Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03
    Announcement
     
    Announcement
     

    Saturday Night Card Game (Obama Bitterly Clings to Bitter Clinger Stereotypes)

    Saturday Night Card Game (Obama Bitterly Clings to Bitter Clinger Stereotypes)

    This is the latest in a series on the use of the race card for political gain:

    If you have followed this series, you have seen the absurd depths to which liberal pundits and political operatives will go to inject race into non-racial situations, and to explain almost all opposition to Obama as implicitly if not explicitly racist.

    This stereotyped view of opposition to Obama derives not only from liberal dogma, but from Obama himself.

    Obama’s view was evidenced in April 2008, before it was even clear he would defeat Hillary Clinton, and long before substantial anti-Obama sentiment grew in the country. 

    At a private fundraiser which Obama did not know was being taped, Obama expressed his disdain for Democratic primary voters who opposed him with the now famous “bitter clinger” comments:

    “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.”

    Remember, Obama made his bitter clinger comments before there was a Tea Party movement, before there was opposition to what would become Obamacare, before Sarah Palin was a national figure, and before Obama had even won the nomination. 

    In fact, in April 2008 there was support among Republicans for Obama as a means of stopping Hillary, as reflected in Rush Limbaugh’s Operation Chaos and other efforts to make the Democratic primary more competitive for Obama.  To the extent there were any questions being raised at that time regarding Obama’s birthplace and citizenship, such questions were being raised by other Democrats

    The theme that racism was the source of opposition to Obama was prevalent throughout the primary season and general election.  It was a theme used to Obama’s great advantage against Hillary and McCain:

    Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him.

    “It is going to be very difficult for Republicans to run on their stewardship of the economy or their outstanding foreign policy,” Obama told a fundraiser in Jacksonville, Florida. “We know what kind of campaign they’re going to run. They’re going to try to make you afraid.

    “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

    Fast forward to May 2010, and Obama asserted a view of the Tea Party movement which was very similar to the bitter clinger view Obama took in April 2008 toward Democratic primary voters.

    As reported in U.S. News, at a private dinner Obama asserted that racism was a primary motivation for the Tea Party movement and for opposition to Obama’s policies:

    In May 2010, he told guests at a private White House dinner that race was probably a key component in the rising opposition to his presidency from conservatives, especially right-wing activists in the anti-incumbent “Tea Party” movement that was then surging across the country. Many middle-class and working-class whites felt aggrieved and resentful that the federal government was helping other groups, including bankers, automakers, irresponsible people who had defaulted on their mortgages, and the poor, but wasn’t helping them nearly enough, he said.

    A guest suggested that when Tea Party activists said they wanted to “take back” their country, their real motivation was to stir up anger and anxiety at having a black president, and Obama didn’t dispute the idea. He agreed that there was a “subterranean agenda” in the anti-Obama movement—a racially biased one—that was unfortunate. But he sadly conceded that there was little he could do about it.

    While Obama says he wants a post-racial American, in fact Obama bitterly clings to bitter clinger stereotypes.

    It seems unfathomable to Obama that people actually oppose his policies on the merits, and he seems not to care that each play of the race card is insulting and infuriating and tears the country a little bit further apart.

    We do not cling — bitterly or otherwise.  And we don’t like being accused of being something we are not.

    [Note:  I made a correction as to Operation Chaos because, as a commenter pointed out, the goal was not to help Obama but to keep the Democratic primary competitive, although it defintely was true that for a long time Republicans were focused on stopping Hillary, not Obama.]

    ——————————————–
    Related Posts:
    “Race” As Political Weapon
    An Allergic Reaction To The Race Card

    Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube
    Visit the Legal Insurrection Shop on CafePress!
    Bookmark and Share

    DONATE

    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.

    Comments


    Obama has a record of "excellence", has "contributed" and "been a leader"? Can you be a little more specific there?

    *Punahou Academy (5-12th grade)honors
    *Occidental (campus leader)
    *Columbia University, BA Poly Sci &International; Relations
    *Business International Group (corp. Clients & sometimes CIA front) & NY Public Interest *Research Group (non partisan activism)
    *Chicago community organizer – while Director, program staff went from 1 to 13. Built programs for job training, College Prep tutoring, & tenants rights
    *Harvard Law School– J.D. Magna Cum Laude(campus leader)
    *Sidley Austin – Intern (top law firm)
    *Editor & President of the Harvard Law Review
    *3 years Civil rights lawyer
    *12 Years Faculty at University of Chicago Law School (Constitutional Law)
    *Authored 2 best selling books
    *7 years state senator
    *3 years US senator
    *2 years President

    Worldly:
    Son of 2 PhDs; Black/white; American (Jefferson Davis Line) and Kenyan; step son of Indonesian, Kenyan half brothers and sisters; Indonesian half sister; father & stepfather non practicing muslims, mother and grandparents non-practicing Christains; Committed Christian as a young adult. Faithful.

    I didn't list what he accomplished while an elected official. I can. I don't understand why you wouldn't be impressed. I am.

    House of Eratosthenes has commented on your article

    http://www.peekinthewell.net/blog/clinging-to-the-bitter-clinger-stereotype-and-bitterly/

    and gives a nice summation about why "leftist politics do not, and can not, unify people".
    Specifically: The agenda of the left " … can be summed up with the statement “Group X should have Right Y” … {and} anyone outside of Group X should be deprived of Right Y. So they spend a lot of time and energy saying certain people don’t count … " Thus, "Everyone inside some perimeter is to receive some entitlement — and anybody outside of it, doesn’t count …"

    "Leftist politics cannot unify people"

    Politics, by definition, involves things that people don't agree on. So while this statement is true, it applies to every other political theory as well.

    But to address your comments in the context in which I think you are approaching it, I still think you are wrong. I find that Canadians, Scandinavians, and Northern Europeans (Norway, Finland, Denmark, etc) have both leftist politics and a high degree of unity relative to the United States.

    I personally think the unity factor has less to do with the political climate and more to do with the economic climate. Your focus is on entitlements that "people deserve", but leftists really don't think that way. Its about inequality to them. Everyone – even you, agrees that inequality is bad (what if 1 person managed to amass 99% of America's wealth?). Entitlements are just the left's way of reducing inequality. Fund pensions with wealthy citizens' money.

    Its really just a disagreement about how much inequality is acceptable. I am fundamentally not a leftist because inequality does not bother me, but inequality of opportunity does bother me. And inequality of opportunity is something that should bother all of you, but I really don't think it does. I don't know what that makes you. Plutocrats?

    Nonny– I wasn't sure if you were referring to our host, Professor Jacobson, or to me. I assume it was to him, but thank you! I looked and saw that someone on that site was complaining about what I've written here. I am flattered.

    Nicholas– I agree. I might not be as comfortable with inequality, but I'm for justice which means there'll be inequalities.

    RE: that article posted on that other site objected to the "death tax." (Not sure how the dead can be taxed, but I'll pay mine.) The problem with untaxed inheritance is an estate doesn't result from CHOICES made by the INDIVIDUAL/CITIZEN. The absence of estate tax perpetuates the notion of tribal ENTITLEMENT and a class system independent of what one has contributed. And that is downright un-American.


    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend