David - that's an interesting question. I think the answer depends on whether you are a candidate for President...or anyone/everyone else.

You're right - we all believe our opinions are based on "climbing Truth Mountain" (I loved that!) and how could anyone else NOT agree?!

I agree that Obama's comments were ill-considered, but I still think that given the insanely spotlighted stratosphere that the candidates (especially Clinton & Obama) are forced to live in 24/7, this was his first major misstep, and it was bound to happen.

And, I would aregue that Hillary Clinton is hardly in any position to present herself as "one of the simple, gun-owing, down-home honest folks." Seriously, who does she think she's kidding. I guess anything to draw attention away from the fact that she continues to "co-op" the experiences of other people (like being hit by guerrilla fire") to make herself look...actually I'm not sure exactly why.

Personally, I continue to cheer for Barak BECAUSE he talks, acts, and responds to things like a "real" human being instead of someone who doesn't breath (let alone speak) without 12 polls, 32 focus groups, and 5-6 political strategists weighing in first. Real human beings say dumb things sometimes. I still would rather have an actual, honest to goodness, human being in the White House, if for no other reason than it would be a novel change.

This isn't about "beliefs" at all--it's about one person denigrating others' lifestyles. (So much for inclusiveness, which one of my favorite columnists calls "the great replacement virtue in secularized Western society".) People aren't angry because Obama said their behavior was a result of their circumstances; they're angry because he MEANT that their behavior (owning guns, believing in God, living simply) was INFERIOR. He sounded as if he pitied them, which is elitist; worse, he made it clear that he felt they really hadn't done very well in their lives. This came as a surprise to many of them, and it stung.

Jane--

Points taken--though Obama himself is religious, he should probably cop to not liking guns much--but I'm left wondering:

• So you do or don't like inclusiveness?

• So you do or don't believe the government has a role in helping people like farmers, steel workers, factory workers whose communities are economically on their ass?

• Is it condescending for a politician to speak at all of poor people in poor regions. Should such a politician worry about insinuating that the people in those communities haven't "done very well" in their lives?

• What's "poor" and what's "living simply," and who gets to define it?

I agree that Obama tread a bit too far, expressing his belief--and isn't he entitled to it, however grating it sounds to you?--that people vote God when they've given up on economic recovery.

But the line you ask a politician to walk seems to me not just thin, but non-existent.

David

David -- all good questions.

I'm not sure anyone can say for certain what he meant. I suspect he meant well -- he's trying to get votes, after all. I think how it's taken is entirely a function on how one wants to see it. We are emotional, not intellectual, about politics. Yes, I said that and meant it.

And I'll take the real human being over the focus group Stepford wife any day, Kristen.

It is also very dangerous to presume that you know what Obama "meant" by reading into what he "said."

While I agree his choice of words was a bad one, and could have been more accurately stated, I disagree that he "meant" their behaviour/choices are inferior.

Up to this point Obama's comments, choices and stated intentions for what he will do if elected has been highly inclusive of a number of groups who have in recent years been quite clearly disenfranchised by the current government - low income (or however you want to describe this group) being at the top of the ignored, un-funded, and disrespected constituencies.

Once again, too many of us react to a comment such as this with the knee-jerk reaction. More often than not, the visceral response turns out to be the least appropriate one. However our system, which has become not just adversarial, but short-sighted, superficial and, in my opinion, ignorant of real issues, real platforms and real people in favour of the best sound-byte has become entrenched.

I believe this approach does all of us a disservice when it comes to deciding whom to put in charge of the world's most powerful government. And to me, that is a much bigger shame than how you perceive and respond to any one candidate's thoughtless comment.

I'm not a big Obama fan (I just don't have the audacity to hope, I guess, and I've never been the person I've been waiting for to show up).

But if you read his entire speech, you can see that this is being blown way out of context.

And if he DID make a mistake, then I think it was the "gods and guns" comment, not the bitter comment.

You know what? There's a lot of bitter people in this country right now. Bitter that their jobs went away. Bitter that the economy is failing. Bitter that they're about to lose their homes. Bitter about the war that is sucking hundreds of milions of dollars out of this country when we could really use it. Bitter that Osama is still out there.

Being bitter isn't a problem, and calling someone bitter is honest. But that God and Guns thing . . . that's when he showed his true colors.

And that's why it's getting him in trouble.

Steve C.

"Once again, too many of us react to a comment such as this with the knee-jerk reaction. More often than not, the visceral response turns out to be the least appropriate one. However our system, which has become not just adversarial, but short-sighted, superficial and, in my opinion, ignorant of real issues, real platforms and real people in favour of the best sound-byte has become entrenched."

Hence, emotional vs. intellectual. If everyone took a deep breath when these things happen and think about it, and give the speaker the benefit of the doubt, and look at their actual history compared to what they said (and what we presume they meant), it's a lot easier to have a rational reaction.

"Bitter that Osama is still out there."

What does it say that my aging eyes read this as: "Bitter that Obama is still out there."

(That I have aging eyes combined with an aging attention span. No more. No less.)

Davd:

*I like inclusiveness and diversity if they mean "with liberty and justice for all." But they've become buzzwords that mean little but get spoken a lot. And often the people who speak them most exhibit them the least. For instance, "inclusiveness," by definition, ought to include ultra-extreme-right-wingers and gun owners (fer cryin' out loud! When did THAT get to be the crime?) and the rigidly fundamentalist--as long as there's liberty and justice for all. Many liberals talk as if those people are beneath inclusion.

*I'm less persuaded that "the government has a role in helping people like farmers, steel workers, factory workers whose communities are economically on their ass." I'm not an economist, but I like to read about it sometimes, and what I read tells me that the government has, in the past 100 years, under Republican and Democratic presidents and Congresses, done more harm than good when it came to "helping people out." Whatever help is offered should be designed to end quickly as an incentive for "farmers, steel workers, and factory workers" to learn new ways to make a living. I'm a North Dakotan, and I could probably be strung up for saying this, but if I'm convinced of anything, I'm convinced of the efficacy of a free market.

* Is it condescending for a politician to speak at all of poor people in poor regions? The politician should tread very, very lightly. Look at poor Obama: he was just trying to say he cared, and he wound up insulting them. WHY IS IT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S JOB TO HELP PEOPLE "DO WELL" EXCEPT BY KEEPING THE MARKET FREE AND GUARANTEEING LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL?

* What's "poor" and what's "living simply," and who gets to define it? The people living the life--not some outsider politician. Sheesh. A black man who's had to deal with "nigger" all his life ought to know THAT.

Finally: believers in God--some sort of God--are still, I think, in the majority in this country, although that's not my point. We don't, as a rule, go around singling out the non-believer minority to ridicule. We--most of us, excluding the ugly, noisy ones--just want to go to church or pray in the woods, live the life we think we should live, fail at it and keep trying, and we wish the minority non-believers well. The minority non-believers are the ones who, increasingly, seem to feel it's proper to ridicule believers. It's stupid and rude, and it stops conversation dead cold. As a nation (lawmakers, moviemakers, publishers, and everybody else) we tiptoe around Muslims for fear of offending them but have no such qualms about what we say about Christians. Even if, to steal a thought from Diane, it's emotional rather than intellectual, I still don't get it.

For instance, "inclusiveness," by definition, ought to include ultra-extreme-right-wingers and gun owners (fer cryin' out loud! When did THAT get to be the crime?) and the rigidly fundamentalist--as long as there's liberty and justice for all.

I missed the part where anyone said it was a crime?

I apologize for the hyperbole. Allow me to clarify: being a law-abiding gun-owner makes one SUSPECT to certain kinds of liberals.

Jane, I don't know any liberals like that (and I know lots of liberals!).

The liberals I know want guns of the streets of Chicago. They don't begrudge hunters (except for the P.E.T.A. types, who don't focus their protests much on hunters, who at least put animals out of their misery quick).

I like P.E.T.A. types for their conviction. I like hunters for their courage. I like everyone who has courage.

Find the liberal, up to and including Obama, who really begrudges a feller a shotgun or .22 rifle--really doesn't want anybody to have them--and you've found a rare bird.

But some people ARE sick of seeing school kids gunned down in the city, and stopping that does seem a lot more important than preserving someone's right to shoot a varmint. So you can understand a city-slicker being more intense about gun control than about hunters' rights, can you not?

Now, if you want to debate the effectiveness of gun control, well that's different.

But the liberal who wants to arrest or harass every farmer who owns a shotgun? That's a straw man, I think.

I think what Obama meant--yes, dangerous territory to speculate--by people who "cling" to their guns are those who vote strictly on the right to gun ownership, when there are a hell of a lot more pressing issues out there.

And there are.

Steve, as for there being lots of bitter people out there: There are. But nobody admits to being bitter, so calling people bitter--angry would have been OK, but bitter was an insult--is losing game.

Don't you think?

Crikey, how I LOVE THIS BLOG!!!! I have said this before, and I'm saying it again - the group of people who follow David's meandering thoughts here are intelligent, thoughtful and passionate, as well as wildly divergent in their positions on important issues. Yet, we all manage to have reasonable, animated, and, most importantly still respectful and open-minded debates.

If we were running things around here...well I think it would be a pretty damn cool experiment. We sure couldn't do any worse than some of the crap the real guys (on BOTH sides of the aisle) are tossing out there!

Kristen, I'm so disappointed in ALL candidates (and have been for several elections). What I long for may not be reasonable, but it's also not impossible: I want "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington." Isn't there somebody like that out there? Shy Jane would even go door-to-door for such a person.

Jane - I'm sure Mr. (or Ms.) Smith is out there. Unfortunately, he/she probably isn't willing to be eviscerated, and have every foolish (and usually irrelevant) choice made back to grammar school dissected and critiqued in order to get a chance for more abuse and partisan misunderstanding once in office.

We citizens have allowed the creation of an environment in which the best, most capable people to govern (because they've lived life, learned things, and made mistakes) either can't or won't be elected due to the focus on the wrong things. Until we change that, I fear we will continue to have the, as Diane termed it "Stepford candidates" as our only choices. But I still think Obama is different enough that I'm curious to see how he would do in the White House.

If we do ever find that Smith candidate though Jane, I'll be right there beside you cavassing!

>>>> I like hunters for their courage<<<<

What, exactly, is courageous about slathering yourself in deer urine, and sitting up in a tree, and then using a high-powered rifle to blast some poor deer that comes wandering along? Where is the danger? That you'll be drunk enough to fall out of the tree?

And how it is courageous to walk through a field with a shotgun and a dog, and when the dog chases some birds into the air, you blow them away with your shotgun. Where's the danger in that (unless you're hunting with Dick Cheney?)

Don't get me wrong . . . I'm not anti-hunting. As long as you eat what you kill (or, better yet, if it's deer or rabbit or pheasant, let ME eat it), I think it's a fine activity.

But courageous? Hunters? Let's save words like courageous for those who earn it, please.

Steve C.

"What, exactly, is courageous about slathering yourself in deer urine ...."

This question more or less answers itself, I'd say.

>>Don't get me wrong . . . I'm not anti-hunting.<<

Steve, generally speaking you are right that hunting in today's world, especially for game animals likely to end up on the dinner plate doesn't require all that much courage. Very few are killed by a dove, pheasant or rabbit (although Jimmy Carter did manage to get attacked by one).

I'm always amused, however, when non-hunting folks who would probably shoot their foot off paint the picture of the proverbal fish-in-a-barrel ease of hunting. It takes the average hunter 7 years before s/he bags their first deer, longer for harder game animals like wild turkey.

And you wouldn't believe how many people, even with a bird dog flushing pheasants or quail, etc. into the air, can't seem to hit the broad side of a barn.

However, courage does enter into it when you find yourself in the field with the number of idiots who "think" hunting is as easy as you describe. I've had shot pepper the leaves above my head, hit the ground when some numbskull swung his shotgun down the firing line or started blasing around when a covey of quail exploded at his feet, and felt my heart drop to the pit of my stomach when making my way to my deer stand at 4 a.m. and heard a safety click off somewhere in the dark.

And by the way, you can always tell a real hunter from a wannabe hunter. The real hunter never drinks when out in the field.

Sitting on the porch back at camp at the end of the day shooting beer cans, however, is another story.

I knew you'd be out there defending the Orange Vest Crowd, Craig my man!! Do you still have that cabin up in Canada (I think it was Canada).

Don't get me wrong . . . I really don't have anything against hunting . . . especially the way I know you do it, when you dress out the kill and eat it or freeze it.

And I don't think it's easy, either. I can't sit still long enough to watch a 30 minute sitcom. The idea of sitting in a deer blind for seven hours is Dante's sixth level of hell.

And having never shot a gun, i imagine i wouldn't be able to hit my own foot, even if I tried.

I know hunting can be HARD . . . I just don't think it takes a whole lot of courage. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't go to your cabin and give it a shot, literally. As long as I got to cook the venison steaks.

Steve C.

After 15 years I gave up running sportsman's club with the duck hunting/fishing cabin in Mitchell's Bay, ON. What you are remembering is the hunting cabin me and five friends built in SE Ohio.

Was just there over the weekend repairing the bridge over the creek. Turkey seasong starts in two weeks and I'm counting the hours.

As I've said before you can come down and hunt, AFTER you take a hunter safety course and maybe spent a couple of hours on the range or shot a couple of boxes of shells at trap.

Of course, you could always come down just to drink beer, target shoot, hunt for mushrooms or ramps), hike, or party with some of the locals.

It does take courage to be out in the woods with a bunch of drunk wannabe hunters.

The Chicago Tribune, years ago, ran a story about the four stages of the hunter's life, from the young guy who goes out and spends thousands on state-of-the-art guns and kit and talks ceaselessly about his kills to the old guy who has a license but sometimes doesn't even bother to take his gun with him at all as he walks about the woods. It was so true to life that it made me smile. My hunter friends are mainly in that last stage (no deer urine required).

Steve -- I've fired a lot of types of weapons. It's not at all hard to hit non-moving targets (I took out a sapling once). It's really not a great idea to aim at your foot, and I don't mean because of the potential damage to your foot should you hit it.

David -- The NRA portrays the gun issue in the strictest black and white -- you're all for guns or you're all against them. If you're for them, you see anyone who wants any kind of control as being against them, and vice versa. Of course no one REALLY feels that way, but that's how all issues in this country are portrayed today, which is pathetic because I suspect many voters are middle-class moderates with common sense. Guns -- good in the hands of licensed hunters, target shooters, hobbyists, etc. Not so good in the hands of unlicensed urban wackos.

Crikey! I love the word crikey! Especially when I find it on a smart blog like this. How did I miss this thread yesterday (Is thread still a word or am I kickin' it old school here?)

I didn't hear what Obama said, but when I heard it second-hand it made me cringe, especially since I consider myself a smart, thoughtful, caring Christian who chooses to live life simply, --- simple not in mind, but in actions and lifestyle.

Christ, Diane, now you went and brought me face-to-face with my own mortality! I'm not at the last stage yet (probably 2 going on to a 3) but I can see that it might be looming on the horizon of my life.

It doesn't seem all that long ago that I could come home from the bars at 2:30, be up at 4:30, out in the pitch black woods at 5:00 - with a foot of snow on the ground and a minus 10 degrees wind chill - walk 20 miles in the hills of SE Ohio all day, come in after sun down, grab a shower and dinner than hit the bars and do it all over again. All with none the worse for the wear.

Now, our goal is to manage the land around our cabin (habitat, food plots, minerals/salt, cover, water, etc.) to grow the herd and keep them close enough so that it's just a mile or two trek to have prime opportunity. We already make jokes about who is going to be the first to build a gravel pathway for a motorized wheelchair.

Age really sucks.

I know I'm a day late on this, but had to get in on the action.

David, isn't the problem with what Barack said not that he listed things that small-town, USA generally holds dear (among them god and guns) but that he attributed that attachment to their economic hardship?

Weren't they socially conservative, religious gun-owners when they had decent jobs?

I could be misquoting here, but I thought the transcript had him stating that small town USA didn't respond favorably to his platform of hope because they were too cynical about politics and what it could do for them. And perhaps because they didn't put too much stock in anything a 46 year old black man said anyway.

Ouch.

Dana, you're two days late and a transcript short.

My sis Piper alerts me to this, which should provide some more context for latecomers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/us/politics/14web-seelye.html?ex=1209009600&en=90264f5113fa8f18&ei=5070&emc=eta1

“Immediately, the remarks just really bothered me. For the first time, I realized he is an elitist.”

It's amazing what one can "realize" about someone from a remark or two, isn't it? Yikes. Perhaps this is why I am so quiet in person. All those people dying to judge me by a remark or two.

Huffington had some interesting comments about the Clinton response.

Maybe 2 days late, but with transcrpt in hand! The following is copied from the very same article you linked to.

"...in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter)."

Sound like an ackowledgement of race influencing voters to anyone else?

Dana, I don't know what point you are trying to make that hasn't already been made here.

This was my initial point: "No matter how fervently you believe it to be true, no matter how many times your observations have shown its veracity, you simply cannot get away with saying out loud that a person's political or social or religious beliefs are the result of their circumstances."

That's what Obama did, and he got burned. Am I missing something?

Our man Obama seemed to be saying that he has difficulty attracting swing voters, because he's black and doesn't offer concrete solutions. Which seems like a much bigger deal than whether he mistakenly attributes their conservative values to their economic circumstances. He doesn't really believe those people become less homophobic in times of economic prosperity, does he?

Maybe thats just my Hillary-supporting skew speaking.

Yes, our man Obama is saying he has difficulty attracting swing voters in P.A. because a hundred politicians have come before him since about 1970 offering help to the rust belt and delivering nothing. And he's adding lightly that it probably doesn't help that he's a freshly scrubbed black fellow.

That's not out of touch, that's in touch. The only question is whether he should have said it out loud.

Don't you agree?

David, that's how I took it, too. In touch, but should have been unsaid.