home
Why Did Obama Do Worse in N.C. Than Virginia? | 228 comments (228 topical)
Is it complicated? (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by robrecht on Wed May 07, 2008 at 06:34:28 PM EST
Isn't it simply Obama's elitist remark about small town people clinging to guns & religion and all the hype about Rev. Wright?  And Obama's relative inexperience in extricating himself from these political liabilities?

Elitist (3.00 / 2) (#149)
by WorkinJoe on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:13:14 PM EST
First off, Obama is not an elitist.  His "bitter" remarks were part of an adult conversation in explaining how the Republicans were able to siphon off votes from people in economic levels that would seem, on face value, to be better served by Democratic policies.  Obama simply stated that because Washington DC's economic promises are never delivered to workin' Joes, they often fall back on issues like gun control, or religious issues such as gay marriage or abortion to cast their vote.  

What is refreshing about Obama is his willingness to speak to us as adults.  Listen closely to his speeches.  Quit taking the Republican approach of picking a single word or phrase and letting your blood pressure rise.  Actually try to understand what's being said.  He's a very straight forward guy and has a chance to be a great president.

[ Parent ]

This: (5.00 / 5) (#171)
by Nadai on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:20:49 PM EST
His "bitter" remarks were part of an adult conversation in explaining how the Republicans were able to siphon off votes from people in economic levels that would seem, on face value, to be better served by Democratic policies.

is an out and out lie.  He was "explaining" why he wasn't doing better against Clinton in Pennsylvania.  It had nothing to do with the Republicans.

[ Parent ]

I thought the comments (5.00 / 9) (#178)
by Salo on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:22:22 PM EST
were a gross misread of Frank's Kansas thesis.

Frank was attacking Dems for abandoning populist rhetoric and economic policy.

The Dems offered a slick internationalist cosmopolitan multiculturalism, freetrade liberalism and the cruelty of the freemarket. Coupled with affirmative action, prochoice, PC language restrictions,  these are policies designed to appeal to fairly well heeled upper middle class voters.  Not factory workers or manual labourers.

Frank was saying that the working class were abandoned by self-rightcheous liberals in favour of cultural battles.

Guess what?

liberals have done it again. And Obama embodies that liberal habit.

[ Parent ]

I'll agree with the "gross misread" (5.00 / 1) (#227)
by debrazza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:00:50 PM EST
I think Frank himself wrote the same thing in an editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

[ Parent ]
Refreshing? (5.00 / 2) (#221)
by Donald from Hawaii on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:58:06 PM EST
"What is refreshing about Obama is his willingness to speak to us as adults."

You sound as though Barack Obama is the bravest, kindest, warmest, most wonderful human being you've ever known in your life.

[ Parent ]

Oh, I just love (5.00 / 1) (#228)
by lilburro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:01:30 PM EST
being spoken to as an adult.  Heaven knows Hillary doesn't speak to me as an adult.  Why, she expects me to keep track of funds I've never heard of, of the structure of her plans!  She wants to expand my vocabulary to include words like "mandate"!  

Having an adult conversation means including the people you're talking about.  Which Obama didn't exactly do when badmouthing the working class in front of SF royalty.  

[ Parent ]

Is there something wrong with SF? (none / 0) (#232)
by debrazza on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:05:41 PM EST
I think if we want to rid the old "San Francisco Liberal" canard, we should not believe that ourselves.  As somone who lived in the Bay Area for many years, I will tell you that I don't think there is much at all "liberal" about San Francisco.  Unless you think a gross disregard for a massive homeless population while simultaneously being the home to some of the richest people on the planet "liberal".  There is nothing "liberal" about the inequities of wealth in that city.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, one sec. (5.00 / 2) (#243)
by lilburro on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:23:21 PM EST
Did I write the word "liberal" anywhere in my comment above?  No, I did not.  SF I'm sure has problems that belie its pop culture image, but there's no changing the fact that Obama said his bitter comments in front of a **wealthy** (from your POV, unrepresentative) audience, in San Francisco.  What you're saying, IMO, underlines the problem in Obama's comments - SF isn't all wealthy+liberal people, though that is who Obama stood in front of when characterizing the small town PA voters (in other words, when he chose to represent them to the SF fundraisers).  We don't know the real SF.  Well, Obama doesn't know "the real" PA.  And perhaps, we don't know the real Obama.  But it's hard to trust the gross generalizations of a Pres. candidate hobnobbing with his rich fundraisers in SF.

Obama may've gained a little cred in opposing the gas tax holiday.  But he's demonstrated at best a great tone-deafness towards the enduring class issues of our society and the language we use to describe them (ex. unions = special interest groups).  If the Dem party is to stay on the right side of socio-economic issues, it needs to maintain a respect for the hardships of our workers past, present, and future.  Presenting these people as disposable doesn't cut it for me.  Search through the exit polls; across the country there are plenty of white working class voters plugged into the Dem Party, apparently not yet clinging.  We should be able to keep these people in the GE.  

SF still has a certain cachet, as does say, Seattle.

[ Parent ]

This seems a little bit silly. (5.00 / 2) (#242)
by wurman on Wed May 07, 2008 at 08:22:03 PM EST
Sen. Obama was wrong & does not know what he's talking about.

Economic policies in D.C., & the fact that nothing trickles down to working stiffs, has nothing to do with a person's positions on god, guns, gays & abortion.

For the people who want to overturn Roe v. Wade, a candidates view & votes will be the first & singular over-riding factor in voting.  This issue crosses all economic lines & often works in tandem with the god thing.

People who perceive themselves as religious fundamentalists make that their most important factor in assessing a candidate; it is not something they cling to after something else happens to them.

The anti-gay thing & the same-sex marriage gambit are tiresomely worn out: it is a basic, front-of-the-line position for the people who fear & loathe homosexuals; it is not a by-the-way issue.

Anyone, I mean anyone, and especially a political candidate, who thinks that the 2nd amendment is some sort of fallback position of smalltown folk who feel left out is just plain, flat-out too silly to be in politics.  For the voters who are passionate about firearms, it is their foremost issue.

Finally, many of these factors tend to fall together for people.  As most observors KNOW, god & guns & gays are basic tenets of a very huge group of voters.  Anti-abortion beliefs thread through those groups too.

The religious conservatives & social conservatives who hold those views do not do so because some factories got closed & the people can't find new, well paid jobs.  

What an utterly banal, ridiculous comment that was by Sen. Obama.  He has no concept of who those people are & why they won't vote for him.  And he grew up in Kansas--go figure.

[ Parent ]

Elitism (3.66 / 3) (#158)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:16:45 PM EST
is very different from adult conversations.  Mature adults, in fact, don't discuss people as though they are a "category."  Mature adults also recognize that they must apply the same principles to themselves as to others.  For example, if I am spiritually inclined, I would never suggest that someone else's beliefs are motivated out of some "lower" motive, as he did.

I very much disagree that he talked to the group as adults.  He and the wine-sippers were clucking over those slobs in PA who don't know any better.

We all got the message.

[ Parent ]

You contradict yourself... (none / 0) (#209)
by sander60tx on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:41:06 PM EST
You say that "mature adults" don't speak of others as if they are a category, then you go on to call a certain group of people "wine-sippers."  Of course, you never said you were a "mature adult!"  Only that Obama wasn't.  I think that misses the point, though  The whole post is talking about categories of people and how Obama support among those groups has varied over time.   I wonder how much of that comes down to "likeability."  I wonder if those of us who identify with a particular candidate have an easier time excusing their flawed behavior (or not even recognizing it at all).  It's much easier for me to excuse Clinton than Obama, because I view him as a hypocrit and but I never felt that she portrayed herself as anything other than who she is, baggage and all.  

[ Parent ]
Bingo! (none / 0) (#216)
by AnninCA on Wed May 07, 2008 at 07:49:52 PM EST
I did, indeed, not claim that mantle.  :)

[ Parent ]

Why Did Obama Do Worse in N.C. Than Virginia? | 228 comments (228 topical)

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft