What my TV told me this morning…

As many who consume political news online know, the only reason to watch political news on television is to see how political events are playing “on the street.” For instance, I read Barack Obama’s comments about the frustrations of small town voters in context last weekend and formed my own opinion. Then, over the course of watching television, I learned that I was supposed to be more outraged and/or concerned than I actually was.

In short, I believe Obama was right about everything he said at that fundraiser (except for one phrase, “clinging to guns or religion,” which is the part I’m sure he specifically regrets right now). Clinton is a metaphorical shark, swimming to stay alive, so her reaction was more comical to me than it was political impressive. (“I used to go shootin’ with my pappy,” et al.) But what I heard on “Good Morning America” as I left for work this morning from political analyst George Stephanopoulos was truly amazing. I paraphrase:

GS: Hillary Clinton may have gone too far in her reaction, with her comments about using guns and “doing those boilermakers in Indiana.”

It’s 2008. A leading candidate for the Democratic nomination made a valid point about the real frustrations of rural voters and his opponent’s reaction was to do boilermakers and tell everyone that she’s “just folks like you.” What a country! I’m not exactly objective in this debate — I like Obama a lot — but his response seems to be spot on.

I was talking to a friend this morning and have come to this conclusion. Obama in 2008 is a transition candidacy. The question is whether folks who are sick of all this crap can overcome those who are content to keep eating the crap for breakfast. I’d say it’s 50/50 at this point. That still doesn’t mean we should eat the crap for breakfast, though.

I may, however, switch to boilermakers if this continues much longer.

UPDATE: Someone who was at the Obama fundraiser in San Francisco puts his widely reported comments in context and shows that this HUGE STORY is really just more distracting bullcrap that reflects more about Obama’s opponents and the media than it does about Obama and his actual positions. While regular folks (including small town folks) are hungry for something different, the forces of the status quo are hungry to put their foot down on this skinny kid with a funny name.

Comments

  1. Anonymous says

    It is nice to see a local take on this issue. I cruise the blogs daily and am pretty obsessed with the primary. I am a true Obama supporter (I was a precinct captain on Super Tuesday) and I want to see him succeed. Transitional is a good term. I tend to think transformative is also applicable. I am sickened by Hillary on a daily basis and I hope I don’t have to listen to a lot more of her nonsense. I find it very insulting. I think Obama is strong, he speaks to us like we are adults and I hope people are seeing that. I’m sick of the media always caricaturing people without letting the voter think for themselves. Anyway, nice diary.

  2. Anonymous says

    Great post. We live in an area very much like the one he was describing. When I first read his comments I thought, “This guy gets it.” It never occured to me to feel insulted until Hillary said that I should.

    I’m really going to be disappointed in Saturday Night Live if they do not have a sketch involving Hillary doing shots and shooting guns.

    Shari

  3. I personally feel the “clinging to guns and religion” line is spot on. Come on! Even here on the Iron Range gun nuts are rampant, and we have our share of backwoods believers. Yet this area is far less over the edge with these topics that most of rural America. You want to see what he’s talking about? Just go to a small town in the south, the midwest, the plains, or, for a real dose of it, Texas or Oklahoma.

    It was not an insult. It was truth. If people feel insulted by his statement, they should examine their lives and those of their friends, relatives and neighbors.

  4. Anonymous says

    I think the majority of people out there understand what Obama was talking about when he made the statement. His premise has frustrated many over the last eight years. I recently watched a PBS NOW program that discussed the economic hardships that many people are having with foreclosures and subprime mortgage fallouts. People were asked who they voted for in 2000 and 2004. Those interviewed were embarrassed when they responded Bush/Cheney. They were frustrated that they were thinking about wedge issues (gay marriage, abortion, immigration, guns) when they voted instead of thinking about their livelihood. I think that people are bitter and are starting to figure out that they politically may be able to do something about their economic situation instead of voting on social issues. Sorry if my post seems confusing.

Speak Your Mind

*

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.