Letters to the Editor
-
Obama's words
"And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter. Of course they’re frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up -- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them."
You know, these are sensible and well-considered words. Because they are true. Every election season, politicians show up and make outlandish statements. They come down to PA from their NY mansions in their designer pants suits, saying whatever it takes.
And its all shit, really.
And that's what's the matter with Kansas, folks. Clinton and his little magic triangulation machine traded our Democratic issues for the support of the whores of Wall Street. Clinton killed the economic issues for the Democratic Party, because Bill and Hillary don't give a flying fuck for poor people or even middle class people. All they care about is getting elected, and getting on that gravy train.
Obama actually did the organizing. He actually did the work on the street. It's a triumph of Rovian/Swift Boating to take you opponent's strength and attack it directly. It's clever. It's also pretty evil. But HIllary has long since given up any semblence of fair combat. For her, now, it's "whatever it takes" and "dump the kitchen sink on Barack".
What Barack said is true. And he needs to say it more often, because there is a huge truth in that.
It's gonna win him Penn. As Hillary has gotten rid of Mark Penn, she will also get on the losing side of the state of Penn.
-
Anyone who agrees with what Obama said
cannot possibly have a clue of the nature and extent of the damage he did to himself with his comments. He is a dead man walking.
-
To my side:
what's the point of even talking to suarez or cythera? they'll vote for McCain no matter what you say. AKA will tease you about whether she will or no (she likes attention) but at the voting booth, you won't find her, she'll find some other place to play. joan, according to herself, will vote for obama (of course, after he's nominated - not in the cal primary), so it doesn't matter whether you insult her or not (at least in the big picture, which is not our little feelings, but america's next four years). it's a free board, people can write what they wish, but you don't have to humiliate yourselves by trying to convince these people. i have to figure out how i want to participate. this method seems useless.
-
@ Michelle1971: I Disagree, But See Your Points
Obama said it out loud, Clinton wouldn't. If you pat me on the head and tell me I'm doing great when I'm clearly f***ing up, I'm never going to change. I stand behind any candidate that expects me to take responsibility for my part in this democracy instead of merely admonishing those who think differently than I do, and imho, Obama does this more than either McCain or Clinton.
You know, on some level I agree with the personal "responsibility" argument that you make. But that isn't what he was talking about.
I don't think Clinton was patting anybody on the head for bad behavior/actions. I think she - like others - was offended by Obama's statement. I have posted elsewhere in this thread that it probably isn't the claim Obama made as much as it is several important factors:
1] He doesn't connect emotionally with these voters; rather, he seems to look past (and above) them and then goes right to detached analysis - as if it is a social science experiment.
2] His words are all wrong: "these people", "these communities", "these towns", "antipathy", "sentiment". Again, it indicates a detachment from "these people" on the level that they connect. Educated people can talk to/with average joes/janes without being condescending. He doesn't do this. This is a problem generally with the left. We talk at people; we don't communicate and talk with people. And we don't listen very well because we think we have the answers - which is another problem I have with Obama's statement.
3] He is drawing a dangerous conclusion from his place above and beyond both the problem(s) and the people. It is comparable to me going into an inner city Black community where buildings/homes are rundown, seeing broken beer and/or liquor bottles on the streets/in the alleys and concluding that the people are so beaten down that they use alcohol to salve their pain, which leads to violence, etc. And again, it goes back to "these people" - as if "these people" are of one single, simple mind.
4] He is making a moral judgment about a) guns; b) religion; c) white working class people as a group.
5] He is connecting dots that aren't there - unless he has causal relationships that show "these people" (frustrated) take out their anger/frustration in guns/violence, homophobia, xenophobia, religion.
6] He doesn't see the problem with this, which points up arrogance and judgment.
Also, I don't understand the last part of your post here.
-
Obama's Sin
The relevance I attach to whatever class Obama belongs is probably best demonstrated by the fact that when I finished reading Ms. Walsh's article I didn't understand what she was talking about. Going back and re-reading the parts I had skimmed over, I realized that the big transgression that had her and the political commentariat up in arms, had something to do with the fact that this guy had, in their minds anyway, made some sort of comment which they took as insultingly condescending in his speech.
Well, I still didn't quite get it. I went back and re-read what he'd said. Informed now of the nature of his offense, and thinking that maybe I ought to go ahead and shell out for that new early onset Alzheimers genetic test that I read about the other day, I finally found it. Or at least I thought I did. It was that stuff about voting based on guns and religion and the like. Am I right?
Whatever class Mr. Obama originated in, has been initiated into, or otherwise is going to be identified with by the political elites in this country, what he is saying, while perhaps offending the refined sense of politesse that the status of the commenteriat affords them, nonetheless has the singular virtue of being true.
Not only is it true, it matters.
Now, that is not to say that the commentariat cannot, by endless repetition of their vapid pronouncements into the media echo chamber, gin this into some kind of an "issue", and that they may not actually be able to pin it on his back, so that they, and their mortal enemies over at the Faux network can have endless fun engaging in shooting contests to see who can knock the candidate down first.
That's what the commentariat is good at. They certainly aren't worth a damn when it comes to informing the electorate about the substantive issues, and what the candidate's stands are on those issues.
If they were then we might still have something approximating constitutional rights in this country.
The next several years are going to be some of the most trying this nation has ever been through.
The one thing Obama has demonstrated, and in a manner which puts him in another league entirely compared to the other candidates, is the ability to confront uncomfortable, but critically important subjects, without flinching.
If we don't do that in the years ahead, whatever remains of our democracy will be lost