Pitchy
Some have wondered how Barack Obama could be so tone deaf as to make his unpopular "bitter" comments. Except the select San Francisco crowd he said it to thought it was great. Like any politician, he modified his message to fit the audience. In fact, I think he was glad to be around his sort of people so he could actually say what he really believes. His problem (like Nixon's?) was he didn't know he was being taped.
Will it hurt him in Pennsylvania? Some polls suggest it will, but who can tell--still a week to go before the voting. In fact, with that much time left, even if he's in trouble he's got a shot at turning things around.
posted by LAGuy @ 2:10 AM
6 Comments:
While I admit I don't quite understand the brouha over the Obama comments- I see plenty of bitter people every day (including in the mirror)- some of them are now clinging to Obama. It does go to show that in the age of saturation media, candidates opposing a candidate with a gaffe or scandal have to be very careful really have to be careful how they play. Hillary's heavy-handed ads and harping seemed to have boomeranged a little- she was booed for bringing it up at a Pittsburgh manufacturing forum this week.
Congressional republicans learned the same lesson when they let Bill Clinton's embarrassing sex scandal get elevated into an impeachment trial and factional dispute (and were punished at the next midterm elections). To benefit from these its much better to sit back and let the media and non affiliated commenters do the damage. My theory is that the public is now much more conscious through saturation coverage and constant partisan barrage to spinning and what looks like manufactured concern. People generally don't believe defense attorneys, lobbyists, advertisers or partisans because those types appear to be more interested in outcome than truth.
Its almost better to let a story disappear than to transform it into a negative one about the attacker. McCain by expressing quiet disapproval and then shutting up (if he does) would probably get more traction.
Perhaps you don't get it because you've bought the Obama excuse that this is about "bitter." It's not. Any two-bit demagogue running for an office he doesn't presently hold can get away with calling citizens bitter. (And I see you also buy that "booing" story.)
Perhaps you'd understand it better if you read Mickey Kaus on why "bitter" is the least of Obama's problems:
http://www.slate.com/id/2189162/#foursins
Read Mickey Kaus' post for the cycle- he has consistently taken the anti-Obama so I'm not sure he's real objective on this issue. My local contacts in Pittsburgh (my mom- who is leaning Hillary I think) state the booing was pretty pronounced in the local news stories.
Springsteen just endorsed Obama so this non-story seems to be fading away
Ok- Like the candidates and friends of old Cy Young winners this year, I misspoke- it was Christopher Beam not Mickey Kaus on Slate who questioned the booing yesterday. Beam seems to have backed off his claim in his Trailhead column today. The booing is audible on an MSNBC clip by the way- my ability to make links is gone but but you can get it on the TNR blog- see the correction & comments to Noam Scheiber's 4-14 post.
I stand by my comments about Kaus though- I re-read his bitterest pill piece and if it takes that long and that many paragraphs and arguments to explain why he is really offended, he's not really offended. It really looks like this issue, due to to over-reaching by the Obama-haters is actually going to make BO more popular. A new poll conducted over the week-end (PPP- see Slate for details) actually shows him ahead (but this year we all know the polls are worthless). The debate tonight should be interesting- he needs to be aggressive but but clear and polite and she needs a hail mary- based on past performance, that means be prepared for an attention-getting but probably really stupid opening line (i.e. "change you can Xerox")
There was booing by a few Obama fans close to the microphone, that's all. The story has gotten play, but there's nothing to it. Admittedly, perception can become reality, like, say, George Bush senior and the scanner.
Kaus was immediately offended at first and then discussed it at greater length later. Still, I find your standard that if someone seems really really offended that means he's not offended to be fundamentally unsound.
The claim this will make Obama more popular goes against both reason and the polls. I was going to go more deeply into this but I figured why bother since it's too obvious to argue about (because DIRECT polling on the question--you know, asking everyone "are you offended?"--is pretty clear) but also by the time there's voting next week, as I note, it may be too late to make a difference.
I assume your reference to the Springsteen endorsement is a joke. Or was that some sort of Buddy Holly gag I'm not getting.
One more slight thing--it's not how much Kaus means it (and I know him and he does mean it), but simply his point that the big deal is not that Obama called voters bitter, though Obama is praying that's what everyone thinks is the big deal. Like any politicians, he answers the questions he wanted people to ask.
Post a Comment
<< Home