nimh wrote:Foxfyre wrote:The dwelling itself, however, is rather impressive suggesting quite substantial affluence which, fair or not, blunts the Barack and Michelle's litany of coming from 'poor' families or families of quite modest means.
Well, compared to the McCain's various mansions it's pretty modest... hell, compared to John McCain's estimated net worth of $25-$38 million [size=8]1) [/size]or $40.4 million [size=8]2)[/size], the Obama's shared net worth of $1-$2.5 million [size=8]1) [/size]or $1.3 million [size=8]2) [/size]makes them almost paupers. :wink:
In seriousness though, your argument doesnt make any sense. Plenty of people in America come from families of modest means and yet during their life made it up into some prosperity. Isnt that what the American Dream is all about? The Obamas come from families of quite modest needs, yes, and thanks to their academic excellence and savvy career moves, and Barack's fame and knack for writing, have made it into comfortable prosperity. How is one thing supposed to refute the other?
The reality's simple enough [size=8]1)[/size]:
Quote:With one exception among the three leading Republicans and three leading Democrats, the contenders each appear to be worth tens of millions.
The exception: Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.). As a community organizer-turned-law professor-turned-state senator-turned U.S. senator, the bulk of Obama's wealth has come only in the past few years, with the huge success of his second book, " The Audacity of Hope."
1) Washington Post, March 2007
2) ExtraTV, April 2008
I was not criticizing the house, Nimh. The fact that that Michelle has earned six figures pretty much upon graduation from an Ivy League law school and that the community organizer--I'm hoping there will be much more scrutiny about that by the way--turned-law profesor-yadda yadda Obama also attended prestige schools and obviously has in no way been personally disadvantaged and does not exemplify the average working Joe or poor person. The mainstream media, however, rarely calls attention to such facts while being accomplice to Obama to create the image of himself that he wants others to see.
I probably did not make the connection between media coverage and this phenomenon clear enough.
The point I intended to make here was the media coverage and the incongruity between what is and what is presented to be believed. But in any case, you flat out ignored the media coverage that you referenced and that prompted my post in the first place. You instead zeroed in on the example I used to illustrate my impression. If it was McCain who was using his 'poor underprivileged beginnings' to generate sympathy and connectedness, do you think the media would not be coupling that with the fact that he married a quite wealthy heiress?
Why don't we not attack each other and focus on that media coverage and the examples included in it?
That must be why no one's ever heard of Wright or Rezko, right? 
My goodness; what a travesty!
