Obama Regrets If He Offended....

In an interview with the Winston-Salem Journal today, Barack Obama said he did not intend for his words about the bitter to wound. According to a transcript of his remarks recorded by the newspaper, Obama said:

“Well look, if there — obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. But the underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so. And I hear it all the time when I visit these communities. People say they feel as if nobody is paying attention or listening to them and that is something — that is one of the reasons I am running for president. I saw this when I first started off as a community organizer and the steel plants had closed, and I was working with churches in communities that had fallen on hard times. And they felt angry and frustrated.”

Read more here.

Comments

Just keep on speaking the truth, Obama. Hillary and the Republicans (using literally the same talking points--shame on you Hillary!) are on the attack but I think people are smart enough to see through this BS. How ironic, Hillary using right-wing wedge issues as a wedge! It is so time for this campaign to be over.

Posted by Ruth | April 12, 2008 4:54 PM

Marc,

By my count, 8 of your last 11 posts are about the bogus non-story of Obama's recent comments.
You are doing a great job keeping it alive on behalf of Hillary. Really classy work. And the Atlantic Monthly gives you blog space to post this crap?

Oy.

Posted by elrod | April 12, 2008 5:00 PM

WHAT a politcal leader apologizing???

Obama 08

Posted by coomaraswamee | April 12, 2008 5:08 PM

The underlying truth of what I said remains, which is simply that people who have seen their way of life upended because of economic distress are frustrated and rightfully so.

So frustrated that "they cling to... anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations".

OK, so why is Barack so anti-trade - is he also an embittered economic loser? Is he opposing free trade on behalf of embittered economic loser Michelle Obama, who is struggling to get by on merely $400,000 per year?

Is he just pandering, and secretly could care less about free trade, or even secretly believes the economic case in favor of it?

Or does he have an enlightened opposition to free trade for reasons too subtle for the embittered rubes?

Just one more facet to this non-story.

Posted by Tom Maguire | April 12, 2008 5:11 PM

I hope Senators Clinton and McCain keep right on pushing this story. Everyone I know is one of these: angry, bitter, saddened or appalled by our Government. 81% of this Country thinks we are on the wrong track. Guns and religion are traditions in small towns -- and guess what? When hard times come, everyone in the world clings to their traditions. Keep talking about this one Senators McCain and Clinton -- each time you do, you only convert voters to Senator Obama.

Do tell me, who isn't upset at the state of this Country? And I don't even live in the rust belt, where I can only imagine how angry, frustrated and plain furious they must be after watching their jobs go overseas the last 25 years, their populations decline and their tax base decrease. I can only imagine. I bet they are outraged (and rightly so).

Posted by Kim | April 12, 2008 5:14 PM

Who are the real elitist? The Clintons and their $109 million dollars and the clintonts taking $800,000 from the Colombian government. The Clintons selling out the blue collar workers with NAFTA. So, tell me who the real elitist are?

Posted by rssrai | April 12, 2008 5:17 PM

Senator Obama and his followers just don't get it. The word "bitter" is not the problem. The visual characterization he gave of the folks who live in rural areas is a huge problem. This is obviously how he saw them in his mind. The description rolled right out of his mouth. People sitting in church with guns and a bible blaming immigration for their problems over the past 25 years.

Senator Obama has now swiftboated himself again. He has no one to blame but himself. You can't lay this gaffe at the feet of the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Louise | April 12, 2008 5:19 PM

In response to another poster: Senator Obama is not anti-trade. He has not claimed to be. Instead, he clearly states that trade agreements need to be renegotiated to include enforceable labor, environmental and consumer protections. He also seeks to eliminate tax breaks for out-sourcing and allow shareholders to vote on corporate management (i.e. CEO and CFO) compensation.

Senator Clinton, on the otherhand, says we need a "time out from trade," whatever that might mean. I do wish someone would ask her what it means, b/c if she actually means to suspend trade, our economy will go soundly into the gutter. If this is not what she means, than the entire phrase is meaningless.

Senator McCain likes trade the way it is. Since 81% of us think that this Country is on the wrong track, Senator McCain is out of step with more than a majority of us.

Just one more facet of this non-story.

Posted by Kim | April 12, 2008 5:20 PM

First Read is already making fun of Bittergate. Catch up, Marc!

Posted by observer | April 12, 2008 5:26 PM

Senator Obama does get it. People don't sit in Church with their guns. People hunt with their guns and protect their livestock with their guns.
When candidates for office repeatedly make economic promises that they do not keep, people (especially rural people who have plenty of common sense) tend to stop listening to those promises and trying to protect their traditions (guns and religion). Senator Obama omitted a third facet, the pub (often associated with the American Legion) where people sit around and vent their bitterness at the "chicken in every pot" speeches politicians give and meaningless phrases like a "time-out from trade."

It is not Senator Obama's fault that he understands rural America. It will be Senator Clinton's fault, however, if she goes into the rust belt and fails to recognize the accumulated years of frustration and cynicism with the kind of politician who praised NAFTA to get it passed and now claims this praise doesn't count, because "I was opposed to it" now that she is seeking the Presidency.

Posted by Kim | April 12, 2008 5:30 PM

Does he cling to his religion for authentic reasons while those poor Pennsylvania slobs cling to it as a way to "explain their frustrations"? ...They worship an awesome God in the blue states ( because they're bitter about stagnant wages!)

Was that what he said in his 2004 convention address?

The point really wasn't that Obama or antone else is wrong about some people have been screwed by the Ruling Elites paying off both Parties to outsource jobs and gut the Heartland of much of it's industry.

It was Obama tying that economic condition to creating a sociological condition where the bitter hapless rubes and Lesser Americans then "cling to" bad things like guns, being anti-immigrant, their dumb religious views, and racist bigoted antipathy towards people "different from them".

Because they are victims...they have these stupid values...and I see from the laughter of you SF Democrat millionaires as I mention those ignorant values that you know what I'm talking about in Flyover Country.

Hillary just got a lifeblood transfusion from this.

She will call Obama - Elite. Out of touch, understanding little of America past Chicago, toney Hawaiian neighborhoods.
Anti-Christian (people do not join regular churches attended by hispanics, whites, asians, and most blacks outside the Wright types because they are bitter and racist.)
Watch Hillary even try to weave in how she appreciates gun owners..as an American tradition..

And past elitist herself, gun control Hillary - the 527s and Republicans are now assembling a mosaic of the "Real Obamas". Though they will not pul the trigger unless he loses the nomination on questions over his American values. Right now it looks like they prefer Obama as an opponent because his soaring speechifying imitating famous black preachers only goes so far...

Posted by Chris Ford | April 12, 2008 5:39 PM

Obama says: People say they feel like no one is paying attention or listening to them and that is something – that is one of the reasons I am running for president.

And, that's one of the reasons why he's attempting to smear legitimate concerns over the massive illegal activity that he supports as "anti-immigrant sentiments". Please, Obama, keep explaining yourself, it's getting better and better.

Posted by TLB | April 12, 2008 5:43 PM

Our present income tax is a major part of the problem.

Our present employers have to come up with enough money for their employees and investors to pay all their taxes. Industries that employ few workers, imported items and outsourced jobs escape almost all taxation. This has to change!

Income taxes contribute 43%.
Social security taxes are 37%.
Corporate taxes are only 13%.
Excise taxes and other make up the remaining 7%.
(Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2005 )

I undertand sin taxes of tobacco and alcohol, but taxes on American labor is insanity in a global economy

Posted by Dick Layman | April 12, 2008 5:55 PM

Our present income tax is a major part of the problem.

Our present employers have to come up with enough money for their employees and investors to pay all their taxes. Industries that employ few workers, imported items and outsourced jobs escape almost all taxation. This has to change!

Income taxes contribute 43%.
Social security taxes are 37%.
Corporate taxes are only 13%.
Excise taxes and other make up the remaining 7%.
(Source: Office of Management and Budget, 2005 )

I undertand sin taxes of tobacco and alcohol, but taxes on American labor is insanity in a global economy

Posted by Dick Layman | April 12, 2008 5:55 PM

I don't think he intended to entirely negate the concern over gun rights, illegal immigration and religious issues; rather, he's pointing out a pretty clear fact that these issues have assumed outsize importance in recent years/decades, and have been deliberately leveraged by Republicans to maintain a constituency that, if voting in their economic interests, would probably see a significant exodus.

He may have put it less than artfully, but he's on a to a fundamental truth that's been reiterated by a lot of different writers. For example, from this recent articles in Times mag: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/06/magazine/06race-t.html

"From the diner where I talked to Keyser, I drove over to Gleason’s Bar, around the corner from my old house. That, too, was a sort of a reality check after spending a few days dwelling with Obama’s devout enthusiasts. Eight men sat around the bar, and not one of them supported Obama.

The cascade down the job ladder — with one job not as good as the last — is a particularly working-class syndrome. It is the sort of slide that makes a person less likely to take a chance and more prone to cling to the familiar. Marty Clark, whom I knew in high school, worked at the mill and then as a longshoreman and now has a nonunion job driving a truck. “I don’t know Obama that well,” he said as he sat at the bar at midafternoon on St. Patrick’s Day. “It seems to me like he’s got no experience. She’d be the way I’d go.”

Steve Woods sat drinking a Coors Light and talking with his buddies. A Philadelphia Phillies spring-training game was on TV, and he glanced up at it every time the audio picked up the crack of the bat. I asked him if the presidential campaign interested him. “Absolutely,” he said. Rapid fire, he told me the issues he cared about: “No. 1, gas prices. It’s killing everybody. No. 2, immigrants. They should go back to Mexico. Three, guns. Everybody should have the right to bear arms. In fact, everyone should have a gun in this day and age.”"

Posted by jrd | April 12, 2008 6:08 PM

A non-apology won't do it..."i regret if i offended" is bs.

A very basic political rule--don't insult the very voters you desperately need, and have shown no previous record of winning over.

Posted by amberglow | April 12, 2008 6:12 PM

Oh noez! Obama is going to lose all those Bible-thumping, gun-owning... Democrats.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 6:16 PM

amberglow, great advice, perhaps if Clinton had learned that before started telling progressive Democrats that they didn't matter, she would not have lost the nomination.

Posted by Klaus | April 12, 2008 6:17 PM

i couldn't agree more with senator soon-to-be-president obama. americans are so angry and so bitter that the politics-as-usual mindgames won't work this time! the media, repubs, clintons can spin this to holy hell and nothing will change the ugly, bitter, raw TRUTH of his statement.

if americans aren't angry, then we're in deeper doo-doo than we think.

Posted by phillychick | April 12, 2008 6:37 PM

Hillary Clinton plays to our fears, and calls it 'optimism;' she she tells us how she's the leader, then warns against'elitism;' she twists words out of context and out-right lies and pretends to honesty. She has wasted the Democratic Party while insisting she can best represent it. This walking disease has no right to be president, no right to be a politician. She has no decency, no sense of honor, no sense of integrity.
Clintonistas threaten to vote for McCain if she doesn't steal the nomination - does this not tells us everything we need to know of them? Clinton represents the last desparate gamble of those still adherent to the philosophy of the old Dixiecrats - racist, aristocratic, seperatist. Obama is trying to find some way to articulate wounds in order to heal them; Clinton just wants to wound and wound until we're all covered in blood. What a disgusting - well, Randi Rhodes put it best. At any rate, out with the right-wing Democrats, moderate Republicans are welcome to join the Obama revolution.

Posted by Emmanuel Winner | April 12, 2008 6:49 PM

Obama is going to lose all those Bible-thumping, gun-owning... Democrats.

I fear he will lose many of them.

It's amazing how many people are so clueless about American politics. Never even heard of 'Reagan Democrats'? Keeping them from becoming McCain Democrats will be one of the biggest battles of the general election.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 12, 2008 6:52 PM

You may not have like what Sen. Obama said, but you can't say it isn't true.

Voters are tired of loosing their jobs to overseas-cheap labor. We are tired of being pitted against each other. We are tired of candidates saying they feel your pain while raking in 109M dollars with $800.000 coming in affect from NAFTA.

Lets be real. Sen. Obama may have worded his statement incorrectly, but the meaning is understood.

Posted by TOH | April 12, 2008 6:58 PM

This is not an apology. An apology is simply: I did something wrong. I regret it. Period. The "if" in his "apology" means that he is unsure that he is wrong.

Then he compounds it by saying what he said was all true. Are the offended people just too sensitive, so that's why they are offended? Do they need to be told the truth about there own lives so he's sorry if it hurts to hear it?

If someone was offended by his remarks either they disagree with his characterization of their feelings or his explanation of the them. He's trying apologize to the offended by essentially saying, "No, I was right. These are your feelings. And this is why you feel them." The offended will say, "How is this apology supposed to make me feel better, now Obama's just arguing with me now about my feelings. I think I know them better than he does." It's insulting.

Posted by RBecker | April 12, 2008 7:03 PM

I want to throw in my two cents worth. I grew up in one of those little towns in Pennsylvania that Obama was talking about. He chose to talk about little towns for one reason, I believe. The whole town’s economy is attached to one industry - usually manufacturing. My dad always called them “one horse towns” because of their economic base. And, when that base disappears, there is no replacing it which means the town dies.

My mom and dad grew up in our little town, married and remained there. Both worked at the local plant. One day in the mid 80s they went to work only to find the doors chained and padlocked with a sign that indicated that the company was closed and had filed bankruptcy. My parents and many other local resident lost everything - pension, medical and income.

While they were working, they were also busy paying off the mortgage on our house, educating us kids and trying to stay out of debt. Our house wasn’t anything exceptional but it was comfortable, and most of all, an investment my parents thought they could parlay into cash if the need ever arose. The day the plant closed, the value of that house just about hit rock bottom. There were no retraining programs because there was no other industry around that was hiring. All of the kids that grew up there at that time left. As these older family members have died, their houses were left vacant . Now the town is in shambles.

People frequently stated that the out of work employees should move in order to find employment. I ask how? How can you move in this type of environment where they jobs you know are quickly disappearing. Even if you could have found a job, there was no way to sell your house. And, because you couldn’t sell your house, you had no money to move. A catch 22. My parents managed to scrape by until they were able to collect social security but, according to their pension files, each of them should have had a sizeable check each month that would have made their lives more than comfortable

Yes, my parents and all their friends and neighbors were angry and it didn’t take long for the anger to turn to bitterness. The bitterness was because no one cared from Clinton on down.

Posted by Marty | April 12, 2008 7:17 PM

What offended people?

Do you mean the media elite, or Senators Clinton and McCain, being offended?

Because I've yet to hear working class folks be upset about this.

Instead, it's elite bloggers in their beltway apartments pretending they know what working class folks will be offended by.

Talk about elitist.

Obama is just speaking the truth. The media and his opponents try to spin it to make it look otherwise.

But there is a reason this is a change election. Folks are sick and tired of the spin. Sick and tired of the media telling them they should be offended. Sick and tired of presidential candidates and parties fighting over semantics and cherry picked issues that divide the country.

People are looking for someone to bring us together. To end the war and the mentality that got us into it in the first place. And to stop trying to divide us over guns and religion and abortion and start bringing us real solutions that will help us keep our homes and find a way to raise a family without dying first over heart attacks from overwork.

The choice is clear.

The voices of the past are just the same old thing.

Obama gets it. He understands why we're frustrated. And his promise to change things is what will carry him through.

Posted by Call Them on Their B.S. | April 12, 2008 7:19 PM

Senator Obama and his followers just don't get it. The word "bitter" is not the problem. The visual characterization he gave of the folks who live in rural areas is a huge problem. This is obviously how he saw them in his mind. - - Louise

My people, blue collar West Virginians losing out to hypercredentialed bourgeoisie, are the people he described, and the description was letter perfect.

The idea Obama was ridiculing my people is so incredibly incompetent it takes my breath away. Blue collar America was 'frustrated, angry and bitter' when they voted for Ronald Reagan in 1980, and one could add "stupid" to the litany when they voted for him again in 1984 after his irresponsible spending spree was a matter of record.

The best thing that can happen is Clinton and McCain continue to show who is really out of touch by hammering Obama for daring to speak the truth, which is that many blue collar rural Americans are as a matter of fact, "frustrated, angry and bitter" and hanging on to the few freedoms they have left like guns and religion. All that, every word of it, is fact, is on record, is on film, and the more those truths are emphasized the better for America and, one suspects, for Obama.

When Obama starts lying about his ties to lobbyists or about his wartime adventures, then maybe it's time to review his fitness. When telling the truth is a problem, then maybe there is something very, very wrong in the system.

Posted by Zeke Bundren | April 12, 2008 7:21 PM

Hillary is pandering hard.

Posted by Angry Bob | April 12, 2008 7:28 PM

Hillary is pandering hard.

Posted by Angry Bob | April 12, 2008 7:28 PM

Tomlin,

If there ARE Reagan democrats, why would they be siding with McCain? What reason would they have to side with McCain over Obama (or, for the reasons of politics only, Clinton)?

Perhaps I am being a bit ... egotistical?... about Democrat's chances, but given the inherent Dem vs Repub advantages that Dems enjoy, of about 10 pts or so IIRC in the latest poll, I think that the Dem nominee will experience a substantial bump. The Dems are going to remind the public that McCain is a Republican, and that should do most of the damage right there.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 7:33 PM

Why is Obama elite and not (Wellesley, Yale, $109,000,000) Clinton? That's some seriously weird shit. And yes, he was right. Everyone knows he was right. No one's claiming otherwise. Not the reporters, not the commenters, no one. All anyone says is that his honesty might hurt him with some voters. Let me get this straight: he says something that's plainly true, but Clinton supporters say the poor are going to be too, what, dumb to understand? So who's elitist?

Posted by alex | April 12, 2008 7:34 PM

Louise you made a comment that Obama followers dont get the point. Its not the fact that he said people are bitter. Instead you are upset about the comment about guns and religion.

On your post you said its like visualizing people with guns in churches mad about immigration. You visualized this the way you decided to see his comments. Obama didnt say that.

He said because politicians do not come through on issues they campaign on, the only issues they feel they can count on is the laws surrounding guns and issues surrounding religion.

Im frustrated as heck. Do you live where I live? I live in Lancaster and that does discribe our way of living. At least I feel he will care about our existance. Where do you live Louise? are you helping to make my family life better?

Billy

Posted by Billy | April 12, 2008 7:45 PM

I think people who have a problem with the truth need to pray a little more, and ask God for wisdom. In this world that we are living in today with this president, "YES" we are bitter with the economy, people loosing there homes, the rich getting richer and the poor getting poor. The "Clintons and John McCain" don't know how it feels to live in poverty, living pay check to pay check. They don't have to worry about the gas price. So for all those who not looking at the big picture with Sen.Obama said about being "bitter" needs to wake up.

Posted by Keyon | April 12, 2008 7:46 PM

The problem with most of these smalltown folk is that they would rather listen to the real elitists who have 6 and 7 digit contracts on the radio everyday, who can do absolutely nothing for them. But gripe even more about their situation. Why do they flock to these idols? Because they tell them what they want to hear.

But when someone comes along to help them speaking candidly they retreat back to the fools in the Echo Chmaber, who can do nothing to change their situations, for solace. This goes on day in and day out, it's a vicious cycle.

It's really pathetic that Americans would not embrace an honest person, but instead would act childish and feel insulted and fall prey to setting themselves up for 4 more years of the same.

I am sure those who think they are insulted are in the minority. I refuse to buy into this propaganda, we cannot be this sensetive in this country in 2008, after all that we have been through.

Posted by Barb | April 12, 2008 7:51 PM

Get use to the change people, it's a good thing. Obama stands by what he says and he gives it to us straight. He has been steady from the start, and has not sunk to the lows that the Clintons have. Not like Hillary who is now using her "little spoiled girl voice". It may have worked in NH Hillary by its getting real annoying now. I was her supported until I started listening to Obama and have seen he is for real honest change. I do not trust Hillary any more.

Posted by Wayne | April 12, 2008 7:51 PM

Look, The Right Wing and Hillary are going to spin this every which way they can. And of course the press works it for ratings, instead of calming the country, they throw excelerant on the fire.

But I doubt it will matter. The Republicans like to render everyone stupid, they are the real eliteists. They assume that hard working Americans are going to buy in to this whole story, because they are lame enough to bite.

But I think the folks are smarter.

Posted by Denise Goodman | April 12, 2008 7:57 PM

As a small town resident for 40 years I find Mr. Obama's remarks an affront. I will not vote for a person who exhibits his snobbery and insults me in this way. He was playing to the prejudices of his audience.

Posted by WILLIAM | April 12, 2008 8:00 PM

Obama needs to turn Clinton's attacks on this against her. She knows exactly what he meant. But if she wants to play dirty, he needs to come out punching. Call her on the fact that her husband's administration caused these job losses. That he and her other top advisers are working to send more jobs to Columbia. Ask why, if she is so pro-American worker, she brings in to run her campaign people who are so intimately involved in opening up new trade deals. Ask her who she intends to surround herself with once in office - the same people? And ask why, if she is so pro-American worker, she is the biggest recipient of corporate lobbyist money. Don't mention this stuff in passing, but lay it on the line and at her feet - because she has an Achilles heel and that needs to be brought to the forefront and this nomination sealed up.

Obama, don't let her get away with this.

Posted by Rowland | April 12, 2008 8:03 PM

HILLARY HAS NO CHANCE ON THIS ONE.. HER BAND WAGONING WITH THE REPUBLICAN SMEAR CAMPAIGN IS TRANSPARENT. DESPERATION AT ITS FINEST.

THE PEOPLE UPSET BY THESE COMMENTS ARE EITHER LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD OR WERE NEVER OBAMA SUPPORTERS. EITHER WAY, I'D RATHER HAVE A PRESIDENT WHO TELLS THE TRUTH AND WORKS FOR CHANGE THAN A LIAR AND SPIN MAKER ANYDAY.

SIGNED,
A BITTER, FRUSTRATED, MIDWESTERN, MIDDLE AGED, WOMAN WHO WILL ALWAYS VOTE FOR OBAMA!!!

Posted by RWL | April 12, 2008 8:04 PM

Obama WAS NOT playing to the prejudices of his audience. William, you should listen to the whole tape instead of saying things that are idiotic.

Clinton is a despicable, desperate, opportunist. I voted for Bill twice but can not tolerate the Billary garbage at all. She should be ashamed.

The only good things about this is "bitter truth flap" is that inspires people like me to give more money to Obama AND it makes it easier for Obama to keep from offering the VP spot to Hillary- thank God.

Posted by Doug M | April 12, 2008 8:07 PM

Remember that Reagan said alot of controversial things and it didn't seem to hurt him one bit. And his comments really were crazy, not like Obama's, which are simply distorted by the media and the Clintons.

Remember Reagan's line about trees being the biggest polluters? Remember his radio address about bombing the USSR? Remember his idea that Mt St Helens caused more pollution than what was emitted by autos over the last 10 years?

In fact, Reagan was known for his gaffes, and it didn't hurt him politically.

This is not even a gaffe, but regardless, it will not hurt Obama. I think the average voter will read/hear/see it and think, you know, he's right...I am angry and many voters are angry.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 8:16 PM

EVERYONE NEEDS TO READ THIS!! This will make for very interesting discussions about the unbelievable depth of Obama's honesty! Sorry I don't know how to do links but just go to Google and put in 'Kenneth Lamb Obama Ethnic" then read the article titled "Obama, an Arab-American liar". VERY INTERESTING!!

Posted by Pat | April 12, 2008 8:21 PM

One of the problems about the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is that it is hard to hear and it is particularly difficult if that truth includes you, me or any target demographic in this campaign. It's a new concept, a politician treating you like you're an adult. Telling you a hard truth...one that is as hard to hear as it is to say. Americans are not used to hearing the truth from a politician and particularly if that politician is seeking your vote...An unmitigated truth in this country is usually parsed within an itch of its life and then spun beyond recognition.

On this road to change we simply have to begin being honest with one another. No hyperbole and no bs... This was no gaffe... I hope Democrats in PA have the guts and the smarts to appreciate being treated like adults.

Posted by Anghiari | April 12, 2008 8:21 PM

“Well look, if there — obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that."

Obama's famous opening when he is defending himself against his own failings. It's like his opening phrase for the lie he's about to tell about the lie he told.

Obama NEVER meant for those words to get outside the MANSIONS of Marin County/SF where he was quietly conducting secret fundraisers with the extreme wealth of northern CA. $1,000-$2300 just to get in for a handshake, 4 in one day with a haul of probably $3M. NEVER did he want the residents of PA, or any small town with a shortage of jobs to hear his arrogant assessment of what drives them. Note that he didn't mention anywhere in his speech what he wanted to do to help those people. He did the same thing to Rev Wright in the racist speech, then 2 weeks later said he would have had to leave the church had the pastor not retired. So, what's he going to do with the people of PA's small towns?

Posted by rojo | April 12, 2008 8:26 PM

Let's also get real: does anyone in their right mind think that Hillary would not be painted and perceived as a liberal elite in the general election?

Face it: no matter who the Democrats run, the Republicans will try to paint that person as an out of touch liberal elitist. They tried it against Webb in Virginia, for instance.

The key is that voters like Obama, they hate Hillary. They will more readily overlook criticisms of Obama than Hillary. And with Hillary, the tag of liberal elitist has been seared into people's minds over the course of 15 years.

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

I think this will come back to bite Hillary and McCain.

People related to what Obama said. It was the truth. People are bitter and angry. For years and years we listened to the empty promises. I want and trust honesty and that is what Obama has given us. The American people want honesty and will relate to his words. They know truth when they see it. They know pandering when they see it.

The true elitists are Hillary and Bill with their millions. With NAFTA, WTO, Welfare "reform" they showed that they didn't give a damn about the average American. Never have .. never will. They need to disappear and take their egos and lies with them.

Posted by Wendy | April 12, 2008 8:34 PM

We all know what Obama said was right. But he needs to pick his words carefully this close to the pennsylvania primaries since there is a desparate woman who cares about nothing but getting back to the white house who will cash on this. Its unfortunate but in the days leading to the primaries he needs to appeal to the blue colar workers and get them back on his side. His goal is to unite and he should not let the likes of Hilary and McCain distract him.

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

We all know what Obama said was right. But he needs to pick his words carefully this close to the pennsylvania primaries since there is a desparate woman who cares about nothing but getting back to the white house who will cash on this. Its unfortunate but in the days leading to the primaries he needs to appeal to the blue colar workers and get them back on his side. His goal is to unite and he should not let the likes of Hilary and McCain distract him.

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

http://www.icallbs.net/blog/index.php/2008/02/17/obama-an-arab-american-liar/

Here's the link that Pat was unable to provide. The article, "Obama, an Arab-American Liar" by Kenneth Lamb

Posted by rojo | April 12, 2008 9:19 PM

If there ARE Reagan democrats, why would they be siding with McCain?

Because he seems to share their cultural values, which Obama appears to disdain.

The Dems are going to remind the public that McCain is a Republican, and that should do most of the damage right there.

I would like to believe that, but I wouldn't count on it. McCain's personal popularity is much higher than his party's. Underestimating him would be a dangerous mistake.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 12, 2008 10:02 PM

Why do people keep bringing up Reagan Democrats, they are now Republicans? They voted for Bush and, contrary to popular belief, they did not vote for Clinton (he never broke 50% of the vote). The key to victory for Democrats in 2008 is to bring out the voters (that is what Bush did in 2004) and the only candidate who has shown to bring out new and enthusiastic voters is Obama. One last point, if anyone honestly believes that these so-called Reagan Democrats will support McCain over Obama, but Clinton over McCain are deluding themselves (the same goes for these small town working class individuals in the Rust Belt - they will never support Clinton, they are also Republicans!)

Posted by Paul | April 12, 2008 10:24 PM

Tomlin,

You may be right, you may be wrong. We'll have to wait and see after this nomination. However, given that McCain is running as Bush3, with Bush's blessing, and running on an "Iraq War Forever" plan... I don't think he'll be able to compete well.

We'll see who McCain picks as vice, but afaik, McCain isn't thought of as an 'economics' type person either.

Posted by LnGrrrR | April 12, 2008 10:33 PM

One point to remember is that the middle class got royally screwed under Bush, and that the economy is definitely sliding into recession. If things ain't great now - what will November look like? McCain is going to inherit the Bush disaster, plus Iraq, and if nothing else, that's what will sink him. It may not be a huge win for the Dems, but I can't see Americans going for 4 more incompetent years.

Obama may have phrased things clumsily, but I think he can use this as a springboard for a bigger conversation about where people are economically - and that's why he's a damn sight better than Clinton and McCain. Neither of them is honest about the lousy state of things on Main St - and neither of them will do anything to fix it. Clinton doesn't dare, and McCain doesn't know a damn thing about economics - and doesn't care to know.

Give it a few days, and everyone will forget the fake outrage and life will go back to normal. As for the deep red Republicans, losing their vote doesn't make a difference, and most of the offended small town independents - who probably aren't THAT numerous - will have had time to swallow enough bile at the bad economy that they'll go Democrat come November.

Posted by telchar | April 12, 2008 11:14 PM

To Tom Maguire

"Is he just pandering, and secretly could care less about free trade, or even secretly believes the economic case in favor of it?"

The correct phrase is couldn't care less, not "could care less".

Posted by Will | April 13, 2008 12:53 AM

Obama, simply used a Poor Choice of Word, due to being tired, and on the campaign trail for over 15 months. What he meant, instead, is that People are Resentful, experiencing Pain, and Prolonged Discomfort, due to harsh and painful encomonic conditions. However, the fact that McCain, Clinton and others are trying to take a poor choice of words and make nothing into something -- playing politics as usual, which in Reality is a Truthful Statement is dispicable. People are bitter over high gas prices, increased food prices, loss of jobs and hope, high education costs, increased mortgage costs and foreclosure, loss due of jobs that leave the country and move to India and/or China, and as hard as it is to say, some people are bitter over immigration and the loss of jobs due to companies hiring immigrants for a much lower wage than Americans would go for -- in an America that does not resemble the one we used to know and belive in. We have even lost the respect and admiration of other countries around the world due to the demise of the America we love and belive in. As Barack points out, we should not blame the Immigrants but the policies that have caused this chaos. America, we have to ask ourselves, which is more aggrecious, a politician telling us the hard truth, things we may not want to hear but need to hear OR a politician telling us a Fantasy/Lie (Bosnia Sniper Fire) a fabrication and PERFORMANCE, that we did not need to hear because not Truth, and which is a betrayal of the public trust. There was a time that politicians was the most Honest Game in town -- George Washington, Honest Abe, Thomas Jefferson these are just a few examples, but they were men of high ethics and moral character who would not dare to tell the public a bold face ... for their own personal gain, it just was not done. And to say that Obama is an elitist, is like coloring Sen. Kerry a deserter, which they tried and was somewhat successful at, and look where it got us, into a war that should never have been waged and a host of other woes that only True Change from the botton-up can Transform. I hope the people will see through Clinton and McCain's politicking, Distorting and twisting his words and Message for their own political gain and rally to Obama's aide who in all honesty is trying to Change Washington from a Power Broker to Power People, because in the end it will be the people's voice and votes that matter.

Posted by Angellight | April 13, 2008 9:13 AM

The commentators who bent over backwards for obama when the rev. wright craziness broke are not bending over backwards this time. This is a mind-blowing gaffe. And the amazing thing about this huge gaffe is that it will cause many to re-visit their hastiness in disregarding the wright problem.
Elitegate and bittergate will show that Obama is too great a risk for the party to choose.
he doesn't get it. He doesn't get what it is he doesn't get. And his followers here in this thread don't get that he doesn't get it and that they don't get it.
I am not religious but I do not look upon religion as a thing bitter people mistakenly cling too. I don't accuse people who don't agree with me of being bitter and afraid of people unlike themselves.
Sometimes very smart people are also terribly myopic and cruel. That he said it in Marin Co. privately and got caught makes it worse.
Obama really screwed the pooch here.

Posted by Michael C. | April 13, 2008 11:15 AM

Anglelight - No one disputes that the Heartland has gotten the short end of the stick through policies BOTH the Democrats and Republicans have pushed depite huge voter opposition (in favor of the wishes of the moneyed Ruling Elites).

Nor, despite lower unemployment than when Clinton took office that many of those jobs are no longer high-paying, semi-skilled manufacturing and trade jobs, which has engendered bitterness towards the Clintons, Bushes, free trade/Open Borders McCain. But also towards the "Si, se puede!" government and more taxes are good, but your military is evil -Obama wing.

No argument there.

But then Obama tried to take elitist Marxist economic analysis and apply it as the reason (bitterness from economic exploitation) why "hicks" CLING TO social pathologies like 2nd Amendment support, opposition to illegal immigration, their infamous racism towards anyone who is not a hayseed, their silly Christian religion, their bigoted opposition to gay marriage.

It was classic, condescending talk, said to laughing wealthy SF Democrats(tape shows audience laughter and Obama pausing to appreciate it). About the need to help the poor, misguided hick victims of economic slights to get better educated, to transcend their provincial ignorance as his wealthy SF audience has.

And part of an elitist pattern in Obama's life that reflects his anti-gun ownership, Open Borders, pro gay marriage, removal of religious superstition from public spheres votes as a State Senator, then a Senator.

Posted by Chris Ford | April 13, 2008 11:18 AM

Michael C has it right. The fact is that he uttered those words in a private fundraiser attended by the wealthy of Marin County and got caught. I am one of those who wanted Obama to do well. I am now one of those who believes he is not seasoned enough for the job and that he is out of touch.

It galls me that he doesn't get it. He was condescending, elitist, and, because of where he chose to unveil his remarks, he also appears two-faced. It appears as though he was slyly ensconced among his kind of people talking about those kind of people.

Posted by Susan M Callahan | April 13, 2008 11:49 AM

Can anyone imagine Bush sparking such serious debates across the nation? Or Hillary? For those of us who are concerned with ideas and their implications, you must admit that Barack's candidacy is bringing them all to the fore.

It's a wonderful thing for the country to talk about not only racial divides but economic ones. Barack has brought both to the table and I'm wondering how (not if) he's going to hit this one to the moon. It's the start of a remarkable and historic Presidency.

P.S When will gender get its shine? Why hasn't Hillary done anything more but play the card?

Posted by Reginald Avery Wilkins, Ph.D. | April 13, 2008 12:39 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 9 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 2:39 PM

Still waiting for you to print Obama's answer entirely Ambinder.

Oh, if you did a little legwork, you'd find the Charlie Rose interview where he basically said the same thing...in 2004!

Posted by rikyrah | April 13, 2008 10:00 PM

Sometimes we say exactly what we're thinking and later someone talks us out of our senses.

Small town, bitter, "clinging to guns" and "religion"... their just bitter and misguided-- they couldn't possibly be Republicans.

Posted by stupideststuff | April 13, 2008 11:42 PM

In the 2004 Charlie Rose interview, Obama said Democrats must not 'appear to be condescending' in this regard. In 2008 he did not say the same thing. He did the very thing he had warned against.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJut4-dHuV8

The relevant part is between 10 and 14 minutes.

Posted by David Tomlin | April 14, 2008 7:58 AM

Doug M replying to my expression of disapproval of Mr. Obama's conduct displays the very attitude found in Mr. Obama's remarks. He cannot disagree with someone's position without claiming that I have not listened to the entire tape, something of which he has no knowledge. In fact I did listen to the entire thing. Obama supporters conceit mirrors that of their mentor leading them to impugn the intelligence of those who disagree.

Posted by William | April 15, 2008 12:03 AM