Letters to the Editor
-
Fine line Obama must walk
Currently I'm a high tech professional working in Seattle, one of the "latte urban intellectual" crowd. I grew up though in a blue chip blue collar home in Kentucky. So I know a little bit about rural white Americans who started voting Republican because they felt the Democrats no longer represented them. I don't deny that Sen. Obama spoke a hard truth, but speaking the truth is not enough to win an election. His first order of business will be to convince rural voters that he does not view them with contempt or pity. Sorry, but rural voters tend to be a proud group. They will not vote for you if they think you hate or fear them, no matter how much you offer to improve their daily lives. And Obama's comments did come off as elitist and out-of-touch, no matter how the underlying truth.
But even more importantly, rural voters I know tend to be quite a bit more pragmatic than some of your idealistic urban voters. They want results - and Obama will have to prove that he can deliver those results.
As the old cowboy proverb goes, "a dude who speaks the truth should keep one foot in the saddle."
-
Hillary:
Done.
-
AIN'T IT THE TRUTH?
Barack Obama's message to SWALLOW those BITTER PILLS
Is HARDLY a CANARD, a Bush/McPAIN LIE, or repug SHILLS!
Instead of McPAIN's LUDICROUS JAPES
And HILLARYous Cinton's SOUR GRAPES
It is a BITTER MEDICINE for EVERY Jack and Jill's ILLS!!!!!
-
Great spin job
The problem wasn't that Obama said that people are "bitter", the problem was that he said that their bitterness was what made them "cling" to religion, guns, and racism. I will grant, though, that Obama's campaign and the media have done a wonderful job of spinning this narrative to reduce it to it's least damaging component. I'm sure that Salon will continue to spin for Obama after the primary ends. But I'm not so sure that everybody else will.
-
@ david sugarman
My point is that this discussion can be an honest expression of ideas. I put out my opinions in a straightforward respectful manner. From what I see of c-hammer the point seems to be to stand on the sidelines making smart-ass comments while never really joining the discussion; much like a "bitter" adolescent.
So though it's noble of you to defend him/her, we disagree about what Salon and it's letter thread is about.
Actually when I read her/his/its last comment like a petulant teenager - it does make me laugh - so yeah you're right, pretty funny that one, if you're into adolescent humor.
-
@LibertyOrDeath!
i assume Obama is going to win, so this isn't anything really on topic, but, decades ago, i was a boy in the back seat of my father's car getting car sick and we'd pass Wilkes Barre on route 80. sometimes we'd get off there to get something to eat, sometimes we'd go further, to scranton. my memory is dusty but it seemed to me that wilkes-barre was somehow dingier than scranton, (i hope you don't find that insulting). but from your description, scranton is far worse now (neither were "ghost-towns"). is that true? as i said, i was young and it was decades ago, all i remember were gray skies and houses, lots of houses.
-
Obfuscation on a grand scale
The issue is not being bitter. I am bitter about a number of things not the least which is the fact that this nation elected a complete embecile to two terms to the white house.
People when they lose their jobs and their way of life can become bitter. Duh. This is obvious and not the issue with Obamas statement.
He told upscale people, that low scale people when bitter:
- Turn to religion
- Turn to guns
- Become bigots (antipathy toward people different than them)
If Obama believes this is true, and apparently alot of progressives do believe it's true, then Obama should tell them this to their face, not behind their backs. That would be different and not the same old, same old. Instead he obfuscates and focuses on "bitter" while continuing to grovel for their votes. Typical politician crap.
-
My Mouth Tastes Bitter
It must of been that Clinton cough drop I swallowed....and I still have the cough!
-
Some folks
enjoy satire, even sarcasm; they understand that it can have a point.
Others puff up like disturbed toads……
Not that there’s anything wrong with that…..
-
National bitterness
I believe Barack Obama touched on a nerve, and now the "powers-that-be," both Republican and Democrat, are trying to stop the pain before it makes voters do something crazy, like vote for people who actually will listen to them. These bitter people live in urban, suburban, farming, and other communities besides "small towns" all over the United States of America. I am one of them, and I'm am praying that all of these people will vote for the person they believe is the most likely to listen to them. However, "we the people" need to remember that our vote is not enough. We vote for the person we believe will represent the real people of the USA, not the "corporate person," whatever that is. Then, we must stay on the backs of our officials, reminding them constantly and unabashedly of their promises to us. Write letters, make phone calls, get on the blogs, and take peacefully to the streets to keep our wants and needs on their minds. Please--all those who are bitter, vote and join me. Peace.
-
@david sugarman
"i did mark your words
MCE007 - and yours too, KStone. in a week, after being proved wrong i have hopes you'll slink off and i'll not have to read your opinions again."
Huh, what are you talking about now or have you just gone off the rails again?
-
@sajwan and jebldmm
You both are right but you have to admit it is amusing watching them spin so furiously.
-
Bittergate as a Litmus Test That 99% of Conglomerate Owned Media Fail
Well, I guess I can continue to enjoy Salon for a little while longer. I already quit Slate, possibly for good over this absurd issue.
And it's not that I'm an oversensitive Obamabot. I actually much enjoy hearing legit criticism of my candidate as it means we're returning to something representing legitimate discussion of this campaign. It's the fact that even for what it suggests out of context, it's not a big enough issue to warrant the "America on fire!" relevant-issue-blasting attention it's getting. And what does it suggest out of context? That a lot of Pennsylvanians are big on religion, guns, anti-gay sentiment and immigration issues?
But where it really gets my goat is the wide-spread failure of journalists to take their responsibility as the fourth estate seriously. Even Madden's article, though clearly in defense of Obama doesn't bother with the token research necessary to see that he was actually being both extraordinarily candid and sensitive to the small town working class Pennsylvanians.
The statement was a response to a simple question: What challenges do we face in Pennsylvania? Obama's response was that people have been promising relief to this particular demographic and then throwing it under the bus post-election for so long that they don't trust people who bring messages of hope and change. Especially, he jokes, coming from a guy with a name like his. As a consequence of this, they have learned to be wary of people with messages that help is on the way and stick to other wedge issues based on guns, religion, and a distrust of people unlike them built on the idea that the country is being usurped by people who have no sympathy for them.
In the last paragraph of his reply, IMMEDIATELY after the statement the media has been wildly and irresponsibly spinning as an elitist generalization, he follows up by warning people not to overly generalize the situation based on demographics, that in his experience you'll run into plenty of opposition in communities where you might expect him to be popular and plenty of allies in communities that put Bush into power by riding the blame vote.
I'm not yanking anybody's chain here. You read the original context and it's plain as day. Much of the country is being played for fools by the media that is supposed to keep us informed and provide a reasonably objective view of the facts. The widespread dissemination of a very flawed interpretation of Obama's statement without question leaves me struggling to choose between one of two conclusions.
US Journalists have either become hopelessly incompetent or the conglomerate owned media has allowed the profit motive to dominate their policies to the point where they are willing to manufacture and maintain artificial controversy to keep the country locked in useless debates that keep us from addressing the very real and very serious issues.
I'm sick and tired of hearing all of this meta-interpretation desired to provoke reactions from the audience. What ever happened to giving a meaningful account and analysis of the day's events? It's ok to have an opinion as long as you don't attempt to twist facts to support it.
Another statement people have been missing from the full text of Obama's reply is that he believes the best way to reach these people is to get to the point quickly and tell them exactly how you hope your policies will help them. I think he's dead right on this and the media would do well for itself to consider why it is they're so sick of anything other than straight-talk on the issues.