Superdelegates Might Agree

Well Marc,

If you were watching the McCain speech that is on right now at the National Press Club, you would be surprised to discover that McCain agrees with Obama too. McCain is now going on a bus tour of small town America to makes sure that they "are not forgotten".

It seems to me that the bitterness is real because McCain realizes it is an issue and he is trying to co-opt that and his message of "change" from Obama.

So McCain is trying to say that I am for change too and you bitter people, you have a choice between my "American" change and Obama's kind of change.

Now the press are fawning all over him and gave him his favorite donuts and McCain is hemming and hawing on whether Obama is an "elitist". McCain seems to get away with a lot of non-straight talk when it suits him.

Now he said "Americans are hurting". But he refuses to say whether we are in a recession because it is "technical". Hmmm.

It seems to me that the Republicans know Americans are bitter too. And McCain is trying to not focus on the "bitter" part, but the guns part. Which will be fun for him to run against Hillary "I was for gun control before I was against it" Clinton.

Posted by Bubba | April 14, 2008 10:57 AM

Yes, you can "easily imagine" voters reacting as Hillary would have us react, but the entire premise of the Obama campaign is that voters aren't as dumb as Hillary thinks they are, and it is that generous, complimentary premise that ends up turning these Obama controversies around so that Hillary ends up looking like the a-hole. She has a real knack for it. As soon as she said "he wouldn't be my pastor" or "my daddy taught me how to shoot" she immediately reminded all of us of what an unbearably phony, disingenuous panderer she is. If she'd just let Obama stew in his controversies she might actually benefit from them, but instead she insists on being a dickhead.

Posted by tinisoli | April 14, 2008 11:02 AM

I can easily imagine Hillary making the same bogus argument if Obama had said this quote instead of her...

As the Clinton campaign pressed the case against Mr. Obama, reports surfaced of similar comments made by both Clintons to explain voter concerns about issues like religion, guns, and immigration. In an article on Time.com in November, for example, Mrs. Clinton was quoted as saying: "During the 1990s, I cannot remember being asked about immigration. Why? Because the economy was working. And average Americans didn't have to go around looking for others to blame."

Why does Hillary demean and talk down to average Americans and -- in an out-of-touch and frankly elitist way -- claim that they look to blame others for their plight, instead of optimistically pulling themselves up by their own bootstraps?

Source.

Posted by Vermonter | April 14, 2008 11:09 AM

And again, instead of imaging the reaction a voter might have -- and spending days and days speculating about it -- why not actually ask one of them.

Early indications are that, on balance, they think this "controversy" is completely uninteresting.

Posted by Vermonter | April 14, 2008 11:15 AM

To diverge from the typical opinion in these comments, I think Marc is exactly right.

Posted by neil | April 14, 2008 11:16 AM

Methinks the media doth protest to much.

Any controversy that has to be analyzed and explained over and over again in order to be understood is not actually a real controversy.

The media have been like a bunch of 13-year-olds at a circlejerk.

Posted by lampwick | April 14, 2008 11:20 AM

One other thing:

Do you see any irony in the fact that you're speculating about what a regular, small-town white voter might think about Obama discussing what a regular, small-town white voter might think?

Again, why isn't the elitist pundit class asking real voters what they think, instead of manufacturing their outrage for them?

Posted by Vermonter | April 14, 2008 11:22 AM

I'm a voter, and I don't hear the remarks that way. To hear them that requires a fair amount of parsing, Ben Smith (who has a degree in linguistics from Yale) style. The truth is, it's elitist to interpret the remarks as elitist. Common sense sees them as innocuous.

Posted by alex | April 14, 2008 11:23 AM

Actually, Marc...I think the true elites, which include people like you, are going to be the ones who misread this.

You are going to focus in guns and religion, but the thing that low info voters will focus on is whether or not they are bitter.

To them, it will look like Obama understand the bitterness in an 81% wrongtrack country, and Pollyanna McCain, Clinton, and Media who serve up laughable platitudes about optomistic, patriotic voters.

If this election becomes a referendum on whether or not the American people are bitter after 8 years of bush, a mistaken war, and a tanking economy, guess who is going to win?

Buddy, take a look in the mirror and ask yourself who is out of touch.

Posted by RKA | April 14, 2008 11:29 AM

And again, instead of imaging the reaction a voter might have -- and spending days and days speculating about it -- why not actually ask one of them.
Early indications are that, on balance, they think this "controversy" is completely uninteresting.

Do you see any irony in the fact that you're speculating about what a regular, small-town white voter might think about Obama discussing what a regular, small-town white voter might think?

Again, why isn't the elitist pundit class asking real voters what they think, instead of manufacturing their outrage for them?

Posted by Vermonter | April 14, 2008 11:15 AM

Exactly. You know what is funny in all of this, between all the non-stop cable news coverage and concern troll blog postings, NO ONE, has even bothered to ask the supposed target of these "elitist" and "condescending" remarks what they think about it. The only network that did was Fox News and all the people they interviewed in PA saw no problem with it. So they stopped doing it.

Marc, maybe your "reported blog" could do some reporting on what people actually think about this and not what the Clinton campaign or McCain campaign or anyone else in this media echo chamber has to say about it.

This is an interesting derivation on concern trolling. But no less ridiculous.

Posted by Bubba | April 14, 2008 11:32 AM

You can easily imagine a voter who says Hillary Clinton lied about sniper fire in Tuzla why should I believe about anything.

Posted by bjd | April 14, 2008 11:33 AM

Look, if the Republicans and Clinton (or should I just say the Republicans?) can spin Obama's comments to mean what Billy Kristol says they mean: religion (and guns) are the opiate(s) of the masses, then I think Mark has a point.

But, but, but, but, that's not what Obama meant. And when Hillary jumps all over this stuff, with her Wellesley bachelors, Yale JD, and a cool $100 mill in hand, it plays right into what Obama was trying to say: this is just another distraction to keep people from focusing on their real problems and who is going to solve them.

I think it goes without saying that Dem Superdels are going to see the truth in Obama's words - as others have shown, the Clintons think the same things. Certainly, as Noam Schreiber suggests, pretending to be an NRA member isn't going to win over a lot of Dem SDs.

The voters, well, we shall see. Maybe Hillary's tired, but she forgot the simple fact that she is still running in a Dem primary. 45% of PA Dems live in Philly and its 'burbs. What do they think of her little Goldwater Girl turn? What's she going to do, win by getting 70% of the Scranton vote instead of 65%?

I find it hard to believe that PA voters (whether in Boalsburg or Bryn Mawr) are suddenly going to find the Hero of Tuzla reliable about just who is being condescending to them.

Posted by neilrlca | April 14, 2008 11:42 AM

While you all are busy speculating, why don't you imaagine what would happen if it came out that for the last 20 years Senator Clinton (Or any white politician for that matter) had been attending a "white-centric" church. Imagine that in her defense, she said that yes she attended the church but did not agree with its views. I think her career (or the career of any white politician) would be over--and rightfully so. Racism should not be tolerated. Obama has spent 20 years attending a "black-centric" church--a church that hates whites, Jews, and America. Obama says all of us some time or another has heard a pastor utter a remark we don't agree with. That is true-- to a limited extent. For example, when I was a teenager I attended a Church of Christ that had a very dynamic youth group. In the main Sunday morning service, it was taught that people should not play musical instruments in church. I do not agree with this. However, I did not leave the church over it. I don't think God decides who goes to heaven or hell based on this issue. I don't think singing without musical instruments hurts anyone. However, if I went to a church and heard a pastor make hate filled speech toward blacks, Jews, or America, I would grab my kids and leave as fast as possible. I would never let my kids listen to something like that. Hate is against the most basic precept of Christianity. People go to hell for hating. Hate speech hurts people. I would never attend a church that contadicted my most basic, core beliefs. Obama should have left that church as soon as he realized what kind of church it was. He is lacking in moral courage. It is silly for people to believe Obama when he says he does not share those beliefs. He choose to attend that church for 20 years. There are plenty of other churches in Chicago to choose from. He and his wife were married there. His daughters were christened there. He takes his daughters to this church to listen to this hate filled rhetoric. He tithes to this church. He calls Jeremiah Wright his mentor. He named his book after a Jeremiah Wright sermon. Of course, Obama agrees with Wright. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Posted by Robin VZB | April 14, 2008 11:46 AM

While you all are busy speculating, why don't you imaagine what would happen if it came out that for the last 20 years Senator Clinton (Or any white politician for that matter) had been attending a "white-centric" church. Imagine that in her defense, she said that yes she attended the church but did not agree with its views. I think her career (or the career of any white politician) would be over--and rightfully so. Racism should not be tolerated. Obama has spent 20 years attending a "black-centric" church--a church that hates whites, Jews, and America. Obama says all of us some time or another has heard a pastor utter a remark we don't agree with. That is true-- to a limited extent. For example, when I was a teenager I attended a Church of Christ that had a very dynamic youth group. In the main Sunday morning service, it was taught that people should not play musical instruments in church. I do not agree with this. However, I did not leave the church over it. I don't think God decides who goes to heaven or hell based on this issue. I don't think singing without musical instruments hurts anyone. However, if I went to a church and heard a pastor make hate filled speech toward blacks, Jews, or America, I would grab my kids and leave as fast as possible. I would never let my kids listen to something like that. Hate is against the most basic precept of Christianity. People go to hell for hating. Hate speech hurts people. I would never attend a church that contadicted my most basic, core beliefs. Obama should have left that church as soon as he realized what kind of church it was. He is lacking in moral courage. It is silly for people to believe Obama when he says he does not share those beliefs. He choose to attend that church for 20 years. There are plenty of other churches in Chicago to choose from. He and his wife were married there. His daughters were christened there. He takes his daughters to this church to listen to this hate filled rhetoric. He tithes to this church. He calls Jeremiah Wright his mentor. He named his book after a Jeremiah Wright sermon. Of course, Obama agrees with Wright. Only a fool would believe otherwise.

Posted by Robin VZB | April 14, 2008 11:46 AM

It should be noted that Obama made this comment as part of his why-these-people-aren't-voting-for-me remarks. And he thinks it's perhaps because they're small-minded, gun-toting, religious bigots -- don't you agree, you rich San Francisco liberals?

And if we want to see what the voters have to say... the first poll is in and the new ARG poll from the weekend has Hillary up by 20 points.

Posted by Vnd | April 14, 2008 11:52 AM

BTW - how about a blog posting about Hillary including both Al Gore and John Kerry in her "Obama is unelectable" argument.

Marc, you are wondering how this "bitter" issue is playing with the Supers? Well how do you think her attack on Gore and Kerry goes with the party faithful, including Supers? Particularly since there has been a lot of gossip about what the Clintons did and didn't do to help and hurt their electoral chances.

I think the Supers who feel a stronger allegiance to the party than the Clinton's will see those comments rather negatively. Although they don't seem to be getting the media coverage. You can rest assured that those comments were noted in the DNC, DCCC and DSCC. And those are the Supers that she needs. Because anyone that would have endorsed Clinton certainly would have done it by now.

I think you might want to reassess your Superdelegate analysis.

BTW - Hillary is now pandering on steel by referencing the USS Cole attack, which happened on Bill's watch. She wants to run against McCain by pandering on steel by reminding the world of the Clinton administration's failures on terrorism? You do know that Sandy Berger is one of her chief advisors don't you? I can see the attack ad now.

You can easily imagine a voter who says Hillary Clinton lied about sniper fire in Tuzla why should I believe about anything.
Posted by bjd | April 14, 2008 11:33 AM

Well yeah, there is that and there is that and the fact that her negatives are above 50% and the fact that she is going to have to explain to America why they should vote for her when the majority of Americans would not. That will be fun.

Posted by Bubba | April 14, 2008 11:52 AM

In an Answer to a Question about small-town America Barack answered, although tired, in earnest and with thoughtfullness: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone...And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." What Barack meant in Essence -- which is the Clear-Cold Truth, unlike Hillary's Bosnia Fabrication and Continuing Performances, is that in General, Small-town America, due to a loss of jobs producing frustration and bitterness and with time on their hands, similarly to the Negros in Slavery time, who turned to Religion & Music for an outlet, small-town Americans turn to Religion, Hunting and yes, some blame the current conditions on Immigrants when they should be turning their blame on Politicians who allow employers to higher immigrants for a much lower wage than Americans would go for. He never said religion or hunting (music) were bad, because people tun to them for an outlet when they have lost hope in their government and with extra time on their hands in a way to channel their frustration and bitterness. The Wording could have been better, however I am sure this was due to Barack being tired and on the campaign trail for over 15 months. What he could have said instead, which are synonyms for bitter are that People are Resentful, experiencing Pain, and Prolonged Discomfort, due to harsh and painful economic conditions. However, the fact that McCain, Clinton and others are trying to take a poor choice of words and to make nothing into something-- blowing it out of proportion -- and playing politics as usual, is despicable in an atttempt to get you to see things not as they are but as distortion. People in small-town America have experienced a loss of jobs in a greater degree and opportunity than Cities and suburban America, with very little to look forward to and time on their hands other than to go to church, hunt, and visit their local taverns, and for the young, many join the Military, and so many small town Americans have become bitter and disillusioned. Obama never stated that it was wrong that they turned to Religion and Guns due to time on their hands and/or a loss of hope, culture, plays, theaters, etc., they for an outlet turned to religion and guns.

In a larger picture, people in general all over America, are bitter over high gas prices, increased food prices, loss of jobs and hope, high education costs, increased mortgage costs and foreclosure, loss 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 believe 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 believe 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 eggrecious, a politician telling us the hard truth, the things we may not want to hear but need to hear OR a politician telling us a Fantasy/Lie, like the Bosnia Sniper Fire fabrication and PERFORMANCE, things we did not need to hear because not Truth, and which is a betrayal of the public trust and a deeply flawed Character Issue. 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 bottom-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. Barack Obama in his attempt to speak the clear-cold truth to America has produced a crisis effect, can we handle the truth, seeing things as they are -- the good and the bad, because that is the only way we can change things for the better in America to look at the hard facts and stop trying to sweep them under the rug or have politicians tell us that things are Great, when they are terribly wrong. They are not right and people are bitter, but we have a chance for Hope now; We have a Chance to Change, that hope -- that change is in the body of Barack Obama! Let no one fool you because if you do, you are saying you rather hear a lying politican than one who speaks Truth!

Posted by Angellight | April 14, 2008 12:01 PM

While we are talking about Obama, let me remind everyone that he refuses to were the flag lapel pin like other members of Congress and he refuses to hold his hand over his heart during the pledge of allegiance like other members of congress. He in unpatriotic. Also, he took a $600,000 favor from that snake Rezko; as far as I am concerned, that makes Obama a crook. And, Obama says that small town people are bitter people who cling to guns, religion, and an antipathy to people who are not like them. How could anybody fall for Obama?

Posted by Robin VZB | April 14, 2008 12:01 PM

What a tempest in a teapot. I thought McCain handled it beautifully and made Hillary Clinton look like the desperate out of control candidate that she is. Caught on camera drinking shots and beer with the common folk. So what hotel did she sleep in that night The Motel 8 or the most expensive hotel in town? Do any of us really think the 100 million dollar woman does shots and drinks beers with the normal folk when she isn't running for office?

Obama misspoke, he used poor words, even if he is an elitist, she is a liar with a whole crapload of scandals just waiting to be unearthed.

I will have faith in the Pennsylvanian people, even the bitter ones, that they can see through this fake outrage and the fake gun stories, and the fake I'm one of you shot pictures, and pick the elitist candidate who had to fight and work and overcome tremendous odds to be the first African American president, instead of the entitled one with the "right"name and connections, who still had to pad her resume.

Posted by deb | April 14, 2008 12:04 PM

What a tempest in a teapot. I thought McCain handled it beautifully and made Hillary Clinton look like the desperate out of control candidate that she is. Caught on camera drinking shots and beer with the common folk. So what hotel did she sleep in that night The Motel 8 or the most expensive hotel in town? Do any of us really think the 100 million dollar woman does shots and drinks beers with the normal folk when she isn't running for office?

Obama misspoke, he used poor words, even if he is an elitist, she is a liar with a whole crapload of scandals just waiting to be unearthed.

I will have faith in the Pennsylvanian people, even the bitter ones, that they can see through this fake outrage and the fake gun stories, and the fake I'm one of you shot pictures, and pick the elitist candidate who had to fight and work and overcome tremendous odds to be the first African American president, instead of the entitled one with the "right"name and connections, who still had to pad her resume.

Posted by deb | April 14, 2008 12:04 PM

If the "guns" and "religion" parts of what Obama said are supposed to be the "big deal," then why is it that Clinton is playing up the "bitter" part of it? Why was her campaign in Indiana handing out bumber stickers that read "I'm not bitter"?

From what Marc is saying, it looks (ridiculously) as though Hillary has this great argument to make against Obama, but she's not making the right argument. If even Hillary's campaign couldn't figure out what was so terrible about Obama's comments, how much parsing is necessary to make them "bad"? Yes, Hillary somewhat belatedly clung (hee) to her story about Daddy teaching her how to shoot, and about how she feels about faith. But she's shooting herself in the foot (or maybe she's shooting her eye out) with her silly comments. Isn't it much more condescending to blatantly pretend that you're one of us unwashed masses than it is to try to explain why we vote the way we do?

Posted by Amy | April 14, 2008 12:05 PM

"Again, why isn't the elitist pundit class asking real voters what they think, instead of manufacturing their outrage for them?"

They do. It's called "polling". Ever heard of it?

Newest one on Pennsylvania just came out. ARG, who had previously polled the race as tied, now has Clinton up by 20 points.

I don't doubt that others will show different results, but what idiot would ask about "asking voters", as if the media wouldn't get around to a poll or three?

Posted by Cal | April 14, 2008 12:07 PM

Re: Robin VZB

I suspect that the reaction would be much like when people learn about Senator Clinton's own Faith Group that in the 1930s had ties with the American Nazi party as well as conservative groups and racism. People in glass houses should not be throwing stones, they'll break their own walls.

Posted by Rob H. | April 14, 2008 12:18 PM

Obama has gained in every national tracking poll taken since the story hit TV news on Friday evening. ARG, on the other hand, has a track record of ludicrously bad polls. They also had Obama ahead by 20 in NH, you might recall, and when they said Obama and Clinton were tied in PA, the Clinton fans all pointed out that ARG is unreliable and not to look at their polls in a vacuum. They were right that time.

Posted by neil | April 14, 2008 12:19 PM

Re: Rob H

Just how old do you think Senator Clinton is? How can she be held responsible for something that happened in the 1930's? Besides which, I am not arguing that Senator Clinton is the perfect candidate. The people who are perfect for the job of President, unfortuantely, are not running for the office. I am just trying to point out to Obama's glassy eyed fans that he is not perfect. I am tired of everyone swooning over him.

Posted by Robin VZB | April 14, 2008 12:27 PM

The RNC is already placing adverts attacking Dem politicians from rural areas up for re-election who support Obama, wondering if they agree with his condescending views. Will this get the attention of super-dels? Considering that many of these politicians who will now be attacked are, in fact, super-dels, then of course this gets their attention! Obama just gave the RNC tons of ammo to use against anyone who suports him - and that includes every Dem in the country if he wins the nomination. Will it work? If history is any guide then it will be a resounding success.

Also, lots of folks here claiming that it requires careful parsing to make Obama's comments 'seem' horrible. WTF? This is pretty simple stuff that virtually anyone can easily understand.

"they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

As Marc writes, "You can easily imagine a voter who says, "That's not why I go to church...." or "I'm not against immigration.." or... "What the hell does my mortgage have to do with my Marlin M444?" Why is this guy telling me why I think what I think?"

Not difficult to see why this hurts. No 'parsing' necessary. The problem here, as with the Rev Wright, is not the truthfulness of the statements. The problem is that the majority of voters simply don't agree.

Posted by sbj | April 14, 2008 12:36 PM

they said Obama and Clinton were tied in PA, the Clinton fans all pointed out that ARG is unreliable and not to look at their polls in a vacuum.

Which is what I said as well in my last post. My point was not to argue that polls demonstrated he'd lost support, but that anyone who asks "why don't the elite ask the people?" as if there is no such thing as polls, is an idiot.

As for the rest of your post, I haven't seen any evidence that Obama has risen in the polls since then. It may be true, but I haven't seen it.

Posted by Cal | April 14, 2008 12:36 PM

Re: RobH

Obama has also attended meetings of the Fellowship. Best to drop this crazy shit!

"But the story may not be so simple. Indeed, as Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign confirmed yesterday, he has also attended Coe's prayer meetings. Coe’s group, "the Fellowship," reportedly shuns publicity while focusing on ministering to those in power ...."

Like Obama! What a joke.

Posted by sbj | April 14, 2008 12:44 PM

It's laughable that Marc considers opposition to gay marriage something other than "anti-gay animosity". There is absolutely no reason to oppose gay marriage except for anti-gay animosity. No factual or logical basis exists for preventing two consenting adults to be married. Encouraging monogamy and partnership harms society how?

Nice try on giving the haters an out, Marc. But the reality is that opposing gay marriage is a symptom of anti-gay sentiment, not a separate intellectual stance.

Those folks who say, I don't have anything against gays but they can never be married-- well, um, yeah you do have something against gays. Bigotry is bigotry.

And Jesus is no excuse for being a bigot. Period.

Posted by Joe Justice | April 14, 2008 12:45 PM

Robin is such a stupid bitch.

Posted by WWJD | April 14, 2008 12:47 PM

Let's remember what Sen. Obama actually told that audience of privileged supporters -- not simply that Americans experiencing hard times "cling" to religion, guns, and politically incorrect trade policy (that has proven to provide its benefits almost exclusively to people like those privileged supporters), but, of much more consequence in the long run, that such hard times has made them "bitter" bigots and xenophobes who distrust "people who don't look like" themselves and indulge in immigrant bashing.

But is that the truth? Or simply a lefty truism? What is the reality? Has the last 40 years of economic transformation -- that HAS caused great suffering in many parts of the country -- really led to more bigotry and greater intolerance? The evidence seems to indicated the opposite. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the country has become MORE tolerant, not less so. Furthermore, working class people know something that more affluent Americans, because they live lives increasingly isolated from the rest of us, often don't realize; that working class people today most often live and work in much MORE diverse, in terms of race and ethnicity, environments than more affluent, privileged Americans -- including the denizens of high tech enclaves on the West Coast who were undoubtedly among some of those Sen. Obama was pandering to with his remarks. To put it more succinctly; if you are a member of a craft trade union, work in light manufacturing, work on the docks, in construction (union or non-union), retail, food service, hospitality, etc., you are MUCH more likely to have co-workers, acquaintances and friends who are African American, or members of other ethnic minority groups, than if you are hanging out on the Microsoft campus, in a law firm or ad agency, in publishing, or on the business side of the communications and entertainment industry.

What Senator Obama said is a liberal cliche -- that Democrats have been using to comfort themselves for their political losses for at least 40 years. And that elites have found useful for justifying the libertarian economic policies that benefit them. It is also an indication of stereotypical thinking that demonstrates he really hasn't had much opportunity -- from privileged prep school to his privileged position in the Senate -- to get to know many working class Americans, especially white working class Americans outside the urban community he has lived in for his entire adult life, or learned much about what has happened to their lives over the last 30-40 years.

Posted by esmense | April 14, 2008 1:00 PM

McCain is going to Pennsylvania because he senses a vote rich invironment.

Superdelegates probably agree with Obama but know it was a stupid rookie blunder and for all you Obamacons out there it was a stupid political blunder. You may agree with him but you never insult those who you hope will vote for you and it was insulting.

Posted by linda | April 14, 2008 1:33 PM

Wow, this whole "bittergate" thing is getting so overblown. Obama's SF audience has to be taken into consideration. Now, I'm a Bay Area native, so no disrespect is intented, but... A lot of Democrats out there do live in a bubble. I'd love to hear the conversation which preceded his statement - to what was he responding???

I'm reminded of a conversation with friends over drinks in 1992. That day California had its first execution in years. One friend was particularly upset, not understanding how over 80% of Californians were reportedly against the death penalty when nobody he knew supported it. I told him all he had to do was go across the Bay Bridge and travel to the opposite side of the Berkeley-Oakland hills. There he'd find all those people. Thing was, he never had any contact with anyone who didn't think like him - pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-death penalty. Really, he was no different than similarly insulated conservatives.

Yes, I'm an Obama supporter, but not an Obamaniac. What drives me mad about how the media has conflated this issue is that, of the three candidates, he is the one who understands that these barriers need to be transcended. Obama has lived amongst abject poverty. Until his books were incredibly successful, he and his wife were comfortable but still pretty middle- class, saddled with weighty college debt while raising two small children. When he came to Chicago, it was specifically to assist the working class and poor in Chicago.

And why aren't we talking about HRC throwing Gore under the bus? She didn't do it only on CNN; she'd made the same statement, without naming names, earlier that day in PA. How about the conflict-of-interest, should she be elected, between U.S. policy and Bill Clinton's business deals? Or why Bill Clinton, with $100+ million, is still soaking U.S. taxpayers over $1 million annually to cover his expenses? (He could at least adopt the Carter model and pay for his own staff.)

Posted by Judy | April 14, 2008 2:02 PM

Robin,

Obama was not saying that small-town voters are "bitter people." He was saying that they are bitter about politics. It was not a blanket condemnation of these people AS PEOPLE. Given that 81% of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, and Congress and the president have sub-30% approval ratings, it is not exactly going out on a limb to suggest that VOTERS are bitter and angry about politics.

By the way, I'd like to add that I found John McCain's remarks that people in small-towns are the "heart and soul" of America to be very demeaning. I grew up in Brooklyn and I now live in Los Angeles, and I'm sick of these cultural elitists looking down their noses at those of us in the big cities. Seriously, aren't there more people living in cities and suburbs than in small, rural towns. Why aren't we the heart and soul of America? Why are people in small towns the default for virtue and good citizenship?

Posted by Brian | April 14, 2008 2:19 PM

I'm not watching from small-town PA. As near as I can tell from the internets, the reaction seems to have split roughly as follows:

Pundits: The fainting goats of Kalamazoo.
Rural Pennsylvanians: So?

Or if you prefer:
People who already liked Obama: Pretty positive to another dialogue he's willing to engage in, treating voters like adults.
People who already disliked Obama: Pretty negative to this latest reminder that he's an effete, out-of-touch liberal.
Undecided voters: Anyone found some?

Posted by Deborah | April 14, 2008 2:42 PM

Since Hillary and John have been sharing all of the talking points lately, it only makes sense they should also share a name: McClinton!

Now that is truly Superbad!

Posted by philly dog | April 14, 2008 3:30 PM

Brian,

I agree that lots of people of all sorts are bitter about the Bush administration economic policies. Unlike a lot of people, I don't object to the word bitter. I object to Obama stereotyping small town people as gun toting people who hate anybody that is different than them. Obama should get to know some small town people; he shouldn't prejudge them on some stereotype. He shouldn't go in front of a bunch of rich people and make fun of small town people.

Posted by Robin VZB | April 14, 2008 4:47 PM

Robin,

Obama did not "judge" anyone. He was trying to explain one group of voters' point-of-view to another group that does not share the same reality. If anything, he was expressing empathy for the degree to which voters have been alienated by both political parties. He was encouraging "a bunch of rich people" NOT to judge these voters.

And where do you get that he was making fun of small-town people? He made fun of himself as an unusual messenger with a funny name. Beyond that, he rather soberly gave his take on where small-town voters are coming from. They were not laugh lines, and they did not elicit any laughter.

People keep acting like Obama thought he was off the record and could thus unburden himself of all of his true feelings about the "little people." There was a camera right in front of him and, according to at least one report, many other cameras in the room. This guy had the world at his feet when he graduated law school, and he chose to take a $12,000-a-year job helping to organize people on the economic margins. Are these the actions of a snob?

Lastly, the most frustrating distortion, echoed by many in the supposedly pro-Obama press, including Chris Matthews tonight, is that Obama is claimed to have said that religion and belief in gun ownership rights are "products" of economic struggle, as if people didn't have those beliefs until money was tight and opportunities were few. That's not at all what he said. His point was that, when neither party can be trusted to enact economic policies that might assist someone who's struggling, people vote on social and cultural issues. If anything, Obama was assailing the Democratic party for failing to act on its platforms and convictions to get things done for people who need help, and for not doing as good a job as the Republican party of communicating bedrock American values.

Posted by Brian | April 14, 2008 11:59 PM

Superdelegates Might Agree

Comments (38)

Recent Posts

Monthly Archives