The Caucus, a New York Times blog, discussed Clinton’s response to Obama’s bitter working class comment. Clinton said that Obama was an out-of-touch elitist. "She described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her
father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said
that her faith “’is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.’"
The comments to this blog post were about 95% anti-Clinton. A non-random sample:
From hkl – It would be absolutely amazing if Hillary Clinton addressed ANY
issues pertaining to working women, working mothers, women who work in
the home, the state of child care in America, or the still unequeal pay
scale between men and women.
Instead, Mrs. Clinton paints herself as just another average joe, and
has not capitalized on the unprecedented opportunity to actually
embrace being a woman in this country, and confronting and discussing
the real challenges we all face.
From James — One more name to add to McCain’s VP shortlist.
From Morningside Heights — She takes the very meaning of pander to an entirely new level. Unbelieveable.
From Bob – I live in Penn and I’m bitter. Yes bitter about the loss of over 4000
American lives, yes bitter that gas is reaching $4 a gallon, yes bitter
how arrogant the current administration acts, yes bitter that we are no
longer an Industrialized country, yes bitter we are borrowing money
from China, yes bitter over the loss of jobs. The Clinton’s are so far
out of touch with reality I wonder how they sleep at night. Oh thats
right they lay awake waiting for that 3 am call.
From Chet – Hugh’s firearm training probably came in handy while she was under fire in Bosnia.
From Harrier — Am I the only one who sees some massive cognitive dissonance at work here?
From Judy – Wow, how many faces does Hillary have. She really will say and do
anything to get elected, I was voting for her until now. The more she
lies, the more votes she loses.
Apt. 11d 
Calling Dan Nexon!
LikeLike
I can’t explain the anti-Clinton numbers on the Internet. All I can tell you is that most people I know in real life are pro-Clinton.
And hm, I just read Clinton’s response here. Did any of the people (including you, Laura 😉 read her response?
She said:
“You know, Americans who believe in the Second Amendment believe it’s a matter of Constitutional rights. Americans who believe in God believe it is a matter of personal faith. Americans who believe in protecting good American jobs believe it is a matter of the American Dream.
“When my dad grew up it was in a working class family in Scranton. I grew up in a church-going family, a family that believed in the importance of living out and expressing our faith.
“The people of faith I know don’t “cling to” religion because they’re bitter. People embrace faith not because they are materially poor, but because they are spiritually rich. Our faith is the faith of our parents and our grandparents. It is a fundamental expression of who we are and what we believe.
“I also disagree with Senator Obama’s assertion that people in this country “cling to guns” and have certain attitudes about immigration or trade simply out of frustration. People of all walks of life hunt – and they enjoy doing so because it’s an important part of their life, not because they are bitter.”
That Clinton. She will say ANYTHING to get elected. *rolls eyes*
I cannot bear to read Kos, AmericaBlog, or the Person Who Kidnapped Josh Marshall (tm Bob Somerby), or, alas, TAPped or LGM (sorry Scott) any more. Do they even *acknowledge* that there are a freakin’ lot of well-respected feminist blogs who still support Clinton? Did anyone comment on Kate’s blog post on Obama at Shakespeare’s Sister? Did anyone defend Obama against her accusations?
Or are they just going to ignore the concerns of a hell of a lot of women. I really cannot understand how that cannot bug the crap out you.
And here is a defense of why Hillary should be president.
LikeLike
(Sorry, this post has me in rant mode. 😉
hkl, a commenter to The Caucus blog, said:
“It would be absolutely amazing if Hillary Clinton addressed ANY issues pertaining to working women, working mothers, women who work in the home, the state of child care in America, or the still unequeal pay scale between men and women.”
Uh, excuse my language, but what the fuck? Seriously, Laura, how could you even post that comment? It is so beyond wrong about Clinton it’s either delusional or deliberately mendacious.
Honestly, the people who are most anti-Clinton are the ones relying on the MSM (and I am including Kos et al in that) for info. Doesn’t that tell you something?
Fortunately for you all, I’ll be leaving soon to do some errands and some yard work, so you won’t have to listen me go on and on and on. 🙂
LikeLike
I’m a war-protesting leftie, but I don’t have a strong preference between the two. My tendency was to support Hillary, except I cannot abide her more hawkish stance on war and the Middle East. Her cadre of advisors and foreign policy people indicates “more of the same” as far as Middle East policy goes – neo-con lite, TNR, NYT-style “liberal hawk”.
To me is 500 times more important than progressive income tax rates and whatnot. We’re killing innocent people by the tens of thousands, and a Democratic candidate who is even slightly more likely (than her Democratic rival) to initiate another war in the ME, is unsupportable.
So, I lean towards Obama (though something in his speaking style and choice of subjects annoys me. It’s kind of a superficial complaint, but there it is).
But I believe Obama screwed up badly with that quote. He said things most of us lefties probably agree with: that the issues of guns, gays, God, anti-immigration, etc., are ripe for demagoguery. The issues are mostly distractions, trotted out every few years, since nothing is really proposed to be “done” about any of it. (Well, except for gay marriage, and immigration, which might have some potential policy actions).
The problem is you cannot call wide swaths of the country dupes. These are the “Reagan democrats” and further right, the “angry white men”, and some of their votes are swingable.
LikeLike
Are people “bitter”? I don’t know, but “angry” would have been a better word, as it’s more manly (and our pathetic political conversation seems to revolve around who/what is an authentic man/American). Is it reasonable they would be “angry” about their incomes stagnating for 8 years, even 30 years? Who knows. (I don’t think so, but I’m not representative).
I think people are mostly insecure with the changing identities in our culture and economy. Men used to be able to do manly jobs, with high school educations, and make enough money for a solid middle-class lifestyle with one earner. Now these jobs are mostly gone, and last for shorter periods of time when you can get them. (Countries like Germany and Japan still have prosperous manufacturing sectors and strong unions, and solid trade-school career tracks , or so I’ve heard. But I doubt it is possible to get there from here).
Middle class people might also feel like American culture is dictated mostly by people who are unlike them. They think television is made by, and features, people who do not share their values and are different. Maybe it’s just a generational and rural/urban split, and has been ever thus, but the pace/ubiquity of the media age might mean the difference between cultures is in their face more than ever.
I think the resonance of these demagogic appeals (God, guns, gays, race) is far larger than the smaller groups of those affected by the economic changes. I don’t think it’s mostly about the pocketbook, it’s mostly about identity. ANd it is perfectly normal to be concerned with these issues by themselves – gun control, the place of religious life in society, gay marriage, immigration…
Discussions of economic policy choices (trade, unions, unemployment and retraining) are completely normal. And Obama might have been pointing out that economic changes leave an insecure populace open for demagogic exploitation. But identity politics and appeals (and American mythology and claims of authenticity) have always been with us, and you can’t call people dupes for falling for it.
Well, you can, but you can’t do it without successfully being portrayed as insulting them.
LikeLike
“her faith “’is the faith of my parents and my grandparents”
This is the kind of comment that I am finding very difficult to forgive. I do not think Hillary Clinton is a bad person, but, in making statements like this she invokes the “grandfather” clause, the one’s that say that our ancestors, or our grandparents, or our fathers determine how American we are. She may not have meant it that way, but it treads on dangerous ground.
Calling white, middle-class, gun-owning, religious Pennsylvanians “bitter” (not that I’m admitting that Obama did that) just doesn’t tread on the same dangerous ground of exclusion.
Interesting, Wendy, that your social network contains many people who support Clinton. Mine certainly doesn’t. And, in practical terms, the # of Obama contributors, say, in my zip code vastly exceeds the Clinton contributors. I suspect that our personal reports are biased by our own support — few people are going to talk about their impassioned support of Clinton with me, while casual friends are happy to engage in an Obama love-fest, with someone who they know agrees (as in the internet). I wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton supporters were the same.
bj
(PS: even if I don’t forgive Hillary, I will cast my ballot for her if she wins the democratic nomination.)
LikeLike
bj, I’m from Massachusetts, SE Massachusetts. Clinton supporters way outnumber Obama supporters. I’m in academia, and my chair supports Obama as does a good friend/colleague of mine. But most everyone else I’ve talked to about the campaign is pro-Clinton. But I hardly go around shouting about having voted for Clinton, and I always make the assumption that my colleagues might vote either way, and I’m kind of surprised how many are pro-Clinton.
My husband works at an elite university, and he runs into way more Obama supporters than I do. He voted for Clinton holding his nose (actually, LOL, he got my daughter to fill out the ballot for him).
My students do tend to support Obama, but they’ll also be the first to tell you they know jackshit about politics. I polled them about simple political facts at the beginning of the term, and about half could name Cheney as the VPOTUS. It went downhill from there.
You may note that I am not mentioning my Republican colleagues, or my “independent” colleagues. We have a few, but I avoid talking to them about politics at all costs because I hate to go on virulent anti-Bush rants without warning. 🙂
And honestly, I have no idea what you mean by being upset by her saying her faith “is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.” To read that as some sort of exclusionary insult is really incomprehensible to me.
And finally, I didn’t find Obama’s “bitter” comment that objectionable per se. I think what happened is that he got caught in a trap of his own making. If people didn’t care so much about these relatively insignificant uses of words, Obama wouldn’t be on the hot seat, but also keep in mind that he himself has promoted the power of words.
Also, he’s been using the rhetoric of hope, which implies that his opponents are people who are not hopeful. He’s never come out and *said* the word “bitter” though, but implying it was working just great, especially because of the gendered connotations of the word “bitter”/”bitch.” But when he actually came out and *said* it, the word could then be used against him. Now he can’t imply that Clinton/supporters are “bitter” (old women) any more without getting called out on it.
As someone who is teaches about rhetoric and persuasion, I think Obama is a gold mine. I talk about him in class way more than I do Clinton, and in positive ways (because the techniques he uses are so effective and thus useful examples for my classes).
LikeLike
Wendy, almost all of our friends are very progressive, very liberal and feminist, not a one of them is supporting Clinton. My mother and one co-worker are the only people I know IRL who are supporting her now.
This was a bone-head statement by Obama. I think there are all sorts of ways to spin it- that many of the people he was talking about are one or two issue voters who don’t look at the big picture of how their vote really impacts their lives. But that’s my spin, I have no idea what he really meant and I wish he wouldn’t have said it because it insults people. Their issues are not my issues, and trying to diminish their issues does not help Obama.
LikeLike
LisaV, it goes without saying that everyone posting here in this thread besides me knows mainly Obama supporters in real life. I’m obviously the outlier. The question is why is this? The answer is not because Everyone Loves Obama. Because there is no evidence that there is anything but a 50-50 or at best 52-48 split among Democrats on the issue.
Huh. My husband just told me that his boss (male) voted for Clinton. I assumed everyone over there (why don’t I just say it? Brown) voted for Obama. Hm, why do I assume that?
Y’all should come up here to Mass and get your eyes opened (not the Boston part of Mass–more Obama supporters there).
LikeLike
Wendy — you’re pointing out demographic variation in MA, and of course, you’re right. Our friends aren’t the general population. That’s true when we compare Clinton & Obama, and also when we compare McCain & Clinton or McCain & Obama. That’s why I always warn everyone who gets too excited about how things could not go any other way that our friends do not make as statistical sampling of the American population. I mean I’m sitting here in the definition of the latte-liberal capitol. We could all head out to Oklahoma and get your eyes opened, too. But, that might make your head spin.
I think the “faith of our grandfather’s” is less offensive in context, but the reason I find it potentially offensive is if it implies that it matters what your grandfather’s faith is (just as it once mattered what your grandfather’s voting status was), especially in the context of a comparison to Obama. And, I don’t trust Clinton on this question, since the “He’s not a muslim, as far as I know” comment, which was truly dreadful. http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200803/CUL20080303a.html
LikeLike
It’s hard for me to believe this thread has gone so far and no one has told the Pauline Kael story. So I will.
Nixon won, and she said ‘Impossible. No one I know voted for Nixon!’
My view is that Obama and Clinton are both latte-ists, both have condescension towards blue-collar people, and both pretend to respect them. Up to now, Obama had done a better job of hiding his true views that the opinions of blue collar people were something to mold rather than something to respect. But there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between their opinions. Or between them and SF-Liberal $50 millionairess Pelosi or wife-of-Richard-Blum Feinstein or Barbara Boxer. All of them are trying to present a face which is not true to their own opinions.
As do all the rest of them. Cheney, perfectly accepting of gays in his private life, Gingrich, etc. All of them are wearing masks, because they think their true beliefs are unacceptable. It’s too bad, because it means our public life is based on fraud, no matter who wins.
LikeLike
dave s, great comment.
The latest Gallup poll is saying Obama has a sizable lead. Even with the “bitter” remark.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/106435/Gallup-Daily-Obama-Maintains-Solid-Democratic-Lead-50-41.aspx
So I don’t think it’s just the left leaning internet who favor him. However I heard this morning that at this point in the campaign Kerry was 14 points ahead of Bush. So go figure.
Elections aren’t over until the last vote is counted or the Supreme Court decides to stop counting them. We have a long way until that.
LikeLike
As someone sitting through the PA primary as a participant, I wish that all of the people who keep calling and asking who we are voting for would tell me on whose behalf they are calling. It’s almost made me nostalgic for the canned recordings we got by the dozen in 2004. People just keeping calling up and asking who we’re voting for with no preface. Next time it happens, I’m going to do my best to sound elderly and say I’m voting for John Kerry and see if I can’t keep them on the phone long enough to see who is calling and if they will come and give me a ride the polling place (which is about 150 yards from my door).
Also, I would hope that all candidates would tell people who get their bumper stickers to drive nicely until after the election. I keep getting cut-off by people with Obama stickers.
LikeLike
bj,
An interesting peculiarity of all three of the candidates is that they are now all running on their heritage. This is most obviously true of Obama and McCain obviously, but HRC is now jumping into the game, too.
LikeLike
Dave, for what it’s worth Obama spent three years organizing on the South Side of Chicago. He quit corporate consulting to go and do it. He went to law school when he saw the limits of what he could do without a bit of law on his side. Helping working-class people is what drew him into politics in the first place. They were black working-class people, so maybe they don’t count as “working-class” in national media myths. And of course not all of them were working-class, some of them were downright poor.
His grandfather sold furniture, and then later life insurance. He wasn’t very good at the latter. His grandmother started as a secretary at a bank, and worked her way up. Neither is manual labor, but we’re not talking about someone whose dad has a compound at Kennebunkport.
In Obama’s grandparents’ household, the woman gradually accumulated more economic power than the man, and it was not an easy adjustment for anyone involved. That’s a story that a lot of working-class folks will be able to relate to. (That’s all in his first book.)
Obama’s second book isn’t as good as his first, but the section on his wife’s family goes right to this as well. His father-in-law was a pump operator, and his mother-in-law a homemaker. The Obamas didn’t come from money, they came from work.
LikeLike
Everyone is focussing on my comment about demographics without realizing it was a defensive remark addressed to Laura, who observed that 95% of the comments to the post she talked about were anti-Clinton. Hence my sarcastic comment that I was sure everyone else’s friends were voting for Obama. Was I too subtle?
I am more concerned with how many people are repeating incorrect stuff without listening to or reading what she has actually said.
LikeLike
The very best snark to come out of this whole affair, in my opinion, was Patrick Deneen’s retort to Obama, suggesting what he could have said to the people of Latrobe, PA, here.
It’s not, I think, a particularly fair snark–but what snark is? It’s funny, it acknowledges (whether Patrick realizes it or not) and baseline accuracy of Obama’s comments, and has the advantage of not bordering on condescension.
LikeLike
Doug,
With regard to Obama’s attitude toward the “working class,” I think there is a heck of a lot of condescension in what he has said about his own church, not to mention toward his very own white grandmother. I expect his contempt for his economic and educational inferiors is color-blind.
LikeLike
I just now read Sen. Obama’s comment for the first time. I don’t see how anyone could read that, read Sen. Clinton’s response and be angry at CLINTON. Her statements struck me as completely ordinary, especially compared to the dripping condescension of Obama.
Maybe I’m just more sensitive to these things than most (I’ve lived all my life but 2 years in either the midwest or PA, attend mass regularly and have owned a shotgun since before I could drive), but if Obama’s comments disappear without a big impact, I’m with Wendy about what the MSM is doing to Clinton.
LikeLike
The other problem with Obama’s comments is that his attitude, fair or unfair as it may be, is at direct odds with the seeming compassion for bigots (like his grandmother)he professes. If he’s calling them bitter and saying they cling to guns because thye’re poor, well, he’s not really listening like they think he is.
His campaign is so focused on rhetoric and words that inevitably, words are going to trip him up and used against him. It’s like what happened to the 1980s academics. Deconstruction was a great idea. Nothing is real. The author is dead. And what did we get? George Bush and co stating that they will damn well create their own reality, so leave science and facts out of their world.
Rambling again incoherently. My students are doing the UCLA First Year Student Engagement Survey thing and I forgot to bring something to do.
Btw, Obama’s “Annie Oakley” response to Clinton was just … Well, I don’t know what to say about it.
LikeLike
Getting sicker and have to run to class, but a couple of quick thoughts.
Efficacy is a political science term for the belief that you can make some difference in politics. In general, high SES people have higher levels of efficacy than lower SES people. People with higher levels of efficacy are more likely to vote, to sign petitions, to participate in a dozen different ways.
Working class folks, in general, have lower levels of efficacy. I have had a devil of time getting my neighbors to show up to meetings and to vote on issues that directly affect them. They tell me that the rich in the town have already made all the decisions and that no one will listen to them. They don’t want to be frustrated, so they concentrate on things that make them happy – their family and their private pursuits. They are entirely inward looking.
There’s nothing wrong with being inward looking. In fact, if you don’t concentrate on your family and private interests, you have to be a pretty shallow human. However, we need people to also be outward looking. To vote and participate and be part of a larger dialogue. It’s not good for America, if people just walk away from the voting booth and say that their vote makes no difference.
LikeLike
Blog are goods for every one where we can get more knowledge nice job keep it up !
http://free.7host05.com/herbals/
LikeLike
Wendy,
You are in to a bit deeper territory on this than I am. I just see that Sen. Obama said that religion is caused by bitterness and that it is something equivalent to support for guns and xenophobia (and I don’t see how you can take his statement as anything other than arguing that religion and xenophobia are functional equivalents). The Republicans usually have to put forth great effort to convince voters that Democrats are secretly thinking thoughts along the line of what Sen. Obama just said outright.
LikeLike
MH, yeah, I am. As I said, he’s a gold mine for an academic. I can get a lot of work-related pleasure out of discussing his campaign.
But really, it comes down to this for me: health care and education are important to me. I think Hillary is better on both issues. I want to hear (though I get Harry’s point) that NCLB sucks, and I want a better health care system. I want more regulation of industries that have been unregulated for too long. I don’t really think either Clinton or Obama will get us out of Iraq fast enough, but really, I believe it is a massive con on the country to transfer money into the pockets of Cheney’s cronies, so at the very least, either Clinton to Obama can make the war *cost* less. I think Clinton will do a better job of getting international support again so we don’t have to fund/staff the whole damn thing ouselves.
It’s policy. I care about policy. *shrug*
I’ll also point out the Elizabeth Edwards likes Clinton’s health care plan better.
LikeLike
“inevitably, words are going to trip him up and used against him”
As opposed to Clinton, to whom this will not happen? I’m interested in Obama’s reactions, because this is just a sample of what the concern trolls and the out-and-out opponents will bring as time goes on. There’s no personal record that the Republicans and the conservatives will respect; there’s no person who won’t be slimed; and there’s no pronouncement that won’t be distorted. That’s how the Republican side of the aisle plays right now.
“I think Clinton will do a better job of getting international support again so we don’t have to fund/staff the whole damn thing ouselves.”
This is so not happening. Maybe five years ago, but not now, no matter who is in the White House. There is no international support to be had for the US adventure in Iraq.
LikeLike
Doug, claiming that people in small towns are narrow-minded, gun-totting, religious bigots who can’t be blamed because they are too poor to know better isn’t sliming them? Sen. Obama is going to be attached because he said something that a large portion of the population finds odious, not because Republicans are cruel. We are, of course, cruel, but we can’t help ourselves. We’re too bitter and blinded by Karl Rove to realize that Obama is our only hope. We’re also a bit cranky in the days leading up to 4/15.
LikeLike
If he’s calling them bitter and saying they cling to guns because they’re poor, well, he’s not really listening like they think he is.
Wendy, he didn’t say that. He said something which came pretty close to that, and he made use of a condescending redneck stereotype along the way, but he didn’t actually insult their faith and way of lifing by saying “they cling to guns because they’re poor.” What he said was clumsy and stupid, but not insulting.
[C]laiming that people in small towns are narrow-minded, gun-totting, religious bigots who can’t be blamed because they are too poor to know better isn’t sliming them?
Again, MH, he didn’t say that.
LikeLike
The comments (in the bigger sense, not the narrow one where folks interpret Obama as dissing religion), are echoed in the WaPo article about Lima, Ohio that preceded the election there. In it, they talk about Clinton supporters clinging to what they have, because they’re close to the edge. “[clinton supporter] He plans to work at Honda until he’s 65 so he can pay off his house and save some money. The day he retires, he wants to leave for Florida.” The Obama supporter is hoping for more, for a revitalized Lima, not one that “doesn’t decline” but one that has a potential for being something more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/16/AR2008021602729.html
(racism plays a role — and can’t be ignored, in the article. But, there’s definitely something else about hope and hopefulness and who feels comfortable with the message. People who have nothing & people who have everything, can take risks for “hope for a better future.” People trying to hold on have a harder time, ’cause a bad bet could make their lives substantially worse.).
LikeLike
RAF,
O.K., I added a bit of my own interpretation when I paraphrased Sen. Obama’s comments. For me, discussing religion as if it is a support mechanism functionally equivalent to “antipathy toward people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment…” is enough to set off all kinds of alarm bells.
I have long gotten a vibe from various politicians (usually, but not only Democrats) that runs something along the lines of: “If only those fools with religion would just let it go people like me could rationally organize society to benefit everybody, even the Jesus fools.” Having a front-running candidate come so close to saying as much in a public speech is not the way to persuade me to vote for a Democrat.
LikeLike
“I want to hear (though I get Harry’s point) that NCLB sucks, and I want a better health care system. I want more regulation of industries that have been unregulated for too long.”
It’s interesting to put those ideas right next to each other: we need more regulation of industry, but the new regulation that we have for the education system “sucks.”
LikeLike
Amy, children are not products.
LikeLike
No, but I’m sure you think we should regulate those products and services that directly affect children: pharmaceuticals, toys, baby food, formula, medical providers, etc. To regulate education is not the same as calling children products, any more than banning lead in paint or gasoline would be treating children as products. Note that both lead ingestion and poor educational practices harm children’s minds.
LikeLike
Gotta read Theda Skocpol’s comment on bittergate at TPM.
LikeLike
Coming late to this, but here in Pittsburgh it’s the context that matters as much as the words. If Obama had used the word bitter while addressing small town Pennsylvanians, it wouldn’t have been such a big deal. It would have seemed more of the tone that he’s trying to spin it now — in solidarity, not condescending.
But the issue is that he was off — in California, of all places — reporting on us as if we’re the findings of some upper-class sociology field trip that really set people off.
LikeLike
I think any situation where you’re talking about precious swing voters as “they” is fraught with peril. Voters should be either “you” or ideally “we.”
LikeLike
Josh is good on this subject: “So speaking for myself I’ve spent too much time over, what, 15 years now? … defending both Clintons from similarly ginned up nonsense to have much energy left to help out as they pull the same puffed up outrage act against another Democrat. I guess I’m just not feeling it.”
And I’ve lost the link now, but another blog I was reading chuckled about the foolishness of O and C jousting about who’s more in touch with people who aren’t going to vote for a Democrat in the general anyway.
MH, Obama on faith is here. You can check out what the man himself says.
Are Republicans cruel? I don’t know, but Republicans support an administration that made torture the official policy of the United States of America. I’m not sure what will ever make that stain go away.
As far as this teapot-tempest goes, I suppose it was always likely that the media worm would turn, especially with, what, six weeks between primaries involving actual voters. It’s silly season now; or at least silly half-time. Pennsylvania votes in eight days. Maybe then we’ll see some more stories about expanding the electorate again.
On a completely unrelated note, does anybody know anything about Australian healthcare? I’m supposed to put about 600 words together in the next couple of hours, so that Sydney (ok, Dee Why, but who’s counting) can add their quotes when they come into the office and hand it off to our designers when the German morning rolls around again. Google is my friend.
LikeLike
“And I’ve lost the link now, but another blog I was reading chuckled about the foolishness of O and C jousting about who’s more in touch with people who aren’t going to vote for a Democrat in the general anyway.”
There are more Democrats than you can shake a stick at in PA. There are a lot of socially conservative PA Democrats, and they are in play.
LikeLike
“I was working with churches, and the Christians who I worked with recognized themselves in me. They saw that I knew their Book and that I shared their values and sang their songs. But they sensed that a part of me that remained removed, detached, that I was an observer in their midst.”
Doug, I skimmed through that long Obama piece, and I thought this extract very evocative. He presents this as his situation before joining TUCC, but the description may fit him pretty well now, too–an observer, rather than a participant, relating to American culture (both white and black) as a foreigner. I think some phenomenal writing has come out of his unusual life experience (and I’ve been very impressed by the literary quality of his autobiographical writing), but it qualifies him more for a Nobel Prize than for the US presidency.
LikeLike
There are a lot of socially conservative PA Democrats, and they are in play.
Which is why Obama’s landing of endorsements from Democrats like Casey and Roemer is potentially a pretty big deal.
LikeLike
I think the last time we had a writer as good was that other skinny guy from Illinois. But y’know, he probably wasn’t qualified either.
LikeLike
Actually, Obama’s probably better than Lincoln. To be somewhat alienated from one’s surroundings is helpful to a writer. I haven’t studied this myself, but estrangement is an important literary technique, and it’s very important in the work of somebody like Nabokov, who was coincidentally an exile.
I’m not sure how much we want Obama to emulate Lincoln, who left much of the US in smoking ruins.
LikeLike
Now that I think of it, I wonder if anyone’s compared the Civil War and its aftermath to the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath. I don’t know enough about either to work it out in detail, but I suppose that the KKK might work as a parallel to the insurgents.
LikeLike
Obama = Lincoln? You know this is why people who don’t support Obama sort of get sick of the Obama people. Lincoln wasn’t “Lincoln” until well after he was gone. Also, Lincoln was a Republican. A Democrat from Chicago makes me think of Mayor Daley and the old joke about why the guy from down state had his mother buried in Chicago when she never lived there and didn’t have any family there. From what I read, there may be a couple of Chicago “politics as usual” bumps that Obama will have to deal with in the coming weeks.
LikeLike
A few more comments: Amy, another difference between accountability in industry and accountability in education is that it benefits industry to cut corners because it maximizes their profits. In education, cutting corners does nothing to maximize profits.
Russell, I think it’s pretty obvious that Obama feels his comments came across as insulting, so I am not sure why anyone is still defending them.
One last comment: I am totally concerned about Obama’s electability in the general. In my local paper I read an op-ed piece that heightened by concern. I excerpted it on my blog and urge everyone to read it.
If we lose in November, I swear I will go ballistic. It will not be pretty.
LikeLike
“Amy, another difference between accountability in industry and accountability in education is that it benefits industry to cut corners because it maximizes their profits. In education, cutting corners does nothing to maximize profits.”
How about all those families with special needs children who have to basically move mountains to get the correct educational protocol? What is that if not corner cutting? Also, it seems to me that that’s also a pretty good term for the apparently wide-spread practice of collecting work, stamping it with happy faces, and handing it back uncorrected. There’s corner cutting all over the place.
LikeLike
Here’s another popular corner-cutting method: sticking as many minority children as possible in special education classes.
LikeLike
I was just thinking that even if educators themselves have no motive to cut corners, the textbook manufacturers do.
Here’s an old Forbes piece on “The Great American Textbook Scandal.” It starts out with a physicist paging through an astronomy textbook and finding it riddled with errors.
http://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/1030/6612178a_print.html
LikeLike
Amy, we’re caught between two opposing forces: 1. greater understanding of the disabilities that require students to have special accommodations and 2. treating education as though it should be a privatized, profit-oriented institution and thus shrinking budgets and demanding that teachers and administrators do more with less money.
“sticking as many minority children as possible in special education classes.”
Certainly this can happen in extreme situations (such as states where Members of Congress still call Presidential candidates “boy”?). But we’re also looking at issues of poverty and education. Poverty can have effects on the language development of children, which would require them to be in certain kinds of language-encouraging classes. Back in the day when I worked in a BOCES special ed preschool, I typed up psychologist reports. Kids who were placed in the TC (total communications) classes comprised a great variety of conditions, from those like Ian, who seems to have been born with a speech disorder, to other children who grew up in impoverished (financially and emotionally) environments where they were cared for by elderly grandparents/great grandparents who watched tv all day and didn’t interact with the children while the children’s single moms worked long hours. We also had hearing children of deaf parents who went into TC classes.
I think we’re learning so much more about the varieties of learning disabilities and how to address them, and part of it will be understanding the causes/contributing factors.
But while we’re doing that, we’re also asking school districts with less money than ever to do way more than we ever did when I was in school. Do we want inclusion? (I say yes.) Well, that’s going to take more money and more training. Meanwhile, we’re burdening schools with the unfunded mandate, as Clinton and other critics call it, of NCLB, which requires tons of paperwork in order to collect data and demonstrate accountability.
It’s a mess. NCLB doesn’t help, though as I said, I do see Harry’s points about the benefits. What we need is to either throw out NCLB or amend it drastically to keep the good parts and get rid of the bad.
I’m in the wrong thread to talk about NCLB, aren’t I. 🙂
LikeLike
“I think any situation where you’re talking about precious swing voters as “they” is fraught with peril. Voters should be either “you” or ideally “we.””
I agree whole-heartedly with this, but it’s all voters who deserve that respect, right? I’ve been terribly offended when Clinton states that we should discount Idaho or even Washington because they’re “caucus” states.
Wendy, regarding electability, I rejected the argument when folks said we shouldn’t support Hillary because of the Hillary-haters in the general election who would come out in droves to vote against her, and I reject it now, when people try to argue that we shouldn’t vote for Obama because other people won’t vote for him.
I’ll cite to a Slate article by Kinsley:
“Democrats are cute when they’re being pragmatic. They furrow their brows and try to think like Republicans. Or as they imagine Republicans must think. They turn off their hearts and listen for signals from their brains. No swooning is allowed this presidential primary season. “I only care about one thing,” they all say. “Which of these guys can beat Bush?” Secretly, they believe none of them can, which makes the amateur pragmatism especially poignant.”
http://www.slate.com/id/2095009/
Yeah, the “Bush” gives it away, and then he goes on to say:
“Some Democrats cheated and looked into their hearts, where they found Howard Dean. But he was so appealing that he scared them. This is no moment to vote for a guy just because he inspires you, they thought. If he inspires me, there must be something wrong with him. So, Democrats looked around and rediscovered John Kerry. He’d been there all along, inspiring almost no one. You’re not going to find John Kerry inspiring unless you’re married to him or he literally saved your life. Obviously neither of those is a strategy that can be rolled out on a national level.”
I think every voter should make this decision for themselves. I find it hard enough figuring out who I prefer, that I’m certainly not going to try to play the game of what swing voters in Ohio or Missouri are going to prefer. I wouldn’t vote for Obama ’cause of Hillary’s high negatives, and I don’t think people should vote for Hillary because they’re “worried about Obama in the general election.”
LikeLike
“But while we’re doing that, we’re also asking school districts with less money than ever to do way more than we ever did when I was in school. Do we want inclusion? (I say yes.) Well, that’s going to take more money and more training. Meanwhile, we’re burdening schools with the unfunded mandate, as Clinton and other critics call it, of NCLB, which requires tons of paperwork in order to collect data and demonstrate accountability.”
Could you document the funding. I was poking around a bit and couldn’t find anything quickly, but I vaguely remember that Bush raised federal education funding early on. On the state side, there was no particular reason to cut funding, since so many states have been enjoying a gold rush of tax dollars due to the real estate boom/bubble (choose your favorite). My question would be, if states really did cut education funding, where the heck did all that money go?
LikeLike
“I think some phenomenal writing has come out of his unusual life experience (and I’ve been very impressed by the literary quality of his autobiographical writing), but it qualifies him more for a Nobel Prize than for the US presidency.”
This is where I fundamentally disagree with you, and why I’ve become an Obama-maniac. Obama is the “New” America. (Which is really old, and in fact the continuing culmination of the principles the founding fathers established). I reject the argument the argument that his “outsider” status means that he is less qualified to be president, in fact think that America is the country where the outsiders are insiders. Now, it’s easy for me to want that, and to believe it, and to create a world around me that supports the idea (and I have to). Obama will have to convince people other than me, though (I’m easy); fortunatley he has, in Wisconsin, and Washington, and Maryland, and Idaho, and . . . . Maybe he didn’t convince voters in rural Ohio or won’t in rural PA, or “socially conservative” democrats, but what matters is that he convince a sufficiently large coalition of them.
LikeLike
“My question would be, if states really did cut education funding, where the heck did all that money go?”
Health insurance is what comes to mind immediately. I’ll look things up.
LikeLike
bj,
I know you love the guy, but where is the evidence that he is capable of figuring out a complex political problem, making a plan, and carrying it out? I think what you and other Obama supporters are doing is very similar to what GWB supporters did during the 2000 election. The thought of having a new president (not Clinton!) was so intoxicating that Republicans couldn’t really see any further than that. Also, many Republicans fell in love with GWB’s story (recovery from alcoholism/finding God) in a way clearly parallel to the way that Obama-backers have fallen in love with Obama’s story. In neither case did admirers of the two men ask themselves: What is the evidence that this person is up to this job? Obama has thrived in a particular political climate (Chicago), and he is showing signs of being poorly adapted to the national stage, or to dealing with the sort of criticism that comes with high national office.
LikeLike
If anything, the 2000 GWB (as a governor) had better paper credentials to be president than the 2008 BHO. I think that should worry Obama supporters.
LikeLike
bj, you wrote: “when people try to argue that we shouldn’t vote for Obama because other people won’t vote for him.”
That’s not why I think Obama’s electability is a problem. That’s why I cited Navarro. He sounds like a great guy, and he had a lot of people behind him. It’s not that I sit around thinking “Hey, all those white people in PA are never going to vote for Obama because he’s black.” Honestly, that thought never crosses my mind.
The point I see is that there is that this whole Unity stuff, all the feel-good stuff–it’s not backed by concrete policy ideas. In the end, Republicans and moderates are going to figure out that even though Obama is “listening” to them and making them feel good about being an American, he’s still going to vote for reproductive rights, for gun control, for public schools, for all the liberal/progressive things (I hope) he will be voting for. And They Will Turn On Him.
He has got to explain HOW IN POLICY TERMS he can make both the “I don’t want you to make me feel bad about how I fucked up America by voting for Bush” Republicans/moderates happy and the hardcore progressives happy.
I have YET to see that. Explain to me how he’s going to get pro-life Republicans to vote for him. PLEASE. I need to know. He is NOT going to be able to avoid specifics without being painted as a flipflopper or panderer.
LikeLike
Amy, I think GWB did a great job as president on one level. He did a perfect job of implementing the policies he wanted to implement. They were just fucked-up policies, as are most Republican policies supporting small government mixed with warmongering and cronyism. But in terms of administrating his government, he did what he set out to do.
LikeLike
Here’s something I found on education funding. I’ve made some snips. Please excuse the length.
http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/stories.pl?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/03-07-2008/0004769884&EDATE=
WASHINGTON, March 7 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — The American Legislative
Exchange Council (ALEC) released its 14th edition of the Report Card on
American Education: A State-by-State Analysis, which covers the school
years 1985-1986 thru 2006-2007. This comprehensive guide ranks the
educational performance of the school systems in the states and the
District of Columbia…
Based on a variety of indicators, ALEC’s 2007 Report Card on American
Education has found no direct correlation between conventional measures of
education inputs, such as expenditures per pupil and teacher salaries, and
educational outputs, such as average scores on standardized tests. For
instance, class sizes today are 15 percent smaller than they were 20 years
ago, yet of the 10 states that experienced the greatest decreases, only one
(Vermont) is found among the highest performing states in the rankings.
…
Even with dramatic increases in the amount of educational resources
spent on primary and secondary education over the past two decades —
expenditures have risen nationally to an all-time high of $9,295 per pupil
— student performance has improved only slightly; 69 percent of American
eighth-graders are still performing below proficiency in math and 71
percent in reading, according to the 2007 National Assessment of Education
Progress (NAEP).
To obtain a copy of the 2007 Report Card on American Education or to
schedule an interview on the report’s findings, please contact Jorge
Amselleat (202) 742-8536 or e-mail jamselle@alec.org. An electronic version
of the report is available online at http://www.alec.org.
LikeLike
Doesn’t explain where the money is going to.
Also, many public districts are charged with paying the costs to educate special needs private school students–but are those students being included in the per-pupil expenditure?
LikeLike
Wendy,
Social Security reform didn’t get through. Neither did comprehensive immigration reform. Both were major GWB initiatives. I’m sure we can think of more things he wanted that he didn’t get if we put a bit of time into it. Oh yes–Harriet Miers.
LikeLike
Here’s another GWB/BHO similarity: both had major substance abuse problems.
LikeLike
Amy, just got off the phone with my local library. In my town in MA, the FY02 budget for education was $15.7M. In 03 it was $17.2M. In 04 it was $16.4M.
This was also before they closed one of our three elementary schools in 2006.
Just one anecdote. Also found this about MA:
“June 20, 2006
A new analysis by the Massachusetts Budget and Policy Center of the most recent US Census Bureau data on state by state education financing finds that between 2002 and 2004 Massachusetts lost ground in three critical measures: spending on education as a share of total income in the state; the share of spending paid for by the state, rather than local governments; and cost-adjusted spending per pupil.
The study – the fourth edition of “Public School Funding in Massachusetts” – also discusses the changes to Chapter 70 education funding included in the FY 2007 budget proposals of the Governor, the House of Representatives, and the Senate. It examines both how the proposed changes in calculating the costs of education, local contributions, and the distribution of state education aid would address some of the shortcomings of the current system, and how they would leave other problems unresolved.
In addition, the report reviews the state education spending and inflation requirements in current law and shows that despite the proposed reforms, the budgets put forward by the Governor, the House, and the Senate fall short of the amounts called for in Section 12 of Chapter 70 of the state general laws by $276 to $322 million. ”
http://www.massbudget.org/article.php?id=444
Got to run. Teaching in a half hour.
LikeLike
“I know you love the guy, but where is the evidence that he is capable of figuring out a complex political problem, making a plan, and carrying it out?”
Where’s this evidence for Clinton or for McCain? Clinton failed abysmally at implementing her health care proposal, her only significant policy initiative. What has McCain done? McCain-Feingold? That provides evidence that he’s ready to run the country? Actually, this is a good question. Pick a candidate and say why you think he/she can “figure out a complex political problem, making a plan, and carry it out.”
Off the top of my head, I would say that Obama’s work in the IL state senate, his ability to participate in the very political machine that is Chicago politics, his intelligence, and the insights apparent in his analysis of himself (in Dreams) and of America (in Audacity) all point to a man capable of insightful thinking and the political savvy. His campaign itself and his fund-raising machine themselves have been excellent examples of ground-breaking organizational work. A man everyone is casting as being “inexperienced” has run the best political machine of the entire bunch, better than a long-term senator and better than the “vaunted” Clinton machine. It’s actually quite amazing, and the reason why I didn’t pay any attention at all to Obama until he started winning, proving that he can win.
“Faltering on the national stage” when he’s gotten more votes than any of the other candidates, and raised more money than any of the other candidates? Frankly, in order to say that he’s “loosing” on any grounds, people have to come up with some pretty bizarre parsing of the world, an almost delusional one. Even the national polls (such as they are, currently show Obama ahead, compared to McCain; though I’m not taking those seriously when they say Obama +5 (CBS News) or when they say McCain +4 (Rasmussen Tracking)).
I frankly don’t get the argument that he is some how less capable than our other choices in way shape or form; I await further information that answers the hypothetical.
bj
LikeLike
Wendy:
I certainly don’t expect the pro-life Republicans to vote for Obama. In fact, I don’t even expect Dave S. (who says he won’t for Clinton but might consider Obama) to vote for Obama (though I hope he proves me wrong). Obama’s coalition depends on attracting new young voters, african americans, progressive liberals, as well as holding on to the middle-class voters, enough of them who don’t want “100 more years” to win.
Clinton’s coalition would be different (assuming she could win the nomination in a way that doesn’t destroy democrat chances) much the same. She may find it easier to hold on to one group of voters, but Obama attracts others. All presidential candidates win with coalitions, and no one part of the coalition is less important than another. I reject the Clinton DLC and their plan to ignore certain parts of the democratic coalition (be it Kansas, which elected a democratic governor) or progressives (who are counted on to pull the lever for the democrat no matter what).
And, as with Amy’s comment, I think the fact that Obama inspires people has everyone asking us to hold Obama to a higher standard than any other candidate. The questions on electability and on capability have to be argued with factual comparisons to the other candidates. Yes, Obama promises us a new brand of coalition politics; yes, believing in that is risky. But, it’s failure doesn’t mean that our other choices would be better, only that Obama doesn’t live up to our dreams (and even I don’t expect that). As MH states, greatness can only be judged after the fact. Do I dream that Obama will be great, sure, but all I’m expecting is that he’ll be good.
LikeLike
I know that this primary has officially entered bizzaro territory when I see someone argue that Obama being a product of the Chicago machine is a reason I should vote for him.
LikeLike
Wendy,
That’s interesting. Many other states had a huge property tax windfall over the past few years. Why didn’t Mass?
LikeLike
MA has something called Proposition 2 1/2, which prohibits raising property tax rates or something like that. I think we also haven’t been reassessed in a while–my property tax rate seems to be very low (less than 1% of what we paid for the house).
LikeLike
Amen to Siobhan. I can’t see anyone who lives somewhere run by a machine thinking of it as a plus (unless they are part of the machine.
Wendy, count your blessings. Our schools have lost 10,000 students over the past couple of decades and not cut positions. Spending is up to $18K per student and quality is falling.
LikeLike
$18K per student in Pittsburgh! Holy cow! No wonder you’re bitter–you could buy each child two houses in Wilkinsburg for that.
LikeLike
I’ll try to take more of my education stuff to my blog later. My students are doing in-class writing now.
I did find this:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/04/10/special_ed_costs_taxing_town_budgets/
MH, our town is seeing a HUGE amount of development lately. We’re going to need more classes/schools. There’s a huge condo development going up beind my son’s school. People are going to need that lower-cost housing when they start foreclosing on all the McMansions that went up over the past 4 years. 😛
LikeLike
Wendy,
Thanks for bringing up housing. It’s one of my hobby-horses. Here are a few thoughts on your town’s new development:
1. Building new condos doesn’t mean getting new people. You may have seen the stories about new suburban developments that are essentially ghost towns.
2. I think you’re right about the fate of these new condos–they will probably turn into rentals in the next few years.
3. Latin Americans have been a major source of new population for the US and many have been employed in construction, which is now a very troubled industry. Unsurprisingly, there has lately been some evidence that Latin American workers are leaving the US. Hence, school enrollment in many areas (including yours) may contract.
LikeLike
Developers seem to have been especially reckless with condo construction. Our bombed-out looking downtown in an unglamorous Texas town is soon supposed to be home to “loft-style” “flats” for hip, urban living.
LikeLike
“where is the evidence that he is capable of figuring out a complex political problem, making a plan, and carrying it out?”
He made the presidential primary go past Super Tuesday. That wasn’t team Clinton’s game plan, that was Obama’s. He became the not-Hillary choice in the Democratic primary. He’s put together more than a million donors. He’s ramped up a very capable organization in a very short time. The Democratic presidential primary is indeed a complex political problem, and Obama’s got it pretty well figured out.
LikeLike
“He made the presidential primary go past Super Tuesday. That wasn’t team Clinton’s game plan, that was Obama’s. He became the not-Hillary choice in the Democratic primary. He’s put together more than a million donors. He’s ramped up a very capable organization in a very short time. The Democratic presidential primary is indeed a complex political problem, and Obama’s got it pretty well figured out.”
That’s pretty darn meta as a list of qualifications.
LikeLike
“That’s pretty darn meta as a list of qualifications.”
It’s that kind of a blog. What can I say?
LikeLike
Hey, no one is answering the question at all about Clinton & McCain. Therefore, I’m forced to conclude that they’re completely un-qualified for the position. Really, w/ zero qualification, not even “meta” ones, I can’t understand why anyone’s considering voting for them at all.
LikeLike
Wendy,
Pittsburgh is depopulating at a startling rate (I think we’re second in population decline, after New Orleans). Public school enrollment is declining even faster. Public school employment isn’t declining in any meaningful sense. Hence I want more data on schools and more accountability. My strong suspicion is that the whole district is rife with feather bedding.
LikeLike
BJ, I’ll let somebody else handle Sen. Clinton. As for Sen. McCain, he has a long history in Congress. I’d prefer somebody with more executive experience, but he is clearly the most experienced of the remaining candidates.
While I don’t agree with all of McCain’s policies (such as today’s gas tax pander), he is very much closer to my ideological position than any other candidate. Two attitudes are sort of “core” for me. The first is that I’m pro-life. I know McCain has been half-hearted at this, but compared to Clinton and Obama…. The second is that I’m convinced that the American military is the key to maintaining world order and the relative peace we now enjoy. On this, McCain is clearly the only choice.
LikeLike
MH: Your reasons for supporting McCain make a lot of sense for you. They’re also the reasons why I’d never vote for McCain, being pro-choice, and thinking that the American military, controlled by the Republicans, has made our world less safe and less ordered than it otherwise would have been.
But, I find the mere existence of a long history in congress as insufficient as a measure of relevant experience (to think through and implement solutions to a difficult problem). That’s the seniority argument, and I’ve never bee one to believe that seniority trumps things. Do you have more? Specific examples of political insight and implementation by McCain (I’m guessing McCain-Feingold isn’t what you’d pick, though someone could). Now, this is a bit of a hypothetical, ’cause it doesn’t really matter, if the ideological agreement is what is driving your vote (or mine). No amount of qualifications would convince me to vote for McCain.
bj
LikeLike
BJ,
No, I don’t have more examples of that type of experience. Apparently, this just isn’t the year for that type of thing. It is a bit hypothetical because this race is being fought on some combination of ideology and identity. I don’t oppose Obama because he’s inexperienced. I oppose Obama because he’s considerably to the left of my views. And, since he doesn’t have that long of a history in the national eye, I’m a little worried that he might be even more to the left than you would gather from what he said in this race. Which is why I would prefer Clinton to Obama.
LikeLike
It is a pity that none of the surviving presidential candidates have any experience being at the head of some big entity. Three senators isn’t a mouth-watering field. However, as MH points out, McCain is the most senior of the three, and love him or hate him, it’s clear what kind of critter he is. HRC is probably the most predictable of the three–her administration would surely have quite a bit of continuity with her husband’s two terms.
An added complication is that we are headed into an economic downturn, and there are going to be large quantitive differences in how the two Democrats would handle it compared to McCain. My feeling is that whatever solutions either HRC or Obama would try as president, McCain would probably go for something similar, but with a smaller dosage. He recently backtracked a bit on his previous (very insightful) statements on housing, but I was very pleased to notice that his proposed bailout covered almost none of the really crazy behavior that precipitated the current disaster. On housing, his instincts seem very sound, especially when contrasted with HRC and Obama. The thing is that traditionally Republicans aren’t eager to have leaders “do stuff,” and that’s essentially the right response to a recession–just keep things steady and predictable, and things will turn around eventually. We don’t need to “do stuff” (meaning, big expensive stupid stuff) to end a recession anymore than we need to sacrifice virgins to keep the Sky Wolf from swallowing the sun during a solar eclipse. I think a Democratic president is going to be under much heavier pressure to be the second coming of FDR. This is particularly true of Obama–HRC was around the White House during the early 90s, so she surely knows that eventually things turn around by themselves and you can take credit for it. Obama, on the other hand, may flail around doing dumb stuff like public works, or maybe even follow through on some of that weird protectionist/anti-globalization stuff he’s been speaking about. American protectionism was a big factor in the beginning of the Great Depression, so maybe he would get a chance to be the second coming of FDR. I can hardly wait. The only thing that makes it bearable to think about is that it will only be at most two terms.
bj, was that enough?
LikeLike
Speaking of Pennsylvania demographics and voting habits, Mickey Kaus had a post up today that’s worth having a look at:
“Alert emailer M wonders why Obama is applying a Tom Frank analysis–of working class voters who vote Republican–to Pennsylvania, since unlike Kansas, Pennsylvania is a blue state that “hasn’t voted for a Republican presidential nominee since 1988.” And the most economically distressed parts of the state are the most Democratic, despite all the clinging to guns and God that’s going on. In short, Obama’s explaining something that doesn’t happen.”
That is a very interesting point.
LikeLike
I was just looking at kausfiles.com again, and Kaus has retracted the second paragraph of the quote above. He’s added a bunch more detail about the PA electoral situation, which sounds really complex. Apparently, it’s the more prosperous Pennsylvanians, for instance suburban Pittsburghers, who have turned toward the GOP. That’s interesting, because it tracks with our sample of one (MH), who is (I believe) well-off, leans GOP, and is thinking of becoming a suburban Pittsburgher.
I remain puzzled why Kaus is supposed to be so evil.
LikeLike
We do O.K., but actually if we had less, we’d be more likely to leave the city. As it is, we can pay for Catholic schools and afford a neighborhood that is safe enough that I don’t worry so much that the police force is seriously under strength. The extra taxes we pay are off-set by the time we don’t have to spend in a car. Plus, I count living in Pittsburgh as my environmental good deed for the decade. Small house + short commutes = I get to feel smug without a Prius.
LikeLike