Unforced Error: Obama as San Fran Liberal Elitist

It's difficult to underestimate the enduring impact of Barack Obama's "bitter" remark. The day after John Kerry blurted that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" Vice President Dick Cheney ripped into the Democratic nominee and GOP strategists were already envisioning a new ad featuring the gaffe, intent on undercutting Kerry's character as a flip-flopper.

That week, four years ago, there were no banner headlines in major American newspapers declaring a turning point in the presidential race. Soon after the remark Kerry took a break from the campaign and skied at a resort in Idaho, a trip that added the air of elitism to Kerry's already sundered grit.

The Bush campaign had effectively won the campaign. It was only mid March.

In time we will know the gravity of Obama's recent comment that many Americans in the small towns across the Midwest "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment" because they are "bitter" over economic anxiety.

Since the remarks came forward, Obama's opponents have pounced. Hillary Clinton told plant workers that the comments were "elitist and out of touch." John McCain agreed. The Republican National Committee sent out more than 10 emails to political reporters in the 24 hours after the comments were made public, pushing the storyline that Obama is, you guessed it, an elitist. The Democratic National Committee's press shop was silent.

Manufactured disgust, all too prevalent in our politics today, should not be mistaken for the legitimate disgust. Obama has caused some legitimate disgust. And he should heed that disgust, and heed it fast.

But so far he is not. Instead Obama stays true to character, tepidly combative and totally cool. Obama has stood by the remark. He has said that he could have been more rhetorically tactful -- a defense reminiscent of Kerry's explanation.

Political attacks work when they reinforce real perceptions. They become narratives when built on enough anecdotes. And those attacks can become critical when they seem to confirm long-held partisan stereotypes.

Obama has just provided what may prove to be the keystone in the arc of Republican attacks. Obama expounded Saturday on his remark. "Everybody knows" that his comment "is true," Obama stated. There are "a whole bunch of folks in small towns" who "feel like they have been left behind."

That is true. But that's not the issue now haunting his bid for the presidency.

Obama inferred that rural Americans stance on religion, guns, or immigration is an outcome of economic determinism. The line of thought: Middle American Joe struggles to make his bills, Democrats don't offer economic answers, Republicans con Joe to care more about cultural issues than answers, and GOP dominants the White House for four decades.

What's The Matter With Obama's Words, Not Kansas

"They don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them," Obama said, in an attempt to contextualize his remark. "So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns" or "gay marriage" or "take refuge in their faith."

To many liberals this all makes perfect sense. Indeed Obama's perspective is the prevailing viewpoint in Democratic circles. And this is what's the matter with a party that has accepted "What's the Matter with Kansas" as gospel.

No book has more influenced Democratic thought in recent years. The premise is that because Democrats stopped representing working and middle class voters' economic concerns, "dropping the class language that once distinguished them sharply from Republicans they have left themselves vulnerable to wedge issues."

Obama has merely reiterated the lesson Democrats have taken from Republicans victories in seven of the last ten presidential elections. The crux of the argument is that American liberals should become more like European liberals in order to win back America. The book was a case for Democrats to convince voters to think more in terms of cash than culture. Frank argued Democrats should emulate the economic populism that failed to win any of William Jennings Bryan's three bids for the presidency.

But that's merely poor tactics. What is always so offensive to regular Americans is the presumption that if she is offered better tax policies she won't care any longer about abortion. And the viewpoint holds from one issue to the next: offer rural white men rhetoric that reminds them that they are working class and he'll accept that the Second Amendment only referred to militias.

Then there is the exhibited ignorance. Families who struggle financially care more about moral values because they are more likely to experience the breakdown of the family. In other words, cultural issues are not a substitute for economic concerns, as Obama argues, but inseparable from folks economic struggle.

All of this is exactly the sort of mistake Democrats have been making for decades. How many times can some leading liberals live up to the culturally elitist charge without considering that perhaps there is some electricity behind the charge?

What Dogmatic Liberals Miss, and Realist Liberals Get

Liberals certainly, when compared to conservatives, concern themselves more with the economic anxieties of the working and middle class, tax policy is a prime example. But Republicans concern themselves more with their cultural anxieties, from "cultural pollution" to guns to abortion.

Many liberals get rural America so wrong because, as The Pew Research Center for People and the Press found, not only do "most Liberals live in a world apart from Disadvantaged Democrats and Conservative Democrats," but also rural voters. Pew's 2005 typology study found that liberals are the least religious group, more than one-third are never married, they are the most urban, and the least likely to have a gun in the home or attend bible study or a prayer group. About all they have in common with rural voters is their race, more than eight in ten liberals are white.

Obama's base among white voters is disproportionately from liberals and those who have at least a college education. His Ivy League biography, even his professional manner, personifies his largest bloc of white support.

On the campaign trail one sometimes can tell. Last year he responded to an Iowa farmers concerns about crop prices by asking if "anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?" There are no Whole Foods in Iowa. Recently Obama tried to bowl in Pennsylvania and looked like the sort of Democrat who thinks of Whole Foods when discussing crop prices. Now Obama talks about what drives rural voters' cultural concerns and ends up looking like the kind of Democrat who bowls a 37 in seven frames. Soon there is a storyline. The silly is now serious.

It seems that every time Obama makes a mistake he brings it up again, offers context, laughs about it, and then defends it. No matter, the bowling and arugula mistakes were still small time. But the bitter remark was a game changer.

What must be disheartening to some Democrats is that on other occasions Obama has shown pinpoint insight into the voters Democrats lost in recent decades. In his seminal race speech, written by Obama, he said that "most working- and middle-class white Americans don't feel that they have been particularly privileged by their race. Their experience is the immigrant experience -- as far as they're concerned, no one's handed them anything, they've built it from scratch."

No other major Democrat has uttered such words in recent memory. It was a beginning. That beginning is now deeply undercut.

To boot, Obama already had problems with small town voters. In the Appalachia region of Ohio, Clinton won over 65 percent of the vote. Obama has put out advertising in Pennsylvania to emphasize that his values are the same as regular folks' values. But then this comes out. It appears Obama misunderstands how regular Americans arrive at their values.

History Does Not Repeat, But Liberals Ensure it Rhymes

That Obama's bitter remark occurred before a crowd of wealthy San Francisco Democrats made his gaffe all the more sophomoric. The progressive party never seems to look back enough.

It was not the first time Obama lived up to Jeane Kirkpatrick's branding of "San Francisco Democrats." Reminiscent of Michael Dukakis and the pledge of allegiance, Obama stopped wearing a flag on his lapel because it "became a substitute for" what is "true patriotism." Michelle Obama's aside about her newfound pride as an American, watching this race, didn't help matters. Neither did the video of Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

The patriotism mistakes will matter. He is not doing much to refute Kirkpatrick's other zinger from that same 1984 speech: that Democrats are supposedly the "blame America first" party. But I'm not sure any of those mistakes, even Wright, will matter as much as the bitter remark. After all, it came from Obama.

At some point Democratic intellectuals need to come to the consensus that they did not get defeated in recent decades simply because Republicans "framed" issues better, or appealed better to voters emotions, or because Democrats have not found their inner Bryan. Every cycle there is an "it theory" popular within the Democratic chattering class.

Now there is some truth to each thesis. But not the great truth: Democrats lost their majority because they lost touch with that "silent majority." Richard Nixon may have been paranoid but paranoids are not always dumb. Some of this "silent majority's" concerns were not sexist, or racist, but wholly real and as Obama himself has said, based in authentic distress.

"So when they are told to bus their children to a school across town; when they hear that an African American is getting an advantage in landing a good job or a spot in a good college because of an injustice that they themselves never committed; when they're told that their fears about crime in urban neighborhoods are somehow prejudiced, resentment builds over time," Obama said in his race speech.

Indeed, Obama was explaining that sometimes Democrats mistake the color of the issue for the issue. We are a nation defined by our original sin of slavery and therefore, slaves to that racial worldview. We so often see race where class exists. Similarly, many liberals misperceive values politics. They so often see cultural stances for their worst manifestations while ignoring their best.

Guns become tools for murder rather than occasions for fathers and sons to hunt. Abortion is always about limiting a woman's autonomy rather than differing views on life. Concerns over illegal immigration are based in xenophobia rather than, at least sometimes, a valid desire to expect future immigrants to abide by the same rules as those immigrants from the century before.

Now there was some truth to Obama's argument. A recent Democratic administration did not sufficiently stand up "for those who work hard and play by the rules." NAFTA ended up making life much worse for so many of those hard workers, the bulk of which were the white working class men that Democrats needed to win back -- Bruce Springsteen voters.

It is also true that people struggling economically care more about the competition born of labor-class immigration, just as the Irish were concerned about the competition from freed slaves following Reconstruction. It is why today many blacks are equally concerned about competition from Hispanic immigrants.

Those who are struggling know the brutality of the bottom, as John Updike describes it, and therefore they will take almost any stance and most any step to keep one step ahead of that bottom.

But that does not mean that there are not valid law and order concerns over illegal immigration, or that it is not advantageous to emphasize English immersion for cultural cohesion and to empower immigrants to rise up the economic ladder.

Where Obama and many Democrats go wrong is describing cultural stances as outcomes of hard times, rather than principled, joyful, well-intentioned, or long treasured family traditions. Reality lingers in both theories. But Democrats too often mention the worst and forget the best, as Obama did. In Obama's defense, he spoke of family traditions on Saturday. But context is always hard after the gaffe. Just ask McCain and Republicans about their struggle since early January to contextualize his 100-year remark on Iraq.

***

David Paul Kuhn, a Politico.com senior political writer, is author of the The Neglected Voter: White Men and the Democratic Dilemma.

Related:
Jane Smiley: Here We Go Again

Comments

[peaceandfreedom]

"He didn't say that or intimate it in the least. What he say, and said it right up front was; People feel betrayed by government! They are manipulated, used, lied to, and then forgotten--except, of course, during an election year. He never alluded to the beliefs or cultural values of Any one as being the result of hard times. Rather, that these hard times were created by a government that just doesn't care; a government that manipulates through fear and poor policy, encouraging suspicion and divisiveness. He blamed the past two administrations for betraying the interests of the people in favor of keeping them powerless and angry.

Read what he said again. He blames the right folks, and he nails the bitterness and anger that working Americans feel! The question we should be asking is, why, with our economy poised to tank, jobs gone, homes lost, and our milk and gas out of sight, are Clinton and McCain content to put a smiley face on what it seems everyone else in America sees clearly?"

[swkidder]

I may be an "elitist" resident of the San Francisco Bay area, but I've lived in rural Virginia as well. I met one of the best friends I have over a 3 hour debate on gun control. I'm a charter member of the Million Mom March, and he's a card-carrying member of the NRA. Our "discussion" was spirited. It turns out that we have much more in common than we had in differences. We're both intelligent, spiritual and able to see the nuances, the gray areas, and the complexity of some of the tough issues in this country. After all, if the answers were all that easy, we wouldn't be having these debates.
We're a bit "stumped" here in the United States, but we're not paralyzed. We currently lack the kind of leadership that treats us like adults, tells the truth, and does so even when it's not politically expedient or safe. We've lived with lies and liers for way too long. What we need now to begin to change the culture in this nation is permission to begin a dialogue without fear of the kind of stupid labels intended to shut down discussion.
I have a lot more faith in "rural America" than this gentleman does. I think those who live there, and live their values, are more than smart enough to see who Barack Obama is, and to see through the pathetic attempts of his opponents to throw smoke in their eyes one more time.

[anamandy]

The issue is not whether Obama is out of touch, or whether people are “bitter” as he and his camp keeps reiterating to deflect from the real issue. Bitterness is not the issue. What people are so disturbed about is a candidate endorsing an abrogation of our constitutional right to bear arms and worship any way we wish, to a group of like minded activists. If ordinary people can understand the real issue behind Obama’s words (which are important, according to him), then why can’t any of the candidates, media, or Obama supporters understand?

[OETKB]

Some people feel threatened by Obama's words. He needs some leeway. He broadened an observation that applies to a few and diluted its impact. His refreshing political risk taking may become a teachable moment. He needs to show that he meant all cultures deserve respect not the opposite, something I think he truly believes but his words created doubt.

He struck a cord when he implied that some cultural beliefs are mis-directed to blame others. Not all do and it is in this regard that he has the task to clarify his position. It was probably unnecessary to bring it any further than to recognize people's anger and show his willingness to bring the workings of government to work on their behalf. If he is the candidate I think he is, he will do this. If he does, this is a strength of leadership, not a failing. It is a recognition of the mixed culture we are and there is no broad brush that fits us all. Working it out is a process with missteps along the way and maybe justified resentment can be retooled by Sen Obama into an even stronger approach. He has shown this courage before and hopefully after listening to comments such as yours, he will try to address your concerns. I still believe he will and he is the best choice to lead this country because he will round out our edges not sharpen them.

[champions1]

are you kidding me....bearing arms what....the minute you tried to bear arms your arse would be in jail, right now you are talking about how you feel, that i respect but to say that we (as supporters) of either Hillary or Barak don't understand you, maybe we do, but we feel differently can you fathom that ? I voted for Hillary and have been one of the Clintons biggest fans over the years, she has worked hard all her life, but so have i, does that mean only she has the right to be the President, granted she never envisioned Barak in her future years ago, many of us didn't, But all this kitchen sink bs she is pulling has torn me apart, I felt I knew her and i wanted her to win, and the Constitutional thing...Pleaaaseee this administration has torn it to pieces and i haven't felt her putting it back together rather going along with McCain with this war, tearing America apart seam by seam, well we need a good fight and need to feel pain cause thats how much our Country is worth, 5,000.00 dollars a minute for Iraq just think what we could be doing with all that money, I feel that Barak has been hitting the hard truth and darn it if we can't handle the truth what can we handle..

[anamandy]

David's assessment is right on target. I live in rural American, in the Adirondack Mtns., to be exact and people are very upset with O's comments. One of the leaders of the Dem party up here said of O's comments, "What a presumptious ass"! That sums up exactly how people feel about Obama's comments. But more surprising is that many people in Vermont, the state next to mine, who initially supported Obama are equally upset by his comments. Not so much on the religion front, but about gun owner's rights. Vermont is a huge hunting state and Obama made a real big mistake when making such a comment about gun owners. I heard someone say on a local Vermont radio program that he wondered what comment Obama would say about the inner city gun owners who regularly use their guns on each other for sport instead of hunting of animals? Yep, Obama made a real big mistake.
Unfortunately, Obama already showed us that he's not big enough to own up to a mistake and apologize like anyone else caught in such a situation. Even Hillary apoloigze for her Snipergate remark.

[fourex]

No it's not an error. It is a populist idea, vote your interests not your fears, Go with it Obama.

[Suprshrink]

I initially supported and would have voted for any of the democratic candidates. As time wore on, however, Obama began to worry me. There have been times that I have watched him give a speech when he appeared angry, smug, arrogant, self-righteous, or out of touch (not necessarily all at once). Because he does not talk about policy (other than he does not want to make healthcare truly universal), he keeps getting tagged for his abstract candidacy. It must be expected and it will eventually be destructive to his run for the presidency that the rhetoric will reflect his character, his words, his demeanor, and his pontificating.

Not one of the bloggers here who have defended Obama have ever or likely would ever have defended Clinton similarly. Neither side wants to be taken down by "mistakes" but that is all that is left when the policy issues are vacant.

[Daniel8168]

Both troubling and ironic is the fact that Hillary Clinton has taken to using the same fear and smear, spin 'til you win tactics made famous by neocons.

Now, the news is consumed with these inflated, sensationalist charges of "elitism", when Hillary's top three advisors have taken money for a Colombian FTA. Mark Penn not only worked for that deal, but is notoriously anti-union, and his company contributes heavily to republican campaigns. A subsidiary of Penn's company is run by one of McCain's top advisors.

Those are real issues that foreshadow a disastrous Clinton presidency. Obama spoke a truth about the manipulation of votes through the republican party's sensationalist Rovian tactics. He was responding to someone that asked how to reach those voters. The issues he mentioned were the issues that many people vote on despite the republican's economic rape of this country. Now, because Obama is actually considering these voters and discussing how to reach them and uses a word that is being spun right into the Rove tactics hall of fame, another democrat, desperate to keep the focus off the real issues, jumps on the bandwagon.

It was so disheartening to see the republicans pick Gore and Kerry apart like this, but to see another democrat pick up Rove's poisoned daggers and start throwing them at a fellow democrat makes me sick to my stomach. I expected this kind of crap from McCain, but from another democrat? We have become those whom we would pretend to hate.

[mjc]

Other Democrats had better pick up those daggers because Obama's comments were very hurtful to the Democratic Party, just as much as they are hurtful to Obama himself. Lots of people tell me that they vote for the man, not the political party. That may seem fair but the problem is that the party, BOTH parties, set the campaign platform. Yeah, I know, many platforms have been totally ignored but the statements in them are a reflection of what the party leaders and the rank and file want to see accomplished. You'll never hear or see written any stuff about supporting the wealthy 1% over the lower class. In fact you'll never see anything referencing class or status. Those are dangerous concepts for most because many see such as Marxist or communist or socialist. Obama could not have made that statement before any group in Pennsylvania because it does indeed look like he is judging, making a class statement about white men who don't like blacks....too racist.....or about bitter men clinging to guns and religion.....too classist.
That was one of the best blogs I have ever read on HuffPo. We all learned a lot.

[ultramagnetic]

And Silly season rumbles along.l

[YellerDawg]

Kristol has zero credibility, so why is this even posted on Huffpo? This preposterously desperate statement reaffirms why I never read or listen to anything he says. Karl Marx...Sheesh! What's next, the Red Menace? A whisper campaign? Joe McCarthy, where are you? (in hell, I hope.)

[YellerDawg]

I don't know what happened. I completely blacked out. I thought I was on the Kristol story. Disregard the following comment, or just enjoy some Bill Kristol bashing, on me.

[accountability]

LOL
Its easy to get wiggy over here after awhile.

[richardmcnoggin]

The people who support Obama generally are just under-educated and mis-informed. There is a bunch of people; who if you ask why they support him and what his acomplishments and qualifications are they dont have an answer... they are Socialist types who cling to someone who can try to fullfill their dreams of a Socilaist utopia. I WOULD HOWEVER VOTE FOR OBAMA IF HE SUPPORTED THE FAIR TAX!!!!!

[Barbarossa03]

I'm not from PA but from TX, but I'm bitter that the economy is the way it is catering the everything corporate and I'm bitter because more of my rights and freedoms have been taken away through such tools as the Patriot Act.

Only an Elitist would say "you Americans are not bitter you are happy and hopeful with all the bad that is falling around you". It sounds like something out of 1984. The economy, Big Brother monitors all your telephone calls, your email, your a suspected terrorist until found innocent, the Iraq war, corporations gouging us for once government regulated and provided services, etc - shall we go on about what to feel happy and hopeful about?

[pavehawkdoc]

I am not surprised the average HP reader is in denial that Sen. Snake Oil has immeasurably hurt his cause by truly saying what he believes in an unguarded moment. Most of you probably don't believe in organized religion, have never served in our military, and firmly know your collective genius is all that is necessary to change America and save the rest of us middle class, gun toting hillbillies from ourselves. I am only bitter when I hear the latest incarnation of Karl Marx creating more government programs to steal my hard earned money. Obama's true colors are gradually being revealed. The Electoral College math increasingly favors McCain. I next suggest Barack try riding in a tank a la Dukakis or shooting targets with some Navy Seals. BO has nothing in common with the traits that made America great and will go down in flames.

[Barbarossa03]

Hey pavehawkdoc, I served 9 years in the military you stupid jackass and I support Obama! Think before you open your mouth, it will prevent your foot from following

[richardmcnoggin]

I agree with the fine Mr. Pavehawkdoc.....

[mamamay]

We can't blame everything said or done in response to Obama Rhetoric,on the carl rove movement, Whether it is is referenced by C Marx,et al sayings or not. Obama is blamed for everything that appears to be negative regardless of how picyune. JS commented that Obama;s words would come back to haunt him by Rep, as Joe ranted on & on negatively to scrutinize and para phrase Obama's remarks. Obama is up against a wall never approached before in History in a Primary as he encounters Hil, Bil, Chel, JMcC, and many of the Obama hating MEDIA. Obama is genuine. He shows compassion and respect for his fellowman. He does not appear to try to hurt anyone, but in this run, lots of folkss appear to sling the race card, the black card, the hate card at many of his Am moves. Obama is a man who has proved his intelligence, his embracement of Am values, his knowledge, His readiness for President in 08, that he is more than qualitied Now,and on day one to resume the Office of President by earning the wins of most States, most Delegates and being the most electible candidate. We believe that JMcC is not qualified by education, by association or other wise to be able to grasp a working knowledge of the issues of the American people to restore the war or other issues.

[mamamay]

I am sure that you have made honorable contributions to America, by your authority on who hasn't. I hope you have to eat your vote. A price for white gloves cost the same as any other color. How will your race card produce a better America? The economy is so broken, it wont matter who you are about to vote for stands for a 3term of Bush and this isn't going to happen. Enjoy America with Obama as the President. It's long over due for a change and the truth. Let's give those good hard working folks from Kansas some respect too.. No one is perfect. no one is pure white. We are all in this snake oil together doc. carry on

[dudelette]

Thank you, from a struggling middle class liberal.

[Ladylight]

With all this talk about Obama being racist it strikes me as silly. As silly as Chris Matthews asking him what it it like to have be a black kid with a white mother???? He is biracial and not elitist. You know it is sad that a country with so many bright and intelligent people has been reduced to a bunch of name calling juveniles. Stop and think! Regardless who you are for we all need to realize that we have a stake in this election.

This country cannot afford to go along with business as usual. And could we all just quit getting upset by MSM. They are so out of touch with the real world. Obama made a mistake he made his apology now lets move on. No one says he is perfect, and this just shows that he is not a slick politician because he keeps speaking what he believes to be the truth. And I for one find that refreshing.

[TRichards]

The politics of GOTCHA continues on.

It's clear that all Obama was saying is that those who have been lied to and who have been left behind (i.e., most of the population) are bitter about their disappointments and tend to look for both comfort and scapegoats -- which is simply true in both psychological and sociological terms even if it's impolitic to say so.

Obama is NOT an elitist. He clearly believes, probably incorrectly, that the American public can handle the truth. That belief may well sink his candidacy, but makes him a much more admirable character than the opportunistic spin meisters who are gleefully attacking him for his candor.

This is the same kind of bullshit attack as sunk Howard Dean for yelling at a pep rally for his campaign workers. It is now a story that the lazy press would rather sink its teeth into than something more substantial that would require it to do more than to opine and pander.

The straight talk express is not to be found in McCain and anything even vaguely resembling straight talk will NEVER come from Clinton. Now, I see why. No good deed, such as truth-telling, goes unpunished.

[Scurvybro]

First, it was the "bowling blunder." Now, it's the "bitter" remark. It's becoming apparent that Mr. Kuhn is trying to position himself as the first to predict the moments that will one day be regarded as the debacles or "turning points" upon which Obama lost the election. I envision Mr. Kuhn as the kid in school who was always waving his hand to be called upon by the teacher, even before he or she had finished asking a question. You know, just to let his inferior classmates know he's smarter than them.

It's April, so no one knows where Obama will be come November, and how these alleged "gaffes" affected his fate. However, if he wins, can we count on Mr. Kuhn to explain how off-base his predictions were? We'll see.

[herronsmith]

How right you are, scurvybro. Leave it to MSM to point out, blow out of proportion and analyze to death a remark that most have not heard and those who did hear it have moved on. MSM needs a vacation until after November.

[pmag88]

Look. People from every strata of our society all want the same thing. A bit of common sense and a bit of consensus. That’s why 81% of us aren't happy about where the nation is going. That’s why 2/3rds of us think the Iraq war was and is wrong.

Perhaps the most popular president in a great many years was Eisenhower. Compare his words regarding the military industrial complex to those of the neocon republicans of today. Night and day.

I would also point out that republicans DID NOT win the past two presidential elections. Further, GHW Bush, despite 8 years as VP under a supposedly popular Reagan, lost to Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton, a man who, by the logic of the author’s argument, should never have won a single term, let alone two. And justhow did Bill Clinton won a second term in spite of all the so-called scandals and the massive smear campaigns? Because people were satisfied that the majority of their needs were being met and that he was doing a good job. period.

Obama made a mistake. He's apologized and also rendered his words in a way that show he gets it. People may point out his mistakes as they should, but he's done a great job of rising above and elevating the debate in way that is unique and endearing. Being human and fallible isn’t going to disqualify him from the job. He's the best person for the job. period.

[vsign]

The way Obama talks to us Americans can feel insulting. His supporters do the same thing. His wife insults us and calls the country mean. His pastor insults us the Sunday after 9/11. It all fits a pattern. Lordy, lordy, lordy.

Maybe Obama could talk to us and his supporters as if he realizes how he
insulted us. That is what we want. Figure it out and stop insulting us.

[Barbarossa03]

If you were informed and had the initiative to investigative the truth you would learn that Pastor Wright took the "chickens have come home to roost" quote from a man named Ambassador Peck. Google him, look him up. Obama is not insulting no one, he is merely making light of the truth. As the saying goes, the truth hurts, maybe that's why you feel insulted.