- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
I am one of those voters who had actually not made up his mind until this entire episode regarding "bitter" came up. Perhaps it's as Bob Somerby states: that the Obamaphiles are getting their just due after their hysterical race-baiting of the Clintons. But I would appreciate some insight into the entire controversy and we really need to change the narrative. I am tired of verbal gaffes now getting tagged with the "-gate" label: it has the effect of simultanously trivializing one of the most serious abuses of power and Constitutional crises in our nation's history and elevates the most mundane political issue to a major scandal. This just has to stop. If educated members of the journalistic profession have such little imagination or knowledge of our political history perhaps they should find more suitable employment in food service. Now regarding the statement itself, I think it is unfair to categorize the statement or sentiment as "elitist" which means snobbery or someone who despises people or things as inferior. I didn't hear that. Obama said nothing that Frank Thomas in "What's the Matter With Kansas" expressed so it's probably best to review this thesis: it is that people have been voting against their own best economic interests by voting for Republicans and policies that benefit the rich because they are alienated from the political process and are diverted by "social" issues raised by right wing demagogues. It is possible as Somerby posits that this thesis is essentially calling people rubes. But there is a more valid and stronger interpretation: perhaps it's a comment on human nature and how people can be manipulated by certain economic elites. It is true that Obama is part of an American elite--as are Clinton and McCain and most previous presidents and presidential candidates--but that is different from being "elitist." The elite are those gifted with educational, economic or social success in some measure. We don't expect any less from our presidents given the importance of the position, though we seem to have gone wide of the mark on Bush II, confusing inheritance with acquired attributes. I have found that Obama has engaged all of the people in this country with courtesy and without malice, assuming that they are good and have the capacity for understanding, as he did in his speech regarding his pastor (regardless of the fact that the controvery in that case was mischaracterized and overblown when the entire sermons were heard). Yes, people are bitter and they have had their attention diverted from the real problem in the past but, he says, not this time. Perhaps it's not good politics but it speaks to us as adults. I now support Mr. Obama.
