"But every time Obama expresses impatience with dealing with the Rev. Wright controversy he seems less stellar..."
But why should he have to? No one is calling Clinton out over and over again for claiming she created the health plan that fell through or any of her other half-truths.
It seems to me that Clinton is pretty darned good with gossip and small talk. I feel really let down by her.
Carmen D.
· 1 year ago
Ceecee, because what his "spiritual mentor" said was offensive to much of the American population black, white, brown and gold. It does not matter about what Clinton has to answer, as you know America is rife with double standards. Obama must tend to the problems of his candidacy. Clinton will have to tend to the problems of hers.
Grampa Caligula
· 1 year ago
It seems to me that the whole process is elitist - I doubt I would see Clinton or Obama standing in line at the local Wal-Mart. We as a society have a nack for exhalting public figures into notieriety simply because they are public figures.
I for one will be glad when this horse race is over and the Democrats are able to flesh out which of these elistist politicians will pretend to care about the common man in this year's election. I'd cast my vote toward Obama, but he's been on the 'Bash Nader' bandwagon along with Clinton. And I'm not sure another 4-8 years of Clinton (I remember the ineptness of Rawanda) would be much better. Might feel better, but wouldn't actually be better.
Chi Chi
· 1 year ago
Great observation. I agree, "America is rife with double standards...," and we know that blacks have to be twice as good to make it. Obama is not living up to his great potential right now and if he hasn't the strength to stand against Hilary with pose and dignity, then he shouldn't be nominated. I want the first black President to be great, which means that person must almost be super human. Not only must he/she know the world politics, the country's economics, but he must be insightful and brilliant. Yes, I must ask more of that person than I do any other politician!
Andre
· 1 year ago
You know Carm, this post was probably the most honest and relevant critique of Obama's run to date. Being a supporter of Obama's camp doesn't just mean being critical of every Clinton/McCain antic; it also means calling attention to the weak links in Barack's campaign. As much as I can appreciate Obama's class, dignity, and his recent insistence on killing the noise about Wright, his 'bitter' comments, elitism, etc., America -- in general -- is not responding the same way. For some, the issues raised about him are NOT resolved. For others, his class and dignity are not enough to tame those fires. For others still, the first they've ever HEARD about any of this comes from negative ads. Rather than Obama actually being practical by "sticking to the issues", some of this country -- honestly speaking -- need to have dumb and insignificant issues addressed that will speak to their dumb and insignificant hangups. It sounds counterintuitive in a nation ostensibly committed to being a world leader, but it's still reality. Many Americans simply ARE NOT enlightened.
Carm, you should consider being an Obama campaign advisor. I'm just sayin'...
Grampa Caligula
· 1 year ago
Personaly, I think that the 'bitter' comment was as close to the naked truth any politician has hever said. The full quote was -
"You go into 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."
"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."
There's nothing warm and fuzzy about that. I don't believe it's an elitist statement either. I believe that it's an accurate observation of a truth no one wants to see. We spend a lot of energy talking about how we need to come together instead of why we feel we're drifting apart as a nation. And unless we step up and say what we need to say (and be prepared to defend it and learn from it as necessary) then history will contine to repeat itself.
Andre
· 1 year ago
Grampa,
The entire problem with Obama's campaign up until now (and what I think Carmen addressed...if I read her correctly) was summed up in your statement, "I believe that it’s an accurate observation of a truth no one wants to see"
When Obama used a word like "bitter", no one associated the term simply with just being "upset". They did, however, quickly associate the term with 'animosity' and 'resentment'; tags that no one wants to be labeled with. That said, I stand by my original idea: I don't think people necessarily shy away from knowing the truth or that they don't want to see it. It's just that they're not enlightened enough to understand what he means. Even when some agents in the MSM made it a point to contextualize Obama's comments (as few instances of this as there were), people STILL don't get it. All they hear is the word "bitter", and stuff hits the fan. Simply put: rather than Obama being smart, subtle, and dismissive of silly aspects of this campaign, it may be more strategic for him to keep addressing these issues, continue to offer explanations, and dumbing things down any chance he gets.
Grampa Caligula
· 1 year ago
Andre -
I think that's the ultimate problem that I have with both Clinton and Obama (and the Democratic party in general). Since the public discussion is guided by press pundits, we're all left focusing on the headline-grabbing non-issues.
When Clinton decries Obama's quote as elitist, that to me exposes her as an elitist. And the knee-jerk press reaction tells me that McCain and Clinton both refuse to get any closer to poorer constiuents than 'I feel your pain - I talk to people all across the country who fell the same way. Vote for me!' I'd for once like to hear 'When I was a child, I grew up with that pain, and I know how real it still is. Lets do something as a community about it!'
Personally, I feel I can relate to someone who grew up poor and lifted themselves up without having to sell their soul in the process. I can also respect that its harder for a person of (any) color to do that.
I think that Rev. Wright's surmon clearly illustrates how upset and bitter people who feel disinfranchised can feel. I'd have a lot moe respect for Obama if he were to use that negative momentum and turn it into a real national discussion about who we are as a people, even if it cost him the nomimation.
It's not going to happen, of course . . .
(A bit of suggested reading - 'Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America' by Morris Fiorina and Samuel Abrams. It will definitely make you rethink how you monitor the campaign!)
ceecee
· 1 year ago
Hi Carmen, this is a comment someone made at J&JP and I really couldn't have said it any better. One reason why I feel like doing what he's doing now (ignoring these irrelevant questions) is for the best.
"Barack is caught in a bind. On the one hand, if he goes after Hillary, people will say he's being just another sexist male. On the other hand, if he continues to stick to the issues, play by the rules, remain "presidential," as they say, white women like Maureen Dowd from the phony liberal New York Times will call him a wimp. That's all what they SAY.
What's behind it is what the post on the field's blog say: white privilege-- this conscious or unconscious mental process that runs like a thread through their mind. Let's see..."I'm white; I'm more entitled than this skinny black guy. Moreover, I was First Lady when Bill, my white husband, was once president. Why shouldn't I be the next president?""
CeeCee, white privilege is a fact here in America. And? Are you suggesting that this is a surprise to the first serious black contender for the presidency of the United States? Black folks are 10% of the American population,if you want to be president you had better get many of the votes of that other 90%. Obama has to be better, smarter, stronger and more appealing to get a lion's share of those votes. That "woe is Obama" bind you refer to me feels uncomfortably close to "he's a victim".
He has to hit back smart and clear and humbly. And he cannot be dismissive of popular concerns.
ceecee
· 1 year ago
I don't really see it as a "woe is Obama" more like he knows what this people are up to and he's trying to stay focused on the prize.
Grampa Caligula
· 1 year ago
Carmen - If Obama is the kind of guy who can hit back 'smart and clear and humbly' as you would like, then he will have my vote - that's the person I would like to see running the country. But, if he resorts to pundit retaliation tactics (as they all have in the past), then he really is equal to the other candidtates in the sense that he's no better. For once, I really would like to vote for the best candidate, not the lesser of two evils.
Think I'll write in Nader (since the Democrats make voting for him next to impossible), since I'm voting with my conscience.
All Comments
But why should he have to? No one is calling Clinton out over and over again for claiming she created the health plan that fell through or any of her other half-truths.
It seems to me that Clinton is pretty darned good with gossip and small talk. I feel really let down by her.
I for one will be glad when this horse race is over and the Democrats are able to flesh out which of these elistist politicians will pretend to care about the common man in this year's election. I'd cast my vote toward Obama, but he's been on the 'Bash Nader' bandwagon along with Clinton. And I'm not sure another 4-8 years of Clinton (I remember the ineptness of Rawanda) would be much better. Might feel better, but wouldn't actually be better.
Carm, you should consider being an Obama campaign advisor. I'm just sayin'...
"You go into 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."
"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."
There's nothing warm and fuzzy about that. I don't believe it's an elitist statement either. I believe that it's an accurate observation of a truth no one wants to see. We spend a lot of energy talking about how we need to come together instead of why we feel we're drifting apart as a nation. And unless we step up and say what we need to say (and be prepared to defend it and learn from it as necessary) then history will contine to repeat itself.
The entire problem with Obama's campaign up until now (and what I think Carmen addressed...if I read her correctly) was summed up in your statement, "I believe that it’s an accurate observation of a truth no one wants to see"
When Obama used a word like "bitter", no one associated the term simply with just being "upset". They did, however, quickly associate the term with 'animosity' and 'resentment'; tags that no one wants to be labeled with. That said, I stand by my original idea: I don't think people necessarily shy away from knowing the truth or that they don't want to see it. It's just that they're not enlightened enough to understand what he means. Even when some agents in the MSM made it a point to contextualize Obama's comments (as few instances of this as there were), people STILL don't get it. All they hear is the word "bitter", and stuff hits the fan. Simply put: rather than Obama being smart, subtle, and dismissive of silly aspects of this campaign, it may be more strategic for him to keep addressing these issues, continue to offer explanations, and dumbing things down any chance he gets.
I think that's the ultimate problem that I have with both Clinton and Obama (and the Democratic party in general). Since the public discussion is guided by press pundits, we're all left focusing on the headline-grabbing non-issues.
When Clinton decries Obama's quote as elitist, that to me exposes her as an elitist. And the knee-jerk press reaction tells me that McCain and Clinton both refuse to get any closer to poorer constiuents than 'I feel your pain - I talk to people all across the country who fell the same way. Vote for me!' I'd for once like to hear 'When I was a child, I grew up with that pain, and I know how real it still is. Lets do something as a community about it!'
Personally, I feel I can relate to someone who grew up poor and lifted themselves up without having to sell their soul in the process. I can also respect that its harder for a person of (any) color to do that.
I think that Rev. Wright's surmon clearly illustrates how upset and bitter people who feel disinfranchised can feel. I'd have a lot moe respect for Obama if he were to use that negative momentum and turn it into a real national discussion about who we are as a people, even if it cost him the nomimation.
It's not going to happen, of course . . .
(A bit of suggested reading - 'Culture War? The Myth of a Polarized America' by Morris Fiorina and Samuel Abrams. It will definitely make you rethink how you monitor the campaign!)
"Barack is caught in a bind. On the one hand, if he goes after Hillary, people will say he's being just another sexist male. On the other hand, if he continues to stick to the issues, play by the rules, remain "presidential," as they say, white women like Maureen Dowd from the phony liberal New York Times will call him a wimp. That's all what they SAY.
What's behind it is what the post on the field's blog say: white privilege-- this conscious or unconscious mental process that runs like a thread through their mind. Let's see..."I'm white; I'm more entitled than this skinny black guy. Moreover, I was First Lady when Bill, my white husband, was once president. Why shouldn't I be the next president?""
---a comment from http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2008/04/this...
He has to hit back smart and clear and humbly. And he cannot be dismissive of popular concerns.
If Obama is the kind of guy who can hit back 'smart and clear and humbly' as you would like, then he will have my vote - that's the person I would like to see running the country. But, if he resorts to pundit retaliation tactics (as they all have in the past), then he really is equal to the other candidtates in the sense that he's no better. For once, I really would like to vote for the best candidate, not the lesser of two evils.
Think I'll write in Nader (since the Democrats make voting for him next to impossible), since I'm voting with my conscience.