"BITTER" DOUBLE STANDARDS: WHAT'S the Matter with PENNSYLVANIA?

[FrenchieCat]

"BITTER" DOUBLE STANDARDS: WHAT'S the Matter with PENNSYLVANIA?
is the same thing as “WHAT’S the Matter with KANSAS”

When Senator Obama was speaking in San Francisco about folks in small town Pennsylvania, he wasn't saying anything new nor anything unheard of. He was talking about some of the same issues raised in the best selling Book, “What’s the Matter with Kansas”, by Thomas Frank. http://www.tcfrank.com/wmk.html
<>
Sen. Obama was simply explaining why the financially hard pressed often time vote on their wedge issues (and yes, that would be God, Guns, and Gays....doh!), instead of their best own economic interest. Barack, a candidate for President, may not have stated his thoughts in the most artful way possible, which he conceded, but it does appear that a wave of epic proportion involving those who would want to be offended have quickly made their voices heard. Obvious to any political observer, The Clinton and McCain Campaigns and the so ever willing media started fanning the flames of objection of Barack Obama’s utterances sooner than immediate, in quick accord.

The serious concern that I have with this intensely focused over-the-top “outrage” on this subject, is that, in essence, Obama is being judged as not worthy enough to speak on the state of our politics as it specifically relates to that group of voters, even though, he just happens to be running for President. Perhaps he should have gotten permission first--But more disturbing still, is that perhaps Barack’s real problem in reference to talking honestly about this often time discussed political subject is that some do not see him as being of the “ilk” of those he is talking about. It is possible that some do not consider him to have enough in common with that part of America, although his mother hailed from rural Kansas, and hence, half of his gene pool is of that “ilk”? Possibly. Could it be that because Sen. Obama is ½ Black, he is not afforded the ability to comment on those he might lead under an Obama administration according to those who set the rules; the true elitists.

Ironically, White politicians, pollsters, pundits and anyone and his/her mother have been seen commenting on the Black vote, the Hispanic vote, the Gay vote, the educated vote, the youth vote, the male and female vote for the last 3 months, in a manner that has not always been preapproved. At such times, the voters are efficiently segmented, dissected and analyzed, and long and short hypothesis are clinically formulated as to why those folks might have voted as they did. In some rare instance, campaign pollsters are given microphones in order to announce to the entire world ahead of time who will be voting for whom.
more....
http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_frenchie_080413__22bitter_22_double_stan.htm

[liberaldem4ever]

1. Great post-K&R

Sure, what he said wasn't said in perfect form, nobody is perfect. His intent wasn't bad, but good. And to twist the truth into something it isn't just for political gain is just manipulative and sad.

[babylonsister]

2. Hey, FrenchieCat.

I'll just bet you can get permission from the author of this great piece to post it in its entirety. I think if it's yours, it's allowable. K&R! :thumbsup:

[FrenchieCat]

4. I wasn't sure! LOL!

[JohnnyLib2]

3. What on earth changed in the past year and a half?

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/FrenchieCat/64

I like Obama....although I don't think I want him to run for Prez in '08
Posted by FrenchieCat in General Discussion: Primaries
Tue Oct 17th 2006, 10:19 AM

[FrenchieCat]

5. It's called listening, learning and growing.......

What I might have thought in 2006 is not what I think in 2008. But thanks for digging up that nostalgic statement. I didn't think you cared! :loveya:

[JohnnyLib2]

8. I do, I do care.

:evilgrin:

[blondie58]

10. yep, viewpoints can be changed and

everyone knows that it is a woman's right to change her mind- anytime she wants! I too, was not for Obama at first. I wanted Kucinich or Edwards (even sent him money- the day BEFORE he dropped out) but Obama is better, imo than Hillary. I think that he could reunite the country.

[madrchsod]

6. that is your op-ed...cool

we don`t get as much credit as some other sites but we have folks just as good as anyone else..
it`s always interesting to see the a face behind the words on my screen...

[bigbrother05]

7. Wedge issues

we are not suppose to discuss
Thanks, Frienchie, a few talented writers here, and you're in that group, and always look forward to reading your thoughts.

[FrenchieCat]

9. That's very nice for you to say....thank you.....

And yes, Wedge issues go hand in hand with the politics of distraction. Those two combined is why we never get very far before we end up at each other's throats. Divide and conquer is the motto that is used over and over again. The media plays us time after time. We know it, but we are relatively helpless in being able to do much about it, as long as media corps run our airwaves.

[TheDoorbellRang]

11. I hadn't even considered the point you make

But how right you are: the talking heads on tv have the "right" to analyze voters, but somehow when Obama does it, he's being "elitist." Thanks for sharing an illuminating oped, Frenchie. I always learn something from your posts.

K&R

[Two Americas]

12. that could be

If Obama meant to say that since Democrats have not given people any reason to vote for them because the party has not been a strong advocate for the working class, and so therefore many people have had no basis upon which to vote for either side and have voted on culture war issues as a result, that would be true. If he also said that the right wingers have used that and exploited it, that would also be true.

If on the other hand, he meant to say that people are clinging to their guns and their religion because they are bitter with government, that would not be true.

What he said could mean either or both, and the two are politically opposite. The first is an analysis of the failures of the Democratic party, and that would have to include an acknowledgment of the prejudices against rural people that have been a component of the Democrats abandoning the working class. The second is an analysis of rural people, and invokes the very prejudices against rural people associated with the party abandoning the working class.

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

13. whoo hoo, I see you got your OP up at OpEdNews!

good job!

http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_frenchie_080413__22bitter_22_double_stan.htm

Kicking ASS! OEN gets tons of reads!! Way to go!!!!!

[FrenchieCat]

15. Yes! Top Story too for 2 days now!

Thanks! :hi:

[Norrin Radd]

14. kr

[Bette Noir]

16. Thanks for noting

that white pundits say how others vote all the time. If I had a dollar for every time I've heard that Latinos vote for Hillary, or older women vote for Hillary, I could make the mortgage for the next year. I'm an older, Latino woman, and I've been behind Barack since the beginning.

Today, some pundits said that Jews wouldn't vote for Barack. My husband, who is Jewish, said, "That's funny. 100% of the Jews and Hispanics in this house are voting for Barack."