Obama scoring points with rural voters...

[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. Sometimes he just kind of says whatever he thinks his most immediate audience will be receptive to.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by skylark

Heaven forbid we have a President who thinks we are all intelligent adults enough to comprehend a semi-controversial idea. Heaven forbid we have a President who actually cares about figuring out what the origins and causes of our problems (like hatred) are. Heaven forbid we have a President who thinks America can handle hearing the truth and isn't afraid to be the one to share it.

Whoa, wait - the "truth" is that rural people are racist (or zealots, or violent, or..) because of the actions of the government? (I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but so was the original statement, to be quite honest)

Like . . . I can't decide which half of that sentence intelligent adults would prefer to reject first when handling this "semi-controversial" idea.

Instead of figuring out the cause of a legitimate problem (such as hatred), this appears to be a smear campaign that both pigeonholes the problem to a very small subsection of the population and conveniently washes his hands of the problem by blaming nebulous actions of others. Whoever wrote this for him is likely already fired, but the shitcanning should be redoubled - this exact statement just doesn't say what it's supposed to. It doesn't seem like an honest appraisal, but rather a pandering gloss-over.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Whoa, wait - the "truth" is that rural people are racist (or zealots, or violent, or..) because of the actions of the government? (I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but so was the original statement, to be quite honest)

Like . . . I can't decide which half of that sentence intelligent adults would prefer to reject first when handling this "semi-controversial" idea.

Instead of figuring out the cause of a legitimate problem (such as hatred), this appears to be a smear campaign that both pigeonholes the problem to a very small subsection of the population and conveniently washes his hands of the problem by blaming nebulous actions of others. Whoever wrote this for him is likely already fired, but the shitcanning should be redoubled - this exact statement just doesn't say what it's supposed to. It doesn't seem like an honest appraisal, but rather a pandering gloss-over.

But the worst part is that it doesn't seem like it was written for him, but rather something that he said that he might actually believe, indicating that he's truly more of a panderer that maybe I'd hoped.

[skylark]

For once I'd just like to be able to have a President that tells me what he honestly thinks instead of whitewashing all the un-P.C. controversial stuff. We all have some opinions that are controversial and as soon as we start expecting to get a President who never offends us by something is the point that we end up with a mouthpiece-President that (a) doesn't have anything going on upstairs, or (b) baby-feeds us what we WANT to hear.

The bottom line is that I think there is some truth in what he said. I live in one of the states filled with negative backlash that he is talking about, and that is what I see as a cause of it all, in part. I don't think Obama is foolish enough to think it is the only cause -- it is simply one of them. I think if he could pick his words differently in hindsight he would have clarified the "religion" bit because I know from his other speeches and writings that he values religion a great deal and he did not mean it in a way to knock religion itself, but merely suggest that it is often manipulated for political gains.

He had an idea that itself is simply a reflection on one of our nation's problems. He probably could have worded it better, but a simple look into anything else he's said on the subject before or since the incident clarifies what he meant.

My prediction is that in 2 weeks this will have dinged him about as much as the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by skylark

For once I'd just like to be able to have a President that tells me what he honestly thinks instead of whitewashing all the un-P.C. controversial stuff. We all have some opinions that are controversial and as soon as we start expecting to get a President who never offends us by something is the point that we end up with a mouthpiece-President that (a) doesn't have anything going on upstairs, or (b) baby-feeds us what we WANT to hear.

The bottom line is that I think there is some truth in what he said. I live in one of the states filled with negative backlash that he is talking about, and that is what I see as a cause of it all, in part. I don't think Obama is foolish enough to think it is the only cause -- it is simply one of them. I think if he could pick his words differently in hindsight he would have clarified the "religion" bit because I know from his other speeches and writings that he values religion a great deal and he did not mean it in a way to knock religion itself, but merely suggest that it is often manipulated for political gains.

He had an idea that itself is simply a reflection on one of our nation's problems. He probably could have worded it better, but a simple look into anything else he's said on the subject before or since the incident clarifies what he meant.

My prediction is that in 2 weeks this will have dinged him about as much as the whole Jeremiah Wright fiasco.

How much do you think the Jeremiah Wright thing "dinged" him? I think it might be worse than you do apparently.

[skylark]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Whoa, wait - the "truth" is that rural people are racist (or zealots, or violent, or..) because of the actions of the government? (I realize this is a gross oversimplification, but so was the original statement, to be quite honest)

I said "causes." As in one of many (see my last post on this, as well). I think you're the one oversimplifying if you think that's what either I or Obama meant.

And I stand by it as one cause. I've talked to many people that when something like affirmative action, sexual harassment, environmentalism, etc. comes up, these people talk in a way that those that they make ties between that as a/the reason they haven't made more of their life. I think there's an overwhelming feeling of "hey, what about me?" among white, right-wing people that have had a hard time economically because they lived their lives honestly and feel cheated. I think it is human nature to want to find some blame. It is easier to blame the people who don't look like you or come from where you come from than to blame the causes closer to home and that are harder to identify.

[shinerbock]

I want a President who isn't PC also.

However, until Barack openly admits what it is that threatens America (hint: it starts with islamofascism) I'm not really buying the "he gives it to us straight" thing.

[UGAalum94]

And wasn't what he said PC as we generally understand the term?

Isn't it more politically correct to blame people's not adopting the right attitude in the present on the government having failed to deliver in the past, rather than blaming them for their own intolerance or ignorance (as your audience would see it)?

A non-PC response might have been "those rednecks are too stupid to get out of their own way and vote for the party and candidate that is more likely to deliver the goods."

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

And wasn't what he said PC as we generally understand the term?

Isn't it more politically correct to blame people's not adopting the right attitude in the present on the government having failed to deliver in the past, rather than blaming them for their own intolerance or ignorance (as your audience would see it)?

A non-PC response might have been "those rednecks are too stupid to get out of their own way and vote for the party and candidate that is more likely to deliver the goods."

somewhere out there...a John Foxworthy response awaits.......

[EE-BO]

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.

[bluefish81]

I guess my question to anyone, is how much exposure do you currently have to small towns? I spend at least two days a week in small towns in Nebraska - towns with populations 800 - 25,000. I've been visiting these communities for over a year and the same storefronts that were vacant a year ago, are still vacant. One of my clients in one of these communities told me last week that we needed to reinstate the draft - it would a) help our military out and b) provide jobs.
Does the comment hurt Obama? Yes and no. I think it just depends on who within the communities hears it and their interpretation of the message. Many in rural areas (at least Neb.) aren't Obama supporters anyway. As someone who grew up in rural middle America, minus the clinging to religion, I'd say the assessment is pretty spot on. Will his statement change the way people in small communities think? I doubt it.

[RU OX Alum]

he might have been condesdening, but he was accurate

[Drolefille]

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.

My problem with McCain isn't on social issues so much as it is foreign policy. (And I would classify myself as a swing voter generally even though I'm a supporter of Obama this cycle) He's never been a fan of the conservative Christian right that is pushing the social issues that I'm not a fan of, even if he's been sucking up royally recently. However, I cannot look favorably at a man who thinks that a "funny" answer to a foreign policy question is "bomb bomb, bomb bomb bomb Iran" I'm sick of the saber rattling.

[DSTCHAOS]

What "he" said isn't brand new. This has been said for decades.

I agree with it.

People cling onto things that they know to be true and consistent. This applies to religion and guns for many, evidenced when you actually let people put their guards down and talk and listen to them. They also look for answers to their problems or someone to blame for their position, particularly when they see a group of people who isn't "like them." And they find people or things to attribute moral decline, crime, a loss of jobs/competition for the good jobs because of cheap labor to.

This is the age-old explanation for the -isms and inequality in this country. It isn't about bigotry just for the sake of bigotry. It's about economic competition and a perceived need to externalize struggles and find ways to position yourself against others. For instance, if you're economically downtrodden you will find other definitions of success, power, and prestige. This may lead you to place more emphasis on religion, guns, anti-immigration stances, anti-women's rights stances, anti-minority stances, or whatever position you feel answers your need to create an "other" at the time.

Nothing new...but perhaps it would've been best received if it had not targeted a group that is not used to being targeted.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Nothing new...but perhaps it would've been best received if it had not targeted a group that is not used to being targeted.

Poor rural people are never the targets of condescending social commentary? Really?