CONTEXT...why it is sooo important

Uuugghhh, if only CNN and Politico could actually add context to their observations.

Obama's actual words in context at SFO fundraiser

When did journalism stop reporting the facts, not just tidbits and subjective

When did journalism stop reporting the facts, not just tidbits and subjective snippets?

After reading the entire context of his quote, I must say, Obama's statements were courageous and well thought out.  Keep in mind, he was saying all of this to a bunch of high priced fundraising supporters, he is definitely not pandering and I wonder if CNN and Ben Smith at Politico could just do some justice to this story by not soundbites.

Obama's actual words in context at SFO fundraiser

Full transcript:

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

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

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

   But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

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

•  Who to trust?

  I know this was just diaried, however I thought I would print out the actual words, not just provide a link to save some time.

  by rainyskip on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:55:00 PM PDT

  •  The strategy of the right wing press

    is to box Sen. Obama into a corner. If he confines his speech to phrases that accommodate less criticism from the likes of Murdoch's propaganda machine, he would say nothing at all. Their 're-positioning' of what he says is kind of like air pollution. We can work to get rid of it and eventually have an effect, but no matter what we do it'll be just as bad tomorrow.

    by doorguy on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:03:20 PM PDT

  •  The media is lying to you

    I once heard cartoonist Art Spiegelman (Maus, The Shadow of No Towers) talking about the important influence of MAD Magazine on him when he was a kid.  The message he took away from MAD was:

    "The media is lying to you... and we are part of that media."

    You can't trust any of them individually.  However, in agregate there's bound to be some truth in there somewhere.

    by Caelian on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:05:42 PM PDT

  •  We still don't know a lot about this story.

    That's the transcript from the (horrible) audio where Fowler doesn't explain how she even got it. Since the event was closed to media.

    by Shhs on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:15:25 PM PDT

  •  thanks for printing out more of the speech

    I suspected this was the direction he was going, but it's really nice to have the actual text conveniently to hand.

    I get a feeling that the last thing anyone wants to concede is that Obama can have any legitimate insight into the heartland. That is the especial province of the Right and the White. And to have him making comments about his white grand mother, "typical white people" or white folks that have been left to die by the march of globalization is threatening to some people. I mean, the traditional media is still trying to puzzle out how he is able to connect with white people at all. They must be tricked or empty headed or drinking koolaid. I think it drives them batty that he actually can speak to people, rich and poor, black and white, Christian and Jew, and he can hear and understand them and they can hear and understand him.

    So here comes the traditional media breaking it down for us dumbwits. We should be outraged, they tell us. Obama is talking down to you folks. But as always, it's the media talking down to the people insisting that there's no way we could understand Obama without their helpful parsing and spin. Ah well, the 24/7 news cycle marches on.

    by geejay on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:18:29 PM PDT

    •  I remember after his speech on MSNBC

      when the pundits were asking if the "knuckleheads" in Penn would get his speech because it was "to over the head" of "regular people".

      That was much more offensive than anything that Obama said today.  Much more.

      by Niwind on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:21:13 PM PDT

      •  absolutely! thanks for bringing that up

        that was a terrible way to refer to people and really showed what an "elitest attitude" looks like

        by geejay on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:28:27 PM PDT

•  Fox News: "Obama's 'Elitism' Issue"

  At least it happened on a Friday evening.

  by jeepdad on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 03:56:36 PM PDT

  •  Yep. It gives Obama plenty of time to

    hop in front of it and put it in context.

    He really is kinda lucky  actually.  lol

    by Niwind on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:06:16 PM PDT

    •  The Fox types are now saying this "one line"

      has doomed Obama.

      by jeepdad on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:08:20 PM PDT

      •  Everything dooms Obama!

        Oh goodness Rezko!

        Oh Lord his pastor!

        This is just going to be another thing in a long line of nothing that is going to be flung at him from these tools.  lol

        by Niwind on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:11:02 PM PDT

        •  plus, there is nothing wrong with what he said

          It is the truth.

          And I'd rather he adress it head on like that, which is not like McCains pessimism, like I'm sorry to tell you theres going to be more wars, or These jobs aren't coming back....

          well its up to you dummy to change that!

          If you create a green tech policy (like requiring 25% renewable energy purchase by utilities by 2025, goddamn, theres gonna be rustbelt jobs to build those turbines)

          As long as he always adds that, and he does, he's in good shape.

          by dotcommodity on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:20:09 PM PDT

•  Ben Smith is a TOTAL Hack

  It is really funny.
  I have Drudge, Politico, Real Clear Politics, and Mark Halpern's "The Page" all bookmarked in a folder in my favorites named "CW".

  On any given day at 7 or 8 in the morning, you can pull up any of those sites and see what the "story" is going to be for the day.

  It is really disgusting. I think 75% of the time, one of those "reporters" just reads whats on the other's sites and then writes a "report" on his site as if he was there.

  They all suck.
  Thankfully, nobody reads them except for junkies like us.

  As far as faux news calling Obama "elitist", what else is new? Any Redneck Liberal running would be called the same thing by those assholes at Fox.

  Thanks for the entire context. Obama didn't make a gaffe, the MSM is just bored because it's Friday and they needed something to hit Barack on.

  Fuck 'em!

  by irishamerican on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:07:59 PM PDT

•  Hillary says my opponent said

  that Pennsylvanians are bitter. The people I've met are positive, working hard and rolling up their sleeves. Pennsylvanians don't need a President who looks down on them.

  Ya know what, Hillary? Fuck you.

  by bumblebums on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:09:16 PM PDT

  •  At least she is admitting that obama will be

    the president!

    by jalenth on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:16:23 PM PDT

    •  Zing! n/t

      by geejay on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:19:18 PM PDT

•  This does put in perspective ...

  Thanks. I will circulate your post.

  by loper2008 on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:09:48 PM PDT

•  I am not sure

  that the context even matters in this particular case.  He made a sweeping generalization that does not shine well on the very people he is describing.

  Whether or not a charactarization is accurate is immaterial in the mind of the person being referred to.  Not a campaign killer, but I don't it will help.

  by dookphan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:21:32 PM PDT

  •  He didn't make a sweeping generalization

    in my opinion.  He said some do that.  That some communities and people are like that.  That is not the same as all.

    by Niwind on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:25:40 PM PDT

    •  fine, put it in the context

      of what ever group or groups you identify with and imagine if he (or anyone) spoke about some in that group.  As I say below (or above) I believe his premise was correct, he probably should have considered a different way of saying it.

      by dookphan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:43:19 PM PDT

      •  He does it in the AA community all the time

        as he explains how economic concerns lead to scapegoating and anti-semite feeling in the community.  And also how this cynicism leads to gun violence and hatred.  In fact he said it so much in the black community that people kinda got sick of him.

        As he says in the last paragraph:

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

        To him the economics of a situation leads to insular thinking and identity politics because nobody trusts in the government to do right by them. It's not a criticism that is leveled only at the rural white community. He levels it at the black community, the white community, the hispanic community, and any other community that he can find.  

        by Niwind on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:59:50 PM PDT

        •  it is the words

          he chose.  Guns and religion are a part of many peoples lives in good times and bad.  To say that they are clinging to these things because they don't trust the government doesn't really make sense, and I imagine it could be offensive to potential voters.

          Also, who is Obama to criticize anyone for distrust in the government?  Distrust in a powerful central government gave birth to our Constitution.

          by dookphan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:25:06 PM PDT

    •  there seems to be

      a trend of him saying things that get him into trouble when he is off script.  One may wonder if those are the times when he is saying what he actually thinks.

      It will be interesting to see if this poses a problem for him in the debates.  The only way McCain would prevail in that setting is if he gets him off his talking points.

      by dookphan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:46:10 PM PDT

  •  well when exactly will context matter?

    I hear you, but at some point don't we have to push back against the idea that it's ok to take stuff out of context and let the media plaster any meaning they want over it. If context doesn't matter now, when will it matter?

    by geejay on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:32:26 PM PDT

    •  context always matters...

      I mispoke in that regard.  I meant in this case I don't think the context vindicates him from alienating the folks he was talking about.  His premise was not wrong, it was the generalizations that won't play well.

      by dookphan on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:34:59 PM PDT

•  Pissed

  I am really getting pissed off by CNN coverage of this. Showing headlines, "Obama slams small towns" in PA. Bill Schnieder adding comments that Obama didn't even say. Saying Obama has to explain saying "people cling to guns or religion... and the rest of what he said, but then ending it by saying, "in their lives" and repeating that Obama said, "in their lives". I've looked at the quotes, I've listen to the audio and he never makes that statement, "in their lives".
  And now praising Clinton's speech. I am going to write CNN and I encourage everyone here to write and call CNN about their coverage.

  by mdboma on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:35:19 PM PDT

  •  CNN is a shit news network.

    They aren't even PRETENDING to put the comments in context or provide the full text.

    Anyone watching who didn't know about this story would think Obama said those 2 sentences to a pack if San Francisco liberals and went home.

    FUCK LOU DOBBS and fuck the woman hosting the show now.

    by NYClib on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 04:58:08 PM PDT

•  What's Wrong with Pennsylvania?

  In "What's Wrong with Kansas" Thomas Frank writes about working people voting against their own best interests because politicians get them upset on peripheral issues Gay Marriage (religion), Gun Control (guns), blaming immigrants for economic problems etc. so that they do not focus on the issues that really affect them, loss of jobs, the war in Iraq, increases in the cost of basic necessities. The Rove playbook, get them to focus on religious issues by inserting fear of those not like them -- gays -- and win their votes on that basis.

  This is what Obama was talking about. He was saying that the challenge of his campaign is to take that legitimate bitterness and the misplaced anger and turn it into hope by focusing on the central not the peripheral issues that have been used to "explain their frustrations."

  by halfcreek on Fri Apr 11, 2008 at 05:04:05 PM PDT