Nelson Channels Numerian On Obama 'Gaffe' Sort Of


From tonight's Nelson Report:

SUMMARY: with just over one week to go, as some polls show the race in Pennsylvania getting very very close, trade has become an increasingly complex part of the fight for the Democratic nomination.

No one knows, least of all the Democratic Leadership, whether last week's stunning "take back" on the Colombia FTA's Fast Track coverage will turn out to be a one-off tactical maneuver, or the end of 40 years of accepted practice.

And for the first time this year, Hillary has put China in the center of the presidential debate, calling for increased enforcement in the same breath as rebuilding the US industrial base.

Obama, meanwhile, seems to have shot himself in the foot, again, and appears increasingly to resemble Adlai Stevenson more than is deemed comfortable (by the elites) for the Democratic base.

But just when his backers seem close to despair, he stands tall and clear, as before a Labor group in Pennsylvania today. Consistently, Obama has been able to explain his way out of trouble...could it be that the US electorate is smarter than Clinton and McCain seem to think?

POLITICS/TRADE...in our Summary we implied (deliberately, please note) a common elitist conceit, namely that the rank and file US electorate really isn't all that smart.

In fact, we can personally testify from four years of "exile" in Central Florida during the early 1970's, the folks out there are just as smart as us Washington elites, often even smarter.

What they usually are not, however, is immersed in the day to day thinking and practice of government, and especially strategic thinking and planning.

The result is that they can be called "unsophisticated" if one defines sophistication as being comfortable with the daily concerns and conversation here.

One result of that can look like gullibility, a certain naivte when confronted, especially for the first time, with a slick argument, or, especially, a sophisticated campaign of misdirection.

But by and large, a life in and around politics has taught us, sooner or later the folks will hear you pretty accurately, and take your measure.

That's the bet that Barack Obama seems to make, or take, a little too frequently for blood pressure of his inner circle, one suspects, and he was at it again in San Francisco recently, holding-forth on the thinking and motivation of Rust Belt and Small Town Americans under stress from globalization and economic downturns.

Here's what he actually said:

"But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Hummm....guns, religion, trade and immigrants, all in the same breath. Here's the fun Clinton had with this today:

"I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive. He was explaining to a small group of his donors what people who live in small towns right here in Pennsylvania are like and why some of you aren't voting for him. But instead of looking at himself, he blamed them.

"He said that they cling to religion and guns and dislike people who are different from them. Well, I don't believe that. I believe that people don't cling to religion, they value their faith. You don't cling to guns, you enjoy hunting or collecting or sport shooting.

"I don't think he really gets it that people are looking for a president who stands up for you and not looks down on you."

-0-

It's an axiom of politics that if you find yourself constantly "explaining what I meant", you probably shouldn't have said it in the first place.

Especially in the electronic communication age, the sound-bite regime that passes for commercial radio and TV "news" does not lend itself to giving even the President more than a few sentences before a summary (if he's lucky) is substituted for "coverage".

Sure you can get the whole speech or explanation on cable, blogs, or by downloading the whole article from a newspaper website, but how many average voters have the time, energy, or even the interest for that?

Sure PBS and NPR are fabulous. But check the ratings.

So you ("you" being a candidate or current official) had better get it right the first time, on balance, or pretty soon you will be an ex-candidate or office holder.

Obama seems to be stretching the voter's attention and patience this year, and it may yet be the deciding factor for him if his San Francisco ruminations about small town religion and guns turns out to be a real gaffe, and not something that, once "explained" parses better than his opponents would like.

In that direction...a surprise endorsement today by the revered owner of The Pittsburgh Steelers football team, Art Rooney, may well prove more persuasive to the "average" Pa Dem than what they hear about Obama from either Hillary or McCain:

"This is not something that I do regularly but as I listen to the candidates in this race, I am struck that we continue to hear about the problems and the same challenges that we have been talking about for decades. Protecting jobs here in Pennsylvania, breaking our dangerous and costly addiction to foreign oil, making health care accessible and affordable - these are neither new issues nor new ideas. And yet we have failed to make real progress.

As a grandfather and a citizen of this community I think Barack Obama's, thoughtful, strategic approach is important for America. When I hear how excited young people seem to be when they talk about this man, I believe he will do what is best for them which is to inspire them to be great Americans.

This time, we can't afford to wait. Our country needs a new direction and a new kind of leadership - the kind of leadership, judgment and experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated in more than 20 years of public service, and in a particularly impressive way in this campaign. Senator Obama has rejected the say-and-do anything tactics that puts winning elections ahead of governing the country. And he has rejected the back-room politics in favor of opening government up to the people. Barack Obama is the one candidate in this race who can finally put an end to business as usual in Washington and bring about real change for Pittsburgh and the country as a whole. He has inspired me and so many other people around our country with new ideas and fresh perspectives.

True sports fans know that you support your team even when they are the underdogs. Barack Obama is the underdog here but it is with great pride that I join his team."


Sean Paul Kelley April 14, 2008 - 5:05pm
( categories: Analysis | USA: Campaign 2008 )

Maybe the media is reading the blogs every day now. I wouldn't be surprised. More and more I get the sensation that opinions or stories I'm reading in the newspapers have shown up on a blog earlier. Bondad was mentioning last week that the NY Times printed a front page story on the exact issue he has been harping on for years: stagnant wage growth during the Bush years.

The Nelson Report is not quite making my point, however, which is that Obama is willing to turn Republican arguments (even if they come from Hillary) against them time and again. He repeats his claim even louder so that it at least gets some press attention. He doesn't back down and do an abject apology to these people for what he says. He's building a teflon coat to ward off future attacks. Let's see, though, if it first works with the voters in Pennsylvania. Are they insulted that someone thinks they cling to guns and religion for comfort, or are they bitter enough about the financial situation to vote for Obama as the guy who can finally do something about it?

Numerian April 14, 2008 - 5:33pm

it appears that Fox News went after the story, and came up pretty empty.

Gordon April 14, 2008 - 9:11pm

Penn race unchanged by Obama remark. But, of course there's ARG's track record to take into account. So why believe Quinnipiac?


Hillary Clinton has executive experience in the same way that Yoko Ono was a Beatle.

Mark April 15, 2008 - 1:16pm

...does not an election make.

Check the trends. Pollster checks them all: Zogby, SUSA, ARG, Quinnipiac, Rasmussen... all of them.

"Not a good sign", as someone is fond of saying.

Gordon April 15, 2008 - 8:43pm

We can choose our polls or, what might be better, be patient and wait for the actual votes.

adrena April 16, 2008 - 8:20am

That's sort of the point of checking Pollster.

Gordon April 19, 2008 - 9:59pm

said something to this effect somewhere.

"But by and large, a life in and around politics has taught us, sooner or later the folks will hear you pretty accurately, and take your measure."

Any liar can fool you some of the time.

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

mauberly April 14, 2008 - 6:51pm

On MSNBC, Reuters' Decker on Obama's bowling: "[T]his cuts to 'is this person real? Do they connect with me as a voter?' "
Summary: On MSNBC, Reuters' Jon Decker raised the issue of Sen. Barack Obama's bowling performance and stated: "[T]his cuts to 'is this person real? Do they connect with me as a voter?' You know, for someone who's in a bowling league in northeast central Pennsylvania ... they can't identify with someone getting a 37 over seven frames." Decker's comments follow those of MSNBC figures, particularly Chris Matthews, who have purported to identify actions or characteristics of Obama that they claim suggest he is not a "regular" person and is out of touch with average Americans.
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804140008?f=h_latest

http://mauberly.blogspot.com/

mauberly April 14, 2008 - 11:04pm

I usually like what he writes but boy is this one ingenuous.

The Uncharted- from Off the Bus to Meet the Press

....Citizen journalism isn't a hypothetical in this campaign. It's not a beach ball for newsroom curmudgeons, either. It's Mayhill Fowler, who had been in Pennsylvania with Obama, listening to the candidate talk about Pennsylvanians to supporters in San Francisco, and hearing something that didn't sound right to her. (See Katharine Seelye's account in the New York Times.) ....

the comments after his piece are worth reading


1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?

nymole April 15, 2008 - 12:23am

Except for the headline, this is not how a professional newsgathering operation would handle the story. But a professional newsgathering operation would never put itself in the position that we bargained for when we started OffTheBus. Journalists, the pro kind, aren't allowed to be loyalists. But loyalists because they're allowed to write for OffTheBus may find that loyalty to what really happened trumps all. And that's when they start to commit journalism.

adrena April 15, 2008 - 6:34am

Whatever the ethics of a donor using access to a private meeting to tape and then publish a story, the focus needs to be on what Obama said and how he said it. In the San Francisco meeting he is talking like a professor objectively dissecting the social dynamics that generate a lot of bitterness and distrust of government in some parts of our society. When he gets up in front of the people he's talking about, of course he is going to be more personal and less professorial in discussing them and their problems.

The message is still the same. How he said it in one instance versus the other becomes one of those "he's talking about me behind my back" circumstances that may or may not offend people.

What the newspapers discuss in a campaign, what television reporters comment on, and what people who write on blogs make as their focus, is often a form of navel-gazing. We talk and write about these things because we like to talk and write, but it is not usually the case that people outside our world pay much attention.

Sometimes controversies like this one hurt a candidate in so significant a way that it determines an election, but that is unusual and probably not likely to happen here. People who are going to vote in the Pennsylvania primary have their own lives to lead and most have made up their minds already based on multiple impressions of these candidates. For Obama, it could be something as phony as whether he said the Pledge of Allegiance with his hand on his heart, but for most of his supporters it will be because they see in him something that may help them.

For his supporters, and maybe for the undecideds, his comments about bitterness and feeling abandoned by government may resonate. We are approaching historic lows in national surveys regarding people's faith in the future, the direction of this country, and their personal welfare. There is something real out there in this vast country that is as socially powerful as it is distressing. People truly are fed up and bitter and angry and worried and disgusted. Their situation is about to get much worse if this recession deepens, and they know that the job cuts have only just begun. It doesn't take a sociology degree to see this, because the signs are everywhere in public and in private and all of us can attest to it. This is, in my opinion, the fundamental social dynamic that will determine the election in November.

Obama's campaign for change feeds off of it, and for the most part channels it in a positive way into a feeling that something can be done about these problems. Controversies over how his message is delivered can nibble at his support along the edges and in a tight race may make a difference. But the dynamic is a lot more powerful than the controversies that crop up in a campaign.

Let's not shoot the messengers who help create these controversies, but at the same time let's not exaggerate the influence of those of us who bother to write about these controversies or read about them. These controversies are not what motivates most people who vote. When the voter surveys are done after this primary in Pennsylvania, I suspect we'll see it is the issues of substance - and in this primary the need for major political and economic change - that will overwhelm the list, not some controversy over how a candidate delivers that message.

Numerian April 15, 2008 - 7:36am

you think about the laughter in the room from his remarks?

Tina April 16, 2008 - 12:09pm

eom

Numerian April 16, 2008 - 1:59pm

sorry I wasn't clear at all. I actually thought his comment here was worse than the guns and religion stuff and the laughter was disheartening.

Here’s how it is: 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).

Tina April 16, 2008 - 6:20pm

Discussions of racism bring up tension in almost all circumstances, and I interpret this laughter as something of a tension release, not meant in a ridiculing or demeaning way. I've heard Obama in the past defuse some tension regarding racism and his position as a black politician/candidate by using humor - using self-deprecating. That's what it seems he's doing here.

Laughter after his first sentence, however, would have been altogether a different thing and could have been interpreted as condescending.

His entire journey during this campaign has been an interesting exercise in elevating black/white relations as a topic for discussion. He obviously can't ignore it in his campaign speeches and appearances, which are mostly to white audiences. He has used humor to make the discussion more comfortable and open. There is the added dimension of his speaking as a minority, which means being sensitive to Hispanic, Asian, mixed-race, and other non-white concerns.

This is a really, really difficult task for a candidate to handle. I think he has done it well, and this campaign may be a watershed in many ways even if he doesn't win.

Numerian April 16, 2008 - 6:48pm

Obama should have charged when he retreated. He'd have done better to have followed through with the reasons they're bitter: no jobs, no health care, no money, no future. While they see plutocrats crash not just the U.S., but the world economy, they languish in small towns where heroin is more common than hope. But he won't do this anymore than any candidate who survives the gauntlets of corporate beat downs it takes to become a presidential candidate so my recommendation is rhetorical.

Here's why he's right. In what will probably be the last partially honest national exit poll, the 2004 presidential exit, small towns were a wonderful anomaly. While the red rural segment went from 23% of the vote in 2000, it dropped to 16% in 2004.

But what of the small towns (10-50 thousand population)?

Their turnout was up 80% from 2000 and their voting certainly changed.

In Millions

Article (Fig. 2)

The Praetorian Kerry broke even with Bush in this segment in 2004. These voters didn't care who he was married to or if he was an avid wind sailor. They were feeling the pain and wanted help. They still are.

Are we to believe that the past three ears has turned these motivated voters from 2004 into tepid serfs who revel in their victimization.

Both candidates are anathema to Pennsylvania or any other states small town voters. They know what we know. Once elected, either will dance to the tune of The Money Party, find some fraudulent but galvanizing event to look presidential, and let them rot. McCain with his "war" cure must seem positively hallucinogenic to them.

Buffalo Bill's
defunct

These people have no voice. The least one candidate could do is pretend to speak to their issues. It's like the guy said in "Dog Day Afternoon" ...

Having said that, it would be nice if the Fed or the banks would channel Numerian;)

Michael Collins April 15, 2008 - 3:59am
adrena April 16, 2008 - 8:16am

to Hillary Clinton and John McCain is the best of the three candidates. One's a witch that sucks the oxygen out of a room and the other is war monger--so from that perspective, Obama sure looks good to me, but then because I'm not an American, I don't get to vote.

My advice to those who can vote, "Choose your poison with care."

canuck April 16, 2008 - 11:52am

"Not surprisingly, Hillary Clinton viewed Obama's statement the same way a vampire regards a pint of blood."

Thanks for that quote.

Meanwhile, check out my favorite Therapod. Yeah, those MoveOn people are so horrible, I mean they're like into good governance and all that crap. What looooosers.

Gordon April 19, 2008 - 10:04pm

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.