So Obama is in all kinds of hot water because he said that there was bitterness in the working class of Pennsylvania, saying that workers in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who have seen factories shut down “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” These sentiments are generating all manner of controversy, although since my understanding is that the remarks were made in private, I find the violation of confidences to be more alarming.
Clinton is blasting Obama, saying his comments smack of “elitism.” Newsday reported that one Democratic strategist in Washington, asserted, “Mistakes like this make superdelegates nervous. … You cannot be elected president of the United States if you think you’re smarter than everyone. People pick up on that.”
Here’s what I don’t get: Why is that a bad thing?
What’s wrong with a president believing he’s smarter than everyone? Or at least smarter than most people? What’s wrong with someone being elitist? Why shouldn’t the President of the United States be the best and the brightest, and know that he or she is and be proud of that fact? We’ve had a proud dunce for seven years now; does anyone REALLY think we’re better off for it?
It’s no wonder that people are distrustful of politicians, but really, we’ve brought it on ourselves. We have a situation wherein this country’s anti-intellectualism has become so pervasive, so suffocating, that we have multi-millionaire Ivy league graduates trying to pretend they’re just plain folks when clearly they’re not. And people know they’re not. This country was founded by men who knew they were the best and brightest, and the citizenry took pride and comfort in that. But television has put politicians into peoples’ homes, and now we just want someone we’re comfortable with. We don’t want men and women who come across like professors; we want the guy who sat in the back of the class and goofs off, as if life was a sitcom. To put it in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” terms, we should want to elect Mr. Hand; instead we opt for Jeff Spicoli.
PAD
• 
I think the reason people may not want a President who thinks he’s smarter than everybody else is because we have something like that right now.
We have, in office right now, a guy who thinks he knows best. A guy who thinks he’s right about everything. A guy who doesn’t listen to or consider other people’s opinions; he thinks he knows better than they do.
Me, I’d prefer a leader willing to acknowledge that he may not know everything, that he may sometimes make mistakes, that he may sometimes be wrong.
Is Obama such a person? I don’t know. We’ll have to see.
But that, I think, is why a President who believes himself/herself to be smarter than everybody else is considered a bad thing. They may feel that the people are too stupid to know what it best, and thus won’t listen to the people.
On another subject, while Obama is definitely the guy I want to become the next POTUS right now I’m disappointed that he said he wouldn’t talk to Hamas. I had previously been impressed when he stated that he would be willing to engage in dialogue with anybody, anybody at all. Ally, enemy, other, whatever. But all of a sudden he says he won’t talk to Hamas because ther bear the label of a terrorist organization?
IMO, listening to what the other guy has to say is not a concession. Sitting down with them and saying “here’s what we want to do, you tell us what you want to do, and let’s see if we can’t work something out,” is not a sign of weakness. There is nothing to lose by talking to people, even murderous people.
The worst case scenario if you talk to the leaders of Hamas is that you get up at the end and say “You guys are crazy. Fûçk you, it’s obvious we can’t come to an agreement and that you’re not reasonable in the least.”
The best case scenario is that you convince them to give peace a chance.
Thanks PAD, this is what I’ve been thinking all weekend.
Every President is a megalomaniac. Not joke, no exageration. America is constantly saying that our President is the most powerful man in the world. We tell kids that from the moment they’re born. So of *course* the people who think they can actually do the job think they’re better than everyone else, they literally think they’re capable of running the world.
And they all know it. Every so often someone asks a Presidential candidate why they’re running for office. The answer is always the same: patriotism. They want what’s best for the country. And what is best is for them to be in charge.
When Hillary Clinton is yelling about elitism, does anyone honestly believe that she *doesn’t* think she’ smarter than everyone else in the room? That’s not even an insult, they *all* think they’re the biggest, baddest thing around.
Here’s the other thing people aren’t saying about Obama. What if he’s right? He didn’t say that everyone was bitter, he said that *some* of the people that have lost jobs are bitter that the jobs aren’t coming back. That sounds pretty likely to be true. But then Hillary immediately responded that everyone she’s met has been optimistic. Everyone? Seriously, in financially strained areas there aren’t any bitter people at all?
The problem is, the media is more important than the truth. If they’re constantly showing Hillary saying that people are outraged by Obama’s statements, people will start believing that there is a lot of outrage. Never mind the fact that she started saying, “The voters are outraged!” immediately after the story broke, meaning she didn’t actually have time to ask anyone if they were outraged.
Luckily, it’s not total insanity. She brought up Obama’s remarks to a crowd in Penn today and got booed.
We have, in office right now, a guy who thinks he knows best. A guy who thinks he’s right about everything. A guy who doesn’t listen to or consider other people’s opinions; he thinks he knows better than they do. Me, I’d prefer a leader willing to acknowledge that he may not know everything, that he may sometimes make mistakes, that he may sometimes be wrong.
I think you’re confusing smartness with smugness. I don’t think that Bush thinks he’s smarter than everyone else; in fact, I think he knows that he isn’t. But he believes that he’s getting his marching orders from God, and that doesn’t require intelligence, just faith. That he has in abundance.
PAD
“We have, in office right now, a guy who thinks he knows best. ”
Actually, I see Bush as the ultimate example of people not wanting their President to seem too smart.
You’re right in that he thinks he knows what’s best to the point of not listening to anyone. But what got him into office was his “awe shucks” persona. The accent that’s just a little thicker than what someone with his parents should have. The dopey grin when he leans on the podium. Bush has worked the good ‘ole boy routine materfully.
If this country was willing to admit that the President should be the smart guy, not the guy they want to have a beer with, Al Gore would have been President.
Maybe the crowd in Penn had the same thought I did – that it’s pure chutzpah for Clinton to speak of “elitism” in such a manner, after previously maintaining that $200,000/year was a “middle-class” income. Dunno about your neck of the woods, but around these parts, that’s “pretty well off”, not “middle class”. (Unless you’re trying to buy a house in a nice part of Seattle, but that has more to do with the fact that the housing bubble hasn’t popped around here – yet.)
Personally, I’d still rather have an “elitist” than a “regular Joe” in office – after all, that was the image Bush’s handlers cultivated, probably because they knew he couldn’t put “brainy” across for more than a couple of minutes after opening his mouth.
I’m also not so sure Obama wouldn’t talk to Hamas – he just might not be willing to say so right now. Look at the flak he took for saying he’d be willing to talk with the governments of Iran and North Korea! And they’re actually, you know, governing their parts of the world. If he admitted he would talk to Hamas now, the right-wingers would burn him in effigy – and some on the “left” would help!
Personally, I think both sides are making too much of this. So, he said people are bitter and angry. Big deal. Some people ARE bitter and angry. I think the most disgusting thing about our 24-hour newscycle is how one word or phrase gets psycho-analyzed to death.
Look at the context of what he said. Look at what he means. Quit being offended by something and understand the man!
That said, I’ll still never vote for him. He reminds me of Bush-43’s first election. About the only difference between the two is their party and Obama’s command of the language. Otherwise, they are the same: generally inexperienced so there’s only a small track record. That makes is so easy to pour hopes into the vague speeches on ending bipartisanship and renewing hope:
— George W. Bush – 2000 Republican National Convention
If you didn’t know any better, though, that could just as easily be an Obama speech:
–Barack Obama – 2006 presidential run announcement.
Personally, I’m not thrilled with the potential slate of candidates this time around. None have ever run anything except a campaign and a Senate office. I really don’t think the next President is going to make a huge difference – except maybe to the base of their own party.
Hey, thanks, PAD! I got a whole blog posting out of this one.
In a nutshell: the problem is not that Obama said (or showed) that he was smarter, it was that he said some people were dumber — and just why he thought they were dumb, for “clinging” to religion and guns and anti-illegal-immigration and whatnot.
And I’ve seen some compelling arguments that Bush isn’t dumb. He tends towards inarticulateness (at a legendary level), but the guy passed flight training and managed to fly one of the nastier jet fighters the Air Force has ever fielded, mastering all sorts of things — including instrument operations and air navigation and combat systems in a single-seat plane — and not killing himself or crashing even once. That is NOT something any idiot can accomplish.
But Obama did not just misspeak. One misspeaks a word or two, or even a sentence. He stated his position, and cited examples to back it up. One does not do that accidentally or inadvertently.
J.
Actually Jay, one *does* misstate a position sometimes. Just a few words can change the context of something entirely.
Here’s an article from slate.com
http://www.slate.com/id/2188963/
They examine what Obama was trying to say. Most importantly, they cite an interview from awhile back where he said almost the exact same things, but without the condescending phrasing.
Does Obama have a lower opinion of some Americans than others? Of course he does. *Everyone* considers somebody to be wrong about something that’s important to them. Most politicians in both political parties consider themselves to be inherently better people than everyone in the opposing party.
Obama’s comments weren’t good, but they weren’t the big deal that the media and his rivals are making them to be.
Hey, thanks, PAD! I got a whole blog posting out of this one.
Yes, and I responded to it, because your posting had nothing to do with what prompted my blog entry. I was responding to what the Democratic strategist said, and you asserted that I asked “the wrong question.” No; I just replied to the claim of the strategist.
PAD
Where’s Bartlet when you need him?
Jay,
You can give up on trying to convince PAD that Bush-43 is smart. Whether it’s true or not, it won’t matter to him. Bush’s constant mangling of the English language is guaranteed to send a professional writer over the edge. The fact that his politics are so different takes it from irritant level to the realm of “cannot stand seeing or hearing him”.
As a computer professional I cringe whenever someone in politics or the news talks about computers or networks. Think of Al Gore’s “invent the internet” bit. Just about everyone in the industry was outraged at the arrogance of the man.
PAD – I think Clinton is off base for calling Obama’s comments elitist, but I do understand why it makes superdelegates nervous. For better or worse, if Obama did indeed say that, it’s a very dismissive and alienating attitude towards a potentially large segment of the population. He’s labeling a large/vocal group of people as bitter, and that’s just not a smart move if you want to get elected.
I don’t dispute that Bush was smart enough to learn how to operate a plane. Heck, he was even smart enough to make sure he’d never have to fly it in combat. And if we’re ever invaded by flying saucers and we need a president to jump into a plane and lead the charge, just like in the movies, then I’m feeling pretty good about Bush being right for the job.
But his ability to fly an airplane has nothing to do with the job for which he was put into place, and in every practical skill that job does require, he remains dumb as a box of rocks.
For better or worse, if Obama did indeed say that, it’s a very dismissive and alienating attitude towards a potentially large segment of the population.
I didn’t see it as dismissive, but merely descriptive. Dismissive is, “They’re bitter, but who gives a crap?”
PAD
Wait, so people are blasting Obama for saying that people who LOSE THEIR JOBS are BITTER?
…….
Well, yeah. Like if you lie in the sun, you tend to get burned. If you don’t sleep well, you’ll be tired. You lose your job, I’d imagine you’d be a bit less-than-sunshiney.
It’s official: no one can say anything. Next President’s gonna have to be a deaf-mute.
since my understanding is that the remarks were made in private, I find the violation of confidences to be more alarming.
Presidential candidate Barack Obama’s campaign has been in full damage control mode since the senator’s blunt remarks about the nature of small town Pennsylvania voters were secretly recorded by a Huffington Post blogger at a recent San Francisco fundraiser that was supposed to be off limits to the press.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/04/14/BA161046G7.DTL&hw=obama+bitter&sn=011&sc=434
I for one think there ought to be no presumption of privacy at a fundraising event and I’m glad for any chance we get to see what the candidates really think.
The thing that gets me is that last week it was revealed that all the top players in the Bush Administration sat around and approved horrid, illegal torture. The President confirmed it. All the press wants to talk about is that in a country where 81% of the populace thinks we are going in the wrong direction, a candidate used the word bitter.
Last week, the two men who Bush says will determine policy in Iraq said they can’t define what success there will be. And all the press wants to talk about is that a candidate used the word bitter.
Gee, Ed…you sound pretty bitter.
PAD
Peter DavID: 00…this country’s anti-intellectualism has become so pervasive, so suffocating…
Luigi Novi: THANK YOU.
Peter DavID: 00To put it in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” terms, we should want to elect Mr. Hand; instead we opt for Jeff Spicoli.
Luigi Novi: Yeah, you’d think the American public would side with Mr. Hand, if for no other reason than they’d get a free slice of pizza. 🙂
So he’s being chewed out for pointing out the truth. Again.
This man’s going to end up as the United States’ answer to Pierre Trudeau if he gets the job. He’ll be respected and despised forever, and will have earned both.
It’ll be worth it for the USA, I swear.
What did Douglas Adams say on the subject? Those that want to be president shouldn’t be allowed to have the job.
And it’s really true: if you want this job, you have to think you’re better than everybody else.
Clinton making the “elitism” claim is just another hypocritical remark on her part. But then, that doesn’t surprise me either… after all, this is politicians we’re talking about. Still, she dserves just as much criticism for her comment of “elitism” as what Obama originally said.
Think of Al Gore’s “invent the internet” bit. Just about everyone in the industry was outraged at the arrogance of the man.
Yeah, if only Gore had actually said that. But he didn’t.
His original, FULL quote was: “During my service in the United States Congress I took the initiative in creating the internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country’s economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system.”
Open to interpretation? Obviously, but then, what isn’t these days? At least he uses proper grammar, unlike some others in office right now.
Either way, Gore did just that: while in Congress, he put forth measures that helped lead to the creation of the internet.
So, perhaps the outrage has always been just a bit misplaced. Particularly since Gore never said “I created the internet”.
The way Hillary has been harping on this, milking it for all it’s worth, despite the fact that it’s doing McCain’s November job for him, is the last straw. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for her. It’s clear she’ll be no better than McCain, possibly even worse. And I say that as someone who would rather the Democrats run thing than the Republicans.
Obama speaks truth to panderers, and gets smacked down for it. Good thing the tracking polls seem to indicate the actual voters don’t give two shakes of a campaigner’s tail….
Peter, I do not know what the original statement or its source is, but I notice that either you or Newsday quoted it, yet you say the remark was made in private. If it was in private, how can there be a quote? Normally this would be a relatively trivial matter, but I notice that the remark sounds like a description of what he publicly said at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow.
He not only explains why it is understandable for some people to be bitter (rather than dismissing them as such, which is the connotation being reported), but makes mention of guns, except that it’s a comment about people voting on gun issues, and not “clinging to guns”. Is the speech in this video the source of the quote?
Let’s just say that I’m 99.9% sure that, particularly after 20 or so years of living in Arkansas and changing her name from Hillary Rodham to Hillary Clinton for Arkansas electoral purposes, a certain Wellesley and Yale graduate feels exactly the same way about the mass of PA voters.
Being blunt, if you look at both Hillary and Barack’s track records, both educational and afterwards, frankly I’d be worried if either one didn’t realize they were smarter than the average bear, er, voter.
Now, there is a difference between intellect and Presidential performance (see Carter, Jimmy), and intellect and arrogance in a refusal to consider the opinion and take by others. I’ve met incredibly smart people who are also arrogant as all get out, and incredibly smart people who are humble as all get out (A favorite quote of mine by a Google co-worker went something like “One thing I love about Google is that I’m the smartest person in the room only when I get there first”…and I and others considered this person smarter than us and the average Googler). Personally, I don’t think Obama was being arrogant at all when he said that.
Mark L said:
“Think of Al Gore’s “invent the internet” bit.”
Al Gore never said that. It is a bášŧárdìzáŧìøņ of what he said, a bášŧárdìzáŧìøņ trumpeted by the right so that they could say Gore was a liar, a bášŧárdìzáŧìøņ that keeps getting repeated by those who heard it somewhere and keep repeating it as the truth.
“Tell a lie long enough and it becomes the truth.”
Agreed, Mr. David. I heard once, though I can’t recall who said it, that they liked GWB because he was “the type of guy you could sit and have a beer with.” Well, I know the types of guys I sit and have beers with, and I would not want them at the helm of the U.S.S…er…U.S.A. I would much prefer an extraordianry man as Commander-in-Cheif to an ordinary one.
Kudos. (i’m a big fan, please continue writin “stuff”).
John Studniarz
Craig: “Particularly since Gore never said “I created the internet”.”
I don’t see a lot of difference between, “I took the initiative in creating the internet,” and, “I created the internet.” Taking the initiative in doing something is still doing something.
I’ve even seen the interview where he said that, so I know the context of the statement. It was a smug statement that inflated his role. It was not a power grab, it was not an outright lie, it was not anything that actually *mattered*, but it was definitely an exaggeration.
Luigi, I can’t find anything at that video link.
As a resident of a small town in central Pennsylvania, all I have to say is that Obama is right; when it comes to the economy, we are bitter. Extremely so. And cynical, especially when it comes to politicians. So the fact that I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt should say something.
I dont particularly care for Obama, But I have to say I saw nothing wrong with what he said. I’ve been trying to dissect it every which way in order to somehow take offense to it, 🙂 but I just can’t figure out what was wrong in what he said. I’ve seen it in all the newspapers saying how he is digging his grave, and I personally don’t get it.
The only thing I saw that was bad, was that he didn’t say it directly to the people of Pennsylvania (right?…he said it to the people of San Francisco?). With that being the case, It was kind of like trying to explain to one group of people why they were better off than the other group of people.
To me, if he would have delivered this speech in Pennsylvania first, and then repeated it *anywhere else*, citing how he spoke in Penn. first, I don’t think there would have been any media fallout like there was. I think he needed to say it to them first: Hey, You are bitter, you deserve to be. You have gone through hëll…I’m going to get you out of it.
Instead, its like he went behind their backs and was gossiping about them, and almost made fun of their situation to a group of people *not* in that situation.
What makes Obama’s campaign different from Bush/Cheney is that Obama can either do what he’s already doing, or he can go more radical — like he forced John Edwards to do. Those are his options.
If you’re going to hold against him simply having the sense to win his party’s nomination, Obama would be a fool to expend any effort to secure your vote.
As I was reading this, they were discussing it on THE DAILY SHOW, with Jon Steward commenting “Doesn’t ‘elite’ mean ‘good?’… I want a president who’s better than me! I want a president who can speak 17 languages.”
The general problem with appearing “elitist” is that you want the votes of as many people as you can — and that’s hard if you’re saying they’re dumb (or at least less intelligent than you). The specific problem for the Democrats is the perception that their “elitism” makes them out of touch with mainstream America (such as the so-called Hollywood Elite).
I don’t think what Obama said was insulting, or even wrong. Desperate people can turn to numerous areas when they fall on hard times, and some people turn to whatever group seems to offer them support and understanding (and, often, a scapegoat for their problems). This doesn’t mean all folks who support gun rights, go to church, or dislike folks who are different are all bitter — but it doesn’t mean they’re not, either.
Peter, I do not know what the original statement or its source is, but I notice that either you or Newsday quoted it, yet you say the remark was made in private. If it was in private, how can there be a quote?
My understanding, Luigi–although I admit I haven’t heard it–is that one of Huffington’s people was tape recording it without Obama’s knowledge and posted an audio of what he said. Again, I’m depending upon my patchy understanding of it, but that’s what I think happened.
PAD
Okay, Jason pointed out to me that the above link doesn’t work, which I believe is because this site incorporated the period at the end of the sentence as part of the link. I’m going to repost it now without the period:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow
It works now, as I tested it in the Preview stage.
I’m a Democratic supporter this year, but quite honestly all this PR sniping over the most innocuous comment is pushing me to the point where I’m about ready to wash my hands of the whole presidential election. And if I’m getting fed up, I hate to think what the average voter must be thinking of the Dems right now.
Why can’t we just get those last few states out of the way and get on with it already! Seems like this has been going on forever.
Meanwhile McCain sits inoffensively off to the side.
I’m starting to worry we’re going to blow it again.
Whats that old saying? ‘You get the representation you deserve?’
HERE’S THE SCOOP
http://tinyurl.com/4xb9og
The link is to the Huffington Post site. A recording was made by an Obama supporter at Off The Bus. The story was picked up and mis-attributed after that.
“…by an Obama supporter AND POSTED at…”
Ðámņ, I’m tired. I’m going to bed.
“…by an Obama supporter AND A WRITE-UP WAS POSTED at…”
but it was definitely an exaggeration.
But it wasn’t sniper fire while being lead from the chopper to the bunker, either. 😉
And yet, from the way people *still* believe that’s what Gore said, 8 years later, people aren’t interested in the truth, much less context.
PAD,
Nice of you to admit your an elitist! 😉
Do you really think if John McCain said something like this in “private” that it would not have been leaked? I am not sure I would consider it in “confidence” when I am speaking to a group of people. Does he think this is 1908? Oh, wait, politics was just as vicious then.
You do make a valid point. I think our country tends to be anti-intellectual in a way that is very unhealthy. But that can be different than being elitist. Even hearing the full context, Obama at the very least made a huge blunder in how he worded things.
So what is wrong with elitism? The problem is not necessarily that an elitist is smarter, it is that (at least in perception) he or she is out of touch. That is why this is potentially damaging for Obama. We can handle someone smarter — I want an expert to fix things. What I don’t want is someone who has no clue what I really think and believe.
That said, for Hillary Clinton to jump on this is the height of hypocrisy. She is as elite as they come (national health care anyone?). Truth be told, I think McCain is just as elitist. So all of this just cancels itself out in my opinion.
Iowa Jim
An interesting comparison between Obama’s remarks and a quote by Bill Clinton in 1991 is being made at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/13/bill-clinton-flashback-al_n_96433.html
Posted by: Peter David at April 14, 2008 07:47 PM
And if we’re ever invaded by flying saucers and we need a president to jump into a plane and lead the charge, just like in the movies, then I’m feeling pretty good about Bush being right for the job.
But his ability to fly an airplane has nothing to do with the job for which he was put into place, and in every practical skill that job does require, he remains dumb as a box of rocks.
If we were invaded by flying saucers 30 or 40 years ago, I’d feel pretty good about Bush being in a cockpit. But now I’m sure his reflexes and vision are shot, and he’s not even good for that any more. 😛
Posted by: Queen Anthai at April 14, 2008 07:47 PM
It’s official: no one can say anything. Next President’s gonna have to be a deaf-mute.
Which is why the longer this fight for the nomination goes on, the more I believe it’ll hurt the nominee’s chances. The longer it goes on, the more times something will come out that some voters don’t like, or most voters don’t like, and the more ammo McCain gets.
Posted by: Craig J. Ries at April 14, 2008 08:55 PM
Yeah, if only Gore had actually said that. But he didn’t.
Yeah, I was gonna say…
The problem with Obama’s statement has more to do with the context of the campaign. His wife has said some things that are inopportune to say the least. His pastor is a baying loon. Obama has been able to keep these issues from sticking to him by assuring us that his wife misspoke and that he didn’t always agree with his pastor. The words he spoke, off-the-record, now shows that he may have more in common with his wife’s “misstatements” and Jeremiah Wright’s rants than he previously owned up to. The fact that what he said was off the record is more dámņìņg in the eyes of most.
The context of his comment was why he was having problems attracting working-class America. The man has been running as a “political messiah” and now he just cast those not his constituents as a fear-crazed Sanhedrin. As a conservative who “clings” to religion in good times and bad, and owns more than a few guns, offense at his remark is easy to take. That said, I’m not really offended. His comment may reaffirm to my resolve to write-in my vote for Cthulu, but it doesn’t offend me.
As for the elitism issue, I don’t think most people are as egalitarian as they believe. Most people believe deep-down that they have the answers. If someone you disagree with thinks he’s smarter than you, what’s your normal reaction? If you’re in politics, this translates on a mass scale. It’s easier for a candidate to just play the fool rather than to seem condescending.
there is a difference, i think, between being elite and being elitist, though admittedly the difference is subtle. being elite has more to do though with your position and ability – being elitist has to do with your attitude – the best way to describe an elitist is via marie antionnette’s – “let them eat cake”…
i don’t think that too many people would have balked at obama simply saying that some people in pennsylvania are bitter about politics and the economy. but first of all that’s not all he said. he equated religious belief and gun ownership to bitterness about the government/economy. as if gun ownership/hunting/support of the 2nd amendment, and being a devout religious person were the result of bad economic times.
i’m sorry, but people in pennsylvania and throughout “middle america” have “clung” to their guns and religious beliefs ever since this country was founded, through good times and bad. even james carville himself made this point over the weekend.
i mean, you may disagree on whether gun ownership should or shouldn’t be allowed. you may not believe in god, or may not be overly devout. but when you say that the only reason people hold those beliefs is because, poor souls, they’re bitter about the economy/politics, you’re going to come off as elitist.
add to that where and when he said these comments – at a private fundraiser in san francisco. now it really starts to come off as sounding elitist. as if he is saying “gosh, if can improve the economy those poor simple-minded rubes in middle america will realize how silly their enjoyment of guns and belief in god is.”
mind you, i think it’s very funny that hillary is jumping on this, trying to make it look like she is someone “of the people” in the week after it was revealed how much money she and bill have been making the last few years. but i’m sure she’s just happy that this event distracted everyone from bill bringing up the sniper fire incident again – she was able to muzzle him with little impact.
anyway, i don’t think americans want spicoli as president. but i do think americans want someone who seems to respect them, not trivialize their beliefs or try to explain them away to make political hay…
Nice of you to admit your an elitist! 😉
That’s “you’re an elitist.”
And I suppose I am. Personally, I just think that twelve typewritten characters to an inch is simply the easiest to read.
Do you really think if John McCain said something like this in “private” that it would not have been leaked?
Depends who was there, I suppose. And if it had been, my reaction would have been exactly the same.
PAD
i mean, you may disagree on whether gun ownership should or shouldn’t be allowed. you may not believe in god, or may not be overly devout. but when you say that the only reason people hold those beliefs is because, poor souls, they’re bitter about the economy/politics, you’re going to come off as elitist.
But that’s not what he said. What he was saying was that because they were angry over things they couldn’t control, like an economy that was causing them to lose their jobs, they were placing greater and greater emphasis on things they could control. I don’t even think the comment about guns or religion was the most significant; it’s just what everyone keeps zeroing in on. I think the most significant was when he said they clling to “antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” And he’s right. There’s very much a growing us vs. them mentality. It’s the “two Americas” that John Edwards was talking about, except Edwards phrased it better.
God, I miss Edwards.
PAD
I’m sorry if I missed something in all this, but…isn’t what he said at least partly true? Isn’t it more or less human nature, when we lose control of major aspects of our lives, like employment, that we turn to those things we can control in order to seek some form of stability? Don’t we see this kind of thing everywhere? From the battered wife who keeps returning to her abusive husband because that’s easier to face than the uncertainty of going things alone to the laid-off factory worker that spends more time at church, humans seek some form of stability and control, even if those things are illusory or even harmful.
Why is that elitist or degrading to anyone? It’s an observation on human nature, and it says to me that Obama is aware of a problem, which is the first thing you need to know before you can try to fix anything.
McCain has had to be corrected a handful of times that by the account of all known intelligence there is no evidence Iran is supporting al-Qaeda — and the media has demonstrated their bias by volunteering the McCain has been “misspeaking” without quoting anyone. For his campaign, McCain has only benefited from the selective application of principle. For all anyone knows, McCain is free to call Pat Tillman an Iranian and reporters will come to his defense.
How have you not just literally confirmed Obama’s account of what’s going on?
The only observable basis for you to take offense seems to be that Obama hasn’t honored your taboo against saying something you believe yourself. Why should anyone else care? If you were coworkers and he said this, would this all it would take to create a hostile environment for you?
Personally, I just think that twelve typewritten characters to an inch is simply the easiest to read.
Geez, how would you feel if Obama said he was going to make everyone else look like picas?
And I have to agree with Bobb — other than the fact that it was phrased somewhat indelicately, what little I’ve read of this comment makes me think that Obama was pretty much just saying true stuff. Clearly that means he’s doomed.
TWL
I’m sorry if I missed something in all this, but…isn’t what he said at least partly true?
Actually, I think it’s completely true. That’s why it strikes so close to home and gets a lot of people upset. It’s easier for people to dismiss something patently and demonstrably untrue, and the coverage can be defused by, “He misspoke” or “He was taken out of context.” Say something that’s true, and that can sink you. Again, people want presidential candidates who are as unthreatening as any other television personality who is, as Red Skelton used to say, welcome into their living rooms. They want someone who will say things they want to hear, ideally in small, easy to digest sound bytes.
PAD
Gee, Ed…you sound pretty bitter.
PAD
Yes, after 8 years of the worst Presidency in our country’s history, I’m bitter.
I don’t turn to God or guns. I turn to comic books and inane blogs:-}