Obama: “McCain is saying I'm out of touch?”
So Hillary Clinton and John McCain attack Obama for saying folks are angry and bitter in Pennsylvania. But Obama's response was spot-on:
“...[F]or 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we’re going to make your community better. We’re going to make it right and nothing ever happens.He's right. Not only that -- he called it the way he saw it, speaking from the heart. And/But he'll pay a price for saying it. But there it is.And of course they’re bitter. 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 happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you.
[Applause]
And so people end up -- they don’t vote on economic issues because they don’t expect anybody’s going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don’t believe they can count on Washington.
So I made this statement-- so, here’s what rich. Senator Clinton says ‘No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack’s being condescending.’ John McCain says, ‘Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he’s obviously out of touch with people.’
“Out of touch? Out of touch? [Laughter, applause] 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?
[Applause]
Senator 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?
[Applause]
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. People are fed-up.
[Standing O]
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. [Cheering]”
"And/But he'll pay a price for saying it."
You know where he'll pay a price? With rich, pampered media gasbags who have the cluelessness and the chutzpa to think they can speak for regular Americans, that's where.
I hear you, but here's an interesting thing I noticed just now: I found this video clip on the Obama site where it had already been viewed 200 thousand times.
Clearly, Obama's supporters are watching it, passing it around and posting it on blogs etc.
What this means is that he has "catapulted" his message over the heads of the gasbags quite effectively, thankyouverymuch.
So Hillary Clinton and John McCain attack Obama for saying folks are angry and bitter in Pennsylvania.
You may not have seen what this was originally about. Clinton actually said "The people of faith I know don't 'cling to' religion because they're bitter." That's a far cry from Obama's summarization of her remarks, which was "No, I don’t think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania."
Also, Obama did not mention here what she was responding to about his San Francisco remarks. He said, "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." He wasn't just saying that they were bitter. He was saying that their bitterness went along with clinging to guns and religion. I think that was what upset people.
Sorry, I just noticed you had a post with the more complete quote by Obama, which you have as "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."
I have to admit though that I don't understand why you see this as substantively different. Isn't he saying that the disappointments of the last 25 years have led to (1) bitterness, (2) clinging to guns, (3) clinging to religion, etc? (I am not trying to be a partisan asshole, by the way. I am actually wondering.)
If I may, his point is that people are voting against their economic and political self-interests because the right is speaking to these cultural hot buttons and people don't think it matters who they vote for relative to the primary matters because, in the voters' experience, all politicians represent the entrenched interests and it is expected that they will all screw the voters there, in the end (so to speak).
I'm not saying that he is correct. I've come to believe that there are complex reasons why lower middle-class people choose politicians who speak to real anti-government gun-love and homosexual, gender-equality, people of color antipathy, even if those typically right-wing politicians don't give a rat's ass about those issues other than as tools to manipulate those same lower middle-class voters.
Bobvis:
I think that voters will usually vote for the candidate they perceive is speaking from the heart. Obama used the word "cling" in a grating way, and I believe it was a poor choice (and apparently so does he). However, I think voters perceive him as a genuine person, one who speaks from the heart in a clear and direct and compelling way.
I think they view McCain/Clinton differently and that's reflected in the difficulties they have had during their voting and fundraising campaigns.
It has been interesting watching Obama on the campaign trail since this story broke because I think his message has gotten stronger not weaker. It was virtually the same with the Rev. Wright affair.
What this says to me is that Obama is a very quick study -- something that further reinforces his contention that judgment is more important than experience in a political leader.