From Daily Kos:
"Obama Responds to Charges of Elitism
by SusanG
Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 06:32:59 PM PDT
What Obama said:
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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 they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna 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.
What the McCain campaign said:
Asked to respond, McCain adviser Steve Schmidt called it a "remarkable statement and extremely revealing."
"It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking," Schmidt said. "It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans."
What Clinton said:
"I saw in the media it's being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter," Clinton said this afternoon. "Well, that's not my experience. As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.
"Pennsylvanians don't need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families." "
What Obama said in response:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
During this time in the "rust belt", the restrictions, regulations and other government policies to discourage business growth have only gotten worse, so it is not surprising that jobs are not returning.
Now, looking at their statements. I'm doing this without preconceptions about the candidates (Hillary is the one I like least, in fact).
Hillary Clinton's statement for once comes out looking the best. Obama with the guns and religion mention seems to be taking a swipe at the First and Second Amendments of the Constitution. So what if the people in these states "cling" to expression of their rights? His statement is laid low by this irrelevant attack. The McCain guy's comment is not worth discussing: the lame insult content is too high. Also, the "communities are gonna regenerate" makes him sound illiterate. I have heard him sound like an idiot in other speeches, such as when he says "he don't say" instead of "he doesn't say". Obama is ordinarily a gifted orator, but these gaffes make him sound ill-prepared, poorly-educated.
Obama's referemce to "anti-trade sentiment" is actually one clue clue that he is not as opposed to free,fair trade as supporters and detractors claim he is. So there is that that in his favor.
But while Obama is bashing these people for daring to express their religion freely and to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights, Hillary is praising them for working hard to overcome.
I think what Obama is saying is that people have gotten used to voting on issues other than economics because Washington has been so unresponsive on economic issues.
He also understands why, when economics are tough, people take refuge in family and religion. These are things they can count on. They have learned not to count on Washington.
"But while Obama is bashing these people for daring to express their religion freely and to exercise their 2nd Amendment rights." I don't think he is "bashing." I think that he is saying that Washington has been relatively responsive on guns, gays, and God. Washington has not been responsive on helping average americans deal with economic issues.
I, being a cynic, believe that Washington has intentionally distracted americans with divisive, non-economic, issues as a way to divide us up and distract us from meaningful things like health care and the decline of the American standard of living. Corporate America is quite happy if the masses are focused on issues like gay marraige and guns. These don't really affect most Americans. Economics and health care do. But then if Americans focused on adequate health care and a living wage, where would large corporate America be... a little less profitable.
How we have union members voting on issues like guns and gays while their very livlyhood is being shipped overseas is amazing to me.
"....a living wage..."
Do you favor living wage laws?
"...union members... livlihood shipped overseas"
I see unions encouraging this. There is a strike in Michigan now where the workers are paid $70 an hour to do a very low skill job. How can this be sustainable? Is it better to have "overhigh jobs or none at all" or fair wage jobs which we keep"?
Post a Comment