There are decades of screw the worker policies to be bitter about. The Clinton years are part of the overall trend whether he help or hurt - those years did no see any reversal.

to quote Krugman:

” Since the late 1970s the America I knew has unraveled. We’re no longer a middle-class society, in which the benefits of economic growth are widely shared: between 1979 and 2005 the real income of the median household rose only 13 percent, but the income of the richest 0.1% of Americans rose 296 percent.

Most people assume that this rise in inequality was the result of impersonal forces, like technological change and globalization. But the great reduction of inequality that created middle-class America between 1935 and 1945 was driven by political change; I believe that politics has also played an important role in rising inequality since the 1970s. “

And there’s a lot to confront that the people of Pennsylvania might be interested it. That’s where the tin ear comes in. Does he go to Oil City to talk about problems citizens of California have — what would that sound like to people in SF?

I think calling him on this is appropriate, without being put down for “swarming.”

like the Wright “controversy”, once we get beyond the “he said what?” kneejerk, it is hard to deny what is being said (conceptually) is actually mostly sound and factual…I would prefer someone actually talking about it and trying to shine a light on the situation rather than not…

Also, I am one of those hicks from a small town. I had it pretty good under Clinton, less so under Bush. I do not cling to my religion and guns because I am bitter. I’ve been somewhat religious all my life in good times and bad. As far as guns, just a few days ago, Obama was holding himself forth as a strong supporter of the Second Amendment as a Constitutional Lawyer. Now, he uses poverty to explain the fact that people like to hunt? He has also been bashing free trade agreements all over the depressed areas of the country. Now, he seems to be defending free trade agreements.

He drags anti-gay preachers along on the campaign trial and lectures Democrats for not being sufficiently religious suggesting we need to emulate the religious right crow. Now he seems to feel that people in economic distress feel antipathy for those who are different (gay?) because of the economy. Well, he has been pretty wishy-washy on the whole gay issue, but blaming the economy for anti-gay sentiment is just wrong.

I do not feel guilty for holding this phony up to scrutiny. He has stolen my party from me. Yes, I know he was playing to his elites in SF, but some of us hillbillies can read and watch the teevee. I voted Democratic in every election since 1974, I have never voted for a Republican but I wil not vote for a man who uses every issue he can invent to divide the country and party. I am not obligated to this fake messiah. And I am not obligated to forgive this party for what they have done to Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton by painting these good people as racists.

Thanks for, you know, standing tall, despite being, well… sort of conflicted and stuff.

He lost me on the gay issues, and this gaff, accidental or otherwise, just pushes me more securely into the Hillary camp.

don’t just hope for change…vote for it…Hillary ‘08

I don’t know if you’re aware of this, but many who are lucky enough to have jobs are an illness away from first losing their job and then their house.

Of course, I agree that food and shelter are also important; a lot of people are in a world of hurt.

On all these policy issues — not that the Obama campaign is all that into policy, as they themselves have stressed — it would be nice if Obama were a little less a meta-leader, and did a little more actual persuading, intead of musing on the importance of persuasion. Leaders lead, as Atrios as fond of saying. Leaders don’t meta-lead.

That was my larger point. Sorry it wasn’t clear.

He’s not accusing these people of anything, he’s groping for an explanation.

Hey, I’ve got an idea: Maybe Obama could “grope” toward full throttle support of universal health care?
That would help working people a hell of a lot more than introspective musings before an audience of billionaires and bundlers, given that lack of health insurance causes 27,000 preventable deaths a year. I do appreciate that when Obama muses, it’s a feel good moment for our creative class [cough], but that’s not everything, and the Harry & Louise remakes aren’t cutting it…

There is no concept of unity, shared experience or shared dreams…he’s stomping on them completely because they are bitter as a way to identify with wealthy donors…nice touch.

Looking good Billy Ray

I was reminded of a favorite book of mine, The Wanting of Levine. In one sequence, the (Jewish) presidential candidate explains to the two sides why some people in New England hate snowmobiles and some people love them, and what it says about class and status. That’s kind of what Obama is doing here. Personally, I WANT a president who can think about such things intelligently and is willing to talk about them in public.

I’ve no dog in this Primary, but, really– how is what Obama summed up in a soundbite different from what Joe Bageant has been saying in his book and dozens of essays?

Obama didn’t have hours and pages to better color in the lines, but, what he said sounds awfully similar to what Joe has written in “Deer Hunting With Jesus.”

BTW– early on in the Primary campaign, I sent a copy of Bageant’s book to the Edwards, Clinton, Obama, Richardson, and Dodd campaign offices. I had written Joe, and he forewarded the letter to his publisher, who sent me a small box of the books for just this purpose. That might be why his words have that certain ring to them.

You’re a fan of Joe’s, so why would you tweak Obama for trying to bridge the “Elite-to-Redneck” gap? It’s what Joe’s book was intended to do– by his own words.

Just wondering.

–mf

But don’t you, in fact, at least from time to time, look at people as if they were “bugs under a microscope, or in a lecture hall?

I know I do. This is the stuff of introspective human beings.