I haven’t lived in rural Pennsylvania or in rural Indiana, but I have lived in rural upstate New York, in towns where there are so few Democrats that on some local election ballots, not a single position, from town council to justice of the peace, has a contest. As in China, your option is to vote for the Republican candidate, or to leave that line blank.
And many of the people in these towns, uniformly white, when they talk politics, spend a lot of their time complaining about black people, immigrants (neither of whom can even be found in the vicinity) and the threat to their guns.
Barack Obama is exactly right.
In Hancock, NY and Spencer, NY, there are no factory jobs. There used to be in Hancock, but the companies where hundreds of people used to work have long since folded or moved south of the border, courtesy of the North American Free Trade Act (NAFTA) aggressively promoted and pushed through Congress by Bill and Hillary Clinton during the 1990s. In Spencer, there are no jobs because in the free-for-all bidding by companies for tax giveaways between communities, Spencer had nothing much to offer. The town is so dirt poor that when the library board, of which I was briefly president, got a measure on the ballot to have one extra dollar per taxpayer of school district taxes allocated to support the local little library, which was at that time totally supported by donations, the measure went down to resounding defeat (I was labeled a communist by some for promoting the idea!).
In 1992, neighbors in Spencer told me they were voting for George H. W. Bush—a patrician blue blood if ever there was one—because Bill Clinton, if elected “would take away our guns.”
Of course, he didn’t, and had no intention of doing so, but that didn’t matter.
Don’t get me wrong—the people in Hancock and Spencer are good folks. I'm pretty sure many of them probably give a higher proportion of their meager incomes to charity than do millionaires John McCain and Hillary Clinton. But Obama is right that in their angst and frustration at seeing the good economic times pass them by, at seeing themselves abandoned by the federal government in hard times, and at seeing candidates promise them everything during campaigns, only to ignore them after winning, they are bitter and frustrated.
And they have a right to be, and they should be.
One response to that bitterness and frustration is that they are open to the charlatans in both parties, and especially the Republican Party, who have played on their basest fears. It’s Republicans who have whispered the poison in their ears that their high taxes are because “the Blacks” are getting all that welfare money and are getting all the jobs through “quotas.” It's the Republicans who have warned them about "hoards" of Mexicans coming across the border to steal their jobs. It’s the Republicans who have been warning them that Democrats are going to take their hunting rifles and shotguns away. It’s the Republicans and their Christian fundamentalist front men who have been saying that the Democrats have been causing the nation’s decline by supporting licentiousness and a “gay” agenda. And it's Republicans and Democrats who have been hyping the bogus issue of national defense to keep people from focusing on the deliberate dismantling of the US economy that is underway. (Over years of Republican and Democratic administrations, the tax contribution of US corporations to the national budget has fallen from 50% in 1940 to just 14% today. Between 1996 and 2000, 61% of all corporations and 39% or large corporations paid no taxes at all, and that situation has only gotten worse in the Bush years.)
Anything but the real issue, which is how to provide funds so that the children in places like Spencer and Hancock can get a decent education without bankrupting the local taxpayers, how those communities can get jobs again, so that their children won’t have to move out, how to ensure that everyone in town can have health insurance and access to medical care.
Barack Obama is right. I've seen it in person. The people in rural America are bitter and frustrated, and after years of being played by politicians, they fall victim to the charlatans who tell them it’s all because of “the Blacks,” or the immigrants, or who tell them that their guns are in danger. Or they turn to religions that preach division or apocalypse—a concept that offers the chance of a final, delicious revenge against the rich and the powerful oppressors on Wall Street and in Washington.
Now I don’t know what Obama has in mind to try and turn things around for these good people, but it’s a start that he’s at least talking to them, not down, but honestly.
His talk in response to attacks on his statement about rural residents being “bitter and frustrated” is as good as anything Ralph Nader has said about the power and mendacity of the ruling political elite in America.
As he put it, to wild applause at a rally in Terra Haute, Indiana, explaining the difficulty of appealing to the rural working class voters in Pennsylvania:
“For the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shift overseas, they’ve seen their economies collapse, they have lost their jobs, they’ve lost their pensions, they’ve lost their health care. And for 25-30 years, Democrats and Republicans have come before then and said we’re gonna make your community better. We’re gonna make it right.
“And nothing ever happens. And of course they’re bitter, and of course they’re frustrated. You would be too, in fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing has happened across the border in Decatur. (Wild applause) The same thing has happened across the country. Nobody’s looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you.
Dave Lindorff, a columnist for Counterpunch, is author of several recent books ("This Can't Be Happening! Resisting the Disintegration of American Democracy" and "Killing Time: An Investigation into the Death Penalty Case of Mumia Abu-Jamal"). His latest book, coauthored with Barbara Olshanshky, is "The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office (St. Martin's Press, May 2006). His writing is available at http://www.thiscantbehappening.net
Responsible and smart would be better than bitter and frustrated.
Obama might sharpen his message, but neither he, or any of the other big three are qualified for the job. Words, words, words. Anyone can learn how to improve their ability to say what people want to hear. We need someone who can find their courage and honor their oath of office.
Obama is definitely right on and whats more, Hillary by...
pouncing is suggesting that the opposite is true, everything is hunky-dory and everyone is happy. Hillary suggesting that happiness is the end-result of Bush/GOP policies is a pretty convincing argument for McCain.
Does she have anyone in her campaign that thinks?
by
Steven Leser (212 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1392 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 10:24:04 AM
Bill and Hillary Clinton began the presidential primary campaign by trying to characterize Barack Obama's position against the Iraq war as "a fairy tale". But the record clearly shows that on October 2, 2002 at the Federal Plaza in Chicago Barack Obama delivered a powerful speech against the US starting a war in Iraq, while later that same month both Senators Hillary Clinton and John McCain voted for the funds requested by President Bush to authorize the beginning of US military action in Iraq. After being severely criticized for totally misrepresenting Obama’s position on the Iraq war, the Clintons instead began accusing Barack Obama of being too young and inexperienced to be president. Both Hillary Clinton and John McCain have tried to convince voters that because Barack Obama is younger than they are that he therefore must be too young and inexperienced to be president. But the facts of American history suggest otherwise. Senator Barak Obama will be 47 years old on Aug 4th, Senator John McCain will become 72 years of age August 29th, and Senator Hillary Clinton will achieve age 61 on Oct 26, 2008. Previously America has had both younger and older individuals who have become president and served with great distinction such as Theodore Roosevelt who became president at age 42, John Kennedy who assumed the presidency at age 43, and Ronald Regan who was sworn in as the Commander in Chief on January 20, 1981 at age 69. Before Abraham Lincoln took the oath of office in 1860 to become our 16th president he had previously served 8 years as an Illinois state legislator and 4 years in the U.S. Congress, which happens to be precisely Senator Barack Obama’s experience. Bill Clinton became president at age 46 after having served 12 years as the governor of Arkansas, but without having had any prior experience whatsoever in Washington or as a state legislator. How do Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton actually compare in terms of their individual experience? Barack Obama graduated from Harvard Law School Magna Cum Laude in 1991 and served as the President of the Harvard Law Review. Given those credentials he could have joined any number of prestigious law firms but instead felt compelled to give back to his local community, so he returned to his home in Chicago to direct a voter registration drive and work as an attorney representing community organizers working on voting rights and civil rights cases. In 1993 he became a lecturer of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago Law School and in 1996 was elected to the Illinois State Senate where he served 8 years prior to his landslide election to the US Senate in November 2004. With his combined service as an Illinois State Senator and US Senator, Barack Obama is currently serving his 12th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters. Hillary Clinton graduated from Yale law school in 1973 and subsequently worked as a lawyer at the Rose Law Firm in Little Rock, Arkansas and has been a very active spouse, first as the wife of the governor of Arkansas and then as the First lady of the United States. Despite her claim of “35 years of experience”, she actually first became an elected official as a Senator from her adopted state of New York in 2000, and she is currently serving her 8th year as an elected legislator accountable to voters. Barack Obama’s opponents are trying to convince voters that Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. anger and bitterness and sometimes over the top 1960’s type radical incendiary rhetoric that Barack Obama has repeatedly denounced and rejected actually somehow represents the feelings of Barack Obama himself rather than those of Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. Furthermore Barack Obama’s opponents are trying to convince voters that he is somehow unfit to become commander in chief of our military forces. But these attempts at trying to denigrate Senator Barack Obama are not working because more people have been reading the 2 books which he has written which reveal his character and clearly and unmistakably show his love and respect for America. Furthermore on March 12, 2008 10 distinguished retired Generals and Admirals of the United States Army, Air Force and Navy unconditionally endorsed Barack Obama to become the President of the United States of America and the Commander in Chief of all United States Military Forces. When Barack Obama decided to run for president, unlike Hillary Clinton and John McCain, he made the significant decision that he would not accept campaign contributions from lobbyists, special interests, and political action committees for his presidential campaign. It was Barack Obama’s judgment that it would be preferable if the next President of the United States was elected without being beholden to money peddlers in Washington. Suppose Barack Obama becomes the Democratic nominee for president at the Democratic National Convention in August, and suppose in the November general election the majority of Americans decide to vote for Barack Obama, the presidential candidate who among many other things has refused to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists but has financed his campaign solely from the contributions of people to whom he is accountable. Furthermore, suppose this idea of raising money for political campaigns directly from the voters to whom the candidate is accountable sits so well with the American people that they come to expect that future presidential candidates as well as candidates for other offices such for the US Senate and House of Representatives will do as Barack Obama has done. What if candidates who continue to accept campaign contributions from special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists find it increasingly difficult to get elected? Would that help or hurt democracy in America? That’s the kind of change that Barack Obama represents which concerns so many in Washington who don’t seem very eager for the American people to reclaim their democracy from the influence of special interests, political action committees, and lobbyists, the Washington money peddlers who currently arrange to provide huge amounts of financial support to political candidates whom they believe have a good chance of winning, and whom they can then “work with” later on. Don’t let anyone do your thinking for you. We are at a historic moment in America. Barack Obama is a very special candidate for president who can bring about significant changes in Washington and help ordinary Americans begin reclaiming their democracy. Both the Governor of New Mexico, Bill Richardson, and Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey Jr. know this and have recently endorsed Senator Barack Obama, recognizing Obama’s integrity, intelligence, and the strong leadership he can provide as president. It is time for voters in Pennsylvania and in all of the other states soon to vote in their presidential primary elections to stand up and be counted. It’s time for ordinary Americans to begin the process of reclaiming American democracy by voting for Barack Obama.
by
Robert99 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 11:19:36 AM
that speech exists only in written form and a thirteen second sound bite froma TV news report. Noone remembers Obama there and to continue to base an anti war position from it is the height ( or depth) of absurdity.
That this author attempts to put a neophyte and hypocrite like Obama in the same tier as Ralph Nader is not only ludicrous but shows a bit more desperation from the Obama maniac crowd.
When this campaign began I thought it a momentous and proud day for this nation; after all a black man and a white woman contesting for the highest office in the land should have signalled a new dawning in both race relations and sexisms doom. The Obama crowd has done everything in its power to drag this contest down to the basest level, the Karl Rove political playbook, while the Clinton crowd has displayed a bit more tact, given the great disparity in the track record of their candidate they could afford magnaminity, I guess. But Bill Clinton and certain members of their inner circle have joined the Obama crowd sadly.
Not only has the way this contest has been managed diminished both candidates but it has helped clear the way for the unthinkable; a McCain victory.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 1:09:02 PM
Have you even been watching the same election? I refuse to respond to your particulars because they are nothing but projections and delusion. We finally have a candidate who just might give us back our voice, but you would elect another Clinton (who is simply unelectable anyway) who, as we know from experience, would sweep the Bush jr. crimes under the rug, where Bill swept Sr.s Iran/Contra crimes.
Ugh.
by
brian edwards (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 5 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 1:54:12 PM
I didn't "put Obama in the same tier" as Nader. And your saying that shows that you can't argue honestly about an article.
I said that in his speech at Terra Haute, IN, he "sounded like Nader", which is true.
I also said we don't know if he's just being another charlatan, but that IF he continues to talk this way instead of following typical DNC advice after the nomination and moving to the center, he will win the election.
You got a problem with that analysis? Then state it. Don't set up a false position and attack it.
I think that Democrats continue to lose elections in large part because they are afraid to stake out progressive positions and stay with them. Here we're seeing standing ovations for a candidate when he says what's true about what is happening to ordinary working people. It should be a wake-up call.
You want a revolution. So do I
Ain't gonna happen.
Certainly not this election.
On the other hand, if we had a candidate run even talking a progressive game through November, you can bet that, like FDR in '32, he'd find himself under pretty heavy pressure to follow through with some progressive policies after November.
Anyhow, argue these points. Don't pretend I'm saying Obama is another Ralph Nader.
by
Dave Lindorff (341 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 157 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 3:14:33 PM
This was out of line and certainly over the top. It was less directed at you than it was my frustration with the shortcomings of ths entire forum. For two plus years I have watched Rob fail to make this what I'd hoped it would become and now the sewer is backing up here allowing mouth breathers access.
Again, I apologise to you personally and, after posting this, will remove this url from my list and return no more. There are places out there that encourage critical thinking and responses derived from thoughtful analysis of the material offered while here we see a horde of high school debaters and agendised posters less concerned with truth than with promoting their own personal agendas....
Be well....
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 7:57:04 AM
"that speech exists only in written form and a thirteen second sound bite froma TV news report. Noone remembers Obama there and to continue to base an anti war position from it is the height ( or depth) of absurdity."
And that TV report came from the same studio where they filmed the moon landing.
by
Gregg Gordon (26 articles, 47 quicklinks, 15 diaries, 199 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 11:30:18 PM
you fail miserably to make it. What I noted about that speech is truth, and could be confirmed by a brief jaunt to npr.org and a look into their archives regarding said speech.
Of course folks like you much prefer not to have their belief systems assaulted in any way...so sad for you.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2377 comments)
on Monday, April 14, 2008 at 6:31:29 AM
The NYT is claiming Obama is "on the defensive" about this;
their article gives prominence to Hillary's claim that Obama's remarks are "not reflective of the values and beliefs of Americans.” The Times' headline, for their part, is "On the Defensive, Obama Calls His Words Ill-Chosen."
Both Hillary's claim & the Times' coverage are perfect examples of the filth one must expect from such sources. I'm not in Obama,'s camp, but I truly hope he beats her brains out in Pennsylvania next week. He's being attacked by scum like the Times & the Clintons, not because he's "out of touch" but because he's too much in touch. The attacks he's receiving are the predictable responses of a terminally corrupt system to the threat of a bit of sunshine.
by
Richard Mynick (2 articles, 3 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 1168 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 11:43:01 AM
I really wonder how is this all going to play out...
... I am by no means certain. I know that a NY Times poll showed that 81% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track. Imagine that. I highly doubt that those who voted that way are 'happy' or even nonchalant about that opinion. The question is, will they be angered at being labeled bitter or will they say, man, this guy is right, he understands?
Obviously, it doesnt help if the coverage is as slanted as it has been.
by
Steven Leser (212 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1392 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 11:46:59 AM
Psychology or simple deduction & being in touch...
Its really simple
1. NY Times Poll that shows 81% of the country believes the country is on the wrong track. I guess you and the Clintons would assert that people who vote that way are completely dispassionate about it.
2. Obama makes the argument that things are off track and need to be changed. He argues that people have been told things are going to change and then those promises are not kept, thus people are bitter. You and Hillary and the rest of her supporters would argue that everything is hunky-dory and nothing needs to be changed. You would argue that people are not angry or bitter. That sounds like a good argument for McCain.
There you are. Did I need to use psychology? No. Is it complicated? No. To assert that people arent angry or bitter or that Obama is elitist to suggest they are is a stupid argument for any Democrat to make.
by
Steven Leser (212 articles, 45 quicklinks, 33 diaries, 1392 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 2:12:26 PM
There are a lot of people that are Angry and Bitter. Angry that we are in a war under false pretenses. Angry that we do not have a Single Payer Universal Health care system that cuts out the insurance companies and provides a consistent level of dependable care. Angry that the candidates and the corporate run media focus on a word or two in a speech instead of the overall issues. Angry and bitter that our country has slipped, the dollar is plummeting, gas prices are going through the roof and that the disparity between rich and poor is growing at an alarming rate.
Angry and bitter that our government is run by the corporate and elite of the country with the elite having direct dial lines to our representatives while the rest of us wait 8 weeks for a form letter that says, "thank you for your interest".
I hope Obama means what he says. I don't believe we have a democracy, these candidates were "selected" by the elite and the mainstream media. They filter the questions and parrot the message. Our consent is "manufactured and manipulated".
When Obama says, "People are fed up! They’re angry, and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter and they want to see a change in Washington, and that’s why I’m running for president of the United States of America!”
Damn right. Not sure he's going to be a People's President. He didn't get where he is without bundled donations from the wealthy and elite and not sure where his loyalty lies. But I do believe that of the scraps we have for candidates - his message is more populist then the others.
Hillary and Bill sold us out once (NAFTA) and would tell us one thing and do another.
Politicians promise the world and deliver nothing - it's up to us to make them keep their word.
Bitter, Angry and Frustrated and NOT sure that any of the candidates will do a damn thing about it. At least Obama acknowledges people's anger. Hillary and McCain are completely out of touch - if they can't feel the palpable anger in the air.
by
August Adams (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 442 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 7:24:31 PM
I find this entire topic a little sad. Perhaps having a candidate properly assess the mood of the electorate is of some token value ... perhaps not.
What is important, without question, is to have candidates properly assess and prioritize the very real problems we face and offer meaningful solutions to them. Those are the "powerful words" we really need.
What is Obama's plan to put an end to corporate control of our government? Does he even address the issue? Does he even acknowledge the issue? People are indeed bitter and frustrated; they will remain so until this issue is addressed and resolved.
How is Obama going to stop all the "oil madness" and put in place a sane energy policy? I've read his energy platform. It's way, way too little way, way too late.
Our real military spending now exceeds $1.1 trillion per year. Military spending is "drowning all other needed spending in a bathtub." Has Obama called for deep cuts in military spending in order to fund health care, education, infrastructure, retirement security and other key programs?
The answer is nooooooooo ... He's called for an increase of 90,000 additional troops. Why, if he's bringing troops home from Iraq does he need to increase the size of the military?
Obama's plan for Iraq is to leave enough troops in place to fight Al Qaeda and to protect American interests there. The Center for American Progress estimated that this would require about 60,000 troops. And, Obama has not said he would force the Blackwater mercenaries out of Iraq. He also said he wants to transfer a substantial number of troops and weapons out of the Iraq frying pan and into the Afghanistan fire.
And what about those 730-plus foreign US military bases? Does Obama talk about how much they cost to maintain or what impact they have on how the rest of the world views America?
The point is that all those "bitter and frustrated" people may be getting characterized properly but they are not being offered a major party candidate who is providing solutions to the problems we face.
The big issues are the corporate stranglehold on our government, a failed oil-driven energy policy, global warming and an out of control military industry. Obama's "powerful words" offer nothing useful on any of these critical issues.
Some may be sucked in by Obama's perfectly reasonable assessment of the American psyche. Perhaps, as suggested, Obama's "powerful words" will indeed help him win an election. Unfortunately, however, a compassionate shoulder to cry on will not bring the changes we need. The only "powerful words" are words that light the way.
by
welshTerrier2 (7 articles, 3 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 105 comments)
on Sunday, April 13, 2008 at 9:06:35 PM
The point is that all those "bitter and frustrated" people may be getting characterized properly but they are not being offered a major party candidate who is providing solutions to the problems we face.
Outstanding comment. I agree. And I am also angry, bitter, and frustrated because I don't think it makes any difference who the public votes for (for whom the public votes?) because the fix is in. The super delegates will decide who runs, and the folks who own and run the voting machines will decide who wins.
like Mary Matalin said this morning on Meet the Press when she was accused of taking up for Hillary...
MS. MATALIN: Did I defend her? I have--I am not for them. I'm for John McCain. He's not a good candidate. You superdelegates are supposed to be there for a purpose, not to follow the will of the people, but get somebody who can win in...
