Holy spindoctor, Batman! The people who detest Obama to your degree are just as guilty of painting a false picture of him as those who think he is some messianic figure.

What you got from Obama is precisely what I would expect someone to get who absolutely loathes him. Your mind is closed to the possibility that he could have meant something else. And that's fine. If you're going to be rigid like that, go right ahead. But he never said anyone was stupid, he said that people are "bitter". There's a huge difference. Bitter does not equal stupid. There is smart and stupid, content and bitter. If you're bitter, than you desire to find contentedness. How do you do that when your government is ignoring you? How can you do that when you have limited economic prospects? You do what you can and lean on traditions... in small towns and rural America, that usually means hunting, going to church, playing some ball, etc. Yes, it may also mean fear of the other (I can't tell you how many times I've heard people in troublesome economic situations blame immigrants for stealing all the jobs).

For me, I'm tired of the same crap in Washington. McCain is a geezer and doesn't represent a lot of my issues the way I would like; Hillary is a big fat liar. That's well documented. I don't know if Obama can do the job, but I'm willing to give him a try. It can't be any worse than Bush.

At this point, Obama could say the sky is blue and Hillary would challenge his assessment.

Hillary: Shame on Obama for saying the sky in this great nation is blue.

Audience member #1: Um, the sky is blue.

Bob Johnson: Black folks are only agreeing that the sky is blue because Obama is black.

Audience member #2: Um, I'm asian and the guy who agreed is white.

Bill: What Hillary meant to say is that the sky isn't just BLUE, it's AMERICAN sky blue and it's a shame that Obama refuses to acknowledge this fact.

Audience member #3: WTH?

*Hillary hands Bill an Arch Card* Go get a Big Mac and let me handle this. Great Americans, the sky is more than blue. This great sky is blue with OPPORTUNITY!

Audience member #4: Can you explain what you mean?

Chelsea: It's none of your business!

*McCain and his wife rush the stage*

McCain: Blue skies for a hundred years!

C. McCain: I have always loved the blue skies of America!

*Audience collectively roll their eyes and leave*

Rev Wright: You want him to bless the white clouds after they rained on our souls! I say G-D DAMN THE WHITE CLOUDS!

Hannity: SEE, I told you Obama was a muslim!

Caller: Um, Rev. Wright is a Christian pastor.

Hannity: But he HATES America and the ONLY people who hate America are MUSLIMS!

Caller: Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols hated America. They killed Americans and destroyed a government building. Were they muslims?

Hannity: Yes, yes they were! Next caller.

Love ya for posting this! So funny :)

I believe that people will always find these things important as well. And, I can't speak for Obama, but I think he made himself clear in the compassion forum that faith is important to him throughout his life. But it IS well documented that when the going gets really tough, people do find solace in the things they know or appreciate the most. Remember back in 2001, church attendance shot waaay up after 9/11. People were trying to make sense of a crazy world. I myself haven't experienced economic uncertainty, so I can't say with absolute resolve, but I would expect that people would, yes, cling to something like faith that has brought me solace before. Tragedy doesn't usually create faith; it reveals it and even strengthens it. When the world seems uncertain, I know that I would seek refuge in my God who I know has blessed me all my life, and who I have faith will see me through my darkest hours.

Do you guys really think he literally meant that people cling to guns and religion? Because I took it to mean, based on both what is logical to me, the full context of the comment itself and what he has said since, that he meant people cling to the political subjects of guns and religion.

In other words, when they don't think that their daily lives will improve financially or in any other way regardless of who is elected, they will fall back to their trigger topics like guns, religion, abortion, etc. So when the republican party campaigns on those topics in a manner that speaks to them, those ideas become more central in their decision of who to vote for than matters of fiscal or economic concern. They may like what the democrats say about health care and jobs, etc., but they don't have faith that it is anything other than rhetoric, so they fall back on the topics of gun control, family values, etc. Some may find it elitist of me to say so, but given my experience growing up in a rural area, I consider many rural Americans to be more prone to the conservative 'moral' politics than the liberal ones. And by moral politics I mean things like abortion, 'family values', affirmative action, and so on. They like the idea of tax cuts for the middle class, protection for US employees and universal health care, but they don't believe anyone can deliver. So they fall back on the triggery topics instead.

That I thought was the crux of the discussion. Not that people literally have nothing else going for them when times get tough than guns and religion, but that they don't have faith that political candidates can deliver on anything else, because they haven't seen anyone deliver in so long.

I would agree with that assessment. Given the previous Charlie Rose interview I posted and the full context of the most recent statements, I think he is probably waxing political and talking about political phenomena. But to a degree, it can also be taken literally. There are some out there who have taken great offense to the comments; others have just verified their veracity. I guess it all depends on worldview. Being from the south, I can see both the literal and politically figurative instances of his statement.

Funny. :)

But leave my buddy Hannity out of this. :mad:

What's the average salary of most of your hometown's inhabitants?

Do the retired members of your community have pensions that they don't have to worry about?

You have no idea how hard some of these places have been hit. The last Johnstown Flood in 1977 is a great example. It happened right when the steel industry was starting to decline. My mom saved an old issue of the paper from that time and it's just so sad to look at now...all these ads from businesses saying "we will rebuild!!" and most of them didn't. Johnstown used to be a beautiful place, it's a ghost town now.

Obama was saying (and he's right) that people in some of these towns are so tired of hearing that they're going to get new jobs, economic opportunity, blah blah blah, that rather than believing there might actually someone out there who could change things, and maybe get their hearts broken, they'd rather say "Obama is anti-gun and I love my guns and so I'm not voting for the big jagoff even if everything else he says is pretty cool."

It's the equivalent of a girl who has gone through one too many bad breakups refusing to go out to bars or parties or be fixed up with any new man and sitting at home eating ice cream in her pajamas with 17 cats.

Thanks for this post. I agree with this interpretation. The literal interpretation (or, at least, my literal interpretation) is also accurate because people do cling to those things that they find to be consistent when politics and the economy are inconsistent.

It's also an issue of wording. People really clung to the "bitter" part of his speech as if that changed the meaning. Plus, there is no denying that there are people all over the country (and especially in areas that have fallen on hard times) who are bitter/angry/whatever the heck else at the state of politics and economics in this country.

As an aside, neither the literal or figurative interpretations are condescending. :) People who are easily offended and condescended will always be so.

I don't think what he said was malicious.

I do think it underscores the left-leaning concept that much of the GOP electorate votes against their self-interest because they don't know any better.

I don't think it's because they don't know any better. I think his comment underscores the impotence of both parties historically to address the issues of this part of the electorate with any real meaning, and since those economic options have been lacking, it's been easy to vote issues.

Please expand upon what you think the parties have failed to address with real meaning, concerning this portion of the electorate. Thanks.

Commandment #11: Thou shalt not double-post...

But that last statement was just too good! That's EXACTLY how it is. :p I just had a good laugh. Thanks, 33girl!

Well, just for starters, the theory of trickle-down economics might look good on paper, but just like in science, what actually arrives at the bottom is pretty meager compared to what gets left at the top. Republicans have tried their best to stimulate corporate growth, but at the same time, they have stimulated corporate greed. So businesses are always looking for ways to cut corners and make more money for their shareholders. That might mean closing businesses here and taking jobs overseas, leaving communities open to economic hardship.

On the Democratic side, welfare is a big, fat mess. The people who have worked all their lives don't want some crappy handout from the government. They have too much pride for that, and rightfully so. Unfortunately for all the rhetoric for bringing people up, what's happened is that welfare as is tends to keep people down.

Both parties share blame for NAFTA and not making sure there were proper labor insurances.

IN this most recent administration, our hands have been tied and we can't really afford the programs we have. Yet our president finds it necessary to pay trillions of dollars to a war that is stupid (Iraq, not Afghanistan). China owns our asses and our children's children's asses. It is a very sad state of affairs. The money is going out the window, and so is the political capital. There hasn't been sufficient time or energy paid to the home front, either. So people are suffering.

You'll have to forgive my slight rambling... I'm posting after my normal bedtime hours.

To me, part of the problem to is that the GOP cannot at the moment claim truthfully to be the 'small government' party, because that is not what has happened in recent history. I am a democrat, but I have a BA in economics and am not a fan of gigantic government, not with the inefficiences intrinsic to governmental agencies and operations. Sadly I don't think much of anyone anymore really believes in smaller government, certainly not the Bush administration.

So while I disagree that much of the people voting republican are doing so because they don't know any better, I do believe that some are. They cannot tell the difference between what republicans and democrats offer fiscally, they don't believe that it will make any difference either way as they have little disposable income and a lot of taxes regardless. So they are bitter and they cling to the political issues that are easy for them to hold in their hearts.

But, 33girl said it much better than I did with her analogy.