I've held back on talking about this for a few days to let this whole thing stew. Sometimes my knee-jerk reaction to political speeches ages over time. I read the people who disagree with me, and I find myself agreeing with them. I wanted to make sure that this wasn't one of those times.
It's not.
What I really think was a well-intentioned attempt to explain just what it means to be down and out when you're not in Beverly Hills or a San Fransisco mansion on Billionaires Row turned into the sort of thing you say at the water cooler, not in the board room. People keep trying to contextualize it, or soften it up, but the simple truth is that being an executive means that you emphasize the best qualities of the people you lead, and are very specific about the bad-- the only reason you mention them is if you see a problem that you are ready to address.
As a candidate in the primaries, this is not his task. This is a job that parents and educators need to address with young people, and that adults who may find themselves falling into the sort of security blanket isolationism Obama is talking about need to figure out for themselves. I have to wonder what the ramifications would be if he said something along similar lines that "everyone knew was true" about Ahmadinejad. After all, he says things about us that I'm sure resonate with Iranians, and even some Americans. Doesn't it make sense for us to be just as honest when we look at the world stage?
As pundits, sure. We can say what we want at the water cooler, and elect leaders who we feel understand what we're saying and can translate our sentiments into strong foreign policy. As leaders? No. You don't look to the CEO of a large company to say that the problems with the company stem from the ineptitude of the workers. This may be something that everyone in the board room knows is true, but it's *not* the way to move forward and inspire better performance in the future. The correct response to this question should have been, "I like to think that it's a vanishingly small number of American voters who look at race as a deciding factor when they choose their candidate. My campaign is not about racial differences, it's about speaking to the needs of every American." End of story, no thesaurus needed.
Race is a huge factor anytime you have a Negro or even a ~50%-er like B.O. in the contest.
Anonymous:
<set mode=Small Town American>To you, maybe. Not to me.</mode>
Kem
You make a very good point. I still think that his mistake was saying it in a way that made it easy to twist or distort or exaggerate.
He's never been afraid to touch subjects that others gloss over or shy away from altogether, and it's one of the things I admire most about him. It is also the riskiest possible path for a candidate to follow, and one that is almost guaranteed to misfire more than once.
In that light, his biggest mistake may have been to say anything at all. Do I wish he'd said it better? Absolutely. Do I wish he'd said something simpler and safer? I'm starting to.
Kem... this very well may become Obama's "malaise speech" because of exactly that.
Kevin... and his attack on his skeptics being bigots wasn't twisted, distorted or exaggerated... he flat out said they were further skeptical because of his skin color and further went on about their dislike of people not like themselves. It's not that we disagree with Obama, it's that we're bigots. Just infuriating. And that's before you get to the idea that we're skeptical because we've somehow been manipulated into supporting the 2nd Amendment or embracing religious issues... and of course not skeptical of him because he's a gun banning abortions extremist. His comments were condescending. his response was condescending and he and his supporters trying to sell it as "the Truth" just re-affirms the condescension.
The fact that the latest polling on it shows that only Obama supporters themselves seem to buy into his eomments and explanations in any significant numbers seems to make this a losing issue to keep defending. I'm waiting for more PA polls to see how bad this may turn out but the first poll showing him going from a tie to a 20% deficit in a week isn't a good sign.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
I've decided that, for some people, Sen. Obama can say nothing wrong or do nothign wrong, even when he's already apoligizing for saying something. Kevin's statement here that he wishes Obama had said it differently is a breath of fresh air.
I've also decided to pretty much avoid discussing Obama until after Pennsylvania votes, figuring that the exit polls - particularly the breakdowns of Dem voters on racial, religious and income lines - will be interesting.
"the exit polls - particularly the breakdowns of Dem voters on racial, religious and income lines - will be interesting"
The media has been dissecting those with almost obsessive/compulsive furvor the entire way already. This latest flap pretty much guarantees that those breakouts will be the main media focus no matter what else might be the real story between now and then.
I predict that the demographic breakouts will be essentially the same as they were in Ohio, despite all the fuss. One possible exception: Obama may do just slightly better this time with white females, who may be starting to tire of Hillary's shenanigans.
Of course neither Kem nor Glock were ever going to vote for Obama, so I am not sure these "takes" on this issue are particularly relevant. When you are looking, even hoping, for a candidate to screw up your perspective seems to become a bit skewed. This might be "over the line" to you, but so was Rev. Wright. Heck, so is the fact that Obama is running at all.
Or imagine if I had bothered to write a long post about McCain's continue confusion about the differences between Shia and Sunni in Iraq and Iran. We all know that McCain doesn't really mean to keep mixing these two groups up, and he probably really does understand the differences. So why bother writing the post? Why not just give the guy the benefit of the doubt and move on, hoping that the issues of substance can be debated instead?
So the McCain post isn't written, because it is a waste of time. Does anyone really believe that Obama hates the working class? I mean, do you really believe that? The guy who worked with the poor on the south side of Chicago for years. The guy who comes from a broken home and who hasn't actually had everything handed to him? You really think this guy is the one who is elitist, not the guy who dumped his wife to marry the super-rich blonde heiress to the beer distribution empire, or the woman who wouldn't even be a Senator if her husband hadn't been President? These folks are not elites, but Obama is?
It is ridiculous, and it doesn't deserve any more of our time. We all know deep down that McCain knows the difference between Shia and Sunni. And we all know deep down that Obama doesn't hate small town America's working class. So why are we discussing this?
Politics. Just do us all a favor and don't pretend it is anything else.
I've decided that, for some people, Sen. Obama can say nothing wrong or do nothign wrong, even when he's already apoligizing for saying something. Kevin's statement here that he wishes Obama had said it differently is a breath of fresh air.
The problem is that all of these attacks are not about the issues. Did Obama say something that can be taken as elitist? Was it a fairly stupid thing to say? Sure.
Does it require this amount of handwringing and faux-anger? Of course not. The GOP can't win on the issues, so slamming Obama's character is all they've got. That is why we get defensive - because this whole thing is a waste of time when America is facing extremely serious economic and military threats. Nothing about Petraeus, nothing about the recession, it's all about these sentences spoken a week ago in San Francisco.
It is maddening. And to see the commenters over here pushing the issue is disappointing, to say the least.
The GOP can't win on the issues, so slamming Obama's character is all they've got.
Actually, I think the only way the GOP can win is on issues. And the only way to run against Obama on issues is to get past the whole "cult of personality" thing.
Thank goodness the party of reason is here to parse language and remind us how important it is for our leader to be thoughtful in his word choice.
It's too bad it took you eight years to figure that out and decided to only selectively apply it when we have the most powerfully speaking candidate in recent memory.
Hypocrites.
As I said on another site:
Of course Obama is elitist--he was selected by one body of elitists to challenge a slate of other elitist candidates so they could determine which particular elitist would go against the elitist chosen from another even more starkly elitist group of elitists.
That's like saying that out of all pundits, you don't like Gordy because he has a nose. (My apologies to any noseless pundits.)
Gordy, may have a nose, but it is no more egregious a nose than the rest of ours (except for mine, which is hardly a nose at all).
In Obama's case, he certainly seems the lesser of all elitists.
Or as another poster said:
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*
"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*"
The problem with this gaffe was that 56% of everyone disagrees and 45% of them felt it showed an elitist attitude to small town voters while 37% said it did not.
Liberals 33% disagree while 46% agree.
Moderates 51% disagree while 27% agree.
Conservatives: 74% disagree while 12% agree.
Democrats: 43% disagree while 34% agree... with a mere majority saying it wasn't elitist.
Unaffiliated voters: "disagree by a two-to-one margin..." and 40% think it represents an elitist view, while 34% disagree.
Republicans: "overwhelmingly disagree" and overwhelmingly think it was elitist.
Perhaps his prior gaffes could be easily dismissed as nothing but campaign fodder. This one appears to go beyond that. Most people disagree, more Democrats disagree than agree with him. And Moderates/Independents mostly disagreed and more thought he was being elitist than not.
It's not just Republicans/Conservatives pulling a dirty campaign tactic. It was a boneheaded thing for him to say... and an even more boneheaded thing for him to defend. The only people strongly behind him on this are Obama supporting liberals/Democrats. Outside of them people don't see his comments as being defensible. Popularity doesn't say who is right or not though. So even if you are right, and we're all wrong, there's more Democrats and Independents and Moderates who disagree than agree with you... and that makes it a lousy situation for someone trying to clinch the Democratic primary.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"that makes it a lousy situation for someone trying to clinch the Democratic primary"
On the face of it, yes, but in the long run, I don't think so, at least not in terms of the primary. The only way this hurts Obama fatally in the primary is if Hillary is able to capitalize on it. In order to do that, she has to demonstrate not only that he is elitist, but that she is not. She has to show that she understands blue collar better than he does.
That simply is not going to happen, no matter how hard she tries. In fact, the harder she tries, the more pathetically lame and embarassingly out of touch she appears. The Democrats who are genuinely offended by Obama's remarks are more likely to vote for neither than to vote for Hillary.
So my guess is that the worst that happens in the primary is that it keeps Obama from finishing Hillary off, and we are left with the pre-existing status quo: a death march to the convention that Hillary can only win by convincing enough super delegates to buck Obama's majorities in pledged delegates, states, and popular votes.
The general, on the other hand, may be a whole different story.
Does anyone really believe that Obama hates the working class?
Definitely not me. But then I also don't believe that John Kerry hated the working class, or that John Edwards hated them either. That didn't stop them from appearing to be incredibly condescending to them, with their wooden attempts at being "regular guys," staged hunting trips, uncomfortable visits to fast food restaurants or NASCAR races, and endless blathering about being the son of a mill worker (or the factory manager - whatever). I don't think that the question is: does Obama hate them, but rather: does he understand them? He may have mispoke, and he may have apologized, but if the problem was that he doesn't understand the typical upstate Penna voter, then his contrition can only produce cover, not light. It may be that we expect too much of our politicians - that the guy that understands the working class South Chicago black voter may not understand the working class Altoona white voter, and perhaps never really will - but he should at least respect them, especially if he wants their votes.
The thing that I took out of this is how cynical the Democrats' policies on trade are. If Obama really believed that the wellspring of protectionist fervor, like nativist fervor, was the product of bitterness and misunderstanding, then why is he running against NAFTA and the Columbian FTA? (especially when one of Obama's advisors admitted to the Canadian PM that it was all a big put on and that Obama was really a free trader) I am for free trade, but I can at least understand the protectionism that comes from losing the only job that you ever had at the steel mill and its attendant "bitterness." What I don't give a pass on is the conversions back and forth from free trader to protectionist depending on the political calendar. How are people supposed to cast a vote if the candidates aren't being straight with them?
The thing that I took out of this is how cynical the Democrats' policies on trade are. If Obama really believed that the wellspring of protectionist fervor, like nativist fervor, was the product of bitterness and misunderstanding, then why is he running against NAFTA and the Columbian FTA?
And don't forget the border. Illegals drive down wages for unskilled workers, and yet the "party of the little guy" seems to love the open floodgate approach.
D. Boon:
How exactly do you know that I was never going to vote for Obama? My order of preference on all the candidates was Richardson, McCain, Obama long before the frontrunners were established. I really liked Richardson. I was always luke-warm on McCain and Obama-- and I had no other horses that I wanted to back in this race. I'm a union worker in the CWA-- McCain isn't exactly strong on union issues. At the same time, I'm not a fan of government stepping in to tell businesses that they do not have the right to offer gold and silver parachutes to their CEO's, or that the money spent on top executives would be better spent on the workers. That's the union's job.
I vote for my interests, and I make sacrifices where I need to. One of my issues is how the President of the United States inspires Americans (particularly young Americans) to think of themselves as Americans, and how he defends our interests abroad. Obama's foreign policy experience is exactly nill, and this was always a thorny issue for me-- it's the one that actually made me pull a Republican ticket in the primary for the first time in my life. It's not like I'm a died-in-the-blood-of-the-lamb conservative here.
Bottom line: when a presidential candidate psychoanalyzes the electorate by labeling them victims of economic misfortune who retreat into isolationist mindsets, I have a problem with that. I'm not arguing that this doesn't apply to some people out there, but I don't think a President has any business saying so... for precisely the same reasons that I wouldn't want a presidential candidate saying that there are poor working moms all across this country who look at their situation and decide that they are better off on welfare for the rest of their lives and raising their kids at home than they are looking to improve their conditions through toughing it out and coming up with a strategy to break the cycle and get themselves out of their current conditions.
Is it true? Sure. But it doesn't make it any more acceptable, and it's an insult to all of the people out there who live under trying conditions and have the audacity to try harder and stay hopeful.
Kem
Right, because a president is certainly not the type of person who should be seeking to solve the maladies of the nation.
Oh wait, yes he is, but most people don't think so, which explains why we have so many maladies and a president woefully unable to address them.
To all of you who saw an honest appraisal of our problems and are retreating into 8 more year of miserable executive management, I salute you.
"Right, because a president is certainly not the type of person who should be seeking to solve the maladies of the nation. Oh wait, yes he is, but most people don't think so, which explains why we have so many maladies and a president woefully unable to address them."
Funny. I think that the President should not seek to solve the "maladies" of the nation, and I also think that things are so bad precicely because most people think that he should.
Gallup tracking poll.
HRC, Obama, 4/10: 42 / 51
HRC, Obama, 4/14: 40 / 50
Republicans and Hillary supporters are having apoplexies, but the voters aren't. Sure, it shaved a point off Obama's ratings. But it shaved two off Hillary's.
It's pretty clearly a Hail Mary from HRC, and Republicans are only too happy to be shocked! outraged! besides themselves! as well.
Obama isn't offering anything different from Jimmy Carter's 1976 platform. Now I gotta ask you, who the hell wants four more years of that?
How exactly do you know that I was never going to vote for Obama?
Walks like a Republican, talks like a Republican ...
Can we officially declare a moratorium on the "independent who always argues GOP talking points" identity? It is getting really tiresome.
"Gallup tracking poll.
HRC, Obama, 4/10: 42 / 51
HRC, Obama, 4/14: 40 / 50
Republicans and Hillary supporters are having apoplexies, but the voters aren't. Sure, it shaved a point off Obama's ratings. But it shaved two off Hillary's."
I suspect the number of undecided Democratic Primary voters has been very, very small since Super Tuesday, which is why we've seen so little fluctuation in the national Dem polling from week-to-week.
The interesting aspect of this to watch will be the exit poll numbers from white voters in the upcoming Primary states. If Obama continues to lose among white Democrats, will he be able to recover them (and white independents) in time for November? I don't think anyone knows the answer to that, because we've never seen a Primary last this long. Usually, these things are over so fast that voters don't have any time to develop deep emotional attachments or aversions to their party's candidates. In this race, those attachments and aversions have clearly developed and may be lasting enough to have an effect in November.
D. Boon:
Are you seriously saying that you know my voting habits better than I do?
Unreal.
Edit to add: whew. I was afraid aliens had hijacked me or something.
Social Liberal
(68% permissive)
and an...
Economic Moderate
(41% permissive)
You are best described as a:
Link: The Politics Test
Kem
Well, you are parroting non-compelling Republican talking points. But you can vote however you want.
I've tried to respond to the comments in this thread for hours. I've deleted my comments over and over and over again because they just keep coming off as too harsh.
Okay... snark free:
D.Boon... you just accused a hippy chick who was literally embarassed of picking up a GOP ballot of being some sort of GOP hack because she doesn't agree with you completely. You have issues. Anything right of you... which according to exit polls is roughly 90+% of the population is a GOP hack in your mind. If you think your views are popularly supported you lack even the base amount objectivity to judge. On the bright side I feel far less irritated by your constant insinuation that I'm some sort of deluded GOP covert operative. You just accused the person who constantly gives me crap about voting for the GOP as a lessesr evil... a Nader voter ffs as a deluded GOP adherent. Wow. At least you admitted Obama's original statement was an idiotic move and insulting... even if in an indirect way.
Xian... I realize that you think the federal government is charged with fixing the cultural problems of our time. A view I strongly disagree with considering my limited central government views... but... it's becoming clear that, like Obama, you have zero understanding of small town America. Your experiences seemed to have created a prejudice that is almost as damaging as the whites that pulled you over, harassed you, etc without reason. You and Obama seem to have something in common. You recognize the bad and cannot relate to the majority that hates that crap as much as the rest of us. It's been breaking my heart to hear you agree with Obama and call both his latest statements and even Wright's sermons "the truth." Is it true for some? Sure. But this isn't the deep south. This is the midwest. I'm not even sure the South is as bad as you and Obama make out the midwest. But wow.
Xian... do you realize how demoralizing it is to hear people generalize people like me the way Obama and you have lately? I'm not a freak... I'm not one of the few... I'm not the exception to the rule. Most white people have nothing against minorities at all. The bigots disturb all of us. Sure they don't pull us over and harass us for no reason... but we don't like them. Stop putting the rest of us in league with them. And don't act shocked when we're not impressed with a candidate who puts us in league with the scum of our society. It doesn't matter what race, color, ethnicity, etc they are... grouping us all together as if we were all deep south lynch mob bystanders is just screwed up. It's not "the truth"... it's an ugly generalization that is just as racist as any lynch mob motiviation. Please... stop... you're tearing me apart by signing on to this nonsense... and totally contradicting Obama's message (at least when he knows the cameras/recording devices are running).
Kem... I'm sorry, but logic and reason seem unlikely to win the day on this issue. 'Obama spoke the truth!' I'm just a blood thirsty neocon hack, didn't you know? So are you! Didn't you know? The viciousness of the Obama supporters who claim to desire unity may be the most divisive movement of our generation. And it's absolutely heartbreaking. It doesn't matter if you're a hippy chick or if I was an adamant Clinton supporter or if you were begrudgingly pulled a GOP ballot this year or if I've never voted a straight GOP ticket... you're not liberal lefty and I'm not an a liberal independent... we're neocon bigots.
Heck, you're probably an "evil warmonger" just like me and McCain given your criticism of Obama. I don't know about you but I'd take a bullet in the teeth if it meant our guys could come home without civil war erupting in Iraq. But I'm uncaring GOP scum and a xenophobic bigot because I'm skeptical about Obama's qualifications. Who knew? Absolutely heart breaking.
Kevin... your most recent comments are probably the closest I've heard any Obama supporter admit that Obama's original comments weren't "the Truth" and that people who are skeptical of Obama are just a bunch of bigoted idiots who cling to 2nd Amendment/religious issues because we're being used by GOP fear mongers. As if 2nd Amendment/religious issues folks weren't just as sincere in their views as lefties who demand recognition of a right to privacy or a right to healthcare. Your comments almost make it sound reasonable to beleive that we might actually support some issues because we actually consider them important to liberty. Obama's statements are on par with calling freedom of speech a wedge issue, or privacy rights, etc. Just baffling. Even more baffling that people defeneded it and he didn't immediately apologize or correct what he said. He spoke the truth but worded it poorly? No no no no no...
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
xian:
I really take offense at the word parroting. I took several days before I posted my reaction to Obama's words, and I think I did a fairly decent job at explaining why. To the best of my knowledge, I haven't heard anyone take this angle yet (although maybe it was on one of those subliminal Republican Talking Points tapes that D. Boon seems to think I'm listening to in my sleep, or whatever), which is why I posted this in my blog instead of just engaging the open thread. I wanted time to let it sink in and feel my way around this. I took it, and this is how I felt.
The fact that I happen to agree with Republicans (and, I might add, a fair number of other Democrats) on this is completely beside the point. Frankly, I could care less what the talking heads say. At the end of the day, it's my own personal philosophy that I would like to avoid cognitive dissonance with, as much as possible.
Telling me my points are non-compelling does nothing to address the simple fact that it would be deeply dishonest for me to pretend I didn't have serious concerns about the diplomatic competence of someone who is quite so quick to speak his mind in judgment, and lying just isn't my style.
Kem
Everyone please take a deep breath before escalating this further.
There are clearly some emotions involved here. Let's be as civil as possible.
Thanks.
IlliniPundit said: "Everyone please take a deep breath before escalating this further."
You should have seen the ones I deleted! Definitely emotional though... with my "faux anger" as some call it. Trying to be objective as possible... but some of the comments are truly depressing to hear, if not frustrating or just as infuriating as Obama's comments.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Glock:
A buddy of mine who has toured extensively in the south assures me that our home here in C-U is actually a bit worse than the south. People in the south, apparently, have a better sense of humor about race issues than people in the midwest. I'm not qualified to judge, but he's a 6'6ish black guy who put upwards of 10,000 miles on the road last year-- I'll take his word for it.
Either way, agreed on the simple fact that white people don't appreciate being labeled racist or xenophobic any more than anyone else does. The few who wear the label with pride are not our best and our brightest. We wouldn't trust them to feed our pets on vacation, and would prefer that they live quiet lives of seclusion while we wait for their backwards ideas to finally die out with them. We cringe when they pass those ideas on to their children, whatever their race or creed might be.
And in closing, I'd just like to point my finger and laugh at you for voting for Bush twice. 8 years of cringeworthy speeches and shallow philosophy, brought to us by a guy who doesn't like to read. Meh. I'm gonna go make some homemade granoloa or juggle or something.
Kem
"And in closing, I'd just like to point my finger and laugh at you for voting for Bush twice."
I still say it beat Gore or Kerry if you opposed larger central government. Bush was bad to begin with... he irked me with his pro-assault weapon ban views and other views. But the alternative was promises of even bigger central government. Went lesser evil. Much happier with McCain this time around. Go eat your granola ya dern hippy! :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
Everyone please take a deep breath before escalating this further.
Perhaps Glock should take a deep breath before posting more personal attacks? "Escalating this further"? When are you going to reign this guy in?
Kem - I don't assume to know your voting habits. I have no doubt that you voted for Nader in the last election, though I would hasten to add that you spent quite a bit of time explaining why Nader is really a moron and you've seen the Republican light. Since you've started posting here I've never read anything from you that even hints at a sympathy for the liberal side. You've attacked religion with mucho gusto, but I don't consider that a liberal position.
Apologies if you took offense. It is becoming more and more difficult to believe anyone when they claim to be an "independent". Kind of like Fox News is "fair and balanced". Since I an an unashamed liberal Democrat, I consider my radar to be finely tuned to the opposition. I'd love to hear what it is about Obama that you like so much that you placed him third on your list.
You have issues. Anything right of you... which according to exit polls is roughly 90+% of the population is a GOP hack in your mind. If you think your views are popularly supported you lack even the base amount objectivity to judge.
Wow Glock, there are so many incredibly cathartic insults I could direct your way right now. It is actually kind of difficult to resist the temptation. And yet ... not giving in to the base instinct to personally attack strangers on a blog is actually more satisfying than what you continue to pull.
But, for informational purposes, you might want to check recent issue polls, just to see how many of that 90+% of the population exist.
Cheers!
I'll feed it to my daughter, too. Maybe send her to school in her tie-dyed Museum of Science and Industry shirt with the peace symbol on it.
Kem
I'll keep reminding her that YOU are her mommy... not the government. :-)
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
You have issues. Anything right of you... which according to exit polls is roughly 90+% of the population is a GOP hack in your mind.
This is pretty far over the line, in my opinion. Glock, I am not sure why it is you always have to get personal and ugly in these threads where you are confronted by commenters who don't agree with you. I wish you would stop.
Addressing your second point, I would suggest a glance at recent polling which shows, quite clearly, that most of America actually agrees with my apparently extreme positions.
The problem with this thread, and this focus on Obama's comments, is that it is pretty far beneath the standard level of IP fare, imo. I thought I laid out a pretty clear comparison between this discussion and a discussion we could be having about McCain's comments about Shia and Sunni. I received no response. I have asked repeatedly if folks on the other side of this issue really believe Obama hates working class folks. Again, no response.
I threw off a comment about neither Kem or Glock being Obama supporters. Kem has declared in at least one other thread that she is supporting McCain, and spent a lot of time denouncing anyone who supports Nader or the "extreme left". Yet when I point out the obvious: that she is never going to vote for Obama so perhaps her perspective isn't all that relevant, I am called crazy, insulting, and a guy with psychological issues.
Apparently deduction is no longer allowed in these discussions. Which is fine, since it has been mostly absent for the last couple of days anyway. After all, simple deduction would show us that Obama doesn't really hate small town Americans anymore than John McCain hates inner-city black Americans. It would also show us that the only point of continuing to make these comments an issue is to make political hay. To smear a candidate's character in order to push your horse a little further in the race.
Which is fine. But let's not pretend it is anything more than that. And, if possible, could we try to stop getting personal whenever someone says something we disagree with? I thought this particular blog was above that kind of thing but, at least in recent months, I am starting to think otherwise.
Have a good day.
Xian... I realize that you think the federal government is charged with fixing the cultural problems of our time. A view I strongly disagree with considering my limited central government views... but... it's becoming clear that, like Obama, you have zero understanding of small town America. Your experiences seemed to have created a prejudice that is almost as damaging as the whites that pulled you over, harassed you, etc without reason. You and Obama seem to have something in common. You recognize the bad and cannot relate to the majority that hates that crap as much as the rest of us. It's been breaking my heart to hear you agree with Obama and call both his latest statements and even Wright's sermons "the truth." Is it true for some? Sure. But this isn't the deep south. This is the midwest. I'm not even sure the South is as bad as you and Obama make out the midwest. But wow.
Then fix the cultural problems of our time, or defer to others' plans that are imperfect, but at least a plan. Or acknowledge that you aren't actually interested in fixing the cultural problems of our time. I don't care about your limited central government views--and I don't mean that dismissively. What I mean is I'm not pro-larger government, I'm pro-solutions to problems that are killing kids and segregating our country.
I'm not saying you are pro-killing kids. I'm saying that you have yet to present a solution to any of the problems that mean the most to me. If and when you do, I'll be happy to give them a try, big or small government.
I won't say that I have no prejudice--everyone does. But I'm pretty self-aware of my own prejudices, and you my friend, have no clue what my prejudices are. It's ironic that someone who gets so huffy on someone else identifying your prejudices, without judgment and with evidence, would then fly off the handle with unsupported accusations of small town stereotypes.
I have faced overt racial prejudice approximately 1 of every 3 times I've entered the type of communities you discuss. I'm completely aware that it's likely that it's a small percentage of people manifesting those experiences. I'm not interested in identifying white racists or black racists in the process of labeling.
Remember, you are the only one of us who has done that--with Wright.
I have not regionalized and stereotyped the Midwest. I haven't even mentioned the Midwest. Look in the mirror, once again, you are the one who is trying to say, "We aren't as bad as the South"--a direct mimicry of what Northerners used to justify their own racism before (and after) the Civil Rights movement. I'm not saying that you share their values--only their flawed argument.
I'm going to say this once as it tends to be lost on aversive racist folk for the simple definition of what aversive racist means--terrible lack of self-awareness on racial issues. I don't know if you are an aversive racist, nor do I particularly care except for what implications it would have for our discussions. I am not interested in the intentions of small town or big town white or black or any other ethnicity of folk. When a fire is burning, I don't care if the fire wants to burn down my house. I put it out.
Aversive racists usually have no conscious negative intentions toward ethnic minorities. They may or may not have embedded negative intentions. It's not really important. It's not about them. It's about a massive social dynamic that hurts millions of people.
Think about that for a minute. I am discussing a massive social dynamic that hurts millions of people and you are concerned that you and others might be "labeled". As I said, I'm not labelling, nor interested in doing so. Could you see how that might be hurtful on your part to focus on that side of the issue?
What I find in this situation amazing is the depth of the hypocritical counterlabelling which then manifests. You tell me that I called Wright's words "the truth". That's so vague it's laughable. It's scary you thought that was a damning point:
1. I don't think I have made that statement EVER.
2. The man has spoken for 30 years, I'm sure he's said truthful words.
3. You are being disingenous because you don't cite the words implying that I might be support the AIDS charge, which I don't.
So if you want to have that discussion, which I have had countless times, pick a quote and ask me about it. Otherwise, get off the reactionary "Boy who cried reverse racism" bandwagon.
I'll return to your charge--that I should somehow be ignored BECAUSE I've experienced racism.
The irony is that the reality is completely opposite. You might as well live in bizarro world. The latest experience of direct racism I had was travelling to New Orleans, several of our Latino students (from another school) were harassed just walking down the road in Jackson, MI. In Arkansas, we saw a completely clean bathroom, except for extremely racist anti-Latina/o and African American graffiti.
Hatred never popped into my mind. The only generalization my students and I made was that racism is more overt in the South. Not "it's worse" or anything. We just kind of documented it and shrugged it off.
What really got us made was how we found New Orleans. They are using the same strategy down there (yes, the Democrats) that your President who incidentally, has expanded the federal government more than any President since Roosevelt, is pushing--eliminate poverty by eliminating poor people.
That kind of racism is what makes me angry. It's not the coward wearing the sheet. It's the coward who is tearing down schools, putting kids in the street, holding press-conferences when they are killed, and doing nothing to address the underlying issues. Cowards like Daley, and your President and the cowards who vote for them. The coward who doesn't ideologically hate black people one bit, but is unmoved by suffering in general, or not interested in even knowing that it occurs.
Xian... do you realize how demoralizing it is to hear people generalize people like me the way Obama and you have lately? I'm not a freak... I'm not one of the few... I'm not the exception to the rule. Most white people have nothing against minorities at all.
I'm sorry, but if the demoralizing actually shakes you up to the point that you might act, then it's a wonderful thing. Cause comfort sure hasn't pushed anyone to address the problems. As to the second thing, I honestly don't care. I care about you, but I'm not interested in the labels that mainstream America dances through and I don't care whether in some philosophical game you love or hate minorities. I care about what your actions do.
The bigots disturb all of us. Sure they don't pull us over and harass us for no reason... but we don't like them. Stop putting the rest of us in league with them. And don't act shocked when we're not impressed with a candidate who puts us in league with the scum of our society.
They do pull me over and harass me for no reason. But I do like them and they don't disturb me. Because I'm not convinced vilifying individual human beings is going to do anything to fix the problem. I've tried that and I've found that love works better for everything except making myself feel better that I'm not them. I'm not the South, I'm not a member of the Klan, but I still have a lot of improving to do, so it's better to just pity those trapped in hate, offer them a hand and let them take it or leave it.
You are calling a large class of people reacting honestly to the problems of their time, "the scum of the society". If that's not elitist, I don't know what is. At least they are honest with themselves. I've seen overt racism break down. It usually heals faster than self-deception.
It doesn't matter what race, color, ethnicity, etc they are... grouping us all together as if we were all deep south lynch mob bystanders is just screwed up. It's not "the truth"... it's an ugly generalization that is just as racist as any lynch mob motiviation. Please... stop... you're tearing me apart by signing on to this nonsense... and totally contradicting Obama's message (at least when he knows the cameras/recording devices are running).
This is why you don't understand and are reacting so harshly. You are judging lynch mob bystanders. No magic potion has been quaffed in this era. We are just as ripe for a genocide in this country in this day and time. We are human beings.
I mean think for a second, you just accused me, who has actually suffered the lynch mob mentality along racial lines directly, of being just like them, and I'm not shouting, I'm not even mad. I'm smiling. Because I know you are either right or wrong, and I'm not interested in convincing you of my magic anti-racist stance. I'm just living and breathing anti-racism every minute of everyday.
I anti-racism and anti-bigotry to the point that I can love and teach the student directly on the issue who calls me a chink (it's happened several times this month) and thank God that he did it to me rather than someone else, so I could teach him.
But whether you think so or not, is not really important to me. I just hope you will realize that these giant social problems are workable and you can play your part in solving them, but making it about yourself and your own ego of whether or not you are a "racist" is probably not a good first step.
"And, if possible, could we try to stop getting personal whenever someone says something we disagree with?"
Agreed. There's nothing Obama said that justifies calling someone else insane, Glock.
Along the same lines of my comment above about voters forming stronger emotional attachments and aversions to the Democratic candidates because of the unusual length and intensity of the Primary campaign, there's this:
If anything close to those percentages of PA Democrats vote for John McCain in November, it's hard to imagine him losing the state, and it's hard to imagine him winning PA and somehow losing the election.
"because of the unusual length and intensity of the Primary campaign..."
Operation Chaos!!!
You're well aware of my policy positions to deal with the racial divide. You're well aware I support local initiatives especially because I think they can actually be effective whereas the federal gov't is far too weak and distant to cause any real change on these far more subtle leftovers of our more extreme race issues in the past. With or without Obama. I think what you do on the local level has far more impact than Obama could have in 8 years. But we have a disagreement on how we'd like to tackle these issues and some fundamental differences of perspective on the problems themselves. But to suggest that I'm some sort of bystander to racism in my own community is absolutely absurd. I'm certainly outvoted in my own community, but not by racists. By people who disagree on what would be effective or ineffective to deal with racial issues that continue here.
I'm not the guy that watches the meek get crushed. I've got the scars to prove it. The other "typical white people" I know in small town America are in the same boat. We disagree on the best way to fix things, but they don't sit idly by either when they have the opportunity to intervene. If it was legal or effective to beat racism out of the bigots we run into, there'd be some pulpy reformed bigots hobbling around town. But it's neither legal nor effective... in many cases the racism was literally beat into them. Words are the primary weapon, ostracization and criticism another, force and prison for those that act on their nensensical beliefs, etc. Effective, but slow... frustratingly slow.
On the Wright issue, perhaps I'm not remembering correctly, but I could have sworn you referred to his message as the truth a while back. If I'm wrong, I apologize for misrepresenting what you stated/believe. I tried to find the quote with the search engine here, but there's just too much similarity in the regular rantings here it seems to find any particular convo. Your word is enough on this point to admit I was in error.
Unfortunately, as we all know, many people did defend his words as the truth, even the aids/drugs nonsense, mainly because of the Tuskegee experiments. The Tuskegee experiments were an actual and true instance of the government treating blacks as if they were lab rats, less than human, etc. But it isn't proof of a genocidal/ethnic cleansing conspiracy that continues to this day. Such arguments incite hatred, not understanding, not reconciliation, and certainly not progress towards ending division. It creates more division. I'd argue that Wright's messages, even in context, and even on less blatantly divisive topics are inherently divisive as he segregates the whole world, literally at times, with his message. There's the white world, and the black world, white needs and black needs. The message may be popular with some, but it is divisive on its face. It seems wholy undefensible to me, but others apparently disagree. Obama's subject change from the hypocrisy of his association/relationship when compared to his message to how typical white people in his mind have their problems with being racist too... and admonishing people for continuing to talk about it when we should be coming together to support DNC policy talking points on healthcare, etc. I found that rather absurd. But moving on...
Why you think I'm trying to shut you up is, once again, beyond me. Criticism doesn't shut anybody up. Perhaps you think it does, but it obviously doesn't do it very. I've pointed out numerous times before that I don't believe criticism, even harsh criticism, shuts anybody up. I hope you'll eventually believe me that I'm not trying to silence you. Perhaps I came off as too dismissive? It wasn't my intent. I was commenting on your perspective that seems to lump a lot of folks into the same boat, unfairly in my opinion. It's what I believe Obama has recntly done and had done with the Wright controversy.
The problem I see with it isn't that you or Obama are in league with hateful people who have prejudices, any more than having hair puts people in league with hateful people who have hair. Doesn't mean they have the same hair or they share other qualities. The problem is it is divisive. People who might otherwise agree with some of these concepts/ideas/philosophies/etc could quite easily get the impression they are being looked down on and lumped with the worst of society they can't stand. It's why Obama comes off as a wholly unqualified to unite people around a cause such as race... he really seems to hinting at, if not outright saying that we're the same as the bigots we can't stand. It's as if he can't see the difference or considers the difference so minute as to be insignificant. That's insulting and doesn't bring people together to actually deal with these problems.
This is where Kem's post struck me. If Obama was simply championing small town America to make a difference, to deal with bigotry in our midst, don't let it stand, don't let it fester in the shadows and in the corners, whether it be with friends, family, or just the stranger who says something racist without being called on it. Lead people to unite, not lump them together with the bad guys. Who wants to follow a guy who thinks so low of you? And that's the message he's sending to us typical whites in small town America.
It's true that people, of all sorts of unique backgrounds and heritage, can often be seen doing nothing when the meek are being brutalized. We've all seen the subway mugging videos or heard the stories where people did nothing to stop evil in their midst... either out of fear or personal weakness. We've seen the same happen in all sorts of situaitons, from violence, to verbal abuse, to racism, both brutal and subtle. In all cases such people need a leader to inspire them to act, to not let evil triumph while they do nothing, to sacrifice for the greater good, to face their fears, to face the heartache, the loss, the lumps, the grief that comes with fighting evil as evil sometimes wins.
What do we get instead. A guy who says we're practically in league with evil. Heartbreaking. Infuriating. It's hard to find a human alive who hasn't been in one of these situations where their fear or personal weakness gets the best of them. They want to act, they want to stop it, they want to DO SOMETHING. But they fail. They fail themselves and they fail the victims and they fail to stop the evil from continuining unobstructed. It's not because they are evil too or do not care. They lacked the leadership to do it, either within themselves or having a leader inspire them to do something. Leadership can be contagious, but it doesn't come out of thin air.
Obama says "yes we can" but it almost always points to electing him. He promises "change" but offers little other than more social programs to do it. Nothing to lead those typical whites to actually change things... other than who's in the oval office.
Will he do anything about the aversive racists? Will he unite the white folks who are sick of the bigots in their midst to have the courage to step up and act? Or will he continue to say things to lump us altogether with the bad guys. Will he do little other than push political policies and try to get elected to implement them. If he's the leader some claim he is, I have yet to see it. While you dismiss the importance of labels on this point, it is critical when trying to unite people to stop an evil... to inspire them to act. Labeling folks in with the bad guys doesn't inspire them to act. It creates animosity and its divisive between the good people... and nothing changes.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
IP said: "There's nothing Obama said that justifies calling someone else insane, Glock."
Are you guys referring to the "having issues" bit? I didn't mean that as being insane. I apologize for being offensive. But I didn't mean it as having mental issues. I didn't realize the usages were synonymous within other contexts. My bad.
--
Glock21 Op/Ed
"Are you guys referring to the "having issues" bit?"
Yep.
And thanks for apologizing for it.
Quinnipiac:
Pennsylvania - 4/9 through 4/13
Clinton 50%, Obama 44% - unchanged from 4/3-4/6
From the release: "There was no noticeable difference in the matchup in polling April 12 – 13, following widespread media reports on Sen. Obama’s ‘bitter’ comments."
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_quinnipiac_university_pen.php
And here's a nice little chart showing Obama just how deeply Obama has eaten into HRC's lead in PA over the last few months.
http://www.pollster.com/08-PA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php
Obama and the uncolleged white male: "Barack Obama's favorable rating, however does show signs of change. His rating among white men without a college education have picked up significantly from 44% in February to 52% in mid-March to 60% on the most recent survey. Among other subgroups, Obama's favorable rating has been mostly flat."
http://www.pollster.com/blogs/another_update_pa_results_by_r.php
It's not that Obama's Teflon, just that they're throwing Teflon at him -- stuff that wouldn't stick to anybody, despite the efforts of hapless hacks of the Kristol mode. Kristol was hyperventilating in the New York Times yesterday that Obama was essentially endorsing Karl Marx's crack about religion being the opiate of the masses. Wasn't it just a month ago that Obama was being attacked for being in thrall to a racist demagogue minister? And hasn't there been a quiet whisper campaign all along trying to get people to believe Obama is a Muslim? So Obama is what, a Christian/commie/Muslim? But that stuff didn't stick, and so it's time for them to throw the next chunk of kitchen sink -- that Obama's attitude toward religion is somehow condescending. That bouncing sound you hear is the latest charge bouncing off the polls without leaving a dent.
Could it be that people are laughing their asses off that a Beltway multimillionaire like Kristol is so convinced *he* understands rural America?
But don't worry, in another week we'll be treated to another similar bit of bogosity -- Obama is from Mars! -- and once again the polls won't move an inch because people see right through it the same way they saw right through the ersatz brouhaha over 'bitter'.
I have read this compelling thread with great interest but resisted commenting for the sake of emotional restraint. I too am angry, feel insulted, and I feel the frustration of attempting to understand (much less discuss this issue with) those whose motivations are already well-established and immovable. However, most of my displeasure centers on the fact that so many members of the media, contributors to this esteemed blog, and even the candidates themselves do not find me capable of observing and interpreting these events on my own. That, in itself, is the single most condescending aspect by far.
Before you parse, puree, and pervert these words, understand that I am not making an unfair generalization. "So many" clearly does not mean "all"; several of you have demonstrated the ability to recognize shades of grey.
Finally, is it just way too idealistic for me to suggest reading an account of Barack Obama's comments, in context, from someone who was actually there?
D. Boon,
I don't assume to know your voting habits.
Thank you.
I have no doubt that you voted for Nader in the last election,
Actually, I voted for Nader in 2000. 2004 was too big of a deal for me... I wanted Bush out and I wanted him out badly.. I didn't get what I wanted, but life goes on.
though I would hasten to add that you spent quite a bit of time explaining why Nader is really a moron and you've seen the Republican light.
I don't think Nader is a moron. I think he's an idealist. In 2000, I thought the time was right for an idealist who could help shape the national dialogue when it comes to issues like poverty and crime... I don't feel that way today. I want parents doing that job. Probably does have something to do with eight years of time and becoming a bit more moderate with my beliefs as I look at the world around me, and being a parent myself, but that's nothing new. People tend to mellow as they get older.
Since you've started posting here I've never read anything from you that even hints at a sympathy for the liberal side.
For the most part, I lurk here. I tend to throw my hat in the ring when I have a strong sense of both sides of the debate, and remain silent when I don't. I can assure you, I'm in favor of social safety nets and reforming broken institutions. I also acknowledge that private, local community based organizations need to be a part of that solution.
You've attacked religion with mucho gusto, but I don't consider that a liberal position.
I've attacked religion with much gusto when it is used to defend policies I disagree with. Terrorism, war, elitism, attempting to control what I can and cannot do in my own bedroom with a consenting adult etc... I'm not a big fan of holier-than-thou arguments, because I see them as extremely counterproductive. I am a big fan of exposing holier-than-thou arguments when I see them occuring.
Apologies if you took offense.
Thank you again.
It is becoming more and more difficult to believe anyone when they claim to be an "independent".
Have faith, then. Look for evidence in your heart.
Kind of like Fox News is "fair and balanced".
Or, alternately, tell me I'm not being honest with myself about my own political beliefs... cute.
Since I an an unashamed liberal Democrat, I consider my radar to be finely tuned to the opposition.
Alternately, you could just be projecting a false image of what that opposition represents and lumping everyone into the same category. Common enough, online.
I'd love to hear what it is about Obama that you like so much that you placed him third on your list.
I love, love, love his ability to inspire. He's a master at bringing the crowd in and making politics matter, and that's something we've been missing for the last eight years. He seems genuinely commited to his beliefs, and is cut from a different cloth than most candidates. He actually has a legitimate claim to understanding the needs of the working class and the struggles of people who need to fight twice as hard for half as much. America needs to hear that story, and it's refreshing to hear it told by someone who can deliver it with authenticity. Plenty of brilliant young minds are wasting away in the ghettos through lack of community support and inspiration-- I see Obama as a source of change in a very positive way there. He genuinely cares about other people, and wants them to care about themselves. He has a quality about him that is very much like that much-loved pastor, or that wonderful 8th grade teacher who opened your eyes and made you realize that you were capable of more than you thought you were.
There's definitely a place for that in the White House. When kids start coming to their political awareness through State of the Union addresses, I want them to see someone who they look to as a mentor and a role model, someone who defines the American Dream and makes it real to them. Obama has that potential, no doubt about it.
It's his other qualifications, or lack thereof, that put him third on my list and not first. Again, see the bits above about not wanting an idealist with a sweeping social agenda in office during a crucial and difficult economic readjustment. I want someone with a ton of experience for that scenario. Preferably someone who is liberal on social issues, but I'll sacrifice that if I need to in favor of someone who has a record of bipartisan leadership and critical thought. I'll cringe at that sacrifice, but I'll still make it... because I have a daughter to feed, and a home to keep up, and that's darned difficult to do if tax hikes force people to cut back on spending and employers to cut back on jobs.
Kem