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
• 
As was pointed out, I think there is a difference between how people percieve intelligence, verses elitism.
Elitism is not knowing the price of milk, or how to use an ATM. It’s the inability to relate to the people you’re supposed to respresent. At least I feel that’s how most people respond to percieved elitism.
Elitism is not knowing the price of milk, or how to use an ATM. It’s the inability to relate to the people you’re supposed to respresent. At least I feel that’s how most people respond to percieved elitism.
See, whereas I think that someone who is an elitist would make it their business to know something like that.
I hate to bring up a fictional character, but “West Wing’s” Bartlett was not only an elitist, but he was depicted as showing precisely how much milk cost and even, as governor, vetoing legislation that would have caused the price of milk to go up even though it hurt his standing with dairy farmers.
PAD
An elitist is someone who knows the price of gas, or a loaf of bread, but can’t understand why everyone’s complaining. Obama may have been harsh in his comment, but I think a little harsh is what is needed right now.
Well, it seems to me tht Obama must know something to be in touch with the folks if he understands that folks who lose their jobs and homes might not be feeling real happy these days.
H.R. Clinton obviously doesn’t get it. A “middle class” income is $200,000? Not even my recently departed CEO made that much.
An elitist is someone who knows the price of gas, or a loaf of bread, but can’t understand why everyone’s complaining.
No, it’s really not. That’s not an elitist. That’s just an áššhølë.
An elitist is someone who knows the price of gas or a loaf of bread and, because he has that knowledge, believes that his opinion on such matters are inherently superior to someone who has opinions on the price of gas or a loaf of bread without actually knowing what they are.
PAD
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.
Huffington Post has a long essay on how they reported on the quote. The fundraiser is described as something that many people were recording, and one writer with a pulpit on Huffington Post broke the story of Obama’s speech. The essay highlights the problem of “citizen journalism” — campaigns like it, because they feel it benefits them with the grassroots supporters, but they also don’t know how to control it.
I just caught up with Jon Stewart’s take on “Daily Show” and loved it:
“You’re running for President of the United States, a job where–if you really do it right–they carve your face in a mountain. If you don’t really think you’re better than everybody else, what the f*ck* are you DOING here?!”
PAD
Completely right. I asked a British friend of mine what they care about in a politician and they said “postitions on issues like walfare and public transportation.” In America, all we care about is if the politician is a “cool guy who can hang out with us.” I’m really sick of this. Gag me with a spoon while I watch CNN’s comapssion forum.
To put it in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” terms, we should want to elect Mr. Hand; instead we opt for Jeff Spicoli.
Don’t know about you guys, but I’m voting for Phoebe Cates getting out of the pool…
I’m just surprised that it took so long for you to bring up Bartlett in the comments. I actually thought you would go with a west wing analogy instead of fast times at ridgemont high.
Don’t know about you guys, but I’m voting for Phoebe Cates getting out of the pool…
Not for president, no. Some sort of cabinet post for her: Surgeon General? Certainly I’d listen to her on certain topics way more than I did Joycelyn Elders.
TWL
PAD, I stand sorta corrected. We agree an elitist is an áššhølë.
Got to love that Jonny Stew!
PAD, I stand sorta corrected. We agree an elitist is an áššhølë.
Uhm…no. We don’t.
PAD
I don’t think the issue is whether Obama believes he’s smarter than everyone. I would think that most people realize that same is true for all the candidates. I think the real issue is that Obama stereotyped a significant portion of the population. Even if he’s mostly right(especially in regards to his antipathy comment), that doesn’t excuse him. He’s right in the same way a security guard is right to pay extra, special attention to the African-American shoppers, or a cop is right to stop them more often than other drivers. That’s the problem, in my opinion.
I think the real issue is that Obama stereotyped a significant portion of the population.
No, he didn’t. He described them based upon his personal experiences.
Even if he’s mostly right(especially in regards to his antipathy comment), that doesn’t excuse him.
I actually kind of think it does. But I’m probably in the minority in that regard.
PAD
I don’t think America minds elite politicians so much as they want to make sure that the politician in question has a clue of the people they’re representing. For example, somebody mentioned that McCain is an elitist–and he probably is. But the man did fight in a major war and became a POW. Thus he has a first-hand experience about the atrocities of war. This is just an example, but note that McCain’s war record helps him favorably in the polls.
So, I don’t think an elite or even elitist politician is as big a problem as one that is competely disconnected from those he represents.
I don’t think America minds elite politicians so much as they want to make sure that the politician in question has a clue of the people they’re representing. For example, somebody mentioned that McCain is an elitist–and he probably is. But the man did fight in a major war and became a POW. Thus he has a first-hand experience about the atrocities of war. This is just an example, but note that McCain’s war record helps him favorably in the polls.
So, I don’t think an elite or even elitist politician is as big a problem as one that is competely disconnected from those he represents.
Mark L: I don’t believe you’re right about the similarities between Obama and Bush, but for all I know you are right. It’s not as though I can read Barack’s mind or anything.
I used to think John McCain was a pretty good guy, but apparently that was all an act.
Still, I believe we can take Obama at his word. If I’m wrong, that would mean that after 8 years of GWB and the chance for things to start getting better, we don’t have a single good person running to replace him. That possibility is horribly depressing to consider.
Even if he’s mostly right(especially in regards to his antipathy comment), that doesn’t excuse him.
Wha-hut? Being right is no excuse?
Wha-hut? Being right is no excuse?
Robert Heinlein’s Lazarus Long once recommended, “If you ever know beyond question that you are right, apologize immediately.” The reference was to male/female relationships, but it seems to apply to politics.
PAD
“I don’t think America minds elite politicians so much as they want to make sure that the politician in question has a clue of the people they’re representing.”
Are you sure they want a President who understands them? If that was true, people would have loved Obama’s comments.
Let’s be honest. How much of an issue has gay marriage in the last decade? There were people in the Republican party who made it out to be a giant threat to American institutions, but on election years. Part of that was based on people’s religious beliefs.
How about second amendments rights, isn’t that something that has been used as a big issue? And aren’t those immigrants reeeaaallly scary?
All the stuff Obama talked about are things that have been voting issues even when they shouldn’t be. He said that people are voting on those things because they don’t feel like they have any control over the more important issues, like the economy.
This scandal isn’t about elitism at all. It’s about tact. And tact is lying to avoid talking about someone’s bad qualities, something Obama forgot to do for a moment. Does America want a President who understands them, or does America want a President who only mentions the good stuff?
I think the Chicago Tribune had a good editorial on this. Here’s a quote from part of it:
“The notable thing, wrote Melinda Henneberger in Slate, was Obama’s ‘ability to pack half a dozen unintended insults into a single sentence.’
It didn’t help that Obama was speaking behind closed doors, in comments he may have thought would remain private, in a setting that could hardly be more removed culturally from rural Pennsylvania. He wouldn’t have made those comments at an American Legion hall in Uniontown—because he would have known they sound dismissive of perfectly legitimate sentiments. You don’t have to be “bitter” to value gun rights, go to church or oppose free trade and illegal Immigration.
Obama soon apologized, more or less, saying, ‘If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that.’ But the damage may be hard to undo, coming as it does after the revelations of his former pastor’s over-the-top criticisms of America (“the U.S. of KKK-A”) and Michelle Obama’s claim that because of her husband’s political success, ‘For the first time in my adult lifetime, I’m really proud of my country.’ Then there’s Obama’s decision not to wear an American flag lapel pin.
Taken together, all these factors are bound to raise a question even among many voters who were open-minded about Obama: Does he really understand what makes ordinary people tick?”
source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-0415edit2apr15,0,4690697.story
I’d say this was a fairly objective view. The Tribune has not exactly been anti-Obama in its coverage.
I think the man is completely wrong, but even if you agree with Obama, you have to put some store in the proverb that states, “a wise man does not tell all he knows.”
Rob Brown: Still, I believe we can take Obama at his word. If I’m wrong, that would mean that after 8 years of GWB and the chance for things to start getting better, we don’t have a single good person running to replace him. That possibility is horribly depressing to consider.
Unfortunately, things like Obama’s “cling” comment – in combination with the 24-hour news cycle – are creating this problem. We have created a system where only when you offend the fewest people and say the fewest controversial things can you be elected. Perception is everything. There are people on the right refusing to vote for McCain because he – gasp! – struck a deal that kept the Senate from implementing a 50%+1 rule on votes. There are people on the left that won’t vote for Clinton because she refuses to apologize for her Iraq War vote.
Obama and Bush (and most of the recent Supreme Court nominees) step into this world trying to be quiet and inspirational – and above all non-confrontational. No track record? No problem – you go to the head of the line for President!
I just don’t think we get “good people” running anymore. They aren’t interested.
I absolutely do not think Obama is wrong. Nor do I think we was stereotyping people.
I most certainly blame people for deliberately misunderstanding him and continuing to do so when everything is pointed out to them.
That’s what makes politics so depressing–that deliberate drive to be stupid.
Again, how can remarks made at a fundraiser be considered private? It’s not as though he made the remark to some close personal friends; he invited strangers in to ask for money. He can try to bar the press, but if they manage to get in, where’s the basis for crying foul?
PAD, I stand completely corrected.
Mea Culpa.
So everyone who thought the comments were out of character or demeaning for Mr. Change is stupid? And apparrently deliberately stupid. So we all know what Mr. Change really meant when he made those comments but we are deliberately ignoring that and playing the stupid card?
Im not sure why everyone (well at least the stupid folks)is so surprised. So it turns out Mr Change has been a liberal all this time. huh who would have thunk it?
He’s been outed, his true colors were flying that day. Behind closed doors when the “bitter” folk cant hear it. He turns out to be the same “big government” “more taxes” “Globel Warming” liberal as Hillary but way better at it then she is.
Big deal. The real show starts when he tries to talk is way around it. The more he explains the worse it gets.
Now Im going to go pray for my gun and Im from Minnesota.
I don’t know that Americans, or most people for that matter, really hate an intelligent person so much as they hate someone who is smarter than they are…and lets them know it.
I don’t think that’s what Obama did but that’s the perception that is being criticized.
It’s like beauty–there can be no question that we love beautiful people and treat them better than the average person. But if most people even get a whiff of the idea that the beautiful person is lording over the fact that they are the most attractive person in the room that love vanishes real fast.
Now add to that the fact that a politician is essentially coming to us hat in hand asking for our support, our time, our money…and only an idiot would in any way try to pull the “i’m smarter than you are, vote for me!” card.
Which again, I don’t think Obama did. When you talk as much as these peope do it’s a wonder all kinds of stupid things don’t come out. I remember when Dan Quayle was on the Today show and Katie kept on him about why people thought he was stupid and he wouldn’t acknowledge the fact and I thought, “wow, you really ARE stupid”. Because I would’ve just shot right back “Hey, Katie, suppose every Friday they strung together every mistake you ever did on the show–every stutter, every bit of bad grammar, every error of fact–how smart would you look?”
This is the challenge they all face–do 2 or more of the same kind of mistake and it becomes the narrative. McCain-has a bad temper. Clinton–lies like a dog on a rug. Obama–bit of a snob. It doesn’t even have to be true for it to get out there and become the Thing People Watch For. Gore–serial exxagerator. Kennedy–pampered rich boy. George Bush the first–wimp.
It can also work to your advantage. George Bush should have been thrilled to be tagged as a wimp–when people found out he had fought in WWII it defied the negative expectations (Dukakis doing an uncanny impersonation of Snoopy when he rode in that tank helped as well). On the other hand, if you do anything to reinforce the impression it really really hurts. The impression that Dukakis was a passionless policy wonk got a big shot in the arm when he botched the question on what he would have done if his wife were raped–it wasn’t that he gave the wrong answer on the facts, it was that his way of answering fed right into the negative perception of him. And Hillary has sure hurt herself badly with these idiotic lies about insignificant events.
The good news for Obama is that this can work for him. So the meme is that he’s a snob? thinks he’s better than the people whose votes he needs? well, just add a bit more selp depreciating humor into his speeches. Take a page form Hillary and talk more about specific examples of people who are in need, people he cares about–I’m sure he can do a far better job than she has of actually sounding like she cares. DON’T try to make lemonade out of the quote, don’t even USE the word “bitter”. Accept that the quote has been used against you and bringing it up will only hurt you further (WHY the hëll did Bill Clinton revive the sniper story??? Does he WANT her to lose?)
McCain seems to get this, appearing very much like a happy guy who would NEVER lose his temper and, oh, launch a nuclear strike at Guam. He must know that they are just waiting for him to snap. If he so much as stubs his toe and yells out an obscenity the headlines will be MCCAIN LOSES IT! At some point someone, maybe at a debate, will really yank his crank and a nation will hold its breath. How he responds may well decide if the negative branding sticks or is rejected. Now Obama has the same opportunity.
Hillary is screwed in this regard though. It’s really hard for a politician to overcome the perception that they are a liar since it’s their nature to HAVE to lie, on a regular basis. Bill pulled it off but whatever magic he once had seems to be gone and it probably wasn’t transferable anyway.
“Big deal. The real show starts when he tries to talk is way around it. The more he explains the worse it gets.”
Untrue. He’s been talking about it all weekend. Polls from Pennsylvania taken after the story started are beginning to come in. So far they’re showing that the people of Pennsylvania don’t care. Some show Hillary’s lead slightly higher than before, some slightly lower. Overall, this hasn’t actually affected anything.
This is entirely a manufactured scandal. The people he was talking about aren’t particularly offended by his words. They’re not particularly offended by the fact that he said them to someone else instead of to them. The only people who are offended are the ones who are looking for ammunition against him instead of asking what he actually meant.
Haven’t read the entire post, nor have I read the entire list of comments, Peter, so apologies up front if I repeat someone else.
The key word is “think” they are better/smarter than everyone else. Bush, in all his smugness, has consistently proven in action/word/gesture/smirk/chuckle/poor-excuses-for-war that he believes himself to be the very thing you think is OK with being a president. Egotism. Not a healthy characteristic/attribute I want in my president. I’d prefer my voice being heard, rather than ignored.
He turns out to be the same “big government” “more taxes” “Globel Warming” liberal as Hillary but way better at it then she is.
Pat, don’t take this the wrong way, but do you have any critiques on substance? So far they’re all just sound bites (and ones with spelling/grammar errors as well — when you hit one every ten words it really blunts the ideas).
This is the challenge they all face–do 2 or more of the same kind of mistake and it becomes the narrative.
A very cogent analysis from Mr. Mulligan there. I think I’ve agreed with you about Dukakis blowing it before, but I agree with a lot of the others, too.
I’m surprised you didn’t mention Kerry — the narrative there very quickly became “effete flip-flopping snob” when that’s really half-true at best. But boy, did he do a good job feeding that myth time and time and time and time again.
I also agree that self-deprecating humor could work wonders for him. He should bring his wife out to speak more often — I seem to recall that she’s pretty good at it.
(And as I think most teachers would agree, self-deprecating humor can work REALLY well in the classroom.)
TWL
Jason M. Bryant says:
This is entirely a manufactured scandal. The people he was talking about aren’t particularly offended by his words. They’re not particularly offended by the fact that he said them to someone else instead of to them. The only people who are offended are the ones who are looking for ammunition against him instead of asking what he actually meant.
Sarcasm aside, I agree 100% but, He’s going to feel the need to “Explain” like he did with the lovely rev Wright. I would have been content with something along the lines of: “those are his words not mine” but he had to go and feign ignorance to the good rev’s beliefs like it was the first time he heard such nonsense come out of his mouth.
Hes playing right into the hands of the talking heads. He’s his own worst enemy.
Mike T says:
Pat, don’t take this the wrong way, but do you have any critiques on substance? So far they’re all just sound bites (and ones with spelling/grammar errors as well — when you hit one every ten words it really blunts the ideas).
opinions Mike, not critiques, not ideas but opinions. You dont have to like them. Most (not all but most) of the spelling/grammer errors we’re
part of the sarcasm of my post. Not all of us are writers, yes I have a dictionary, thesaurus and if I can find it, a style book somewhere but we’re posting on a blog not writing a term paper. If I could afford an editor….is i clear nuff?
If only the young Mr. Barack Obama were to strive to be the intellectual honest person he claims to be and just admit to himself, if not the world that he is but a human, a humble human however and is prone to make mistakes.
I feel this would greatly stifle the spirits of the talk radio proletariat and the like. Thus ending the unnecessary debate and allowing himself to move forward onto other topics that could very well further his goal of becoming the President of these United States.
Sorry Mike T. that should be Tim Lynch as the author of the above qoute. Though you may feel that my post are sounds bites also, you didn’t
write the post.
See, I really need that editor
“Hes playing right into the hands of the talking heads. He’s his own worst enemy.”
I really don’t see how you can say that. When Obama addressed Wright’s comments directly, it was a huge gain for him. Polls that showed him losing ground immediately swung around. The media changed their tune and things got better for Obama quickly.
Now we’re seeing Obama explain what he said to crowds in Pennsylvania. Check the link that Luigi posted. He repeated everything he said in that meeting, but put it in context and explained what he meant. The result was the people of Pennsylvania nodding their heads as he spoke and cheering agreement at the end.
Obama is not his own worst enemy. I think he’s shown a remarkable ability to address things directly and get people to come around. While everyone is saying that he should just let it blow over, he’s talking about it and the results are actually very good. So I think he should keep doing what he’s doing.
i don’t know what any of what obama said has to do with the claim that what he said means he thinks he’s smarter than other people. what he said is the truth — people are pìššëd øff and don’t vote because they feel like they’re getting screwed. that’s pretty much the truth. i for one was REALLY glad to hear someone running for president say that! he freaking gets it! hooray!
but that is precisely why the punditocracy has declared it an evil statement — no one is EVER allowed to say anything other than that the united states is the best country ever and our (republican) elected leaders are golden boys.
well, there’s nothing new there.
what IS new is my discovering peterdavid.net! i just want to give a shout-out to three of the best “arthur” books ever written — “knight life,” “one knight only” and “fall of knight” — by mr. peter david! (whoo! whistle! clap!)
thank you, mr. peter david, for several utterly delightful afternoons NOT thinking about the country and my life coming down around my ears.
Hey, as long as you admit your opinion that Obama is deceptive is based on your need that it should be so — and not rooted in any facts — it isn’t exactly like there’s an urgency to challenge what you say.
A very cogent analysis from Mr. Mulligan there.
Always good to see us agree on something since I find that it significantly reduces the odds that I’ve gotten it totally wrong 🙂
I also agree that self-deprecating humor could work wonders for him. He should bring his wife out to speak more often — I seem to recall that she’s pretty good at it.Let me get this straight: Populist and racial healer Barack Obama, in impromptu remarks to zillionaires in Marin County, “explains” to them the rural sociology of Middle America. In anthropological fashion, he warns of their peculiar customs, so, that armed with such brilliant Obamian insight, his campaign workers can approach and win over the natives, who cling to guns, go to church, hate (“antipathy”) those who seem different, and scapegoat the other (“anti-immigrant” and “anti-trade”). And all of this is published on the pro-Obama Huffington Post—perhaps because its radically egalitarian editor, Arianna Huffington, is off on David Geffen’s 454-foot mega-yacht, cruising the shores of Tahiti.
At some point is there any sane Democratic strategist left, who sees that populist rhetoric and “two Americas” lingo do not go well with the several Kerry mansions, the Edwards’ 30,000 sq. ft. domicile, the carbon-consuming Gore spread, the $109 million Clinton tax returns, those burdensome Michelle Obama Ivy-League student loans to be repaid, and Marin County sociology lessons?
Obama’s audience for his remarks in question were pale worm-like things encased in the Darth Vader armor of their own privilege. If they didn’t hear it from Obama, they would have been left to attribute religious- and gun-nuttiness to agendas compatible to those portrayed in Deliverance.
thank you, mr. peter david, for several utterly delightful afternoons NOT thinking about the country and my life coming down around my ears.
Glad I could help, and thanks for the kind words.
PAD
The one thing that really, really bugs me about this whole mess is where at first I had no negative opinion of Senator Clinton, I really dont see that much in how she’s handling this campaign that makes me want to elect her. And as her wacked out uber supporters, well, any Democrat who throws out that “If Obama wins, I’m voting for McCain or Nader” bulls#!t should tear up their voter card, because you are NOT a Democrat. You need to stop and look around, at how people look at you for talking that garbage. You are not helping the process, except in sorting out true Democrats from a$$kissing bootlickers.
What a lot of people are angry about is not that Obama said (correctly) that a lot of people are bitter, but that they cling to their guns and religion out of bitterness. I’m not particularly religious, but it has to rankle anyone who feels strongly about his faith to have it reduced to a Marxist opiate of the masses. Pro-gun forces must also believe that belittling of a legitimate constitutional question to nothing more than bitter grasping is arrogant and logically slipshod. As to the question of whether truth excuses Obama’s statements, yes, in a philosophical or even a moral sense, it would. Practically and politically, it is stupidity to say anything that alienates the voters. No one owes Obama, Clinton or McCain a vote in the general election: All of them are free to be truthful, insightful private citizens should their truthfulness cost them the election.
It is my experience in life that those who cling to their guns ARE bitter.
So it turns out Mr Change has been a liberal all this time. huh who would have thunk it?
Speaking of that deliberate drive to make politics stupid, your post is an excellent example, Pat.
And as her wacked out uber supporters, well, any Democrat who throws out that “If Obama wins, I’m voting for McCain or Nader” bulls#!t should tear up their voter card, because you are NOT a Democrat. You need to stop and look around, at how people look at you for talking that garbage. You are not helping the process, except in sorting out true Democrats from a$$kissing bootlickers.
How is someone who votes for the Democrat regardless of who they are in a stronger position to call someone as ášškìššër or a bootlicker than someone who votes for the candidate they prefer??? Maybe they really think that McCain is the better choice.
Granted, voting someone just because you’re doing it out of spite is a silly reason but I don’t see it as all that sillier than doing it just because of the D or R after their name. But to each their own.
You are not helping the process, except in sorting out true Democrats from a$$kissing bootlickers.
Speaking of another example…
“How is someone who votes for the Democrat regardless of who they are in a stronger position to call someone as ášškìššër or a bootlicker than someone who votes for the candidate they prefer??? Maybe they really think that McCain is the better choice.”
True, voting for McCain because he’s their second choice is perfectly reasonable. I think any democrat should be willing to consider a republican candidate and vice-a-versa.
However, there are a lot of supporters for both Hillary and Obama (though more seem to be this way for Hillary) who are saying they will vote for McCain out of spite, not because he’s their second choice. It’s not that they’re saying they want to vote for McCain, but that they’d never vote for the other democrat. This comes from surveys asking those supporters how they felt several months ago versus polls asking the same things now. The results show that the competition between the two candidates has led to a lot of bitterness.
No pun intended about the bitterness.
Again, I thank Mr. Nolan for supporting my point.
Alan Coil: It is my experience that when one wants to limit a constitutional right it is best to make a coherent argument rather than to simply say those in opposition are bitter (or stupid, or ugly, or insane, or whatever). I suspect that unlimited freedom to bear arms is not in the public interest, but the Second Amendment does exist, and does promise something. Any argument that goes no further than “Those gun lovers are bad” is not helpful.
In the present case of Senator Obama, I suspect he will face more trouble from the small-town religious than the pro-gun forces, because his being intolerant of pro-gun thinking is no big surprise, while he had previously been running his campaign as one very tolerant of all religions.