Opponents Call Obama ‘Out of Touch’-New York Times

[stenka razin]

From The New York Times

Article by Jeff Zeleny-April 12th, 2008

Terre Haute, Indiana-As Senator Barack Obama sought to broaden his appeal to voters in southern Indiana on Friday, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and John McCain separately criticized him as being out of touch with the middle class, seizing on a remark Mr. Obama made at a California fund-raiser about “bitter” Americans.

At the fund-raiser in San Francisco last Sunday, Mr. Obama outlined challenges facing his presidential candidacy in the coming primaries in Pennsylvania and Indiana, particularly persuading white working-class voters who, he said, fell through the cracks during the Bush and Clinton administrations.

“So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” Mr. Obama said, according to a transcript on the Huffington Post Web site, which on Friday published the comments.

The remarks touched off a torrent of criticism from Mrs. Clinton, Mr. McCain and Republican activists and party officials, all accusing Mr. Obama of elitism and belittling the working class. Mr. Obama forcefully rejected those charges when he arrived at a rally here on Friday evening, drawing a standing ovation in a crowded gymnasium when he painted both of his rivals as entrenched Washington insiders.

“No, I’m in touch,” Mr. Obama said. “I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what’s going on in Indiana, I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed up, they’re angry, they’re frustrated, they’re bitter and they want to see a change in Washington. That’s why I’m running for president of the United States of America.”

With 10 contests remaining in the Democratic presidential primary, Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton are engaged in a vigorous dispute over which candidate could be the party’s strongest nominee against Mr. McCain.

In Pennsylvania on Friday, Mrs. Clinton was first to seize upon the comment Mr. Obama made at the California fund-raiser. The Democrats are embroiled in a vigorous battle for the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

“It’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter; well, that’s not my experience,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience at Drexel University. “Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them; they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”

After her remarks, aides to Mrs. Clinton issued several statements criticizing Mr. Obama, including ones that contained criticism from Republicans. Soon, the McCain campaign also weighed in with criticism of Mr. Obama’s remarks at the California fund-raiser.

“It shows an elitism and condescension toward hard-working Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.”

While the Obama campaign initially dismissed the criticism in a written statement from its Chicago headquarters, his advisers quickly concluded that Mr. Obama’s remarks could be a political liability as he sought to win over working-class voters. He responded with unusual force at a town meeting at a high school in Terre Haute, Ind., seeking to explain his statement that voters are bitter.

“Here’s what’s rich,” Mr. Obama said. “Senator Clinton said, ‘Well I don’t think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack is being condescending.’ John McCain said, ‘How could he say that? How could he say that people are bitter? He obviously is out of touch with people.’ Out of touch? Out of touch? John McCain — it took him three times to finally figure out that home foreclosure was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch?”

The audience, made up largely of Democratic voters, rose and applauded as Mr. Obama delivered his defense. Late Friday evening, the Clinton and McCain campaigns criticized Mr. Obama once again for failing to express regret for his remark.

“Instead of apologizing for offending small town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week,” said Phil Singer, a spokesman for Mrs. Clinton. He added, “Americans are tired of a President who looks down on them, they want a President who will stand up for them for a change.”

Tucker Bounds, a spokesman for Mr. McCain, issued a similar response.

“Instead of apologizing to small town Americans for dismissing their values, Barack Obama arrogantly tried to spin his way out of his outrageous San Francisco remarks,” Mr. Bounds said, adding: “You can’t be more out of touch than that.”

[Barry]

That line could hurt Obama here in PA and also in the general election. There are a lot of struggling people in the heartland who may vote GOP most of the time, but who could have been swayed to the Dems this year because of frustration with the economy and the war. But when they see the Democratic nominee describing their lifelong comfort with gun ownership and their religion-inspired social views as scapegoating, they're probably going to feel that, yes, this guy is out of touch and an elitist.

I think the GOP should and will hit him hard on that in the general election campaign; and sooner.

[RebLem]

You can't tell the truth anymore.

That's fine with McCain, and, especially Hillary. But we all are the losers.

Posted on April 12, 2008, the 288th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem

[Fugu]

That line could hurt Obama here in PA and also in the general election. There are a lot of struggling people in the heartland who may vote GOP most of the time, but who could have been swayed to the Dems this year because of frustration with the economy and the war. But when they see the Democratic nominee describing their lifelong comfort with gun ownership and their religion-inspired social views as scapegoating, they're probably going to feel that, yes, this guy is out of touch and an elitist.

I think the GOP should and will hit him hard on that in the general election campaign; and sooner.

Barry, if there was anyone on this board who I would disassociate with the religious-inspired, gun ownership rightwingers, it would be you. Sad that you actually would support such a candidate as McCain who has associated himself with such people.

[keaggy220]

That line could hurt Obama here in PA and also in the general election. There are a lot of struggling people in the heartland who may vote GOP most of the time, but who could have been swayed to the Dems this year because of frustration with the economy and the war. But when they see the Democratic nominee describing their lifelong comfort with gun ownership and their religion-inspired social views as scapegoating, they're probably going to feel that, yes, this guy is out of touch and an elitist.

I think the GOP should and will hit him hard on that in the general election campaign; and sooner.

Barry, if there was anyone on this board who I would disassociate with the religious-inspired, gun ownership rightwingers, it would be you. Sad that you actually would support such a candidate as McCain who has associated himself with such people.

Barry is in the company of our founding fathers who wrote the second amendment, were gun owners, and most were devout in their faith.

I'm not sure if Barry believes in any of these things, but he understands that a candidate cannot come away unscathed when they flippantly demean so many Americans fundamental beliefs.

It's about respecting other peoples opinions. I've heard a lot of democrats accuse Bush of not respecting differing opinions, but they are sure cozying up to a man who has shown evidence of what they accuse Bush of...

[Fugu]

That line could hurt Obama here in PA and also in the general election. There are a lot of struggling people in the heartland who may vote GOP most of the time, but who could have been swayed to the Dems this year because of frustration with the economy and the war. But when they see the Democratic nominee describing their lifelong comfort with gun ownership and their religion-inspired social views as scapegoating, they're probably going to feel that, yes, this guy is out of touch and an elitist.

I think the GOP should and will hit him hard on that in the general election campaign; and sooner.

Barry, if there was anyone on this board who I would disassociate with the religious-inspired, gun ownership rightwingers, it would be you. Sad that you actually would support such a candidate as McCain who has associated himself with such people.

Barry is in the company of our founding fathers who wrote the second amendment, were gun owners, and most were devout in their faith.

I'm not sure if Barry believes in any of these things, but he understands that a candidate cannot come away unscathed when they flippantly demean so many Americans fundamental beliefs.

It's about respecting other peoples opinions. I've heard a lot of democrats accuse Bush of not respecting differing opinions, but they are sure cozying up to a man who has shown evidence of what they accuse Bush of...

Barry is an atheist. As for American's fundamental beliefs, there's also such a thing as separation of church and state, but I know you don't believe in such things keaggy. As for Obama, you show an absolute lack of knowledge when it comes to the man.

[keaggy220]

That line could hurt Obama here in PA and also in the general election. There are a lot of struggling people in the heartland who may vote GOP most of the time, but who could have been swayed to the Dems this year because of frustration with the economy and the war. But when they see the Democratic nominee describing their lifelong comfort with gun ownership and their religion-inspired social views as scapegoating, they're probably going to feel that, yes, this guy is out of touch and an elitist.

I think the GOP should and will hit him hard on that in the general election campaign; and sooner.

Barry, if there was anyone on this board who I would disassociate with the religious-inspired, gun ownership rightwingers, it would be you. Sad that you actually would support such a candidate as McCain who has associated himself with such people.

Barry is in the company of our founding fathers who wrote the second amendment, were gun owners, and most were devout in their faith.

I'm not sure if Barry believes in any of these things, but he understands that a candidate cannot come away unscathed when they flippantly demean so many Americans fundamental beliefs.

It's about respecting other peoples opinions. I've heard a lot of democrats accuse Bush of not respecting differing opinions, but they are sure cozying up to a man who has shown evidence of what they accuse Bush of...

Barry is an atheist. As for American's fundamental beliefs, there's also such a thing as separation of church and state, but I know you don't believe in such things keaggy. As for Obama, you show an absolute lack of knowledge when it comes to the man.

Actually, you don't me so it's rather arrogant for you to say such a thing... But whatever...

Perhaps you'll enlighten me on what separation of church and state has to do with this conversation?

What I know about Obama is what has come out of his mouth and the mouth of the man he calls his mentor. I'm impressed by his delivery, but his substance is mostly lacking and where it's not lacking it's troubling.

[Barry]

He doesn't know me, either. I am pretty sure I've described myself as an Agnostic on here for many years now. And Keaggy pegged it. Whatever my personal views on gun control, and they've evolved somewhat, I respect the fact that guns have been part of American culture in some areas for as long as those areas have been settled. And the people there have always been religious and have been influenced by that on certain issues. I don't agree with them on all of those issues, but I don't think they're views are in anyway scapegoating. That's their culture. The elites in certain parts of the country don't respect that and Obama has shown himself to have that mindset. That's being out-of-touch and not very respectful as well.

[Fugu]

He doesn't know me, either. I am pretty sure I've described myself as an Agnostic on here for many years now. And Keaggy pegged it. Whatever my personal views on gun control, and they've evolved somewhat, I respect the fact that guns have been part of American culture in some areas for as long as those areas have been settled. And the people there have always been religious and have been influenced by that on certain issues. I don't agree with them on all of those issues, but I don't think they're views are in anyway scapegoating. That's their culture. The elites in certain parts of the country don't respect that and Obama has shown himself to have that mindset. That's being out-of-touch and not very respectful as well.

It's quite a different thing for Obama to talk about people who have shown a narrow view toward people outside of their own grouping (which I know Obama was talking about when he referred to them in the interview, but even he recognized it for what it was--a mistake in wording) and for Bush to make his own pro-life, pro-Christian views a matter of public policy (including his policy toward helping African nations where he has refused help for countries who support abortion).

BTW, Obama isn't going to win the gun-owner, fundamentalist vote anyway, and you know that.

[Barry]

... It's quite a different thing for Obama to talk about people who have shown a narrow view toward people outside of their own grouping (which I know Obama was talking about when he referred to them in the interview, but even he recognized it for what it was--a mistake in wording) and for Bush to make his own pro-life, pro-Christian views a matter of public policy (including his policy toward helping African nations where he has refused help for countries who support abortion).

BTW, Obama isn't going to win the gun-owner, fundamentalist vote anyway, and you know that.

I wouldn't expect him to win that many Evangelical votes, although maybe more than the last couple Democratic nominees have. But if he can't make a dent among gun owners, he may have some problems.

On what type of mistake Obama's statements were, I saw one blogger classify them as "accidentally saying what you really think." I think that sums it up well. It's an elitist view, and I don't have to take the NRA line or be an Evangelical to recognize that. I used to be guilty of it myself when I was a liberal.

[jbuck919]

That line could hurt Obama here in PA and also in the general election. There are a lot of struggling people in the heartland who may vote GOP most of the time, but who could have been swayed to the Dems this year because of frustration with the economy and the war. But when they see the Democratic nominee describing their lifelong comfort with gun ownership and their religion-inspired social views as scapegoating, they're probably going to feel that, yes, this guy is out of touch and an elitist.

I think the GOP should and will hit him hard on that in the general election campaign; and sooner.

I do not consider myself a neutral bystander in these matters and still wish the Democrats to win because buried deep in there are still-important conservative/liberal things, such as gay rights. However, the chances of this happening become less every day Hilary continues her futile campaign.

As I see it, Obama has done three things requiring damage control: (1) acknowledged and disowned the racist aspects of the ministry he grew up with (o.k., because Hilary gave him credit where credit was due by expressing admiration for her opponent's speech); (2) stating a time frame for withdrawal from Iraq, something McCain would not do nor that Obama himself can hope to gain much from just because he made it seem improbably far into the future; and (3) this latest meandering ramble, which Hillary has pounced on. Now he has damage control to deal with both within the party and in the general election. Meanwhile McCain keeps his nose clean and nobody much cares that he has a list of conservative credentials that could give liberal-leaning people a difficult pill to swallow if some issues come up after he is elected.

[Barry]

I agree with some of that, John, but McCain hasn't really kept his nose clean. He's made some mistakes and they've been pounced on by both the media and the Democrats.

I also want to add for those saying Obama simply told the truth, that's not remotely accurate IMO. Guns and religiously-inspired cultural conseverativsm have always been a significant part of the culture in large swaths of this country. It's simply not speaking the truth to say the people there are using these issues as cop-outs because they're bitter over their economic situation. That's a complete failure to grasp reality.

[JackC]

You can't tell the truth anymore.

That's fine with McCain, and, especially Hillary. But we all are the losers.

Posted on April 12, 2008, the 288th day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem

The problem is that is NOT the truth. There are lots of people in PA and other places in America for which religion and gun ownership and other things are importent to them, and it is NOT because the lost their jobs years ago or that they are having tough times. They were that way when the mills were open and their communities were thriving.

Obama's comments are typical of an elitist mindset that for good reason many people find offensive. I am an atheist and have never owned or even shot a gun, yet I find them offensive. It shows that he buys into the big city, liberal left view that these people from small towns who go to church and own guns are small minded anti-immigrant bigots/hicks/trailor park trash. But these people are bright enough to know when they are being treated with disrespect.

This comment is going to hurt Obama in the general election. He thinks he is sooo smart and that everything he says is brilliant. But in reality he is arrogant, elitist and if he doesn't learn to how to show some respect for some people, he can forget about getting their votes.

Anyone who thinks that Obama is some great figure who is going to "unify" America, truly has their head up their *ss. He may win, but he will be very divisive, still not as bad as Hillary.

[greymouse]

Obama's comments are typical of an elitist mindset that for good reason many people find offensive. I am an atheist and have never owned or even shot a gun, yet I find them offensive. It shows that he buys into the big city, liberal left view that these people from small towns who go to church and own guns are small minded anti-immigrant bigots/hicks/trailor park trash. But these people are bright enough to know when they are being treated with disrespect.

Agree. Obama is just repeating Howard Dean's "god, guns, and gays" shtick, and it is typical of the way urban liberals view rural voters. I grew up in a small town for 12 years, but now I am around urban liberals all day, and they mock conservatives, Christians, small town people, etc. without realizing they do it.

Urban liberals think they're for the rural people but a stereotyped version of them with overalls and stuff. I was driving through small towns with liberals and they talked about how sad the farms made them feel because of the plight of the local farmer. Meanwhile, they embarrass you at diners by trying to order yuppie food and beer. They seriously don't understand how affluent, conceited, and condescending they are. Most urban liberals think they're poor because they max their credit cards on stuff.

I like Obama in general, but I'd say he's a "typical urban liberal" and cut him some slack on it. Hillary knows small town better, but she's been lying too much so I still consider Obama is more likeable.

[DavidRoss]

To me it's utterly hilarious that a self-righteously totalitarian elitist like Hilary has the chutzpah to criticize Obama for the statement. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

And it's distressingly sad that her contempt for the intelligence of the general public seems borne out by the apparent fact that so many support her candidacy for an office that she is stunningly ill-qualified for.

The silver lining is that the longer this campaign goes on and the nastier she gets, the greater the likelihood that she will damage her Party enough to assure McCain's election in November.

[Barry]

The funny thing is that all of the people who are saying Obama simply told the truth are probably just as liberal as he is and are equally out-of-touch with the rural voters Obama spoke about. It's not surprising they see this the same way he does. In fact, "he just told the truth" has sort of become the mantra of those defending Obama in the blogosphere, and as a few of us on here have pointed out, that's simply not accurate.

[JackC]

The funny thing is that all of the people who are saying Obama simply told the truth are probably just as liberal as he is and are equally out-of-touch with the rural voters Obama spoke about.

I agree completely. It has been entertaining to watch all the Obama talking heads trying to spin what he said so it seems less offensive, but they often make it worse because they often don't see what was truly offensive about the remarks in the first place.

The notion that this guy is going to bridge the "red state - blue state" divide, which was always really an issue of values, not location, is laughable. In fact, at the rate he is going, he may lose a LOT of white votes and women's votes. That's not a formula for success in November. In fact, it is getting increasingly hard for me to imagine him winning states that he would NEED to win to get elected. For example, how is he going to beat John McCain in Florida??

I guess the days when all he had to do was stand up, say he was for "change" and that there was only ONE America, not a red America and blue America are pretty much at an end.

[Ted]

Anyone under the scrutiny of cameras, microphones, cell phone recorders and reporters 24/7 is going to get caught saying something they wished they had worded differently--That Hillary (or any Candidate) caught up in the whirl and rush of campaigning is given carte blanche (by you, me the Blogosphere and the MSM) to pound away at Obama's gaff as if it somehow defines him once again proves that room temperature IQs rule.
(But then Bush and his supporters confirmed that 7 years ago)

[JackC]

Anyone under the scrutiny of cameras, microphones, cell phone recorders and reporters 24/7 is going to get caught saying something they wished they had worded differently--That Hillary (or any Candidate) caught up in the whirl and rush of campaigning is given carte blanche (by the you, me the Blogosphere and the MSM) to pound away at Obama's gaff as if it somehow defines him once again proves that room temperature IQs rule.
(But then Bush and his supporters confirmed that 7 years ago)

Well it's clear you think even less of those poor Bible thumbing, gun toting hicks in small town America than Obama. The problem for you, and maybe Obama, is that people get to vote regardless of what their IQ is. I know some would like to change that, but I think it works better the way it is.

One of tyhe smartest things William Buckley ever said was that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

[Ted]

Jack wrote:

One of the smartest things William Buckley ever said was that he would rather be governed by the first 100 names in the phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

That's a beauty!
I always liked him. especially his gallant efforts to save the old NY Classical FM Station, WNCN from switching to a rock format. It did go rock for a day or so, but Buckley fought and won his battle. The station remained Classical for years after.

[Barry]

Anyone under the scrutiny of cameras, microphones, cell phone recorders and reporters 24/7 is going to get caught saying something they wished they had worded differently--That Hillary (or any Candidate) caught up in the whirl and rush of campaigning is given carte blanche (by you, me the Blogosphere and the MSM) to pound away at Obama's gaff as if it somehow defines him once again proves that room temperature IQs rule.
(But then Bush and his supporters confirmed that 7 years ago)

Sorry Ted, but liberals (probably including you) have no problem whatsoever with Obama repeatedly mischaracterizing McCain's "100 years" remark. And that clearly was a case where McCain didn't mean what Obama and Clinton says he meant; as opposed to Obama, who most likely meant exactly what his opponents are saying he meant. So I've got no sympathy for the guy. His opponents should pounce on him for such a dumb statement.

[JackC]

To me it's utterly hilarious that a self-righteously totalitarian elitist like Hilary has the chutzpah to criticize Obama for the statement. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

And it's distressingly sad that her contempt for the intelligence of the general public seems borne out by the apparent fact that so many support her candidacy for an office that she is stunningly ill-qualified for.

The silver lining is that the longer this campaign goes on and the nastier she gets, the greater the likelihood that she will damage her Party enough to assure McCain's election in November.

I agree. She's a pathological liar who cares not one little bit for the those good small town folk whom she now claims to be defending. It is truly gross to see her attacking Obama, even though he deserves it, on this issue.

I would be so horrifed at the prospect of a Hillary Clinton presidency, that I would be willing to accept Obama beating McCain just to avoid the possibility her being the nominee.


Of course, the best of both world would be for her to lose the nomination to Obama and for McCain to win the general election.

[Ted]

Barry writes:

His opponents should pounce on him for such a dumb statement.

Well if that's the case, McCain should perpetually be on the bottom of the pile,as his entire Iraq policy is based on lies, bungling and misguided expectations.

BTW, I thought of you yesterday when Eleanor Clift (On the The McLaughlin Group) Said in response to Bush’s speech on Iraq last week, “Remember Baghdad Bob, well this was Baghdad Bush”

[Barry]

I buy the humor, but not the substance. You and Eleanor are as in touch with the reality of what's happening in Iraq as Obama is with voters in rural America .

[Barry]

Good analysis by George Will:
Washington Post
April 15, 2008
Candidate on a High Horse
By George Will

WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama may be exactly what his supporters suppose him to be. Not, however, for reasons most Americans will celebrate.

Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working class voters are "bitter," he said they "cling" to guns, religion and "antipathy to people who aren't like them" because of "frustrations." His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America's grinding injustice.

By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism's transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.

When a supporter told Adlai Stevenson, the losing Democratic presidential nominee in 1952 and 1956, that thinking people supported him, Stevenson said, "Yes, but I need to win a majority." When another supporter told Stevenson, "You educated the people through your campaign," Stevenson replied, "But a lot of people flunked the course." Michael Barone, in "Our Country: The Shaping of America From Roosevelt to Reagan," wrote: "It is unthinkable that Roosevelt would ever have said those things or that such thoughts ever would have crossed his mind." Barone added: "Stevenson was the first leading Democratic politician to become a critic rather than a celebrator of middle-class American culture -- the prototype of the liberal Democrat who would judge ordinary Americans by an abstract standard and find them wanting."

Stevenson, like Obama, energized young, educated professionals for whom, Barone wrote, "what was attractive was not his platform but his attitude." They sought from Stevenson "not so much changes in public policy as validation of their own cultural stance." They especially rejected "American exceptionalism, the notion that the United States was specially good and decent," rather than -- in Michelle Obama's words -- "just downright mean."

The emblematic book of the new liberalism was "The Affluent Society" by Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith. He argued that the power of advertising to manipulate the bovine public is so powerful that the law of supply and demand has been vitiated. Manufacturers can manufacture in the American herd whatever demand the manufacturers want to supply. Because the manipulable masses are easily given a "false consciousness" (another category, like religion as the "opiate" of the suffering masses, that liberalism appropriated from Marxism), four things follow:

First, the consent of the governed, when their behavior is governed by their false consciousnesses, is unimportant. Second, the public requires the supervision of a progressive elite which, somehow emancipated from false consciousness, can engineer true consciousness. Third, because consciousness is a reflection of social conditions, true consciousness is engineered by progressive social reforms. Fourth, because people in the grip of false consciousness cannot be expected to demand or even consent to such reforms, those reforms usually must be imposed, for example, by judicial fiats.

The iconic public intellectual of liberal condescension was Columbia University historian Richard Hofstadter, who died in 1970 but whose spirit still permeated that school when Obama matriculated there in 1981. Hofstadter pioneered the rhetorical tactic that Obama has revived with his diagnosis of working-class Democrats as victims -- the indispensable category in liberal theory. The tactic is to dismiss rather than refute those with whom you disagree.

Obama's dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program. Today that program is to elect Obama, thereby making his wife at long last proud of America.

Hofstadter dismissed conservatives as victims of character flaws and psychological disorders -- a "paranoid style" of politics rooted in "status anxiety," etc. Conservatism rose on a tide of votes cast by people irritated by the liberalism of condescension.

Obama voiced such liberalism with his "bitterness" remarks to an audience of affluent San Franciscans. Perfect.

When Democrats convened in San Francisco in 1984, en route to losing 49 states, Jeane Kirkpatrick -- a former FDR Democrat then serving in the Cabinet of another such, Ronald Reagan -- said "San Francisco Democrats" are people who "blame America first." Today, they blame Americans for America being "downright mean."

Obama's apology for his embittering sociology of "bitterness" -- "I didn't say it as well as I could have" -- occurred in Muncie, Ind. Perfect.

In 1929 and 1937 Robert and Helen Lynd published two seminal books of American sociology. They were sympathetic studies of a medium-sized manufacturing city they called "Middletown," coping -- reasonably successfully, optimistically and harmoniously -- with life's vicissitudes. "Middletown" was in fact Muncie, Ind.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl ... nsion.html

[JackC]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/15/opini ... ref=slogin

And now a New York Times op-ed columnist says that the "correct answer" about small town Pennsylvania/America is not that it is bitter, but that it is racist:

"Maybe Barack Obama felt he couldn’t afford to give the correct answer. . . . There is no mystery here. Except for people who have been hiding in caves or living in denial, it’s pretty widely understood that a substantial number of those voters — in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and elsewhere — will not vote for a black candidate for president.

Pennsylvanians themselves will tell you that racial attitudes in some parts of the state are, to be kind, less than enlightened. Gov. Ed Rendell, Hillary Clinton’s most powerful advocate in the state, put it bluntly last February: “I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate.”"


So we have one the likely nominee the Democratic party saying that small town America are a bunch of Bible thumping, gun toting redneck hicks - and now another voice from the left saying no that's not the issue, its that they are racist.

Wow, lot's of respect being shown here for small town America!

[johnQpublic]

Just ever so slightly off-topic.

Was anyone disturbed at seeing Obama strutting on stage while he did his Hillary's "Annie Oakley" routine?

Talk about a visible cocky attitude. That was a huge turn-off for me.

[JackC]

Just ever so slightly off-topic.

Was anyone disturbed at seeing Obama strutting on stage while he did his Hillary's "Annie Oakley" routine?

Talk about a visible cocky attitude. That was a huge turn-off for me.

I noticed that too. He really is in love with himself and thinks he can speak/charm his way out of anything. Sort of like Bill Clinton!

Once, after Obama stepped in it with his "preacher", Obama decided that we needed to have a national discussion about race. Now after he has stepped into it again I sure hope he doesn't decide that we have to have a national discussion of small town America!

[RebLem]

From the Wichita Eagle, a Richard Crowson Cartoon: They're bitter in Mayberry.

http://www.kansas.com/599/image_media/372900.html

Posted on April 17, 2008, the 283rd day before the end of the Cheney Administration. RebLem

[Barry]

From the Wichita Eagle, a Richard Crowson Cartoon: They're bitter in Mayberry.

http://www.kansas.com/599/image_media/372900.html

The cartoonist does the same thing I've been increasingly seeing liberals say the past couple days. They ignore the portion of the statement on clinging to guns and religion because of their bitterness over their economic situation.