The Political Voices of Women

This is a guest post from Pamala Lyn from Pam’s Coffee Conversation.

In an article for today’s Washington Post. writers Shailagh Murray and Perry Bacon Jr. report

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) asserted Sunday night that Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), through his recent description of sentiments in small-town America, reinforced a stereotype of “out-of-touch” Democrats that doomed the party’s past two presidential nominees.”We had two very good men, and men of faith, run for president in 2000 and 2004. But large segments of the electorate concluded that they did not really understand or relate to or frankly respect their ways of life,” Clinton said at Messiah College, referring to former vice president Al Gore and Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.). She repeated her view that Obama had been “elitist . . . and, frankly, patronizing.”

The article later mentions:

Obama was questioned at the start of his session about his reference to religion in his small-town remarks — perhaps the most controversial word he uttered. Describing the Pennsylvania political landscape at a private fundraiser last Sunday in San Francisco, Obama told of how people “cling” to such issues as religion and guns when they become disillusioned by hard economic times and by politicians who promise much but deliver little.
Speaking in a measured tone, Obama stressed that the reference was meant as positive and noted his experience as a community organizer with Chicago churches, assisting workers of a steel plant that had just closed.

“Religion is a bulwark, a foundation when other things aren’t going well,” Obama said. “That’s true in my own life, through trials and tribulations. And so what I was referring to was in no way demeaning a faith that I, myself, embrace.”

While I agree with Senator Clinton’s point, I suggest that she is not doing her campaign any good by bringing it up over and over. After all her campaign has not been free of “misspeaks” either.

On the other hand, if Senator Obama meant his statement as positive then his campaign needs to quickly hire or at least consult with George Lakoff, Co-Founder and Senior Fellow, Rockridge Institute and the Goldman Distinguished Professor of Cognitive Science and Linguistics, UC Berkeley or Drew Westen, professor of psychology/psychiatry and behavioral sciences, Emory University; author of “The Political Brain: The Role of Emotion in Deciding the Fate of the Nation. Whatever Senator Obama meant when he made the comment “they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment” this is what most people heard.

• “Anti-Trade Sentiment” = protectionism — negative
• “Anti-Immigrant Sentiment” = xenophobia — negative
• “Antipathy to people who aren’t like them” = racism, prejudiced — negative
• “Guns” = violent, redneck — negative
• “Religion” = ” ? ” — negative
• “cling” = desperately grasping — negative

You see the pattern so I’ll let you replace the question mark next to religion with your own connotation.
One day Democratic candidates will figure this out. We thought that Bill Clinton had mastered this. However, his comments since the South Carolina primary race make us wonder. Hillary Clinton seems to get it when she speaks with her own voice. We know that Geraldine Ferraro doesn’t get it. But Senator Obama, no one expected this slip from you and that’s what made your comment even worse.

So I appeal to all Democrats and Progressives everywhere, before you give another speech please sit down and watch the video “There You Go Again: Orwell Comes to America”

Because after November it won’t matter what you meant to say.

Related Post: A Thought From a Disgusted (but not bitter) Pennsylvanian