IMO, and without having a dog in the fight since I really don't care about all this bickering and will just vote in November based on who is on the ticket...
Whether answering a volunteers question or speaking to a crowd, saying people cling to their guns, religion, and demonize others that are different from themselves as coping mechanisms for hardships is elitist. It insinuates they aint smart enough to figger they's bein' played.
On the other hand, I understand that what he was getting at is that the talking points that are totally irrelevant to their plight (homo's getting married, damn terroists and whether a husband can can pull the plug on his comatose wife, etc) are what citizens will be hearing again, probably a different song but same tune this year, and they need to be aware that these issues are NOT going to change their lives no matter how BIG the other candidates / political ops try to make them.
Maybe he could have said it better, but hey, we've had several days to discuss it and figure that out. He didn't.
Now, can we deal with real issues?
squinney wrote:Now, can we deal with real issues?
Sure. But first, let's discuss the bitter undertone with which you just said that.
Nice post, squinney.
Not only did he not have a few days to figure it out, btw, but evidently he had no idea he was being recorded -- Mayhill Fowler (who I've appreciated over the course of the campaign -- she had a few great blogs about the Clintons in Texas) gained entry to the event as a donor, and had a hidden recorder. He thought he was just talking to some donors/ volunteers (this is what Butrflynet said too, but I just learned about the covert aspect... I thought he'd realized a journalist was tagging along).
(Note, this seems to be the case, from several different sources, but I'm not certain.)
ANYWAY.
sozobe wrote:Nice post, squinney.
Not only did he not have a few days to figure it out, btw, but evidently he had no idea he was being recorded -- Mayhill Fowler (who I've appreciated over the course of the campaign -- she had a few great blogs about the Clintons in Texas) gained entry to the event as a donor, and had a hidden recorder. He thought he was just talking to some donors/ volunteers (this is what Butrflynet said too, but I just learned about the covert aspect... I thought he'd realized a journalist was tagging along).
(Note, this seems to be the case, from several different sources, but I'm not certain.)
ANYWAY.
goodness; guess we'll find out one way or another in the next few days.
sozobe wrote:
Goes back to what I said before that when you pit "people have a reason to be bitter"(Obama) against handing out "I'm not bitter" stickers (Clinton), it seems to like it would end up benefiting Obama more. We'll see though.
Early evidence, while inconclusive, seems promising:
New York Daily News' Errol Louis wrote:
and
Philly Daily News' Baer wrote:
From First Read:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/14/887051.aspx
By the way, I think the actual flap is silly and SHOULD be a non-issue -- I agree with squinney there -- but I think discussion of whether it will really impact his run makes sense.
I'm still hoping "no," can't quite tell yet.
First, be prepared for the charge of "elitism" to be levelled against any dem candidate once that candidate is chosen. That is now a universal in republican campaign strategies. And, this will be placed in contrast to the repub candidate portrayed as 'Washington outsider', plain-spoken, shirtsleeves rolled up, normal fellow. It happens in each election and, as with Bush, the narrative bears no relation to accuracy or reality, it is simply a poll-driven marketing strategy. Read Kristol in the Times this morning and you'll see the game being played (with a tie in to Marx for good measure).
Second, I really don't know what anyone expects to achieve by 'debating' the specifics or reality of such charges with folks like okie or real life, for example. Knock yourselves out, but when, after a thousand or two thousand such exchanges have taken place, it probably ought to dawn that the language of these exchanges isn't rationalism.
blatham wrote:First, be prepared for the charge of "elitism" to be levelled against any dem candidate once that candidate is chosen. That is now a universal in republican campaign strategies. And, this will be placed in contrast to the repub candidate portrayed as 'Washington outsider', plain-spoken, shirtsleeves rolled up, normal fellow. It happens in each election and, as with Bush, the narrative bears no relation to accuracy or reality, it is simply a poll-driven marketing strategy. Read Kristol in the Times this morning and you'll see the game being played (with a tie in to Marx for good measure).
Second, I really don't know what anyone expects to achieve by 'debating' the specifics or reality of such charges with folks like okie or real life, for example. Knock yourselves out, but when, after a thousand or two thousand such exchanges have taken place, it probably ought to dawn that the language of these exchanges isn't rationalism.
I think I have got to stop taking your posts seriously now.
Just the same-old same-ol'.
Cycloptichorn
blatham wrote:I really don't know what anyone expects to achieve by 'debating' the specifics or reality of such charges with folks like okie or real life, for example. Knock yourselves out, but when, after a thousand or two thousand such exchanges have taken place, it probably ought to dawn that the language of these exchanges isn't rationalism.
The good news is that nobody with any sense at all is actually taking their idiotic perspective seriously. The whole thing is a tempest in a teapot as far as I'm concerned. A bunch of self-righteous twits running around screaming amongst themselves about the horrible smartypants candidate who thinks he's better than them. Nothing to worry about. Entertainment value only.
I do have a little trouble with what I perceive as their "air of arrogance" they try to smear Obama with equating to nothing but the same old "uppitty negro" of old.
I hate to burst anybody's bubble (including my own) but I came across this poll this morning; don't look too good. I don't understand it myself as I think he spoke nothing but the unvarnished truth; but anyway..
Quote:
Monday, April 14, 2008
Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters nationwide disagree with Barack Obama's statement that people in small towns "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." A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that just 25% agree with the Democratic frontrunner while 19% are not sure.
and yet
Quote:The survey also confirmed that the Obama campaign and its surrogates were very shrewd to try and switch the conversation to whether or not people are bitter and want change in Washington. Fifty-six percent (56%) of voters agreed with Obama's statement that "People are fed up. They're angry and they're frustrated and they're bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington." Just 32% disagree. Most Democrats and most unaffiliated voters agree with Obama on this point. Clinton's campaign initially challenged Obama's use of the word "bitter" but quickly changed its focus to the more controversial aspects of Obama's statement.
source
snood wrote:I do have a little trouble with what I perceive as their "air of arrogance" they try to smear Obama with equating to nothing but the same old "uppitty negro" of old.
Of course, the arrogance charge is racist. I have not heard that claim however in the MSM. What they are trying to hang on him is "elitist." Of course, that is as absurd but not racist.
I wonder how elitist Obama felt as a child, being raised by a white mother. Think he got some heat from that. (In addition to the usual stuff blacks suffer in this white supremacist culture)
Hillary was speaking at an event this am and tried to slime Obama with the elite label and the crowd moaned. Hillary "Annie Oakley" Clinton has over reached and this nonsense will wind up backfiring on her.
Obama will have a lot less hard time explaining this n the general then McCain will have explaining his 100 year gaffe, his admitted lack of economic expertise and his stay the course policy.`
Yeah, I was just reading about that -- the bad reaction her comments got from the crowd.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/04/14/888068.aspx
Quote:"I understand my opponent came this morning and he spent a lot of his time attacking me," she said, before being interrupted with several seconds of murmurs and groans from the crowd. "Well, you know, I know that many of you, like me were disappointed by recent remarks that he made."
More groans and at least one "No" from the crowd.
"And I think it's important that, you know, we give people the chance to really compare and contrast us," Clinton continued. "You know, I am well aware that at a fundraiser in San Francisco, he said some things that many people in Pennsylvania and beyond Pennsylvania have found offensive."
A few more "No"s.
Etc.
Clinton's campaign said it was orchestrated by SEIU (which supports Obama). Dunno.
Yeah, they got everyone together and planned on Booing Clinton if she brought it up.
Man
This whole thing has gone on too long. It's wearing me out.
Cycloptichorn
While it's true this latest nonsense about Obama will mean virtually nothing in the General; McCain made no 100 year gaffe.
That is the exact same type of sleazy politics. And it, too, will only affect idiots and the choir.
OCCOM BILL wrote: While it's true this latest nonsense about Obama will mean virtually nothing in the General; McCain made no 100 year gaffe.
That is the exact same type of sleazy politics. And it, too, will only affect idiots and the choir.
Oh Yeah. what do you have to say about Columbia?
Why did you capitalize "general", Bill?
That is gnawing at me right now in much the same fashion as a possum would gnaw at the femur of a dead fox on the side of the road.
gustavratzenhofer wrote:Why did you capitalize "general", Bill?
It's obvious you dunderhead, bill was just trying to be specific.
