OK, so it's been four days since the rearing of the Obama "bitter" remarks: "...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."
This is, on the surface, a horrible mis-speaking by a guy that is usually VERY well-spoken. "Bitter" is bad enough, but that "cling to" line is pretty hurtful... the connotation is one of desperation, it's negative and by context and proximity, it also gives the impression of the speaker thinking that those things being "clung" to are also negative. And while the last three are almost universally seen to be negative (anger at strangers, xenophobia, and anti-trade feelings), those first two--guns and religion--well, guys, those can't be seen as pure negatives [guns, you MIGHT make a case for... but--chances are--NOT in rural areas of the country where hunting is still a way of putting food on the table, showing one's prowess, getting together with others of the community, and linking to past generations within the culture]. So like I said, a really bad choice of words. By Obama?
So whiskey tango foxtrot, man?
Well, let's see what else he 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.
OK, so the "bitter" is taken care of, pretty much explained away with the context of the three sentences that precede it.
He went on to say:
Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.
Now, after the "bitter" line, it seems to be that he's already known that he's mis-spoken. The sudden verbal faltering (the "um" and the "you know") show that's he's been taken out of speaking mode and into listening to that which just came out of his mouth... uh oh... damn, wish I hadn't said that... damage control engaged. And he launches into to being able to find Obama supporters even in those communities. And he ends by acknowledging that the main thing to do here is to "show up and [do] what you’re doing."
Now at first blush, that "you" seems to be a rhetorical one, one that actually means "me"... that Obama shows up and shows everyone who he is and what he's doing. The full sentence has three "you"s... and the first one is most certainly Obama (HE's the one who needs to show up). But when taken altogether, the phrase takes on a deeper meaning... the "you" really is the supporters. They need to show up, they need to show their enthusiasm and to show the others (em"bitter"ed and otherwise) what he can do for them.
It's a little disappointing that he has moved from "we" (as in "Yes, WE can") to me and "you"... and even more disappointing that he didn't absolutely JUMP on the chance to continue the remarks to hit the main theme of his campaign (at least through early March): that there is HOPE in CHANGE, the change he, and we, can bring.
The mistake wasn't his mis-speaking, it was the lost opportunity to take the fuckup (which he obviously recognized) and turn it into something awe-inspiring. It hasn't been the only lost opportunity lately.
Of course, much of the possible damage has been mitigated by the ham-handed response of the Clinton campaign. Her response, recounting her own trigger-pulling memories, was laughable at best, ridiculous at worst (and Obama exploited it):
Of course, there's so much to laugh at in his response (not the least of which is his use of her "shame" tirade of Ohio, but with a smile and not the rancor and screeching). But the opening is what mattered: This may blow over for the Democratic primary campaign... but don't think we have heard the last of it... if Obama's the candidate in November (which I still hope for), McCain is going to beat this horse until it's dead, buried, reincarnated, and dead again.
[oh, and for Obama's final wish to see a picture of Hillary in the duck blind... don't have that, but maybe this one will do, taken from her boilermaker, I'm-no-elitist, bar visit (courtesy of the Wonkette)...]
No comments:
Post a Comment