About Us
Mission Statement
Rules of Conduct
 
Name:
Pswd:
Remember Me
Register
 

Bitter Battle Book
Author: BobR    Date: 04/16/2008 12:39:41

Bitter side up!
Bitter side down!

(apologies to the late Dr. Seuss...)

On April 6th, Barack Obama said these words during a fundraiser in San Francisco:
...But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. 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 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. So it's not surprising then that 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...

It should seem obvious to anyone reading this in context that when he referred to guns or religion, he was referring to the voters' fear that government would interfere with them as a fake source-point for frustration. To me, it does not read as if Obama is saying people find refuge in guns or religion. Yet that seems to be how everyone that is criticizing him is interpreting it.

Perhaps it should be taken as a note of encouragement that if this is the worst they can come up with to smear him, then they've got nothing. Who is "they"? That would be anyone that doesn't want him to get the nomination (ie: Senators Clinton and McCain and their supporters) and the right-wing. The meme they are trying to push is that Obama is "elitist". It worked to make Kerry and Al Gore seem unlikeable, so why not try again? There's also the media trying to ride this into popcorn territory.

Obama has commented on all of the hoopla by saying anyone that doesn't see the bitterness is out of touch. He drove the point specifically at Senator Clinton, saying "Shame on her", and then pointing out her pandering to voters with her calculated stories of hunting as a child and comparing her to Annie Oakley.

One sort of expects the campaigns to engage in this sort of nit-picking and fake outrage. What's aggravating is when the media gets into the ring and tries to fan a spark into a flame. You KNOW that FAUX News is going to jump at every chance to smear a Democrat, and they did not miss a beat on this one. They discussed the issue with Karl Rove, who pushed the "elitist" meme into deeper territory:
ROVE: I don’t find a lot of people in rural America, I certainly don’t find the dominant view to be — “I’m so bitter that I’m going to hold on to my gun or I’m gonna” — You know, it was almost Marxian in this they cling to their religion. I mean, you know, it’s sort of like it’s the opiate of the masses.

What's aggravating though is when the mainstream media tries to provoke controversy (instead of - you know - reporting the news?). An AP reporter did just that:
At the April 14 Associated Press annual meeting luncheon, referring to comments Sen. Barack Obama made on April 6, AP political writer Ron Fournier repeatedly asked Sen. John McCain whether he thinks Obama is an "elitist." Fournier asked: "You made a vague reference in your speech to Senator Obama's comments recently about working-class voters. Do you think the senator is an elitist?" McCain replied in part: "Oh, I don't -- no -- I don't -- I think those comments are elitist." When Fournier followed up by asking, "If those remarks were elitist, which you say they are ... does that make him an elitist?" McCain responded, "I don't know, because I don't know him very well." Fournier then asked: "You served with him for a couple of years. Did you ever see elitist behavior from him?"

It's gotten to the point now where the news is reporting on the reactions to the spin on the story. Even Tim Russert wades into the muck:
Listen to this morning’s “Meet the Press” if you want an example. Tim Russert, one of the smartest guys on television, interviewed four political consultants - Carville and Matalin, Bob Schrum, and Michael Murphy. Political consultants are paid huge sums to help politicians spin words and avoid real talk. They’re part of the problem. And what do Russert and these four consultants talk about? The potential damage to Barack Obama from saying that lots of people in Pennsylvania are bitter that the economy has left them behind; about HRC’s spin on Obama’s words (he’s an “elitist,” she said); and John McCain’s similarly puerile attack.

Does Russert really believe he’s doing the nation a service for this parade of spin doctors talking about potential spins and the spin-offs from the words Obama used to state what everyone knows is true? Or is Russert merely in the business of selling TV airtime for a network that doesn’t give a hoot about its supposed commitment to the public interest but wants to up its ratings by pandering to the nation’s ongoing desire for gladiator entertainment instead of real talk about real problems.

As posted in the comments of yesterday's blog, at least Rachel Maddow is trying to point out the stupidity of it:



Perhaps we should take it as a good sign then that the race seems to be relatively unchanged because of this whole flap. Perhaps voters are finally getting frustrated (bitter?) that they are being told what to think about a candidate's comments, and are finally thinking for themselves. That makes me hopeful that people might actually be voting on issues that really matter, instead of distractions like off-hand comments... or guns... or religion...

Bitter side up?
Bitter side down?

Who cares ?!?!?!


 

168 comments (Latest Comment: 04/17/2008 00:36:04 by IzzyBitz)
   Perma Link

Share This!

Furl it!
Spurl
NewsVine
Reddit
Technorati