I'd be interested - and some pithy excepts, before & after the change in mood...

Thanks

That's more than I have time to do at the moment, although it would make for an interesting diary. Two blogs I follow show this trend if you want to check the comments. Both bloggers are very skeptical of late also.

Link 1

Link 2

For example, demagogic vs. non-demagogic? How does one talk about class issues without it being populist?

Edit: to say a little more. Would talking about how Wall Street is gutting Main Street be populist? Populist? Yes. Demagogic? Well...?

Not all populists are demagogues, and not all demagogues are populists either. Populism is a political position that appeals to the concerns of the masses. It is opposed to elitism, which appeals to the concerns of the elites. Obama is a populist rather than an elites, and the elites are trying to make him out to be an elitist and themselves as populists. That does not stand the test of logic, so they have to use rhetoric (aka sophistry). Campaigns generally demagogue "issues," or leave it to surrogates.

Demagoguery is a presentational style that combines charisma with rhetoric. While it has a pejorative connotation, it is not necessarily bad. It depends on how it is used. Logic and rhetoric are not mutually exclusive. It is possible to mount a logical argument rhetorically to gain an emotional advantage without resorting to sophistry or mendacity.

For example, Dennis Kucinich was strong on logic and facts to support his populist position against the war, but he was short on charisma and rhetoric. I would have been happy to see him demagogue the issues he cares about if he could. Ron Paul had a similar problem as a populist on the other side of the aisle, both against the war and the tanking economy.

Obama has the smarts, charisma, rhetorical skills to demagogue an argument based on reason and facts. If he can connect that will the majority of people's views on US imperial adventures and the tanking economy, he can take independents and some GOP moderates from McCain that he would otherwise lose to him.

Right now, Bill, Hillary and McCain are gang up on Obama to brand him as an elitist demagogue, who is all talk and no walk, as well as out of touch with the common people. He needs to hit back at that hard, not with logic and facts alone, but also with strong persuasion clearly backed by reason and fact.

No one is yet really hitting at Wall Street vs. Main Street, yet. Hillary and McCain are never going to do it, other than very superficially if forced, since they are beholden to the Street. However, Obama is free to do this, if he isn't afraid of going out on a limb, since the majority of his funds come from small contributors.

This is a populist issue that really requires demagoguing because it's so wonky. You can't explain logically to most people how they are getting taken because the web of facts is too complicated for them to comprehend. But people are savvy enough to know that they are being taken when the upper echelon is doing very well and corporate profits are historically high, but wages have been stagnant while the price of necessities is exploding. This is a populist issue. A savvy politician capable of strong persuasion just has to get people fired up to do something about it at the voting booth. Now that's some demagoguery I wouldn't mind seeing.

How does one talk about class issues without it being populist?

The simple answer to this is that there are no class issues in the US because the US is a classless society, in which there is limitless class mobility. This is unlike almost every other society.

Even our present president, the scion of an old "New England Brahmin" family transplanted to oil-rich Texas. can portray himself as a regular guy that Joe and Jane Sixpack would love to have a beer with. Similarly, entertainers and sports figures who come from the lowest echelons can mingle with old money here if they make enough themselves. In the US money talks, not birth. It doesn't happen like this elsewhere, and a number of people from abroad have remarked about it as a surprising and refreshing feature of US society — if they are not afraid of it, that is.

The "class issue" is a GOP canard they throw at anyone attacking their partisan policies that favor one segment or echelon of society over another. It goes with their calling everything that is not laissez-faire capitalism as being socialism. This is a rhetorical device that subtly connects Marxist words like "class warfare" and "socialism" with the opposition. Don't fall for their way of framing the issues.

The Left needs to frame the debate in terms of populist issues of mass appeal that relate to real problem and challenges that the vast majority of Americans face due to the philosophy and politics of Hamiltonian centralist republicans committed to neoliberal economics and, consequently, neo-imperialism. They masquerade their projects as "free" markets, "free" trade, and "free" capital flows and under the guise of spreading democracy and freedom, American values, the Judeo-Christian tradition, and Western civilization to the rest of the world sorely in need of these advantages.

This is not an issue of "class" but rather of a small minority manipulating public opinion through propaganda in order to get the vast majority to act against their own best interests.

Populist demagoguery is about shouting loud enough, clear enough, persuasively enough, and long enough to wake enough people up to what's really going down, without confusing them with too many unnecessary details, so that they'll vote to change it.

The simple answer to this is that there are no class issues in the US because the US is a classless society, in which there is limitless class mobility. This is unlike almost every other society.

No. No no no no. The US is not a classless society. Not by a long shot. Granted, you are correct that we don't have much of the old aristocratic birth-determines-class that some other parts of the world do, but class is a very, very strong element in everyday life. The reason we can get away without thinking about class is that we have greatly self-segregated along class lines and that we lie to ourselves that we have a classless society.

A "classless" society is not simply one in which there is the possibility of upward mobility from the bottom to the top. It is one in which there is no need for upward mobility, where everyone is treated as relative equals. In America today, there are plenty of poor people and a growing number of rich. That's a class difference. It's expressed through geographic segregation, manner of dress, leisure activities, and wealth. It is the difference between those who own and those who work/rent.

In my personal experience, coming from an upper-middle class background and growing up in an all-white suburb, most people with my background simply do not think of class because we've been so isolated. Issues of class are simply not talked about in much of mainstream America. Learning to think in terms of power relations, race, and class was a huge change for me, but it explains so much of how American society works.

I just don't understand how you have come to the conclusion that America is "classless." We have traditionally had more mobility than other countries, but that advantage has faded--and besides, high mobility still does not mean "classlessness." It just means we have more churn between the classes.

"Class" is not really right word for the differences in American society since it has a prior use that confuses the issue and prejudices it toward Marxism. For that reason it is better avoided in order to reframe the debate more favorably for the Left, as well as to be more accurate about current sociological facts in the US.

As a matter of fact, Americans making between 30,000 and 300,000K define themselves as "middle class." Most working people regard themselves as middle class rather than working class. Moreover, the so-called upper class is nowhere near as defined as it was a couple of generations ago when it had a precise definition, i.e., being in the "Blue Book", or social register.

In more traditonal regions, class defines which schools one attends, what clothes one wears, one's dialect and speech patterns, etc. It also defines what kind of clothes one can wear, what kind of vehicle it is socially acceptable to drive, what church one attends, whether one goes to college and what college one attends, what establishments one can frequent and so forth. It is really quite comprehensive and constitutes a life-long tag. This is true even in Britain, where social stratification is much tighter than the US.

Sociologically, "class" is not so much an economic terms as one describing rigid social stratification that goes far beyond economic factors. This is a stratification that most Americans never encounter, and they consider class in terms of "working class" (blue collar), middle class (white collar), and upper class (very wealthy).

In terms of social stratification, economic class is described is on the basis of ownership. Renters are lower class (peasants), homeowners are middle class (bourgeoisie), and those who are wealthy enough not to have to work, yet afford anything they want are upper class (rentiers). This is not really how Americans think about class.

A big reason that the US is a relatively classless society is universal public education. Traditionally, only the wealthy have sent their children to expensive private schools that essentially exclude everyone else. It used to be that this old boy's network provided the political, financial and industrial elite, but this is waning — although our president was Skull & Bones (symbol of the Great Pirates, as Bucky Fuller called them) at Yale.

My point is that talking about class in the US is misleading and confusing, and the Left is well advised to avoid it. Look who is using it. The Right, accusing the Left of conducting "class warfare" when they criticize the accumulation of wealth at the top.

well thought out position but to add something more to think about. Naomi Klein wrote Disowned by the Ownership Society for The Nation (February 18).

Remember the "ownership society," fixture of major George W. Bush addresses for the first four years of his presidency? "We're creating...an ownership society in this country, where more Americans than ever will be able to open up their door where they live and say, welcome to my house, welcome to my piece of property," Bush said in October 2004. Washington think-tanker Grover Norquist predicted that the ownership society would be Bush's greatest legacy, remembered "long after people can no longer pronounce or spell Fallujah." Yet in Bush's final State of the Union address, the once-ubiquitous phrase was conspicuously absent. And little wonder: rather than its proud father, Bush has turned out to be the ownership society's undertaker.

Well before the ownership society had a neat label, its creation was central to the success of the right-wing economic revolution around the world. The idea was simple: if working-class people owned a small piece of the market--a home mortgage, a stock portfolio, a private pension--they would cease to identify as workers and start to see themselves as owners, with the same interests as their bosses. That meant they could vote for politicians promising to improve stock performance rather than job conditions. Class consciousness would be a relic.

It was always tempting to dismiss the ownership society as an empty slogan--"hokum" as former Labor Secretary Robert Reich put it. But the ownership society was quite real. It was the answer to a roadblock long faced by politicians favoring policies to benefit the wealthy. The problem boiled down to this: people tend to vote their economic interests. Even in the wealthy United States, most people earn less than the average income. That means it is in the interest of the majority to vote for politicians promising to redistribute wealth from the top down.

I think Klein is on to something.

Your discussion of the different ways of speaking about "class" in America makes me think that new ways of talking about social and economic reality need to be developed.

Sociologically, "ownership" means real ownership, not that you pay rent on a mortgage to the owner of the mortgage who still holds title until the mortgage is paid. BushCo's meaning of "ownership" is just a mask for another form of rent while performing a semantic slight of hand to make it seem otherwise.

This is just a financial maneuver that the elite uses on the rubes to sucker them out of their money in the form of rent while leading them to believe that they are "owners." Most of the creative financing mortgages were just rent in disguise and could never have been paid off, even if the rubes could afford to keep paying on them.

The other way is through inflation of the currency, which is a hidden tax. Inflation works against creditors, so there has to be more in it for them some other way. Inflation decreases the real value of debt, like a mortgage, but overall it increases the nominal amount of money on which interest is charged, as well as leading to asset appreciation which favors the elite as principal asset holders. The rest are slightly better off so they don't complain too much.

Another not so subtle distinction regarding "class" is that the ruling elite pit the perceived self-interest of the "middle-class" against the "lower class"(poor), promising to protect the middle class taxpayers from redistribution of wealth to the poor, which has been largely and not so subtly racist.

Speaking off the cuff, Obama made a poor choice in selecting his words, but the idea is a sound one and he should push it hard. The dark side, abetted by a complicit media, has used hot button issues that have nothing germane to do with the real issues that people face and challenge the country in order to distract attention from the real and pressing issues. Until this trend is reversed, US elections will continue to be a mockery. This, I believe, is what Obama was driving at, and if it was, he needs to make himself clear about it and hit it hard. The same with the Wright issue. Wright was talking liberation theology with the voice of a prophet. Maybe some of his words were ill-chosen from the political perspective, but the issues he was confronting are real and pressing also. Obama needs to change the rhetoric but keep pushing those issues.

the vast majority of them are never going to register as Democrats and vote Democratic anyway, so it's a not an issue with respect to Democratic politics. This is a significant portion of the GOP base (about 28% of the country) that is still with Bush, whose mantra (actually Pavlovian trigger) is "Guns, God, and gays."

They've been susceptible to people who exploit fags, guns, and immigrants as their enemy. The fact that they have managed so far when they have lost their job, insurance, house, and so forth means that there is a non-governmental infrastructure available to support them - friends and family. When even their friends and family suffer the same calamities, what will be their response? When the immigrants start to head back across the border (it's already happening) and the gays and hippie liberals are the only ones manning the food lines and homeless shelters, who else can they blame? Those are the questions.

So Steve you are saying the blue collar folks are just fine with having their $30/hour factory job shipped to China and replacing it with a greeter position at Walmart? Wow, if they are that stupid and unmotivated I doubt they even register to vote.

They all care about Jobs, Money & Health care. That's why the established interests are so adamant about NOT having a debate on free trade (loss of jobs) & single payer health care.

Maslow's hierarchy of human needs? I suspect fags, guns, etc come after the first two levels, (1) food & shelter, (2)safety (here's the hate)...

We have a class of politicians and pundits (Michell Malkin) who appeal to hate. To call this out all we have to say is they are appealing to hate and its unchristian. And keep writing & saying it, over, and over, and over again.

"Oh they you go again, appealing to people's hate, why do you do this?"

We need to focus on the first level, which does contain environment, health, jobs, economy, etc.

...would be true if the working class was just the middle class with less money. It isn't.

His work does not apply to working class people? Really?

Damn, I must have missed it in the UK - where it's povided by the state, and in Africa where it's the focus of the very poor.

The US poor are different? How so?

Do a search on the "Bubba vote." Much to the Democrats consternation Bubba consistently votes against his economic interests in favor of "small government, low taxes, traditional values, and strong military," as well as "Guns, God and gays."

It's the base of the GOP that has allowed the ruling elite to stay in power and continue to perpetrate economic neoliberalism and neo-imperialism. It's a pretty reliable 25-30% of the voters, judging by the polls. It also influences center-right independents. You would probably have a hard time comprehending it if you are unfamiliar with AM talk radio and right wing christianism, but Fox News gives some idea.

hung out with a good buddy yesterday. his 'ol gal, bless her, is a bit simple. smart enough to know it tho, and wants help. sweet gal. she told me she'd been listening to some OKC, OK AM radio talk shows after midnight here. she said, 'that asteroid that nearly hit us has another right behind it, only it ain't an asteroid. it's The Grays, coming to abduct more of us! Now you think about it, Zuma, if they was nice and all, they wouldn't be sneaky, they'd come right out and introduce themselves to our government but they haven't done that. Actually there's two different kinds of aliens, the nice ones and the bad ones..." and so on, i didn't ask why the nice ones don't 'introduce themselves'... she went on to say the next show following [i forget his name] is about politics. and like how evil and bad jimmy carter is and so on...

fear and ignorance, hormonal thought, the limbic system, fight or flight simplicity. simplicity...

fear and hate. primal conflict. -but the fear the elderly may have is like something else again, certainly not from a surfeit of hormones or ignorance, just fear and vulnerability, or as gordon *might* suggest (to use his word in any case); powerlessness... i bring the elderly up thinking how people supposedly flip to conservatism as they age, ala charleton heston or jerry rubin. sure doesn't explain senator byrd, god bless him, but i digress...

there's an old word long out of vogue, that's come back to my mind of late; the Establishment.

this country was lucky to have done as well as it did in terms of welfare and civil rights and rehabilitation. that all smacks of belly rubbers and tree huggers and other forms of Socialist sissies to the disenfranchised and trained...

i told her let's not talk politics. and i'd keep an eye out for the grays.

The last thing they will want to do is introduce themselves to this government.

It use to be that the Grays were the government - a sometimes alien but otherwise benevolent force that looked out for you in times of ultimate stress. It's sad that the Establishment has lost such respect that people have to transfer their sense of security and faith in society to aliens from another planet.

while i began this reply completely on topic, one of my own pages held a linkchain relevent to drupal stuff:

http://www.disobey.com/

http://www.disobey.com/node/1830

DrupalToughLove.com: For those who are dev enough

http://www.drupaltoughlove.com/

that aside aside,
the alien and the foreign and the different and others
is a central theme of mine, a BFD, so it's hard to keep my mouth shut.
even more than usual.

we treat all politicos within certain civil parameters, attributing attributes good and bad patently and extremely contrary to evidence as if that is the nature of making sense, when those on the fringe were awarded tin foil hats simply because they were extreme. 'Them' and not 'Us'. they who once exhorted us to buy gold may now be saying buy food and we still ignore them for their extremism. we ignore all extremism as if patently it was common sense to do so, out of hand and without discernment, even extreme verified news. that things are extremely bad is not acknowledged in polite company no matter the impolite offense to intelligence. to be impolite is to be impolitic...

ah, the foreign, Them, the Others, so unamerican. leads to socialism and other unmanly ills... or worse.

when it comes to these things, vonnegut hits the spot on.

http://zuma.vip.warped.com/kv-amawac-114-115.jpg

http://zuma.vip.warped.com/kv-amawac-116-117.jpg

we give the establishment far far too much respect while we are completely okay with launching citizen surveillance sats against ourselves. there is no they, there's only us, shooting ourselves in the heart.

allegory_of_the_alien

Othering

i'm all for wish fulfillment. i've never realized anything real in life any other way. that's all i have in common with the system over us. tenacity. but there are indeed wishes i wouldn't do if i could.

http://gigabyte-jones.livejournal.com/14772.html?thread=44980#t44980

http://zuma.livejournal.com/121452.html

....Maslow was a pop-psychologist. I've always believed that his theory was horseshit. The problem is we apply it specifically to the poor and working classes. You think the poor don't make efforts to attain all the other things even when their survival is in doubt? Don't know too many poor people do you? People who follow the heirarchy theory imply that the less money you have the closer you are to a lizard. Wrong, very wrong.

The point I was making is that working-class people are slightly abopve that day-to-day survival level that poor people are at. That's because they get up and go to their jobs every day, and don't complain when they're there. They know that only a pink slip seperates them from the panhandlers and the welfare moochers.

Working class people don't desire upward mobility the way the middle class does. They regard the middle class as amoral, effete circle-jerks. They know they won't be there when the shit hits the fan. When the next war breaks out, they --the working men-- and their kids will be the ones joining up while middle class kids will seek deferments.

They don't send their kids to college, nor do they afford them any kind of paths out of the life they know. They do not want them to turn their back on their rearing and they cwertainly don't want their sons to become effeminate, left-wing scum.

the middle class is split between those who sympathize with and work with the working class and those who sympathize with and aspire to be the upper class. It's the latter group you have to watch out for--they're the people who believe "we'll all be rich someday" and vote accordingly.

...middle class sheeple you're correct. But since we're discussing the working class, I assume you mean them. then you're wrong.

Yes, working class people are more likely to watch Fox News than anyone else, it's packaged for their consumption after all. That is not, however, wher most of them get their news. It is isn't from CNN or MSNBC either. Nor newspapers or network news, either. Some watch the local news, but most don't. Some use the internet, and are on LISTSERVs, but few actually get their news there. Though many of them listen to conservative talk radio (anyone who has worked construction knows that at least half the work truck radios in America are tuned to Rush during lunch hour, they don't generally get their news from there at all.

Most working class people learn about whats going on in the world from their friends and family. Their is indeed a working class grapevine. There are working class people on this board, any of them will tell you that as well. People from that background have intense connections to their sisters, brothers, parents, children, significant others, and even cousins that middle class people will not understand. Most have freinds they've known since the teeter-totter years. They trust these acquaintences. When they hear about current events from these folks, it has far more credibility than what they would hear from Brian or Katie.

You are very right. If Obama continues politics as usual and just ends up talking good game, the results will be devastating.

If bipartisanship turns out to be merely compromise, if he governs as a Democrat, if he gets swallowed by the Military industrial Pharmaceutical complex, we are all so very screwed.

Really though, just changing the culture from the current Fascist regime and returning it to relative sanity would be a start. The rest of the changes that are required get the USA back on track will require our continued involvement in the process. Running better candidates for the legislative branch and holding them accountable is of utmost importance. Holding our media to a higher standard is also required. The fact that Fox news even exists is an oxymoron. We need to demand that the influences of their corporate entanglements are mitigated by an empowered ethics body. Somebody needs to keep these conglomerates honest. That would be us.

If Obama fails to live up to our expectations because he turns out to be an empty suit it will be devastating. If he turns out to be ineffective because we all get complacent once a Democrat holds the crown, then we don't deserve Democracy. It is the times that make the leader and it is the people that do all the work. It is time

I remain an Edwards Democrat and even if he is not in the running, I have much more faith in his approach, his rhetoric and his policy objectives than the three candidates contending. I too am inclined to Obama as the least-bad, but I simply do not believe he is as good as his oratory. I don't see the conviction there, intellectual or emotional. It is obviously hard at this distance (a voter in the hinterlands with no actual contact with any candidate) to read a person's conviction. I suppose that is what a campaign is for--to somehow convince us about the human qualities that each candidate intends to apply toward his stated objectives. Obama does not convince me and when I hear him say "I know exactly" what is in going on in Indiana and Pennsylvania, and that he above all others is "in touch", I have to wonder how connected to he really is.

I know people who have worked for both men.

Obama engages people one-on-one on an intellectual basis first, and on an emotional basis second. He likes to surround himself with people with ideas who are willing to challenge his way of thinking. He tends to value expertise and people who are considered expert in their field. When he is out campaigning, he connects with people on a friendly basis, but his real appeal is both intellectual and emotional through his speeches. Notwithstanding the recent criticisms of him as an elitist and as someone who talks down to voters, he is in fact consistently talking "up", using rational, intellectual, and emotional arguments that are well-structured and occasionally different or found previously only on blogs.

Bill Clinton connects to people emotionally and intensely. He is focused exclusively on whomever he is talking to, listens intently, and responds with positive body language such as hugs and hand pats. A friend of mine who saw him four years apart said he had no problem remembering her son's name and what they talked about four years ago. The effect of these skills are extraordinarily persuasive on those he meets, to the point that people feel special to have been taken into the confidence of someone so powerful and charismatic. His aides will tell you, however, that once he disengages from conservation with you, he completely loses interest in what was said or what you wanted. He had trouble in the White House proving any loyalty to his staff no matter how many years they had worked or sacrificed for him, but he demanded complete loyalty in return. His personal characteristics have been described as those of the perfect politician, though not helpful at all in managing his staff, his administration, or the Democratic Party.

I don't know anybody who really knows Hillary Clinton well enough to describe her, but the focus here is on Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I am arguing here that Obama is not as superb a politician as Bill, because he connects to people in a more remote manner, and that the difference is "he knows your pain" (as you described it), but Bill Clinton "feels your pain." These are very different things, and it just might be that Obama's approach is better long term because he seems honestly interested in real, permanent policy change to help people. Clinton showed very little interest in such policy change.

...whose approach is better at governing is irrelevant at this point. Politics is always about convincing voters that you're on their side. Bill Clinton and George W. Bush are absolutely brilliant at it. Obama has his problems.

Sounds like these CNN commentators aren't getting fooled by this, although it seemed to me that Wolf was trying to push them the other way with the tone of his questioning.

BPK80, who wrote that post, isn't wrong about the fact that people in rural Pennsylvania are going to be offended when a candidate tells them they cling to religion or guns for comfort, or that they are lunch-pail working folks. Quite a few probably will be offended.

My point is entirely different. The political conversation candidates have had with these voters has been entirely along Republican Party lines. It's all about moral values and the rural way of life, including guns and religion. Remember John Kerry with his hunting escapade to show he was like them? It didn't work.

What Obama is doing is going for the throat of the Republican argument. He's discussing the unmentionable - that people have been manipulated by politicians for years with these emotional campaigns, while all the time Washington votes to subsidize companies that export jobs, change the bankruptcy laws to benefit the banks, dismantle the safety net provided by government, and do nothing while health care benefits are eliminated.

Hillary - because she has no choice - is eagerly lining up on the Republican side, attacking Obama for his elitism and praising Pennsylvania rural voters for the stalwart, moral, patriotic, resilient, and positive people that they are. She's allowing the Republicans to continue to frame this debate, and when it comes time for these people to vote in November they will be pulling for McCain, not her.

Anytime you attack entrenched political attitudes, people's feelings are going to be hurt. The question is whether they will once again go with the emotional upset and allow it to govern their lives (an emotional appeal that sets Americans against Americans), or will they open their minds to an entirely different argument about what has been happening to their economic status.

what I don't understand is why he didn't say those words in Pennsylvania directy to the voters. Also why say something derogatory right before their primary? I understand the point he was trying to make, but his great speaking skills and timing really failed him here. I don't fault Mccain or Hillary here, Obama would have done the same thing to them for making such a blunder and rightfully so.

Does Kerry's hunting escapade compare with Obama trying to bowl? lol ;)

He wasn't expecting his comments to become public - though that is a bit naive - and when he had to respond he went back to Pennsylvania to address the issue directly and clarify what he meant. The fact that he didn't back down on his basic point is important, because in the face of Republican attacks a lot of Democrats have backed down and apologized, looking weak in the process. What I like about Obama is that he notches up the argument, makes it stronger, attacks his opponents for their hypocrisy (a word that needs to be revived since it describes Republicans better than any other word), and he keeps at it, forcing the press and his opponents to respond finally on the issue as he sees it.

He did it with the Wright controversy and the discussion on race and came out okay, if not ahead, even though this topic is enormously emotional and many voters will find any rationale for not voting for him just because he is black. This discussion, however, is more important, because it doesn't carry the emotional baggage of racism, and it has the potential to backfire on both Hillary and McCain who are about as elitist as you get in this country. More important, it has the potential to dismantle a fundamental weapon in the Republican arsenal - the use of fear and divisiveness to trick voters into ignoring what is happening behind the curtain to their job security, health benefits, and general welfare. If you take this away from Republicans and strip them of the illusion that they are strong on defense, they have nothing left.

yes very naive. The elitism charge will continue to stick if Obama continues to have to explain his words and actions. The cure for this is for him to think before he speaks. It doesn't matter if the his core message is good and true if keeps screwing up. At some point voters will just stop listening and it won't be because he is black but because he sounds like all the other politicians.

I expect better from you :) He was speaking at a private fund raiser - He wasn't expecting his comments to become public

You're not advocating for two different messages are you? A "behind closed door" message and a message for the sheeple? That's like approving of dishonesty.

...of Zeus, if I see another Obama Concern post from the Hillaryheads, I'll probably go postal.

Obama concern posts, hillaryheads...yep yessir insulting about half the dem voters is the way to get people behind your candidate.