Illogic And Rhetoric

You're right, the argument is not self-evident. That said, it is logical and not elitist (especially in the way Obama formulated it yesterday in Indiana).

I'm not sure he'll be able to do it, but if Obama is eventually able to make Thomas Frank's argument more widespread, accepted and/or in any way "self evident" among working class voters, then he truly will be the "Reagan of the left" everyone has been blathering on about the past year or so.

We'll see.

Posted by Dave | April 12, 2008 8:27 PM

I am bitter at the media for pushing this bogus story. Obama was simply expression compassion for these people, and showing that he cares.

In fact, given the reaction, I would say Obama comes out as the one who cares, and Hillary and McCain come across as the ones who do not care about people who are hurting.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 8:31 PM

what is truly interesting that no news organization has picked up on yet, and probably won't, is that Obama was answering a question about why rural voters might not take to his message. He didn't play the race card. He didn't say they may not like me because I'm black. Rather he shifted it to their experience of politicians in the past.

This really just an extension of the "white resentment" part of his "race speech."

Does Hillary really want Obama making a speech about rural white resentment?

Posted by marcus | April 12, 2008 8:40 PM

I have a thought, was the Clinton camp not just complaining on Friday about being "Gored". Isn't this the quintessential "Goring" of a candidate?

Just wanted to put that out there.

Posted by Steve | April 12, 2008 8:46 PM

Here is what awaits the Democratic party if they would nominate Hillary:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8464923602139974671

Make no mistake: these same conservative commentators, the same rural white voters, would have a field day taking apart Hillary Clinton. She would be their easiest target to take down.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 8:48 PM

"Media-driven maelstroms like Bittergate"

Marc, at least as far as the stuff I look at goes, *you* have done more than anybody to drive this ersatz little "maelstrom"... and it's making me lose some respect for you.

It's obvious why most of the sorry excuses who call themselves "journalists" pick this stuff up. Is that really who you want to be like?

Posted by gruseom | April 12, 2008 8:50 PM

No Gruseom.
Marc has done more than anybody to put this ridiculousness in perspective and has been a breath of fresh air. And God knows I have been hard on him in other occasions but on this, he has been very very very fair

Posted by Benjamin | April 12, 2008 8:55 PM

I may have missed something, but since when did showing people compassion and observing they are bitter and hurting, somehow become looking down on them?

If that's true, then all measures of compassion have this flaw. If that's true, then my church looks down on everyone in it, for it assumes that we all have hurts in our lives.

If that's true, then we can just continue with the Bush policies of helping no one...oh, now I get it. That's just what McCain and Hillary want...no help for the little guy, only for the very wealthy...the "elite" if you will.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 8:56 PM

#6 is pretty sad, even for Ambinder. Relying on Ryan Lizza?

Of course, what the quote and the linked article fail to note is that some meatpacking plants have been known to hire IllegalAliens, send recruiters south of the border, and similar. And, what it fails to note is that somewhere along the way several politicians have turned a blind eye, usually because they're basically getting a share of the profits, even if it's all legal. And, some politicians - even those mentioned at this site - have been known to collaborate with a foreign government to help crooked companies get a workforce (youtube.com/watch?v=1KxDhesWutc).

And, of course, Ambinder had his chance to point out that one of McCain's staffers is a former cabinet-level official with the Mexican government. Instead, he completely dropped the ball on that one. Some people might be a bit concerned about that.

And, of course, the widespread construction of what amounts to an alternate culture inside the U.S. - not simply an ethnic enclave but nearly a parallel system - might prove disconcerting to some, but only those who aren't corrupted in some way.

Posted by TLB | April 12, 2008 8:58 PM

Let's be as relentless in our criticism of the media. Remember, it was the media that allowed Bush to get away with starting the Iraq war. They salivated at the thought of covering a war realtime.

So now why should we give the media a break? They've failed us in the past, and there's no indication they have changed in the present.

This is like a twilight zone episode: people are dying, and the media is obsessed with taking a very honest comment out of context.

And the Clintons are the ones fueling this; they are probably relentlessly working the phones to pressure the media to trump up this story.

At this point Hillary Clinton is easily the most hated person in the Democratic party. Needless to say, she holds that distinction by a mile in the Republican party.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 9:05 PM

Benjamin:

With all due respect, this has been 9 out of Marc's last 11 posts. That's not "putting ridiculousness in perspective", that *is* ridiculousness. And hearing the moronic term "Bittergate" from someone who I otherwise respect just makes me cringe. For how long can you fill your own writing with this sort of asinine material before turning into an ass yourself?

Marc do you really think this deserves all the coverage you're giving it? Because if you do, then I need to read somebody else.

Posted by gruseom | April 12, 2008 9:14 PM

Obama made these remarks at a San Francisco Oil Billionaire's Mansion during a private Fund raiser in Pacific Heights CA, why did he wait until he was among The Rich Billionaire's to say this? Why not say it when he was here in PA, amongst us Small Town Midwesterners? Why?...because he never intended for the people of Pennsylvania to hear it, He never thought these remarks would get out to the masses and they wouldn't have, had it not been for someone who was there with a pocket recorder.

I don't know of anyone who's been out of work for the past 25 years and if we were, we wouldn't just sit around being bitter and as I recall, our economy and availability of jobs,was pretty darn good when Bill Clinton was President. Of course people get "frustrated" when there's a lack of work/jobs, but to say we cling to our guns and religion because of it, shows he has no clue. Economics,plays no part in it. We have our guns because we are law abiding citizens, because it's our Constitutional Rights and most of the people I know who own guns hunt and have done so throughout generations. We cling to our religion out of FAITH in good and bad times, not because we are bitter and radical, which is more than I can say for the Church OBAMA chose to go to. He stated we turn against those who are not like us, that we're anti-immigrant. Again, see Obama's church. We are not anti-immigrant,America is a country made up of immigrants, here we practice "Love Thy Neighbor". There are those that oppose illegal immigration and if Obama claimed to know as much as he does and in touch, he'd know this is not just feelings that come from jobless, small town Midwesterners, this is a sentiment that's voiced across America, by people from all economic backgrounds. Obama is clearly out of touch not just with those of us here in the Midwest, but apparently all of America.

Posted by kevin | April 12, 2008 9:15 PM

Obama's remarks are not self-evident or self-justifying. But they also cannot be self-evidently construed in the way Clinton/McCain are construing them. The derelection of the media has not been that it's reported the story, but that it has reported the story in a way that does not call attention to the way the gotcha game works to prevent us from having a real conversation about what is going on in working class and/or rural America. Many might well end up disagreeing with Obama were such a conversation to be had. But a conversation would be a mile better than all the posturing and denouncing that's going on right now.

To me what will be interesting to see is whether the Gotcha game prevails or whether there will be a serious backlash against the players (both the McCain/Clinton campaign and the media). The outrage is so obvously faux that it risks being a far more grievous insult to the Americans in question than anything Obama is understood to have said or implied.

Posted by Maggie | April 12, 2008 9:22 PM

Want good healthcare? Well, then you either vote for Obama, or you move to a country that doesn't focus on BS like this.

I don't know a single person who worries about what Obama said; they worry about gas prices, their mortgages, their jobs, the people they know fighting in Iraq, etc.

It's time we held the media accountable. Where were they when Bush was marching to war? Oh yeah, aiding and abetting him. Where were they when Bush was trashing the Geneva Convention or our civil rights or when he was torturing people? Oh yeah, aiding and abetting him.

As for Hillary and McCain, just ask them about why they voted for war in Iraq and hold them accountable. They have blood on their hands.

I'll take Obama's comments any day over the failed vote for war in Iraq and the bloodshed.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 9:32 PM

While I don't fully agree with your points, I would like to say just one thing. If any candidate has a genuine disagreement with anything another candidate promotes or proposes, I fully respect his/her right to disagree.

What I don't respect, is sloppy reasoning and manufactured outrage - both of which are evident in this case. You cannot convince me that either of Sen. Obama's opponents actually believe that he is elitist. The faux dissent is purely for the purposes of attempting to gain a moments political advantage. That not only deserves disrespect, it deserves condemnation. Especially when our nation and our world teeter in the balance.

Posted by plainbrown1 | April 12, 2008 9:41 PM

The rest of the world is laughing at us.

What a fucking pathetic way to elect our leaders in this country. Concentrate on the stupidest shit imaginable and replay it over and over.

Forget about the damn Iraq War and the 4000 dead Americans and countless thousands of dead Iraqis. All that matters is how they ask a few questions at a hearing.

That goes for both Obama & Clinton. I'm sick of Bittergate, Bosniagate, Wrightgate, Penngate, & plagairismgate.

Rant over. Time for bed.

Marc, can we please have a new topic tomorrow! And what happened to that topic last night that lasted about a minute and you took it down?

Posted by swarty | April 12, 2008 9:55 PM

What is illogical, is why this story is even a story. It's because Hillary, the Republicans and the media (you too Marc) act like a bunch of vultures at the very sight of potential political roadkill. Let it go already!

Posted by Enough Already | April 12, 2008 9:56 PM

CM wrote: Want good healthcare? Well, then you either vote for Obama, or you move to a country that doesn't focus on BS like this.

----------------------------------------------------
Then I take it you haven't actually compared the healthplans.

Obama's plan is very similar to Hillary's, they both have issues that need to worked out though. However,in just comparing both as to which is better,Hillary's comes out ahead, a couple reasons being that it covers more people. So in that aspect it is more universal than Obama's "Universal Plan" his plan leaves approximately 15 million people out who will not have their healthcare needs met and the savings per person for Obama's plan comes out less than Hillary's, so that's another advantage, one of the main advantages to her plan in comparison to his.

As for your comments on war, Obama isn't anti-war as we have seen evidenced in his recent warning he issued to Pakistan. He doesn't want to end this war, he just wants to relocate it.

Posted by Kevin | April 12, 2008 10:13 PM

#6 is pretty sad, even for Ambinder. Relying on Ryan Lizza?

Spencer Ackerman has a nice takedown of Lizza on his blog toohotfortnr. It is a must read.

TNR sounds a lot like my high school.

As for "bittergate", the only thing I can say is that I hate the Clintons more and more with each passing day. I was always irked by their lack of principles when in office, but it wasn't their fault, it was the evil Republicans. Now I realize that they actually played a significant part in creating the evil Republicans. Both before the '94 election by being unprincipled (the Republicans told America they were principled and at least for 2 years delivered on that with the Contract With America). But also through their profound lack of support for fellow Democrats when they controlled the party apparatus. The resources of the entire party were marshalled for their service, the rest of the Democrats and the progressive agenda be damned. Following a full court conservative agenda and getting re-elected and continuing to follow a conservative agenda was far more important (the re-election part most of all) than supporting said progressive agenda.

Looking at what Bush has been able to do with friendly AND hostile Congresses, I'd have to say that the Clinton's grossly underperformed and did so for the purposes of their own political ambition and nothing else.

They are just ridiculous enough to believe that somehow their political ambitions and the country's interests are one in the same.

I think for the sake of their legacy they should stop now. Because if they come back it will be a bigger disaster than Joe Gibbs coming back to coach the Redskins.

I yearn for their humiliation.

Posted by Steve | April 12, 2008 10:17 PM

I live in a small-town. I believe in God and I bear arms. I'm not unemployed. And I live in small-town in order to avoid guys like Obama. Who the heck he thinks he is? The nation's therapist? Go drink your latte, you freaking marxist...

Posted by Peter | April 12, 2008 10:17 PM

I may have missed something, but since when did showing people compassion and observing they are bitter and hurting, somehow become looking down on them?

Please - the "looking down" bit is his explanation that folks have, in their bitterness, grabbed ahold of their guns, their church, or their racism.

Some folks think some of those activities have value independent of one's economic status or current "bitterness".

Let's see - if I noted that Obama supporters here are unhappy today, acknowledged their pain and speculated that it was because they were well-educated yuppies utterly out of touch with working class America, would you (a) applaud my compassion, or (b) denounce me as condescending and ignorant? Tough call!

FWIW, point 6, the analogy of McCain's comments on immigration to Obama's gaffe, is absurd. McCain's comment is descriptive and does not editorialize on whether senior citizens troubled by a clash of cultures are bitter, turning to religion, or anything else. Anyway, in the context of the rest of the New Yorker piece, McCain comes off (unsurprisingly) as quite pro-immigrant.

I'm not sure what in Obama's life really proves he is not an exotic elitist. Not his bowling...

Posted by Tom Maguire | April 12, 2008 10:52 PM

Yeah Peter, because you were going to vote for him BEFORE THIS....

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 10:55 PM

What is an 'exotic' elitist? Is it any different from a 'generic' elitist?

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 10:58 PM

Is any statement self-evident and self-justifying? Just wondering.

Posted by alex | April 12, 2008 11:16 PM

Yeah Peter, because you were going to vote for him BEFORE THIS....
Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 10:55 PM

What could have possibly tipped his hand? Was it the latte reference or the communism bit? ;)

Posted by Steve | April 12, 2008 11:36 PM

All of this smells like so much desperation on the part of the powers-that-be or the powers-who-want-to-be in either party who see this man funding his insurgent campaign in a way that potentially leaves them no seat at a future table and worse demonstrating that others can do this too; creating in front of our eyes a new way of running for national office that can be taken as a huge threat to "the way things are" in DC and, in general, running outside the system while appearing to manipulate it to his own ends. It's an insurgency of the worst sort to their minds because it upsets too many apple carts with wildly unpredictable results. How dare he run a presidential campaign that had no chance of success because everyone had more or less agreed that HRC was "inevitable."

It doesn't surprise me anymore to see a substantial chunk of the DC crowd line up in concert to take shots at him and, in the light of the above overly long paragraph, it doesn't surprise me even a little that the HRC campaign sounds exactly like the Republicans. "Hey, he's a potential threat to MY piece of the pie."

For all that she's a woman, she's a relatively "safe" woman in establishment terms, with a pedigree in Washington through her years as First Lady and cemented in the Senate where she became known as a "good" Senator precisely because she fit herself into the way-things-are there. Whatever changes she makes (if she wins) will be largely within the current power structure and things will continue on with change that's agreed on in advance as not too fast, not too far. So, the DC power structure comes together to smack down someone who is redefining and transforming their game in his own way and who may possibly a transformative politician, changing the rules of the game entirely and quite likely leaving them out in the cold. And if they have to parse words and phrases in exactly the same way regardless of party affiliation, so be it.

I don't think that's overly paranoid...and it explains a lot we've seen the last months.

Posted by MonicaWolf | April 12, 2008 11:46 PM

All of this smells like so much desperation on the part of the powers-that-be or the powers-who-want-to-be in either party...
Posted by MonicaWolf | April 12, 2008 11:46 PM

Oh, you are definitely correct there. You want to see more desperation? You should check out this interview with Haim Saban on CNBC.

Remember, this is the same Billionaire who co-signed this letter attacking Nancy Pelosi and threatening to undermine efforts to get Democrats elected contribute to the DCCC's efforts to get Democrats elected unless she supported a superdelegate coup.

Well he obviously thinks he is more important than 1.5 million contributors to the Obama campaign, because this is what he had to say:

If he [Obama] does get the nomination, we're going to have to have a meeting. If his answers compel us, we will be there. It's going to be a difficult task even for a great orator to explain certain things.

Let me just say, wow. He is aware that America is a democracy right? I'll just let his comments stand without further comment.

Posted by Steve | April 13, 2008 1:18 AM

Obama's mother was on food stamps for a while, as she raised her kids and went to grad school. As far as I know, that's the very definition of poor in America.

Posted by KathyF | April 13, 2008 1:53 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uwaJgBSHYJA

Hillary's Lies

Posted by Dazed | April 13, 2008 4:55 AM

It is true that Obama did not characterize all "Pennsylvanians as bitter gun-toting, racist, religious fanatics", but only those living in small towns who lost their jobs.

Posted by Nester | April 13, 2008 7:25 AM

Obama's mother worked as an interpreter in Indonesia. As any one who lived in a third world country knows, an American who works for US Govt, in these parts of the world, is part of the privileged class.

Posted by Nester | April 13, 2008 7:28 AM

I live in Central Pennsylvania. I am not offended at all. I am bitter. Bitter at $4 gas, bitter at Iraq, bitter at the economy, bitter at wealthy tax cuts, bitter at no child left behind's failures. I don't expect Se. Clinton to be bitter, after all, she made $109 million during the Bush presidency. She is probably sad to see the 'good times' end. Why should she be bitter. The Bush years have been good to her. I don't expect her to understand the bitterness in Central PA.

Posted by Mbuterba | April 13, 2008 7:32 AM

Slightly off topic.

Can we stop attaching -gate to any political scandal?

NAFTA-gate, Tuzla-gate, now Bitter-gate. It just sounds stupid.

Posted by John B. | April 13, 2008 10:36 AM

#4: Uh. Political types have been talking about "wedge issue" voters and "single-issue voters" who vote against their economic interests for quite some time now so are you saying that it's not at all clear that they exist? Or are you saying there's no evidence that they're bitter about losing their jobs?

Posted by Jay | April 13, 2008 10:47 AM

Marc, just a note: your pro-Obama anti-McCain/anti-Hillary bias is becoming unbereable. You are sounding like the second coming of Andrew Sullivan.

Posted by Krist | April 13, 2008 10:54 AM

"Yeah Peter, because you were going to vote for him BEFORE THIS...."

Uh? I never said I would. So what? Let me guess: I'm probably a racist, right?

Steve, I'll explain the marxist reference. Obama's remarks display a marxist worldview: one in wich religion, as well as customs, culture, ideas, ways of thinking, morality, etc., are merely emanations of a frustrated proletariat is classic Marx. It's a problem of alienation, as Marx would put it: the base (economics - lack of jobs) leads to the superestructure (xenophobe feelings, belief in God).

Nope, I'm not a marxist.

Posted by Peter | April 13, 2008 11:05 AM

Obama isn't poor and living in the slums, so what if the Clinton's made money, I don't hold it against people who work and make money. The difference between the two Candidates are very slim, this is been said by many people who have taken the time to research both Candidates, based on the issues. That being said I would choose Hillary, the news has had no problems vetting her. While they barely touch on any issues regarding Obama and the things that we are finally hearing reported are very concerning and it seems more come with each day,like some of the people he's continuously chosen to surround himself with. As for war, He's already issued a warning to Pakistan among other things, he doesn't want to end the war he just wants to move it. He's great at speaking, not so great though when it's not written down before hand or not being said to the masses apparently. Who doesn't love hearing the words "hope" and "change" but based on the research I have done on both candidates regarding their policies, where they stand on issues, I don't see where he can bring any more change than Hillary can.

Posted by Janet | April 13, 2008 11:06 AM

What is an 'exotic' elitist? Is it any different from a 'generic' elitist?

It's an elitist with dark skin. For Tom Maguire, that's ten times worse than a white elitist. See also, "Uppity".

Posted by Josh E. | April 13, 2008 11:22 AM

What Obama was saying/implying to the Rich at the Oil Billionaire's mansion during a private fund raiser was that those of us in small midwest towns aren't intelligent enough to know what's going on around us so when things are bad we don't know how to vote based on informed decisions. Instead we're simple minded and cling to guns and religion. We don't cling to our religion based on what the Government does or doesn't do for us, we cling to our religion because we have Faith. We cling to our guns not because we are bitter or a lack jobs, but because we believe in our Constitutional Rights, many of the families here come from generations of hunters, our economic situation has nothing to do with it. I also like how Obama left out the key word "illegal" when he said we were anti-immigrant. Which, again..is something that not only applies to people in small towns across the Midwest, people across America from, rich or poor, whether they have jobs or not, have voiced their opposition towards ILLEGAL immigration. Which shows that he seems to be out of touch with millions of Americans. But, we are not as ignorant as we have been made out to appear, we know exactly the point he was trying to make.

Posted by Jesse W. | April 13, 2008 11:27 AM

Regarding point 4, Obama has rephrased his point correctly, and clearly. Yet, he could say that 5000 times and it won't stop the CNN-created media tempest in a teapot from repeating the initial botched remark, or his opponents from using it against him.

You don't have to be a Marxist to appreciate his point. His point, and Frank's thesis, is based on simple observation of the electorate. Republicans for the past 40 years have used social wedge issues to attract "working class" voters. And many of those voters continue to vote against their economic interest on that basis. Even when jobs disappear and their wages stagnate.

Posted by paleo | April 13, 2008 12:07 PM

"You don't have to be a Marxist to appreciate his point"

Yes, you do.

"And many of those voters continue to vote against their economic interest on that basis."

Marx vintage. Have you ever read Marx?

And it wouldn't be rational to voters to vote only acordingly to their supposed "economic interest" - people don't behave as economic driven robots, as Marx and you think.

But even if they did, their best interest would be to vote for less taxes, less regulatory laws, more free-trade: things that create prosperity; not socialist proposals, who lead to bigger poverty (see Cuba, Soviet Union, etc.).

Posted by Joan | April 13, 2008 12:13 PM

Joan, you are so ignorant, it's pathetic.

These conclusions pre-date Marx, and have their roots in the Jacksonian era. The economic populists of the late 19th century, including William Jennings Bryan, had no idea who Marx, but knew injustice and a stacked deck when they saw it. So did progressives in the 20th Century, including FDR. But I'm sure, in your right-wing fever pit, you consider them to be socialists, and the modern United States they created the equivalent of Cuba and the USSR.

Posted by Paleo | April 13, 2008 12:20 PM

"These conclusions pre-date Marx, and have their roots in the Jacksonian era."

You are wrong here, paleo. Joan is right: the dialectic of alienation is quintessencial marxism.

Populists never argued in the same terms - for instance, Jacksonians would never say that people's cultural ideas are driven by their economic situation. It's probably the biggest philosophical difference between Marxism and Progressism.

But I'm fine with this: I disagree with Marx in some issues, but not in his view of dialectics and superestructure/base relationship and I'm happy with Obama endorsing it.

Posted by Patriots19-0 | April 13, 2008 12:37 PM

Obama's mother was on food stamps for a while, as she raised her kids and went to grad school. As far as I know, that's the very definition of poor in America.
Posted by KathyF

Obama's mother lived with her parents, who were pretty well off, when African Biodaddy ditched her. Then Obama lived in a mansion with his moms second husband, who was an oil executive and member of Indonesia's Ruling Elite. Then she ditched Obama in care of his grandparents, so she could live an unemcumbered life in Indonesia.

By that point, his grandmother had become a rising executive in Hawaii's largest indigenous bank. This allowed young Barry to live quite well and attend Hawaii's poshest, most elite private school, The Punhuo. No food stamps for Barry O. Later, his grandparents helped fund his elite private university education.

His mother entered the picture when she came back to get a PhD. She decided that welfare and fod stamps would be nice, so she falsely said she was unemployed on her welfare and food stamp applications instead of being an advanced degree student, and that she had a dependent son to care for. Omitting BO lived in one of the posher neighborhoods with his grandparents and dined quite well inside and outside his prep school.

In short, Obama's story of his poor mother on food stamps is a story of basic welfare fraud - which doesn't even get into who paid for her degree, or the later story of how Momma leech returned again and hid her Indonesian assets and declared herself indigent to get "free" medical care, when she was ill with cancer.

In THAT Obama story, Momma's fretting that she might have medical bills she couldn't afford actually followed the State of Hawaii's discovery that Momma was not indigent - but had undeclared bank accounts and Indonesian property assets they wanted put towards helping taxpayers pay her medical bills.

The bottom line, applied to Obama and the matter of elitism, is that Obama himself has lived a fairly elite life. Surrounded by elites, nurtured by billionaire Chicago elites like the Crown, Pritzker, and Salzman Families for 20 years, and as a prominent favored politician that the abovesaid families, who also run the Chicago Board of Trustees along with prominent black executives - ensured he and his wife got extremely cushy part-time jobs as U of Chicago staff.
Obama's elitism has been nourished all his life by benefactors convinced of his affirmative action "specialness". Same with his wife, who had her "up into the elites" ass schmootched since grade school.

Contrast that with others.

McCain had a mother with some wealth as a property heiress, but he spent 27 years in a Navy meritocracy where he lived in modest housing on land, a carrier living quarters smaller than Michelle Obama's walk-in shoe closet he shared with another pilot, and POW quarters smaller and ruder than that. Only late into adulthood did John McCain begin to have the affluence and company of the society of wealthy elites that the Obamas have had since college.
The Clintons grew up outside the elites, and both slowly were assimilated into elites, but were not affluent until after they left the White House. Even so, Bill's "rough edges" from a trailer park past as well as his hanging comfortably with regular folks are well known, and Hillary has been described as quintessial middle-class girl becomes enamoured with liberal elitism in college but retains many midwestern ideas despite it, and her preference for more "refined" people than Bill. However, she never drips resentment towards America.

Even Mitt Romney, called the true elitist by the media while the Obamas were "pure hope", got a bum rap. His Dad George was a refugee from the Mexican Civil War who started penniless and selling shoes, who never graduated college. Who rose on pure talent. Who raised his kids frugally, but well. Mitt Romney retained his parents middle class tastes and belief in hard work. He never inherited a dime from his parents, asking it go to charity instead. He went into another industry than his Dad had influence in, to see if he could succeed on his own merit without his Dad or other rich benefactors keeping him in nice jobs. He did. Romney also has a circle of Mormon friends of more modest means he has known all his life..

Obama (and his wife) are more like Dubya and John Forbes Kerry, or later in life Hillary - in his natural embrace of and by elitists. Even as a "community organizer" Obama's life was listening to the "common black man" by daylight, then off to a black-tie dinner with the Pritzkers and their select coterie of billionaires and favored "black voices". Unlike McCain, Romney, and Bill Clinton - who seek and retain personal connections with "everyday" folks.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 13, 2008 12:47 PM

Isn't it amazing and great that Obama actually has us confront the big problems?

With Hillary and McCain, you just get more of the same we've had under Bush: divide, polarize, ignore the big problems, get us into more wars, and all the while focus on the trivial to keep people's attention diverted from the real problems.

Posted by cm | April 13, 2008 12:57 PM

"With Hillary and McCain, you just get more of the same we've had under Bush: divide, polarize, "

I don't believe there's anything more divisive and polarizing than Obama and his "small town people are small-minded" speeches. Let alone the biggoted and racist worldview of his church.

Posted by kj | April 13, 2008 1:15 PM

"Isn't it amazing and great that Obama actually has us confront the big problems?"

Yeah, he's some sort of psicoanalyst. Thing is I don't want a social-therapist or motivational preacher as President. I don't need to have my soul fixed, as Obama seems to believe.

Do I believe in God because I'm unemployed and live in a small midwsetern town? Nope. And no economic condition will change that.

Do I own guns because I'm unemployed and live in a small midwsetern town? I've never touched a gun in my all life and I know lots of gun-owners who are employed and affluent.

Am I anti-immigrant because I'm unemployed and live in a small midwsetern town? Nope. I'm not a xenophobe and no economic condition will change that. I'd like our government to adress the ilegal immigration problem, but I actually think we should increase the flow of legal immigrants.

Do I like the fact that Obama believes our communities are so narrow-minded that people use religion and guns as scapegoats to their economic stresses? I say... screw this guy. He doesn't have an idea what's he's talking about.

Posted by AlanaFromGary,IN | April 13, 2008 1:24 PM

Here's what's really sad: McCain several times confuses Sunni and Shiite sects and Al Qaeda in Iraq and gets a virtual pass from the press. Nevermind that this mistake of concepts in McCain's mind could cost the US several thousands more lives and several hundreds of billions of dollars if McCain were ever elected president.

Hillary tells even more lies, which go to the heart of her argument for being qualified to be president. She and her husband have made over a hundred million dollars selling out to controversial foreign interests. Just today we learn that Bill got paid handsomely by a Chinese firm that has supported a crackdown in human rights and censorship in that country. So if Hillary were president these ethical conflicts of interest could cost the US dearly.

Obama makes a comment expression compassion for a group of people who are genuinely hurting, and the media obsesses over it.

That's why we have the huge problems we do now, because the media has allowed divisive people like Hillary and the GOP to focus our attention on the trivial.

Posted by cm | April 13, 2008 1:42 PM

Obama's mother worked as an interpreter in Indonesia. As any one who lived in a third world country knows, an American who works for US Govt, in these parts of the world, is part of the privileged class.
Posted by Nester | April 13, 2008 7:28 AM

Which explains why he went to free public school and not the private international school? I am sure that you did not know that interpreters at US embassies are always local hires that are paid based on the local wage structure.

As any one who lived in a third world country knows, an anyone paid in local salaries by the US Govt at a foreign mission, in these parts of the world, is not poor, but certainly not a part of any privileged class.

I've worked at foreign missions and I am really closely familiar with contracting and hiring of LES (locally employed staff) at US missions abroad. You should know a bit more about what you speak of before you speak. Nice try though.

Posted by Steve | April 13, 2008 2:02 PM

Even sadder is that we have a president who lied the country into war, condones torture, shreds the constitution, and takes a view of the executive totally out of touch with what the founders intended, and the media focuses on trivial BS and gaffes.

Posted by paleo | April 13, 2008 2:15 PM

Let's put this one in the category of "Worst Articulated Intelligent Thought Since John Kerry Last Opened His Piehole".

Yes, I get it. People vote on these social issues, because neither party is assisting with the economic crises that have afflicted them. Therefore, they end up voting against their economic interests, since the Republicans are at least offering them some red meat on guns, religion, gays, and immigrants. It's the Thomas Frank argument, and it's true.

That said, where to begin with your formulation here, Senator? Did you have to tie "guns" to "religion" to "anti-immigrant sentiment" to "anti-trade sentiment", all in one frigging sentence? Do all gun owners in Pennsylvania hate immigrants? Do all of these small-town folk "cling" to religion merely because of their economic problems? Are the steel workers' problems with trade policy just some emotional diversion?

These aren't the arguments Obama was making. But the extremely poor choice of words, now available in audio, certainly makes it easy for his rivals to hammer home that impression. It will come off to many as the height of condescension.

Here is this young, urbane, highly educated, wealthy black politician from Chicago\Hawaii\Kenya, explaining to even wealthier liberal donors in California the kooky ways of the 12-gauge loving, bible-thumping, 'spic-hating hicks from the sticks of Pennsylvania. Thank God this at least didn't take place in San Francisco. Oh shit, it did.

Oddly, the Clinton campaign didn't seize on these unfortunate particulars. Instead, they focused on his choice of the word "bitter". Obama swung at this lob, and, much like the way he did with the Philadelphia speech on race, chose to own the "scandal" on his own terms, rather than run from or apologize for it.

It's unusually good luck that the other campaigns are more interested in his labeling lower-income Pennsylvanians "bitter", than in the frame he provided for the social issues. I mean, come on, we're all bitter. We've had George W. Bush as president for 8 years—it's a no-brainer. I think this was a wisely deployed rebuttal.

But it wasn't necessary. He's just opening up yet another nationwide "conversation". This time, instead of it being about what black people really think, it will be about what religious, gun-owning, hard-pressed white people really think. And that's not a topic Barack should pretend he is an expert on, nor is it one he really needs to have going into the final stretch of the Pennsylvania campaign.

His remarks weren't condescending. Worse. They were Kerryesque.

It's exactly 10 days until the Pennsylvania primary. If Barack can continue closing in the polls, and win this one—even by 1 measly point—the nomination will be his. It's time to decide, Senator. Are you running to become Professor Obama, or President Obama?

Posted by Will | April 13, 2008 2:27 PM

"Assertions from pro-Obama types that Obama's argument is self-evident and self-justifying. It is not."

i like how this doesn't have any explanation other than "it is not." maybe because it is the truth that the last 30 years working class voters have been screwed by government so much that they come to government with huge amounts of skepticism.

therefore they vote against their economic ineterests. HOW ELSE DO YOU THINK BUSH WON IN 2004??

Posted by justin | April 13, 2008 2:33 PM

cm - Obama makes a comment expression compassion for a group of people who are genuinely hurting, and the media obsesses over it.

Oh, that is what it was? A statement of compassion delivered to laughing millionaire SF Democrats about lesser working class Democrats "clinging" to their racism, guns, anti-immigrant, and religious beliefs out of "bitterness"?
Funny, I took it as a statement not of compassion, but of sneering elitist condescension Obama thought he was safe making at a private function with his amused peers.

cm - That's why we have the huge problems we do now, because the media has allowed divisive people like Hillary and the GOP to focus our attention on the trivial.

No, you are using the classic "deflection" debate argument. Where someone says or does something flat out stupid or wrong, then seek to avoid accountability by saying that rather than apologist or admit error, the critics are the ones who are wrong because they are focused on the error, rather than "more important issues".

Example: 16-year old girl shows up at home at 2AM with alcohol on her breath, and confronts her pissed-off parents with the argument that they should ignore her behavior and instead focus on bigger issues - like the Iraq war or the plight of the homeless. It's a sophomoric tactic, that rarely works.

Steve - Which explains why he went to free public school and not the private international school?

While he lived there briefly, Obama attended public school with members of Indonesia's Ruling Elite, then shifted to private parochial school, then to Hawaii for posh prep schools. While he lived in Indonesia, his mother's status and income were not that important as he was the step-child of an oil company executive and member of the Ruling Elites, living in a toney neighborhood in a pretty swank villa.
After his mom dumped him in Hawaii so she could live a less encumbered life - he was raised by relatively well-off grandparents, one in an executive bank job, who kept him well-off and
in the most prestigious and expensive schools and helped out with his private college expenses later on.
His absent mother's interpreter pay is utterly irrelevant to Obama's elitist upbringing.

Steve - I am sure that you did not know that interpreters at US embassies are always local hires that are paid based on the local wage structure.

A false, inacurrate picture. Embassies overseas do hire American citizen expats as interpreters and in other staff functions, and in areas where natives should not be hired on the matter of US citizens serving with US interests presumably higher in their mind than the loocal country. And, Federal Law requires that US citizens be hired at non-local rates: at GS-rates as direct government employees and at prevailing wages stateside if contractors. Same rules apply to our military.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 13, 2008 2:45 PM

Fact: many people are bitter and frustrated out there, and if the Clinton's want to deny that, then they are out of touch.

Fact: The Clinton's and Bush's have allowed the little people to get worse off, while they themselves get richer and richer.

Fact: Hillary looks like a fool pandering on this issue. She seems to be running for the Republican nomination and sounds a lot like Rush Limbaugh.

Fact: the media always fights the last election; they always analyze based on the last election and then are surprised when they see the current one turn out differently.

Fact: the average person doesn't care about this remark, just like they don't care about the Michigan or Florida situation.

Posted by cm | April 13, 2008 2:56 PM

"3. Although John McCain is married to a wealthy beer company heiress, that does not or should not preclude his campaign from saying whatever it wants about Obama's remarks. Nothing John McCain has done has any bearing on whether Barack Obama's remarks are true or false or are offensive or not."

Of course not. But when the rich guy, McCain tries to paint the black guy with the single parent, community organizer background as an elitist, it not only rings hollow, it sounds like a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Or, should I say white? First he's a Muslim, then he's a left wing Christian. He's "ghettoized" as a radical African American then he's accused of being an establishment elitist against disenfranchised working class Americans. Ironic to say the least. Especially since, if time is taken to read the full transcript of Obama's comments, it's crystal clear Senator Obama is being an advocate for them. He does not want them to slip through the cracks and be forgotten as they have in the Clinton and Bush administrations.

If working class Americans vote on minutiae like this instead of the broader issues of economy, war, environment, etc. then they deserve to have another mediocre president who cares nothing about their plight.

Posted by Cineaste | April 13, 2008 3:09 PM

While everyone is so enamored of using analogies from past elections, let's consider this:

1) Even Gore and Kerry would win in this environment.

2) The analogy more apt for this time around is either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan.

In Clinton's case, people thought that his womanizing and being a draft dodger would sink him. But the people were too sick and tired of the economy to fall for that, and voted for him instead. The big issues won out over the small.

In Reagan's case, people tried to portray him as far right, and many thought he would be another Barry Goldwater. But he won in a landslide. His personality allowed him to win big with the same policies that Goldwater lost on.

In Obama's case, he has that same likability factor; that same teflon factor. People don't hold things against him. Now with Hillary, she is the opposite; people hate her and her personality. People hold things against her forever.

Posted by cm | April 13, 2008 4:22 PM

That's exactly right, cm. The liberal Reagan. Why? Because he was making an argument ON BEHALF of those people, not against them.

Now he needs to give a speech that goes like this:
"That is not what I meant. What I meant to say(says it with a rage) is that the Democratic Party has betrayed you for too long. And now it is time for this party to own up to that betrayal. We betrayed you on NAFTA. We betrayed your unions. We failed to reform healthcare. We screwed you over."

"We were wrong. And we're owning up. We let Reagan get away with his con job. We let Bush get away with destroying your unions. We let those jobs leave. We didn't stand up for you. We failed to go the mat for you. You were right to mistrust us, because we couldn't be counted on to stand up for our principles."

"But this shall be a new day in the Democratic Party. We understand why you left. We want you back. We want you to take us back. We want to show you we actually believe in what we say we believe in. We want to prove that we're still the party of FDR. We're going to start by killing this Colombia agreement. We're going to start by building a new 50 State Democratic Party that refuses to leave any American behind. We're going to give you the means to hold this party accountable. We let you tell us who deserves to be axed. We'll police our own as we never have before. Give us a chance, America."

Posted by Abe | April 13, 2008 5:17 PM

4. Assertions from pro-Obama types that Obama's argument is self-evident and self-justifying. It is not.
___

I disagree.

It's indisputable that forty years ago a man who never went to college could get a good job that would enable him to buy a house, send his kids to college, buy a car every few years, take a nice vacation at a resort every summer, and save a nest egg for retirement.

Those jobs have been sent overseas by greedy corporations and enabling politicians.

You would have to be a moron not to be bitter about that.

But hey, let's pretend it's not true and funnel even more money to the richest 1% of Americans. Greed is good.

Posted by Rich | April 13, 2008 5:40 PM

from Myrna Melgar who was actually at the Obama Fundraiser:

As someone who was at that now famous fundraiser where Barack spoke about the bitterness folks in rural America feel, I have grown increasingly bewildered at the Clinton campaign's distortion of his words. The paragraph that has so spun out of control in the mainstream media was not a part of the speech itself, but rather a response to a question from someone in the audience (one of us!) who was planning on traveling to PA as a volunteer and was asking about what to expect. I listened to Barack's response and was stuck by his emotional intelligence, deep empathy and understanding of our fellow Americans. It was in no way condescending or demeaning. So that you don't think I am one of these so called elitist San Francisco rich who are out of touch with everyone else outside our bubble: I am a Latina, single mom, who immigrated to the Mission during the civil war in El Salvador. America has given me great opportunity, but I know struggle and discrimination. I have spent most of my career as a community and union organizer engaged in conflict with the "haves" and building leadership in poor communities of all colors to speak truth to power. Barack's message of hope and inclusion of us all speaks to me and mine: White, black, immigrant, Latino, Asian, male, female, gay, straight. Of course people are bitter and angry! One of the foundational principles of community organizing in America has been to tap into the discontent of people who are oppressed and turn it towards positive change, so that the emotinal energy that fuels the anger will instead be used to motivate people to action for positive progress and change. It is a radically different message that the Obama philosophy espouses: we can change the world ourselves - we need to work hard and turn our bitterness and anger towards the actual work of holding government accountable. It applies to poorpeople in rural appalachia as much as it applies to poor people in the inner city public housing projects in Chicago. I am writing to remind us to stay on message and stay focused. For the past four days, the media has been going nuts over that comment, including folks in the Democratic party who should know better but whose self interests is perhaps to protect the paradigm of division that has kept them at the top of the fragile balance between Republicans and centrist Democrats over the past 20 years. This moment in American history is about WE the people, and millions of us have elected Barack to speak for us now, because he speaks the truth. Enough is enough. Let's stay on message, and I have no doubt we're going to win this one. Here is an excellent piece by someone who lives in Western Pennsylvannia about this brouhaha: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/4/12/184747/973/89/485030 Peace to all.

Posted by alison | April 13, 2008 5:51 PM

Sadly, the "willful misinterpretation" that is being splashed all over cable "news," Halperin, Politico etc. is Hillary's deliberately Rovian wedge-issue exploitation BS. How pathetic. She is truly desperate! I hope and expect that voters will see through her pandering.

Posted by Ruth | April 13, 2008 6:14 PM

"Joan, you are so ignorant, it's pathetic.

These conclusions pre-date Marx, and have their roots in the Jacksonian era. The economic populists of the late 19th century, including William Jennings Bryan, had no idea who Marx, but knew injustice and a stacked deck when they saw it. So did progressives in the 20th Century, including FDR." - paleo

Are you serious? Are you saying that the dialectic of alienation has anything to do with Jacksonian populism? And I'm the ignorant, one? Geez...

Posted by Joan | April 13, 2008 6:31 PM

4. Assertions from pro-Obama types that Obama's argument is self-evident and self-justifying. It is not.
___

"I disagree.

It's indisputable that forty years ago a man who never went to college could get a good job that would enable him to buy a house, send his kids to college, buy a car every few years, take a nice vacation at a resort every summer, and save a nest egg for retirement.

Those jobs have been sent overseas by greedy corporations and enabling politicians."

Exactly. And then they started to believe in God and owning guns! You wouldn't have found a church in middle-America those days.

Who's nuttier? Obama or his supporters?

Posted by Mary P. | April 13, 2008 7:11 PM

Not a bad list of predictions. But you missed the big one:

7. Clinton will overreach, and (again) make a laughingstock out of herself.

Posted by observer | April 13, 2008 7:29 PM

I'm not as politically correct as Senator Obama when explaining why uneducated fucktards who voted for Bush twice are hijacking this country and dumbing down our political discourse.

Those dog-gone varmint hunters and bible thumpers are feeling insulted! Oh-noes!

What Obama said was spot on in explaining why the GOP is able to win the votes of people who are experiencing a decline in their standard of living. It's the GOP that has been able to play them like the idiot sheep that they are.

When these people are actually questioning Iraq and 4000 dead soldiers, the GOP points their fingers in another direction. "Lookit! Gay people tryin' to git married!!" And it works every fucking time.

And now these people are insulted because Obama was able to point out the obvious? Come on, now.

Posted by Mirissa | April 13, 2008 8:13 PM

"I'm not as politically correct as Senator Obama when explaining why uneducated fucktards who voted for Bush twice are hijacking this country and dumbing down our political discourse.

Those dog-gone varmint hunters and bible thumpers are feeling insulted! Oh-noes! "

At least, some honesty. But do you really expect these uneducated fucktards to vote for your candidate?

Posted by AlanaFromGary,IN | April 13, 2008 8:16 PM

What Obama said was spot on in explaining why the GOP is able to win the votes of people who are experiencing a decline in their standard of living.

He was talking about why Hillary Clinton is able to win those votes, and himself not so much.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 13, 2008 8:41 PM

The biggest problem with Obama's remarks were how self-serving they were. He was asked by his wealthy donors why he is down in PA and Obama states it is because small town Pennsylvanians are too cynical to believe in "hope" and are "antipathitic to people who aren't like them." He is implying that these small town people don't know what is good for them and they are also bigoted.

Now Obama and his allies are acting as if he was making the Frank critique. He was not. Obama was belittling rural Democrats to buck up his wealthy donors. Frank thesis doesn't apply in this situation, since these Pennsylvania Democrats are voting for their economic interests by selecting Clinton over Obama. It is a good spin job but that is all it is. Obama resorted to guns and religion because he didn't want to admit that Clinton is more progressive on economics. Interestingly enough, Obama has gone out of his way to prove his 2nd amendment and religious bona fides this campaign.

Working class whites are skeptical about Obama because of his economic policies which are to the right of Clinton. After the Goolsbee/Canada flap they don't believe him on NAFTA. The Democratic base is always skeptical of the wine track candidate and remain so this year. However, the African-American segment of the base is supporting Obama and the affluent movement out of racial solidarity so this historical skepticism is being cast as racial instead of economic.

Posted by joe 6pack | April 13, 2008 8:47 PM

I still find it interesting, Ambinder, that you couldn't, or WOULDN'T find the time to post Obama's entire transcript of that answer. I wonder why? I found it immediately when I searched for it, but you've written HOW MANY posts on this issue, but couldn't bother to put his remarks IN CONTEXT?

Interesting.

Posted by rikyrah | April 13, 2008 9:52 PM

Only in bizarro land could someone be accused of being elitist for simply noting the pain of working class Americans.

Obama shows compassion to small town people with economic problems, and he is called elitist. The gall...how Hillary or McCain can do that with a straight face is beyond me.

Posted by cm | April 13, 2008 10:26 PM

"Only in bizarro land could someone be accused of being elitist for simply noting the pain of working class Americans."

Uh?? Saying that small-town Pennsyllvanians "cling" to guns, religion and anti-abortion because of the economic conditions is "noting the pain"? I often wonder in wich world these fanatics live...

Posted by Peter | April 14, 2008 5:59 AM

Why not say it when he was here in PA, amongst us Small Town Midwesterners?

Kiss off, you concern troll. I grew up in Pennsylvania, and we have never considered ourselves part of the Midwest. Besides, Obama actually has more claim to being from the Midwest, since he represents the state of Illinois. His victories in Minnesota, Wisconsin, and the Dakotas suggest that Midwesterners like Obama just fine.

Posted by jonp72 | April 14, 2008 9:39 AM

Since we are analyzing this to the nth degree, here's how I see it: people everywhere, in the big cities like Chicago, in New Orleans, and in rural Pennsylvania, have lost their jobs, have lost their homes, and have experienced a loss of income. Count me in this group. I and they, may or may not be bitter about these experiences. Whatever our feelings, we tend to do something. We turn to religion for comfort, we turn apathetic, we ge involved in cultural/ethnic activities (hunting, sports, politics, whatever), and in some cases, we blame some group like the government, immigrants, blacks, or whoever is convenient to blame. The point is that we feel helpless and we feel that no one is listening and no one cares.

Obama said what he said. He was giving his analysis of the situation. True or not, his comments have now been parsed, scrutinized, and exaggerated. If you really think he is "elitist" and is belittling you or other unfortunates then don't vote for him. But if you think that because some media pundit said he is elitist, or because Hillary Clinton has said it, or because John McCain said it then I urge you to think again.

Posted by SMN | April 14, 2008 12:15 PM

Comments (72)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives