:dubious:
I thought it was “elytist”?
Claiming you’re seeing lots of “I’m not bitter” stickers is pretty easy when your campaign is the one making them and passing them out…
To add to Shayna’s litany above: Grassroots. Astroturf. Hmmm…
I don’t know any people like that, so no anecdotes to give. I’m an elitist. 
No, seriously, I’ve never lived in a place like small town PA. Right now I live in Silicon Valley-- one of the most culturally diverse and economically vibrant parts of the country. I only know what I read about.
I think it’s more a “small town” vs urban thing, although rural might also be more tied to economically disadvantaged. But I don’t think improving their economic condition would change their views on those issues, or make them seem less important. I’ve not seen any evidence, nor does it make any sense, that those issues that might be considered socially conservative were any less apparent in small towns and rural areas when their local economy was humming along. AFAIK, those areas have always been a bastion of social conservatism.
Rendell Says “Cling” Ain’t No Big Thing
At least someone in their camp has half a brain.
Will this really be forgotten as easily as some folks think? The conservative blogs will certainly remind its readers of it every chance they get. Heck, some have even made merchandise referring to this.
Of course, the next question would then have to be, who reads blogs, as far as numbers and existing ideology goes?
ETA: As for the Rendell quote, why does he think that McCain and/or his allies WON’T be running ads from hell and back in rural areas telling them how much Obama looks down on them? That’s not my definition of “forgotten.”
Here is how I see it.
Obama’s comments “prove” he is an elitist snob.
Mcain’s comments “prove” he doesn’t know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.
Hillary’s comments “prove” she is a bald-faced liar.
I fail to see why Obama loses with this.
But can this go on until November? That’s over 6 months away. There is so much time yet for so many things to go wrong - for both parties!
Right now it’s exciting. But someone else is going to step in it next week, like Ms. Clinton might remember being attacked by an orange-juice-drinking Elitist Harvard Student wielding a heavy tome, whilst out bear hunting with her daddy.
Or one of the hostesses from that fancy hotel in Hanoi might come forward with photos of Mr. McCain lounging by the pool and throwing darts at a portrait of President Nixon.
Or Mr. Obama might say he understands the frustrations of ordinary housewives and why they might turn to martinis and adultery.
Who knows?
I don’t think he should pay an especially high price for it. The Dem candidate was never going to be running in the general election as the champion of gun rights or pro life issues. All Obama did was engage in a little unguarded commentary on a reality that most candidates don’t discuss, viz., that most professional politicians, especially most with urban/suburban backgrounds, especially most from a progressive background, have very little in common with the culture, political priorities, and lifestyle of most rural or lower middle class people. Obama (or just about any national poitical figure) would never in a million years be mingling with backwoods Pennsylvanians, and that’s in part true because he (they) would find the political and cultural leanings, predispositions, prejudices (in the generic sense that we all have prejudices), etc. distasteful or alienating. But because he (they) have to be seen to campaign nationally, he (they) need to grit their teeth and talk around the significant differences in the worldviews of a Harvard educated black liberal guy (or Wellesley-educated white feminist woman) and that of a lower middle class rural white guy.
HRC also has some history of being dismissive of the beliefs and choices of the masses. Her contemptuous comment about “staying home and baking cookies” revealed a lot about what she thought of millions of stay at home moms, but she seems to be doing well among women.
I suspect it would be the exception, not the rule, for candidates not to privately voice exasperation with the need to make nice to people who they don’t always understand, like, or share anything in common with.
I don’t watch TV cable news anymore, how is this issue being covered there? Is the “bitter” part the biggest deal about all of it?
Getting in a huff over that seems odd to me. Of course they’re bitter. A people getting fucked by their government should be bitter. Is it somehow a personal insult to their character to call them bitter?
It’s strange to me, if that’s the case, that the controversy is over that minor issue instead of the rest of the stuff, which may or may not be indicative of much more.
The issue is not whether or not he is right. I suspect he is … people losing their jobs for what they believe is no fault of their own but instead because they have been sold out to the best interests of the multinationals are bitter … and have every right to be. And bitter frustrated people often do tend to find solace most that which is most solid in their lives - old family traditions, faith. And damn it they want control over those things any way. They can end up voting on those issues alone.
But being right is besides the point. Hell Carter was right when he lectured America on the need for energy conservation but no one likes a downer man. And when I’ve gotten bitter about events in my life, the last thing I’ve wanted is someone to point that fact out to me. That doesn’t inspire. It’s just a bummer.
He needs to get past this quick and get out a well articulated positive message with details. What will his Presidency look like? Positive things, not the lack of negative ones. A vision for an America that is greater than it is now and a roadmap for how to get there. If that be a “liberal” vision of an America then articulate that vision - without shame. Just articulate it well. Take control of the narrative … NOW.
Once again, the big deal isn’t that he said they were bitter, but that he said that their closely held and cherished beliefs were really a result of bitterness.
If John MCain gave a talk to some hard-right Republicans, and word leaked out that he said something like, 'Don’t worry about those liberals in San Franscisco. They’re just bitter that they lost the last two elections, and their bitterness is what causes them to cling to support of gay marriage and oppose our guns," the left would be apoplectic. They’d see it as condescending, and the notion that their support of gay rights and gun control was nothing more than the result of bitterness would be insulting.
That’s the issue here. Not that he called them bitter, but he said that they believe what they do because they are bitter. Then he made it worse by adding in the racism and xenophobia bit, which was a direct insult.
It was a stupid, tone-deaf thing to say. And as usual, these things come out when the candidate is on ‘friendly ground’, thinking he’s speaking only to the faithful, and therefore has his guard down.
Whether he really means that, I don’t know. He may just as well have been trying to impress the San Fran liberals not to worry about his toning down of opposition to gun control, and to get a little shot in at the yokels to convince the San Fran crowd that he was one of them. As usual with a politician, it’s hard to separate the truth from the lies, the lies from the embellishments, the embellishments from mistakes born of disconnect from the voters, etc.
Where did he say that? Can we get a cite for Obama saying these people believe in religion and value guns because of economic crisis? That seems to go beyond what he actually said, which was that people cling to those issues politically when they do not see economic change as relevant to politics.
Exactly. And rightly so.
No, it’s not. Obama wasn’t dismissive or condescending. Rather than say, “Don’t worry about those Pennsyltucky hicks,” he was taking their lives seriously, and expecting his listeners to do the same - to think of them as real people, rather than as some cartoon ‘other.’
I don’t get you here. Are you saying that only a negligible number of Americans have nasty feelings towards immigrants that they feel are taking away their jobs and tax dollars? Or are you saying that a nontrivial number of Americans DO feel that way, but it was insulting of Obama to acknowledge it?
Or are you just saying, “Oh my, that sounds bad!”
It was impolitic, sure. If a candidate was able to make it through a two-year campaign without saying anything that was a bit off-key, that would be pretty amazing, wouldn’t it?
Anyhow, it SOUNDS bad. Dear me. We can’t squeeze any meaning out of this, because there’s very little to be squoze, but we’ll talk about it anyway, because it’s a ‘gaffe,’ and gaffes must be talked about.
Obama is defying the “conventional wisdom” of how to run a campaign. He has consistently treated the voting public like adults, who can hear the truth maturely without having to be spoonfed honey like a three-year-old. That’s why everyone from McCain to Clinton to the DLC to the pundits HAVE to attack it and make it a great big giant shitstorm…their cozy little world where they control the message and the public is never told the truth is fading away before their eyes.
I think many people are forgetting the real point of this whole scandal:
Obama prefers orange juice to coffee!
Underlining mine → He is man! Check out the vids on his website, plain to the point issues. He’s like he always has been, succinct and articulate about what needs to get done and when, where and how. I’m looking forward to this weekend, there’s possibility I will see it first hand, Mrs. P and I are thinking about going to PA for the lead up to the 22nd, it’s only 6 hours away…
I wasn’t suggesting any such thing. I’m saying if we are going to discuss the candidates and perceived elitism coming from them then let’s look at how McCain and HRC are handling this and insulting the intelligence of the same average voter they claim Obama offended. IMO that’s more offensive than Obama’s bad choice of words.
I think **wolfman ** is reading something into the comment that isn’t necessarily there. IMO Obama was saying that voters have learned not to trust candidates on economic policy issues so they find other issues to focus on , gay marriage, gun control, immigration, etc. Nothing he says implies those feelings and concerns are far less important or stupid in any way. That’s something the opposition is trying to insist was his real motive but he has clearly said that’s not the case.
No I’m not making it sound that way. Don’t read something into it that isn’t there. I’m saying we have to discern how much relevance we give certain issues in light of the big picture and other issues. Of course we won’t view all issues with equal importance because we are individuals however, in light of more important issues how relevant is this little sound bite and the incessant parsing of it? If it became part of a pattern of snobbish talk from Obama that would be another matter. As it is I’m more offended by those who try to use it to divert attention from other issues and find fault with him by being disingenuous.
Because it doesn’t show that he’s one of the people. You know, like McCain, or Clinton (either one) or Dubya or Chen— aw hell, I can’t do this with a straight face.
I’m sure they’re all just as concerned about The People as I am about the ants in my driveway. I’m kind enough not to douse them in gasoline and set fire to it, and they’re kind enough to not swarm me in my sleep. See? It’s a relationship of equals!
Why, because they’re not Pulling Themselves Up By Their Bootstraps and Founding Important Companies, which is what they would be doing if they were True Americans instead of whining little bitches.
Duh.
-Joe
I’ll echo another posters sentiment. Where exactly did he say or even clearly imply that? I might understand someone wondering if that’s what he meant or some even thinking that was what he meant but that’s not what he said is it? I’m suggesting we don’t let weasel pundits or disingenuous politicians tell us that he clearly meant that. He’s apologized for a poor choice of words and tried to stress his actual point.