Another Democrat's Perspective

A reader writes:

"I don't often question the lens through which you view these things - but I must here. I grew up a black child in the segregated south - but I was lucky to have been reared by parents who taught me to respect myself and others and to believe I could accomplish anything. I went off to [a top school in the North] where, because I was from the south, hadn't gone to prep - that I was slower, less read, less prepared than they. The opposite was true. Today's reports of Obama's comments brought all that (to quote George Bush) "bigotry of low expectations" back. This is who Obama is. What effect to these comments have upon blue dog Democrat superdelegates?"

Comments

What Obama said is absolutely true, and one reason why we get into a war like the Iraq war, and why we never make progress on issues like health care.

And Obama pointing out the anger among the electorate is hardly talking down to them. Quite the contrary, it is acknowledging a truth and the first step in dealing with it.

Obama is empowering people with the message that their anger is real, understandable, and that we can do something about it.

So if you want more war and a sinking economy, go with McCain or Hillary, who are too programmed to speak any real truths. Or you can go with Obama and have real progress.

Posted by cm | April 11, 2008 11:40 PM

Is Clinton telling rural Pennsylvanians they should feel victimized by those words? That's like telling them they should become as insufferable and prickly as the urban and suburban PC Offense Junkies that see themselves in, and are rallied by, Clinton's professional victimhood.

Advantage Obama.

Posted by The Grand Panjandrum | April 11, 2008 11:48 PM

This is not the same... but McCain said some stuff about immigrants and how Americans view them...

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2007/12/17/071217fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

Posted by David | April 11, 2008 11:50 PM

What I notice is that Hillary has completely given up on trying to make an affirmative case for her own candidacy. It's all negative, 24/7. I knew this was coming, and it's one of the reasons the superdelegates should have come out for Obama a month ago and put everyone out of their misery.

Posted by eddie in ny | April 11, 2008 11:52 PM

If you were to ask voters if they were angry or not, which would they choose? I bet most voters would indeed say they are angry.

And why? Because of our getting bogged down in the quagmire of Iraq, because of rising oil prices and an economy sinking, because of a lack of affordable healthcare for many, etc.

And how did we get into these problems? Because we allow ourselves to be tricked by politicians and pundits and the media into focusing on the trivial, like this false controversy over Obama's remarks.

Bush would never make such comments, because he's a moron. McCain would never make such comments, because he's simplistic in his thinking as well. Hillary would never make such comments because she is just a programmed politician who will say or do anything.

So if you want more Iraq's, more Katrina's...well you have McCain or Hillary. If you want real progress, you have Obama.

Posted by cm | April 11, 2008 11:55 PM

So, think the MSM will get the hint and actually, say, debate POLICIES? Or just keep trying to bash each other over the head with inane soundbites?

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 12:32 AM

Haven't a clue what that means. But I really do appreciate all the hard work and effort ambinder has put in to telling us what obama really meant. No really I do.

Posted by hadenough | April 12, 2008 12:40 AM

LOL
Thanks hadenough for saying what I didnt want to say.
I didnt get the point of this letter either LOL

Posted by Benjamin | April 12, 2008 12:51 AM

Huh? What exactly is the emailer talking about?

Frankly, it sounds like a bullshit letter from a fictional character.

It's just very tough to believe an educated black woman would so misinterpret what Obama said.

But of course Ambinder would print anything that talks bad about Obama.

Posted by Off Topical | April 12, 2008 12:56 AM

Hey now.
Mark A. was fair about the whole shebang actually. I don't get the meaning of the email but it is fair of him to share different PoVs

Posted by Benjamin | April 12, 2008 12:59 AM

This is who Obama is

Obama seems to be an elitist snob who went to the best schools thanks to the sacrifices of his grand parents who he has pretty much ostracized because they are not of the race he as "found" for himself.

Sorry, the more I find out about this guy the less I like him. He actually makes the Clintons look good.

Posted by Richard1 | April 12, 2008 1:22 AM

A comment at HuffPost that I found interesting. It is from a Pennsylvanian:

"Obama wasn't confining his assessment to Pennsylvania and Ohio. The entire quote shows a depth of understanding and compassion that you won't find elsewhere in this election.

In rural Pennsylvania we can take the truth. If you take it personally, then perhaps you are just looking for offense. There are people who have an issue with Barack's genius for uniting Americans and for seeing the larger picture. They regard his intellect with suspicion, as though he were from a different tribe--and I don't mean race--and so they call him "elitist."

It is not elitist to recognize the disaffected people who are bitter because they are constantly struggling and getting in deeper all the time. And Obama is right--many of them won't vote for him, even though they should, because he sees them. Sadly, many of them won't vote at all, and certainly not in the Democratic primary. While registering voters, I met quite a few who sourly refused, saying, "I don't vote."

We need to stop walking on eggshells. We know that millions of people are in trouble all across America, not just in the rust-belt. Barack Obama is our best hope to heal this country. And if we need to turn over a few rocks to really look at a problem, let's do it. This is another conversation that this country needs to have."

Posted by ptw | April 12, 2008 1:32 AM

Huh? What exactly is the emailer talking about?

Thank you. I thought it was just me. Incoherent dribble.

Posted by Cal | April 12, 2008 1:52 AM

Yeah. I'm with most commenters here. I've read through that reader's remark a number of times now and I'm not understanding their argument.

Is he/she saying that Obama is bigoted for having low expectations? Or is he/she saying that the press doesn't see the nuance and trueness to what he said, and therefore see everything through a grade school lens?

And to the last sentence... What effect do these comments have on Blue Dog's?... Is the writer worried about that or saying 'who cares'?

If the writer is saying Obama is a bigot of low expectations for the poor working class folk in the rust belt then I think that your building a straw man. He's not saying they can't do anything. He's saying they're frustrated and angry and that, because of human nature, causes people to turn inwards and grasp onto things such as religion, guns, and xenophobia for feelings of security and comfort.

Posted by recusancy | April 12, 2008 2:14 AM

Even CNN's Political Team supports Obama's comments:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4G8dRMofHNs

Posted by Daniel | April 12, 2008 2:16 AM

Hey guys, don't attack the e-mailer's lack of coherence. It's insulting to all the insecure and self-conscious residents of rural America.

Posted by Mike | April 12, 2008 2:21 AM

I also don't get what the email is saying, or even whether it's supposed to be positive or negative about Obama.

Posted by neil | April 12, 2008 2:38 AM

I have no clue either. I can't tell if he is analogizing his experience to Obama's or whether he thinks Obama is one of those elitist that underestimated him.

Or is his point that these rural folks do understand his message and those are the people that Marc is having low expectations about because he is spending so much time explaining.

In any event, this blog is like night and day different on this "controversy" than Ben "I heart Hillary" Smith over at the Politico.

Posted by bubba | April 12, 2008 3:45 AM

To all,

I believe the last sentence is supposed to imply that Blue Dog superdelegates may swing radically from Obama to Clinton. Frankly, I'm not holding my breath.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 3:50 AM

eddie in ny:

Actually you're wrong. Hillary did try to come up with a positive case for her campaign but the only thing she could come up with is recycling one of Bill's promises, the whole 100,000 cops on the streets bit. I find it fascinating that she has yet to articulate a clear reason why she should be POTUS except for the fact that she used to live in the White House.

It just does not help her cause that she has now recycled an ad from the Mondale campaign and is now recycling promises from her husband. It helps her even less that her "message" was supposedly hijacked by Penn. Which is a funny admission in a way because it is an admission that she hasn't believed anything she has said for a year. So it just leaves me to ask what the he'll she truly believes.

Her campaign has been about absolutely nothing but a restoration. Sorry but this not a monarchy.

Posted by bubba | April 12, 2008 4:03 AM

Yeah...the e-mail made no sense,

And Ben Smith does indeed suck, which is why I don't get why people attack Marc for being "biased."

Posted by Abby | April 12, 2008 4:13 AM

? "Where... hadn't gone to prep"? Sounds like this person probably didn't do all that well at this "top school in the North."

Posted by Boynton Cousin | April 12, 2008 4:21 AM

CNN is on full tilt Obama attack. They are claiming he owes an apology. They keep saying he is "slamming" small town America.

Maybe he should just lie his ass off every time he opens his mouth and complain about the press being unfair when he gets caught.

CNN has been in anti-Obama for a while. So he is not only fighting Hillary and McCain, he is fighting FOX and CNN too.

Somehow CNN is branding Obama as the "bitter candidate" and claiming Hillary is the candidacy of hope. I feel like 1984 has come to life. Unreal.

Posted by Bubba | April 12, 2008 4:36 AM

Hey, there's a war going on in Iraq and we're in recession, the gas price keeps going up, but hey, we have nothing better to do than parse what Obama said in a very harmless statement, and one that even showed much insight.

Let's allow the far right to keep distracting us from the real issues like they have the last 7 years, because on those issues they lose.

And let's allow shameless Hillary to hop in bed with the "vast right wing conspiracy" that she used to criticize, and dare to still call herself a "Democratic." Hillary literally will say or do anything to win. Nowadays I don't know who hates her most: Democrats or Republicans.

Obama's absolutely correct; the people are mad as hell, and the Bush/Clinton ways of politics are one main reason why.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 5:01 AM

This is mind blowing! Obama articulates EXACTLY what people in the rust belt are feeling and suddenly he's unAmerican. The blogs are pulse with hatred and venom. Anyone who thinks this guy is an elitist next to Clinton or MaCain is deluded.

Richard1:

I put you firmly in deluded column, you obviously prefer it when your politicians lie to you because you don't want to be bothered with the truth, it's too demanding.

Posted by h1000 | April 12, 2008 8:55 AM

I'm with all of the commenters who found this post confusing. I'm also with the readers who think that the biographical content is wholly fictitious. What did you see in that email that made you think it was worth posting?

Posted by Sean Wright | April 12, 2008 8:57 AM

I'm with all of the commenters who found this post confusing. I'm also with the readers who think that the biographical content is wholly fictitious. What did you see in that email that made you think it was worth posting?

Posted by Sean Wright | April 12, 2008 8:57 AM

I'm with all of the commenters who found this post confusing. I'm also with the readers who think that the biographical content is wholly fictitious. What did you see in that email that made you think it was worth posting?

Posted by Sean Wright | April 12, 2008 8:57 AM

For the first time in my adult life, this bitter, clingy, typical white person wishes that the Obama's would just go away.

Posted by JoeCHI | April 12, 2008 9:42 AM

About one-third of Marc's posts make no sense whatsoever. Fortunately, they're redeemed by the remainder.

Posted by lampwick | April 12, 2008 9:48 AM

Obama didn't articulate what people in the rust belt are feeling. He articulated what his affluent supporters think is "wrong" with people in the rust belt and why they often don't vote for Democrats (and may not vote for him).

Democratic elites have got to wake up to the inanity and destructiveness of the stereotypes, prejudices and cliches they harbor about their fellow Americans. It has cost them too many elections and it will, ultimately, if they don't wise up,cost them this one too.

Here's an idea -- instead of patronizing voters outside your limited and comfortable circle with silly, sophmoric analysis, how about treating them with respect? How about working on the presumption that you have something to learn from them -- and not just the other way around? Instead of seeing them as helpless dolts needing their betters guidance and aid, how about really looking at their lives and appreciating thier creativity, their hard work, their commitment to community, family and morality? Instead of discoursing on how they are "typical" racists, how about opening your eyes and learning to recognize and appeal to working class Americans' deeply rooted sense of fair play? Instead of patronizing working class women by calling them "sweetie" and thinking flirtatious charm, rather than serious political respresentation, is all they, little "low information" dunderheads that they are, need and deserve from the process, why not try addressing them with respect -- and, open yourself up to a forlthright questioning from them, rather than irritating them with your self-satisfied, self-referential preaching?

Archie Bunker is just as much an ugly and offensive media created stereotype as Steppin' Fetchit' was in his own time. Yet, it is one that liberals have fully and offensively embraced as "true." They happily demonstrate before the world while calling it insigt -- accusing everyone ELSE of being bitter bigots.

Posted by esmense | April 12, 2008 9:56 AM

Isn't it sort of absurd that a blogger who can't express himself coherently in writing one-third of the time is in the business of criticizing politicians for occasion infelicities of oral expression?

Posted by lampwick | April 12, 2008 10:00 AM

Sorry, that last sentence should have read; "They happily demonstrate their bigotry before the world while calling it "insight" -- and accusing everyone ELSE of being bitter bigots.

Posted by esmense | April 12, 2008 10:01 AM

Obama didn't articulate what people in the rust belt are feeling. He articulated what his affluent supporters think is "wrong" with people in the rust belt and why they often don't vote for Democrats (and may not vote for him).

Exactly.

But then, remember, the elites (including the media) are all about the psychoanalysis. They don't just do it with blue collar voters. They do it constantly with Hillary, with Bill, with the voters who don't vote for Obama. They just don't understand why people don't do what they are told. The only explanation is some sort of mental dysfunction.

Posted by Cal | April 12, 2008 10:08 AM

What, is the "reader" Condi Rice?

Obama's comments were merely a political ploy to spin the policies of Hillary and McCain as demeaning to what the real situation in the areas he talked about is. Those that take these comments as "elitist" are reading way too much into them.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | April 12, 2008 10:09 AM

esmense, it's hard to embrace your view of things when you demonstrate that you don't have the reading comprehension to grasp what Obama said.

Posted by Klaus | April 12, 2008 10:10 AM

Yes Cal, Obama and his supporters have never been subjected to half-assed psychoanalysis from your "blue collar heroes."

White liberal guilt? Cultism?

As always, your OUTRAGE is only matched by your laughable hypocrisy.

Posted by Klaus | April 12, 2008 10:13 AM

Hell, the comment that you're praising is itself just a half-assed attempt at constructing a psychoanalytic portrait from deliberate distortions. Do you guys just relish throwing away your credibility so blatantly?

Posted by Klaus | April 12, 2008 10:16 AM

As always, your OUTRAGE is only matched by your laughable hypocrisy.

I'm not even remotely outraged. I'm amused. Remember, if the Dems are idiotic enough to nominate this effete primper, I'm delighted to see them give McCain ammunition.

Posted by Cal | April 12, 2008 10:30 AM

Ah ok, it's all just about "politics" and the opportunity to push childish characterizations (as you said, something your side never does!!!1!). As long as you admit your intellectual dishonesty up front... I understand.

Posted by Klaus | April 12, 2008 10:37 AM

Obama said the truth. He just didn't phrase it correctly.
HRc and McCain are on the wrong path when they call Obama 'elitist' when he was raised by a single mom and raised him by his hand.

McCain is worth $110m- which he married into and comes from a family of Admirals. HRC made $109m and plays the 'victim'.
They are the elitists.

Posted by Kelly M. | April 12, 2008 11:01 AM

ANN ALTHOUSE: "How odd that Pennsylvania got set apart in time from all the other primaries. What luck for Clinton. All this time for something to go wrong for Obama and for exploiting it — like that awful quote everyone's talking about. . . . I must say that the original statement sounded like a typical law-school-liberal remark. I think it was quite sincere, and I'm rather sure he believed he was being admirably intellectual and raising politics to a new, higher level. Within a liberal law school environment, that statement would be heard as a thoughtful, compassionate insight. Some of your colleagues might think you were excessively, squishily tolerant of what they see as ignorant, bigoted people, but I don't think they'd push you to be more understanding of the alien culture you were observing."

Posted by Richard1 | April 12, 2008 11:04 AM

"Moreover, even assuming for the sake of argument that some voters do vote values over economics, Obama may want to explain to such voters why they should do otherwise, given that he has spent the last 20 years in a church known for disavowing 'the pursuit of middleclassness.' . . . In addition, if Obama thinks these voters are clinging to anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment because of US economic policy, he ought to explain why he is exploiting anti-trade sentiment on the campaign trail, but advocating lax policies on illegal immigration, including (but not limited to) providing government benefits like drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens and allowing criminals to become citizens. Once he does that, Obama can explain how he squares his stated position on trade with the advice of his top economic adviser. And when he does that, Obama can explain how his stated position on immigration squares with his labor-induced vote that killed the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill last summer."

Posted by Richard1 | April 12, 2008 11:09 AM

When esmense says,

"Instead of seeing them as helpless dolts needing their betters guidance and aid, how about really looking at their lives and appreciating their creativity, their hard work, their commitment to community, family and morality?"

This is very similar to HRC's argument yesterday about people being hardworking and hopeful--in addition to pandering, isn't this a rather patronizing stance as well? Isn't it patronizing to pretend that you share my values as moral, hardworking, creative, family values-abiding citizen when you make 109 million dollars in seven years? Isn't it patronizing to toss the term elitist around when someone attempts to understand why more than half this country voted against own their self-interest over and over? But no, we want to talk about how the creative, hardworking people in the rust belt have nothing in common with the hedonistic, godless, out-of-touch liberals in San Francisco. The truth is, we all want the same things and right now it's becoming more difficult to get there, so when someone addresses the sentiment behind why people vote a certain way, it is not psychoanalyzing or patronizing, instead it is simply a way to empathize and begin a dialogue.

Posted by EM | April 12, 2008 11:10 AM

"Isn't it patronizing to pretend that you share my values as moral, hardworking, creative, family values-abiding citizen when you make 109 million dollars in seven years?

Posted by EM"

OMG!

I couldn't get any farther than that but I'm guessing t only gets worse.

Successful people couldn't possibly share your "moral, hardworking, creative, family values-abiding" values. Maybe that’s something you should think about.

Posted by hadenough | April 12, 2008 11:57 AM

Yeah, it's the American dream to get paid $100,000 to give a speech. Anyone with real drive can get there, so those who criticize it are just bitter and angry because they are too lazy to have achieved that level of honest, fair success.

Posted by neil | April 12, 2008 12:30 PM

For Hillary to even pretend to be the candidate in touch with the little people is a bigger lie than her Bosnia "mispeak."

And this focus on this comment shows why American politics is in trouble...this shows how we got us into an elective war with no exit strategy and based on wrong assumptions, how the economy got into trouble, how gas prices could escalate, etc.

It's because we allow these petty issues to divide us. And Hillary is playing literally from the same playbook as the Rush Limbaughs and Hannity's of this world. She grows more disgusting every day.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 12:38 PM

Yeah, McCain shows how in touch he is with America by hiring a telecom lobbyist to be his campaign manager. Now THAT'S in touch. Well. As in reach out and touch someone can you hear me now.

Posted by How Insane Is John McCain? | April 12, 2008 12:49 PM

EM --

"more than half this country voted against own their self-interest over and over"

Really? You are absolutely sure you understand their self-interest?

Democrats and liberals haven't had much commitment to the self-interest of working class people in over 30 years. From the McGovern campaign on (one of its great intellectual lights wrote a book about the need to forge a new coalition that would make LABOR AND WORKING CLASS VOTERS AND THEIR ISSUES LESS IMPORTANT TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY). Other than lip service, point out some real accomplishments this party and its increasingly elite leadership can claim on behalf of working class Americans?

The rust belt rusted away under a Democratic president (Carter) and YEARS of Democratic rule in the legislature.

Posted by esmense | April 12, 2008 1:00 PM

The more we focus on BS like this the less we'll get real solutions to problems like Iraq, the economy, energy independence, healthcare, etc.

And remember, the same politicians and media that got us into the Iraq war disaster are now pushing this story.

That is why; the more they can get the American people to focus on the trivial, the less they are held accountable for the real issues.

And Obama is correct. How many people voted for Bush only to see their sons and daughters die in Iraq? How many voted for Bush only to see their jobs lost, gas prices skyrocket, and have no healthcare? Yet they sure got worked up about a wedge issue like gay marriage or immigration.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 1:13 PM

Yes--the economy is in shambles; we're in an occupation that has imploded; we've frittered away any standing we've had in the world; the education we provide our kids is substandard--if all this doesn't add up to self-interest, I don't know what does. And yes--all of this and everything else--we can blame on Carter.

Posted by EM | April 12, 2008 1:34 PM

They just helped Barack claim a platform that he can now use to reach the voters he was trying to reach. While he stands and speaks truth the Clinton's run around still lieing about Bosnia, still lieing about NAFTA, still lieng about Mark Penn...Do they or have they ever spoken the truth about anything?

Most people that want to misunderstand what he says weren't going to vote for him to begin with and just want to find reason to bash him. I'm sure the email came from a Clinton supporter who is voting based on gender rather than on real issues! Just because he ended up going to a successful college-and working his ass of to get there btw-does not mean he is elitist or was in anyway trying to be elitist with his comments. I should also note that it was a 60 year old Hillary Clinton supporter who privately recorded his speech at the private fundraiser and then went to Huff Post with it to start this spin. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

Posted by Deb | April 12, 2008 1:38 PM

They just helped Barack claim a platform that he can now use to reach the voters he was trying to reach. While he stands and speaks truth the Clinton's run around still lieing about Bosnia, still lieing about NAFTA, still lieng about Mark Penn...Do they or have they ever spoken the truth about anything?

Most people that want to misunderstand what he says weren't going to vote for him to begin with and just want to find reason to bash him. I'm sure the email came from a Clinton supporter who is voting based on gender rather than on real issues! Just because he ended up going to a successful college-and worked his ass of to get there btw-does not mean he is elitist or was in anyway trying to be elitist with his comments. I should also note that it was a 60 year old Hillary Clinton supporter who privately recorded his speech at the private fundraiser and then went to Huff Post with it to start this spin. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

Posted by Deb | April 12, 2008 1:38 PM

They just helped Barack claim a platform that he can now use to reach the voters he was trying to reach. While he stands and speaks truth the Clinton's run around still lieing about Bosnia, still lieing about NAFTA, still lieng about Mark Penn...Do they or have they ever spoken the truth about anything?

Most people that want to misunderstand what he says weren't going to vote for him to begin with and just want to find reason to bash him. I'm sure the email came from a Clinton supporter who is voting based on gender rather than on real issues! Just because he ended up going to a successful college-and worked his ass of to get there btw-does not mean he is elitist or was in anyway trying to be elitist with his comments. I should also note that it was a 60 year old Hillary Clinton supporter who privately recorded his speech at the private fundraiser and then went to Huff Post with it to start this spin. Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

Posted by Deb | April 12, 2008 1:38 PM

"They just helped Barack claim a platform that he can now use to reach the voters he was trying to reach.

Posted by Deb"

obama made the statement at a private fundraise for the ultra-wealthy. I’m not ultra-wealthy so I wasn’t at the fundraiser and I can’t be sure but if I was there and heard obama say that I think I’d have dropped my monocle. What platform he can claim and which voters he was trying to reach is beyond me.

Posted by hadenough | April 12, 2008 2:02 PM

Is it really any wonder Hillary and McCain are going after Obama on his recent statements? These two ultimate elitists hear him attacking THEIR policies which have lead to such dire conditions for many in this country. Their indignation has absolutely nothing to do with some inherant empathy for the feelings of working class folks. The truth is that they are just terrified of anyone actually noticing that THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT that's been screwing the working class for years. Obama just pointed this ugly fact out so they're trying to flip it back at him and throwing in the delightful uppity "n" meme as more smoke.

Posted by donna L. | April 12, 2008 2:08 PM

cm - Hey, there's a war going on in Iraq and we're in recession, the gas price keeps going up, but hey, we have nothing better to do than parse what Obama said in a very harmless statement, and one that even showed much insight.

Classic deflection strategy.
"Ignore the rank fuckup of the remarks of someone I bootlick to."

Instead, everyone is "morally obligated" to divert all attention onto "more important issues".

Its a sophomoric debate tactic. Like someone's 16-year old slightly slutty daughter coming back at 2 AM with alcohol on her breath and confronting her pissed off parents with a counter that they should focus on more important things like the plight of the homeless or energy conservation.
********************

Posted by Chris Ford | April 12, 2008 2:41 PM

It's funny. I've been reading your blog for awhile now, and I can't remember you actually taking a comment and putting it as a separate post. Why am I NOT surprised that it's done when it's an anti-Obama email, and I have a problem with believing that any self-aware Black person actually wrote this.

BTW, did you bother to print the entire statement by Obama? Ya know, for CONTEXT? Haven't been here in awhile.

Posted by rikyrah | April 13, 2008 9:32 PM