Tuesday, 04.15.08
Bittersweet Obama
Photo by Justin Sullivan/Getty Images
The peril of Obama
April 3, 2008
Virginia Postrel says that Obama's glamour "poses special problems for the candidate."
One nation, slightly divisible
December 2001
David Brooks examines life in Middle America.
The Hollywood campaign
September 2004
Eric Alterman describes the nexus of liberal power in "them thar hills."
Was Barack Obama wrong to suggest that a sense of bitterness and disappointment has driven working-class voters to "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them"? Note that Obama was making a number of discrete, subtle points. First, he was offering an implicit critique of the Clinton Administration, which made promises that were left unfulfilled. Second, he was trying to offer a rationale for holding views that his audience of affluent liberals might find distasteful. And third, he was making the eminently defensible and almost banal observation that people who are disappointed by high politics will often turn to primary loyalties -- the traditional, familiar truths of faith and family that endure when all else changes.
This is not to defend the words themselves -- the term "cling," with its pejorative connotations; the implicit equation of gun owners and religious believers with xenophobes; and the dismissal of the legitimate concerns of social conservatives. But it resembled the sort of rhetoric that Obama does best: His armchair sociology, to put it harshly, was about building a bridge between so-called "coastal elites" and the toiling masses of the heartland, by making the former see the world from the latter's point of view. It is just as easy to imagine him trying to explain the views of gay rights activists or, say, Jeremiah Wright to an audience of ardently traditional working class whites.
What Obama is trying to do is knit together a national conversation by having several discrete national conversations -- with black Americans, with working class whites, with coastal liberals, and even with conservatives. He uses slightly different language in every case, the better to project his empathy and understanding. This is why all of those young Reaganites who worked with Obama on the Harvard Law Review admire him so -- he listened then, and he listens now. The trouble is, knitting together these conversations is a tough trick to pull off. When he reaches out to Republicans, partisan Democrats raise an eyebrow. When he reaches out to economic populists, conservatives do the same. And when he reaches out to liberal San Franciscans, well ... all hell breaks loose.
And there remains an open question about what Obama really thinks. At the end of the day, which ground does he stand on - black or white, leftist or centrist, elitist or populist? This ambiguity is at the heart of Obama's appeal. Ambiguity is the way we reconcile many conflicts. We agree to disagree and at some point we decide it's rude to ask too many questions. But this isn't how the news cycle works in a campaign year. We want clarity, not vague generalities or even empathy. Polarization is the inevitable result.
Mayhill Fowler, the blogger who first shared Obama's off-the-record observations on the cultural anxieties of working-class voters, has received some ferocious criticism, mostly from Obama backers who believe she's sought to undermine their chosen candidate. And there's a surface plausibility to this. After all, it's easy to see how printing the "bitter" remarks would set off a brouhaha. But when you read Fowler's post, it is clear that it was written by a thoughtful person who means Obama well, and who took his remarks as they were intended -- as part of a conversation between the candidate and one particular group of his constituents, rather than between the candidate and, say, the blue-collar voters he was talking about. It's just that you can't keep these conversations separate anymore.
Like de TocquevilleDavid Coleman heard the whole speech in context and thought it fair, insightful, and off-the-cuff. |
Who's out of touch?Barbara O'Brien writes that people who actually hail from small towns know that Obama spoke truth: they're frustrated. |
We're not distressedPublius writes that this was less example of snobbishness than an all-too-typical "unfamiliarity with the landscape." |
12 degrees of badMike Allen says this dust-up coud be "a potential turning point for Obama’s campaign." |
Clinging to falsehoodDaniel Larison argues that Obama's characterization of religion betrays "a crude materialist assumption." |
(24)
It is a Presidential responsibility to represent the nation regardless of political affiliation. By trying to "knit together a national conversation," Obama is trying to spark the type of social dynamics we have been missing in the U.S. for some time. As we debate this election in our close group of family and friends, we are constantly bombarded by opinions that differ from our own - these offer us the chance to sharpen our understanding of the debate.
What a relief it has been to see a Presidential candidate who is willing to moderate the debate in a similar way. If Obama is pandering, he is doing so very broadly. Class differences anywhere in the World are a matter of fact - nothing a Presidential candidate says will effect that during his term, as it seems to be a human condition. By noting the differences and prescribing avenues for mutual travel, he is opening up the debate.
I fail to see how Obama represents the rise of affluent social liberals...as noted by esmense. I have worked since age 14. Before that I lived in a Metro city, for my first 9 years, and then in a rural town for 5 years where I lived on a small farm. These experiences taught me that hard work, focused on specific goals, would lead me to my desired outcome. I understand that no one has it easy - as I experienced no walk in the park. It is in this that I wonder why you can attack those who wish to learn about the humanities and social sciences in order to apply them to a more just system for all. Sure, there are those who (probably won't admit it to just anyone) will take advantage of others, but do you believe that all people are like this? Surely...we must have more faith in our 'keepers of freedom' than that.
Reihan writes: Mayhill Fowler, the blogger who first shared Obama's off-the-record observations on the cultural anxieties of working-class voters, has received some ferocious criticism, mostly from Obama backers who believe she's sought to undermine their chosen candidate.
There are independent issues here. One can inquire whether Obama was justified and correct in his diagnosis of voter attitudes; that debate has (rightly) dominated the coverage and will continue to do so.
But one can also inquire whether a journalist (or a blogger functioning as a journalist) is justified in publishing off-the-record comments. And I don't think the journalist's personal attitudes or motivations really determine that question
To take another recent example, Samantha Power--referring to Hillary Clinton--said the following to a reporter from The Scotsman:
"She is a monster, too--that is off the record-- she is stooping to anything,"
We are aware of this--and Samantha Power lost her job--because the reporter chose to print Power's remarks, relying on the justification that one cannot retroactively go off the record even if one does it within seconds. This was--at the time--sharply criticized. And, obviously, that defense isn't available for the reporter here--Obama's comments were clearly off-the-record.
It seems plausible to argue that valuable journalism, or indeed any valuable inquiry, relies on the ability to speak candidly. And further, that a form of journalism that relies on amplifying infelicitous candid statements tends to shut down that more valuable inquiry because politicians and their aides learn from, er, bitter experience not to be candid.
So I think it's fair game to criticize a reporter for not honoring the ground rules of a discussion or an event. Eventually, that breach of trust keeps everyone from having a candid discussion . . . not to mention a "national conversation." Instead, it sends us all back to our partisan trenches to lob talking points at one another.
Southpaw - Hear! Hear! Insightful and true points.
Southpaw
Your comments are self-serving. First of all, Obama has a history of making condescending remarks about working class citizens, hunting, and religion. In his 2004 interview with Charlie Rose, he basically makes the same statement. Obama got caught with his foot in his mouth. To blame it on the journalist is ridiculous.
Obama and his supporters will do and say anything to get him elected. He is clueless about the needs of the working class in this country.
There is nothing condescending about these remarks Obama articulated back in 2004 -below. It is the high time citizens demanded accountability from their gov. Peoples values and traditions are not going anywhere, they will stay as is, the second amendment will be here for a long time, but their jobs and sources of livelihoods are being shipped abroad, their children will be indebted forever to the Chinese with trillion deficits, their sons are serving in a war that was launched on lies and flawed intelligence. What Obama is trying to do is engage the citizens back into the government and hold to demand accountability, transparency. Sadly current status quo prefers the cynicisms
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScbNfddNMuQ
I believe in judging people more by their actions than their words. Senator Obama has talked of unity but there is no evidence that he can bring people together at all. His voting record is the most liberal of any in Congress. His choice of the words bitter and clinging to religion are eerily reminscent of Karl Marx and religion is the opium of the people. I think that Obama has shown his disdain for working class Americans and we should reciprocate.
Jezz
Obama's comments had nothing to do with outsourcing jobs, Iraq, or the deficit. It is his attitude about a certain segment of the population and their values. Why was it necessary for Obama to speak about working class Americans at a wealthy San Francisco fundraiser? It feeds into the stereotype about the Democratic Party and their elite wealthy donors.
People attend church because they value it for many reasons. It has nothing to do with being bitter or prejudice. Same thing with hunting, people enjoy it.
Accountability should start with Obama. Please explain your "present" votes and your lust for power?
He's just trying to save his butt. He's going to run out of band-aids soon. He won't be able to stop the bleeding.
I am a Californian, an immigrant who came in the early 60's. I have experienced and seen many challenges but have never wavered in my belief that people are strong in spirit and character; sometimes we fall, but we pick up ourselves and get moving again. Discouraged at times, but not bitter.
I am a Californian where people's hearts are loving and respectful. If Obama spoke before the California audience about the great people in small town America, he has his conscience to deal with that. The saddest part is, he is being "marketed" and his dreams compared to the likes of some of our country's beloved icons. Those icons served long and hard for the public's good through service in communities in big and small town America. Obama has not earned his wings nor has earned the right to stand side by side with them. To compare him with our icons is a disservice to us and to their memories.
HILLARY CLINTON has certainly earned the right to make claims to her accomplishments and experience. She has the grasp, understanding and clear solutions that are real. She does not need a teleprompter to stand before the American people to honestly speak before us.
God bless Hillary! God bless America!
The problem with the "knitter" analogy is that we are left wondering who the the "real" Barack Obama is and how much of what he says to various groups is simply political pandering. Although I'd love to see an open dialogue about racial issues, poverty and class disparities in the U.S., that is not what Obama is giving us. He and his campaign are pitting different traditional Democratic voting blocks against each other -- a recipe for disaster in the general election
Obama got caught with his foot in his mouth. To blame it on the journalist is ridiculous.
Obama and his supporters will do and say anything to get him elected. He is clueless about the needs of the working class in this country.
If you reread my comment, you'll find that I said the acceptability of Obama's remarks and the propriety of the journalist's conduct were separate issues.
That said, I don't think Obama's remarks are actually indefensible. As you note, he made the substantively the same observation (which is, in my opinion, fairly banal) in a 2004 interview, and that has never caused much fuss. Similarly, Thomas Frank wrote a very popular book along substantively the same lines (What's the Matter with Kansas?) that no one has ever felt the need to condemn.
The problem Obama is now facing arises not because of substance, but because his language this time was artless. Words he hasn't used before . . . words like "bitter" and "cling" . . . can convey a certain soi distant condescension. That language leaves the fairly commonplace ideas Obama was trying to convey open to misrepresentation.
But, of course, Obama used his artless language because he was speaking off the cuff at an off-the-record event--trying to respond honestly to a question about the political dynamics in PA. You can bet he won't make that mistake again.
It is not just about his comments "bitter", it is about the entire statement and where is was made. We are sick of media bias taking statements out of context to report to the public. It is deceitful and manipulative. Obama is not ready for primetime. We are looking to hire someone for the hardest position in the USA. If he is the messiah than he needs to apply in a different venue. Preaching in a church,etc. In addition, show me how his people in his district are better off. I know a few and they stated he did nothing to improve their lives. But he is living well off the hog as they put it. We cannot stand another novice in the office of the presidency depending on those around him to be knowledgeable. We need a president that has a handle on multiple areas and can question those in their administration on anything and know what they are talking about. The world today needs a leader who is up on all aspects of the job. If the world was like it was when JFK was running, maybe (maybe not) there would not be so much concern. In addition, no one really knows who this person is. He wears many colors and no real paper trail...He scares many of us
Let me try to be succinct about what I believe Obama was trying to say. For what it's worth . . .
I think it's clear that Obama was talking about why people vote the way they do, not why people live the way they do.
That is, I think it's fair to say that Obama believes that Democrats' failure to deliver on their economic promises explains why working class voters often base their votes on culturally conservative attitudes rather than economic issues.
I do not think it's fair to say that Obama believes that Democrats' failure to deliver on their economic promises explains why working class voters are culturally conservative.
DO YOU WANT TRUTH OR NOT? NURSERATCHET11:37PMApr 15th 2008
THE MEDIA HAS HAD THIS STORY FOR MONTHS AND THEY ARE REFUSING TO LET THE AMERICAN VOTERS KNOW ABOUT IT! WHY? I CAN THINK OF TWO REASONS: 1. THEY ARE WAITING FOR OBAMA TO GET THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINATION AND THEN THEY WILL TOTALLY SMEAR HIM WITH THIS STORY AND MCCAIN WINS THE WHITE HOUSE. 2. THEY ARE SCARED TO DEATH TO RELEASE IT FOR FEAR OF RETALIATION FROM THE BLACK COMMUNITY. SO WHERE DOES THAT LEAVE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE?? WE MUST MAKE THEM INVESTIGATE!!!!__________
Larry Sinclair alleges that on 6th and 7th November 1999 in Chicago, Illinois he met Barack Obama for a social evening which included drinks in a lounge, followed by a drive around town in his hired limousine during which Obama supplied cocaine, smoked crack through his own glass pipe while accepting fellatio from Sinclair.
The next day Obama took the initiative to visit Sinclair’s Comfort Inn hotel room in Gurney, Illinois for a “quickie” version of the previous night’s activities. Both men were 38 years of age. Larry Sinclair was on parole visiting for a few days from Colorado. Barack Obama was a member of the Illinois Senate.
These scenes are reminiscent of the Oprah Winfrey’s show in which she featured J.L. King’s book “Men On the Down Low: A Journey into the Lives of Straight Black Men Who Sleep with Men”
The story has produced some newsworthy reactions most of which can be described as a cover-up:
- A virtual internet and media lynch mob composed mainly of Obama supporters is bent on discrediting Sinclair with allegations about his homosexuality, his convictions for check fraud in the 1980’s and his mental and emotional stability. Part of their dirty tricks is to circulate to the media a forged facsimile of a page for the Washington Post which includes numerous lies about Sinclair and to declare that he was in a mental hospital at the time he said he was with Obama, and to attack his family and neighbors.
A noteworthy participant in the campaign of vilification is Andres W. Lopez an attorney for the Obama campaign in Puerto Rico who is a member of the campaign’s National Finance Committee. He appeared on Puerto Rico’s most popular TV magazine show WAPA TV’s “SuperXclusivo” on April 10th 2008 to denounce Sinclair as a major headache and distraction for the Obama campaign and implied that he was mentally ill and working for the Hilary Clinton campaign.
Sinclair has hit back against some of the critics with law suits for defamation in the DC district court filed by his attorney Montgomery Sibley most recently noteworthy for his defence of the “DC Madam”.
On 1st April, 2008 US District Court Judge Henry Kennedy granted a motion for discovery in the matter. The aim of the Sinclair-Sibley legal strategy is eventually to discover Barack Obama on oath.
- Larry Sinclair took a polygraph test in February confident that he would pass and he challenged Obama to do the same. The test was arranged by Whitehouse.com an internet site best known for pornography and anti-Clinton political satire.
The raw computer readings showed that Larry Sinclair passed the test with flying colours. But two testers hired by Whitehouse.com re-interpreted the readings to claim that they showed deception. One of the testers was Edward I. Gelb who has been exposed by specialists in the field for claiming a phony Ph.D.
Whitehouse.com refused to publish the full results or the video of the test and in many other respects breached good faith undertakings they gave Sinclair to induce him to participate. He claims that he and his attorney are in possession of information that the Obama campaign bribed Whitehouse.com to distort the test and spin the presentation of the results.
Whitehouse.com has not denied these allegations but has abruptly gone silent on the matter.
- Many in the mainstream media are aware of Larry Sinclair’s allegations about Barack Obama and rumours in Chicago restaurant and club land since at least 2001 that Barack Obama has been doing the Down Low with gay men. Some newspaper have interviewed Larry Sinclair and visited his home in Minnesota. He has provided them with his criminal record, his health and financial records and his family history.
At least one major Chicago newspaper has indicated that it will not proceed yet because it does not want to be accused of racism or of causing problems for the first viable black candidate. Other newspapers have asked for more proof such as access to the limousine driver who witnessed the events of November 6th, 1999.
Larry Sinclair has said the driver will testify in legal proceedings. But in the meantime he wants to protect him from interference from Obama campaign, from the kind of death threats to which Sinclair has been subjected and from the kind of harrssment that Obama supporters have visited on Sinclair’s elderly mother, his siblings and neighbors. However, Larry Sinclair is willing to provide assurances about his evidence to the media through his lawyer.
- When Larry Sinclair first reported his allegations to the Obama campaign in September 2007 he wanted Obama to correct his claim that he had stopped taking drugs in his teens and had never taken crack. He believes crack is addictive and difficult to shake off.
Over the following months until December, 2007 he was contacted several times by Donald Young who appeared to be Obama’s emissary. He was the choir master at the Trinity Church of Christ which was under the direction of Pastor Jeremiah Wright and where Barack Obama is a member of the congregation. Donald Young informed Larry Sinclair that he, too, had a sex and drugs relationship with Barack Obama similar to his.
At first he suggested that Obama was seeking the assistance of Jeremiah Wright in making a statement acknowledging his use of crack cocaine as recently as 1999. But he had second thoughts in early December 2007. Donald Young was murdered in his appartment at Christmas 2007.
Larry Sinclair notified the Chicago police of his contacts with him but received no acknowledgment. Subsequently he has submitted a sworn affidavit which has so far not been acknowledged by the Chicago Police.
Larry’ Sinclair’s original video on YouTube has received more than 800,000 hits and his blog is in the top ten percentile on WordPress. Links to all his radio interviews can be found at his blog together will all contact details for the media.
Larry Sinclair’s blog with links to all his YouTube videos and radio interviews:
http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com
Let's be clear: the real elitists are the Republican social Darwinists who consistently favor the privileged and well-connected over the majority of Americans. The Clintons are aiding them in their routinely successful trick of shifting that image to the demonized "liberals."
All the energy being consumed on the left parsing phrases needs to be converted into attacks on the Republicans and John McCain.
No matter which way you twist the remarks made by Mr.Obama they are condensing. Bitter is just the tip of the iceberg used in the comments, the words that follows displays his disregard for a cultural group of people that live in America. The lack of respect for that group of people is demonstrated by his deliverance to the people that he was addressing and that they found his descriptions humorous. Please let's not use smooth journalist words to try to dismiss the impact of his remarks, hold Mr. Obama accountable for his actions, let this primary be based upon the character, abilities and capabilities of the candidates instead of media bias. Mr. Obama has been compared to many of our American great male figures such as MLK, JFK, which are insults to these great men for Mr. Obama is stil at the bottom of the mountain and his own arrogance will not allow him to climb to the top. America does not deserve this type of denegration and divisiness for we have worked too hard to be torn apart especially by a democratic candidate who praises a republican president and tears down a democratic president.
Between George Bush Sr where gas prices soared versus Clinton years where gas prices were affordable---- today---gas prices are soaring and whereas during the Clinton years--- unemployment rate decreased from 7 to 4%, you could afford to buy a decent cut of meat without it costing a leg and arm, had homes that were not in foreclosure; how can BO state that the Clinton adminstration did not fulfill promises, has any president been able to fulfill all of their promises during their time in office. The last years certainly has not demonstrated any fulfilled promises just despair.
Obama, Is not as bright as the media makes him out to be, that is why when he does'nt have a script in front of him he says what he really feels. Just like someone else we know (GWB). He is not a "brother from the hood" as he wants all the African Americans to think. He is from privileged back ground. Private schools and colleges. That is why he looks down on working class people, poor people. But the truth about who he really is will eventually come out. Yes, I am an African American independent voter who has not been Bamboozeled by the brotha and sista talk of BO. He will defeat the Democrats in November that is why I am voting for McCain.
Social experiment for all you idealists...(Prerequisite...you must be a white male).
Start a new job in Anywhere, U.S.A. - preferably a physical labor job where you will come into contact with receiver clerks in grocery stores. Then start talking about relevant political and economic issues. Where do you think the conservation will go?
Time and time again, (in my own experience) I encounter racism and ill-will toward those who have taken their jobs - not fellow Americans, but the export of our labor force. In describing those who have taken our jobs I haven't heard much ill-will toward the corporations, instead I hear much racist slang. Not only do I hear it from one person, but the group dynamic quickly changes to a hate bashing egocentric rally. Try if you like to simulate this experience - you don't need to do much other that keep and open ear and...oh!, be a white male.
So, am I racist because I just described an "actual monent in history?!"
Explain to me again how Obama's remarks are anything different that the true nature of our current situation.
Your critique of Obama's actual words makes little sense.
'...the term "cling," with its pejorative connotations'
Sorry, but Obama disagrees with those views. It's OK for him, and the rest of us, to be pejorative.
'the implicit equation of gun owners and religious believers with xenophobes'
How do any of his observations necessarily apply to the same person?
"and the dismissal of the legitimate concerns of social conservatives."
What concerns? That someone will take away their Bibles or guns?
"What Obama is trying to do is knit together a national conversation by having several discrete national conversations...."
Which, translated into the Vulgate means that Obama says to any particular group what that group wants to hear.
In short, he's like any other politician.
WOW ! Hillary's Religion (cult?) 'THE FAMILY' Very Scary ! Prays To Jesus For The Elite To Rule The World !
(Where's The Media On This ?????)
The media has repeatedly aired the short clips of Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rhetoric in attempt to discredit and smear Barack Obama. But what's even more interesting is the fact that the media never discusses Hillary Clinton's religion, which is extremely telling and even frightening. A closer look into her 'religion' gives one a clearer picture of why she is the way she is.In a recent article by Steven Brandt many truths about Hillary's religion, called ' The Family' will make you shudder. The question is....where's the media on this one ?
Brandt writes, "You don't choose your family, but you choose what church you want to attend." said Hillary Clinton, to reporters and editors of the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review on Tuesday the 25th. This is an interesting choice of words, since -- while we mostly hear about her Methodist upbringing -- Hillary Clinton has chosen to associate herself with The Family (also known as the Fellowship), a very conservative, fundamentalist organization started by Abraham Vereide...
"...an immigrant preacher who in 1935 organized a small group of businessmen sympathetic to European fascism, fusing the Far Right with his own polite but authoritarian faith. From that core, Vereide built an international network of fundamentalists who spoke the language of establishment power, a "family" that thrives to this day. In public, they host prayer breakfasts; in private they preach a gospel of "biblical capitalism," military might, and American empire. Citing Hitler, Lenin, and Mao, Doug Coe, the Family's current leader, declares, "We work with power where we can, build new power where we can't."
This quote is taken from the book on The Family by the same name which will be published in May... a book which claims to
"...dramatically challenge conventional wisdom about American fundamentalism, revealing its crucial role in the unraveling of the New Deal, the waging of the Cold War, and the no-holds-barred economics of globalization. The question Sharlet believes we must ask is not "What do fundamentalists want?" but "What have they already done?"
A long article was written about Hillary Clinton's participation in this organization last September in Mother Jones, and The Family, itself, was the subject of an extensive article in Harper's in March of 2003. And on March 21st, The Nation published an article on Hillary and The Family by Barbara Ehrenreich that was published on The Huffington Post and CBS News' web site.
The Family avoids the word Christian but worships Jesus, though not the Jesus who promised the earth to the "meek." They believe that, in mass societies, it's only the elites who matter, the political leaders who can build God's "dominion" on earth. Insofar as The Family has a consistent philosophy, it's all about power - cultivating it, building it and networking it together into ever-stronger units, or "cells."...wrote Ms.Ehrenreich.
Is it possible that Hillary's participation in this fundamentalist group -- which apparently preaches the "gospel of military might" -- would help explain her vote in favor of authorizing President Bush to attack Iraq? Is it possible her pro-NAFTA stance during her husband's administration comes from its embrace of "the no-holds-barred economics of globalization"? Is it possible that the sense some get that Hillary feels entitled to be president comes in part from this group's belief that "it's only the elites who matter"? I encourage any reporter covering Hillary's campaign to ask her about all this.
At a time when so many people are wondering what sort of effect the Rev. Wright's sermons may have had on Barack Obama, I think it's only fair to ask what sort of effect The Family's fundamentalist mission has had - and continues to have - on Hillary Clinton. We know that George Bush engages in truly fundamentalist thinking. There is no person or new information capable of challenging his belief that what he already knows is right. Is Hillary Clinton like this in some way? I am not sure.
But the opinion I have formed from this is that - while Hillary Clinton may be considered a Liberal by many - on the inside she is a deeply Conservative person... possibly as close to being a Republican today as she was when she was a young woman supporting Senator Goldwater. This helps explain, to me, why she and John McCain are such good friends. They are both drawn to the use of military power and free market capitalism... and to taking money from lobbyists. The other opinion I have formed is that those who say there are no policy differences between Hillary and Barack haven't taken into account how their religious differences might impact the policies they would actually seek to implement as president. (end of article)
So now a few things make more sense about Hillary. In review, she's in a kinda power-hungry cult which is actually run by her fellow Republicans which she is secretly one of ! It also makes sense why she could care less about detroying the Democratic Party. Also, beware of her claim to work toward ending the Iraq war. That is another great lie that she is telling. If you listen to her claims she commonly repeats ' I will start getting troops out within my first 60 days '.....How many ? 3....1000...10,000 ? Don't be fooled. Hillary has no desire to end the war. She'll bring 5 troops home then say that she kept her word.
The media should be called out for not exposing this cult. Problem is, they would also be revealing the truths about their fellow Republican's plan and prayers to 'rule the world' by any means. So it's up to us, regular Americans like you and I, to help spread the truth in spite of the media.....For The Re-Birth of America !
Greg Jones
WHY ISN'T THE MEDIA EXPOSING THIS ????? SHARE THIS EVERYWHERE !!! Visit: Blacks4Barack.org
Being raised in Cleveland Ohio in the city what Obama stated is a fact. How many of my family and friends are bitter due to the loss of jobs, opportunity, and a uncertain future.
What Obama said about race hit the nail on the head also. So what is the problem?
The problem we don't want to hear the truth, the media who are so outside of the normal working class American they no contact on daily basis with the middle and lower middle class and has and to live their lives on a daily basis over the past 15 years.
NAFTA has hurt states like Ohio, PA, people losing there homes etc. I guess some expect these people to be happy with living the American dream, well it has been a nightmare to them for most of their lives.
Perhaps Obama is to good to be the President of this country; perhaps we need the liars and spin masters who well tell us all is well.
"America" is a great country and just ignores the education crisis, the medical crisis, the job crisis, and the housing crisis. Anyone who faces these issues is negative, talking down to those people who are affected daily. That is spin within itself.
Dam right they are bitter and pissed off! They grow to dislike anyone who they feel is talking their jobs, getting advanced ahead of them, losing a job and having to work for much less just to survive, and that is the key word they just survive.
The well off doesn?t understand, $50.00 a week for gas and your making $400.00 per week before taxes, and you?re raising a family.
I grew up in Cleveland and I know what my friends and family have been through. Obama been a light that shinning through the dark, I hope we all are wise enough to stop, think and listen.
And the sad point of it all is the people who are the most affected believe the spin, vote for who ever tells them what they want to hear year after year, yet their lives rarely improve upon a struggle just to get by.
If I made 109 million dollars all of the above problems would have little impact on my life, but that is not the case for millions of Americas.
Wake up and smell the coffee. Take back your country. Sometimes the truth hurts, but we learn to grow from it.
I am not saying vote for Obama, but give him his due for trying to tell it like it is and his belief that we will start to listen, get involved and empower ourselves.
By using this Service you agree not to post material that is obscene, harassing, defamatory, or otherwise objectionable. Although The Current does not monitor comments posted to this site (and has no obligation to), it reserves the right to delete, edit, or move any material that it deems to be in violation of this rule.
-->
What Obama was doing wasn't "building a bridge" -- he was pandering to his audiences' class prejudices. Prejudices he obviously shares. Prejudices the author doesn't recognize as such because he too sees them as simply self-evident truths -- things "everyone" "knows" about working class people. What Sen. Obama's said isn't sociology -- it's stereotype. And the worst kind of liberal cliche.
Once upon a time, working class people were a respected and powerful part of the liberal coalition with a voice and interests the party genuinely represented. But with the decline of unions and the rise of affluent social liberals, who do not share their economic interests, party leaders have increasingly seen working class people not as constiuents and allies they represent and speak for, but as problematic inferiors who must be handled, tricked or charmed into doing what their superiors know is "right."
Posted by esmense | April 15, 2008 7:25 PM