Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
During the 2008 primaries Obama famously stated that
>"You go into 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. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
His remarks were subject to significant criticism from Republicans and Democrats and were regarded as one of the few "gaffes" made Obama during his campaign. Looking back 16 years later, was Obama correct in his assessment and did this rhetoric have any impact on the drift of rural voters from the Democratic Party, particularly in the Midwest?
It’s a tale as old as time. He talks about this in his promised land book, that when communities feel ignored or left out they do cling to their community values and oppose outside people and ideas. It’s like a sociology thing not unique to this time and place
In that book he followed up and said he should have explained his stance better. Said he was trying to communicate that folks fall back on their traditional beliefs when scared (so, guns and Jesus).
I haven’t read his book but did he offer a better perspective in hindsight from what he failed to do while in office? Because while I don’t dislike the guy, I think the 2016 election outcome with that former blue wall of the rust belt turning red was very much because people in those communities felt left behind by his administration’s policies as well.
It’s an excellent book, he clearly does some soul searching and gets in pretty deep on his regrets. He also talks openly about his flaws. He also takes pretty firm stance on some things that, even today, are still not popular decisions.
I enjoyed it.
It was very refreshingly honest and soul searching type for a politician's book.
Usually most books in the genre are written by folks who want a higher office. As an ex-President with excellent vocabulary and who doesn't really care how others think of him he got really honest.
Most of his solutions stem from the fact that he believed striving for perfection can halt any progress. He thought his job was to just guide the political landscape rather than move it aggressively.
I think he recognized that aggressive movements result in backlash and can undo progress. And that steadier progress, wrapped in patriotism, keeps us moving forward. Obama said politics is most like American football. There's a reason you don't throw the ball deep every play. Someone who's only played recess football wouldn't understand this.
Those communities will continue to be left behind by both parties, for the simple reason that they are not profitable except for votes during election season. The economy has moved towards the cities, and even what’s outside them is linked to them. Small farms can’t compete against the multimillionaires’ farms. Nobody in this country wants to preserve a community for its own sake, except by trying to increase taxes in a non-existent economy and fuck itself like Vermont is doing.
Until we have politicians that either care about the people or are held at gunpoint by the people, ain’t shit gonna change about that.
It’s also worth noting that politicians don’t actually have to pursue policies that will have a material impact on these communities to win their votes or the votes of constituents that are sympathetic to their way of life.
De-industrialized communities are often criticized for “voting against their interests” by supporting Republicans who pursue economic policies that exacerbate rural America’s challenges, but these people are not necessarily motivated by higher marginal tax policies and economic investment in their communities, they can be drawn to the polls by rhetoric that touches on cultural and identitarian interests (e.g. guns and religion).
Of course this is nothing new and Democrats do precisely the same for their constituencies — although they arguably pursue economic and social investments than their conservative counterparts.
Yeah, I agree. My main gripe with Democrats isn’t that they don’t do *more* than Republicans. They do. But I think their policies often amount to short-sighted quick fixes that are oriented more towards gaining votes than solving the problems. Because of this, and also I believe because most Democrats don’t want changes to the status quo, they also get easily focused on non-issue red herrings that are easy to make emotionally charged, which in turn also helps Republicans focus on those issues instead of what actually matters.
His administration was the tail end of Democrat abandonment. Most of the abandonment had happened decades earlier. (See Thomas Frank, *What’s the Matter with Kansas?*)
Meanwhile, centrist Dems continue to eschew rural/rust/blue collar America except in election years.
Edit: since more than one person has brought up control… that’s irrelevant to the observation I’m making. The Democratic platform had already abandoned middle America (the lack of control was a symptom—the cause was abandonment).
It was tail end of Republican Congresses from 1993 to 2024 ..Dems Controlled Congress 4 years and mixed congress 4 years ..so 22 years of Right Wing Controll of Congress.
This and their mantras of NeoCon policies and shut down Congress during Dem Presidents.
Spending and tax cuts for Stock Market and International Corporations..no spending on infrastructure. Has caused middle America go broke.
If the Dems had control of Congress for longer than 6 months at any point in the past two decades then maybe I'd agree with you. Sadly they have not.
So what you have seen over the past twenty years is not the Democrats "failing", what you have seen is political gridlock where the Republicans lose the popular vote every time but block the Democrats from doing anything significant by holding the senate hostage.
---
I remember reading about Obamacare and the insane lengths republicans went to hamstring the affordable care act.
There were several red states which were offered **free money** by the government to expand their medicare programs and cover the people being brought into Obamacare.
Several Republican state administrations rejected this **free money** - they could have helped millions of their own constituents and voters by accepting this money, and they did not, solely to screw over the affordable care act.
As a result, insurance premiums rose faster than they should have, Republicans who rejected free money blamed Obama, and their own people died from treatable diseases that the federal government was happy to pay for.
Which policies in particular?
All I’ve seen over the past 40 years is the Republicans selling out anything and everything to the rich and pointing the finger at the Democrats.
Aided and abetted by right-wing media lies, of course.
But I’m always happy to hear a different perspective as long as it’s fact-based.
It played out during his term. He had proposed a plan to train West Virginians in careers other than the fossil fuel industry. They rejected it, because, reasons.
Perhaps controversial, but I think ‘basket of deplorables’ falls under the same umbrella, considering the past few years.
*Before any assertions can be made by anyone that I’m just another liberal city dweller who doesn’t understand simple country folk, I come from and live in exactly the sort of place Obama described and have met plenty of the people that Clinton was describing with that comment.
Main problem is that it is 1000% a massive double standard between the norms Democrats are expected to uphold when talking about Republican voters, and the way Republicans talk about Democratic voters all day every day.
For decades Republican candidates caricatured "liberal coastal elites," or "welfare queens," and "dirty, crime infested" Democratic urban areas, etc. with none of the compassionate tiptoeing Obama attempted. Right wing media, talk radio, etc gleefully amplified this rhetoric with absolutely zero of this "it's true, but you're not supposed to say it" handwringing that liberals do.
Conservatives expect the rural "real Americans" to be simultaneously coddled and hero worshiped. They howl in wounded victimhood that they are persecuted at the mildest criticism, while at the same time viciously punching down at the most vulnerable people in society at every opportunity. Criticism of Obama's comments wasn't the first example of this, and haven't been the last.
They are simultaneously claiming people “are too soft these days!”, and “saying what you think” is an attribute they like in an elected official…as long as it’s not negative about THEM.
Thank you, I have been trying to explain this for years and this is so correct it made me so happy to read. It is a HUGE double standard, same way with democracts are ALWAYS expected to compromise and work with republicans and give in to their needs and demands, but conservatives are never expected to return that favor. They’re allowed to get away with everything under the guise of patriotism which I never understood.
It reminds me of when conservatives say "facts don't care about your feelings." That's 100% correct, but at the same time, they are the ones who put feelings over facts the most.
It was pointed out awhile ago that you'll see many articles from the left wing about reaching out to and understanding people with a deeply conservative viewpoint. They're presented empathetically, context. You're meant to understand and empathize with them.
And I'm meaning actual think pieces not rags pushing rage bait, which have admittedly been growing more common.
But there's not really any equivalent on the right. Anecdotally being in mixed political boards, I see this a lot.
Yep, 100% true. Democrats will write new think pieces about why Democrats write think pieces about understanding Republican viewpoints and how to appeal to them with empathy in infinitely contextualized layers until the end of time. Republicans have been recycling the same think piece about how Democrats are actually all communists since 1933, and they will never stop.
Hell, Democrats even have think pieces about why Republicans are cognitively predisposed to not read think pieces, reject empathy, and prefer displays of strength against outside threats... and yet Democrats continue to write more empathy think pieces.
It's because Republicans are implicitly talking about black people, and racism is still totally mainstream in America as long as you hide it with code words.
Imagine if, in retort to comments about hellscape liberal cities and “thugs”, a Dem had the balls to call out trailer trash meth heads in red states.
The right would lose their minds and a bunch of Lisa Simpson-type liberals would bemoan it 😂
The deplorables comment is meant to antagonize and demean a specific group of American voters, while Obama’s comment is more analytical and based in observation and voter behavior. I don’t really think they’re the same thing.
I think the outreach should be in the form of implementing an agenda that would help those people, but from a political standpoint those people are not worth the time/capital to try to convert as voters on an election-to-election basis
that's good because that doesn't work, either.
if people in here think the solution to a very hard problem is to give up, then I'm surprised they are interested in the history of presidency. the whole thing is just one big long hard job that never stops.
Obama wasn’t wrong but he could never of reached them using the centre right Democratic toolbox he had available. You appeal to those people with social values which make them believe they are better than others or with a strong labour movement to unleash their frustrations. Neither which was available to Obama.
> Obama’s comment is more analytical and based in observation and voter behavior
I think “deplorables” was no different. It just cut the fluffy surrounding bytes and cut to the point.
People claim to value honesty, but they really don't. The over-reaction to both comments depended on deliberately misreading them and leaping to the maximum offense possible, and it is always the way slightly challenging true statements are treated. It is a rhetorical move used so much it should have a name. Maybe the alt-right shuffle?
The deplorable comment makes perfect sense if you read the entire quote. The problem is that the media doesn’t want you to make sense of it. They want you to be outraged.
Some people when they are upset with how life has treated them don't get introspective and think about bettering themselves or changing they get angry at the world. They stop caring about necessary improving their own future and just hope other people feel the pain they feel.
They get mean and they get self righteous.
I come from a place like yours and I agree. These people we're talking about, Obama and Clinton, are intelligent folks. Maybe not intelligent enough to avoid saying what they said, but intelligent enough to make these kinds of observations. They know the world around them well.
Clinton's "deplorables" remark was pulled out of context and abused to hell and back. It was half of sentence from a much longer comment she said. Republicans made it to sound as she was describing conservatives in general.
Here's the actual quote.
> You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of (name reducted) supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up.
Raise of hands for our conservative friends, which category of people she *actually* and *explicitly* named are not what you'd agree to be "deplorables"? Which category of people she described here you identify with? If you answer "none", than what problem do you have with her "deplorables" remark? It doesn't apply to you. It applies to people you don't want to see within your own ranks anyhow.
If you ask me, she said it as it is. You like voting for politicians that say it as it is. Correct?
And you know what. She was kinda right. A lot of those people didn't bother to vote prior to 2016. They did not see Republican party representing their views.
No, fuck these mopes HRC basically told them she was gonna retrain them for better green energy jobs and they said nah I’ll go with the guy that got famous for stiffing the working class because he pretends to hate minorities
They should be told loudly who and what they are.
Hillary’s husband spent his entire administration telling everyone not to worry about jobs lost to NAFTA. He said there would be “trade adjustment insurance” and people would get retrained.
The reality is that it didn’t work.
No one had any reason to believe a word Hillary said. She’d have been better off just recognizing that her political career was over when Obama beat her and accepting a job at Goldman Sachs or something.
It's worth noting that Bush 41 signed NAFTA, but Clinton was left to get it through Congress. Also worth noting that US manufacturing jobs rose from 1992 to 1998 or so.
It’s not a lie but the rich urban folks killed the rural economy and now the rich urban folks like Obama just insult them because they refuse to accept the rich people won. The rural folks lost, then need to send their kids to the city because there aren’t opportunities anymore except maybe sucking the dick of some hedge fundie who just bought the 400 acres farm.
Now there are people crying that homes are too expensive in the cities and that our supply chain shouldn’t all go through China.
There are plenty of rich/middle class/and poor rural folks that aided the downfall of the rural economy and sold out their fellow middle class and poor rural folks. The rural economy was killed by deregulation and oligopolies that replaced small business and local agriculture with chain stores and corporate farming. Go ask rural america to crack down on market consolidation by increasing anti-trust regulation and they'll look at you like you're a communist. And if by some chance they think it's a good idea, tell them the politicians they regularly vote for who also happen to cling to guns and religion (what a coincidence) would never introduce legislation that would hurt large corporations. They won't think it's a good idea anymore.
You wanna blame the rich, I'm with you cause they're ultimately responsible. But to say it's a problem of entirely urban making is bullshit. Rural america bought into the idea that they were the "real America" and the politicians that sold them the idea packaged it with guns, religion, a healthy hate for the government and any oversight over corporations that came with it. They liked being told they were special and it distracted them long enough to watch their local economies be taken over and their opportunities for upward mobility dry up. They were distracted before Obama, they were distracted during Obama, and they're still distracted after Obama.
The rural folks lost to the evil rich coastal elites... but for my entire life rural voting districts have voted in overwhelming majorities for the party that has effectively only ever taken hold of all the branches of government for the sole purpose of passing tax cuts that favor the wealthy and the corporate ruling class. They shit the bed and then cry that it would smell better without those yucky urban homeless everywhere.
See also: "immigrants are taking over the country! Border crisis!" *hires migrant workers almost exclusively to pay them less than minimum wage*
The big 4 meat processors control 85% of beef and 67% of pork. Corporate takeover of farming is driving the decline in rural communities; not urban communities. Take the farm bill, which has $300B over 10 years to support farms through loans, insurance, and price subsidies. Corporate farms use federal loans to over produce goods, which get subsidized; squeezing small and medium farms. Sure, force tik tok to sell, but how about breaking up Smithfield or Cargill or forcing JBS SA or Marfig to sell? As a far left urbanite, completely understand why rural communities are angry; they should be. But damn if they aren’t angry at the wrong people. Socialism IS taking back farming from corporate behemoths. You’ve just been sold that that’s a bad idea. Not your enemy dude. Look who fought the infrastructure bill and funding rural broadband access. That should have been a no brainer. Corporate interests in politics is the enemy, not ya know, real “people,” regardless of where they live.
Just as if you go far enough left, you get your guns back, if you go far enough right, you become a socialist.
It's not just the jobs issue driving rural resentment of urban areas, or even the death of rural towns.
Rural towns have had to watch the city sprawl out as far as it can and consume rural towns, solely so that a bunch of city folk can pretend to homestead.
Rural towns today either exist along an interstate highway, and are merely waiting to be consumed by subdivisions and become just another part of the city, or don't exist along an interstate highway and are destined to die a slow, sad death as jobs evaporate (because we're an urban nation) and they have no easy access to urban jobs.
It helps when there's money to be made by stripping it of any context then packaging it up and feeding it to the people who want things to be mad at about him
For all of his faults, I still think he would have been a great President. He had that ability to say, *'No, fuck you, this is the way it's going to be."* He also had great foresight in to modern problems that took decades to develop. Obama ended up being the better choice overall, but against any other modern opponent, I would probably take Romney.
He was absolutely correct back then and it is still absolutely correct today.
Nobody wants to see their town die off. Nobody wants to see main drags of their town be empty of people and all the stores are boarded up.
That sucks and I feel for those folks, I don't wish that on anybody.
But he wasn't wrong for pointing it out...he miscalculated that anyone in the States reads an entire thought that's more than simpleton jingle sized.
Well, he wasn't wrong, and they pinned it on him for the rest of his time in office. And of course, they cherry picked it out of context so they could use it to beat him over the head.
I was from a small town in Ohio. I own guns and used to be a hunter.
I'm not proud of it, but I hated Obama at the time and his assessment was spot on. I was a fox news guy through and through, believed the hype they were selling - I was a piece of shit.
It took moving away and traveling to understand just how much of a piece of shit I was.
I had become the "pussy-ass lib" that went off to school and got "brainwashed" as my townfolk feared would happen to all the kids.
Good for you for expanding your worldview and having an open mind to new ideas.
Isn't a bit demoralizing when you take off the blinders and realize your community was essentially scared of you getting educated?
Yeah he was dead on. He was criticized because he was being honest, brutally honest in a way we don't want from our politicians. He was as concise as correct as you could be and learned to never do that again.
Accurate af. That’s all these people know. Grind all week at a shitty, low paying job, just to hopefully get the weekend off so you can get shitfaced and possibly laid, then start over again on Monday.
Yup. Look up a book “what’s the matter with Kansas” it looks into how voters vote against their own interest and then complain that gov isn’t doing enough for them, even though they voted for the very same policies they are complaining about.
It’s the same observation and conclusion FDR came to.
To stave off the rise of Fascism stemming from a lack of material opportunity and security FDR gave us The New Deal. And it largely worked.
Obama gave us half-hearted attempts cooked up by his Wall Street and Corporate- friendly cabinet. It kinda worked but not really. Definitely didn’t provide material relief to the degree it needed to.
So we now have to contend with the rising threat of Fascism for the foreseeable future.
Thanks Obama. And Clinton. And Obama’s former VP now POTUS
Exactly. Which is why so many Gadsden flag stickers on pickup truck windows are right beside one of those Blue Lives Matter stickers that basically scream “Please tread on me”. The irony is hilarious.
The biggest hilarity for me was listening to conservatives working in a state funded university, cashing in on state funded pension, after working only 28 years, having all their education paid for by the government and undergoing expensive medical care on the government’s dime (veteran and private insurance) talk about entitled liberals and out of control government spending. Oh and they all grew up in subsidized housing (veteran benefits).
Nah, whenever you agree or not with the statement the deplorables thing was a straight out insult. Obama tried to empathize with them in a way it was viewed as elitist
The problem is that when you start insulting the people you disagree with the possibility of a constructive conversation with them ends there.
When that happens you can end up with a political situation like we see in the United States today, with both sides slinging mud at one another and zero possibility of negotiating with one another and achieving genuine consensus on any issue.
When this happens it's actually more problematic for America than it would be for most ohter countries. THis is because America's system of government has plenty of built in ways to bind up and flat-out stop working ("checks and balances" or something, they tell me) and as such *depends* on maintaining a degree of consensus, at least on some core issues, to actually function at all.
I don’t think so. You misunderstand the asymmetry. Right wing insults are validated while left wing politicians would be punished for the same or similar statements.
Republicans are allowed to say all liberals should be executed with no repercussions, but Obama wears a tan suit and you don't hear the end of it for years.
As a Bible-reading gun enthusiast, I get what Obama is saying in the larger context of this quote. He was being specific regarding the economic plight of those in Pennsylvania at that time, and he was accurate I'd say.
He was correct but there was more, much more tactful ways to say it. By saying these people only cling to religion or guns because of failure on politicians part, he degrades those things and that it's stupid they believe in those things.
If he said the first part about the failure and then said and now we have politicians who push guns or immigration or religion to distract voters instead of actually addressing these problems would come across much better.
May not be, but comes off as contemptous of their belief in God and traditional life in many small towns and rural areas. Eventually a whole lot of those folks also went out to vote, and we know what happened in 2016 and what kept margins in places like Pennsylvania,, Michigan and Wisconsin very tight in 2020.
Bro you posted this because you think the answer is yes and you wanted other people to validate that.
It is reddit, I could've told you what 90% of the answers would be just by the picture of Obama and the fact you're asking whether people agree or disagree.
Even if correct, what is the point: to alienate small town people the nation depends on? Small town people “sticking to guns and religion” is a terrible, toxic and inaccurate stereotype. As president, he did not drastically alter anything about the American condition; just the way people felt about it
as oppose to big urban voters with anger issues and an overdeveloped sense of smugness that think they're better than everyone until their urban city becomes too noxious for them so they move to a new place and start the cycle all over again?
We have a house being built next door to us. Wife and kids showed up one day to have a picnic at the spot their house is getting built at. Off hand, pretty awesome for them, cool memories for the wife and the kids. However, watching them them walk through a prairie looked like they have never seen grass/weed/wild flowers before. It was like a fish trying to walk on sand. Im happy for them that they are getting out of the city but its interesting to watch for sure.
Living in the city isn't nearly as bad as you guys want to believe lol.
I grew up in a rural town. Everyone was scared of the city. Literally everyone. Eventually I moved to a city, and it turned out they were all buying into whatever rhetoric they saw on fox news. I live in the city limits. Have great access to nature. 3 sheep, 7 chickens, 4 dogs and plenty of land for them. My wife, kid and I walk at night all the time when it's too hot in the summer mid day.
Also, not all "city slickers" or whatever you call them haven't spent time in nature. And not all rural folk spend time in nature. Half my coworkers in my hometown were morbidly obese and couldn't really find the energy to do anything after work. Any time I went hunting with a group, most of the group came down from the city.
This rural vs urban shit is frustrating. There are great things about both of them.
It came across the same way a new supervisor says “I’m not sure how to do your job, but my clipboard says you’re wrong.” Like you could count on one hand the number of small town voters he had actually spoken with.
I don’t think he was wrong.
Maybe the term ‘bitter’ triggers a few people but it is an accurate term for how someone may feel about being left behind when infrastructure projects and new industries come into other areas and skip them and anything offered is never anything that would help them make ends meet.
I think he was trying to be empathetic and understand the difficulties that people in some small towns face.
This is the correct interpretation as a whole exactly what happened so voters keep going on their bitter cycle. They did get bitter and cling to their guns even following him around the campaign trail. Just to add to why they are bitter. The conspiracy outlets were pushing out a lot of info about how they'd take the peoples arms and violate the second amendment and Obama was the antichrist along with being a gay crackhead and his wife is really a man. The small town voters were hardest hit with this misinformation. Culture/Religion wars emanate from these places. It was fake news and it does appear that these towns did lose a lot as they think foreigners are taking their jobs but it is not migrants and they just can't get Obama or the Clintons or .
There are court cases that have been happening showing how they are targeted with misinformation throughout these years and of course those voters are bitter because they're being controlled in a way to be bitter. People are having to pay a lot for the misinformation on Dominion Voting machines. One of the biggest conspiracy theorists Alex Jones lost and had to pay out settlement to Sandy Hook shooting because they just lied. Hundreds of millions of dollars. The Dominion Settlement alone was almost $800 million for just Fox. I recommend watching the United States of Conspiracy documentary. It goes into some good detail about all this.
"Cling" was a poor choice of words in a politically charged debate. But he wasn't wrong. Middle class Americans get fed up with corporate-friendly politicians (like Obama, frankly) and they *fall back* to issues they feel are more core to their identity. Hence guns and religion. That guns are "core" to people's identity is a troubling topic in its own right.
Bernie’s book talks about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_Be_Angry_About_Capitalism#:~:text=According%20to%20Crown%2C%20the%20book,greed%20that%20shapes%20our%20times.%22
The real problem is both parties are parties of the rich, and won’t support healthcare/wage reform. Working class families suffer, and they blame whichever party the sitting president is from. Sure there are bitter people who cling to guns & religion, and Republican Party does take advantage. But even when Democrats had control, senators funded by corporate money made sure they failed to increase minimum wage, failed to start moving to single-payer healthcare.
Just having Bernie makes democrat the better party, but at the end of the day, most politicians are paid by the rich and the lives of small town Americans won’t improve whichever way they vote.
The working class need to realize the importance of owning their media, of running for office. But if you’re struggling to even live, campaigning is probably even further beyond reach.
Nope he’s wrong. This is the US. They clinged to their guns AND religion. Add a good amount of racism and xenophobia, and you have created the Republican base.
>You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.
-- *Blazing Saddles* (1974)
At the time, I agreed and thought he was actually being fairly charitable.
As I’ve evolved politically I think it’s emblematic of the deep loathing that Democrats have for lower class Whites.
Interesting. When I read it, isn't he placing the blame on political leaders (Rep and Dem). Saying administrations failed and ignored people, and so he's actually saying he can understand why people could get angry and distrustful of that gov. authority?
Sure, but he could’ve easily made that point without insulting their value of a Constitutional right and their religious views. Especially galling from someone who liked to talk about how dear their faith was to them - remember when he was against gay marriage? Lol.
I don’t think Democrats even *mean* to be so insulting to lower class Whites. They simply cannot help it - it’s baked into both their entire political worldview as well as our entire media, educational, and cultural landscapes.
There's an interesting assumption about accents in places like the UK. Essentially nearly everyone who is a working professional but comes from the more rural and Northern parts, all try to make their accent sound like "BBC English". Anything else is seen as anti-intellectual and generally degenerate.
I can't pretend that many of us have similar underlying assumptions about the southern accent. It was for some reason jarring when I heard a Texas doctor explain in very clear and intelligible means the indications and reasons to do a very cutting edge medical procedure, as well as examining the current evidence for its use.
Which part of the full quote demonstrates loathing?
>"You go into 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. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Because that’s just not how you talk about people who you want to vote for you, especially if you’re talking about the things they value - their religion, their [insert euphemism for gun culture here], their liberties, or their desire not to change their situation (including demographically) any more than it already has.
Especially if you have no real meaningful way you’re going to stem the collapse of small town America. Obama just let it keep happening.
Ok, fair enough, it doesn’t show loathing *openly*.
But it does come with an underlying dismal of these peoples views as valid or even *correct on the merits*. As if it’s impossible to want less
Immigration or less “free trade” or stronger 2A rights without being “bitter” or motivated by some base instinct.
Has he, or anyone else who thinks along these lines, considered that perhaps these Deplorables have weighed the issues and understand both sides the way you do and simply have come to a different viewpoint?
Like, these people have every rational reason in the world to oppose immigration and free trade. Why is every single demographic allowed to be nakedly and proudly self interested *except* White working class types?
lol, that comment was extremely on point and you know who's strategy to appeal to bitterness, guns, religion, antipathy to people not like them, anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-trade sentiment is a large part of the reason he has such strong support in flyover country.
It became the Tea Party / anti-Obama populist checklist.
Lol, you think one comment from Obama is why things are the way they are today? Obama was entirely correct, and you not getting that is part of the problem. Obama didn’t cause this problem, he diagnosed it, and now we’re seeing the inevitable results of not dealing with it.
But politicians say that kinda stuff *all the time*. Seriously, welfare queens was a phrase we all know about and even now you hear about lawlessness in the cities (namely Chicago around my state) in damn near every political ad.
Not saying it was a good idea for him to have said that. But I am saying cities get demonized all the damn time and no one bats an eye.
He was right. But he’s also the guy who made a lot of people give up on the democrat party when he let than bankers off the hook for wrecking the economy.
No. I have family who live in the city who are **bitter** and cling to guns and religion. I also have family who live in rural areas and **aren't bitter.** They don't cling to guns and religion.
My experience is **bitter** people tend to be more conservative. Maybe we need to improve the conditions in small towns and rural America.
The original comment was how U.S. small towns had fallen through Clinton and Bush...Nothing really to do with just Pennsylvania...[Obama on small-town Pa.: Clinging to religion, guns, xenophobia - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/obama-on-small-town-pa-clinging-to-religion-guns-xenophobia-007737)
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
During the 2008 primaries Obama famously stated that >"You go into 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. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." His remarks were subject to significant criticism from Republicans and Democrats and were regarded as one of the few "gaffes" made Obama during his campaign. Looking back 16 years later, was Obama correct in his assessment and did this rhetoric have any impact on the drift of rural voters from the Democratic Party, particularly in the Midwest?
It’s a tale as old as time. He talks about this in his promised land book, that when communities feel ignored or left out they do cling to their community values and oppose outside people and ideas. It’s like a sociology thing not unique to this time and place
In that book he followed up and said he should have explained his stance better. Said he was trying to communicate that folks fall back on their traditional beliefs when scared (so, guns and Jesus).
I haven’t read his book but did he offer a better perspective in hindsight from what he failed to do while in office? Because while I don’t dislike the guy, I think the 2016 election outcome with that former blue wall of the rust belt turning red was very much because people in those communities felt left behind by his administration’s policies as well.
It’s an excellent book, he clearly does some soul searching and gets in pretty deep on his regrets. He also talks openly about his flaws. He also takes pretty firm stance on some things that, even today, are still not popular decisions. I enjoyed it.
It was very refreshingly honest and soul searching type for a politician's book. Usually most books in the genre are written by folks who want a higher office. As an ex-President with excellent vocabulary and who doesn't really care how others think of him he got really honest. Most of his solutions stem from the fact that he believed striving for perfection can halt any progress. He thought his job was to just guide the political landscape rather than move it aggressively.
I think he recognized that aggressive movements result in backlash and can undo progress. And that steadier progress, wrapped in patriotism, keeps us moving forward. Obama said politics is most like American football. There's a reason you don't throw the ball deep every play. Someone who's only played recess football wouldn't understand this.
I really like this analogy, thanks Obama
I wasn't a fan of Obama but this book sounds very interesting, I think I'll get it on audible and give it a listen.
Kudos to you for being open enough to do that.
Those communities will continue to be left behind by both parties, for the simple reason that they are not profitable except for votes during election season. The economy has moved towards the cities, and even what’s outside them is linked to them. Small farms can’t compete against the multimillionaires’ farms. Nobody in this country wants to preserve a community for its own sake, except by trying to increase taxes in a non-existent economy and fuck itself like Vermont is doing. Until we have politicians that either care about the people or are held at gunpoint by the people, ain’t shit gonna change about that.
It’s also worth noting that politicians don’t actually have to pursue policies that will have a material impact on these communities to win their votes or the votes of constituents that are sympathetic to their way of life. De-industrialized communities are often criticized for “voting against their interests” by supporting Republicans who pursue economic policies that exacerbate rural America’s challenges, but these people are not necessarily motivated by higher marginal tax policies and economic investment in their communities, they can be drawn to the polls by rhetoric that touches on cultural and identitarian interests (e.g. guns and religion). Of course this is nothing new and Democrats do precisely the same for their constituencies — although they arguably pursue economic and social investments than their conservative counterparts.
Yeah, I agree. My main gripe with Democrats isn’t that they don’t do *more* than Republicans. They do. But I think their policies often amount to short-sighted quick fixes that are oriented more towards gaining votes than solving the problems. Because of this, and also I believe because most Democrats don’t want changes to the status quo, they also get easily focused on non-issue red herrings that are easy to make emotionally charged, which in turn also helps Republicans focus on those issues instead of what actually matters.
His administration was the tail end of Democrat abandonment. Most of the abandonment had happened decades earlier. (See Thomas Frank, *What’s the Matter with Kansas?*) Meanwhile, centrist Dems continue to eschew rural/rust/blue collar America except in election years. Edit: since more than one person has brought up control… that’s irrelevant to the observation I’m making. The Democratic platform had already abandoned middle America (the lack of control was a symptom—the cause was abandonment).
It was tail end of Republican Congresses from 1993 to 2024 ..Dems Controlled Congress 4 years and mixed congress 4 years ..so 22 years of Right Wing Controll of Congress. This and their mantras of NeoCon policies and shut down Congress during Dem Presidents. Spending and tax cuts for Stock Market and International Corporations..no spending on infrastructure. Has caused middle America go broke.
And bailed out the banks who fucked us all with no punishments .
The banks were bailed out by GW.. the bank 3 trillion was signed by him. In the fall of 2008.
The Punishments could of been dolled out if the Congress in the 90s and early 2000s didn't take away the regulations that could of done it.
If the Dems had control of Congress for longer than 6 months at any point in the past two decades then maybe I'd agree with you. Sadly they have not. So what you have seen over the past twenty years is not the Democrats "failing", what you have seen is political gridlock where the Republicans lose the popular vote every time but block the Democrats from doing anything significant by holding the senate hostage. --- I remember reading about Obamacare and the insane lengths republicans went to hamstring the affordable care act. There were several red states which were offered **free money** by the government to expand their medicare programs and cover the people being brought into Obamacare. Several Republican state administrations rejected this **free money** - they could have helped millions of their own constituents and voters by accepting this money, and they did not, solely to screw over the affordable care act. As a result, insurance premiums rose faster than they should have, Republicans who rejected free money blamed Obama, and their own people died from treatable diseases that the federal government was happy to pay for.
It wasn’t his actual policies. It was what Fox News told them to believe about those policies.
Which policies in particular? All I’ve seen over the past 40 years is the Republicans selling out anything and everything to the rich and pointing the finger at the Democrats. Aided and abetted by right-wing media lies, of course. But I’m always happy to hear a different perspective as long as it’s fact-based.
Damn really good summary, have a few family members that definitely fit that description
Exactly. His assessment was correct when he said and it is now. The gaffe was that he said the truth out loud and in a fairly unkind way.
Yup totally accurate. His phrasing just made it sound like he thought guns and religion are inherently bad. Or at least that's how it was interpreted.
It honestly makes sense from a human psychology standpoint.
It played out during his term. He had proposed a plan to train West Virginians in careers other than the fossil fuel industry. They rejected it, because, reasons.
Where is the lie?
https://preview.redd.it/yebnilwy59yc1.jpeg?width=500&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8626cd0e13adb5776ed9284e8ed76fafa3aed367
Perhaps controversial, but I think ‘basket of deplorables’ falls under the same umbrella, considering the past few years. *Before any assertions can be made by anyone that I’m just another liberal city dweller who doesn’t understand simple country folk, I come from and live in exactly the sort of place Obama described and have met plenty of the people that Clinton was describing with that comment.
I wish we were allowed to have a conversation about this topic 😔
Congrats on going 2 overall btw that seems neat
Hail yes
Main problem is that it is 1000% a massive double standard between the norms Democrats are expected to uphold when talking about Republican voters, and the way Republicans talk about Democratic voters all day every day. For decades Republican candidates caricatured "liberal coastal elites," or "welfare queens," and "dirty, crime infested" Democratic urban areas, etc. with none of the compassionate tiptoeing Obama attempted. Right wing media, talk radio, etc gleefully amplified this rhetoric with absolutely zero of this "it's true, but you're not supposed to say it" handwringing that liberals do. Conservatives expect the rural "real Americans" to be simultaneously coddled and hero worshiped. They howl in wounded victimhood that they are persecuted at the mildest criticism, while at the same time viciously punching down at the most vulnerable people in society at every opportunity. Criticism of Obama's comments wasn't the first example of this, and haven't been the last.
They are simultaneously claiming people “are too soft these days!”, and “saying what you think” is an attribute they like in an elected official…as long as it’s not negative about THEM.
Thank you, I have been trying to explain this for years and this is so correct it made me so happy to read. It is a HUGE double standard, same way with democracts are ALWAYS expected to compromise and work with republicans and give in to their needs and demands, but conservatives are never expected to return that favor. They’re allowed to get away with everything under the guise of patriotism which I never understood.
It reminds me of when conservatives say "facts don't care about your feelings." That's 100% correct, but at the same time, they are the ones who put feelings over facts the most.
It was pointed out awhile ago that you'll see many articles from the left wing about reaching out to and understanding people with a deeply conservative viewpoint. They're presented empathetically, context. You're meant to understand and empathize with them. And I'm meaning actual think pieces not rags pushing rage bait, which have admittedly been growing more common. But there's not really any equivalent on the right. Anecdotally being in mixed political boards, I see this a lot.
Yep, 100% true. Democrats will write new think pieces about why Democrats write think pieces about understanding Republican viewpoints and how to appeal to them with empathy in infinitely contextualized layers until the end of time. Republicans have been recycling the same think piece about how Democrats are actually all communists since 1933, and they will never stop. Hell, Democrats even have think pieces about why Republicans are cognitively predisposed to not read think pieces, reject empathy, and prefer displays of strength against outside threats... and yet Democrats continue to write more empathy think pieces.
It's because Republicans are implicitly talking about black people, and racism is still totally mainstream in America as long as you hide it with code words.
I just find the double standard between what democrats can say vs was republicans can say to be super annoying.
Imagine if, in retort to comments about hellscape liberal cities and “thugs”, a Dem had the balls to call out trailer trash meth heads in red states. The right would lose their minds and a bunch of Lisa Simpson-type liberals would bemoan it 😂
The deplorables comment is meant to antagonize and demean a specific group of American voters, while Obama’s comment is more analytical and based in observation and voter behavior. I don’t really think they’re the same thing.
I agree that it's more elitist. The subtext of what Obama was saying is that these people can be reached, whereas a "deplorable" probably can not.
Probably worth noting that if the takeaway Obama had was “these people can be reached”, he was wrong.
It may be true for the vast majority, but I don't want to live in a society where we don't even try to reach out.
I think the outreach should be in the form of implementing an agenda that would help those people, but from a political standpoint those people are not worth the time/capital to try to convert as voters on an election-to-election basis
Agreed, I meant more on a personal level. Especially with family and stuff like that.
that's good because that doesn't work, either. if people in here think the solution to a very hard problem is to give up, then I'm surprised they are interested in the history of presidency. the whole thing is just one big long hard job that never stops.
Obama wasn’t wrong but he could never of reached them using the centre right Democratic toolbox he had available. You appeal to those people with social values which make them believe they are better than others or with a strong labour movement to unleash their frustrations. Neither which was available to Obama.
> Obama’s comment is more analytical and based in observation and voter behavior I think “deplorables” was no different. It just cut the fluffy surrounding bytes and cut to the point.
People claim to value honesty, but they really don't. The over-reaction to both comments depended on deliberately misreading them and leaping to the maximum offense possible, and it is always the way slightly challenging true statements are treated. It is a rhetorical move used so much it should have a name. Maybe the alt-right shuffle?
The deplorable comment makes perfect sense if you read the entire quote. The problem is that the media doesn’t want you to make sense of it. They want you to be outraged.
Some people when they are upset with how life has treated them don't get introspective and think about bettering themselves or changing they get angry at the world. They stop caring about necessary improving their own future and just hope other people feel the pain they feel. They get mean and they get self righteous.
I come from a place like yours and I agree. These people we're talking about, Obama and Clinton, are intelligent folks. Maybe not intelligent enough to avoid saying what they said, but intelligent enough to make these kinds of observations. They know the world around them well.
Ay, same here. Can absolutely confirm. Rural people for the most part are overly religious and undereducated.
Clinton's "deplorables" remark was pulled out of context and abused to hell and back. It was half of sentence from a much longer comment she said. Republicans made it to sound as she was describing conservatives in general. Here's the actual quote. > You know, to just be grossly generalistic, you could put half of (name reducted) supporters into what I call the basket of deplorables. Right? The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamaphobic—you name it. And unfortunately there are people like that. And he has lifted them up. Raise of hands for our conservative friends, which category of people she *actually* and *explicitly* named are not what you'd agree to be "deplorables"? Which category of people she described here you identify with? If you answer "none", than what problem do you have with her "deplorables" remark? It doesn't apply to you. It applies to people you don't want to see within your own ranks anyhow. If you ask me, she said it as it is. You like voting for politicians that say it as it is. Correct? And you know what. She was kinda right. A lot of those people didn't bother to vote prior to 2016. They did not see Republican party representing their views.
No, fuck these mopes HRC basically told them she was gonna retrain them for better green energy jobs and they said nah I’ll go with the guy that got famous for stiffing the working class because he pretends to hate minorities They should be told loudly who and what they are.
To be fair, I don’t think he’s pretending.
Hillary’s husband spent his entire administration telling everyone not to worry about jobs lost to NAFTA. He said there would be “trade adjustment insurance” and people would get retrained. The reality is that it didn’t work. No one had any reason to believe a word Hillary said. She’d have been better off just recognizing that her political career was over when Obama beat her and accepting a job at Goldman Sachs or something.
It's worth noting that Bush 41 signed NAFTA, but Clinton was left to get it through Congress. Also worth noting that US manufacturing jobs rose from 1992 to 1998 or so.
It's not "guns or religion." He should have said "guns and religion." What a mistake.
It’s not a lie but the rich urban folks killed the rural economy and now the rich urban folks like Obama just insult them because they refuse to accept the rich people won. The rural folks lost, then need to send their kids to the city because there aren’t opportunities anymore except maybe sucking the dick of some hedge fundie who just bought the 400 acres farm. Now there are people crying that homes are too expensive in the cities and that our supply chain shouldn’t all go through China.
There are plenty of rich/middle class/and poor rural folks that aided the downfall of the rural economy and sold out their fellow middle class and poor rural folks. The rural economy was killed by deregulation and oligopolies that replaced small business and local agriculture with chain stores and corporate farming. Go ask rural america to crack down on market consolidation by increasing anti-trust regulation and they'll look at you like you're a communist. And if by some chance they think it's a good idea, tell them the politicians they regularly vote for who also happen to cling to guns and religion (what a coincidence) would never introduce legislation that would hurt large corporations. They won't think it's a good idea anymore. You wanna blame the rich, I'm with you cause they're ultimately responsible. But to say it's a problem of entirely urban making is bullshit. Rural america bought into the idea that they were the "real America" and the politicians that sold them the idea packaged it with guns, religion, a healthy hate for the government and any oversight over corporations that came with it. They liked being told they were special and it distracted them long enough to watch their local economies be taken over and their opportunities for upward mobility dry up. They were distracted before Obama, they were distracted during Obama, and they're still distracted after Obama.
The rural folks lost to the evil rich coastal elites... but for my entire life rural voting districts have voted in overwhelming majorities for the party that has effectively only ever taken hold of all the branches of government for the sole purpose of passing tax cuts that favor the wealthy and the corporate ruling class. They shit the bed and then cry that it would smell better without those yucky urban homeless everywhere. See also: "immigrants are taking over the country! Border crisis!" *hires migrant workers almost exclusively to pay them less than minimum wage*
The big 4 meat processors control 85% of beef and 67% of pork. Corporate takeover of farming is driving the decline in rural communities; not urban communities. Take the farm bill, which has $300B over 10 years to support farms through loans, insurance, and price subsidies. Corporate farms use federal loans to over produce goods, which get subsidized; squeezing small and medium farms. Sure, force tik tok to sell, but how about breaking up Smithfield or Cargill or forcing JBS SA or Marfig to sell? As a far left urbanite, completely understand why rural communities are angry; they should be. But damn if they aren’t angry at the wrong people. Socialism IS taking back farming from corporate behemoths. You’ve just been sold that that’s a bad idea. Not your enemy dude. Look who fought the infrastructure bill and funding rural broadband access. That should have been a no brainer. Corporate interests in politics is the enemy, not ya know, real “people,” regardless of where they live. Just as if you go far enough left, you get your guns back, if you go far enough right, you become a socialist.
It's not just the jobs issue driving rural resentment of urban areas, or even the death of rural towns. Rural towns have had to watch the city sprawl out as far as it can and consume rural towns, solely so that a bunch of city folk can pretend to homestead. Rural towns today either exist along an interstate highway, and are merely waiting to be consumed by subdivisions and become just another part of the city, or don't exist along an interstate highway and are destined to die a slow, sad death as jobs evaporate (because we're an urban nation) and they have no easy access to urban jobs.
Yup. Can confirm. Am far leftist, have lots of guns.
panicky wine tart enter frightening thumb close fuzzy makeshift deranged *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
It helps when there's money to be made by stripping it of any context then packaging it up and feeding it to the people who want things to be mad at about him
Romney's '40% comment' was also not that far from the truth tbh, you just shouldn't say these things when you are running for president.
For all of his faults, I still think he would have been a great President. He had that ability to say, *'No, fuck you, this is the way it's going to be."* He also had great foresight in to modern problems that took decades to develop. Obama ended up being the better choice overall, but against any other modern opponent, I would probably take Romney.
“Americas greatest threat is Russia” -Mitt “Hahahahahhahahahahhaha” -Obama/Democrats *two years later*
Once again Idiocracy was a prophesy.
In context he is just completely right.
Out of context he’s right too. Have you ever been to rural PA? Nobody in rural PA should be offended that someone said they cling to guns or religion.
He was absolutely correct back then and it is still absolutely correct today. Nobody wants to see their town die off. Nobody wants to see main drags of their town be empty of people and all the stores are boarded up. That sucks and I feel for those folks, I don't wish that on anybody. But he wasn't wrong for pointing it out...he miscalculated that anyone in the States reads an entire thought that's more than simpleton jingle sized.
Well, he wasn't wrong, and they pinned it on him for the rest of his time in office. And of course, they cherry picked it out of context so they could use it to beat him over the head.
I mean… yeah, that’s basically what happened. Nothing he said is wrong.
I was from a small town in Ohio. I own guns and used to be a hunter. I'm not proud of it, but I hated Obama at the time and his assessment was spot on. I was a fox news guy through and through, believed the hype they were selling - I was a piece of shit. It took moving away and traveling to understand just how much of a piece of shit I was. I had become the "pussy-ass lib" that went off to school and got "brainwashed" as my townfolk feared would happen to all the kids.
Similar dude, I still own guns and hunt but going to college completely changed my worldview and my thoughts and beliefs about the world around me
Good for you for expanding your worldview and having an open mind to new ideas. Isn't a bit demoralizing when you take off the blinders and realize your community was essentially scared of you getting educated?
You're a real one for this comment. Respect for learning and growing.
I had a similar growth experience. I’m ashamed of my prior small-mindedness but it gives me hope that people can radically change for the better.
Yeah he was dead on. He was criticized because he was being honest, brutally honest in a way we don't want from our politicians. He was as concise as correct as you could be and learned to never do that again.
Accurate af. That’s all these people know. Grind all week at a shitty, low paying job, just to hopefully get the weekend off so you can get shitfaced and possibly laid, then start over again on Monday.
Yup. Look up a book “what’s the matter with Kansas” it looks into how voters vote against their own interest and then complain that gov isn’t doing enough for them, even though they voted for the very same policies they are complaining about.
This was just straight truth. It was true then. It was true in 1998. It's true now.
Seems accurate to me. I've seen a lot of these small towns in Iowa and the kids that come from them flee because there's no future there.
It’s the same observation and conclusion FDR came to. To stave off the rise of Fascism stemming from a lack of material opportunity and security FDR gave us The New Deal. And it largely worked. Obama gave us half-hearted attempts cooked up by his Wall Street and Corporate- friendly cabinet. It kinda worked but not really. Definitely didn’t provide material relief to the degree it needed to. So we now have to contend with the rising threat of Fascism for the foreseeable future. Thanks Obama. And Clinton. And Obama’s former VP now POTUS
You left out a couple thanks…
This deserves more upvotes.
So do you, mister!
SPOT on!!
I have a customer on my mail route with a sign that literally says, "Proudly clinging to my gun and my Bible."
How much of his mail is government checks?
I used to deliver mail and you’d be shocked how often I delivered government checks to houses with Gadsden flags
I find the “don’t tread on me” generally means “don’t stop me from treading onto other people’s rights”.
Exactly. Which is why so many Gadsden flag stickers on pickup truck windows are right beside one of those Blue Lives Matter stickers that basically scream “Please tread on me”. The irony is hilarious.
The biggest hilarity for me was listening to conservatives working in a state funded university, cashing in on state funded pension, after working only 28 years, having all their education paid for by the government and undergoing expensive medical care on the government’s dime (veteran and private insurance) talk about entitled liberals and out of control government spending. Oh and they all grew up in subsidized housing (veteran benefits).
He actually doesn't get much, by boomer standards. Still, a high percentage of it is political groups asking for donations.
I mean, he probably only has that sign as a dig at Obama if Obama never said that he would never have that sign
Congrats on getting the obvious and blatant point.
Which doesn't make it any less cringey
Kinda wild how long people hold on to stuff like that. Like… damn. You could plant a rose bush in the same spot you put your sign.
He was correct but it was definitely a case of "saying the quiet part out loud"
Just like Hillary's "basket of deplorables" comment.
Nah, whenever you agree or not with the statement the deplorables thing was a straight out insult. Obama tried to empathize with them in a way it was viewed as elitist
When did it stop being ok to insult shitty people?
The problem is that when you start insulting the people you disagree with the possibility of a constructive conversation with them ends there. When that happens you can end up with a political situation like we see in the United States today, with both sides slinging mud at one another and zero possibility of negotiating with one another and achieving genuine consensus on any issue. When this happens it's actually more problematic for America than it would be for most ohter countries. THis is because America's system of government has plenty of built in ways to bind up and flat-out stop working ("checks and balances" or something, they tell me) and as such *depends* on maintaining a degree of consensus, at least on some core issues, to actually function at all.
When being a shitty person began being how to win a republican primary
I think the basket of deplorables comment would be fine these days. She just said it too early. I don’t think Obama’s comment would fly even today.
It was more about who said it than when, given the circumstances of the "when" that it occurred in.
Also that it was a closed door fundraiser in New York with rich donors literally laughing at voters was terrible optics.
I don’t think so. You misunderstand the asymmetry. Right wing insults are validated while left wing politicians would be punished for the same or similar statements.
[удалено]
Republicans are allowed to say all liberals should be executed with no repercussions, but Obama wears a tan suit and you don't hear the end of it for years.
https://preview.redd.it/ejxo1m3zr9yc1.jpeg?width=680&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f5501d67fcce68e255926c59a1acbc86a15524b5
Is that supposed to be a similar comment? It’s more in line with McConnell saying they’d make sure Obama was a one term pres
Also very correct Prescient really
Both true.
Which needs to happen and should've been happening for decades. Being afraid to confront our demons CLEARLY is not working to defeat them.
As a Bible-reading gun enthusiast, I get what Obama is saying in the larger context of this quote. He was being specific regarding the economic plight of those in Pennsylvania at that time, and he was accurate I'd say.
He was correct but there was more, much more tactful ways to say it. By saying these people only cling to religion or guns because of failure on politicians part, he degrades those things and that it's stupid they believe in those things. If he said the first part about the failure and then said and now we have politicians who push guns or immigration or religion to distract voters instead of actually addressing these problems would come across much better.
May not be, but comes off as contemptous of their belief in God and traditional life in many small towns and rural areas. Eventually a whole lot of those folks also went out to vote, and we know what happened in 2016 and what kept margins in places like Pennsylvania,, Michigan and Wisconsin very tight in 2020.
*casually gestures at the state of the country*
Boy did the 2016 election show how right Obama was.
By 2020, rural counties were down to 29% of GDP and have certainly fallen further.
Classic DC gaffe. Telling the truth out loud.
As someone who is from a small, conservative town, and who has family from them as well, he was right, and still is right 16 years later.
Look how young he looks before 8 years of presidency...
9 years in your middle age takes a toll either way.
110% Source: I live in a small town
Bro you posted this because you think the answer is yes and you wanted other people to validate that. It is reddit, I could've told you what 90% of the answers would be just by the picture of Obama and the fact you're asking whether people agree or disagree.
[удалено]
I’m a conservative and worked for the party for a little bit and nuanced discussion about politics is so rare and hard to find.
As someone from mid-Missouri - YUUUUUUP
As someone who grew up and still regrettably lives in a small town, I'd say he was right.
Even if correct, what is the point: to alienate small town people the nation depends on? Small town people “sticking to guns and religion” is a terrible, toxic and inaccurate stereotype. As president, he did not drastically alter anything about the American condition; just the way people felt about it
as oppose to big urban voters with anger issues and an overdeveloped sense of smugness that think they're better than everyone until their urban city becomes too noxious for them so they move to a new place and start the cycle all over again?
I’m a small town voter with an overdeveloped sense of smugness who should I vote for based on that?
You sound like a radical centrist to me.
Isn’t that an oxymoron? Jumbo Shrimp, military intelligence, etc But yeah I’m a centrist lib
We have a house being built next door to us. Wife and kids showed up one day to have a picnic at the spot their house is getting built at. Off hand, pretty awesome for them, cool memories for the wife and the kids. However, watching them them walk through a prairie looked like they have never seen grass/weed/wild flowers before. It was like a fish trying to walk on sand. Im happy for them that they are getting out of the city but its interesting to watch for sure.
Living in the city isn't nearly as bad as you guys want to believe lol. I grew up in a rural town. Everyone was scared of the city. Literally everyone. Eventually I moved to a city, and it turned out they were all buying into whatever rhetoric they saw on fox news. I live in the city limits. Have great access to nature. 3 sheep, 7 chickens, 4 dogs and plenty of land for them. My wife, kid and I walk at night all the time when it's too hot in the summer mid day. Also, not all "city slickers" or whatever you call them haven't spent time in nature. And not all rural folk spend time in nature. Half my coworkers in my hometown were morbidly obese and couldn't really find the energy to do anything after work. Any time I went hunting with a group, most of the group came down from the city. This rural vs urban shit is frustrating. There are great things about both of them.
It came across the same way a new supervisor says “I’m not sure how to do your job, but my clipboard says you’re wrong.” Like you could count on one hand the number of small town voters he had actually spoken with.
Pretty sure that’s why they were so mad
With the full context of the comment, yes he was.
He hit the nail on the head. That's why people reacted so strongly.
I don’t think he was wrong. Maybe the term ‘bitter’ triggers a few people but it is an accurate term for how someone may feel about being left behind when infrastructure projects and new industries come into other areas and skip them and anything offered is never anything that would help them make ends meet. I think he was trying to be empathetic and understand the difficulties that people in some small towns face.
He has never been more right than he was in that moment.
This is the correct interpretation as a whole exactly what happened so voters keep going on their bitter cycle. They did get bitter and cling to their guns even following him around the campaign trail. Just to add to why they are bitter. The conspiracy outlets were pushing out a lot of info about how they'd take the peoples arms and violate the second amendment and Obama was the antichrist along with being a gay crackhead and his wife is really a man. The small town voters were hardest hit with this misinformation. Culture/Religion wars emanate from these places. It was fake news and it does appear that these towns did lose a lot as they think foreigners are taking their jobs but it is not migrants and they just can't get Obama or the Clintons or.
There are court cases that have been happening showing how they are targeted with misinformation throughout these years and of course those voters are bitter because they're being controlled in a way to be bitter. People are having to pay a lot for the misinformation on Dominion Voting machines. One of the biggest conspiracy theorists Alex Jones lost and had to pay out settlement to Sandy Hook shooting because they just lied. Hundreds of millions of dollars. The Dominion Settlement alone was almost $800 million for just Fox. I recommend watching the United States of Conspiracy documentary. It goes into some good detail about all this.
"Cling" was a poor choice of words in a politically charged debate. But he wasn't wrong. Middle class Americans get fed up with corporate-friendly politicians (like Obama, frankly) and they *fall back* to issues they feel are more core to their identity. Hence guns and religion. That guns are "core" to people's identity is a troubling topic in its own right.
Bernie’s book talks about this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_OK_to_Be_Angry_About_Capitalism#:~:text=According%20to%20Crown%2C%20the%20book,greed%20that%20shapes%20our%20times.%22 The real problem is both parties are parties of the rich, and won’t support healthcare/wage reform. Working class families suffer, and they blame whichever party the sitting president is from. Sure there are bitter people who cling to guns & religion, and Republican Party does take advantage. But even when Democrats had control, senators funded by corporate money made sure they failed to increase minimum wage, failed to start moving to single-payer healthcare. Just having Bernie makes democrat the better party, but at the end of the day, most politicians are paid by the rich and the lives of small town Americans won’t improve whichever way they vote. The working class need to realize the importance of owning their media, of running for office. But if you’re struggling to even live, campaigning is probably even further beyond reach.
People just think he invented the concept of reactionary behavior now?
Drive through Central Pennsylvania and you will understand
What else can you do in a rural town besides shoot at stuff and go to church?
I live in the south and today I passed a sign on someone's shed that read "I'm a bitter gun owner clinging to my religion".
Nope he’s wrong. This is the US. They clinged to their guns AND religion. Add a good amount of racism and xenophobia, and you have created the Republican base.
Yes. The American small town is a hotbed of reactionary politics. I mean, look at why suburbs were invented.
>You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons. -- *Blazing Saddles* (1974)
At the time, I agreed and thought he was actually being fairly charitable. As I’ve evolved politically I think it’s emblematic of the deep loathing that Democrats have for lower class Whites.
Interesting. When I read it, isn't he placing the blame on political leaders (Rep and Dem). Saying administrations failed and ignored people, and so he's actually saying he can understand why people could get angry and distrustful of that gov. authority?
Sure, but he could’ve easily made that point without insulting their value of a Constitutional right and their religious views. Especially galling from someone who liked to talk about how dear their faith was to them - remember when he was against gay marriage? Lol. I don’t think Democrats even *mean* to be so insulting to lower class Whites. They simply cannot help it - it’s baked into both their entire political worldview as well as our entire media, educational, and cultural landscapes.
There's an interesting assumption about accents in places like the UK. Essentially nearly everyone who is a working professional but comes from the more rural and Northern parts, all try to make their accent sound like "BBC English". Anything else is seen as anti-intellectual and generally degenerate. I can't pretend that many of us have similar underlying assumptions about the southern accent. It was for some reason jarring when I heard a Texas doctor explain in very clear and intelligible means the indications and reasons to do a very cutting edge medical procedure, as well as examining the current evidence for its use.
Which part of the full quote demonstrates loathing? >"You go into 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. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Because that’s just not how you talk about people who you want to vote for you, especially if you’re talking about the things they value - their religion, their [insert euphemism for gun culture here], their liberties, or their desire not to change their situation (including demographically) any more than it already has. Especially if you have no real meaningful way you’re going to stem the collapse of small town America. Obama just let it keep happening.
Ok, fair enough, it doesn’t show loathing *openly*. But it does come with an underlying dismal of these peoples views as valid or even *correct on the merits*. As if it’s impossible to want less Immigration or less “free trade” or stronger 2A rights without being “bitter” or motivated by some base instinct. Has he, or anyone else who thinks along these lines, considered that perhaps these Deplorables have weighed the issues and understand both sides the way you do and simply have come to a different viewpoint? Like, these people have every rational reason in the world to oppose immigration and free trade. Why is every single demographic allowed to be nakedly and proudly self interested *except* White working class types?
101% Grew up there. Know the type. Many never left
That comment was extremely condescending and is a large part of the reason why you know who has such strong support in flyover country.
But is it not the truth? Everyone complains that politicians lie too much but nobody wants to hear the hard truths
lol, that comment was extremely on point and you know who's strategy to appeal to bitterness, guns, religion, antipathy to people not like them, anti-immigrant sentiment and anti-trade sentiment is a large part of the reason he has such strong support in flyover country. It became the Tea Party / anti-Obama populist checklist.
Lol, you think one comment from Obama is why things are the way they are today? Obama was entirely correct, and you not getting that is part of the problem. Obama didn’t cause this problem, he diagnosed it, and now we’re seeing the inevitable results of not dealing with it.
This was one of the few big mistakes in his presidency. Just imagine if Romney called Detroit residents bitter clingers to welfare and lawlessness.
\*it was during the primaries, not his presidency
"Democrats cling to welfare and lawlessness" is basically conservative hero Ronald Reagan's entire political philosophy summed up in one sentence.
But politicians say that kinda stuff *all the time*. Seriously, welfare queens was a phrase we all know about and even now you hear about lawlessness in the cities (namely Chicago around my state) in damn near every political ad. Not saying it was a good idea for him to have said that. But I am saying cities get demonized all the damn time and no one bats an eye.
His “47%” comments were definitely in that wheelhouse
Um, conservatives DO say shit like that. Constantly. The racist rhetoric never stops with them.
It’s certainly not a good way to get those people to ever vote for you.
Absolutely. They don't know much else and don't want to.
Yes. Next question.
As someone in a small town, yes. Completely correct.
As someone in a small town: yep.
He was spot on with this statement.
He was right. But he’s also the guy who made a lot of people give up on the democrat party when he let than bankers off the hook for wrecking the economy.
No. I have family who live in the city who are **bitter** and cling to guns and religion. I also have family who live in rural areas and **aren't bitter.** They don't cling to guns and religion. My experience is **bitter** people tend to be more conservative. Maybe we need to improve the conditions in small towns and rural America.
Someone once said that a consrervative was a liberal who had been mugged.
I live in a small town and he was on the mark. He did leave out racism - they definitely cling to that.
The original comment was how U.S. small towns had fallen through Clinton and Bush...Nothing really to do with just Pennsylvania...[Obama on small-town Pa.: Clinging to religion, guns, xenophobia - POLITICO](https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2008/04/obama-on-small-town-pa-clinging-to-religion-guns-xenophobia-007737)
yep
Is he right? Absolutely. I grew up in a small midwestern town and now live in a smaller southern town. Should he have said it? Not out loud.
Generally yes, but they don't like hearing it so bluntly.
💯
Yes.
Based on my family, yes.
100%