An Official Response - Why You're Wrong To Doubt Obama

I love this country because we can have honest dialogue (if the people disagreeing with you are competent enough) about anything without fear of punishment of any kind, FCC withstanding. This is fantastic, however, the only problem that occurs is that some people think they know what they're talking about when they don't and really try to argue their point without realizing that what they're saying is both incorrect and embarrassing.

So, even though I appreciate the many responses and comments to my last article I wish the retorts against my sentiment were a little more heavy on the fact side. I will quickly respond to some of the "counterpoints" against my argument and re-explain why Barack Obama not only is the best Democratic nominee but also the best fit for the presidency of this lovely country.

There was some talk about Hillary Clinton being a woman. Well, until we get official word that she is not a succubus I will concede that fact. Be that as it may, I don't really feel that she being a woman is a bigger elephant in the room than the fact that Barack Obama is an African American. They're both pretty big elephants and I'll bet any amount of money that being black is a bigger obstacle in rural and southern America than being a woman. And guess what, that was part of my point from the last article. Read some articles about voters in rural Pennsylvania and there is a lot of talk about these towns coming from very bigoted roots and how some are still not completely in the 21st century as far as civil liberties go. There are, unfortunately, still a lot of people that have a problem with race. A bigger problem than sexism, unfortunately for my readers that think otherwise. So no, I don't think being a woman really hurts Hillary at all in this.

Also, I never insinuated that the media backed Hillary. What this comment was in response to was when I said this:

"Now as soon as Clinton hears this and the media hears this they realize that our overprotected prudish hears can't handle it and therefore must cry out. Well, Clinton and Fox News cry out. Everyone else reported the cries and made things worse because they need something to fill the space before next Tuesday's primary. Shame on all of them."

I did not intend to assume that the two parties were in cahoots. What I meant by this was that Clinton hears what Obama said and knows that her less than educated friends will think Obama means this in a derogatory way and knows it's a good soundbyte for her to put on her virtual bumper stickers. Similarly, the media realizes the same thing and knows it can get ratings by airing something he said, out of context, and spin it to make him look like an insensitive dick. This doesn't mean that the media is backing Hillary. It means they both know how to exploit something. That's not what we want out of our media or our president.


Moving on...

Someone else mentioned that Obama's comments came from a "misanalyzation" of a NY Times article about rural Pennsylvania and the lack of jobs. First of all, Obama is far too intelligent and has far too many intelligent people surrounding him to "misanalyze" something like this since it's so important to this primary. Secondly, why would he get his information from a newspaper? Don't you think he'd have people on the ground getting his information for him? Politicians on the campaign trail respond to articles about them, they don't use them to gather information. Those newspapers report on them. Oh and I used quotations because "misanalyze" or any derivation is not a real word and the commenter used it. See, I can exploit someone else's inadequacies too!

Anyway, this person goes on to say that Obama is "spitting in the faces" of these rural people because he wants to "socialize the country." Well, no, you're wrong. Hillary Clinton wants to socialize the country. If you read both of their health care plans you'll realize that within the 3% difference of their plans is the biggest point - and that is that the way she wants to cover everyone in this country is socialization whereas Obama wants to keep the current system but make everything less expensive so that people can afford health care. Which in turn would create universal health care without making you feel like you're in socialist society. Know the difference.

Another argument against Obama was that he is talking down to us. That's your opinion and you're entitled to it but it can still be factually wrong. When he speaks out for the little man, when his entire campaign is about government transparency and wanting the people to be apart of the government process again, he is speaking with and for the people. Not down to them. His entire "hope" message has been about uniting the country as a common people. That is why he is where he is today. That is why he's leading Clinton and, save for the Second Coming where Jesus flips the crazy switch and Hillary wins every remaining primary by a 70/30 split, will become the Democratic nominee.

I know this person said this, though, in response to the "bitter/cling" comment. And if one was to rush to comment against an online article then I could see why such a person would respond the way they did. Clinton and the media found a soundbyte they knew people that either already didn't like Obama or just wanted to find something to talk about would spin to make Barack look like a huge dick. And congratulations, that's exactly what those people did.

Here's the thing though, no matter how insulted middle America might be by that statement, it doesn't make it any less true. That's the simple fact of it. Again, that's the fact, not my opinion. My opinion is that it was, for the most part, an okay thing to say.

Here's where I will compromise though. I'm not going to be completely stubborn. I know, shocking, right? The one thing I will budge on is the word "cling."

The only thing Obama should have done differently is not use the word "cling." That's it. Not because it pissed people off but because it probably isn't true enough. Yea, I'm sure plenty of people are in love with their guns and in love with their religion and one or both are a huge part of their lives. Is there something wrong with that? Eh, that's a tough answer. I briefly touched on it in the last article and I'll say again that if it doesn't affect anyone else and it makes that person happy then go for it. Problem is that when these people apply the belief pattern that leads them to cling to guns and religion in the way I described to how they operate in the political world it affects everyone and that isn't cool.

Also, I guaran-damn-tee you that Obama did not mean that because people have lost their jobs that therefore they "cling to guns and religion." Those aren't a part of a cause and effect relationship. Anyone who isn't a part of the Jump-To-Conclusions Board would understand that.

Let's first acknowledge that the majority of people who lose their jobs (in general, not only in middle, rural America) become bitter about their government and the economy when their job is outsourced. And even more so when it's outsourced to a country where many of the locals flee to America illegally. You cannot tell me that that isn't the case. If I worked in a steel mill or a GM factory, etc., and lost my job of 25 years to Nicaragua and then realized a lot of Nicaraguans were coming into this country I'd be pretty pissed. But that doesn't mean that all of a sudden then I would decide I want to be really religious and shoot at things. That's not what Barack is saying. The vast majority of people in middle America already have a close relationship with guns and religion - that's just a part of the culture there. Being pissed off and bitter about losing your job to another country just adds salt to the wound.

Now what Barack is trying to say is that this situation is shitty. This situation needs to be fixed and he wants to fix it. He wants to help because he does care and guess what, he's campaigning for a job in which he can actually make some changes to help these people. He's not talking down to them. He was at a fundraiser in San Francisco, a place where there aren't a lot of people that understand the plight of rural America (note: too busy listening to the Grateful Dead and not trimming their pubes). He was there explaining what he's seen on the ground there and why he needs their help (mostly monetarily) so that he can become president so that he can therefore help middle America.

Lastly, being an "elitist." I said it last time and I'll say it again: what's the problem with being an elitist? Think about the root of the word - "elite". Dictionary.com tells me that means "the choice or best of anything considered collectively, as of a group or class of persons; persons of the highest class; representing the most choice or select; best."

What am I missing here? We as a nation want...pardon me, need a person that is better than all of us. If we wanted an average person, someone just like us, to lead the country we'd petition until George Bush was allowed unlimited terms in office. Unless you've been under a rock or are a really, really stubborn, moronic Republican you'll know that that hasn't worked out too well over the last 7.5 years.

I want someone better than me. I want someone who is smarter, better connected, richer, more compassionate, more willing to compromise, more willing to listen, and overall a better person. Barack Obama exemplifies all of those characteristics without being out of touch with those that he's better than. That's the difference between him and just about every other politician especially Hillary Clinton who has been in the game for far too long. She knows exactly what to say to trick regular Americans into thinking she really sympathizes with them. She's lied a million times and will continue to do so until regular Americans realize she's making them eat shit sandwiches. And personally, I like roast beef. The Clintons are far too proud and far too filled with a sense of entitlement to play nice or back down gracefully when they've been beaten...which they have been for the last two months.

So while using the word "cling" wasn't the best word choice, what Barack Obama said was, in the grand scheme of things, factually correct. His problem, if you can call it that, is that he assumes most of America is smart enough to realize he doesn't mean what Clinton and the ratings-hungry media want you to believe. And I know the media has been easy on Obama. But then again, it's hard to be hard on someone when they don't have many negatives going on. There's a reason millions of people have fallen in love with him. It's not an aberration. It's not trickery. It's not a scheme. It's a politician trying to have an honest dialogue with Americans as if we're all equal. Imagine that - an elite person having a quality discussion with regular Americans about the things that matter to them. So that when he has the opportunity to fix the government, we the people will have our voices heard. Yea, it's a novel concept I know. But I guarantee that if you open your eyes and strip away your cynicism you'll realize that this man, as blunt and honest as he is, is the right person to lead us on January 20, 2009 and beyond.

I might not have much faith, but I have faith in that.