It seems Barack Obama got into some trouble over some unseemly remarks about the fears and attitudes of some of the middle class. Although his comments did not sound nasty or belittling to my ears, more like a concerned man trying to make sense of other people's frustrations, no one claims he wouldn't take the words back if he could, or that his supporters would deter him. Still you'd think by the all the hoopla this story has received, he'd raised his glass to Hitler.
Hillary Clinton, staunch defender of the middle class she's recently lost steady ground to in Pennsylvania, will take any opportunity to kick Obama hard whenever he "slips" (which is rarely). Still -- for a woman worth $100+ million dollars, who resides in a large, gated home in tony Chappaqua, New York, and has openly courted the American elite over the years, renting out the Lincoln Bedroom like The Four Seasons Hotel, assuming the mantle of the middle class is both transparent and an act of desperation. She calls Obama "elitist" and "out of touch", and his comments "demeaning".
This is ludicrous bunk, and pure political opportunism on Hillary's part. No doubt about it -- she knows how to fight dirty when she's down. But I'm hoping and praying that enough Americans will see right through her.
Now here's a sobering question: is there not some truth in what Obama said?
There were three main issues that surfaced in his words, all of them real and present in our society: the role of faith in politics, the controversial topic of gun control, and the impact of race and diversity in America.
First, here are lots of people in this country who choose not to abide by a fundamental tenet of our democracy: namely, the separation of Church and State. Just watch Jesus Camp, the eerie documentary about the evangelicals, a surprisingly large group in this country, and behold how their thoroughly indoctrinated kiddies pray for "W." every day. The leader of their sect claims he delivered millions of voters to Bush (born again by Billy Graham after one too many D.W.I.'s), and that they talk by phone each week. Can America now live with a president brave enough to say that his task as President has nothing to do with his faith? John Kennedy said so nearly fifty years ago, and even then it resonated. So, it would appear that whatever the fiery Reverend Wright has to say in his pulpit would likely not influence Obama's presidential policies.
Then there's gun control. With all due respect to the late Mr. Heston, there are many who want to keep this nation a land of ease and plenty when it comes to procuring automatic weapons. I just saw the story of several young teenage females systematically and severely beating one other girl, for which the attackers will all likely serve considerable prison time. Now in this instance, no guns were involved, but it's all part of the same disturbing, ongoing trend, fueled by the insane pressure, uncertainty and competition our kids face today, and further aggravated by the graphic violence constantly churned out by the media and entertainment industries. That said, I still believe you cannot reduce violence significantly if you and your family live in the most pro-gun society on the planet. (Anyone revisited Bowling For Columbine lately?)
And make no mistake: these folks want to keep their shotguns (and Uzis). When I wrote on the Huffington Post about the need for more gun control in the wake of those campus shootings (which create huge publicity but little change), I heard from over 100 gun-toting good ol' boy whackos, telling me to leave the country -- pronto. Yikes.
Dare I say it: there are also a few people out there who'd simply prefer a white man (or woman) in The White House. For an eye opener, watch the 1991 doc Blood In The Face, about the white supremacy movement and the advent of David Duke. Now while this fanatical group is a true minority, now on the wane, some of what they espouse, including much stricter limits on immigration and a more negative view of our country's increasing ethnic diversity, live on quietly (sometimes not so quietly) in some of our citizens, particularly those who've lost jobs to cheaper foreign labor. Perceived racism in law enforcement also lingers (remember Rodney King?). There are still numerous race hate organizations out there; you can find them on the internet. And a recent research study indicated that racism has only become a "more subtle" phenomenon in our nation. So though unquestionably we've made progress on the race issue, anyone who suggests we've eradicated this age-old scourge, born out of fear and ignorance, is simply deluded.
Taking one step back, one has to wonder, why would Obama say what he said? It's probably because those issues really came up with the people he spoke to, those citizens he supposedly "demeaned". They're good Americans, but they're scared, and have every reason to be. They may have helped re-elect W., whose legacy has gone from bad to worse in his second term. His supporters feel justifiably let down. Their very homes and livelihoods are now at risk, if not gone already, their kids may be in Iraq dodging bullets, and they're not entirely certain where to put the blame, or how it's all going to get fixed. So why wouldn't they be bitter, and why wouldn't they search for answers and some small rays of hope and reassurance, even perhaps in some of the wrong places?
We know there exists a sizable number of voters -- many of them not traditionally Democratic -- who this go-round are looking closely at the other side, both due to these shaky times we're in, and the looming embarrassment that will become the Bush legacy. In John McCain, some see a rigid, infirm-looking continuation of the old Republican plank, waving a tattered flag. And yet, these same people may be put slightly off-balance when they first encounter Obama. Could this clearly gifted but unfamiliar young man really be America's savior, they silently ask? I want to tell them, simply: "Yes".
I'd guess Obama's frustration when he made his statement came from the fact that these more divisive issues take focus and attention off the nation's most pressing crises: restoring those jobs, improving the economy, and extracting ourselves from this costly war, justified by faulty intelligence, which we should never have started in the first place.
Characteristically and wisely, Obama swiftly apologized for his choice of words. That is pure Obama -- yes, an intrinsically savvy politician -- but also one who honestly believes in the need to build fences, not knock them down, and continue converting more loyal Americans to his message of hope about the future -- about jobs, peace, economic recovery, and the restoration of pride in America, both inside and outside our borders.
In the end, whoever gets their vote, the middle-class shouldn't kid themselves about Hillary. No matter what spin her people put out there, she is no more their "grass roots" champion than Obama; she is in fact a ruthless Senator and former First Lady who knows all the back room maneuvers, and is quite adept at targeting the big money and sources of influence. And though you can argue her roots are fairly humble, so are Obama's.
Hillary is simply playing this card now because it's her last chance to stay in the race- a contest I'm hoping she'll concede soon so we can unite our party and move on to McCain, the man either Democratic candidate must defeat in November. But for those who say open debate on the two Democratic contenders only hurts the party in the long run, I respond with a terse, emphatic "Phooey". This is America, and we all get to speak up if we choose, all along the way. You might as well ask me not to root for the Mets.
And, with my regrets to the still choleric Bill Clinton, when the usually eloquent Bill Richardson, in his surprise Obama endorsement, gushed, "there's just something special about this guy", he actually hit the mark. Because- all things considered, it is Obama, not Hillary, who has practiced that rare phenomenon called positive politics over the course of this highly competitive race. In a careless and fatigued moment, he simply showed himself to be human, momentarily straying from the upbeat, empowering tenor of his campaign, which has renewed the energy and commitment of so many, young and old. And in a fresh activism of this type, so seldom seen in my time, there lies the best hope of concrete, positive change and progress for our badly bruised and sorely tested nation.
Now, to all you ratings-obsessed, sensation-peddling TV stations, periodicals, and websites, let's avoid dissecting in agonizing detail every verbal misstep made by the candidates, and also stop paying undue attention to Hillary's frantic mud-slinging in what may be the final stretch of her run. Instead, you should help the candidates and the voters grapple with the substantive issues, so Americans, regardless of "class", make smart choices in the voting booth, whether in the contest for Pennsylvania, or on Election Day itself. Let's all strive to bring out the best in our democracy for a change.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
The net result of all of this is that they are handing Senator McCain the election. For a party that could win hands down why are they destroying things from within ? Who is driving the bus and what's going on in the back room ?
What Obama said is that we are all pawns. That we are played like cheap guitars. And another dozen bad analogies--but the fact remains, that people need to be awoken from their slumber and shown who the enemy is. In this case, its the very politicians who claim that the people of PA are eager and happy about their lot in lives as Americans. We're not. We're mad as hell, and pray that someone will listen to us, just for once.
this must be a joke
In my opinion Obama is not an elitist. What he said about religion, gun and migrants sounds just about what people think in my part of this United States.
This we do when we are distressed. When we feel danger, we want to protect our family, we pickup gun. When we lose our job, we blame someone, the President or some poor immigrant.
I want to begin by thanking you for a comprehensive, coherent post on the current media frenzy over Senator Barack Obama"s words in San Francisco last Sunday. The blogosphere is a place for people to offer alternative perspectives to campaigns and the media; your post is definitely a unique take on the issue.
I appreciated your analysis of the three main parts of Obama"s words: faith and politics, gun control, and race and diversity. After watching the entire speech, not the controversial segment out of context, it is clear that Sen. Obama was not speaking out of a hatred for rural persons.
However, your argument as a whole could have been enhanced if it were not so one-sided. Throughout your post, I was dismayed by your focus on disparaging Senator Hillary Clinton. You first argued that her $100 million dollar estate and history of courting the American render her a hypocrite for calling Obama an elitist. Obama himself has courted elite; large donors have been essential for both candidates in securing enough funds to win the nomination. Both candidates have also experienced record numbers of small donors.
I do not think Senator Clinton is hypocritical for responding to another candidate"s comments, especially when these are controversial and have become salient through the viral power of the American media. Every move in politics is opportunistic and Clinton is neither a hypocrite, nor an opportunist for addressing the comments. Sen. Obama has chosen, in fact, to partake in a rebuttal, refuting her criticisms and responding to McCain"s as well.
While I completely agree that the real focus should always be the issues, Obama has taken part in this fiery argument just as much as the other candidates. Your unabashed support for Barack Obama actually diminishes some of your arguments; at one point, you say he is "America"s savior" and it seems as if you are letting him off too easily for his comments. He has not been all positive politics and his comments were indeed offensive to some rural Pennsylvanians.
Essentially though, the core of your argument is sound and I concur with several points. When two or three lines in a speech dominate media coverage, it hurts the chance of substantive, relevant debate. Despite some flaws in your argument, I thank you again for a thought-provoking, well-written post on the subject.
That's right -- keep compounding the insult. That great sucking sound you'll hear is Obama's support dwindling away. Bye, bye Barack.
This piece did not help Obama's gaffe one bit. I am not really sure as to its purpose, even after a second reading. You are careless and imprecise with your language, just as Obama has been.
Actually, his support is growing.
If it's true (you give no citations) I gather it's among democrats who will vote in the primary. What about the general election? Isn't that the ultimate goal? I'm by virtually any measure extremely liberal and I live in a red state and my friends do not hesitate to tell me what they think of my politics. I can tell you among my friends, which I would describe as very disappointed Republicans, ready to vote for a Democrat for the first time in their lives, Reverend Wright is a big deal; Obama's "elitist" comments are fatal. Obama supporters can argue all they want, spin it any way they want, it doesn't matter to this group. If they are any indication of centrist American thinking, Obama had better start forgetting about Clinton and focus on damage control or it won't matter if he wins the nomination.
This column, and its condescending attitude towards middle American, is typical of the problems Democrats will have in winning the White House in November, even as the economy slides into recession.
Yes, lots of people want to ban guns int his country. But lots of people don't. Lots of people still hunt or want a gun for home protection. Knocking these people for simply disagreeing with one's own philosophy alienates the very voters Obama needs.
And Hillary Clinton did not throw Obama to the ground and stick his foot in his mouth for him. He did this all by himself. The statement did sound elitist, and while he is doing a fairly good job of overcoming this misstep, it still highlights his disjointed relationship with the middle class. I know he understands every aspect of the black community, rich, middle class, or poor. And I think he understands the lives of white and Hispanic voters of all socio-economic classes. But he doesn't always show this.
"Let's all strive to bring out the best in our democracy for a change", as stated by John Farr above.
Texastrixie, it truly is people like you who are so deluded that make it so damned difficult for any Obama supporter to educate. Do some research for yourself and then maybe, just maybe, you will see the transparent HRC and the Bush suckup McCain through your own eyes. It just takes too much energy for us to try to educate people like you!
I'm watching my ten year old on all fours, gasping for breath , coughing up blood every 2 minutes, my doctor wants me to go to the emergency room, I can't pay my bills even though my wife and I have two jobs (each), and I want him to just call in medicine so I don't have to pay any extra money to the ER which will just give him the same medicine anyway.
Your solution: "Let's all strive to bring out the best in our democracy...." and then you tell me it takes too much energy to educate people like me. Guess what? Don't trouble yourself, I can make up my own mind.
By any reasonable measure we should be well off but the sad reality is medical bills have drained every spare dollar for years so that we live paycheck to paycheck, and what am I offered by the Democrats? Hope and change? I've lived on hope for a long time, it sucks!
Note: The above story is true, but it occurred years ago. My daughter had a similar impact on the budget. The emotions are still real and a similar event is probably occurring somewhere in this country to another parent as I'm writing. My son has survived, graduated college and just last month finally found a job with medical benefits (500+ dollars per month, so I'm still helping with the bills!).
You just caught on to why Obama is so popular. He doesn't like ordering people to give up this or give up that, or accept just what HE wants the country to be. Barack feels there is common ground on every issue and that by everyone working together, solutions can be made without jeopardizing anyone's rights or freedoms. I for one am not a gun enthusiast, but that doesn't mean I don't want anyone else to own them. I've said it before that I believe firmly in the right to bear arms. This is the same with the no-smoking bans. I'm not a smoker but I'm wondering if this universal ban is a positive or a negative. i believe that second-hand smoke can be harmful, but I don't like ordering smokers into a corner. There are some voters who are still resentful of Barack being Afro-American, but I think if you went to his rally with an open mind you'd see that he really does have the best interest of our country as a priority. He's a born leader, one that we could depend on to solve problems, not just sit and listen to them.
Although his comments did not sound nasty or belittling to my ears,(BECAUSE YOU ARE ALSO AN ELTIST) more like a concerned man trying to make sense of other people's frustrations,(MORE LIKE A POLITICIAN TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY ALL HIS MONEY CANT WIN HIM CERTAIN VOTERS) no one claims he wouldn't take the words back if he could, or that his supporters would deter him (DEFEND HIM)
Obama,Hillary and Mccain all have made gaffes that make them all seem out of touch, Obama is not an elitist as some would say because he and his wife went to elite colleges most likley on loans and acedemic merit. I think the same can be said for Hillary but like the article says the "Lincoln Bedroom was rented out like a four star hotel" and where the Clintons live does all of this maker her an elitist? I think it is all in the way a person sees themselves and the demeaner in which they treat people. I don`t think of these two democrats as elitist as much as they need to be more in touch with the people of this country that are trying to decide which candidate is going to right the wrongs of eight of GREED, CRONYISM AND CORRUPTION. I see McCain as an elitist because he wants to retain bushies tax cuts and give bigger tax cuts to corporations who are outsourcing all of our jobs that made this country what it used to be ot what it is today. McCain has no appeal to most of blue collar America much less working class America, his platform is to keep the middle, poor and the poverty stricken people of this country down so the ELITIST of America can have it all.This country is doomed if he takes office, he will go into Iran without U.N. approval or congress.
Gaffes aren't the real small-town issue.
Obama is being marketed very much like that re-formulated Coke.
What was true on day one-little experience, less substance- is still true today.
The difference is Hillary also has something to back it up with and it is never once mentioned on the HP.
She was my senator for long enough for all of us in my county, heavily damaged by intense flooding, to see how quickly effective she is in a crisis.
It took 4 days for Bush to even acknowledge Katrina.
In less than 24 hours, Clinton was up there under a dripping umbrellas as we fought rising waters by inches every hour.
The NEXT DAY huge truck conveys from just about every department of anything in every part of NY state rumbled into towns and left with immense boulders and uprooted trees being removed by the hundreds. By the end of the week villages that were 6 feet under water were on the way to getting back to normal.
She was gracious enough, years ago, to be commencement speaker to our local ex-cow now tech college in the middle of nowhere. Very little press and every single one of the mostly black, proud working class parents who wanted a picture with her got one.
She also did private, totally unpublicised long-term kindnesses for the faculty.
Now, Obamabots, tell me what he's done for you
gala
Gala....here is what Obama has done for his constituents:
Obama's forgotten people...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hP-YoB5mnZs
Clicked on it, saw American Idol and Obama dancing, clicked off. Is there a text version I can print and read in the doctor's office or while I'm waiting to get my old clunker of a car fixed?
As for a YouTube video with real hope for the little guy, click on http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1k08yxu57NA
Who is more elitist, more condescending, the woman who promises to fight for the poor (apparently) weak people, who need her to "stand up" for them, or the man who has based his entire campaign on the premise that only the American people have the power to improve our government, to improve our lot in life?
A president, any president, alone cannot overcome the influence of big oil, big insurance - big money - to bring about economic and social justice. On the other hand, an informed, active electorate with effective leadership can move mountains.
Obama's campaign, his decision to run for president, reflect his belief in the American people. He's betting on us. He's betting that we're smart enough to understand that the old campaign promises that never worked before are not going to work this time either. He's betting that we're ready, willing, and able to work for what we believe in. So far, he's winning.
Gotta love all the Obamam defenders here. "he was taken out of context", "you don't understand waht he was really saying".
I thought the same thing about Don Imus, but all they kept plying in the media was those three words he said and he lost his job because of it. Get used to it folks. Obama should never get the job in the first place with all of the things he has said.
unlike the sniper fire dodging, liar who is so cut out to be commander in chief.
I'll take someone who says something that rankles a percentage of the masses - even if he was right - as opposed to a lying power grubber who will continue the fiasco's we've come to hate the last 8 years.
And you think Billary's mis-speaks are the meaterial for America's next leader. You deserve whatever you get!!!
Bull shit.
Yep that was bull shit.
What is wrong with us? Why are we so easily diverted? I don't need to hear anyone take a walk down memory lane about what a God-fearing man their daddy was or happy musings about time spent with the .22 to know that most of us think the life we live is a good one.
Hillary Clinton is not now, nor has she ever been middle class. That said, her imaginative abilities only seem to take her to scary places where black men might govern, but not to what it must be like to watch your class and way of life disappearing. Why would we allow our intelligence to be insulted by someone whose premise is simply--believe what I say, not what I do.
The Internet and these comment pages can be used as tool for learning and the exchange of ideas or they can be used for deceit. Your comment, possibly misinformed, is none the less deceitful. Hillary Clinton was from a middle-class family, as was Senator Obama and both of them have become wealthy in the last several years. Neither Bill nor Hillary Clinton are racists and to suggest that they are is as foolish as calling Senator Obama an anti-Semite.
I remember the first time in this campaign when the Media and Obama supporters began labeling Hillary Clinton as a racist, it was in New Hampshire when she said "Dr. King's dream began to be realized when President Lyndon Johnson passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when he was able to get through Congress something that President Kennedy was hopeful to do, the president before had not even tried, but it took a president to get it done"
Bill Moyers called Hillary Clinton's statement "an historical fact, an affirmation of the obvious." Moyers went on to chide the NYTimes for publishing a deceitful editorial which stated Hillary Clinton was guilty of "the distasteful implication that a black man needed the help of a white man to effect change."
I will concede Hillary Clinton's distant middle class roots. But if she is not a racist, she is even more contemptuous than that. At least a racist believes they are right. They are not tapping into people's fears as a diversionary tactic so that we might spend more time fearing the unknown and less time reviewing their shortcomings as a candidate.
Her quote about Dr. King is empirical fact and recounting another's accomplishment. That she knows a quote to regurgitate at an opportune time is more indicative of her ability as a politician than as a president.
The LBJ-MLK comment by Hillary Clinton was an answer to a direct question asked by reporter about a statement Senator Obama had made, here is the Obama quote she was reacting to:
"False Hopes. Dr King standing on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial looking out over the magnificent crowd, the reflecting pool, the Washington Monument, sorry guys, false hopes, the dream will die, it can't be done, false hope, we don't need leaders who tell us what we can't do, we need leaders to tell us what we can do and inspire us."
The problem is that the Hillary Clinton statement was truncated by several news organizations (NYTimes, Politico, et al.) so the public got a bad story that made it look like Clinton was saying Black people need White people to affect change.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200801120003
or
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/063023.php
People in this country have been anti-free trade, pro-gun, anti-immigrant, God Fearing people for two centuries. It is disingenuous to claim that this is a recent trend which began as the result of the loss of manufacturing jobs.
"People in this country have been anti-free trade, pro-gun, anti-immigrant, God Fearing people for two centuries. " BenMurphyNYC
You've got to be kidding me! We've been anti-immigrant for two centuries? Then how the heck did we all get here? And I sorry, I didn't realize globalization was an issue two centuries ago.
pfunk - Below are a few sources/subjects of information you might find interesting.
Globalization and trade have been issues for the United States since birth of the revolution. Examples: The Boston Tea Party, was a reaction to goods from China and India, Embargo Act of 1807 (barring trade with Britian), Tariff of 1828 to protect Northern goods from European competition, etc.
- "From 1882 to 1943 the United States Government severely curtailed immigration from China to the United States." www.archives.gov
- "The Know Nothing movement was a nativist American political movement of the 1850s. It was empowered by popular fears that the country was being overwhelmed by Irish Catholic immigrants." (wiki)
- "Between 1850 and 1880, 55,000 Mexican workers immigrated to the United States to become field hands in regions that had, until very recently, belonged to Mexico. The institution of Mexican workers in the United States was well established at this time in commercial agriculture, the mining industry, light industry and the railroad. The working conditions and salaries of the Mexicans were poor." (pbs.org)
Posted April 14, 2008 | 07:05 AM (EST)