Why Isn't Obama Ahead by a Landslide as the Economy Collapses? The Psychodynamics of the 2008 Election Come Into Fierce Relief

Once again I've started hearing Blue Staters responding with horror and shock that Obama has not shot McCain out of the water. "How can it be," they ask, "that after 7 years of war, the dramatic and scary economic collapse, growing ecological crisis, and undermining of human rights and civil liberties that Americans are not overwhelmingly rejecting McCain who supported most of the destructive policies of the past and shows no signs of changing them should he be elected? Americans," they go on to say, "must either be stupid, extremely militaristic or racist."

If Obama understood how to answer these blue-staters and their all-too-ready-contempt for the Americans who don't agree with them, he'd have a far greater chance of winning this election. I hope the readers of this note with try to reach him with an analysis I present below of what is going wrong. Unfortunately, many of Obama's own supporters have bought into the "It's the economy, stupid"reductionist view of human needs that gives them no alternative way of understanding. Because if all that people care about is their own material well-being, then they must be irrational to even consider supporting McCain. But that's not the whole story of who we are as Americans.

I remember having these kinds of elitist thoughts myself when Reagan was first elected, but in the twenty-eight years since then I've engaged in a systematic study of the psychodynamics of American politics, and come to realize how very misguided that put-downish analysis of middle income Americans.

What I and my colleagues working on what was originally anNIMH-funded research project on stresses at work and stress in family life -- we ran groups and did interviews with over ten thousand Americans -- discovered is that for a large sector of Americans, the issues are not the issue in a presidential campaign. So they can easily agree with the liberal or progressive candidates on the issues, and hence in any polling appear to be closer to the Democrats than the Republicans, yet in the polling booth it is not those issues that determine their vote.

Instead, what shapes the consciousness of Americans are two psychodynamic issues: the level of their fear vs. the level of their hope, and the degree to which they feel recognized and respected by those who are seeking their vote. One of the terrible problems with the people who have pushed Obama to present himself as more "centrist" is that they don't understand how their role in pushing the candidate away from his own deepest truths has undermined his campaign and made him appear less authentic and hence less trust-worthy. So lets explore these issues.

The level of fear is never static. Though most of us have been subjected to an intense barrage of messages that tell us that we are surrounded by people who only care about themselves, and a world filled with terrorists who seek to destroy us, and that the only path to safety for ourselves or our country is to dominate and control others before they dominate and control us, we've also been exposed to a different set of experiences in which we've learned to recognize that many people who seem hurtful or scary can sometimes be moved by our acting in a sensitive and caring way toward them, and that love and generosity generate more security than attack and attempts to manipulate others.

Truth is that both of those voices are always in most of our heads, and that while our individual psychological history may determine that one or the other holds greater weight, at any given period a set of circumstances (e.g. 9/11 for fear or the collapse of the Soviet Union for hope) may shift social energy more in one direction than another. For that reason, static analyzes that focus on whether a given person grew up with a more patriarchal/domination oriented family or a more nurturing and cooperation oriented family are inadequate, because they fail to notice the way people can transcend their previous conditioning and move in a new direction if the fear or the hope, the domination or the love/generosity aspects of their consciousness are most effectively touched. Reinforcing the voices of hope inside us is the most important task of progressive politics, and that doesn't happen simply by saying "lets be hopeful."

Watch the Republicans and they know how to touch the voice of fear, and reinforce patriarchal/domination views while ridiculing anyone who might be "soft" or "naïve" (e.g. in believing that negotiations would be helpful with Iran or Russia or Venezuela). That same wisdom is not there with the Democrats--they seem unable to affirm that voice of hope, love and generosity in people that must be massively reinforced, particularly in the face of it being put-down and systematically ridiculed. Obama mentioned the right issues (care about others, peace, social justice, ecological sanity) but his talk, and most importantly his campaign and his ads stay away from that, imagining that they can mobilize people around some modified version of the "it's the economy, stupid" consciousness, as though Americans only care about or get scared about the economy.

Of course, they do care about the economy, and there probably will be a bump toward Obama in next week's polling. But they also care about the lack of loving connections in their lives, the level of futility and meaningless in their work, the well-being of their children, and the possibility of peace in the world.

Obama needs to help people see that these very important elements in their lives have been undermined by a society that fosters selfishness, materialism, and a "looking out for number one"consciousness that is endemic to the competitive capitalist marketplace, cheered on by the media, and brought home into personal lives in ways that undermine our capacities to sustain long-term loving relationships undermine our ability to make sacrifices for our communities, and encourages disrespectful or even self-destructive behavior in some of our children. But until Obama and other Dems present a tough and hard-nosed defense of values like generosity, caring for others, and an insistence that our well-being cannot be achieved apart from the well-being of everyone else on the planet, they will continue to be perceived as out of touch with the real worries of many Americans, and weak and afraid of their own values and unable to embody the hope that they need to stimulate in others.

Obama and many other liberals/progressives appear to not really believe in the possibility of a world of love and generosity, and that reinforces the voice of fear in many people who could be won to a politics of hope if anyone appeared to be hard and powerfully into taking those values and showing how they applied concretely in domestic and foreign policy.

An Obama campaign weakens hope (no matter how many times it uses that word) if it can't say clearly the following:

1. The economic crisis is not going to be solved solely by new economic policy wonks -- because the basic cause of our economic meltdown is the selfishness and materialism that has been fostered by a politics that says our highest obligation is to "look for number one." We need a new ethos in our economy, and institutions that will enforce that ethos, based on the notion that we have a responsibility to care for others, and that anyone running corporations, banks, insurance companies, health care institutions, food, or energy related institutions has an obligation to put the common good at the top of their agenda when making decisions, and should be held legally responsible when they instead make decisions based solely on advancing their own profits and not on the welfare of the public which they serve. We need to develop mechanisms to reward those people and those institutions that do make caring for others and social responsibility a high priority when making decisions in the board room or in the way that they conduct their economic life. And we need A New Bottom Line, so that institutions and social practices are judged rational, efficient, and productive not only when they maximize money or power, but also when they foster love and caring, kindness and generosity, ethical and ecological responsibility, and enhance our capacities to respond to the universe with awe and wonder. And if we need to bail out corporations, then we the people whose taxes are going to do this ought to have the right to own those corporations which, if the claims we are being given are true, would have collapsed without out money and gone bankrupt. Regulation, fine -- but those corporations should, if they need our money, but under our democratic control.

2. War is the wrong path to achieve security while generosity and caring for others is the right way, so while we intend to keep a strong military on our shores, we should give equal weight to an equally important strategy: showing that we genuinely care about others, repenting and paying for the damage we did to Iraq, and exploring the possibility of a new Global Marshall Plan that would dedicate 1-2% of the Gross Domestic Produce of the advanced industrial countries each year for twenty years (with the financial help of other G-8 countries) to once and for all end both domestic and global poverty, homelessness, hunger, inadequate education, inadequate health care, and repair the global environment. This is House Resolution 1078 introduced by the first Muslim in the Congress, Keith Ellison, and the details of the plan can be read here. Can we afford it? If we could afford an $85 billion to bail out AIG corporation for the sake of its

3. Saving the environment is not an optional choice but a pressing need, both because our biblical mandate to care for the planet is being undermined by Republican policies that give priority to the rich and the corporations, but also because our future and the future of our children is being undermined at this very moment by polluting our waters, our air, and the products we consume.

4. We not only need to give better pay and attention to teachers, smaller classrooms, and better facilities, but we need to give equal attention to building a new curriculum in our schools that teach how to care for others and the environment, how to communicate in a non-violent way, and teach basic values like generosity, gratitude, responsibility, respect for others, forgiveness when we've been hurt, and how to respond with awe and wonder to the grandeur and mystery of the universe are miseducating our youth.

5. We need to reject the voices in the Democratic party and in the liberal and progressive world who do not adequately understand the legitimate hunger of people for meaning and purpose in their lives that can transcend the materialism and selfishness of the competitive marketplace. There is a religio-phobia in some sectors of the Left in this country that we must challenge, even though we understand that some of it comes from a righteous indignation at the way that some elements of the religious community have forgotten the message of love and caring of the Bible or the Koran and have instead used religion asa justification for sexism, racism or homophobia. We reject that kind of interpretation of misuse of religion, but we must no longer allow ourselves to be portrayed as anti-religion or insensitive to the hunger that Americans have for a return to the traditional values of love, kindness, generosity, individual as well as social responsibility, gratitude, and forgiveness of each other's transgressions. We must affirm unequivocally that we want to strengthen families and create a world that sustains and supports loving commitments rather than only prizes the lone individual out for him or her self. And we intend to challenge overtly the elitism that leads some people in our society to dismiss others who disagree with them as on some kind of lower intellectual or spiritual level. We are populist not only economically, but also in spiritual terms, validating the spiritual hunger of the American people, and on their side in the struggle against the forces that destroy community, family and love.

The point here is that not only must Obama return to his visionary self in order to re-activate the many young people who for a while thought his campaign was about something new (but who have lost some of their excitement as Obama has made compromise after compromise with the ideology of militarism and taking care of the powerful at the expense of the powerless), but that he must do so in a way that appears to be solidly behind a progressive worldview, not apologetically trying to sneak it in bit by tiny bit while allowing the Republican worldview to dominate the ideological debate. When he gets into the television debates, for example, he should actively question the assumptions in questions raised by the television-stars who "moderate" them.

The realists will say, "first get him elected, then we'll raise these more visionary issues." But what I've learned is that it is precisely the willingness of the Republicans to tie their programs to their own value system that makes sense to ordinary people, and that if the Democrats were to start doing that also, and appearing to be hard and tough behind an alternative worldview to the militarism, selfishness and materialism that has been presented as the "common sense" of contemporary political discourse, they would be more effective and more likely to win votes in this election. Doing so would strengthen the hope part of the consciousness of everyone, whereas appearing inconsistent or weak in advocating for what I've described above (and what I call a "spiritual progressive" agenda which we've defined more fully in the Network of Spiritual Progressives' "Spiritual Covenant with America" at strengthens fear.

On the other hand, the video released by Obama on the economic crisison Sept. 17 doesn't really do much to strengthen our more hopeful side. His remedies are superficial and traditional and don't really focus much on what can be done to challenge the ethos that led us to this mess. He talks about greater levels of regulation (and so does McCain -- wow, what an interesting snoozer as they debate exactly which regulations or regulatory bodies will do the best job). He says that we shouldn't be spending money in Iraq on the war, but then he doesn't take the war is the wrong approach, but instead says "we shouldn't be spending our money there -- it should be brought home and spent here" (as though we already were spending too much abroad and needed to concentrate on taking care of ourselves more). Far from sounding visionary and hopeful, Obama sounds like an upbeat technocrat. So soon the argument will be "how much regulation is too much" and "how much spending abroad is too much" instead of about what values guide our economic and foreign policy thinking. No wonder if those are the discussions we will hear, more people will find excitement in talking about Sarah Palin! And more people will think that the message of ending wars and militarism is just utopian nonsense, and that will make them more inclined to listen to McCain who will make his case as someone more experienced in handling things from within the militarist paradigm.

In short, moving to the Center politically is counter-productive not only because it is morally incoherent but because it strengthens the very fears in people about the possibility of a world based on peace and generosity and caring, and hence strengthens the appeal of the McCain/Palin rhetoric of being tougher than anyone else on the planet. For Obama to try to compete on that terrain has proven to be a big mistake. In each area of his political agenda he needs to articulate how his specifics flow from a worldview that is fundamentally at odds with the selfishness, materialism, "looking out for number one" and militarism that has dominated national debate and which always tips in favor of Republicans or conservative Dems. If he keeps hammering at the differences in worldview, and does so in ways that employ the language of the spiritual progressives and the religious traditions of the American people, we will see the expected surge in his support because of the economic meltdown turn into a permanent and landslide-ish level victory.

The answer of liberals has typically been: "the American people are too selfish, stupid or reactionary, so Obama has to be careful and just hint at what we fully believe. They would never buy these lovely ideas that we believe in."

Here we get to the second major mistake of the Democrats, liberals and progressives. Their contempt for the American people, manifested in their unwillingness to say clearly what they really believe (e.g. that the war in Iraq is not just a tactical but a moral error, or that a budget that under funds the needy is an ethical distortion, or that allowing the marketplace to destroy the global environment is a sin not just a question of differences in economic theory) is immediately understood by the rest of the population as elitism and disrespect.

What I learned in my research was that a large group of Americans feel disrespected at work and disrespected in many of the encounters they have with others. They can feel that the Republicans are telling them their own truth--that militarism and self-interest are the key to a good world, but that Democrats are not telling their truth--that love and generosity are the key to a good world--because the Democrats disrespect them so much that they feel that "ordinary Americans" couldn't possibly respond to their message if they told it straight. It is this disrespect that gets triggered by Democrats' caution (they even pick a vice-presidential candidate like Joe Biden who has been hawkish rather than peace- and generosity-oriented whereas the Republicans pick a woman who actually embodies their values). It's not which of these sets of values are better that matters to many people as much as which choice reflects respect for the American people. To the extent that the Dems hide who they are, it's easy to tag them as elitist scum.

Look at the coming debates through this framework: how much has Obama challenged the fundamental worldview of the Right versus how much is he trying to show that he can manage the existing military and economic system within its current set of assumptions. And how much does he speak to the heart of people, not just to their heads, appealing to their better instincts while clearly defining what is wrong with the market materialist and militarist worldview.

So it comes down to this: recognizing that our well-being depends on the well-being of everyone else on the planet, affirming that love and caring are not "soft" but powerful ways of living as individuals and as a nation, rejecting fear-based ideologies (that people will always only care about themselves), and developing respect rather than dismissive elitist attitudes towards those with whom we disagree politically. Until the Democrats get this and convince everyone else that they do, the once again put themselves in danger of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

Rabbi Michael Lerner is editor of , Chair of the Network of Spiritual Progressives and author of The Left Hand of God: Taking Back our Country from the Religious Right, Healing Israel/Palestine, and The Politics of Meaning (and eight other books). He is rabbi of Beyt Tikkun synagogue which conducts High Holiday and Friday night services in San Francisco, and Torah study Saturday mornings in Berkeley. He welcomes your feedback after you've read through those two websites.

Comments

[PhilipCarrington]

However logical it would seem that Obama should be winning by a wide margin the fact is the electorate will focus on the emotional issue of fear of loss, what will I lose if I vote for Obama.

Logic would dictate that after the last 8 years of this administration the voters would see that trickle down economics has not improved the lives of middle class voters however they fear that there taxes will rise with an Obama administration, to assuage this fear the message has to be clear and plausible linking the past Clinton administrations achievements and tax rates to this administrations policies and then ask, did these tax rates destroy small business? Did investment in the market falter? Are you better off now? Will you be better off under a Mcain administration? Emotionally the voter will be able to link the past with the future.

Obama should point to other countries such as Mexico where the wealth is concentrated to the top 5% and trickle down economics has not worked there and then explain that the strength of America is a prosperous middle class.

There are an embarrassment of riches when it comes to the current administrations failure and that in itself creates problems in getting out a clear message, yet the strongest message that Obama enunciated during his acceptance speech was " I am my brothers keeper" I believe that in communicating with the electorate he can remove the fear by building on that philosophy.

[StillIRise]

I appreciate your post and your logic. However, I believe that the only loss some voters perceive for themselves if Obama is elected is a loss of their sense of entitlement or privilege. Senator Obama's entire campaign has been based on the plight of the middle class. Yet, the reality is that many white Americans fear that they will lose something of themselves and of their place in the world order, as they see it, if a black man is elected to be the leader of our country and of the free world. This fear alone is greater than their economic fears, and greater than any other fear they may experience in respect to our domestic or world affairs. Their entrenched racial stereotypes of black people not only dilute their confidence in Senator Obama, but threaten to dilute their own self-image as a white man or woman, which is the foundation of everything they believe about themselves and of their worldview. Nothing Senator Obama does or says can mitigate this. It can only be resolved by their willingness to examine themselves and to release the demons from their own hearts that have entrapped them in this irrational fear. It's a formidable challenge, and it takes a kind of courage and inner strength and determination that many Americans simply aren't up to; but there are many more Americans who are, and this is where my hope in America lies.

[Lulliloo]

The irony is that America gains in respect precisely by electing a black man. Most of t he world is not lilly white and all the imperialistic baggage that entails. Every overseas poll or news article I've seen favours Obama. Conversely the spectre of another four years of Republican nationalist bigotry and war is abhorent to friend and foe alike, which is a main reason why we've "gained" so many enemies and mistrust around the world.

[Clavis]

It's not elitist to value education and intellect and perspective and compassion.

[opinion123]

And by the way Rabbi, come to Pensacola, FL with an OBAMA 08 sticker on your vehicle, you'd be lucky to have enough insurance to pay for the vandalism . These people ride around with rebel flags and stickers espousing how proud they are to be racist calling themselves evangelical Christians and American patriots. However, they would deny you the same right to free speech. There are some good points to your analysis. Nevertheless, you have passed up the opportunity to be more forthcoming with the most egregious of reasons that Obama is not polling in double digits ahead of McCain. Your reasons are only known by you and I really don't mean to second guess you. But I will ask you to give your analysis of why McCain isn't out polling Obama by the same margin.

[bogues]

I think Obama is not further ahead because the Religious Right has been so successful in spreading lies about him. In the name of Christianity, they have insinuated and plainly repeated totally false rumors about this man. They have no shame and practice hypocrisy every single day. I strongly feel that these so called Religious Leaders will be answering to the Almighty one day! John McCain sold his soul to these people by selecting their choice for VPand he no longer has control over his campaign or the Presidency, should he be elected.

[Rubyfoo]

This is a superficial analysis that ignores the complexity of the situation. In order to win, a candidate has to put together enough votes in the right states, drawing from groups with very different views on life and what's important. His analysis ignores this diversity and pretends that one size fits all. Try running for national office some day, rabbi.

[lawman69]

While I agree with most of Rabbi Lerner's conclusions, I have trouble with the argument he uses to get there. Too many straw men.

For example, if "blue-staters" express astonishment that McCain supporters disregard not only economic collapse BUT ALSO the ecology, human rights, civil liberties, and militarism, then how is that complaint "reductionist" or only about "material well-being"?

Why does he distinguish "blue-staters" from "middle income Americans"?

How can he call it "put-downish" to say it seems irrational to support McCain, when his whole point is that people are making judgments based not on actual political issues but instead on "psychodynamics" of fear vs. hope or being "recognized"? That is to say that they're judging with emotion rather than reason -- the very DEFINITION of "irrationa­l."

And how is it really useful to talk about "loving connections in their lives, the level of futility and meaningless in their work, the well-being of their children, and the possibility of peace in the world"? No elected official can do anything about those first two factors, and even the third is iffy.

Still, I DO agree with the basic conclusion that moving toward the "center" is misguided, signalling a lack of integrity. And I definitely agree that Obama ought to speak more about the core principles underlying liberal positions. I loved his mention in the acceptance speech of the need to balance individual responsibility with MUTUAL responsibility. More of that worked into his basic message wouldn't hurt.

[BlueInARedState]

Way too long, Rabbi. MSM demands sound bites. That's been Obama's (and Kerry's) probem: TMI - too much information. Please go back and edit, get to the MEAT of your message, and re-submit. Then let's run it up the flagpole and see if it flies.

Obama doesn't need to re-package hope. (FYI, Fear trumps hope every time.) He needs to be pithy.

[decibelJONES]

Do you mean why isn't Obama ahead by a landslide IN THE POLLS?
Because polls are not an accurate reflection of public opinion.

[opinion123]

For those people who look into the mirror and don't see anything and who must depend on the right wing media to have what resembles an opinion, I say, if you don't think as much of your self as I think of me, that's your problem. It's called self-esteem! It is not elitist to think of ones self as upwardly mobile and capable of making a difference in the lives of ordinary Americans. I believe that were it not for individuals who had an extremely positive vision of the course we as Americans should be on coming to the fore inspite of the obvious risks inherent in American idiocracy, we would still be in the third world category. When we tout the virtues of our special forces, we give them the title of "elite forces." As a vet of the 82nd AirBorne, I appreciated the title. Given that Obama has always spoken to the needs of all Americans, and at serious risk, offered himself to us with sincere intent to bring us back to sound judgements and policies, he should be commended.

[Pulemerci]

I think one of the reasons that Obama is not "ahead by a landslide" is because most Americans don't know enough about Obama (even though he has been campaigning for POTUS for years). Also, what they do know causes some concern. His reverand of 20 years (that he expediently walked away from), his relationship with domestic terrorist William Ayers, convicted felon Tony Rezco, convicted felon Kwami Kilpatrick, radical, communist Saul Alinsky's influence on Obama's community organizing, etc.

[bogues]

Have you seen or heard about the church that Sarah Palin attends! Are you going to make a list of the very interesting associations that John McCain has had and continues to have? To insinuate that someone is not worthy of being President because they have met people who have a past, is really going to eliminate pretty much anyone who is human, from running for President. What I have seen of the life that Obama actually lives, makes me very proud to be a supporter of his. I refuse to let people use half-truths and lies to steer my vote away from this very good man.

[Pulemerci]

Name one thing I posted that is not a fact.

[StillIRise]

Great post and a great response! Those who continue to say that they don't know enough about Senator Obama, or continue to bring up two or three of his associates that they find questionable, are merely looking for excuses to rationalize their prejudices and fear of a black man. We were introduced to Sarah Palin a little more than two weeks ago, and she is still in the process of being vetted, yet there is much to be concerned about in respect to what is being revealed about her. Nonetheless, in spite of what they don't know about her and in spite of the concerns that have arisen, they feel they know Sarah Palin and have embraced her ... because she is white. For this reason alone, they feel that she shares their values and they can identify with her. Likewise, it is also because of the color of Senator Obama's skin that they persist in saying that they don't know enough about him, even though he has been campaigning for two years and has responded both eloquently and adequately to every inquiry that has been presented to him. And now, to bring up Kwami Kilpatrick, another black man, to throw into the mix of Senator Obama's "associates," merely confirms the irrationality of their argument against Senator Obama and their propensity to grasp for straws in their effort to justify and unjustifiable perspective of him.

[odoreida]

What church do you think she attends?

[Pennsylvanianne]

Gee, what about McCain and the Keating Five? Do you have amnesia about that savings and loan scandal?

[Indie2008]

I can understand how alienated and disenchanted voters went for Reagan or G W Bush, running as non-Washington insiders. It is incredulous that McCain is finding success in doing the same.
With trillion dollar deficits, wars and rumors of more, massive corporate bailouts, and blank check relief efforts around the world- The GOP is actually scaring voters with the cliche that if the Democrats are elected, they will "raise taxes". Apparently there are still those who think the spending of the past 8-years will have no due bill, ever!

[frankel1205]

Come to Tennessee, Rabbi. You will see that people who live on two-lane gravel roads in a double wide trailor, who have no idea where their next meal will come from because they haven't had jobs for three years, and whose kids have dropped out of school and are doing meth and having teen sex, who and cannot afford gas to put in their pick-up trucks to look for jobs will vote for McCain/Palin. They are in this predicament because they have been voting for the last 25 years on cultural issues. Even if they cannot eat, it doesn't matter. What matters is that no woman will have an abortion, even if she's raped. Even if someone in their family is dying of cancer and cannot get a doctor, it doesn't matter.
What matters is that they can own as many guns as they can get their hands on, because they need to "defend" themselves. Even if they have to live in the woods because they can no longer pay to rent their mobile home, it doesn't matter. What matters is that two gay men cannot get married. Rabbi, half of the people of this nation are motivated by Fundamentalist religion and racism. Until the next generation can be persuaded and inspired to turn away from these destructive forces, this country will continue on the path to nowhere.

[SouthernBlueBelle]

Amen, sad but oh so true.

[FLGuardsman]

Nice analysis. But, the real reason that Obama isn't "winning" in the polls. Two reasons, Like it or not, he's is a Black Man, and he has very little experience on a national scale. Since the Democratic primaries those two issues have been drilled into the American publics head. Then throw in the Right Wing smears, and they have effectively drilled those two issues in the heads of the electorate. Not that I was a Hilary supporter.­..but, its looking like she would have had a better shot. Like it or not, Hilary would have held every state that Kerry won (possible exception Oregon), and she would have won Florida, and probably won New Mexico and West Virginia. I think its really a case of buyers remorse at this point.
I'll probably catch the wrath of the Obamabots now. But, I am voting for Obama....a­lthough its because McCain lost my vote rather than Obama winning it.

[SouthernBlueBelle]

Hillary might have been a more 'saleable' candidate. The problem would have arisen when she tried to govern. The right-wingnuts would have bogged things down trying to take her down. After all they have accused her of murder before. Hopefully they will be a little better with Obama. (futile dream I fear)

[odoreida]

"The right-wingnuts would have bogged things down trying to take her down."

If you believe your "right-wingnuts" are going to be kinder to Obama than to Clinton, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you.

[kristycu]

I don't think it has any thing to do with buyers remorse- and you don't know for sure that Clinton would have done any better, no one knows. some of it is what frankel1205 said. And other factors. and that the GOP is really good at what it does. I mean think about it, people voted in a warmonger twice without even blinking an eye and these same people now hate bush, but will vote for mccain who on some levels is worse that bush. and just like Obama did not win your vote rather mccain lost your vote- some of that happend in the primaris many of those votes were not necessarily for Clinton, but rather against Obama- because they wanted to be apart of the process. and i don't by the buyers remorse crap (to be fair some people might, but not on the whole) because if people really wanted hillary clinton that bad, they would have come out to vote for her instead of sitting on the side lines and waiting until the last minute to let their voices be heard

[IRepTheKing]

I think you're half right. It has nothing to do with experience, obviously (since RePubs are so excited and supportive of Palin), so it's just his skin tone.

[Citizen54]

With all due respect:
1. Who are these nasty elitist liberals you speak so condescendingly of? All the liberals I know, with the exception of myself, are kind-hearted, compassionate, open-minded people.

2. I am weary of "religious" people telling us how to live, while they support an immoral war and vote for the people who got us into an immoral war and want to perpetuate an immoral war and even start more immoral wars. If that's elitist, then so be it.

3. Seems to me the nonliberals get pretty nasty toward the folks they disagree with. Stop saying it's just the liberals.

4. At some point, enough is freaking enough! Maybe that's why these elitist liberals you speak of are getting a little testy. We're watching our country go down the tubes while the American Taliban are worried about abortion, prayer in schools, and converting the world to one big corporation.

5. How about if we leave God out of it?

6. And to answer the question in your headline: As others have pointed out, it's pretty simple, and it begins with an R. "Spirituality" has nothing to do with it.

[BarryChamplain]

This is a very revealing essay, and speaks to realities that are perhaps not widely understood. But I respectfully take issue with what amounts to the old saw about how liberals are "religio-phobic" (etc.).

We on the Left are constanty being admonished to "understand" America For Dummies; the "salt of the Earth" types who make up the "Real America". Recently, I believe it was Bill Maher who went on a rant and finally shot that one down where it lived. And not a moment too soon.

He's right in that "We" are just as entitled to be here as "They" are, and "They" have one hell of a nerve, representing themselves as "Real Americans"­... while we, ostensibly, aren't. Just because we, say, may come from the East Coast and can construct a sentence does not mean we should hand over our government and culture to slobs who "fear" us .

"We" have been, I think, very patient with the superstitious gomers who have taken our country into the abyss, over the last eight years. I. for one, am tired of having to tiptoe around their sensitivities, religious and otherwise. Do I think they're too stupid to run things? YES. So why HAVE they, all this time? How's that working out for America?

"They" can just start trying to understand "Us" better. "Elite" is, according to definition, a good thing.

[southernindependent]

Mr. Barry,

It is exactly the attitude you show in your blog that keeps middle-Americans from embracing the progressive movement. You would think that after only 3 of the last 10 presidents being from the Democratic Party that the left would learn a few lessons on how to approach the "rest" of America. By the way, as a lifelong Southerner with a engineering undergraduate degree and a MBA, I find your snide comments to be offensive. Your attitude shows exactly why the left has trouble selling it's message to the "Real Americans".

[StillIRise]

We are all "REAL Americans," and I would suggest that to perceive our national identify otherwise is what's wrong with middle-America. Real Americans do not see our nation divided into the red and blue states that Republicans market. Real Americans do not share the worldview of "us against them," or the need to perceive others different from themselves as the enemy. Real Americans seek to transcend our racial divide rather than to simply accept it as the status quo. Real Americans are among the religious and the secular as well. Real Americans are both Republican and Democratic, left and right, and many in between. And Real Americans do not cater to those things that divide us, but seek to unite all Americans as one. Middle-America does not have a monopoly on Real Americans, and if your post reflects the attitude of middle-America, then I propose to you that middle-America needs to be reminded of what America is all about! It's not all about you, it's about all of us.