Obama suprised that Midwest is not “Ingrown” and “Parochial”

Angry Barack Hussein ObamaLess than hopeful presidential communist candidate, Barack Hussein Obama, seemed to portray Midwestern Iowans as nothing more then inbred hicks. As an individual from the Midwest, I feel offended by Barack Hussein Obama’s remarks.

In an interview with ABC News, Barack Hussein Obama expressed surprise that Iowans voted for him in the caucuses. He cited that they went beyond the supposed stereotype of being “Ingrown and Parochial.”

It’s kind of funny, because I never saw Iowans as that. I believe that what Barack Hussein Obama is trying to do is play on the politics of hate. He wants to make the perception that somehow people hate Iowa, and that those poor victims came out to support him.

The problem is that people don’t feel that way about Iowa. This was either a made up stereotype by Barack Hussein Obama, or he actually feels that way, and was shocked to find that those “Backward” Midwesterners actually accepted him.

I guess it fits that he would play on the politics of hate and class envy. He is after all, proposing that we begin to remove tax cuts, increase additional taxes, and redistribute that money to others. So divisive stereotype politics fits right in with his campaign strategy.

4 thoughts on “Obama suprised that Midwest is not “Ingrown” and “Parochial”

  1. Way to cherry pick and extrapolate equivocal statements by your chosen candidates. Go talk on national TV every day for a year and see if you always sound rosy.

    He makes Thousands of statements. If you judge character on minor statements, you might want to reconsider Fred 08; I mean, hes a sexist, right? But then, you might just defend your pet choices as ‘Pragmatic’, ‘Honest’.

    “This year, it’s a man, and next year, it’s going to be a man… I can see no one else who’s qualified to be president of the United States.” -Fred Thompson

    Calling Classism, Sexism, Racism – based on isolated slip ups – is not critical, its antagonistic. Your discourse on policy could be credible if it wasn’t steeped in mud.

  2. The statements were very different. Obama’s statement was based on stereotypes, while Thompson’s statement was based on semantics. Thompson’s statement was responding to a question about the possibility of a “woman president” this election.

    While there are many women who would make excellent presidents, Thompson said there were no “qualified” candidates that fit the description this election (In other words, he thinks Hillary is not qualified).

    Obama, on the other hand, made his stereotypes known. These are very different statements.

  3. At first I couldn’t understand Pearson’s puzzling reply to Whatever, then the light dawned – he wasn’t talking about the fine upstanding All-American antiviral product “Symantec” but about that creepy product of nasty communist Greek philosophers, “semantics”.

    Only in Iowa…

Leave a Reply