Barack Obama -- It's Not a Question of Being Elite, It's About Understanding

Barack Obama continues to be under attack for comments he made that many have called elitist:

"You go into some of 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 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."

Some have spoken out saying there was nothing "elite" about his remarks.   

Maybe "elite" was the wrong word.    Elite or not, his comments weren't very politic, especially if he was hoping to win over more voters in the Keystone state. So on the heels of those remarks, I wanted have a chat with Barack Obama and his campaign staff about this:

My Pennsylvania parents found your comments  condescending.

My mom and dad are farmers outside a pretty small-town who have eked out a living for the 50+ years they've been married.   They've seen their kids grow up and be successful, yet their needs as farmers have been ignored time and time again by the government and politicians. 

The prices they pay for groceries go up, yet the amount my dad can get for his crops or his livestock stagnates or falls. They've seen the government adopt policies that favor large, corporate agribusinesses while small family farmers like them get the short end.

Their frustration has not caused them to develop a love of guns or a hate for others.  They might not be Harvard educated like you, but they're pretty darn smart.   Their frustration stems from politicians being out of touch with people like them.

They're frustrated because throughout their lives most politicians haven't been interested in helping them or developing policies that could benefit people like them.  My parents see politicos taking money from huge corporations and hearing about massive tax breaks for entities that don't need them, while those same officials ignore hard-working people who have tried to make an honest living, raise their kids and have a little something left over for themselves at the end of the day.

My parents usually feel left out when it comes to presidential politics.  With their Pennsylvania primary in April, many times a decision has already been made on the candidates by the time their election day rolls around and they've felt their votes were pointless.

This year, their votes mean something and they, like so many people in this country, are on the fence about which way to jump. Barack, that's not good news for you after that speech.

No matter what the rest of us think about your remarks, for the people in rural Pennsylvania who feel the economy has left them behind, those comments are not going to win you any votes.

Barack, if you really want to be President of the United States, you're going to have to dig a little deeper in the next week.   Many find your speeches inspiring, but for better or worse, you need to feel my parents' pain without alienating them by suggesting they're not smart enough to understand the root of their economic problems or that they're so simple, they assuage their anger by sitting on the front porch with a rifle, Granny Clampett-style.

I know you've "apologized," but my parents aren't buying it.  If you're interested in their votes, you'll need to do a little better than that.  I'm sure they'd be happy to talk to you about what they'd like to see change in this country, if you have the time.  I know my mom wants to discuss her grocery bill last week, especially what's happened to the price of flour, eggs and frozen waffles.

And while I haven't asked them, I'm pretty sure their comments won't have anything to do with "antipathy to people who aren't like them."  If you're interested, let me know.  I'll send you their address.

When she's not going all political here, you can find Joanne at her place, PunditMom, and at BlogHer, where she's a Contributing Editor for Politics & News.

Comments

[Lawyer Mama]

Ahhh. I so understand where your parents are coming from. My in-laws are similary situated and, amazingly, they aren't bitter at all either.

Unfortunately, a lot of my other relatives (in rural Louisiana) *are* bitter and they'll tell you they are. It's wonderful when people can keep their heads and their values when hard times strike, but not everyone is so strong.

But yeah, the comment about "clinging" to guns and religion wasn't the best way to put it. Definitely not his best moment.

[John J.]

You are completely mischaracterizing his statements the same way the MSM is. Yes, using the word "clinging" wasn't the best way to phrase it, and he has admitted to it. But what he was trying to point out is that people allow themselves to be guided by fear when things are tough: fear that the government wants to take away your religion, fear that the government wants to take away your gun, fear of immigrants and minorities.

He said it in a much more visceral way, a much harsher way, a way that did allow it to be manipulated against him, but it is still the truth. And the media and McCain and Clinton are afraid of that truth and would rather give bread and circuses like they always do. They would rather throw back a Crown Royal or parade around with a rifle and offer platitudes acting like they know what's going on.

Personally, I would rather have the politician who recognizes the problems we face and wants to confront them.

[PunditMom]

And my point was that the people he was talking about -- like my parents -- were offended by the remarks in the way they perceived them. Neither do my parents have any time for a candidate who thinks their vote can be swayed by images of whiskey & beer. Obama can acknowledge the problems, but he also needs to be more aware of the language and imagery he uses when talking about it and how his approach will be taken by the voters he's trying to win.

[NCDem Amy]

Obama's poor wording reflects the fact that his academic worldview isn't in sync with those on the streets.

While his remarks did not rise to the level of as politically stupid as Dean's rebel flag, pick up truck comment, it reveals that Obama is a bit naive and inexperienced.

Obama also has said he'd give lobbyists a seat at the table. As Edwards has stated, you cannot nice those people and expect they'll willingly relinquish their power. You have to take it from them.

Obama's naivity and lack of experience is one of my main concerns about him (in addtion to his weak healthcare plan). As an undecided voter, who will go to the polls, this week for One Stop Voting here in NC, I'm really torn.

[cynematic]

I would like to see Obama dig deep into the issue of rural poverty as part of his heartland revitalization program.

He addresses how he might help people who've lost factory jobs through NAFTA with rebuilding bridges, roads, and other infrastructures, and with green manufacturing jobs.

But I haven't heard how he might seriously revamp the USDA, for example, to support small family farmers, encourage more organic/sustainable agriculture, and subsidize the growth of new crops that have biodiesel or clothing or healthy school foods uses.

[Deb]

Joanne, one of the reasons I so appreciate our blog is because it brings us together, motivated in the common cause of electing a Democrat as president in November.

And that when you discourse, I truly listen, because I have respect for your opinion, and personal care and concern for you.

What would it be like if the entire voting world felt that way about everyone's opinion - that it's valid and worthy of being listened to?

I just have to wonder.

(I'm trying to say that it's really good for me to listen to your opinions even if I disagree because it makes me think harder about my own opinions and even pushes me to question them, which is a really healthy thing, I think.)

Thanks for your brave post, Joanne. I appreciate it even while I choose to respectfully disagree.

[Jozet at Halushki]

You are so much more eloquent than I am - I feel like the tap-dancing ox next to you.

But yes, you put it out there exactly.

To oversimplify these issues which are important to voters in good times and in bad as being borne simply and predominantly from some reactionary fear can ring as a bit condescending to some and only adds to whatever portion of real fear there is for some people. The "bitter guns and religion" has become a sort of mobius strip and unfortunately, it's now that one sound bite that is getting looped over and over.

He has clarified and I hope that the clarifications and discussion continues and without any further prejudgment concerning what people think they know about the totality of the candidates or the voters, and with continued respect and compassion for those who are living in fear. More honest questions and more open listening.

[Karoli]

Forgive me for asking this, but I'm wondering whether your parents would be inclined to vote for Obama whether or not those comments had been made. There are some folks who just won't, and I have no problem with that at all, but it does weaken any argument that says he 'lost' their vote. Hard to lose something you didn't have in the first place.

[PunditMom]

Karoli, I'm actually trying to answer your question without getting angry.

Are you suggesting that Pa. farmers would not have it in them to vote for Obama?? Both of my parents have been considering Obama seriously -- just as they have been with Clinton. Originally, just like me, they were John Edwards supporters. But they have been taking this choice very seriously. I don't even want to entertain the thought that I think you are asking.

[Kady]

I'm sorry, but I disagree completely.

People will find condescending what they want to find condescending. Bitter is a loaded word, but if a democrat uses it in the general elections to elicit the sense of Americans being bitter about what the Bush presidency has left us to contend with, or in reference to the behaviour of Fundamentalists or the members of the NRA, the speaker would be applauded and not chastized. And where is that pro-Obama MSM that we are constantly being reminded about? How is this not a sentence (1) taken out of context, (2) being completely mischaracterized and (3) given undue weight?

Please.

Both Obama and Clinton have been on the campaign trail now for well over a year. They have both said plenty about what direction they'd like to see the country, how they envision dealing with the economy, how to "change" the country. At this point, there's nothing much more they can say that isn't just politicians talking out of their asses. It would be misfeasance any candidate to be promising anything more when they do not have access to the kind of information they need (and would get as President) to make rational fact-based decisions.

If people want to hear the one sentence, spoken one time, within the context of a 45 minute speech and not the thousands upon thousands of other spoken hours, then that's their unadvised perogative.

This is not news, it's not even interesting. It's just one more example of the kind of dirty fighting that makes us all collectively more stupid.

[Jozet at Halushki]

Most people I know haven't made up their minds yet. And plenty of people I know aren't choosing to feel condescended to; that's an active description of the comments made as well as a description of the choice whether or not to feel a certain way in response to the comments, and I think it's fair to ask for clarification even at this late date.

Just because someone says that the sentence was taken out of context and is being misrepresented should no more be taken as gospel truth than the sentence itself. To attempt to squash anyone's right to critically question out loud either POV comes across as just further bulldozing and becomes divisive.

There's been plenty in this campaign that has started dirty and has stayed dirty. Then there has been plenty that has started dirty and then led to further discussion and consideration of the facts and opinions and feelings beyond the handy sound bites. And that has only been a good thing.

I'm ready to allow this to play out a bit, open discussion further - even with the occasional mudball - and see where it goes. It feels good just to be talking out loud about it on a national level. I grew up in one of the most depressed counties in Pennsylvania. We're the literal and figurative dumping ground for the entire state, and at one time, the country.

To be suddenly in the spotlight and have some real grievances be aired, to get some out loud validation on a national level and have people in San Francisco even wondering for a moment "hey, what exactly is the truth here and what has been going on in Appalachian Pennsylvania" may turn out to be the mixed catastrophe turned blessing of our own "Reverend Wright" moment, grace of those people who are really clinging to fear and living in fear daily.

[Julie Pippert]

I agree that how he expressed himself was impolitic. But it also seems impolitic to base an assessment or decision on a single comment. In general, Obama has come across to me as someone who *does* get it, not solely because of his own background and work history, but because of how he is. So the comment caused me to pause and says, "Hmm that doesn't sound like what he means, from what I know of him" and give him a chance to explain.

So while I agree that the comment was impolitic, I also don't think it is the sum total of who he is and what he stands for, and I think the the sum ought to be kept in mind with the parts.

[cynematic]

Well, what I've always appreciated about Obama's campaign is the huge effort he puts into what he will achieve with you, as opposed to who he is or who you are.

An emphasis on verbs, instead of nouns (or adjectives). Because there is so much that needs fixing. I remember something he said once during the whole "Hussein" flap, with the patience of someone who'd been teased his whole life long about his name (and I paraphrase): "We can talk about my name, or we can get you some health insurance, figure out how to keep your house from getting foreclosed on, improve schools for your kids, etc etc."

It was a wise and sharply refocusing move. Do we want to yammer on about name-calling or dwell on hurt feelings, or do we want to fix some problems?

[cynematic]

And I want to add that I'm not accusing your parents, Joanne, of dwelling on hurt feelings, but I am saying this tempest in a teacup is definitely stoked by an opposing candidate who wants to make hay of it, and a hungry media machine that has "2 lbs of news for a 20 lb sack."

[PunditMom]

If Obama will fix the problems of people like my parents, I'm all for it. But he promised John Edwards poverty and rural America would be priorities in his campaign, and I haven't heard much since then.

Words are powerful, whether you like them or not. Many like to look to Obama and say he is the master of oratory. If that's the case, then I have to wonder whether he planned that comment or what he was thinking when he said that.

This is not a tempest in a teacup. I think it's fair to question what any of the candidates say, especially when those words are less than charitable to a large group of people. I'd be writing the same post if it had been Hillary or McCain making those comments.

And two pounds of news for a 20 pound sack? Absolutely!!!

[cynematic]

Obama as "master of oratory" for a written speech delivered orally, for sure. But I'm guessing he fumbles and stumbles like any other person who occasionally chooses the wrong words. And, if you've been tracking the Mayhill Fowler angle, apparently the campaign thought no one would be covering the fundraiser in a journalistic capacity. Which is not license for someone to go off and be offensive, but it also indicates to me a greater degreee of informality (and therefore imprecision) than you'd otherwise find in a stump speech or other, more public and overtly accountable situation. In the end, is this about "gotcha" or about a larger, consistent pattern of Obama's attitudes and actions with regard to a group of people?

Anyway, I'm really more interested in solutions that would address the interests of your parents and other small family farmers. Let's go on the assumption that your parents know pretty well and in detail what programs or government policies help and hurt them the most. If they've shared them with you, would you mind sharing it with us?

Because I think there's been a revolution in how Americans view the foodways of this country (after Super Size Me, and Fast Food Nation, etc), and the citydweller looking for organic fare, for example, is a whole lot closer in mindset (with the 100-mile diet, eating locally grown) to "getting" and supporting any of the issues of a small family farmer than ever before. So how could we foster that alliance, get that conversation going so it's no longer city vs. rural?

I don't expect you personally to have all the answers, I just think the time is ripe to start bridging that gap somehow. Because it's clear agribusiness is bad for citydwellers and small farming families alike.

[Karoli]

PunditMom,

No offense was meant by the question and I appreciate you giving me the benefit of the doubt. It is precisely because of my own experience with parent-aged Midwestern farmer folk that I ask the question. The ones in my extended family just wouldn't vote for him no matter how good he might make them feel. My point wasn't to insult your parents further, but to simply say that there are some votes he will not earn, no matter what.

When Hillary Clinton made her now-famous cookie-baking remark, the ones she made maddest were the ones least likely to vote for her anyway. Her remarks (which were also a tempest in a teapot that meant very little in the long run) were ill-advised, but hardly a deal breaker. I shrugged them off, as did my mother. But my mother-in-law took umbrage and vowed she would never vote for those Clintons. Truth be told, I couldn't have imagined that she would, just knowing her and her philosophical differences.

My PA born-and-bred ex-father in law would, I'm sure, dismiss Obama out of hand as a liberal tax-and-spend guy, no matter what he said. Given a choice, he'd opt for Hillary, reluctantly. Or McCain, in the general.

My point wasn't to insult your parents, but just to say that those who will be most insulted by this are those who are disinclined to vote for this or that candidate anyway.

What bothers me most about this flap over these remarks? Did you hear about Haiti's government being overthrown, or any reports about the hunger riots in the rest of the world, or the admission by our President that he knew and approved of a plan to sanction torture of Iraqi and Afghan prisoners? Or that in our own country, grain prices have increased by 120% in a month,making it that much more difficult for people who are already in economic distress to afford to eat and feed their kids?

That's what makes me the angriest. The priorities were in the wrong place on this one.

[Gunfighter]

Noise.

That's what this flap is. Noise.

Yes, I know some people won't like that... but there it is, folks.

FLASH: The ARE lots of bitter people in rural America. Why? Because in lots of places in rural America, the government has stopped paying attention to them... not that it ever paid much attention, really.

Angry, bitter Americans are usually called the Republican base these days... and if you don't believe that, listen to an hour of the Limbaugh or O'Reilly shows.

Naturally, not everyone one is bitter. Certainly not everyone who is bitter clings to guns or religion..., but then again, Obama never sad that all rural Americans were bitter, did he? He never said all rural Pennsylvanians were gun queers, did he? OF course he didn't. It's all spin, distortion and distraction.

Oh, look! there's Halley's comet!

[Gunfighter]

Noise.

That's what this flap is. Noise.

Yes, I know some people won't like that... but there it is, folks.

FLASH: The ARE lots of bitter people in rural America. Why? Because in lots of places in rural America, the government has stopped paying attention to them... not that it ever paid much attention, really.

Angry, bitter Americans are usually called the Republican base these days... and if you don't believe that, listen to an hour of the Limbaugh or O'Reilly shows.

Naturally, not everyone one is bitter. Certainly not everyone who is bitter clings to guns or religion..., but then again, Obama never sad that all rural Americans were bitter, did he? He never said all rural Pennsylvanians were gun queers, did he? OF course he didn't. It's all spin, distortion and distraction.

Oh, look! there's Halley's comet!