Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise

Election 2008

In Exclusive Interview Obama Says He "Misspoke But Didn't Lie" About Smalltown Pa.

By Charlotte Innes, AlterNet. Posted April 14, 2008.


Will Bunch reports: Obama says he never meant to suggest that firearms or the church were bad things to "cling" to.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

From Will Bunch at Attytood:

Barack Obama came to speak to editorial writers and reporters from the Philadelphia Daily News and Inquirer this evening, and he essentially tried a do-over on his controversial remarks about "bitter" small-town Pennsylvanians, admitting that he'd "mangled" what he was trying to say at a San Francisco fundraiser 10 days ago, but that he agreed with a backer who told him that "you misspoke that you didn't lie."

His remarks were perhaps his most detailed effort, to date, to recast what he said on the West Coast, when he said that the ailing eonomy in the Rust Belt caused people to "get bitter" and that "they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment ot anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations." Tonight, he sought to explain that he never meant to imply that either religion or the use of guns for hunting -- a huge pasttime here in Pennsylvania -- was a bad thing.

Here's a full transcript of what he said:

The problem actually with this most recent episode is not that I was saying one thing behind closed door and saying something else in public. The truth is actually that I've made these same comments in a similar way on "The Charlie Rose Show" back in 2004 or 2005, and I had said it in town hall meetings in small towns.
The problem is that I just mangled it, which, you know happens sometimes. The point that I was making was actually two separate points that got conflated. Number One, that people who had felt abandoned by Washington and political leaders when it comes to an economy that's falling apart, they find stability in those things that they count on - their faith, the traditions that have been passed down generation to generation and in many rural communities that includes hunting, their family, their community - those are positive things.
They also are vulnerable to, you know, explanations for why the world has changed and politicians seek to divide them,. And sometimes politicians over the last decade have used anti-gay sentiment, they've used anti-immigrant stuff, and there's a long history of quote unquote "wedge issues" that I think distract from the very difficult issues that we have to deal with.
And so my syntax was poor but as a wise older woman who was talking to me the other day said, 'You misspoke but you didn't lie,' and I think that's how I feel about it, and as I've said these are things that I said as I was campaigning in Iowa -- and when people would talk to me about immigration and some of these other hot button issues, I'd say I think these are distractions from our failure to deal with some very critical issues.
That last comment about how he "misspoke but didn't lie" was a telling one, because it was in this same room two weeks ago that his rival Sen. Hillary Clinton also acknowledged that she "misspoke" about landing in the line of Bosnian sniper fire, which had been shown by tapes of the event to be untrue. Obama is more or less, pardon the pun, sticking to his guns here, with the caveat that he never meant to suggest that firearms or the church were bad things to "cling" to. Somehow I doubt this new nuance will satisfy his critics, either on the political right or within the Clinton campaign.

Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: obama, pennsylvania

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »


Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Hahaha...America...in love with the color black?
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Apr 14, 2008 8:57 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
You have a bright future in stand-up comedy, should you wish to pursue it.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» That's weird... Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: That's weird... Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: That's weird... Posted by: Prairie Waif
RE: Obama – Black is Wright
Posted by: rboska48 on Apr 15, 2008 6:38 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Just as Rev Wright's character has been slandered in the media - watch the entire sermon, & other of his sermons on youtube - it is again being slandered here. I do not know details of the other claims but I'm sure that a list of unsubstantiated accusations & innuendo about any candidate could go on... In fact I know individuals who would be happy to give you similar self righteous, angry lists of claims about Hillary Clinton, and others about John McCain. All of you who do this - character assassination - should be ashamed & redirect your energies to more careful investigation of what are always more complex personalities & issues.

Please THEN publish your passionate but more thoughtful commentary.

I think we should consider a law that can indict a person or a corporation for treason for knowingly publicizing legally slanderous statements against individuals running for national office. I do dearly
value freedom of speech, but I think that when disinformation reaches the level of slander during campaigns it stimulates destructive bad judgement that undermines democracy & our national interests.
It is not simply good free expression nor good political marketing.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Obama – Black is Wright Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: Obama – Black is Wright Posted by: Prairie Waif
He didnt lie?
Posted by: Vote hillary on Apr 14, 2008 6:52 PM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
So what he is trying to say is apithany is a good thing and nafta is a good thing??Since he says NOW he meant clinging to faith and guns are good things,it was in THE SAME SENTANCE he said cling to apithany (fear of people that are diffrent),and Nafta so i guess these are good things also.OMG Obama CANT SPIN HIS WAY OUT OF THIS ONE!!The audacity of this man is amazing,Wake up America smell the con!He will say anything to win......VOTE HILLARY.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Look out - sniper fire!:O Posted by: hurricane hugo
» RE: He didnt lie? Posted by: SkeeterVT1
» Put 'em in a room Posted by: Joshua Holland
» RE: Put 'em in a room Posted by: Prairie Waif
» No, he didn't. Posted by: TennMom
» RE: He didnt lie? Posted by: Prairie Waif
Now Is The Time...
Posted by: bc430 on Apr 15, 2008 4:32 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
for all good White racists to come to the aid of their White racism.

Get in touch with this inner demon and cast it out, for the good of the modern world and it's inhabitants. Stop making everything and everybody else "THE" problem.

U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis to Obama: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button.


U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis(KY), a Hebron Republican, compared Obama and his message for change similar to a “snake oil salesman” [at a Northern Kentucky Lincoln Day dinner].
He said in his remarks at the GOP dinner that he also recently participated in a “highly classified, national security simulation” with Obama.

“I’m going to tell you something: That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button,” Davis said. “He could not make a decision in that simulation that related to a nuclear threat to this country.”

UPDATE: Davis apologizes

That makes it all A-OK, I guess. I expect Obama to receive a ton of these apology letters as the days go by from the good old Republican Party.[from Crooks and Liars]


My word to over qualified Barack Obama: "Qiut Apologizing for being Presidential."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Now Is The Time... Posted by: Prairie Waif
I am satisfied with his clarification.
Posted by: andabottleof_rum on Apr 15, 2008 5:05 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is humble, thoughtful, caring, and honest.

The reason it may seem like I criticize him is that I criticize, very harshly, the progressive loudmouth brigade that comes out to deride and caricature rural, working-class, and Southern people whenever they sense their movement, or their candidate, might end up in a controversy. It's not all progressives who do this, but it's too many of them, especially on blogs where it's easier to be vicious than if you were discussing things face to face.

Again, I found Obama's clarification to be calm and thoughtful, and his style is very refreshing in the dogfight world of politics.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

We Are Bitter
Posted by: socialpsych on Apr 15, 2008 5:27 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
From where I live and work in rural Pennsylvania, people certainly are bitter. Bitter that the federal government has been hijacked by Big Business--the same Big Business that extracted coal from the ground and then left behind an appalling environmental catastrophe and economic depression. Obama got it right: we are bitter, all right. No need to apologize, justify, or qualify.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: We Are Bitter Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: We Are Bitter Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: We Are Bitter Posted by: Artemis3
Uncivil wars
Posted by: BST on Apr 15, 2008 6:17 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama just dug himself in deeper.

It is arch for any one of us to explain filter through our own limited prism the core beliefs and traditions of people who may be unlike us in their experience and views.

And I say this as one of those reviled "liberals" from New England who has ALWAYS had respect for my fellow Americans throughout the country.

Many of us, from politicians to snobs to talk-show hosts, thrive on starting little "civil wars" in the United States by failing to understand that a Southern experience differs from a Mid-West experience which differs from a Boston experience.

We can live together but not so easily when comments such as those made by Barack Obama serve to set us at odds.

His explanation further embroiled him.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Uncivil wars Posted by: sktyler
Voice of the future?
Posted by: Julian on Apr 15, 2008 9:12 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once, after Nixon was elected President of the USA, a commentator noted that it was only in the towns of population 25,000 or less that Nixon won a majority - and this was enough to edge him in. He was called the president of every town without a book store. Obama's comments may not play well inside America, but in the rest of the world the USA – especially rural USA - does have a bit of a reputation lately as somewhere where guns are prized as a symbol of manhood, violent mass shootings occur several times a year, the murder rate far exceeds that of other industrial countries, aggressive war is a vote-winner, millions believe a Great Scotty in the Sky will in due course beam them up in a Rapture, and private religious faith is increasingly being foisted on to the whole as public policy and even exported to other countries. Is that what Obama was getting at?

Maybe Obama in making these remarks is the voice of a future when America will once more be near-universally admired as the home of enlightenment and decency as it was during the Roosevelt era. Probably won't help him (or America) in 2008 though.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Slander? Are you kidding me!
Posted by: Paul1939 on Apr 15, 2008 9:49 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I find it hilarious to read talk of slandering politicians; they routinely slander anyone, other politicians or the public, who opposes their positions. I'm a liberal Democrat who believes my party is wrong on many issues, but nowhere worse than they are on the illegal alien issue, and the wider issue of overpopulation. So what do they do about people like me? They take the Republican low road and slander anyone who does not agree with them. We are the bad people; we are racists, bigots, and haters of brown people, xenophobes, and nativists.

Well I reject the first four categories both Democratic and Republican politicians try to paper me with, but I proudly declare that when it comes to illegal aliens, I’m a nativist. By that, I mean I will always favor the interests of US citizens over those of illegal aliens. For if the interests of US citizens are no better, and often worse, than that of illegal aliens, what is the value of US citizenship?

I’m still waiting for those who support the unknown millions of illegal aliens to explain what is so special about them that US citizens should suffer from: overpopulation, congestion, urban sprawl, pollution, environmental damage, crime, diminishing resources, diseases, lack of affordable housing, depressed wages, an underground economy, fraudulent documents, identity thief, tax invasion, soaring crime rate, increased tax burdens, overcrowded schools, uneducated children, overcrowded prisons, inadequate health care, the balkanization of our communities and a large and growing population with loyally to other Nations, and the overall decline in our quality of life.

America cannot accept more of the population of other Nations, be they desirable or undesirables, educated or uneducated, criminals or law abiding. Too many people chasing too few resources is unsound economic, social and cultural policy. This is not racism; it is pragmatism & common sense! Every industrialized nation has taken steps to end illegal immigration and to limit legal immigration to only that which is prudent, demonstrably necessary, and above all other concerns, in the best interest of their native population, not of business owners looking for cheap labor subsidized by tax payers, of the Catholic church, or of other special interest groups. It’s insane to suggest that America should not do likewise


I’m a retired Army officer and I believe I have earned the right to voice my opinions without being called names; particularly by those who have never served a day in harms way.

Visit NumbersUSA.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Slander? Are you kidding me! Posted by: Prairie Waif
Have we reached a point in America...
Posted by: djnoll on Apr 15, 2008 10:07 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
where a politician stating a truth is vilified by the media for actually doing what everyone has been clamoring for during the last 7 years? Have we forgotten that people still have the right under our Constitution to exercise their right of free speech? Have we reached a point in America where someone speaking the truth needs to apologize for it or explain it away just because a certain faction does not agree with it? I guess if you are Hillary Clinton, John McCain, the MSM, or bloggers who live in safe little suburbs who do not want their illusions about America shattered, we do believe that politicians speaking the truth should be shutdown!

I have never read or heard so much garbage being spewed as I have in the last few weeks about people speaking the truth. I has given me pause to consider what kind of a society we have become that we cannot stand to hear the truth about our fellow citizens, who often have suffered more than we can imagine unless we have lived their lives. I have, and bitterness is mild in comparison to the rage that is just under the surface. This rage is the result of frustration at being used by the true elites of this society to feed them, to fight their wars for them, to give up our jobs and homes so that they can live like kings. It was reported a few months ago that the majority of soldiers in Iraq are young people from small rural communities who joined to get money for college, skills to get civilian jobs, and now find themselves killing and being killed, while their loved ones still at home in small town America are left to mourn and wonder how their government could have done this to them.

In areas like Pennsylvania, people like Hillary Clinton can throw back all the beers they want, the fact that she is worth well over $100 million dollars isolates her from those around her. She can claim she likes to hunt, but she has never had to hunt so her family could eat, and will never understand someone who has. She has led a life of privilege her whole life, and she will never, NEVER, understand what going without food, losing a home, or losing a job means not only to an individual, but to a community of such individuals. If she thinks Obama's comments will hurt him with this crowd in November, she better consider how much her wealth will play into elitist comments by the McCain campaign when the Republicans start their attacks on her!

The only thing this story has shown is that America is not ready for the truth about its core. The MSM, the DNC, HRC and McCain want the American public to shop or turn a blind eye to the truth about the vast majority of Americans, because while America burns, they will fiddle and send their money off shore and their country down in flames! They are counting on the apathy of most Americans, the anger of those who do not like honest politicians who speak the truth, and they are hoping that an angry American population will not rise up against them and take back the country. So the question finally is: Have we reached a tipping point as Americans where we must face the truth and act, or do we just claim it isn't so and go shopping at Wal-Mart?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Awesome post! Posted by: LeeAnnG
» RE: Awesome post! Posted by: Prairie Waif
State of the Union
Posted by: xvictor on Apr 15, 2008 10:59 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Who would I prefer giving a state of the union speech? In other words, which future president would I give up my very precious time for so that I can listen to what that person behind the podium, behind the desk, or in front of the cameras have to say? HINT: Not Billary or McLoser.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: State of the Union Posted by: Doubtom
what if it was said like this
Posted by: rneyman on Apr 15, 2008 1:25 PM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
They're bitter. They're constantly reminded of the pain anscesters they've never met were put through. so,They cling to chuches spewing anti american, anti white b.s. or racists like jesse jackson constantly filing claims of unfair treatment.hatred towards those they feel owe them for something no one alive today had anything to do with as a way to explain their frustrations.

Do you find my comments unacceptable, and offensive? why? I was just telling the truth.
Don't feel that's an acceptable reply? me neither.

the comments above are unacceptable, and would likely cause outrage. how are obamas comments any different?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Well said! nm Posted by: Timba
Elitism-What Can It Mean?
Posted by: blackie4aces on Apr 15, 2008 7:32 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Hillary Clinton, net worth $50 million, graduate of Wellesley College,fomer Goldwater Republican, former First Lady of Arkansas, former First Lady of the United States accuses black man from a single parent household of being an elitist. Running for a seat in the state legislature from an inner-city district of Chicago, this elitist presumably has not paid his dues as Clinton has. Clinton who became a full partner in the Rose Law Firm after only six years of practice, coincidentally in the same year her husband was elected to the state's Governorship, and was making $350,000 a year as a thirty year old lawyer with six years experience, states that Barack has had everything handed to him and must, therefore, be out of touch.

Where did this woman come from? Oh, yea, she used to sleep with the President of the United States, just as she used to sleep with the Governor of Arkansas. I guess sleeping with Bill clinton all that time does add up to some serious experience. Listening to her ill-conceived, shrewish attacks on Obama, passed off as some kind of political campaign, snide, bitchy (forgive me, ladies-I've really been trying avoid this word) backbiting portrayed as political issues, affords me not to have to wander too far in the dark wondering as to why Bill didn't stick around the house a little more.

Thinking she could waltz onto the American Presidential stage with a half-assed healthcare plan and her celebrity status, while papering over numerous positions and votes repugnant to the majority of the American people, Clinton had no strategy, no program, nothing but name recognition, a handful of poorly crafted lies, and the implied claim, "I used to fuck the President of the United States-well, a long time ago, anyway, and I am the proud possessor of a womb-so, Ladies (you dumb motherfuckers) you know what to do."

If I was a woman, I would be exponentially more insulted than I am as a male. As an American I am embarrassed by this would-be Evita. I wish this campaign would hurry up and end because I've got European friends and it is getting harder and harder to look them in the eye.

And to think, two other candidates, Dennis Kucinich and John Edwards, who had something to offer in this debate got knocked out by the big bucks and star-appeal just so we could endure this.

Thoughts from
Satan's Neutral Corner

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: litism-What Can It Mean? Posted by: Doubtom
» RE: litism-What Can It Mean? Posted by: blackie4aces
» *Tsk* *tsk* Posted by: Prairie Waif
» RE: *Tsk* *tsk* Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: *Tsk* *tsk* Posted by: blackie4aces
» RE: *Tsk* *tsk* Posted by: Prairie Waif
Serious Note
Posted by: Dianka on Apr 26, 2008 11:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Obama has the right idea, though. People are bitter. It does look to many like they spent years "working hard and playing by all the rules", only to be screwed over by the government. It's not accurate to say that ordinary people out
here are turning to either guns or religion to cope with the mess we have, but we do have a growing crisis of alcohol abuse, and it is taking quite a toll in some areas.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement