SFist: Besides Barack Obama and Mayhill Fowler, Who Is Responsible for His Elitist-Remark Leak?

taran

Thu, 17 Apr 2008 17:18:35 -0800

Generic, thanks for making my point before I had to do all that typing. So much gnashing of teeth, y'all! Jeez.

Generic

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 14:30:39 -0800

You guys are missing the point. Your thesis rests on the idea that there's any political fallout. There has been none. At best the comments have slowed his cut into Hillary's lead. So we're left with the fact that there is no problem absent you saying it's a problem. The polls have remained unchanged. The red-staters don't give a shit 1) who he said it to, 2) where he said it or 3) in what context. They're bitter. He said so. They agree. This has so much more to do with the fear of seeming condescending and out-of-touch than actually being condescending and out-of-touch. It's just blogospheric/media/blue-state handwringing. Read the polls. They're not infallible, but they're a far more accurate guide to what voters think of Obama's remarks than your interpretation of what they're thinking. As urban coastal liberals you may truly be out of touch, but the numbers reflect that Obama is not. Stop conflating the two. PA, IN and NC vs. SF, LA and NYC is not the what the electoral map looks like any longer. Get out of your defensive crouch.

Joel

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 11:14:40 -0800

You could think of it this way--can you imagine if Obama was going to rural areas of PA, IN and NC and telling American Legion meetings in small roadside cabins that people in SF, LA and NYC often can't help but be condescending and out-of-touch with rural family values since they put too much emphasis on paper wealth and academic learning and getting the right table at the right restaurant for brunch on Sundays instead of going to church and working on their spirit? (I'm not saying I agree with this, but the perception and judgments go both ways, obviously)

bluecanary

Wed, 16 Apr 2008 09:59:11 -0800

The problem isn't what he said so much as where he said it. You don't go to Billionaire's Row in what is arguably one of the most reviled cities in the countries (by the bitter, anyway), and say working class people cling to guns and god because they're bitter. Even if it's true.

Ciaran

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 15:52:47 -0800

Of course we all agree with him - we are the elite, after all.

RinconHillSF

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 14:19:00 -0800

Personally, I appreciate the unvarnished language from Senator Obama. "Bitter" was a faulty word choice, but I agree with the sentiment. Politicians/Priests/Pastors/Snake oil sales folks/German Dictators who are not on the up and up will often use the cheap and easy way to unify folks by focusing attention on a particular group. Global warming is caused by the Gays!, for example. Whatever .... how can the media call this guy elitist compared to Hillary Clinton? Come on.

DJTennessee

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:33:15 -0800

@ miumiu "bitter" was also a masterpiece by sportscaster Marv Albert. BAM!!!

miumiu

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:24:26 -0800

bitter is also a masterpiece album by meshell n'degeocello - maybe obama meant to say that many unemplouyed blue collar workers are listening to her

Joel

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:22:10 -0800

Allentown is royally pissed, and it's not a secret. Bu that isn't the issue that people have, though...of course, they're pissed, and they have right to be. It's what he exactly said and where he said it. Why did he say it, in those exact words (not "hunting is fun and church is comforting"), in front of a bunch of wealthy SF/Marin donors in what he thought was a private event, and not at a rally in a high-school gym full of laid-off millworkers in Erie? The problem is that in a lot of ways, SF's elitist reputation is too-often well-earned...what he said spoke to a lot of SF/Marin residents' concept that white suburban and rural America are in general a bunch of ignorant gun-wielding racist idiots (which may well be true at times, but hardly to the extent people here act), and it wasn't particularly unifying on Obama's part, which is something he prides himself on. Add to that the fact that he said it at a private event for wealthy donors here (it may as well have been NYC or in the Hollywood Hills, too) and not in one of those "small towns in the Midwest" that wealthier urban coastal liberals tend to sniff at, and it makes him seem less than forthright. I honestly believe he just misspoke here, however, but he hasn't been all that great with damage-control on this one, I don't think. The guy seems made of teflon, however, and HRC has run such a terrible, terrible campaign that I don't think this is really gonna visit him until September and October.

manys

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 13:08:15 -0800

What is this, hard-hitting political journalism on SFist?

RobInSF

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:57:29 -0800

If I was a Republican I would be pretty - uh "bitter" too. They keep lying to their constituency every 4 years. Abortion? Gay rights? Whoa, the Pope just landed, gotta go hide my sons!

Generic

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:56:56 -0800

Without a doubt one of the gayest videos in the history of VH1. The homosexual undertones turn to overtones at about the 3:05 mark. Thanks, Brock.

Brock Keeling

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:49:00 -0800

and just because i shouldn't be alone with this earworm: http://youtube.com/results?search_query=allentown&search_type=

Generic

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:47:31 -0800

Yeah, except for the fact that the people Obama was referring to actually are bitter, and they know it. Allentown is royally pissed, and it's not a secret. Not a whole lot of people (outside the media) are finding what Obama said all that scandalous. The polls are unanimous: Gallup, SurveyUSA, Mediacurves">http://www.mediacurves.com/press_releases/PressRelease.cfm?PressReleaseID=136">Mediacurves. All taken post-Bittergate. Obama hasn't taken any significant hit at all from this. No one disagrees with him. It's just like stating a fact, you know? Healthcare sucks. The war sucks. The ecomony sucks. Hunting is fun and church is comforting. End of story. I'd wager they're happy he's at least addressing the situation. Unlike McCain.

Brock Keeling

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:46:15 -0800

if nessie getty throws a party, you show up regardless of you political affiliation.

milkcluber

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:43:17 -0800

Why has everyone missed the fact that the list of sponsors is heavily loaded (no pun intended) by major Republican donors and activists? I spot former Republican Party officials, donors of hundreds of thousands of dollars, and all the rest. Seems to me that's part of the story of Obama's San Francisco foray.

Joel

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:26:39 -0800

I don't really have an issue with his words outside of the specific use of "bitter" and where he said it. Like someone on Slate wrote, you don't often use the word "bitter" to describe somone you like, and it's much different to use it in San Francisco than Allentown.

periqueblend

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:06:53 -0800

Moreover his essential point, that republicans have failed them by promising them abortion, prayer in schools etc.. and always returning the same solution, less taxes for rich people is true, and only elitist in the most bassawkward sense of the upside world we live in whereby the right wing is the party of the average man...

RobInSF

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 12:01:46 -0800

Let's all put down our Hillary '08 signs and try to read a little deeper here. I think he could have gone a few steps further and included clinging to abortion and gay rights too. Kind of like the Republicans did to re-elect Bush in 2004. The disenfranchised focus on the tiny issues of the day while Rome burns. Clinton and McCain have figured out that Obama is capable of opening his mouth and speaking the truth, something they are both absolutely afraid of doing. They never attack his position or record, they attack his words. And that is weak.

DJTennessee

Tue, 15 Apr 2008 11:54:38 -0800

DUDE!!! That photo is my Flickr icon! Also, I build a statue of that boy every year at Burning Man. "Deliverance" is my all-time favorite movie. You have "good" taste, Brock.