Obama's comments about Pennsylvania
 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...topnews&sub=AR


In the complete context his comments seem to be a way of explaining why he's not more popular with a certain demographic. Out of context as they are likely to be repeated, he just seems condescending about a group of people who, as long as we have the Electoral College system rather than simply popular vote, one probably can't win the Presidency without.

What do you think?

I think he's a self absorbed, cocky ass hole. I mean honestly, unfuckingbelievable. He really can't believe that people don't support him....the "anti Obama-ites" have to be crazy, uber religious, gun nuts? I don't think I've seen such a self absorbed human being in my life. He probably thinks he's Jesus.

That's what it seems like to me. I would expect Clinton to say the same thing (or similar) about why she's not as popular among African Americans without making it strictly a race issue.

It'd probably still make the group talked about kind of angry. To have your political views reduced to the government didn't do enough for you economically in the past has got to be pretty insulting.

If you don't kind of look at life from the Marxist every-issue-should-be-thought-of-economic-struggle-between-classes- and-if-you-don't-see-it-you're-a-chump-lens, you might think your political beliefs were actually valid positions about issues.

I wouldn't be insulted, but that's just me. :)

Well, maybe it will just blow over quickly. I think most folks are going to be inclined to think he meant someone else.

Who's going to own up to being a bitter, gun-clingin', religious, xenophobe, who but for better economic policies of previous administrations would have been an Obama supporter?

Those of us who find the rhetoric insulting are all offended on behalf of someone else anyway.

When I heard the comments, I knew that they were being spinned out of context! Isn't that what the Media does for a living? I wasn't really suprised!

This being said, I don't support Obama, but I do like him better than Hillary, so any jab at him and I cringe!

He never said anything about people who don't support him being crazy religious gun nuts. Semi-fair game if you want to say he called small town people crazy, religious, gun-nuts, but he never implied that this was anyone who didn't support him.

Though you probably did not care to read or hear his clarification he specified that the intention of his comment was that when people are feeling as if the government isn't serving them, they get frustrated (and yes, bitter), and instead of focusing on fixing the problem, they focus on the big "issue" of their choice. This would be an example: "I don't think Candidate A or Candidate B will actually get jobs back, but I think B wants to take away my right to bear arms, so I'm voting for A."

Obama is suggesting that you actually vote for someone, not against someone else. JMO.

Of course, feel free to think he's a self-absorbed semi-Messianic figure, it's quite certainly your right.

I think in the original context, rather than his restatements and explanations which you seem to be focusing on, Drolefille, Obama WAS explaining why this demographic wasn't likely to support him. So while I think Macallen is a little over the top on Obama generally, he's right about that part.

ETA: From the linked article: "Obama's comments came at the end of a lengthy answer in which he rejected the notion that voters were passing him over simply for racial reasons, saying instead that his campaign of hope and change was having difficulty in 'places where people feel most cynical about government.'"

And if you want to have people vote for you, shouldn't they be able to see clearly where you stand on some concrete issues, say for instance about trade. I was never really in the Obama camp, but he seems more and more like a typical politician with every passing day.

Yes, I see what you're saying.
The point still stands that he was saying that currently people are voting for an issue, not for someone they think will change the way things work because they don't think anyone will - hence the use of the term bitter. And ideally he'd like people to vote for someone, for him specifically, but in general as a shift in the political spectrum.

I think you're being too generous because you're fundamentally more optimistic about Obama.

I think his take was dismissive of the genuine beliefs of the people he was talking about. Most people do vote on issues, and conservatives often vote on issues to intentionally avoid changing the way things work.

It may be more cynical to be conservative, especially when it comes to the ability for government to effect positive change, but it's isn't "clinging" to issues because you're economically bad off, which is what he implied in the original statement.

It's quite possible my view is being colored by my previous opinion of him.

Here's the chunk of the original quote applicable
I think that the bolded portions address his intent.
Now, the clarification he made later
The bold, again, I think addresses the main thrust of his point.

I do think that a lot of the criticism is because of his comment including religion. And I get the impression, though I may be wrong here, that the same people who take offense to it, think that Obama somehow isn't as Christian as they are either because he's liberal, because he's a member of the UCC, or because they think he's really a Muslim. So clearly he's mocking religious people because he isn't really one of them. All speculation I guess.

Master...I am afraid a translation is in order....

I think "clinging" was the problem in the context of religion. Would you want to have your faith described as "clinging to religion"?

Personally, the Rev. Wright thing did make me question the genuineness of his faith or the genuineness of his political persona because it was hard to reconcile a freely chosen decision to go to that church with a pretty radical minister and then sell yourself as a moderate unifier. His comments about Wright didn't sell me after the fact. And the idea that he would follow up with referring to others who voted on religious issues as "clinging to religion" isn't helping either.

And I guess it doesn't make sense if you aren't already a conservative, but a lot of us don't even consider it the government's responsibility to find us jobs. So being really bitter and disillusioned about it seems unlikely to us.

I think Obama is on to something that should be discussed within the Democratic party about how to attract socially conservative, blue collar voters, but doing it in a way that suggests that the beliefs that these people consider worth voting on are somehow only a reflection of economic bitterness probably isn't going to help the overall cause.

The accuracy of what he said can be debated, I suppose; the stupidity of saying it publicly during the election probably can't. He had absolutely nothing to gain at this time.

Let's put it in perspective and in order
 

The entire text as printed (and in order) via the Washington post:

Obama's comments came at the end of a lengthy answer in which he rejected the notion that voters were passing him over simply for racial reasons, saying instead that his campaign of hope and change was having difficulty in "places where people feel most cynical about government."

"Everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class . . . don't want to vote for the black guy,' " Obama said at the fundraiser.

"Here's how it is: In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism."

Obama then voiced the lines that his opponents have seized upon.

"You go into 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 going to regenerate and they have not," he went on. "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."



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...topnews&sub=AR

True, and as he said a poor choice in words, and one that has been taken so far out of context since that there's little hope of explaining it to anyone who only gets their news from the 24hr networks.

Is a radical minister that different from a very conservative one? The Catholic Church is different since there is a set hierarchy, but despite the fact that I disagree with the current Archbishop of St. Louis on every major matter, if I were still living there I wouldn't leave the Church over it, nor will I now that I'm out of his diocese. Does a disagreement with a pastor's perspective on certain issues cause you to leave? Perhaps, perhaps not. A church is more than its minister and is not easily tossed aside (one might say he's clinging right?).

I still maintain that politicians throw friends, even those who say things that they agree with, under the bus. Obama defended his friend, even though he says things that Obama disagrees with, instead.

I don't consider it the government's responsibility to provide jobs, but every politician promises to improve the lot of whoever he or she is speaking to at the time, conservative or liberal. That may not be providing jobs, but supporting industry, budgeting money, or changing policy on a national level that helps your locale. Conservative or not, there are a lot of (blue collar particularly) workers who are angry at businesses for leaving and the government for allowing it and doing nothing to reverse it.

With regards to timing, the key is that he said what he did a month ago, not yesterday. It is unfortunate that it's coming out now, but I don't know how much it will actually change the minds of his supporters.

Sigh, young padawan, you have much to learn.

Plus you ignored the Saturday clarification in your post.

All I have to say is...

I AM a Jesus-Lovin' Gun-toten hick with cynicism for the government that leaves me to be bitter to the point where I question ideas of hope and change.

I know a lot of people just like me in those regards too. We know who we are and how we feel. Obama pointing it out is not offensive, its just the truth.

I don't know why anyone is pissed off at this. It's just the truth. I think Drolefille explained it nicely.

I will say though, that for Hilary to act like she's sooo upset for the common folk and sooo wouldn't say anything "elitist" like this is the most ridiculous thing since I Love New York 2. This is the same woman who said being governor of Arkansas wasn't a big deal. :rolleyes:

I caught it...I was outside enjoying something called "sunshine" and "warm air". :)



Actually tho...I think what happened (and agreeably so with what you said) is that people only dissected the part they found most offensive and ran with it as the knee jerk reaction that the media spin doctors were looking for...

Reading thru others' responses made me really wonder if anyone had actually read the whole thing in context and in order and if they still would have gotten the same thing from it.

You had those yesterday? I hate you. We had "clouds" "wind" and, oh yes, "snow".



Media loves sound bites and controversy. And if that's what is repeated, particularly since this speech wasn't done on camera for easy reference, that's what people hear. They're still saying "Obama's bitter comment" while talking about the original comment, his clarification, Clinton's response, and his response to her.

Some certainly would have. People who are already polarized are going to see anything he says as confirmation of their point of view.

Exactly...that's why in the other thread paralelling this one, I went over everything that has happened in the past 25 years (some may or may not agree) to show that Obama may have a point....I will say again....when the govt has messed with your money long enough...eventually you will get salty too...

It's nothing I hate worse that when someone establishes a business that 'guarantees job growth' and the only jobs offered are menial minimum wage type jobs...people are tired of jobs that doesn't pay anywhere near cost of living and people are tired of having the gov't constantly take away thier livelyhood and sent elsewhere.

SO yeah...when you live areas that are hard hit with disappearing life careers and that is all you know...I can't blame them for being pissed every 4 years and nothing changes for the better...it's not called being an elitist or out of touch.

Being out of touch is saying that people in those areas hardest hit can find a way to get by or that they need to catch up to the 21st century or "I don't see why they can't learn how to manage with what they have."