<p>I think the worst part of this denouncement of Obama’s words as elitist is that his message is lost. What he’s saying is substantive. He’s saying those who have been hardest hit by government as usual in the past two administrations–nearly 16 years–have the most difficulty believing in an idealist like himself. </p>
<p>Do these people cling to [issues of] guns…as a way to explain their frustrations? Do they cling to [issues of] religion? antipathy to the other guy? etc? I believe they do. And I think it’s clear every politician believes it and so does the press. If it were otherwise, I don’t believe the politicians would tell the story about how they learned to shoot, I don’t think they’d be so careful to portray themselves as good Christians, etc.</p>
<p>I agree with Poet that Clinton’s statements were in the same vein as Obama’s, but, as the consummate politician, Clinton only talked about race. Americans all know dividing people by race is wrong (even if they knowingly or unknowingly do it); it’s un-American. Clinton’s remarks are politically safe, whereas Obama touched on hot-button issues.</p>
<p>We, as parents, teach our kids ideals like always trying hard and being honest and being courageous and having dignity and treating others with respect and being fair and sharing and what-have-you. Then, after sixteen years of scandal and underhandedness and deceit and suspicion in the White House a politician comes along who espouses the ideals we value and he’s elitist? I reject the notion that Obama is elitist. He’s an idealist, and in the factories and union halls of Pennsylvania and throughout the country, where jobs have disappeared and the future is precarious, the politicians portray him as elitist when what he really is is elite. </p>
<p>He clearly has made choices in his life that reflect at least some of the ideals we all value and he has succeeded. I don’t pretend for a minute that he’s perfect–he’s got a past like everyone else and he’s going to make mistakes. The way he conducts himself leads me to believe he will be thoughtful and honest and will apply his considerable intelligence, work ethic and desire to help people to everything he does; in this he does have experience. </p>
<p>We like elite athletes, we seek elite schools for our bright kids, we choose the biggest and the best. But for President, for eight years we chose one who “could possibly be more intelligent than he seems”. I definitely want change and I choose to believe in Barack.</p>
<p>But since you’re merely in this discussion to “stir the pot”, clearly nothing but your own sound and fury will matter will it? So forgive me if I decline the invitation to “play along”.</p>
<p>I agree wholeheartedly kluge. And that is one the tragedies of contemporary politics. Eventually, it will be all about straining at gnats, and not about the marrow of issues. In the end, races will be decided by determining which candidate has been least shredded to bits by petty quote parsing, or which had the greatest number of compelling/clever/funny YouTube endorsements, or which was least damaged by 527 smear jobs. The actually truth will continue to matter less and less, but somehow, we will wonder why we never seem to end up with a President of actual substance and principle.</p>
<p>Hummmm…Do you think Obama could have gotten away with using Clinton’s exact words, could he have said, “you have all these economically insecure white people”? I very much doubt it. Obama, above all the candidates is the one who must pretend as if race doesn’t matter, and never did. If he had specifically talked about “insecure white people”, the hue and cry would have been deafening.</p>
<p>So being called “scared” or “insecure” is better than being called “bitter”? </p>
<p>And being anti-immigrant doesn’t necessarily mean being racist - but let’s get real here, race/ethnicity has played a part in the anti-immigration issue of the past several years (Americans weren’t calling for the expulsion of the 150,000+ illegal Irish in NYC and Boston during the 1990’s).</p>
<p>Obama, while he could have used a better choice of words - simply told the cold, hard truth (at least he owned up to his poor choice of words insteading of blaming it on being “tired”).</p>
<p>A large portion of blue-collar/working class Dems have voted Republican the past couple of election cycles on the basis of “social issues” since they felt that there was no difference w/ regard to economic issues btwn the 2 parties (thanks to, ironically, the passing of NAFTA during Bill’s watch).</p>
<p>Goodness no, Poet, Obama would never have gotten away with using those words. I still think it was politically safe to decry the other guy’s perpetuation of a racial divide and the fact that he did so probably overshadowed the fact that he implied it was working. (It did for me when I read it! ;))</p>
<p>kluge, poetsheart: I agree 100% with you about the tragedy of misinterpretations of people’s words becoming so defining in today’s politics. That is why, personally, I don’t fault Obama at all for that remark, and don’t consider it at all reflective of any kind of elitism on his part - in the same way I think the Wright controversy is massively overblown - but my remark that he needs to apologize simply reflects the reality of contemporary politics. He needed better damage control, and quicker.</p>
<p>What drives me nuts is that the media spends days stirring up a false controversy by seizing on words they have twisted and taken out of context… instead of focusing on the issues of the campaign. It doesn’t matter whether it is Obama’s use of the word “bitter” or what Obama’s pastor said or what some Clinton supporter said or what John Edwards paid for a haircut – its the same thing: make a huge issue over something trivial… when there is no real, objective news coverage of the things that are truly important about the candidate’s, their backgrounds, their positions. </p>
<p>There’s a war on, our economy is going down the toilet, and global warming threatens the future of our planet… and we’re going to decide the next election by who manages to stay best “on message” without ever saying something new? </p>
<p>Who is really being disrespectful of the intelligence of the voters here? If Obama is making a mistake, its in assuming that he he can make an reasoned, thoughtful, nuanced observation when the media is only going to seize on sound bites. </p>
<p>However…the good news is that this pettiness does not seem to be working:
<p>Absolutely! I am so disappointed in the way in which we are allowing ourselves to be manipulated in this campaign. If we continue to be suckered in this manner until November, we will end up with exactly what we deserve.</p>
<p>Does the highlighted definition of “cling” as being attached to an “outdated custom” mean you think hunting and shooting is an outdated custom? </p>
<p>Anyway, here’s a good analysis of the point of view of middle america on these issues that is different from how you guys seem to have approached it:</p>
<p>It’s remarkable. Packer manages to contradict himself not merely in consecutive paragraphs, but at one point in consecutive sentences. But you’ve got to love the unconsciously ironic self-descriptive comments of
and
Okay, George, we got it. We’re “devotees” and you see right through us. We’re not thinking straight, because we’re “worshipful.” And unattractively so, to boot. :(</p>
<p>By the way, George - who was smarter on the eve of the Iraq war - you or Obama? ;)</p>
<p>Hillary, during Bill’s campaign in 1995, reportedly said “screw 'em” in reference to Southern working-class folk.</p>
<p>And let’s not forget, the Clinton hack, Carville said that Pennsylvania is “Philadelphia on one side, Pittsburgh on the other, and Alabama in the middle”.</p>
<p>As a Pennsylvanian - now, that’s INSULTING (to both PA and AL).</p>
So forgive me if I decline the invitation to “play along”.</p>