4um: Obama on small-town PA: Clinging to religion, guns, xenophobia

Huffpo's Mayhill Fowler has more from Obama's remarks at a San Francisco fundraiser Sunday, and they include an attempt to explain the resentment in small-town Pennsylvania that won't be appreciated by some of the people whose votes Obama's seeking:

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. That's a pretty broad list of things to explain with job loss.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

I grew up in small town western PA and Obama is right on target. When a new Wal- Mart store opens, it's a step up for many.

Who's Blogging

Barack Obama, who informs campaign audiences that he taught constitutional law for 10 years, might be expected to weigh in on the historic Second Amendment case before the U.S. Supreme Court. The justices are pondering whether the 1976 District of Columbia law effectively prohibiting personal gun ownership in the nation's capital is constitutional. But Obama has not stated his position.

Obama, disagreeing with the D.C. government and gun control advocates, declares that the Second Amendment's "right of the people to keep and bear arms" applies to individuals, not just the "well regulated militia" in the amendment. In the next breath, he asserts that this constitutional guarantee does not preclude local "common sense" restrictions on firearms. Does the draconian prohibition in Washington fit that description? My attempts to get an answer have proved unavailing. The front- running Democratic presidential candidate is doing the gun dance.

That is a dance that many Democrats do, as revealed in private conversation with party strategists. As urban liberals, they reject constitutional protection for gun owners. As campaign managers, they want to avoid the fate of the many Democratic candidates who have lost elections because of gun control advocacy. The party's House leadership last year pulled from the floor a bill for a congressional seat for the District to protect Democratic members from having to vote on a Republican amendment against the D.C. gun law.

Hillary Clinton has extolled the Second Amendment, though not to the degree Obama has. Campaigning at Iowa's Cornell College on Dec. 5, he asserted that the Second Amendment "is an individual right and not just a right of the militia." He has repeated that formulation along the primary trail, declaring at a Milwaukee news conference before the Feb. 19 Wisconsin primary: "I believe the Second Amendment means something. . . . There is an individual right to bear arms."

That would imply that the D.C. gun law is unconstitutional. Mayor Adrian Fenty's brief to the Supreme Court rests on the proposition that the Second Amendment "protects the possession and use of guns only in service of an organized militia." Consequently, I concluded in a March 13 column about the case that Obama had "weighed in against the D.C. law."

On March 24, a reader wrote in an e-mail to The Post that "Obama supports the D.C. law" and demanded a correction. That was based on an Associated Press account of Obama's Milwaukee news conference asserting that "he voiced support for the District of Columbia's ban on handguns." In fact, all he said was: "The notion that somehow local jurisdictions can't initiate gun safety laws to deal with gang-bangers and random shootings on the street isn't borne out by our Constitution."

That leaves Obama unrevealed on the D.C. law. In response to my inquiry about his specific position, Obama's campaign e-mailed me a one-paragraph answer: Obama believes that while the "Second Amendment creates an individual right, . . . he also believes that the Constitution permits federal, state and local government to adopt reasonable and common sense gun safety measures." Though the paragraph is titled "Obama on the D.C. Court case," that specific gun ban is never mentioned. I tried again last week, without success, to learn Obama's position before writing this column.

Obama's dance on gun rights is part of his evolution from the radical young Illinois state legislator he once was. He was recorded in a 1996 questionnaire as advocating a ban on the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns (a position he has since disavowed). He was on the board of the Chicago-based Joyce Foundation, which takes an aggressive gun control position, and in 2000 considered becoming its full-time president. In 2006, he voted with an 84 to 16 majority (and against Clinton) to prohibit confiscation of firearms during an emergency, but that is his only pro-gun vote in Springfield or Washington. The National Rifle Association grades his voting record (and Clinton's) an "F."

There is no anti-gun litmus test for Democrats. In 2006, Ted Strickland was elected governor of Ohio and Bob Casey U.S. senator from Pennsylvania with NRA grades of "A." Following their model, Obama talks about the rights of "Americans to protect their families." He has not yet stated whether that right should exist in Washington.

Several decades ago I stopped with my family in a small western PA town, filled with boarded up small businesses to spend the night in a a beautiful new 3-story motel. It's management and staff were a wonderful congregation of optimistic, eager to serve folks. It was one of the nicest stopover experiences we ever experienced. They even supplied a babysitting service which my wife and eagerly took advantage of for an refreshening evening of drinks and dinner. Our six kids loved the pool.

I passed through the town a few years later and this magnificent enterprise too was boarded up.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

I don't understand Jethro. How will it hurt him? You said you don't vote because the vote is rigged. So how would a rigged vote affect him?

I'm sure Obama is somewhat conflicted on the issue having spent many years in an area where drive-by shootings abound.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

I found it interesting that both "sides" of the party, Clinton/McKook DID find it offensive. Very unusual.

Politicians who use Deliverance-like stereotypes to paint white voters with a broad brush will always fail .

More on Obama's Anti-2A Stance I know that I covered it a month ago but regarding his voting as a state senator, yesterday the AP had more:

Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41- 16 and ultimately became state law.

And remember that he is on record as stating that he would like a ban on all sales and transfers of ANY semi-automatic weapon. Barack Obama is for total gun control. He's not getting my vote.

Well, of course you understood my comment, but you persist in wasting bandwidth with inane sarcasm.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

I expect that in a week or so Obama will say "What's for breakfast?" and we'll hear howling outrage in wingnut press which again bleeds over into the non Republican controlled media. For me, the weekly outrage, usually set up on a weekend and continuing through the following week, is getting a little too predictable - especially when more and more parsing is necessary to understand the outrage.

Stereotypes are usually true, though. Obama never had a chance anyhow, but it IS refreshing to hear politicians at that level speak honestly and truthfully.

In fairness, McPain does the same sort of thing when he bluntly tells the hapless former auto workers of Michigan, "Your jobs are never coming back."

The truth of the matter is, and I can bluntly and honestly say this because I have NO political aspirations WHATSOEVER, that "Who's Sane?" Obummer and "Insane" McPain are both right.

They are both saying, in their own way, that the country is screwed, blued and tattooed and NEVER coming back.

It is both of their desires, as far as I can tell, to figure out how to subsume the decaying carcass of the U.S. system into the larger overall "Western" remnants of civilization, while still feeding off the carcass to provide the storm troopers for the Zionist oil wars in the Middle East.

Maybe I'm misreading Barack somewhat. He MAY genuinely wish to rebuilt this country in some way, but when you have Zbig Brzezinski as your principal foreign policy adviser, I somehow doubt it. Zbig is all about "The Great Game" and "The Grand Chessboard."

“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston

Rendell and Ferraro, both long time democrat operatives and office holders have made it very clear that Obama will never be elected to the presidency because he is black.

Yet when Paul was running they were in full cry that he could not win. Odd indeed.

Does that mean you're opting for one of the single party monstrosities who have evidenced much more likelihood of declaring martial law or knocking on your door in all their intimidating Owellian BATF gear instead of the new kid on the block? Amazing.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

Odd reaction, Sam, to the one candidate who continues to beat the drum for change and hope while the other pumps for nuclear invasions and a hundred years of Iraq occupation.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

As you know the forum has a clique of Ds. All is fine w/the common enemy is Bush, but come election time - some - flash their true colors and muster into line. These same Ds go ape shit here w/an occasional R appears, BTW, which is fine by me. But I must admit I have noooooooooo idea how anyone could hold, at this moment in time, that one branch of the Party is superior than the other.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

I'm sure that negative thought crept into his mind early on ... it had to for a man with the intellect of Obama. But he plunged in and was surely astonished by the reception he received from Americans of all walks of life, especially young people.

It explains his early declaration of anticipating a need for federal funding for his campaign (which the weaseling McCain also toyed with but which he is now attempting to make an issue against Obama).

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

I don't see how you can "hope" to "change" a system as close to collapse as this one is, financially speaking.

Maybe he is trying to make us feel better about ourselves as we edge ever closer to oblivion. It's not working on me. I do prefer him to McHundred. I am still surprised Clinton's Dixie Mafia hasn't taken a shot, literally, at him yet.

But a real "change" would be what Ron Paul was talking about — abolition of the Federal Reserve, for starters. No one proposing REAL "change" is allowed to get any traction. We just witnessed that with Paul's candidacy.

“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston

Tom Coburn has never achieved a "branch" in the Republican Party, which says everything about that miserable bunch of scoundrels as far as I'm concerned.

But, the implication that either Republicans or Democrats are a homogeneous group is infantile.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

The real laugh is going to come when they have to support and vote for Clinton/Obummer.

What will they use as justification for doing so???? Well, we have seen the worms squirm here, this way and that, to cover their sheep partisanship for ANYTHING democrat, now will we see them do somersaults slobbering all over Clinton/Obama.

Some here have no self worth at all. Their self esteem will be in the sewer when they have to idolize Hillary. Its coming, these people will don their kneepads and grovel all the way to the election.

Because if he fails it will be for the same reason as Al did, rural and southern prejudice.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

The real laugh is going to come when they have to support and vote for Clinton/Obummer.

Success is relative. It is what we can make of the mess we have made of things. T. S. Eliot

Funny. "They were in full cry". I don't remember saying that. I can only remember perhaps one of the posters currently favoring Obama saying something like that.

To reason, indeed, he was not in the habit of attending. His mode of arguing, if it is to be so called, was one not uncommon among dull and stubborn persons, who are accustomed to be surrounded by their inferiors. He asserted a proposition; and, as often as wiser people ventured respectfully to show that it was erroneous, he asserted it again, in exactly the same words, and conceived that, by doing so, he at once disposed of all objections. - Macaulay, "History of England," Vol. 1, Chapter 6, on James II.

Speaking of shame, will you admit you were wrong when Hillary does not get the presidential nomination?

Al Smith's glorious defeat in 1928 laid the groundwork for the Democratic victories in 1930 and 1932.

OBAMA: So, it depends on where you are, but I think it's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government. The people are mis-appre...I think they're misunderstanding why the demographics in our, in this contest have broken out as they are. Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing.

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What's the concrete thing?' What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- close tax loopholes, roll back, you know, the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. So we'll go down a series of talking points.

But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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. So it's not surprising then that 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.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you'll find is, is that people of every background -- there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you'll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I'd be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you're doing what you're doing.

ari. Lets not go too deeply into political forecasts. Before you anointed Obama, you were selecting RPs VP, IIRC. Was it Kucinich or Gravel who captivated you most?

In answer to the Wilkes-Barre gentleman's question about low levels of national pride, Senator Obama said, in part, that a new generation needs to move into government service, for there is "something big and noble and exciting and important about serving the country." First, however, Senator Obama-- and also Senators Clinton and McCain-- must see us and talk about us in such a way that sets the bar high. A leader will hold us to that standard. "Californians and Pennsylvanians," our next president must say, "find your best selves in one another."

You're overgeneralizing. I grew up in the Bronx (and was beaten by a black gang with baseball bats in Landover MD 12 years ago).

It's true I was overoptimistic about Ron Paul's chances. And I expressed preferences about who he might pick as VP. But I don't think I made any predictions about who he would pick.

By the way, isn't Cynicom criticizing the Obamaphiles for all saying RP could not win. Isn't your posting testimony that he is wrong?

Every day, there are postings on this forum that prove the truth of Obama's statement.

It looks to me like the Deep South preferred Smith to Hoover. Their anti-GOP prejudice overcame their anti-Catholic prejudice at that point in our history.

It is hard to explain to today's youth that Southerners were once as virulently opposed to the Republican Party as most of them today are to the Democratic Party.

“I would give no thought of what the world might say of me, if I could only transmit to posterity the reputation of an honest man.” - Sam Houston