Will This Last Gasp Finally Kill Off The Clintons?
The saddest part of the Clinton attacks on Obama is not the damage they will do to the 98%-likely Democratic nominee. So far, the only damage seems to be landing on Hillary Clinton, who last time she threw everything she could against Obama, she lost half of her lead in Ohio and lost the delegate count in Texas, no matter how those primaries have been spun into “surprising success” by her supporters.
The sad part is that Clinton is now burning down her own legacy and her husband’s legacy with it… and heeeee helped!
The issue of damage to the Democratic Party in the fall is becoming a secondary issue, to me, as we proceed. In many ways, this is another test of fire that helps Obama learn how to respond… an asset, not a detriment, primarily because of how Obama has responded. He has shown, by his actions, the kind of public man he is and will be. And that continues to work to his benefit.
The “bitter” fight is becoming the “Bosley Crowther” of this election season, long term. You will notice that those who want to attack Obama on this issue not only quote him narrowly (it’s interesting that someone offering the ENTIRE context of the evening is getting no attention at all, even on The Huffington Post), but feel the need to tell us all what he “really meant,” embroidering the comments with the kind of buzz words that the best liars love to trot out.
He is no messiah… but it becomes clearer and clearer… Obama is the start of The Future.
And if he fails, the sense of loss will be profound. But to me, it is far better to try… especially when the old school’s creakiness becomes more and more apparent.
As with an inoculation against disease, Obama grows in stature… and the Clinton campaign becomes more and more the embodiment of a mosquito…. small, nasty, virulent, and ultimately, squashed.
The great story in all of this
The Clintons are indeed tarnishing their reputations. And they’re getting nastier as they get more desperate.
I’m not sure Obama can beat McCain though.
The most impressive thing about Obama is that he’s staying on message. When Kerry ignored the Swift Boaters, he looked weak, and when he addressed the issue, he looked weaker. Obama has managed to skillfully take the lobs and hit them back, to his advantage for the most part.
Still, it’ll be a tight race.
The media has definitely made a big deal out of Obama’s “bitter” comments for no real reason except to say “he’s wrong, nobody is like that there.” Give me a break. And the right has the audacity to call him an elitist. Oh, how I love irony.
I am not trying to flame her, but you have to work with me Jude Law. You really believe that the youthful, optimistic, and charismatic man will be in a tight fight against the old man who cannot even get foreign policy right? This is 1996 all over again. May we all be so fortunate in November.
“And the right has the audacity to call him an elitist.”
Hillary, the newly minted one-hundred-millionaire-Democrat-friend-of-the working-class was loudest with the “elitist” label, for the record.
Speaking of elite, I wonder if there are more Democrat millionaires in the Senate than Republican? Oh yes, by a w-i-d-e margin.
http://www.opensecrets.org/pubs/law_wp/wealthtable2.htm
^^^ true, she’s right up there with them. but she’s a sinking ship, can’t blame her too much.
Oh, and just because you are rich doesn’t make you an elitist, but whatever.
Everyone should be prepared for another round of resurrection stories if she wins PA by 12-15 points as a couple polls indicate she might.
The election is November 4. Today is April 16. There is a long way to go yet.
That chart of millionaires in the Senate would be a lot more interesting if it wasn’t a decade out of date.
Bittergate is interesting in that it is really Obama’s first mistake (which is fairly impressive when you think about it). It is, however, definitely a mistake. Not because he was wrong necessarily, but because he was condescending.
I don’t think it’s enough of a mistake to change anything in terms of the primary, mind you, but I think David’s right that how he responds to the mistake is going to help a lot of fence-sitters make up their minds.
1) It was a no media event
2) It’s true
He was not condescending. He stated the truth. It’s not his fault these people in small towns lack the ability to look past themselves, and see the big picture like THE REST OF THE COUNTRY DOES. Read this shit right here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/us/politics/16obama.html?ei=5065&en=20b42c88b48878ce&ex=1209009600&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print
Do any of those people seem self-aware? Do they even get why they cling to what they do? Obama made a solid point about the way Karl Rove has used these people over the last eight years. They have been used via their MORALS and their BELIEFS, and all of this bullshit they cling to as their world crumbles and towns die.
This is only a mistake if you like to believe Pat Robertson is a real religious leader in this country. This is only a mistake if you like to believe that the Republicans real care about YOU and YOUR MORALS. This is only a mistake if you are asleep, and need to open your eyes.
Nevertheless Cloudy: it’s over, Johnny. It’s over. Do not expect the John Rambo to that retort after NC from Hillary.
Apparently this is exactly what Thomas Frank addresses in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas. Anyone here read it?
You are right, jeffmcm, the Dems have been the richest in the Senate for the last 10 years–perhaps more.
Here’s a list from opensecrets.org for 2006:
http://opensecrets.org/pfds/overview.php?type=W&year=2006&filter=S
(BTW, since 2006 we now know that Hillary has moved up the list from #9.)
I agree that Obama is the future. Obama is the Gen X candidate. The candidate of the left who finally disconnects from the old Democrats who tried to juggle the PC identity politics of the 90’s with the old school working class Dems of generations past.
As a former poli sci student, you must remember that poltical parties re-align their allegiances every few generations.
Obama will be the first Dem nominee to fully embrace the anti-poor, ideologically elitist policies that used to be the domain of the right during the 60’s, 70’s and 80’s.
So in that sense, yes, he is the future. He is the turning point. He is pure identity politics and ideology with little in the way of real world experience or empathy for people who do not share his world view.
And he probably will win. But it will be close. And then the new paradigms will be set.
Obama hates poor people and has no empathy for anyone who does not share his world view? That is just pure bullshit Nicol. Rarely have I ever disagreed with you so much. I’m sure you also believe that John McCain is a real man of the people, a real average John.
“And the conduct of this primary campaign by Hillary Clinton has been every bit as hate-worthy as anything done by George Bush (his primary victim, McCain) or any of the worst offenders in recent political history.”
That’s insane. There’s been no Swift Boat-level stuff here. No suddenly unearthed extramarital affairs. It’s perfectly valid for her campaign to question Obama’s experience level, leadership capabilities, and comments he’s made that may offend (and have offended) voters that the party needs to win.
She’s not playing any dirtier than others in her position have. The problem is that she has unwittingly played right into Obama’s “high road” shtick (isn’t the above embedded ad as much of an “attack” as any of Hillary’s against him?).
Stella,
No, Obama does not hate poor people. But he does not love them either. He is an academic elite. He thinks the poor are dumb, stupid and unsophisticated and need controlling by the governement. Pure Gen X neo-Marxist philosophy. That is where he comes from. It’s why academics and artists love him so much.
His “bitter” comments cemented that.
Hillary would be a very divisve president but she is old enough to remember the working class base of the Dems. Obama does not. He just remembers what he was taught in college. Read his book. he talks much about Marxist univeritiy identity politics.
As for McCain…well there are not too many conservatives who love him either. But he is at least more realistic than Obama.
You just love that word, elite. You keep using it. You, Nicol, are an elitist. After reading your posts here for I don’t even know how long, I am absolutely certain that you are an elitist. I can’t imagine you denying that. Or would you honestly argue that you think of yourself as an average Joe?
I believe Obama cares about poor people a hell of a lot more than McCain does. But enlighten me. How is McCain more realistic than Obama? McCain, who told the Wall Street Journal editorial board that he “doesn’t understand economics.”
“Apparently this is exactly what Thomas Frank addresses in his book What’s the Matter with Kansas. Anyone here read it?”
The book has been very popular with Democrats who want to lose elections.
That doesn’t really answer my question. Also, does that mean it’s worthless?
“Nevertheless Cloudy: it’s over, Johnny. It’s over. Do not expect the John Rambo to that retort after NC from Hillary.”
I have no idea what the Rambo reference means. As for it being over, I’m pretty sure it’s not November yet.
Stella,
We are all elitists in someway or another if you take it in the broadest sense. We may prefer different films, food, books etc.
But in politics…elitism usually means how one talk about the poor. That is how Obama is an elitist.
As for McCain caring about the poor…I do not love McCain, but I would be willing to bet a guy who has spent years in a prisoner of war camp probably has more humilty, common sense and sense in common with the common person than a man whose whole world view was formed in ivory towers and legal circles. I have been in those circles and know exactly what that view is.
Again, if I am wrong…why aren’t the poor coming out for Obama? I mean isn’t that what all this about?
If you give me a link the to WSJ McCain quote I will read it and offer my opinion.
“But in politics…elitism usually means how one talk about the poor. That is how Obama is an elitist.”
Actually, the hubbub seems to be how he talks about small town poor folk. As opposed to inner city poor folk. So, not all poor folk. If you had as much exposure to midwest small towns as I have, you’d know he speaks the truth.
In any event, Hillary is fake, McCain is the biggest flip-flopper to come along in years, and by default Obama is the best of the three main choices we have. That’s reality.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/21/short-on-economic-underst_n_82529.html
I know Nicol, it is the Huffington Post, but that doesn’t mean the incident did not happen or that McCain did not say it.
I don’t think being a POW has anything to do with having common sense or a capacity to care about the poor. Nothing about John McCain leads me to believe that he understand what it is to be poor or cares at all about the poor.
Kidkosmic, that new list says that there are 12 Republican millionaires in the Seante, 13 Democrats.
Are we supposed to be shocked that there’s a difference of +1? How shocking.
Thank you Jerry. I grew up in a small Wisconsin town. Almost all of my relatives still live in various small Wisconsin towns. What Obama said has a lot of truth to it.
Nicol, how many Ivory Tower people (whatever that means) are there in states like South Carolina, Idaho, and Kansas, where Obama has not just won, but won big?
It would be great if you could get over how crummy your college years were and take them out of your equationing.
“But a whole lot of Clinton Hatred is simply earned.”
I think that’s key. Regardless of any Obama mistakes, the Clintons can never claim the moral high ground to lecture anyone about anything. Ya, Obama is an elitist, but the Clintons have been trying to get into that club all their political lives.
I did get a laugh at Obama’s defense of the elitism charge (could an elitist grow up in a single-parent home that used food stamps?). At what point does a person become an elitist? Must they, as a child, have watched Sesame Street only when it preempted Nova?
Jerry,
“If you had as much exposure to midwest small towns as I have, you’d know he speaks the truth.”
And if you had as much exposure to Ivory Tower types as I have…you’d realize I was speaking the truth.
Stella,
“I know Nicol, it is the Huffington Post, but that doesn’t mean the incident did not happen or that McCain did not say it. ”
No. But it doesn’t mean it did. If you want to prove to me how dumb McCain is…please find a neutral source that is verified. Other than that there is not much else I can say.
Jeff,
They all have universities; or do degrees only count if they are from large urban secular centers? Maybe the folks at these schools are just “bitter”.
Remember, Jeff, nobody says these comments will affect Obama in the Democratic primaries. They will hurt him in the general elections when you need independants and moderates to seal the deal.
If you want to find out what liberals believe…you go into academia. There, you see them uncensored and get all of their true beliefs unfettered. I did. I saw them with my own eyes. I took their “hate America”, “pro Marxist” courses for 4 years. I did well, got my two degrees and never saw a left wing politician or lawyer the same way again.
In The Audacity of Hope, Obama even acknowledges this is what much of academia is. It obviously had more of an affect on him than perhaps he would like to admit.
Mystery Perfects,
“At what point does a person become an elitist?”
What makes Obama an elitist in this case is not that he came from a home that may have had to use food stamps. It’s that he now condescends to others that may also have do.
I am going to go away now. I feel “bitter”. My thoughts are turning to things like “God”…”guns”…”antipathy towards”…
I have never heard an Obama supporter suggesting that a vote for Clinton and not for Obama is inherently anti-Black.
I have and was. Not because I support Clinton, which I don’t, but because I defended her against what I see as real misogny. I’m not blinded by Obama’s glory.
But if McCain had more empathy for the poor and needy, he wouldn’t be a Republican. Zing!
And of course, the GOP loves to j’accuse other millionaires of elitism from their own privilieged halls. Imagine Rush Limbaugh at a 4th of July barbecue with his fan-base. Won’t ever happen. I knew Rush in Sacramento and while a personally gracious person, he’s the last guy who would have a beer with you. He’s got a gold microphone for Gawd’s sake.
Oh and Nicol, please put to bed the eternal Prager fantasy of left-wing academia. In the Humanities, sure, because most artists tend to lean left (no immediate capitalistic payback, y’see), but you know Bush’s torture architect, John Yoo? He’s at UC Berkeley. And Buckley was at Yale. And Bush. And…
Nicol, it happened. Do a google search. You will find countless references to it. I knew you would discount it because of the source, but the fact is he said it. Is it really that surprising? He has made more than one reference to his lack of understanding of economics. You joke Nicol, but I know people like that. I have relatives who are like that. Just because you personally believe Obama is an elitist doesn’t change the fact that there are people like that all over the place.
Christian,
“Oh and Nicol, please put to bed the eternal Prager fantasy of left-wing academia.”
Yes, you are right. Nothing to see there, please move along.
Steppin Fetchit was the first black millionaire entertainer in Hollywood. Does that mean there was never racism in early Hollywood? Just taking a few exceptions out of context does not an argument make.
Stella,
Of course I would discount it. Just as if I were trying to convince you of a conservative point and linked to Rush Limbaugh you would discount it. If there were so many sources, why did you not link to a neutral one? I would have read it just as I read the Huff piece.
You say you know people like Obama described…sure…I’ll take you at your word. And I know of plenty of people like Obama who stereoptype the poor and religious.
I wonder when we’re going to move on from debating media-generated “controversies” such as Bittergate (which I believe will have little to any influence on the Pennsylvania primary) to dealing with genuine issues.
The last two presidential elections, in particular, had this kind of nonsense from the primaries to the general election. During most of that time, journalists seemed to forget to ask any hard issue-oriented questions of either candidate.
Which is why Bush got elected, conning gullible people on the vague notion he was strong on terrorism and foreign policy, despite being a complete dunce in both departments. Did he ever have to answer a tough question on foreign policy in 2004?
Maybe if voters weren’t so easily lured in by this buffoonish news coverage, then someone like Obama wouldn’t have to talk about how bitter they become when they realize their government consistently works against their interests.
The absurd part about this is both Hillary Clinton and John McCain accusing someone else of being elitist.
If Hillary had said the same thing, same words, same context, same closed-door fundraiser event in San Francisco. And it made to the public airwaves…
do you really think Obama would just sit on it? He wouldn’t, is my guess. He’d probably reply with the same kind of rhetoric as she did.
I’ve given up on Hollywood Elsewhere.com Since Wells thinks that reposting things he sees on other political websites makes him an inside guru, but his come with vapid comments to boot. This is DP’s blog, he can post whatever the hell he wants obviously, and I’ve always found him a more thoughtful writer than Wells by a long shot, but I’m hoping these kinds of posts don’t become the norm.
Nicol, if it is not true, why wouldn’t the McCain camp refute it? If some Web site just completely made up a story about him, wouldn’t they at least take the time to say it isn’t accurate? The statement isn’t some guy’s opinion, it is something that McCain said to the Wall Street Journal editorial board. According to The Atlantic, Mitt Romney’s site discussed this issue, but the link has been removed. Here’s something related though.
http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2007/12/mccain_he_wants_people_to_tell.html
McCain himself in 2007: “The issue of economics is something that I’ve really never understood as well as I should.”
If Thomas Jefferson and George Washington were alive today, society would have labeled them as “elitists” as well.
I’m not trying to equate Obama with any of the founding fathers. The jury is still waaay out on Obama in my opinion. It just seems the growing anti-intellectual undercurrent in this country has given folks the idea they can rightly dismiss any argument or statement put forth from our intellectual and/or political elite.
There’s nothing wrong with giving more credence to the opinions of some of our most accomplished citizens. What’ harder nowadays is figuring out who’s the real deal and who’s just part of a hype machine.
“I wonder when we’re going to move on from debating media-generated “controversies” such as Bittergate (which I believe will have little to any influence on the Pennsylvania primary) to dealing with genuine issues.
The last two presidential elections, in particular, had this kind of nonsense from the primaries to the general election. During most of that time, journalists seemed to forget to ask any hard issue-oriented questions of either candidate.”
This gets right at my issue with the so-called gaffe. At some point we have to accept that politicians will say the wrong things sometimes. Furthermore, not everything they say needs to be mined for deeper meaning. Obama said nothing he has not said before to no controversy. He misspoke which changed the meaning of what he said when it was taken out of context. Some day he will just say I misspoke and the media will not jump on it because they know the other candidate will accept that sometimes people don;t exactly say what they mean.
Unfortunately, that won;t happen anytime soon. In the meantime, I feel Obama has the best change to change the discourse. That plus the fact that is is time for the country to be run by someone my age is good enough to get my vote. The fact that I am active in Chicago politics and everyone I know and respect who has known Obama for a long time speaks highly of him on a PERSONAL basis makes supporting him that much easier. And I’d point out most of these people turned me onto Obama when he was just a little old State Senator running a weak 3rd or 4th in the Dem primary for Senate in mid-2003.
Nicol, maybe when you chose to go to Vladimir Lenin University, which I believe is near Kitchener, you made a mistake.
I went to a pretty good small liberal arts college for four years that was in the mainstream of American academia, and then a much larger university for my MFA, and my experiences weren’t anything like yours. So the easiest way for me to explain that is either to assume you went to some completely apeshit Canadian pinko university, or that your perceptions may be…skewed.
The problem the Democratic Party has is that as long as the fight between its two candidates rages, the further they must both move to the left to consolidate support. McCain is a very liberal Republican. It will be hard for either candidate to move back to the center once the nomination is captured.
Why doesn’t Hillary drop out? I think she is biding her time and waiting for Obama to have a Dean moment. You know, that moment that allowed Kerry to get the nomination last time.
I’m curious as to how many Obama supporters here were Dean supporters then? Not that there is a one to one comparison, just curious.
I think the Clintons were completely blindsided by the media’s inability to let things slide (not can’t, won’t). Bill got a lot of free passes (and so has Hillary), but the media has annointed Obama and not willing to give the leeway they once did.
And as a closing note, I heard the rumor that McCain might offer Condeleeza Rice the VP position. If it should happen, what effect on the feminist vote if Obama wins nomination?
jeff:
I offer you this on universities:
http://www.dartblog.com/dartvdart.php
At issue is the a left leaning college trying to bar right leaning alumni from using their (college) constitutional rights.
I trust Dartmouth is a widely held legitimate university.
I’m not necessarily seconding everything Nicol said, but I tend to think it’s pretty undeniable that there’s a consistent liberal or progressive bent to most college classes and campuses. Though I’d say a “progressive” slant is not really a bad thing in most cases.
It’s almost unavoidable, given students are in so many cases “exploring” and “experimenting” and embracing a first adult experience with the big, bad world… and lean toward a progressive idealism and earnestness, not a stodgy conservatism. Yeah, shocker, I know. And the professors and academics… well, however cynical and disillusioned, we’re still talking about basically the ultimate “professional students,” folks who’ve spent maybe their entire adult lives on college campuses and among young people.
Certainly film studies and literature courses lean lefty, since the entire (somewhat arbitrary) throughline of contemporary film discourse hinges upon socio-political readings of work, with a special embrace of narratives of the oppressed. Going off-topic, I guess, but just saying Nicol is more right than wrong in his generalization.
“McCain is a very liberal Republican.”
Really?
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gO1787MReKt8NlkNjv-28cMSIwjwD901MINO0
No, he’s wrong, because he’s not saying that there’s a slant (nobody would argue that), he’s making an absurd generalization based on unknown experiences that all of American academia is a hotbed of elitist pinkodom, and that Obama’s primary appeal is to the mass of Marxist film and literature professors who live in North Dakota.
stella:
did you read the whole article or did you miss this bit in the middle?
“In a national Pew survey earlier this year, voters placed McCain in the middle, where they placed themselves, when asked to judge the ideology of Bush and the presidential candidates. They placed Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama far to the left.”
if i had to interpret the article as a whole, i’d say it was spin to appeal to his conservative base in a “see i’m not that liberal” kinda way. that’s the tone, but it would be conjecture.
Lex:
i suggest you read the article i linked to before assuming “progressive idealism.”
jeff:
ditto
Yes I read it. I just don’t think he’s the maverick independent or “liberal Republican” some make him out to be.
maybe not, but the perception’s all that is necessary. articles like that re-enforce that perception.
and there really isn’t anything in the article to contradict that. since when is supporting “don’t ask/don’t tell” a conservative stance? clinton put that into law (and a crappy one it is, admittedly).
…and all of this relates to movies, how???
what part of the blog entry made you think it would?
Well I am doing my part to alter the perception. I’m sorry you didn’t like all of the article’s examples.
it’s not that i don’t like them, i just didn’t find it damning. he is still a republican after all.
my original statement was that he was a very liberal republican, not that he has liberal ideals. his positions are more centrist. a disenchanted, democratic voter could conceivably vote for him. i don’t see the republicans voting for either hillary or obama because he isn’t conservative enough for them though. that’s my point. do you disagree?
The truth is, is that, our challenge is to get black people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these major cities, and like a lot of major cities on the east and west coast, poverty has been a reality for decades and hasn’t improved. And they fell through each Democrat administration, and each has said that somehow these communities are gonna improve and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, and they commit gun crimes or become dead-beat dads or drug dealers or cling to a misogynist, violent, vulgar, materialistic subculture as a way to explain their frustrations.
Thank you, small town America, and good night!
I know you’re trying to be funny, but except for the partisan snipe, the above is correct and unobjectionable.
Ah, it’s not the name on the entry…it’s actually the name of the website, called Movie City News. Not meaning to be rude, but if I’m looking for a political opinion, I’m not looking to Jeffrey Wells for it.
jeffmcm: point. missed.
Feel free to alleviate my ignorance.
jeff,
imo, your inability to differentiate reality from the stereotype.
What you see as ‘literal’, I see as doubly-ironic.
UH… mystery… do you expect someone to disagree with that? That is, aside from the cheap shot racism and a focus exclusively on Democratic administrations when Obama said Reagan and Clinton?
Do you not think that crime in the black community doesn’t have a cause-and-effect relationship with poverty, lost jobs, large percentages of imprisoned black men and single parenting? Do you not think that bitterness and dispair leads young people to be more likely to turn to criminal activities and that Obama (and others) want to give them the hope that they don’t always have?
You are making my point by trying to be clever.
It’s not partisan, because the War on Poverty is perennial part of the Democrat platform (and a decades-old problem their policies haven’t dented). Remember, we conservatives don’t care about the poor or minorities. We give them AIDS and drugs and invented gangsta rap to incite black-on-black violence. But cheap-shot racism? Why, because I made a broad generalization?
But jeffmcm and DP are correct: I knew going in that my reworking wasn’t ideal, because the issues I brought up are based in statistical realities and not perceptions. So let me stop trying to be clever and get to the bottom line.
Obama’s comments were condescending, nonsensical, and out-of-touch. Let’s start with guns. First of all, how does one associate bitterness and anger over economic issues with clinging to guns? Guns just don’t have the stigma in rural areas that they do in larger population centers. Guns are a tool. Guns are used for recreation, for the protection of livestock, and yes, the protection of property and person. When “the Law” is 30 minutes away, at best, guns are often the first and last line of defense. The only sense I can make of Obama’s reference is an association of disillusioned rural persons with the “cold dead fingers” crowd (which, in the context that I’ve given above, is not that unreasonable a stance) or otherwise, with militias or “the South will rise again” secessionists. In other words, kooks.
“Clinging to religion”? Out of bitterness and anger towards government? I suppose that once Obama rights the ship (sorry, Dave, I know you hate my nautical-themed metaphors), small town America can discard these silly delusions of a benevolent Ruler (and perhaps embrace a new One). Except that would require that small town religion have something at all to do with the availability of jobs and government assistance. In fact, I think religious tradition existed before and will continue to exist independent of those circumstances.
Antipathy:
1. a natural, basic, or habitual repugnance; aversion.
2. an instinctive contrariety or opposition in feeling.
3. an object of natural aversion or habitual dislike.
Perhaps Obama was actually sympathetic to the racist, bigoted, xenophobic feelings of rural people. After all, these feelings are “natural”, “basic”, “instinctive”, and “habitual”. In other words, they’re inbred, and the failure of the Clintons and the Bushs have roused deep-seeded resentments. Yes, fear/distrust of minorities– bigotry– still exists in small town America. But most of its remnents are dying with the Baby Boomers. Ironically, what much of what remains is Fostered By LIBERALS. Who seem to CARE MORE about the welfare of ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS. So if that’s what Obama is referring to, then hell yes there’s justified anger and resentment that may manifest itself in unjustified regrettable attitudes. But that’s not what he’s referring to, and he has no intention of allaying those feelings. In fact, his policies may likely provoke them.
The U.S. poverty rate fell sharply in the 1960s, bottomed out in the 70s, rose again in the 80s, fell in the prosperity of the 90s, and rose again in recent years – but still isn’t as high was it was in the Eisenhower/Kennedy years.
I made a mistake, the rate didn’t really drop in the 90s, it’s been mostly consistent since the late 70s.