Obama’s Elitist Remarks Burst His MSM Bubble (Re-Post)
By SusanUnPC on April 12, 2008 at 2:36 PM in Barack Obama, Pennsylvania
I am re-posting this story on the new server for those who may have missed it during last night’s file transition period.
______________________________
“Is Obama’s Campaign Over?,” asks Powerline‘s John H. Hinderaker.
Memeorandum.com lists dozens of news and blog reports (like Hinderaker’s) on Obama’s remarks that label the small-town white voters as “angry” and beset by prejudiced and simplistic views. (It didn’t help that Obama made the remarks in San Francisco, a city seen by “middle” America as too liberal and permissive, and that he spoke to elite, wealthy fundraisers.)
Is his campaign over, or is this one more devastating chink in his armor? Check out today’s Lou Dobbs show on CNN. Dobbs’ program posted an online poll for his listeners: “Do you believe that Senator Barack Obama’s comments reveal his elitist attitude toward every hardworking American?”
Here’s what gets at me: Obama has LABELED white voters — even though labeling is the very thing has historically embittered blacks about whites. Obama further labeled these white voters as so “bitter” that “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment.”
In short: “Typical white people” in small towns, he’s indicating, are basically racists who blame their problems on “people who aren’t like them” (and that’d be who, I wonder) or “immigrants” (and that’s code for brown-skinned people). And that, he believes that politicians win elections in small towns by appealing to their prejudices and their one-issue voting patterns.
Further, he charges that these white voters are so simple-minded that they can be swayed by a single issue like gun rights or religious persuasion.
Speaking of “bitterness” and religious persuasion, how about that of Rev. James Meeks, one of Obama’s close spiritual advisers and, astonishingly, an Illinois state senator — a homophobe who believes the word “n—-r” is a term of endearment.
:::::::::::::
There are a couple additional observations I have about Barack Obama’s remarks in San Francisco:
(1) He is unconsciously expressing his anger with what he perceives to be the simple-minded prejudices of most white voters in small towns. To date, he’s been pretty adept at concealing any resentments towards white voters, while his wife Michelle has not. But his facade is slipping, and his real resentments are coming out.
(2) He was making excuses to those wealthy donors who were asking him why he can’t win Pennsylvania. And the excuse he gave them was that he has an uphill climb because, he believes, they are unable to see his qualities beyond the color of his skin or his liberal voting record on gun control or his longtime associations with radical, racist ministers like Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Rev. Meeks.
Well, his expressions of anger, and his excuse-making to his rich supporters, are biting him hard. The fall-out from these remarks has just begun. The Republican attack machine is in full force. Notes Chris Cillizza at the Washington Post about the story getting out, followed by John McCain’s attacks and then Obama’s attempts to explain away his remarks:
The whirlwind pace from revelation to recrimination to rebuttal reveals just what Obama must be ready for if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
Republicans are certain to use comments like this one to paint Obama as an out-of-step liberal beholden to the wants and needs of voters on the two coasts. It’s a blueprint Republicans followed to perfection during the 2004 campaign against Sen. John Kerry — effectively portraying the Massachusetts senator as an elitist without interest in or regard for the average voter in fly-over country.



















