Bob Herbert, the conscience of modern liberalism, rebukes Barack Obama for his San Fransisco Treat, but not for the reasons cited by Ross (Obama is empirically wrong), by Republicans (Obama's an elitist) or by Hillary Clinton (Obama's an elitist). No -- Herbert is concerned that Obama was dancing around the real answer as to why white working class voters had trouble to Obama: his skin color, of course. Occam's razor: racial prejudice more persuasively explains the problem than Obama's own argument (for which the data is equivocal), and so racial prejudice it must be. Unfortunately, the data on racial prejudice in this context is scant because the context is so new, and what data does exist is subject to any number of interpretations. I also think that Obama did mean to suggest that racism accounts for some it -- he speaks of "antipathy to people who aren't like them." Herbert counsels Obama to stop lecturing and start "appealing to the better angels of the working class." It's hard to listen to an Obama stump speech and not hear that appeal. The problem is that it doesn't resonate all that well, which means that Obama is back to square one. Finally, the unstated corollary of Herbert's argument is that voters like Clinton because she's white. Which simplifies her appeal a bit too much.
« Podcast: Obama And The Politics and Policy Of Voters Who Cling | Main | LAT/Bloomberg: Tight In PA, Obama Up Elsewhere » Bitter About Race, Not Class?15 Apr 2008 06:07 pm Comments (18)
I think you need to read the "bitter" comment in the larger context of Obama's comments. To say that Obama was secretly "implying" race in his "bitter" q&a -- as a secret subtext -- ignores what he actually said: Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and 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 (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points. But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. 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. So it's not surprising then that 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. 
Bill Clinton in '92 and '96 didn't win the white vote overall. The Democratic party as a whole lost the majority of the white vote after the Civil Rights Act was passed. Essentially Obama has to unite the Democratic Party, and not worry over Regan Democrats, in order to win in November. That means reclaiming the female voters that HRC has had a lock on for the majority of this nomination fight. It means locking down the Hispanic vote which McCain will make a huge play for here. It means locking down the African American vote which he has. And it means increasing the margins he has by turning out more young voters come November. If he does this then I think he'll have a pretty easy path to the nomination. It also makes a strong case for putting HRC on the ticket DESPITE all the ish that has gone down.Because despite everything, she is the one who has a proven lock on the other half of the democratic electorate. Given that: I think the whole working folks thing is fairly overblown. And can be compensated for to a large degree.
Actually, Marc the elephant in the room about bittergate is not that Obama is particularly elite, but that this line of argument plays into visceral feelings people have about "uppity negros." http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/15/82637/9982/505/495801 Whether McCain, Hillary, and the media are intentionally dog whistling to this sentiment or merely innocent bystantaders and beneficiaries of it is a debatable point. Obama is doing the right thing by not acknowledging 90% of the racism thrown at him....and even absolving people of their obvious bad behavior...but it's not enough for you in the media. You need to try to bring him down with wright, with bittergate, whatever you can throw at him. Obama said "Shame on Hillary." He really should have said shame on the media who want to divide america because they need the ratings and circulations. And the media have the chutzpah to question other people's patriotism when they pit people against each other for sport.
"People who aren't like them" doesn't exclusively mean blacks, especially in light of the policy argument Obama makes WITHIN THE CONTEXT of his comments... (oh that darn context)... but it definitely applies to immigrants and gays. The laughable thing is that working class voters actually believe Senator Clinton--she of the Great State of New York where she never lived before running for Senate, she of the $109 million, she of the deeply cynical and anti-Democratic Murdoch/Scaiffe love affairs-- is just like them. Blech.
Why is everyone giving Obama a hard time for this? HE IS RIGHT! He's right about the people in small town, who cling to things like that. They are bitter, because, on average, they make significantly less than their Urban counterparts. Unemployment in rural areas is usually higher too. Another thing, Hillary Clinton calling someone else an elitist is laughable. How can she say that what he says is patronizing? If I can say one thing about Hillary that is unquestionably true, she is NOT a champion of the people that Obama was talking about.
Marc, I have to disagree with the corollary you present of Herbert's argument, and I have to confess worse than disagreement (sadness?) with his opening the door to your conclusion. He's commiting the error, as are you, in a way, of identifying "black" but assuming whiteness is universal, not specific. As Dyson and others have written about forever, "whiteness" doesn't come to mind when discussing race. As such, it doesn't follow that anyone would vote for someone because of whiteness, and it's an independent phenomenon that someone would vote for or against someone who is non-white. Race consciousness doesn't apply to Hillary. Gender consciousness certainly does. All that being the case, I think the easy answer for why she wins the vote in question is one word: Clinton. (Also she's run a much better campaign. And I'll argue that with anyone who disputes it. Case in point: her profound and profoundly avoidable, bone-headed failure with healthcare reform, through word association, becomes her consistent double-digit lead with voters who most want healthcare reform. Brilliant!)
Actually, Marc the elephant in the room about bittergate is not that Obama is particularly elite, but that this line of argument plays into visceral feelings people have about "uppity negros." Bingo. It's patently absurd to declare the guy who: AS THE ELITIST? WTF! It's code for Uppity N#*#er. Period.
Betty in Baltimore says: "People who aren't like them" doesn't exclusively mean blacks, especially in light of the policy argument Obama makes WITHIN THE CONTEXT of his comments... (oh that darn context)... but it definitely applies to immigrants and gays. Considering that another part of his comments smears those who oppose illegal/massive/involuntary mass immigration and considering that there probably aren't too many blacks moving to urban PA, the "people who aren't like them" was probably, in Obama's mind, meant at least partly as a reference to those who oppose the previously mentioned types of immigration. For a discussion of the parts of Obama's speech that Marc Ambinder doesn't understand or won't discuss, see this.
In case anyone thinks Hillary Clinton is electable because she's white; think again. In case anyone thinks Barack Obama is electable because he's black; think again. Ultimately, whether intentional or not, that's the crux of the argument. Hillary and Barack are both public figures running for high office. As such, we can and should know a great deal about them. However, the free press is under no obligation whatsoever to publish, and the press may in fact choose to publish whatever and whenever it pleases. For example, FOX TV NEWS knows this story, and has known about the accompanying link for several years, but only readers of this and other fair-minded sites may ever know it. In a current political ad, 3-year-old Hillary Rodham, arms extended, toddles toward the home-movie camera. Hillary's present-day voice-over explains, the Rodham family cottage, down by the lake, lacked indoor plumbing. Yet, more telling details seem to fall by the wayside. Take twenty-seven year old Hillary's first real job. The upshot: Jerry Zeifman fired Hillary for unethical practices during the Watergate Investigation. Why was Hillary fired? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in a recent interview. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” “I have gone hunting. I am not a hunter. But I have gone hunting," says Hillary. Perhaps as amusing, is how an elitist politician worth over $100 million-dollars, espouses small town family values. Not only does Mr. Zeifman’s account go to character, it goes to a lifelong pattern of lying and obfuscation. It took Zeifman twelve years to get his story aired. After Watergate, Zeifman could not recommend Hillary for any subsequent position of public or private trust, nor furnish her with a letter of recommendation. After that, Hillary's employment record is one of strict nepotism, cronyism, and amnesia. According to Mr. Zeifman, it’s not just Hillary’s dishonesty; that’s not in dispute. More to the point, Hillary’s history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes. "The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party." -Henry Ruth, lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor. Although few knew the lengths to which Hillary would go – a leopard never changes her spots. Hillary Clinton is a bold-faced liar, who will stop at nothing. Should anyone doubt either Mr. Zeifman, or Mr. Ruth’s veracity regarding the Clintons, dispute this: http://theseedsof9-11.com Ps. Knowledge is power; it doesn't discriminate.
polling data on racism is both scant and inaccurate. Has any of these pundits actually canvassed for Obama in 'small town' PA (or suburbs of Philly?). Racism is the elephant in the room - Obama won't say that there are definitely signficant portions of the electorate that won't consider him because of his race - but it is very clear to anyone canvassing for him on the ground that this is the case. And everyone knows it. Except the punditocracy that views the scene for 35,000 ft.
The statements posted by "Peggy McGilligan" are highly inaccurate and even libelous. For the most accurate and in-depth discussion of Senator Clinton's work and life, those of us inside the beltway refer casual readers to Carl Bernstein's extremely balanced book, A Woman in Charge. Mr. Bernstein, whose reputation for investigative reporting is well-established, would laugh at Ms. McGilligan's recitation of the same old tired tripe -- as would any of us who actually know the players involved.
Of course racial prejudice has played a role in the primary, specifically with white voters of a particular generation. It's certainly not the only factor that has prevented Obama from reaching certain groups based on age or economic bracket, but the exit polls clearly show it to be a factor. Of course, Bill Clinton certainly doesn't want to accept the clear fact that his wife has earned votes based largely on racial antipathy, no, Hillary Clinton has been winning the old white vote because they have the wisdom to 'see through' Obama. One imagines Bill Clinton making an analogy between the race and the choice between a flashy pair of sneakers (let's just say, for no real reason, that they're basketball shoes, Jordans) that you never feel altogether comfortable wearing and the security and serenity provided by a nice old pair of shoes.
for which the data_are_equivocal the data on racial prejudice in this context_are_scant what data_do_exist_are_subject Otherwise, an excellent piece, as usual
It's not "bitter" that matters and it's not "bitter" that anyone is disputing. It's the word "cling". It's claiming that the values of this fairly significant population (the crossover swing population Obama needs in the general) are not sincere, but rather a product of years of bitterness. I am not so sure that telling the people of rural PA that their religious values (along with their belief in the Second Amendment) are constructed because of their unfortunate social position is going to go away unless addressed more directly. Not asserting that Obama was right about the "bitterness" or that this is what Thomas Frank said, he need to figure out a way to defend these remarks without dodging them as he has been doing up until now. It's not race, it's not true, it's a real problem for the general. More thoughts: http://airingofthegrievances.blogspot.com/2008/04/tactical-mistake-why-obama-should-face.html
Here we are again with the media and good old Hilary trying to drag Obama down with a play on words. "BITTER" Well, you know for once we have a candidate who has the interest of the people at heart and says what is right and what needs to be said. Only most of us are not bitter about the economy and the lack of leadership by the people we elect based on false promises, we're "pissed off" For years I have said that an honest man who tells it like it is will have ptroblems getting elected. Politicians over the years have said something today, made somebody mad tonight and tomorrow they're back-pedaling to be the dickens to get there vote. Now we've got one that says what he means and stands by it. Obama has a very good handle on the problems we face with the economy, jobs, taxes and other necessities of life, and this must be true since both Hilary and McCain have picked up on some of his points and are trying to use them Hilary evidently needs a hearing aid because from what most people see on the news, Obama never once looked down on the public with his bitter comment. People are angry with politicians getting elected and then doing nothing for them. Look at this waste of human air space we have in office now, he's practically bankrupted both social security and medicare, given tax breaks to the large companies and the wealthy, done absolutely nothing for the economy until it's too late, screwed up the environment, and lied to us about the need to go into Iraq and gotten us into a war we can't win or get out of with respect. We have no reason to be there other than he wanted the man who tried to hurt his daddy. Experience-Where did Hilary get this experience she claims to have ready from day one. She's never worked on the federal budget, sat in on cabinet meetings, negotiated treaties or trade deals or been an official representative of the U.S. government (from the White House. Hell, she couldn't get universal healthcare before, let alone recognize a gun shot while standing on an aiport tarmac shaking hands. No one has the experience to be the President from day one. That is something you gain from sitting at the desk and work for the betterment of our country and the world. This is something Obama would be better at than her. Can she say she has ever answered the phone at 3:00 A.M. at the White House and dealt with an iternational problem. If she says she has that would be another lie. Maybe that is her experience for being the President - lying to the public to get there.
Here we are again with the media and good old Hilary trying to drag Obama down with a play on words. "BITTER" Well, you know for once we have a candidate who has the interest of the people at heart and says what is right and what needs to be said. Only most of us are not bitter about the economy and the lack of leadership by the people we elect based on false promises, we're "pissed off" For years I have said that an honest man who tells it like it is will have ptroblems getting elected. Politicians over the years have said something today, made somebody mad tonight and tomorrow they're back-pedaling to be the dickens to get there vote. Now we've got one that says what he means and stands by it. Obama has a very good handle on the problems we face with the economy, jobs, taxes and other necessities of life, and this must be true since both Hilary and McCain have picked up on some of his points and are trying to use them Hilary evidently needs a hearing aid because from what most people see on the news, Obama never once looked down on the public with his bitter comment. People are angry with politicians getting elected and then doing nothing for them. Look at this waste of human air space we have in office now, he's practically bankrupted both social security and medicare, given tax breaks to the large companies and the wealthy, done absolutely nothing for the economy until it's too late, screwed up the environment, and lied to us about the need to go into Iraq and gotten us into a war we can't win or get out of with respect. We have no reason to be there other than he wanted the man who tried to hurt his daddy. Experience-Where did Hilary get this experience she claims to have ready from day one. She's never worked on the federal budget, sat in on cabinet meetings, negotiated treaties or trade deals or been an official representative of the U.S. government (from the White House. Hell, she couldn't get universal healthcare before, let alone recognize a gun shot while standing on an aiport tarmac shaking hands. No one has the experience to be the President from day one. That is something you gain from sitting at the desk and work for the betterment of our country and the world. This is something Obama would be better at than her. Can she say she has ever answered the phone at 3:00 A.M. at the White House and dealt with an iternational problem. If she says she has that would be another lie. Maybe that is her experience for being the President - lying to the public to get there.
Here we are again with the media and good old Hilary trying to drag Obama down with a play on words. "BITTER" Well, you know for once we have a candidate who has the interest of the people at heart and says what is right and what needs to be said. Only most of us are not bitter about the economy and the lack of leadership by the people we elect based on false promises, we're "pissed off" For years I have said that an honest man who tells it like it is will have ptroblems getting elected. Politicians over the years have said something today, made somebody mad tonight and tomorrow they're back-pedaling to be the dickens to get there vote. Now we've got one that says what he means and stands by it. Obama has a very good handle on the problems we face with the economy, jobs, taxes and other necessities of life, and this must be true since both Hilary and McCain have picked up on some of his points and are trying to use them Hilary evidently needs a hearing aid because from what most people see on the news, Obama never once looked down on the public with his bitter comment. People are angry with politicians getting elected and then doing nothing for them. Look at this waste of human air space we have in office now, he's practically bankrupted both social security and medicare, given tax breaks to the large companies and the wealthy, done absolutely nothing for the economy until it's too late, screwed up the environment, and lied to us about the need to go into Iraq and gotten us into a war we can't win or get out of with respect. We have no reason to be there other than he wanted the man who tried to hurt his daddy. Experience-Where did Hilary get this experience she claims to have ready from day one. She's never worked on the federal budget, sat in on cabinet meetings, negotiated treaties or trade deals or been an official representative of the U.S. government (from the White House. Hell, she couldn't get universal healthcare before, let alone recognize a gun shot while standing on an aiport tarmac shaking hands. No one has the experience to be the President from day one. That is something you gain from sitting at the desk and work for the betterment of our country and the world. This is something Obama would be better at than her. Can she say she has ever answered the phone at 3:00 A.M. at the White House and dealt with an iternational problem. If she says she has that would be another lie. Maybe that is her experience for being the President - lying to the public to get there.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
Yes, Clinton's a female too. She has that going for her, I guess. Though if I were female I'd probably feel a bit ashamed.
Posted by LnGrrrR | April 15, 2008 6:42 PM