Look, this Obama guy is nothing more than a Humanist. Which means elitist, condescending superior to the masses. He is made in the image of the hedonist Marxist that lies at the base of all things "liberal" and "progressive." I'll keep blowing this horn until someone with a position of influence - say, like ROD DREHER!!! - starts to study and write on this. The Humanist Manifesto and all that has transpired scince the assault on morality and normality (begun in our education system) that this extremely evil belief system has wrought upon our land, is present in the mouth and heart of people like Obama and the metroites of big city America. We are watching the mouthpiece of Molech atempting to become our all-knowing and all-influencing ruler of America, not just president. READ the Humanist Manifesto and the belief system it spawned. From Darwinism to Globalism, to the redefining of family, it is laid out plainly.

Posted by: The Apostles were conservative Christians | April 13, 2008 8:29 AM

It was a poorly articulated thought, like McCain saying we'd be in Iraq for a 100 more years. There is a truth under both comments, but they sound much worse when played over and over on the 24-hour channels. There are going to be many more incidents like this during the campaign and the question is whether they shape the race--like Bush's father marveling at grocery scanners or Dukakis in that tank--or not--like Reagan talking about "state's rights" to white audiences in the South.

Ultimately, what Obama said was true. It's just the kind of truth you don't articulate while running for president.

Posted by: Daniel | April 13, 2008 9:01 AM

Obama needs to read about Jacksonians:

denbeste.nu/external/Mead01.html

A brief perusal of Webb's "Born Fighting" and "A Country Such as This" might also be in order.

Obama may well be right about the causes of the resentment (i.e., globalization's erosion of American jobs); but I suspect the xenophobia, pro-gun sentiment, & religiosity have a much older pedigree.

Posted by: MI | April 13, 2008 9:22 AM

"God, guns and patriotism: the opiates of the redneck masses. Barack Obama said so."

Well, yes. And just because Barack Obama said it doesn't make it any less so.

Posted by: JLF | April 13, 2008 9:26 AM

Obama surely worded this in a very clumsy way but I think he's either brave or nuts for saying what a lot of people think. First, the bitter part. I grew up and live in the rust belt, just outside of Bethlehem,PA which has got to be as rusty as you can get. Lots of people here feel as though they have lost out. They sacrificed, especially during WW2 to make the country great. Now, everything has moved overseas or to the sunbelt, or even worse Silicon Valley. This runs counter to the Republican narrative (may I use Kudlow as an example) that the rising tide has lifted every boat. Politicians dont even generally address economic issues with these people anymore.

The road to gaining votes from these people has become morals and lifestyles issues. We will make sure you keep your guns. We will get prayer back in the schools. You dont have any Hispanics in your area yet but we will pass laws to keep them away. Promises, not so incidentally, made by rich, elitist, business first Republicans which are mostly never fulfilled. Unless I have totally misread many of the posts here it certainly seems as though many people are unhappy with the lip service given to these non-economic issues while what happens is our debt grows while the stock market grows, but the benefit goes almost exclusively to a few at the top.

So for me the tough part here is what does Obama have to offer people in the rustbelt to improve their economic lot? Is he nuts to even think jobs can come back to these areas? Should he follow the accepted political line and concentrate on non-economic issues like health care or education? Why do we just write these areas off?

I think these are actually topics worth addressing. Instead, we will have endless accusations of elitism towards the guy who has a net worth less than 10% of that of the other candidates. They all went to elite colleges. Any politician bright enough to run for major political office is probably going to be economically successful. Get over it.

Steve

Posted by: Steve | April 13, 2008 9:40 AM

Steve, if you have a moment, drop me a line at jimsim42 at yahoo dot com with respect to these rustbelt and other issues.

Thanks,

Jim

Posted by: Jim Simmons | April 13, 2008 9:49 AM

Okay, Duncan. But you've got to tell Jeff Foxworthy that he's out of a job.

Posted by: JLF | April 13, 2008 9:55 AM

There may be some confirmation bias and narrative fallacy involved in this observation but, in the last half century at least, the presumptive nominee of the party opposing that of a lame-duck two-term president has a HUGE lead over the presumptive nominee of the president's party at this point in the election cycle. The pattern has been for the nominee of the president's party to rally significantly once the general election begins and the president's party begins to "define" the nominee of the other party. Obama is essentially tied with McCain right now. This suggests that Obama may turn out to be a very weak candidate in the general election.

Posted by: pyrrho | April 13, 2008 10:02 AM

JLF,

If bigotry against people with working-class and/or Scots-Irish and/or Southern backgrounds were off-limits the same way most other forms of bigotry are, Jeff Foxworthy *would* be out of work, as he *ought* to be.

Posted by: Duncan MacIntyre | April 13, 2008 10:03 AM

Hey, Duncan. You've nailed me: working-class, Scots-Irish and Southern. And ole Jeff doesn't bother me - and the other rednecks I know - one little bit. (Who do you think make up 99.99% of his audience?) If you're worried about political correctness, you've first got to get over your fine self.

Posted by: JLF | April 13, 2008 10:25 AM

This just shows that blacks can hold stereotypical ideas about people that they neither know nor understand - just like everyone else. Sadly though, it highlights his ignorance.

Posted by: barbara | April 13, 2008 10:38 AM

Not on registering on my radar I'm afraid - I found this from the NYTimes far more salient in terms of what is one to make of professional manglings of the English language (and a fine example of the opinion writer's craft, cutting to the chase with a clinically sharp tongue that none of our three "moonlighting" senator-candidates could emulate if they threw the entire weight of their three campaign teams behind it from now until the elections):

"Petraeus commits a different assault on the listener. And on the language."

Posted by: Clare Krishan | April 13, 2008 10:57 AM

The prejudice I see in Mr. Obama's comments---and those of his wife-- seems to me to be just as much based on class as on race. Consider this: the Senator and his wife have a combined income of probably $ 500,000 + per year. They work in environments where they almost certainly NEVER come into contact with commoners of any race. I'll even wager large money at long odds that their staffers would qualify as elites (certainly their preacher does !). Mrs. Obama makes a point of complaining regularly about the difficulties she has over paying for her children's dance and extra-curricular activity lessons. Both of them have professional-level educations, which the average American commoner does not. I'll also assume that their non-work environments do not include many people who receive an hourly wage or a lower-level salaried income, or anyone who works with their hands instead of with abstract symbols.

That having been said, it's actually pretty easy to come to two conclusions about the Senator and his wife.

Conclusion # 1: They honestly don't understand the actual material situations faced by the average American commoner. Either they've drifted (or been impelled to be) a long ways away from the circumstances under which they grew up, or they've consciously forgotten tem.

Conclusion # 2: They see the average American as an abstraction to be manipulated and "guided" (for their own good, of course) by those of superior wisdom and knowledge---that is to say, themselves. (Can you say "Messiah complex" ? Sure, I knew you could.....)

This leads to a third conclusion: these people should be kept out of the White House at almost any cost. Even Hillary Clinton, Christ and His Saints help me, would be better than these people. The Clintons are merely venal jobbers and deal-makers. The Obamas in the White House would be downright dangerous.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Posted by: Lord Karth | April 13, 2008 11:43 AM

"Obama is a real life died in the wool Sodomite."

- Apart from the fact that legally, sodomy is either anal OR oral copulation (which means that 90%+ of all Americans are "sodomites" - which is clearly not Donny's meaning), and

- Apart from the fact that Biblically, the "sin of Sodom" was inhospitality (per Ezekiel) not homosexuality, and

- Apart from the fact that in America, it is not illegal to falsify the news,

clearly calling someone gay (Donny's true meaning) is still the worst slur one can charge another with in America. Worse, apparently than being a rapist, a murderer, a child molester, a wife beater (all of whom, let's not forget, can marry so long as they're 'heterosexual).

But for anyone with eyes to see, Mr. Obama is not gay (a "sodomite").

Apparently, bearing false witness is still okay with someone who calls himself a "Christian" which I find rather odd, considering it's 1 of the Big 10.

"These people want to rule our lives, take our children and use them in whatever sick and perverted way they desire."

Sorry, Donny, but the people who do that are by and large still RCC priests.

And how do I know that "The Apostles were conservative Christians" = "Donny"?

Easy. Phrases like "sick and twisted elitists drooling", "died [sic - 'dyed', shurely!] in the wool sodomite", "Leftist Elites", "the immorality of the Leftist", "anti-Christ", and lies like "Parents have no rights over their own children". Why, the only thing missing from the usual list were "Sons of Molech" and "Satan's minions".

Ah, compassionate Conservatism at its best. No wonder the 'right' isn't believed/trusted any more.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | April 13, 2008 11:50 AM

Well--I live in the midwest, and the people who live in post-industrial small towns are turning to meth more than they are to God. I guess Daniel can rest easy.

Posted by: Don Altabello | April 13, 2008 12:07 PM

Don @ 11:45 AM:

My business regularly puts me in contact with the kind of people you describe (in Northern and Central NY) , and one of the more common comments I hear about Obama is that he "has no clue what it's like for the working man", or a variation thereof. I mention the Chicago-law-professor-turned-Senator and Princeton-grad-wife aspect and they almost always say they're not surprised to hear that.

Your servant,

Lord Karth

Posted by: Lord Karth | April 13, 2008 12:22 PM

Has anyone here watched the clips of what Obama has said on this topic SINCE the first little breaking of this story days ago? I don't think Rod Dreher at least is being responsible or sincere by addressing this issue without covering the entire body of comments that Obama has said on this. When people in a sense "give up" on there being much hope via government for any meaningful changes to happen, when decades pass and nothing in their communities or economies seem to get much better, they begin to detach from it, take interest in their gun rights that they want to keep if the rest of the world finishes going to heck, take refuge in religion as a comfort and sense of perspective for all the problems, and so on. Obama was too honest for saying what he said, even though it was not coming from his "elitism" but as an actual reflection of what the frustrated citizens have themselves often expressed to him. But he does recognize that any frustration or bitterness people may have with government and its failures is also combined right now with a strong HOPE, that we will find someone as president who actually cares to be in touch with what real people, the majority of us in this country who are struggling and who aren't hand in glove and in love with our government, actually live.

Posted by: | April 13, 2008 12:56 PM

I grew up in a small town in the West Virginia mountains (pop 2000) and
Obama is right. Very few of my classmates are still living there, because
there are no jobs - the lumber mill closed a long time ago, and coal mining
is dangerous, dirty, and not hiring like it once was. There is a reason the military is largely composed of young people from Appalachia, and the rural South, and the rust belt, as they can find no jobs at home and hope to earn money for college or learn useful trade skills. And those who leave usually don't return, again because their are no jobs. Meantime alcohol and drug abuse - including
meth and oxycontin - is epidemic among those who stay. ("We howl at the
moon and shoot out the light; Small town Saturday night")

I will probably return to WV when I retire, and there are certainly
advantages to life in small town America, but economic opportunity
is generally not one of them.

Posted by: sis2lis | April 13, 2008 1:00 PM

It's funny how the Obama zealots immediately started blaming Clinton for it, for having the gall to mention it, as if the Republicans hadn't seen it and she was just giving them ammo. Puh-leeze. It's a much softer punch when her people go after him for it, lemme tell you. She's doing him a huge favor acting as a buffer for the brutal attacks he'd be getting from the Republicans. Not that Hannity and friends are holding back anyway, Clinton or not. Like Bill said, everybody chill out.

Posted by: Phil | April 13, 2008 1:18 PM

If you haven't yet, make sure you read what comes before this quote. Gives it a little different context. Andrew has it up at the Dish

Posted by: Nicole | April 13, 2008 2:00 PM

There is so much to say about this thread.

First, let me say upfront that Obama put his foot in his mouth. But it is pretty clear to me that he was talking about guns and God in a political context. He means that people have grown so disillusioned that they no longer believe that politics affects them, outside of cultural concerns. Reasonable people can disagree with that point, but we should at least acknowledge what Obama meant.

Second, it appears that many people do not want to wrestle with what Obama meant. Rather they want him to say something ELITIST so that they can neatly place him in a LIBERAL ELITIST box. Whatever you feel about his politics, this man may still be President of the United States. As citizens it is our duty to examine his political philosophy in an honest way. Likewise, Democrats ought to give John McCain a fair hearing, rather than take his "100 years" comment out of context.

Third, some commenters on this board have said that Obama is out of touch with lower income folks because he and his wife earn a high income and both work in fairly insulated professions. It seems to me that this is true of every single U.S. Senator and state governor. So yes, given his profession Barack Obama does not work with working class folks on a daily basis. Neither does John McCain. Neither does any plausible presidential candidate. The real question is, What did a given candidate do before political office? Before his political career, Barack Obama worked as a community organizer in Chicago. He understands the economic conditions of poor Americans. To say otherwise is a lie.

Posted by: Joe Bailey | April 13, 2008 2:37 PM

Hillary making the most of Barack's faux pas:

media.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2008/04/13/PH2008041301354.jpg

(Great picture!!) :^)

Whole article:

blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/04/13/sat_night_with_clinton_a_beer.html

(Note: No "www" for either link.)

Yes, Hillary, there is a Santa Claus. And he delivers gifts in April, too!

Posted by: Eric W | April 13, 2008 2:57 PM

We need a Populist party in the US.

A true and important point.

This being politics, Obama will pay a big price for his ineptitude in how he phrased this. Anything that can be used to make a Democrat look elitist will be used against them. Why not, since it works. I am puzzled about why it works so well. Maybe someone who always votes for Republicans can explain why it is ok for a Republican candidate to be rich and Ivy league educated but not for a Democrat. Both sides claim to represent the interests of the middle class but neither party has candidates who live that way.

Another true and even more important point.

Posted by: Russell Arben Fox | April 13, 2008 3:23 PM

"Ultimately, what Obama said was true."

I'm seeing a lot of this on the Dem blogs. And they wonder why they've won five whole presidential elections since 1948. And no majorities since 1976.

What Obama said is high octane Marxism, and I don't use that term either lightly or often. "False consciousness" cant, pure and simple. All I can say is that if this is an article of political faith, start putting in your orders for "1-20-13" bumperstickers. You're going to need them.

Posted by: Heather Price | April 13, 2008 5:01 PM

Er, that was me.

The perils of a shared computer.

Posted by: Dale Price | April 13, 2008 5:03 PM

I am from Appalachia and I can say the following, from personal experience:

1. People do get hysterical about gun rights. I have no problem with guns for hunting or even self-defense--I own about five or six rifles and handguns myself. However, I can sense a change. Thiry years ago, guns were there, a part of life. People stood up for Second Amendment rights, but it wasn't an end-all, be-all thing. These days, though, the pro-gun rhetoric is often paranoid, hostile, and--well, to give you an example, I have heard conspiracy theories from otherwise intelligent people to the effect that Obama is in cahoots with the U.N. to activate a secret plan to disarm all Americans. There are people I know for whom a candidate's stance on guns (which must be absolutely pro, no restrictions at all) is the make or break issue for getting their vote. So, yes, I think that when people are beaten down, embittered, and anzious, they sometimes infuse legitimate rights with outsized and unbalanced significance.

2. Fears about immigration or outsourcing are one thing--the outright and ugly racism that is all too often intimately connected with them is another. I remember a few years ago I was in a small gas station/food mart waiting in line behind a young mother who was obviously Hispanic. She was trying to ask the clerk a question, and struggling with the language. The clerk didn't say anything negative, but I could feel the contempt oozing off of her. After the Hispanic woman left with her child, I stepped up to the counter, and out of the blue the clerk said to me, a total stranger, "They oughta send them all back." I was so stunned I was speechless; I regret not having told her off. To those on this thread who are of Irish descent (as am I), remember--in the 1840's it was our ancestors who were taking the jobs of good, upstanding Americans, not speaking proper English, who were perverting our culture (becuase, shock! they were Papists!), and who needed to be sent back. If society at large had succeeded in doing to our ancestors what many wish to do to the Hispanics, we wouldn't be here. I might point out one key differnce--Hispanics actually were in many parts of the U.S. before the Anglos were. Not only that, but they got in the United States to begin with because of a war of aggression on our part that, I might mention, was opposed by the greatest Republican president-to-be, Abraham Lincoln. Not that we shouldn't control our border, but these are facts that many people forget, or don't know to begin with.

3. People naturally go to religion to deal with hard times. That is natural and laudable, and indeed something that many on the Left do not understand. However, the type of religion that appeals to the downtrodden is often very ugly. Think of Father Coughlin in the Depression, or the nativist, neo-Imperialist groups in Russia today, many of which are fiercely Orthodox. For that matter, speaking of my own region, it is no coincidence that the Klan was always strongest in the greatest bastions of a certain type of fundamentalist, intolerant form of Christianity. In my native area there are many otherwise decent people who think that the Catholic Church is the great beast and that as a member I am damned to Hell. I remember a few years ago when an acquaintance came to the Easter Vigil Mass at my church. To me, the Easter Vigil is the greatest, holiest, and most beatiful moment of the liturgical year. The whole time, however, the expression on my acquaintance's face was one that could be described only as outright fear. I later learned that he came at the request of a friend of his, and that the church he attends preaches Catholicism-as-tool-of-the-Great-Beast style dogma. Hisorically, it was only 150 years ago that Catholic churches were burned in many Southern cities by the Know-Nothings. After observing the guy at the Easter Vigil, I think that under the right circumstances, it could happen again. Anyone from the South out there should know what I'm talking about.

Now, let me point out two more things:

1. I do think that Obama did have an enormous foot-in-the-mouth moment, and it may hurt him. However, note some good points here: http://www.salon.com/opinion/walsh/?last_story=/opinion/walsh/election_2008/2008/04/11/pavoters/

2. I do think the Left is often clueless about small town, "red state" life, if you will, and often is patronizing and snobbish toward the same.

Having said which, I agree completely with Steve about how the Right has manipulated moral and social issues to get votes from rural areas, while lifting not a finger to help them and that we need to discuss these issue rather than worrying about who sounds elitist or condescending.

There is a great line in the movie Gladiator where the Derek Jacobi character (a reform-minded Roman senator named Gracchus) is talking to another at the gladiatorial games. The other senator mocks Gracchus's attendance at the sport of the unruly masses. Gracchus replies, "I don't claim to be of the people, but I am for them." I would rather have the biggest snob on earth in office if I thought he or she would actually do things to help our country, especially the rural and rust-belt areas, than the most "down-to-earth" type in the world who talks the talk and then does nothing. Millionaire Republican presidents such as Reagan and the current one have done plenty of shucks-I'm-just-plain-folks posturing, while pursing policies that have devastated rural America. So, can we please get the condescending-Leftist-elitist-snob stuff off the table and see what (if anything) the candidates of either party are actually going to do?

And I agree with John E. and Russell that we need a populist party--or heck, any kind of viable third-party movement--in this country.

Posted by: Turmarion | April 13, 2008 5:17 PM

Duncan- Thanks. I come from a family that always voted Republican and I did the same until relatively recently. I can see how you would feel that way. I guess I have just come to feel that Republicans are prevaricating about their stands on the moral issues to get votes.

I think the Democrats are a bit more complicated. I think they are usually aiming more towards urban issues and have only passing interest in the rural economy. In this light, I am relatively unconcerned about an ex-Chicago law professor being seen as elitist. I think its just one of those things Dems are susceptible to like Republicans being susceptible to cries of racism even when they arent being racist. I will be more bothered if it becomes clear that Obama has no intention of addressing the economic woes of the rustbelt.

Steve

Posted by: Steve | April 13, 2008 5:34 PM

Many of the comments here miss the point, I think. This incident in San Francisco is not only about Obama's view of small-town voters. It's says much more about his approach to people in GENERAL. And I think that point is being missed.

Are people subjects or objects to this man? How does the anthropologist mindset -- one he inherited from his anthropology PhD mother -- affect his approach to people. Are we all statistics to him -- interesting objects in a coolly-detached lifelong excursion among the 'natives" ?

When he spoke of "typical white people" in a radio interview some weeks ago, we got a glimpse of this. The incident in San Francisco rankles for its condescension as well.

Some have posted here on previous threads that perhaps Obama has not been sincere about his Christianity. That his joining TUCC/Wright was a good career move for a wannabe politician in the south side of Chicago. Especially for one raised on the wrong side of the tracks (the "white side") who desired to establish his "street cred." Of course, we can't be sure of any of this. And one hesitates to question anyone's profession of faith. Still, it is a nagging doubt.

Perhaps more troubling than Obama's condescension to small-town folks is the thought that he's been taking all these Chicago folks "for a ride" all these years. That, at heart, he's no more black than his distant relative Dick Cheney and no more Christian than Christopher Hitchens. I mean the above not as a statement of belief. Merely as an admission of doubt about a man we know so little about.

Posted by: Reaganite in NYC | April 13, 2008 6:44 PM

As a resident of a small town in southern New Jersey I find Mr. Obama's posture an affront. He spoke in the midst of the urban wealthy (it cost over $2000 to get in to the affair) and reflected their contempt and prejudices. He's just like all the other politicians: he will say what ever it takes to please the audience and when he's called to task for it serve up bovine scatology in an effort to explain away what he said.

Posted by: Piney | April 13, 2008 7:06 PM

Steve,

Thanks for the reply. Something additional to bear in mind here is that rural voters' "bitterness" toward Democrats comes from a justifiable sense that they have been *betrayed* by Democrats.

My grandparent's generation in the rural South voted in droves for every Democratic president from Franklin Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson, including the one Democratic presidential candidate who lost during that time frame -- Adlai Stevenson, who, not coincidentally, is the previous candidate Obama resembles the most.

These are people who either fought or were mobilized as civilians during World War II, whose children fought in Vietnam, and who, while they were by no means activist during the civil rights era, nonetheless accepted the changes that were brought about by the civil rights campaign, and made an effort to do the right thing when desegregation came.

So consider their surprise, consider their dismay, when all of a sudden in the 1970's they were told by the Democratic party that they had kept afloat for the past 40 years that they were no longer needed, and in any event no longer wanted -- knuckling-dragging troglodytes, they.

Consider also their dismay when -- despite the fact that they have produced from among themselves the only Democrats elected president in more than 40 years -- they are chided and chided again for not voting for the candidates chosen for them an elite of the Democratic Party made up mostly of people whose families were *Republican* back in the day, the last time the Democratic Party was worth a hill of beans in terms of positive impact on average peoples' lives.

I don't mean the part about being *Republican* back in the day as a personal jibe toward you.

It's honestly not intended to be, but it does speak to the frustration that many people feel about the way that the Democratic Party and its history have been distorted, especially in the last 8 years.

My guess is that if elected Barack Obama will do jack-crap for rustbelt industrial workers like the ones in Pennsylvania that he's condescended to.

Just as Southerners and rural Midwesterners were kicked to the curb by the Democratic Party after 1968, rustbelt industrial workers will likewise be kicked to the curb once the left-wing of the Democratic Party figures out a way to do so, while still holding onto its shot at the presidency.

It may not happen this time around. But just you wait.

Posted by: Duncan MacIntyre | April 13, 2008 7:35 PM

er, everyone else... whoops

Posted by: Mike | April 13, 2008 8:17 PM

Turmarion, especially, made a cogent response here. Also I appreciate Steve, Daniel and ex-pentecostal's posts.
Please read "Deer Hunting With Jesus" by Joe Bageant. (I am a Southerner, born in 1963, and a Catholic. Bageant is an older, rural Virginia native who is no longer Christian. With a "screw-it" attitude toward politacl correctness and empathy for the real circumstances of southern whites, he'll manage to offend one and all- while, I believe, nailing the subject that has gotten Obama in so much trouble.)
And, Duncan MacIntyre, I'm sorry... but there are plenty of us white southerners who didn't feel so "chided again for not voting for the candidates chosen for them" when we watched, say, Jesse Helms' 'white hands' political ad during the Helms-Hunt NC Senate race.

Posted by: SusanF | April 13, 2008 8:45 PM

It is very clear that his remarks were inappropriate and could have been said a different way. My question is has this ever happen to anyone before?

Posted by: LA | April 13, 2008 9:08 PM

If Obama is truly "the most truthful and trusted candidate of all," then none of the candidates deserves a single vote, let alone the nomination.

Posted by: | April 13, 2008 9:20 PM

FYI: Obama on Charlie Rose,Nov 2004:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M

Posted by: ChuckDFW | April 13, 2008 9:32 PM

Zoetius,

That's a nice try ... but it won't work. Obama's speech in San Francisco was nothing more than his attempt to regale the rich slicksters with urban myths about the so-called rubes in the sticks.

The Obama hype is crumbling. The act worked fine when he was reading off the teleprompter. But the charade falls apart when he speaks unscripted.

The joke has been on all us chumps who thought Obama was something special.

Posted by: Reaganite in NYC | April 13, 2008 9:48 PM

I meditate on the last, oh, 25 election cycles, and find it noteworthy that about 75% in the primaries and 50% in the generals -- of the estimated all eligible voters -- do not show up at the polls to vote.

This cycle, that trend seems to have been defenestrated.

I speculate that many of that 50% will decide to come out and vote, and that some significant proportion of them stayed away in the past because -- Gasp! -- they were bitterly [fill-in-the-blank] about politics in general and politicians in specific. I speculate that way because, for them, Sen. Obama told the truth, the naked truth, and the unambiguous truth.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | April 13, 2008 9:53 PM

Mr Ex-pentecostal,

Sodom and San Francisco and Leftist/Progressive/Democrat Liberal morality are eerily similar. The view of sanfranciscoites/Leftist Elites are inhospitable to those that will not share their "values." Sodomy is of course not "just" sick sexual perversions.

Behold, this was the guilt of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride, surfeit of food, and prosperous ease, but did not aid the poor and needy. They were haughty, and did abominable things before Me; therefore I removed them when I saw it.
--Ezek. 16:49-50

"Pride?" That word ring a bell?

Jewish views
Classical Jewish texts do not stress the homosexual aspect of the attitude of the inhabitants of Sodom as much as their cruelty and lack of hospitality to the "stranger." (See Jewish Encyclopedia on the importance of hospitality.) The people of Sodom were seen as guilty of many other significant sins. Rabbinic writings affirm that the Sodomites also committed economic crimes, blasphemy and bloodshed[1]. One of the worst was to give money or even gold ingots to beggars, but to inscribe their names on them, and then subsequently refuse to sell them food. The unfortunate stranger would end up starving and after his death, the people who gave him the money would reclaim it.

A rabbinic tradition, described in the Mishnah, postulates that the sin of Sodom was related to property: Sodomites believed that "what is mine is mine, and what is yours is yours" (Abot), which is interpreted as a lack of compassion. Another rabbinic tradition is that these two wealthy cities treated visitors in a sadistic fashion. One major crime done to strangers was almost identical to that of Procrustes in Greek mythology. This would be the story of the "bed" that guests to Sodom were forced to sleep in: if they were too short they were stretched to fit it, and if they were too tall, they were cut up.

In another incident, Eliezer, Abraham's servant, went to visit Lot in Sodom and got in a dispute with a Sodomite over a beggar, and was hit in the forehead with a stone, making him bleed. The Sodomite demanded Eliezer pay him for the service of bloodletting, and a Sodomite judge sided with the Sodomite. Eliezer then struck the judge in the forehead with a stone and asked the judge to pay the Sodomite.

The Talmud and the book of Jasher also recount two incidents of a young girl (one involved a daughter of Lot, named Paltith) who gave some bread to a poor man who had entered the city. When the townspeople discovered their acts of kindness, they burned Paltith and smeared the other girl's body with honey and hung her from the city wall until she was eaten by bees. (Sanhedrin 109a) It is this gruesome event (and her scream, in particular), the Talmud concludes, that are alluded to in the verse that heralds the city’s destruction: "So Hashem said, 'Because the outcry of Sodom and Gomorrah has become great, and because their sin has been very grave, I will descend and see...'" (Genesis 18:20-21).

The view of Josephus
Flavius Josephus, a Romano-Jewish historian, wrote something along the lines of:

Now, about this time the Sodomites, overwhelmingly proud of their numbers and the extent of their wealth, showed themselves insolent to men and impious to the divinity, insomuch that they no more remembered the benefits that they had received from him, hated foreigners and avoided any contact with others. Indignant at this conduct, God accordingly resolved to chastise them for their arrogance, and not only to uproot their city, but to blast their land so completely that it should yield neither plant nor fruit whatsoever from that time forward.

—Jewish Antiquities 1:194-195
and Josephus recounts that when angels came to Sodom to find good men they were instead greeted by rapists[1]:

And the angels came to the city of the Sodomites...when the Sodomites beheld the young men, who were outstanding in beauty of appearance and who had been received into Lots’s house, they set about to do violence and outrage to their youthful beauty....Therefore, God, indignant at their bold acts, struck them with blindness, so that they were unable to find the entrance into the house, and condemned the Sodomites to destruction of the whole population.

—Jewish Antiquities 1:199-202
He says how beautiful it was before everything was burned up, and how rich the towns were in the area. Josephus described what had happened:

Now this country is then so sadly burnt up, that nobody cares to come to it... It was of old a most happy land, both for the fruits it bore and the riches of its cities, although it be now all burnt up. It is related how for the impiety of its inhabitants, it was burnt by lightning; in consequence of which there are still the remainders of that divine fire; and the shadows of the five cities are still to be seen, as well as the ashes growing in their fruits, which fruits have a colour as if they were fit to be eaten: but if you pluck them with your hands, they will disolve into smoke and ashes

—The Wars of the Jews, book 4, chapter 8.

Posted by: The Apostles were conservative Christians | April 13, 2008 10:14 PM

This little brouhaha is yet another forestaste of what a disaster Barack Obama will be in the general election. Just wait till the public becomes broadly aware of his Weathermen ties....

But this sort of gaffe is inevitable for a candidate who draws his support from the sort of people who made What's the Matter With Kansas? a left wing bestseller. Ideologues of the progressive/Moveon.org stripe may not all be Marxists, but they share with Marxism the assumption that, fundamentally, only economic interests really matter. From that assumption, it's only natural to conclude that the non-economic values and concerns of working class people are only a mask for bitterness about job losses (the opiate of the masses), or perhaps the product of cynical manipulation by Karl Rove and the All Powerful Republican Attack Machine.

Of course, to anyone who doesn't share the underlying materialist assumption, this perspective is nonsensical gibberish. And unfortunately for the far Left, few Americans share the underlying assumption. Which is why left wing candidates never see the bus coming before it hits them.

Posted by: | April 13, 2008 10:30 PM

I wonder why people, people of faith at least, take it as any kind of insult when someone says they are "clinging to" their religion anyway. I cling to religion, I cling to GOD and I can admit it. Anyone who feels differently, that they are standing in life upon their OWN strength and don't NEED any God or religion, are going to find out very differently anyway the truth of their own weakness and nothingness. I would ask what are they so ashamed of, those who are so offended to be thought of as clinging to their God? For shame.

Posted by: | April 13, 2008 11:53 PM

Obama looks like a Humanist, sounds like a Humanist, talks about the masses like a marxist-Humanist and takes $2000 a plate from Humanists. Ever read what Humanists (the Humanist Manifesto) think about religion and those that follow it? Time to wake up folks. We ain't all simpletons out here in the sticks.

Posted by: The Apostles were conservative Christians | April 14, 2008 12:14 AM

"That's right. Jesus is a Republican, God is a Republican, and Satan was cast out of heaven because he switched parties."

What does this have to do with what you quoted? Surely you don't think Jesus was a humanist?

Posted by: Grigory | April 14, 2008 12:58 AM

"I think the chances of him being a humanist are about as good as the chances of him being a Republican, a conservative, or an American. Yet so many who post here have no trouble with branding Jesus as any of those three, or all three."

Funny - more often I hear liberals claiming Jesus as left-wing, although I have yet to hear anyone make a convincing case that Christ was pro-abortion or pro-homosexual.

Posted by: Grigory | April 14, 2008 1:21 AM

Hicks have always been a problem for democrats.

These comments though are a sympathetic attempt to understand the rampant homophobia taking place in a lot of these small towns. I applaud Obama for bringing the topic up, but as your reactions so succintly highlighted, it gives his opponents and any target.

Posted by: tg | April 14, 2008 5:39 AM

tg: Your description of what happened here is incorrect.

Obama didn't "bring the topic up."

No. What happened is that he was caught saying one thing to ONE group (wealthy donors at a San Francisco fundraiser) about ANOTHER group (small town folk). He spoke in a condescending way, and the audience derisively ate it up. He DIDN'T THINK ANYONE WAS WATCHING .... but lo and behold, somebody taped the event and now we all get to watch (including folks from small towns). And, now Obama has to explain himself ... and when he does all the kool-aid drinkers gasp in admiration and say, "Ooooh, ahhh, he's so eloquent, so Lincolnesque." Actually, he's Nixonian and Clintonian wrapped up in one hip little package.

This is part of a patttern. For 20 years he sat comfortably in the pews at TUCC, and collected "street cred." He listened to the "nutty uncle" and even gave him plenty of dought. And when the "nutty uncle" delivered all those nutty sermons, he didn't think anyone would ever notice. Well, he got uncovered, and then had to give a speech to explain himself, and his "amen corner" in the media all sang their hosannas about how terrific and brave and candid his speech about race was.

tg, are you getting the picture now? This will go on indefinitely. When some damaging tape or document surfaces that ties him to Rezko, he will undoubtedly gather up his speechwriters (including JFK's leftovers) and they'll hammer out a real beaut. He'll read it off the teleprompter. He'll wag his finger in the air (like Bill C.) and declare that "I did not have personal relations with that man" and then the media will praise him for his brave discussion of political corruption in America.

Posted by: Reaganite in NYC | April 14, 2008 8:18 AM

SusanF and Eleazer Williams,

Go back and read how I prefaced my initial reply to Steve. I stated there that I have rarely voted Republican and that I don't think Republicans have done a better job of addressing rural and working-class interests than Democrats have done.

It doesn't follow logically that the failure or success of Republicans in addressing rural and working-class interests to is in any way a mitigating circumstance in how we ought to view the failure or success of Democrats in doing the same.

The only advantage I can give the Republicans on this particular point is that, while there are doubtless many Republican elites behind closed doors who disdain rural and working-class voters just as much as many Democrats do, such crudely snobbish sentiments are not nearly so frequent a part of political discourse on the right as they are on the left.

Just as some Republicans send out "dog whistles" to those on the right who hold objectionable views on race, so too do many Democrats send out "dog whistles" to those on the left who hold objectionable views on *class.*

None of this seems debatable to me and I doubt that it seems so to anyone who sees things outside of a partisan lens.

Posted by: Duncan MacIntyre | April 14, 2008 9:11 AM

"Just wait till the public becomes broadly aware of his Weathermen ties...."

Oh my God!! Obama was a Weatherman? And a Muslim? And a racist Christian?

I'll bet he kidnapped the Lindbergh baby, assisted Ethel and Julius Rosenberg, was Benedict Arnold's right-hand man, carried water for Hitler, prayed that Katrina would hit New Orleans, and played lacrosse in college. For that matter, I suspect that if you go back into the readings of the Gnostic gospels you will find that Obama held Judas' cloak while he met with the Pharisees to negotiate Jesus' capture.

But there is one accusation that you cannot make about Obama. He's not a Republican. Of course that is sufficient for you (and our host) to not support Obama. The rest is just window dressing.

Given what the GOP has done to our nation since they came into power in 1994, they do not deserve another chance. We've had enough GOP conservatism. Any more and we will be a third-world nation.

Posted by: RJohnson | April 14, 2008 9:27 AM

I believe the average voter wants to vote for a politician who (1) shares their social and political values, (2) has exercised sound and prudent judgement, and (3) has demonstrated real skill as a politician IN POLITICAL OFFICE.

Obama demonstrates every day (1) how far his values are from most people in this country, and (2) that he has exercised extraordinarily poor judgement in his personal associations. Add (3) that he has never held a leadership position in political office (merely being a state senator and US senator for a few years does not constitute leadership), and I'm confident that he'll be in a heap of trouble by November.

Posted by: pyrrho | April 14, 2008 9:56 AM

'Obama's deadly condescension', so says Rod.
Isn't the Iraq war that McCain supports far more deadly for Red State rural posterity?
I do believe Rod that one could run a GOP campaign in many rural areas simply on Jesus, condemnation, blood lust, and lower taxes... and win. I've watched Republicans do it since Reagan. What other things have Republicans been running on?
I did my undergrad in Kearney, NE. The Evangelical Apocalyptic Christian platform is: Jesus, condemnation, blood lust, and lower taxes. How else do you think Bush got elected twice? What else was Bush campaigning on?
Catholics and shrinking mainline Protestants according to trends deserve credit for voting more Democratic.
When Iraq went to hell Republicans, not Democrats, stirred up xenophobia with Mexicans. What were Romney and Huckabee beating McCain over the head with in the debates? Immigration.

RJohnson hit the nail on the head above and it's worth repeating RJohnson's statement:

Given what the GOP has done to our nation since they came into power in 1994, they do not deserve another chance. We've had enough GOP conservatism. Any more and we will be a third-world nation.

Posted by: Brian Horan | April 14, 2008 10:02 AM

Brian Horan: Now that you've beaten the Republicans over the head ... tell us what Obama and moveon.org will do once they have the WH and BOTH houses of Congress in their hands? What exactly will they do in the first 100 days of power?

Convince people that Obama/moveon.org won't make things worse. It's not enough to bang Bush. Been there and done that. Tell us what Obama will do. Besides continually apologizing for ... mispeaking about invading Pakistan ... or sending troops BACK INTO Iraq ... or redoing NAFTA (but, Canada, don't worry, that was just campaign rhetoric for the suckers in the union halls) ... or supporting Wright before denouncing him (or his words, or what exactly was that?) ... or ridiculing the small town folks (when he thought no one was watching) to turning 180% on that once he spoke in public ... well, you get the point. The Clinton soap opera will be nothing next to having Obambi in the WH for four years.

Posted by: Reaganite in NYC | April 14, 2008 10:14 AM

RJohnson hit the nail on the head above and it's worth repeating RJohnson's statement: Given what the GOP has done to our nation since they came into power in 1994, they do not deserve another chance. We've had enough GOP conservatism. Any more and we will be a third-world nation.

Great argument: Criticism of Obama is out of bounds because he isn't a Republican, and all that matters is that all Republicans be defeated. Lots of luck with that one in the general election.

Even apart from the merits (and like pyrrho, I'm an antiwar Republican), you folks need to recognize that Obama's condescending and clueless remarks about church-goers and gun owners, his friendship with the ranting Rev. Wright, and his association with thugs like the Ayers are going to hit him -- hard -- in the general election. He's defining himself as just another Moveon.org style "progressive", rather than the New Kind of Leader Who Transcends Left and Right. As such, he will be unelectable.

Posted by: Simon | April 14, 2008 10:28 AM

Simon: "Great argument: Criticism of Obama is out of bounds because he isn't a Republican, and all that matters is that all Republicans be defeated."

No...criticism is not out of bounds. Just realize that it's going to take more than what has been done so far to make him look worse than the GOP. Much more. So much that I believe it cannot be done.

Stack up Rezko, Wright, the Muslim story, the allegations of racism and elitism, the accusations of lightweight policy, and a few hundred other stories out in the great gotham. Add to that pretty much whatever you wish...that he supported ripping children from the birth canal and eating them, that he supported human sacrifice to Baal, or that Donny doesn't like him.

You still fall short. All the fearmongering doesn't cut it. You say Obama is an unknown quantity and we can't afford to elect him because of that. I say that the GOP is a known quantity, and a vote for the GOP is a vote for moving this country into a depression that will make the 20s and 30s look prosperous by comparison.

What we know about the GOP (borrow and spend, militarism over diplomacy, tax breaks for corporate donors and stick it to the poor) makes any fear you throw up about Obama look pretty pale.

A few simple questions will drive this election:

Is our nation better off today than we were when Bush and the GOP took office in January of 2001?

How much debt to you want to pass on to your children?

As bad as the Democrats may be, can they be any worse than the GOP has been since 1994?

Posted by: RJohnson | April 14, 2008 10:41 AM

I agree completely with Turmarion, and, oddly enough, am also from Appalachia.

What Obama said is true. I've seen the clinging to things. I don't think using the word 'bitter' or pointing out they cling to religion was a smart thing to say, but it was true. (Like it or not, religious attendance goes up in bad times and down in good, and that is because people are clinging to it in the bad and casting it off in the good. But saying that implies that all clinging to is is bad.)

And, incidentally, worrying about 'sovereignty' is stupid. It really is. Every single paranoid fantasy I've ever heard about loss of sovereignty is just that...a paranoid fantasy.

Likewise worrying about gun control. The amount of Federal gun control laws that have actually affected anyone I know? Zero, nada, zip. And I say that as someone opposed to gun control, but not as someone opposed to, for example, checks on sales to make sure they aren't felons. There is a small but significant portion of the population that thinks any regulation to do with gun, like require trigger locks, is two inches from banning all guns ever.

Same with anti-immigration. There are people who aren't worried about taking jobs, they've slipped past that into outright racism a long time ago. (It wasn't too long ago that the county I lived in was the HQ of one of the largest white supremacist organizations in the country.)

People who have nothing to lose cling to things. Irrational crazy things. It is true, although somewhat stupid to say, as those people don't want to hear it. (And, more damaging, people in the same situation will hear it and think he's talking about them.)

Oh, and I like, Rod, how you're reading 'pity' there. I'm not seeing any pity at all, or condescension. You really just sorta imagined that.

Posted by: DavidTC | April 14, 2008 10:58 AM

RJohnson: "As bad as the Democrats may be, can they be any worse than the GOP has been since 1994?"

You seem confused. From 1994 to 2000, the GOP may have held Congress BUT a DEMOCRAT ran the White House. From 2000 to 2002, the GOP may have held the White House, but the Democrats ran the Senate. And for the past two years, the Democrats have run both houses of Congress.

It's disengenous to say the GOP has controlled the country since 1994. It just aint' so.

However, since you insist, actually we've enjoyed unprecedented economic growth and relatively low unemployment rates in those years. As for economic dislocations to this country since 2001, why don't you send a letter of complaint to Al-Quaeda? They were the ones who blew up the World Trade Center, which caused dislocations including the collapse of the airline industry.

Posted by: Mel | April 14, 2008 11:06 AM

"The Evangelical Apocalyptic Christian platform is: Jesus, condemnation, blood lust, and lower taxes. How else do you think Bush got elected twice? What else was Bush campaigning on?"

For his first term, Bush ran as a compassionate conservative who would have a more humble foreign policy.

Posted by: meh | April 14, 2008 11:15 AM

McCain is a war monger who can not think for himself. Do you trust America with such a person? Clinton is a liar,who can not tell the truth is not a candidated for anything. These two candidate are dangerous peoples.

Posted by: Lj | April 14, 2008 11:18 AM

"I wonder why people, people of faith at least, take it as any kind of insult when someone says they are "clinging to" their religion anyway. I cling to religion, I cling to GOD and I can admit it. Anyone who feels differently, that they are standing in life upon their OWN strength and don't NEED any God or religion, are going to find out very differently anyway the truth of their own weakness and nothingness. I would ask what are they so ashamed of, those who are so offended to be thought of as clinging to their God? For shame."

The offensive statement is NOT telling people that they are clinging to their religion. (I, for one, cling to the cross of Christ as my sole and sure hope of salvation, knowing that I am, of myself, a wretched sinner who deserves God's wrath.) The offensive aspect of Obama's remarks was the implication that people cling to religion because their economic circumstances are lousy -- rather than that they cling to religion becuase they believe the truth of the assertions that their religion makes.

Does anyone here think Rod clings to Orthodox Christianity because there have been so many layoffs in print journalism?

Posted by: ScurvyOaks | April 14, 2008 11:22 AM

Catch-22: The spinmeisters have been in control for so long, truth becomes more fodder for their spinnings.

It's not that the emperor is naked. It's that the little boys who innocently point out the nakedness are, instead of opening the eyes of the rest, whisked away to a psychiatrist because their ADD is causing them hallucinations. "Pay attention to that which we tell you pay attention. If you don't, we will lovingly drug you into a stupor..." all said with a benign smile and backed up by hours of effort transforming scientific data into reasons to be afraid... hours, I tell you!

Of course, Obama is neither young nor innocent. His crime is that he is trying to tell the truth from the inside. Not only is he speaking openly, he is doing it from the spinmeisters' territory. For shame, Barack.

Brought to you by Sodomites for Political Balance. Donny does tend to bring out the curmudgeon in me.

Posted by: Franklin Evans | April 14, 2008 11:33 AM

I've been looking around at the conservative blogosphere this past weekend. Amazing that so many of them have so few positive comments about the GOP, the McCain campaign, or any of the policy initiatives that McCain has been putting forward in his getting-to-know-you tour. (Of course, since McCain can't keep the Shi'ites and Sunnis straight, it's no wonder that the GOP sycophant bloggers aren't paying attention to him.)

I guess they've come to realize that the only way a Republican can be elected these days is to make his opponent look like a reincarnation of Cthulu, Baal, Hitler, Atilla the Hun, and Carl Marx all rolled into one.

It's sad really, and I have pity for them. They've been saddled with a party whose philosophy, by their own admission, is indefensible by any classical conservative paradigm, a party that celebrates deficit spending, embraces criminal regimes, one that has put America's economic future in doubt in a way that has not been evidenced in over 75 years. When your home team has that record, it's no wonder you can find nothing positive to say about their plans for the future.

The only question left is how far will they go to try to make their guy look good.

Posted by: RJohnson | April 14, 2008 11:53 AM

RJ,

You've got us nailed. Except that we usually spell it "Attila." :)

Posted by: | April 14, 2008 12:16 PM

And "Karl" Marx, too, for that matter.

Posted by: ScurvyOaks | April 14, 2008 12:18 PM

Mel: "As for the conservative silence this past weekend re: GOP/McCain/etc ... I think everyone is still in shock at Obama's comments in SF and with the thought that the Dems. are heading over the cliff this November strapped securely to this man."

It's not just this past weekend, Mel. It's much longer than that. Go back on this very blog and see where Rod makes a post that extols the positive points of GOP or McCain's policy statements. It just isn't there. The best they can do is damn him with faint praise and then start talking about Rev. Wright, the Weathermen, or something else to beat on Obama.

The conservative blogosphere has no positive message to put forward about the GOP this election cycle. Nothing. Nada. Zip.

It's not surprising given that around 80% of the country believes we are on the wrong path and that the current President has the worst approval ratings in decades. When saddled with that and with a failed economic and foreign policy it is hard to offer the public a positive message of hope. The best you can hope for is to tear down the opponent so much that your guy looks good by comparison, and then hope for the best.

This is the GOP campaign theme for 2008: fear, doubt, and innuendo.

Posted by: RJohnson | April 14, 2008 12:25 PM

LOL...if the best you can do folks is correct my spelling, so be it.

Posted by: RJohnson | April 14, 2008 12:31 PM

That 80% believe we're on the wrong track proves very little, and nothing partisan. (I have meant to take Rod to task for this before; thanks for the reminder.)

Here's why: that 80% is almost certainly composed of people who think we're on the wrong track for very different, and in many cases irreconcilably conflicting, reasons.

Same deal with Congress. Why is Congress so unpopular (even more unpopular than Bush)? Because one chunk of the electorate is frustrated that they haven't gotten our troops out of Iraq yet, while another chunk of the electorate dislikes them for being SF-style Democrats. What does that prove?

Posted by: ScurvyOaks | April 14, 2008 12:44 PM

They're sticking to a party they know in their hearts will never budge on this issue.

As opposed to sticking to a party they know in their hearts will never accomplish anything on this issue and wish the pro-life issue would just go away?

Have these two men no self-respect? Why do they allow themselves to be exploited like this?

The same could be said of Catholic voters who support the pro-war, pro-death penalty, don't-care-about-the-poor, anti-immigrant Republicans. Do these voters have no self-respect? Why do they allow themselves to be exploited like this by the GOP?

Posted by: Daniel | April 14, 2008 12:50 PM

Every election time, "useful tools" like Casey and Roemer allow themselves to be trotted out in order to perform magic tricks for Catholic voters in places like Pennsylvania and the Midwest. Have these two men no self-respect? Why do they allow themselves to be exploited like this? And what are they getting in return for servicing the Democratic Party chiefs in this self-demeaning way?

I suppose I could have said what Daniel just said, but instead I'll just focus on the fact that these men have won elections with pluralities of white, working-class, Catholic voters in their state and district supporting them. So either your critique ought to extend to significant portions of the pro-life electorate in Pennsylvania and Indiana, or else you might need to charitably consider that abortion foes might have valid disagreements over what the best strategy for reducing abortions in America may be.

Posted by: Russell Arben Fox | April 14, 2008 1:00 PM

Mel...why don't you tell me what the McCain candidacy brings to the table that will change the direction of this nation. 80% of the population believes we are going the wrong direction in our national policy. What do the Republicans have to offer that can be cast in a positive light for its own merits?

So far all we have heard from conservatives is that Obama is bad. OK...tell us why McCain is good. Tell us why McCain's policies are better for our nation than those of the Democrats.

The GOP has the White House. Why should we let them keep it?

Posted by: RJohnson | April 14, 2008 1:09 PM

McCain the senile war monger is the GOP only hope. A sad choice. Obama is the only smart and real candidate out there. All the GOP rhetoric out there is not going to work. It is tired and old. It's time for a real change. Obama '08 is for America. All the ghost stories you are telling to frighten the America. is not working. Senile anyone?

Posted by: Lj | April 14, 2008 1:25 PM

Lj:

So you think that McCain is senile? Is that going to be the main thrust of the Democratic attack this fall against McCain? Wow, that's sure to work (LOL).

Nothing more will motivate the folks in the nursing homes to vote (and vote for McCain) than remarks like yours. Smart, Lj! I pray that the Democrats (and/or moveon.org) send people like you on tour around the country to spout your anti-elderly rants.

I'll bet that even Obama's grandmother, under those circumstances, votes for McCain. Assuming, of course, that she recovers after being thrown under the bus by her grandson.

Posted by: Mel | April 14, 2008 1:38 PM

Go read Kuo's book. The faith based stuff was a sham to get votes.

Steve

Posted by: Steve | April 14, 2008 1:57 PM

"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 ..."

Maybe BHO is just reflecting the religious milieu with which he has been surrounded for the past 20 years at Trinity United Church of Christ. Doesn't this sound like someone describing a certain South Chicago church that holds to speculative--and sometimes outlandishly false--beliefs as a way to "explain their frustrations" in "AmeriKKKa"?

Posted by: Cincinnatus | April 14, 2008 1:58 PM

Your lack of grace, understanding, and charity will cost you, Rod. Obama left out three words, "wedge issues like," and you are trying to hang him on it. It's obvious what he meant. It's obvious what your intentions are. And in the end, you will pay for it. May God have as much mercy on you as you have toward Obama.

Posted by: Ben | April 14, 2008 2:05 PM

Mel: "So you think that McCain is senile? Is that going to be the main thrust of the Democratic attack this fall against McCain? Wow, that's sure to work (LOL)."

Well, it worked for President Bush back in 2000 when he was campaigning against McCain.

www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/john-mccain-2000-the-swi_b_30654.html

"In the 2000 South Carolina Presidential primary Bush surrogates circulated stories that McCain's five years as a POW had made him "mentally unstable," gave him a "loose screw," that he "committed treason while a POW" and "came home and forgot us." The stories also called McCain "the fag candidate," called his wife a drug addict, said McCain "chose to sire children without marriage" and had "a black child" (the actual wording of that last smear from the flyers and e-mails that circulated is not printable here).

And when McCain responded by asking whether this kind of smear campaign showed that voters should think twice about trusting Bush, saying Bush was "twisting the truth like Clinton," Rove was able to turn that against McCain¸ by accusing McCain of "going negative." Unlike Rove and Bush, McCain hadn't understood the value of attacking with surrogates."

Here is a copy of a portion of that flyer.
www.talkingpointsmemo.com/images/2008-01-16_anti-mccain_smear_flier.jpg

Was the Bush campaign and its surrogates wrong to play this card back in 2000? Were they right in questioning McCain's mental stability in light of the torture he suffered while captive as a POW? Or was this over the line?

Posted by: RJohnson | April 14, 2008 2:09 PM

All the GOP rhetoric out there is not going to work. It is tired and old. It's time for a real change. Obama '08 is for America. All the ghost stories you are telling to frighten the America. is not working.

Just keep telling yourself this fairy tale. You'll sleep better at night.

And avoid at all costs the frightening reality: If Americans perceive Barack Obama a politician cut from the Moveon.org cloth, who looks down on middle America through an arrogant and idiotic What's the Matter with Kansas? lens, then it doesn't matter what the specific policy proposals of the candidates are. A majority of the electorate will regard Obama as ineligible to receive their votes.

The funny part about this is that when Obama goes down in November, lefties will reassure each other that it was all because of "fearmongering" by the "GOP Attack Machine." And next time, of course, the American people will see through all of that Cynical Rovian Manipulation and vote for Real Change.

Fast forward to 2012 as the leftwing Charlie Browns line up to kick the football one more time.

Posted by: Simon | April 14, 2008 2:14 PM

"Was the Bush campaign and its surrogates wrong to play this card back in 2000? Were they right in questioning McCain's mental stability in light of the torture he suffered while captive as a POW? Or was this over the line?"

Honestly, I don't remember this; I had disqualified McCain from my consideration because of his support for Clinton/Albright's bombing of Belgrade in the spring of 1999 and thus paid no attention to his primary campaign. If the Bush team really did that, however, and if I had heard it at the time, I'd certainly have condemned it.

Posted by: Rob G | April 14, 2008 2:28 PM

However, we're still waiting to hear FROM YOU what the Obama/moveon.org wing of the Democratic Party propose to do if they actually assume TOTAL control of the government. (Moveon isnt especially happy with Obama btw from what I hear. They want a confrontational type. Points for a good smearing linkage though)

Some of us have to go to work but since you asked.

Foreign Policy-- I expect a much more nuanced policy that will look at the whole world and not just Iraq. Bush and McCain have too much tied into Iraq. There is more to the world than Iraq. Afghanistan is a mess. Africa needs attention. South America is brewing. I expect more of a policy of engagement and fewer invasions. I am impressed by his advisers, especially Powers and Sewall (helped write new army field manual).

Economics- I think Im gonna pay more taxes. I also think we might get a balanced budget and maybe whittle away at the debt. No Republican since before Reagan has reduced the debt. From his writings I think Obama believes free markets mostly work and he will make some minor amendments to any free trade agreements.

Immigration- I think both sides will posture on tis and nothing will be done. Just like when Republicans ruled he world.

Health care- A non-mandated, market/government hybrid. Probably multiple levels of care. Go read Cutler.

Guns-He will support a state's rights approach (O, the irony). If you live in a state that wants bazookas here they come (I want an Uzi personally). If you live in a state that wants to limit handguns move ( Im not sure any such state exists).

Abortion- After reading Amy Sullivan's book I think hell follow the reducing numbers by social services approach.

Religion- We will be forced to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. The pledge of allegiance will be to the flag of the UKKKA. (Had to put something in to make you happy).

Steve

Posted by: Steve | April 14, 2008 2:45 PM

Fast forward to 2012 as the leftwing Charlie Browns line up to kick the football one more time.

LOL. Good line. Probably the one sure thing in all of politics is the Dems ability to lose the unloseable. That said, no Republican has run the budget since 1980 w/o going into debt. You would think that sooner or later that will catch up with them. At this point Im convinced they can keep promising to do away with abortions, put evolution out of schools, oppose gay marriage etc. forever w/o producing and still get people to vote for them.

Steve

Posted by: Steve | April 14, 2008 2:56 PM

Steve: 'Religion- We will be forced to pray 5 times a day towards Mecca. The pledge of allegiance will be to the flag of the UKKKA. (Had to put something in to make you happy)."

But Steve, I'm confused. You seem to indicate that Barack HUSSEIN Obama is a Muslim, and then suggest that he follows black liberation theology. Surely those to paths are incompatible since the black liberation theology is based on Christian teachings and not the Koran.

Ah...I'm sorry. I forgot. This is an argument the conservativs are raising. Everyone knows the conservatives get to have it both ways.

My mistake...carry on.

Posted by: RJohnson | April 14, 2008 3:21 PM

Well, let's see. I'm a white, Scotch-Irish Eastern Kentuckian. When I was small our first house had no indoor plumbing. We graduated to a trailer and then to a nice house with property. I own a gun and I go to church every week (I'm a convert to Orthodoxy). I'm well educated but poor. I'm anti-abortion and anti-war, and I support the idea of a social welfare net. I work two jobs but am still uninsured. I think Obama was noting that some people cling to guns and religion because they are bitter-and some do. People on this blog keep talking about elitists. Anyone who has the money and connections to get elected president in this country is part of the elite. Period. The issue is whether we are talking about economic elites, intellectual elites or both. Bush was the former, but not the latter. Hillary and Obama may be both. A lot of "conservatives" are very good at spouting false populism while they reap the benefits of being in the upper class. Spare me. I'm voting for Obama. Hillary strikes me as unethical and McCain will keep us in this miserable war. He's not perfect, but he strikes me as the best choice amongst the three. They are all part of the elite. They are all divorced from the pains and sufferings of the poor. The question boils down to who is the best (least harmful) elitist of the bunch.

Posted by: Teena H. Blackburn | April 14, 2008 3:24 PM

Teena- Im originally from Indiana. It hurts to admit it but a Kentuckian has pointed out something I (the Hoosier) keep missing. The distinction between economic and intellectual elite. Post more. If you guys cant play basketball you can at least help out in politics.

Steve

Posted by: Steve | April 14, 2008 3:40 PM

Teena! Excellent post! The story of your upbringing mirrors that of my family in West Virginia so closely it is eerie. Scotch-Irish, no indoor plumbing for a long period, finally made it to the lower middle class but struggling, a life of faith but an independent thinker...
Wow. Well said.

I have to say that your distinctions about different types of elitism hit the nail on the head. Count me in as one more vote for Obama!

Posted by: Chris | April 14, 2008 3:52 PM

I'm not personally insulted by what Obama said, because (as a well-educated, city-dwelling professional) I'm not in the category of people he was talking about.
Posted by: ScurvyOaks | April 14, 2008 3:50 PM

I am and have been exactly the category of person he was talking about, and still find no offense in it. :)
Peace to you.

Posted by: | April 14, 2008 4:33 PM

Eaten by bees??
(Concerning "April 13, 2008 10:14 PM")

Posted by: anoncritic | April 14, 2008 5:00 PM

"Shouldn't take too long to count. If Obama's the nominee, the once solidly Democratic state of West Virginia is absolutely safe for John McCain."

Which of course would certainly prove that Obama is correct.

From yet another elitist, courtesy of Andrew Sullivan's Blog:

"The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag" while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet," - senator Jim Webb, famous elitist.

(Webb quote from http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110009246)

Posted by: sis2lis | April 14, 2008 5:26 PM

Yikes. I've been away from the site for a few days and come back to this?! Anyone care to give me a Cliff Notes for the thread? :-)

Bless,
Doug

Posted by: Doug Cramer | April 14, 2008 5:47 PM

Doug,
Here it goes:

Republicans: Obama hates Christians, will ruin America.

Democrats: Oh don't be bitter. You're just jealous because McCain can't walk on water.

Republicans: Obama is worse (and maybe, e-gads, a Moslem).

Democrats: McCain is worse, and you're what's the matter with Kansas. You vote for economic elitists. Rove duped you, let Obama dupe Bob Casey and Tim Roemer.

Repeat 75 times.

Posted by: Zak | April 14, 2008 6:17 PM

Reaganite in NYC
I'm getting sick and tired of people like you describing small town people as desperate and stupid xenophobes who "cling" to this or that. I may live in NYC now but I'm from a small town and most of my family (and the overwhelming majority of my h.s. classmates) still live there.

People like me? People like me who've lived in a small mountain town almost all their life? (County population 26000, sole city population 3600.)

Most of the anger and hatred I see in this country comes from the urban loony left -- so many of whom I'm acquainted with here in Gotham. The ones who nod their head in agreement at Rosie O'Donnell and other show-biz types wth their coke habits and "Bush Derangement Syndrome" and belief that 9/11 was a government plot.

Would that be because you live in an urban area, where the poor tend to be left?

Whereas I live in a rural area, where the poor tend to be right?

The poor are bitter. The rural poor are right-bitter, blaming 'liburals' and coming up with conspiracy theories about UN black helicopters and. The urban poor are left-bitter, blaming 'the man' and coming up with conspiracy theories about AIDs and 9/11.

They are justifiably bitter, because we've been promising to help them for decades, and neither the Republicans nor Clinton actually did so. In fact, they made the problem worse by encouraging jobs to go elsewhere.

The people I grew up with back home are plugging away. They're going back to school, saving their money, looking for ways to get more done with less. They enjoy church and Little League practice with their kids. They cry when their neighbor's son is shipped off to Iraq and cry even more (this time with tears of joy) when he comes back pretty much in one piece. The kind of hunting most of them do nowadays is hunting for bargains on eBay and for a nice safe (and affordable) place to send their kids away to for summer camp.

Yes, most of them are doing that. That doesn't mean they are not bitter.

So let's stop banging on the small town folks. Obama is wrong about them and their so-called anger.

If Obama is looking for someone with real anger in this country, why doesn't he check with the woman he sleeps with every night? Or the pastor he describes as a "spiritual father"? Or his Hyde Park buddies who were in the Weathermen back in the 1960s and who blew up federal buildings and who remain unrepentant about it? That's where the real anger in this country is coming from -- from the spoiled elites who never had it so good!

Obama did not use the word 'anger'. He used the word 'bitter'. Bitterness and anger are not the same thing. Bitterness is resentment, not anger. It is a feeling of mistrust and lack of forgiveness, based in actual or perceived wrongs. Anger is something else entirely. I think some people need to go find a dictionary and stop putting words in his mouth.

And, incidentally, he did say basically the same thing about Wright. He said that some people, who were let down by this country the first part of their life and treated like second-class citizens, cannot let go of the past, and he doesn't really expect them to do so. (I.e., that they resent their treatment.)

And calling Obama 'elite' is rather surreal.

Posted by: DavidTC | April 14, 2008 8:21 PM

And calling Obama 'elite' is rather surreal.

I'm not going to go through 150+ posts, but did someone do that? Or did he say he was elitist?

Posted by: pb | April 14, 2008 8:55 PM

"Or, how many of you can relate to racial profiling? Oh, sorry, there's that ugly R word again."

From Steve Sailer's new VDARE column on Obama's "Civil Rights" Vision:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/080413_obama.htm
----------------------------------------------------------------------
“As a State Senator, Obama passed one of the country's first racial profiling laws.”

He cracked down on the police using racial profiling—great! As I wrote in VDARE.COM in 2003, despite the War On Crime, there are still roughly five 9-11's worth of Americans murdered each year. And that could easily go back up if the cops are constrained.

Simply put, the police can use either of two alternative strategies:

They can sit around eating donuts and wait for bad guys to commit crimes.

Or they can get in the face of potential bad guys and prevent crimes.

To do the latter, though, they have to use the brains God gave them to figure out who is more likely to cause trouble.

And that's when they get blamed for profiling.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by: meh | April 14, 2008 9:33 PM

Harford, Logic of Life has a nice study looking at race and how it affects hiring practices.

Steve

Posted by: Steve | April 14, 2008 10:03 PM

"However, I do think there is just a tad bit of racism when it comes to the real estate market"

Here's a couple of Steve Sailer blog posts on subprime lending to minorities:
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/08/trillion-here-trillion-there-pretty.html
http://isteve.blogspot.com/2007/11/subprime-meltdown-nyt-finally-gets-clue.html

Posted by: meh | April 14, 2008 10:25 PM

Black slaves were enculturated in the ways of the cavalier plantation owner's original white indentured servants, not in the ways of the Scots-Irish "rednecks".

Posted by: meh | April 14, 2008 11:21 PM

Does Meh get a dollar everytime a Sailer column is linked?

Posted by: Daniel | April 15, 2008 5:05 AM

The fascinating story of the blogger who caused all the fuss:

www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

Posted by: Eric W | April 15, 2008 8:57 AM

"Can I suggest that the term "redneck" -- and along with it "hick," "cracker," "white trash," et al -- be placed outside the acceptable terms of discourse in comboxes on Beliefnet?

Such language is not very far removed from "the n-word" and its ilk in terms of its derogatory content and its malicious intent toward those at whom it is directed." - Duncan MacIntyre

I could add a few other choice epithets that are regularly hurled here at another visible minority (and with the same malicious intent), but it would get me banned.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | April 15, 2008 12:18 PM

"Truth" Hurts,

" Like Babylon you will fall down because of the mass consumption, lasciviousness and homosexuality that is destroying families. Look at Sodom and Gomorrah and tell me if America is any different."

Please explain HOW homosexuality is "destroying families"??? I've been gay all my life and know of not a single family that has been hindered, let alone "destroyed". Hysterical slurs like this are why the 'right' are no longer believed or trusted.

As for your Sodom & gomorrah charge, you are correct. The sin of Sodom was inhospitality to the 'other' according to Ezekiel, and America is NO different at all.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | April 15, 2008 12:46 PM

wow I don't get it.
I have always considered myself very sensitive to social issues and social ills.
I just don't see what obama said that warranted this commotion.
I am not even an obama fan. I wanted senator clinton to get the nomination ONLY because I feel she knows our world's leaders better has a lot of experience and at this point in time would be a better president. This is not to say obama wouldn't be awesome with a little more experience behind him.
After all of this I still do not understand why Obama's remarks were taken as condescending and insulting. I thought what he said had a lot of truth knowledge and empathy in it.
I think clinton getting so obviously "high" at obama's supposed miscue was horrible. I also do not want kids watching her slug that whisky period, and worse yet she was slugging in celebration of obama's error!!!!!!!!!!!! Wow, she lost points with me.

Posted by: Lisa | April 15, 2008 12:59 PM

"This is not to say obama wouldn't be awesome with a little more experience behind him."

Obama is potentially "awesome"?

That is hardly a sufficient reason to elect him President.

(Not to mention that describing someone as "awesome" really says very little about the person, as it's such a generic popular adjective.)

Posted by: | April 15, 2008 1:28 PM

Reaganite in NYV,

"The people I grew up with back home are plugging away. They're going back to school, saving their money, looking for ways to get more done with less. They enjoy church and Little League practice with their kids. They cry when their neighbor's son is shipped off to Iraq and cry even more (this time with tears of joy) when he comes back pretty much in one piece. The kind of hunting most of them do nowadays is hunting for bargains on eBay and for a nice safe (and affordable) place to send their kids away to for summer camp.

So let's stop banging on the small town folks."

Except I know many New Yorkers who fit that exact same description, and who are NOT the "urban loony left".

I'm getting sick and tired of people like you describing New Yorkers and 'big city types' of people as "show-biz types wth their coke habits".

As far as "Bush Derangement Syndrome", that seems to have affected far more Republicans than 'big city types'.

Posted by: recovering ex-Pentecostal | April 15, 2008 1:54 PM

"we're still waiting for you to explain how Obama/moveon.org control of the WH and BOTH houses of Congress will improve anything?"

If moveon.org takes over, be prepared for the reappearance of the guillotine...

Posted by: | April 15, 2008 2:23 PM

She eats pizza, too.

I suspect Barack eats foie gras (or did until his hometown banned it).

:^)

Posted by: Eric W | April 15, 2008 3:05 PM

...meant a big can of OM...

Posted by: Pauli | April 15, 2008 4:38 PM

National polls, maybe not, but if he takes a big hit in Pennsylvania, you know Hillary will think that her attack tactics are effective, and it will only get worse in the next few weeks as she detects a weakness to exploit.

The next week will be fun!

Posted by: Eric W | April 15, 2008 5:27 PM

it's not hurting Obama at all in the national polls. Many people recognize that truth is not condescending.

Actually, most people recognize that

(1) Obama's notion that the motivations behind Americans' religious beliefs and support for gun rights have little or nothing to do with economic conditions;

(2) Obama's idea that rural and working class whites are a bunch of racists and xenophobes is pure slander; and

(3) Obama's dismissal of opposition to international trade deals as the result of bitterness over job losses is grossly disingenuous -- coming from a candidate who claims to oppose those same trade deals.

As for the polls, they currently show Obama trailing John McCain. That doesn't mean anything. We all know that Obama will get a bounce whenever Clinton steps aside, and another bounce after the Democratic convention. So did all the other failed Democratic candidates of the past half century. But Democratic political pros understand that this issue will hurt Obama deeply -- more, possibly, than the Wright debacle will.

Obama continues to limit his electoral base to a weird hybrid of African Americans and upper income cosmopolitan/professional whites, while turning off everyone else. That's a reliable ticket to the Democratic nomination -- and to electoral oblivion in November.

Posted by: Simon | April 15, 2008 8:26 PM

Obama is toast.

Posted by: Niles Wentworth | April 15, 2008 10:27 PM

Frankly, Ike was a far superior President to Ronald Reagan. All in all, McCain seems like the only current candidate who isn't a compulsive liar. I had such hopes for Obama, but between this, and his wife becoming proud of America because her husband won a primary has dashed my hopes. I'll take a man of integrity, elitist or not, before liars.

Chris

Posted by: Chris Mills | April 16, 2008 2:26 AM

David, David, David. Have you never heard the phrase 'limousine liberal'? Have you not seen Hummers, Lincolns, BMW's and $60,000.00 SUVs with Obama and Hillary! bumper stickers on them?

One can certainly fault many rich Republicans for their elitism; rich liberals have to be faulted with both their elitism AND their hypocrisy. The Kennedys, Obamas, and Clintons of his world, and their moneyed leftist minions, are always perfectly happy to be generous to the poor, as long as they're being generous with someone else's money.

Rich Democrats, put your money where your mouth is. Sell your BMWs, buy Hyundai's, and give the difference to the poor.

I'm not holding my breath...

Posted by: Rob G | April 16, 2008 7:31 AM

"You've accused me, recently, of having a fundamental misunderstanding of conservativism, which might be true."

For more on this, see my last post on the Huckabee-Paul thread.

"Meanwhile, it is only part of their income. If you think liberals think all income should be taken from the rich, you have confused us with...well, I'd say communists, but even that's not right."

Liberalism/progressivism is simply slow-track socialism. There's no inherent logic in it as to how to stop growth of government; growth of government requires taxation, thus taxes will always either increase or be expanded. It may not start out as 'soak the rich' but it inevitably ends up that way, and eventually it becomes 'soak everyone.'
I'm firmly ensconced in the middle class, yet when you add up all that I pay in taxes, the government gets almost half of what I make. Frankly, that pisses me off.

"Liberals want a progressive tax. That means that poor liberals want to be taxed less, and rich liberals want to be taxed more."

And why should liberals get to say that non-liberals need to go along with this? If you guys want to redistribute your own wealth, more power to you. Why is it your business to make me redistribute mine?

Posted by: Rob G | April 17, 2008 8:07 AM

"And conservativism is simply slow-track anarchy."

And you've seen this actually happen where, exactly?

Progressive/liberal governments all over Europe have crept/are creeping ever closer to socialism. Can you name a state where conservatism, barring revolution, has developed into anarchy?

"I know, in the conservative universe, not paying taxes is some sort of right, up there with freedom of speech, but it's really not."

No kidding. But being free from confiscatory taxation could certainly be called a civil right, especially when such taxes are instituted by stealth and against the will of the people.

Posted by: Rob G | April 17, 2008 11:21 AM

I live in a similar town (in this case, in Ohio). Obama isn't saying anything that's not true. The folks who are making such a stink, it seems to me, are the ones who don't live in towns such as these. I have yet to hear anyone complain about his comments where I live.

I'd rather have a person tell it like it is than sugarcoat things like politicians and economists seem to have been doing for the past several years about the state of the economy.

Too much media, folks. Too many soundbytes, too many opinions and too little real information being passed on.

Posted by: Art | April 19, 2008 5:15 AM