Gaffes

One thing I wonder about is how much do "campaign gaffes" really matter? My guess is that their perceived importance is mostly an illusion. I mean, people point to plenty of examples of campaigns that lost, in large part, "because of" this or that gaffe or damaging random thing dredged out of the record but you never see an example of a campaign that won because it successfully avoided gaffes.

I hypothesize that most people aren't very good at identifying and articulating their real reasons for preferring one candidate over another (how many people say "I'm pretty much a blind partisan" or "all my friends are for Obama and their scorn for Clinton has rubbed off on me even if I think they're overstating it"?) and wind up taking their cues from the press. You're told that the reason to dislike John Kerry is that he's a flip-flopper and so if you dislike John Kerry you cite his flip-flopping.

The 2000 exit polls are interesting in this regard. 13 percent of voters said it was most important to have a president who "understands the issues" and they voted 75-19 for Al Gore. By contrast, 24 percent said it was most important to have a president who's "honest and trustworthy" and they broke 80-15 for Bush. Now I don't believe for a minute that there's a "pro-honesty" voting bloc out there that was alienated by Gore's lies, pitted against a "pro-understanding" bloc that was alienated by Bush being dumb and that that entire 37 percent of the public was genuinely in play and might have swung the other way had Gore been/seemed more honest and Bush been/seemed more intelligent. On the contrary "Bush is dumb and Gore's a liar" was a widespread notion, so people aligned their stated views about presidential qualities with the perceived characteristics of the person they were voting for.

In that same exit poll, 15 percent of the population says that having experience is the most important thing and a stunning eighty-two percent went for Gore. In 2008, however, John McCain is almost certainly going to badly beat Barack Obama among voters who say they put a premium on experience. And yet those people aren't going to be the same people who valued experience in 2000. On the contrary, they're mostly going to be conservatives who voted for Bush in 2000 and dismissed the value of experience. Conversely, liberals who claimed to think experience was crucial in 2000 will have no problem pulling the lever for Obama in 2008.

Comments

Matt's whistling past the graveyard: "New poll shows Barack Obama tanking in Pennsylvania".

Posted by Fred | April 14, 2008 5:42 PM

I agree, to an extent. Every campaign makes "gaffes," be they actual or manufactured/manipulated. It's really a question of controlling the narrative.

A Gore campaign that was good at narrative control and rapid response would have immediately squelched the trumped up baloney about the internet by featuring the actual internet inventors (who to this day stand behind Gore's quote) at a number of televised events. Or put them on the Today show or something.

A Kerry campaign with better skills would have nipped the Swift Boaters in the bud *the next day* with a "shame on you" speech and a bunch of pro-Kerry generals and military pals.

The good news for Dems this year is that the Obama campaign is infinitely better at narrative control than the Gore or Kerry campaigns. Both were tagged as liberal elitists. (EVERY Democratic candidate who isn't will be, unless they're a general or something. Get used to it.) But who's better at stamping it out and making the detractors look dumb? Clinton has revealed this strength in Obama.

Posted by Adam | April 14, 2008 5:46 PM

Well, I don't think they are as important as people commonly believe, but there are exceptions. Ford's gaffe regarding Poland in '76 really was harmful, I think, in that it negated one of the few, if not only, remaining advantage a Republican had in the wake of Watergate. I think predicting contemporeaneously a gaffe's signifigance is hard, but I think Obama's screw-up has greater implications in the general election than in the party race, assuming he gets the nomination.

Posted by Will Allen | April 14, 2008 5:48 PM

Fred, do you read this stuff before you link to it?
------------------------------
Regardless, the New Hamphire-based ARG poll, may have identified a tactical worry for the Obama camp above and beyond the current controversy. Dick Bennett, head of the poll, told us today that even before the furor erupted, it appeared many Pennsylvania Democrats began to turn against Obama because they are simply sick and tired of seeing and hearing his ads.

Much as campaign consultants would be loath to agree, Bennett opined that a candidate "can spend too much money" on an ad campaign, and the saturation of Obama spots ...

in Pennsylvania appear to be a classic example of "overkill" that ultimately does harm.

Bennett also reported that some of the Pennsylvanians who his company contacted went on to complain about the substance of the ubiquitous Obama ads. They are "about him, not voters or what their concerns are," Bennett said. And Obama's comment on attitudes in small towns served to reinforce that feeling.
--------------------------

Posted by Scott Ferguson | April 14, 2008 5:48 PM

Of course you don't hear of such a thing; people don't notice what doesn't happen. You also don't hear that a war was won because the commander didn't misread his opponent. (On the other hand, FDR's 1936 campaign was at the time dubbed "the campaign without a mistake", which is similar.)

Posted by zzedar | April 14, 2008 5:50 PM

That comment by Bennett is telling -- they also have a question that is reported as 23% annoyed by Barack's ads. I asked my friend, and I ask those here commenting, how exactly do you ask such a question in a non-leading way?

That result basically means you asked if a candidate annoyed you with their ads. You'd have to say the candidate's name.

The ARG poll was a push poll. It is invalid, and its results laughable. They asked a question which is just simply impossible to word so it is not biased. That they're touting the results they wrote their poll to produce is simply shameful.

Posted by James Hare | April 14, 2008 6:00 PM

Obama's problem in the general election will that he's been running on popular assumptions about the implications of his biography -- that his mixed race heritage makes him a post-racial post-partisan conciliator -- that simply aren't true. As evidence of his leftist / racialist past keeps emerging, he'll come under increasing skepticism.

McCain, in contrast, will run on the basic notion that while, sure, he may blow up the world, at least he's not a big phony like Obama who is reluctant to speak off the cuff because he is afraid he'll reveal his true self.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 6:06 PM

I agree about gaffes being overrated by the media (gee, I wonder if that has anything to do with the media pushing its gaffe-based political product?), and agree about the "most important" question capturing many rationalizers, but I disagree about personal attributes in general: I see no reason to doubt that perceived personal attributes have at least some effect at the real margins, again even if this effect is being overstated by the rationalizers.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 6:06 PM

Matt's whistling past the graveyard: "New poll shows Barack Obama tanking in Pennsylvania".

Why am I not surprised about this?...

But then, unlike lots of others, I've remained firmly loyal to Matt's original slogan of "The Reality-Based Community"...

If Obama actually loses PA by 20 points, he'll probably lose the non-black PA Democrats by something like 40+ points. Not very encouraging for November.

Posted by RKU | April 14, 2008 6:09 PM

I don't want to see this thread highjacked yet again by the race-obsessed crowd, but I will just note that Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Senator from neighboring New York, has the support of the current Democratic Governor of Pennsylvania, and has the support of the last Democratic President of the United States, who happens to be her husband. John McCain, of course, has none of those things going for him. And yet certain people insist on assuming that John McCain is going to be able to step into Hillary Clinton's shoes when it comes to appealing to Democrats in Pennsylvania.

This is just a dumb argument, and it hasn't gotten any smarter with repetition. But they do insist on repeating it, whether or not it is relevant to the topic at hand.

Posted by DTM | April 14, 2008 6:18 PM

Rev. Jeremiah Wright is not going away. For example, he's already signed up to be the main speaker at the huge NAACP annual dinner in Detroit. The man is an attentionaholic and there's a part of him that would rather see Obama lose the election if he, Rev. Wright, can go down in the history books as the truth-telling prophet who showed that a black candidate can't an even break in the white man's system.

Similarly, Michelle Obama is not going away, either. She has the kind of domineering personality who would have been been happy being a big fish in a small pond, but she was repeatedly lured by affirmative action into situations over her head intellectually. She got into exclusive Whitney Young Magnet H.S., Princeton, Harvard Law, and Sidley Austin on racial preferences. Everywhere, she was acutely aware that she wasn't as smart as the average and it drove her crazy -- not at affirmative action, of course, but at all those stuck-up white people who were smarter than her.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 6:18 PM

James G. Blaine clearly lost because of a gaffe (not by him) in 1884. "Rum, romanism, and rebellion," cost him Irish support in New York, which he lost by only a tiny number of votes, and which would, had he won, have given him the election.

Posted by John | April 14, 2008 6:21 PM

Scummy racist Steve the Sailer being a scummy racist.

Posted by Jennifer | April 14, 2008 6:24 PM

Look, it's always been about race for Obama and for most of Obama's various supporters. They just disagree on what Obama means about race.

Poor Matt, though, thought that Obamamania was all about that lone speech Obama made against the war in 2002 while running for re-election is a super-liberal state legislature district. But, Obama never mentioned opposition to the war in his Democratic convention keynote address. Instead, he started off with 380 words about his own "race and inheritance." The point was to make himself look like Tiger Woods, the happy product of a happy mixed race marriage. Matt finally read Obama's autobiography and discovered that Obama's subliminal campaign theme was pure BS, that Obama was psychologically scarred by his parents' disastrous bigamous marriage, making him obsessed with race. So, Matt, who normally generates dozens of opinions per day, thought about the book for months, and then could only come up with one thing to say about the book: Obama is a good writer!

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 6:29 PM

On the other hand, Steve Sailer is still waiting for his promotion to Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan, and is hoping his genteel comments here will hasten that day...

Posted by Snoopy | April 14, 2008 6:35 PM

Thankfully, I know that if I want a "gaffe-free zone", I can come here and be enlightened by MattY's consistent discussion of policy and important matters rather than triviality. MattY always makes sure to understand his opponents' arguments and offers cogent counter-arguments rather than just snark as others do. Not only that, but MattY has even encouraged people - regular citizens - to go to campaign events and ask the questions the MSM won't and point out the huge flaws in the candidates' policies and then upload their answers to video sites so that we might have a national debate about important issues.

Posted by TLB | April 14, 2008 6:35 PM

Gaffes matter because Obama is a creative artist with a brilliant talent for giving people the impression that he's on their side, but eventually the public is starting to realize that he's talking out of both sides of his mouth.

At a fundraiser at, I believe, Gordon Getty's mansion on Billionaire's Row, he told the assorted rich San Francisco liberals that Pennsylvania rural whites are addicted to various opiates of the masses like religion and guns. Unfortunately for Obama, one attendee taped his remarks and posted them on the Internet.

When Obama has time to make up a long speech or book, he's very good at concocting such long, impenetrable sentences that they can't be reduced to a soundbite. But when he's talking off the cuff, he sometimes phrases things simply enough that people can understand what he means, which was his mistake here.

Perhaps Obama was just telling his audience what they wanted to hear. That's what he does everywhere, but the public is finally starting to notice that this paragon is actually just the slickest politician of them all.

Alternatively, what he said in San Francisco is what he really believes, which shows that one of the big elements of his campaign, his Christian faith, is a lie, that he's really just an agnostic who joined a far left black church to make this preppie from paradise finally feel "black enough" and to give him a political base.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 6:46 PM

So I am now convinced that Steve Sailer's entire worldview is centered on the amount of melanin in people's epidermal cells.

Please Steve, could you please contibute something to debate that does not revolve around race?

You're 50 years old for crying out loud! Surely you should have figured out by now that your racial rants are not going to leave any impression on intelectual discourse long after you're dead and buried.

Just saying...

Posted by DJ | April 14, 2008 6:52 PM

"The point was to make himself look like Tiger Woods, the happy product of a happy mixed race marriage... Obama was psychologically scarred by his parents' disastrous bigamous marriage, making him obsessed with race."

aside from the generally nonsensical characteristics of your "arguments", your writing also reeks of ignorance and racism. children of interacial marriages are psychologically scarred? they just want to be like tiger woods? are you really incapable of understanding how xenophobic you sound?

i imagine you'll be pretty hard to convince on that front, but how about this one: you're accusation is nothing more than a projection. YOU are obsessed with race (specifically obama's race), not him.

Posted by sleepy | April 14, 2008 6:56 PM

"The point was to make himself look like Tiger Woods, the happy product of a happy mixed race marriage... Obama was psychologically scarred by his parents' disastrous bigamous marriage, making him obsessed with race."

aside from the generally nonsensical characteristics of your "arguments", your writing also reeks of ignorance and racism. children of interacial marriages are psychologically scarred? they just want to be like tiger woods? are you really incapable of understanding how xenophobic you sound?

i imagine you'll be pretty hard to convince on that front, but how about this one: you're accusation is nothing more than a projection. YOU are obsessed with race (specifically obama's race), not him.

Posted by sleepy | April 14, 2008 6:58 PM

"The point was to make himself look like Tiger Woods, the happy product of a happy mixed race marriage... Obama was psychologically scarred by his parents' disastrous bigamous marriage, making him obsessed with race."

aside from the generally nonsensical characteristics of your "arguments", your writing also reeks of ignorance and racism. children of interacial marriages are psychologically scarred? they just want to be like tiger woods? are you really incapable of understanding how xenophobic you sound?

i imagine you'll be pretty hard to convince on that front, but how about this one: you're accusation is nothing more than a projection. YOU are obsessed with race (specifically obama's race), not him.

Posted by sleepy | April 14, 2008 6:59 PM

"The point was to make himself look like Tiger Woods, the happy product of a happy mixed race marriage... Obama was psychologically scarred by his parents' disastrous bigamous marriage, making him obsessed with race."

aside from the generally nonsensical characteristics of your "arguments", your writing also reeks of ignorance and racism. children of interacial marriages are psychologically scarred? they just want to be like tiger woods? are you really incapable of understanding how xenophobic you sound?

i imagine you'll be pretty hard to convince on that front, but how about this one: you're accusation is nothing more than a projection. YOU are obsessed with race (specifically obama's race), not him.

Posted by sleepy | April 14, 2008 6:59 PM

sorry bout the multiples. no physical harm intenden, man.

Posted by sleepy | April 14, 2008 7:02 PM

If the media had been doing its job, it would have pointed out back in 2007 that Obama's "post-racial" campaign image was fraudulent, that the subtitle of his autobiography was "A Story of Race and Inheritance" and that all 442 pages were about race and inheritance and nothing else, that Obama's spiritual mentor was a far left anti-white hater, that his much ballyhooed church served him not as a spiritual resource but as a place to feel "black enough," and that his political roots were far to the left of the mainstream.

That would have left Obama two alternatives. He could have said:

- Yes, that used to be true, but I've matured a lot over the last 10 years and have changed my mind on many things about ideology and race for the following reasons ...

or

- Damn right.

Instead, we're in a situation where Obama has almost wrapped up the nomination, but the press is only now starting to reveal bits of evidence about who he really is.

Matt, for example, was severely negligent in delaying reading Obama's autobiography for many months, then delaying for months blogging about it, and then having nothing to say about it other than it was "well-written."

The Democrats ought to win in November easily, say, 55-45 with a generic candidate like Chris Dodd running. Obama, with all his talent, might win 60-40, but with all his baggage, might lose the whole thing to McCain. If he does, it will be the fault of the press for not airing who the real Obama is, which was primarily for fear of being called racist.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 14, 2008 7:07 PM

Does anyone doubt that 'macaca' sunk George Allen?

Posted by David Tomlin | April 14, 2008 7:18 PM

I think what gaffes do is render certain kinds of criticisms much easier to make. Obviously, Gore would have been tarred as a liar without the help of "invented the internet," just as Kerry would have been tarred as an inauthentic flip-flopper even without "I was for it before I was against it." But without the gaffe -- or, in Gore's case the manufactured gaffe -- making the case would have been much more difficult. It would have required work and explanation and arguments. With the gaffe, you can just refer to it and your work is done.

Posted by pjs | April 14, 2008 7:20 PM

It's over for Clinton, folks.

It's Obama, stupid: Carter and Gore to end Clinton bid
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/world/It39s-Obama-stupid-Carter-and.3976738.jp

Money Quotes:

Former president Carter and former vice-president Gore have already held high-level discussions about delivering the message that she must stand down for the good of the Democrats.

"They're in discussions," a source close to Carter told Scotland on Sunday. "Carter has been talking to Gore. They will act, possibly together, or in sequence."

An appeal by both men for Democrats to unite behind Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, would have a powerful effect, and insiders say it is a question of when, rather than if, they act.

Obama has an almost unassailable lead in the battle for nomination delegates, and is closing the gap with Clinton in her last stronghold, Pennsylvania, which votes on April 22.

Clinton remains publicly defiant, insisting she will continue the battle with Obama all the way to the Democratic convention in August - when superdelegates, or party top brass, will have the chance to add their weight to primary votes.

But the party's top brass have concluded her further participation in the race can only harm the party as Republican nominee John McCain strives to take advantage of her increasingly bitter battle with Obama.

Both Carter and Gore occupy the rarefied position of elder statesmen - in addition to their White House past, both are winners of the Nobel Peace Prize, giving them additional gravitas to carry the party with them.

Neither of them is likely to object to the role of bringing down the curtain on Clinton. While neither man has formally endorsed either her or Obama, both have clashed in the past with the Clintons.

Gore blames his loss to George Bush in the 2000 presidential election on the impeachment of Clinton triggered by his White House affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Carter, who has carved out a successful career as an international mediator, is believed to detest the flashy style of the Clintons. He recently told an interviewer that his entire family are committed Obama supporters.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | April 14, 2008 7:51 PM

Dear Steve the racist sailor who doesn't trust black people but really hates white people who fail to understand how little they should trust black people,

The whole point of Obama's candidacy is to prove that people like you are in the minority. If Obama has miscalculated, and older white voters who fear skin pigmentation still outnumber sane americans, I suppose that's everyone's loss. But if he's right, if he shows the entire foundations of your political consciousness to be pathetic and obsolete, will you do us all a favor and retire to some nordic countryside?

Please respond by restating that you think Obama is scary and black. It's been about half an hour.

Posted by wooticas | April 14, 2008 7:54 PM

Folks, just ignore Steve Sailer. He believes in race based IQ differences, which only goes to show he knows nothing about statistics and either is clueless or a liar. Functionally, he is the equivalent of a troll. (Remember folks, the evidence used to show that Africans have lower IQs than white people also show that the Irish are stupider than the English by 2 standard deviations. You know, the Irish, a country populated by folks as wealthy as the US per capita and yet supposedly can only barely tie their shoes.)

Posted by Brad Holden | April 14, 2008 7:55 PM

The man is an attentionaholic and there's a part of him that would rather see Obama lose the election if he, Rev. Wright, can go down in the history books as the truth-telling prophet who showed that a black candidate can't an even break in the white man's system.

Steven knows this because
a) Rev. Wright has been milking his newfound prominence for all it's worth, telling any reporter who will listen that race is the only reason that anyone will oppose Obama; or
b) he doesn't need to hear what Wright says to know what he thinks, since all black people think alike and they are always crying racism.

Posted by neil | April 14, 2008 7:57 PM

The far better alternative to "macaca" would be what I hinted at above: regular people videotaping the answers to real questions about policy, and then uploading them to Youtube. Instead, we get CNN questions like this. I must correct myself: that wouldn't fly even in the USSR.

And, I haven't seen anyone besides me and a few others (including MichelleMalkin) suggesting that, and I certainly haven't seen MattY or similar.

And, on the subject of Obama, I'm surprised yet another shoe hasn't dropped yet.

Posted by TLB | April 14, 2008 7:57 PM

The sad thing is that if Hillary Clinton were not in this race, but Obama were running against any other Democrat, this race would have such a better tone and this wouldn't even be seen as a gaffe.

Hillary seeks to legitimize racism and the very right wing attacks she used to rail against.

Hillary grows more hated every day. I hope she is proud of herself.

Posted by cm | April 14, 2008 8:37 PM

And you never hear about the planes that land safely.

Posted by aleks | April 14, 2008 9:00 PM

Folks, just ignore Steve Sailer. He believes in race based IQ differences, which only goes to show he knows nothing about statistics and either is clueless or a liar. Functionally, he is the equivalent of a troll. (Remember folks, the evidence used to show that Africans have lower IQs than white people also show that the Irish are stupider than the English by 2 standard deviations. You know, the Irish, a country populated by folks as wealthy as the US per capita and yet supposedly can only barely tie their shoes.)

Another simple refutation of race based IQ differences: the black/white divide today is similar to the white/white divide between today and two generations ago. Evolution sure does happen fast!

Posted by mpowell | April 14, 2008 9:30 PM

Since the MSM is phasing out journalism, expect to hear gaffes all day and night for the rest of your life. Don't expect to hear anything that requires actual reporting. From what I can tell, most remaining political reporters are chained to their desks with headphones surgically implanted so that they never miss a word from Howard Wolfson. The rest are on campaign buses, at huge expense to their crumbling news organizations, desperately seeking gaffes.

Posted by phillygirl | April 14, 2008 9:30 PM

Matt, I think you (like most others) have the causality mixed up: the gaff in itself is almost always meaningless; what is important is that the "gaff" that we speak of is created by an editing process that is characteristic of the latent values of the editors. The gaff is then used as a weapon in the political debate, mostly by the media or other political opponents.

In the case of Barack, you have comments that are true and defenseable (in context). They were recorded by a political opponent, taken out of context, and then reported (almost always with even less context). Then Hillary and McCain tell further lies with fake outrage and the media "reports the controversy" with such little context that all we are told is that Obama is probably an elitist because everyone from washington or new york who is able to get on tv says so. So the guy who grew up on food stamps and is worth a couple mil is an elitist whereas the two candidates worth well over $100 mil are true representatives of the hoi palloi. That matters, regardless of the content or original import of what Obama actually said.

Posted by Client #11 | April 14, 2008 9:52 PM

Steve Sailer, racist scumbag that he is, loses any and all remaining credibility (so 0.001 to 0) by suggesting that Sidley & Austin would hire someone who wasn't qualified. (This is upthread and something of a throwaway point as part of his attempt to diminish Michelle Obama, who has accomplished much more than a low rent George Lincoln Rockwell.) Even assuming the critiques of affirmative action have merit, which they manifestly do not, an AM Law 100 law firm has no interest in hiring anyone who can't work the files. The reason why most firms, presumably including Sidley, do try to promote diversity is that they've had experience losing very talented minorities because of a perception that they weren't welcome. The firm is hurt if it's limited to a talent pool of rich white dudes. If Sailer were employable in the private sector, he might know this.

Posted by David B. | April 14, 2008 10:05 PM

Gaffes do matter. What I have noticed, however, is that in the current 24-hour news world that we inhabit, the news channels and pundits and bloggers are gaffe crazy. They are addicted to gaffes. Everything is turned into a gaffe. Genuine disagreement about issues is turned into a gaffe. Chris Matthews and Wolf Blitzer and the rest of them spend half their time trying to convince their viewers that somebody has just committed some horrible gaffe.

This media environment must have some effect on the way political campaigns are run.

Posted by blah | April 14, 2008 11:59 PM

Fred

Thanks for the link to the LA Times article. Ditto to the comments by Pennsylvania voters that Obama's ads are all about him and fail to confront their needs. Finally, other voters are discovering the real Obama.

Posted by EWard | April 15, 2008 12:12 AM

Michelle Obama's law career:

When she graduated from HLS in 1988, she was hired by the high-paying Chicago corporate law firm Sidley Austin (which, perhaps not coincidentally, posts a 2,000-word statement describing their "Commitment to Diversity" on their website).

One problem remained: the Illinois bar exam. It appears that in 1988 she either failed it or was unready even to try it. She eventually passed and was admitted to the bar in May 1989, almost a year after graduation. (In contrast, her husband was admitted only a half year after graduating from Harvard Law School three years later).

There's nothing shameful about failing the bar exam. Hillary Clinton, for example, failed the Washington D.C. bar exam. According to blogger Half Sigma, 19 percent of applicants failed the July 1988 Illinois test. But, whiffing even once is not the kind of thing that is supposed to happen to Harvard Law School students. (Similarly, Hillary only told her Yale friends that she passed the Arkansas bar exam; she kept covered up until 2003 that she had failed the D.C. exam.)

Being admitted to the bar is public, so word of Michelle's no-show on the list of new lawyers likely spread among her old Harvard classmates in late 1988, leaving another wound upon her pride. If, however, she'd gone to the kind of law school where graduates frequently take a few tries to pass, she would have felt better about herself and less bitter at the white race.

After a few years at Sidley Austin, she let her law license lapse and began working as a fixer for Mayor Daley's Machine.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 15, 2008 12:31 AM

If, however, she'd gone to the kind of law school where graduates frequently take a few tries to pass, she would have felt better about herself and less bitter at the white race.

So Michelle Obama goes to Harvard, doesn't pass the bar her first time out, and is "bitter at the white race" because of it?

Hillary goes to Yale, doesn't pass the bar her first time out, and is bitter at - who? The Germans?

That's right, no one. You really are kind of creepy, er, I mean, you're a "truth teller."

Kathleen Sullivan failed the California bar. Who is she supposed to be bitter at? She's a "white ethnic" - the favored type of your boss Pat. Oh yeah, she's supposed to be bitter at Jews for being more "clever" and "academic" - right?

http://www.buchanan.org/pa-99-0101.html

The only person that failed the bar exam in my class of associates was a non-Jewish White girl who went to Harvard.

I thought nothing of it, but maybe she does belong to a group of underachieving whiners championed by you and Pat Buchanan.

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 15, 2008 12:51 AM

Steve Sailer regularly proves what a moron he is.

When she graduated from HLS in 1988, she was hired by the high-paying Chicago corporate law firm Sidley Austin (which, perhaps not coincidentally, posts a 2,000-word statement describing their "Commitment to Diversity" on their website).

I assure you that every major law firm that competes with Sidley Austin has a similar diversity statement. Take your idiocy elsewehere.

Posted by blah | April 15, 2008 1:03 AM

Please don't feed the racists.

Posted by Dresden | April 15, 2008 2:27 AM

The indignities perpetrated on her by being the repeated beneficiary of affirmative action is a major theme in Michelle Obama's conversation, as the recent cover story on her in Newsweek showed.

She is a hard worker and is of above-average intelligence, but racial preferences have repeatedly lifted her out of her intellectual league, with traumatic psychological consequences. All the breaks she received from white people merely stoked what Ellis Cose of Newsweek calls The Rage of a Privileged Class.

She was educated at the top public high school in Chicago, Whitney Young, which only accepted the highest scoring applicants on the entrance exam—within each race. Time reported in 1975:

"… the $30 million Whitney M. Young Jr. High School will open as a magnet in the fall with—among other things—an Olympic-sized swimming pool, a special center for the performing arts and a separate curriculum for medical studies. Whitney Young also has a strict admissions quota: 40% white, 40% black, 10% Latin, 5% other minorities and 5% at the discretion of the principal."

Michelle was overshadowed by her smart and athletic older brother Craig Robinson, who is now the head basketball coach at Brown University of the Ivy League. Newsweek's cover story recounts:

"For Michelle, Craig's easy success was intimidating. 'She was disappointed in herself,' her mother tells NEWSWEEK. 'She used to have a little bit of trouble with tests …'"

Her poor performance on tests remains a sore point with Michelle, who brings it up in odd contexts, such as when discussing her husband's standing in the polls last November:

"You know, [I've] always been told by somebody that I’m not ready, that I can’t do something, my scores weren’t high enough."

Newsweek describes her career at Whitney Young:

"… but she was not at the top of her class. She didn't get the attention of the school's college counselors, who helped the brightest students find spots at prestigious universities. … Some of her teachers told her she didn't have the grades or test scores to make it to the Ivies. But she applied to Princeton and was accepted."

Not surprisingly, just as Thomas Sowell would have predicted, four years spent in over her head among white liberal elitists who see themselves as better than the rest of America because

(A) they loudly proclaim their belief in equality; and

(B) they have above average IQs

left Michelle's sizable but fragile self-esteem in tatters. Suffering the self-consciousness common to the young, she felt that everybody was secretly putting her down for her intellectual shortcomings, and focused her anger on whites.

Newsweek says:

"There weren't formal racial barriers and black students weren't officially excluded. But many of the white students couldn't hide that they regarded their African- American classmates as affirmative-action recipients who didn't really deserve to be there."

Ironically but inevitably, Princeton's diversity sensitivity programs just exacerbated Michelle's racial paranoia:

"Angela Acree, a close friend who attended Princeton with Michelle, says the university didn't help dispel that idea. Black and Hispanic students were invited to attend special classes a few weeks before the beginning of freshman semester, which the school said were intended to help kids who might need assistance adjusting to Princeton's campus. Acree couldn't see why. She had come from an East Coast prep school; Michelle had earned good grades in Chicago. "We weren't sure whether they thought we needed an extra start or they just said, 'Let's bring all the black kids together'."

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 15, 2008 2:46 AM

Princeton racialized Michelle's consciousness. She majored in Sociology and minored in African-American Studies. Newsweek says:

"Michelle felt the [racial] tension acutely enough that she made it the subject of her senior sociology thesis, titled "Princeton-Educated Blacks and the Black Community." The paper is now under lock and key … (Today, Michelle says, not quite convincingly, that she can't remember what was in her thesis.)"

Hilariously, the Princeton website where all her classmates' senior theses are made freely available for the edification of humanity until the end of time listed hers as being "Restricted until November 5, 2008," which just happens to be the day after the election.

Newsweek went on:

"Michelle wrote that Princeton "made me far more aware of my 'blackness' than ever before." She wrote that she felt like a visitor on the supposedly open-minded campus. "Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with Whites at Princeton," she wrote, "it often seems as if, to them, I will always be Black first and a student second.""

On Friday, the Obama campaign released her thesis. Here's a highlight, in which the potential First Lady explains how much she wants to be, well, "Black first:"

"These experiences have made it apparent to me that the path I have chosen to follow by attending Princeton will likely lead to my further integration and/or assimilation into a White cultural and social structure that will only allow me to remain on the periphery of society; never becoming a full participant. This realization has presently, made my goals to actively utilize my resources to benefit the Black community more desirable."

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 15, 2008 2:49 AM

Predictably, the same feelings of personal and thus racial inadequacy manifested themselves when she got into ultra-competitive Harvard Law School on another quota. The Newsweek reporter explains:

"At Harvard, she felt the same racial divide. … 'She recognized that she had been privileged by affirmative action and she was very comfortable with that,' [friend Verna] Williams recalls. Michelle recalls things differently. … Her aides say Michelle earned her way into Harvard on merit by distinguishing herself at Princeton."

And then she got hired by pricey Sidley Austin but was, apparently, one of the tiny handful of Harvard Law grads to flunk the easy Illinois bar exam on her first try.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 15, 2008 2:53 AM

Since her job as a fixer for Mayor Daley's machine, Michelle Obama has enjoyed the kind of vague but well-paid career made possible by affirmative action. The description on the candidate's website of what exactly she's been doing for the U. of Chicago Medical Center is eye-glazing but ultimately revealing: she's in the diversity racket.

"She also managed the business diversity program. Michelle has fostered the University of Chicago's relationship with the surrounding community and developed the diversity program, making them both integral parts of the Medical Center's mission."

With great power comes great rewards. A couple of months after her husband was sworn in as U.S. Senator, Michelle's salary at the Medical Center was raised from $121,910 to $316,962.

A cynic might say that this rather resembles a $195,000 annual … uh, investment by a large private medical institution in the good will of a U.S. Senator and potential President who may well play the crucial role in deciding whether or not there will continue to be large private medical institutions.

Posted by Steve Sailer | April 15, 2008 2:59 AM

The problem isn't just that Obama said it --it is that so many liberal Democrats believe it.

Let's remember what he actually told that audience of privileged supporters -- not simply that Americans experiencing hard times "cling" to religion, guns, and protectionist economic policy, but, of much more consequence in the long run, that such hard times make people not only "bitter" but make them bigots and xenophobes -- who dislike people who aren't like them, are anti-immigrant,etc.

In other words that bigotry is a matter of class and income level.

But is that the truth? Or simply a lefty truism? What is the reality? Has the last 40 years of economic transformation -- that has caused great suffering in many parts of the country -- really led to more bigotry and greater intolerance? (And is the working class really more bigoted than the middle class and affluent?)

The evidence seems to indicated the opposite. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the country has become MORE tolerant, not less so. Plus, research shows that blue collar workers still vote mostly Democratic and are more likely to agree with Democrats on social issues. It is the middle class and affluent voter who is more likely to vote with conservatives on social issues.

Furthermore -- and this is VERY important -- working class people know something that more affluent Americans, because they live lives increasingly isolated from the rest of us, often don't realize; that working class people today most often live and work in MUCH MORE diverse, in terms of race and ethnicity, environments than more affluent, privileged Americans -- including the denizens of high tech enclaves on the West Coast who were undoubtedly among some of those Sen. Obama was pandering to with his remarks.

To put it more succinctly; if you are a member of a craft trade union, work on the line in manufacturing, on the docks, in construction (union or non-union), retail, food service, transportation, hospitality, etc., etc., you are MUCH more likely to have co-workers, acquaintances and friends who are African Americans and/or members of other minority groups than if you are hanging out on the Microsoft campus, in a law firm or ad agency, in publishing, in the financial services industry, or on the business side of the communications and entertainment industry.

What Senator Obama said is a liberal cliche -- that Democrats have been using to comfort themselves for their political losses for at least 40 years. It is a stereotype that elites have found useful for dismissing working class economic concerns and justifying libertarian economic policies that mostly benefit their own class. It is also an indication of limited, stereotypical thinking. Sen. Obama -- from privileged prep school to his privileged position in the Senate -- has, like many others in the party's boomer leadership, had few opportunities to associate with, on an equal footing, many working class Americans. And working class Americans have had no opportunities to participate and make their their perspectives known in the context of the national political dialogue since the demise of the unions and the retreat, starting in the early '70s, of media from coverage of labor and working class leaders and issues. This has led to a sorry state; where the party that claims to best represent the working class has increasingly only done so by talking about it -- in the analytical but not necessarily informed way Obama did in San Francisco -- rather than speaking for it.

Well meaning as he may have been, what Obama's remarks, and his supporters agreement with them, confirms is this; working class voters are no longer seen as powerful participants in the liberal coalition -- but rather they are considered mostly as a social problem that must be handled.

this is not a good state of affairs for either the working class or the Democratic party.

Posted by esmense | April 15, 2008 8:44 AM

The problem isn't just that Obama said it --it is that so many liberal Democrats believe it.

Let's remember what he actually told that audience of privileged supporters -- not simply that Americans experiencing hard times "cling" to religion, guns, and protectionist economic policy, but, of much more consequence in the long run, that such hard times make people not only "bitter" but make them bigots and xenophobes -- who dislike people who aren't like them, are anti-immigrant,etc.

In other words that bigotry is a matter of class and income level.

But is that the truth? Or simply a lefty truism? What is the reality? Has the last 40 years of economic transformation -- that has caused great suffering in many parts of the country -- really led to more bigotry and greater intolerance? (And is the working class really more bigoted than the middle class and affluent?)

The evidence seems to indicated the opposite. In fact, there are plenty of reasons to believe that the country has become MORE tolerant, not less so. Plus, research shows that blue collar workers still vote mostly Democratic and are more likely to agree with Democrats on social issues. It is the middle class and affluent voter who is more likely to vote with conservatives on social issues.

Furthermore -- and this is VERY important -- working class people know something that more affluent Americans, because they live lives increasingly isolated from the rest of us, often don't realize; that working class people today most often live and work in MUCH MORE diverse, in terms of race and ethnicity, environments than more affluent, privileged Americans -- including the denizens of high tech enclaves on the West Coast who were undoubtedly among some of those Sen. Obama was pandering to with his remarks.

To put it more succinctly; if you are a member of a craft trade union, work on the line in manufacturing, on the docks, in construction (union or non-union), retail, food service, transportation, hospitality, etc., etc., you are MUCH more likely to have co-workers, acquaintances and friends who are African Americans and/or members of other minority groups than if you are hanging out on the Microsoft campus, in a law firm or ad agency, in publishing, in the financial services industry, or on the business side of the communications and entertainment industry.

What Senator Obama said is a liberal cliche -- that Democrats have been using to comfort themselves for their political losses for at least 40 years. It is a stereotype that elites have found useful for dismissing working class economic concerns and justifying libertarian economic policies that mostly benefit their own class. It is also an indication of limited, stereotypical thinking. Sen. Obama -- from privileged prep school to his privileged position in the Senate -- has, like many others in the party's boomer leadership, had few opportunities to associate with, on an equal footing, many working class Americans. And working class Americans have had no opportunities to participate and make their their perspectives known in the context of the national political dialogue since the demise of the unions and the retreat, starting in the early '70s, of media from coverage of labor and working class leaders and issues. This has led to a sorry state; where the party that claims to best represent the working class has increasingly only done so by talking about it -- in the analytical but not necessarily informed way Obama did in San Francisco -- rather than speaking for it.

Well meaning as he may have been, what Obama's remarks, and his supporters agreement with them, confirms is this; working class voters are no longer seen as powerful participants in the liberal coalition -- but rather they are considered mostly as a social problem that must be handled.

this is not a good state of affairs for either the working class or the Democratic party.

Posted by esmense | April 15, 2008 8:46 AM

Steve,

Another question is: why are you so bitter, that it's keeping you up at night?

Is it because you don't come from a privileged, White, legacy family, and as such, missed out on affirmative action twice?

Or, because, that aside, you couldn't get into Harvard Law School on merit either?

I mean, if you want a case study in racial bitterness, all you need is a mirror.

Come to think of it, you might have a point. You know all about what it means to be hampered by one's race, class and IQ.

It is a shame that you couldn't rise above your unfortunate circumstances, but hey, the deck is admittedly stacked against you. Right?

Posted by SoCalJustice | April 15, 2008 9:37 AM

gaffes only work if they serve to a greater narrative, thus dukakis in the tank exemplified what a weeny he was, bush sr. at the check--out scanners exemplified how out of touch he was, gore and the 'lockbox' exemplified how condescending he was, etc...

the problem with Obama's gaffes is that one minute he is supposed to be too starry eyed and hopeful and then the next minute he is bitter and elitist. they are contradictory narratives and thus won't stick.

Posted by djslippyb | April 15, 2008 10:43 AM

djslippyb --

But the attitudes expressed in this gaffe -- especially in the context of who he was speaking to -- fit very nicely into a well-established narrative about the Democratic party and, most especially, urban, liberal presidential candidates in general. That's why on the one hand it is ho-hum (and not a problem in the primary) -- it simply confirms that this is how liberals think. If you think this way too, you aren't offended and can't understand why anyone is offended at hearing the "truth." If you don't agree with this thinking, you aren't shocked because you already knew that this is how liberals perceive the working class. And yet, on the other hand, it is devastating; because it completely undermines the idea that Obama represents something new and different in our politics or a different kind of Democrat.

Posted by esmense | April 15, 2008 11:19 AM

Obama's recent gaffe reminds me of the narrative surrounding the Geraldine Ferraro controversy.

Why is it that whites cannot say what they want about blacks? Well, let's look at it this way with this controversy. Why is that those of one socio-economic bracket cannot comment on those of a lower socio-economic bracket? Why are we so sensitive about having an opinion about those who live among us? This is preposterous! Try going into a sociology class and tip-toeing around critical issues like this. Say what you want, stop being so overly dramatic about one's status!

Posted by thinktwice | April 15, 2008 11:24 AM

Obama's recent gaffe reminds me of the narrative surrounding the Geraldine Ferraro controversy.

Why is it that whites cannot say what they want about blacks? Well, let's look at it this way with this controversy. Why is that those of one socio-economic bracket cannot comment on those of a lower socio-economic bracket? Why are we so sensitive about having an opinion about those who live among us? This is preposterous! Try going into a sociology class and tip-toeing around critical issues like this. Say what you want, stop being so overly dramatic about one's status!

Posted by thinktwice | April 15, 2008 11:24 AM

think twice --

This is the problem; today's elite liberals see working class voters as ignorant, bigoted and a problem to be studied, discussed, handled -- rather than as as respected members of the liberal coalition; respected political allies with genuine interests that need to be represented, and an important constituency that needs to be listened to rather than patronized and pandered to.

Once upon a time working class interests were represented within the party by powerful unions and within the broader political conversation by well known and respected union leaders. (I don't know how old you are so you may not be aware of this, may even find it astounding; but at one time major newspapers and the weekly news magazines devoted regular coverage to "labor" equal to their coverage of "business.") Those days are long gone, and working class perspectives never appear in the media. What we get instead, are discussions of the working class by elites on the right or left. Elites who, whether they are conservative or liberal, share a common class perspective -- that sees the working class as either bubbas or Bunkers. Stereotypes as offensive in their own way as Steppin' Fetchit was in another era.

In suggesting that it is appropriate in a political context to treat an important constituency and necessary political allies as "lower" in status and importance you are making the same mistake Obama did.

Posted by esmense | April 15, 2008 2:19 PM

Esmense

Kudos to your last post!

Ever since Obama's win in Iowa, the pundits and his supporters have had a condescending attitude and most of it directed at Hillary. Thank you, Huffington Post and Obama for removing the mask.

Posted by EWard | April 15, 2008 3:00 PM