Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
A Stunned Obama Supporter
I've never blogged before. But I wanted to share an opinion.
When I first heard the snippet, I was stunned. But when
I listened to the whole recording from San Francisco. I went from
stunned to concerned.
His choice of wording was way off (read: cling). I could see people
being offended. When I saw the response from Obama it took another
context.
In my humble opinion he was trying to say that people do not trust Washington to change their economic situation. So, instead of voting on economic promises and issues, they vote (cling) to the issues they think they can trust Washington to do something about: gun control, trade, immigration, and issues based on their religious beliefs.
Now everyone can see it differently. That's what great about America. I'll probably be referred to as a "blind" Obama supporter. But if Hillary Clinton can "mis-speak" and her supporters can overlook it, then why can't Obama have put something wrong and her supporters can't do the same?
Why is it wrong to say people are bitter about being made promises during a campaign that get forgotten as soon as that politician is voted into office? If you can't trust Washington to address economics, why is it wrong to say you turn to other issues to base your vote on?
He wasn't saying people pick up a gun, or get religion, or are against the American dream for immigrants because they're bitter. He's saying people turn to the issues they feel Washington can do something about. He is saying that because we *already are* religious, *believe* in the second amendment, *believe* in the American dream and the right of all it's citizens to prosper; that we turn to those issues because we are comfortable with them, because they speak to the values so many of us hold dear.
Comments (16)
glad you took the time to post about this. Don't be shy in the future.
I wasn't at all stunned--context is everything, and I knew the Clintons would leave it out.
April 12, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank You
April 12, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
You get it, BP, but, unfortunately, you're not one of those low-information voters that Hillary preys on with her Gotcha patrol.
I am so stoked by obama's campaign and ideas to get beyond the old 50+1% battleground that it is just tiring to have to battle the Bullshit twins (McSame and Clinton) and their desire to hang onto those old methods that they are CLINGING to.
I have supported and voted for every Democratic candidate since McGovern, but I am through if Obama gets the nomination taken from him by She-who-is-inevitable.
April 12, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I commend Obama for telling it like it is. Yes, people do cling to guns and religion when they are hurting economically and losing social power. From a social science perspective, I don't think that's a controversial proposition. They cling to guns and religion, not because Washington can do something about guns and religion (it can't), but because they don't need Washington to have guns and religion. These are areas in which people can have control over things that matter to them.
Politicians can easily pander to voters' attachment to guns and religion, precisely because Washington doesn't have to do much about them. Politicians can get a ton of mileage out of these issues just by saying the right things (sometimes in code, as members of the GWB administration are wont to do).The punditocracy enables this process by pretending that these are "real" political issues on a level with the economy.
So bravo to Obama for refusing to pander and insisting on talking about the real issues.
April 12, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you just nailed it.
Maybe we're all working to hard at trying to decern intent, rather than just taking things at face value.
I do not think Hillary prefers McCain to Obama, nor do I believe Obama was belittling anyone.
Both things seem equally absurd to me.
But then, I'm an Edwards fan.
:)
Double-edged swords are indeed, a bitch.
April 12, 2008 3:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
spin on for Obama, he has trouble uh and, and uh splaining his self. My guess is he's too educated for us dumb, bitter, small town, seen one white, seen em all ,gun toten folks.
But, he has said repeatedly that he is "just like you, raised by a single mom".
Nothing is being taken out of context, he said what he meant and meant what he said.
Go Hillary
April 12, 2008 3:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
So the multi-millionairess, Wellesley and Yale educated, Westchester county and Embassy Row living (two big-ass houses!) white lady speaks for you? The one who's claim to fame -- aside from being First Lady -- is law firm partner, Wal-Mart board member, and fighter of the vast right wing conspiracy?
Based on your description of who you are, the only thing you and Hillary have in common is that you're both white and bitter. She's not dumb, not from a small town, doesn't tote a gun.
Now that's the truth of the matter.
April 12, 2008 3:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Nothing is being taken out of context, he said what he meant and meant what he said."
My guess is you, "uh, uh" "dumb, bitter, small town, seen one white, seen em all, gun toten folks", YOU in particular, are more interested in twisting his comments to fit YOUR idealogy, than facing truth in his comments.
I take it you co-sign blatant deceptions like Snipergate or Mrs. Clinton's covert support of NAFTRA and the Columbian trade deal? "Uh, unless, and uh, uh, you have trouble uh, splaining yourself"?
Obama 08!!
April 12, 2008 4:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
See, I don't think his word choice is off... I think he is disarmingly honest and candid. To me "cling" is exactly the right word. People do "cling" to those beliefs like lifesavers; it's all that can keep them afloat and believing. They have to cling to the notion that if only all those "bad people" -- people who don't believe as they do -- would just go away, every thing would be all right again. They have to believe "if I can own a gun, I can be safe from all that inner-city crime," "if gays can't get married, then my kid won't be one." "Clinging" to these outdated, classist, prejudiced notions keeps them from feeling alone and abandoned and marginalized.
Obama spoke the truth. Problem is, we're not used to hearing a politician do that. We're used to the Clintons and McCains and Bushes who parse and tweak, who triangulate and prevaricate, who mince words one minute and make sweeping pronouncements the next.
We're just not used to Obama.
April 12, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You think you can see Hillary for who she is, but Obama has you so duped you can't see him for the sham that he really is. Pity
April 12, 2008 4:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't 'do' pity. Pity is for *victims*. Hillary could teach a course on that subject.
April 12, 2008 5:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great post. I think this is exactly what he meant--that guns and religion are things people don't need to count on Washington for. What I find especially bothersome about this new "scandal" is how it seems as if, instead of trying to improve the world or the race, Clinton and McCain went "hah, he used a word we can jump on, JUMP, JUMP!"
They both show PATTERNS of misspeaking (Tuzla, Shia/Sunni), sometimes even from prepared speeches, but he speaks extemporaneously and is expected to waste time defending every single word choice?
To me, this makes it clear who can get things done and who just wants to play negative.
April 12, 2008 4:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I will see your "snipergate" and raise you a Wright and a Resco, Wright?, Wright
April 12, 2008 4:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Whitewater, Tammy Wynette, Travelgate, Filegate.
Calling in my chips....
April 12, 2008 4:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I fold RemuD. You have been totally flamuxed.
April 12, 2008 4:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ahh, boo, boo, ya packing up all your marbles?
April 12, 2008 5:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment