-
Website
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/ -
Original page
http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/obama-accused-of-being-elitist/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
-
Top Commenters
-
Popular Threads
All Comments
here's Barack's response:
Video of Barack responding
I wonder if Errol's just trying to keep his job lol. He did give a backhand to Clinton with the comment about her promising 200,000 jobs in New York but 6 years later there's a net loss of 30,000 jobs...sigh.
They also played a bit of Obama firing back at McClain and Clinton at an appearance in Indiana:
"Out of touch?" Obama said. "I mean, John McCain, it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch?"
"Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch?"
He concluded his argument by telling the audience that it is, in fact, the opposite.
"No. I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what’s going on in Indiana, [and] I know what’s going on in Illinois. People are fed up."
For me, this is the most revealing part of his statement.
He is obviously running into voters who have not jumped on the Obama bandwagon. 'Why don't they get me? I guess it must be because they are just gun-loving, bible-thumping bigots.'
He's not making the sale, can't close the deal, and he's scapegoating the very voters he hopes to persuade.
Behind closed doors, to a friendly audience, he let's his guard down and tells people what he truly thinks.
I think it's YOU who's not closing the deal. Keep trying though...remember what Barack said, HOPE!
If you haven't studied Marxism, you may not understand that what Obama was doing was viewing Pennsylvania politics through the lens of "historical materialism." His opinions very much reflect the analysis of Theodor Adorno and the Frankfurt School.
Who was it that said that Obama's Marxist background was irrelevant?
Let's get into the Marxist angle on this thing, because I think it's important to understand, especially for readers too young to remember the Evil Empire, the Cold War, etc.
OK, when I say that Obama was viewing the situation in small-town Pennsylvania through the lens of historical materialism, I refer to the fundamental doctrine of Marxism, which can be summed up thus:
* (a) there is no God nor any other supernatural cause in human affairs; therefore
* (b) material causes -- especially including economics and technological changes -- are the only causes for historical, social and political developments; therefore
* (c) when we see some development (e.g., religious warfare) that appears to be rooted in non-material causes, we should look for the underlying material reality -- the economic or technological factors that are the real causes.
This is where the old communist propaganda phrase "false consciousness" comes from: The oppressed poor fail to have true (class) consciousness because they are blinded by religion, national identity, etc. To the Marxist, these are "prejudices" or "sentimental myths," promoted by the ruling classes in order to justify or defend their own rule.
As Obama applies the doctrine of historical materialism to small-town Pennsylvanians, they have succumbed to the "false consciousness" of Second Amendment rights, religious belief, etc., as an escape from the reality of their own economic oppression.
Instead of staying in your little bubble, why not venture out to see what other intelligent, engaged citizens have to say.
This man is a hard, hard left liberal. Put these 'off the record' comments together with Michelle Obama's bleak view of America, a reasonable understanding of Wright's black liberation theology and his left leaning academic and political contacts like terrorist bomber Bill Ayers and it is understandable why some Americans would be skeptical of his brand of politics.
Well, we started him well on his way.
You don't have to be an Obama supporter but you really waste the time of people who want to have an informed debate about issues when all you provide is your narrow opinion as fact. You don't like Obama - fine. When he's elected President feel free to give up your citizenship and leave the country. You do a disservice to us patriots who are fed up with the current status quo, are coming into consciousness and want our elected officials to actually work for us instead of against us and for the interests of a few at the expense of the masses. People allowed themselves to be played by politicians with hot button issues and talking points but since it has all blown up in their faces they are starting to get it. It's called the kitchen sink theory and most people are not buying into it. If you refuse to see the light feel free to remain in the dark - and be left behind!
Why do I think HRC has something to do with this? Because all we've heard about is how something big might happen between now and Apr 22. If telling the truth makes you lose an election, then we are doomed as a country.
Lord, I think I'm going to take a vacation until Nov. I can't take too much more of this nonsense.
Alright there! You better say it!
as for hill's camp, they'll employ the "jeremiah wright" strategy and use the "bitter" segment of sbo's comments to suggest that he's too bougie for the political tastes of hardworking keystone staters.
On Hardball, Matthews and Shuster critiqued Obama's "weird" beverage selection at Indiana diner
Yeah, I know what his campaign said, and that may have been what he meant. But a sophisticated candidate doesn't refer to voters in language that can be construed as derogatory or insulting. Obama asserted Pennsylvania voters are bitter and so simple and lacking in maturity and intelligence that they address their frustration by clinging to primitive and reactionary crutches rather than addressing their problems in constructive ways.
It's divisive. And not the way to attract the voters you need most.
~ divisive ~ there's that word again. all that i will say is that honesty separates the wheat from the chaff and produces the best product. we have to start w/the truth in order to get to the truth.
This is predominant opinion of contemporary liberalism, and it smacks of a profound sense of unearned superiority.
Sorry but opinion is not truth.
no apologies necessary.
it is absotively true that, in some cases, people who feel that they are losing out - even though they've worked hard and played by the rules - become suspicious of others and look for scapegoats and outlets and/or they go postal.
a profound sense of unearned superiority? how about a profound sense of human nature and what compels us?
"They say I'm out of touch...No I'm in touch!"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow
As for Dobbs, let's face reality: this guy is racist and xenophobic, and it is a disgrace that CNN allows him on the air.
That the media even makes this out to be much of anything speaks volumes as to how this country could get itself into the disaster of the Iraq war, or the economic crisis, or the healthcare crisis, etc.
No one in the media should ever complain again about how this country never makes progress on the big problems, or why.
As for Hillary Clintons reaction, it is very revealing. It smacks of insincerity. Also, notice how Hillary more and more adopts the tactics of people like Rush Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, etc. She is becoming the "vast right wing conspiracy" that she used to criticize.
Thanks for keeping us up-to-date on this. I've been busy and wonder exactly what the big fuss was all about. The transcript really makes you question people's reading comprehension.
Anyway, I'm liking this because this is Obama's "bitter" sweetness. Nobody in the media/politics said a word when Obama talked about Black folks being "bitter" (see Rev. Wright and the men and women of his "generation") and how some Black folks "scapegoat" immigrants, etc. We heard not a peep from the MSM or White folks in general or those feign-complaining in particular (because their outrage is fake)... Somehow, Obama wasn't elitist, etc. when he played the tough love role directing his remarks to the Black community.
Hey, nothing alarming there. It's always Open Season on...
They're calling it a political attack on Pennsylvania voters.
The reporter took it from what was described to her by the reporter as a middle to upper class crowd to a wealthy crowd.
Her second panel (which she referred to as the greatest political minds and did not include an Obama supporter and did include a Clinton supporter) took his comments out of context and by the middle of the show only referred to the last paragraph of his statements. Then went on to grade it a 10 and 11 on a scale of 1-10.
It's like the Wright thing all over again, but I trust people will get a hold of the transcript and agree that what he said is true.
Their unofficial poll showed that 56% did not believe his statements were elitist.
For me, this is the most revealing part of his statement."
No, it's the part your brain finds easiest to take out of context. What part of "People there have seen a lot of politicians promising them all kind of good things, and they didn't get any of that, so it's no wonder that they don't see a point in voting on economic issues" do you have trouble understanding?
Do you have any evidence that he believes in any of that Marx/Adorno stuff?
And, by the way, do I get this right that you're simultaneously accusing him of having a very materialist wordview, and of believing in Black Liberation Theology?
Since he appeared on the political scene, many have been asking just what does this guy really believe? What is the core of his personal, most intimate thoughts about America and her people?
Instead of hard-working, optimistic, faithful Americans, he sees “bitter,” “frustrated,” resentful people who are not jumping on the Obama bandwagon. Could it be that white rural voters 'just aren't that into you,' Barak?
Marx had some good ideas about class--the alienation of the worker and the working class overthrows the elite class.
I don't know why you're using socialism as a limp ax to destroy Obama's viability. Jesus was the first socialist. And before you go there, I'm not comparing Obama to Jesus. I'm saying socialism is not a new concept conceived by fringe hippies.
There's a difference between Marxist ideas and communism. Why is helping working and middle class Americans bad?
The elite media and most Democrats will say… “yeah.. .So? Obama is simply describing world as we know it.”
So, there is a debate to be had about substance.
Obama needs to make the case that his policies are in these voters' economic interest. But he truly seems to misread PA.
First, contrary to Obama's Allentown stereotype, PA has an above average per capita income. And even if some voters do vote their values over economics, Obama may want to explain to such voters why they should do otherwise, given that he has spent the past 20 years attending a church known for 'disavowing the pursuit of middleclassness.'
If Obama thinks these voters are clinging to antipathy towards people who aren't like them, anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment, he ought to explain why he is exploiting anti-trade sentiment on the campaign trail, but advocating lax policies on illegal immigration, including (but not limited to) providing government benefits like drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens and allowing criminals to become citizens. Once he does that, Obama can explain how he squares his stated position on trade with the advice of his top economic adviser. And when he does that, Obama can explain how his stated position on immigration squares with his labor-induced vote that killed the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill last summer.
Listed are newspaper articles (between 2006-2007) that SAYS that people are "bitter" for losing jobs. Papers including the Denver Post, The Durham Herald-Sun (NC), the Philadelphia Inquirer, and the Virginia-Pilot.
Hit control "f" and find the word-bitter
This is an opportunity for Obama to do a TV and radio ad titled, "In Touch".
RIGHT ON and AMEN!!! I was thinking the exact same thing. No one had a problem when Obama gave a dose of "Bill Cosby-esque" tough love to a black audience in Texas. People love that ish.
They love the idea that Obama might be the first President to openly challenge black pathologies. . . because he's black.
Well, guess what. . . Obama is also WHITE. Surprise! He's got just as much legitimacy to speak towards WHITE pathologies.
Tough love and straight talk go both ways! Deal with it.
In fact, I'm amazed at the manner in which Obama has tried to empathize with voters (including the white working class). I'm not saying he's 100% correct all the time. But at least he's trying. He's speaking to us like adults. What have Hillary and McCain done to empathize?
For me, that was the brilliance of his speech on race. He legitimized both black anger and white resentment. Yet, at the same time, he challenged both communities on how we might move forward.
Condescending? Hillary's response: Woo woo woo. Your perfect little hard working white folk. Woo woo woo. Easy there, I know that you pull yourselves up by your bootstraps. Woo woo woo. Mama Clinton is here to take care of everything. Woo woo woo.
THAT is condescending.
Ignore the woman behind the curtain folks. She's the real populist. Why? Well, because Mama Clinton says so, that's why.
Like Bill O'Reilly, Hillary's looking out for you (wink) with her $109 million (I literally make just about as much in one day as the median yearly income . . . my husband and campaign manager get paid millions to promote Columbian free trade . . . NY lost 35,000 jobs on my watch) self.
More like being the racist that he is. This is what happens when someone tries to hide the truth...
This doesn't hurt Obama's base because the white working class wasn't part of his base to begin with. Even with his struggles amongst the white working class vote, Obama's base has been bigger than Clinton's (let's not forget, he's been winning). So I don't think he'll lose any significant support.
I've even seen a few suggestions that working class voters might even appreciate Obama's candor.
Worst case scenario, it might add a few points to an Obama loss in PA. But it's not catastrophic enough to change the math. It doesn't make Obama toxic. And it could easily backfire on Hillary and John if they overplay their hand. Obama's response was tough and it shows that he ain't backing down.
When there is liberty, he argued, some men will create more wealth than others. Property and class factions are the result. Members of these different economic classes are tempted to pass laws which help themselves at the expense of the overall public good. Over time this excessive self-regard distorts the gift of reason and causes people to think and speak in ways that seem strange to the country at large.
1. “Nothing’s replaced them”? As someone who lives in a small rural town that saw a lot of closed plants and farm depression in the 1980s, a lot has “replaced them”—explaining why for much of the last decade the national unemployment rate has been below 5%.
2. “They”. This evokes Michelle’s similar “they” (as in the “they” who raised the proverbial bar on the Obamas), and likewise suggests both hostility and a certain us/they contempt for a slice of America that the Obamas apparently know very little about—but for the first time in their lives are rapidly discovering.
3. “They cling to guns or religion”. This is revealing for two reasons: one, Obama has been trying to finesse his position on guns to appeal precisely to gun owners and thus we start to see that his repositioning is cynical to the core; two, “cling to religion?” No rural Pennsylvanian clings to religion more than Obama himself, who for 20 years sat silent in the pews, while a hate-spewing minister damned his country and most everyone else. The question is not why Pennsylvanians “cling to their religion”, but why do the Obamas still cling to the Trinity Church that seems far more extreme than anything I’ve seen in rural America.
4. “antipathy to people who aren't like them”—as in the case of Rev. Wright’s views of Jews, whites, Italians, or Americans in general? In short, Obama accuses rural Pennsylvanians of a racism that they haven’t expressed while contextualizing the racism that his own Rev. Wright has.
5. “Anti-immigrant sentiment”? As in wishing that drivers’ licenses are not issued to those here illegally, or that we insist that those who immigrate to the U.S. do so legally?
6. The worst hypocrisy, of course, is Obama’s charge that these small towns in Pennsylvania express “anti-trade sentiment.” It was not George Bush or John McCain, but Barack Obama himself who tried to salvage Ohio by demagoguing NAFTA and opposing a free-trade agreement with Columbia. His entire campaign is predicated on showing more anti-trade sentiment that the Clintons.
7. Let me get this straight: Obama goes to the Bay Area to an affluent liberal enclave to give a condescending take on the supposed poor fools that he is currently trying to court. This is not just hypocritical, but abjectly stupid. All of Pennsylvania surely is asking today what is so hip and sophisticated about the Trinity Church and Rev. Wright?
So here we have the essential Obama, a walking paradox between the postmodern hip-Ivy-Leaguer who sneers at middle-class America’s supposed prejudices and parochialism, while at the same time courting an anti-Enlightenment, prejudicial demagogue like Jeremiah Wright. For free trade or anti-free trade? For 2nd-amendment rights or not? Post-religious or pious and fundamentalist? For public campaign financing or not? A uniter of various groups or someone who sees America in terms of “they”? Straight-talking or someone who evokes "context" to explain away the inexplicable?
Again, we will see more and more of these condescending statements of the Michelle Obama strain, more and more of Revs. Wright, Meeks, Lee and others peddlers of division like them, and more and more clues to a long hostility to Israel—in what will eventually become the most disastrous chapter in recent Democratic history.
And pundits keep wondering why Hillary won't give up?
Sen. Obama’s explanation and pushback are actually worse than his original offense. By refusing to acknowledge that the lumping of Americans of faith together with racists and xenophobes is empirically insulting, he essentially restates his position and digs in: Religion, racism, xenophobia are just “refuges” (his new word) for people who are not as privileged as he. Really repugnant stuff.
His remarks are now his official position, not a blunder that can be explained away and forgiven. That window has closed. And they bring back to the surface Michelle Obama’s old line: “Barack will never allow you to go back to your lives as usual, uninvolved, uninformed.”
Yep, that’s us: Just a bunch of uniformed racists who hate everyone who isn’t just like us and cling to our God and our guns because we didn’t get to go to Princeton or Harvard Law School. They know us so well.
you sound bitter.
Now, why would a mild-mannered, honest man frighten people like you so much?
No one has a problem when the Clintons characterize Obama's supporters as a bunch of young elite, latte sipping, birkenstock wearing, naive limousine liberal cultists who "don't need a President." There's no empathy there, just name calling.
Parroting the talking points of the RNC and teaming up with the Republican nominee won't fly well with the rest of the party. Contrary to the MSM current obsession, this country is bigger than PA.
Every election year the Republicans go on a tear calling the Democrats elitist, unpatriotic, etc. The same things they're calling Obama now. The Democrats need to grow a freakin' backbone and stand up for themselves. Republicans embrace their redneck, hard-a*s characterizations. Why? Because at least it's better than being a wimpy bleeding heart liberal.
Go ahead. Call a republican racist for supporting harsh crime legislation. He'll laugh in your face because he knows that people like a tough guy in the white house. He plays to his strength.
But call a Democrat elitist? Oh, they'll turn tail so fast it will make your head spend. I've never seen a group of people feel so ashamed for being educated and/or worldly in their view of politics and life.
Hillary actually implied Barack supporters were delusional. There was no "Hillary slams young America" ticker on the Lou Dobbs show.
People like Dobbs make a living from milking the bitterness of small town America. Of course his show would deny that that bitterness exists.
Many times, Obama has had the opportunity to bash Hillary's head in..but he's held back. His campaign hasn't jumped on this Columbia thing..and now, he's back on the defensive.
You earned today's 1st gold star.
What is Obama proposing?
Government run everything.
Government-coerced wealth redistribution, perpetual minimum wage increases, government subsidized health care for all and so on. One of the priorities listed on Obama's campaign Web site reads, "Obama will protect tax cuts for poor and middle class families, but he will reverse most of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers." Obama supports socialized medicine: "Obama will make available a new national health plan to all Americans, including the self-employed and small businesses, to buy affordable health coverage that is similar to the plan available to members of Congress."
It gets worse. Obama wants to create socialized wages: "Obama will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation to make sure that full-time workers can earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs such as food, transportation, and housing."
Obama's vision for government-run everything will cost Americans $800 billion.
Why are voters skeptical? It must be because they are just bigoted, xenophobic, gun-toting, bible-thumping rubes.
This is the introduction from Mayhill Fowler who "reported" this story a week after it occured because she said she didn't initially want to bring down the campaign, but after a week, she was duely offended enough to want to do so. Thing is Shelia Jackson Lee, as we all know, his a Clinton supporter and was certainly NOT at this fund-raiser introducing Senator Obama. It was in fact Barbara Lee who introduced Senator Obama. So this is the sharp eyed reporter who seems to fashion herself a modern day Woodward and Bernstein who can't tell one Black woman from another.
I know, conservatives think they are operating on a sophisticated assessment of policy and ideology. But the truth is, you're tapping into baser, predatory instincts.
Conservatism has FAILED..good luck convincing Americans to give you another 4 to 8 years to complete the destruction.
These are wedge-issue, or single-issue voters. Also, all Americans are happy at all times.
It's funny how people wish politians had the guts and integrity they see in Films and TV (like "The West Wing," "24," "Mr. Smith Goes To Washington," "Bulworth," etc.) Throughout this primary season I wondered how this nation can handle seeing the real thing -- from a Black man. It feels like a sociological experiment in progress. Are Americans adult enough to handle non-parsed, inconvenient truths? Because if that's enough for people to ignore a shitty economy, a never-ending Iraq occupation (possibly another one in Iran), and non-existent health care, then we deserve the results shameless, pandering politians give us: Nothing.
quite the contrary, obama completely understands "why white rural voters aren't jumping on his bandwagon."
it's b/c they are more influenced by republican propaganda and talking points than motivated by their collective interests.
Just like they are unlikely to accept his Rev Wright explanation, Obama appears not to appreciate the profoundly different worldview of this segment of the population.
There are some people like guns because they enjoy hurting not because they are planning a revolution. Like black people, white can hold on to religion because it brings them comfort.
If this id his idea of being "President of All America" (as if the previous presidents weren't), then we are in trouble.
This year, half the voters are too young to have been behind the wheel in a gas line or to have been paying rapidly rising monthly bills with a paycheck eroded by inflation. They have lived all their adult lives -- all their lives, in the case of the millennial generation, born since 1980 -- in an era when we have had low-inflation economic growth 95 percent of the time.
I, on the other hand, have vivid memories of the 1970s, when we had both economic stagnation and double-digit inflation -- stagflation -- and thanks to government price controls, motorists had to wait an hour in line to fill up their gas tanks. Those experiences make me skeptical of bigger government.
Social Security and Medicare are still here gobbling up more and more of the budget. Two federal executive departments have been added—Homeland Security and Veterans Affairs—with current budgets of over $100 billion a year.
GWB has big a big disappoinment for fiscal conservatives. He created—in the prescription drug benefit—the first new entitlement program since Medicare; signed the expansive Sarbanes-Oxley financial regulation act, much loathed by Wall Street; and has presided over the fastest growth rate of spending in a generation. President Bush also offered up the first $2 trillion and $3 trillion annual budgets during his two terms. The Bush administration has been a disaster for limited government.
People have big insecurity about big government.
There is a role for government, and the primary thing is to identify that role and to make sure government does that well. But today we are faced with constraints on the size and scope of government. When the bills creating Social Security in 1935 and Medicare in 1965 were signed, taxpayers weren't facing a looming deluge of debt from existing entitlement liabilities.
The United States is already in pretty deep, with a $9 trillion national debt and some $44 trillion in unfunded entitlement obligations.
Times of economic trouble generally make people less favorably disposed toward government.
Obama needs to explain exactly why his big government proposals will help revive our precarious economy, instead of making blanket statements and sweeping generalizations about voters, like myself, who remain skeptical of him and government in general.
er...I think Obama said exactly how they feel: bitter. How is that a disconnect? Are you saying they're actually happy?
The idea they have a "profoundly different worldview" is the truly divisive idea. Take a wealthy person, put them in the same circumstances, and they would begin to feel the same way the rural, small-towners do.
Who said anything about revolution, or hunting? Barack said guns...referring to the gun rights crowd. Why do these people need "comfort" from religion? Could it be because they are bitter? Could it be they are as angry as Rev. Wright?
If the previous Presidents were for all America, then why isn't all America prospering?
If small-towners energies are invested in parsing statements rather than looking at the condition of their lives, then clearly the ruling class has won. It has successfully distracted them from their own good.
Obama did not say that losing your job makes you just wanna hover over your gun all day. It's when you lose your job and you have zero trust the government will ever lift a finger to help you, you choose instead to vote on hedge issues like gun control. Now, even I can admit that his original comments in San Fran weren't properly worded. But if you just stop and think about it for five seconds, you get his meaning.
Funny how a Clinton supporter took her cellphone into an Obama fundraiser and recorded his comments, then sat on them until the campaign needed it. Whoops, Bill's out there raising Bosnia. Time to release the supposed small town smear. It's pathetic.
it's b/c they are more influenced by republican propaganda and talking points than motivated by their collective interests.
______________________________________
Of course. Your point of view is the same as Obama's.
But many Americans are skeptical of government. And of the big government solutions Obama is proposing. Will higher taxes, more regulation and new entitlements and bureaucracies really cure our economic problems?
What evidence is there that Obama's proposals won't drive us over the edge from recession to depression?
Obama has work to do, he has time as long as he can avoid being divisive and condescending.
People have different worldviews. It would be presumptive of me (or anything) to assume that all Democratic demographics see the world the same way.
In the original statement, Obama made a link between the values of these white voters and their bitterness. Anyone would be deeply offended by that. Suggesting that people are voting against their own best interest and telling them how they need to vote was elitist.
(Obama just conceded that his words were ill chosen.)
That's different than simply "a different world view" that shows a lack of reading comprehension and the ability to understand. He also says that the reasons these voters aren't voting for him isn't because of race but also because they understand that government is useless... because Washington has failed them for so long.
Anyone who chooses to ignore that entire message which was, "No, these voters aren't racist" and what sociologists and economists have been saying for years in an attempt to take insult and make themselves victims... is doing just
that.
I've been poor, I've been out of work. I know what it's like to not have lights or running water. I lived through that during the Clintons. I know what it's like to have work only come to your area for 3 months out of year. Fuck yeah, I'm bitter and anyone who isn't paying attention and maybe if your took your unrighteous indignation and pointed to places where people are actually feeling that and people have actually lived through that you'd know that.
He wasn't just talking about white voters, because there are black voters in Philly too who are resigned to not voting for anyone (and a few of them are my friends).
He's talking about antipathy of people who have every right to feel that way and to instead try to forge an alliance with easing and addressing their issues instead of blaming them for why they do what they do. In the context it makes perfect sense that people hold the views they do.
And it is ludicrous for two people who were definitely born and currently benefit from being the plutocracy to try and hammer anyone on the behalf of the poor. It's not "noble" to be poor.. Poverty isn't charming. It's not salt of the earth to be fucking struggling. It's a struggle, so you're damn right I'm mad.
Respectfully, I'd have to say that black folk know all too well what it feels like to have a President who neither appreciates nor respects our worldview.
The closest we ever got to an empathetic President was Bill Clinton (or so we thought . . . tsk, tsk!). And that's only because he played the saxaphone on Arsenio Hall. I mean, we were so impressed, we called him our first black president.
Walk in someone else's shoes? America has NEVER walked a minute, nevermind a mile, in the shoes of African-Americans.
We all know the drill. Some politician says something stupid. We get pissed. They talk to Al Sharpton, meet with Jesse Jackson and cry on Oprah's shouler. Presto! No more racial baggage. They're life moves on and blacks are told to get over it.
Who ever told white folks to just "get over it?"
Mainstream media does not speak of African-Americans as a necessary voting block. Sure, Democrats pander to blacks each election cycle. But they only go so far. And pandering is not the same as IDENTIFYING or empathizing with the black community.
For every pander we get, there's sure to be another sister souljah moment specifically designed to compensate for the white discomfort and resentment that such pandering brings about.
On the contrary, politicians have to IDENTIFY with that good ole' Reagan Democrat, working class white voter.
MSM can't get enough of the NASCAR Dad, soccer mom, security mom, blue collar worker.
Black folk in the inner city are just as American as they are. Yet politicians speak ill of and down to us all of the time. Sadly, it's actually good politics:
- You want to look tough on crime? Run a Willie Horton ad and promise to put more criminals (*cough* black people) in jail.
- You want to look fiscally responsible? Target "welfare moms" and pledge to put an end to inner-city social programs.
My goodness, the Republican Party learned this decades ago when they invented the Southern strategy. And guess what. . . it's been good enough to get them into the White House.
Look at the source. People want Obama on his hands and knees. You've got Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough all beating the same drum. Since when are they the moral arbiters of tolerance in America??? Is this the twighlight zone???
Politicians pay lip service to black issues all of the time - Just long enough to get the photo-op and then they're gone! But Obama's different. It's not enough for Obama to listen to working class white voters. Heck, it's not even enough that he try to empathize with them. No, Obama has to BEG.
P.S. With all of this talk about Obama bowling for votes in Altoona, I'd love to see Hillary or McCain be forced to lace up a pair of high-tops and play a game of pick-up with some brothas on the nearest inner-city black-top. But it ain't gonna happen because the black vote ain't that important to them.
Many people are indeed angry and frustrated at their govt. Yet politicians have consistently used wedge issues to drive their votes.
Look at Louisiana, which went heavily for Bush in 04. All they got out of it was the disastrous response to Katrina and more National Guard deployments to Iraq. Yet the GOP used wedge issues like gay marriage to scare up votes for them.
Now Hillary Clinton is actually once again trying to use far right GOP Limbaugh type talking points against Obama. That is sickening...one more reason to vomit Hillary out of the Democratic party.
We need a govt we can believe in again, and only Obama can offer that.
In the original statement, Obama made a link between the values of these white voters and their bitterness. Anyone would be deeply offended by that. Suggesting that people are voting against their own best interest and telling them how they need to vote was elitist.
You've made a link between WHITE voters as having certain values that Obama himself did not make. You also extrapolate that these WHITE voters are fundamentally different from economically depressed voters across the rest of the country. This predatory thinking is what keeps these voters oppressed. That predatory thinking is the true elitism.
Barack told no one how they need to vote; but, if they were voting for their best interests, their lives would demonstrate that.
What is your agenda? Do you want their lives to improve, or do you want to soothe/numb them with resentment? From bitterness to resentment...I suppose that's an improvement.
You're not the only person to grow up in abject poverty. I didn't have any running water when I grew up and I wasn't alone in my situation. It wasn't until I went to college that I realized that most people didn't receive free lunches at school. This wasn't in the 40s or 50s, it was the 70s and 80s.
The difference between us is that it didn't make me bitter. As I look back now, I don't recall many people who were bitter. They didn't have time to be. They had families to fed and lives to lead.
One of my best friends from childhood summed it up recently like this: If any of us obsessed about how unfair life was and all the disadvantages we had, it would have been easier for us to dig a hole, jump in it and let life pass us by.
The experience instilled in me values that have taken me further than anything I've learned in school. Humility, optimism, self-reliance, generosity, graciousness, and true empathy are important to me.
I suppose that it's why, I took offense to Obama's statement because it really showed that you can have all the education in the world, be raised by white grandparents, surround yourself with poor black people and still be as your ignorant in your assertions as a white person who has never ventured off the Main Line in Philadelphia.
The very idea that people with less money and education need guidance is patronizing and yes elitist. The thought that these people are unaware of their situation is condescending as hell.
It doesn't surprise me that Obama and his supporters don't "get" this.
And before you ask,I'm a black, female, from the Dirty South.
What is your agenda?
To present another point of view. I hate the fact that than is little debate concerning Obama or his issues. I hate that I expected to just fall in line because the brother might win.
I hate what this presidential race has done to black people. Black people have closed their mind to reason. Every slight against Obama is racism. Every black person who doesn't fawn over his greatness is a Tom or hater.
Is this the promised land? Whites, black, Latinos, Asians walking hand in hand with true empathy for each other working for a better America or Black people propelling someone into office just to have a "talented tenth" Brother President and Sistah First Lady.
Just something to think about.
I suppose that it's why, I took offense to Obama's statement
So, the conclusion is that Barack is ignorant, the white person off the Main Line in Philly is ignorant, but you are smart. Ok, so what now?
I don't understand how your own poverty was not sufficient to make you bitter, but one statement by Obama - taken out of context - has the power to deeply offend you.
Annoy the EFFFING Media, Elect Obama!
I find it odd that Hillary is playing Hardball with Obama when she should have been playing Hardball with Bush and Dick for the past 8 years. If a Hillary Administration is going to be more of the same we might as well keep the RepubliKlans.
I hope that I have empathy. I truly want to see things from others point of view not to look down on them but to build better relationships.
I was disappointed in Obama. The way I see if he wasn't thinking along those lines he never would have said anything like that.
Poverty was the hand we were dealt. We could have wallowed in it. We could have made the decision to let that define us, but we didn't.
I hate what this presidential race has done to black people. Black people have closed their mind to reason. Every slight against Obama is racism. Every black person who doesn't fawn over his greatness is a Tom or hater.
And so, would it be better to go back to how things were before Barack ran for President? It seems you want things to go back to the status quo...it sucks but at least it's known, right?
I see something very different. I see young people of colour with hope in their eyes like the whole world just opened up to them. They're excited and thinking of going into community organizing and politics. I see white kids with their faces turned up to Obama like flowers to the sun, because he gives voice to everything they've been thinking. I see relief on people's faces.
Blacks are fiercely protective of Obama and rightly so. If he cannot count on us then who can he count on? Right now, he is battling McCain, Hillary and the entire insane right wing movement..should he fight us too?
The word "fawn" implies undeserved adoration. Barack does deserve praise..he has done what many never even dreamed possible. People of all races are shaking their heads at his masterful campaign, fund raising and grass roots network. Do you have any idea how many volunteer networks there are??! Hillary and McCain, even with the example Barack has set cannot even successfully copy him! Hillary couldn't even figure out to fire Mark Penn even when she began losing! McCain can't sufficiently sense the mood of the country with regard to the economy. Yet, you judge Barack so harshly in comparison to those two losers??!!
I want to hear what you think of McCain and Hillary since you think Barack is elitist.
"The very idea that people with less money and education need guidance is patronizing and yes elitist. The thought that these people are unaware of their situation is condescending as hell."
But isn't this what Ms. Hillary - one hundred million dollar woman, "I will fight for you," "I will take care of you" - Clinton is using to gain votes?
The MSM has a vested interest in keeping this race going for as long as it can. RATINGS====> AD MONEY.
That is the reason why you have pundits who continue to raise issues that have been adequately addressed by Sen. Obama in the SPEECH.
Why DID he stay in that church?
Why does'nt he denounce Wright
This is about judgment, not race..blah blah....as informed and educated bloggers we need to stay on message and discuss the issues the MSM are unwilling to address.
Say it with me now: I don't want to be poor ever again, and because it didn't make you bitter sure as hell doesn't mean it shouldn't have made me bitter.
It's not the idea that people from poverty need guidance on this, it's the idea that they need someone to say this is what's happening and if you don't agree with that, then you disagree with history. You disagree with the reality of the disenfranchised.
America is not a meritocracy, you don't get to wear you are based on how hard you work. If that were the case, over 90% of the company, especially those doing back breaking labor would be able to take vacations, to have time off, to spend time with their children.
I'm not a proponent of the talent tenth, and that's not what Obama is proposing either, you're not "presenting a different viewpoint" really, because this is exactly what I spent all that time reading about from black people who chose instead of going back to their communities to enrich them, preach a bootstrap mentality that doesn't help anyone either.
So I say this to you, not as an Obama supporter, but as someone who is saying. It's not about wallowing in poverty, and I'm not going to pretend to be a happy darkie, just because it makes people happy, neither should poor people pretend that they aren't upset with their lot in life. Especially those who are the working poor. Even moreso those who follow all the rules of going to school, going to college to get a better education and then find themselves 2 paychecks away from oblivion no matter how much they pay.
It's not about the talented tenth, it's not about bootstrapping, it's not about patronization. It's this,whether you want to recognize it or not, things don't get changed by simply working harder and laboring through it and they certainly don't change for your community when you take that attitude. They change by working hard, laboring through, but always reminding people that but for luck and hardwork(and the hard work can be negated in many places) that this could be your life, too.
If we didn't need leaders or people to speak for and with us, then what is the point of government, president, MLK Jr., what is the point of advocacy. If you advocate realism, then you understand how a system works and if you understand how a system works, it's not with your head down trying to bolster yourself with praise of how hard you work. It's with your head up recognizing that there's only so much space for everyone, that's how capitalism works and the only way to change that is to try to change the way the system works.
I've not lost any sense of become close-minded, but I'm sick and tired of people telling me that I haven't done the leg work, read multiple ideologies, and don't understand sociology or economics. I do. I'm grounded. Are you?
No one is a rugged individualist and America has had enough of "all for me, and none of thee"... we need to start thinking of ourselves a collective.
The experience instilled in me values that have taken me further than anything I've learned in school. Humility, optimism, self-reliance, generosity, graciousness, and true empathy are important to me.
This entire line of argument is revisionist, nostalgist garbage. It's all well and good and say you look back at your life like this, but when you're living through it and your family members are living through and you're actually doing the work to make it out of there.. you're ridiculous.
I didn't call you a tom, or a coon, or a negro. I don't think you're any of those. I just think you've got on incredibly rose-colored glasses with regard to this issue. Hillary Clinton is telling people to labor on. Poverty is not cute, it's not awesome, and it should not be a way of life.
I never ever want to go back to the place I came. I still have issues when I hear a car backfire. I have been robbed, mugged, sexually assaulted and had bullets in my land in my ceiling from gunfights. Fuck what you're talking about. I'm not in the ghetto anymore and I never want to go back. You don't know the fear of fucking poverty, because if you did there's no way you could be so flippant about it.
You're making as many gaffes here as you accused Obama of making.
That thing about poverty being the "hand you were dealt" and having a stiff upper lip is a myth. Those things are useless platitudes. This is what Barack is trying to convey. There is a specific connection between who you vote for and your economic circumstances. Poverty is not fate. You don't collect guns or to church to soothe your poverty...YOU VOTE DIFFERENT.
Also, just because your screen name is kim doesn't mean you're female. Just because you say you're black doesn't mean you are.
kim's probably another male, Republican troll.
For we have a choice in this country. We can accept a politics that breeds division, and conflict, and cynicism. We can tackle race only as spectacle - as we did in the OJ trial - or in the wake of tragedy, as we did in the aftermath of Katrina - or as fodder for the nightly news. We can play Reverend Wright's sermons on every channel, every day and talk about them from now until the election, and make the only question in this campaign whether or not the American people think that I somehow believe or sympathize with his most offensive words. We can pounce on some gaffe by a Hillary supporter as evidence that she's playing the race card, or we can speculate on whether white men will all flock to John McCain in the general election regardless of his policies.
We can do that.
But if we do, I can tell you that in the next election, we'll be talking about some other distraction. And then another one. And then another one. And nothing will change.
That is one option. Or, at this moment, in this election, we can come together and say, "Not this time." This time we want to talk about the crumbling schools that are stealing the future of black children and white children and Asian children and Hispanic children and Native American children. This time we want to reject the cynicism that tells us that these kids can't learn; that those kids who don't look like us are somebody else's problem. The children of America are not those kids, they are our kids, and we will not let them fall behind in a 21st century economy. Not this time.
U can read this rest yourselves..
I don't have time to address all your points but I will say this.
Why did you make the assumption I don't give back? I like others from my circumstances are obligated to give back to break the chain of "generational abject poverty" (that's not an elitist term is it?)
"Pretending to be happy?" What the hell? Has it ever occurred to you that what makes you happy might not interest anyone else.
Was I not supposed to have a happy childhood because I was poor? Poor people can't be happy. They can't have joyous lives. I hope that's not what you're suggesting.
America isn't a meritocracy. No shit. I realize that there are some places that would never consider hiring me. There are some places that would never promote me. The goal post will continue to move. As my mom would tell me, "Big damn deal!!!" or "So fuckin' what!!" Life isn't fair. You learn to play that game or find a better one. You don't sit around and whine. You either face the future with hope or lay down and die.
I don't care how much money you make, life will always throw you curveballs. You can't prepare for everything and you can't be insured for everything. You will get knocked down. Life can beat the hell out of you. It's up to you to get back up and start swinging.
You think that you are the only one who has made it and then suffered a set-back. I was 10 months out of grad school, no cash money or savings, living in boston, no family, 2 friends, the biotech company for which I worked went under.
You think I rolled up in a ball and lamented my situation. Did I cry about the fact I would be homeless when my severance ran out because the unemployment wouldn't cover the rent?
Hell the Nah.
I saw it as blessing. I hated that job, I was only staying but the company had covered my moving expenses and if I left before 2 years I would have to pay it all back.
I had to make my own luck. I didn't have anyone to bail me out. I worked my ass off and found a better job. If I hadn't found that job,I was prepared to work two or three jobs until I found something comparable. I would have rented my futon out to students if I had to. I didn't care. I didn't have time to be bitter.
I'll end with this, there is no leader black, white or other who can rescue anyone. If you are locked in the mindset that you need someone to lead from point A to point B, you will end up standing still. Ain't nobody gonna carry you. If you lack the imagination to see beyond your situation, Obama can't do anything for you.
And anon, your attitude determines your altitude. Has it ever occurred to you that your negativity, snarkiness and general pessimism regarding life and people contribute to your situation. I swear if black folk had your attitude, we would have committed mass suicide years ago.
Maybe that's why our experiences are so different.
That was the total and complete truth - please say it again!
The dialogue is decidedly one sided.
Truthseeker writes:
"There is a specific connection between who you vote for and your economic circumstances. Poverty is not fate. You don't collect guns or to church to soothe your poverty...YOU VOTE DIFFERENT."
I disagree with the premise that the government can effect your economic circumstances.
Only you can change your life.
Looking for the government to come to your rescue (financially, educationally, medically) is to surrender your right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
When you look to the government to make your life richer, easier, healthier, you give up your right of self determination.
Secondly, many people worship God, not as an 'opiate' as you and Obama surmise, but out of abject humility and reverence for the blessings and opportunities the Almighty has bestowed upon us.
Third, collecting guns is a hobby. It may be one with which you cannot identify, but is it cause for ridicule?
What is so wrong with wanting immigrants to enter the country legally? What is wrong with wanting to keep jobs here in the US?
We can debate ways to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity" but to summarily dismiss those with whom you do not agree is arrogant and condescending.
If Obama wants Americans to be angry and bitter. He wants Americans to turn their anger and frustration into votes for him. He has much to gain by having us believe our economic demise is just an election away.
Democrats on the Economy in 1996:
“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)
Democrats on the Economy in 2008:
“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)
Key Labor Market Statistics in 1996 and 2008
1. U.S. Unemployment Rate:
March 1996 5.5%
March 2008 5.1%
2. Number of Long-Term Unemployed March 1996 1.33 million March 2008 1.28 million
3. Average Weeks Unemployed
March 1996 17.3 weeks
March 2008 16.2 weeks
4. Median Weeks Unemployed
March 1996 8.3 weeks
March 2008 8.1 weeks
5. Not in Labor Force because discouraged over job prospects
March 1996 451,000
March 2008 401,000
6. Democrats calling for Extended Unemployment Benefits?
March 1996 No
March 2008 Yes
7. President’s Party Affiliation
March 1996 Democrat
March 2008 Republican
Lastly, voting does not change your fate! Only you can change you fate.
God placed us on this planet with a free will to choose how we live our lives.
And if one truly votes differently, to change their economic circumstances, why are most black Americans 'clinging' to the Democrat party?
I'm certainly not going to sit around and wait for Barak Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain to decide my fate.
Frankly, I am skeptical of Obama, not for the truths you all see to hold as 'self-evident' but because under GWB the government has become an expensive, wasteful, inefficient behemoth.
Obama wants to make it even bigger, so that you all will continue to 'cling' to the Democrat Party.
All you're doing is giving me hackneyed "altitude determines aptitude" stuff that is completely and entirely the stuff of rhetoric. And obviously black people wouldn't have considered mass suicide with my attitude because I'm still here and I'm still living. The part that you forgot to understand and didn't take away from that is that through all of that hardness, I have never lost empathy for the people I left back there and I never will.
That's real live empathy. I never said that anyone could save us, but yes people must advocate for each other and if you don't think that, then why are you here advocating for rural white farmers?
That's the hilarity of this, that you're living homespun sayings, and I'm living reality. I've succeeded, what part of that don't you get? I've come from nothing and I am now a member of the middle class and will likely be a member of the very upper middle class, but I didn't do it alone, and I didn't do it without people advocating for me, and I didn't do it by myself. That's me keeping it real and telling you that beyond all the cutesy little sayings you have there's a real world that doesn't work out...
So yes, your experience is quite different than mine and I will say it again. You're exhibiting the exact same attitudes that you're accusing Obama of, only because it's to people in inner city areas and other black people it's "the truth". Why isn't his truth just as truthful as yours if that's the case? When he wasn't even specifically talking about white people. I'll tell you why, because with terribly simplistic attitudes like yours, who don't understand work harder has broken the backs and hearts of struggling people there is always this idea that people want a savior. They don't want a savior, or a handout, they want a chance and they want to be acknowledged and they want you to know that it's real out here. There's third world poverty in the United States, it existed in New Orleans before hurricane Katrina. It exists some NDN reservations, it exists in rural towns, and these people are working harder. They are bootstrapping. It's easy to say that life isn't fair when you don't have to live through the unfairness and it's even easier to sit back and make pronouncements on what those people "could" do if they only wanted to, when you have no idea what has to be done.
You are exactly the thing you proclaim to be fighting against. Here's another thing that your mom should have told you, "When you don't like people, maybe it's because you're looking at a part of yourself you hate."
And even then I don't agree with you on Obama's comment, but I certainly think you're projecting something onto him which exists in yourself.
It is striking that Obama makes clear that he believes that clinging to religion is no different than clinging to guns, (— we know his class of elitist Democrats has no respect for either the Second Amendment or deer-hunting —) racism, xenophobia, and anti-trade sentiment — as if they are all equivalent signs of lack of education and gullibility.
I now feel fully vindicated in my suspicion that Obama's attendance at Wright's church was entirely political and expedient. No one who has a personal relationship with Jesus Christ — or even moderate respect for other people's religious views — thinks in these terms about why working class people might believe in God. Or believes that a more enlightened government will supplant that.
Look at how easily people were manipulated into voting against gay-marriage instead of asking the politicians to discuss why they allowed companies to not only ship their jobs oversees, but get a tax break [corporate welfare] AND not help re-train the workforce left behind for new careers or offer an educational incentive. They pushed for a war that was supposed to have been 'won' but didn't want to show all the civilian casualties, didn't want to pay for proper equipment for those fighting, don't talk about all the women getting raped by fellow officers while serving, not supporting the GI Bill and allowing mid-to-lower income individuals to enlist and keeping them there, not talking about the REAL agenda with controlling the oil or how the US/UK assassinated the democratically elected leaders and redesigned the borders to cause strife AND allow the oil companies to accumulate their biggest windfall ever while we're now paying $4.39/gallon [in my area]. And how they won't let their children go over to fight but will gladly encourage yours to do so.
And while yes, some individuals can do their own internal work and try to find inner peace despite all the *hit they have to go through, it gets tiring after a while, esp. if it bleeds into the next generation, and it's certainly understandable that someone could be frustrated about it and if it festers long enough become bitter. I live in a very expensive city and would love to continue my education in the hope that it could lend to a better job and standard of living. The $4000 Pell grant for undergrads doesn't even cover one semester in today's marketplace and it has not been increased in over 10 years I believe. There's a cap on the guaranteed student loans which requires you to take out a private loan at a much higher interest rate and is subject to credit-worthiness. If I had enough money to begin with I wouldn't have to borrow money!
Obama may have been focusing on certain PA voters but this issue affects many other people who don't live in small towns. Some may immediately start carping about big gov't and more taxes but I see the gov't bail-out of Bear Sterns just like the Savings&Loan; scandal of the 80's as two sides of one coin. The few want the gov't to let them do whatever they want and get a tax break and no regulation, oversight and freedom from prosecution. So they can be free to launder money, tie up retirement funds lower-to-mid income masses in their high-stakes investments, discriminate against hiring anyone who isn't a particular white male, let the top executives earn hundreds of millions and let it all go to hell in a handbasket AND then use my money - what little I have to bail THEM out. The Bear Sterns CEO made $400 million and still gets to keep it, sold his stock before it fell and is not going to prison. Wasn't Martha Stewart sent to prison over a $50,000 deal but this guy gets nothing!
And the Bush administration has companies in an official prosecution holding-pattern against very real crimes they have committed and this is intentionally under-reported by the traditional media. I'm bitter! And Obama is the only candidate that had the audacity to touch on this and people don't like the message or the way he said it want to mad at him. HE is not the cause of the problem, so don't shoot the messenger. Actually Clinton and McCain are in bed with these people so they're not gonna do *hit about it! We have the real enemies to be mad at and we should hold them accountable.
Whether Obama ultimately wins or not this has been a very painful and enlightening wake-up call. I for one had no real idea of all the crap that goes on and how we the [little] people have been sold for a few pieces of silver. That's the source of a lot of this nastiness because evil will not go down without a fight. We are confused because we have been asleep at the wheel. The old manipulations won't work because they've already played that hand. Again, I'm not advocating Obama as a savior for he is still a politician but he encourages transparency and individual participation. We are the majority and we can take our country back. We don't have to agree on every single issue but we can agree to work as a collective. I am grateful for that knowledge and it's existing to join with others to make that happen.
Snarky much?
and
When did I advocate for white farmers?? I said that Obama's comments were condescending.
Anyway,
You write as if I live in a dreamland. Don't kid yourself. I'm quite grounded in reality. We both agree that life can hard. You made the decision to see the worst in most things and believe that the worst will happen. You also seem very angry and I dare say, bitter. I'm an optimist to the core of my being. I look for the best of situations and in people. I have set-backs and let-downs, but I still maintain hope.
You speak your truth, I speak mine. (May I suggest you re-read what I actually wrote instead of what you wanted to read.)
I'll be the first to admit that I have a little money now and a few letters behind my name, but I don't see it as I came from nothing and look at me now. I came from something. The education and money are icing on the cake. If I lost it all, I wouldn't be devastated. There is not one of my possessions that isn't expendable.
You are right one account. I only recently come to fully realize that poor blacks in the hood and projects have a totally different existence than poor people like me and my family in places like rural AL and Mississippi.
I don't know how I would have turned out if I had been raised in such hostile conditions. It's difficult for me to built relationships with some black people I've met up North. No problem with Africans or West Indians. Sometimes I can't relate to certain black people. I'm not sure I want to. I don't understand the whole idea of "I don't have anything so you can't have anything" some people seem to have. It's foreign to me. I grew up poor but always believed that "I don't have much, you don't have much, let's put what we have together so we can have something".
That doesn't go over well in Philadelphia.
I forgot to ask you something. How can a realist (or pessimist) such as yourself vote for Obama?
His main theme is hope.
Isn't that antithetical to the way you see the world. His campaign is full of home-spun sayings that must annoy you.
"We're the change we are looking for."
"Yes we can"
"Fired up and ready to go"
Doesn't that annoy you?
"Also, just because your screen name is kim doesn't mean you're female. Just because you say you're black doesn't mean you are.
Kim's probably another male, Republican troll."
Ha Ha, I was going to say the same thing!!
Nquest and B-Serious,
As usual, I agree with both of you!!!
Yes, I'm angry and I'm bitter and that doesn't upset me even in the very snarky tone that you're saying it in. I'm able to support Obama because much like the real world things are not always black and white and no his message doesn't annoy me. What annoys me is that in a serious political conversation instead of dropping your insanely condescending attitude, you've resorted to snark. People and ideologies are complex and really what I hope that we're able to learn to do is to learn to stop being so polarized and understand that there are a myriad of issues and responses that are all perfectly human and acceptable.
You're definitely advocating for "white" rural voters. Sorry, I shouldn't have used farmers there. You're making an observation and speaking up on their behalf. I should think that if this didn't play well in Penn, then Hillary's message wouldn't play well there either because her message is incredibly paternalistic. It's in the vein of GWB wackiness. The trope of the ennobled poor is terrible. I don't want to hear that I'm plucky and I have moxie and I'll struggle on, that's a romanticization of poverty and lack of opportunity that I just cannot accept.
Keep looking on the bright side, but bright sides aren't dangerous when you're not looking at the stark reality of the dark side. One of the things that's so interesting to me is that you get all of these people talking about handouts, and saviors and if you've ever been to a truly poor rural or urban area you see all these signs of people trying to participate in capitalism, no matter how little. They want to "American Dream". Drug Dealers aren't out selling drugs, because it's awesome and an easy way of life! Sex Workers aren't prostituting because it's liberating.
It's not that I'm saying I came from nothing, and look at me now. I'm saying I came from something that wasn't a lot, and I will never forget where I cam from and that some of my family is left back there. That's what I'm saying and I'm not going to listen to you or anyone else try to sell messages that are better left on carpets, when people are looking for real ways to change.
By the way, have you ever thought that maybe the reason you have a hard time interacting with black people is that you're condescending? And the reason that you think Africans and West Indians are so nice to you is because you've already made a quality/value judgment on what type of people they're likely to be? Because your elitism and classism shows through in pretty much every comment you type. Maybe you should consider visiting the other JackAndJill.. you know the one where they sit around and talk about all the terrible things "bad" black people do... never realizing that to the very people they're trying to emulate they are the bad black people.
The question is, are ther enough of them to send him to the White House.
Do most rural voters, and white males agree with his comments, actions and policy positions?
Will McCain be able to counter Obama's defense of Wright, Obama's belief in the 'root causes' of conservative leaning voters, his expansive view of the role of government, and his contrasting foreign policy and plan to end the war. Yes he will.
So, help Obama make the case. Why should rural voters and white males vote for Obama?
Obama just completed a bus tour through small town Pennsylvania. It was the members of these communities themselves who told Obama how bitter they were and what they turn to in these devastating times.
Obama could have chosen his words more carefully ("cling to" was the big oops), but he hasn't said anything that isn't true.
In fact, I read a diary on Daily Kos by a person who lives in Western PA who reported that people say without flinching: "It's half-breed niggers like him who make it bad for the rest of us."
No, that particular sentiment will not allow those who hold it to cast a vote for Senator Obama for anything except maybe... well, I won't go there.
Network is one of the most brilliant screenplays ever written. Listen to Peter Finch deliver this famous speech and listen carefully to the details. It's from 1976, but it may as well be 2008:
I'm As Mad As Hell And I'm Not Going To Take It Anymore!!
______________________________________
Well that's the premise. "What's the matter with Kansas?" eh?
I don't think this is true. There are many single issue voters out there, who are simply passionate about their issue above all else.
But, if true, cannot the same be said of black voters? Gay voters?
Feminists?
Why not, "What's the Matter with New Jersey?"
Hear me out:
There is a burgeoning 'investor class' in this country. As first generation college grads enter the workforce, they are able to invest in a wide array of finacial products never before known to them or their parents. "The stock market is for rich people." Well, not any more.
My husband and I were able to buy our first home, 18 years ago, after prudently investing in the stock market, cashing out and using the money for a down payment.
Our investment in the economy through the stock market has helped to propel us to a level of financial security and prosperity not known to either of our parents.
Our financial situation is such that we have been able to give money to our relatives to help them through tough times, donate to charities, employ tutors, coaches, handy men, etc.
We have been truly blessed.
We have educated ourselves about investing and have set our parents up to gain more from their hard-earned money as well. We have stressed to our family members, all middle-class, the value of investing.
Now, let's take the position of Barak Obama.
He was recently interviewed by Maria Bartiaromo about his position on the capital gains tax, which he wants to increase from 15% to 25%.
He cites mega-billionaire Warren Buffett, to say that we 'can handle this' type of increase. Sure, Warren Buffett can handle it.
But now, my brother, who is saving for a house, will see his down payment(now in the market)shrink.
He wants to put the maximum amount of money down, he's shooting for 20% down. 30 year fixed rate. This is the safest way for him to go.
Economically speaking, for whom should he vote? BTW, he is gay.
We have also used the market to grow a college-fund for our 3 kids. With tuition rising, finanacial aid unavailable (we do not qualify) we our looking to send them to college with our returns from the stock market.
We have just seen one year of tuition go to the government.
So, for all those eager to improve upon the good fortunes of their parents and grand parents, many of whom came to this country with little or nothing, for whom should they vote?
http://www.investors.com/editorial/editorialcontent.asp?secid=1502&status;=article&id;=289699661705631