Obama says some voters are angry, bitter

[frasier]

Americans have turned in to a bunch of whiners that don't understand the meaning of hardship and sacrifice anymore.
Without a doubt the US has had unprecedented growth and prosperity for at least 30 or 40 years now with very few serious interuptions. Can anyone here even recall the last serious recession? The answer is no....this extended period of prosperity has created a climate of expectations and the false believe that prosperity is limitless and just happens.

Now God forbid we have some difficulties, which in comparison to events of the past ( i.e. great depression, WW2 etc.) are relatively minor.
When compared to the economic living standards to MOST of the world Americans are well off, by pretty much any standard.

This expectation of gain without pain is very well illustrated in the subprime mortgage mess.....while there might have been some predatory lending going on (although I am still waiting for charges to be filed)...the vast majority of this crisis is self inflicted.
Instead of dealing with the "pain" of the situation the almighty goverment steps in and in order to protect votes tries to make everybody happy. Which in my opinion worsens the problem in the long run.

Some of these whiners should talk to some of the older generation to find out what real economic pain is.

Obama has skillfully explored this whiny mood and in true preacher fashion is promising everybody to take away their pain.

 

[Aardvark154]

It sounds like you're mischaracterizing. The way I read it, Obama said that people getting hung up on certain (fringe) issues and voting based on narrow considerations is the result of bitterness. Nowhere does he say that certain positions are exclusively the result of bitterness.

Senator Obama said - not once but twice: "You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. It's not surprising then they get bitter. They cling to guns, or religion, or antipathy to people who aren't like them, or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

That statement certainly can be, and many people are reading it to state that the reason people support 2nd Amendment rights, or are devout, or oppose illegal immigration, or indeed, which you would think Senator Obama would like, oppose Free-Trade Agreements is because they are bitter, backward and have nothing in their lives since the jobs left.

That he originally made the comments at a very up scale San Francisco area fund-raiser certainly gave it a certain j'ne se quois all its own.

Senator Obama latest quasi-appology following statements that he “didn't say it as well as I should have” and then later "If I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that." Is “The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important. That's what sustains us. But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to. . .And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives, and what we need is a government that is actually paying attention. Government that is fighting for working people day in and day out making sure that we are trying to allow them to live out the American dream."

That certainly is a nice political spin for the Senator to put on his remarks but that isn’t at all the tone of what he said. It was rather that the reason people support 2nd Amendment rights, or are devout, or oppose illegal immigration, oppose Free-Trade Agreements is because they are bitter, backward, and have nothing in their lives since the jobs left not because they have strongly felt rational political beliefs.

Michael Goodwin, of the New York Daily News, states that Senator Obama was "de-legitimizing the way people choose to live in America" and that “This is like Wright on steroids. It is a disaster for Obama. I happen to come from one of those small towns in Pennsylvania. I know what people there feel about religion and guns and immigrants. . .It's not about just hating other people. They don't embrace religion out of hate. They don't hunt or use their guns for target practice out of hate. You cannot denigrate religion in that way."

And, Democrat Party strategist Robert Zimmerman is quoted in a number of places saying that Senator Obama’s statement "raises questions about whether he can truly unite the country, as he pledges to, and whether he really believes that we're one America."

 

[cypherpunk]

That statement certainly can be, and many people are reading it to state that the reason people support 2nd Amendment rights, or are devout, or oppose illegal immigration, or indeed, which you would think Senator Obama would like, oppose Free-Trade Agreements is because they are bitter, backward and have nothing in their lives since the jobs left.

And why do you insist on the stronger reading of it? Why ISN'T he just talking about would-be supporters that won't get behind his platform because of bitterness toward the federal government?

 

[Aardvark154]

And why do you insist on the stronger reading of it? Why ISN'T he just talking about would-be supporters that won't get behind his platform because of bitterness toward the federal government?

As the otherwise forgotten satirist Tom Brown wrote.

"I do not love thee, Dr Fell, The reason why I cannot tell;
But this I know, and know full well, I do not love thee, Dr Fell."

I can just as easily ask why are you so instant on giving the Senator a “walk” for a stupid and arrogant remark.

 

[cypherpunk]

I can just as easily ask why are you so instant on giving the Senator a “walk” for a stupid and arrogant remark.

I'm not giving him a walk. The topic of discussion was HIS BASE and why it was lacking. To assume that he was talking about the entire electorate is is nothing short of brain dead.

 

[Asterix]

I can just as easily ask why are you so instant on giving the Senator a “walk” for a stupid and arrogant remark.

No one is giving him a walk, but such comments come with the business of hyper politics today. It would be comforting to think that the candidate who made the fewest stupid and arrogant remarks would emerge victorious, though the last two presidential elections obviously proved that wrong.

 

[Aardvark154]

I'm not giving him a walk. The topic of discussion was HIS BASE and why it was lacking. To assume that he was talking about the entire electorate is is nothing short of brain dead.

I don't see that this thread is about who makes up Senator Obama's Political Base. The o.p.'s post starts out

Obama says some voters are angry, bitter
The danger of a prolonged lull in the primaries is that you get off message.

In the midst of an assault from his rivals, a defensive Barack Obama said Friday that many working-class Americans are angry and bitter over economic inequalities and have lost faith in Washington -- and, as a result, vote on the basis of other issues such as gun protections or gay marriage.

To me that makes this thread about Senator Obama's remark(s) about Pennsylvania voters (or rural white voters in general).

 

[cypherpunk]

I don't see that this thread is about who makes up Senator Obama's Political Base.

"In Terre Haute, Obama said he did describe some voters as bitter when a donor asked why working-class voters in Pennsylvania were not getting behind his campaign."

Mine is the most reasonable interpretation. If you want to go beyond the limited reading, you'll need a clear and convincing reason to do so, ideally one found in the transcript. And just a hint, if it were there, it would be in the article. If this were as open and shut as you want to believe, it would be much more sensational.

 

[Aardvark154]

"In Terre Haute, Obama said he did describe some voters as bitter when a donor asked why working-class voters in Pennsylvania were not getting behind his campaign."

Mine is the most reasonable interpretation. If you want to go beyond the limited reading, you'll need a clear and convincing reason to do so, ideally one found in the transcript. And just a hint, if it were there, it would be in the article. If this were as open and shut as you want to believe, it would be much more sensational.

Seems its made most world newspapers.

And quotes such as Senator Obama was "de-legitimizing the way people choose to live in America" and “This is like Wright on steroids. It is a disaster for Obama," aren't mine they're from newspapers.

Oh, and the "not getting behind his campaign" remark was made yesterday as part of the damage control operation. Not as part of the Senator's original statements.

 

[MrSmirf]

"In Terre Haute, Obama said he did describe some voters as bitter when a donor asked why working-class voters in Pennsylvania were not getting behind his campaign."

Mine is the most reasonable interpretation. If you want to go beyond the limited reading, you'll need a clear and convincing reason to do so, ideally one found in the transcript. And just a hint, if it were there, it would be in the article. If this were as open and shut as you want to believe, it would be much more sensational.

LMAO, oh my someone just got burned. People will read into things the best way it suits their political ideology even ignoring relevant range when it suits them.

 

[Asterix]

Obama's real mistake in this was twofold. First, voters never like being told how they feel, bitter or otherwise. Second, the whole comment about people "clinging to guns and religion", was an unabashed stupid remark. How much this will effect his campaign time will tell, but I noted a year ago that I thought he was jumping into running for President four years too soon. Way tougher than it looks, George aside.

 

[cypherpunk]

Oh, and the "not getting behind his campaign" remark was made yesterday as part of the damage control operation. Not as part of the Senator's original statements.

But it's a perfectly plausible explanation and you haven't a single reason to doubt it. If the evidence is there, you can find it. And when I say sensationalist, I mean you could destroy the man with it if you could PROVE the validity of your position. If you don't prove it, you won't sway a single person away from him.

 

[friendz4evr]

From today's New York Times:

Senator Barack Obama fought back Saturday against accusations from his rivals that he had displayed a profound misunderstanding of small-town values, in a flare-up that left him on the defensive before a series of primaries that could test his ability to win over white voters in economically distressed communities.

For a second day, Mr. Obama sought to explain his remarks at a recent San Francisco fund-raiser that small-town Pennsylvania voters, bitter over their economic circumstances, “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them” as a way to explain their frustrations.

Acknowledging Saturday that “I didn’t say it as well as I should have,” he explained his remarks by focusing on his characterization of those voters’ economic woes. He meant, he said, that voters in places that had been losing jobs for years expressed their anxiety at the polls by focusing on cultural and social issues like gun laws and immigration.

I didn't say it as well as I should have? This from the candidate people love for his rhetoric?

 

[friendz4evr]

Obama's real mistake in this was twofold. First, voters never like being told how they feel, bitter or otherwise. Second, the whole comment about people "clinging to guns and religion", was an unabashed stupid remark. How much this will effect his campaign time will tell, but I noted a year ago that I thought he was jumping into running for President four years too soon. Way tougher than it looks, George aside.

I think the inexperience is showing.

 

[dreamer]

Politics at their best, even from terb members.

If you actually listen to and read what Obama said in whole, rather than relying on someone else to intrepret it for you, then maybe you would realize he is right.

However, we are all lazy voters who would rather listen to the intrepretations.

I could easly turn it around on both Clinton and McCain by intrepreting their response by saying that based on their comments they see no need for real change.

Clinton is desperate. Clinton is a liar. Clinton will say anything to get elected. The problem is that we have been so cynical for so long when it comes to politicians that we seem to accept it and when a politician states an ugly truth we attack them.

 

[papasmerf]

Obama clings to a man who is clearly a bigot (rev Wright) and yet he looks down his nose at whites, blacks, hispanics and every other culture that cling to Christ.

 

[Aardvark154]

Politics at their best, even from terb members.

If you actually listen to and read what Obama said in whole, rather than relying on someone else to intrepret it for you, then maybe you would realize he is right.

Actually you will see that above I quoted extensively from what the Senator did say. Further, even earlier in the thread I wrote that though from a sociological perspective there were certain truths to it, from a political perspective it was a stupid comment.

Actually the best aspect of politics at its best is seeing some of the same posters who have taken potshots left, right and sideways at the current U.S. Administration brisling at Senator Obama being attacked. Now I can already feel the fingers whacking on keyboards - that's different he's the worst president ever etc. . . which merely goes to reinforce the point - it all depends on whose ox is being gored.

 

[onthebottom]

Americans have turned in to a bunch of whiners that don't understand the meaning of hardship and sacrifice anymore.
Without a doubt the US has had unprecedented growth and prosperity for at least 30 or 40 years now with very few serious interuptions. Can anyone here even recall the last serious recession? The answer is no....this extended period of prosperity has created a climate of expectations and the false believe that prosperity is limitless and just happens.

Now God forbid we have some difficulties, which in comparison to events of the past ( i.e. great depression, WW2 etc.) are relatively minor.
When compared to the economic living standards to MOST of the world Americans are well off, by pretty much any standard.

This expectation of gain without pain is very well illustrated in the subprime mortgage mess.....while there might have been some predatory lending going on (although I am still waiting for charges to be filed)...the vast majority of this crisis is self inflicted.
Instead of dealing with the "pain" of the situation the almighty goverment steps in and in order to protect votes tries to make everybody happy. Which in my opinion worsens the problem in the long run.

Some of these whiners should talk to some of the older generation to find out what real economic pain is.

Obama has skillfully explored this whiny mood and in true preacher fashion is promising everybody to take away their pain.

Spot on.

Except people don't believe in secure boarders, gun rights or god because of job losses.

OTB

 

[onthebottom]

You're not making any sense.

People don't believe in God because of job losses?

I believe Obama said that people in small towns who had lost good jobs were bitter and clung to beliefs / value systems like gun ownership, anti-immigration and religion as a result.

I don't think people come to these beliefs because they've lost a job.

OTB

 

[Aardvark154]

Gee the FOB (in this case Barack not Bill) are going to begin to feel like the best friends of the current President for the past four years.

Now various newspapers are mentioning that Senator Obama has participated in academic conferences with, and received campaign support from William Ayers (a professor of Education at the University of Illinois - Chicago) and his wife Bernadine Dohrn. The only problem being that both are unrepentant members of the former Weather Underground Terrorist Group.

One Clinton type Democrat is quoted as saying “The guy is an unrepentant terrorist, so please, explain why you aligned yourself with him. It is a fundamental question of judgment. By the time he was hanging around with Ayers, his position was well known. He was not a freedom fighter; he belonged to a violent terrorist group.”

Meanwhile from spin central (the place we’ve heard that every presidential statement of the past eight years has come). The Obama campaign stated “Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of criminal violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect him with events of almost 40 years ago is patently ridiculous.” The only problem is that I don’t think anyone is talking about the 1970's they are talking about feeling that murdering police officers and blowing up Armed Cars was the right thing to do and there is no need to apologize.

Joe Klein, says “sadly, [patriotism is] a crucial challenge for Obama now.”

Unfortunately it is a truism that in politics “what goes around, comes around.”