Election 2008

[mountain bed]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20080412/wl_af...ma_080412140631

 

I guess I could have put this in any number of threads here, but this one seemed the most appropriate.

 

I don't understand all the flak about Barack's statements. The talking heads seem to think this is more of a fiasco than Rev. Wright. We'll see. I do know this, however - in the town I live in (9400 people) there are 4100 people who are registered to carry a gun ( the Chief of Police gave me the figures) and there are more churches than I can count - at least 2 dozen. So it sounds like he's right on to me.

 

Accusing Obama of being 'elitist' is a bunch of bs imo.

[Beltmann]

As a Midwesterner who lives in a small, rural town, I thought Obama's comments were right on, and yesterday's and today's elaborations were insightful. (Acknowledging community "malaise" might not win elections, but it's still honest leadership.) This feigned "outrage" is yet another case of opponents willfully ignoring Obama's obvious intended meaning--here, empathy for working-class frustrations--in order to twist the words to gain empty political points. That's politics as usual, I know, but here the hypocrisy is stunning. Consider John McCain's similar argument from last December:

 

"It's the influx of illegals into places where they've never seen a Hispanic influence before... You probably see more emotion in Iowa than you do in Arizona on this issue. I was in a town in Iowa, and twenty years ago there were no Hispanics in the town. Then a meatpacking facility was opened up. Now twenty per cent of their population is Hispanic. There were senior citizens there who were--'concerned' is not the word. They see this as an assault on their culture, what they view as an impact on what have been their traditions in Iowa, in the small towns in Iowa. So you get questions like 'Why do I have to punch 1 for English?' 'Why can't they speak English?' It's become larger than just the fact that we need to enforce our borders."

 

The irony, of course, is that the transparent pandering practiced here by McCain and Clinton is partly what Obama was talking about--it's that kind of political BS that frustrates regular voters, breeds a lack of trust in Washington politicians, and gives people no faith that their real problems are actually going to be addressed.

[tugmoose]

The biggest problem with the statement is where he says that beaten down folks cling to religion. Some might consider that close to calling religion the opiate of the masses. Also he's lumping religion with guns and xenophobia. I can see where religious folks would have a problem with this.

[ikol]

The biggest problem with the statement is where he says that beaten down folks cling to religion. Some might consider that close to calling religion the opiate of the masses. Also he's lumping religion with guns and xenophobia. I can see where religious folks would have a problem with this.

 

And gun owners.

[Mr. Kinsley]

As a Midwesterner who lives in a small, rural town, I thought Obama's comments were right on, and yesterday's and today's elaborations were insightful. (Acknowledging community "malaise" might not win elections, but it's still honest leadership.)

He may be right, he may be honest, but a couple of days away from the Penn primary isn't really the best strategic maneuver. This sort of underscores that, no matter where you are or who your audience is, you are always talking to everyone.

 

And gun owners.

Like they haven't already made up their minds before the election even started.

[Edie]

Clearly (to me), his meaning is that when the problems are soooo huge that they become seemingly insurmountable, and the elected officials that are supposed to watch out for you seem to abandon you instead, that these *bitter* people then turn to things that they then think they can defend successfully.

[ikol]

Like they haven't already made up their minds before the election even started.

 

Yeah, but Kucinich dropped out of the race.

[bjorn_skurj]

And gun owners.

And people who resent elitist liberal attitudes.

[jc4prez]

I don't know how many people checking this thread are in Chicago but

 

 

 

Ralph Nader is going to speaking at the Apollo Theatre on 4/16 at 7 (there will be a book signing at 6).

 

 

If your interested in other options and helping fuel a more open political game in the united states I highly suggest you attend.

 

And if your voting you should really check out votenader.org

 

 

at least check out http://www.votenader.org/issues/ to see where he stands and his main concerns over what the democrats and republicans aren't addressing. One of the most interesting issues is repealing the taft/ hartley anti-union law.

[Beltmann]

The biggest problem with the statement is where he says that beaten down folks cling to religion. Some might consider that close to calling religion the opiate of the masses.

This is what Obama said today:

 

"So I said well you know when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community... And now I didn't say it as well as I should have because you know the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important. That's what sustains us... But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to. And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives. What we need is a government that is actually paying attention."

 

That's not saying religion is an opiate for xenophobes; it's acknowledging that, for many people, faith and tradition are trustworthy in a way that government too often is not. His point is that government can, and should, aspire to earn that same kind of trust.

 

Also he's lumping religion with guns and xenophobia.

Not exactly. What he said is that when people are economically frustrated, they express that frustration in various ways. Since they feel economically helpless and ignored, some people turn inwards, towards faith and family. Others see no hope in voting for economic policy so instead turn their attention to cultural issues, such as gun rights, and vote to protect those traditions. Others see social changes, such as immigration, and vote to impact those issues. These different avenues are not necessarily intertwined, not necessarily equal, and not necessarily negative, but they all share a common skepticism about government's willigness to address working-class economic hardship. They share a common resentment about how politicians have for too long ignored their economic well-being. As Edie observed, it's about people focusing on the various topics they feel they might actually be able to influence--and about their bitterness that economic policy is not on that list.

 

Obama's original phrasing can be faulted since it (clearly) invited misinterpretation of the substance and nuance of his point... but the actual substance strikes me as uncontroversial.

[Edie]

His original phrasing can be faulted since it (clearly) invited misinterpretation of the substance and nuance of his point... but the actual substance strikes me as uncontroversial.

 

And right on.

[TheMaker]

Call me crazy, but every time Obama repudiates the repulsive "guns 'n' god" American lifestyle, I love him an inch or two more.

 

My pet theory is that he's a closet atheist; if you examine his general speech re: religion, you'll notice that it's very guarded. Whenever he discusses his personal relationship to the church, he's careful never to state that he believes in Jesus in a literal sense, simply that he believes in his, and the church's, message. He was raised in an areligious household, and it's very, very difficult to fall into such a genial, mostly inoffensive cult as Christianity if you aren't indoctrinated from birth.

 

Again, make this man president, already!

[Good Old Neon]

I don't know how many people checking this thread are in Chicago but

 

 

 

Ralph Nader is going to speaking at the Apollo Theatre on 4/16 at 7 (there will be a book signing at 6).

 

 

If your interested in other options and helping fuel a more open political game in the united states I highly suggest you attend.

 

And if your voting you should really check out votenader.org

 

 

at least check out http://www.votenader.org/issues/ to see where he stands and his main concerns over what the democrats and republicans aren't addressing. One of the most interesting issues is repealing the taft/ hartley anti-union law.

 

Didn

[Good Old Neon]

Call me crazy, but every time Obama repudiates the repulsive "guns 'n' god" American lifestyle, I love him an inch or two more.

 

My pet theory is that he's a closet atheist; if you examine his general speech re: religion, you'll notice that it's very guarded. Whenever he discusses his personal relationship to the church, he's careful never to state that he believes in Jesus in a literal sense, simply that he believes in his, and the church's, message. He was raised in an areligious household, and it's very, very difficult to fall into such a genial, mostly inoffensive cult as Christianity if you aren't indoctrinated from birth.

 

Again, make this man president, already!

 

I wish I could agree with you on this one, but, I'm not so sure:

 

[boywiththorninside]

This is what Obama said today:

 

"So I said well you know when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community... And now I didn't say it as well as I should have because you know the truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation those are important. That's what sustains us... But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to. And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families. You know this in your own lives. What we need is a government that is actually paying attention."

 

Today. This is what he said today. O.K. I don

[Atticus]

christianity is a cult?

[tugmoose]

My pet theory is that he's a closet atheist; if you examine his general speech re: religion, you'll notice that it's very guarded. Whenever he discusses his personal relationship to the church, he's careful never to state that he believes in Jesus in a literal sense, simply that he believes in his, and the church's, message. He was raised in an areligious household, and it's very, very difficult to fall into such a genial, mostly inoffensive cult as Christianity if you aren't indoctrinated from birth.

I felt a little of this during the Wright thing, where he charactorized the Rev. as an uncle who says wacky things once in a while but you still love him. I think for many religious folks the preacher is held to higher standards as a spiritual leader, not one to be taken with a grain of salt and rolled eyes. That indicates at best a condescending attitude toward the church - which is fine, but might not go over well with the electorate.

[bjorn_skurj]

I wish I could agree with you on this one, but, I'm not so sure:

 

I need a web page like that. Instead of "Committed Christian," though, it should read "Committed Green Chile Stew Maker" or something like that.

[bobbob1313]

I don't know how many people checking this thread are in Chicago but

 

 

 

Ralph Nader is going to speaking at the Apollo Theatre on 4/16 at 7 (there will be a book signing at 6).

 

 

If your interested in other options and helping fuel a more open political game in the united states I highly suggest you attend.

 

And if your voting you should really check out votenader.org

 

 

at least check out http://www.votenader.org/issues/ to see where he stands and his main concerns over what the democrats and republicans aren't addressing. One of the most interesting issues is repealing the taft/ hartley anti-union law.

 

I'm betting nobody from here is going to go.

[laurie]

And right on.

 

 

Could NOt agree more Edie!

[Beltmann]

Today. This is what he said today. O.K. I don

[jc4prez]

Didn’t you get the memo - the one that clearly states that Nader is a joke and not worth even like, discussing?

 

What part of him is a joke? His past accomplishments? Or that he is taking a stance on things that neither the democrats or republicans are taking? Look at the policies that Clinton/McCain/Obama are pushing their not all that different. Nobody is willing take a stand against corporate america which is buying out our governments interests. What is funny about that? Since we supposedly live in a democracy the forums should be open, but there not. We've been left with two parties taking the country down similar roads (mainly because the funding all coming from the same places) on top of that one can only offer us that they're not the other.

 

Would you tell me that:

 

The Patriot Act doesn't need to be questioned.

 

Bush and Cheney and a slew of other folks shouldn't have legal action taken against them.

 

Or that the other 10 focus points of his campaign aren't worth discussing.

 

 

Just because the media acts like Ralph is a non issue doesn't mean he has to be. I really don't understand how people get angry at the man; (who is more then qualified to be speaking on these issues for doing so. Throughout are history we have witnessed other voices enter the political arena, for a democracy to actually works essential that this happens.

[tugmoose]

My advice to Obama: Dance with who brung ya:

 

"ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCha

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChang

e

ChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeChangeCh

a

ngeChangeChangeChangeChange."

 

 

I know he's more than that, but the "Change You Can Believe In" sign behind him all the time is getting a little old.

[Good Old Neon]

What part of him is a joke? His past accomplishments? Or that he is taking a stance on things that neither the democrats or republicans are taking? Look at the policies that Clinton/McCain/Obama are pushing their not all that different. Nobody is willing take a stand against corporate america which is buying out our governments interests. What is funny about that? Since we supposedly live in a democracy the forums should be open, but there not. We've been left with two parties taking the country down similar roads (mainly because the funding all coming from the same places) on top of that one can only offer us that they're not the other.

 

Would you tell me that:

 

The Patriot Act doesn't need to be questioned.

 

Bush and Cheney and a slew of other folks shouldn't have legal action taken against them.

 

Or that the other 10 focus points of his campaign aren't worth discussing.

 

 

Just because the media acts like Ralph is a non issue doesn't mean he has to be. I really don't understand how people get angry at the man; (who is more then qualified to be speaking on these issues for doing so. Throughout are history we have witnessed other voices enter the political arena, for a democracy to actually works essential that this happens.

 

I was just being facetious - I'm in total agreement with you.

 

Unfortunately, too many democrats and progressives no longer consider him relevant, and that, I think, is unfortunate.

 

I

[boywiththorninside]

I don't really think that's fair. The intention of the original statement was pretty clear from the start, I think, which might explain why nobody needed clarification until this weekend, when his opponents finally decided to try to spin it in their favor. Was it perfectly phrased? No, but I think it requires a willful desire to think the worst of Obama to miss the very clear empathy--rather than condescension-- that underscored the statement.

 

If Obama's remarks were made directly to the individuals he was speaking of, I would have no problem seeing his words as poorly phrased but, ultimately, empathetic. The fact that he was addressing a San Francisco fund-raising audience does influence my perception. I fear he shaped his remarks to fit his audience. I personally don't, but I do know that where I'm from (NYC) many people do look down on "Gods and guns" small-town Americans. I'm willing to bet the political pulse of NYC is quite similar to that of San Francisco, and that Barack was trying to connect with that sensibility. Thus, I find Obama's comments to be not only condescending, but also pandering. Give 'em what they want to hear, Barack.

 

I also love how he consistently used the pronoun "they." These weren't his fellow Americans he was speaking of, these weren't people who had anything in common with the San Francisco audience, these were