Assessing the Fallout: Obama and 'Bitter' Pennsylvania Voters

[DeepModem Mom]

WP political blog, "The Fix," by Chris Cillizza
Assessing the Fallout: Obama and 'Bitter' Pa. Voters

This morning in Muncie, Indiana, Barack Obama addressed the firestorm caused by his comments about working class Pennsylvania voters being "bitter" about their economic lot, and thus understandably nativistic in their outlook on everything from God to guns to immigrants. The key line from this morning: "I didn't say it as well as I should have..."...

***

The uproar over Obama's comments about Pennsylvania voters prompted The Fix to seek out a few consultants from both parties to assess the damage. Republicans, not surprisingly, sought to draw a comparison between Obama's comment and Sen.John Kerry's (Mass.) infamous "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it" remark about Iraq war funding -- a verbal gaffe that played no small part in his defeat at the hands of George W. Bush in 2004. Democratic consultants were more divided. Some admitted the potential political peril in Obama's remarks; others said it was much ado about nothing.

A sampling of what operatives of both parties had to say is below.

Joe Trippi, Democratic consultant/former adviser to John Edwards's campaign: "The fight in Pennsylvania is over working people. It should not surprise anyone that Obama is speaking to their frustrations, or that Clinton is branding Obama an elitist. Obama crossed the line to touch the two issues -- guns and religion -- that most politicians try hard to avoid, but that is part of his appeal and he quickly moved to explain his words. It's unlikely to stop his march to the nomination. It is more likely that the Clinton campaign did itself more damage by crossing the line and insinuating once again that Obama was somehow un-American."...

***

Carter Eskew, Democratic media consultant: "It will be a problem because it reinforces an image of aloofness and elitism. It's a verbal gutter ball--reinforcing the visual one. I say 'may,' because the first half of the quote has merit and Obama might be able to--as he did with Wright--take it to another place with at least some success." (Eskew also relates a story from the 1988 presidential campaign when a Republican media consultant, concerned that Vice President Bush was regarded as an elitist, scheduled a television shoot at a diner in New Hampshire to show Bush's ability to rub elbows with the common man. "It was going well until the man behind the counter asked Bush if he'd need some more coffee," said Eskew. "'Just a splash...' said the VP.")

John Anzalone, Democratic pollster: "I grew up in a blue collar environment. 'Bitter' was a more-than-appropriate description of blue collar families, especially middle-aged men who were living the American dream and content on their union wages in manufacturing who then faced a hopeless future. ... I think this whole line of attack by Clinton and McCain is (BS) and contrived. What do they know about economic anxiety. You think families in the Rustbelt care about the nuance of an adjective when they are hurting?"...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/04/assessing_the_fallout_obama_an.html

[Avalux]

1. Let's skip what the experts are saying. Just in from an actual PA voter.....

....my Dad. We had a two hour conversation about Obama's comments this morning and he agrees with him. It's difficult to understand unless you've actually lived there; but I've seen the small town I grew up in slowly die over the past twenty years. The older people like my mom and dad are still there, but the jobs are gone and so are the young people. I'd have stayed there if I could have but moved away to make a living. So yes, they are bitter and angry and my Dad is glad someone is talking about how small towns like Altoona PA have been abandoned.

Hillary and McCain calling Obama an elitist is a joke. They are the elitists and have aided what's been happening over the past 20 years.

Blue collar folks in PA may not have college educations but they're not stupid.

[lyonn]

5. I suspect that many in small town mid-America see it this way

Obama's comment was a "feeling the pain" comment. That people reach out to many things to make their life better and with a purpose when things seem hopeless.

[Vincardog]

2. The focus should nt be on The "Bitterness" it should be on the way that Both

parties have sold out the working people of this country.
The fuss and fury is a distraction designed to keep us from talking about the TRUTH that The
WORKING PEOPLE have been sold out by the political elites.

[tularetom]

3. I love it when millionaire Washington journalists

get themselves into a hissy fit of pretend outrage over what "regular people" or "real Americans" think.

As if Mr. Cilizza has any fuckin contact with "regular people' or "real Americans".

[DeepModem Mom]

4. Actually, 2 of the 3 Dems he quoted thought this was nothing, and one thought it might be nothing.

The rest of the consultants he quoted were Repubs, which I thought of as in the area of "consider the source." And Cillizza himself didn't express an opinion.

[Bonn1997]

6. These comments could easily be fatal

I'm an Obama supporter and a self-defined "northeastern elitist" but I can see how badly these comments will come off to the voters whose support we need. I can already see the Republican spin: "Barrack Obama says you turn to religion only because you're bitter. You support the 2nd amendment only because you're bitter." They'll have no trouble convincing people that Barrack is an elitist who doesn't share your values. Drew Westen's book the Political Brain should be required reading for any politician. The Democrats (except for Bill Clinton) just don't know how to talk to Americans on social issues. EVERY time a Democrat talks about guns (or other social issues) it should be to mention how much we share in common with middle America: "We support the 2nd amendment and support your right to protect your family. We want minimal laws about gun purchasing to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists and disturbed children. The Republicans don't share your values: They don't even want laws that keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. The party of 'national security' wants to put guns in the hands of people who make our country less secure." The first part shows that "we share you your values"; the second part shows "the Republicans don't and it could make the country less safe." Telling gun owners that they're bitter doesn't fit into any coherent compelling message to send to middle America.

[DeepModem Mom]

7. Hi, Bonn!

I also support Obama, but would happily support Hillary if she's the nominee. And my support isn't as "blind" as that of some -- that is, I've worked in campaigns, and I know, believe me, that those inside a campaign, the most involved supporters of all, know when they've taken a hit and assess the damage. (When I've worked in campaigns, in fact, there's always been complaining about any candidate's personal quirks; you can work 24/7, and then have a tired or off-the-rails candidate screw up bigtime, and it's totally beyond your control.)

I haven't been able to assess the amount of damage from this thing, so I appreciate your post. I don't know if it's minimal, or if the reaction could even backfire in Obama's favor -- or if, as you say, it's a severely damaging statement that could come back to haunt Obama again and again.

[Bonn1997]

8. Hi!

I'm new to this forum although I've been posting occasionally in the election reform forum. The Republicans have such a brilliant understanding of how human emotions (especially anger and fear and a construct we psychologists call "moral outrage") work that I can't imagine them not taking advantage of this quote. Obama said something really dumb on two topics (guns and religion) that have been huge Democratic weaknesses. Even if this is just a one-time mistake from Obama and even if McCain and the Republicans don't take advantage of this quotation, it suggests to me that Obama does NOT understand how to talk to religious and gun-supporting folk. He views them as different and wrong. I'm not judging the accuracy or validity of that belief. All I'm concerned about is that he'll never win the election without realizing how important the votes of religious people and gun owners are.

[Bonn1997]

9. Also

I'll add the fact that Obama is referring to guns and religion as issues that people resort to when they're bitter makes it clear that he thinks Democrats can win elections if they can just AVOID these issues (like Gore and Kerry tried to do). Drew Westen has convinced me in his book that that's 180 degrees apart from what they should be doing. They need to discuss how Republicans don't treat the poor, the black, etc. as God's children. By not caring about the environment, they favor special interests that line their pockets over taking care of God's earth. This land belongs to God, not us. Or he needs to talk about how out of touch with Americans the NRA (which supports all Republican candidates) is. If you ask Americans if there should be regulations (like photo IDs) for gun purchases to help keep guns away from terrorists and disturbed children, they'll unanimously say yes but the NRA says no. The Democrats have to stop avoiding and start taking ADVANTAGE of social issues. Start talking about how much we have in common with most of middle America on these issues. An independent, gun-owner is going to feel more comfortable with a candidate who supports second amendment rights but wants guns out of terrorists' hands than with a candidate who wants anyone and everyone to have guns. Winning elections is about spinning issues in your favor so that people *feel* more comfortable with you than with the opponent on matters that are important to them.