Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Video: Pennsylvanians discuss 'bitter' comments
This is a very short post and I hate to add to FOX News' website clicks, but these two videos are very revealing. It turns out that some communities are bitter:
http://onthescene.blogs.foxnews.com/2008/04/12/are-people-bitter-in-pennsylvania/
This issue has potential to blow up in Hillary, McCain, and the media's face.
Advertisement
Comments (32)
They couldn't have picked a better place than Allentown to confirm this, a place that has been bitter for decades. Remember Billy Joel's "Allentown?"
April 13, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. I remember the semi-homo-erotic-themed video, too. The video basically says, "We may be bitter, but we are FABULOUS!"
http://youtube.com/watch?v=K62DdoFoNeg
April 13, 2008 2:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ever since Obama made the speech, I could not get the song out of my head. It is worth listening to again. The lyrics (1982) establishes a time-frame and spells out reactions to which Obama alluded:
"Well we're living here in Allentown
And they're closing all the factories down
Out in Bethlehem they're killing time
Filling out forms
Standing in line.
"Well our fathers fought the Second World War
Spent their weekends on the Jersey Shore
Met our mothers at the USO
Asked them to dance
Danced with them slow
And we're living here in Allentown.
"But the restlessness was handed down
And it's getting very hard to staaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
aaaaaaah aaahhhhh ooooooooh ooooooh ohhhhhhh.
"Well we're waiting here in Allentown
For the Pennsylvania we never found
For the promises our teachers gave
If we worked hard
If we behaved.
"So the graduations hang on the wall
But they never really helped us at all
No they never taught us what was real
Iron and coke,
Chromium steel.
"And we're waiting here in Allentown.
But they've taken all the coal from the ground
And the union people crawled awaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay
aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaah.
"Every child had a pretty good shot
To get at least as far as their old man got.
Something happened on the way to that place
They threw an American flag in our faaaaaaaace, oh oh oh.
"Well I'm living here in Allentown
And it's hard to keep a good man down.
But I won't be getting up todaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy
aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaaaah aaaaaaaaah.
GUITAR SOLO
aaaaaaah aaaaaaah aaaaaaah oh oh oh.
"And it's getting very hard to staaaaaaaaaaaaaay.
"And we're living here in Allentown."
April 14, 2008 1:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're right. Folks who are losing jobs might not take kindly to McClinton pretending Americans are not bitter.
America is hurting. Discount their hurt at your peril.
April 13, 2008 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
and gallup poll of today shows that senator Obama has not been impacted by this non-sense...he got endorsed by a PA newspaper today and got an endorsement from a Super Delegate from Minnesota today...
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106435/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-Solid-Democratic-Lead-50-41.aspx
and the media have not indicated the latest news on Alibaba China who has given between 100000 to 400000 $ to the clinton foundation...
and more to come with the Peter Paul trial...
April 13, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Polls usually don't reflect events until a week or so after they happen. This was a point that had to be circulated over and over again when polls weren't showing anything after Obama's race speech.
April 13, 2008 7:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes we are very bitter here in PA. Like that wise man said, Mack Trucks, Bethlehem steel, and all the other major industries in the lehigh valley have long gone. We're bitter because we've known this for years and its only barely being addressed now.
Trickle down economics trickled all over us...
April 13, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bitter Media epiphany????
I was just thinking, how could the media get it so wrong?? There's no controversy to what he said. But I think he touched a nerve with corporate america and corporate media. His words told truth to power to these people and if it had gone on uncontested, then these people might just realize that they've been oppressed for so long and wake up and start a revolution.
This affects all of corporate america. They can't have poor people starting to descent and go against everything that they had been brainwashed with since they were young.
If they wake up and revolt, media loses the control they have over them. They've already lost a little of it with youtube. The media started to panic a few years ago with the innovation of independent oline media forums like Dailykos, talkingpointsmemo and americablog.com. They then tried to conquer that tool and incorporate "blogging". Thus, you have CNN's 360 blog, MSNBC's first read, Politico, Huffingtonpost. They even bought out Ana Marie Cox's wonkette.com She went to time.com and then got canned. It's all about conquer and control.
If the poor people revolt, corporate america loses control. When the people speaks, descent and become independent, corporate america loses political power, consumer pricing power, production power, money power, environmental waste power, shareholder power, etc.
If the oppressed revolt, politician's lose power and control. If their political divisive message of guns, race and religion is overturned, then they have nothing left but to either get the fuck out of washington or do their fucking job.
But make no mistake, the political, corporate and media control are all intertwined with one another which explains why they all all of the sudden turned on Barack. They now want to destroy him because if he gets too far ahead, they will all lose control and then the people will control again.
April 13, 2008 3:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
All these discussions about the "bitter" comment is illustrative of why the dialog here is so lacking in substance. You all just want to focus on that word, most likely because the whole comment is indefensible. While the choice of the word "bitter" was ill chosen it was the least of the problem.
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
People are bitter, though I think angry would be a better choice. But that doesn't explain my disagreements with the liberal views on gun control. It doesn't explain my views on immigration or trade.
I don't cling to guns because I'm bitter or as a way to explain my frustrations. I like to hunt, I think guns are valuable home protection, I have a carry permit. If I were a single issue gun voter I would vote republican. But I'm actually very liberal in most other ways so I have always voted for the democrats.
I can understand how those more conservative then I would vote republican with gun control being a deciding issue. Not because they are bitter, not as a way to explain their frustrations.
Bitter or not, people don't cling to their guns, their religion, or their views on immigration or trade out of frustration. Its insulting to say so and it surely is condescending. Frankly I've heard more than enough of this crap from liberals over the years because of my views on gun control.
I was born in Hellertown, my parents moved 10 miles down the road to Bethlehem, and as an adult I rented an apartment on Hamilton Blvd, Allentown. Ask people there if they are bitter and you'd probably get a fair amount of agreement. Ask them if that's why they cling to their guns, religion etc. as a way to explain their frustrations and you'd get a much different answer.
April 13, 2008 4:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat,
We don't turn to guns and God because we're bitter. We're bitter because our means of physical support have dried up...and we're determined to keep from having the other aspects of our way of life disappear as well.
Sure, liberals and conservatives differ on issues involving guns and religion. I think it's great that we have genuine debate between the right and left on these issues. The problem is, with the right-leaning politics we've had during the last couple of decades, those are the only issues left to us that have any relevance. We've resigned ourselves that politicians aren't going to be willing to address our economic problems in any meaningful way.
I don't see how you can deny or distort what this conversation is really about. The Republicans have exploited voters' fear on these issues: emphasis on immigrant-punitive immigration policy, the "gay agenda," gun control, flag-burning, abortion, etc. They trust that ginned-up focus on these fears will be enough to maintain "the heartland's" support, despite the fact that we can see that they have no intention of doing anything to ameliorate economic conditions in "small-town" America. They're willing to let small-town America die in order to enrich multi-national interests--that's the reality.
Big moneyed interests have certainly figured out how to keep us manipulted and cowed, haven't they? I'd like to see voters--on both the left and the right--resist this manipulation and let our elected officials know that guns and God aren't the only things we expect them to focus on.
April 13, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
What makes Obama's comment so bad is its a laundry list. Guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment. Each needs to be considered seperately.
Only one would disappear if people were not "bitter" over their economic conditions. Anti-trade sentiment.
Antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment could be somewhat lessened if the economy was thriving though not necessarily. Here is where the republicans have used fear to influence the heartland voters.
Guns and religion is a host of issues that will not go away no matter what happens with the economy. Though there is some overlap with religion and antipathy to people who aren't like them. In the end one side will win and the other lose.
What Obama said showed no such understanding of these differences. Lumping them all together under the title of bitterness and something used to explain frustrations. For example. My gun views are no such thing. Its insulting and condescending. I'm pro choice, but I can surely see how this would be equally insulting to someone who was anti abortion. Those views have nothing to do with fear, the economy, bitterness, or the desire to explain frustrations.
April 13, 2008 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
You missed the part where I distinguished the mistaken causality attributed to Obama's statements. It's not because we're bitter that we turn to our faith and our traditions. If that were really what Obama meant, it surely would be offensive.
What's being lost in that translation is what should be obvious to all but the most ideologically invested conservatives: our faith, our traditions, and scapegoating of immigrants are the only things politicians (mostly Republicans) have been willing to draw attention to because, campaign trail rhetoric notwithstanding, they're not willing to address economic issues in a way that's meaningful to folks who haven't been the beneficiaries of globalization.
April 13, 2008 10:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oceankat, I think the point he was trying to make was not that bitterness leads to guns, etc.
Remember, he was discussing why there was resistance to his campaign, so the whole thing needs to be looked at in terms of voting behavior. He was saying that people do not believe that their votes will impact their economic situation. They've seen their economies get weaker under both Republicans and Democrats. He's saying people in rural Pennsylvania don't trust any politician to deliver on economic promises, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to say.
Now, when people don't believe their votes make a difference economically, then they cast their vote for other policies in areas where they feel like it makes a difference, i.e. gun control or gay marriage or abortion or any of the so-called wedge issues.
Obama is acknowledging that voting pattern as a natural response to being ignored economically. It's a perfectly rational response.
April 13, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama is acknowledging that voting pattern as a natural response to being ignored economically. It's a perfectly rational response.
---------------------------------------------------
I disagree. If the economy was doing well, and also if there was no wars, people would feel even freer to vote their values. I don't think people cling to guns or religion or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations or out of bitterness. Those feelings persist through good and bad times. It seems to me Obama and you don't get why many democrats as well as independents and republicans care about these issues and cultural values.
April 13, 2008 5:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
If the economy was doing well, and if people believed that their votes were part of what was creating that good economy (i.e. politicians were actually keeping promises, and it was making a difference), then people would most likely vote their pocketbook.
That's not to say the other issues are unimportant. Rather, it's to say that economic issues would be a BIG part of the consideration.
The Republicans have convinced a lot of people to vote against their economic interests. Democrats rely on appeals to economic interests, but that only works if people believe they can make a difference.
April 13, 2008 6:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's debatable, but either way it's unprovable: in times of economic prosperity, these issues rarely come to vote. Why? Because economic prosperity almost always brings with it increases in social freedom, because so long as your stomach is full and your family is happy, you have little reason to care what other people are doing.
Only when times get hard, and you need someone or something to blame, do these issues gain traction, because they're pretty much the only way politicians can galvanize people to vote for them, since they have little to offer economically.
That's not what Obama was saying - he was saying that in the face of indifferent or unreliable economic policies, people turn to the things they CAN count on - God, their families, and their guns. It's not a "FINE! I'll hug my God and my gun!" temper tantrum; it's a rational response to lean on what doesn't fail you.
April 13, 2008 6:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think people cling to guns or religion or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations or out of bitterness.
That's not what Obama was saying
---------------------------------------------------
That's exactly what he said.
"It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
I know you all want to wish this away by telling us what he really meant. I've been hearing this crap from elitist liberals for years about my views on guns. I know what he was saying because on most issues I'm an elitist liberal. I've sat with groups of elitist liberals like the one Obama talked to in SF and know the whole routine line by line.
April 13, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, I'm not attacking your gun stance. I suspect I share it. I live in Colorado, definitely not an anti-gun state, no matter which side of the political aisle one sits on.
April 13, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, oceankat
That is what Obama said, in response to a specific question of how he was doing and why their was voter resistance.
Obama was explaining voter resistance as not being racially tinged. He was providing the rationale for the voting patterns without regard to race and explaining how and why those VOTING PATTERNS/resistance exists and influence how they vote.
He was talking about people voting based on guns, faith, immigrant policies...that is what they are clinging to ..their voting patterns which emphasized SOCIAL ISSUES vs. ECONOMIC interests.
Folks are clinging to the social value agenda of the GOP which are guns, immigration and faith based issues!!
So you are right that is exactly what he said to the group of community volunteers who were asking him what to expect when they get to PA...Obama was outlining for them what the objections were and explaining how and why they exist.
It is no different from a doctor speaking to clinicians or nurses about a patient case and whst to do, he will be candid and direct as their is no need to have regard for the patients feelings. It is a case to be discussed and analyzed. However, when he speaks to the patient and gives their prognosis he will be far more considerate of the patient and their emotional needs.
The only thing Obama did was speak forthrightly based on his audience. He would have said the same thing to the public but in much more considerate way.
In short the substance of what he said remains true and it is consistent with his campaign message from the start.
Which is that Americans must become outraged and take back their government by getting involved in the process rather than allowing the GOP to divide us into red states/blue states and social values vs. economic interests. As long as we are divided the special interests win.
So, yes Oceankat that is what Obama said. The problem is whether you understand what it means and how to go about changing our government so that it is focus on our economic interests and not just manipulating our votes on the basis of guns, immigrants and faith while our jobs are shipped overseas.
April 13, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Never forget that the Nazis rose to power in an economically devastated Germany, utterly devastated by the first World War and the treaties that ended it.
April 13, 2008 7:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ya see there's your problem right there. If you have to take 4-5 paragraphs to EXPLAIN what is offensive it ain't a soundbyte that's gonna sell. Hence people everywhere are going to seize on a phrase - like 'bitter' and go with it, as they appear to be in many places. So be offended all you want, but I don't believe this is going to be the nightmare people would wish it to be - perhaps even the opposite.
April 13, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
wow that video is very telling. I am pleasantly surprised that FOX news would produce this, but hell, even a stopped clock is right once a day.
April 13, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
You must have one of them fancy 24-hour clocks, because my broken clocks are right twice a day. :)
April 14, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
people who hate and want to find reasons to dislike someone will use what ever they can find.
and since they need attention they will jump at the chance to be part of the hate group.
they hate because they are ignorant .
so it should shock no one that they do not understand the intellect of Obama.
they prefer the lies of hillary because because those lies feed their hate.
simple. isnt it.
April 13, 2008 6:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unless you actually live in one of these Pennsylvania towns, it's hard to imagine the sense of loss and alienation that has occurred over the last 30 years -- until now, it feels almost like they have been rendered invisible to people in power.
No one could have voted for the bankruptcy bill if they had an ounce of empathy for workers. No one. The financial services company screamed and screamed but they were making record profits and had the means to control the risk.
NAFTA is trickier, but this much is true: Bill Clinton should have and could have said -- if you Repubs and corps want NAFTA so bad we have to give American workers access to health care apart from their employers because otherwise they are going to be in a global market where workers in other countries either have subsidized health care or where health care is much less expensive.
Did he even try to do that? No. He shrugged his shoulders after the health care debacle and moved right along screwing American workers.
April 14, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
For Hillary supporters, it's been a protracted, chronic, nightmare as they see her 20-point lead and $135 million war chest (into which they poured generously) turn to vapor and only a faint smothering glimmer of light at the end of the tunnel.
It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to every conceivable Obama "gaffe" or signs of "inelectability" or antipathy to Obama voters who aren't like them or anti-feminist sentiment or anti-media-bias sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
This in no way diminish their fervent beliefs in Obama's inelectability, anti-feminism, media bias, etc., but to reiterate what truly matter to them more than anything else is really Hillary winning.
Does this make more sense now?
April 14, 2008 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
That this whole flap is all about whether or not people in Pennsylvania are "bitter" or "angry" or whatever is just an Obama talking point designed to shift the debate to his "poor choice of words", and away from the real issue which is his attitude about the religious beliefs and core values of millions of people.
Do check out today's Rasmussen poll on the issue. Obama really bombed on this one.
April 14, 2008 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the point brought up by OceanKat about its relevance in relation to the econommic prosperity of USof A during any presidential administration is a bit of a red-herring in that despite econimic good times or bad times, people in middle America who had seen two or three generations of blue-collar workers producing any number of high quality items have seen there job forces cut or completely eliminated. America has gone from a primarily Ag and manufacturing dominated society in the early half of the twentieth century to a primarily service sector economy in the latter half of the century. Many people do not understand why, and the best we have heard from both parties is that it is too expensive to manufacture these things in America because of any number of reasons be they healthcare, regulations, taxes, unions etc. People have been pissed because we have not secured these jobs bby fixing all of the above, and yes this makes people bitter and apathetic towards their governments and the people who act on its behalf no matter what color of shirt they are wearing.
April 14, 2008 1:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Otto F, I wouldn't be breaking out the champagne yet, you know, the one pushed to the back of the fridge after the Wright controversy fail to derail Obama. As in the Wright controversy, the message is going to get out there, Obama will be able to explain to voters the full context and not the attack sound bite, he'll turn a negative to positive, yet AGAIN. He has over a week, the timing will be perfect. And people will be connecting the dots, bitter, loss of jobs, NAFTA, Colombia, Clinton!
April 14, 2008 1:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
When I heard "cling" in the entire quote, my immediate thought was that he meant voters who had suffered economically, even though they tried to vote their economic interests,
"clung to" = "voted on"
other issues they believed their votes would affect in ways that they supported. If they couldn't get their jobs back, they could at least be sure to protect their religious, second amendment, or immigration, for example, interests.
I never thought he meant that people embraced guns or religion because they had no jobs. I'm sorry, but where is the logic in that? He's got a job and he's a Baptist. Someone has done some fancy logical quiltng to get his words to mean what they want to attack. Unfortunately, he did offer them a lot of help.
April 14, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
"cling" means "hold onto", nothing wrong with holding onto what you believe in, but of course sad if one has "let go of" or given up on something else, their belief in the system working for them.
April 14, 2008 2:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I grew up in Oregon during the 1980s in a logging family... can you say "Spotted Owl" and the Regan Revolution? Logging companies cut pay and benefits resulting in strikes, then they moved their operations to Canada. Anyone who disagrees with Obama on his points is both a fool and a useless wordsmith.
When you yank out the economic security of a family you get arguments, bitterness and even divorce. Let someone 'attack' any of the other aspects of your life and you're going to fight tooth and nail. Oregon has been able to recover due to high tech in the major metropolitan areas, but the bitterness still simmers in the small rural (former) logging towns and it does turn toward guns and anyone who doesn't look or act like you and yours. Oh, and in a lot of rural areas, guns don't equate to conservatives, until you want to limit their use.
I also gotta' say Fox almost looked like... well... I suppose a real news organization. In fact, better than the major networks.
April 14, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment