Obama campaign abandons the working class
And what was McCain doing today?
By Soren Dayton Posted in 2008 | Barack Obama — Comments (36) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Dan already wrote about this, but I want to give it some more context, especially because Bill Clinton is hitting it. This could become a major gaffe between the Pennsylvania and Indiana primaries. Wednesday, David Axelrod, Chief Strategist for the Obama campaign, said:
The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes.
Translation: "We aren't going to win their votes. We don't want their votes. Screw them."
Obama has a real problem. He cannot win votes among a core constituency of the Democratic Party's coalition. Until people like Al Gore and John Kerry demonstrated that they were too out of touch for the American people to swallow. Further evidence of the potential unraveling or reorganizing of the Democratic coalition under Barack Obama.
Two things struck me. Read on.
First, and foremost, John McCain was in Inez, KY, the place that LBJ announced the Great Society. McCain wasn't there to announce some big government program, but to talk to people and to listen. While Barack Obama was throwing the working class under the bus, John McCain was talking with them. And they aren't bitter.
Second, in the 2004 election, the Democratic Party also lost the Catholics. Would Mr. Axelrod extend his analysis to Obama's inability to connect with Catholics. Does the Democratic Party not need or want the votes Catholics?
What about Hispanics, another group that is increasingly receptive to conservative values and messages -- Bush got 44% and McCain could get even more--, and they also don't like Obama. Does the Obama campaign want them?
And is this really Obama's new politics of hope, national unity, and reconciliation?
« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims? — Comments (2) | Obama Strategist: The Forgotten Man Is A Republican Now, Anyway — Comments (18) »
Obama campaign abandons the working class 36 Comments (0 topical, 36 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
the Sermon That Never Ends, most reject the trendy Calvinist-tinged liberation theology of Obama's spiritual mentor, and their heritage has no room for Obama-On-A-Holy-Card, which strikes them as ridiculous at best and idolatrous at worst.
about Black Liberation Theology or Liberation Theology period.
is not Calvin or Christ, rather, it was fathered by Marx.
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
Gustavo Gutierrez was Marxist at heart and let that fundamentally taint his theology.
liberation theology, it is the core of it.
Guitierrez simply took convienent scripture out of context and added it to Marx basic teaching. He was an "angel of light".
____
CongressCritter™: Never have so few felt like they were owed so much by so many for so little.
On TW a couple weeks ago, Lieberman said "I did not leave the Democrat Party; the Democrat Party left me." Referring to his now being an Independent due to the big shift toward the left in the Democrat Party.
I can see an ad coming together. With the words of Axlerod and Bill Clinton - delivered by former Democrat and McCain booster, Joe Lieberman.
to vote against Obama vs. vote for McCain. The kiddies who pack the Obama rallies will stay home to text message about what a great guy he is. It happened in 1988, it happened in 20004, and it will happen again.
The Obama campaign apparently has forgotten that if you throw people under the bus, you had better have passengers to take their seats.
How sad. Obama leaves them in the dust because he believes they have no place in his ideal sort of world.
"I believe we must adjourn this meeting to some other place." - The last recorded words of Adam Smith.
You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.
Pretty obvious that Obama has decided which his demographics are.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
....that there is a segment of the Democrat party (exemplified by Volvo driving latte liberals, i.e. Obama's base) that would REALLY love to be able to win elections without the votes of the "hayseed backwater hicks". These leftists are thoroughly embarrassed to even have these people in the party, but they put up with them because they need their votes.
“.....women and minorities hardest hit”
Can see it already.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777
Since he is so big on change, does that mean he'd like to clear out a few of the lifers in Washington. Like Kennedy, Byrd and Kerry?
Is that the kind of changey McHope we can look forward to??
In a McCain/Obama matchup, watch the Hispanic vote carefully. If McCain gets a majority of Latino votes, California is now in play to possibly tilting red, and New Jersey and New York also get a lot more interesting. All without McCain really giving up much ground to the center yet.
This is a fantastic development, and Obama's writing off of constituency groups (especially ones that play kingmaker roles in the Rust Belt, states that should be easy pickings for a Dem this year) could come back to bite him. Hard.
"No matter how much lipstick you put on the taxation pig, it's still a pig... and it's currently snout-down in your wallet." - Michael Fisk
You people should be ashamed of yourself.
"Translation: "We aren't going to win their votes. We don't want their votes. Screw them.""
No. That isn't even a little bit what he said. Read it again, and pay attention to what the guy said, not what some other guy says he said.
The only reason somebody needs to offer a "translation" of a statement made in plain English is if they are trying to spin the meaning. As Obama would say, it's "old school politics."
With this absurd twisting of the truth, you are pushing people that actually think for themselves toward the very people you are trying to hurt.
Here's my translation of what he said:
"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes."
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
Shame rightly belongs on anyone naive enough to take any official utterance of Senator Obama's double-dealing campaign at face value.
As for the idea of "pushing people that actually think for themselves" into supporting Senator Obama, I don't see that danger since simply "thinking" by itself is incompatible with supporting Senator Obama.
Before you call me on my hypocrisy of writing-off the wilfully ignorant, here is my Axelrodianly couched statement:
"The incapable-of-rational-thought class has gone to the Democratic nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Republican candidates don't rely solely on those votes."
Here's what I mean, and please keep in mind that I don't represent any campaign:
"We aren't going to win their votes. We don't want their votes. Screw them."
The neighbors of all these rural Hillary Democrats are mostly Republican, and they'll bleed our way once Obama is the candidate by the shear weight of their Republican neighbors reminding them who Obama is.
Looking back at the red/blue county maps of 2000 and 2004 most these rural Democrats live in red counties. Add to that the county map of Hillary and Obama for Ohio and PA and Obama wins only a handful of counties in each state, mostly the big city counties Hamilton (Cincy), Montgomery (Dayton), Franklin and Deleware (Columbus - the city limits span both counties) and Cuyahoga (enough said) in Ohio. PA which I know less looks like the Philly and Harrisburg counties and a few odd ball counties in the middle of the state (????).
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/
If Obama wins the general it will be with less than 10% of the counties. It will be a 100% city vote win with inner city blacks and urban elites. It's just not possible. And as the Hillary rural Democrats surrounded by Republicans hear about the lefty Obama from their neighbors day in and day out during the general, he will be painted more into that winless corner. He's isolated to the cities.
If McCain wants to campaign to all voters, he should make it all voters in red counties for the most part. Hit the union halls, VFW, KofC and Legion in every red county in America while hitting the exburbs, corralling has many Hillary supporters as possible on economic, national security and cultural issues along the say.
This may be the biggest red/blue, rural/city split election yet.
"Honor is self-esteem made visible in action." - Ayn Rand, West Point, 1974
Socrates, we could exchange links for years. McCain is a liar, he's broken the spending limit and could face charges, Republicans are bad for the economy... blah blah, and there's not enough space for Hillary's legitimate screw-ups, let alone the links to sites that have twisted events out of context and truth.
But I would appreciate MikeO's response if I could get more information. I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican. I'm an American. And all I want is the truth, so I can make the right decision. To me, when I see articles like this one with blatant lies meant to influence people, I see a problem.
Now, what I'd like to know is why I'm naive for listening to the actual words of a person over someone's "translation" that opposes him. It's not a fair, accurate translation in any way, shape, or form. So I have to ask, beyond initial prejudice toward the opposing party or maybe even blacks, where does this claim that everything they say are lies come from? Socrates posted a link to Obama's problems. Most of them are either referring to associations (I know a drug dealer, but that doesn't mean I can't run a Taco Bell) or more misconceptions that were disproven. I'll give you claiming credit for legislation that he didn't write. But I'll counter with just as many McCain discrepencies. Experience? Historically, experience has had absolutely no correlation with the quality of the president.
I'm fed up with our government and right now the Republicans have screwed us more than Bill Clinton ever did Monica. Just explain to me why Obama is more of a liar than anyone else and why McCain is so much different than Bush has been. Don't do it by twisting words to fit your agenda, do it by telling me the facts and the truth. This article has nothing to do with either.
Which statements are lies, and which of those lies are blatant?
Your link about McCain's "lies" is to a HuffPo piece claiming that he supports the war in Iraq, and is therefor a liar, whereas Barack Obama invented Goodness itself, and is the very balm of life.
Your claim that McCain "broke spending limits" is Democrat mythology, quite typical of their paranoid hyperbole which takes some germ of nothing and makes, literally, a Federal case from it. It is an issue over the interpretation of rules, nothing more.
Now, what I'd like to know is why I'm naive for listening to the actual words of a person over someone's "translation" that opposes him.
You are welcome to read the quote and the translation. I find no difference between the two, but nothing in the quote which is so confusing as to need explanation in the first place.
So I have to ask, beyond initial prejudice toward the opposing party or maybe even blacks, where does this claim that everything they say are lies come from?
I find your implication of racism offensive, and demand an apology.
And where did I or Soren make the claim that "everything they say are lies"? Because while I suspect that to be the case, and I may have foolishly stated it at some point, I can't find it in this thread, certainly.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.
"I'm not a Democrat, I'm not a Republican. I'm an American."
From a certain TV personality's wikipedia page:
"Olbermann has refused to "pigeonhole" himself politically, stating, "I'm not a liberal, I'm an American.""
Is that you Keith??
First, Reply To This is your friend. Learn how to use it.
Second, do not imply racism as a motivation in other readers here. Either have the moral courage to say it forthrightly - and be banned for it - or keep it to yourself.
Please demonstrate that you have read and understood these two basic concepts in your next post here. Keep it under ten words.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
I apologize if the racism comment offended you. I obviously don't know anyone here personally, and have no idea what your motivations may be. Unfortunately I know too many people that are basing their voting decision on race or gender this election.
I'm in danger of being banned? Keep it under ten words? Are you serious?
He only apologizes for us being offended that he suggested we're racists?
Not enough parents teach manners anymore, I tell you what.
HTML Help for Red Staters
"If we want to take this party back, and I think we can someday, let’s get to work." – Barry Goldwater
Two events from my youth come to mind:
First, the time I got into a fight at school with a kid because he spit on one of my neighbors. Wasn't really my friend, but he was a small, quiet, poor kid who was constantly being teased, and I was an angry 13 year old poor kid who was looking for a reason to punch the rich snot in the face. Mom showed up at school, witnessed the paddling I received, but when the principal told us to shake hands and apologize to each other, Mom said, "No. You can paddle him, because he broke the rules against fighting in school, but you're not going to make him apologize for defending someone else," and we walked out of his office.
Second, same Mom, same school, same principal, and I got caught passing notes wherein my buddy and I were making insulting comments about the teacher. Same paddling, but this time Mom marched me down to the classroom and, in front of the whole class, made me apologize to the teacher...and I got a second paddling when I got home.
My point is that if this guy really thinks that someone is a racist, I mean really down deep believes it and isn't just using the word to score political points, I sincerely hope he doesn't apologize and just goes away. He broke the rules, he deserves to be banned, but I would hope he has the integrity to not apologize. If he was just being rude and calling people names, then yes, I hope he can man up and apologize.
And he has apologized in the time it took me to write that.
I don't care if you're sorry if I was offended. I care if you're sorry for doing something wrong. In this case, insinuating racism in a completely unacceptable passive-aggressive fashion. Either don't do it, or man up and be forthright about it.
Last chance, neighbor.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
"Unfortunately I know too many people that are basing their voting decision on race or gender this election."
Here on Redstate? In a apology to one person you hinted at being a racist, you just stated as fact everyone here are as well?
up your agrument that at least a lot of Democrats are doing this, but of course race, gender, class, and victimization politics have been become such standard fare for the party this should come as no surprise.
There is always a radical or foolish element, but I think when the time comes you will find most Republicans voting against these two because of their liberal agenda- not their race or sex.
________________
Thou art the Great Cat, the avenger of the Gods, and the judge of words...-Inscription on the Royal Tombs at Thebes
The point of my comment was that Senator Obama and his campaign have been caught in double-dealing:
1. Campaigning on an anti-NAFTA plank to the unwashed masses while winking to the Canadians and while telling San Francisco elites that free trade is a bogeyman of "bitter" minds
2. Feigning ignorance about Reverend Wright, then rationalizing his hatred of this country, then (kind of, sort of) disavowing him
3. Deliberately and repeatedly misquoting Senator McCain's on "100 years in Iraq"
If you put a teaspoon of wine in a barrel of sewage, you are left with a barrel of sewage. If you put a teaspoon of sewage in a barrel of wine, you are left with a barrel of sewage. This is "taint." Senator Obama and his campaign carry the taint of dishonesty.
It is your right to defend the truthfulness of somebody demonstrably dishonorable, but it is not rational to mount such a defense by starting with the emotional non sequitur, "You people ought to be ashamed of yourself (sic)."
I am not ashamed of my agreeing with Mr. Dayton's characterization of Mr. Axelrod's statement. It fits my observation that Senator Obama is seeking the campaign donations of elites and the votes of wannabe elites who look down their noses at the working class and would be heartened by an expression of disdain for the working class. It fits my suspicion that the empty message of illusory HOPE and CHANGE is a poor knockoff of the American Dream, and the best way to sell it to the crowds he needs at the polls is to disparage the Real American Dream lived by the working class.
This is an awful lot of "fitting," but don't blame me for having to impute meanings into Mr. Axelrod's statements. The fault lies with Senator Obama and his campaign. Senator Obama is guilty of repeated dishonesty, and I would be a fool—a naive fool who should be ashamed—simply to accept anything he or his minions say without questioning what meaning it was intended to convey and to whom.
As for my crack about the "incapable-of-rational-thought class," it was admittedly over-the-top. It would be impossible to prove that any person is incapable of rational thought since even a stopped Mayan calendar is right roughly once every 52 years. Take this as you will, but please keep in mind that any outrage you take from this is your problem, not mine. You have presented no argument that my agreement with Mr. Dayton's characterization of Mr. Axelrod's statement should make me feel ashamed.
Questioning Senator McCain's, President Bush's, and Senator Clinton's honesty exhibits your ignorance of refutation and does not support your assertion.
Ad hominem insinuations about how I reach my conclusions does not support your assertion.
Begging the question by simply declaring Mr. Axelrod's statement worth of acceptance at face value does not support your assertion.
Presenting a strawman by affirming the consequent of "Senator Obama and his campaign are known to have lied" into "everything they say are (sic) lies" does not support your assertion.
Observing that you can "exchange links for years" to irrelevant information does not support your assertion.
If these things mean nothing to you and you believe that the intensity of your outrage and the verbosity of your posted comments materially support your assertion that I should be ashamed of myself for agreeing with Mr. Dayton's characterization of Mr. Axelrod's statement, then I hold you beneath contempt for having squandered the rational faculties that God (or Darwin, depending on how you see things) has gifted upon you.
I completely apologize.
My initial intent was only to argue the truthfulness behind a comment that (I feel) falsely describes a man's actual words. My poor choice of words has tilted the focus.
The Fuzzy Puppy of the VRWC. I've been usurped!
He says he wants to unite, but that's semantically null, the equivalent in his case of saying he wants to win.
Rather than uniting, it's clear that he actually divides. He divides on races.
He's to the left of Hillary.
He's just a smidgin to the right of MoveOn.org, but only because he mentions the centrist point of view (without ever embracing it).
His rhetoric is Darth Vader: join me, and together we can rule the universe! Fail to join me, and prove you are a racist.
--
Gone 2500 years, still not PC.