1
   

Obama calls small-town Americans "bitter"

 
 
georgeob1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 10:23 am
Whether the characterization was accurate or not likely is influenced by one's point of view. Obama appeared to be suggesting that the prrincipal reason for the political & social affiliations that are associated with small town, blue collar America is the bitterness that results from their relative lack of economic success and apparent exclusion from contemporary growth trends.

The factual problem with this characterization is that it is demonstrably false. A fondness for gun ownweship & hunting and religious values is a characteristic of the region today - just as it was in the 1950's when the region was booming economically and the population was presumably infected with no such bitterness.

In the face of this obvious fact the elitist and patronizing character of his assessment becomes fairly clear. Moreover, the remarks, given as they were before an audience of rich, liberal, San Francisco political donors, can also be seen as toadying up to the component of the political spectrum that provided him with all the personal advantages he enjoyed through affirmative action and access to elite universities.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 10:31 am
This whole thing is a molehill that the right is desperately trying to make into a mountain.

The fact that they are this desperate already, and the guy hasn't even been declared the nominee yet, is a great sign for Obama.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 10:52 am
Probably wise to wait til actual is the nominee to declare it good news.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:02 am
Why? Good news is good news, no matter when it happens. I'm not arrogantly predicting anything here, chuckles, just pointing out the desperation.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:11 am
kickycan wrote:
Why? Good news is good news, no matter when it happens. I'm not arrogantly predicting anything here, chuckles, just pointing out the desperation.


Bit tempermental there dimples, I wasn't accusing you of anything.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:11 am
georgeob1 wrote:
Whether the characterization was accurate or not likely is influenced by one's point of view. Obama appeared to be suggesting that the prrincipal reason for the political & social affiliations that are associated with small town, blue collar America is the bitterness that results from their relative lack of economic success and apparent exclusion from contemporary growth trends.


I didn't quite read it the same way. I took him to be saying that people are cynical in these places about what government can be, and have been pandered to and promised the moon in every prior election so telling them what the government can do for them isn't likely to work. And that given that they've given up on government doing anything to make their lives better, they vote on social issues.

Quote:
In the face of this obvious fact the elitist and patronizing character of his assessment becomes fairly clear. Moreover, the remarks, given as they were before an audience of rich, liberal, San Francisco political donors, can also be seen as toadying up to the component of the political spectrum that provided him with all the personal advantages he enjoyed through affirmative action and access to elite universities.


I'm not seeing the connection between political donors in San Francisco and supposed personal advantages he enjoyed. As far as I can tell his only advantage was access to education and I have no reason to believe that he received that access through affirmative action.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:12 am
McGentrix wrote:
Bit tempermental there dimples, I wasn't accusing you of anything.


No, but you were insinuating that my post was either premature or arrogant in some way, which it wasn't, Bubbles.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:15 am
Actually, Bambi, I was just warning that this could backfire and give Hillary the nomination which would certainly not be good news for Obama.
0 Replies
 
kickycan
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:26 am
Whatever you say, Scruffy.
0 Replies
 
2PacksAday
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 10:31 pm
I am not bitter.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:15 pm
georgeob1 wrote:
Whether the characterization was accurate or not likely is influenced by one's point of view. Obama appeared to be suggesting that the prrincipal reason for the political & social affiliations that are associated with small town, blue collar America is the bitterness that results from their relative lack of economic success and apparent exclusion from contemporary growth trends.

The factual problem with this characterization is that it is demonstrably false. A fondness for gun ownweship & hunting and religious values is a characteristic of the region today - just as it was in the 1950's when the region was booming economically and the population was presumably infected with no such bitterness.

In the face of this obvious fact the elitist and patronizing character of his assessment becomes fairly clear. Moreover, the remarks, given as they were before an audience of rich, liberal, San Francisco political donors, can also be seen as toadying up to the component of the political spectrum that provided him with all the personal advantages he enjoyed through affirmative action and access to elite universities.


George, you should be able to better than to just regurgitate right-wing talking points. Unlike many here, I know you are an intelligent guy.

Obama wasn't talking about a fondness for guns or anything close. He was talking about the frustration that leads blue collar types to vote against gay marriage or for gun rights and forget their economic interests. The Gay, Guns and God platform that the Republicans have gotten these people to vote for AND against their own economic interests for years. Obama was only speaking the truth but calling people bitter was a bad choice of a word, he should have said "frustrated. "
0 Replies
 
barackman28
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Apr, 2008 11:22 pm
A great post, Roxanne. Anyone who has studied American History knows that our most grevious sin has been our mistreatment of African-Americans beginning with the arrival of the first slaves down to the present day.

WE MUST expiate those sins by electing a man who stands head and shoulders in intellect, courage, charisma, and politcal will above Senators Clinton and/or Senator McCain.

Those who have read Senator Obama's excellent books will realize that he is indeed a man for our time. All we have is the future. The past is gone and,presently, we are only spinning our wheels. Senator Obama gives us HOPE for the FUTURE!!
0 Replies
 
Miller
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 07:54 am
Quote:
our most grevious sin has been our mistreatment of African-Americans


"Our"?

If you've sinned against Blacks, have you confessed these sins to your priest and received forgiveness?

I have never sinned against a Black and thus I'll never have to seek forgiveness...especially from a priest. Cool
0 Replies
 
barackman28
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 02:29 pm
Oh please!!! Blacks have been subject to enormous prejudice and discrimination both de jure and de facto for years. Anyone who does not know that is not living in the USA. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If you have not voted for those who wish to remove the stain of bigotry and discrimation from the USA each time that you voted, you are part of the problem.
0 Replies
 
Ramafuchs
 
  1  
Reply Thu 17 Apr, 2008 02:52 pm
Bitty Bottle bought some butter.
The butter Bitty Bottle bought was Bitter.
So Bitty Bottle bought some other butter
to make the bitter boughter better..
No a tongue-twister
0 Replies
 
hanno
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 11:03 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
hanno wrote:
Dumbass, rabble-rousing, and an idiot - how terrible. Who might be the rabble? Perhaps if I know I'll understand why rousing them is a bad idea.

Different politics? He talked **** about the disenfranchised to their faces, thought they'd eat it up. Oddly enough he's half right about PA being wound up, when I moved there from Illinois (Ha!) there was distrust and vindictiveness, but using that as an excuse to legislate against them and expect to hear 'thanks'? We've all got our cross to bear - what might his justification be to come down on how I live?

Even if he could de-'bitter' the rust-belt, which would be a neat trick since the kind of jobs they like, and still have to some extent are harder, but much more rewarding than the ones he's selling, he'd be doling out what they've been getting jerked around over for half a century. There's a sense of entitlement, as well there should be - it worked out for everybody, and everybody bought in for a while. He's making what they think is theirs (correct or not, they believe that claim) a bargaining chip and the root of a character flaw they've got that neatly ad-hominems away the validity of their feelings en-masse.

Being high-handed/condescending with people when they're on their heels doesn't leave them a whole lot of options - if he weren't out of touch (thanks Mr. McCain), on a power trip, and from a tropical island he'd have an intuitive grasp of that concept.


I have a hard time understanding what this has to do with what he said, at all. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that it has nothing to do with it.

Cycloptichorn


Snood, he called me various things because I said Obama would get torn apart if he told the crowd at Lincoln Stadium they're full of **** and will get they's jobs back if they obey him. I should have quoted but I hate those nested-quotes, too contentious.

I mean, I know quite well those folk are assholes, but who is Obama to say it like it makes him the man with the plan? I know for one thing they'd they'd have strong enough feelings, in the right context to tear the joint apart over it - they booed Santa when the team was losing for christ's sake, used to have a judge on the premesis for orderly prosecution. Is not a fightin' asshole better than a whining asshole? I think more should be made of this. It's the very sap of the American Spirit he's insulted and brought up like justification for fascism!
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Mon 21 Apr, 2008 11:24 pm
barackman28 wrote:
Oh please!!! Blacks have been subject to enormous prejudice and discrimination both de jure and de facto for years. Anyone who does not know that is not living in the USA. If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem. If you have not voted for those who wish to remove the stain of bigotry and discrimation from the USA each time that you voted, you are part of the problem.


Miller's point is that he is not prejudiced against blacks and will not be broadbrushed into that category.

And I agree.

To accuse all whites of racism is just as bad.

Moreover, I would like to know how electing the 'right ' candidate for ANY public office will remove bigotry from the hearts and minds that it pollutes.

It won't.

No matter who is elected President, it will not magically make America heaven on earth.

Changed hearts don't come from electing the right person to office.

Give it up if you think it will happen , 'cause you're in for one MAJOR disappointment when your political messiah (R or D) doesn't deliver.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/28/2024 at 10:19:14