Kevin,

I don't get the impression from your story that either of those people were really planning on voting for Obama, at least definitely not the first one, and the second one was evidently already a lost cause to Hillary so Obama apparently can only be an improvement on her with this crowd (from your example using just two people).

I tend to think most people will recognize the truth in his comments and admire him for it, as there's really nothing more condescending to someone in a morass to say "no, you're not in a bad situation" (as per Hillary) when Obama was saying "you've been screwed economically for a generation now, and justifiably upset by it, and I'm going to do something about it."

"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."

Nice going Barak! With one sentence you’ve marginalized scores of people who, through critical thinking and reasoned analysis, happen to hold views different from yours. At the same time you give Hillary a chance to get up off the mat in Pennsylvania.

You’re well on your way to becoming this years John Kerry!

People do get afraid when their livelihood is threatened. That is the time when they can be unwittingly receptive to all sorts of dishonorable suggestions disparaging others. Obama and Hillary will always have to be on their guard.

People under stress, can easily be overwhelmed by complicated opinions of why things are the way they are. The Hillary is a 'this' and Obama's a 'that', thing is what I feel that a lot of those people are thinking. Because of this, the chance is good that they'll just take the easy route and vote for relatively conservative white guy vietnam vet 'bomb-bomb-McCain'

Obama's different. Here's a guy that says things that people actually have to think about for a little in order to understand what he intends and what it means to them. I think it's going to take people a while for some people to get used to that, and hopefully come to realize that in the case of Obama, it might be worth having a black guy for president after all. Or a woman that might like gals too...so what?

We need to be careful with the geographic stereotypes.

It is an absolute fact that the economic good times that happened in the 1990's didn't get too far into rural areas, some trickle in, but not what happened in urban areas. It is a fact that when economic hard times happened, it happened harder in rural areas.

So, Obama was speaking to a truth - but he didn't say it well.

I'm hearing reactions to the word "cling" he used. Yet, that is the very word I would use in a certain context. That context goes something like -

They may have lost their house so they don't have that to cling to anymore. They may have lost their job that they clinged to for 20 years through lay-offs and hard times. So all they have left to cling to today is their religion and their family.

As far as the gun part - well there is a "gun" culture that holds that if your family gets hungry enough, you go hunt down something to eat. In the context of survival, clinging to a gun would be an appropriate phrase.

So, does this poor choice of words equal elitism? Hmmm, one has to consider both context and source to come to a conclusion. The context certainly was not one of attempting to put down or insult rural people. It was the reverse, one of acknowledging that times are hard for rural America. The source is a fellow who grew up with a single parent, and who was in part raised by a grandmother, and who is not independently wealthy, and who has no history of elitism. - So, no the charge of elitism doesn't stick there.

What strikes me as elitism, is an entire other aspect of this issue. We have rarely had anyone running for President acknowledge the real problems of rural people. Sure, some talk about the "plight of the farmer" as if all rural people were farmers. But no one in recent memory has really made an effort to understand the real economic and social issues in rural America. When we finally get a Presidential candidate who puts it together - that there are economic pressures, that religion is important, that guns are important - he says it in a sloppy manner, and his opponent is all over him about that.

But wait - what has she said or done about rural American in her 35 years of experience? Nothing. I cannot think of one thing Hillary Clinton has done for rural America. Not one thing. In fact, her big State election strategy is a write off of rural America. Rural and low population States just don't matter in her world view. So, who exactly is the "elitist"?

So, I compare and contrast Obama and Clinton on rural issues, and Obama comes up the big winner. Sure, his statement at a closed door fund raiser in California was poorly done - but at least he was talking about rural America instead of sweeping us under the carpet, again, like most urban Democrats have done for the last 30 years - Clinton included.

Um, I don't own guns and back their private ownership because I like to hunt and target shoot or because I'm scared of burglers. I own guns because I trust no power center that is armed and enable by force. I do not place absolute faith in power and that is the alternative. Now it may be true that I like to hunt and shoot targets, but those are side benefits.

This has not one thing to do with my economic status or my bitterness. In-artful is perhaps a bit light as a description. Quite frankly, since he believes it, Obama should say the 2nd is an individual right and shut the hell up. He can do himself nothing but harm by going farther.

I find nothing wrong with what Obama said. Especially if you read the entire speech and not just the "bitter" snippet. I have seen what he is talking about in action. I grew up in the quaint little town of Oakridge. It was a town built around logging mills which have long since left. For over 20 years the town has heard from both republicans and democrats saying "if you vote for me I will make it better" and no matter who it was and what letter was next to their name it got worse. When the elections would come around as a kid and then a teenager all people would talk about were abortion, gays, guns, porn, church, cops, the death penalty, and the environmet. The most substantive economic conversations I ever heard was when the single sentance "They'll raise/lower taxes" was occaisonally uttered. The economy wasn't on these peoples minds when electing their leaders because after years of "negative" conditioning they realized that it didn't matter what the candidates said, they were still going to be screwed in the end anyways.

Obama has admitted his way of saying what he said about bitterness and guns wasn't well phrased, but his basic premise was in the ball park. He is also getting support here , here and elsewhere.

You are all making mountains out of molehills. You all need to stop being uptight about this and go onward.

This is ridiculous and yet another example of how tone deaf and off the charts the HC campaign is. Just today she brought up the Obama comments at a rally in PA and she was BOOED by the folks for bringing it up. The HC campaign has hammered to hard on this and now she is just annoying many people.

The past three decades of social and political change have radicalized many people who have taken that change personally as an attack on their very identity. I do not believe most liberal Americans have any idea how defensive their social and political advances have left conservatives feeling. In urban areas, people are exposed to more ideas and influences and this modifies their views tremendously. But in small town America, particularly where people have been subjected to extreme stresses such as job loss, the lack of exposure to modifying influences allows their wounds to fester.

And anyone who has ever had an infected wound knows very well that even the kindest touch, no matter how necessary it is, is extemely painful and something from which your instant reaction is to quickly withdraw.

It's becoming painfully obvious to me that far too many Americans cling desperately to the beliefs they were handed by their parents or favorite talk radio hosts, but because they did not arrive at those beliefs through their own critical thinking and research, they cannot logically defend them, nor do they have the thinking skills to be capable of doing so. Clinging is all they can do.

They have a team or even tribal mentality about their beliefs. Their beliefs are how they define themselves. For that reason, they cannot even consider the possibility that someone with a different opinion might have a valid point to make or might make a good leader for this country. In fact, any effort to reach them simply strengthens their resolve to cling to those beliefs and reinforces their irrational conviction that the person is not to be trusted and is actually trying to destroy their kind.

Bitter... you bet.. I hardly know anyone who isn't bitter, except maybe a few beltway politicos and pundits who are pulling in the big money... I grew up in K. Falls and Klamath County. People there haven't got over the closing of the mills in the 80s. The Rs have managed blame it all on the liberals and environmentalists and tell them that the liberal Dems are going to take away their guns and take God out of America somehow, and convert everyone into homosexuals.

What Obama said about bitterness and rural America is absolutely true. You ask people in Eastern and Southern Oregon whether they are bitter.. you betcha they are. Have a drive out in that country and compare it to the Willamette Valley. Those people are barely hanging on, most of them. Did Obama hurt his chances with them? I doubt it, since most of them don't think government can or will do anything for them anyway. They are going to vote R anyway. And Hillary Clinton is nowhere in rural Oregon either. Those small numbers of Dem voters that exist in rural Oregon are going to vote for Obama by a large majority I think. The Clinton years didn't help them one bit, and they like Hillary even less than they liked Bill.

Obama looks more and more like the typical elitist twit that the Democrats love to nominate. There is a long line of them that win the primary but lose the election.

This all reminds me of visiting my sister in southern Idaho recently. The huge majority of people watched Fox news and were Republicans and Bush fans. The Republicans had not done one thing for them economically and yet they were all big supporters. This seemed to pretty much support what Obama is saying.

Unlike Kerry, Obama spent years working as a community organizer to help poor people on the South Side of Chicago. Not from some glitzy office, but on the streets with them. Prior to that he had a pretty humble upbringing, being raised by his grandparents for the most part, and spending a few years growing up in a third world country. Elitist? NOT.

When I heard of the Obama "gaffe" I immediately thought... sounds like something directly out of Thomas Frank's "What's the Matter With Kansas?" and am awfully surprised no one has mentioned it here.

From this current perspective Clinton's (I mean Bill's) presidency looks positively gorgeous compared to the current occupant, but I remember some really dark times for the working class during the Clinton supported NAFTA years and DLC triangulation. Workfare my a$$

Obama may have phrased it poorly originally, but I too have run into those people on the doorstep who have found both national (and I stress national) Dems and Reps seeking to better corporate life over everyday workers' lives. And they are righteously angry and turn to those "values issues" that seem to distinguish candidates.

At the local and state ;level it itsn't quite the same and frankly I am 100% shocked that Hillary would jump on something she damn sure knows is true as an attack point.

Kudos for Obama saying it. And further kudos for not backing down on it.

If we can create dialogue out of this with those who feel like they have been economically brushed aside then a better Oregon has been formed...

James Mattiace

.

I have to agree with some of the above postings that these are examples of exactly who doesn't really care what Obama says. I think the focus is and will be on drawing distinctions between Clinton and Obama. Clinton's not really helping convince me by piling on this "elitist" argument and furthering this ridiculous political tactic. George W. Bush was a wealthy, ivy-league New Englander from a long line of true elitists. Look up some Barbara Bush quotes and you'll be treated to some serious elitism. The whole family is so ridiculously out of touch it's amazing. Obama is downright folksy compared to G.W. I'm disappointed to see Hilary helping continue the patently false notion that Democrats are snobs and Republicans are good beer-drinking buddies.

Kudos for Obama saying it. And further kudos for not backing down on it.

And more kudos for Obama having the character and honesty to admit that he didn't phrase his words as well as they might have been phrased. This stands in sharp contrast to other politicians who can't admit to having made a mistake even though almost everyone else in the nation, including some of their own supporters, knows it.

It is interesting that Hillary, who still really hasn't admitted she was wrong on the Iraq war, is in cahoots with all the right-wing pundits hammering Obama on this issue when many people basically agree with him.

It is interesting that Hillary, who still really hasn't admitted she was wrong on the Iraq war, is in cahoots with all the right-wing pundits...

If Joe LIEberman is dissing Obama then that is a good sign Obama was right.

Barak and his wife never made more that $100k before he sold his first book. His mom died of cancer because she couldn't afford insurance. or treatment. Does that sound elitist?
He is speaking truth and Hillary knows it. I think it is obvious to most people that she is being calculating and insincere and they are really getting sick of that kind of politics. I believe there is a great thirst for a leader who will speak the truth as he or she sees it. This won't hurt him.

Chris,

It is indefensible spin jobs like yours that have left such a bad taste in so many mouths. Until the last couple of months, my reservations about your candidate were just that, reservations about HC. Then her campaign and its supporters just went ape shit. Your posts and comments are either born out of unmitigated gall, delusions, or a "win at all costs" mentality. Whatever shred of dignity or self-respect were left are now at the bottom of the boilermaker your candidate guzzled to look cool with the crowd. Seriously, get a grip.

Chris. I guess you didn't listen to what Barak said. He never said that the majority of folks who are religious are only "clinging to religion out of bitterness". For Pete's sake he is religious himself. He also never implied that "everyone" who harbors bitterness about economic reality must be leaning toward xenophobia and racism. I'm a gun owner and he sure as heck didn't offend me.

Do you seriously believe that people don't find refuge in religion when the material world craps on them? Or that poor econmic times can't exaserbate racial and ethnic tensions?

Chris: Having slandered Obama on a personal level, not his policy positions, how is it that you intend to support him so strongly as you promised to do in the fall when he is our nominee?

Do you honestly think this kind of stuff does you or your candidate proud? You are marginalizing yourself more with each muddy post you slam on the wall.

There is a thresh-hold for smelling the foulness of this misadventure. After you are covered in enough of it, you lose your ability to detect it.

I swear, Hillary could shoot someone in the head live on CNN and Chris would find a way for it to mean that Obama is bad.

Personally, I find it refreshing when a candidate stands by what he says and refuses to pander. Yes, he could have phrased things a little more artfully, but he repeatedly shows himself eager to ask hard questions and actually talk to voters like adults. Clinton comes across as desperate and soulless by comparison, and people can see that (Notice that Obama's still 10 points ahead in today's Gallup poll.)

This has all been a bit incredible to witness: The MSM had all but anointed her the winner last fall. This primary was supposed to be a victory lap that would be over by February 5th. However, her campaign has been (to paraphrase Keith Olbermann) akin to watching someone falling down the stairs in slow motion: coming in third in Iowa, losing twelve primaries in a row, NAFTA, Bosnia, Mark Penn, Columbia, etc., blah-blah-blah, and so on. And I'm supposed to trust her leadership abilities how?

While Clinton has been basking in her "inevitability", Obama's been out there working hard and, state by state, taking his message to the people, and the results are now becoming apparent to even the most desperate Clinton backers. I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Obama wants to lead while Clinton wants to be president. And as much as people like Chris want to huff and puff and pout, that's why he's winning.

Obama and Novick both suffer from the malady of saying what they think. Karen Armstrong one said of Confucius, in The Great Transformation": "He was too blunt and honest to succeed in politics." How interesting that more than 2500 years have elapsed, and the characteristic of candor is still a political liability.

To those rural Oregon voters who feel compelled to vote for Hillary, the DINO, Clinton, go for it. And to those bloggers here who feel compelled to pounce on Novick every time he utters a non-programmed phrase, that's your prerogative too. As Mo Udall once said, when Democrats form a firing squad, they tend to form it in a circle. And I guess the authentic, non-programmed Democrats are the first ones to get shot.

I don't know Novick's fate yet, but I'll say this about Obama -- Hillary might yet get McCain elected, but Obama will at least win the nomination.

OK, PLEASE LETS VOTE(assume blogers on this topic are the superdelegates) OBAMA WINS!! AM SO HAPPY, THAT THE FOLKS SUFFERING UNDERSTOOD OBAMA'S MESSEGE UNLIKE THE SILLY POLITICIANS- REMEMBER THIS ELECTION IS ABOUT US THE PEOPLE- NOT THE POLITICIAN AND DATS WHY, OBAMA WILL WIN!!

We keep hearing and reading about the tribal conflicts in Iraq and how they will make it difficult to stabilize that country that Bush and his tribes tore it asunder. Guess what!! We have a tribal problem right here in the United States. The difference is that people here choose their tribes based mostly on culture and ideology. Just now we have the neocon, right-wing and Clinton tribes ganging up on Obama doing what they can to tear him down to their level, which is probably impossible. It is all so disgusting and contemptible that if Hillary gets the nomination I'll probably not be the only independent who will find it very difficult to vote for her as much as we might detest McCain.

Re: the link above to Joe LIEberman's crummy little bit of crap, it seems he has forgotten that Obama campaigned for him when LIEberman was running for the Senate. Obama deservedly lost some points for supporting LIEberman so perhaps it is poetic justice that sleazy Joe stabbed him in the back.

As someone who grew up in a rural area, who now lives in a rural area, I've met my fair share of rednecks.

However,I find Obama's comments insulting.

There are certainly people who cling to their guns, religion or antipathy for others not like them.

These clingers aren't limited to the blue collar workers among us. I've heard many of my white collar colleagues espouse the same sentiments.

So what that Kevin lives next to a redneck loser? That guy wasn't going to vote for Obama anyway.

I live next to really nice blue collar folks who were offended, and who may just decide to vote for Hillary now.

To simply apply this as a blanket to blue collar workers is wrong.

Just for the record, I'm an Obama supporter, who made her kids get up at 4 in the morning to see him when he came to town.

"Re: the link above to Joe LIEberman's crummy little bit of crap, it seems he has forgotten that Obama campaigned for him when LIEberman was running for the Senate. Obama deservedly lost some points for supporting LIEberman so perhaps it is poetic justice that sleazy Joe stabbed him in the back."

Agreed. There's bad karma coming your way when you support Joe against a fellow Democrat who opposed the Iraq War. I guess Barack must like the guy personally, but "friends don't let friends support Lieberman."

I must say, Obama has the "I believe in bitterness" constituency, and i have noticed his supporters are oozing it, you would be a hard group to be around-he definately draws the negative crowd-not very civil either-whereas we Clintons are upbeat and positive and optomistic, we are small town-big town, being bitter is a choice youve made, being optomistc is a choice I've made. And if your candidate is doing so well, why wouldn't you be more gracious, you must think you can slander your way into the presidency. I truly feel sorry for you, and pray every day you will feel better about youself and your life and your prospects

Gosh Sandra, you are so right. Thanks for helping me to see the light.I was almost brainwashed with all that " The Audacity of Hope" and " Change We Can Believe In " negativity and biterness. Oh no! I am out of H-C Kool-Aid. I can just feel my biterness oozing back into me.

Sandra and Chris need to get together on eharmony. I'll pray for you too Sandra.

I was born in Klamath Falls. Graduated from Klamath Union High School many years ago. Mom still lives there. Obama's viewpoint, IMO, is valid and was honestly offered without the condescending sugarcoating or idealized salt-of-the-earth BS so many politicians sling in the direction of rural America. I get the feeling that Obama has far more understanding of rural economic realities than Hillary "$109,000,000 in income over 7 years" Clinton.

Better one harsh truth than a hundred pretty lies.

The truth and the context: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-coleman/i-was-there-what-obama-re_b_96553.html

Here's the transcript of a speech that Obama just gave in Pittsburgh that explores in some detail the issues that he clumsily touched upon in his SF talk that has attracted such criticism. An excerpt:

"Because politics didn’t lead me to working folks; working folks led me to politics. I was standing with American workers on the streets of Chicago twenty years ago, and the reason I’m here today is because I don’t want to wake up one day many years from now and see that our companies are still getting hurt because foreign governments are still bending or breaking the rules, or that we’re still standing idly by while American jobs get shipped overseas, or that we still haven’t made the investments in infrastructure and in training our workers that we desperately need.

"The reason I’m here today is because I know what it’s like to go to college on student loans, and see a mother get sick and worry that maybe she can’t pay the bills. I know what it’s like to have to scratch and work and claw to build a better life for your family. And I don’t want to wake up many years from now and find that the American dream is still out of reach for too many Americans."

For some reason Obama supporters keep bring Hillary and Bill earning for the last 8 years, but forgot to mentioned that not Hillary and defiantly not Bill were born wealthy. Clinton also gave to charity much more in % from their income than Obama. Hillary was growing in middle class family and had her first summer job when she was 13 and worked ever since.

Regarding Obama “bitter” remarks: his campaign first deny it, because it was off-the –record and they didn’t think it would be a tape.

On the “Compassion debate” on CNN Obama was asked:”When the life begins?” Forty three years old man who is running for president should took a stand on this issue time ago, but not Obama. He “didn’t formulate his opinion yet”. What is he waiting for?

"Re: the link above to Joe LIEberman's crummy little bit of crap, it seems he has forgotten that Obama campaigned for him when LIEberman was running for the Senate. Obama deservedly lost some points for supporting LIEberman so perhaps it is poetic justice that sleazy Joe stabbed him in the back."

Agreed. There's bad karma coming your way when you support Joe against a fellow Democrat who opposed the Iraq War. I guess Barack must like the guy personally, but "friends don't let friends support Lieberman."

People have such short memories. Back in '92, Hillary, that traditional gal, who hunts ducks in every spare moment, loves guns, and slugs down whiskey in one swallow, took some heat for being an "elitist" by putting down stay-at-home moms announcing how proud she was for not "staying at home baking cookies" like some other politician's wives.

The audience for these attacks by Hillary is not the voter as much as it is the SDs. It's the last ditch Tonya Harding strategy, convince the SDs that Obama can't win and convince 80% of the undecided to back her, a long shot admittedly. Apparently it's not working, with the SDs or the voter.

Polling from last week is unchanged or improved for Obama. A good reliable poll- Quinnipiac has it unchanged from last week, and Gallup tracking has Obama with bigger lead, Survey USA has a four point shift towards Obama. CQ Politics predicts a small delegate gain for Clinton from Pa, not much for all the ill will that Clinton will have gained in the party for her Republican style attack ads.

And this quote from WaPo: Rep. Mike Doyle (D), an undecided superdelegate who represents Pittsburgh and surrounding towns in the Monongahela Valley, said yesterday that he was not particularly troubled by Obama's comments.

"I don't disagree with a lot of what he said. My dad was a mill worker. My grandfather was a steel mill worker, and when the steel industry collapsed, nobody's family was hurt more than mine," Doyle said. "It's not inaccurate to say a lot of politicians have come through these towns, made a lot of promises and failed to deliver. I thought he was spot-on when he said how people feel."

Hillary, in contrast with the bad elitist, Obama, tells us who is in touch with "real Americans." http://my.barackobama.com/page/content/guide_ad

Answer to original question, no. It's a totally media made up phony contrived controversy to made a 'regular guy' Obama look bad, while making the multi-multi-multi millionaire John Sidney McCain III, look good.

This is a very interesting development. Barney Frank, a Super D for Clinton, and brother of Ann Lewis, a high level member of the Clinton campaign says that the candidate trailing in delegates should drop out before June 3. Since it is very clear who will be trailing, he is saying indirectly that Clinton should drop out.

From A.P."Frank: Trailing Democrat Should Drop Out

WASHINGTON (AP) — Rep. Barney Frank said the trailing Democratic presidential candidate should drop out of the race by no later than June 3 — the date of the two last Democratic primaries — even if it is the candidate he supports, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Probably sooner," the Massachusetts congressman added in an interview Tuesday with The Associated Press. He suggested that the trailing candidate should drop out once it became clear that candidate had no remaining practical chance of winning the nomination.

By branding the messenger elitist, we trivialize the message. The majority of the electorate feels disenfranchised. This leads to cynicism and a sense we can trust little in our lives. Our skepticism breeds distrust and fear. We cling to those things which empower us and become isolated. Protectionist. To overcome this phenomena we must recognize those interests we share in common and apply ourselves to achieve the common good. Which candidate might better lead the way. A shot and a beer, or the bitter truth?

I like Obama much better than Hillary, but he needs to stop ruminating in public. My above post was another one that went before I was finished with it and the half post reflects my view considerably less than I like. Neither of the candidates is good on the 2nd, an individual right reading by Obama is historically correct and considering his record he should stop right there. Hillary should STFU, she has no redeeming features on the issue and her play acting will only push this into the forefront.

People who are pressed by conditions beyond their control have two reactions, they hold tighter to and become more protective of the things they have control over. Religion is an excellent example, it is their's so screw off. Guns are a bit more complicated, they are a matter of personal control but they are also a symbol of resistance (potentially). The 'other' is a tad more complicated, there are actual measurable and observable effects on labor from illegal hiring, that will play badly with someone suffering.

If a NE OR nail bender can deal with the issue in this manner I expect better from Barack. It is bad news for a candidate to put half formed thoughts out where they can be played against him.

<h2>Add to the list of Penn. states commentors, Mr. nutter, the mayor of Philly who on Sunday said, Barrack Obama was out of touch with the people of Penn. and did not acurately describe his constituents, Guess Obama meant to say they were"typical white american bitter small town people" he seems to be big on stereotyping people, or haven't you noticed? Remember about the power of words as he likes to say, why should saying something at a private fundraiser be an excuse for bigotry, he is what he is.I got that from page 4 of "OBAMA 4 DUMMIES"good nite and remember I'm praying for you!!!!</h2>