Here's an excerpt from an indepth article posted by Rick Moran on the latest Obama faux pas.
Read the whole article here:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/

4/13/2008
"THE ALLENTOWN SYNDROME"
CATEGORY: Decision '08, History, OBAMANIA!

Ezra Klein, in defending Obama, inadvertently fleshes out this deterministic view of the Middle Class:

"I'm not really sure what the big deal over Obama's comments in SF is supposed to be (save that the media and Clinton and McCain are saying they will be a big deal, and thus making them a big deal), but Marc Ambinder has the least hysterical rundown I've seen, and does the best job separating the substance of the remarks from their expected political impact. As far as I can tell, few actually find the argument underlying Obama's statement controversial. It's a pretty standard thesis, and has been delivered, in various forms, by everyone from John McCain to Bill Clinton. It's that the way Obama phrased it is politically damaging, particularly the inclusion of guns and religion (though I think the crucial ambiguity in his comments is that he’s talking about guns and religion in their role as conveyors of political identity and social unrest, rather than in their more natural roles of shooting at things and believing in God). Obama's has fired back, but it's one of the depressing realities of our media landscape that it is both a) totally predictable that they will devote hundreds of hours to this story in the next few days and b) utterly unimaginable that they will give the candidate 3 minutes and 44 seconds to clarify his comments. And why would they? That might kill the story!"

It sounds to me as if Mr. Klein is whistling past the graveyard in his expectation of how this story will play out. He may be right but he is dead wrong when he tries to tie McCain and Hillary to Obama's analysis - as if either had gone so far as to ascribe the closely held political and religious beliefs of ordinary Americans in such casually dismissive terms.

No one finds the remarks themselves "controversial?" There is no one that I have read on this subject who has been more articulate, more analytically spot on, or more passionate in their denunciation of the substance of Obama's comments than Allah and Ed at Hot Air.

Allah:


"What's most offensive? The condescension displayed here by the intelligentsia's candidate of choice? The sheer breadth of the stereotype, which would send Team Obama screaming from the rooftops if a white politician drew a similarly sweeping caricature of blacks? The crude quasi-Marxist reductionism of his analysis, which he first introduced in his speech on race vis-a-vis the root causes of whites' "resentment" - namely, exploitation by the bourgeoisie in the form of corporations and D.C. lobbyists? Or is it the shocking inclusion of religion, of all things, in the litany of sins he recites? What on earth is that doing there, given His Holiness's repeated invocations of the virtues of faith on the trail? Note the choice of verb, too. Why not just go the whole nine yards and call it the opiate of the masses?"

Ed:

"What makes this so breathtaking is the mindless, casual way in which Obama reveals his snobbishness and elitism. We saw hints of this from Michelle Obama, in her assertions about never being proud of her country until her husband ran for President. (Soren Dayton has more on this.) We had not seen it from Obama himself in such a blatant and unmistakable manner. The matter-of-fact style in which he spoke this shows the unthinking contempt he has for people he has never engaged - an acceptance of stereotypes without questioning them that shows his own bigotry, not to mention foolishness and poor judgment."

Asked and answered, Mr. Klein.

Others on the left defend Obama's deterministic analysis by pointing to the response by the right as evidence that he is correct:

"If I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd actually embrace the controversial quote. Of course folks in small towns are clinging to their guns; they've been led to believe the state is coming to take away their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course they cling to their faith; given the economic turmoil in their communities, they have to cling to institutions that give them strength and hope. Of course they're bitter; while millionaires and wealthy corporations have been well represented in corridors of power for as long as they can remember, they've been working harder, making less, and feeling like they've been left behind.

That's not an un-American sentiment. That's not reflective of poor values. That's not elitism. That's reality."


I'm sorry but I must disagree. Perhaps only liberals "cling" to religion. Most people of faith I know (I'm an atheist) embrace their faith, they welcome it into their lives. It is just plain wrong - in any reality - to say that Middle Class voters are scared little puppies cowering in their economically devastated communities, being swayed by the hypnotic fear mongering of Republicans with regard to guns (no one has to be scared into believing anything when liberals themselves constantly denigrate and mercilessly mock those who exercise their right to bear arms).

And Obama's contention that Republicans jack up fear of "the other" to get votes presupposes that the Middle Class has no strong feelings about border security - that they are being manipulated by conservatives who use the issue to gin up racist feelings and not because people are passionate about the subject. This isn’t elitist thinking? This isn't holding people in utter contempt who disagree with you?

Spare me.

The question isn't whether these issues spill over into the realm of politics. Of course they do. The problem is Obama and much of the left believes people are so ignorant and easily swayed by GOP appeals to their values that the reason they don't vote Democratic is that they are fooled into voting otherwise. In other words, these bitter, frustrated voters can be had simply by "throwing a flag in their face."

Not recognizing why this is monumentally wrong is why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections. The GOP connect(ed)s with voters on an emotional level while the Democrats refuse to engage. It is not by ginning up fear that the GOP succeed(ed)s it is because the party doesn't dismiss their values as some kind of mental disorder to be cured by "right thinking." You’re a stupid yahoo if you own a gun. You’re a superstitious moron if you take religion (and its teachings on abortion and gay marriage) seriously. You're a racist hater if you don’t allow unfettered access to America by illegal aliens.

And the left wonders why people don't vote for them?

Even if this flap blows over for Obama (and I believe it will), I am quite confident the issue will rear its head again sometime down the road. He can’t help it. It's who he is. And because of that, the next time Obama shows his contempt for the voters by uttering some manner of elitist nonsense, a similar blow up will occur.

Only next time, he may not be able to get out of the box he puts himself in so easily.

By: Rick Moran at 8:35 am

SilentReader wrote:
Here's an excerpt from an indepth article posted by Rick Moran on the latest Obama faux pas.
Read the whole article here:
http://rightwingnuthouse.com/

4/13/2008
"THE ALLENTOWN SYNDROME"
CATEGORY: Decision '08, History, OBAMANIA!

Ezra Klein, in defending Obama, inadvertently fleshes out this deterministic view of the Middle Class:

"I'm not really sure what the big deal over Obama's comments in SF is supposed to be (save that the media and Clinton and McCain are saying they will be a big deal, and thus making them a big deal), but Marc Ambinder has the least hysterical rundown I've seen, and does the best job separating the substance of the remarks from their expected political impact. As far as I can tell, few actually find the argument underlying Obama's statement controversial. It's a pretty standard thesis, and has been delivered, in various forms, by everyone from John McCain to Bill Clinton. It's that the way Obama phrased it is politically damaging, particularly the inclusion of guns and religion (though I think the crucial ambiguity in his comments is that he’s talking about guns and religion in their role as conveyors of political identity and social unrest, rather than in their more natural roles of shooting at things and believing in God). Obama's has fired back, but it's one of the depressing realities of our media landscape that it is both a) totally predictable that they will devote hundreds of hours to this story in the next few days and b) utterly unimaginable that they will give the candidate 3 minutes and 44 seconds to clarify his comments. And why would they? That might kill the story!"

It sounds to me as if Mr. Klein is whistling past the graveyard in his expectation of how this story will play out. He may be right but he is dead wrong when he tries to tie McCain and Hillary to Obama's analysis - as if either had gone so far as to ascribe the closely held political and religious beliefs of ordinary Americans in such casually dismissive terms.

No one finds the remarks themselves "controversial?" There is no one that I have read on this subject who has been more articulate, more analytically spot on, or more passionate in their denunciation of the substance of Obama's comments than Allah and Ed at Hot Air.

Allah:


"What's most offensive? The condescension displayed here by the intelligentsia's candidate of choice? The sheer breadth of the stereotype, which would send Team Obama screaming from the rooftops if a white politician drew a similarly sweeping caricature of blacks? The crude quasi-Marxist reductionism of his analysis, which he first introduced in his speech on race vis-a-vis the root causes of whites' "resentment" - namely, exploitation by the bourgeoisie in the form of corporations and D.C. lobbyists? Or is it the shocking inclusion of religion, of all things, in the litany of sins he recites? What on earth is that doing there, given His Holiness's repeated invocations of the virtues of faith on the trail? Note the choice of verb, too. Why not just go the whole nine yards and call it the opiate of the masses?"

Ed:

"What makes this so breathtaking is the mindless, casual way in which Obama reveals his snobbishness and elitism. We saw hints of this from Michelle Obama, in her assertions about never being proud of her country until her husband ran for President. (Soren Dayton has more on this.) We had not seen it from Obama himself in such a blatant and unmistakable manner. The matter-of-fact style in which he spoke this shows the unthinking contempt he has for people he has never engaged - an acceptance of stereotypes without questioning them that shows his own bigotry, not to mention foolishness and poor judgment."

Asked and answered, Mr. Klein.

Others on the left defend Obama's deterministic analysis by pointing to the response by the right as evidence that he is correct:

"If I were advising the Obama campaign, I'd actually embrace the controversial quote. Of course folks in small towns are clinging to their guns; they've been led to believe the state is coming to take away their 2nd Amendment rights. Of course they cling to their faith; given the economic turmoil in their communities, they have to cling to institutions that give them strength and hope. Of course they're bitter; while millionaires and wealthy corporations have been well represented in corridors of power for as long as they can remember, they've been working harder, making less, and feeling like they've been left behind.

That's not an un-American sentiment. That's not reflective of poor values. That's not elitism. That's reality."


I'm sorry but I must disagree. Perhaps only liberals "cling" to religion. Most people of faith I know (I'm an atheist) embrace their faith, they welcome it into their lives. It is just plain wrong - in any reality - to say that Middle Class voters are scared little puppies cowering in their economically devastated communities, being swayed by the hypnotic fear mongering of Republicans with regard to guns (no one has to be scared into believing anything when liberals themselves constantly denigrate and mercilessly mock those who exercise their right to bear arms).

And Obama's contention that Republicans jack up fear of "the other" to get votes presupposes that the Middle Class has no strong feelings about border security - that they are being manipulated by conservatives who use the issue to gin up racist feelings and not because people are passionate about the subject. This isn’t elitist thinking? This isn't holding people in utter contempt who disagree with you?

Spare me.

The question isn't whether these issues spill over into the realm of politics. Of course they do. The problem is Obama and much of the left believes people are so ignorant and easily swayed by GOP appeals to their values that the reason they don't vote Democratic is that they are fooled into voting otherwise. In other words, these bitter, frustrated voters can be had simply by "throwing a flag in their face."

Not recognizing why this is monumentally wrong is why the Democrats have such a hard time winning elections. The GOP connect(ed)s with voters on an emotional level while the Democrats refuse to engage. It is not by ginning up fear that the GOP succeed(ed)s it is because the party doesn't dismiss their values as some kind of mental disorder to be cured by "right thinking." You’re a stupid yahoo if you own a gun. You’re a superstitious moron if you take religion (and its teachings on abortion and gay marriage) seriously. You're a racist hater if you don’t allow unfettered access to America by illegal aliens.

And the left wonders why people don't vote for them?

Even if this flap blows over for Obama (and I believe it will), I am quite confident the issue will rear its head again sometime down the road. He can’t help it. It's who he is. And because of that, the next time Obama shows his contempt for the voters by uttering some manner of elitist nonsense, a similar blow up will occur.

Only next time, he may not be able to get out of the box he puts himself in so easily.

By: Rick Moran at 8:35 am

No answer on the Rezco money to Bush.

No answer on the tens of thousands of small donors to Obama.

Thus: Better think this tactic through with your bosses, SR. If we get into a class-warfare struggle with the Democrats, we will lose.

There are more of them than us, so we need to convince them the GOP way is better, and your approach above is not going to do that. If they get bitter (and that goes for our rank and file, too), they will vote against us.

One thing will certainly happen from this election.

All three of the remaining candidates are far more moral and better people than George Bush. All of them, in their own ways, will eliminate the final vestiges of neo-conservatism in the governance of this country.

Expounding on Obama's condescension Hugh Hewitt wants you to meet his family and friends in the center of the bitter lands.

Saturday, April 12, 2008
From The Heart Of Bitterness Country
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 6:36 PM

I am visiting my family and friends in the dead center of the bitter lands Obama referred to at his San Francisco fundraiser last week --Warren, Ohio, the first capital of the Western Reserve, a few miles from the PA border, a land of disappointed-with-life, church-attending gun owners. All is blighted here, forlorn, downcast. Many are Steelers fans.

Exurban League got the scoop on the new Obama outreach to the disaffected masses of middle America in need of saving by a Chicago pol:



Saturday, April 12, 2008
Obama Said What? UPDATE: Why Are Steeler Fans So Bitter?
Posted by: Hugh Hewitt at 12:07 AM

Incredible. I knew his politics were radical from his memoir. But I had no idea that his contempt for middle America was so complete.

Do the Democrats dare nominate someone so completely clueless about the heartland?

UPDATE: Obama doesn't apologize, he expands on his "thinking."

Patrick Hynes has the details.

Tomorrow's Sunday shows will probe the extent of the damage, but the significance of Obama's candid contempt for small-town voters won't even be fully absorbed by the public until talk radio plays the tape wall-to-wall for a week. There's a great deal more than arrogance in the "bitter" remark. There is a worldview that will define Obama for many who gave him a look. Many will see the combination of the remarks and the setting --a fundraiser in San Francisco-- as a sure sign that Obama is not to be trusted. Talking trash about middle class voters in industrial states while the canapes are served by the bay doesn't work outside of the huge cities where poking fun at the rural and suburban rabble is an honored tradition.

UPDATE: The Washington Post put the biggest political story in weeks on page 4.

This may be what makes Pennsylvanians so bitter: Even when they are insulted, the elites don't think it is newsworthy.

They could also be bitter about the Eagles and the Steelers.

You tell me, why at Keystone staters so bitter? This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it

No one will bother to read your postings of others' work. It is all the same nonsense.

What did Hugh Hewitt allude to when he said he knew "Obama's politics were radical from his memoir?" Maybe the following article will give you the answer.

Obama Hid His Father's Socialism From Readers

April 7, 2008 5:47 PM by Greg Ransom

The "Rosebud" of Barack Obama's DREAMS FROM MY FATHER.

There's a big mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance. What was Barack Obama doing seeking out Marxist professors in college? Why did Obama choose a Communist Party USA member as his socio- political counselor in high school? Why was he spending his time studying neocolonialism and the writings of Frantz Fanon, the pro-violence author of "the Communist Manifesto of neocolonialsm", in college? Why did he take time out from his studies at Columbia to attend socialist conferences at Cooper Union?

And there is more mystery in the book. Why does Obama consider working in a consulting house for international business like being "a spy behind enemy lines?" Why does he repeatedly find it so hard to explain his political views to others? Why was he driven to become a left-aligned political organizer? It's a question Obama again and again can't seem to answer to the satisfaction of the interlocutors in his own memoir.

If there is a mystery at the heart of Barack Obama's Dreams From My Father, one thing is not left a mystery, the fact that Barack Obama organized his life on the ideals given to him by his Kenyan father. Obama tells us, "All of my life, I carried a single image of my father, one that I .. tried to take as my own." (p. 220) And what was that image? It was "the father of my dreams, the man in my mother's stories, full of high-blown ideals .." (p. 278) What is more, Obama tells us that, "It was into my father's image .. that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself." And also that, "I did feel that there was something to prove .. to my father" in his efforts at political organizing. (p. 230)

So we know that his father's ideals were a driving force in his life, but the one thing that Obama does not give us are the contents of those ideals. The closest he comes is when he tells us that his father lost his position in the government when he came into conflict with Jomo Kenyatta, the President of Kenya sometime in the mid 1960s; when he tells us that his father was imprisoned for his political views by the government just prior to the end of colonial rule; and when he tells us that the attributes of W. E. B. DuBois, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King, and Nelson Mandela were the ones he associated with his father and also the ones that he sought to instill in himself. (p. 220) This last group is a hodge podge, perhaps concealing as much as it reveals, in that it contains a socialist black nationalist, a Muslim black nationalist, a civil rights leader, and (at the time indicated in the memoir) an imprisoned armed revolutionary.

A bit of research at the library reveals the answers about Barack Obama's father and his father's convictions which Obama withholds from his readers. A first hint comes from authors E. S. Atieno Odhiambo and David William Cohen in their book The Risks of Knowledge (Ohio U. Press, 2004). On page 182 of their book they describe how Barack Obama's father, a Harvard trained economist, attacked the economic proposals of pro-Western 'third way" leader Tom Mboya from the socialist left, siding with communist-allied leader Oginga Odinga, in a paper Barack Obama's father worte for the East Africa Journal. As Odhiambo and Cohen write, "The debates [over economic policy] pitted .. Mboya against .. Oginga Odinga and radical economists Dharam Ghai and Barrack Obama, who critiqued the document for being neither African nor socialist enough."

I have a copy of Barack Obama's paper here in my hand, obtained from the stacks at UCLA. The paper is as describe by Odhiambo and Cohen, a cutting attack from the left on Tom Mboya's historically important policy paper "African Socialism and Its Applicability to Planning in Kenya." The author is given as "Barak H. Obama" and his paper is titled "Problems Facing Our Socialism", published July, 1965 in the East African Journal, pp. 26-33.

Obama stakes out the following positions in his attacks on the white paper produced by Mboya's Ministry of Economic Planning and Development:

1. Obama advocated the communal ownership of land and the forced confiscation of privately controlled land, as part of a forced "development plan", an important element of his attack on the government's advocacy of private ownership, land titles, and property registration. (p. 29)

2. Obama advocated the nationalization of "European" and "Asian" owned enterprises, including hotels, with the control of these operations handed over to the "indigenous" black population. (pp. 32 -33)

3. Obama advocated dramatically increasing taxation on "the rich" even up to the 100% level, arguing that, "there is no limit to taxation if the benefits derived from public services by society measure up to the cost in taxation which they have to pay" (p. 30) and that, "Theoretically, there is nothing that can stop the government from taxing 100% of income so long as the people get benefits from the government commensurate with their income which is taxed." (p. 31)

4. Obama contrasts the ill-defined and weak-tea notion of "African Socialism" negatively with the well-defined ideology of "scientific socialism", i.e. communism. Obama views "African Socialism" pioneers like Nkrumah, Nyerere, and Toure as having diverted only "a little" from the capitalist system. (p. 26)

5. Obama advocates an "active" rather than a "passive" program to achieve a classless society through the removal of economic disparities between black Africans and Asian and Europeans. (p. 28) "While we welcome the idea of a prevention [of class problems], we should try to cure what has slipped in .. we .. need to eliminate power structures that have been built through excessive accumulation so that not only a few individuals shall control a vast magnitude of resources as is the case now .. so long as we maintain free enterprise one cannot deny that some will accumulate more than others .. " (pp. 29-30)

6. Obama advocates price controls on hotels and the tourist industry, so that the middle class and not only the rich can afford to come to Kenya as tourists. (p. 33)

7. Obama advocates government owned and operated "model farms" as a means of teaching modern farming techniques to farmers. (p. 33)

8. Obama strongly supports the governments assertion of a "non-aligned" status in the contest between Western nations and communist nations aligned with the Soviet Union and China. (p. 26)

Read the entire article here:
http://blog.mises.org/archives/008007.asp