I am so angry I scream inside the more I read about how Clinton is casting Obama as a snob for the "blue collar voters are bitter" remark. When I see her and her surrogates making an issue of this in televised comments I have all I can do to stop from throwing something at the screen.
Must we elect the candidate who is the most adept at talking down to voters who don’t have the stellar IQ which they do without seeming to be talking down to them? I wrote about this in my previous column but now I feel compelled to write this follow-up.
If Hillary Clinton, who no doubt is as much an intellectual as Obama, convinces enough blue collar voters he’s an elitist, and worse, a snob, and he runs against McCain with his war hero and regular guy image, she could be handing the election to a Republican.
If this wasn’t such a repugnant political tactic, one which may assure four years of McCain and a Republican administration, it would be ironic and even amusing that the Clintons are calling Obama a snob. After all, Hill and Bill regularly schmooze with the Hollywood elite and corporate billionaires.
If Obama wasn’t a classy guy running a classy campaign I’d urge him to start calling his opponent "Hollywood Hillary".
It is a sad state of affairs that a candidate has to behave like a school teacher who feels that he’ll alienate the lower level students in his class if his language is too complex. Obama presented a reasonable opinion as to how bitter voters may focus on issues they can get a better handle on.
Here’s what he said that is supposedly so degrading:
"It’s not surprising, then, 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."
Let’s put that in context:
But — so the questions you’re most likely to get about me, ‘Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What’s the concrete thing?’ What they wanna hear is — so, we’ll give you talking points about what we’re proposing — close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama’s gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we’re gonna provide health care for every American. So we’ll go down a series of talking points.
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. 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.
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing. From article by Mayhill Fowler for Huffington Post’s OffTheBus:
After the uproar he defended what he said:
"I didn’t say it as well as I should have… (people hurt by lost jobs) feel like they have been left behind. So I said, well you know, when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country."
We’re being told that his words come across as insulting to the intelligence of the average American. I really don’t know if this is true. He wasn’t talking to a group of average Americans when he said it.
If you talk to a college educated audience, a California fund raiser in this case, are you supposed to choose your words so they’ll be readily understood by high school graduates?
Maybe average Americans should start admitting they are average and that those who were C students in school are now C adults who can learn a great deal from an A student who is now an adult.
Hillary is telling audiences that Obama’s remarks are kind of "elitist and out of touch", and far worse jumps to the conclusion that "American’s don’t need a president who looks down on them."
She is saying that a candidate from her own party looks down on Americans!
Think of all these videos of Hillary lambasting Obama being included in McCain commercials.
Perhaps Obama needs to have a heart to heart talk with America, a kind of quiet fireside chat, during which he explains that yes indeed he is an intellectual. "I was an A student just like Hillary Clinton," he could say. He could add that it would be the most egregious insult of all to pretend to be otherwise if he scripted his words to present a false impression.
He could say that it would be disingenuous to pretend to be average.
To do that, he could say, would be the deepest insult to the voter’s intelligence. He could ask the voter to judge for themselves whether he, a young Harvard Law graduate who choose to work on the streets of Chicago as a community organizer, is out of touch with people who are struggling to make ends meet and realize the American dream.
And if making these remarks some people had to look up the meaning of the words egregious and disingenuous perhaps that would be a first step to recognizing that they ought to welcome a president that challenged them to think at a deeper level than they’re used to about complex issues.
Read previous column:
Elitism and snobbery: Obama, electability and the backyard barbeque factor.
4/14/08
Here’s an excerpt from what Robert Schrum wrote today on Huffington Post about Obama as sociologist-in-chief:
The truth is that Obama didn’t "demean" — Senator Clinton’s word — the aggrieved residents of the forgotten Pennsylvania. Remarkably, he did demean not just the Bush, but the Clinton administration for letting them down. And by citing guns, religion, and opposition to immigration as things small town Pennsylvanians "cling to," he confused the comfort of the familiar with fear of "the other." Of course, faith and culture are refuges in distress — and they should be. Obama knows and says that.
So his sociology wasn’t clearly or ideally stated, but it was fundamentally right.
Read "Obama’s not running for sociologist-in-chief" here.
Click each to jump down to my responses to reader’s comments:
Hillary can stay in if she must.
26 thoughts on “On Bitter: Obama tells it like it is and Clinton may use it to elect McCain”
Sherry: You are truly an IDIOT! You must be from a SMALL town with a SMALL mind that allows FALSE NEWS NETWORK, RUSH WINGBAG AND DUMB HANNITY do your thinking for you. The reason that George Gomer Bush was elected because of DUMB and STUPID people like you.
May God help you and your ilk. You should never be allowed to vote because you can’t THINK!
Obama ’08
This will be the election that demostrates that the power of the MSM has dimished to the point of insignificance. I don’t have cable or satelite, Just a 13 inch broadcast set that I mainly use to see what the weather is going to be. The MSM is an annoying, trivial, noisemaker dedicated to mainly advertising and repetition of generalities ad nausem.
The news on all major media outlets is exactly the same, in the same order, with the same theme. People are fed up with it and are starting to realize that lying passively in from of a blinking eye is doing them harm by distrubing their sleep patterns.
The MSM can blast Reverend Wright, no flag pins, and bitter to its hearts content. its doing them no good. The MSM had best understand that there’s an off button, and people are using it.
Elect John McCain by telling the truth? The truth is appearing right now at the gas station and the grocery store, and no amount posturing can change what people are hearing.
IIRC, a secret psychiatric assessment was done of Adolf Hitler by the US government (1943 or 1944??) to determine the likelihood of reaching a negotiated peace with the Third Reich; the analysis predicted that Hitler would hold on to the bitter end and would destroy everyone and everything rather than admit to either error or defeat.
The Cuban missile crisis (October 1962) may well have arisen in part due to Nikita Khrushchev’s misreading of Kennedy as a wimp at a Vienna meeting of heads of state.
Our involvement in Vietnam may have, to considerable extent, been initiated by the Kennedy obsession with “toughness”; JFK’s determination to show that a Democrat could be as tough on communists as were Republicans; RFK’s automatic reinforcement of the macho crap instilled by their domineering father.
I think it is safe to assume that all nations are engaged in a constant effort of some sort to assess the motivations and possible actions of both friends and enemies.
Most sincerely,
T. J. Flapsaddle
If you haven’t read it I wouldn’t call it psycho babble. I don’t agree with all of Frank’s psychoanalytic and psychiatric conclusions, but he does back them up with what evidence there is from the public Bush.
There are thousands of books, many highly regarded, about historic figures where expert authors speculate on the possible illnesses of the subject, both physical and mental, and try use this to present a better understanding of their personalities and behavior.
Obama provides more insight into the inner workings of his psyche than is usual for politicians in his book "Dreams from My Father" (read excerpt here). If he is elected president, over the years expect dozens of books analyzing his personality.
If there’s something wrong with my writing critically about the Clintons, describing their behavior and wondering about the underlying psychodynamics, then I am in the company of writers I can barely hold a candle to.
It is the unresolved issues adults have with their parents that give them trouble later in life, whether one is fatherless or one, like George Bush, had difficulty living up to his father’s achievements and expectations.
I never read “Bush on the Couch” There is just something creepy about faux psycho babble coming with credentials claiming to know the mind of someone he has never met let alone treated.
Hal, if you had the credentials, I trust you would not choose to use them in this way.
It’s one thing to despise a politician’s policies, something else again to pretend to diagnose an illness.
Remember how we all railed against Dr Frist for diagnosing Terry Schiavo when in fact her brain had atrophied? It’s the same principle.
And Hal, if you can’t stand the Clinton’s, why give them free rent in your head? Just continue to campaign for your man. Let’s see. Rejected by his father, who clings to abusive people like Wright while shunning those such as his grandparents who sacrificed to give him the best. Good thing you are not opposing him. His psyche would offer a treasure trove of analysis.
Fatherless children always have issues, right?
If I had the self-discipline plus the high-powered credentials to try my hand at it, I’d consider writing "Bill and Hill on the Couch".
I have neither.
Perhaps Justin Frank, the psychoanalyst and medical school professor author of "Bush on the Couch", who has both will write it. There are certainly myriad psychodynamics at work in both of the Clintons as individuals, and they play off each other in complex and fascinating ways.
Here’s a recent interview of the author.
Awkward Symbols
The discomfort over Obama’s and Hillary’s recent flubs at masquerading as ordinary people is nothing new. Political campaigns, like show business, is much ado about symbolism, and sometimes the symbolism doesn’t ring true. Ironically, Democrats are a tad more vulnerable to the charge of elitism and ivory-tower intellectualism because they strain to present themselves as the party of the common people. Voters assume Republicans are elitist, so they have less to apologize for.
The underlying conundrum revealed by tin-ear incidents like Obama’s guns ‘n God comment or Hillary’s attempt to bend an elbow with the fellers at the local gin mill is populism, or more precisely, phony populism. Populism is based on a vague, semi-mystical belief that Joe Schmoe knows just as much about ruling the world as the putative elites — except that Joe Schmoe is more humble, moral and honest than the assortment of plutocrats, lobbyists and grafters running the joint at the moment. Populist politicians claim to represent “the people” by placing themselves above all others, which doesn’t quite make sense. How can you run for Most Powerful Political Position on the Planet and insist that you’re jes’ folks?
Wellesley/Yalie Hillary knocking back boilermakers with the brawny forearm crowd? Oh, dear. She got her performance art all wrong. For one thing, she drank her whiskey in three sips, when any two-fisted drinker knows you slosh back a shot in one gulp, then quaff the beer in two or three. How dainty — is it a surprise she’s not really one of the boys? Second, what’s she doing drinking wishy-washy, overpriced Canadian whisky like Crown Royal? If she tampers with NAFTA, it’ll get even more expensive than it is now. To impress Indiana barflies, she might try the local booze, or at worst a he-man American, full-bodied bourbon made across the Ohio River in Kentucky. Maybe Jim Beam if she wants to connect with ordinary folk or Maker’s Mark if she wants to mingle with the private-box-at-the-Derby set.
Obama’s gaffe about yokels consoling themselves with guns and Godliness is actually a positive. It demonstrates the rapid progress in race relations and social mobility in America. In only a few weeks Obama has leapfrogged from representative of the poor & oppressed to effete Haavaad boy who can’t relate to deer hunters who say grace before tucking into a roast of venison.
The awkward symbolism could be worse. In my lifetime, the low point of populist fakery was Jimmy Carter getting photographed carrying his own suitcase across the runway to Air Force One. The Leader of the Free World is too humble to delegate schlepping his sack of socks to a flunky? Oh, puh-leeze!
The nadir of Democratic intellectual snobbery was Adlai Stevenson’s apocryphal remark to an aide during the campaign against Eisenhower in the 1950’s. The aide chirped, “Mr. Stevenson, all thinking Americans are voting for you.”
Stevenson replied, “That’ll never win. We need a majority.”
My advice to Democrats is to cool your jets with the populist pose and Country Clublican accusations alike. A president is supposed to excel and be a leader; he’s not supposed to champion mediocrity. And try as you may, you haven’t had much to choose from in recent decades. It’s been a really dramatic power shift among Yalies & Harvard boys for quite a while. I doubt that a former drill press operator or log cabin hog slopper is going to ascend to the oval office anytime soon.
I can’t agree more with the response to Hillary & Hubby.
Was he really President?
Obama doesn’t go over well with many people when he gets into his professor role and tries to explain complex psychology and sociology. What he says isn’t readily understood by those who aren’t used to conceptualizing human motivation, attitudes, beliefs and behaviors the way you do in a social science class.
Blue collar America may not be ready to elect a preseident who dares to analyze the American psyche.
As a black American he knows very well how religion in the black churches across the country provided solace to millions before the civil rights movement gave them hope that they weren’t powerless to effect change.
He also knows how poor white Americians discriminated against blacks, and worse, because of their own psychological motivations.
I’ve been a psychotherapist for 37 years and know first hand the lengths people go to as they try to avoid gaining insight into the reasons for some of their attitudes, beliefs and behaviors. They use the unconscious defense mechanisms, particularly these:
Denial:
Refusal to accept external reality because it is too threatening;
arguing against an anxiety provoking stimuli by stating it doesn’t
exist; resolution of emotional conflict and reduce anxiety by refusing
to perceive or consciously acknowledge the more unpleasant aspects of
external reality.
Distortion: A gross reshaping of external reality to meet internal needs.
Projection: Projection is a primitive form of paranoia.
Projection also reduces anxiety by allowing the expression of the
undesirable impulses or desires without becoming consciously aware of
them; attributing one’s own unacknowledged unacceptable/unwanted
thoughts and emotions to another; includes severe prejudice, severe jealousy,
hypervigilance to external danger, and "injustice collecting". It is
shifting one’s unacceptable thoughts, feelings and impulses within
oneself onto someone else, such that those same thoughts, feelings,
beliefs and motivations as perceived as being possessed by the other.
Passive aggression: Aggression towards others expressed indirectly or passively
Acting out:
Direct expression of an unconscious wish or impulse without conscious
awareness of the emotion that drives that expressive behavior.
Intellectualization:
A form of isolation; concentrating on the intellectual components of a
situations so as to distance oneself from the associated
anxiety-provoking emotions; separation of emotion from ideas; thinking
about wishes in formal, affectively bland terms and not acting on them;
avoiding unacceptable emotions by focusing on the intellectual aspects
(e.g. rationalizations).
Reaction Formation:
Converting unconscious wishes or impulses that are perceived to be
dangerous into their opposites; behavior that is completely the
opposite of what one really wants or feels; taking the opposite belief
because the true belief causes anxiety. This defence can work
effectively for coping in the short term, but will eventually break
down.
The full list of defense mechanisms is here on Wikipedia
Here’s an excerpt from what Bob Schrum wrote today on Huffington Post:
The truth is that Obama didn’t "demean" — Senator Clinton’s word —
the aggrieved residents of the forgotten Pennsylvania. Remarkably, he
did demean not just the Bush, but the Clinton administration for
letting them down. And by citing guns, religion, and opposition to
immigration as things small town Pennsylvanians "cling to," he confused
the comfort of the familiar with fear of "the other." Of course, faith
and culture are refuges in distress — and they should be. Obama knows
and says that.
So his sociology wasn’t clearly or ideally stated, but it was fundamentally right.
Read "Obama’s not running for sociologist-in-chief" here.
Thank goodness Obama didn’t expound on other results of being out of work and out of hope like increased alcoholism, gambling and spouse abuse.
What’ll Obama do in the general election?
If Clinton isn’t around, whose fault will it be when things go wrong?
Hal baby, you need to calm down. Face it my man, you will defend Obama to the death. Hillary has nothing to do with this. In fact all you Obama lovers out there should calm down. Obama didn’t simply say that small town America is “bitter.” Not at all. He went on to say that there are consequences to the bitterness. They cling to things, like guns and religion. What the heck does BO mean by that? But BO didn’t stop there. He continued to say that a small town guy that loses his job becomes so “bitter” that he forms an aversion to anyone that is different. Does that mean that small town Americans are bigots? But there’s more. Your savior didn’t say all of this at a Pennsylvania small town meeting, but rather at a PRIVATE fund raiser in San Francisco. And to top it all off, all this bitter talk came from a guy that sat in the Wright church for 20 years. That’s right people, the man is a creep. So go ahead and blame Clinton. Go ahead you bitter people!!!
I think most americans can decide for themselves the feeling of Obama’s remarks. We arent a bunch of bumpkins to fall for such an obvious sleasy tactic. As far as McCain goes, I dont think it will do him much good to use a loser to speak for him.
SEAL:
I agree. Obama wouldn’t phrase it the way I suggested at the end of my column or the way you did. He’d obviously use his own words and I think they’d resonate with the American people who are sick of all this play acting.
There is no "I’m sorry" needed for what he said. Instead he should have sucked it up and said something like "anyone who was truly offended by what I said did not fully understand or grasp my meaning" and then explain it in a way more accessible to them without dumbing it down. The later would be demeaning.
He should take the offensive and announce he is through with political theatrics, and say essentially that he is who he is and that you don’t elect the personality as president, you elect the person who is best qualified.
I am changing my tune on this from my previous opinion when I said he should have at least taken his tie off when he bowled. Who cares if he’s Joe Six-Pack or Two-buck Chuck or Merlot Melvin, he is damn smart, open to input from others, and from what I gather from both his books and words in the campaign, very honest; and he sees to the essense of the problems which need to be solved.
Number one has to be getting out of this war and using the billions we are wasting here to rebuild the America that Bush and Company have destroyed. That goes for the economy and the government based on the Consitution. I think Clinton could do this.
However, number two involves getting government out of its cozy relationship with corporate America, something I don’t trust Hill and Bill to do.
For those who read the column and are checking back on the comments, I added what Obama said:
Here’s what he said that is supposedly so degrading:
"It’s not surprising, then, 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."
After the uproar
he defended what he said: "I didn’t say it as well as I should have…
(people hurt by lost jobs) feel like they have been left behind. So I said, well you
know, when you’re bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people,
they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their
family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants
who are coming over to this country."
I get so pissed at Obama sometimes at his lack of experience. He allows hillbilly to put him on the defensive over issues he should be on the offensive with. He should not have appoligized because there was nothing to appoligize for.
He should use his remarks as a spring board to attack the hillbilly and macinsane practice of using side issues to distract from the real problem which is bringing the jobs back to america. Instead of wasting our money overseas on a war that no longer has a legitimate purpose and no end, let’s bring our troops home and spend the money creating jobs for the american worker. That is what I will do as president.
Hillbilly, on the other hand chooses to make issues out the words I used to describe the issue. To accuse me of that which is not true. To avoid the truth of what I said. But then, truth seems to be a problem for the hillbillys in everything they do or say.
Like the above, he should turn it around and focus peoples attention where it should be focused. Go on the offensive with it and make it the campaign issue the others wish to avoid. Hillbilly is responsible for sending jobs out of the country with NAFTA. Macinsane is responsible for destroying our economy by sending our money overseas to engage in a war we should never have been involved in. Those things they don’t want to talk about.
I’m Buck twelve-pack and they all make me sick to my guts!!
I’m Joe Six-Pack and I like Obama.
Comments are closed.