Yeah, it's tendentious to find condescending the reduction of people's views to their ostensible bitterness.

Yeah, it's tendentious for an elitist to come lecture the elitists here about Obama's elitism by pulling a single sentence out of context and then deliberately misinterpreting it.

If the enemy become incorporated into the government, they are no longer "unlawful," as long as they recognize the chain of command.

So when the Iraqi police commit kidnap, ransom, torture and murder, that's OK because they're wearing uniforms?

Your interpretation of what he said is incorrect.

It's not. It's right there in post 199. People get bitter and then cling to guns, faith, anti-immigrant views, and so on. That's pretty much black and white. And I love how out of it your own explanation is. People are single issue abortion voters b/c of their frustration? Are you nuts? People are anti-Mexican immigration b/c bitterness and not b/c, say, they feel their locality strained by Mexican immigration? Illegal immigrants are taking some people's jobs. Does that mean, as it seems to, that there are no good reasons for holding views opposed to Obama's, or yours? That's essentially what's wrong with this way of regarding your opponents' views. It's essentially claiming, "If you were like me, and not bitter, you'd be pro-abortion, or pro-immigrant, or anti-gun, or less religious" and so on. Don't you see how insulting that is? Don't you see how condescending that is?

Yeah, it's tendentious for an elitist to come lecture the elitists here about Obama's elitism by pulling a single sentence out of context and then deliberately misinterpreting it.

I deliberately misinterpreted it in the same way that he's apologizing for its being a misstatement? I pulled it out of context? What context explains it.

Oh, and please provide the official translation.

So when the Iraqi police commit kidnap, ransom, torture and murder, that's OK because they're wearing uniforms?

That's not how it works in England?

I deliberately misinterpreted it in the same way that he's apologizing for its being a misstatement?

And another tendentious reading and deliberate misinterpretation of what he said.

You're on a roll.

Yeah, it's tendentious for an elitist to come lecture the elitists here about Obama's elitism by pulling a single sentence out of context and then deliberately misinterpreting it.

Isn't it amazing how such a smart guy can't phrase things in ways such that listeners can interpret what he's trying to say? They're always misunderstanding him.

What's really angering is all the people calling him elitist that quite clearly have no idea what he's talking about. It's not condescending to say "I know you're angry because your government has ignored your plight, and I know it's frustrating to watch your town slowly die because there are no jobs. I am willing to help in whatever way possible."

No, but it is condescending to say, "I know you're angry because your government has ignored your plight, which is why you cling to all these silly benighted things like religion and guns. I'm willing to help so that you won't feel so frustrated and you can abandon your backwards values."

It's even more condescending, I think, when you're not saying this to people's faces, but instead are explaining to others why those people hold those backwards values.

And another tendentious reading and deliberate misinterpretation of what he said.

Interesting how you keep claiming this stuff w/o posting his words, like I did. He didn't apologize? He didn't say he "deeply regrets" his "clumsy" comments? Oh, wait, he did.

It's not condescending to say "I know you're angry because your government has ignored your plight, and I know it's frustrating to watch your town slowly die because there are no jobs. I am willing to help in whatever way possible."

But that's not what Obama is saying at all. He's saying "I know these people angry because their government has ignored their plight, but they're too stupid to understand what needs to be done or the differences between politicians' plans, and too cynical to think that any politician will help them. So the only way to get elected is to fake like I care about guns and God, because those are the only things that give meaning to their worthless little lives. Then once I'm elected I'll be able to do all the clever things that you and I know are best for the country."

That's not how it works in England?

English policemen only commit complicated conspiracies on the orders of Prince Philip. Or so I'm told.

I thought it was pretty funny that Fox News sent one of their reporters to a PA diner this weekend looking for Obama blowback and found a senior citizen Navy vet who said he was McCain supporter. She was desperate to get a damning quote; instead the guy says, "I think he's right. People here are definitely bitter."

It's not. It's right there in post 199. People get bitter and then cling to guns, faith, anti-immigrant views, and so on. That's pretty much black and white. And I love how out of it your own explanation is. People are single issue abortion voters b/c of their frustration? Are you nuts? People are anti-Mexican immigration b/c bitterness and not b/c, say, they feel their locality strained by Mexican immigration? Illegal immigrants are taking some people's jobs. Does that mean, as it seems to, that there are no good reasons for holding views opposed to Obama's, or yours? That's essentially what's wrong with this way of regarding your opponents' views. It's essentially claiming, "If you were like me, and not bitter, you'd be pro-abortion, or pro-immigrant, or anti-gun, or less religious" and so on. Don't you see how insulting that is? Don't you see how condescending that is?

You did post it in 199, then you proceeded to twist it.

I still don't understand how you can call someone elitist and NOT understand why people react the way they do. Let's start:

People are anti-Mexican immigration b/c bitterness and not b/c, say, they feel their locality strained by Mexican immigration?

Have you ever watched someone who just couldn't control how much they ate. And then, when they finally got thin, it turned out that they had unresolved issues, and once the issues were gone, they could control themselves? If so then you would understand that the over-eating is known as an "outlet". An "outlet" is some way to attempt to cope with some stress on you that doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the cause. Anti-Mexican Immigration is one outlet for economic stress, and a major one at that. It's so easy to think that your life would be better, and you'd be paid more, if those damn Mexicans weren't stealing American Jobs! Sure, there are valid reasons to take issue with Mexican Immigration, but the phrase "stealing American Jobs" is one which comes from those who need some sort of coping mechanism.

That's essentially what's wrong with this way of regarding your opponents' views. It's essentially claiming, "If you were like me, and not bitter, you'd be pro-abortion, or pro-immigrant, or anti-gun, or less religious" and so on. Don't you see how insulting that is? Don't you see how condescending that is?

Single-issue voting is another sign that someone is under stress and needs a coping mechanism. To be a single-issue voter, the issue must mean so much to you that you are willing to say "screw everything else, I just want this!" Can you really see a person saying "Well, his economic policy is great, his foreign policy is as sound as I've ever seen, and I honestly think I can trust him if there was a national emergency. But he's pro-choice, so I'll vote for the crazy guy."?

I would also like to know why you think people don't become racists (or xenophobes) because they get bitter. History has taught us time and again that when things get bad, foreigners (or those who are different) are among the first to get blamed. You may see that as elitist, but it's simply a view that says "Hey, I can learn something from history!"

Interesting how you keep claiming this stuff w/o posting his words, like I did. He didn't apologize? He didn't say he "deeply regrets" his "clumsy" comments? Oh, wait, he did.

From yesterday's coverage:

“I didn’t say it as well as I should have,” Obama said, but he insisted that working-class frustration is real.

“Lately there has been a little typical sort of political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true,” Obama said today. “A whole bunch of folks in small towns...are bitter," he said. "When you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family.”

I deliberately misinterpreted it in the same way that he's apologizing for its being a misstatement? I pulled it out of context? What context explains it.

No, he apologized for phrasing it in such a way that people like you can twist it at a whim.

What's really angering is all the people calling him elitist that quite clearly have no idea what he's talking about. It's not condescending to say "I know you're angry because your government has ignored your plight, and I know it's frustrating to watch your town slowly die because there are no jobs. I am willing to help in whatever way possible."

No, but it is condescending to say

Actually, I disagree, DMN. It is condescending to tell people that you know why they're angry. But, regardless, that's not what he said anyway. He said he knew why they cling to religion and gun rights and their views on immigration, and it's b/c they're angry. That's still more condescending. It's no different or better than telling someone they're anti-religion, or anti-guns, or pro-immigration b/c they bear white man's guilt. It's the dismissal of contrary views by attribution of motive or assignation of mental state.

Perception of Obama's gaffes by political ideology:

Far left: what's the big deal?
Left: what's the big deal?
Center: what's the big deal?
Right: 25% what's the big deal? 60% I'm a little put-off, but he has a point. 15% *foam at mouth*
Far right: *foam at mouth*

Andrew Sullivan had another good quote on this subject today, from an '06 op-ed by someone not named Obama:

"The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet," - senator Jim Webb, famous elitist.

The only people who think Obama's comments were condescending are inside-the-Beltway elites and their fellow travellers here, whose defense of the "common folk" is even more grossly condescending than anything Thomas Frank or Jim Webb or Obama have said.

I thought it was interesting today that Obama today was already effectively mocking Hillary for her inane attacks on his "elitism."

DTM:

In all respect, you can keep accusing me of twisting a fairly straightforward claim all you want, but it's not convincing until you show me how it's twisted.

Further, your cheap psychologizing of single issue voter and anti-Mexican immigration views is embarrasingly stupid. Seriously. I'm probably as pro-immigration as anyone at this site, my wife and I volunteer with illegals, we work at a Hispanic center, we've hosted them, we've dined with them, we've found employment for them and on and on, and it's just patently absurd not to recognize that many immigrants DO take jobs of working class Americans. This isn't an issue of scape-goating a population, it's simply a fact. For instance, in the DC metro area, you can have your house painted by illegal immigrants for about 1/6th or so the price it would cost for licensed, insured painters. Every time people opt for the former, the latter suffer. You don't think it happens? Of course it does. That's just an illustration.

I thought it was pretty funny that Fox News sent one of their reporters to a PA diner this weekend looking for Obama blowback and found a senior citizen Navy vet who said he was McCain supporter. She was desperate to get a damning quote; instead the guy says, "I think he's right. People here are definitely bitter."

It's not the claim that people are bitter that has gotten Obama in trouble. It's where he went with that claim -- the same place Mediocre Dan is going. To wit:

"When you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family.”

Some people "take comfort from their faith and their family" because they believe in their faith and their family, not because they're "bitter." Some people care about gun rights because guns are important to them, not because the government has failed to give them jobs and health care.


DanTM:

Single-issue voting is another sign that someone is under stress and needs a coping mechanism. To be a single-issue voter, the issue must mean so much to you that you are willing to say "screw everything else, I just want this!" Can you really see a person saying "Well, his economic policy is great, his foreign policy is as sound as I've ever seen, and I honestly think I can trust him if there was a national emergency. But he's pro-choice, so I'll vote for the crazy guy."?

Dan, the rule is, when you're in a hole, the first thing you do is stop digging. You're not defending Obama against unfair charges of elitism here; you're confirming that the interpretation was entirely correct.

And yes, Dan, some people think that support for what they view as baby-killing is kind of a deal breaker, regardless of whether the guy promises to raise taxes on the wealthy and hand the cash over to the voters.

Just like, you know, some people may have supported the candidates they viewed as pro-civil rights or anti-war over the ones they viewed as racist or pro-war, without regard for those candidates' views on the earned income tax credit or the death tax.

The only people who think Obama's comments were condescending are inside

And you know this how? Go, guys, go! Continue to tell us exactly how Americans feel and why they feel what they do, and then claim it's not condescending or elitist to do so.

And you know this how? Go, guys, go! Continue to tell us exactly how Americans feel and why they feel what they do, and then claim it's not condescending or elitist to do so.

Right. Because you're the only elitist here who's in touch with the common folk.

Actually, I disagree, DMN. It is condescending to tell people that you know why they're angry. But, regardless, that's not what he said anyway. He said he knew why they cling to religion and gun rights and their views on immigration, and it's b/c they're angry. That's still more condescending. It's no different or better than telling someone they're anti-religion, or anti-guns, or pro-immigration b/c they bear white man's guilt. It's the dismissal of contrary views by attribution of motive or assignation of mental state.

We agree on the substance here of what Obama said; I just don't think people would have reacted if he had stopped at, "I know you're bitter because you think the government has let you down." (Although, as I said, Obama wasn't even saying it to the people he was psychoanalyzing; he was saying it to other people, which makes it much more condescending.)

Right. Because you're the only elitist here who's in touch with the common folk.

When I make a claim as sweeping as yours, feel free to call me on it. I have no doubt some voters vote the way they do b/c of bitterness. I would never reduce people's views to some singular explanation.

I just don't think people would have reacted if he had stopped at, "I know you're bitter because you think the government has let you down."

You libertarians would've loved it, sure. OTOH, I still think it's dangerous and condescending to make such claims. I could see some old guy, let's say Andy, say something like, "You have no idea why I'm angry." You're a lawyer - that's the kind of statement you want to be careful about. But you're right: he was careless about it (and it was more condescending) b/c he was saying to other people.

"The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet," - senator Jim Webb, famous elitist.

Yes; that's sort of the more traditional style Democratic way of looking at it: these issues aren't even legitimate issues, but just are the result of Machiavellian trickery by evil mastermind Republican strategists. (At least Obama, unlike Webb, admits that people really think these things; he just says that they wouldn't if they weren't mad about the government not redistributing wealth to them.)

Liberals often whine that it's ridiculous that even wealthy, Ivy-league educated conservatives raise charges of elitism against liberals. But those conservatives generally don't pretend that voters' values are something to be mocked, despised, or ignored -- or in Obama's case, explained away.

And you know this how? Go, guys, go! Continue to tell us exactly how Americans feel and why they feel what they do, and then claim it's not condescending or elitist to do so.

And if Andy doubts this, he should remember how he felt when people said that he only cared about the steroid issue because the records of his childhood heroes were being threatened.

Liberals often whine that it's ridiculous that even wealthy, Ivy-league educated conservatives raise charges of elitism against liberals. But those conservatives generally don't pretend that voters' values are something to be mocked, despised, or ignored -- or in Obama's case, explained away.

No, those conservatives instead tell voters what their values are, stir, then profit! That gay marriage was actually a voting issue over the last eight years a great testament to the type of crap politics that so sicken people that they fall all over themselves to grab at the first candidate who give even the slightest appearance of leaving those tactics behind.

Yes; that's sort of the more traditional style Democratic way of looking at it: these issues aren't even legitimate issues, but just are the result of Machiavellian trickery by evil mastermind Republican strategists.

Webb called them emotional issues. He didn't say they weren't legitimate. Anymore than Obama did. In terms of substance, however, what exactly have presidential candidates who have run on those issues, including George W. Bush, done about God, guns, gays, abortion, and the flag? Other than try to milk the votes of people concerned about them every four years and then ignore them as much as they can in the intervening time?

Ran into a friend today who had volunteered for and given money to Obama's campaign. Today I said something to him like "So, your guy is putting his foot in his mouth some, eh?"

He said it was ridiculous for him to associate himself with a pastor who holds those views and that his comments about bitterness were out of line. And he'd vote for Hillary if California's primary was still to come.

Just sayin'.

That gay marriage was actually a voting issue over the last eight years a great testament to the type of crap politics that so sicken people

...on the losing side of those votes...

that they fall all over themselves to grab at the first candidate who give even the slightest appearance of leaving those tactics behind.

Fixed it for you.

It's essentially claiming, "If you were like me, and not bitter, you'd be pro-abortion, or pro-immigrant, or anti-gun, or less religious" and so on. Don't you see how insulting that is? Don't you see how condescending that is?

No, it's claiming that people who are bitter sometimes vote for President based on these issues despite the fact that the President's position on these issues will have almost no bearing on their lives.

Isn't it amazing how such a smart guy can't phrase things in ways such that listeners can interpret what he's trying to say? They're always misunderstanding him.

Please, David. You professing shock that a politician's opponents might misconstrue or take what he's saying out of context, or that the media might misinterpret it? You know that happens all the time, and it's just plain dishonest on your part to pretend otherwise.

No, but it is condescending to say, "I know you're angry because your government has ignored your plight, which is why you cling to all these silly benighted things like religion and guns. I'm willing to help so that you won't feel so frustrated and you can abandon your backwards values."

But where did he use the terms "silly" or "backwards" or anything like that? He just implied that people shouldn't vote solely based on those issues. Either you're incredibly insecure about your own religious beliefs and pro-gun stance, or you're projecting your own elitism onto Obama. Or you're just being dishonest.

Please, David. You professing shock that a politician's opponents might misconstrue or take what he's saying out of context, or that the media might misinterpret it? You know that happens all the time, and it's just plain dishonest on your part to pretend otherwise.

But Dan the Mediocre appears neither to be one of Obama's opponents nor the media, and he construed it exactly the same way that JC and I did.

But where did he use the terms "silly" or "backwards" or anything like that? He just implied that people shouldn't vote solely based on those issues. Either you're incredibly insecure about your own religious beliefs and pro-gun stance, or you're projecting your own elitism onto Obama. Or you're just being dishonest.

I don't even have any religious beliefs, and I'm not insecure about any of my stances, ever. He didn't just imply that people "shouldn't" vote based on these issues; he implied that they wouldn't, if only they knew better. More, he implied that they wouldn't even hold the views at all, if they knew better. (People "cling to" these views because they're bitter; the logical conclusion would be that if they weren't bitter, they wouldn't do so.)

No, it's claiming that people who are bitter sometimes vote for President based on these issues despite the fact that the President's position on these issues will have almost no bearing on their lives.

Let's set aside the question of whether it's true that it will have almost no bearing on their lives, and say, "So what?" Where did the idea come from that voting is and ought to be about getting stuff from the government, and not about an expression of one's values?

Where did the idea come from that voting is and ought to be about getting stuff from the government, and not about an expression of one's values?

Oh, I'd say probably from those colonists on this continent who were concerned about British tax policies they thought were hurting their economic interests, and didn't think they were getting the stuff they wanted, or even a fair hearing about their concerns, from the mother country. And then did something about it. And then lobbied their new government for stuff they wanted, including tax and tariff policies, that were beneficial to their economic interests.

Let's set aside the question of whether it's true that it will have almost no bearing on their lives, and say, "So what?" Where did the idea come from that voting is and ought to be about getting stuff from the government, and not about an expression of one's values?

I'm going to ignore all the other problems with this question and just point out that wanting the government to enact policies that you think will benefit you (economically or otherwise) isn't the same thing as wanting "stuff from the government," and you know it. I mean, when economic conservatives vote based on their belief in free-market economic policies, is it because they want "stuff from the government"?

People "cling to" these views because they're bitter; the logical conclusion would be that if they weren't bitter, they wouldn't.

This is a ridiculous interpretation of Obama's remarks. He himself is a religious man--the last big controversy involving him centered around what church he went to. Why would he say that people only cling to their religion because of bitterness? Anyway, I'm still waiting for you to point out where he said their views were silly or backwards.

I could see some old guy, let's say Andy, say something like, "You have no idea why I'm angry."

I'm old, I'm angry, and I'm not going to take this anymore!!!

After a typical old guy's five hours' sleep, it's nice to see the younguns' keep it going all night. I haven't been able to do that since back when Teddy Roosevelt was President, by gum!

But I'll be damned if I'm going through another round of this. If you like the guy, vote for him. If you don't, don't. If you think his views on everything else are negated by his choice of minister or his "elitism," to the point where you were sincerely going to vote for him, and are now going to vote for Hillary or McCain instead, then I'm sorry to hear that. But then please don't complain if McCain continues Bush's policies or Hillary alienates 80% of the country with her own charming way of framing her opposition.

I'm looking at you here, JC.

And for any of you others: If you're a single issue voter on the question of guns or abortion, I don't question your sincerity, or the legitimacy of your views, but please don't pretend that you "would have voted for Obama" anyway, because voters like that have been voting against pro-choice candidates since 1973.

And if your views on immigration---whether sincere, insincere, rational or just plain bigoted---are going to guide your vote, that bus left the station months ago. There's very little difference among any of the three candidates on that.

Bottom line is that we all know that Obama's wording was clumsy and open to misinterpretation by those who wish him ill. I said that the first time I read them. But if you're actually claiming that that, along with Rev. Wright, is what you're basing your vote on, rather than issues of war, peace, and the economy, then I can only question your sense of proportion.

Bottom line is that we all know that Obama's wording was clumsy and open to misinterpretation by those who wish him ill. I said that the first time I read them. But if you're actually claiming that that, along with Rev. Wright, is what you're basing your vote on, rather than issues of war, peace, and the economy, then I can only question your sense of proportion.

Completely agree, Andy. That said, that's not what I find fascinating about this. I find fascinating instead the bubble of invincibility some have placed around Obama. I will not vote for Obama; yes, you're right. Almost certainly I will vote for the war hero. But you see among Chip, Dan, and others the complete inability to acknowledge what you (and Obama) were able to: he misspoke. Big deal, he speaks 1000 times a day and he misspoke. Yet, DMN is being dishonest and I'm being disingenuous when I point out that his comments were condescending (as you seem to acknowledge) and elitist. Then, I'm twisting when I point out that he expresses (in his own words) deep regret for the harm they've done and acknowledges they were clumsy.

This is the political game today. I have no problem with HRC fighting tooth and nail to win and exploiting gaffes like this. In fact, I like it. If he gets elected despite it, good for him. HRC is constantly taken to task for being out of touch, inhuman, etc. If BO gets credit (and he does) for his great speaking ability, then she should be able to take his ill thought words to task.

I thought it was interesting today that Obama today was already effectively mocking Hillary for her inane attacks on his "elitism."

Yes. I can only hope he keeps up the quick, smart responses. He doesn't have a choice, really.

It did seem to me that Obama's comments on bitterness were something a smart guy says when he's trying to figure out people, who, generally, aren't as smart as he is. I don't have a problem with that. After all, how else is he supposed to figure out what people want, and why they want it? Do people cling to foolishness and superstition when times are tough? Some do, and it's worth thinking about and diagnosing. Was Obama consdescending? Maybe. If so, it didn't strike me as egregious. Is he a little out of touch? Of course he is. He has money and power and a healthy nuclear family, and he's insulated in a lot of ways from the bullshtt most people have to go through.

In terms of substance, however, what exactly have presidential candidates who have run on those issues, including George W. Bush, done about God, guns, gays, abortion, and the flag? Other than try to milk the votes of people concerned about them every four years and then ignore them as much as they can in the intervening time?

It does seem clear that the shttbags who run on this stuff know damned well that (for example), if they succeeded in outlawing abortion nationally, the backlash would dump them out of office in the heartbeat of the next election. Hence, they keep the boogeyman alive.

No, those conservatives instead tell voters what their values are, stir, then profit! That gay marriage was actually a voting issue over the last eight years a great testament to the type of crap politics that so sicken people that they fall all over themselves to grab at the first candidate who give even the slightest appearance of leaving those tactics behind.

Yet another example of condescension: those stupid conservative Americans only hold their views b/c they're told them by conservative elites who seek merely to line their pockets. If it's not the conservative puppet masters, it's the brown-skinned immigrants making the whites crazy and resentful. There's no possibility of holding these positions reasonably; there's no possibility these people are free thinking like we are. Yeah, and that's not elitist, right?

Almost certainly I will vote for the war hero.

JC, I tend to have trouble finding heroism in the sickening business of war. What makes McCain's actions, in your opinion, heroic?

Almost certainly I will vote for the war hero

Even though that war hero doesn't seem to have a clue what's actually going on in war we're currently fighting and clings to some vague fantasy of "victory"?

JC, I tend to have trouble finding heroism in the sickening business of war. What makes McCain's actions, in your opinion, heroic?

To be honest, I will not answer your question b/c the first sentence is so loaded as to render any discussion fruitless. Let's just say, regarding the first sentence, that every civilization in recorded history has acknowledged that heroism can, and indeed often does, occur in wars. By your assertion, you've made yourself an historical outlier, an oddity not worth engaging on this subject, someone outside the great Greek, Hebrew, and Roman traditions that even advanced the idea that combat was the primary locus of heroic activity. Every day in Iraq, young men and even a few women are engaging in heroic activity. If you can't see any of that, why should I answer a loaded question about McCain?

Re 240:

Yeah, even though things you assert which are provably false, but which I'll grant. Yeah, I'll still vote for him.

Also, can everybody here at least agree that Obama's comments are not nearly as big a deal as the news that Bush himself and his top aides agreed to start torturing people and ordered his lawyers to come up with a legal argument for doing so? Of course, why would evidence that the President may be guilty of war crimes get any attention on the sunday news shows when we can talk about Obama being elitist.

even though things you assert which are provably false

And what would those things be?

And for any of you others: If you're a single issue voter on the question of guns or abortion, I don't question your sincerity, or the legitimacy of your views, but please don't pretend that you "would have voted for Obama" anyway, because voters like that have been voting against pro-choice candidates since 1973.

But Andy, that's exactly the point. It's Obama you're disagreeing with when you say this.

Obama is clearly correct here. Rural Pennsylvania of 40 years ago was a hotbed of gun control, atheism, and love of foreign cultures. The failure of the federal government to provide jobs has turned them into the god-loving, gun-totin, foreign'r hatin hillbillies they are today. Oh for those halcyon days of Berkeley in Bucks county!

Bottom line is that we all know that Obama's wording was clumsy and open to misinterpretation by those who wish him ill. I said that the first time I read them. But if you're actually claiming that that, along with Rev. Wright, is what you're basing your vote on, rather than issues of war, peace, and the economy, then I can only question your sense of proportion.

Completely agree, Andy. That said, that's not what I find fascinating about this. I find fascinating instead the bubble of invincibility some have placed around Obama. I will not vote for Obama; yes, you're right. Almost certainly I will vote for the war hero.

JC, the question then is this: Are you voting for McCain because you're on balance in agreement with his views? Or are you voting for him more in reaction to your take on Rev. Wright and Obama's "elitism," in spite of a more general agreement with Obama's views on the issues?

The first makes complete sense, and I can certainly respect that. But the second seems like a classic case of biting off your nose to spite your face.

But you see among Chip, Dan, and others the complete inability to acknowledge what you (and Obama) were able to: he misspoke. Big deal, he speaks 1000 times a day and he misspoke. Yet, DMN is being dishonest and I'm being disingenuous when I point out that his comments were condescending (as you seem to acknowledge) and elitist.

Let me be clear: I only find it "dishonest" when the "elitism" charge is presented in the guise of "I would have voted for Obama, except for this," when it's clear from that person's history that this is BS.

If here in this BTF thread there is a single Primate whose voted was actually changed because of Obama's latest remark, I have yet to see it. Mostly what I've seen are pious charges from people who never had any intention of voting for him to begin with.

It's as if one of our resident McCain bashers seized upon his "100 years" remarks and said "I would have voted for McCain, but now I won't." I'd certainly understand that any Republican might take that with a grain of salt, too.

This is the political game today. I have no problem with HRC fighting tooth and nail to win and exploiting gaffes like this. In fact, I like it. If he gets elected despite it, good for him. HRC is constantly taken to task for being out of touch, inhuman, etc. If BO gets credit (and he does) for his great speaking ability, then she should be able to take his ill thought words to task.

Sure she can. But if she thinks that the Democratic nomination is going to be worth anything if she wins it with tactics like this, she's sadly mistaken. People like me---IOW most Democrats---will hold our noses and vote for this smarmy woman, because in spite of it all, we don't want any Republican this side of the late Earl Warren himself making any more Supreme Court or regulatory agency nominations.

Other Democrats, including large segments of the normal (and newly registered) Democratic base, may very well not be so forgiving. I wouldn't bet a plugged nickel on her to beat McCain after all this. What's particularly disheartening about her wallowing in the mud is that she's so often been the victim of it herself. You'd think she'd know better.

But perhaps she's just a tad bitter.

All this said, I remain either the smartest or the dumbest Primate here (Vegas opens with "dumbest" as a 10 to 1 favorite), because I still believe that not only will Obama win the nomination, but that the general campaign will be a lot cleaner than most people expect. Underneath it all, McCain and Obama are essentially honorable men, and I don't think that either of them are comfortable with this pathetic style of "gotcha" politics, no matter how tempting it may be in the short run. It's not as if there aren't a zillion others issues to discuss.

I chose not to vote for Obama a long while ago, as I learned more about his actual positions. It has nothing to do w/Wright or "elitism." As I said a while back, I was one of the many people very intrigued by BO. His positions and voting record drove me away from him.

Bookmark this thread. If Obama gets the nomination, the Republicans will attempt to smear him. And the Democrats will attempt to smear McCain.

What makes McCain's actions, in your opinion, heroic?

In addition to JC's response to the question, even people who think that placing oneself between one's loved home and the war's desolation is not heroic, let's not forget what McCain did after he was captured: he refused special treatment for his family connections, refused to allow himself to be set free and sent home, as long as others taken captive before him were kept as prisoners.

Sure she can. But if she thinks that the Democratic nomination is going to be worth anything if she wins it with tactics like this, she's sadly mistaken. People like me---IOW most Democrats---will hold our noses and vote for this smarmy woman, because in spite of it all, we don't want any Republican this side of the late Earl Warren himself making any more Supreme Court or regulatory agency nominations.

I'm not a Democrat, and Hillary disgusts me, but I'll vote for her because she'll be far better than McCain on the war, judges, and the business of regulation. Imagine removing oversight from bankers!

All this said, I remain either the smartest or the dumbest Primate here...

I'll vote for charmingly naive. I want to be wrong, but this will be at least as bad as McCain-Bush in 2000, or Bush-Kerry 2004.

To be honest, I will not answer your question b/c the first sentence is so loaded as to render any discussion fruitless.

Fair enough.

Yet another example of condescension: those stupid conservative Americans only hold their views b/c they're told them by conservative elites who seek merely to line their pockets. If it's not the conservative puppet masters, it's the brown-skinned immigrants making the whites crazy and resentful. There's no possibility of holding these positions reasonably; there's no possibility these people are free thinking like we are. Yeah, and that's not elitist, right?

Even if one granted that Obama displays this type of attitude, the condescension coming from the right is just as bad. To Republicans, working class Democrats are idiots who don't understand economics, and only vote the way they do because they want "stuff from the government," or else they're minorities who base their votes on tribalism and don't count as "regular people".

Let me be clear: I only find it "dishonest" when the "elitism" charge is presented in the guise of "I would have voted for Obama, except for this," when it's clear from that person's history that this is BS.

If here in this BTF thread there is a single Primate whose voted was actually changed because of Obama's latest remark, I have yet to see it. Mostly what I've seen are pious charges from people who never had any intention of voting for him to begin with.

But that's your typical changing of the subject. If here in this BTF thread there is a single Primate who claimed his vote was actually changed because of Obama's latest remark, I have yet to see it.

You love this sort of misdirection; you always want to debate some other issue than the one we're discussing. I say it reflects badly on Obama to associate with Wright, and then you say, "But you didn't prove that he got his positions because of Wright." I say that these statements reveal Obama to be an elitist in empathy's clothing, and you say, "But you didn't prove that you'd have voted for him if he hadn't said it." No, I didn't, nor did I make that claim. Hell, the elitism per se doesn't bother me. I'm an elitist. It's where he goes with his elitism -- into paternalism -- that's the problem for me.

If he weren't a paternalist, I would vote for him. (But if he weren't a paternalist, he wouldn't be a Democrat and the whole situation would be entirely different. It's like talking about whether I'd support Pat Robertson if Robertson weren't religious.)

When Kerry was running, the Right couldn't stand that he was a real war hero, so they smeared him, deflecting attention from W's miltary "record". They'll circle the wagons for McCain. They're cynics, using this issue for political gain, as always.

In terms of substance, however, what exactly have presidential candidates who have run on those issues, including George W. Bush, done about God, guns, gays, abortion, and the flag? Other than try to milk the votes of people concerned about them every four years and then ignore them as much as they can in the intervening time?

It does seem clear that the shttbags who run on this stuff know damned well that (for example), if they succeeded in outlawing abortion nationally, the backlash would dump them out of office in the heartbeat of the next election. Hence, they keep the boogeyman alive.

Really? How does it "seem clear" that this is the case? What would Republicans do differently if they actually cared about these issues rather than merely using them to manipulate the bitter rubes?

When you answer, keep in mind that the Supreme Court has taken most of these issues out of the hands of politicians, and so other than appointing new justices, there's not a lot that they can do. But they've certainly chipped away at abortion around the edges, as any liberal lobbying group on judicial nominations can tell you. And many states have banned gay marriage. And there's no more so-called Assault Weapons Ban. And left-wing groups can't sue gun manufacturers out of existence, thanks to the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.

Andy, I voted for HRC in the primary but was starting to come around to Obama until the Wright flap. It does bother me a bit and I honestly can understand someone turning to Clinton because of that.

What bothers me, though, are people who would never have voted for a Democrat anyway and are merely using this issue to get in shots at Obama, when their candidate associates with much worse preachers.

The latest flap over his comments regarding Pennsylvania is just stupid. If Obama actually offended people, then he misspoke. But when other elitists pretend to be outraged on behalf of small-town Pennsylvanians, it's just as condescending as anything Obama said. Those folks can decide for themselves whether Obama's comments bother them--they don't need Clinton or McCain to tell them to be offended.

It's not condescending to say "I know you're angry because your government has ignored your plight, and I know it's frustrating to watch your town slowly die because there are no jobs. I am willing to help in whatever way possible."


That's all well and good, but you should recognize that your sentence is at least as charitable an interpretation of what he really said than the slant critics are taking.

I think this was a pretty serious gaffe on Obama's part. Evidence that he's "elitist," more so than any other politician? I don't see it.

The gun culture in this country is historically rooted in distrust of the government. I don't say this as a criticism, mind you. I think it's right to distrust the government. Anti-immigration (DEY TUK UR JERBS!) or anti-trade sentiment come from feeling like undeserving foreigners are getting benefits while people here are suffering. And bigotry is primarily rooted in anxiety and resentment of one's own problems.

It was unfortunate that religion was placed in the same context. I don't think Obama really believes that all religious people are bitter so much as that bitter people are turning to religion instead of trusting the government. But the juxtaposition can certainly come across that way, and for a guy who, at least for many people, is most popular because of his charisma and oratory skill, it's unsettling.

I wasn't going to vote for Obama or McCain seeing as I'm a New Yorker and can safely "throw away my vote" on a libertarian, so this shouldn't be seen as anti-Obama bias. I actually like Obama more than McCain (or more appropriately, dislike him least), mainly because I think more liberal Supreme Court justices are better for individual rights, and I think that's more far reaching than anything else a president leaves as his legacy.

DMN in 225: But those conservatives generally don't pretend that voters' values are something to be mocked, despised, or ignored -- or in Obama's case, explained away.

DMN in 255: Really? How does it "seem clear" that this is the case? What would Republicans do differently if they actually cared about these issues rather than merely using them to manipulate the bitter rubes?

You're worth the price of admission.

He was being sarcastic in 255, Joe.

JC, when DMN says the Supreme Court has taken most of these issues out of the hands of politicians, and so other than appointing new justices, there's not a lot that they can do, but previously asks In terms of substance, however, what exactly have presidential candidates who have run on those issues, including George W. Bush, done about God, guns, gays, abortion, and the flag?, he's saying that Republicans are pandering.

At some other point in the thread, he accuses Obama of condescension. Let's be fair here. Both sides are guilty of this.

but previously asks In terms of substance, however, what exactly have presidential candidates who have run on those issues, including George W. Bush, done about God, guns, gays, abortion, and the flag?, he's saying that Republicans are pandering.

Yes, except that I didn't say this. I was quoting someone. Chip, to be specific. (Who was apparently paraphrasing Andrew Sullivan quoting James Webb.)

JC in DC Posted: April 14, 2008 at 10:11 AM (#2743409)

I chose not to vote for Obama a long while ago, as I learned more about his actual positions. It has nothing to do w/Wright or "elitism." As I said a while back, I was one of the many people very intrigued by BO. His positions and voting record drove me away from him.

Then your vote for McCain makes perfect sense, and I respect it.

------------------------------

Let me be clear: I only find it "dishonest" when the "elitism" charge is presented in the guise of "I would have voted for Obama, except for this," when it's clear from that person's history that this is BS.

If here in this BTF thread there is a single Primate whose voted was actually changed because of Obama's latest remark, I have yet to see it. Mostly what I've seen are pious charges from people who never had any intention of voting for him to begin with.

But that's your typical changing of the subject. If here in this BTF thread there is a single Primate who claimed his vote was actually changed because of Obama's latest remark, I have yet to see it.

Exactly. Any more than McCain's "100 years" remark is likely to cost him more than a tiny handful of votes that he otherwise would have won. Which is why all these crocodile tears about "elitism" or "100 years" are just that: crocodile tears.

-----------------------

Andy, I voted for HRC in the primary but was starting to come around to Obama until the Wright flap. It does bother me a bit and I honestly can understand someone turning to Clinton because of that.

But will any of that make you switch to McCain?

And if Hillary's oh-so-tactically brilliant seizing upon this "issue" winds up winning her the nomination, with the resulting backlash costing the Democrats the White House, will that change your opinion of her, if only on purely strategic grounds?

Right now if you take the long term view, all Hillary's doing is playing the Republican game. Granting that McCain (or his support groups) would have harped on this issue anyway, it would certainly have been a bit more conducive to party unity if he didn't have Obama's chief rival's own words to quote against him. To the extent that it hurts either Democratic candidate in November, she'll have nobody but herself to blame.

But then with the Clintons it's always been the Clintons first, and the party second, as witness her starring role in the 1994 elections.

261--You didn't disagree with Chip, so you're arguing both sides of the aisle?

261--You didn't disagree with Chip, so you're arguing both sides of the aisle?

I did disagree with Chip. Did you even read post 255?

Exactly. Any more than McCain's "100 years" remark is likely to cost him more than a tiny handful of votes that he otherwise would have won. Which is why all these crocodile tears about "elitism" or "100 years" are just that: crocodile tears.

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. If I claimed to be worried that Obama was hurting his chances of victory by saying these things, those would represent crocodile tears. I never claimed anything like that.

I am criticizing Obama. What is it with your weird inability to understand that attacking someone for doing X does not in any way imply, "I'd have supported him if he didn't do X"?

Even though that war hero doesn't seem to have a clue what's actually going on in war we're currently fighting and clings to some vague fantasy of "victory"?

McCain has a son who just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, and another son who will probably be heading there in the near future. I think he's a lot more clued in to what's going on over there than you are, jackass.

Stand down, Joey. A little civility goes a long way.

Exactly. Any more than McCain's "100 years" remark is likely to cost him more than a tiny handful of votes that he otherwise would have won. Which is why all these crocodile tears about "elitism" or "100 years" are just that: crocodile tears.

That phrase doesn't mean what you think it means. If I claimed to be worried that Obama was hurting his chances of victory by saying these things, those would represent crocodile tears. I never claimed anything like that.

I am criticizing Obama. What is it with your weird inability to understand that attacking someone for doing X does not in any way imply, "I'd have supported him if he didn't do X"?

And I'm not including you in my "crocodile tears" remarks, either. I'm specifically referring to those who have claimed (or more often, merely imply) that "I would have voted for Obama" when in fact they never had any intention of doing so.

I think you might guess that I don't include you in that group.

Andy, what does "any intention to" mean? That seems a high bar. My wife is a registered Dem and had been leaning toward Obama in the NC primary. She's now leaning toward HRC. Does that count?

(If only that could just be assumed rather than needing to be proven.)

Of course, the assumption that Obama's non-elitism "needs to be proven" rests on the false premise that his recent comments compel the inference that he IS elitist, which inference therefore must be rebutted with evidence. They don't; the "elitism" those comments purportedly demonstrate is one interpretation of what he said (made for the most part by those who, frankly, have an axe to grind). And even if they did, it seems to me Obama's response to the firestorm this has generated more than suffices as rebuttal.

Obama's comment put into context:

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

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, and they feel so betrayed by government, and 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 (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

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. So it's not surprising then that 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.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

That gives the remarks an important gloss, I think.

Andy, what does "any intention to" mean? That seems a high bar. My wife is a registered Dem and had been leaning toward Obama in the NC primary. She's now leaning toward HRC. Does that count?

It does, but it counts a lot more if she intends to vote for McCain if Obama gets the nomination. Believe it or not, at the end of last year I was leaning towards Hillary myself. I spent an entire weekend in early October trying to convince my best friend from college that she wouldn't be a total general electiion disaster because of her manipulative personal traits, which he'd encountered first hand in his job. And in spite of my utter disgust with her campaign I'd still take her over McCain, though I'll be sporting an industrial strength clothes pin when I enter the ballot booth if it comes down to that.

And even if they did, it seems to me Obama's response to the firestorm this has generated more than suffices as rebuttal.

Well, Obama's first response to the firestorm was to say that he misspoke, but then to rephrase it in such a way as to repeat essentially the same argument. If there's yet a third statement recently which rebuts it, I might have missed it -- but as Josh Marshall showed (linked earlier in this thread), he said substantially the same thing years earlier, so that appears unlikely.

As Mickey Kaus says, this seems like a Kinsley Gaffe -- when a politician accidentally says what he thinks.

Stand down, Joey. A little civility goes a long way.

Civility is wasted on those who aren't good loyal 'MAIR-kins. As defined by Joey, of course.

As Mickey Kaus says, this seems like a Kinsley Gaffe -- when a politician accidentally says what he thinks.

OK, but I still disagree that what he said in and of itself demonstrates "elitism" (as opposed to (or at least, more than), say, "empathy") in the first place, not that I think these were exactly Obama's most artfully phrased remarks of the campaign. For the most part, it seems those who're pouncing on the "elitism" interpretation are those who weren't Obama supporters to start with.

McCain has a son who just returned from a tour of duty in Iraq, and another son who will probably be heading there in the near future. I think he's a lot more clued in to what's going on over there than you are, jackass

Some recent things McCain has said about Iraq that are completely false, in addition to his frequent mix-ups regarding Sunnis and Shi'as:

"Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire." This is completely wrong. It was Maliki's allies in Parliament who went to Iran to get an Iranian general to broker the ceasefire.

"His [Sadr's] influence has been on the wane for a long time." I don't even need to get into how wrong this is.

He has also repeatedly stated our need to back Maliki and his allies against Iranian-backed militias, ignoring that Maliki and his ISCI allies are Iranian backed and have a militia that was trained in Iran.

People are anti-Mexican immigration b/c bitterness and not b/c, say, they feel their locality strained by Mexican immigration?

False dichotomy. There's no reason one can't feel one's locality strained by Mexican immigration and also be "bitter" (and indeed, be "bitter" about that very fact). Maybe I'm misinterpreting "bitter," but to me, "bitter" does not (necessarily) mean "pissed off for no good reason." I think people often have VERY good reasons for "bitterness," which in my view is what Obama was getting at.

False dichotomy.

No, false attribution of a dichotomy. I posed no dichotomy. I am resisting the reduction of people's views to some single variable, which is what BO was doing.

It does seem clear that the shttbags who run on this stuff know damned well that (for example), if they succeeded in outlawing abortion nationally, the backlash would dump them out of office in the heartbeat of the next election. Hence, they keep the boogeyman alive.

That, and/or that eliminating the bogeyman would eliminate a lot of their base's perceived need to support them.

But perhaps she's just a tad bitter.

Ya think?

No, false attribution of a dichotomy. I posed no dichotomy.

Your comment as phrased suggested that a statement that people are "bitter" negates the possibility that they're upset over a tangible issue (or indeed, that they might be "bitter" about that very issue), which clearly isn't the case.

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. So it's not surprising then that 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.

So what was the excuse 25 years ago when the very same people embraced religion and guns?

What makes Obama's comments so arrogant and condescending is his belief that the people he's talking about are idiots suffering from false consciousness, that their beliefs are not their own. Perhaps they embrace religion out of faith or tradition? Maybe they like guns because they come from a culture that values hunting and shooting? Not in Obama's world. They're just bitter because they haven't received enough cookies from the government.

Some recent things McCain has said about Iraq that are completely false, in addition to his frequent mix-ups regarding Sunnis and Shi'as:

"Apparently it was Sadr who asked for the ceasefire, declared a ceasefire. It wasn’t Maliki. Very rarely do I see the winning side declare a ceasefire." This is completely wrong. It was Maliki's allies in Parliament who went to Iran to get an Iranian general to broker the ceasefire.

"His [Sadr's] influence has been on the wane for a long time." I don't even need to get into how wrong this is.

He has also repeatedly stated our need to back Maliki and his allies against Iranian-backed militias, ignoring that Maliki and his ISCI allies are Iranian backed and have a militia that was trained in Iran.

Solid post, nycfan. It also supports something I said earlier, which is that McCain is either lying routinely about the situation in Iraq, or is so woefully ignorant after all this time that as president he will be unable to prosecute the occupation successfully. He doesn't even seem to know with whom we ought to be negotiating. Therefore, the choice is not between:

A) setting a 1-2 year timetable for withdrawal, or
B) staying in Iraq until Iraq is stable,

but rather between

A) setting a 1-2 year timetable for withdrawal, or
B) staying in Iraq indefinitely, led by a commander-in-chief who simply doesn't know enough to prosecute the occupation successfully, thereby precluding success.

It's sadly similar to the situation around 2001. Invading Iraq and getting rid of Saddam Hussein was an idea with a lot going for it, but, there was no way the Bush administration was capable of dealing successfully with the aftermath.

"He has also repeatedly stated our need to back Maliki and his allies against Iranian-backed militias, ignoring that Maliki and his ISCI allies are Iranian backed and have a militia that was trained in Iran."

Don't forget his repeated confusion about the difference between a Shiite and a Sunni. Thinking that you can "fix" Iraq without understanding that is like trying to handle the peace process in Ireland without knowing the difference between a Protestant and a Catholic.

I think that he is, by and large, a laudable and well-intentioned guy, but between his lack of foreign policy knowledge and his recent comments about not understanding economics, I don't think he's very well-prepared to be the President, a job where the learning curve on this stuff is just brutal.

What makes Obama's comments so arrogant and condescending is his belief that the people he's talking about are idiots suffering from false consciousness, that their beliefs are not their own. Perhaps they embrace religion out of faith or tradition? Maybe they like guns because they come from a culture that values hunting and shooting? Not in Obama's world. They're just bitter because they haven't received enough cookies from the government.

What makes your post so arrogant is that you claim Obama believes these people are idiots, that he thinks their beliefs are not their own, that he said they're bitter because they haven't received enough cookies from the government -- even though he never said any of that. It's quite condescending of you to claim that you know what Obama thinks.

I doubt my wife would vote for McCain, but I could see it happens. She likes the guy, just disagrees with him more than she disagrees with either of the other two. But she could be persuaded to vote for McCain, depending on circumstances.

As to 282; I agree that is what is bad about Obama's comments but I do actually like that he talks about the possibilities that there is real bitterness in these communities. We like to talk about American optimism and, I think, it is there, deep down, but folks in communities that he is addressing really are angry and bitter and I don't blame them. I don't think this is why they cling to religion or guns. So, he hurt himself badly here, I think. He actually hit on a good strategy: identify with these folks and address that things in their communities aren't looking so hot and that they've been getting empty promises for a long time. However, in executing the strategy he popped up the bunt and got his runner doubled off.

So what was the excuse 25 years ago when the very same people embraced religion and guns?

You mean during the Reagan recession, when Ronnie's approval ratings were in the toilet (around 40%, IIRC)? Folks were bitter indeed.

Folks were bitter indeed.

Yeah, Republicans like you must've been worried.

What makes Obama's comments so arrogant and condescending is his belief that the people he's talking about are idiots suffering from false consciousness, that their beliefs are not their own. Perhaps they embrace religion out of faith or tradition? Maybe they like guns because they come from a culture that values hunting and shooting? Not in Obama's world. They're just bitter because they haven't received enough cookies from the government.

No doubt that a part of this can be attributed to just plain old sheer ignorance. Obama spent most of his formative childhood years living the Fantasy Island life of elite private schooling in Honolulu, with a stint in Jakarta, Indonesia thrown in. He was in college by the time he finally got to experience life at all on the U.S. mainland, and then pretty much all of that time was spent exclusively in America's largest cities.

I seriously doubt that Obama has even one true personal friend who grew up in small-town rural America and knows what life is like there. Breezing through during meet-and-greets on a Presidential campaign doesn't count. When it comes to this kind of lifestyle, his observations are akin to those of an anthropologist from another country.

You mean during the Reagan recession, when Ronnie's approval ratings were in the toilet (around 40%, IIRC)? Folks were bitter indeed.

I'm quoting Obama's actual words in 282, take it up with him.

What makes your post so arrogant is that you claim Obama believes these people are idiots, that he thinks their beliefs are not their own, that he said they're bitter because they haven't received enough cookies from the government -- even though he never said any of that. It's quite condescending of you to claim that you know what Obama thinks.

See above, I'm quoting Obama's words. I'm endlessly fascinated by the BBTF liberals and their insistance that Obama's words don't mean what they say. Except when they do, in which case you must accept every word as gospel truth because he would never, ever lie.

We like to talk about American optimism and, I think, it is there, deep down, but folks in communities that he is addressing really are angry and bitter and I don't blame them. I don't think this is why they cling to religion or guns. So, he hurt himself badly here, I think. He actually hit on a good strategy: identify with these folks and address that things in their communities aren't looking so hot and that they've been getting empty promises for a long time. However, in executing the strategy he popped up the bunt and got his runner doubled off.

This is true and a good point. Many people all across America ARE bitter and disillusioned with government, and there's probably a worthy dialogue to be had on that. To blame a love of religion and guns on that bitterness, especially when those communities have loved religion and guns since the republic was founded, is downright silly.

I seriously doubt that Obama has even one true personal friend who grew up in small-town rural America and knows what life is like there. Breezing through during meet-and-greets on a Presidential campaign doesn't count. When it comes to this kind of lifestyle, his observations are akin to those of an anthropologist from another country.

Hell, Joey, any anthropologist worth his salt would have a field day right here on BTF, not to mention thousands of other websites populated even more heavily by anonymous people. IMO it beats anything in Saxton, PA, or the village in Burkina Faso that my wife spent two years in while doing field work towards her dissertation on FGM.

Postscript to the above:

I was just on the Washington Post website reading the story about McCain's calling Obama's remarks "elitist," and I had an epiphany of sorts.

Of over 100 comments posted on the article's page, 90% of them were semi-coherent flames against McCain, just as 90% of the comments accompanying any article on Obama on that same site are semi-coherent flames against Obama.

Seems like a pattern of argumentative style that transcends ideology. And this was on the site of the Washingon Post, not the Nation or National Review.

Score one bit of evidence for the point I was making above about anthropologists and websites.

"When you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family.”
Some people "take comfort from their faith and their family" because they believe in their faith and their family, not because they're "bitter." Some people care about gun rights because guns are important to them, not because the government has failed to give them jobs and health care.

I read this differently. The "cling to" what they know and trust. That doesn't mean they don't "take comfort..." when not bitter, but they turn to it even more.

That doesn't seem elitest to me. I mean, I watch baseball alot. When things go bad for me, I spend even more time in it - it's a place of comfort. So yes, pro-gun people like guns all the time, but when the chips are down, it becomes more of a focus.

that doesn't translate to "If they were smarter they wouldn't like guns", it translates more to "if they were treated better, they would think about more thins than guns." And I can't imagine that "thinking about more than a single issue when you vote is imporatant" is "elitest". As someone said - it can be your most important issue, but being the only issue isn't (to use some upthread word) reasonable.

To be a single-issue voter, the issue must mean so much to you that you are willing to say "screw everything else, I just want this!" Can you really see a person saying "Well, his economic policy is great, his foreign policy is as sound as I've ever seen, and I honestly think I can trust him if there was a national emergency. But he's pro-choice, so I'll vote for the crazy guy."?


As a moderate Catholic who has conservative Catholic friends, I can assure you that this is EXACTLY how some of them think.

Two excellent points from Dave amidst the noise:

Those folks can decide for themselves whether Obama's comments bother them--they don't need Clinton or McCain to tell them to be offended

.

Indeed. I said after Joey's first chest-thumping prediction about the outcome on page 1 that the working-class and other Democratic voters in PA, IN and NC can let Obama know how out of line they think he was. Few voters are in love with Hillary Clinton; it is my personal belief, and the polls back it up, that about 2/3 of the registered voters in America simply do not like her. I am a Democrat, and I am among those voters. But if Jeremiah Wright and Obama's own poorly-worded observations are enough to drive people away from him, Hillary Clinton is a candidate with very similar ideologies that to whom voters in these states are are free to turn. All polls have shown that Obama had closed the gap considerably in PA. A reasonably close loss in PA and a big win in NC would have put Obama firmly in the driver's seat; if HRC winds up smoking him by 15 points in PA and pulls close in NC, that, will, in fact, indicate this really is a big deal. I agree with Rich--and most of the rest of the world--that the general will turn largely on the war and the economy, not on these issues.

It's quite condescending of you to claim that you know what Obama thinks.

Obama is the first presidential candidate in my adult life to whom I feel somewhat connected on a personal level--the first guy who could be "my" president. As such, I have taken the time to learn some things about him, read some things about him, beyond just learning about his basic political positions. When this flap arose, as I said upthread in responding to David, I made a point of listening to the audio, looking at the whole transcript, listening to/watching his responses/explanations/regrets. What got him into trouble was using connotatively loaded words--"bitter" "cling to", adding religion to his laundry list of "bad stuff", and failing to use simple qualifiers of quantity--"some of them" "I met a few who were" etc. If you look at the remarks in context and at his explanation, you get a different picture than "elitist."

EDIT: and some people read it like Dial apparently did.

And that raises the question: were the original remarks just (1) a poor choice of words, or (2) do those word choices indicate some baseline prejeudices in the guy, or (3) some of both? And if it is 2 and/or 3, is that a reason to change one's vote?

My guess is (3) and the answer is "no" in my case. And while it is often very useful to hear the other side (like Esoteric, I often read Victor Davis Hanson with interest) I am not real thrilled about people who would never vote for Obama anyway looking at that sentence separate from the rest of the remarks and using it to hammer on him in terms of what kind of man they think he is, because, ultimately, only those closest to Obama know what it "really means" and what he "really thinks." This goes for Repubs and for Clintonians like Mickey Kaus, who can stick his "Kinsley gaffe" right up his ass.

My problem with the remarks--and this will seem a very odd comparison to some--is the same problem I had with Bill Clinton's BJ. When the Lewinsky scandal broke, I got into a very heated discussion with my mom, a lifelong Democrat and huge Bill Clintonite (she prefers Obama to HRC) about what it meant. My point was that the morality of the situation was ultimately an issue to be dealt with among Clinton, his wife and his daughter. MY problem with it was "judgment on the job." Someone--Vernon Jordan, Leon Panetta, James Carville--whoever--I am sure told Wild Bill that the 1990s were not the 1960s, and he was running the risk of ####### up his presidency if he played around on the side in the White House. The fact that he did it with an intern in the White House itself just made it all the more stupid and ill-conceived.

I ocasionally scan the comments section on the obama.com supporter blog, because among the cheerleaders and the occasional troll, you see some thoughtful comments from folks who really LIKE Obama, which is also a useful perspective to have. In talking about the remarks made at the fundraiser, one guy said (I am paraphrasing, but this will be close): "Every time we are getting close BO makes a mistake or something goes wrong--it is really getting frustrating. It was just a ####### fundraiser! Utter a few platitudes, shake a few hands--why did he need to deliver a ####### dissertation?"

That last word of course made me flash on the side discussion bunyon and I had last Obama thread--in which we talked about how both Obama and the Mrs. are in some ways academics, and talk like it. Based on what I have heard, Obama was responding to a question about working- class folks, and he should have said something like "I met many great people in Pennsylvania, but some of them feel very disillusioned. So there is some bitterness and anger, and at times they hold on to other things in the face of that."

Qualifiers are boring and vanilla. But sometimes that is EXACTLY what someone running for office needs to be.

I just think it's amazing that we're coming off two terms of a president from an very wealthy and prominent Connecticut family, the grandson of a senator and the son of a president, who has focused much of his time in office toward benefiting a tiny percentage of the best-off Americans -- yet people claim to be horrified that another presidential candidate might show strains of "elitism."

It's not. It's right there in post 199. People get bitter and then cling to guns, faith, anti-immigrant views, and so on. That's pretty much black and white. And I love how out of it your own explanation is. People are single issue abortion voters b/c of their frustration? Are you nuts? People are anti-Mexican immigration b/c bitterness and not b/c, say, they feel their locality strained by Mexican immigration? Illegal immigrants are taking some people's jobs. Does that mean, as it seems to, that there are no good reasons for holding views opposed to Obama's, or yours? That's essentially what's wrong with this way of regarding your opponents' views. It's essentially claiming, "If you were like me, and not bitter, you'd be pro-abortion, or pro-immigrant, or anti-gun, or less religious" and so on. Don't you see how insulting that is? Don't you see how condescending that is?

I've always thought a lot of rural gun tough guys were that way because they were worried about their * size and other sexual inadequacies.

Religion's a little tougher to explain, though.

ARKI: "I'll vote for her because she'll be far better than McCain on the war, judges, and the business of regulation. Imagine removing oversight from bankers!"

I know that you are a conservative, so your preference for Hillary Clinton for her choice of judges intrigues me. What is it about the judges she would pick that makes you favor her?

Although I am more conservative than many of the posters on Primer, I am not a conservative in most senses. However, one of the main reasons I prefer Republican presidents is because they are more likely (though not certain) to pick justices and judges who have straightforward readings of the Constitution. When judges are just making up law as they go along -- like a legislative body -- they are violating one of the key principles of the Constitution they swore to uphold. Roe vs. Wade is a good example of this. I happen to be pro-choice. I would vote for a law as a legislator which legalized most abortions. But in reading the Constitution, it is shockingly clear that the SCOTUS was acting as a legislative body, not a judicial body, when it decided that women have a constitutional right to an abortion under the privacy theory. There are numerous other examples where liberal judges just make #### up, in order to enact laws that they think would make society better. That is not their job. I would think, as a conservative, ARKI, you would understand that....

I'm also surprised that you want a heavier hand of the government in regulating business.

I just think it's amazing that we're coming off two terms of a president from an very wealthy and prominent Connecticut family, the grandson of a senator and the son of a president, who has focused much of his time in office toward benefiting a tiny percentage of the best-off Americans -- yet people claim to be horrified that another presidential candidate might show strains of "elitism."

The mistake you're making is you're confusing wealth with attitude and philosophy.

Isn't it amazing how such a smart guy can't phrase things in ways such that listeners can interpret what he's trying to say? They're always misunderstanding him.

That's because they're not very smart to begin with and have trouble with irony and subtlety.

And are spoiled in the sense that they are taught to believe their way is the right way, come what may, in spite of all evidence to the contrary.