It doesn’t take a whole lot of parsing to extract the following thoughts:
People in the rust belt cling to their guns because they are bitter and frustrated.
The people in the rust belt are bitter because no one has helped them.
This bitterness causes them to ‘cling to’ religion, antipathy towards strange people, and protectionism/isolationism.
Now, I’m guessing a bunch of you are reading that and going, “Sounds about right.” and wondering what the big fuss is about. It may surprise you to discover that many people in Pennsylvania don’t like to be described as clinging to their guns. Or that they are helpless and bitter. Or that their religious beliefs are somehow inflated because of their desperate situation. Or that they are xenophobic, period.
And even if you believe it’s a correct interpretation, that doesn’t mean the audience is going to like it. I don’t believe Obama would have said that had he realized his comments would have carried down there - he’s smart enough to know better. These comments leaked out as Obama was talking to an audience for whom his comments would play well. He screwed up. Now he has to put out the fire. He’s probably up to the task.
Nothing in the above post defends the assertion you originally made and that was being challenged.
To re-cap, you said, “…he said that their closely held and cherished beliefs were really a result of bitterness.”
Your summary above has him saying they cling to these things in times of economic downturn. Do you see the distinction? Cling is an awkward word here. It admits of a reading of “believe with increased fervor.” I’m not convinced that in the context of voting patterns, that is what he meant. But even if you buy that reading, it doesn’t equate to your original claim that these beliefs are the result of bitterness.
Never underestimate a meme. The blogs I mentioned will not let a single mention of Obama go without mentioning (a) Jeremiah Wright (whom they claim has already cut huge into his numbers) and (b) him (supposedly) condescending to poor people.
Of course, as I said in my earlier post, this may not have that big an impact, since I don’t know of many, if any, blogs that don’t preach to the choir. But on the other hand, their power to spread the meme is non-zero. Besides which, if they can do it, the McCain campaign and their allies certainly can.
But doesn’t it work both ways? What am I missing here? Aren’t the Democrats as likely to seize on some “error” of Mr. McCain’s, for instance his confusion about the factions in Iraq, etc.? Don’t Democrats “do” blogs?
The election ought to be fought on the issues, I agree. But that’s a pipe dream nowadays, I think.
I’m sorry, I can get my head around the notion of bitterness leading to a reactionary backlash, but a progressive one? Not so much. Also, pairing Guns’n’God with xenophobia and protectionism, while its fairness may be open to debate, at least doesn’t sound like a total non-sequitur. Women’s reproductive rights and the First Amendment are a little harder to shoehorn into that space.
So, I’d have to say that if he said that, I’d still be scratching my head, trying to figure what he was getting at.
I understand that some people are taking it that way and that interpretation is being encouraged by others. I don’t see where it says that they focus on those issues and cling to religion because they are bitter. I don’t see the implication that those issues don’t really matter or that people are foolish to focus on them. That’s not what he meant and he has said so.
Not I do I think Obama is up to the task of leaving this behind I think the voters are up to it as well. I think more voters will be see through the feeble and insulting attempt at political diversion and it will turn them from those seeking gain by purposely misrepresenting Obama’s words.
Only if we shrug our shoulders and accept it without action. There’s nothing wrong with examining the candidates words to get a sense of who they are and what they are about. The occasional gaffe is no big deal unless a pattern reveals itself. A presidential candidate repeatedly confusing Sunnis and Shia when the war in Iraq is possibly the biggest issue on the table has to matter a little.
It’s the purposeful twisting of a candidates words that we should resist. Yes both sides do that. So far it seems that Obama is trying to relay on those tactics far less than our normal political tradition. I think we should consistently remind our candidates and the media that we’re sick of that crap and they run the serious risk of losing our attention and support if they rely on it excessively.
There isn’t any distinction. He said the jobs had been gone for twenty five years, and weren’t coming back. “Then” they get bitter and cling to guns and religion and antipathy to illegal immigrants.
This is basically just an argument from ignorance. Try it like this -
“You go into some of these liberal enclaves like the SDMB, and like a lot of liberal and self-reinforcing groups, they see that the Presidential elections have gone against them for the last eight years, and nothing’s replaced them,… And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to stupidity or denial or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or nonsense about how words don’t mean what they say as a way to explain their frustrations.”
It is incongrous, yes. Minor hijack - I absolutely abhor the idea of the terms “progressives” or “progressive issues”. Gee, yes, I don’t hold all the same opinions as a progressive. I oppose progress. Grrr, I hate progress. Gah, what an arrogant bitch term.
I was just trying to show that the people on this thread who thought it was no big deal didn’t see why it was offensive because they have the same biases as Obama. In order to try to get people to think about why it’s potentially insulting, I suggested trying to think of someone referring to an issue you’re passionate about - for philosophical reasons that are important to you - and linking them to being some racist yokel, to imply that you only worry about that stuff because you’re too dumb to know what’s best for you.
Well I think liberal is probably a corruption anyway, since it originally meant something that was opposed to current liberal ideology.
I don’t know, I’m not in charge of coming up with names for political movements. I just know that whoever was responsible for popularizing that one needs a kick to the genitals.
Hey, it wasn’t us 21st Century do-gooders (how’s that one?)…the Progressive movement actually started out in the late 19th Century, and one of the major figures was a Republican, Robert LaFollette. You can dislike the name all you want, but you might just as well dislike “Republican” or “conservative”.
I don’t care much for the term “conservative” either. I don’t see what is “conservative” about suppressing reproductive freedom, or lowering taxes for millionaires, starting senseless wars, or trying to minimize environmental protections. I think these are more accurately described as “regressive” policies.
“Republican” and “conservative” don’t in and of themselves imply that their ideology is superior. I don’t care who it was that created the term or what ideology it was used to describe. The term “progressive” implies that the ideology is moving towards what’s best, and logically, if you oppose them, you oppose progress. It’s obnoxious.
It’d be like if the Republicans became the “Patriot Party” - if you oppose them, you must not want what’s best for your country! (And yes, I realize that that’s one of the things they’re trying to do). Imagine how irritating that would be.
Maybe the fact that the polls didn’t move as a result of this will reduce the perceived value of trivia like this.
Quinnipiac: Hillary up 50-44, same as the week before. They polled Wednesday through Sunday, with the weekend’s polling looking little different from the weekdays.
SurveyUSA: Hillary up 54-40, down (but not significantly so) from last week’s 56-38. They polled Saturday through Monday.
Yeah, I don’t see why this would make anyone pro-Hillary. She’s blatantly the thing that people are concerned Obama might be - so it would be silly to switch your allegiance to her if that sort of thing bothered you. It just might hurt the potential independent draw of Obama.
On the good side, yesterday we had a meeting where one of our corporate executives told us that their economists predicted a 10% boost in trade with Columbia for Canada - trade diverted from the United States. Your loss, our gain.
