The Counterpuncher

One thing I like about Barack Obama is that when he hands himself lemons, he tries to make lemonade as you see in his response to those who criticized his characterization of the public mood in Pennsylvania. Recall that the whole meetings with the political leadership of rogue states started as a gaffe, but eventually became a synecdoche for willingness to move beyond the conventional wisdom of a broken establishment.

I have no idea whether this particular response to this particular controversy will "work" but it's still the correct approach and one that shows, I think, a more sophisticated grasp of media dynamics than we've seen from most Democrats over the past few years.

Comments

The fascinating thing about Obama's suicide note was to see that he actually agrees with Matthew that the economically downscale voters who are voting Clinton because of universal healthcare and Social Security are racists.

The trust fund scumbag really did end up supporting the candidate most in line with his economically royalist views.

Posted by Petey | April 12, 2008 11:17 AM

How the fuck is that supposed to be a gaffe? People are angry and bitter because they've been living under shitty administrations that ignore their needs some days and shaft them the next. Saying otherwise would be patronizing.

Posted by phil | April 12, 2008 11:17 AM

He should have used DC-Speak and called them single-issue voters I guess. And he should have pledged to rename the Rust Belt the Rainbows & Bunnies Belt.

Anyway, there's nothing wrong with the short statement but Al Giordano has the full statement up at The Field and it's clear that Obama was saying that these folks aren't a bunch of racists.

Posted by Jay | April 12, 2008 11:23 AM

Ignore Petey. He's here to be a sourpuss, full stop.

The video from Obama is spot-on:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sc9PepjyDow

Posted by Jake | April 12, 2008 11:23 AM

Yes, god and guns are just symptoms of a larger problem, sez Obama.

That'll go over well.

Never mind that in addition to that he was busted as a liar on trade and gun rights.

Posted by Cal | April 12, 2008 11:23 AM

And in the meantime Hillary Clinton called Barack Obama "elitist and out of touch" in a townhall this morning.
Can someone remind me why the Democratic bigwigs are letting her use right-wing talking points to attack our nominee ?

Posted by Benjamin | April 12, 2008 11:27 AM

"The trust fund scumbag really did end up supporting the candidate most in line with his economically royalist views.

Posted by Petey | April 12, 2008 11:17 AM"

How is it not economically royalist to force working people to pay money to large insurance companies to buy insurance they can't afford or be forced to pay fines they cannot pay?

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 11:30 AM

What Matt doesn't mention, and what I think is just as important, is that Obama turned the whole thing around and attacked Hillary Clinton and John McCain over the bankruptcy bill and the housing crisis, respectively.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | April 12, 2008 11:31 AM

I confess, I'm completely confused. When did it become completely unacceptable for politicians to use the word "bitter"? Talk about manufactured outrage.

Yes, god and guns are just symptoms of a larger problem, sez Obama.

And, again, I don't understand the objection. I mean it's an established fact, at this point, that people embrace tribalism, fundamentalism, and fetishize weapons in situations of prolonged economic or social stress. It's not coincidence that people in the poorer economic areas tend to be more conservative and pro-gun, and it's not because conservatism is likely to help them in the least; it's because those kinds of environmental stresses have that psychological effect.

There's a very good reason that Iraq's new constitution enshrines the right to own an AK-47. I don't understand what offense Obama could possibly have offered by saying something that literally everybody knows is true.

Posted by Chet | April 12, 2008 11:31 AM

Thanks for the link Jake. That was great.

Posted by David | April 12, 2008 11:32 AM

One of the odd things about any campaign is finding a way to condescend to a group of voters who identify with your party but hold opinions you frankly find distasteful. The GOP does it by mainstreaming those people's opinions, while being financially and socially shielded from the consequences of having them in the mainstream.

Clinton has gone for the Standard Model Of Condescension, which is to praise the virtues of the Plain People Of Pennsyltucky. Obama's closer to the truth -- frustration with your own lot leads to a desire to blame someone, even if that someone's only sin is to be Other.

(Petey's bitter for entirely different reasons, namely the prospect of losing his ass on InTrade.)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 12, 2008 11:33 AM

Benjamin - because there are no such things as "Democratic bigwigs." Surely you've been paying attention the last 7 years as they've done nothing to stop Bush's many egregious policies. You really think any one of them has the guts to stop the Clintons from destroying our chances in November? Nope. We're just going to have to hope that McCain's many inherent weaknesses are enough to stop a Democratic party determined to lose.

Posted by evie | April 12, 2008 11:34 AM

What Matt doesn't mention, and what I think is just as important, is that Obama turned the whole thing around and attacked Hillary Clinton and John McCain over the bankruptcy bill and the housing crisis, respectively.

Posted by Matthew Struhar | April 12, 2008 11:37 AM

Chet, stay out of the political advice business for our sake, okay? It's not just that not "literally everybody" knows that to be true, but that among the significant numbers who don't are the very people Obama's trying to get to vote for him here.

Posted by nolaboyd | April 12, 2008 11:40 AM

It's great to see a Dem speaking the truth so forcefully. No waffling or backtracking. Meanwhile Hillary uses the Republican playbook to cynically try to exploit wedge issues.

Just like with the Rev. Wright brouhaha, Obama is taking what could be a liability, shedding the light of day on it and exposing the doubletalk of his right wing (plus Hillary) opposition. I think if he keeps hitting back like this, he will come out ahead. People (whether in small towns, suburbs or cities) are sick and tired of being exploited by Washington tactics.

Posted by Ruth | April 12, 2008 11:43 AM

I do think Obama stepped in it with the initial (HuffPo-reported) remarks. They were sociological -- and yes, voters do usually resent being talked about sociologically.

But I also think his "save" has been pretty darn good. Now he's accusing McCain and Clinton of being out of touch and ignoring the genuine, justified resentment of Americans who feel betrayed by their government. Hey, works for me!

Will this hurt him long run? Yes -- with populist, center-left blog lizards who have read Thomas Frank, and don't like Frank's thesis. They'll find it extremely condescending, and it will confirm all their suspicions. In actual small towns in Pennsylvania, I'm not sure it'll hurt him much. The point of the quote was pretty oblique, and it's a sociological point that interests media types more than it interests voters. If you want to start a fight in a small town bar, you don't do it by saying "Your cultural politics, my friend, are really a displaced symptom of your justified economic grievances." That'll get you a fight on a blog. In a small-town bar it'll just get you a brief stare, and I think that's about all the traction this controversy is going to get.

Posted by Ted | April 12, 2008 11:59 AM

Lmao, watching rich folks babies like MY and the crew of CNN pretend they know how this is going to play is hilarious. I hope they play these clips 1 thousand times. This is going to have a very different impact than the one most of these people think it will.

Posted by soullite | April 12, 2008 12:00 PM

I'm a white guy. I live in upstate NY. I make like 18k a year right now. I can you right now that Obama has a lot of heads nodding along with him on this, and most of don't belong to his elitist supporters, or the elitist bloggers who make up the A-list of the blogosphere.

What Obama said is unvarnished truth. Its a truth many of us have waited our lives to hear a real politician say. THAT is what has the media so rabid to try and cast these comments as some devil's screed. They know damn well that people are more likely to agree with them than disagree, and they're woring over time to make people dismiss them automatically without ever thinking on them. That isn't going to happen. 20 years of this shit is too long already.

Posted by soullite | April 12, 2008 12:04 PM

The funniest thing about this campaign is that someone who made $109 mil over the last 7 years is calling anybody else "elitist"

Posted by Andrew | April 12, 2008 12:07 PM

It would be pretty odd if Obama were not right about how many people are angry and hurting. The economy is sliding downhill, the middleclass got screwed under Bush, and we have a long, expensive and unnecessary war on our hands. Yes, anger is natural and healthy as a reaction. Senator Clinton's attempt to be a pollyanna shows just how out of touch she really is - if everyone really is happy and rolling up their sleeves, well, might as well let the Republicans keep going, since they must be doing a heckuva job, Bushie. As for McCain - the man doesn't know his housing crisis from his elbow, and can't even remember his lines about AlQaeda. One week they might be Shia, the next he thinks they are Sunni. Anyone really think he knows or cares about real people?

Posted by maraschion | April 12, 2008 12:12 PM

The initial comments themselves were incredibly dumb politically, but I do like how quick and non-defensively Obama has responded.

One thing to keep in mind is that McCain is the rare Republican who is profoundly ill equipped to exploit Red State cultural resentment. Other than the identification with the military and martial culture, it just isn't in him. He has no feel for religion, no connection with the gun culture and doesn't give off any kind of NASCAR vibe. Which is to say, he is no George W. Bush and George Allen and doesn't seem eager and able to run the kind of campaign he would have to run to beat Obama on cultural issues.

Posted by pjs | April 12, 2008 12:12 PM

Well, some people hear think this sort of attitude will really hurt Obama among his non-base in places like Pennsylvania. Others think it will really help him.

Me, I say let's just wait and find out on election day, now rapidly approaching.

Obama's supposedly outspending Hillary 4-1 on advertising AND has the strong endorsement of PA's most prominent non-urban "white Democratic leader". Let's see if he can stay within about 20 points of Hillary among non-black PA Democrats.

If he can't, then the Democrats would be total idiots to nominate him. But everyone already knows the Democrats are total idiots, so they probably will anyway.

Posted by RKU | April 12, 2008 12:12 PM

It's not just that not "literally everybody" knows that to be true, but that among the significant numbers who don't are the very people Obama's trying to get to vote for him here.

Is there some evidence that they were offended by these remarks? I haven't seen any.

I've just seen media talking heads claim to be offended on their behalf. From what I can tell - from the working-class people I actually know - they're a lot more offended at McCain and Clinton telling them that everything in their lives is fine, just fine, nothing to see here, certainly nothing to get upset (or, God forbid, bitter!) about.

Are Gods, gays, and guns conservatives realistically going to vote for the Democrat, anyway? I don't see it. The people Obama is reaching out to are the middle and lower class people who are upset with how they've been screwed by Republican management of the economy, and it's incoherent to assert that they're offended to be described as "bitter" when they are bitter.

Like I said, I don't get it. This is manufactured outrage from a media desperate to seize any tenuous excuse to embroil Obama in a "scandal" simply for saying something we're not used to, from politicians - the truth.

Posted by Chet | April 12, 2008 12:13 PM

The funniest thing about this campaign is that someone who made $109 mil over the last 7 years is calling anybody else "elitist"
Posted by Andrew

To say nothing of Wellesley, Yale Law, The Rose Law Firm, the Board of Directors of WalMart, Chappaqua, Georgetown, Nantucket....

Some of us in flyoverland actually thought it was kind of elitist when Mrs Clinton of Illinois by way of Arkansas packed her carpetbag for New York, because our piddling midwestern states weren't high visibility enough for Herself.

Posted by Jim | April 12, 2008 12:13 PM

Soullite,
So you think people are going to enjoy hearing that the reason they go to church is because the local factory closed down? Or the reason the second amendment is important to them is because they got laid off? Those things have value in themselves. Obama's message is look to Washington for your salvation, not your shitty cultural tastes. I don't think that's going to fly as well as you think it will.

Posted by Brad | April 12, 2008 12:15 PM

The best thing about this IMO: it grabs a lot of Edwards populist message and given his patent on the hope and change trademark doesn't label him as angry.

They're basically saying he thinks you're angry; and he's saying they SHOULD be angry for a bum deal. I'm gonna change it when I get to the White House.

I don't know if it works; but it's a great way to jump on the story and start shaping it for the media firestorm waiting for him come the week.

And he's got a debate to work to counter this and change the message.

I have to say, when he screws up, at least he screws up at good points in the news cycle, lol.

Posted by Rhoda | April 12, 2008 12:15 PM

All these news people clutching their pearls because Obama called people in PA bitter. I have relatives from central PA and you know what, they are bitter! They know they are constantly getting screwed by local government on up to the benefit of others. They talk about all this stuff around the dinner table. Then when I ask them who they are voting for in November and it ultimately ends up being the NRA candidate. I don't understand it but Obama's charactization was spot on. These people vote wedge issues because they don't think government will ever do anything more meaningful for them.

Posted by WGG | April 12, 2008 12:16 PM

I'd say it was pretty elitist to describe states that didn't vote for you as not counting, to dismiss caucus voters as just activists, and to have a union-busting fat cat capitalist as your chief strategist. But what would I know? I disagree with the Dear Leader Clinton, so I am sure I don't count!

Posted by morzer | April 12, 2008 12:16 PM

The interesting thing is that throughout the campaign, at least post-Edwards, Clinton has been better at tapping into the bitterness of poorer voters.

But when Obama made his initial screw up, she did a 180 and denied the existence of bitterness in PA. At the micro-level, that was the simplest way to reframe Obama's mistake for maximum damage to Obama.

But at a higher level, it totally screws up Clinton's whole narrative for the entire time she's been in Pennsylvania--that she's the candidate best prepared to fight for the legitimate grievances of PA and similar rust belt states.

This is kind of a pattern with the Clintons--they just say whatever makes the most sense in the news cycle of the past five minutes, with no concern for what happened a week ago or will happen a week from now. All tactics but no strategy.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 12, 2008 12:17 PM

It's not just that not "literally everybody" knows that to be true, but that among the significant numbers who don't are the very people Obama's trying to get to vote for him here.

Is there some evidence that they were offended by these remarks? I haven't seen any.

I've just seen media talking heads claim to be offended on their behalf. From what I can tell - from the working-class people I actually know - they're a lot more offended at McCain and Clinton telling them that everything in their lives is fine, just fine, nothing to see here, certainly nothing to get upset (or, God forbid, bitter!) about.

Are Gods, gays, and guns conservatives realistically going to vote for the Democrat, anyway? I don't see it. The people Obama is reaching out to are the middle and lower class people who are upset with how they've been screwed by Republican management of the economy, and it's incoherent to assert that they're offended to be described as "bitter" when they are bitter.

Like I said, I don't get it. This is manufactured outrage from a media desperate to seize any tenuous excuse to embroil Obama in a "scandal" simply for saying something we're not used to, from politicians - the truth.

Posted by Chet | April 12, 2008 12:17 PM

I'd say it was pretty elitist to describe states that didn't vote for you as not counting, to dismiss caucus voters as just activists, and to have a union-busting fat cat capitalist as your chief strategist. But what would I know? I disagree with the Dear Leader Clinton, so I am sure I don't count!

Posted by morzer | April 12, 2008 12:19 PM

Obama's response is forceful, but he's still evading the core of what's likely to give offense. The problem is not that he said that people are bitter, but that they turn to guns, religion etc. as (implictly delusive) compensation. He may need to say something like 'I didn't mean to suggest that religion was an opiate for people who feel they can't affect the political or economic status quo.' I think what he said was shorthand for 'they turn to pseudo-religious hot-button issues,' but how do you walk that back?

What Matt admires, I regard as a weakness: when Obama's in a hole, he sometimes digs deeper. To say that he would meet five rogue leaders in his first year was a gaffe, as Matt suggests, but I don't think he's improved the situation by converting it into a credo.

Posted by Asp | April 12, 2008 12:20 PM

I'd say it was pretty elitist to describe states that didn't vote for you as not counting, to dismiss caucus voters as just activists, and to have a union-busting fat cat capitalist as your chief strategist. But what would I know? I disagree with the Dear Leader Clinton, so I am sure I don't count!

Posted by morzer | April 12, 2008 12:20 PM

Obama's message is look to Washington for your salvation, not your shitty cultural tastes.

No, I think it's more: Two boys kissing and calling each other "husband" doesn't affect your life, the fact that the economy sucks does. And no one wants to take your metal phallic security blanket away. Now grow the fuck up.

Not that this plays any better, but it's a more accurate translation, I think.

Posted by Troothteller | April 12, 2008 12:21 PM

"So you think people are going to enjoy hearing that the reason they go to church is because the local factory closed down? Or the reason the second amendment is important to them is because they got laid off? Those things have value in themselves. Obama's message is look to Washington for your salvation, not your shitty cultural tastes. I don't think that's going to fly as well as you think it will.

Posted by Brad | April 12, 2008 12:15 PM"

He didn't say those were the only a primary reasons behind certain things. The impetus behind being religious or supporting the NRA wasn't even his wider point. After all, Obama is rather religious himself. His point was about people are economically insecure and angry and that some of the ways they channel that when DC doesn't listen is through religion, gun ownership, etc.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 12:22 PM

Very apt analysis, Ted.

Posted by Chad | April 12, 2008 12:23 PM

I think it's a gaffe, but not that big a deal. We already knew that the working class wasn't Obama's demographic anyway. He doesn't particularly identify with them, nor they with him.

That's one of the reasons Obama hasn't been able to close the deal. He does well with some Democratic constituencies--African-Americans and anti-war liberals--but not so well with other minorities or the working class.

Hey, you can't be everything to everybody.

Posted by John Petty | April 12, 2008 12:24 PM

The problem is not that he said that people are bitter, but that they turn to guns, religion etc. as (implictly delusive) compensation.

The people that he was talking to are going to see that in their neighbors. The people who are doing that weren't listening in the first place; they're McCain voters (because that's who the GOP hivemind has told them to vote for.)

Everybody's convinced that this plays poorly, but there's no evidence that's actually true.

Posted by Chet | April 12, 2008 12:25 PM

Things have come to a pretty pass when you can't tell the difference between Petey and robert ethan. Isn't that more important than some petty political squabble in the rust-belt?

Posted by kass | April 12, 2008 12:26 PM

It shows that he's aware that this isn't just going to go away and Hillary is going to use the "Democrats-are-elitists" argument against him for all she's worth, so he'd better face it head on and try to make a positive case for himself out of it, instead of trying to wish it away like Kerry would've done.

Posted by neil | April 12, 2008 12:27 PM

Another response, where he says he misworded it: http://youtube.com/watch?v=G6_mQ3h8lx0

I think he nailed it; the commenters over at CNN are usually some of the dumbest people on the internet, but they loved it.

Posted by 55 | April 12, 2008 12:27 PM

I also thought Obama's line "They take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and the things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington." was interesting. It's a concession that it's rational to focus on community and culture if the government and marketplace are just going to totally abandon you.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 12, 2008 12:28 PM

One thing to keep in mind is that McCain is the rare Republican who is profoundly ill equipped to exploit Red State cultural resentment.

Not just that, but McCain is generally regarded as someone who is the reason for all that Red State cultural resentment-- there's no doubt he sort of looks down on a lot of the Republican base.

Clinton's pivoting is especially bad if she tries to attack Obama by saying, "Obama things things are tough in PA, but I can tell you that all is well and the people are happy!"

What Matt admires, I regard as a weakness: when Obama's in a hole, he sometimes digs deeper.

Depends... there's something to be said for Clinton's statement that voters will respond positively to "strong and wrong."

Let me just say that all these armchair political strategists (and even the professional ones) don't really have any special wisdom or insight. We're all making predictions about what we think will work, but everyone's just picking a side and a strategy and seeing if it works. If it does, you're brilliant. If it doesn't, suddenly you're a bumbling idiot. But no one is bringing any kind of unique insight to the table.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 12:29 PM

"The interesting thing is that throughout the campaign, at least post-Edwards, Clinton has been better at tapping into the bitterness of poorer voters.

But when Obama made his initial screw up, she did a 180 and denied the existence of bitterness in PA. At the micro-level, that was the simplest way to reframe Obama's mistake for maximum damage to Obama.

But at a higher level, it totally screws up Clinton's whole narrative for the entire time she's been in Pennsylvania--that she's the candidate best prepared to fight for the legitimate grievances of PA and similar rust belt states.

This is kind of a pattern with the Clintons--they just say whatever makes the most sense in the news cycle of the past five minutes, with no concern for what happened a week ago or will happen a week from now. All tactics but no strategy.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 12, 2008 12:17 PM"

Good point. It does undermine a lot of people's reasons for voting for Clinton if when a politician says people are angry that the economy sucks and DC fucks them over, that she turns around and says people aren't angry at all. Republicans have been trying to make anti-war sentiment a fringe position by portraying anti-war people as angry. Instead, the war has just grown more popular with time and made people mad at Republicans for dismissing their anger.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 12:29 PM

Why t'ank you Missy Hillary, we's all fine here, sho 'nuff. We just love us de plantation here in Pittsburgh!

Posted by penn | April 12, 2008 12:30 PM

Petey's bitterness and anger have led him to cling to being a troll on the Internet.

Posted by neil | April 12, 2008 12:34 PM

A "more sophisticated grasp of media dynamics" would have Obama doing things the "ChicagoWay": confiscate all notebooks and pat everyone down for wires before opening his mouth.

The parts of the original statement that MattY will have trouble understanding are explained here.

Posted by TLB | April 12, 2008 12:35 PM

Brad:

So you think people are going to enjoy hearing that the reason they go to church is because the local factory closed down? Or the reason the second amendment is important to them is because they got laid off? Those things have value in themselves.

And they've been important to the folks he's talking about since long before the economic disasters in those regions.

Consumatopia:

she did a 180 and denied the existence of bitterness in PA. At the micro-level, that was the simplest way to reframe Obama's mistake for maximum damage to Obama.

But at a higher level, it totally screws up Clinton's whole narrative for the entire time she's been in Pennsylvania--that she's the candidate best prepared to fight for the legitimate grievances of PA and similar rust belt states.

By saying they aren't bitter, she isn't saying they don't have grievances that need to be addressed. That's a false equivalence.

One might even suggest that she sees optimism because they believe she can help them with their grievances, whereas Obama doesn't because they don't believe the same of him.

Posted by Swift Loris | April 12, 2008 12:37 PM

The response of the Hillary and McCain campaigns only proves Obama's point. Instead of focusing on real issues that make a difference in people's lives, many in politics and the media focus on divisive wedge issues, like Hillary and McCain.

That is why, for instance, a state like Louisiana went heavily for Bush in 2004 and all it got them was the poor response to Katrina, and more National Guard deployments in Iraq. But hey, the Republicans were good at whipping those voters up into excitement over stopping gay marriage and other wedge issues.

Now we see Hillary is attempting the same strategy, which is quite disgusting. And does anyone think that the voters she is trying to appeal to would not turn against her in a general election? Come on...she's not going to get the pro-gun, conservative religious vote in a general election no matter what.

Posted by cm | April 12, 2008 12:42 PM

Ginning up a controversy over the use of the word "bitter" is just silly and the vast majority of people are going to see it as such. More importantly when polls say 80% of the electorate thinks the country's on the wrong track who's condescending to the voters, the candidate who says they're bitter or the candidate(s) who says they're not?

Obama's wider point is valid too, and should be extended farther. Not only do people vote wedge issues because they don't believe they will be represented on core economic issues, but the simple fact is they get no real movement on the wedge issues either. Promises to change the consitution to ban flag burning and gay marriage are blatantly phony campaign planks, no major politician today has any intention of amending the constitution.

Posted by Bullsmith | April 12, 2008 12:46 PM

Another tempest in a teapot, but one that could be potentially damaging or . . . revolutionary. Could Obama have inadvertently mobilized a group of voters who have been pandered to for decades? Has he stumbled upon the Holy Grail of rural voting by speaking directly to those voters emotional centers in ways that finally give voice to long-held frustrations? This could be play out in surprising and fascinating ways.

What I like about Obama's "gaffes" is that they tend to engender debate about real things (pace Rev. Wright) and get people talking once again in ways deeper and more nuanced than we've grown accustomed. Obama has done more to bring this country together in genuine discussion around real national problems than any presidential candidate in my lifetime. In that way, he wins even when he seems to be losing.

Like so many of us blog commenters, I'm tired of all the tit-for-tat-ism and welcome an actual discussion. Thanks once again, Barack.

Posted by nepat | April 12, 2008 12:47 PM

The primary damage suffered by Obama here won't be from the day-to-day newcycle wars. It'll be in the larger narrative. Over the last year, you'll notice that no comic flaw -- the kind that becomes a recurring joke on talk shows and in editorial cartoons -- has truly stuck to Obama. Maybe too many over-enthusiastic kids support him, but nothing especially pernicious, like "Gore is a serial exaggerator", "Bush is dim", "Kerry is a flip-flopping patrician", has taken hold.

Oer the last couple of weeks, the ground appears to be changing. You see the media trying to create a type: Obama as an arrogant, smarter-than-thou elitist who can't connect to Middle America. The bowling story, the OJ over coffee story, and now these remarks play into the narrative that's building. And it's a damaging one for Obama, who, by virtue of his background, name, and skin color, already faces uphill fight to be taken as "one of us." And as a Democrat, it's easy for the GOP/media to jam Obama into the little Halloween costume they've stitched together for liberals, the one that shows them to be condescending, holier-than-thou snobs.

Let's hope this negative frame doesn't attach to Obama, as it'll be difficult to shake off. But I'm starting to feel like I'm stuck watching a horror movie where a tentacled media monster grabs hold of Obama in slow-motion, shackles him, and fastens a grimacing Dukakis mask on the poor guy.

Posted by Ryan W. | April 12, 2008 12:51 PM

The only connection Hillary has to the working class voters in PA is that her husband used to eat at McDonalds before his heart troubles.

Posted by swarty | April 12, 2008 12:57 PM

Somehow I don't think that "elitist" label will really stick very well to a guy who started his career organizing unemployed steelworkers on the South Side of Chicago.

Posted by Steve LaBonne | April 12, 2008 1:01 PM

It is elitist to discount the votes of 2,000,000 Democrats from FL and MI and send your surrogates out demanding that your opponent quit the race. It is elitist to have the press elevate your victories in caucus states while belittling your opponent's victories in big-swing states. By the way, less than 30 to 20% of registered Democrats voted in the caucus states. (Source: the Democratic Party from each state)

Obama presents himself as a leader. Yet, when he doesn't have his speech writer dictating the words, we get a gem like this. When questioned about choosing a VP, he wants someone that knows a bunch of stuff. When you add his remarks about PA voters being bitter, the true Obama emerges.

I would have more respect for Obama, if he had a record to run on. When you check into his background, it is very calculating. His "present" votes in Illinois have given him an alibi to brush aside any controversial bills that could taint his record.

He received high marks for his questioning of General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker. However, when you contrast that with the fact that he failed to hold any oversight hearings about Afghanistan, he comes across as a hypocrite.

Posted by EWard | April 12, 2008 1:02 PM

Can someone please explain to me why Fox news so highly rated? Are there really millions of people who don't realize what trash it is?

Posted by 55 | April 12, 2008 1:07 PM

Dammit EWard, you are such a tool. It is elitist to tell NPR that Michigan "won't count for anything," and then tell voters in IA and NH that she wouldn't let MI/FL silence their influence. It is elitist to bully superdelegates ("Judas") into overturning the votes of voters.

You do know that Hillary missed MULTIPLE Afghanistan oversight meetings that the Armed Services Committee missed, right? And that according to Republican Dick Lugar, Obama's subcommittee does not have jurisdiction over Afghanistan?

And I'm not even going to legitimize the "present" vote thing, which got Hillary a huge backlash in women voters in Illinois. If you're still using that thoroughly debunked smear, you're not even a good troll.

Posted by 55 | April 12, 2008 1:15 PM

My benighted cousin EWard sees nothing wrong with Hillary Clinton.. of course, he finds it elitist to reject the results of illegitimate primaries, while pointing out that any Democrat would carry the big blue states Clinton carried. As for the voting figures for registered Democrats, any idiot (except EWard) recognizes that the entire registered electorate never votes in primaries or caucuses. Still, those who have chosen their carpetbaggers must stick with them, even when they can't tell the difference between sniper fire and an 8 year old girl with a poem.

Posted by FWard | April 12, 2008 1:16 PM

Can someone please explain to me why Fox news so highly rated? Are there really millions of people who don't realize what trash it is?

It's not highly rated. It has a few million regular viewers (bill o'reilly has 2-2.5 million), while each network news channel has 6-8 million viewers apiece.

The highest rated show on television is American Idol with 31 million viewers.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 1:17 PM

I actually think that this whole thing is good for Obama. This is the one topic that goes across all cultural, economic and racial lines. Everyone is fed up and bitter about the economy, high gas and heating prices, the war in Iraq, rising health costs…I could go on and on. Since 81% of American’s feel the country is going in the wrong direction, I think that is will be the topic/issue that will gavanize even more people to Obama.

This is something EVERYONE has in common. I think that his campaigns response to this, and his refusal to apologize for telling the truth, only strenghthens him as a candidate. His campaign already has the youtube response up, and it was very persuasive and strong. Hillary and McCain just come off looking like two millionaire sore losers.

Posted by Kelly M. | April 12, 2008 1:19 PM

By her own standard, wasn't Clinton's husband being an elitist when he told voters "I feel your pain"? I mean, surely people are allowed to be bitter and angry when they are in pain economically? I think this may have opened up a huge chance for Obama to define himself as a real champion of the little guy, versus the out of touch and corrupt Washington elitists like Clinton and McCain. Clinton is on the wrong side of this narrative - and it ought to cost her. What's nice is to see Obama tie her together with her corrupt vodka-drinking buddy McCain. Two albatrosses for the price of one!

Posted by zilifant | April 12, 2008 1:23 PM

I think BitterAmericans.org would be a super name for a 527 group. I'd contribute.
Look, there's no danger to Obama in what he said. It's the process. The Republican (and Clinton's) campaign are about excuses. That is, it's their job to offer white voters an excuse to not vote for Obama that allows them to pretend it's not about race. This is just another excuse.

Posted by JMG | April 12, 2008 1:26 PM

Tyro, that's still about 6-8 million too high.

In good news, though, other networks are doing better this season:

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2008/04/02/fox-news-ratings-struggling-to-keep-up/

Posted by 55 | April 12, 2008 1:27 PM

Have you noticed that Obama is an excellent counter-puncher? Look how he responded to endless loop of Rev. Wright's sermon and now to criticism of his remarks in San Francisco.

If Clinton and McCain were half as smart as him, they would change their current tactics. He has an uncanny ability to make them look stupid whenever they respond to what looks like easy pickings.

Posted by Tom | April 12, 2008 1:27 PM

Have you noticed that Obama is an excellent counter-puncher? Look how he responded to endless loop of Rev. Wright's sermon and now to criticism of his remarks in San Francisco.

If Clinton and McCain were half as smart as him, they would change their current tactics. He has an uncanny ability to make them look stupid whenever they respond to what looks like easy pickings.

Posted by Tom | April 12, 2008 1:30 PM

Might be interesting to know what Edwards thinks about this. I'd have thought he'd agree with Obama on this issue - that there is real bitterness and anger in smaller, economically damaged communities. Not that I expect Petey to acknowledge this any time soon. Doubtless he's rolling up his sleeves while grinning at his poster of Hillary Clinton.

Posted by jackson | April 12, 2008 1:30 PM

Have you noticed that Obama is an excellent counter-puncher? Look how he responded to endless loop of Rev. Wright's sermon and now to criticism of his remarks in San Francisco.

If Clinton and McCain were half as smart as him, they would change their current tactics. He has an uncanny ability to make them look stupid whenever they respond to what looks like easy pickings.

Posted by Tom Parrish | April 12, 2008 1:31 PM

Gaffe my foot. A gaffe is when a politician embarrasses them self by accidentally revealing the truth.

Obama is telling the truth on purpose, and it's embarrassing to Hillary Clinton and John McCain. That's why they're pissed. People really have been abandoned by their government. Some are angry. Some are bitter. Some have just resigned themselves to their fate and given up altogether.

Posted by Aatos | April 12, 2008 1:31 PM

Hillary Clinton is the left buttock of the Republican party, while McCain is the right one. Obama has quite a bit of ass-kicking to do, but I am sure he's up to it.

Posted by jacinth | April 12, 2008 1:40 PM

You know your face is too far up Obama's ass when you start commenting on how nice his farts smell. That's an effective metaphor for Matthew's post.

Matt also forgets an obvious implication of Obama's remarks: Obama thinks religion is a crutch for losers. Then why, again, did Obama spend twenty years in a church where the pastor spouted anti-white, anti-American invective? Strip away the religious stuff, which Obama apparently doesn't really believe, and you're left with the conclusion that what kept in the pews was the anti-white, anti-American nonsense that helped this half-white product of a Hawaiian prep school and the Ivy League feel more authentically black.

As for the decline of blue collar jobs, you know what would create a lot of high-paying blue collar jobs in America? Letting us explore for and extract all the energy that the government keeps off limits.

Posted by Fred | April 12, 2008 1:47 PM

And to think, it wasn't too long ago that Obama was being derided for being about nothing other than overly-optimistic empty claims of "hope" and "unity."

Yep, Fred... we all know how the richest and most stable countries and American states are the ones most focused on extraction of mineral wealth. Your obsession with backwards, primitive Republican-leaning industries is clear, as it is with most blinkered, mindless Republicans who've never been anything or done anything. America's most famous Republican industrialist is Dick Cheney, known for doing nothing creative or innovative in his life. Not sure that's really the future of the American economy.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 1:59 PM

Fred: In either of Obama's comments I can not fathom how you saw him saying religion is a crutch for losers: especially since he's always spoken about his faith as part of his activism.

Posted by Rhoda | April 12, 2008 2:01 PM

"Matt also forgets an obvious implication of Obama's remarks: Obama thinks religion is a crutch for losers."

I continue to be amazed that someone who posts here could write something that dishonest and expect readers to let it pass without comment. So here's my comment: Given the amount of time that Obama has spent discussing his religious beliefs and his acceptance of others' beliefs as well, it is quite simply a bold-faced lie that Fred has just posted. A lie is a lie is a lie.

Posted by just a person | April 12, 2008 2:05 PM

Fred, as I just mentioned in an earlier thread to Will Allen, Obama is actually engaging in a Christian dogwhistle, casting the Republicans as the ones offering paganism and false idols (like guns-- turning them from a tool into an idol of pagan worship) to distract voters from real problems. Obama is pointing out that your leaders are simply hurting the country by offering nothing but bread-and-circuses and the false religion of materialism and idol-worship.

It's no coincidence that Obama's detractors focus on his lack of association with idols and idolatry (eg, flag pins, bowling) in order to impugn his patriotism. Obama fired a shot at the Caligulas and Commoduses of our time.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 2:09 PM

Swift Loris:

By saying they aren't bitter, she isn't saying they don't have grievances that need to be addressed. That's a false equivalence.

That's a valid distinction to be made, but I'm not sure that Clinton has made it.

One might even suggest that she sees optimism because they believe she can help them with their grievances, whereas Obama doesn't because they don't believe the same of him.

I don't know if you're familiar with the PA campaigns, but this just isn't how things are playing here--there just hasn't been any optimism in Clinton's campaign, it's purely been playing to people's bitterness. Which is to her credit--there are, as we all know, voters in PA with legitimate grievances. Her TV campaigns don't reflect optimism, they reflect frustration. Again, that's a perfectly sensible framework for a liberal campaign in PA.

But if she wants to become all sunshine and light just to contrast herself with this one gaffe of Obama, that's a huge shift in tone. It may not be a huge shift in logic, but it is a huge shift in style of argument and tone, and it doesn't seem like a wise one because the earlier argument and tone seemed to be working for her.

Posted by Consumatopia | April 12, 2008 2:09 PM

"Matt also forgets an obvious implication of Obama's remarks: Obama thinks religion is a crutch for losers. Then why, again, did Obama spend twenty years in a church where the pastor spouted anti-white, anti-American invective? Strip away the religious stuff, which Obama apparently doesn't really believe, and you're left with the conclusion that what kept in the pews was the anti-white, anti-American nonsense that helped this half-white product of a Hawaiian prep school and the Ivy League feel more authentically black.

As for the decline of blue collar jobs, you know what would create a lot of high-paying blue collar jobs in America? Letting us explore for and extract all the energy that the government keeps off limits.

Posted by Fred | April 12, 2008 1:47 PM"

Self-parody Fred is at it again. Or maybe Obama was explaining that people are pissed off and have learned that DC doesn't give a shit about them and find solace and community in local churches instead. Also, the idea that there is all of these major energy sources all around that we aren't tapping is just silly. Not only have the Right only found two hobbyhorses (the Gulf and ANWR), but there isn't much oil in each. Also, tapping those would also require people to move to oil rigs in the Gulf of Mexico or to pipelines in Alaska. Then again, what do you expect from a Steve Sailer-loving, pro-torture weirdo who thinks blacks are mentally genetically inferior and is scared of brown people in general?

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 2:12 PM

What Obama said was the truth and I am proud of him for saying it. Another great Obama moment, just when I wanted one.

Posted by Jennifer | April 12, 2008 2:14 PM

It's good that Old Fart Fred's shown up, because he's a classic example of a bitter, bitter man for whom Those People are always getting him down, and thus must be blamed for everything.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 12, 2008 2:15 PM

This may end up being much ado about nothing in terms of the horserace (God what a tired metaphor), but Obama's leveling a pretty intense cultural critique here, one that's right in line with last month's Big Race Speech: people seek cultural (symbolic) solutions to economic problems, displaying what some old bearded fella once called 'false consciousness,' and that's part of what keeps the Washington establishment in power. The incredible thing is that this is as much an attack on Democrats as on Republicans, not just Clinton and McCain but the economically-interchangeable congressmen who pay lip service to poverty 'til the polls close and drum up cultural anxieties the rest of the time.

My long thoughts along those lines are here; I think Matt has this one right but I can't help darkly laughing at other commenters' rips on our chattering class's convenient faux-populist dick-waving.

Posted by Wax Banks | April 12, 2008 2:17 PM

Fred is only a slimy racist who like being a slimy racist. I see the name and spit and move on.

Posted by Jennifer | April 12, 2008 2:18 PM

"Yep, Fred... we all know how the richest and most stable countries and American states are the ones most focused on extraction of mineral wealth."

Canada and Norway seem to be fairly rich and stable. Maybe you should tell them that they are stupid for not eschewing "backwards, primitive Republican-leaning industries".

By the way, regarding this comment of yours:

"It's not highly rated. It has a few million regular viewers (bill o'reilly has 2-2.5 million), while each network news channel has 6-8 million viewers apiece.

"The highest rated show on television is American Idol with 31 million viewers."

Comparing the ratings of a cable show (Bill O'Reilly) on Fox News Channel to American Idol on Fox Broadcast is like comparing apples and windmills. The relevant comparison would be to compare O'Reilly (or any other FNC show) to its competitors on the other cable news channels (e.g., MSNBC, CNN).

Posted by Fred | April 12, 2008 2:22 PM

"I can't help darkly laughing at other commenters' rips on our chattering class's convenient faux-populist dick-waving.

Posted by Wax Banks | April 12, 2008 2:17 PM"

This made me think of those chattering teeth you buy at joke stores biting off a flasher's dick while everyone points and laughs. Kudos.

Posted by Reality Man | April 12, 2008 2:22 PM

I don't get how this is a "gaffe," either. I've heard several people express that same sentiment, though they weren't politicians. I suppose it was too honest of a thing for a politician to say. The downside, of course, is that Obama will now probably lose Pennsylvania by double digits rather than, say, 5 points or something like that.

Posted by Abby | April 12, 2008 2:24 PM

I'm involved in local politics here (in a very minor way). We've recently had county-wide meeting and it's more than fair to say that we Democrats are bitter. Vocally. Fluently. Exhaustively. Anyone trying to say otherwise is living in Cloudcuckooland..

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 12, 2008 2:28 PM

Jackson:
That's what I posted over at Ezra's when Petey was making the same point there. How can a guy who supported Edwards not see what Obama is saying here? And if Obama is an elitst(which I doubt), is Hillary any less of one?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | April 12, 2008 2:28 PM

Re Asp's comment "Obama's response is forceful, but he's still evading the core of what's likely to give offense. The problem is not that he said that people are bitter, but that they turn to guns, religion etc. as (implictly delusive) compensation. "
---------------------
Ah, bullshit. George Bush is driving the economy down the toilet and people know it.

The rural rednecks aren't the only ones buying guns and adopting the survivalist mindset -- try strategists at Major Wall Street firms.

From a recent NY TImes article:
--------------
"THE traditional face of survivalism is that of a shaggy loner in camouflage, holed up in a cabin in the wilderness and surrounded by cases of canned goods and ammunition.

It is not that of Barton M. Biggs, the former chief global strategist at Morgan Stanley. Yet in Mr. Biggs’s new book, “Wealth, War and Wisdom,” he says people should “assume the possibility of a breakdown of the civilized infrastructure.”

“Your safe haven must be self-sufficient and capable of growing some kind of food,” Mr. Biggs writes. “It should be well-stocked with seed, fertilizer, canned food, wine, medicine, clothes, etc. Think Swiss Family Robinson. Even in America and Europe there could be moments of riot and rebellion when law and order temporarily completely breaks down.”

Survivalism, it seems, is not just for survivalists anymore.

Faced with a confluence of diverse threats — a tanking economy, a housing crisis, looming environmental disasters, and a sharp spike in oil prices — people who do not consider themselves extremists are starting to discuss doomsday measures once associated with the social fringes. "
------------------

1) I TOLD you people back in Dec 2006 that the inverted yield curve was showing a recession hitting toward the end of 2007.

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2006/12/the_sweet_sweet_fed.php#comment-119132

2) I TOLD you people back in Jan of this year to take a look at self-sufficency. I even gave you a link to survivalblog.com -- the same source that the New York Times is now citing.

See http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/01/the_coming_cut.php#comment-1112413

3) Maybe when middle class Republican supporters are starving, they'll finally wake up and realize that politics isn't a fucking football game put on for their entertainment.

That the fucking deceit of people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly etc has real world consequences and that those people didn't get rich by telling us the truth.

Posted by Don Williams | April 12, 2008 2:32 PM

Throw up a videolink to the youtube.

Posted by Brian | April 12, 2008 2:38 PM

"It's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Horrible horrible quote. He just insulted half the population of Pennsylvania. That the kind of statement that blows up campaigns.

Wonder how many millions of dollars of advertising Obama cancelled out with that comment?

He needs to stay away from the amateur sociology.

Posted by Undecided | April 12, 2008 2:39 PM

Comparing the ratings of a cable show (Bill O'Reilly) on Fox News Channel to American Idol on Fox Broadcast is like comparing apples and windmills.

No, it's like comparing the ratings of one show to another. Specifically, I also compared one news source to another news source. Fox News is not "popular"-- it merely appeals to a boutique demographic, and I was giving figures that pointed out that this was the case. People arguing that Fox News is a dominant news outlet are, unfortunately, not that numerically inclined or simply don't get out much beyond their narrow demographic of fellow elderly fox news watchers. However, I'm not asking you to get acquainted with reality, because I know you're, unfortunately, a victim of delusion. I'm not trying to convince you with facts, I'm only reminding you that you're an ignoramus.

Posted by Tyro | April 12, 2008 2:43 PM