That’s a good point and I wish I could find the entire question and answer. He even admitted that a lot of people simply don’t buy it when a candidate talks about “hope.”
But he was RIGHT about why.
He can’t prove people’s motivations, period.
He voiced an opinion a lot of people hold. I’m a religious gun owner–a pretty well off religious gun owner. I agree with the idea that there are some sad people out there who cling to religion desperately because of having incredibly shitty lives.
I don’t look at that as a bad thing, in fact, that’s a good thing, to me. One of the biggest appeals of Christianity is it helps people get through the hard times.
I definitely agree with the opinion that many impoverished religious types use their religion to get through the troubles of their life–using the term “clinging to it” is possibly politically dangerous but not in and of itself a dishonest way of voicing this opinion.
There’s a lot of common sense, anecdotal reasons I have this opinion. But it’s only a well-grounded opinion, based on common sense and anecdotal evidence. That isn’t a fact, something is true if it’s demonstrably true. Opinions can’t be true or false because they aren’t facts. My opinion that John McCain will make a better President than Barack Obama can never reach the level of fact. My opinion that Abraham Lincoln was a better President than U.S. Grant can never reach the level of fact. Even though a polling of historians–experts in the field, might agree with me, we are strictly talking about opinion, not fact.
This particular issue isn’t quite as bad off as some opinions, it may be fact, but it isn’t known right now if it is factual or not. So it’s impossible to say whether Obama’s words were true or false. How does Obama know why poor religious people in rural Pennsylvania towns are religious? He made an opinionated guess–one I probably don’t disagree with, but just because I don’t disagree with it doesn’t mean I’m going to say “this is the truth.” I’ve seen no evidence it is the truth, until I do it’s simply an opinion I agree with. People have gotten in the sickening habit of identifying their opinions as the “one truth” and that’s very dangerous.
As for the other parts of his comments, I agree with his comment on these people being anti-immigrant pretty much (just like I do his comment on the religious.) When it comes to guns, I have no personal experience with anything like that.
I know a lot of people who don’t like immigrants because they feel immigrants have contributed to their negative situations in life. I know a lot of people who say their faith is what has gotten them through their hardest times.
I don’t know a single person who has said anything even indicative of, “I own guns because the rest of my life is so shitty.” I’m not saying such people don’t exist, but the opinion that people cling to guns because their lives are shitty in general doesn’t really sync up with my personal observations the same way Obama’s other two points did.
I thought people were disagreeing about the what, not the why. Aw fuck it. I’m too tired for reading comprehension. I’m going to bed.
You keep trying to equate it to a statement about all small towners, all religous peple, etc. He was basically asked why some people choose cultural issues over their own self-interest. His answer was that they do it because they simply don’t believe politicians who say they care about their economic interests. They don’t think they’re going to get any help in that are, so they retreat into cultural identifiers and, sometimes, scapegoating.
I can’t comment on how Fox News is presenting the story. I can’t stand watching them.
If you are giving Hillary a bye because she’s desperate, why doesn’t Fox News and that brand of conservatism get the same bye? They’re watching their chickens from the past eight years coming home to roost, and are hugely worried about the outcome of the elections this November. For that matter, I don’t think one can say that the Fox News crowd is particularly happy about having had John McCain come out of the primary process to be their candidate. It wasn’t that long ago that I was hearing that Limbaugh and the other Neo-Con zombies were claiming that McCain was a Republican in name only.
The loss of jobs did not turn people to guns and/or religion. I’m sure my grandparents (among others) would appreciate that mischaracterization, being lifetime devout Catholics. And I didn’t know that my “anger” over job losses and economic hardship is what made me a supporter of the Constitution. I always thought it was because it was because it was the supreme law of the land. I suppose when I get a job I should start fighting against freedom of speech, because I won’t be bitter about my tragic economic position.
Once I posted a thread hammering on the residents of California. The backlash I got for that was a learning experience. I learned that making rash generalizations about an entire population was ridiculous on its face. You, apparently, have yet to learn that lesson.
I still support Obama. I think that he is the most charismatic candidate we’ve had since Kennedy. I don’t care for a lot of his ideas, but I admire his passion. But in this, he made a mistake. I know what he was getting at, but what he said was far beyond what he should have said. That is the crux of the matter. And you’re making it worse by 1) responding to the barking head brigade, 2) taking the other extreme in response to them, and 3) being fundamentally dishonest about it by insisting that everything Obama said is true, when it is demonstrably not true.
All generalizations are false, including this one. You know that as well as I do.
I was only disagreeing with **Sophistry’s ** take on what people’s problem was. I don’t recall taking a side one way or the other.
Of course, if I did think you’re wrong, that you disagree with me is proof that i’m right.
Yet interestingly, the same people (conservatives) who heaped praises on Bill Cosby are condemning Obama’s comments. Find me a conservative that called Bill Cosby an “elitist” and I’ll concede you have a point.
I was one of the people who criticized Bill, by the way. Not because what he said was untrue, but because he was preaching to the choir. But the way I remembered, he got way more praise than scorn, at least from the media. And If you scan the past threads on the subject, you’ll see both conservative and liberal Dopers chiming in agreement with Cosby, with only a couple of grumbles.
Obama isn’t catching the same break, obviously.
Unlike the OP, I don’t think it’s the case of Obama being uppity. l think it’s as simple as people chaffing at the idea that their behavior could be symptomatic of socioeconomic failings. We’re used to this discourse in the context of urban conditions, not small town America. Well, I think it’s only fair to include everyone in that conversation, and I think that’s what Obama was trying to do.
But that isn’t really waht he said. Part of the problem here is that the question and the first part of his answer are getting snipped out of the soundbytes (and I’m having a hard time finding the complete transcript online). He wasn’t saying that job loss caused that stuff, he was saying that cynicism about politicians promising to change things caused some people to choose cultural/social issues over their own economic self-interest. Really, he was saying that people think liberals are full of shit and don’t believe them on economic issues, so they vote on red meat social issues instead.
Personally, I’m not sure it matters whether it’s the “truth” or not. Not only have “telling the truth” and “telling it like it is” been used for a long time as excuses to be a jerk (not saying this is the case with Obama at all), they’ve also had a LONG history of being damaging to politicians, no matter what the actual facts were.
As far as “indisputable facts” go, well, I read a conservative just yesterday say that it’s an “indisputable fact” that global warming science is “shaky and unproven.” Funny how facts can go, isn’t it?
At any rate, I understand that Dio’s frustration probably comes out of a larger issue than just this one quote (and the reactions to it). Still, if Obama wants to be President, he has to face up to some, well, facts, among which is “people don’t like quotes that make it sound like you’re insulting them, true or not.” I suppose one may think it’s more important to “tell it like it is,” but given the history of politics, I don’t know how you can then turn around and say that he should be immune to criticism for it.
Perhaps not, but it is certain that that’s what you said in your OP.
You supplied no context, you simply asserted the certain truth of what he said. Now you’re backing off of that?
You know, I expect McCain and Fox News to peddle this bullshit. But I do not understand why Hillary thinks this nonsense is a winning issue.
I don’t have any serious issues with what Obama said, though I am leery of his attempt to massage guns into an issue where I honestly cannot see any connection. Me, I’m an atheist, fairly liberal, university-educated, big city-dwelling gun owner who has every reason to be happy and optimistic about his financial situation. I “cling” to guns because arms are the liberty teeth of the people.
Otherwise, I think Obama is spot-on in describing the frustration and hopelessness in these abandoned small towns, and I think that many of the attacks on what he said are completely disingenuous.
Love it. 
Not at all. If I could have quoted Obama’s entire answer, I would have, but even the elided version is true.
First, let’s see the whole quote:
*But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. 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. *
Sounds entirely logical and true to me.
So, is it true, or is it out of context? I never questioned Obama’s credibility, but I have serious doubts about yours. Make up your mind.
It’s still coincidentally true despite being taken out of context.
There was even more than that, though. On Meet the Press, they quoted an even longer response where he talked about people not buying into a “hope” message and said "especially if the candidate is named “Barack Obama.”