Deeply flawed hopefuls
So Barack Obama is . For the record this is what he said at that now infamous San Francisco fundraiser:
"The jobs have been gone now for 25 years, and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Reasonable points. Points with which no Democrat could disagree. But points a social scientist might make, not a man seeking the presidency.
In the past Obama has bounced back from statements regarded by the media commentators as "gaffes" but this?
It brings me back to the issue we discussed some time ago: that, contrary to popular belief, neither of these candidates, Clinton and Obama, is actually very strong. They are deeply flawed, not as people but as presidential hopefuls.
So is McCain of course: which is why it will remain such an interesting race.
Hello, I'm 
°ä´Ç³¾³¾±ð²Ô³Ù²õÌýÌý Post your comment
Justin,
I agree with you about flawed candidates and stated so in an earliar thread. I'm not sure how much this will benefit Clinton in the long run, but it will certainly benefit McCain if Obama gets the nomination.
That may be true.
But McCain is the only one with a resume.
Obama has no accomplishments and has shown that he is too naive.
Clinton's is a sucessful lawyer from a small southern state.
McCain is a war hero who showed as great a courage as Mandela in captivity.
This is due to the high expectation after Bush Adm. Is Bush or Kerry a better candidate. I am sure they are not.
"Points with which no Democrat could disagree"?? Really? What an elitist European attitude to assume that all small town people are such miscreants. Oh, don't get my wrong there are several million such people. And most Americans are not anti-immigrant contrary to views espoused by the European press. I mean really, we wouldn't exist without immigrants. What almost all Americans are against, however, are ILLEGAL immigrants which nobody from either party seems to want to do anything about. Now excuse me since I live in small town Casper, Wyoming I must go clean my guns, pray, and put on my white robe with eye holes cut out as I have a rally later on involving a burning cross...That is what you think isn't it?
No evidence yet that it will play badly with the Pennsylvania Democratic electorate, though - his most immediate concern. The Clinton campaign's publicizing of it might actually backfire, might it not? And I'm racking my brains to recall an unflawed politician -it's tough!
If Clinton, Obama and McCain are all deeply flawed, as Justin suggests, perhaps he would elaborate and tell us his reasons for so saying. He might also indicate which president of the last half-century has been fortunate to be flawless, but then he could not really judge since living here during those times would be a prerequisite to being so judgmental.
All three are deeply flawed. Finally you are coming around to my point of view. What took you so long? Not just flawed as candidates but likely as presidents. Obama and Clinton have almost no experience which would qualify them for the enormous responsibility. McCain has different flaws. He doesn't understand the economy for one. He is out of touch with the American People's views on illegal aliens for another. Obama and Clinton are obviously inadequate to protect America's security at a time when it is under dire threat, McCain less obviously so but perhaps equally so nevertheless. And then there is the unmentionable fact that McCain was a prisoner of war who was tortured by the enemy during five years of his life. The prospect of him having his finger on the button which controls the world's most powerful military including 10,000 thermonuclear weapons is something I don't like to think about and you can't say anything anyway because of the fact that he became a prisoner as a soldier defending the country, the highest honor and calling in a democracy. Whichever one we get, the future looks very ominous. Not just for America but for the entire world. An old Chinese curse says; may you live in interesting times. It will get very interesting during the next Presidential administration without any doubt.
Perfectly reasonable statements showing understanding and empathy for the people in small towns.
Clinton and McCain are twisting it for political gains. Doesn't mean you should buy their line...
Obama has not 'misspoke', Clinton did, he has not confused Sunni for Shi'ite, McCain did...
Obama has run the most honourable campaign of all 3 candidates, this sets him apart from the other 2.
All 3 have flaws, but give Obama credit for avoiding the nastiness of the other presidential hopefuls.
As a Republican and gun lover, I get what he is saying, but too bad others will not. What I find most interesting is that he has been on the same anti trade bent as Clinton, and now he looks at it as a bad thing. Make up your mind Obama.
PS- I also support free trade.
Since you say the three US presidential hopefuls aren't stellar candidates, which I agree, all it's going to cause is voter apathy, because citizens will be left with a choice between bad, awful and horrible. Not to mention the length of this ordeal, I've heard of campaigns that only last two weeks in other countries. This one is lasting two years, half the amount of time of the term they seek.
Justin:
I don't follow your point here. Obama is a poor presidential hopeful because he cannot maintain the lie in the face of all evidence to the contrary?
He is not up to the job of lying his way to the White House? I guess that is basically it. You don't have to be a social scientist to reach these conclusions, a functioning head on your shoulders would be enough. The weakness is in breaking down and unburdening himself in a place he thought he could get away with it. I guess he exercised poor judgement.
Who can you think of who would be a good "hopeful"? Reagan or Carter? Essentially some kind of ingenu with their head in the clouds ( or up something else ).
As for Clinton, I heard discussion about who would play her in a movie but I think she should get the part of Meryl in the "Meryl Streep Story". The girl can act! Did you see her reminiscing about where she was when she got the news of the MLK assassination? I kept waiting for that Marvin Gaye song to start up ( "I just turned around and they were gone..." )
I completely agree with Barack Obama's statement, although he could've said it more elegantly (not something we can often say about the man).
Living in a town in Indiana which looks just as Mr. Obama describes, I've seen the empty promises from politicians and I've seen how many have reacted, again just as he describes.
Having made this statement, what will Mr. Obama now do for communities like mine?
"Reasonable points. Points with which no Democrat could disagree. But points a social scientist might make, not a man seeking the presidency."
I don't understand, Justin. I mean of course these so-called "points", if stretched, or just plain untrue, if made by a man/woman seeking the presidency, surely everyone would deam that person as "flawed", their having said those points a "big mistake!" etc, etc. But if these points are true, as all indications seem to prove so far in Obama's case, if people not just in "small town America", but all around this country are upset, impoverished and middle class, at loossing their jobs to them being outsourced or others recieveing them for a reason that they deam to be unfair, therefore forcing them to turn to other means (i.e. as Obama said, guns, lashing out perhaps unfairly at imigrants etc) to fill the void left by the loss of their job, and a presidencial candidate wants to make a very in my opinion bold statement by bringing this unhappy truth to the forfront, so that he/she may-and this is what I personally think was Obama's intention in all this-pledge, that if elected president, he/she would try their utmost to solve and/or at least start to reverse this trend, then why not? I don't see the harm in that, and I don't understand those who do-such as yourself. Please explain your reasoning.
O and by the way all candidates are "flawed" both as people and as presidencial candidates-no one is perfect. Just as everyone running for office in any country is "flawed". No one is perfict-or at least I haven't met anyone who is, yet. Just out of curiosity, what qualities would one have to possess in order for you to deam them fit to run for the presidency?
I am bitter about the Clintons and what they are doing in this election. They are working better than any republican to destroy the chances of the best candidate the democratic party ever had and all for what, you may ask?
Hillary said: "Senator Obama's remarks were elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans."
She claims she knows about values and beliefs of the american people. What are your values and beliefs, Hillary? For you is about lies, distortion of the truth and coverups of your family's deals with foreign governments. For you and Bill and your associates is all about how much money will go to your huge bank account. tell me, do you really feel the pain of the working class? Your life experience doesn't show it.
deeply flawed is putting it mildly. in a nation of 300 million where ever do we get such people to be put forward by a national policical party?
The measure for truth in political campaigns is solely based on how much media traction your rivals can get by questioning any particular point.
As you said, what's unreasonable?
Considering that they're going to bicker over any point, you might as well just say the truth. Some percentage of the electorate will note it as such, and an additional percentage will be converted by statistics if you go to the mat for it.
I guess the question will be, "Do Pennsylvanians fall in those percentages or not?"
What is the big shock? I am bitter. I'm from the great state of Michigan and our dire economic situation has been ignored. Bitter? Yes. I'm sick of watching people lose their jobs and move out of state. I'm sick of watching municipalities cut and cut and CUT. I'm sick of driving through potholes. I'm sick of politicians siphoning money for pet projects (Big Dig) while ignoring the lack of funding for the mandates in education.
I'm not clinging to a gun. I'm not clinging to antipathy. Anti trade? Well, yes -- I wish more Americans would buy American. Oh yes, and I am a person of faith.
You may call Obama's comments a gaffe, but I call them pretty darn honest. Maybe not the shining oration we have come to expect from him -- but I like honesty.
I still won't vote for Clinton. I still fear McCain. I'm still looking at Oboma as my candidate. In Michigan that would be called "Uncommitted."
Bitter? Not us. Not here in Michigan. Why would we be bitter about politics and economics here in Michigan of all places?
Also Justin, you may note that I'm deeply flawed. Isn't everyone? Yes, this is an interesting race.
It will be interesting to see how much Obama is truly hurt by this controversy and whilst I accept the observation that all the candidates have their personal flaws - has there ever been the 'perfect candidate'? At least in recent electoral history? Was George W. Bush perfect? Al Gore? John Kerry. They each had their flaws and some more than others.
The hard truth: Obama's comments were for once, poorly phrased. They might have tingled the nerves of a few Americans who are unwilling to contextualize his words. But I think vast majority of Americans, in Pennsylvania or otherwise, will come to realize that no matter how unpleasant these truths are - truths they still remain. When your job is shipped across to China and your house is being repossessed, how is it possible to 'not' be bitter? In this sense, there is nothing remarkable about Obama's comments; he's simply telling it as it is. Yet perhaps his comments are startling for the way in which they represent a politician being honest with the electorate and not playing Rove-esque politics with small-town America. The Clinton response was all too predictable. How much has America learnt after the Bush-Cheney episode? We're about to find out.
MY FELLOW BITTER, STUPID, WORKING CLASS PEOPLE.
YOU MIGHT BE AN IDIOT TOO :-(
If you think like Barack Obama, that WORKING CLASS PEOPLE are just a bunch of BITTER!, STUPID, PEASANTS, Cash COWS!, and CANNON FODDER. :-(
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think Barack Obama with little or no experience would be better than Hillary Clinton with 35 years experience.
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think that Obama with no experience can fix an economy on the verge of collapse better than Hillary Clinton. Whose husband (Bill Clinton) led the greatest economic expansion, and prosperity in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think that Obama with no experience fighting for universal health care can get it for you better than Hillary Clinton. Who anticipated this current health care crisis back in 1993, and fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds to get universal health care for all the American people.
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think that Obama with no experience can manage, and get us out of two wars better than Hillary Clinton. Whose husband (Bill Clinton) went to war only when he was convinced that he absolutely had to. Then completed the mission in record time against a nuclear power. AND DID NOT LOSE THE LIFE OF A SINGLE AMERICAN SOLDIER. NOT ONE!
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think that Obama with no experience saving the environment is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose husband (Bill Clinton) left office with the greatest amount of environmental cleanup, and protections in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think that Obama with little or no education experience is better than Hillary Clinton. Whose husband (Bill Clinton) made higher education affordable for every American. And created higher job demand and starting salary’s than they had ever been before or since.
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think that Obama with no experience will be better than Hillary Clinton who spent 8 years at the right hand of President Bill Clinton. Who is already on record as one of the greatest Presidents in American history.
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think that you can change the way Washington works with pretty speeches from Obama, rather than with the experience, and political expertise of two master politicians ON YOUR SIDE like Hillary and Bill Clinton..
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
If you think all those Republicans voting for Obama in the Democratic primaries, and caucuses are doing so because they think he is a stronger Democratic candidate than Hillary Clinton. :-)
Best regards
jacksmith...
p.s.
If you don't know that the huge amounts of money funding the Obama campaign to try and defeat Hillary Clinton is coming in from the insurance, and medical industry, that has been ripping you off, and killing you and your children. And denying you, and your loved ones the life saving medical care you needed. All just so they can make more huge immoral profits for them-selves off of your suffering...
You Might Be An Idiot Too!
You see, back in 1993 Hillary Clinton had the audacity, and nerve to try and get quality, affordable universal health care for everyone to prevent the suffering and needless deaths of hundreds of thousands of you each year. :-)
Approx. 100,000 of you die each year from medical accidents from a rush to profit by the insurance, and medical industry. Another 120,000 of you die each year from treatable illness that people in other developed countries don’t die from. And I could go on, and on...
So, Mrs Clinton thinks
Mr Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch"? Funny, that, considering whence that comment originated from. Just how many "born again", "hands off my guns" voters does she hope to attract, really? The only thing such a blatant misrepresentation of a completely justified and insightful notion has achieved is that the Democratic party as a whole is now less likely to win the presidency. Doing political damage never seemed so futile, especially from a supposedly seasoned team. Nice going.
The McCain campaign's "hanging onto choice words" exercise isn't a shining example of strategic prowess either. Anyone who speaks about being "out of touch" and "average Americans" in the same breath clearly thinks him/herself above the people, so much so that he/she doesn't even bother with differentiation or offering analytical thought. And from such a perspective, reducing the issues that are being voted on indeed makes life a lot easier. It's one thing being out of touch by the virtue of reflection, quite another being out of touch by choice.
And perhaps that's why the response from Clinton and McCain has been ferocious. Obama, ever so fleetingly, brushed the current tradition of controlling the usage of electoral freedoms in the US. Reducing issues to superfluous social indicators rather than matters of personal choice. He came close to breaking an established code of conduct between the candidates, and the assigned roles of candidates and the electorate. In so doing he threatened social norms and memes that really should be too weak to persist anyway.
Obama shouldn't be put on the back foot by this. He has his opponents scared on another level altogether, for after this exchange, of the candidates he remains the one who didn't talk down or belittle the voters. Every man and woman eventually stands in the booth alone, alone with his/her own thoughts - and vote.
Perhaps it's time all the candidates showed appropriate humility when faced with the impossible challenge of reflecting everyone's hopes and dreams - let alone trying to substitute those with shortsightedly convenient "generic issues".
Flawed? Yes
So? So what?
Since when are there perfect human beings on this planet?
The last place I am looking for a perfect human being is a presidential race.
I have made up my mind, and it is not about who is "perfect" or "excellent." I accept the flaws and errors. It is about what direcetion or possible direction I want in the administration, and I am willing to live with the mistakes, if any, that will be made.
At the beginning of these elections, I gave Obama the benefit of the doubt; Now I doubt there's any benefit in voting for Obama. He's become the 'Out of Context' Candidate; everything he or one of his surrogates say is 'out of context': the pastor's comments, the wife's comments, the Nafta comments and now these comments. It's obvious then he doesnt understand or value America. One of this country's greatness lies precisely on the pride that everyone feels regardless of economic position - the 'classless' culture - So for this guy to come and spit condescending and patronizing baloney about small towners, specially in issues involving religion and guns, is an amazing and fatal tactical mistake.
This is Kerry-Latte-Gate part 2.
Hmmm. It's a pretty weird world when a candidate makes reasonable points (with which no Democrat could disagree) and then is considered deeply flawed for making them.
It seems that, whenever Obama strays from the well-trodden and comfortable path of the typical American campaign trail and presents us with something true but not necessarily pretty, he gets clobbered.
Wouldn't it be fairer to say that it is actually the American political system which is deeply flawed?
The US is going to be materially poorer than it is now in a generation. Even with better-than-current technology, there simply are not enough natural resources for half the world to have an American standard of living. As various regions around the world develop, they are going to claim a more equal share of resources.
Will we (and the UK/France/Germany/Japan) accept a slight decline with grace, or will we look to enslave those around us to maintain our standard?
The whole point that many comments here, and Justin in his post, seem to miss is that the statement is not reasonable or accurate to anyone who knows small town or rural America. God has, hardcore, always been at the center of small town life and culture. Also, it was always just a given that most people owned guns and had a right to do so. If people are angry over those specific issues it is only because they feel they or those values are being attacked. People are not "clinging" to them because they are bitter. Whether they are bitter or not over the economy and jobs is a totally separate issue. The problem with the statement has nothing to do with Obama saying people are bitter or why he thinks they are bitter.
What Justin does at least seem to get is the insane stupidity of a candidate for President making a statement that even could appear to belittle a significant group of voters he or she needs to win. Regardless of whether you agreed with the statement or thought it was true, making such a statement as a candidate is just insanely self-defeating.
What makes this statement resonate so strongly though is that it is so clearly out of touch and ignorant. You don't have to agree with these values to understand and accept that they are honestly held by the people Obama was referencing. You might think those beliefs or values are stupid but they don't.
Top that off with him having the amazing idiocy to say this in San Francisco of all places... If there is one place that small town America considers even more out of touch with their values or beliefs than New York City, it is San Francisco.
Mr Webb.
Flawed!!!..Pls show me a flawless politician or presenditential candidate? Shocking statement Mr Webb, absoultely shocking!!!
Bill was going around 16 years ago with his "I feel your pain" speeches and now 16 years later much of that pain has turned into the bitterness Senator Obama has seen.
Anyways, I looked up this YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ta_SFvgbrlY) of Bill from the '92 campaign. Funny how so little has changed, no wonder people are bitter.
Now, Hillary seems to be implying that it's not real by handing out "I'm not bitter" stickers. What's next flip-flops?
Obama had the courage to talk openly about the real issue of poor people being frustrated bitter. Labels such elitist, condescending, out of touch are expressions of fake indignation. Everyone knows Obama is right. His words are no insult. They show a good understanding of a hard social reality.
If calling talking openly about delicate issues means flawed I prefer a "flawed" candidate over the hypocrites who are ready to serve these poor bitter folks another plate with empty promises of "we respect you we'll and fight for you!".
I'm a huge Obama supporter, which makes these remarks hugely disappointing. As an ex-conservative, I know from experience that Obama is correct -- Reublicans repeatedly capitalize on anger, fear, and bitterness to promote things like this, and some people do take the bait. But the way it was phrased was condescending and tactless. Someone who builds his campaign on the power of words should know better than to say something like this, especially right now. He is blessed with another chance, though, at the debate Wednesday. If I were his advisor I'd recommend an unreserved apology in the opening statement.
Having lived in "small town Oregon" where timber-industry jobs were lost years ago, I fail to see why Obama's words are anything but an accurate description of the status quo. Lots of religion and even more guns. Nice people on the whole, but very skeptical and often bitter about the government and economy. Who wouldn't be, when most politicians prefer to feed their constituents sugar-coated lies?
"Reasonable points. Points with which no Democrat could disagree. But points a social scientist might make, not a man seeking the presidency."
It strikes me, Justin, that it is you that is assuming too little of the American people, and not the candidate himself.
If these points are "reasonable" why are you so reluctant to credit the voters with the capacity to recognize this?
We're all flawed Justin, but for US presidential candidates a bit more context might be useful. Do any of these candidates have anything like the personal and political flaws that George Bush Jr has? Or for that matter Gordon Brown?
Hilary Clinton, apparently, has indeed been waiting for Barack Obama to make a mistake, and as he admitted he did in his phrasing about what he later stated as a natural reaction of people who are frustrated with lack of jobs and economic mobility.
Ironically Mrs. Clinton then esculates the blunder to suggest strongly that "see, he Mr. Obama is arrogant and out of touch."
But this doesn't fit with his approach all along that he will make mistakes, "we" as Americans can turn things around, the audacity of hope for all of us, facing dividing issues of race and poverty and religion can bring us closer together.
If all Mrs. Clinton can do is esculate the situation, then how will she handle foreign affairs, and internal affairs, and national affairs?
Let's just leave this all alone, including my questions about Mrs. Clinton's esculation.
A mistake in phrasing was made, and politicians are like all of us, at times wrong in how we say things, misunderstood, etc.
Now let's get back to what the campaign should be all about, and it isn't one candidate, in this case Mrs. Clinton, waiting for a chance to be an attack cat (and no offense intended to my feline friends).
Every candidate has flaws, I would be suspicious if a candidates didn't seem to have any, however, these candidates are all far too flawed to deserve my support, That's why I still have a Fred '08 bumper sticker on my car. I'll vote for one, but only in opposition to another.
jacksmith - Don't hold back, tell us what you really think ! Interesting and thought provoking stuff.
Obama is not saying that all small-town people are like this, but he is making a valid point, and it stings somewhat that it is something of a home truth.
In Britain, we attribute the unfortunate successes of far-right groups to disenchantment, bitterness, and the failure of mainstream politicians to engage with the electorate.
Obama is only identifying a parallel phenomenon in the US. People who are disappointed and worried cling to what they think they can rely on, and anti-immigrant sentiment and certain brands of fundamentalism are strands of that.
Justin - Obama has already achieved something great, in that he's actually reignited the people's interest in politics. Even if Clinton succeeds in elbowing him out, he's already won.
Jacksmith (poster 19)
A very Clitonite comment...
Decontextualize what Obama has said, stretch and universalize it to every case and unintended audience, use it to create fear and loathing...
Why is it so hard for Clinton supporters like you, to keep nastiness out of comments, and just speak out nicely for your candidate?
Stop the nastiness, change America...
Clay Diggs raises a very good point. I think the european perception of small town America is very much what's been described. Many people in europe see it as being parochial, white, gun bearing and religiously fundamentalist.
Unfortunately this perception really has risen to a new extent over the last 10 years or so as it these people who were key to Bush's 2 elections. They also seem to be given a far greater voice or at least attention in the media than those who do not fit the mold of this 19th century American village perception that many people have. I personally have to stop and ask myself whether I am being to presumptive of a place I've never been and whether America is slightly more complex than this inaccurate snapshot that europeans seem to have.
Reasonable points... But points a social scientist might make, not a man seeking the presidency.
I can't help feeling it isn't the candidates that are flawed here.
Did somebody amend the First Amendment to say that candidates seeking office are allowed free speech - as long as they don't actually start telling the truth?