Barack Obama has been attacked because he said something poorly that he's said better before and has said better since. And his comments encouraged his two opponents to make almost identical attacks on him, although each for different reasons.
Senator Clinton hopes to portray Obama as condescending towards rural voters who care about guns and God, but I suspect Republicans are far more concerned about what Obama could do if he pursued the notion that the Republicans have conned Americans into voting against their interests, and then trashed the country. Anyone with Obama's political skills to educate voters on how this happened could also convince them they don't have to accept being the victims another four years. Labeling Obama "elitist" and "condescending" is thus essential, and if Republicans can get Clinton to do that for them, all the better.
A complicit media is also doing it's part to defuse the outrage. As Digby notes, the media mostly ignored the disclosure that the President and his senior officials sat in the White House and orchestrated the torture of other humans. It's old news that we've killed over 4000 soldiers and wounded 30,000 more (we ignore the Iraqi losses) in an unnecessary but unending war or that the President used bipartisan fear mongering to trash the Constitution while undermining our liberties and the rule of law.
John McCain can use the distraction. We may be subject to dangerous products, or collapsing infrastructure or be stranded at airports, but McCain would not have us connect this to the fact that his conservative party has so destroyed government of/by/for the people that fully 80 percent of Americans think we've driven into a ditch and can't get out. He won't be reminding Americans that his party increased poverty, caused a serious recession, left millions uninsured, eliminated millions of jobs, stifled the middle class and grotesquely enriched the rich. Instead, those he panders to kept the faithful distracted about attacks on Christmas or gun shows or immigrants, while his party plundered the country.
McCain says it's okay that Americans are "frustrated," because, my friends, he shares your frustration. But there's no cause for anyone to become bitter, or resentful, or heaven forbid, so goddamned mad they're not going to take it any more.
Things could get out of hand if someone really smart actually tried to explain and tap into that anger, so it's important to recognize when serious people make an effort to maintain calm. The Politico's John Harris and Jim Vandehei, for example, point out in "What Clinton wishes she could say," the remarkable restraint shown by the Clinton campaign in not publically arguing how truly dangerous Barack Obama would be as the Democratic nominee.
According to these serious politicos, the Clinton folks realize that those mean Republicans and their right wing flacks can't wait to bash Obama for being elitist, out of touch, anti-religious and even unpatriotic, not to mention someone who drinks orange juice. So it's imperative that Democratic voters and super delegates realize these vulnerabilities before they commit the Party to inevitable defeat in November.
Being wise and experienced, the Clinton folks know the way to get that message out is to tell the public that Obama is elitist, out of touch, anti-religious and un-patriotic. But according to John/Jim, the Clintons and their surrogates are pulling their punches, only subtly reminding us what happened to previous Democratic candidates:
Both [Gore and Kerry) lost control of their public images to the right-wing freak show — that network of operatives and commentators working mostly outside of the mainstream media — and ultimately lost their elections as many voters came to see them as elitist, out-of-touch, phony, and even unpatriotic. . . .
The frustration emanating from the Clintonites comes from being unable to say in public what they think in private.
It's a shame the Clintons are reduced to telling such important truths in private to Harris and Vandehei . . . and to voters in Indiana and Pennsylvania, . . and somehow it just came up on CNN, NBC (wasn't having McCain/Clinton surrogates Matalin/Carville on MTP to attack Obama a clever metaphor?), and ABC's This Week (who can beat George Will explaining "condescending" and "out of touch" with ordinary Americans?). It's a relief we won't need to hear this from the right wing freak show.
Update: Speaking of right wing freak show, I'm grateful to the NYT's Bill Kristol for revealing that Obama is also a Marxist. Gosh. I thought he was an Islamofascist.
Photo by hanneoria: Grant Wood's American Gothic, 1930, Institute of Art, Chicago
Login Here
Share This
Spotlight
Good morning, Scarecrow.
Talk about irony. George Will calling someone else condescending and out of touch? Wow. Word just can begin to grapple with this.
I’m mad
Like Al Capone
I’m mad
Like Sonny Liston yea
Morning Scarecrow.
So what else is new?
A few things. Love the pic of Hillary packing heat. She looks so comfy doing it too. Then there’s McSame’s 8 or is it 10 houses? I’d like to know lots more about them.
Elitists? naw. Those items are so important that we all should just forget about the fact that they’re shredding the Constitution.
There’s this one:
And then this one:
Uh, exactly where does it say protect the people? It would seem to me that their job is to protect the Constitution. It says so right there.
Good morning all…
As I said yesterday (hope you don’t mind me repeating myself) — I’m a Hoosier and when I read Hillary Clinton’s attack on Obama’s remarks, well, you can guess how well that went over…
She and Bill didn’t give a crap about us until the election and NAFTA became a campaign issue…then suddenly, they’re soooo concerned…puhlease. An opportunist, indeed.
Obama made the remarks in a private setting. He was *not* preaching to us, wagging his finger at us, telling us we shouldn’t be bitter. He was analyzing a situation. AND HE WAS SPOT ON.
We are bitter. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing.
If anyone is elitist, it would be the Clintons. They presumed to know what Hoosiers are thinking and our reaction to Obama’s words–and then they spoke for us.
If anyone is condescending, it would be the Clintons. Nothing is more patronizing than to be talked down to like Hillary did to the factory workers.
After reading the link to Hillary’s Prayer from KaylnMaine yesterday, it has pretty much sealed my impression of Hillary Clinton as a republican in Democrat clothing.
Yeah, RevDeb, I think we should send a Constitution-on-tape to them so they can listen to it while cruising around Washington.
And that is exactly why fancynancy should take impeachment off the table. If the chimp is not an enemy of this country I don’t know who is.
And that is why she is a DLCer.
I see we’re playing by the “what he actually meant was” Obama rules this morning.
Obama’s problem is that his comments to a roomful of rich (almost entirely?) white people about working class whites did smack of condescesion and contempt for working-class whites — in the exact same way that describing rich white people as “clinging to their double mochachino lattes and self-help gurus” to a roomful of working class whites would.
Obama’s appeal has always been elitist in nature — his emphasis has been on “process” not solutions, and when people who are worried about their futures and who want to know what Obama is actually going to do, are told “you can find that on my website, I want to talk about process”, it doesn’t go over well. Worry about “process” is a luxury that working-class voters can’t afford — its a luxury enjoyed by white bloggers and college students who support Obama, but not the working-class whites who he was discussing.
Obama is not being attacked unfairly here because his comments really do reflect who he is, and where he is coming from.
So my continuing question would be when is the media going to ask questions of substance to the candidates. Things like
“what will you do to restore the rule of law to the US of A if/when you are elected?”
“Do you have a plan to clean out the various government of incompetent hacks that have been hired over the last 7 years? and how will you do that legally?”
“What criteria will you use in choosing judges for lifetime appointments?”
“Have you read the Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq? If so, what is your response to it? If not, why not?”
I could go on, but that would be a start.
If Obama is right, as I believe he is, why apologize? He ran into the progressive dilemna. How do you change things without violating the closely held beliefs behind the way things are? Can you say God doesn’t want you to be poor and exploited? Can you say God doesn’t want you to follow leaders off a cliff? Can you say God wants you to think for yourself and do what you want, not what you’re told? That’s not only radical stuff, it goes to the heart of things.
Can you tell the nation the system doesn’t work? that patriotism which contributes greatly to one’s self image led us down the primrose path? It’s a fine line, and unfortunately, Obama hasn’t got the hang of it. The idea is to get elected and then try to work magic. It’s like his wife saying she was proud of America for the first time and all the flack that inspired. She was right. Should we be “proud” of Iraq or Vietnam or sub prime mortgages or any of our numerous ills? I say “no”, but I’m not running for president.
This is the one question that bothers the heck out of me. Kate Michelman, in a talk in NH, mentioned that the clinton2 health plan put forth during the clinton1 presidency did not cover abortion procedures and now she is doing the clinton waffle on “life possibly begins at conception”. This is a woman that would, I believe, be happy with a Bork if her corporate masters demanded it. Not good.
If you’re not bitter, than you are one who has no idea what is going on over in Iraq, who has not been listening to Americans over the years, and you’re one who owns 8 homes and calls everyone else an elitist to make yourself feel better in the face of the bitter people.
Exactly.
That’s why I so appreciate the information shared here on FDL.
He has only apologize for using the word “bitter”, but he does say that it wasn’t too far from the truth. Here he is setting the record straight:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NIxmi3e2Vmo
politically, there is no “fine line”. Its a chasm that simply cannot be crossed without paying a political price.
You can talk about what is wrong with “Republicans” or “Democrats” or “the government” all you like. But you can’t talk about “what is wrong with America.”
New judge appointed chief of FISA court. OK Googlers, start your engines.
Obama should stand behind what he said, I think he was spot on. However, he needs to counter what Hillary and McBush are SAYING he said. I saw no insult, but I’m pretty thick skinned.
Once the last states vote, the Supers must step in and end it. If you’re going to go against the popular vote and back Hillary, stand up and say so! But end this sniping that is only helping McBush.
I have sympathy for Hillary, watching her personal ambition of the last decade slowly vanish. She knows if she doesn’t win now, she’s unlikely to get another chance. And it’s not like she doesn’t have a good program, heck it’s hard to tell her from Obama if you just read their positions and proposals. Think about the cabinets each would select, they’d be darn near identical IMO. But on a personal level, Obama is connecting better.
Boxturtle (Disclaimer: I’m an Obama supporter)
So it seems that the Pope is having dinner at the Italian Embassy on Wed. rather than the WH. Better chef?
It would seem to me that ratzenbugger would have a great time at the WH discussing torture with the chimp. They could even swap videos?
How did you like the pictures of Hillary drinking with the boys?
Thanks. It’s a good clip and a good reponse from Obama. The PA primary will be a good test of democracy. Don’t see how anyone can prefer Hillary to Obama even if you’re a woman. It’s not about gender. It’s about character.
Lets turn this around bob.
Lets say that Hillary Clinton was talking to a roomful of her wealthy black supporters, and she described poor and working-class urban blacks as “bitter” and “clinging to their malt-liquor, their black preachers, and their racial resentment”.
Can you just imagine the shitstorm?
Maybe Bill Cosby can get away with that kind of rhetoric, but Hillary Clinton would be crucified for it in the middle of a political campaign. And the same rules should apply to Barack Obama.
Doesn’t have to laugh at WMD jokes: “They must be here, no over here, no, they’re not here.” And the press corps all laughed. Titanic, anyone?
I’m guessing WAY better. And the dinner conversation will be much less tense. The pope would have great difficulty at thw WH, because any conversation subject other than the weather would eventually lead to The Sins of Bush. That conversation would do Bush a world of good, if he’d just listen.
Boxturtle (Would like to be a judge at a challenge between the chefs at the Italian & French embassies, and the WH. FoodTV, take note)
Good morning.
RevDeb– thanks for the McCain link to 8 houses.
lukasiak. I agree the quote from the Marin meeting comes off as condescending. I’ve now seen about four different versions of the same speech, different places and times. They’re all done without notes, and there are subtle differences each time. Sometimes he fumbles; other times less so. If you see this is as a consistent view of how he thinks, then you have to see all the incarnations to judge what he’s trying to say.
As for Obama being a process thinker, my Cheney reaction is “so?” I think you’re describing one way of how people process information but I can’t see how it defines “elitism” or condescension. Are rural Americans’ incapable of being process thinkers? Are none of them every condescending to their neighbors, or to strangers? I just don’t see how these labels are helpful.
My friends, what we have here is a failure to communicate.
While Barack Obama speaks of the immense frustration and pain and undeserved sacrifice some — repeat — some Americans have made under the reign of George, Hillary Rodham Clinton puts him square in her crosshairs and rips him a new one for telling the truth.
What no one seems to be noting is that this is a woman who is campaigning to become president of the United States of America, not a story-telling Grimm sister. Every day, she morphs into someone different. The tragic figure who tearfully discovers her voice. The media victim. Rocky Balboa. And now Annie Oakley channeling Gunsmoke’s Miss Kitty. The only constant seems to be her willingness to twist truth, bleat and blame, repeat as needed.
Until this week, I have been working hard to become a true believer in Obama. Guess what. I’m there.
By extension, Jim/John are calling us the left-wing freak show. I’m not a freak, I’m a DFH.
“He won’t be reminding Americans that his party increased poverty, caused a serious recession, left millions uninsured, eliminated millions of jobs, stifled the middle class and grotesquely enriched the rich. Instead, those he panders to kept the faithful distracted about attacks on Christmas or gun shows or immigrants, while his party plundered the country.”
Why the hell aren’t the Dems pounding this into the country’s head?
Me, too, Barbara. I don’t agree with everything Obama has done or said, but this hit home. Literally. He doesn’t owe us an apology for speaking the truth. It’s quite refreshing for a change. No pun intended.
I am no where near a true believer in Obama, but Hillary has gone so far off the reservation that there’s no way I’d vote for her in the primary next week. For all the reasons you stated plus the fact that she and Bill and MARK PENN et all ran a campaign of entitlement. Bah humbug.
Why, indeed?! Could it be because the media puts everything of relevance and importance on page A18?
If you drop the malt liquor clause, she might be spot on. We are NOT going to be able to address problems if we can’t talk about them, regardless if the problem is real or simply perception. I say we start talking frankly and the sooner the better.
Everybody is part of the problem, everybody must be part of the solution.
Boxturtle (FWIW, I LIKE Olde English 800. Malt Liquer gets a bad rap as well)
Thanks. I think bitter is fine. Is it going to cost more the send kids to college, are our public schools going in the tank, do I want this to be the world of torture and lies that my grandson will inherit? Bitter, I think.
I even like to make the comparison that when my daughter was growing up, I surrounded her with lessons and visions and hope and beauty of the Kennedy dreams and years. Think contrast.
And don’t forget MSNBC’s new darling David Gregory, dancing with Karl Rove. I think a good blog could consist simply of a daily photo of a news Anchortainer doing something like that, with Cronkite’s or Murrow’s face photoshopped onto it.
i didn’t hear obama’s recent statement… but i have thought he was condesending and elitst ever since his diaries at daily kos more than 2 years ago.
so, defending him as not elitist or condescending doesn’t work for me. i think we’re better off arguing that that this is a stupid way to choose our president - 1) we don’t have the option of electing someone who doesn’t look down on us and 2) and since when is that the best measure of who would make the best president?
I live in a small town. I attended three events in 2007 where Obama spoke. Two of those were in the small town where I live.
Now, I guess there is nothing wrong with Obama trying to explain my family and neighbors to some fat cats in San Francisco [although in my opinion he missed understanding us by a ‘country mile’], but I wonder why he never felt the need to explain them to me?
I think I posted this yesterday, but one of Merriam-Webster’s definitions of “bitter” is this:
Then it’s high time for the Dems to kick this up an octave. Time for one of Harry Reid’s ’stunts’ or a mass march to Rayburn to literally raise Pelosi up on our shoulders while she delivers the message. The Right-Wing media is not going to give us the time on the air or the space on the page. We are going to need to take it.
I agree that should be the line of attack. I didn’t understand Clinton’s response. She could have disassociated herself from the apparent condescension and still turned Obama’s poor wording into a way to channeling the anger he was describing — because her own campaign is partly based on the argument the Republicans have trashed and misled the country — so why not say, “I don’t agree with how he said it, but he’s right that we all have reason to be angry at the other party.” I thought it a lost opportunity to come back and say, “all the folks I’ve met are not bitter; we’re optimistic and rolling up our sleeves.” Denying the anger didn’t make sense, when that anger can be helpful to your message.
Good points. All of the people who think that Obama is the messiah had better get a grip. He isn’t and he will disappoint. And we will have to push him to do the right thing.
I have frequently expressed my greatest fear to people within earshot. I fear that he will be elected and then not much will change—at least not enough to please the young folks who look at him and see stars in their eyes. He will turn out to be the moderate corporate shill that he is and a whole generation of young people who had briefly been turned on to politics by his “promise” will be turned off forever. We will lose a whole generation. That is my worst nightmare (other than Darth refusing to leave office and declaring marshall law, of course).
Barbara, this would make great campaing signage. I hope the Obama campaign is reading this thread. Thanks, Scarecrow.
Great Post Scarecrow…..I am sending an email to the Connecticut for LIEberman Party asking them to make Senator Clinton the nominee for President from their Party……she encompasses the values and ideology of Holy Joe perfectly!
Good point, Scarecrow.
Don’t be getting down on folks like Vandehei and Harris too much, Scarecrow.
If they say someone in politics is “out of touch,” you’ve got to respect their opinion. After all, NOBODY knows “out of touch” like the Pool Boy and his ilk.
Except maybe Deb Howell.
I did. She’s not running against McBush, she’s running against Obama. Do you hammer Obama for a poor choice or words or do you hammer him for being elitist and out of touch? Remember, she doesn’t really care if she poisons November.
Boxturtle (In fact, I think her plan is to make Obama unelectable and force the Supers to pick her)
Of course rural voters can think in terms of “process”. But “process” isn’t their priority, feeding their families is.
The fact is that Obama really doesn’t have that much appeal to the average American. Last night, in the Keli Goff thread, I made a point about John Edwards being unable to attract black support in South Carolina. The response was funny — people told me there were “other factors involved” like the lack of media coverage (not true, given that Edwards got 40% of the white vote) or the his “electability” becoming an issue (not true, Edwards had been in the low single digits for Black support since November.) Nobody wanted to say what that “other factor” really was — Edwards didn’t get Black support because there was a viable black candidate on the ballot.
The simple fact is that if Obama was white, and addressed the concerns of Black voters by telling them to check his website for his policies and that it was all really about “the process”, he’d not be where he is today. His “success” in the primaries is based on three things; Hillary-hate, white “elites” who have the luxury of caring about “process”, and positive racial identification voting by the black community. That isn’t going to win a november election, and Obama needs to face up to that reality very soon. At the very least, he’s going to need to tie McCain to the Bush adminitration to exploit BDS in the same way that his primary campaign has exploited CDS.
We can all sit out here in the progressive blogosphere and enjoy the luxury of concern about “the process” all we want to, but the vast majority of Americans don’t live in that “reality”. Obama’s comments exemplified the disconnect between his candidacy, and the way that working class americans see themselves.
i hadn’t thought that far ahead - but your worry about the risk of disappointment, especially for the idealistic young, makes sense to me. do you have any ideas about what can we do to counter that risk?
I’m sympathetic to that. Attaturk’s post this a.m. has a similar theme. Has “elitist” become like “liberal”??
Any one who graduates at the top of his Harvard Law School class is bound to view himself as pretty smart. He’d come off as phony if he pretended to be otherwise — the question is, what’s he gonna do with those brains?
I think what’s at issue here is wedge issues. Most often lately these include God, guns, immigrants. Too much going on to trot out the baby-killer meme.
I thought that’s what Obama might be driving at. When people have a genuine cause for bitterness (think war, economic dive accompanied by inflation, job loss, administrative incompetence and crimes), the tried and true Republican tactic is to divert conversation from the truths and turn attention to the old standbys, i.e., God, guns, immigrants and patriotism.
“But I’ve been out of work for three months!”
“Yeah, and now those liberal bastards wanna take away your guns!”
“But I’ve been out of work for three months!”
“Yeah, well small wonder, with all those aliens sucking up the good jobs!”
“My kid is being sent to Iraq and I’m scared to death!”
“Well, you know, it’s God’s will that he serve his country this way.”
Make sure we get very House and Senate seat we can filled with progressives so that they can force obama’s hand
Don’t even suggest such a thing.
Yes, when did analyzing a situation become elitist?
Ideas to counter that risk? I hadn’t thought that far head. Though I think that Darcy Burner has modeled a great piece of work with her Responsible Plan for Iraq. That has to be pushed. Then we need a pile of other responsible plans—one to clean out the DOJ, another for the EPA, etc. They need to have huge groundswells of support in order to push the politicians into doing the right thing.
Alas, even if we “win” this we have LOTS of work to do.
Aye, and all of us should keep this in mind. At the end of the day, Obama is still a politician. He’ll have to make compromises we won’t like. He’ll have to not do some of the things he’s said he’ll do.
We need a new cabinet position: Monkey. The monkey’s job is to get on the presidents back and remind him of all the things he’s supposed to be doing.
Boxturtle (Would really enjoy that job, regardless of who gets elected)
well the “malt liquor” clause is the equivalent of the “guns” clause in Obama’s statement — a negative stereotype designed to separate the speaker and his audience from the subject being discussed.
But the issue isn’t whether it would be true or not, the issue is what the reaction would be. Do you really think that Obama and his supporters would not exploit the equivalent statement by Clinton to the hilt? After the crap they pulled in South Carolina with perfectly innocent statements made by the Clintons?
In theory, the Chief of Staff is supposed to be the monkey. Some have succeeded in this, some have, well, let’s just say had their hands full keeping the preznit out of more trouble than he has already caused.
Harry and Nancy and both working very hard to return the Permanent Republic Majority to power.
I am reading your comments and Im amazed.
We have a candidate who isnt perfect and says so. We have a candidate who is from the people and not the elite.
We have a candidate who speaks the truth, can apologise, and can use words to educate and inspire. who hasnt degraded and insulted the other Democrat.
We have a candidate who brings the new voter and the young to the party.
We have a candidate who will listen to the people.
And he isnt good enough.
George Bush claims to be religious and patriotic. Count me as anti-religious and un-patriotic.
Scarecrow, “Has “elitist” become like “liberal”??” Yes, and we had better get out in front of this thing. This morning, I read a quote by some Republican calling us ‘the trial-lawyer Democrats’. We ignore these monikers at our own very great peril.
Amen. It all really is a lesson in eating one’s own.
Well after clinton2’s position in yesterday’s religious forum and her leaving out the right to have an abortion in the first clinton’s health package it seems that choice is a very important issue. Just what sort of Supreme court Justice do you think clinton2 would nominate?
well, NOT lecturing us on how we shouldn’t give our pols a hard time for supporting the roberts nomination to the supreme court would be a a start.
he could have written a diary about ANYTHING - but that was what he thought was the most important thing to write about? jeeze, i’m still peeved.
there’s a big difference between the confidence that comes with true talent, accomplishment and competency. i like that - because anyone who really knows their stuff is also aware of how much they don’t know.
but that’s not what i mean by “elitist” - i’m referring to the condensation shown to others which seems to imply that he knows better than us about everything, that we should just stfu and listen to our betters.
that’s what i don’t like.
and while that might affect who i’d like to drink a beer with, i still think it’s a lousy way to choose a president.
We fight Bushco and the Republicans with the Congressional leadership we have, not the leadership we wish we had!
I think that both campaigns have gone WAY too far. I’m sure that Obama would exploit a similar statement by Hillary, even if he agreed with it.
Sad, isn’t it? That’s why i want the Supers to end it, we’re basically eating each other while McBush looks statesmanlike.
I’ve never consider liking guns to be a negative, so maybe that’s why I don’t equate Malt Liquer to guns. Implying that someone is a street drunk is an insult, saying they like guns is not.
Boxturtle (And I still think he was spot on)
2004
R) 62,040,610……… .D) 59,028,11
2000
R) 50,460,110…….. .D) 51,003,926
Fact Free and Lovin’ It !
what could be more elitist than Pool Boy and Harris chatting up the other beltway lemmings with shiny, What If tales that validate their closely held, patently false templates on the mighty unwashed ?!?!?
amen. this i can get behind without reservation.
gosh. I didn’t see any of this concern about “eating one’s own” when Obama (and Edwards) attacked Clinton because she didn’t represent “change” like they did. This idea that Obama has run this entirely “high road” campaign, and has never criticized Clinton in a way that could be used against her in the general election, is complete BS. Obama has consistently attacked Clinton where she is most vulnerable, and in ways that reinforce her “negatives”.
So lets have a time-out on the hypocrisy for a little while, okay?
Yes a little foggy and wet no doubt but condecension is maybe what you are looking for.
Clinton is pro-choice.
Period.
Ah, jeez. Missed that. So it’s the whole bunch of wedge issues, then, being pounded into place by — a Democrat! What’s wrong with this picture?
Could “elite” be code for “uppity”….?
He is neither.
Once can claim all they want…actions do the real talking.
I think Obama is the candidate who can turn these labels around and stick them all over the Republicans. His “Now, who do you think is out of touch?” speech confirmed that to me.
The Democrats in Congress come to a knive fight armed with pea shooters.
ouch!
By that standard, I’d be proud to join you.
Obama was talking to a bunch of rich San Franciscans. While “clinging to their guns” may not be a negative stereotype to you, the way that “clinging to their guns” is perceived among that audience is probably different from your perception.
*sigh*
Their knives don’t measure up to our torches and pitchforks.
This shameless attack on Obama by Clinton should ice her chances of delegate pickups. So she’s just left with bloodying him until the old man can pick up the ball. Thanks Hill.
please, i beg you, don’t got there without a hell of a good argument to back you up.
i’m sick of being call sexist because i don’t like senator clinton. please don’t add to that by implying i’m racist for thinking senator obama’s dailykos diary was condesending.
blech.
I agree. Excellent points. Instead of fueling the Right Wing Wurlitzer, why not demonstrate how you would attack it? It goes back to an observation I have made for a couple of months now; it is hard to differentiate between a Right Wing Hack and a Clinton surrogate. As a former Edwards delegate, I would be more impressed witht the ability to attack the GOP, not help support them with there faux talking points. IMHO.
Rev
I agree with your concerns. Having thought about it quite a bit, here’s my take, faint hope that it is …
It is possible that WE, ‘the people’, can make enough ‘noise’ and thereby influence Obama to make the decisions and choices as President that the nation, and the world, desperately need.
I do not see even that possibility with either of the other two would-be’s.
It ain’t much, admittedly, but then that is the nature of battered hope …
Point conceeded. I’m sure they took it differently than I did.
Boxturtle (According to the GOP, I’m a DFH…but I don’t find that insulting :-) )
Bom dia, pups
Hope all had a decent night of sleep.
I wonder how many more U.S. service people will lose their life today?
How many Iraqis will not see the sun go down on this day?
How many americans will be faced with the decision to declare bankruptcy?
How many more illegal acts will be committed by this administration?
Oh. wait, the candidates don’t care about that…my bad
I don’t think that was directed at anyone in particular. It’s more along the lines Jane discussed once, about how each of us hears different things from the same words without realizing it.
DWB, my hope is that Obama is even more Progressive than he can allow himself to show right now. That once he is in office, he will uncloak further.
Please read George Lakoff’s stuff on framing issues. It’s an essential concept. The Republicans mastered it long ago under the tutelage of Frank Luntz. There is as much power in language as there is in pitchforks.
Stop with the issues. Obama’s being elitist, Hillary is being a b***h and you want us to worry about Iraq?!? Where’s the fun in that?!?
Boxturtle (Next you’ll want the NATION to interrupt their gossip to listen to your issues)
I’m not bitter. I wish some would have bible driven religious self evaluations…. while clinging to their gun. Then upon realizations as to the ill effects they have cause other human beings, they would do the right thing and rid the world of themselves, but more important is their need to avoid accountability since they have realized,, they are going to hell….
I believe this is the primary motivation for the DC gun ban. Reduction in self inflicted mortal gun wounds by politicians in the future…..
Just Joking of course…..ha ha
the problem, imo, with that kind of general statement directed at no one is that it is directed at everyone.
i’d much prefer a statement about a specific event or use of the word “elitist” was a dog whistle for “uppity” because then we would have something to analyze critically to determine if the statement was justified or not. generalized statements about everyone and no one don’t lend themselves to that process and therefore, i think, add to the toxicity of the conversation.
I agree, and am a big fan of Jeffrey Feldman. However, in this Right-WingMedia Age you almost need a pitchfork to get in front of page 18. You are forced to get their attention before you deliver your message.
actually, selise, I do think that there is a lot of “dog whistle” in the whole “Obama is an elitist” frame. (I don’t think you’re doing it at all, but that’s not the point.)
And I’m really unhappy with the Clinton camp playing into that — I’d be a whole lot more pissed off about it had Obama and his supporters not pulled the “Clinton is running a racist campaign” crap they did in South Carolina, a theme they have been ‘dog whistling’ themselves ever since. So, my take is that as long as Obama supporters want to insist that Clinton is going to pay the price for “running a racist campaign”, she might as well reap the benefits from it.
In other words, there was absolutely nothing racist about the campaign that Clinton has run up until this point — but the Obama campaign and his supporters have tried to make it appear that there was something racist about the campaign. So now that the Clinton camp is finally doing what they’ve been falsely accused of doing for months, I’m not all that upset.
Gosh! I never realized how STUPID Obama and All those who would support him are, and must be, by ‘definition’.
However, you represent Hillary Clinton very well…
She never behaves as if we, the people, are stupid or as if she, and she alone, has the handle on TRUTH.
POO(F)!;~D
Nah, I just want them to DEBATE/DISCUSS what is going on in this country.It saddens me that this is even an issue. But it’s politics, baby.
condescending? I have yet to come to that conclusion by the people from small towns. The ones complicit in the situation that small town folks (and many of the rest of us) find themselves in have made their case of elitism. But I tend not to listen to them.