Obama Is Still in Trouble
Three columns published today all show that Barack Obama is in trouble.
Three columns published today all show that Barack Obama is in trouble. The first one is written by liberal extraordinare E.J. Dionne Jr. Dionne writes: “Barack Obama violated two elementary rules of political campaigning. A candidate should never play the role of a political scientist or sociologist analyzing a key electoral swing group from afar and should never dissect the motivations of less privileged people when talking to a group of privileged people.” Oops.
But then there are those two Obama words that shook the campaign: “cling” and “bitter.” Really dumb word choices. The second paragraph, far less empathetic than the first, makes Obama sound like the author of an undergraduate paper, not a candidate for president.
And then there is this one by John Fund:
Barack Obama’s San Francisco-Democrat comment last week – about how alienated working-class voters “cling to guns or religion” – is already famous. But the fact that his aides tell reporters he is privately bewildered that anybody took offense is even more remarkable.
Democrats have been worrying about defending Mr. Obama’s highly liberal voting record in a general election. Now they need to fret that he makes too many mistakes, from ignoring the Rev. Wright time bomb until the videotapes blew up in front of him, to his careless condescension towards salt-of-the-earth Democrats. Mr. Obama has a tendency to make such cultural miscues. Speaking to small-town voters in Iowa last year, he asked, “Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?”…
Donna Brazile, Al Gore’s 2000 campaign manager and an undeclared super delegate, is worried. “With the Wright controversy still lingering and now Obama’s unartful comments,” she told CNN, “it will paint the picture of Obama as being ‘out of sync.’”
And lastly, George Will:
Barack Obama may be exactly what his supporters suppose him to be. Not, however, for reasons most Americans will celebrate.
Obama may be the fulfillment of modern liberalism. Explaining why many working-class voters are “bitter,” he said they “cling” to guns, religion and “antipathy to people who aren’t like them” because of “frustrations.” His implication was that their primitivism, superstition and bigotry are balm for resentments they feel because of America’s grinding injustice.
By so speaking, Obama does fulfill liberalism’s transformation since Franklin Roosevelt. What had been under FDR a celebration of America and the values of its working people has become a doctrine of condescension toward those people and the supposedly coarse and vulgar country that pleases them.
Obama is increasingly showing people that he’s a far-left liberal, and what he really thinks about America and the world. His views are not even almost moderate.
And that could very well prove to be his downfall.
I beg to differ, What people have to look at is that fact that this election has been like no other, and that is because of one person… Barak. We keep on judging a new wave of ploitics, based on the new logic. Every so called predictor in the campain has been wrong from the most part and that is why it has been exciting. Those that post now will post later… Sincerity in Obama far surpasses the two boomers in the race. Small town America appreciates that more. The norm has failed time after time and as we see McCain we see the norm. As he said he doesnt gaurantee that he wont make the same mistake, but his point you will get. Americans will wake up this time around. So everybody is clear, Americans dont want an experienced person, because they dont listen due to the experience, however a sound judgement is key and Americans are yearning to watch the next president grow in the white house, not necessarily be there!
You know what, Obama wasn’t going to win PA anyway, and you stupid news media idiots, don’t want to see a black man as president anyway, nor do most of white PA, so you look for an excuse not to vote for him and blame it on some words, you uneducated dogs, can’t seperate the truth from fiction, ha, ha, shame on you.
Is there any way we can get George Will to vote Democrat in 08? Todays Gallup Daily: Obama 51%, Clinton 40%
Vote Obama 08!
Small Town
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3eDkAG3R0h8
Radio Nowhere
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XmLt6kcZ72Q
Obama 08!
DEMS WANT OBAMA OUT! HE WILL LOOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION FOR DEMS
Those who are not aware that common people are bitter because of poor governance and poor foreign policy are not in touch with reality. Americans can not go abroad and enjoy themselves in social places because of Bush. Workers are unable to afford medical cover and jobs have been shipped over to China. Let those whose lives have been transformed for the better stand with Hilary and be counted. Then let those who are angry and bitter stand. Do the maths.
It should be noted that both John Fund and George Will are ardent conservatives who want to see Obama fail. What they said is predictable and should be taken as the words of two nonobjective observers.
Really, Barack Obama will be fine, in the long run, and he will win the presidency as long as voters can find it in their hearts to be objective.
What poll could you have been reading to create a title like this,…. very misleading. Obama is within 6 points in PA for polls taken over the weekend. The media,…. always trying to start something out of nothing,…. why don’t you write about Hillary talking about her gun support which she voted against in Congress,… or her new ad in which she talks about using a gun — how insincere,…. I used to like Hillary a lot more than Bill too
No, no, no, no, no, and NO! If this isn’t the most blatant act of media spin I’ve seen since the beginning of the primaries I don’t know what is. These kinds of statements are at the very core of sociological discourse. For the media to take issue with these kinds of statements and try to argue that he was demeaning the DEMOCRATIC voting public (when it sounds like he was actually speaking about lower class Republicans) is completely ignorant, boldly uninformed, and a vulgar bastardization of press power. The oft quoted statement which he makes is more than obviously true and is actually pretty common in critical theory, race theory, and social theory–it’s called displacement. Even psychology talks about it. Sure, he shouldn’t have said it to a rich audience, but that is the absolute worst crime he’s committed. This is some ‘ol bullshit.
And a lot of people try to get him to dumb down his word choice. Like George Dubya or something? So the moment that he simplifies his words for what should have been a closed audience, he gets burned for "condescension."
Dionne’s quote happens to be the only accurate one. Obama’s mistake is pure politics–he made a statement which has ample room for spin–and he was foolish to assume: 1) that there were no haters in the room who would be eager to spin his words, and 2) that American’s are knowledgeable enough to follow something so basic. Obviously we aren’t.
And it’s not "far left," as a matter of fact, it’s been in the sub-text of liberal discourse for decades–it’s roots are in the Civil Rights Movement and are actually fairly related to discourse within labor movements.
Americans have a problem with cultural amnesia. Far too many of us act like history doesn’t exist–as though far too many of us are ignorant of the history of extremely common statements such as these. Wise up, America. Read a f***in’ book.
Boy, the silly liberal comments just keep coming today.
Chris, do you realize that what you are saying is that no one should be concerned at all that Obama was dissing rural people, as long as it was only the Republican rural people that he condescends to? That’s hilarious. He’s running to be president of the Democratic States of America, or the United States of America?
I love the part about these truths being self evident, too. Yeah, if anyone possibly has the notion that statist and protectionist economic policy isn’t in their best interest, then there has to be some other explanation for that kind of thinking because it couldn’t possibly be a valid viewpoint.
The great thing about all of this is that as usual, so many Dems don’t even realize how badly their party is screwing up.
And BTW, Chris, I don’t know that anyone is unaware of the history of these kinds of statements (I’ll bet even some dumb Kansan Republicans were able to read What’s the Matter With Kansas, for example.) What the Democratic party seems to be unaware of though, is that every time they nominate someone who thinks this way (or lets on that he thinks this way) he ends up going down in flames.
Well like you’ve said so many times when defending Clinton (the candidate that cannot even run a campaign competently much less a country) that this is the Democrat primaries – not the General. I realize you hold both to a far different standard, but what comes around. Chris, do you realize that what you are saying is that no one should be concerned at all that Obama was dissing rural people, as long as it was only the Republican rural people that he condescends to? That’s hilarious. You know CS that they do not like Stereotypes when it comes to topics like – Taxes, Military, Elitism, etc. But do like stereotypes when it comes to perceived intelligence, etc. Course that conjures up the whole – Bush vs Kerry grades…. thing. – oh that’s right, he was – busy or some other excuse.
bah, let me rewrite that.
Well like you’ve said so many times when defending Clinton (the candidate that cannot even run a campaign competently much less a country) that this is the Democrat primaries – not the General. I realize you hold both to a far different standard, but what comes around.
You know CS that they do not like Stereotypes when it comes to topics like – Taxes, Military, Elitism, etc. But do like stereotypes when it comes to perceived intelligence, etc. Course that conjures up the whole – Bush vs Kerry grades…. thing. – oh that’s right, he was – busy or some other excuse.
halp me brak obambi! i r stuk in kanzuz wif my gunz!
lmao
and the link
Obama is still in trouble according to two columns from two certifiably conservative authors? Wow, that’s quite a bit of wishful thinking isn’t it?
You’ll note that conservative sources have been mostly silent on Clinton. This is not because they have a new found love for her. I’m almost certain they still despise her as they always have, but she is simply not percieved to be as much of a threat. A plurality of people think Obama will be the nominee, and conservatives would rather run against Hillary, whose negatives are huge and who would really motivate Republican voters. Hence the constant attacks on Obama. On the one hand they want a head start tearing down who they think will be the Democratic nominee, and on the other, there’s always the tiny chance that the combined efforts of the Clinton’s and the GOP brings Obama down in the primaries and wouldn’t THAT be just delicious for them?
General consensus around work is one guy’s dog has a decent chance of beating Clinton.
Oh, more reports today that Clinton is not enjoying the bitter bounce. somehow Michael did not report on that bit.
Course it’d help if Obama started attacking Clinton back.
For suggestions, a few links that popped up on Digg.
New York Times: Bill Clinton Paid $20,000 to Play Golf in All-White Club
Hillary Clinton On Southern Working Class Whites In 1995: "Screw ‘Em"
Bill Clinton Suggests Young Voters Too Easily Fooled