- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I want to thank 2dumb2think for posting Obama's entire response. In context, I think it is very hard to argue that Obama is being insulting or elitist. I actually find it amazing, given that the whole answer is on this thread, that there are still people arguing these points. You have the right to argue, certainly, but I have to confess I'm not even close to seeing your point. I think his argument is very respectful and honest, he's saying Pennsylvanians in depressed areas have an absolute right to be dubious of economic reforms, because they've been promised shiny futures every election cycle and yet the evidence of their eyes shows no improvement. I think he's absolutely right people would vote their pocketbooks more if they thought it would do them any good. There's a credibility gap that the politicians have when they talk about these issues to people who have been promised relief for a while and have yet to see it. The way he phrases it, though, it's his problem, not theirs. He has to convince them that he's different, that he's sincere about changing their economic existence in a meaningful way. That his promises aren't going to disappear in a puff of smoke the day after election day. Correct me I'm wrong, but that's what I see as his point, and I completely fail to see the elitism in it.
Mostly, I think just the use of the word "cling" was unfortunate, due mostly to the connotations of weakness associated with it, which I think led people to feel he was mocking them. This connotational baggage only becomes stronger when you strip away all the context, of course. Change "cling" to "emphasize" (as I guess he probably would have if this were a scripted remark from a speech) and I think the whole thing becomes a much harder sell. Oh well, I guess that'll teach him to try to give a detailed, nuanced answer to a difficult question on the fly.
