Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Finding Voters 'Bitter and Frustrated,' Obama is Sounding Like Nader
I haven't lived in rural Pennsylvania or in rural Indiana, but I have lived in rural upstate New York, in towns where there are so few Democrats that on some local election ballots, not a single position, from town council to justice of the peace, has a contest. As in China, your option is to vote for the Republican candidate, or to leave that line blank.
And many of the people in these towns, uniformly white, when they talk politics, spend a lot of their time complaining about black people, immigrants (neither of whom can even be found in the vicinity) and the threat to their guns.
Barack Obama is exactly right.
In Hancock, NY and Spencer, NY, there are no factory jobs. There used to be in Hancock, but the companies where hundreds of people used to work have long since folded or moved south of the border, courtesy of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) aggressively promoted and pushed through Congress by Bill and Hillary Clinton during the 1990s. In Spencer, there are no jobs because in the free-for-all bidding by companies for tax giveaways between communities, Spencer had nothing much to offer. The town is so dirt poor that when the library board, of which I was briefly president, got a measure on the ballot to have one extra dollar per taxpayer of school district taxes allocated to support the local little library, which was at that time totally supported by donations, the measure went down to resounding defeat (I was labeled a communist by some for promoting the idea!).
In 1992, neighbors in Spencer told me they were voting for George H. W. Bush-a patrician blue blood if ever there was one-because Bill Clinton, if elected "would take away our guns."
Of course, he didn't, and had no intention of doing so, but that didn't matter.
Don't get me wrong-the people in Hancock and Spencer are good folks. I'm pretty sure many of them probably give a higher proportion of their meager incomes to charity than do millionaires John McCain and Hillary Clinton. But Obama is right that in their angst and frustration at seeing the good economic times pass them by, at seeing themselves abandoned by the federal government in hard times, and at seeing candidates promise them everything during campaigns, only to ignore them after winning, they are bitter and frustrated.
And they have a right to be, and they should be.
One response to that bitterness and frustration is that they are open to the charlatans in both parties, and especially the Republican Party, who have played on their basest fears. It's Republicans who have whispered the poison in their ears that their high taxes are because "the Blacks" are getting all that welfare money and are getting all the jobs through "quotas." It's the Republicans who have warned them about "hoards" of Mexicans coming across the border to steal their jobs. It's the Republicans who have been warning them that Democrats are going to take their hunting rifles and shotguns away. It's the Republicans and their Christian fundamentalist front men who have been saying that the Democrats have been causing the nation's decline by supporting licentiousness and a "gay" agenda. And it's Republicans and Democrats who have been hyping the bogus issue of national defense to keep people from focusing on the deliberate dismantling of the US economy that is underway. (Over years of Republican and Democratic administrations, the tax contribution of US corporations to the national budget has fallen from 50% in 1940 to just 14% today. Between 1996 and 2000, 61% of all corporations and 39% or large corporations paid no taxes at all, and that situation has only gotten worse in the Bush years.)
Anything but the real issue, which is how to provide funds so that the children in places like Spencer and Hancock can get a decent education without bankrupting the local taxpayers, how those communities can get jobs again, so that their children won't have to move out, how to ensure that everyone in town can have health insurance and access to medical care.
Barack Obama is right. I've seen it in person. The people in rural America are bitter and frustrated, and after years of being played by politicians, they fall victim to the charlatans who tell them it's all because of "the Blacks," or the immigrants, or who tell them that their guns are in danger. Or they turn to religions that preach division or apocalypse-a concept that offers the chance of a final, delicious revenge against the rich and the powerful oppressors on Wall Street and in Washington.
Now I don't know what Obama has in mind to try and turn things around for these good people, but it's a start that he's at least talking to them, not down, but honestly.
His talk (http://pa.barackobama.com/page/s/paletter) in response to attacks on his statement about rural residents being "bitter and frustrated" is as good as anything Ralph Nader has said about the power and mendacity of the ruling political elite in America.
As he put it, to wild applause at a rally in Terra Haute, Indiana, explaining the difficulty of appealing to the rural working class voters in Pennsylvania:
"For the last 25 years they've seen jobs shift overseas, they've seen their economies collapse, they have lost their jobs, they've lost their pensions, they've lost their health care. And for 25-30 years, Democrats and Republicans have come before then and said we're gonna make your community better. We're gonna make it right.
"And nothing ever happens. And of course they're bitter, and of course they're frustrated. You would be too, in fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing has happened across the border in Decatur. (Wild applause) The same thing has happened across the country. Nobody's looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you.
"And so people end up, they don't vote on economic issues, because they don't expect anybody's gonna help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns-you know are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. You know, they, they take refuge in their faith, and their communities, their families-things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington.
"So here's what's rich. Sen. Clinton says, `Well I don't think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know I think Barack's being condescending.' And John McCain says, `Oh how can he say that? How can he say that people are bitter? You know he obviously is out of touch with the...'"
"Out of touch? Out of touch! I mean, John McCain, it took him three tries to finally figure out that the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he's saying I'm out of touch?"
"Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card-sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt, after taking money from the financial services companies and she says I'm out of touch?
"No, I'm in touch. I know exactly what's going on. I know what's going on in Pennsylvania, I know what's going on in Indiana. I know what's going on in Illinois. (Standing ovation) People are fed up! They're angry, and they're frustrated and they're bitter and they want to see a change in Washington, and that's why I'm running for president of the United States of America!" Now who knows whether this is all talk too. Maybe Obama is just one more political charlatan.
What is clear though is that this was a speech that we have not heard from a Democratic politician for decades, and it sure sounded good to hear it.
If Obama sticks to this rhetorical approach in the coming weeks, he will nail this nomination in spite of a concerted attack on him by the corporate media and by the combined forces of the Clintons and McCain.
And if he does win the nomination, and resists the siren calls of the Democratic Party leadership to "move to the middle," and instead hones this populist message, he will go on to win the presidency.
That's when the real challenge will come, for an aroused citizenry, in those rural communities and in the larger cities across that nation, to make a President Obama and a Democratic Congress deliver on these words.
For now, they're pretty powerful words, and just hearing them coming from a Democratic Party frontrunner is an exciting change.
Dave Lindorff's most recent book is "The Case for Impeachment" (St. Martin's Press, 2006). His work is available at www.thiscantbehappening.net.



128 Comments so far
Show AllExcellent article.
Except for one thing; it's here on Common Dreams, (my home-page for years) and here on CD the Democrats are attacked and maligned to the near exclusion of the RepubLikud Party.
The article will be attacked.
The Democrats will be attacked.
Obama will be attacked. While the Republican Scum if even mentioned at all are "no worse."
Obama '08.
And here come the ThreadThought Police...
Clinton and her neocon thugs can say anything they want but having grown up in Pennsylvania I know that what Obama said is true. Clinton is a disgrace.
There might be a few in rural areas of Pennsylvania who take offense at Barack Obama's words but most people will respect the truth. No one wants to hear sugar coated lies and empty promises or be treated like they are dumb enough to believe in lies and empty flattery. The super wealthy Hillary Clinton and John McCain are both condescending to the people for the advantage it gives their campaigns not because they really give a hoot about people in oppressed rural areas. Hillary waits to pounce on anything Barack says because her campaign is focused on tearing him down. So she, as usual, has made a big deal out of nothing and the media eager for more hype to keep the excitement going between primaries, has picked up the ball. Most people in Pennsylvania are shaking their heads and saying "What was that all about, are we supposed to be offended because someone said we are bitter and frustrated at the current government?" America needs a good dose of truth everywhere from cities to countrysides. How can we clean up our country if we aren't mature enough to face the truth and deal with our mistakes? We know this needs to be done in ourselves, our personal relationships and families, now we need to realize as the American community that it's time to take responsibility as citizens and MAKE change happen.
If people want to know whats gone wrong with this country over the last twenty five years all they need to think about is the democratically backed republican leadership we have had. The people in America are upset with our government at the city, state and federal levels but still they support people like Clinton, Obama and McClain.
Obama is speaking the truth here but he's not going to do anything different, he's not going to bring about the change we need. The only way to effect change for the better is to shake the very foundations the two party systems is based on. We have to make change at the local and state level first. When we quit voting over and over for the good old rich boys at home then we will start seeing change at the top. Till then complain all you want about the leadership in Washington and watch things stay the same.
Ah, the poor, put-upon, persecuted, would-be progressive loyal Democrats! Perpetually consumed with righteous indignation that the chancred whore and part-time pickpocket and bunco artist that is the Democratic Party is despised as much as the serial-killing, big-haul thief that is the Republic Party!
Will foolish and preposterously idealist citizens never yield to the common-sense necessity of embracing the Lesser Evil?
Well, I won't. Meanwhile, it strikes me how deeply anti-intellectual the Clinton campaign is. As one might expect from pure technocrats, their campaign is an exercise in manipulating the collective lizard-brain by launching endless micro-"surgical strikes". In their pathetic and desperate bid to maintain altitude and gain sufficient airspeed to overtake Obama, they simply seize on any chance phrase that has the potential to become a "negative", and hysterify it.
The Clintons and their fabulously rich and experienced cadre of handlers tirelessly perform supposedly subtle and sincere maneuvers that amount to trying to fling Obama's own supposed feces back at him, and hoping they'll stick sufficiently that Hillary comes off sweeter-smelling. It's the kind of demeaning stimulus-reponse, behaviorist, operant conditioning that is purely top-down; despite the faux-egalitarian rhetoric, Hillary's constituency is composed of her inferiors: gullible followers, children, lab rats.
Disclaimer: I'm undecided, and won't know until Election Day who I'll vote for, if anyone. But it's obvious to me that Obama talks to his constituency, while Hillary talks at hers.
Bill Clinton signed the NAFTA agreement but it was totally in place before his taking office, courtsey of King Bush I, & PM Brian Mulroney. Bush "Fast-Tracked" the agreement before he left office. A majority of republicans voted it in with the help of several democrats.
Although Clinton pushed it through, it was in place before he took office.
I am going to comment briefly on this article: it "should" be posted on every Corp Media sight for broader distribution.
What I really want to direct your attention to is a book by Lee Iacocca, published one year ago, April 2007. Have any of you heard about it? I know, many reading this sight will wonder why I would even suggest you read anything by Iacocca, but this is an exception. The title is, Where Have All the Leaders Gone? Google it and read excerpts. You will also wonder why it has not been reviewed and discussed here or on other progressive sights. Of course, the Corp Media would not touch it and most politicians of either party would dismiss it as too aggressive. Here is a short excerpt from the book:
"I
Had Enough?
Am I the only guy in this country who's fed up with what's happening? Where the hell is our outrage? We should be screaming bloody murder. We've got a gang of clueless bozos steering our ship of state right over a cliff, we've got corporate gangsters stealing us blind, and we can't even clean up after a hurricane much less build a hybrid car. But instead of getting mad, everyone sits around and nods their heads when the politicians say, "Stay the course."
Stay the course? You've got to be kidding. This is America, not the damned Titanic. I'll give you a sound bite: Throw the bums out!"
So, where is the outrage? Why is this man not being heard on every progressive media outlet? Put aside your prejudices about what he did with Chrysler and how he used the government. That was a long time ago. This book has been out for a year, and there is not one word being spoken for it.
I recommend you at least read the excerpts. You will be amazed!
I am committed to Oneness Through Justice and Transformation
peace,
st john
Congress controlled by the Democrats?
Hardly.....a special unit of spooks, ex-Mossad/Secret Service, Rove's Raiders, under Cheney's direction, have targeted Democrats w/ cocaine, hookers etc. for years, and 'turned' them.
Between three and five. Not suspected. Used for key votes.
Thus the RepubLikud control Congress and make the Democrats look like paralyzed fools. CD thread exhibit A.
Think through the cracks.
mikepeters:
I' be the first to admit that I have attacked and will continue to attack the Democratic party for talking the talk and failing to walk the walk. What happened to impeachment? What happened to bringing the troops home? What happened to election reforms?
I'll also be the first to admit it when a Democrat or Republican or anyone else (Ralph Nader) gets it right.
This time Obama got it right! The article is right on and Obama's comments were right on. So were the comments of his preacher Rev. Wright. Unfortunately, whenever he gets it right, he's forced to back down by the way the media whips up a frenzy of manipulated information.
I will say that at least, while backpeddling on this statement and stating his renunciation of Rev. Wright's remarks, he overall defended this last statement and gave a good speech about race in this country.
Now he needs to state the obvious - We cannot afford to continue the occupation of Iraq, nor can we continue to increase military spending. If this country is to survive the fate of the Soviet Union, that collapsed as a result of over spending on the military while allowing their country's infrastructure to wither, Obama must change his allegience to increased military spending and be truthful with the American people. The biggest threat to this country comes not from terrorists, illegal immigrants, or gay marriage but from the corporate entities that claim all the rights of people but are unaccountable for any of the responsibilities of people. These corporate "people" own our government and both the Republican and Democratic Party; this is the reason people criticize Democrats as well as Republicans on this site.
When Democrats stand up for "We the People" in fact as well as they claim to stand up for them in speeches they will earn the respect they would like to claim.
Bitter? You bet I am! Is Obama condescending, or does he just have a clue?
this is for rickster469.....obama is "CHANGE" obama is not cut from the same cloth as hilliary or mccain.......obama JOLTS the gop and the democrats....so they use FEAR ...IT'S ALL THEY HAVE !
Too bad when John Edwards spoke these words, they did not hear him. And Obama derided Edwards' populism. It is not enough to speak these words, it is important to have policies behind them. Not being beholden to Wall st. would be a good beginning.
Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat
Obama's right on. He should NOT apologize for something that's true.
mikepeters - once again..please try to understand the CD ambivalence to the Democratic party.
Notice it is NOT the CDers slamming Obama over his comments but other DEMOCRATS.
I for one congratulate Obama for "telling it like it is" as I see other CDers doing.
Now, if we could get rid of his corporate paymasters and string pullers, there would be hope for at least 1 Dem candidate(Obama).
It was Edwards who came out with the Manufacturing Plan for America. Why wasn't it hailed? Edwards was not only in touch with the bitterness of so many, but the hopes and the dreams of people for better opportunity, and he put policies behind his words. He would never have summed up the people he cared to help as sum and substance, "bitter".
Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat
My sympathy for embittered Republican voters is limited, and I have lived in a central Pennsylvania town. They would vote the same way if times were good, and in the past they have. It's not the lack of jobs that makes them vote Republican, it's the cult of rugged individualism and white male privilege. Any white man who works hard gets ahead is the sacred myth, and they cling to it like it's Jesus. It gives them a perch from which to look down on nonwhite America and sneer. They still sneer even when knocked off that perch. It's why they rage against welfare for black people but don't mind subsidies for agribusiness or defense contractors because those are models of what they admire. They're bitter because they are ENTITLED to a decent living and respectable reputation, unlike those sniveling welfare cheats in the ghettos, and they're not getting them. They'll eagerly take federal help, but not on universalist terms that put them in the same categories as those low-class scum in the cities. If a truly fascist mass party (as opposed to the current quasi-authoritarian regime) appears in America, they'll jump right in.
Obama's right, even if he didn't express it in the most articulate way. A few years ago I worked as a journalist in a small southern town. The town's main industry had been textiles, and every week there was news of a new plant closing, as foreign competition took its toll. The unemployment rate was 25%, and most young people left town as soon as they were old enough to see the city limits sign in their rearview mirror. Were people bitter? You betcha. Once you chipped away the surface of southern hospitality and gentility, you found people angry that a way of life that they had enjoyed for generations was disappearing. And yes, most of them were "conservative," in the sense that they were distrustful of any perceived change in popular culture, moral values, religion, the economy or pretty much anything else. Not surprising, really, given that the only "change" they were exposed to left them economically worse off than before. They talked about the "good ol' days," and generally resented most attempts by outsiders to question their values. Like any people who perceive themselves to be under siege, they rallied around what they were most familiar with and comforted by, their religion and their community. But on the whole they were generous and friendly, and quite a few local "eccentrics" lived there without any trouble that I could detect. There were musicians, painters and artists in the town, many very talented. If it wasn't exactly HBO's "Sex and the City," it wasn't quite Sinclair Lewis's "Main Street," either.
When I first read about the ranting and railing against Obama saying that people are bitter about their loss of economic well-being, I wondered why everyone was up in arms because it is true. It is true in Canada, Mexico, and the USA as well as everywhere else in the world right now. We are p.o.'d. Maybe people don't understand the meaning of bitter? This article is bang on.
Just as an aside, I happened across this old (1946) Encyclopedia Britannica educational film recently regarding recognising the signs of rising despotism, and thought you might want to check it out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jz2iBHYS_YY
The Home of the Knave
The home of the bubble brain knave
treading in freedom but drowning in dreams
can't agree on prosperity or perilous pain
while trying to retain ill gotten gain
as the refrain left and right teams up
with calls for more of the same
Count on the spin to take it all down
left in the north and right in the south
but...
save the plunger for the biggest mouth
"And if he does win the nomination, and resists the siren calls of the Democratic Party leadership to "move to the middle," and instead hones this populist message, he will go on to win the presidency."
I agree.
Obama, for all his faults, talks to people's desire and bitterness and frustration and hope. He has to keep talking turkey to the people and keep building his grass-roots base while leaving the smarmy and trite to the Clinton/McCain team.
If he goes on to win the general election, Obama will need a lot of support and help from progressives. If he gets that, I believe he will have the mandate to start moving the Democratic Party to the good side.
Jeez, this makes me a little hopeful. Feels good!
I am not a rural Pennsylvanian, but I am a Pennsylvanian and I WILL vote for Obama on April 22. I supported Edwards and I have been wavering between Clinton and Obama, but I'm not wavering any more.
I certainly hope Obama will continue the populist message and follow through if elected. This could be our last chance.
I am just a common man. This country needs a leader that will stand up for me and other frustrated common people in America.It is real scary to think some chinese person has my job and no way to compete. There isn't even a bread line I can feed my family with. At least Obama is trying.
Here's a little thing I came across some time ago - just a little nod to difference between liberals and "right-wingers"
A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE RIGHT-WING REPUBLICAN
Article courtesy of PunkVoter.com
Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised. All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because some liberal union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance – now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packing industry. In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained. Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor. Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home because of his temporary misfortune. Its noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FDIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression. Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae underwritten mortgage and his below-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime. Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuck his nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification. He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to. Joe gets back in his car for the ride home and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservative are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day. Joe agrees: "We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have"
Obama may be talking a good game, but look at his record. He is still going to do nothing but "look" at NAFTA, not lead the charge to dismantle it. When he had a chance to vote to put a 30% cap on annual interest on credit cards, he voted against it.
i am shocked to see such intelligent readers believing in obama - the man came out of nowhere, he has been treated as an equal in the press, even more than that, the media has NOT bashed him in the way it does with 'unworthies' like nader and ron paul. even with all the fuel from the clintons. if the media is good to someone, well....
no one just gets into elections out of nowhere and has such a smooth campaign without the corporate rule behind it.
and what is more, so what if an honest person does get into presidency (against all odds of a totally rigged process)? is one man going to dismantle the multibillion$ military industrial complex? is one man in government going to bring morals and ethics back to a government that is owned by a few multinationals?
(plus, is it total coincidence that obama is an 8th cousin to bush and is a 32nd degree freemason - i think not - google it!)
shisha
Obama might sound like Nader, but he acts like Cheney. He's a Democrat, isn't he? Mind what he does, not what he says.
Obama has voted to fund this illegal war the same way Repubs have. And didn't Obama join Republicans in 2005 in passing the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) that would shut down state courts as a venue to hear many class action lawsuits?
Obama also voted against a bankruptcy bill which would have capped credit card interest rates at 30 percent.
While in the Illinois Senate, Obama voted to limit the recovery that victims of medical malpractice could obtain through the courts. Obama votes with the Republican Party more often than not.
In November 2007, Obama came out against a bill that would have reformed the notorious Mining Law of 1872.
His record in regulating the nuclear industry and energy policies are dubious at best.
Obama opposed single-payer bill HR676, sponsored by Congressmen Dennis Kucinich and John Conyers in 2006, although at least 75 members of Congress supported it.
He's supposedly against NAFTA but in his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama said the US should pursue more deals such as NAFTA, and argued more broadly that his opponent's call for tariffs would spark a trade war.
beyondempire; Thank You for crucifying JoeRepublican; damn that was HILARIOUS.
You generously deferred from flaying his hateful rascist sexist soul which was kind, being this is Sunday the Day of The Lord and all...
Thank you curmudegeon99 for your thoughts.
shisha; hello. I too feel strings pulled. Hillary w/ MSM support could have beaten mccreep. His alleged strength is foreign policly. Hers was too six months ago...I thought she'd be the tougher matchup.....Karl Rove & Satan & the MSM.
militantliberal -- "It's why they rage against welfare for black people but don't mind subsidies for agribusiness or defense contractors because those are models of what they admire."
Absolutely right. I suppose even if they knew that corporate welfare accounts for 10 times more on the dollar than welfare at large, it still wouldnt matter. Privilege is way too deeply ingrained.
militantliberal (1:34 pm) is absolutely right about white rural midwesterners, whether in PA or WI, where I live. I've noticed the same thing for years. It's all about them, and if they're not making it, blame blacks, or liberals (mainly liberals, because there are hardly any blacks anywhere in sight) or people needing any form of public assistance, or of course "illegal immigrants" stealing all the jobs they won't take in any case.
They're the heart and soul of knee-jerk American fascism, and they'll comprise the core of the party that forms around those reactionary values as soon as the effective rightwing populist rises up out of the heartland. If Obama can preempt that reflex by appealing to them from a quasi-liberal angle (and I agree that Edwards was doing it better, and Kucinich better still, but the centrists at the DNC weren't going to permit that, so those two rabble rousers were predictably stifled), I'm for him. Anything that can pacify the disenfranchised rural white conservatives is a good thing for the progressive cause. Let him throw them a few bones.
Incidentally: the Puritan pioneers who settled on this continent gave us the gift of repression, which has grown roots deeper than any sequoia. They also imparted an adversarial world-view: life is a continuous challenge for existence, and a wilderness filled with threats and enemies.
Thus, to this day our culture programs, transmits, and encourages an approach to life that is both stoic and hysterically optimistic; the mythical ideal is that Amerikans are always optimistic, resourceful, proud, steadfast, and cheerful. Even, perhaps especially, in adverse circumstances.
Lesser politicians-- which is to say, about 95% of our past, incumbent, and aspiring political elite-- piously capitalize on this orthodoxy, this dogma, and beat opponents with it like a stick if the opponent dares to come out from behind the curtain and speak unpleasant and unpopular truths.
Clinton's amoral, technocratic approach to campaigning shamelessly responds in this low-road, cheap-point-scoring tradition. She hopes to leapfrog over a stunned and beseiged opponent exactly the way Jimmy Carter's opponents did when he "foolishly" dared to observe that a "malaise" pervaded the nation.
The corporate media loves this kind of artificial sensationalism and ginned-up controversy, of course. Every one of our fabulously successful and well-regarded celebrity infotainwhores can make hay out of the breathless simulated shock and chagrin of Obama's "gaffe". The man actually said that Americans were bitter! What kind of slap in the face is that?
And intrepid correspondents and a phalanx of pollsters will stream into the diners, general stores, and bus terminals in the nation's rural byways to obtain clips of Barney Bowlingshirt and Lucy Lunchbucket, and maybe even the local Republicrat politician, expressing outrage and indignation that Obama insulted them by implying that local folk are "bitter". Bitter! What could there possibly be to be bitter about?
And the infotainwhore Peanut Gallery, from Cokie Roberts to Tweety Matthews, will take up the chorus and ponderously conclude that, yep, this is a Mortal Negative all right-- like Dukakis fluffing the Kitty-rape question.
Well, politics ain't beanbag, and the "realists" among us understand that the mature, sober response to political campaigns is to disconnect the neo-cortex and pre-frontal lobes, and toss 'em in the refrigerator until the erection is over. And if going all lizard-brained is what it takes to win, that feisty wonk is a-goin' to do it!
What Obama, his wife, his pastor, and everyone else in America needs to learn, is that you don't get elected to be President of the United States by speaking the truth. Better to speak the mythical American narrative of hope, upward mobility, opportunity for all and equality. Dare mention inequality, desperation, immoral foreign or domestic policies, and you get slammed. Lie Barack, lie!
Thanks to everyone here for your great comments -- all of them equally as important to what needs to be said. It's reassuring to see that America hasn't lost her soul completely.
Here's an excerpt from and link to a good read, titled, "Opulent Wealth alongside Blissful Ignorance of the Capitalist Illusion." (You might need to copy/paste to read it, since for some odd reason, the blue type appears on a black background).
"However, it is not just the corresponding leader of the oligarchy, who values money-making highly, who reinforces the governing system of oligarchy. It is the governed people, who, in an oligarchic system, have a value system based on money, not on virtue or honor. The consumerist and money-making culture that is pervasive in our society today is evidence of our being most closely related to an oligarchy: with the message that making money is the most important thing you can do in life, the citizens are trained to believe that those who possess the greatest accumulation of wealth, even if they didn't earn it themselves, are the most successful people, and therefore the best leaders."
http://vcscompphil.blogspot.com/2005/10/opulent-wealth-alongside-blissful.html
Hey Voice Apart, thanks for the link to the video on despotism! I watched it and boy is it petinent to today! I hope everyone who reads these comments will take the time to click on the link and watch this.
Get used to it folks. If Clinton gets to be president we'll have 4 or even 8 more years of incompetence, whining, blaming others, and business as usual. She's almost as good a double speaker as W's folks. Betrayus, Dr. Condi, Killer Dickie, and of course W (when he's sober)are doublspeak record holders. The Clintons come from a similar mold. Hopefully, from the looks of the Barack is trying to tell the truth, he may be a shade better.
In terms of policy, on the surface there's not much difference between Obama and Clinton. But Obama strikes me, a 70-year-old geezer, as more than just another cynical manipulator like Hillary/McCain. What he offers is not a set of policies that will fix everything, but a leadership that will inspire us to take democratic action locally, which is the only arena where it matters anyway. He inspires us to talk to our neighbors, to let rationality into our lives. It's about us, folks, not about him. He is more like Lao Tzu's ideal leader, who gets his followers to say, "look at what we've done on our own." Obama stands no chance all by himself to dismantle the corporate culture that infects this country, but he might be able to get more and more people to click off the cultural hologram. He's only the first of many potential leaders we need to help us take our country back.
The fishing season opened yesterday and I was walking the walk list for Obama with my political button on--
"I hope you catch a lot of fish" I hollered to those fisherman- I am fishing too for him -pointing to my button.
''But he is going to take away our guns!"
"Just cool it guys, my own father is a big hunter ( well that was true before he died and I hate guns myself) and Obama is doing no such thing because we have a lot of real problems that need immediate attention like jobs, warfare, environment and all that"
Well they kind of admitted that they just were shooting from the hip and they shut up.
"Seriously- I hope you catch a big one"
smiles all around...
Just to add: I do WANT TO TAKE PEOPLE'S GUNS AWAY FROM THEM!! YES! Absolutely, no doubt about it - ZERO is the number of guns we need to lead productive lives.
Obama, who I dislike, is actually close to the truth about this issue - it doesn't change that his policies are terrible & destructive & in some cases, worse than Clinton or McCain; AND that this "gaffe" will cost him next Tuesday, when Hillary Clinton will win in PA by a wider margin than originally anticipated.
Thanks for all the comments.
I'd just like to say that these days, with the very real danger of fascism hanging in the wings (as Gen. Tommy Franks has said, one more 9-11 type incident and we'll have military rule in the US and no Constitution), I am no longer anti-gun. In fact, I think it might be a good idea for liberals and progressives to start learning, or relearning, how to shoot.
Myself, I'm a crack shot. Grew up with a rifle, which my parents let me buy and use out in the woods on my own when I was 12.
Try to take away my civil liberties and my democratic government and I'll defend those things as necessary.
There are some things worth fighting for, but it's hard to fight for them if they take the guns away.
The point is, though, that the whole gun issue is really bogus. It's not going to happen, and it is being used by the Right to keep working people from voting for their real interests.
Dave Lindorff
www.thiscantbehappening.net
The more I think of this conversation, the more "bitter" I feel about my fellow Democrats, and the remaining Candidates included. And, yes, Barack Obama, I did grow up in Pennsylvania, Western Pennsylvania, on the edge of Appalachia. I worked for Bobby Kennedy in 1968, indeed, helped draft him, and I worked for John Edwards, exactly for the same reason. Because they cared and realized about the economic problems of Western Pennsylvania, the Rust Belt, and Rural and Urban American small towns all over America, West, East, North, and South (as in New Orleans), and they didn't need to go on a campaign trail to discover it. No, they went on the campaign trail to solve it and to reach out to the people, with utter respect and empathy.
Like John Edwards, I have been dismayed that Democrats have not had the backbone to solve poverty and economic woes in America, because largely both parties are too beholden to mega-corporations. Think of it, Richardson, now an erstwhile supporter of Barack Obama, chided Edwards for fomenting class warfare! Class warfare, you say, Richardson!! No, John Edwards truly empathized with the economically disadvantaged of our country, and came up with the programs to solve their problems. He knew the Democratic Party, the Party, folks, needs as much transformation as does the Country, and he was ready to deliver it. Now, Obama is making some discoveries about the conditions of economically disadvantaged Americans. Better late than never, I say, but give some credit, where credit is due, and maybe we can all join in the solution.
How about a Unity Ticket that includes all the candidates who worked so hard in this last campign, two candidates at the top and identified cabinet candidates, as well. A real ticket that would include Obama, Clinton, Edwards, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich, Gravel, and yes, Richardson, too. And even Gore and Kerry, two winners of the two past elections, called as lost. A place for everyone in the administration. Each has something to contribute. Give credit where credit is due, and maybe, just maybe, we can win and start solving the problems in America. Let me see, it has been since 1968, that I have been waiting. That's too long and I am getting too old for this Western Pennsylvania born American!
Karita Hummer
Edwards Democrat
I call an Edwards Democrat, a Democrat with backbone.
Dave Lindorff -- Perhaps the appropriate advice is buy one's rifle at one of those GUN SHOWs, using cash (or on the Street), as I seriously doubt the as-advertised reasoning behind the information dragnet on everything that Americans DO, BE, or HAVE.
I believe that it is not paranoid to assume that all obvious purchases of guns, and being carefully tabulated, to ALLOW one to properly "turn-in" ones guns, when THAT law is passed -- but to ensure that they know exactly where to go IF one decides to act like all the guns are already turned in.
I suspect, that this will be especially more so now days, when so many may feel the urge.
I myself can shoot,
but prefer to follow the golden rule but more so,
living in the conscious knowledge that my
BEingness is far stronger than any ACTIONs
that I can take.
Namaste
"Finding Voters 'Bitter and Frustrated,' Obama is Sounding Like Nader"
Hey - let's just go ahead and cut out the middleman and vote for Nader then.
Oh, right, forgot - he has the ego thing that trumps his lifetime of public service and refusal to take any money from and do the bidding for any of the economic terrorists still ruling We The People.
No, BO is the way to go - he'll most surely "stand up" to the Wall Street scum and Defense war profiteers filling his campaign coffers. Sure he will...
I wrote above:
[...] Thus, to this day our culture programs, transmits, and encourages an approach to life that is both stoic and hysterically optimistic; the mythical ideal is that Amerikans are always optimistic, resourceful, proud, steadfast, and cheerful. Even, perhaps especially, in adverse circumstances.
Upon further reflection, I would say that this New World gringo template mandates that citizens are to be formally considered, and spoken of, as Winners. It's like the Special Olympics, which is apropos in a culture in which vested ruling classes wield a corporate media organized to manufacture consent and co-opt the political process by turning it into a sensationalist soap opera. The Establishment, to dust off a still-relevant concept, relies on a citizenry that is largely politically challenged, and is easily bamboozled and manipulated. But in the Ownership Society, Everybody's a Winner!
Even implying that Americans might be in any way fallible, or have, in spite of their best efforts, fucked up in any way is the equivalent of calling them Losers. And that will not stand!
So, does one support the crafty and cunning status quo politician who either buys into these neurotic, pathological templates or cynically invokes them to attract support by increasing her opponent's negatives, or the politician who openly eschews such machinations, and engages voters on an adult/adult basis instead of a controlling adult/child basis?
Disclaimer: I remain undecided, and in any case have no real enthusiasm for either of the Democratic lesser-evil candidates. So my overloaded question isn't predicated on my personal support, or any expectation of what the candidate is likely to accomplish in office. I'm just reporting the view from the 50-yard line.
Now wait here; Obamas remarks were all right until he attributed opposition to "free trade" as just a emotional consequence of this bitterness.
Bullshit!
His so-called "free trade" - or more properly, the sell-off of popular sovereignty to global corporate power, is indeed something to be angry and bitter about!
Karita,
I only recently took down my Edwards for President sign, only because the wind had knocked it over. Since he left the race, I have watched from the sidelines, imagining that I'd end up supporting Obama, only because Clinton and McCain were out of the question.
I admire Obama's speeches. He's bright, he's charismatic. He certainly can raise money like nobody's business.
And he's finally coming, late, to the realization that the economic policies of the past decades are bankrupting all but the very rich. I'm glad he acknowledges this reality. But I'm not optimistic that his inspiring words will translate into concrete action, should he become president. I've looked into his voting record and the advisors he has surrounded himself with. They don't give lots of reasons to suppose he'll bring a new populism to a Democratic Party that really does favor the interests of its biggest donors.
But, thank you for your thoughtful post.
change will not come from the top down. change will come from the people up.
and let me add that it is time to think out of the marxist box - his theories are not the be all and end all of theories. and dare i say that the 'founding fathers' are not angels or prophets, they were actually indian killers and slave owners.
we must question everything at this point until we can start from point 1, from the very first step, from the first universal truth, and then build from there.
if we go on building on lies and falsehood, well, it will only continue to lead to lies and falsehood.
we must question all the slogans and rhetoric, and begin from the beginning. why are we alive? why do we die? where do we go? who are we? what is the point of life? are people equal or did we evolve from monkeys so that some poeple are now more evolved than others?
is there even a transcendent truth? can truth be relative? who has the right to make up truth and laws and dish out punishments?
if we do not have the courage to face these questions sincerely, with dignity, and humility, then how can we have courage to fix corruption when it is right in front of our faces?
shisha
" a speech that we have not heard from a Democrat politician for decades" (except for Dennis Kucinich)
Little brother,
Good points! I should add that the very way you used the words "loser" - to mean "someone who cannot ever do things right because he is innately defective", is unique to the American-English language. Just finding a way to translate it accurately it another language is difficult. Probably the same with "winner".
This is the heart of the national religion of exceptionalism, which prevents anyone among the down-trodden from ever considering any cause but personal failure for their troubles, and because that would cause one to be a "loser", that isn't allowed either. so instead they generate fantastical bogymen for their troubles. Meanwhile, the true bogymen - their capitalist bosses cannot be blamed, because they are, by definition "winners".
But no, Obama isn't sounding the least bit like Nader.
Thomas Paine and Jefferson himself wrote extensively about self-rule and our supposed responsibility to the principles of self-governance. We seem incapable of having that kind national conversation without running into the resistance of an activist press that pushes opinion and propaganda as if were newsworthy facts. Senator Obama seems to offer us an alternative to the bought and paid for crap that has passed for political discourse in this great nation. And yes, I'm one of those pissed off country bumpkins who is tired and frustrated at watching everything I love and care for reduced to a commodity that can be traded away by a system that offers allegiance to no one. Call me old-fashion, but I need to work and I like to earn my own way and over the last decade it has gotten harder and harder. I want change, now.
John Thomas Ellis
It's not WHAT Obama said, which is essentially true, but WHERE he said it. He made his speech at weathy enclaves in the Bay Area, in Atherton - where fixer-upper estates start at 10 mil and at a $2,300 per event at the San Francisco home of billionairs Ann and Gordon Getty. (He probably collected 3 mill from these appearances) He was "telling tales out of school" - talking about the hicks to the elites. Had he made this speech to people in rural PA, telling people he feels their economic pain, his numbers would have soared. This is a rookie gaffe. In these complex and dangerous times we especially need a president who understands the political nuances of speech, foreign and domestic - not someone who needs training wheels.