Oh dear! Obama blasts both his feet off

The Page – by Mark Halperin – TIME

Barack Hussein Obama has shot both his feet off at a San Francisco fund raiser. In a moaning diatribe about the working class he uttered these no infamous words.

And it?s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren?t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Now, he was talking about Pennsylvania amongst other states, but specifically mentioned Pa. in his other words. The Pa. primary is coming up and he just handed it to Clinton.

You see people don’t “cling” to guns, or “cling” to religion and they certainly don’t “cling” to antipathy. Slate has outlined the four major problems with Obama’s little oopsy, in an article about the Four Sins of “Cling”. Reading the list I couldn’t help think about our very own Dear Leader.

1) It lumps together things Obama wants us to think he thinks are good (religion) with things he undoubtedly thinks are bad (racism, anti-immigrant sentiment). I suppose it’s logically possible to say ‘these Pennsylvania voters are so bitter and frustrated that they cling to both good things and bad things,” but the implication is that these are all things he thinks are unfortunate and need explaining (because, his context suggests, they prevent voters from doing the right thing and voting for … him). Yesterday at the CNN “Compassion Forum” Obama said he wasn’t disparaging religion because he meant people “cling” to it in a good way! Would that be the same way they “cling” to “antipathy to people who aren’t like them”–the very next phrase Obama uttered? Is racism one of those “traditions that are passed on from generation to generation” that “sustains us”? Obama’s unfortunate parallelism makes it hard for him to extricate him from the charge that he was dissing rural Pennsylvanians’ excess religiosity.

2) Even if Obama wasn’t equating anything on his list with anything else, he did openly accuse Pennsylvanians of being racists (“antipathy to people who aren’t like them”).

3) He’s contradicted his own positions–at least on trade and (says Instapundit) guns.. Isn’t Obama the one trying to tar Hillary as a supporter of NAFTA? Is that just ‘boob bait’?

4) Yes, he’s condescending. It’s not just that in explaining everyone to everyone Obama winds up patronizing everyone. He doesn’t patronize everyone equally. Specifically, he regards the views of these Pennsylvanians as epiphenomena–byproducts of economic stagnation–in a way he doesn’t regard, say, his own views as epiphenomena.** Once the Pennsylvanians get some jobs back, they’ll change and become as enlightened as Obama or the San Franciscans to whom he was talking. That’s the clear logic of his argument. Superiority of this sort–not crediting the authenticity and standing of your subject’s views–is a violation of social equality, which is a more important value for Americans than money equality. Liiberals tend to lose elections when they forget that.

You see the problem that Obama has and the same with Clark is this little condescension problem. Like Clark, Obama “also never describes his own views as the products of anything except an accurate perception of reality. Come to think of it, has he ever expressed any doubt about–let alone apologized for–his views?” and to top off the comparison, “never describes his own views as the products of anything except an accurate perception of reality. Come to think of it, has he ever expressed any doubt about–let alone apologized for–his views?”

31%
×