Reader Posts

« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »

Bitter about the B.S.

(Disclaimer: Irritable blog syndrome)

I know it's a slow period, but there are now four recommended posts (pro-Obama of course) about the "bitter" brouhaha, and countless readers posts and comments expressing self-righteous indignation on the subject.

Reality check. What we have here are a bunch of mostly educated, middle-to-upper class bloggers
heatedly debating about which educated, upper class candidate most
authentically connects with working class people based on soundbites
that have been prepared by their campaigns. It's nonsense from every
direction.

Anatomy of a brouhaha:

1. Obama, presenting to fundraisers in CA, spins the challenges he faces getting votes from (a.k.a. "connecting with") working class voters. In the process, he makes an ill-considered generalization, which is picked up by HuffPo

2. Clinton & McCain smell blood. Polls show that Obama is perceived as "elitist". Their campaigns simultaneously leap into action, stridently, righteously arguing that Obama is elitist and out of touch with the working class (particularly hypocritical in the case of McCain but disingenuous in both cases).

3. Obama strategists see a problem. Obama stridently, righteously defends his point and argues that the other candidates, particularly McCain, are the out of touch ones.

4. Clinton brings up her wholesome churchgoing, midwestern roots to prove, beyond shadow of a doubt, that she's the one with a true connection to the working class. (Obama, of course, goes to the "wrong" church.) McCain will surely weigh in soon. I can't wait for someone to say that they were the son of mill worker.

5. The blogosphere mobilizes. He's elitist. No he courageously speaks the truth. No he's full of shit. No she's full of shit. No you're full of shit.

I say: You're all full of shit. And so are Obama, Clinton, and McCain. "Connecting with working class" is a political game in Washington. Basically you say whatever you and your pollsters think that working class voters most want to hear (as long as it doesn't obviously contradict your policies). You champion 2 or 3 issues that polls say the working class care about, e.g. mortgages, immigration, NAFTA. You highlight the parts of your biography that pollsters say the working class will most identify with. And then you pretend that the statements, policies, biographical data selected by your pollsters demonstrate that you are the one with the true working class creds.

Every candidate has to play this game to be elected, so let them play. But anyone who jumps up and down excitedly about what these campaign stratagems say about the true natures of their preferred candidates has been played. I urge everyone at TPM to try to contain their enthusiasm.


Comments (48)

That's it. You're name's on the wall, buddy. But you're also 100% right.

Recommending in hopes of have 5 "bitter" posts in the top ten.

"Curb your enthusiasm." Is Genghis the Larry David of TPM?

5? It's all 10 now. And as soon as one goes down, another anxiously takes its place. Meanwhile, 6 of the last 7 posts at Election Central and 9 of the last 10 reader posts assess this critical question of who is best able to pretend to connect to working class America.

We're bored. Bread and circuses, you know.

Sorry you're feeling so bitter.

Have some chocolate. Always helps me when I'm feeling bitter.


Make that bittersweet chocolate for me.

I strongly recommend Chocolove from Boulder. It even comes with a love poem to make you feel better.

G, don't be too virtuous to recommend your own.

Since primary-contest posts dominate by something like 100:1, remind people here that some of this stuff is just downright silly.

Truth.

See, I don't agree because I am a Social Worker. True I have a Masters from Washington University ,but still I am on th front lines in the fight for working class Americans. I worked with Katrina victims. I am there when there are floods , ice storms, power outages. When Grandma can't afford the Nursing Home care she needs and brother Bob needs a Melanoma removed but has not insurance and is not deemed by the Government to be "disabled " enough for help.
The working class people who 10-20 years ago all had Factory jobs and little houses and pension plans and Health Insurance.
They hunt and own guns, the deer and turkeys they take down are put in the freezer so the family can eat through the winter. Some keep gardens and sell home-grown tomatoes out of the back of a truck from parking lots and road sides during the summer.
They'll mow your lawn for $25.00 during the summer and rake your leaves in the Fall.
They attend Church and try to keep their houses up and raise their children. The women often work as CNA's and are bathing and feeding your parents and grand parents at nursing homes. They are under paid , over worked and barely scraping by!
These are real people, I deal with them everyday.
Some may seem "bitter" but many have pretty good attitudes. Many have given up on voting and politics because of the things you state here.
They may not have attended the Ivy League but they are not as stupid as people like to paint them. They are the salt of the earth and have realised that they have becomes pawns.
And so ,because it has became a game and no one really cares about the working class they stay away from the polls and later people whine about voter turnout and say if only more people would vote!
I was an Edwards supporter because he really did understand these things.Yes, he was the son and grand son of the working class blue collar poor! But the Democratic Party wanted to make history.
Well, they are making it all right! With the most devisive political season I have seen in all my 29 years of life!

And shovel your snow in winter, but around here, they want $50.

:)

I'm with you on Edwards. I wish we didn't HAVE to make history, but like John, I'm resigned to it.

However, I disagree that folks aren't bitter. We are. We should be, too. We've been working harder, been more productive, and seen less reward then our parents. Why?

Well, because our politicians are bought and paid for, like John says.

I do not think Hillary or Obama are the worst we can do, even if they aren't the best. We just have to push back as best we can, and one thing I like about Obama is his fearlessness in saying what he means.

I don't think he meant to discount folks hopefulness and moral fiber by accurately describing the anger we all feel as "bitter". I hope he goes on being outspoken. I feel better about him because he said this, actually.

What concerns me the most, is that we allow the loudest addle-pated louts among us to steer our elections. We allow them to get us all caught up in semantics and implication and vaporous nonsense. I happen to think there is a lot of subtle GOP mischief at work here in Dem blogs.

"Divide and Conquer" isn't a new tactic, just an effective one. Let's try to remain united behind both Dem candidates and cry foul at those telling us that half of us should be morally outraged and stay home on election day.

Let's go win one for ourselves this time.

What concerns me the most, is that we allow the loudest addle-pated louts among us to steer our elections. We allow them to get us all caught up in semantics and implication and vaporous nonsense. I happen to think there is a lot of subtle GOP mischief at work here in Dem blogs.


yeah.

Thanks, stavu9. I wrote, "mostly educated, middle-to-upper class bloggers", and I certainly realize that this is a generalization.

A couple of clarifications: First, he whole notion of suggesting that an entire demographic class is bitter or not bitter is ridiculous. As in every demographic, I'm sure that there are many who are bitter and many who are not, and the reasons the bitter ones are bitter have as much to do with their personalities as the challenges they face.

Second, I don't mean to suggest that the Democratic candidates don't really care about working class people. I think that they do. But there's a disconnect between what they want to do to help alleviate the challenges people face and what they think they need to say. Clinton's "midwestern" upbringing does not qualify her to address working class concerns, and I'm sorry, but Edwards' millworking father doesn't qualify him either. (No one has done more for American workers than the child of privilege, FDR.) These are B.S. factors that candidates articulate to help people to identify with them. I believe that Edwards is passionate about helping poor and working class people. I just don't think that was demonstrated by the number of times he told people that his father was a millworker. I also believe that Clinton and Obama share many of Edwards' objectives, if not his degree of passion. But all this back-and-forth about who's elitist and who really understands the working class is empty politics.

Genghis. Sometimes you just rock.

Except here:

I can't wait for someone to say that they were the son of mill worker.

Hey, hey, HEY!

He is, and it just so happens he had the best platform for the rest of us. Unfortunately, the American Public, (like his wife, actually) bought into the GOP spin of him being just a "pretty boy." Elizabeth found out it wasn't so, and folks that read his proposals did, too.

That said, I share your disgust. This is getting out of hand. Now we're down to parsing single words, and nuance, and posture, and knocking democratic candidates for "implying" things that any reasonable person would know is a bunch of garbage.

We don't have anyone else to blame but ourselves, though.

Well, O.K. I don't blame myself. This is what I've been trying to communicate for some time now.

:)

Pity I ain't a great communicator.

I say let's denounce all this nonsense. Obama is no elitist or reverse racist, and the Clintons aren't Republicans and don't think McCain would be a better choice than Clinton.

We're setting ourselves up as easy targets. That won't do.

Thanks for the post.


avatar

Finally a voice of reason. One question though. Were was that voice of reason when Hillary made similar gaffes and all the Obama supporters smelled blood and went on a rampage? I don't remember you saying then it was all nonsense.

If that was directed at me, I certainly did.

Lost a friend over it, even. I'm still losing friends over it.

avatar

Not to you workerbee, it was directed at the OP. You are one of the few truly fair voices here, imo.

Thanks oceankat. I try.

:)

avatar

Workerbee:

If you have lost a friend over what has been said during this heated campaign, then: (1) things will chill after this thing is settled; or (2) the friend you lost was never a friend in the first place. I can tell it bothers you so hopefully it's the former. Keep posting and hang in there.

Bruce

I think it's at me. Not sure which gaffe you're referring to. I did write that the brouhaha about the woman without insurance was insignificant (even before it came out that the story had a sound foundation). And I just parodied the BS about Clinton's laugh (although a couple of Clinton supporters missed the joke). And this post was directed as much to the Obama supporters as to the Clinton supporters. That said, I'm an Obama supporter myself, and while I strive for objectivity as much as I can, I don't claim to be evenhanded.


There is some truth to that, Ghengis. Suddenly nothing matters.

But what if you were a super delegate from a rural, church-going community today? Or, even better, one who had already committed to Obama. What if you were Casey and had to run for the Senate out there. You might be going, oh shit. After all, words matter. No?

Do you remember jibjab? That was fun.

Sure it matters. A slip of the lip can sink an election. If people want to argue that Obama lacks the oral discipline necessary to win, they can make that argument, but I think that it's a tough case to make, especially against John "Diarrhea of the Mouth" McCain. It's the claim that what the candidates say or where they come from or how much they hate Nafta prove whether they really care about working class issues that's ridiculous.

The Bitterness debate wrapped up.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g6QbQmOv-d8

avatar

In lieu of simply saying I disgree, is it okay if I return the favor and say "you're full of shit?" Thank you.

I mean do you really think Obama's pollsters told him to to Billionaire's Row, in San Fran, to the house of Ann Getty (yeah, those Gettys, in front of about 100 or other rich white, "elite" educated folks and, when asked about why the so-called "working class" (read that "downscale white voters") aren't embracing him as readily as his opponent say that he thought they were "bitter" and "clingy"? (I know, his actual words were "cling to").

Basically you say whatever you and your pollsters think that working class voters most want to hear (as long as it doesn't obviously contradict your policies). You champion 2 or 3 issues that polls say the working class care about, e.g. mortgages, immigration, NAFTA. You highlight the parts of your biography that pollsters say the working class will most identify with. And then you pretend that the statements, policies, biographical data selected by your pollsters demonstrate that you are the one with the true working class creds. That seems to fit the Clinton and McCain modus operandi to a "T." But I don't think it fits Obama that well.

But that's my take.


I don't think that Obama does it as much as the other two. He writes his own speeches. He sticks to the same messages that he used before he had a team of pollsters. That's why I support him. But he does have a team of pollsters, but I'm sure that there's a reason he pays them. The clearest example of Obama talking about issues purely for political gain among working class voters is Nafta. He pounced on Clinton about Penn's Colombia meeting the same way Clinton pounced on him about his "bitter" comment. Penn should have been fired long ago, but the reason Obama made an issue of it now is because that plays well with PA voters. And he was hammering Hillary on her Nafta position in the 90s for the same reason. Even before the whole Goolsby/Canada thing, I argued that Obama was being disingenuous on Nafta. That disingenuity bit him in the ass in Canada. (For the record, Clinton's no better on this issue.)

It is certainly true that FDR is the finest domestic policy President we have ever had, Johnson was a close second on domestic policy but , had the mis fortune to have gotten the US further entrenched in the debacle that was Vietnam!
FDR gained respect for the the less fortunate , it has been said, when he was dealing with his polio. He got up close and personal with the the less fortunate and also gained much compassion from his own suffering. My niece has just been accepted at Cornell, so she will be a child of privilege herself . She will, however be majoring in Labor Relations, (my Grandfather and her Great- Grandfather was a union organizer.)Her favorite movie is Norma Rae and from her Mom's , my big sisters, family room has vintage Democratic party memorabilia all over it. When she was 8 she chose Mother Jones as the historic character she most admired. She is ready to fight the good fight! Rich people are usually elitist, but then so are smart people and theatre people. We are ALL elitists in our own way. Look at how people ridiculed Obama's bowling!That was elitist too!

My feeling is we as capital "D" Big-Tent Democrats need to come together , and that means the in-fighting has got to stop! As my Mom used to say when my sisters and I would fight "Girls, girls! You are BOTH pretty!"

Rich people are usually elitist, but then so are smart people and theatre people.
Theatre people. All right, now you've just crossed the line, little miss Cornell!

Barack's comments:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.

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

What is elitist or untrue about the above? The right wing has made Barack's observation a central point of its campaigns. In the 2004 elections, what were the big themes? Gay marriage, gun control, immigration. The fact is, Washington doesn't do squat for the little guy but when campaign season rolls around, God, guns and gays become the key issues as a smoke screen for the legislated breaks for the wealthiest and the white collar welfare. What many of us Workin' Joes don't catch onto is that while the God, gays, guns drumbeat resonates during the campaign, the pols immediately drop it after election day. What's been done on immigration or gay marriage since 2004? Nothing?

What's refreshing about Obama is that he speaks like an intelligent adult with the belief that his audience is composed of intelligent adults. He is willing to get into the nuances of issues, pleasant or not. This approach is a tremendous opportunity for America, and what we need after 8 years of the biggest intellectual lightweight ever to hold public office.

I deject and renounce your bitterness.

I accept and promote your dejection and renunciation of my bitterness. Amazing what a few beers and a shot of JD can do for one's perspective.

Were you out drinking with Hillary again?

John McCain. He's the most fun to have a beer with. dembillc came too. That guy is a riot.

I thought that was you. I was in the corner booth getting quietly drunk with the Edwards.

I just noticed your moniker... what next a blorgy?

I know... that was horrible, but that is all I gots.

avatar

Rejecting BS is what a do, especially since Cronkite retired and mass media started to ignore its own code of ethics. Just like Hillary blurred the fines between Republican and Democratic tactics, MSM may as well openly sleep with the tabloids and Limbaugh types instead of sneaking around late at night at out of the way motels.

It's clearly a case of two candidates (bizarrely enough, a Democrat and a Republican) using this tired meme to beat up on a spirited oustider mounting a populist campaign. So while I could sympathize with your world-wearily wise pose from a purely existential standpoint, I fail to see how this commentary contributes anything of substance to an analysis of the current state of the campaign(s). Short of, that is, needing to hear (i.e, read) your own voice. And I say this as a (long-time lurking) fan of your usual snarkily phrased comments and/or blogs here at TPM.

Seriously, what gives, Genghis? I highly doubt you're naive enough to swallow the suggestion that all three players are guilty of pandering to the working class in relevant ways. So again, what gives?

100% agree with Joe Lisboa and stravu9. Ghenghis, whom I bloggingly admire and want to read almost daily, overreaches badly with "You're all full of shit" and with issuing the edict that we need a reality check. Too much irony; too much meta-analysis.

This flare up struck a chord with me, and I'm educated and working class simultaneously (always have been, always will), and I'm not going to get over it. And I can assure you, it isn't just a game. Yes there's a campaign apparatus that makes these words and debate possible, but we need to hear and debate these words no matter how they got here. Call it a straw-man argument on my part, but we're all getting screwed (I know I am most of the time), and I will not disavow it just because its part of 3 politicians playing their parts. I'm thankful that the words "bitter" & "anger" entered the scene.

Simply put: Don't poo-poo this debate.

I agree. By over-thinking and meta-analyzing this debate, Genghis has proved that *he* is the true elitist in our midst.

If we ritually tar and feather him, and cast him out of the congregation, the spirit of FDR will be appeased. Then we can go back to arguing about whose authenticity is bigger and scratchier, and the Democrats will go back to winning general elections.

Happy days are here again
The sky above is clear again
Lets sing a song of cheer again
Happy days are here again!!!

Well look, if there - obviously, if I worded things in a way that made people offended, I deeply regret that. But the underlying truth of what I said remains, which is that the discussion of which candidate "is most in touch with", "connects with", "gets", "drinks beer with", "shoots guns with (or at)" is pure political theatre.

I welcome a policy discussion of who has the best plan for helping to increase wages, improve education, fix health care, revitalize depressed areas, and other working class concerns. I think that Obama's discussion of giving people a sense that government listens and pays attention to them is important. I believe that Obama engages in pandering much less than Clinton or McCain, and I love him for that.

But people are arguing that his statement or his response to the criticism prove either that he's out of touch with working America or that he's the only one who's in touch. But being "in touch" (or being perceived to be "in touch") isn't important except insofar as it gets a candidate elected and translates into policies that actually help the working class. It's also something that virtually impossible to measure or even properly define. So let's forget about who shoots guns and who best identifies with the frustrations of working class people and who hates Nafta more, and let's instead talk about who is most likely to make a difference.

BTW, I appreciate the criticism as well as the compliments, and I'm glad to hear that you and some of the others enjoy most of my posts. I also don't mean to reject the entire discussion, just the volume level and the significance that's been attached to it.

Genghis: Didn't mean to fly off the handle... Sorry about that. I just got back from a long night of drinking with friends at a karoake bar, and needed to let off some steam... :) [I tried to direct it at the debate, not you... Surprised I was able to write complete sentences...]

Anyway, this is a touchy subject, and I'm glad it's finally out there. I just want to see it duked out at such a high level. Hoping Obama doesn't get swiftboated with this thing, b/c it's exactly what I want to see...

AMERICAN LAND (Springsteen) -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Vt4r_QUQnA

YOUNGSTOWN (Springsteen) -
www.youtube.com/watch?v=fVXYzcb3r-w

"you are the one with the true working class creds."

Actually, what he meant to reference was the "lumpenproletariat", not the "true working class" because no one in America has had class consciousness *since JFK's inauguration and the subsequent abandonment of men's headgear.(How can you tell the toffs from the toughs when there are no homburgs or caps to help you out?)

What I am groping for, (clumsily) is this:

WTF?? All of a sudden it's ok to reference class (as in, say, "class warfare") as a defining characteristic, as long as you use it to bludgeon the remaining candidate who best promises to vindicate the interests of the producing over the ownership class?

*correction since Debs' incarceration.

NOTE: I mean this good-naturedly. I'm a big fan of your posts, too. And any pissiness I exhibit here is probably driven by secret jealousy.

There are so many reasons to be paralyzed by perspective. Just a few other examples:

-- the cosmos is infinite

-- mortality is inescapable

-- linguistic signifiers are sentimental

-- chicks dig the noumenal realm

-- Obama is TOAST

Seriously though, I suspect a lot of people know they're wandering into a Dionysian orgy when they engage topics like this. But since that's our civic destiny I don't know that there's any harm in taking a break from staring soberly at the unchanging forest to go have a beer . . . er, Chardonay . . . with the trees.

TPM bloggers don't need a Genghis who looks down on them!

chicks dig the noumenal realm
Tell me who these women are, that I might flee from them.
TPM bloggers don't need a Genghis who looks down on them!

LOL. Maybe it's time for me to deliver an important speech to reassure the blogging community that I understand their frustrations.

But Genghis, this BS is the BS that defines us as a party!

After the traumas of 2000 and 2004, nothing disgusts Democrats more than being out-flanked by smirking oil men masquerading as cultural populists.

Nothing terrifies us more than the suspicion that our heroes can eventually all be unmasked as latte-drinking, college-educated windsurfer environmentalists.

95% of *all* the BS I have read on blogs since 2004 is precisely *this* BS. What's the matter with Kansas? What's the matter with Ohio? What's the matter with f*****g Pennsylvania? How can we finally convince the voters that we're authentic Americans, even though we have ideas and haircuts? Which of us is really really really authentic, and which of us is just faking and letting the side down?

If we stopped arguing about this, wtf *would* we argue about? We'd have to discuss policy or something. And we don't really disagree that much about policy.

avatar

I'm bitter about a different kind of bullshit. Hillary's bullshit. What Obama said was perfectly true -- not courageous analysis, but true -- and apologizing for true things said is one of the more dispiriting traits of the Democrats.

avatar

Nice work Genghis, really.

But you are still a total, elitist snob, and everybody I talk to on the street--ahem, that would be Main Street mind you--tells me the same thing about that Genghis.

I thought that the reason Obama doesn't connect with the working class is that he's not a good bowler and is incorrect about the manner in which he drinks his coffee.

If you find any of this even slightly confusing then you should email Chris Matthews, who is a working class hero and is very knowledgable on such topics.

Bittergate is still ongoing.

Don't be bitter, be happy this is not the general.

Post a Comment

Inside Cafe



Cafe Features


October 20-24

Book Cover

October 27-30

Book Cover

November 17-21

Book Cover

December 1-5

Book Cover

Book Club Archive



Masthead

Editor-in-Chief
Josh Marshall

Site Editor
Lila Shapiro

Intern
Claire Wilcox



Subscribe to TPMCafe's feed.
Subscribe to TPMCafe's reader blog feed.

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address