Obama Slams Small Town America

[deep]

I watched the 3:50 minute youtube clip

and it may satisfy his base

but, it will do little to expand it

to imply that people only vote the way they do about gay marriage and guns


because they are angry about economic issues is condescending

[Diemen]

If we're going to get nitpicky

about candidates satisfying their base

at the expense of those who are not their base

then I think you're gonna need to spread

that righteous indignation around.

Besides, Obama is hardly the worst offender


in that category.

[martha]

Originally posted by deep
Are these "they" and "them" people
"typical white people" ?

Yes. Of course it is.

He's out to get us.

It's all just a ruse.

When he wins, he'll outlaw white skin.

He's clearly a Black Panther Revolutionary out to get you, deep.

[indra]

His comments certainly don't seem to be the best way to win over the rural vote. Kind of hard to believe he wouldn't know such comments would raise some hackles.


*edit* I want to clarify I don't think he necessarily meant to slam anyone. I don't think he intentionally planned to set up an "us" against "them" situation, but I do think he didn't really give what he said much thought. That he didn't seem to realise that people -- people he is supposedly courting -- might feel slighted by his comment is worrisome in someone who's strong points are supposed to include being thoughtful and knowing how to connect with people.

Overall I think these are "rookie" mistakes, but if he doesn't doesn't stop making them soon they could be what sinks him. They will be exploited -- he or his advisors have to realise that.

[deep]

Originally posted by Diemen
If we're going to get nitpicky

about candidates satisfying their base

at the expense of those who are not their base

I do understand that shoring up the base is mandatory

without a base

a candidate/ polotician is toast

The concept is to shore up the base

and then expand


That is something W never did

He only worked with the base

Bill Clinton was more successful
at expanding, that is why his popularity was always over 60%


McCain is able to expand
and that is why I am mostly confident that he will have success

Obama keeps having to retrench to shore up the base
because of his own undoing

with that he is not really expanding
and that is why I think he will not have success

[sue4u2]

Originally posted by indra
His comments certainly don't seem to be the best way to win over the rural vote. Kind of hard to believe he wouldn't know such comments would raise some hackles.

Just what did he say that was so wrong?
In my personal opinion he put it out there correctly. I say this because just this week I told someone I'm still voting for Hillary and he told me I can forget about that. I asked him what he had againist Hillary, be specific, he just said she can't win againist Mccain. There is still racial preducies
Then there was my friend from Florida who couldn't say anything other than 'It's the whole minority thing for some people." I ask her what she meant because she and I, as women, are that minority thing too. She just said not enough people will vote for Obama over McCain.
"But why, I ask. What is it that you are reading or researching about him that you would vote for McCain over Obama. She had no answer. Then another friend told me it's the way the people in her church is voting.(for either Clinton or McCain)
Point is people do cling on to other things when times are hard.

[deep]

Originally posted by sue4u2
She just said not enough people will vote for Obama over McCain.
"But why, I ask. What is it that you are reading or researching about him that you would vote for McCain over Obama. She had no answer.

Honest to God,

forget about race and look at the whole resume'

I could care less about Obama's race

he is 1/2 white

if he was all white

I still would find it hard to vote for someone with his limited track record.

We have just suffered though 8 years with a novice in the white house

Why would people want to throw the dice again?

Are a lot of people allowing Obama's race to cloud their judgment?

We had this problem in 2000 where people allowed a person's name to cloud their judgment.

If W was not "George Bush, Jr." he never would have gotten elected, yet alone the GOP nomination.


If Obama does not win,
his race will have been a "net" positive
not a "negative".

[anitram]

Originally posted by deep
Honest to God,

forget about race and look at the whole resume'

You do realize that plenty of us did look and didn't like what we saw?

I actually find your posts to Obama supporters to be quite a lot more condescending than anything he's said about any part of the electorate.

[Irvine511]

it may have been inelegant and incomplete, but it was not incorrect.





i also remain astonished at the higher (impossible?) standards some in here are holding Obama to.

perhaps he just misspoke? i think i heard sniper fire in the background.

what's most telling is how he's responded to this. he's deepend and explained his remark, in contrast to a Senator (and President) who refuses to ever admit to an error.

the similarities between "novice" Obama and the "novice" Bush of 2000 are small, particularly when they're compared to the i-am-never-wrong style of Bush and the current Senator Clinton.

[deep]

Originally posted by anitram
I actually find your posts to Obama supporters to be quite a lot more condescending than anything he's said about any part of the electorate.

ok

I am not couching my thoughts

just laying them out

[deep]

Originally posted by Irvine511
the similarities between "novice" Obama and the "novice" Bush of 2000 are small, particularly when they're compared to the i-am-never-wrong style of Bush and the current Senator Clinton.

I have a lot of respect for Obama

and hold a very low opinion of W

in 2000, I would tell anyone that would listen that he was an "empty suit"

the comparison I make,
is in experience to be the Chief Executive.

these are the worst of times
and we don't have the luxury of on the job training
or hoping that a new president will guess right in choosing with political hacks to trust

[Dreadsox]

The Rural Vote has won the last two elections!

[BVS]

Originally posted by deep


and we don't have the luxury of on the job training

Every PUSA has on the job training, no one has the experience of being the President of the US before going in the first time...

[Diemen]

Originally posted by deep
these are the worst of times
and we don't have the luxury of on the job training
or hoping that a new president will guess right in choosing with political hacks to trust

You know, it's not as if Obama has consistently shown wild errors in judgment and the kind of thinking that would make one wonder whether he would take decision making seriously. At many opportunities he has chosen to explain his reasons and beliefs in far more detail than any other candidate this go around. He has shown himself to be a careful thinker and one capable of understanding and incorporating great nuance into his thought process.

To suggest that he would essentially be clueless on day one and so devoid of judgment that he would be left to merely guess who to listen to is incredibly ridiculous, not to mention amazingly insulting of both him and his supporters.

[Irvine511]

Originally posted by deep

these are the worst of times
and we don't have the luxury of on the job training
or hoping that a new president will guess right in choosing with political hacks to trust

i agree that these are the worst of times,

which is why i want something other than the same old same old that got us in this mess to begin with.

[martha]

Originally posted by deep




Are these "they" and "them" people
"typical white people" ?


And that is an Obama term.

Originally posted by deep



Honest to God,

forget about race and look at the whole resume'

I could care less about Obama's race

Maybe I missed your irony then?

[indra]

Originally posted by sue4u2


Just what did he say that was so wrong?
In my personal opinion he put it out there correctly. I say this because just this week I told someone I'm still voting for Hillary and he told me I can forget about that. I asked him what he had againist Hillary, be specific, he just said she can't win againist Mccain. There is still racial preducies
Then there was my friend from Florida who couldn't say anything other than 'It's the whole minority thing for some people." I ask her what she meant because she and I, as women, are that minority thing too. She just said not enough people will vote for Obama over McCain.
"But why, I ask. What is it that you are reading or researching about him that you would vote for McCain over Obama. She had no answer. Then another friend told me it's the way the people in her church is voting.(for either Clinton or McCain)
Point is people do cling on to other things when times are hard.

The problem I see with what he said is that he can be interpreted as implying that rural people are all religious freaks, gun nuts, and bigots. Many rural people are indeed any and all of those things. But so are many urban people. That is divisive. I don't think he intended it to be, but sometimes people say stupid things when they don't really understand people and I think that's what he has done here. No one likes to be lumped into broad categories (especially negative ones) -- does it not raise hackles to when you hear someone making not so flattering comments about all blacks, all women, all gays, all Asians, all liberals, all men, all Americans, all Jews, all Muslims, all Christians, etc.? It makes people feel as if they are being seen not as individuals, but as a lump -- and a backwards, bigoted one at that.

I know he wasn't saying this directly to the people in small towns in the rust belt, but during a fundraiser in SF. Of course for many that makes it worse because there is the feeling of being ridiculed by a bunch of rich city people -- it's no fun feeling as if you are the butt of a joke and I do think quite a few rural and small town people feel that way about these comments. In addition he's putting the blame on his not connecting with these people on them instead of him and that isn't exactly going to win anyone over.

I believe he's going to be the Democratic nominee so I will vote for him in November. But I also think he's going to need every vote he can get -- especially in states such as Ohio -- and alienating people with tactless comments isn't the way to do it. He needs to think harder about how he phrases everything because absolutely everything he says is under a microscope and will be used against him if at all possible.

[Jeannieco]

Originally posted by Diemen


You know, it's not as if Obama has consistently shown wild errors in judgment and the kind of thinking that would make one wonder whether he would take decision making seriously. At many opportunities he has chosen to explain his reasons and beliefs in far more detail than any other candidate this go around. He has shown himself to be a careful thinker and one capable of understanding and incorporating great nuance into his thought process.

To suggest that he would essentially be clueless on day one and so devoid of judgment that he would be left to merely guess who to listen to is incredibly ridiculous, not to mention amazingly insulting of both him and his supporters.

Thank you for that post, very well said!

[deep]

Originally posted by Diemen


You know, it's not as if Obama has consistently shown wild errors in judgment and the kind of thinking that would make one wonder whether he would take decision making seriously.

Yes, he claims to have "sound judgment".

Going back to 2002 when he gave his "Dumb War" speech against the Iraq War when he was an Illinois State Senator.


So if he has good judgment since 2002.

Why is he saying on film in just 30 days ago he uses bone-headed judgement? Not when he was a teenager?
But in 2004?

Obama tangles with the press

Posted: Monday, March 03, 2008 5:58 PM by Domenico Montanaro

From NBC/NJ’s Aswini Anburajan

SAN ANTONIO, Texas -- Led by the Chicago press corps that has covered Obama for years, the candidate today faced a barrage of questions in what turned out to be a contentious news conference.

Questions centered on why his campaign had denied that a meeting occurred between his chief economic advisor and Canadian officials as well as questions on his relationship with Tony Rezko, a Chicago land developer and fast food magnate, now on trial for corruption charges.

Obama went on to detail his relationship with Rezko, repeating that the land deal had been a "bone-headed" move.

Seriously, how will this play?

A film from March of 2008 in a 30 second commercial in the 2-3 battleground states.

That all this election will be about.

[Vincent Vega]

Originally posted by martha





Maybe I missed your irony then?

Note: He said he could care less.