Obama Decides He Wasn’t as Articulate As He Should Have Been
Democrat Barack Obama on Saturday conceded that comments he made about bitter working class voters who “cling to guns or religion” were ill chosen, as he tried to stem a burst of complaints that he is condescending.
Are these 2 TRYING to give away the nomination to one another?
It seems like each time one gains momentum after the other says something stupid, instead of learning from the blunder they make another of their own. --Just when it looked like Hillary was going to recover from the Bosnia sniper fire deal, bill decides it would be a good idea to bring it up again-- Momentum shifts to Obama, and then he screws it up with these comments.
It seems like neither one of them really want it after all.
Posted by on April 12, 2008 at 1819 hrsWow… this is massive opportunism all the way around.
Barack is an arrogant elitist… But… He’s right that people are bitter…
He’s right that people cling to guns and religion…
But he fails to realize why people are bitter. That’s his critical miscalculation in this whole deal.
Posted by on April 12, 2008 at 1923 hrsFrom the overflow of the heart, the mouth speaks. (Luke 6:45)
Posted by GUNNY HARTMAN on April 12, 2008 at 2129 hrs
For all the spin of the Drive-By Media, now everyone will know that these profoundly disgusting attitudes are not limited to Obama’s spiritual mentor (whom he distanced himself from, of course) or his wife, whispering sweet hatings into his ear at beddy-by time (just a little woman, pay her no never mind). Those attitudes are part and parcel of who and what Obama is, and what the Democratic party has been for a generation.
Posted by on April 12, 2008 at 2243 hrs
The Clintons hid it well, through misdirection letting everyone concentrate on the obvious lies; John Kerry and Dukakis not so well; and now comes Obama, so green and dorky he didn’t even get the fact that he let the cat out of bag, until the roof caved in on him.
His “explanation” was even worse tha the original comment, peppered with condescention toward “ordinary” Americans (as opposed to his extraorinary self, one presumes).
The Democrats do remind of a man jumping out of a 100th-floor window and changing his mind by the time he reached 40th, the problem is the alternative they come up with is to jump out of a 90th-floor windowIf Obama becomes president, you can damn well bet I will be clinging to my guns. Come to think of it, one of my guns is clinging to me right now, on my right hip.
Posted by on April 13, 2008 at 0424 hrsWell, I’m off to church. After that I will go to the trap range like I do most Sundays. I guess the only thing that would make me less bitter is if someone would just be brave enough to jack up the taxes I pay. If only there was some politician who was brave and honest enough to force me to pay more taxes.
Posted by on April 13, 2008 at 0951 hrsI think the guy may actually have lost the election over the weekend with these remarks.
He literally insulted every rural and religious person in America....and provided a rallying cry for the religious right to finally energize around John McCain.
I’m not sure you can spin your way out of this remark....even with 6-months to do it.
Posted by on April 13, 2008 at 1104 hrsObama’s right. When 81% of the country thinks we’re on the wrong track, you better believe a lot of people are bitter.
Posted by on April 13, 2008 at 1248 hrsFrom the article:
Obama tried to quell the furor Saturday, explaining his remarks while also conceding he had chosen his words poorly.
He still means it (the sentiment is still the same); he’s saying he should have used different words.
When 81% of the country thinks we’re on the wrong track, you better believe a lot of people are bitter.
On the wrong track, how? I think we are on the wrong track, but probably for a different reason than you do, and probably a different reason than other people. That is a poorly worded question for these types of surveys, as it is vague and not specific. There need to be reasons listed as to why people think we are “on the wrong track.”
Posted by hsgbdmama on April 13, 2008 at 1452 hrs
"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.”
If Obama’s explanation is so off, why do you guys think they cling to these things? Or are you suggesting they dont?
Posted by JIJAWM on April 13, 2008 at 1512 hrsAlways hope for the best, like 81% of the country thinks our policies are not liberal enough. LOL.
Yeah, there is wording in other polls. Like people think the current administration—has screwed up the economy, has put us in an occupation that is bleeding us white, can’t do a single thing right, is wrong on health care, is sending our jobs oversees, and doesn’t give a crap about “people like me.”
Maybe out of that 81% there is about 10% that feels the country needs more conservatism.
Saw an article the other day that said the reason why conservatives originally didn’t like McCain because he didn’t kiss their behinds enough. They need that kind of attention.
There are many more small town, church going people who know exactly what Obama is talking about—and agree with him.
Posted by on April 13, 2008 at 1716 hrsI gotta go with Keith on this one.
I live in a rural town and attend church most every Sunday. People are so fed up with the government that calling them bitter is an understatement. They are downright pissed!
They have been pandered to by the promises from the conservative Republicans who were in charge through most of this folly.
They have given up on the fact that it IS possible to change things.
They vote to change the things that they believe MAY change like abortion rights and guns.
They are starting to realize that those things are not likely to change either so they will come around to voting on ending the war and turning around the economy.Hillary is hurting herself by trying to show she is just regular folk. Doing shooters and partying to celebrate her new found freedom from the Bosnia sniper lies (although temporary).
McCain will have just as hard of time convincing people to switch to him as the new book “The Real McCain” is shooting up the best seller lists faster than Ann Coulter can tell a Bill Clinton blow job joke. No man would call his wife a C**T in front of staff and reporters. (1992) but still!
Obama continually gets slammed for trying to be honest. He is the one who is making an attempt to understand the American people and the wishes of society. We haven’t had a president really try to be in touch with the people in probably ever.
Is he perfect, HELL NO, but at least he is honest enough to admit it.
He is the least “Elitist” of the three left in the race.
Posted by on April 13, 2008 at 2115 hrsThe liberals on this post are showing how this statement will cause big problems for the democratic party. It has nothing to do with the fact that people are bitter. People have always been bitter, they will always be bitter. “Bitter” is not the problem with this statement.
That problem with this statement is that Obama says that bitterness causes poor people to “cling” to guns, religion, antipathy, etc. Ignore the fact that Obama is equating guns and religion with racism (a big enough problem in its own right), but the essence of his statement is that if people weren’t bitter, they wouldn’t need guns, religion or racism. It appears that the liberals on this site can’t even pull their heads out of their asses long enough to see how offensive this statement is to people that belive deeply in their religion or truly enjoy hunting or sport shooting. If Democrats want to have any chance of winning the presidential election, they will need to distance themselves from this statement immediately, not try to defend it.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 0829 hrsAs one of the ‘great unwashed’ who goes to church every Sunday and owns a half a dozen shotguns I am not bitter. I’m saddened that certain people have turned a large segment of the population into people who are dependent on government and not themselves and their neighbors for their well-being and happiness.
Instead of building a county of people who desire to achieve, they are told not to standout - not to excel so they wont’ damage the self-esteem of their neighbor. Instead of A,B,C,D and F’s we give them smiley faces. Instead of rewarding people for hard work - we give them money to sit on their rears all day.
I’m saddened that career politicans care more about themselves then they do about the welfare of the people they were elected to govern.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 0923 hrsI can see why 81% of Americans are not happy with the way this country is going. Look who’s running for president.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1029 hrsHere he is making the same point, much more eloquently…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M
I’m interested in what all the people who jumped on him in this thread have to say about the overarching argument he makes in this video, as opposed to the poorly worded statement he made last week.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1105 hrsIt’s the thought behind his words that is most disturbing.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1116 hrsThe thought that, people are bitter that the economic and trade policies of the administrations of the past 25 to 30 years have been a lead cause of gutting this country of good paying manufacturing jobs is disturbing?
The thought that, Democrats should no longer be dismissive of people who hold strong ties to their religious backgrounds and family traditions, such as hunting, is disturbing?
The thought that, some people vote for canididates based on their position on wedge issues over candidates who might advocate for economic, education or foriegn policies more closely aligned with their own position because they believe the federal government is impotent to make significant change in regards to the latter items is disturbing?
He raises some rather interesting points on this topic. In San Fran he failed to articulate it properly, but as the youtube clip shows he’s been raising these legitimate issues for the last four years at least. Once we get over the gotcha politics/media coverage there is actually an interesting discussion on how to heal our nation’s deep cultural, ideological and political divide.
Does no one here think it is a legitimate issue? Or we all too caught up in what we thought he meant when we first read a portion of a poorly worded statement he made?
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1201 hrsObama is not inarticulate, he’s simply ignorant. And worse, ignorant of his ignorance.
The people he claims to address are not bitter, are not clinging to anything, are not worse off than they were 25 years ago, do not want his help and do not need it. They would prefer that he and his federal government go back to Washington. They do not view guns and religion as problems for Obama to cure.
The great divide is between those who view the federal government as the first and only option to solve every problem and those who view it as a last resort.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1243 hrsare not worse off than they were 25 years ago
According to an analysis by the Alliance for American Manufacturing (AAM) PENNSYLVANIA JOB LOSS:
Due to CHINA 78,200 2001-2006
Due to NAFTA 44,173 1993-2004If you are a member of one of these 100,000+ families that lost a job because a corporation gave it to a lower paid worker to increase their bottom line you are not going to be better off, you might even be bitter.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1317 hrsTwo simple questions 3rd Way: 1. Why has China lost manufacturing jobs? 2. Is the AAM ilooking for a handout?
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1322 hrsWhy can’t anyone address the “clinging to guns, religion, antipahty towards different people, anti-trade.” aspect of this quote. The posters above are providing reasons why people might be bitter. Fine-our society has become perpetually- aggreived. I’ll concede that people are bitter.
But please make the link between being bitter and “clinging to guns, religion, etc.” This is the part of the quote that won’t play well with anyone that doesn’t already like Obama.
Lefty - it was not a poorly-worded statement. Come up with any reading of the statement that doesn’t mean that glikeing uns, religion, etc. are a by-product of bitterness over ecomonic unsatisfaction, regardless of whether such biterness is justified.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1329 hrsWhy has china lost manufacturing jobs?
I am pretty sure they still have a significant net gain.
Is the AAM ilooking for a handout?
I have no idea, look it up. All I know is that they seem to have a pretty good handle on the number of manufacturing jobs that have been lost.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1347 hrsNo, China has had a net loss, and the world has had a net loss, for years. Worldwide, the US has been doing better than many of the places reputed to be manufacturing havens.
The statistic of “manufacturing jobs” has been influenced primarily by two things, increased productivity and the reclassifcation of jobs from manufacturing to service by means of contract employees when in fact the labor being performed is precisely similar.
Posted by on April 14, 2008 at 1351 hrsREL - The youtube clip I posted shows Obama making the larger point. I think he essentially short-handed the idea in his comments in San Fran. When put in the larger context of the 2004 interview it sounds to me that he is making the case that Dems can’t be dismissive of people for whom religion, the second amendment, etc are important issues.
Clinging was a poor way to put it for sure. The bigger point I think he was trying to make is in regards to what I call the intolerant left. Those folks need to understand why someone would put concerns over real or perceived threats to their 2nd amendment rights, to their religion, to marraige, or a politician’s position on abortion as a higher priority than trade policies, education policies, tax policies etc, etc.
You can’t deny that the “left” is often dismissive of people who place those issues as high priorities, even if some Democrats share those beliefs or pander to those interests when it suits them.
He used a verbal shorthand to articulate a delicate point. I understand why it is a big deal to the MSM and why it is being used for political fodder. I just thought people on here might have a thought on the larger commentary he made.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1006 hrsLefty,
I view both this statement, and Obama’s larger message, as incorrect. It illustrates that Obama doesn’t understand that some small town people are willing to vote on values rather then on economic self-interest, as he claims would result in a vote for him. If Obama cannot comprehend this simple fact, how can he claim to know what is best for those people.(This is putting Obama’s statement in the best possible light for me - I still think that it is an example of the facade slipping to reveal yet another elitist, political jerk that has an insatiable appetite for spending other people’s money and thinks that everyone that votes for Republicans is a bunch of racist, red-neck rubes).
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1150 hrsI still think that it is an example of the facade slipping to reveal yet another elitist, political jerk that has an insatiable appetite for spending other people’s money and thinks that everyone that votes for Republicans is a bunch of racist, red-neck rubes.
This is the sort of honesty I come to the blogs for.
It takes a bunch of spin and projection of preconcieved ideas about Obama to conclude that Obama feels that way about other peoples money or Republicans in general. I honestly think Obama’s feelings about America are pretty close to my own. I have no problem stating that the racist, red-neck rube vote goes to the Republicans. I have no problem stating that the capitalist hating dope smoker vote goes to Democrats. Obama has to be careful how he states such truths, I don’t.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1207 hrs3rd Way,
that’s funny! I would say neither one of them vote.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1255 hrsActually, the racist redneck rubes I know are diehard democrats, but that would be a long post.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1340 hrs3rd Way,
I honestly think Obama’s feelings about America are pretty close to my own.This highlights another problem I have with Obama - the “blank slate” theory, in which everyone projects their own feelings onto Obama because his past history is not extensive enough to make any definitive judgments - but that is for another post.
Regarding my 11:50 post, I have no doubt that many liberals feel the same way as Obama about small town people, I just don’t think that he, or they, are correct. In addition, that line of reasoning is never going to win a presidential election in this country. People don’t like candidates that insult them and then purport to know the reasons why they do things. Defend Obama all you like, he hasn’t shown the ability to win any red states in a general election (I think he’s lost most of the big swing states to Hillary), and doesn’t appear to be getting any closer to doing so - just don’t be disappointed when he turns out to be just another elitist, political jerk . . .
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1358 hrsthe “blank slate” theory, in which everyone projects their own feelings onto Obama because his past history is not extensive enough to make any definitive judgments
That theory is the biggest load of bullshit ever trucked through the pipes of these here internets. Everything about Obama has been dissected and investigated under a microscope. McCain has not been subjected to half the scrutiny Obama has to by the MSM and the blogosphere. I can think of more than one instance where Obama’s statements where broken down word for word with commentary in between trying to spin what they thought he meant.
I am not saying the guy isn’t a political jerk, (but he is less of a political jerk than McSame). What kind of asshole wakes up one morning and says “I should be president?” You have to have one hell of an ego to justify that thought process.
he hasn’t shown the ability to win any red states in a general election
He won landslide victories against Clinton in a number of red states. He is certainly a stronger candidate than Clinton.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1417 hrsFor disclosure I’m a Hillary supporter, in part because I think Obama is starting from the wrong point on health care reform, that he isn’t being practical in his dogged rhetoric about getting out of Iraq yesterday and because despite all of his critcism of NAFTA, where he would sway me from Hillary, he isn’t willing to commit to correcting it’s shortfalls in any substantial way. That’s just some of the examples where I disagree with him on policy.
I find the criticism of Obama interesting though, primarily because despite my disagreements with him he certainly is appealing on a breath of fresh air level. Yet some continue to hammer on him for being light on substance, even though he’s been more detailed about what he would do in office prospectively than either of his opponents, and he has made every effort to reveal everything about himself, his voting record, his earmarks, his fundraising, etc that could possibly be asked. There is a lot out there on the guy, even if people haven’t had two decades of him in office to form their personal opinions of him.
Then he makes an argument to a group of people who can’t understand why those “red-neck rubes” vote the way they do as to why they shouldn’t be dismissive of the issues that matter to those people an he’s an elitist.
He’s also a socialist, far left liberal, according to the talking points, even though on policy across the board he is by every definition a moderate Democrat.
I could go on, but you get the point. I cast my lot behind Hillary, but will obviously support Obama if/when he comes away with the nomination. I wonder how the rhetoric will play out in the fall, and if all the attacks from the right will prevail in the MSM, or if a more fact based analysis of where he lies on the political spectrum will be presented.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1500 hrs3rd Way,
Talk is cheap - I agree that Obama has made a lot of statements and issued a lot of press releases and these items have been analyzed under a microscope. He just hasn’t done that much and doesn’t have an extensive voting record or 8 years in a highly visable political position.My dog could win landslide victories against Clinton in certain red states. I don’t think that this shows that Obama makes significant gains in these states against a Republican in the general election.
Some perspective on where I’m coming from - I don’t like any of the candidates for President all that much. I will probably end up voting for McCain, but I have no reason to believe that he will be any better than Obama and Clinton. The idea of Obama appeals to me and I voted for him in the primary before he started making “gaffes” that I feel reveal his true character. One or two of these candid moments, weighs more heavily on my decision than six months of pre-written, processed and spun rhetoric.
In any event, this latest gaffe is a political disaster in PA and Obama better hope the next “deciding moment” of this election season comes along soon (there have been about 30 of them so far). By the way, Lefty, if a more “fact based” analysis about Obama’s positions is presented, Obama better hope that the independents in this country want to make a hard left turn (and I’m not saying they don’t) because Obama is by no means a moderate Democrat.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1514 hrsIt was only a matter of time before the presumptive Democratic nominee (sorry, Lefty) was tagged with the elitist label. No matter how poor their upbringing, no matter how much their policies will go toward helping average or underpriveleged Americans, national Democratic politicians it seems will always be portrayed as effete, elite enemies of Normal Folk. On the other hand, national Republican politicians, no matter how priveleged their upbringing or how damaging their policies toward middle or lower class Americans, are always portrayed as salt of the earth types, no matter how ridiculous that actually is.
The most recent example of this of course, is George W. Bush. Son of a president, grandson of a senator, he is part of a family that has been part of the Eastern establishment, moneyed elite for more than a century, yet he was sold to us as some kind of regular guy (damned liberal media).
But Barack Obama, who by all accounts, did everything that conservatives demand of poor people by “pulling himself up by his bootstraps,” getting a good education (in the same Ivy League that George W. Bush was educated in, by the way), and working in poor neighborhoods in Chicago, is somehow an elitist, simply for speaking an undeniable truth, however clumsily.
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised that this is going on. What pisses me off is that it’s another Democrat that’s doing the bulk of the damage.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1528 hrsapc,
1. I deny the “undeniable truth” that economic dissatisfaction is the cause of rural people clinging to/embracing/voting based on religion or guns. Provide me with any support for the notion that most people that vote based on religion or social values do so because they are poor. This is the kind of crap that reveals why George Bush has been elected twice (I do not wish to debate whether he was actually elected - it is irrelevant to this discussion) and why McCain, a weak candidate, has an about even chance of being elected President. It reveals a profound lack of understanding of a large part of this country.2. Just because you came from nothing doesn’t mean that you can’t be elitist.
3. Why can’t you Obama supporters simply say that Obama made a mistake and that people can have different reasons for embracing religion or guns, even if they aren’t poor. As an illustration - I am a life-long Packer fan, but when Brett threw interceptions I didn’t try to explain how interceptions were really good things, that everyone was misinterpreting interceptions and that only Brett and his supporters were smart enough to see the “undeniable truth” that interceptions are good for Brett, the Packers and America.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 1608 hrsREL
I’m wondering if you watched the youtube clip I posted. I hope you have and you really listen to what he says at the end, because it is clear he isn’t saying that people are concerned over guns and religion because of the economy. He is actually making your point, that Dems can’t just dismiss these people and need to understand where these priorities/beliefs/values come from. He is saying that in addition to sound policies on the economy etc, the Dem party needs to show to Americans with these values that the Dems aren’t the enemy on these issues.
It is an interesting commentary on the spinless nature of the Dem party in 2004 (hell many would argue that it is a commentary on the spinless nature of the Dem party today except for a handful of notables).
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 2130 hrsYou’re not understanding, Lefty. Guns and religion aren’t primary issues to the people in question. They are simply natural liberties they occasionally exercise. They are “issues” only to a separate constituency of the democratic party that includes Barack Obama. Obama’s recent speech was catering to that contingency. That contingency absolutey believes in taking away guns, is hostile towards organized religion and views itself as morally and intellectually superior.
Obama’s 2004 speech was nothing but spin. His “typical” midwestern city was, of course, totally atypical. He refers to guns only in the context of hunting purposely because he is for extensive gun control, would outlaw many weapons and wants to maintain the fiction that guns are allowable only for hunting and that he is not for outlawing those guns. Finally, he chips in the union bit because he is beholden to labor unions.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 2218 hrsSorry ByBig Bro, your point is hard to believe in light of your post. I’ve never voted for or against someone based on their position on gun control. Nor have I ever voted for or against someone based on their positions on abortion, gay marriage or religious affiliation. To me those are important issues, but ones that aren’t central to the job I want my elected officials undertaking when in office.
Your post makes it very clear that you consider a candidates position on gun control among the highest of your priorities.
There are people on the left and the right who vote on these issues (call them social issues, civil rights or “natural liberties” if you will) almost exclusively over less divisive policy issues. I’m not saying it is right or wrong, if those are your priorities those are your priorities and I can’t criticize you for voting your conscience. But these types of voters exist, and they are a portion of the population Democrats have struggled with in recent years.
And it is difficult to understand for some (or lets just say me so I’m not speaking for others) why these issues get played up again and again in every election when we all know little can change just by the ebb and flow of controlling majorities in congress or 4 to 8 year stints in the White House. These are larger societal questions, that only see dramatic change with a tide shift on the issue over time. Yet by the rhetoric you would think their fate hangs in the balance every two years.
Posted by on April 15, 2008 at 2349 hrsThe point being made by Lefty is what Barack Obama meant in a nutshell.
Every two years the voters are told that the Democratic candidate will “take away your guns”. It has never happened but it is always brought up and the sad part is that it works.
Also, every two years the Republicans run on a “lower taxes” platform that never happens either (even when they are in charge). They continue to give tax breaks to the special corporate interests but the “bitter” voter gets the shaft.
There is plenty of time to get the message out there and when the voters get through the scare tactics and think it through, they will realize the Republicans have not delivered on their promises and the Democrats have never tried to take anyones guns away.
Obamas’ honesty is what will set him apart from the other two.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 0118 hrsI give up, you guys are right - Obama means everything to all people - his 2008 speech to an intimate group of supporters should be viewed through the lens of a 2004 public speech. Obama understands the little people and won’t let the Republicans use scare tactics about such trivial things as guns and religion. Yes, we can - truth to power and so forth.
As I said in a previous post - I think that this is a fundamental misunderstanding of why small town voters vote like they do. Why do you assume that, although you vote based on your beliefs, those that vote for other candidates must do so because of “scare tactics.” That’s as absurd as me saying that liberals vote for Democrats because they are told its “for the children.” The most ridiculous part of this argument is that people are telling you that they are insulted by Obama’s comments and you are saying, “no - you aren’t really insulted because you aren’t smart enough to understand what Obama was saying” - thereby further insulting these people.
It may not affect Obama’s chance of getting the nomination or winning the general, but it has cost him my vote.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 0828 hrsREL,
The undeniable truth that I was talking about was the fact that people are bitter and disillusioned. I make absolutely no claim that people’s vote on social or religious values is tied to their financial status, and I don’t think that’s what Obama is saying either. I think people are reading that into it, but if you look at the words themselves, they don’t say that.Nobody’s trying to insult smalltown voters or their motives for voting the way they do. least of all the people trying to win their votes.
The point I was trying to make is that we’re seeing the same old tired storyline that we’ve seen in the last several elections, namely that the Democratic candidate is some kind of elitist, and that his words will be shaped and/or twisted to fit that storyline.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 0857 hrsApc,
What, then, do the words say. See them posted below: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.
1. People get frustrated over their economic situation and/or the failure of politicians to make good on false promises to help them.
2. The frustrated people get bitter.
3. This bitterness leads them to turn to guns, religion, racism or anti-trade sentiment - either personally or in the voting booth - to express their frustrations.
I have no problem with 1 or 2. 3 is insulting. It suggests that Obama knows the inner minds of these voters better than the voters themselves and that the voters wouldn’t turn to religion or guns? if they were not frustrated. I understand that Obama wasn’t trying to insult voters, nevertheless that’s exactly what he did.
As far at the “same old tired storyline” bit, if you keep running elitist candidates don’t complain when people point out that they are elitist (by the way, elitist is probably the wrong word, but its conveinent verbal shorthand for someone that thinks that “if only the voters knew what was good for them, they would vote for me, but since they have been fooled by scare tactics or are stupid, they are voting for the other guy.”
As I said before, I give up, scratch me from the list of “true beliver Obamaniacs” I am frustrated with him and have decided to cling to voting based on the moral character of the candidate as a way to express my frustration. Unfortunately, it does not appear that I will be voting in this, or any future elections.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1013 hrsOn the contrary, Lefty, my post makes none of what you claim clear, nor do I hold positions you presumptively assume me to hold, and vote according to those positions. You may project on me what you wish, but those are your projections, not facts. The democrats have done very well with social issue voters, those voters being pro gun control, pro abortion, pro racial spoils system and anti religion.
The democrats have struggled because they have nothing to offer but socialism, which is neither new nor progressive. Given the size of the current federal government, it’s no longer a credible position. Were the democrats to offer fiscally a conservative position, and marry that fiscal conservatism to libertarian social policies, they could do very well. The problem, of course, is that the democratic party has a substantial constituency that is neither for fiscal conservatism nor civil liberties and they are unwilling to abandon that constituency for the unknown.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1053 hrsWell at least we’ve had an interesting debate.
REL - I agree that #3 is offensive. But I also think it is only offensive because he used broad brush strokes to explain a point that requires a finer touch. His statement can be correctly interpretted as a sweeping generalization without a larger context, but there is more history there to give him the benefit of the doubt.
More importantly though is that to me I think his comments are a criticism of how the liberal elite view rural American voters, while I assume you think it is a criticism by a liberal elitist of rural American voters. I don’t know how to convince you of my position, but I did want to identify where I think our underlying difference stems from.
BVBigBro -
If my post overstated things I apologize. I wasn’t trying to pigeon hole you into a one issue voter, but I still get the strong impression that pro-gun control politicians have a tough uphill climb for your vote.
My broader point is that we know single issue voters exist, polling and studies prove this to be true. They are on the right and left, as I mentioned earlier. To me Obama’s comments are that Dems need to gain credibility with single issue voters on issues traditionally aligned with the right side of the political spectrum before Dems can sell them on their other policy positions.
Finally, I’d like to point out that the impact of this issue is very much in doubt. One poll, ARG’s, seems to indicate that Obama will be hurt by this. Others show little or no impact. The anecdotal evidence is mounting and useless from both sides. We’ll see Tuesday. If Obama ends up with a 5% to 6% loss, pulling in 45 or more delegates (the track he semed to be on before this blew up) or better, this will all be a lot about nothing.
I appreciate the dialogue, and hope I haven’t been too partisan/ideological along the way.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1129 hrsLefty,
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1137 hrs
I have enjoyed this debate and thank you for your contributions to it.You are a Clinton supporter, I presume, Lefty. Clinton would do much better electorally than Obama, and Obama possibly better in the popular vote. The democrats would do well to pick Clinton, but I suspect the squeaky wheels will win out, and they will nominate Obama.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1141 hrsREL,
One small point. At the risk of being overly semantic about this, in your #3, you say that Obama states that people’s bitterness leads people to turn to guns, etc., when in fact he says they cling to those things. First of all, cling is an incredibly bad choice of words, and everybody has acknowledged this. Secondly, everybody also acknowledges that people embrace their religious beliefs and their traditions like gun ownership because they already believe in them deeply. They’re not turning to them. Nobody is denigrating those beliefs.Also, I think the choice of the word bitter was a bad choice. Angry would have been a better choice. Look, I’m not a “true believer Obamaniac” either. I started out as a John Edwards supporter. I simply think Obama’s a better choice than Hillary, for several reasons, none of which are germane to this discussion.
I’m not saying that values issues are any more or less valid as a reason for voting than any other reasons. But let’s be realistic. Every candidate’s message is, in some form or fashion, to use your words, “if only the voters knew what was good for them, they would vote for me.”
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1211 hrsI am a Clinton supporter BV, but I assume I will soon be an Obama supporter.
I would have agreed with you in November, December and January about the better general election candidate. But Obama keeps surprising me, and he seems to have an unlimited ability to raise cash, which ups his ability to win greatly in my eyes.
And not inject race into the whole thing, but hey why not.
I wonder what would happen to Hillary’s support among black Democrats if Obama has more states, more “pledged” delegates and a lead in the popular vote coming out of the primary and yet the super delegates give the nod to Hillary. I would think there could be some sort of backlash in a state that needs a large turnout in an urban center to put a Dem candidate over the top in a statewide election. You know, like in a slightly blueish/purple state like, ohhh, I don’t know, say Wisconsin?
So given what has happened since last fall I’m not sure if she is more electable among the electoral college at this point in time.
I will say this. No matter how this turns out, there is a lot of fun to be had following this election. Forgetting whether any of us got our ideal candidates, just from a political junky perspective it has been amazing to watch both primaries.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1216 hrsThe democrats won in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania last time and nevertheless lost the general presidential election. I don’t see Obama adding anything different to the mix, and he will likely lose some areas of the country. Clinton is not nearly so reviled as many people would have the public believe.
McCain is a westerner. While he would normally be a weak candidate, that fact alone, plus weak opposition makes him the favorite at this point. But, there are still 6 months to go and pthat’s plenty of time for anyhting to happen.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1256 hrsWe’ll see. I don’t know if the protracted primary process is dragging down the ultimate Dem nominee, or setting that nominee up for a post primary bounce akin to the post convention bounce the candidates usually get.
I also don’t know if this is the tip of the iceburg with Obama, or if Wright, Rezko and bitter gates are as bad as it gets. Those controversies are pretty minor stuff and hard to maintain over the time period between now and November.
I know this, Hillary and McCain would be a dog fight, due to the fact that it would be an election fighting for the relatively smaller undecided portion of the electorate
Obama and McCain would create a lot more undecideds, as even with this primary raging on for all these months, many are still being introduced to Obama. A blowout either way would still be possible in that senario as fewer people are set in their opinions over Obama. For that matter McCain is still lesser known that Hillary amongst general election voters.
Ahh, more speculation than I can focus on, I’m just enjoying the show.
Posted by on April 16, 2008 at 1506 hrs
Ol' Army
