SF Chronicle Bashes its Home Town

I wrote this for today's Beyond Chron.

Yesterday's Chronicle portrayed San Francisco as an elitist island of the fringe left - out of touch with mainstream American values.  Reporter Carla Marinucci used the recent commotion over Barack Obama's "bitter" comment at a local fundraiser to explain how the right uses San Francisco to hurt Democrats.  Even as polls out of Pennsylvania show the race unchanged despite Hillary Clinton desperately pushing this issue, the Chronicle couldn't help perpetuating the stereotype that we are the "land of fruits and nuts."  Marinucci did not quote any San Franciscans for her article - except for disgraced Newsom aide and Clinton supporter Peter Ragone, who repeated the line that only conservative places like the Central Valley matter in California politics.  Does the New York Times politically marginalize its hometown, because that is exactly what the Chronicle did.

Without even waiting to hear what working-class voters in Pennsylvania thought about Obama's infamous statement, the media pronounced that it changed the dynamic of the presidential race - with some comparing it to the Jeremiah Wright controversy.  Because Clinton and John McCain both attacked Obama for being "elitist" and "condescending," the press allowed the story to run far longer than it should.  And because Obama said it at a fundraiser in San Francisco, Clinton made sure to remind voters about that fact.

So what does the San Francisco Chronicle - our hometown newspaper of record - do when the City gets smeared by politicians of both parties?  Write a puff analysis which reinforces the notion that we make Democrats look bad - a place where national politicians come to campaign at their peril.  Marinucci could have mentioned that the fundraiser was in Presidio Heights - one of our most exclusive (and conservative) neighborhoods - rather than tar the whole City with an "elitist" smear.  Instead, she quotes Pat Buchanan as proof that Obama really screwed up with that statement.

It's not the first time that the right has attacked "San Francisco Values" as a means of marginalizing Democrats.  But San Francisco values are mainstream American values.  We were one of the first cities to pass a domestic partnership law - "civil unions" that even George Bush and Dick Cheney now find acceptable.  In 2006, we were the first place that required employers to provide paid sick leave - and now other cities have since followed our lead.  We're a city of creative entrepreneurs who have started cutting-edge businesses that are household names.  We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of.

But Marinucci didn't bother to interview any San Franciscans for her piece - let alone ask working-class folks in Pennsylvania if they were offended by Obama's remarks - except for one local politico: Peter Ragone, Mayor Gavin Newsom's former press secretary, who (according to an earlier Chronicle story) helped the Clinton campaign's media team in Texas.  Marinucci did not disclose Ragone's conflict-of-interest when she quoted his take on the situation.

Obama's statement, said Ragone in the Chronicle, "sounded like someone running for the San Francisco Board of Supervisors, not President.  The Democratic Party should have learned you have to respect people's cultural experiences in order to get their votes.  If Democrats want to win in California, they have to win in the Central Valley, the Inland Empire and the I-80 corridor. If you truly feel that way about people in those places, you're just not going to get their votes."

It's precisely such divisive talk that prevents Democrats from truly standing up for what we believe in - and depresses San Franciscans into believing that our values are not the values of mainstream America.  It is why liberals then allow Democrats to get away with taking offensive policy positions - all in the name of being electable to the average swing voter.  The Left has been so haunted by the ghost of George McGovern for the past 35 years that we've lost all will to believe that real change can happen at the ballot box.

Was Obama's statement culturally insensitive?  Let's take a closer look at his exact words, and see why it was not disrespectful to the swing-state working-class voter:

"You go into 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 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."

To suggest that working-class Pennsylvanians who've had their jobs shipped overseas are "bitter" is not condescending - it's simply stating the truth.  As Randy Shaw wrote this week, if Clinton believes that they are not bitter, she is almost as delusional as George W. Bush.  And when Fox News actually interviewed such voters, they pretty much confirmed that it's true.

The tricky part, of course, was for Obama to suggest that they "cling to guns or religion."  But he never suggested that guns or religion are therefore bad.  What he meant to say is that during hard times, people stick with what they are familiar with and where they take comfort.  Conversely, they also mistrust the unfamiliar - people who don't look like them, people who come from other countries, and coastal elitists.  It's the politics of fear - and when voters are anxious, they become vulnerable to such appeals.

Could such an honest assessment hurt Obama?  Maybe a little, but anyone who believes that it rises to the level of the Jeremiah Wright controversy - where Obama's pastor was caught on YouTube saying "God damn America" - is completely delusional.  And Obama did a stellar job handling that situation, with the most eloquent speech he has given in his entire career - where he effectively said that we must have an honest dialogue about race in this country.  But after the "bitter" comment, the media said Obama was in trouble.

Five days later, we now have fresh polls out of Pennsylvania that show that the brouhaha had practically no effect.  A friend of mine who's there said that it's a bigger deal nationally than locally (even though it has been widely disseminated.)  The issue will boil over, although we can expect that Republicans will try to make hay out of it in the general election.  By then, people won't care - and the voters who will care would not vote Democratic anyway.

It's bad enough that San Francisco - and everyone who lives here - got dragged into the mud with this story, just because the media won't admit that the Clintons are history.  But for the Chronicle to pile on when it's our hometown newspaper was embarrassing.  If the New York Times reported that voters in the Big Apple were out of touch with mainstream America, there would have been an outcry.  As residents of San Francisco, we deserve better from our local newspaper of record.

EDITOR'S NOTE: In his spare time and outside of regular work hours, Paul Hogarth volunteered on Obama's field operation in San Francisco.  He also ran to be an Obama delegate to the Democratic National Convention.



Display:


Re: SF Chronicle Bashes its Home Town (none / 0)

Most of those at the fundraiser were not even rich.  They were voters a lot like the small town voters Obama was talking about.  SF is a big city, but it is probably like a lot of big cities that has enclaves of small neighborhoods whose voters are a lot like small town voters.  If these voters were not offended by what Obama said why would anybody else be?  It is also laughable that an AA man whose mother, sister and himself were once so poor as to be on food stamps is now seen as elitist.  Now, I don't think that McCain who is married to a billionaire or the Clintons who in the last years have made millions of dollars have ever been even close to that poor, and they call Obama elitist.  LOL.


by Spanky on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:36:07 AM EST

you are kidding right? (2.00 / 1)

Obama flies to a no longer in contention state, to one of the wealthiest cities in America and holds an all you can eat? I don't think so.

Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love San Fransisco, but it does not represent the average American- no matter how much we would like it to.
How many American cities- better yet- how many PA towns or even cities have passed special haven status for undocumented immigrants? How many give monthly stipends to homeless people? How many pass same sex marriage initiatives?
No matter how much we love these ideas, it cannot be spun.
The article, however, was pretty crap.
by linc on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:45:52 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SF Chronicle Bashes its Home Town (2.00 / 1)

I am from the Bayarea and Love SF.

One think to point out though is the People at the Fundraiser were rich folks - BO raised More than a million dollars from the 450 + invitees at the Getty Mansion.


by indus on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 01:23:34 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: SF Chronicle Bashes its Home Town (2.00 / 2)

I'm not bitter, but I do invite the elite in SanFran to accompany Obama  out to PA and gaze at us through our bars at the zoo.  See the gun toting, church clinging, isolationists in our natural habitat.  

You know, it is not so much the elite in San Francisco that bothers me and many of us, it's the elitism in Barack Obama that is the problem.  He chose the words he used to describe Pennsylvanians and the backbone of the country, the people who live in rural America.  The people in California didn't choose them and they can't help it that they were asking him for how he was going to tame the people in that far off state.

I see the reason that none of you are getting the jist of the problem with Obama.  It isn't the description of bitter that bothers people it is the stereotyping of people in the country as hay chewing, toothless, simpletons. It's the oh so subtle message that although Obama has religion himself, it's the country people who use it as a drug or opium of the people to comfort themselves.  That's if they aren't stockpiling guns in their basement to protect themselves from a government that doesn't notice them anyhow. Oh, it may not show up immediately in the polls, but it just might in the booth.


by Scotch on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:40:26 AM EST

Oh come on (none / 0)

Later in the very same quote Obama went on to say that you just can't assume anything about these middle America voters.

If you pick and choose what to listen to, you will only hear what you want to hear.  


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:44:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Oh come on (2.00 / 2)

Nuance doesn't count to the regular voter.  Democrats never learn that.  They won't read the "later in the speech" part.  They pick up bits and pieces and those are what they take into the voting booth.  Obama needs to learn this point, that a everything he says is being watched and in the fall the Republicans are going to take every sentance out of context that they possibly can. Sound bites are what they are called.  


by Scotch on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:48:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

You assume people are idiots (none / 0)

The studies that have come out say that most of the people who see Obama's explanation decide pretty much immediately that it wasn't a big deal in the first place.

Nuance counts more than you might think.

Regardless, you should be working to make sure that people don't get the wrong impression.  This guy is going to be our general election candidate, after all.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:52:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: You assume people are idiots (none / 0)

"the studies"?  They have studies on this already?  Look, the fact is that most people don't see Obama's explanation.  Only people like us who are possessed, not the regular person in the street.  Most people aren't so wrapped up in politics that they take the time to look at his explanations of all he says.  They pass the television in the living room on the way to some other part of the house.  They catch a couple of minutes of local news.  They glance at headlines.  Other people have lives they have to attend to.  Elections are about impressions and perceptions, and gut feelings for a whole lot of people.  Obama has to keep explaining what he said, or did or does.  He might want to get it right the first time once or twice.


by Scotch on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 02:50:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Looks like similar issues (none / 0)

It's not exaggeration to say that San Francisco is used by the right as a dogwhistle to suggest liberal elitism... one might go so far as to say that it's used to imply a certain level of "gay."

I've seen people on this very site imply the same thing (applied against the poster SFValues )

The SF paper is right if they say that they've been viewed that way.

That said, they should refute it and provide examples as to why.


In this avalanche, the pebbles get to vote.

That One/Another Fella '08

by Dracomicron on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 11:42:03 AM EST

Re: SF Chronicle Bashes its Home Town (2.00 / 1)

Being from Massachusetts, I feel your pain.  We are made fun of on a regular basis.  People even call Cambridge (a pretty liberal city) the Peoples Republic.  But I do know people (yes, even in MA) who were surprised by this statement.  But what I find most offensive is the way the media and Obama supporters pretend to not understand the part of the statement that was offensive. Are they really so obtuse?  I don't think so. So people are bitter - maybe so.  But to state that as a result they "cling to guns and religion... as a way to explain their frustration" is what is offensive about his statement.  But Obama is lucky that the fallout from this and his other controversies probably won't hit until the GE.


by AnnC on Wed Apr 16, 2008 at 12:41:59 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.