Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Obama Alchemy: Negatives into Positives
When I first read Obama's remarks from the San Francisco fundraiser I thought he'd just shoved his foot halfway down his throat. Lumping religion with guns and anti-immigrant feelings; saying people "cling" to religion as if it's something they would shed if they knew better. I knew what he meant to say and knew it was true, but I also knew why Christian (and gun-owning) voters would feel profoundly insulted.
As a San Franciscan I understand completely how that wording would come out of his mouth. He's talking to a roomful of rich, educated left-wingers who pride themselves on being cosmopolitan, anti-gun and too enlightened to identify with a single religion, people who are predisposed to hate a deer-hunting churchgoer who wants illegal immigrants deported. A genuine, humane effort to articulate blue-collar frustrations to that crowd could so easily come out like that: of course they cling to religion and guns in their well-deserved bitterness.
Unfortunately he seemed to be thinking entirely about the audience he was facing, not how it would play in Uniontown, PA.
But then he responded, and once again his response has not only dealt effectively with the problem but even raised his message to a new level and opened a national conversation that will probably help his campaign—and the country as a whole—far more than it will hurt.
Tactically it was brilliant. He substituted "turn to their faith" for "cling to religion" as if it was what he'd said in the first place; if he just keeps saying that, the clumsy first version will be subsumed. And he made it sound as if Clinton and McCain's objection was to the very idea that Americans are bitter and frustrated; which isn't quite true, at least in Clinton's case, but it puts them on the defensive and forces them to prove that they get it.
But beyond the tactics it's true. And that continues to be what thrills me most about Obama and his candidacy. He leads us to take about the truth while his opponents just keep rolling out the same old cheerleader chants.
Comments (15)
Please read "take about truth" as "talk about truth." I don't know why I can never see typos until after I hit Send.
April 12, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I sometimes think pressing Send actually causes the typos!
Good post ... and excellent 'Stardust' avatar!
April 13, 2008 5:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
The other thing to note is that the religious right, gun nuts who might be offended are never voting Dem anyway.
At some point, if you are a Dem, you have to come down against guns. Guns are for GOP. So I think this is a non-issue. How many Dems has the NRA ever endorsed? That would be zero.
So offending Rush Limbaugh loving rightwing gunnuts? Who cares.
April 12, 2008 9:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Trust me, lots of Dems have guns too. They might not be card carrying members of the NRA but some Dems hunt and some like to have one at home for security's sake. I've always been a liberal Dem and I used to own a gun. People don't always fit into nice little boxes and every vote counts. Remember Ann Richards, former Dem Governor of TX? She used to hunt. She gave a wicked speech at the 2000 Democratic National Convention. I think Obama understands the complexities of the American landscape and that's why he has crossover appeal.
April 12, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good post all around.
The biggest difference between Obama and other campaigners is the "cheerleader chants." A President who stands up for you, not looks down on you?
What imbecility.
Thanks.
April 12, 2008 10:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes good lord yes...he is GOD...A political genius of which this country has never seen. Can we please just skip the election and go onto the coronation? LOL......give your head a shake dude.
April 13, 2008 12:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he's no god...but he's a damned good politician, and I'm pretty high on him right now. Even his blunders get people looking at issues in more complex ways than usual...and he doesn't just back off, he stays in the middle of the conversation. To me that's pretty exciting and liberating.
April 13, 2008 3:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Your hack like behavior has moved into new territories.
Congratulations.
April 13, 2008 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hi elliottness. Was that an insult? I want to take umbrage but I can't figure out what you're saying. Please clarify so that I can feel appropriately indignant. Thanks!
April 14, 2008 2:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obama gaffes seem to slowly evaporate in the sunlight of continued examination. By contrast, it seems hard for Hillary to get far enough away from Tuzla, or Mark Penn, or her husband.
April 13, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have an idea for fellow Obama supporters.
After we successfully elect Obama to the White House, let's start a national campaign to oust Hillary next time she runs.
We can find a well spoken popular, progressive New Yorker, and by tapping into Obama's vast support, finance the campaign and get two birds with one stone:
First, place a progressive in the Senate who is beholden only to us; and second, get rid of HRC for good!
What do you think gals & guys?!
April 13, 2008 2:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama's "gaffes" are different than most politicians because he is talking about substantive issues and not poll tested mumbo jumbo.
That is why he turns these issues around so easily. He is speaking from his life experience about real issues, and he is thoughtful and articulate so when such a "gaffe" occurs he does need to triangulate his answer to satisfy his critics. He just clarifies his position, and that usually brings more support.
You may disagree with his perception, or his reality, but only an ideologue cannot see how different he is from most of the politicians our country has produced for the last several decades.
To wit, Clinton's main points, with a few exceptions are on the heals of Obama. Obama is forward looking and a leader, and if it was not sometimes necessary to deal with attacks, he would never look back or sideways to what the other candidates are saying. He does not need to because he has a real vision for what he sees and wants to accomplish. HRC's attack this weekend may make good political sense, but it is also the mark of a follower and not a leader.
No, Obama is indeed not God-but for the left he is the best and most inspired candidate since Bobby Kennedy.
April 13, 2008 2:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't see Obama's response as brilliant. I saw it as deflection, coupled with a self-assurance that bordered on arrogance. I agree that in San Francisco (also my home) he was speaking to a different audience. But the attitudes he revealed strike me as his attitudes. Those attitudes strike at the heart of many of the voters he is courting. It was a political gutter ball.
If we are going to assume (falsely) that the people he offended are too stupid to see his attempts at damage control as anything but that, then we must also assume them to be too stupid to be swayed by his rhetorical skills as he tries to back peddle.
April 13, 2008 2:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear Otto;
As with the pundits you presume to speak for the people Obama referred to. If you watch the video with Indiana audience to whom he explained his remarks he received a standing ovation.
What many people cannot handle is that Obama is not afraid to tackle real issues, which is possible only because he has real positions and does check a sample poll every time he opens his mouth.
I have a challenge for any HRC supporters:
Name me an example where she stuck her neck out for an unpopular issue because it was the right thing to do, and was willing to take the heat for doing so?
In 1992 HRC did that repeatedly. The triangulating Senator from NY has been on many sides of several important issues, and I am uncertain whether this iteration of HRC even remembers what it felt like to be idealistic and ready to try to make real change.
While Obama is not exactly a Kucinich style populist, he is far from the corporate democrat that HRC represents.
That being said we should all rally round the winner at the end of this primary because what is at stake in the coming election is bigger than any candidate. I will do all in my power to help the democratic candidate win the General Election.
April 13, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gerard, I agree with your assessment of Obama, as do many people who are abnormally energized by his candidacy this election. I know that there are plenty of people who despise what he says and how he says it. But just speaking for me and my friends and my in-laws, Barack Obama is phenomenally gifted in communicating complexity in a straight-forward manner, in a way that makes me feel like I am for once in a very long time having an adult conversation with someone who might actually be my president.
April 13, 2008 8:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment