The most interesting thing about the whole "bitter" debate is seeing how differently people read Obama's comments.
As would be expected Obama supporters in general have come to his defense saying he was telling the truth about the feelings of lower class whites.
But within that defense and also the criticism of his comments seems to be a sense that white Americans are not only always justified in their anger but more importantly always justified in their reactions to the hard knocks they take.
Why?
I find it contradictory that we can be a part of a party that is dedicated to ending problems like racism and homophobia but we are unwilling to criticize the culture that spawns these ideas.
Now I admit maybe that this is a problem of perspective.
I'm black and I'm gay. My view of the "salt of the earth" white folks who have been voting Republican is alot different than others.
I admit that they scare the living hell out of me and I see them as a threat. I also know for others these people are family and friends who they may disagree with but they also love dearly. So people will always defend them.
But is that good when there is a real issue of a long-standing scapegoating of others?
Can we not point out the fact that the idea of the anger we see being economically motivated is somewhat false?
That if the anger we see from some whites and their support of a right-wing agenda is the result of hard times how do we explain the bigotry of earlier eras like the post WWII era when things were better?
People were living much better lives when my family was subjected to Jim Crow. The economic argument seems to me like an excuse.
The fact is that if those ideas didn't already exist they wouldn't be there to be exploited by the politicians who are lying to people about what they will deliver to get votes.
Why can't we talk about the culpability of a culture where the values that are held contribute as much to the suffering of the people as much as any lying politician?