Quote:
Originally Posted by UGAalum94
Offended is probably too strong a word, but I think it reflects a condescending attitude that I find distasteful and presents another example of how Obama is a whole lot more "political" in the traditional unpleasant associations of the term than a lot of us had been hoping for.
|
On reflection, I agree that "offended" may be a bit strong- and I do like distasteful. Insulted is probably the better word since I am more agitated with the arrogance here than what he actually said.
Skylark, I am from Texas where things are still booming. Thanks in large part to higher oil prices and the continued migration of the tech industry to Austin (many CA companies coming over plus many companies bringing back outsourced jobs here in recent years), we are not hurting here at all.
So I defer to a certain extent to your knowledge as someone who is living in the middle of what Obama was talking about.
But the outrage and the damage comes from what UGAalum referred to above in the partial post I have quoted.
Obama spent the early phase of his campaign promising hope and change and a new kind of politics.
It is now becoming apparent (to me at least) he did this because he and his team knew that his very far left stances on many matters would make him easy pickings for his incredibly adept and versatile opponent Hillary Clinton- and also for Republicans.
And so he chose to speak in very vague terms and set an impossibly high bar for himself in terms of the kind of campaign he was going to run and the revolutionary change he was going to bring.
It was a brilliant strategy- and the right strategy. And it may still work. I think McCain will prove a formidable and tenacious opponent in the general election- but then again I thought Bob Dole would be as well, and Clinton creamed him in 1996. And I really do think that those opposed to the current President's policies are far greater in number and deeper in anger than was the case in 1996.
I feel like I saw through Obama all along, but that does not matter since I would never have supported him anyway.
The real question is what are the swing voters going to do. And I personally think (and I could be very wrong) that most swing voters/independents tend to be socially liberal and fiscally conservative. And that is an easy assumption to make since it is somewhat illogical for a person to be socially conservative and fiscally liberal.
In a situation like this, Obama gets hurt very badly since he is going to be a "tax and spend" type running against someone who is fiscally very conservative but is also known for being an "across the aisle dealmaker" and a "maverick".
I think it is a lot easier for a swing voter to assume that McCain will be more centrist on social issues than it is for Obama to be centrist on fiscal issues. (Bold accent added since that is the key to my argument.)
The comment we are discussing here hurts Obama- but I think he is far more damaged by his gross mischaracterization of McCain's comments about a 100 year presence in Iraq and by his economic policy statements- which the media are not really talking about oddly enough.