said:

I don't know. The first time I read the statements they didn't strike me as condescending or that much of a big deal.  Then I saw that McCain's campaign was coming out with press releases that followed Hillary's almost word for word in criticizing Obama and I shook my head in disgust.  Hillary is playing the Lieberman role, attacking fellow Democrats and giving Republicans bipartisan cover.  Thanks, Hill.  Way to go.

April 12, 2008 12:32 AM

stgla said:

jmkerr,  You wonder why Clinton stays in the race?  It's to tear down the eventual Democratic nominee even though she can't mathematically win without absolutely perverting the primary process or destroying Obama.  Chait and Scheiber are dead on to say that Hillary is helping Democrats blow an easy win this fall.

April 12, 2008 12:34 AM

jmkerr said:

I don't wonder. Other people do. This idiocy by Obama is precisely why she stays in, waiting (and hoping) for the superdelegates to figure it out.

April 12, 2008 1:27 AM

jacobt1 said:

"Reverend" Jeremiah Wright Jr.:

Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty."

Michelle Obama:

U.S. 'downright mean,'

. And let me tell you something – for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.

Barack Obama:

"Well look, they’re frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas. They’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare"

=================================

Paul Krugman

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/.../bush-boom-bah

One other thing that’s striking from the report, by the way, is that over the 26 years the estimates span, the only significant gains for the bottom two quintiles, and most of the gains for the middle quintile, took place during the Clinton years."

April 12, 2008 1:29 AM

jacobt1 said:

Stgla,

"You wonder why Clinton stays in the race? "

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../why_should_clinton_just_pack_i.html

"Clinton should play every card she has in her hand. She owes it to herself and, even more important, to all of her supporters. "

Yes, I support her and she owes it to me not to quit.

Look, in spite of overwhelming support of the media and huge advantage in money he just can close the deal. People don’t want him.

April 12, 2008 1:34 AM

Hungarian Great Bela Tarr said:

Man . . . these comment threads have really been hijacked by the loonies. If we concede that Hillary Clinton is better than Barack Obama, will you guys go away?

Agreed that these comments are unfortunate -- but they're unfortunate in the was that Howard Dean's "Confederate flag" comments were unfortunate; Obama, like Dean, shoots from the hip and isn't as tightly scripted as machine politicians like Clinton. He gets into trouble, as Dean did, for saying things we all know to be true: Saddam's capture didn't make us any safer . . . many Pennsylvanians, having been discarded and forgotten, cling to Limbaugh-style bigotry and resentment. (McCain has the same "weakness," by the way, which is why I can bear the thought of a McCain presidency, but shudder at the thought of a Hillary Clinton term.)

Obama is an "elitist" only in the sense that he doesn't strike the same insulting anti-intellectual postures that Dubya and Hillary have perfected.

April 12, 2008 3:08 AM

hemlock41 said:

It's true, his original comment ain't pretty. But his explanation, in response to McCain's and Clinton's attacks, is strong -- and stronger on video than in print. www.youtube.com/.../BarackObamadotcom

The wording of the McCain campaign's initial response was so over-the-top I thought it actually undermined the power and credibility of their attack. I mean, they had something powerful to work with in Obama's stupidly formulated comment, but then they used such hyperbolic terms that they came off like they were just indulging in campaign gamesmanship, trying to whip up antagonism.

April 12, 2008 3:18 AM

ramboorider said:

I have a REAL bad feeling about this one. The Wright thing was a problem, but HE didn't say anything wrong and it gave him the opportunity to say something very right in that Philly race speech. This is a self-inflicted wound and it's gonna be run into the ground for the next week, two weeks, who knows how long? I don't disagree with anything he said, but he can't say stuff like that - nobody can who's running for president. We Obama supporters would be all over Clinton if she said something similar so we have to expect him to get maimed over this.

I've been figuring since Wisconsin that this race is over if Obama doesn't totally collapse. I don't think this is QUITE that bad, but it could be. He could lose PA a lot bigger now than he was gonna and it hurts him in Indiana too. Color me bummed and bracing for the shitstorm.

April 12, 2008 4:03 AM

ramboorider said:

Update - i just watched Obama take this on in his Indiana speech and I just watched the incredibly POSITIVE coverage he got on CNN. If this guy can actually turn this negative into a positive, he's the best politician of my lifetime, in addition to being right. I remain nervous, but this wouldn't be the first time I've badly misread a political event.

April 12, 2008 4:34 AM

Robert Powell said:

I don't have any particular problem with these comments, which are true at least within the tolerances for government work.  I for one am delighted to see evidence that Obama's anti-trade bluff is just that.

However it plays out, this is no "Poland is not dominated by the Soviet Union" moment.

Hillary should stay in the race to the last ditch (which I think will be another month or so). Obamaniacs who imagine this as some kind of a destructive act of selfishness are being either disingenuous or naive. The more this sort of thing gets hashed out now, the better for November. Carrying on with all the "controversy" amounts to getting lots of free publicity, and will actually serve to make Obama a better and stronger candidate.

April 12, 2008 4:39 AM

chrisnatale said:

Have any of you lived in PA?  Jump in your cars and set a course for Hamburg or Asheville or Pottstown and you'll see the light.

What Obama said is neither false nor condescending.

If you want to say it's not bright as someone on the campaign trail in America to speak your mind, fine.  

But admitting that major cultural barriers exist among Americans of different socioeconomic backgrounds and offering no-nonsense assessments of their possible origins, in a compelling tone of understanding, is not "condescending."

Condescending is the response from the other two campaigns, as McCain with $100 in family fortune or Hillary Clinton with 8 years already in the White House put on a pair of jeans in Carbon County and pretend like they're as familiar with coal slurry as they are with Veuve Clicquot and that Obama is out of touch with the common man.

April 12, 2008 5:05 AM

JEFF FREY said:

Not a bright move on his part. Whatever he was trying to say, it didn't come out the way he wanted it to (or even as a coherent english sentence). The grammatical incoherence is enough to tell you that he was jumbling up his thoughts - people aren't clinging to guns as a way to explain their frustrations

But we all know he is right that there are plenty of voters who are in pretty bad economic circumstances but who routinely vote against their own economic interests but get very riled up over other issues (guns, gays, God, or sometimes just macho blustering by politicians). The bad part about his original statement is that it was condescending. I don't think he meant to be, but that's what came out.

On the other hand, his second take on the issue is straightforward and sensible. I'd give it better than "semi-coherent". It sounds like an honest assessment, and people can tell that when they hear it. My guess is that this will hurt him a lot less than Hillary's Tuzla lie hurt her.

April 12, 2008 5:55 AM

fseidle said:

I think Obama is right.

People are angry. As for small town folk holding onto guns and religion. Hey,I've lived in small towns in Pa. and NC. Jesus is big and so are guns.

People are pissed.

Pocketbook issues,real or perceived slights, any number of actions taken by Federal,State,or local governments are greeted with disgust.

I started out as a Hillary supporter. But she needs to get out.

Forget Mc Cain. Age has nothing to do with it.

Maverick-- Please. He is George all over again.

Obama, love him or not,understand what he is trying to do or not, is our only choice.

April 12, 2008 6:47 AM

psantillana said:

This is boring to me. Dude was one thousand percent right, and everyone's freaking and flapping and spinning around screaming. OOOOh this is HOoooorible! I dunno. Maybe it's horrible. Maybe this will be his "Dean Scream" [something that wasn't horrible except that everyone said it was, so it was]. That Hungarian fellow nailed it: by not adopting an anti-intellectual pose Obama's actually the only one who ISN'T condescending.

April 12, 2008 6:58 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

every word Obama said is absolutely true - my husband is from PA.  

Hillary folks always wail and faint when someone actually tells, you know, the unvarnished truth. Wha a concept! It's a pretty offensive stuff, that refusal to pander.  Hillary folks want to be patted and petted and jerked off.  Sorry, wrong guy.  

April 12, 2008 7:17 AM

roidubouloi said:

The phrasing was poor in that one sentence.  Had that one been the later comment about cynicism, the whole thing would have been great.

Idiocy, jmkerr?  What he should have said is:

"When we landed in Scranton, there was incoming sniper fire.  We had planned a greeting ceremony on the tarmac, but, instead, we had to run to our cars and drive all the way to Wilkes Barre."

Now, that would have been idiotic.  But it takes a complete charlatan, not to mention someone who really isn't very bright at all, to make such a statement when the whole thing is actually on videotape -- and then make it a few more times after the press calls you on it.  No mere poor choice of words for Hillary. Nope, she goes for full-blown Walter Mitty fantasy.

Stick with Hillary, Kerr.  You've made the right pick for you.

April 12, 2008 7:19 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Let's not forget Hillary's single handed silencing of the guns in Ireland.  What a genius.

You're right roi - she's the right candidate for jmkerr.

April 12, 2008 7:36 AM

woland said:

I can't believe Hillary and McCain are dumb enough to try to make an issue of what Obama said.  Although it was not artfully phrased, the point he was making rings so true.  Economically depressed and frustrated and angry people often turn to issues like gays, guns, and God when voting rather than voting in their economic self-interest.  Every working class Democrat knows this instinctively and that is precisely why they aren't Republicans.  Then Hillary and McCain jump in and call him an elitist for saying this basic truth?  

It's no wonder Obama is now going to turn this back in their faces and make the point that it is they who are out of touch for not understanding how people in states like PA and Ohio are angry and bitter.  All he needs now is a personal story to spice up his point like talking about "Jim" the unemployed steelworker who he met in Pittsburgh who came up to him and said that he wasn't sure he was going to vote for Obama but when he saw that Obama understood how real people are angry and frustrated and Hillary and McCain just don't get it he jumped to Obama.

April 12, 2008 7:48 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

I also really appreciate that he's called it like it is on scapegoating by bitter small town people, bravo - this is just bad behavior and bad citizenship with a long history of toxic consequences for the republic. Its time people are called on it at least once in thier lives, its called leadrship.

You want to blame your unemployed status on gay people wanting to get married?  Then you get GWB sending your son off to dumb-ass wars, Katrina and a foreclosed home, its  that simple.  You need to pay attention to what the politicians actually do, not say when they are standing in front of you jerking you off.  Good for Obama!  

I spoke to my bitter small town Pennsylvanis relatives tonight and being of humorless, whip smart Scottish descent, they loved what he said - loved being spoken to like adults and agreed with every word he said.  They are still on the fence (they'll probably vote for McCain), but think Obama is a breath of fresh air and that what he said was great.

Its not like he reserves this refusal to pander for bitter white small town people.  He's told black audiences to turn off the TV and read to their kids, to buy healthy food, to stop blaming their problems on racism, to be good fathers.  He told auto executives to stop making such polluting cars.  He does not pander, he talks TO people not AT people.  

If that bugs people, then be my guest - vote for Walter Mitty who would tell you anything you wanted to hear for your vote and treats you like a fragile moron.  It may be too much for people to take after being treated this way by politicians their whole lives, but I think trying to lead takes a sincere willingness to risk.  It figures Hillary people would think its idiotic - its the polar opposite of her.  Courage to Hillary is pushing single payor (gee, what a concept).  

April 12, 2008 7:52 AM

lymon1 said:

The only thing that I found worrisome (and I keep trying to WARN people about this) was when Obama brought up credit card/bankruptcies in his response to the controversy.  I'm telling you, people are talking about the SWARM of radio ads telling people to shed their credit card debt and make "pennies on the dollar" deals with the IRS.  People who made sacrifices and paid their taxes are pissed -- nobody is helping them on their mortgages, credit cards, etc.

April 12, 2008 7:57 AM

esmense said:

Obama, at heart, is a prep school boy with prep school attitudes. Since many of his supporters share his limited experience and embrace the same stereotypes and cliches they don't understand how patronizing he can appear. This is certainly not the only time he has revealed his class prejudices and his limited experience or empathy with, and lack or respect for, Americans  outside that elite, it is just one of a long list of statements and acts that demonstrate his odd combination of arrogance and ignorance. Women especially have noted it because they have most often been the recipients of his patronizing attitudes. When he tried to do "out reach" to women before the California primary by using a few single mothers as props before an audience of reporters and TV cameras -- Obama seating  himself like visiting royalty at the head of a table, asking too personal and truly offensive questions (like the source of their income) of the women ( arranged dutifully and quietly not quite at his feet physically, but certainly close to it in attitude), rather than respectfully providing women with a forum in which they could openly question him -- I knew he had a serious problem as a campaigner. One which this latest gaffe has almost brought to the attention of a few of his equally clueless and insensitive elite supporters.  

April 12, 2008 8:09 AM

pccostello said:

The trouble with Obama's remarks is not so much that they are condescending or that they are liberal boilerplate. It is that they drive a wedge between what Michael Baorone called the Jacksonians and the Academics in the Democratic electorate. They are not unifying or transcendant remarks, but divisive ones. There is the sort of shallow elitism and Harvard disease in them that drives a lot of the country crazy. This is exactly why he has had trouble winning the big states or winning outside of caucuses and narrow demographics--thus the problem the remarks create for him in Pennsylvania.

April 12, 2008 8:21 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

esmense, you're an insecure class snob. You use your own defensiveness at some self-perceived lacking in your own background - I assume educational but God only knows really - to take out on Obama.  You don't even see him, only your own fantasy demon.

But it wouldn't even have to be him, just anyone who you felt envious of for something you think they have and you don't.  You should stick to the issues - if you're familiar with any - because you're really obvious with the irrelevant, intrusive class chip a mile wide.  You're actually in to pathetic territory.

April 12, 2008 8:22 AM

miceelf said:

As someone who lived a long time in PA and spent a lot of time in the "Alabama" portion, AND as someone who has many relatives who live in similarly economically depressed circumstances, I have to say his words fit the reality I have seen perfectly.

But then, probably I'm an elitist like Obama. Growing up without electricity or indoor plumbing will make one feel superior.

April 12, 2008 8:26 AM

miceelf said:

Woland- it's not stupidity, it's cynicism.

April 12, 2008 8:28 AM

pccostello said:

Wanderer--

Can you say ANYTHING to someone who disagrees with you that is not merely a stream of hatefulness and personal vituperation? You yourself have yet to address an issue instead of making a personal attack on posters who dare to have a view different from your own.

April 12, 2008 8:59 AM

rysdale said:

What y'all aren't getting is that this won't hurt Obama in the Democratic primary, but it will kill him in the general election.

Running against "arrogant Democrat elitism" has worked wonders for the GOP. It worked against Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. Bill Clinton was able to steer around it with his superb political skills and working class rural background.

And don't get in a lather about how it's not true. Truth doesn't matter here, we're talking politics. The perception of Obama as a Harvard elitist won't necessarily hurt him against Hillary with the Dem party faithful, but it will kill him running against McCain.

I fear being stuck with another four years of GOP leadership because the Dems think with their hearts instead of their heads.

April 12, 2008 9:01 AM

pccostello said:

esmense--

That was a very discerning reading of the Claifornia/single-mo event. It exactly captures the sense of Obama that I and many people I know have about him.

April 12, 2008 9:01 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

pcostello - you're beneath contempt.  I stand completely by what I said to esmense - insecure class snobbery, hidden behind attacks on a Presidential canididate in this case.  It's just more of the same - touchy dish it out but can't take it whining complaining vicitimology Hillarista-ism.  You both spew vite hate, envy and ignorance and cry when you're called on it. Well, I'm calling you on it. If you spew hate and ignorance, someone will stand up to it. Grow up.

April 12, 2008 9:23 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

PS - yes, I have mostly coridal  relations with people on this site, except you and now this stupid class envy towards people.  

Better go pick up your check from Hillary HQ and your talking points too.  They're getting stale.

April 12, 2008 9:25 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

pcostello - I have yet to read anything by either of you (although this is the first time I've bothered with your propaganda in weeks) that is positive in any way, let alone a positive case for your candidate. You never have anyhting to say but really personally insulting attacks on Obama and then whining when called on it.  I stand by it: beneath contempt.

April 12, 2008 9:29 AM

gregstolhand said:

Why do people vote against their self-interest?  That is the question that needs to be answered.  BHO gives an honest personal assessment, that the ROVE crew paints elections based on guns and gays, religion, family values and such and people ignore the economy the war and all the other garbage created to vote for the little things and ignore the big things and has recent history to prove him right.  How is this condescending?  

BHO has consistently refused to pander to the lowest common denominator and I find it refreshing even when I don't agree.

April 12, 2008 9:40 AM

fougasseu said:

This is rich. All of you members of the booboisie who are over-educated yourselves attacking a black man for his elitist ways. The poster child of the boobs being Chris Matthews who is profoundly disturbed by Obama's lack of skills in bowling alleys.

The lowest common denominator in America is now so low that anyone who reads - period  - is a snob.

And anyone who uses a word like "antipathy" is suspect of being, well, you know, uppity.

Other world leaders write books and we prefer presidents who don't read them.

McCain is possibly the most poorly educated candidate for president in the last fifty years. No wonder he feels so "authentic" to the characters making comments on this post. He is one of the people, that's for sure.

April 12, 2008 10:02 AM

esmense said:

Wandreycerl --

You have a point of view. Others have different points of view. Like in the story of the blind men describing the elephant (one described his trunk, one his tail, one his flank, etc, and in doing so all describe a very different animal), those points of view  not only vary one from the other, but they will reveal different things about the whole. The problem with our political discourse is that the points of view presented are extremely limited --- and when someone from "outside" that narrow consensus does interject themselves into the conversation, it can provoke some hostility. As my comment appears to have provoked in you.

But I would suggest that liberals and Democrats have suffered in recent years from their embrace of some truly limited perspectives, and, most of all, both their unwillingness to concede how limited their perspective truly is and their unwillingness to concede that they may have something to learn from people who, unfortunately, they do too often think they are superior to.

April 12, 2008 10:16 AM

esmense said:

"Why do people vote against their self-interest?"

People don't vote against their self interest. But it comforts political losers, who don't know. respect or understand those voters self-interest, to believe they do.

April 12, 2008 10:19 AM

esmense said:

Wandreycerl --

One last word. There is a huge difference between making an observation and advocacy for a candidate. I'm no one's booster. But I do have some thoughts about what Democrats have been doing to alientate voters over the years.

April 12, 2008 10:29 AM

gregstolhand said:

esmense you are wrong

Voting based on a candidates stance on gay marriage or using fear tactics concerning terrorist attacks is not in anyone's self interest.  We are less safe now than we were according to such crazy measures as government reports, statistics and facts and yet people believe that Republicans are strong on defense.  They have pushed our military to the brink of it's capacity and have mortgaged our future for a venture where success can not be defined but failure is the Democrats fault.

How is that in anyone's self interest?

April 12, 2008 10:52 AM

esmense said:

None of that may be in your self-interest or in the country's long-term, overall self interest yet it may be very much in the self interest of a particular voter. The military-industrial complex, for instance, has economic tentacles that reach into the most hidden corners of the country. Millions of Americans and hundreds if not thousands of communities profit from "a strong defense" (interesting isn't it how much more liberal the West Coast has become since major defense contractors began moving to the South?) (Back in the 60s, during the Viet Nam war, some friends of mine at Reed College did a survey of small businesses in the Northwest -- those with less than 100 employees -- to try to ascertain how many were involved in defense contracting. They could hardly find any that weren't.) The people who are most likely to vote, for instance, are likely to be in their peak earning (and highest tax bracket) years AND facing retirement just down the road. Of course tax and asset protection issues are of huge importance to them. People further down the economic ladder are much more likely to object to abortion than people higher up the income scale. Is that because of ignorance or because what is a "choice" to the affluent feels much more like coersion to them? (A few years back I was shocked by a bunch of letters to the editor, from "liberals" and "libertarians" here in Seattle, who objected to a school spending proposal because, they said, having children is an "individual choice." Who suffers from this notion, that totally negates any sense of community responsibility for children? The elite and affluent, or the working class and poor?

My point is this; progressives have to look a little more deeply, and think a little harder about, what is really impacting peoples lives -- get beyond the cliches about their ignorance or xenophobia etc. It would also be helpful if they could own up to the fact that it isn't only working class and conservative people who demonstrate narrow-mindedness, xenophobia, bigotry and prejudice from time to time.

April 12, 2008 11:25 AM

ironyroad said:

It's like you people don't get it.  In American politics nobody's allowed a single moment of observable truth.  The reason for this is that the truth is rather unpleasant, and involves a failing economy, a crumbling infrastructure, an attitude to basic education that might have been harmless in 1910 but is like a death-wish in 2010, a health-care crisis in which the least relevant party -- the insuring entity -- is making out like gangbusters while both doctors and patients are squeezed, a war that's draining both the national wallet and the national spirit, a dangerously unanchored popular perception of what's happening in the world, and an income distribution map that looks more third-world than at any stage in the 20th century.  But deeper than that is a problem that other countries have seen:  a cynicism and resentment that can lead to contemptuous dismissal of needed reforms (and of the people suggesting them) and to an embrace of fringe issues like guns and evolution which make people feel like they're in charge of events but -- because they are a total distraction -- will do absolutely nothing to improve Americans' lives or secure the nation's future.

But you're not permitted to talk about that, especially if you're a candidate for office.  You're just supposed to churn out the usual BS.

April 12, 2008 11:34 AM

sabatia said:

Have to say: My heart sank when I first read Mike's Playbook today. Obviously Hillary will use anything, anything to damage Obama, that includes her all too typical distortions. Anything, anything to distract from her Bosnia misspeaking(lies). And of course McCain's comments are equally self-serving.

Having now read Obama's response and thought about it a bit: To me it only make Obama look more presidential. Unlike Hillary, he is pro-active and doesn't just throw crap at the wall to see what will stick.

My conclusion about this episode: It will pass with Obama gaining points and Hillary increasing the distrust and contempt for her.

I will not vote for Hillary because she is a gutter snipe. I would love to vote for a woman, but not a vicious self-serving Clinton.

April 12, 2008 11:40 AM

icarusr said:

As a non-American who's travelled thirty of these United States and lived in four - right across the continent - I confess I find this discussion rather amusing.

Just a few reminders: there are well over 300,000,000 people living in the States.  Some 50,000,000 do not have health insurance.  About 30,000,000 live below the poverty line.  Millions, if not tens of millions, are poorly trained for an industrial economy, and millions are functionally illiterate.  1/3 of the adult population - nearly 70,000,000 - is obese and at risk of a host of ailments for which many of them are not insured.

It is possible - just possible - that in the backwoods of Pennsylvania and West Virginia and New York and Virginia and Alabama and Georgia and Arkansas and ... there are some, perhaps even significant pockets, who are bitter, and who cling to their guns and their religion for protection from a Government that sends their children to slaughter in foreign lands, that gives tax breaks to billionaires even as it tells them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that seems all but oblivious to their plight.  Colour me "stupid" or "elitist" or an "idiot" or a "class snob", but to make the observation Obama did in a country as vast and as diverse - and, in some measure, as troubled - as the United States, is nothing but an observation of objective reality ...

Last time I checked, he had been a community organizer in the South Sideof Chicago.  In fact, many HillBill supporters constantly harp on his background in Chicago politics.  Well, I suspect you don't get be in Chicago politics without seeing some real bitterness and cynicism first hand.  He might have been impolitic for saying what he did; stupid or uninformed he was not.  

April 12, 2008 11:45 AM

icarusr said:

ironyroad - you beat me to it ;-).

April 12, 2008 11:46 AM

JackR said:

Wandreycer1 - you're in good form today.  I have learned from experience that pccostello is impervious to feedback and either learns nothing from it or pretends (quite convincingly) not to.  Nevertheless, it is worthwhile  from time to time to remind her and our shared readers, as you so artfully do, that her blind spots, her capacity for self-delusion, and her cherry-picked data are elephantine and have not gone unnoticed.  As always, I appreciate your trenchant intolerance for cant.

April 12, 2008 11:54 AM

ironyroad said:

icarus -- yours is all the better for the 9-minute extra maturing it got!

April 12, 2008 11:57 AM

CTMathewes said:

Chotiner's piece reminds me of the one by Ben Smith, in Politico, posted some time  before his:

www.politico.com/.../Obama_explains_SF_comments.html

April 12, 2008 12:00 PM

roidubouloi said:

Obama's observation was objectively true, but a rhetorical misstep none-the-less.  When you are running for office, you NEVER blame the voters for anything or say anything that could be interpreted that way or even twisted that way.  

What he should have said is that there are many people who are struggling, from lack of employment opportunities, from lack of wage growth if they are unemployed, from the skyrocketing cost of health care, and from a national government that has been indifferent to their plight while giving the wealthiest and most privileged enormous tax breaks and sweetheart contracts.  

"On top of that, we have had a generation of cynical politicians from the Republican party who have done everything possible to create anger between groups, on the basis or race, gender, sexual orientation, for the sole purpose of distracting people from the unwillingness of these same politicians to do anything to solve our economic problems.  They would rather pit one group against another, than do the work of lifting the opportunities for all."  

Then he could have bashed McCain about his indifference to the mortgage crisis.  That is, you blame the politicians, not the public.  Still, as much as Hillary might yearn for this to be some kind of opportunity for her, it isn't because the few words that were ill-chosen don't mean all that much.  Goes without saying though that she is being true to her Republican roots in her reaction.

I have speculated before that Hillary is still really a closet Goldwater Girl.   My mind is made up.  Hillary is a Republican who has, because of Bill, found it easier to try and realize her ambitions in the Democratic party.  There is exactly zero reason even to think of nominating her for president.

April 12, 2008 12:01 PM

roidubouloi said:

esmense,

You think Obama has problems as a campaigner?  What drugs are you on.  While it is surely true that he makes mistakes, compared to Obama both Hillary and McCain are like blocks of wood.  Hillary drones and hectors until you want her to shut up even if you agree with her substantive points and McCain cannot really string two thoughts together without sticking his foot in it.

Obama certainly made a very modest rhetorical mis-step, but it is pure Hillarista and Republican wishful thinking that this is of any importance.  If Tuzla wasn't enough by itself to sink Hillary clear out of sight, you are delusional if you think this is a big deal.  Same goes for pccostello who will be telling us how Hillary can still win the nomination in September.

April 12, 2008 12:07 PM

esmense said:

ironyroad --

This "truth" is a cliche liberals have been comforting themselves with for 40 years.

Icurusr --

I am an American who has travel extensively in every part of the country (the only state I haven't spent any time in is Alaska) -- from childhood through adulthood, I've lived in 24 states (in the Northeast, Midwest, South, Southwest and Northwest) . As an adult I've lived extensively in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix and Seattle. For the last 20 years I've owned a business that's national customer base is made up of mostly rural, small town and suburban men -- the kind of people who have not been voting Democratic for quite some time (the top two states we draw customers from are Pennsylvania and California). These men have principles, ideals and interests that are rarely recognized by liberals. But Dems are never going to learn to appreciate those principles and ideals -- or how to talk to them -- if they don't start actually listening to them and get past seeing them as little more than stupid bigots,

April 12, 2008 12:24 PM

esmense said:

roidubouloi --

With the backing of some of the country's richest donors, the support of the mainstream, political and online media, the organizations, funders and staff of a significant portion of the Democratic establishment (Kerry, Daschle, Gephart, Kennedy) put at his early disposal (making him the best financed primary candidate in history BEFORE he ever got his online fundraising effort up and running) running against a woman (the only woman in American history to win even ONE primary) who is absolutely detested by the mainstream media, etc., etc, Obama still hasn't been able to put this race away.

That's not an indication of a great campaigner. That's an indication that he is not connecting with a lot of voters he should be connecting with.

April 12, 2008 12:31 PM

ponty said:

Obama doesn't seem to recognize that Bush isn't popular anymore and though he spouts change as a mantra every millisecond, the closer he gets to be the nominee the more he realizes himself how unprepared and inexperienced he is to even consider what he is doing.  He isn't afraid of running for President, he is afraid of being President.  At least one person knows that he isn't right for the job Obama himself.

April 12, 2008 12:32 PM

johnpeters said:

I suppose, from the perspective of a tradition presidential campaign, Obama's comments on Pennsylvania bitterness can be considered "none-to-bright."   But then, they can also be considered to be telling it like it is.  Maybe that's something new in American politics.

April 12, 2008 12:45 PM

Mozier said:

Could somebody explain to me what was "elitist" about what  Obama said?  Please, I really want to know!

April 12, 2008 12:48 PM

CRS9TNR said:

A few points that I think are missed here.

Obama had a chance to make political points here and missed it.  President Bush famously went against Free Trade in 2003 and blocked foreign steel into America to allow Pennsylvania Steel a chance to recover.  This relief helped, and steel prices are at an all time high now thanks to China Consumption.  Instead of his academic discussion of the failures of the average voter, he could have used this opportunity to talk about Trade.

Instead, he comes accross as a liberal version of Pat Buchanan.  Buchanan is famous for his America First speeches and specifically the Monogahalla Valley Steel Industry.  You can tie this into the Culture War speech of 1992 and GW Bush Campaign.

For some reason, either ignorance or timidity, Obama is not addressing the Republicans in this campaign.  You have to define yourself against the opposition or no one will understand what you stand for.

April 12, 2008 12:51 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

esmense,,,

uh, I hate to be the one to remind you of this but CA and PA have voted Democratic in the past 4 presidential elections...

may I suggest that you put away the Hannity/O'Reilly boilerplate and take another look at your customer demographic?

April 12, 2008 1:06 PM

ironyroad said:

esmense -- your remark makes up for in glibness what it lacks in substance.  All politicians everywhere have comforted themselves and their constituents by massaging the truth -- the question is, if there's a time in a nation's history when that becomes more like a dangerous delusion than a matter of electoral technique.  Maybe it's now.

If politics becomes just reading the types -- he's a liberal so he's ABC, she's a conservative so she's XYZ -- without any attempt to to measure the rhetoric against observable reality, without any thought as to whether ABC or XYZ make independent sense, then it's no longer politics but kindergarten games.

Of course you're right in one thing:  it's about listening to people and not seeing them as stupid bigots -- but it's not only about that, as it's also about not caving before bigotry either.  So now's the moment to come clean and stop hiding in abstractions:  what exactly are the "principles, ideals, and interests" of these men that are not being perceived, that in your opinion are not being listened to?  Maybe this discussion would be easier if we had some concrete examples.

April 12, 2008 1:09 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

mozier,,,,

let me take a stab at your question - elitist is someone who, every now and then, tries to give a reflective, thought based answer to a valid question. There is something very wrong when candidates are only expected to give stump answers to questions about the electorate. How Obama described the political dynamic of rural voters is kicked around blogs everyday, tnr included. We, as a polity, have been transformed almost into the most pathetic johns...

You're so good!

You're so big!

It's never been like this!

37 seconds of self delusion and then we pay up for the privilege...

April 12, 2008 1:12 PM

esmense said:

Mozier --

What was "elitist?" The assumption that rural and small town voters don't make reasonal and self-interested voting decisions, just like the more affluent and elite do, but, instead vote out of ignorance and bigotry arising from frustration and bitterness. Remember, Obama wasn't "telling it like it is" to working class voters (as some here are suggesting) -- he was telling his elite funders what they expected to hear -- confirming the prejudices of his extremely affluent audience as an explanation for why it would be difficult to get some voters to vote for him.

April 12, 2008 1:14 PM

boxofrox said:

Truth be told this is an opportunity for Obama to connect.

Once upon a time many years ago this young youth witnessed to mortal enemies slug it out in the school bathroom. After much expediture of hostilities and spent blood the two combatants emerged henceforth to shake hands and declare it to be a good fight. Their dispositions defended and explained in the most basic terms. These two young men then went on to, if not love one another, then like and respect one another.

Obama must not let the pause become concession. Fight for his POV.....let those who are offended hit back and then affirm the best aspects of God and guns.

April 12, 2008 1:21 PM

roidubouloi said:

esmense,

Yours is an absurd revisionist history of the campaign.  The knock on Obama is that he is a fabulous campaigner but is unprepared to be president, not that he is not a good campaigner.  Hillary Clinton began with celebrity status, the backing of the entire party establishment, several years of head start, including more money in the bank, a mantle of "inevitability," a core group of supporters, baby-boomer women, who support her no matter what she does or fails to do, Bill Clinton, at that point still hugely popular with Democrats, to stump for her -- and Obama has cleaned her clock, out-maneuvered her, out-organized her, and is a far more compelling speaker who has raised his money from the grass roots, not from big bundlers.  What's more, he hasn't committed but a small fraction of the public gaffes of Hillary.

To spin that record as if Hillary were the underdog that Obama, the "establishment candidate" somehow cannot put away is, quite frankly, rank nonsense.  And, as a matter of fact, he has already put her away but, as Rhubarbs points out, the zombie Hillary refuses to go away because her die-hard supporters won't cut off the money spigot -- yet.  But they will soon, she is running on empty.

Somehow you imagine that it is Obama's job to "put her away" as if the demographics of different voter populations were completely irrelevant.  This isn't a sporting event, you know.  It is an election, and his margin in the popular vote is already larger than the margin that decided any number of presidential elections.  Hillary will be put away when there is no longer any doubt about the outcome expressed in the rhetoric of the punditocracy or her donor base dries up.  Obama cannot force her out and any hint that he might be inclined to try is met with howls, screams, and imprecations for the Hillaristas.  So, why should he bother?  Like he says, she can run as long as she wants (because the outcome is not really in doubt).  

Put the shoe on the other foot:  Despite the enormous advantages with which she began the campaign -- after all doesn't she have "35 years of experience?" -- Hillary not only cannot put Obama away, she is losing.  What does that tell you about her campaign skills?

April 12, 2008 1:35 PM

gurdjieff66 said:

Interesting to recall how Howard Dean was repeatedly excoriated by the press in 2004 for supposedly being out of touch with religious white voters and working class America.  Even though he actually showed evidence of listening to those voters -- on gun control for one.  Interesting how, until now, no one has seen fit to ask whether Obama is even more out of touch.  (Hillary of course is out of touch too, but at least she is smart and experienced enough of a politician not to insult these voters directly.)  

Interesting to also note the different view that Obama has of black and white anger.  White anger -- whether over black crime, affirmative action, gun control, the moral cesspool of pop culture -- is exaggerated, or expolitied, or irrational.  Black rage is always, always, grounded in in legitimate grievance. 

April 12, 2008 1:43 PM

esmense said:

jauntyboulevardier --

You analysis would make sense if Obama was talking to small town and rural voters. But he wasn't.

He was pandering to the prejudices of extremely affluent voters in San Francisco.

He was, in fact, doing exactly what you are claiming he wasn't doing. Feeding his audience easy and self-flattering political publum. And they were both lapping it up and laughing about all those knuckleheads in PA.

April 12, 2008 1:45 PM

esmense said:

The first woman to make a serious run for the presidency does not enjoy "enormous" advantages. Yes, Clinton enjoyed name recognition and association with a powerful male -- a traditional prerequisite for women who have broken political barriers in the past -- but she DID NOT enjoy a party unified behind her. The simple truth is, if the brand name in this race had been a male, it is highly unlikely that the political establishment that encouraged Obama to challenge Clinton would have done so -- instead, they would have told him to wait until he had more experience at the national level.

It is simply a myth that Obama arose as an under-funded grass roots candidate bucking the party establishment. He had very early support from Wall Street, the nuclear power industry, the old bulls of the Northeast liberal establishment (Kennedy, Kerry) and the Midwestern Moderate establishment (Daschle, Durbin, Gephart) who put their funders, staff and organizations at his disposal very early on.

April 12, 2008 2:03 PM

ironyroad said:

esmense -- are you planning to respond to my question?  Once again, what exactly are the "principles, ideals, and interests" of these men you described above that are not being perceived, that in your opinion are not being listened to?  

It's easy to accuse Obama or even (as you seemed to be doing) a whole historical series of Democratic candidates of casually feeding coastal, blue-state prejudices -- but why would a candidate who has won a bunch of unlikely primaries in the heartland do that? -- but your charge would have more validity if you would come down from the abstract level and give a couple of examples of misunderstood or ignored principles or ideas or interests that Democrats need to take up.

Then at least we can discuss whether there's common ground or at least a possible bridging of the gap.

April 12, 2008 2:08 PM

roidubouloi said:

Hillary is not "smart and experienced enough as a politician."  Her problem, like Kerry's, is that, despite here seat in the Senate, she is completely inexperienced as a politician.  She did not work her way up in politics.  She was handed her first nomination -- starting right at the top, the US Senate -- by Charlie Rangel and ran against a ridiculous non-entity, Rick Lazio, who looked and sounded like he belonged at a college frat party.  Plus, the enrollment advantage for Democrats in the New York is 2:1.  Just like Kerry, who never really had to learn how to be a good politician before he ran for president, when Hillary stepped onto the big stage, she did so with zero electoral experience worth a damn and quickly showed that she was an inept campaigner.  That is most of her problem.  

Now, to give you an idea of how delusional the die-hard Hillaristas are, I estimated the PA, NC and IN turnout by looking at the number of delegates relative to turnout in NY, IL, CA and OH.  If you pay particular attention to OH, you get a range  for the three remaining big races, PA, NC, and IN, of 4.2 million to 5.2 million voters.  If you apply the current average poll percentages for those three states to the delegates up for grabs, you get Hillary gaining a net 12 delegates in PA, losing a net 18 in NC, and gaining a net 6 in IN.  That is a net ZERO.  After the results on May 6, Obama's pledged delegate advantage of 164 is barely going to budge if indeed it moves at all.  If Hillary could gain a net 10 delegates, it would be a miracle.  On the popular vote side, where Obama has a 532,000 margin, including FL but excluding MI where only Hillary was on the ballot, the best forecast, again based on the current polls, would be for Obama to pick up an additional net popular vote of 0 to 20,000.

By any stretch, these are big turnout forecasts, up to double the national average per delegate, so I rather doubt that I am under-estimating.  But even if you take OH as the yardstick, you only get up to a turnout of 5.4 million which would be enormous compared to the 14 million or so who have already voted.  It's actually sort of irrelevant because PA and IN together are double the size of NC and Obama's margin in NC is double Hillary's in PA and IN.  It is close to a wash any way you look at it and cannot end up dramatically different from a wash in either direction unless the voters in PA and IN go to the polls and the voters in NC don't.  Any reason why that should be the case?  Do you think Obama can count?  Do you think he is perhaps working overtime on turnout in NC so that Hillary has no story to tell on May 7?  I think so.

By May 6, 3034 pledged delegates will have been chosen.  Obama will have on May 6, a delegate margin that is probably unchanged but can't drop below 150 even in an extreme case.  His margin in popular votes will likely still be above 500,000, and growing, but cannot drop below 400,000 even in an extreme case.  Only 217 delegates and something like 1 million to 2 million votes will still be open.  Give Hillary an extremely unlikely 55:45 split (a 10% spread compared to the 2% spread to date).  Obama still goes to the convention with a delegate margin of 130 to 140 and a popular vote margin of 250,000 at the very least.

That's why this is already over, and why it will be clear to all that it is over come May 7.

April 12, 2008 2:17 PM

roidubouloi said:

The only thing that could possibly convince the super-delegates to over-turn the decision of the Democratic rank and file and choose Hillary would be the complete collapse of Obama v Hillary in the poll match-ups with McCain.  There is not a shred of evidence that that is happening or going to happen.  Just the reverse. Obama has been gaining ground on Hillary since the low-point of the Wright controversy when she almost, but didn't quite, catch up with him.

April 12, 2008 2:20 PM

miceelf said:

Esmesne- while it's certainly true that the first woman to make a serious run at president faces some challenges, it's at least equally true of the first serious Black candidate.

You're correct that Clinton didn't have the entire party behind her early on, merely most of the elites. Bill Clinton is THE elite of the party, and let's not forget Terry McAuliffe et al. and the DLC, which still has some power. Her entire superdelegate lead is a function not of elected politicians, but of the unelected party officials, the kinds who are the establishment. You're also ignoring her institutional advantages in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where almost the entire party establishment is on her side.  As well, she had more big donors than did Obama (you can't criticise him for having big donors and ignore hers), and was regarded by nearly everyone as inevitable up until at least december of last year. She continues to have a huge advantage in terms of name recognition. It simply isn't credible to claim that she was an underdog, relative to Obama.

She lost in Iowa primarily because Obama out-organized her there and she listened to very bad advice from Mark Penn.

I would argue that if the frontrunner were not an African American, Clinton, as number 2, would already have dropped out. But she is staying in because she is banking on racism coming to her rescue, either racism of the remaining Dem primary voters, or racism of the general electorate which would make the superdelegates consider her bogus "electability" arguments. In this regard, she has underestimated the american people.

I like you, and I don't like the tone that Wandrey has taken with you. But in your partisan support of CLinton, it seems like you're ignoring rather fundamental realities of the nature of the race.

April 12, 2008 2:37 PM

roidubouloi said:

Just in case no one is counting, for Hillary to make up a 140 delegate margin out of the 315 super-delegates who have not yet declared, the remaining supers would have to 1) defy the pledged delegate count, 2) defy the popular vote, and 3) defy the national polls of match-ups against McCain and then cast their votes by a margin of more than 2 to 1 for Hillary.  If, on May 7, Obama's pledged delegate margin is still above 160, as seems likely, the remaining undeclared supers would have to go for Hillary by a margin of 3:1 to cover that margin.

Now, all you Hillaristas out there who still believe that the outcome is uncertain to any significant degree, just be careful you don't get hit on the head by any meteorites when you go outside today.

April 12, 2008 2:38 PM

kevincollins said:

Good gracious alive. Americans who've lost their jobs aren't bitter? What's next, saying people who've lost a loved one aren't sad? There isn't a Democrat or Republican in our country who isn't bitter with the loss of a job. The media, McCain, and Limbaugh have, sadly, fashioned a flimsy facade as an undeserved knock on Obama.

April 12, 2008 2:43 PM

esmense said:

I haven't said one thing about supporting Clinton.

I'm more concerned with the mistakes that I see the Democratic party make over and over and over again.

April 12, 2008 3:05 PM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

esmense,

how, may I ask, do you know that his CA audience was "laughing and lapping it up"?  I have seen no video showing that, nor have I heard audio to support that alleged mirth making?

Seems to me that you're imagining this in your head because you have predisposed bias towards Obama and those in the audience. I have no doubt that you BELIEVE that all those shifltess CA liberals were making fun of poor workin' folks but absent any proof, it just exists as a figment in your over worked imagination.

This scenario fits neatly into your boiler plate impressions of the feckless, elitist nature of liberals, cant taken straight outta Fox and the GOP playbook.  

are you pccostello?  Really, I'm askin...come to think of it...I don't think I have ever seen both of you on the same thread....

April 12, 2008 3:20 PM

TULLIUS said:

It's hard to put your finger precisely on what the problem is, but isn't it the idea that those who hold a different political point of view must do so out of some form of pathology?--a sort of equivalent of saying that my opponent must be dyspeptic to believe such things, hold such religious views or differ with me about guns (etc.).

And then it is as though one lumps together all those "small town types," assuming there are not many mainline protestants (as opposed to religious right) or pacifists or at least non gun-owners among these groups--those who would never care to own a firearm or know how to use one.

And isn't there also a form of economic determinism that lies at the root of thinking in this manner? That because of economic hardship, humans are led to believe in certain ways or embrace certain ideas. And we know that economics is an influence on our thinking and on our lives, but it seems so determinist to describe it in the way Sen. Obama has done in his remarks.

And fundamentally isn't it true that thinking in this way tends to view voters become viewed not as people--as human beings--but rather as character types or "lunch pail, small towners," etc.?

And then what does it say that one neither apologizes nor recants nor recognizes that it is a form of injustice to speak in this way?

Senator Obama has created a strong candidacy and has many great ideas for where to take this country--which makes it the more unsettling that these remarks have come forward at this moment.

TULLIUS

April 12, 2008 3:26 PM

titanio said:

It is clear this campaign has gone on WAY too long. Amazing that the nonevent of Obama uttering a benign remark that Clinton, McCain and every thinking observer would admit agreeing with if they were honest generates all this commentary. This is only interesting to those who comment for a living. It will have no resonance with an actual voter.

April 12, 2008 3:45 PM

Mozier said:

"He was, in fact, doing exactly what you are claiming he wasn't doing. Feeding his audience easy and self-flattering political publum. And they were both lapping it up and laughing about all those knuckleheads in PA."

I don't follow your reasoning, esmense.  Tell me, please, how Obama's comments are mocking Pennsylvanians?  This same argument was made against Thomas Franks (who I think Obama was channeling), and it strikes me as a fundamental misreading of their argument.  If anything, Obama seems to be making excuses for these folk: i.e, they're not really mad at immigrants, they're mad because they don't have jobs.  I find his comments sympathetic, if not politically wise.

April 12, 2008 3:53 PM

ironyroad said:

esmense writes:  ". . . the kind of people who have not been voting Democratic for quite some time (the top two states we draw customers from are Pennsylvania and California). These men have principles, ideals and interests that are rarely recognized by liberals. But Dems are never going to learn to appreciate those principles and ideals -- or how to talk to them -- if they don't start actually listening to them and get past seeing them as little more than stupid bigots,"

I've asked you twice already for some indication of what these principles, ideals, and interests really are that have been "rarely recognized" by liberals and what it is that Democrats need to be listening to (if, say, Obama isn't doing that).  And I haven't denied, by the way, that someone can casually assume bigotry rather than trying to properly understand someone else.  I don't believe that that's what was happening with Obama, however.

So, one last time -- something concrete, please!

April 12, 2008 4:10 PM

hemlock41 said:

What's getting lost in the hubbub (sp?) are the positive comments about Obama that Mayhill Fowler made in the post in which she "broke" his recent statement. Specifically, she says she's never seen him speak to people at public events across Pennsylvania with anything other than openness and high individual regard for them. It's obvious that he simply misspoke at the fundraiser, in the way he phrased the comment. It would be ludicrous, given everything else he's ever said, to think that he sees religion as a mere symptom of economic malaise. It was just a bad choice of words -- a mistake more eligible for the "I misspoke" disclaimer than are repeated outright fabrications of sniperfire, for heaven's sake! And Clinton is now unscrupulously exploiting this as much as she can. I have tried to be fair to her throughout this campaign, in part because I have been disturbed by the intensity of the animosity toward her by bloggers and commentators and by the sexist frame this animosity has too often expressed. But her exploitation of this gaffe is outrageous. Did Obama's campaign jump on or exploit the Tuzla lies?

April 12, 2008 4:26 PM

ramboorider said:

This discussion has gone off the rails. I don't think anyone would find the substance of Obama's original comments condescending - the bitterness is real and some of the symptoms are as well. But the specific reference to people using religion as a crutch for their problems and bitterness has the potential to be political suicide in America. I personally agree with it, but I don't think you can say that kind of thing out loud in a country with some incredible percentage of voters who consider themselves religious and for whom their religion is part of the bedrock of their lives. What Obama or you or I think about their most basic motivations don't matter - I seriously doubt that those believers see the role of religion in their lives that way. That was the nugget that scared the crap out of me when I saw it. THAT'S the part that tripped my radar for condescension and elitism. To Obama's credit, his clarifications have been excellent. And, as not elsewhere on this site, the fact that the clarifications are in living color on video and the original statement is only available in very scratchy audio may be what saves his bacon.

April 12, 2008 4:37 PM

icarusr said:

hemlock: it's not that he blamed economic malaise for religious beliefs, but for "clinging to" religion -  as opposed to taking strength from it.  Kevincollins has hit the nait right on the head, and it's obvious that may Obama detractors have never had to worry about the next paycheck, a job loss, economic uncertainty and so on.

Bit