The argument is not about whether or not people are "bitter".

Lyric

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Sun Apr-13-08 06:47 AM
Original message

The argument is not about whether or not people are "bitter".

It's about whether or not they'll tolerate having their bitterness pointed out by a mere candidate as one major reason why they are passionate about wedge issues. Regardless of whether or not we suspect that it's true, *nobody* wants to hear something like that about themselves. I personally believe that Obama spoke the truth, but I also believe that it was a really stupid thing to say if he wants to win the general election. People here gripe about Clinton making political hay out of this, but really, she isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is (and will continue to be) the hay that McCain and his right-wing media pundits are going to make out of this. It's not going to go away anytime soon, because the right-wing won't *let* it go away--and that would be true whether Clinton had said a word about it or not. Her response wasn't just about slamming Obama--it was about protecting *herself* from the right-wing outrage onslaught that is sure to follow. She made sure to oppose his comment--not just to hurt *him*, but also to protect her own chances in the general if she wins the nomination. If this turns out to be something that truly has wheels, something that Obama can't talk himself out of, then most of us will be glad that she did what she did. It was the only way to make sure that at least one Democratic candidate can't be pinned down and politically vivisected over it in the general election.

Don't be too quick to blame Clinton for Obama's mis-step. If Obama can't recover, then her loud denunciation of his remarks might be what saves us from McCain in November. I know that most people here automatically assume that Clinton never does *anything* unless it's for herself, but in this case, what she did was just as much for the Dem Party as a whole as it was for herself. If she hadn't come out strongly against those remarks, then McCain would have *both* of our candidates nailed to the post over it. Sure it benefits her too, but that doesn't negate the benefit to the party, and it's shortsighted to pretend otherwise.

Being a president is kind of like being married to the country. You've been chosen, and the bottom line has been signed--therefore you have more perceived "right" to speak about uncomfortable truths. Being a candidate (and a primary candidate at that) is more like courting--you have to be careful not to say anything that can be taken as "too critical" or insensitive. Obama seems to have forgotten that he's still in the "courting" stage, and was speaking the kind of uncomfortable truths that America only allows Presidents to get away with. It doesn't make him a bad person or a bad leader, but if he can't somehow fix it, it just might make him unelectable. In the end, *we* are not the ones who need to be convinced. We'll vote for the Dem candidate no matter what. But the rest of the country is not DU.

I personally think that Obama's doing the best that he can to neutralize this. His apology was the right step, although I think he needs to focus more on spinning his words--perhaps saying, "What I meant was that small towns in PA rely on things like guns and religion, things like familiar communities and traditional views about trade, because those values provide emotional comfort when the times are hard". That would be the spin I'd put on it, personally. If he focuses on the fact that the things he mentioned are sources of comfort when people are distressed--not crutches when people are bitter--and he might be able to do some effective damage control.