We have all read it, but it really needs to be rolled around in the mouth a few times, to appreciate it, and what it tells us about our self-anointed political messiah:
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 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.
Did the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy somehow brainwash our messiah-in-waiting and place these words on his lips? Be sure to alienate as many voters as possible all within the span of one sentence, Senator.
Mark Steyn‘s pithy summing-up:
…this guy seems weirdly disconnected from everything except neo-segregationist Afrocentric grievance politics and upscale white liberal condescension. Not much of a coalition.
The problem with Sen. Obama is he is raising so much damn money he is probably going to win.
UPDATE: No one has commented on this last link, about the fundraising. Patrick Ruffini has been following this issue, and he has me worried.
Rove, you magnificent bastard!
He’s either too much of a leftist to win or the country has changed so much that a leftist can win. My guess is that the first hypothesis is correct but we’ll find out soon enough.
Ann Althouse:
“I must say that the original statement sounded like a typical law-school-liberal remark. I think it was quite sincere, and I’m rather sure he believed he was being admirably intellectual and raising politics to a new, higher level. Within a liberal law school environment, that statement would be heard as a thoughtful, compassionate insight. Some of your colleagues might think you were excessively, squishily tolerant of what they see as ignorant, bigoted people, but I don’t think they’d push you to be more understanding of the alien culture you were observing.”
Here’s the latest comment by our post-racial uniter candidate:
Here’s how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism.
Are there enough racists around to elect this black racist?
I think Obama’s right. I went to a midwestern college; graduated in 2006. I’m tired of these people clinging to their unitarianism, vegetarianism, crystal-worship and other religions. That they hate people who aren’t like them (and have had the public rallies to prove it), goes without saying.
Hey! Why are you picking on Obama? Some of his best friends are white rural gun owning christianists!
Is that a joke?
What if the eletorate is so fed up with the republican leadership that a democrat really does get elected? Who would you rather see in the white house? I’m thinking Hillary is looking better and better.
Gina: Help me understand something. How can you support Clinton after all the lies she tells?
Leftist leaders and intellectuals have long struggled to explain why the people on the bottom half of the income distribution so often disagree with Leftist on non-economic matters. Leftist have usually fallen back on some kind of argument that something in the oppressive environment causes this delusional behavior. It’s part and parcel of the elitism that lays at the heart of contemporary leftism. Leftism think of themselves as so intelligent and so moral that disagreement with them as to be explained as the result of special forces.
I think the quote honestly encapsulates Obama’s view of his fellow Americans. People disagree with him personally because they are essentially driven insane by economic problems. He simply cannot conceive that an honest, educated, unstressed person could ever disagree with him.
It’s that killing arrogance that has dogged the left for the last 100 years. It doesn’t sell well in America.
When my daughter was little, my husband and I read all of the “Little House” books to her. It is difficult to imagine those pioneer families, who saw real hard times (surviving the Long Winter by eating, once a day, biscuits made from seed wheat that had been ground in a coffee grinder) being bitter and frustrated because the government wasn’t helping them.
I can tell you the Big O has lost about 25% of the Jewish vote. It used to be 75/25 D now it is 50/50 the free fall hasn’t stopped. He can’t win the big states – Calif. is in play for God’s sake.
What about when the R 527s start hitting him for being a follower of Malcolm X?
Obama is a follower of the X Man
I think he can squeak by in the D primary. He is toast in the general.
“We are Americans and we will never surrender, they will.” So McCain gets the American vote. What is left?
Shannon: I wonder if the Left is actually surprised that some people rate their value system/ideology above thier economic selfishness.
If it’s one thing I learned from years of debating with leftists is that they have no bedrock princples they wont violate if violating them means gaining an advantage.
I surmise they think that everyone makes these compromises.
Vince P,
If it’s one thing I learned from years of debating with leftists is that they have no bedrock princples they wont violate if violating them means gaining an advantage.
I think you have a general point. Ever since the days of Marx, leftist have progressively viewed having themselves in power as the ultimate solution to problems. As such, they view the unbridled pursuit of by themselves alone as an unmitigated good. They’ve fallen into the trap of believing in special people, the same trap that doomed utopians from French revolution and up through fascism and communism.
Laura…although at least some of these families, only a generation or two later, did seek government assistance when they felt they were being squeezed by the railroads. (viz the Grange movement)
Which does not negate your overall point.
Shannon Love writes: “It’s that killing arrogance that has dogged the left for the last 100 years. It doesn’t sell well in America.”
Oh, that is so wrong! John Kennedy won on this patronising, arrogant rubbish, surrounded by people like the Rockefellers and Katherine Hepburn and her ilk. It sells very well in America. John Kerry lost out last time because he employed it ineptly.
Verity,
It sells very well in America.
I disagree. One defining feature of New Deal leftist was its veneration of the common man. Back before the 60’s, the leftist elites did not evince a different cultural standard from the majority of Americans. Indeed, the democrats were easily the most culturally conservative party. The left respected not only the economic views of the poor and working class but also their religious and traditional values as well.
The contemporary left wants to win over the poor and working class only by appealing to their economic concerns. JFK would be considered an evil neocon by most leftist today. However, people are more than just economic units. They want politicians who respect all their beliefs.
“They want politicians who respect all their beliefs”…also, many working-class Americans understand, better than does the Democratic leadership, the linkage between values and economics.
Shannon Love got there ahead of me. I find it hard to explain to those younger than myself that I remember the Democrats as the party of the ordinary man, not the elitist bunch, so contemptuous of everyone that they are now. Same goes for Hollywood. Even at its most Marxist, the Left pretended to be for the ordinary people.
JFK was really a right-winger, let’s face it. Lee Harvey Oswald knew that but the subsequent myth clouded the issue.
Incidentally, where does Obama who is ostensibly running on an ultra-protectionist ticket get off criticizing people for not liking trade?
Since collectivization and class-based political philosophies has always worked so well (especially for the farmers and the workers) it’s surprising the folks in Pennsylvania aren’t attracted to a statist philosophy. I guess only the intellectuals have been able to learn from twentieth century experiences.
“JFK was really a right-winger …”
Helen nailed it.
JFK was barely a liberal, certainly not a leftist. He was a fiscal conservative and hardcore anticommunist. Nor was he particularly liberal on “social issues”. His tax cuts were the foundation of the 1960s boom economy.
I take it you are being sarcastic, Ginny. Just checking.
“It’s that killing arrogance that has dogged the left for the last 100 years. It doesn’t sell well in America.”
“Oh, that is so wrong! John Kennedy won…. John Kerry lost out last time because he employed it ineptly. ”
Who thought that the democrats didn’t have a real person somewhere to nominate? Who would have thought that with the advantages of a compliant MSM and the questionable governance of GWB and the Republican legislature over the last eight years wouldn’t give the Dems. the Presidency for the next four years?
Empty suits with wimpy, outlying, ill-thought-out, socialistic, ideologies that with no sense of history, or sometimes, it seems, reality. Amazing.
Helen,
I’ve always been struck by the fact that those who appear least educated seem to have learned from history and those most haven’t. Arthur Miller acknowledged that perhaps he’d been on the wrong side, but the Berlin wall had to fall first. The farmers I grew up with had a sense that perhaps the Ukraine (and Zimbabwe) were/are not models that lead to better lives.
By the way, I either need to work on my tone or my persona on this blog since you felt the need to ask. Sorry it wasn’t clear.
Sorry Ginny. I knew really but you know how it is. We Brits don’t do sarcasm.
“The problem with Sen. Obama is he is raising so much damn money he is probably going to win. ”
Lex, It seems to me that Obama winning is a good thing for the Republicans. Hillary and McCain are more closely alligned in the center and that makes for a tougher race. Obama is more of an outlier who will accordingly receive fewer moderate votes that might otherwise have gone to Hillary.
“I’d vote for a blue dog but I don’t know….”
“Obama winning is a good thing for the Republicans.”
No. That is never true. Having a horrible president in there so you can somehow “cash in” during a later election is never a good idea. You try to get the lesser of two evils in there.
McCain is superior, from a conservative perspective on at least two major points.
McCain’s tax plan sounds mainstream GOP Conservative.
McCain is committed to appointing judges to the Sup. Ct. like Alito and Roberts.
Those two points alone make him far better than either Democrat.
That is leaving aside the many ways that either Democrat will be actively and affirmatively terrible.
I like to add a 3rd point:
It would be a disgrace to our military to put either Obama or Clinton as the CinC.