I agree JP.....what pisses me off is the Clinton's insinuating that Barack can't win in November....just the kind of self fulfilling prophesy this country doesn't need.
a few choice soundbites + some well-funded 527s = another Kerry situation in '08.
really want this election to be about out of context little snippets? She's got 35 years of those too...
Whats your point exactly? Whether you're talking elitism, or out of context quotes, Hillary's got plenty of both, right?
Media hasn't even begun to dig on her, or bring up all of her (equally manufactured) scandals, cause they want this contest to stay interesting as long as possible...
a few choice soundbites + some well-funded 527s = another Kerry situation in '08.
really want this election to be about out of context little snippets? She's got 35 years of those too...
Whats your point exactly? Whether you're talking elitism, or out of context quotes, Hillary's got plenty of both, right?
Media hasn't even begun to dig on her, or bring up all of her (equally manufactured) scandals, cause they want this contest to drag on endlessly[/b]...
Those comments on small town bitterness were facile and asinine and he is rightly being criticized.
why a person needs to be poor, god-fearing or gun-loving to take offense or exception to the remarks in question is beyond me.
Really? Seriously? You really think the following is asinine and offensive?
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). [...]
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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 they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that 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. "[/b]
Anyone fooled by the media into taking this seriously as some evidence of his being out of touch has it backwards. I just wish that the Dems would get moderate on the gun issue so they might actually get some of the support from independents that they desperately need. It's a loser of an issue. And anyone who thinks Hillary doesn't think/say the EXACT same thing is crazy. Bill said essentially the same shit in '91.
i don;t think its such a big deal or anything but i can understand why it might offend some, how it is potentially condescending and why it is news.
the quote assumes that these people are unable to comprehend their own existence or whats in their own self-interest; that they are dupes, manipulated by forces completely out of their control and motivated by some kind of justifiable and understandable but totally irrational sense of bitterness that has caused them to turn inward and engage in scapegoating.
dude do the years between 1992 and the present ring a bell?
I think we have a much clearer picture of what we can expect from the GOP if Hillary is nominated vs. Barack. you really wanna stand up and vouch for the fact that they won't find any dirt on Obama? he's an unknown quantity compared to Hillary. just saying.
I agree JP.....what pisses me off is the Clinton's insinuating that Barack can't win in November....just the kind of self fulfilling prophesy this country doesn't need.
how dare they!
Rock, I am interested in seeing the Dem candidate with the best chances against McCain succeed in the primary.
if there are real legit reasons that Obama may lose in November, I want to know about them now. it's one of the very reasons for the nomination process.
if there are real legit reasons that Obama may lose in November, I want to know about them now. it's one of the very reasons for the nomination process.
Fine....then let's hear those "legit reasons" from the Clinton's rather than them whispering to "friends" behind the scenes(who then go public) that "he can't win".
WHY can't he win??....the truth is they can't really come right out and say what they are insinuating without coming off looking like total douchetards.
Obama winning would put a lot of haters out of business.
I don't think there are any "real legit reasons" Obama might lose in November that aren't at least applicable to Clinton if not doubled with her.
McCain will not have a cakewalk to the white house - his economy speech yesterday flopped royally, the new ads out are already tying him easily to Bush and if it weren't for an extremely compliant press corps (buying the dude donuts on talk shows!) he'd be having an even harder go of it.
Those comments on small town bitterness were facile and asinine and he is rightly being criticized.
why a person needs to be poor, god-fearing or gun-loving to take offense or exception to the remarks in question is beyond me.
Really? Seriously? You really think the following is asinine and offensive?
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). [...]
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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 they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that 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. "[/b]
Anyone fooled by the media into taking this seriously as some evidence of his being out of touch has it backwards. I just wish that the Dems would get moderate on the gun issue so they might actually get some of the support from independents that they desperately need. It's a loser of an issue. And anyone who thinks Hillary doesn't think/say the EXACT same thing is crazy. Bill said essentially the same shit in '91.
i don;t think its such a big deal or anything but i can understand why it might offend some, how it is potentially condescending and why it is news.
the quote assumes that these people are unable to comprehend their own existence or whats in their own self-interest; that they are dupes, manipulated by forces completely out of their control and motivated by some kind of justifiable and understandable but totally irrational sense of bitterness that has caused them to turn inward and engage in scapegoating.
You need to read it again. He is saying that their being frustrated and bitter IS reasonable, that the Dems challenge is to address it and persuade them that the party and HE in particular has something to offer in response to inaction of previous administrations. Those blanks you are filling in may be coming from somewhere, but it isn't from the quote above. Nowhere does he imply or state that any of it is irrational.
if there are real legit reasons that Obama may lose in November, I want to know about them now. it's one of the very reasons for the nomination process.
Fine....then let's hear those "legit reasons" from the Clinton's rather than them whispering to "friends" behind the scenes(who then go public) that "he can't win".
WHY can't he win??....the truth is they can't really come right out and say what they are insinuating without coming off looking like total douchetards.
Obama winning would put a lot of haters out of business.
Obama said some insensitive and stupid things, and Hillary has called him out on it. It???s not Hillary???s job to ???unify??? the Democratic party or whatever. Do her comments hurt Obama? Sure they do ??? she???s running against him remember? That???s her job. And whether they will hurt Obama against McCain in the event that he???s nominated? Perhaps. That???s how a primary unfortunately works.
I just don't buy this argument that Hillary is weakening Obama's chances in a general by pointing out his potential weaknesses in a general. WTF kind of argument is that?
For the record I think either one of them *could* beat McCain. I just don't understand why either one should have to refrain from pointing out the other's potential weaknesses.
Those comments on small town bitterness were facile and asinine and he is rightly being criticized.
why a person needs to be poor, god-fearing or gun-loving to take offense or exception to the remarks in question is beyond me.
Really? Seriously? You really think the following is asinine and offensive?
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). [...]
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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 they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that 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. "[/b]
Anyone fooled by the media into taking this seriously as some evidence of his being out of touch has it backwards. I just wish that the Dems would get moderate on the gun issue so they might actually get some of the support from independents that they desperately need. It's a loser of an issue. And anyone who thinks Hillary doesn't think/say the EXACT same thing is crazy. Bill said essentially the same shit in '91.
i don;t think its such a big deal or anything but i can understand why it might offend some, how it is potentially condescending and why it is news.
the quote assumes that these people are unable to comprehend their own existence or whats in their own self-interest; that they are dupes, manipulated by forces completely out of their control and motivated by some kind of justifiable and understandable but totally irrational sense of bitterness that has caused them to turn inward and engage in scapegoating.
You need to read it again. He is saying that their being frustrated and bitter IS reasonable, that the Dems challenge is to address it and persuade them that the party and HE in particular has something to offer in response to inaction of previous administrations. Those blanks you are filling in may be coming from somewhere, but it isn't from the quote above. Nowhere does he imply or state that any of it is irrational.
this is one reading of it.
the other is: these gullible people don't seem to realize that guns-and-religion won't get their jobs back -- I will.
and the reaction among many voters to such a comment is: this guy thinks he knows what's best for us. well he doesn't.
this whole "why-can't-these-bitter-people-understand-that-I-am-the-answer-to-their-problems?" mentality has a long history among Democrats. and like it or not it alienates a lot of voters.
It???s not Hillary???s job to ???unify??? the Democratic party or whatever.
You're right. Obama's already done largely done this to some degree. Its her job to make him and his insurmountable lead somehow look "unelectable."
Look you can guess at what dark skeletons lie in his closet, or parse the different potential meanings of the statement, but dudes not dead; he's alive and well and seems to me he's made it pretty clear what he meant. If you have some fundamental reason to distrust dude, lets hear it, but please no more theoretical revelations or secret, deeper meanings.
If you have some fundamental reason to distrust dude, lets hear it, but please no more theoretical revelations or secret, deeper meanings.
huh?
dude you said the following:
Media hasn't even begun to dig on her, or bring up all of her (equally manufactured) scandals, cause they want this contest to stay interesting as long as possible...
so actually it was you who brought up "theoretical revelations" or whatever, only in the case of Hillary...
in any case you're just changing the subject from your absurd point that the media hasn't gone after Hillary. dude she's been on the receiving end of attacks for over 15 years.
I have no "fundamental reason" (whatever that means) to distrust either one of them. but if you want to pretend that Obama has been fully vetted and that the GOP will lay off attacking him in the general, you are dreaming.
Dude. I included the words "equally manufactured" because although I think witch hunts like Whitewater, monicagate and all this other bullshit is just that, of course in a general election all these silly charges will be fair game. You think these 527s will only go after him? The media have played along with her "viability" since she accused them of bias, and they've largely avoided the Clinton scandals and focused on Obama because he's leading; they're keeping it interesting.
If she becomes the nominee we will unquestionably get into a referendum on Bill's time, and a lot of the country made up their minds on that a long time ago. Now with her scorched earth primary strategy, she's alienated the other side of the spectrum, motivated young voters, liberal activists, the "netroots" and so on. She's sliced the pie thinner and thinner, and I thought she was a divisive candidate 5 months ago!
Look my point was not that the media never attacked her; thats ridiculous. But your rationale that she's been "vetted" is just the kind of entitled, washington insider logic thats turned off so many voters to her.
They are suggesting Barack can't win because he's Black, or at least that's what they want you to think without actually saying it.
I predict they will make more and more comments that insinuate this without actually saying it.
I fully expect the Clinton camp to come out with a similar statement that they did when Barack's drug use came to light.....
"McCain will use Barack's race and and Muslim father as a negative"
When in reality, by them making this assumption/accusation out loud and in public, they effectively use it as a negative and to their advantage.
This will get a lot uglier.
One man's opinion.
I think you raise a really interesting/disturbing discussion point.
There's a fundamental difference between Obama-being-black and Obama-using-coke.
in the case of the latter, it's a revelation. It doubles as an argument against nominating Obama (because coke use will be an issue in the general), and as a way to subtly reveal to people who didn't otherwise know it, that Obama once used coke.
People hear the Clintons raise the coke thing supposedly as a general election issue , and many choose not to vote Obama. Some percentage of those individuals do so because they truly beleive Obama's coke use is a potential liabliilty against clean-cut McCain. And another percentage of those voters refrain from voting Obama because they themselves see the coke use as a negative. And we will never know who voted which way.
Obama-being-black is totally different. Obama is black. To suggest that his being black will hurt him in a general does not have the same under-handed double effect as the coke charge. In pointing out that his being black may hurt him in a general, no one would be slyly revealing/suggesting to the general public a fact they did not already know (that he's black). But it may nonetheless raise doubts in the minds of voters re: his electability, and in turn lead to their refraining from voting for him.
(NO I AM NOT SUGGESTING IT'S RIGHT TO RAISE HIS BEING BLACK AS A LIABILITY IN THE GENERAL. I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT THE DIFFERENCE HERE.)
If he were openly gay or Mormon, would it be wrong to point out that these identities may render him unelectable? (Again, I am not suggesting an answer here.)
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL (a hypothetical assumption, ignoring Hillary's faults and Obama's strengths), assuming Obama's being black IS [/b] a liability in a general (I think all intelligent Americans can assume this), should we totally ignore his being black in choosing a Dem nominee?
I say we must.
BUT if this was purely a thought experiment and assumed a 100% rational choice based on which candidate has the greater chance of taking the White House in November (and again, ignoring Hillary's faults and Obama's strengths), my answer would be different.
I like how Obama used to be an "undercover Muslim" who then was a member of a "cultish, readical Christian sect" and now is an elisist athiest who drinks orange juice while walking on the backs of the Little People. Jesus H. Christ indeed.
HA! Comedy. You mean the man who's on the record as calling his opponents "cunts" or "gooks" or the one who refused MLK day in Arizona? He's a bona-fide war hero in my book, but the man is as clean-cut as Grizzly Adams.
I'm still reeling over the fact that the least elite, most non-affected legitimate Presidential hopeful since Jimmy Carter is being painted as an elitist at all by his own party-members. And the whole "I never said that HE was an elitist, merely that his comments were" is a ratshit line.
Those comments on small town bitterness were facile and asinine and he is rightly being criticized.
why a person needs to be poor, god-fearing or gun-loving to take offense or exception to the remarks in question is beyond me.
Really? Seriously? You really think the following is asinine and offensive?
"Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter). [...]
But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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 they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it's not surprising then that 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. "[/b]
Anyone fooled by the media into taking this seriously as some evidence of his being out of touch has it backwards. I just wish that the Dems would get moderate on the gun issue so they might actually get some of the support from independents that they desperately need. It's a loser of an issue. And anyone who thinks Hillary doesn't think/say the EXACT same thing is crazy. Bill said essentially the same shit in '91.
i don;t think its such a big deal or anything but i can understand why it might offend some, how it is potentially condescending and why it is news.
the quote assumes that these people are unable to comprehend their own existence or whats in their own self-interest; that they are dupes, manipulated by forces completely out of their control and motivated by some kind of justifiable and understandable but totally irrational sense of bitterness that has caused them to turn inward and engage in scapegoating.
You need to read it again. He is saying that their being frustrated and bitter IS reasonable, that the Dems challenge is to address it and persuade them that the party and HE in particular has something to offer in response to inaction of previous administrations. Those blanks you are filling in may be coming from somewhere, but it isn't from the quote above. Nowhere does he imply or state that any of it is irrational.
i am reading into the implications of the statement and he never said "irrational" of course.
governmental neglect--->understandable bitterness--->embracing irrational beliefs and practices (i.e. paranoia, religion, scapegoating, guns)--->psychic and social deformation--->inability to grasp what is truly in their best interests and embrace the "hope" he is offering.
the context of the statement is him trying to give an explanation "in private" as to why he was not performing as well as he had hoped in these areas; that their failure to embrace him as a genuine agent of change is essentially a result of externally induced psychological inadequacies.
I am not saying this makes him an "elitist" (as if the other 2 candidate aren't elites) but it is not a totally out-there interpretation. if correct, his statements were certainly arrogant and patronizing. at the very least they were tactically stupid.
That one sentence, out of context, seems to imply what you're saying, but nothing in the paragraph says anything about being irrational, paranoid, deformed or unable to grasp anything, in fact it seems to say the opposite. You can "interpret" it to say whatever you want, but despite what that single sentence implies, thats not what dude was saying in context.
When people give up on government doing anything meaningful for them, they turn to divisive social issues, and generally vote republican. Are you not able to get past your fury about how that one quote sounds, or do you genuinely not agree with this statement?
When people give up on government doing anything meaningful for them, they turn to divisive social issues, and generally vote republican. Are you not able to get past your fury about how that one quote sounds, or do you genuinely not agree with this statement?
I will certainly concede that it was a gaffe, in light of how careful he needs to be, and would argue that he didn't make the statement as part of a larger tactic or strategy. That said, he is that candidate who can not say anything that is not strategic, because his ice is truly thinner than the rest of the field and he knows this. He can't win for losing, because if he talks straight, the media gets in his ass for 'being patronizing', if he gets lofty and actually exerts his intellect or skill as a communicator, he's only offering pretty prose and flowery platitudes. He needs to stick to specific plans and not get off track with anything that might be construed as personal opinion.
I really don't think small town America has anything to worry about any candidate from either party doing anything meaningful for them once they are elected. They won't. That's why I wish Barack wouldn't have even speculated on it and allowed Hillary a crack to exploit. Whether or not I (or any of us)agree with either the assessment or whatever interpretation of it's intent doesn't mean much.
HA! Comedy. You mean the man who's on the record as calling his opponents "cunts" or "gooks" or the one who refused MLK day in Arizona? He's a bona-fide war hero in my book, but the man is as clean-cut as Grizzly Adams.
dude I was describing how voters would react. I hope you're not suggesting that this is my own opinion.
April 16, 2008 Eggheads and Cheese Balls By MAUREEN DOWD
I???m not bitter.
I???m not writing this just because I grew up in a house with a gun, a strong Catholic faith, an immigrant father, brothers with anti-illegal immigrant sentiments and a passion for bowling. (My bowling trophy was one of my most cherished possessions.)
My family morphed from Kennedy Democrats into Reagan Republicans not because they were angry, but because they felt more comfortable with conservative values. Members of my clan sometimes were overly cloistered. But they weren???t bitter; they were bonding.
They went to church every Sunday because it was part of their identity, not because they needed a security blanket.
Behind closed doors in San Francisco, elitism???s epicenter[/b] , Barack Obama showed his elitism, attributing the emotional, spiritual and cultural values of working-class, ???lunch pail??? Pennsylvanians to economic woes.
The last few weeks have not been kind to Hillary, but the endless endgame has not been kind to the Wonder Boy either. Obama comes across less like a candidate in Pennsylvania than an anthropologist in Borneo.
His mother got her Ph.D. in anthropology, studying the culture of Indonesia. And as Obama has courted white, blue-collar voters in ???Deer Hunter??? and ???Rocky??? country, he has often appeared to be observing the odd habits of the colorful locals, resisting as the natives try to fatten him up like a foie gras goose, sampling Pennsylvania beer in a sports bar with his tie tight, awkwardly accepting bowling shoes as a gift from Bob Casey, examining the cheese and salami at the Italian Market here as intriguing ethnic artifacts, purchasing Utz Cheese Balls at a ShopRite in East Norriton and quizzing the women working in a chocolate factory about whether they could possibly really like the sugary doodads.
He hasn???t pulled a John Kerry and asked for a Philly cheese steak with Swiss yet, but he has maintained a regal ???What do the simple folk do to help them escape when they???re blue???? bearing, unable to even feign Main Street cred. But Hillary did when she belted down a shot of Crown Royal whiskey with gusto at Bronko???s in Crown Point, Ind.
Just as he couldn???t knock down the bowling pins, he can???t knock down Annie Oakley or ???the girl in the race,??? as her husband called her Tuesday ??? the self-styled blue-collar heroine who reluctantly revealed a $100 million fortune partially built on Bill???s shady connections.
Even when Hillary???s campaign collapsed around her and her husband managed to revive the bullets over Bosnia, Obama has still not been able to marshal a knockout blow ??? or even come up with a knockout economic speech that could expand his base of support.
Even as Hillary grows weaker, her reputation for ferocity grows stronger. A young woman in the audience at a taping of ???The Colbert Report??? at Penn Tuesday night asked Stephen Colbert during a warm-up: ???Are you more afraid of bears or Hillary Clinton????
Even though Democratic elders worry that the two candidates will terminally bloody each other, they each seem to be lighting their own autos-da-f??.
At match points, when Hillary fights like a cornered raccoon, Obama retreats into law professor mode. The elitism that Americans dislike is not about family money or connections ??? J.F.K. and W. never would have been elected without them. In the screwball movie genre that started during the last Depression, there was a great tradition of the millionaire who was cool enough to relate to the common man ??? like Cary Grant???s C.K. Dexter Haven in ???The Philadelphia Story.???
What turns off voters is the detached egghead quality that they tend to equate with a wimpiness, wordiness and a lack of action ??? the same quality that got the professorial and superior Adlai Stevenson mocked by critics as Adelaide. The new attack line for Obama rivals is that he???s gone from J.F.K. to Dukakis. (Just as Dukakis chatted about Belgian endive, Obama chatted about Whole Foods arugula in Iowa.)
Obama did not grow up in cosseted circumstances. ???Now when is the last time you???ve seen a president of the United States who just paid off his loan debt???? Michelle Obama asked Tuesday at Haverford College, referring to Barack???s student loans while speaking in the shadow of the mansions depicted in ???The Philadelphia Story.???
But his exclusive Hawaiian prep school and years in the Ivy League made him a charter member of the elite, along with the academic experts he loves to have in the room. As Colbert pointed out, the other wonky Ivy League lawyer in the primary just knows how to condescend better.
Michelle did her best on ???The Colbert Report??? Tuesday to shoo away the aroma of elitism.
Growing up, she said: ???We had four spoons. And then my father got a raise at the plant and we got five spoons.???
Comments
Whats your point exactly? Whether you're talking elitism, or out of context quotes, Hillary's got plenty of both, right?
Media hasn't even begun to dig on her, or bring up all of her (equally manufactured) scandals, cause they want this contest to stay interesting as long as possible...
i don;t think its such a big deal or anything but i can understand why it might offend some, how it is potentially condescending and why it is news.
the quote assumes that these people are unable to comprehend their own existence or whats in their own self-interest; that they are dupes, manipulated by forces completely out of their control and motivated by some kind of justifiable and understandable but totally irrational sense of bitterness that has caused them to turn inward and engage in scapegoating.
hahahahahahahahahahahhaha
dude do the years between 1992 and the present ring a bell?
I think we have a much clearer picture of what we can expect from the GOP if Hillary is nominated vs. Barack. you really wanna stand up and vouch for the fact that they won't find any dirt on Obama? he's an unknown quantity compared to Hillary. just saying.
how dare they!
Rock, I am interested in seeing the Dem candidate with the best chances against McCain succeed in the primary.
if there are real legit reasons that Obama may lose in November, I want to know about them now. it's one of the very reasons for the nomination process.
Fine....then let's hear those "legit reasons" from the Clinton's rather than them whispering to "friends" behind the scenes(who then go public) that "he can't win".
WHY can't he win??....the truth is they can't really come right out and say what they are insinuating without coming off looking like total douchetards.
Obama winning would put a lot of haters out of business.
McCain will not have a cakewalk to the white house - his economy speech yesterday flopped royally, the new ads out are already tying him easily to Bush and if it weren't for an extremely compliant press corps (buying the dude donuts on talk shows!) he'd be having an even harder go of it.
You need to read it again. He is saying that their being frustrated and bitter IS reasonable, that the Dems challenge is to address it and persuade them that the party and HE in particular has something to offer in response to inaction of previous administrations. Those blanks you are filling in may be coming from somewhere, but it isn't from the quote above. Nowhere does he imply or state that any of it is irrational.
Obama said some insensitive and stupid things, and Hillary has called him out on it. It???s not Hillary???s job to ???unify??? the Democratic party or whatever. Do her comments hurt Obama? Sure they do ??? she???s running against him remember? That???s her job. And whether they will hurt Obama against McCain in the event that he???s nominated? Perhaps. That???s how a primary unfortunately works.
I just don't buy this argument that Hillary is weakening Obama's chances in a general by pointing out his potential weaknesses in a general. WTF kind of argument is that?
For the record I think either one of them *could* beat McCain. I just don't understand why either one should have to refrain from pointing out the other's potential weaknesses.
this is one reading of it.
the other is: these gullible people don't seem to realize that guns-and-religion won't get their jobs back -- I will.
and the reaction among many voters to such a comment is: this guy thinks he knows what's best for us. well he doesn't.
this whole "why-can't-these-bitter-people-understand-that-I-am-the-answer-to-their-problems?" mentality has a long history among Democrats. and like it or not it alienates a lot of voters.
You're right. Obama's already done largely done this to some degree. Its her job to make him and his insurmountable lead somehow look "unelectable."
Look you can guess at what dark skeletons lie in his closet, or parse the different potential meanings of the statement, but dudes not dead; he's alive and well and seems to me he's made it pretty clear what he meant. If you have some fundamental reason to distrust dude, lets hear it, but please no more theoretical revelations or secret, deeper meanings.
They are suggesting Barack can't win because he's Black, or at least that's what they want you to think without actually saying it.
I predict they will make more and more comments that insinuate this without actually saying it.
I fully expect the Clinton camp to come out with a similar statement that they did when Barack's drug use came to light.....
"McCain will use Barack's race and and Muslim father as a negative"
When in reality, by them making this assumption/accusation out loud and in public, they effectively use it as a negative and to their advantage.
This will get a lot uglier.
One man's opinion.
huh?
dude you said the following:
so actually it was you who brought up "theoretical revelations" or whatever, only in the case of Hillary...
in any case you're just changing the subject from your absurd point that the media hasn't gone after Hillary. dude she's been on the receiving end of attacks for over 15 years.
I have no "fundamental reason" (whatever that means) to distrust either one of them. but if you want to pretend that Obama has been fully vetted and that the GOP will lay off attacking him in the general, you are dreaming.
If she becomes the nominee we will unquestionably get into a referendum on Bill's time, and a lot of the country made up their minds on that a long time ago. Now with her scorched earth primary strategy, she's alienated the other side of the spectrum, motivated young voters, liberal activists, the "netroots" and so on. She's sliced the pie thinner and thinner, and I thought she was a divisive candidate 5 months ago!
Look my point was not that the media never attacked her; thats ridiculous. But your rationale that she's been "vetted" is just the kind of entitled, washington insider logic thats turned off so many voters to her.
I think you raise a really interesting/disturbing discussion point.
There's a fundamental difference between Obama-being-black and Obama-using-coke.
in the case of the latter, it's a revelation. It doubles as an argument against nominating Obama (because coke use will be an issue in the general), and as a way to subtly reveal to people who didn't otherwise know it, that Obama once used coke.
People hear the Clintons raise the coke thing supposedly as a general election issue , and many choose not to vote Obama. Some percentage of those individuals do so because they truly beleive Obama's coke use is a potential liabliilty against clean-cut McCain. And another percentage of those voters refrain from voting Obama because they themselves see the coke use as a negative. And we will never know who voted which way.
Obama-being-black is totally different. Obama is black. To suggest that his being black will hurt him in a general does not have the same under-handed double effect as the coke charge. In pointing out that his being black may hurt him in a general, no one would be slyly revealing/suggesting to the general public a fact they did not already know (that he's black). But it may nonetheless raise doubts in the minds of voters re: his electability, and in turn lead to their refraining from voting for him.
(NO I AM NOT SUGGESTING IT'S RIGHT TO RAISE HIS BEING BLACK AS A LIABILITY IN THE GENERAL. I AM SIMPLY POINTING OUT THE DIFFERENCE HERE.)
If he were openly gay or Mormon, would it be wrong to point out that these identities may render him unelectable? (Again, I am not suggesting an answer here.)
ALL OTHER THINGS BEING EQUAL (a hypothetical assumption, ignoring Hillary's faults and Obama's strengths), assuming Obama's being black IS [/b] a liability in a general (I think all intelligent Americans can assume this), should we totally ignore his being black in choosing a Dem nominee?
I say we must.
BUT if this was purely a thought experiment and assumed a 100% rational choice based on which candidate has the greater chance of taking the White House in November (and again, ignoring Hillary's faults and Obama's strengths), my answer would be different.
A proud tradition of local color continues...
Shout out to Bret Harte!
I like how Obama used to be an "undercover Muslim" who then was a member of a "cultish, readical Christian sect" and now is an elisist athiest who drinks orange juice while walking on the backs of the Little People. Jesus H. Christ indeed.
HA! Comedy. You mean the man who's on the record as calling his opponents "cunts" or "gooks" or the one who refused MLK day in Arizona? He's a bona-fide war hero in my book, but the man is as clean-cut as Grizzly Adams.
I'm still reeling over the fact that the least elite, most non-affected legitimate Presidential hopeful since Jimmy Carter is being painted as an elitist at all by his own party-members. And the whole "I never said that HE was an elitist, merely that his comments were" is a ratshit line.
i am reading into the implications of the statement and he never said "irrational" of course.
governmental neglect--->understandable bitterness--->embracing irrational beliefs and practices (i.e. paranoia, religion, scapegoating, guns)--->psychic and social deformation--->inability to grasp what is truly in their best interests and embrace the "hope" he is offering.
the context of the statement is him trying to give an explanation "in private" as to why he was not performing as well as he had hoped in these areas; that their failure to embrace him as a genuine agent of change is essentially a result of externally induced psychological inadequacies.
I am not saying this makes him an "elitist" (as if the other 2 candidate aren't elites) but it is not a totally out-there interpretation. if correct, his statements were certainly arrogant and patronizing. at the very least they were tactically stupid.
it's just an opinion...
That one sentence, out of context, seems to imply what you're saying, but nothing in the paragraph says anything about being irrational, paranoid, deformed or unable to grasp anything, in fact it seems to say the opposite. You can "interpret" it to say whatever you want, but despite what that single sentence implies, thats not what dude was saying in context.
When people give up on government doing anything meaningful for them, they turn to divisive social issues, and generally vote republican. Are you not able to get past your fury about how that one quote sounds, or do you genuinely not agree with this statement?
I will certainly concede that it was a gaffe, in light of how careful he needs to be, and would argue that he didn't make the statement as part of a larger tactic or strategy. That said, he is that candidate who can not say anything that is not strategic, because his ice is truly thinner than the rest of the field and he knows this. He can't win for losing, because if he talks straight, the media gets in his ass for 'being patronizing', if he gets lofty and actually exerts his intellect or skill as a communicator, he's only offering pretty prose and flowery platitudes. He needs to stick to specific plans and not get off track with anything that might be construed as personal opinion.
I really don't think small town America has anything to worry about any candidate from either party doing anything meaningful for them once they are elected. They won't. That's why I wish Barack wouldn't have even speculated on it and allowed Hillary a crack to exploit. Whether or not I (or any of us)agree with either the assessment or whatever interpretation of it's intent doesn't mean much.
perhaps i am projecting a meaning that just isn't there or maybe you are just defensive and all too willing to grant him the benefit of the doubt.
in the abstract, the statement probably has some validity but ultimately i think it is over-simplified and problematic.
in essence, he is accusing these people of having some sort of "false consciousness". there is something rather unseemly about that.
dude I was describing how voters would react. I hope you're not suggesting that this is my own opinion.
A lawyer in SF who posts on a record collecting website? Something tells me you might be...
ELITIST!
April 16, 2008
Eggheads and Cheese Balls
By MAUREEN DOWD
I???m not bitter.
I???m not writing this just because I grew up in a house with a gun, a strong Catholic faith, an immigrant father, brothers with anti-illegal immigrant sentiments and a passion for bowling. (My bowling trophy was one of my most cherished possessions.)
My family morphed from Kennedy Democrats into Reagan Republicans not because they were angry, but because they felt more comfortable with conservative values. Members of my clan sometimes were overly cloistered. But they weren???t bitter; they were bonding.
They went to church every Sunday because it was part of their identity, not because they needed a security blanket.
Behind closed doors in San Francisco, elitism???s epicenter[/b] , Barack Obama showed his elitism, attributing the emotional, spiritual and cultural values of working-class, ???lunch pail??? Pennsylvanians to economic woes.
The last few weeks have not been kind to Hillary, but the endless endgame has not been kind to the Wonder Boy either. Obama comes across less like a candidate in Pennsylvania than an anthropologist in Borneo.
His mother got her Ph.D. in anthropology, studying the culture of Indonesia. And as Obama has courted white, blue-collar voters in ???Deer Hunter??? and ???Rocky??? country, he has often appeared to be observing the odd habits of the colorful locals, resisting as the natives try to fatten him up like a foie gras goose, sampling Pennsylvania beer in a sports bar with his tie tight, awkwardly accepting bowling shoes as a gift from Bob Casey, examining the cheese and salami at the Italian Market here as intriguing ethnic artifacts, purchasing Utz Cheese Balls at a ShopRite in East Norriton and quizzing the women working in a chocolate factory about whether they could possibly really like the sugary doodads.
He hasn???t pulled a John Kerry and asked for a Philly cheese steak with Swiss yet, but he has maintained a regal ???What do the simple folk do to help them escape when they???re blue???? bearing, unable to even feign Main Street cred. But Hillary did when she belted down a shot of Crown Royal whiskey with gusto at Bronko???s in Crown Point, Ind.
Just as he couldn???t knock down the bowling pins, he can???t knock down Annie Oakley or ???the girl in the race,??? as her husband called her Tuesday ??? the self-styled blue-collar heroine who reluctantly revealed a $100 million fortune partially built on Bill???s shady connections.
Even when Hillary???s campaign collapsed around her and her husband managed to revive the bullets over Bosnia, Obama has still not been able to marshal a knockout blow ??? or even come up with a knockout economic speech that could expand his base of support.
Even as Hillary grows weaker, her reputation for ferocity grows stronger. A young woman in the audience at a taping of ???The Colbert Report??? at Penn Tuesday night asked Stephen Colbert during a warm-up: ???Are you more afraid of bears or Hillary Clinton????
Even though Democratic elders worry that the two candidates will terminally bloody each other, they each seem to be lighting their own autos-da-f??.
At match points, when Hillary fights like a cornered raccoon, Obama retreats into law professor mode. The elitism that Americans dislike is not about family money or connections ??? J.F.K. and W. never would have been elected without them. In the screwball movie genre that started during the last Depression, there was a great tradition of the millionaire who was cool enough to relate to the common man ??? like Cary Grant???s C.K. Dexter Haven in ???The Philadelphia Story.???
What turns off voters is the detached egghead quality that they tend to equate with a wimpiness, wordiness and a lack of action ??? the same quality that got the professorial and superior Adlai Stevenson mocked by critics as Adelaide. The new attack line for Obama rivals is that he???s gone from J.F.K. to Dukakis. (Just as Dukakis chatted about Belgian endive, Obama chatted about Whole Foods arugula in Iowa.)
Obama did not grow up in cosseted circumstances. ???Now when is the last time you???ve seen a president of the United States who just paid off his loan debt???? Michelle Obama asked Tuesday at Haverford College, referring to Barack???s student loans while speaking in the shadow of the mansions depicted in ???The Philadelphia Story.???
But his exclusive Hawaiian prep school and years in the Ivy League made him a charter member of the elite, along with the academic experts he loves to have in the room. As Colbert pointed out, the other wonky Ivy League lawyer in the primary just knows how to condescend better.
Michelle did her best on ???The Colbert Report??? Tuesday to shoo away the aroma of elitism.
Growing up, she said: ???We had four spoons. And then my father got a raise at the plant and we got five spoons.???
Average every day folks who desperately want appear to be rich and famous.
Or
Extremely wealthy elitists who want to appear like they are "average every day folks".