Letters to the Editor
Joan Walsh
Published Letters: 459 Editor's Choice: 15
-
From Joan Walsh, in two parts
[Read the article: How much can John Edwards help Barack Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]To kenkapkk and XH: I'm sure you'll find fault with parts of these three posts below, but here's what I wrote when Obama's "bitter" remarks first came to light, and then what I wrote about how Obama could do better with white working class voters after he lost Pennsylvania:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/11/pavoters/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/23/penn_wrap/
http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/24/looking_past_pennsylvania/
Here's the tough part for some of you: The fact is, I don't parrot Republican talking points about Obama: I myself see, and am sometimes a little bit put off by, some of the same things Obama's Republican critics see. Now, in that April 11 post, I shared my thought process about what became known as "Bittergate:" At first, I could see why people would be disturbed by the soundbite of what Obama said, but then, I read what he actually said, and I read his rejoinder to Clinton and McCain's use of what he said, and I said I was convinced he meant no disrespect to working class Pennsylvania voters, and that it was a silly issue. (I was the first person, to my knowledge, to print both his entire speech as well as his fiery rejoinder to McCain and Clinton, the Friday night the story was breaking.) But if you read the letters on that post, many people missed my defense of Obama; they were furious I was paying attention to the "bitter" remarks at all. As if, had I ignored the whole thing, it would have gone away. There was a similar dynamic when I paid attention to and criticized Rev. Wright's revenge tour a few weeks later; I was blamed for making it an issue, but of course it did turn out to be an issue (though less important to voters in the next few primaries than some people, including myself, thought it would be.)
I wish I'd been more critical, rather than implicitly critical, of the way Clinton used those particular remarks. But overall, kenkapkk, I don't fault Clinton for trying to take advantage of Obama's troubles with working class voters (notice I didn't say "white working class;" that's a different issue, and I criticized her USA Today remarks harshly. I also know he has no trouble with the black working class, and I know some analysts ignore that, and I don't mean to). Clinton has, perhaps unexpectedly, run a more populist campaign. I don't personally think that's disingenuous; she started her career with the Children's Defense Fund, I think she cares passionately about poverty. XH and many of you might disagree with me on that, that's your right. Some people have argued, somewhat persuasively, that Obama can't run as poverty-oriented a campaign as Clinton or Edwards or else he'd really be marginalized as "the black candidate." I have some sympathy for that. But now he's in danger of being, not marginalized (given his enormous appeal and support), but somewhat limited to being the candidate of "the liberal cultural base" of the Democratic Party, to use Tom Davis's words (thanks, kenkapkk, I hadn't seen that Kos post). I don't think it's particularly helpful to blame American voters for that; I'd rather think of what Obama can do to move out from his base of support. And over the months, I've done that here.
A few more thoughts: XH, please: I'm not saying Obama's never given a fiery speech, or a speech with policy prescriptions. I've quoted from them often, including in the links above, when he shot back fiercely in the wake of the "bitter" controversy, and tackled bread and butter concerns in the wake of losing Pennsylvania. Off the top of my head, perhaps my favorite speech was the one he gave after winning South Carolina: it still gives me goosebumps to remember him talking about the Strom Thurmond supporter he met who voted for him, ending that riff with a passionate: "Don't tell me we can't change; yes, we can!" (I did that from memory; hope it was right.) But overall, I think he stayed too long in the rockstar mode, the big arenas, the "City of Blinding Lights" playing as he strode into a crowd of adoring fans, the long meditations on change, when Clinton was promising to pump and pay for everybody's gas. The proof I'm right? Obama changed that approach in the last month, meeting in smaller groups, talking to blue-collar workers, refining his pitch. Don't tell me he can't change; yes, he can!
I would say that one thing, more than anything else, accounts for my discomfort with the Obama phenomenon: The snobbery of some of his supporters, the self-righteousness, the claim that they're enlightened and smarter and just overall better people than those who won't vote for Obama. Maybe I should append to every post: Yes, there are some people who won't vote for Obama because of racism. Of course I know that. But HealThisNation makes the excellent point that JFK was able to counter West Virginians' suspicions of his Catholicism by working hard at it. There's no doubt that racism makes Obama's job harder, but if we believe he can be president, we have to be tough-minded about the things he can do to minimize that problem.
-
From Joan Walsh -- oops, only one part
[Read the article: How much can John Edwards help Barack Obama?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I trimmed the letter I just posted to keep it under 1000 words, but I didn't change the headline! Sorry.