http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mayhill-fowler/obama-no-surprise-that-ha_b...
I'm sure Hillary and John will have some fun with this. Obama's response to the comments from Clinton and McCain was very poor. Rather than contend with his own remarks, he goes after McCain and the tax cuts. Rather than truly dealing with the statements with an explanation/ clarification or an apology early, he allows the fire to continue by not addressing it head on.
I thought he was smarter than that and would have learned from the Rev Wright situation.
Updates:
----
Hillary:
----
Obama:
----
McCain:
Dear Friends,
We've all said things that we've regretted. Sometimes they result from a mere slip of the tongue and sometimes they reveal deeply held beliefs that you'd rather not communicate to the world.
A few days ago, at a San Francisco fundraiser, Barack Obama described Americans who live in small towns or other areas that have experienced a loss of jobs as "bitter" people, adding that it didn't surprise him that 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."
These words are revealing on a number of levels, and expose the out-of-touch beliefs to which John McCain offers stark contrast. Today, John McCain offered a different account of small town America:
"During the Great Depression, with many millions of Americans out of work and the country suffering the worst economic crisis in our history, there rose from small towns, rural communities, inner cities, a generation of Americans who fought to save the world from despotism and mass murder, and came home to build the wealthiest, strongest and most generous nation on earth.
They suffered the worst during the Depression, but it did not shake their faith in, and fidelity to, America. They did not turn to their religious faith and cultural traditions out of resentment and a feeling of powerlessness to affect the course of government or pursue prosperity. On the contrary, their faith had given generations of their families' purpose and meaning, as it does today."
These hard working men and women aren't "bitter". They love their country, their faith, their family and their traditions. They are the heart and soul of this country, the foundation of our strength and the primary authors of its essential goodness - Barack Obama should get to know them.
If Barack Obama is the Democrat nominee in the general election, the American people will have a clear choice between two different visions - Senator Obama's liberal, elitist philosophy and John McCain's faith in the small town values that continue to make America great. John McCain will not forget them or write them off. Neither should Barack Obama.
We are up against a large fundraising hurdle if Barack Obama is the nominee and we need your help now. Even before the general election begins, the differences are clear, we must do everything we can to make sure these beliefs don't make it into the White House.
I hope you will make a contribution today.
https://www.johnmccain.com/Contribute?guid=6f51a73b-35e2-4a93-9636-676c7...
Sincerely,
Rick Davis
Campaign Manager
----
I read the comment. What was bad/wrong about it?
What's wrong about it is that it's completely wrong. Rural Pennsylvanian's (and other Midwesterners) don't "cling" to religion and guns because of a lack of jobs. They "cling" to religion and guns because it's their culture; a culture that is just as good and right and acceptable as culture seen in San Francisco or LA.
Polticially what is wrong about this comment is that Hillary and eventual general election opponent John McCain are going to use this comment in every state except California and the Northeast as a way of painting Obama as a liberal elitist. Even though he specifically mentioned rural Pennsylvania, his comment will also be applied to rural Ohio, Michigan, and 90% of the other states in the Union. This was a major misstep by Obama in his efforts to win over "Middle America."
Well, he's a Chicago politician, has spent his life in big cities (ref.) and he's chasing Dems in the cities. As such, he's used to the idea that "his people" don't chase guns and religion -- they chase MONEY and CONSUMERISM instead.
I agree with your interpretation. Obama is confused about cause and effect, for the reason I outlined. His people don't chase those things, so he clearly doesn't understand that culture. Obviously, he's a bad choice for President, but then again, so are Clinton and McCain. That's why we've been denied real electoral choice yet again.
That's one way of looking at it. You haven't heard people generally complain about gov't "taking things away from them"? First jobs, with shitty trade deals. How many times have we heard people right on this very board complain about how gov't wants to "take away" people's guns? And the anti-gay thing is rampant in the midwest---this a sign that people "cling" to religion? Xenophobia? You left that completely out---again people afraid of someone "taking away" something from them--their culture. These may not be directly due to job loss, but it's generally a fear of losing things---jobs, guns, culture, etc... Amazing that people are trying to make a big deal of this. It is indeed silly season
Btw, what's a "liberal elitist"?
None of Obama's comments are suprising. He is a Liberal Elitist and is not in touch with the Middle Class. Sure he talks a good game...just like they all do, but to ignore the downward death spiral that we have been for years is short sighted. The Middle Class is the ones loosing again.
LInk to definition of Liberal Elitest:
http://www.wikiality.com/Liberal_Elitist
Since you're providing a satirical definition of "liberal elitist", I have to conclude the rest of your post is satirical as well. Or were you serious?
My post was quite serious. I have many, many issues with Obama. What was suprising is that a Liberal Elitist is a something that we have not paid attention to. Here is the best description of Liberal Elitesim. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_elite
So is it just the opposite of a conservative elitist?
Rush Limbaugh, the standard bearer of conservative thought (which can also be described as non-thought) says that most of the Democratic voters don't work. So does this mean mean that Obama represents the elite, the middle class and the non-workers?
Yep, Just the opposite of Rush et. all. But where did I say that I supported either mind set? My point is that elitist of both parties should have a serious reality check and actualy pay attention to the woes of the middle class; and not only in an election year. Once we have a new pres, the middle class will be no better off and using the middle class as a political fodder is a pathetic move by both parties. The middle class as a whole deserve better. And no, Obama does not represent all three class levels. How many middle class and non workers went to Ivy League schools?
kadeluca---I never said you supported one way of thinking or the other. I was just pointing out the fact that some people say Democrats pander to the poor, others say they are elitist, and yet others bag on them for their middle-class rhetoric. So which is it? And which is worse, an elitist that panders to the poor and middle class or an elitist that panders to the elite in the form of tax cuts?
An elitist that panders to the poor and middle class is the devil in sheep's clothing. Their "feel good" rhetoric makes content for a little while...until the next inflamatory news story hits the air waves and we forget this one. And Obama is not the only one guilty of this. All three are completely out of touch with the midle class.
Since I'm an Obama supporter, I will say this. If Obama said the sky is blue his critics would tell the world that he didn't confront the issue head on because he didn't explain why the sky is blue.
I think Obama stereotyped mid-westerners in one fell swoop, in a most unattractive way. And it sounds like he meant well by saying them, so therefore, I must conclude he meant them. And if he meant them - then he really doesn't have a very high regard for mid-westerners, or simply doesn't know the first thing about them. Obama's description of us does not match me at all, or anybody I really know. Therefore - a stereotype. From where? "The Andy Griffith Show", or "What About Earl"? I found it an insulting thing to say.
when a presidential candidate "misspoke" about being under fire leaving an aircraft and putting her child at risk to have a poem read to them by a child, not even thinking that there would be videotape of this somewhere.
There are quite a few other "misspeakings" this candidate is guilty of.
And you're going to ride this thing Obama said?
I'm voting for the realist, not the one who thinks this country is that stupid or someone that's going to expire before his first term ends all the while trying to be Bush Jr. Jr..
by next week, or even by the next news cycle. It's barely worth conversing about on here.
Will it be newsworthy after it impacts the voting in states like PA and IN? After all, many Obama supporters thought the Rev Wright matter to be a nonissue. The poll numbers don't back that up.
Nonetheless, Clinton and McCain will make sure this doesn't disappear by the next news cycle. I think that is very safe to say.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080415/pl_politico/9617
said 153 years ago. He said, " most men live lives of quiet desperation". Meaning most families had the basics necessities in life. They had their church, family and farm. They didn't expect anyone to help them in the struggles of life.
I'm sick of listening to any and all of them. Here's a man who summed the whole thing up in a nutshell:
The question comes to this: Which would you rather do, shoot up with weaponized ebola virus, drink a quart of Jonestown bug-juice laced with cyanide, or eat the contents of a sink strainer in a back-alley restaurant in the Central African Republic?
- Fred
http://www.fredoneverything.net/FOE_Frame_Column.htm
I don't like any of the three. Hitlery is a bright, well educated vicious little bitch on a stick with the moral turpitude of a Bangkok bar girl. Obama Rama Ding Dong is nothing more than a professional Oreo cookie, and if anyone thinks we've had arrogant presidents in the past, just wait until Homey Prez settles into his new crib on Pennsylvania Ave. The man has more hubris than any three rap stars combined.
McCain, on the other hand, is something that neither of these two are: an old veteran. The day after he's sworn in he and his cronies will be taking their evening martinis to the roof and having a little sunrise party around 9 at night, watching the mysterious glow from the East in an area that used to be Hanoi. But hey, look at the bright side, the US has always taken a great deal of pride in being first, right? Besides, nuking Hanoi could serve as an object lesson to Iran and North Korea.
Face it. No matter what, we are well and truly screwed for the next four years, and that's if we're lucky. Now if the luck of the US runs true to form, it's going to be eight years before Hitlery, reluctant to leave her office, declares martial law, beans Slick with an ashtray (again) and settles in to run the show right into bankruptcy.
Hitlery is a bright, well educated vicious little bitch on a stick with the moral turpitude of a Bangkok bar girl. Obama Rama Ding Dong is nothing more than a professional Oreo cookie...McCain, on the other hand, is something that neither of these two are: an old veteran. The day after he's sworn in he and his cronies will be taking their evening martinis to the roof and having a little sunrise party around 9 at night, watching the mysterious glow from the East in an area that used to be Hanoi
I too believe we do not have very solid options in this election and I am all for speaking your mind, but to this characterization of the candidates I can only say
WOW!
Maybe this is the "Bitterness" of which Obama speaks.
__________________________________________
I think madjack is right on target , spoken better & more honestly than anybody has so far - well said madjack. (made me smile too).
"misspoke" - I have seen & heard this word more in the last month than ever before in my life. And it hit me where I most recently had heard the word, prior to this - the HBO mini-series, "John Adams". Perhaps the candidates have also seen "John Adams" & just took a liking for the word, sounds less severe than 'lying'. Yes, I realize it's word that was often used in the past, and anybody who's read anything historical would know the word. But why the popularitiy of the word NOW? And it seems everybody is latching onto it like it's the new 'my bad' (geez, I hate that expression - redundant & just really bad grammer & precocious). Fact is, "misspoke" does mean that somebody said something incorrectly or without thinking - thus speaking wrongly. But in fact, with the current politicians it really just means 'lying' or 'I lied' . "Misspoke" just sounds better - like they can brush off their words as a 'mistake'.
Wow - so Obama is an elitist and a racist? I'm sure he'll sweep the Republican votes...
It Takes Real Chutzpah for a Guy Who Owns Eight Houses (McCain) to Call Barack Obama an "Elitist"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-creamer/it-takes-real-chutzpah-fo_b...
Aahh, yes, this is how Obama handled the situation. Rather than contend with his own stupid comments, he just went after McCain.
Chris - Rush Limbaugh, the standard bearer of conservative thought
Im sorry, but no, he's not. Liberals love to think so, but it's just not the case - no more than Al Franken is the standard bearer of liberal thought.
I read Kade's definition of Liberal Elitist, and Im not sure that truly represents Obama either - That being said, he did screw up.
Denigrating people for "clinging to religion and guns"???? Last I checked the right to freedom of religion and to bear arms were both pretty clearly spelled out in the constitution, so to take a sideways shot at people for clinging to their Constitutionally given American rights can be nothing BUT a mistake for someone hoping to one day say these words:
"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Im not sure how you could think anything BUT that he screwed up.
Yeah, Liberals LOVE to paint Rush as the foundation of contempary Consertative thought but, those of us who are Republican think he's just another freak on a leash and ignore him and his idiotic rantings. Unfortunately, since he claims Republican we're stuck with him. The statement of "clinging to religion and guns" is derogatory no matter how you slice it. To make a statement like that about our basic freedoms makes one wonder what else doen't Obama like?
While he may think people "cling" to their guns and religion because of bitterness, it's largely a cultural issue. That's why he was wrong with his comments.
Also, he doesn't look any better with these comments being made in front of San Fran donors.
Look on the macro level and the micro level - on the macro you get Obama answering these questions about what HE said by flaming McCain - Dont get me wrong, I think McCain's a loser as well, but that still doesn't answer the questions posed to Obama.
On a micro level here on SB, we have the same thing - you've got people bringing Rush Limbaugh into the fray. You've got Sensor posting TWICE on nothing that has anything to do with what Obama said.
So, from the man himself and from his supporters, Im not going to hold my breath waiting for someone to man up and discuss what he said.
Maybe because what he said is no big deal, and is being overblown
Ultimately, it will be the "gun and religion clinging" small town voter to decide that. It really won't be you, me, or the donors from San Fran to decide if it truly is a big deal.
So then why did you even post the topic? I assumed you wanted our opinions.
Your opinions are very welcomed. Unlike Barack, my comment was not intended to be arrogant or condescending. ;)
Ironically, small town America will cling to their guns and religion and once again vote against their own economic interests by voting Republican. It’s been happening for years.
It’s ok though, because Republicans in charge will blame their economic problems on immigrants, just like their failing marriages can be blamed on gays.
A lot of people are coming up with superfluous reasons to oppose a mostly moderate Barack Obama as president. If you want to sink him, fine, but then look at what we'll have to choose from in November. If Obama's out of the race, I'll be among those casting my ballot for Ralph Nader
I always think it is funny the way that conservatives are so politically correct when it comes to "attacks" on America or midwestern values, in almost the exact same way liberals are when it comes to "attacks" on race or gender. All the same stuff is there - overgeneralizations (Obama is talking about every person who cares about guns or religion like somebody who is talking about a certain African-American is talking about all African-Americans), mischaracterizations (what Obama said is so bad because it implies this, which implies this, which implies this in the same way about somebody who uses a certain word is "sexist" because the word implies something that implies something) and, at root, a basic disagreement over a fundamental principle (Obama assuming that poor people often vote against their interest, or the person being attacked for racism assuming that race relations have improved to the point that no additional concern for words is necessary.)
This political correctness has the same result in both circumstances - people stop listening, stop discussing the basic disagreement and start to dislike the other side more. We need to get past this political correctness if we are ever going to develop a more effective and civil political climate.
Obama was discussing how poverty and economic insecurity often create a situation where politics of blame flourish. Let's get out of America so people don't automatically switch off. A lot of historians think that the Great Depression was what allowed a racist, fascist organization like the Nazis to assume power. Economic troubles in Italy are one of the reasons a xenophobic party just doubled its representation in the legislature. Throughout the world and throughout history, you can see politicians taking advantage of citizen's anger by blaming foreigners, or gays, or Jews. It makes sense to mobilize people out of anger, because real economic solutions are often much more complex and much less exciting. The more cynical view is that people are mobilized out of anger by the same people who use the government to help their rich allies. Since any real economic solution would require tax money to stop going to their rich allies, they need to find another issue to get people upset about.
There is evidence of that happening here, as well. It is well-documented that the same-sex marriage initiatives helped the Republican party. Here, in Ohio, it helped elect a corrupt administration that was disastrous for the state. Voting against same-sex marriage is the "clinging" to religion that Obama is talking about. Voting based on that issue rather than all the other issues that affect the daily lives of out-of-work Ohioans is the bitterness. On election day, those issues too often outweign the issues that could actually help people.
I think you can disagree with some of Obama's assumptions, like people are voting against their interest by electing Republicans. You can believe that the Republican plan of tax breaks and deregulation is what this country needs. I'm not sure how you could ignore all of the current crises caused by deregulation, but I wouldn't think you are an evil person, or an elitist, or arrogant, for believing that. I would want to listen to your argument, explain my argument, and see if there is a common ground. That's how government should and can work, once we get away from all this political correctness.
One other thing - it seems like I hear conservatives talk about liberal's disdain for small-towns and the midwest more often than I actually hear anything negative from liberals. It also seems like I hear conservatives say very negative things about New York, or San Fransisco. or the Northeast, way, way more often than liberals ever talk about it. Is the liberal disdain for the midwest communicated in other ways than just words? Is ridiculing New Yorkers somehow not elitist?
Well said, buddytoledo.
Btw, here's an interesting article on "liberal elitism"