home

Right Wing Talking Points

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:57:35 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg This!! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Hillary Clinton should suffer with Democratic voters for her attacks on Barack Obama regarding BitterGate. To speak of him as "elitist" is just the type of character attack that Dems should not use against fellow Dems.

By the same token, Barack Obama should suffer for his continuing use of this Right Wing talking point, one he has used since October 2007:

Sen. Obama accused Sen. Clinton of playing politics, and his campaign said she would say or do anything to get elected.

I condemn both Clinton and Obama for using right wing character attacks against fellow Democrats. Anyone think the "Creative Class" blogs will do the same? Me neither.

Update (TL): Comments now closed.

< Unreliable ARG: Clinton By 20 In PA | Susq. PA Poll: Close Race >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Right Wing Talking Points | 201 comments (201 topical)
    I think you will not get much agreement (5.00 / 11) (#1)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 10:59:12 AM EST
    here. What she said is that Obama will be PERCEIVED as elitist because of these remarks.
    It's perfectly accurate. She is warning the Democrats of disaster should they nominate Obama---yet another out of touch snob.
    I appreciate it.

    I agree (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:01:37 AM EST
    Also check out Carrie Brown at Politico.  She looks at the Flip Side of Obama.  Interesting.  

    [ Parent ]
    I agree with MarkL that is... (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by bjorn on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:02:07 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I agree Mark (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by cmugirl on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:04:52 AM EST
    I don't buy the argument that the candidate has to watch every thing they say because it might hurt the opponent in the general.  I didn't agree with all the fuss about Hillary saying she and McCain had passed the CIC threshold, because I thought she was dead on.  

    We're seeing this now because, as Joe Klein said, this is "silly season" and we've had a long time between primaries, so all this other stuff comes out.

    I also agree that HRC was right on the money - Obama never meant for these comments to be heard, and I can't think of a worse place than SF for him to say it - of COURSE it's going to be perceived as being "elitist". I also think she's dead on when she makes the argument that this was part of Gore's and Kerry's problem and look where it got them (and us).  This is a perfectly legitimate argument to make to voters and to the SDs.

    [ Parent ]

    Obama has been perceived as Elitist (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    since last year. And now it's confirmed - in his own words.

    Exit polling data also confirms - wealthy voting for Obama, working class for Hillary. Prior to his Billionaire Row remarks, Obama supporters seemed to like that data and mocked Hillary's low income-uneducated base.

    And the orange juice incident last week was perceived as more Obama elitism.

    [ Parent ]

    slight exaggeration (none / 0) (#17)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:17:33 AM EST
    wealthy voting for Obama, working class for Hillary

    how did he win all those states.  Iowa, Mississippi, North Dakota, etc.  ohhhh... only the wealthy showed up.  I would consider myself the "working class"; my friends too.  but didn't vote for her - never got the memo.  

    [ Parent ]

    Those states were won... (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by gmo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:40:04 AM EST
    ...for different reasons, but I don't think anyone would say it was because Obama explicitly represented the working class and the poor.  That was John Edwards.

    More important than the wealthy vs working class vote, his victories in those states were based on an appeal for "unity" and a "different kind of politics."   IMO, his campaign's behavior these last few weeks since those victories have proven that he can't provide either.

    [ Parent ]

    Maybe because (none / 0) (#31)
    by sister of ye on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:25:15 AM EST
    Most of those were caucuses, and attendance was skewed toward people with the luxury of being able to spend hours at a time. Not a good syste for working people with job they can't just take off from or with nannies to watch their kids, or even college kids who have to work as well as attend class.


    [ Parent ]
    Actually, the caucus format has helped Clinton. (none / 0) (#45)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:31:06 AM EST
    http://www.dcourage.com/Caucus%20Study.pdf

    i know you didn't want me to cite that but couldn't help.  

    whoops.

    [ Parent ]

    And of course... (none / 0) (#70)
    by gmo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:45:24 AM EST
    ...that study exclude Florida & Michigan.

    whoops.

    [ Parent ]

    Orange Juice? (none / 0) (#84)
    by Chimster on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:51:26 AM EST
    I heard about the arugula comment. What's this about orange juice?

    [ Parent ]
    more non-substantive nonsense (none / 0) (#94)
    by Molly Bloom on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:58:41 AM EST
    from Tweety. REal men don't ask for OJ in a diner.

    "Once in a while you get shown the light In the strangest of places if you look at it right"
    [ Parent ]

    To be fair to Tweety. (cant believe I said that).. (5.00 / 1) (#107)
    by Maria Garcia on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:05:14 PM EST
    ...the OJ wasn't the bad thing, it was the refusing of coffee in favor of orange juice. Real men are allowed orange juice with a coffee chaser, apparently.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama was in a diner (none / 0) (#164)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:05:03 PM EST
    and the owner offered him a cup of coffee. Obama said he'd rather have OJ.
    Wouldn't have been a big deal except it fed into his elitism label, ungracious, etc. - and that was before his comments on Billionaire Row.


    [ Parent ]
    I am with you on this. (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by BernieO on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:20:15 AM EST
    This is not an isolated incident. Both Obamas are out-of-touch elitists. Michelle complained about how hard she and Barak have it because of debts from student loans to those elite schools and because they have to spend $10,000 dollars a year on dance and muscic lessons, etc. for their children! She was speaking to working class women in Ohio at the time! This is clearly out-of-touch and elitist. She seems to feel she has to have the very best, not that these are choices she has made that the women to whom she was speaking would never have. (She could stop buying Jimmy Choo shoes and expensive jewelry so that she could more easily afford those lessons for her children.)And when they wanted a mansion that they could not afford they did not find a house within their budget the way ordinary people do. They went to a friend who was tainted by scandal to help them buy it. Obviously the thought of a less grand home was not a compromise they were willing to make.
    I have heard talking heads on both MSNBC and CNN talk about Obama's humble, working class origins. That is bunk. Apparently the fact that his mother was single for a few years makes them think this. Yet his mother was a college grad as was his father, and his grandmother was the VP of the largest bank in Hawaii. (The only one who qualifies as working class is his grandfather.)Part of the time he lived in the Phillipines Obama lived in a posh neighborhood and went to an elite school. He then returned to Hawaii so that he could attend that state's most expensive, elite, prestigious school for middle and high school. He lived in a nice high rise with his grandparents and his grandmother paid his way.
    If this is a working class life, then I must be poor.


    [ Parent ]
    This was a reply (none / 0) (#27)
    by BernieO on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:22:30 AM EST
    to Mark, not BTD. Tought I had hit the reply button.

    [ Parent ]
    please delete (none / 0) (#33)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:26:13 AM EST
    He then returned to Hawaii so that he could attend that state's most expensive, elite, prestigious school for middle and high school. He lived in a nice high rise with his grandparents and his grandmother paid his way.

    you guys keep peddling out right lies.  

    He went to that "elite" high school on a scholarship.  Don't push lies in the hopes of nobody calling you out on them.  Jeralyn/BTD, please remove.  thx

    [ Parent ]

    Slow down, hoss (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Trickster on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:58:42 AM EST
    Just because the poster didn't add some context you think needs to be added doesn't make the post a lie.

    [ Parent ]
    He went there on a scholarship (none / 0) (#39)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:28:21 AM EST
    but he lived with his grandparents who were not poor.

    And it was an exclusive prep school.

    [ Parent ]

    so, that was a lie. (none / 0) (#47)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:32:27 AM EST
    and are we now putting down people that go to top schools?  on scholarship no less?  

    officially derailed.

    please delete the lying post.  

    [ Parent ]

    I am not putting him down (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by zyx on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:28:28 PM EST
    BUT I am actually curious about that "scholarship".  I had a long relationship with a small, high-quality private school that had no extra money and NO FRILLS WHATEVER--it was no Punahou, let me tell you.  But it did offer kids financial aid "scholarships" based on forms that parents filled out.  However, in many cases, parents who had very limited incomes would fill out the forms, and the tuition grants would be made accordingly, but the tuition would be paid--and it was going to be paid, and it was always going to be paid--by grandparents, whose financial circumstances were NOT "limited".

    I don't know, and it's not particularly relevant to voting for Obama, what the case was re: Puhahou and his "scholarship", but I read not long ago that his grandmother was a vice-president at her bank.  I have also read that he got this "scholarship" in the fifth grade and that he was a B student.  So, on what basis did he get this "scholarship"?

    [ Parent ]

    Probably his vast foreign policy understanding (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:40:38 PM EST
    as a result of living in Indonesia. Regardless of his grades, how many fifth graders can claim those kind of foreign policy bonafides?

    [ Parent ]
    That's funny. It really is. (none / 0) (#203)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:41:56 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    I have read and heard several times (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by BernieO on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    that his grandmother paid for his tuition. If that is wrong I was not lying, and it is insulting for people to ascribe intentional deceit rather than just making a mistake.
    The point is he grandparents were certainly not working class and he was in a privileged environment. Portraying him as coming from the working class is no more accurate than portraying George Bush as a rancher. It is misleading.

    That being said it does not mean that someone from a more privileged background cannot relate to people from the working class, but it does often happen that way.

    [ Parent ]

    I think you did a good job of pointing out (none / 0) (#75)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:47:08 AM EST
    the one lie in that post. The rest can and should stay up. Baby, bathwater, etc.

    [ Parent ]
    If his grandmother was (none / 0) (#182)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:59:29 PM EST
    a VP of a large bank in Hawaii, one has to wonder why there was a need for a scholarship. No?

    [ Parent ]
    I do agree with you in many aspects (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by hopeyfix on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:02:22 AM EST
    But I also think that this last weekend has sinked Obama lower and after this comment today, which got the best and quicker response I've seen from the Clinton camp (which frankly has been beyond incompetence on this race), it will be tricky to find excuses for a candidate who seems to be shooting on both his feet and digging a hole even deeper. And that's why so many people - even the ladies on XX Factor on Slate, who were mega pro-Obama - are questioning his abilities to be a viable candidate.

    from Slate article... (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:26:51 AM EST
    >>>"So it's not surprising then that they get bitter," (Angry, OK, but bitter? I don't think I've ever heard anyone describe someone they liked that way.)  

    Good point.
    GOP will remind "those people" that Obama doesn't like them, talked about them behind their backs, called them ignorant and racists for not voting for him....

    But - Obama is ahead in delegates so we must nominate him.

    Hellooo President McSame!

    [ Parent ]

    One should note (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:07:16 AM EST
    Clinton's attacks are on Obama.

    Obama's attacks are on the party.  Or at least half the party.

    The nexus, and relevant to Obama's comment above:

    Saying AUMF voters voted out of political calculus.

    When Obama makes that criticism, he is not just criticizing Clinton, he is criticizing everyone in the party who voted "for the war."

    Clinton may attack Brand Obama, call him naive and irresponsible, call him elitist, call him whatever she wants, it's a primary.

    and his attacks are on downticket races (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:29:14 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Class issue (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:07:58 AM EST
     Rather interesting how they both made a promise to Edwards that they would talk about the two Americas in the campaign.  I guess now they are.  Instead the press, the blogs are taking a critical issue and burying it under the Republican Talking Points.  

    Once again, I am angry that the "Obama" personality style of campaigning, the Axelrod strategy, has sidelined the issues that would have made us win, the economy.  

    Yes, I fully blame the Obama campaign, cause they hijacked the primaries.  

    Interesting (none / 0) (#174)
    by mbuchel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:31:46 PM EST
    If Obama wins an election, it means he "hijacked" it?  I just figured it meant the voters in those states (a majority of them, mind you) liked him better.
    But I'm sure Hillary won her states because it was the result of "real voters".

    [ Parent ]
    Hijacked the issues (none / 0) (#184)
    by Stellaaa on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:10:15 PM EST
    Obama campaign is about Obama, not policies or issues.  That is the hijacking I am talking about.

    [ Parent ]
    Mostly the primaries did (none / 0) (#185)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:10:24 PM EST
    get us the candidate the voters liked better.  The caucuses, not so much.  See WA and TX.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary wasn't using (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by myiq2xu on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:08:55 AM EST
    right-wing talking points, she was just pointing out the obvious.

    Obama is the one to blame.  He said it, then defended it.

    the problem with unilateral disarmament (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:13:13 AM EST
    is that you have no weapons and the other side has plenty. I agree that both sides should refrain from personal attacks that smack of right wing methodology. But if one side is using them, the other side may have to do the same. And we all know Obama started in on the trust and other issues back when Clinton was ahead and therefore not attacking anyone. But if the Obama camp puts away their six shooters and the Obama camp surrogates (blogs) do the same, then by all means. I'm not holding my breath though.

    But you're absolutely right to condemn both. I do as well. It's just not cricket.

    I have formed my own opinion of Obama (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:14:57 AM EST
    based on not just his recent remarks, but the way he is running his entire campaign. And guess what? He is an elitist, completely clueless and disdainful of the working class.

    HRC is right on the money about how is going to be perceived by voters in the General Election, whether they believe the traditional right-wing smears or not.

    You're right (5.00 / 0) (#176)
    by mbuchel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:37:31 PM EST
    He is an elitist.  Oh, and did I mention that he is a black man raised by a single white mother, who chose to work as a community organizer instead of a high priced law firm, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama?  When I think of an elitist, that's the image that immediately comes to mind.

    As opposed to a woman who has grossed north of $100 million, who has lived in either a governor's mansion, the White House, or estates in Georgetown and Chappaqua for the better part of 30 years.  No, that's a true Woman of the People.

    And no I'm not saying she's an elitist.  I'm saying this debate is idiotic.

    But I suppose you probably agree with Bill Kristol in today's NY Times that he's not just an elitist, but a Marxist Elitist.

    [ Parent ]

    No, no, no (5.00 / 8) (#14)
    by dk on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:15:35 AM EST
    Talking points (whether they are Republican or otherwise) should not be used to obfuscate the truth.  A good example of this is the John Edwards haircut stuff.  Republicans used took the haircut and spun it into their narrative of Democrats as being effete, or elitist, or whatever, when a) that overall generalization is not true and b) John Edward's haircut was not real evidence of anything.

    In the same vein, saying Hillary would do anything to win is not true in the general sense (unless you believe the Vince Foster stuff, of course) or even in this particular circumstance.

    On the other hand, Obama made an elitist comment in San Francisco (again, whether Obama himself is elitist is something only Obama himself can know, I suppose, but the comment was elitist).  Pointing to the comment and saying it was elitist (if that's all she is doing) is fair game as far as I'm concerned.  It's on Obama to diffuse that.  And to show you I'm not being blindly partisan, this is more like Tuzla-gate in the sense pointing out that what Clinton said in her speeches and the video were two different things, and it was on Clinton to deal with that.

    Excellent points. (none / 0) (#18)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:18:15 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Right its typical (none / 0) (#173)
    by Jgarza on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:31:35 PM EST
    Clintonista talk, every thing is fair game on Obama.  

    [ Parent ]
    Clintonista (none / 0) (#178)
    by Marvin42 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:43:09 PM EST
    Is offensive. Please refrain.

    [ Parent ]
    Really? She hasn't mentioned (none / 0) (#187)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:14:15 PM EST
    Wright as I recall.

    [ Parent ]
    Hillary isn't using right wing talking points. (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:17:24 AM EST
    He is an elitist.  It's a fact. He said so himself with his statements. And he deserves to be called out on it. He's said Hillary will do anything to win. That she's a liar. That she's basically responsible for the war.  I see nothing wrong with Hillary attacking him with this on this. The Republicans will not be so kind.

    Obama displayed more elitism (5.00 / 3) (#76)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:47:16 AM EST
    by issuing an "apology" that wasn't an apology.
    "You people are just too dumb to understand the Truth of my remarks - and I stand by them."

    [ Parent ]
    That was very Alito of him. (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:09:44 PM EST
    The problem was the PERCEPTION.  It doesn't matter if you really did think that woman was wearing a nice sweater - if she thought that you were really leering at her cleavage, she will have a negative perception of you.

    You could be the perfect gentleman, but because you made an ill-conceived remark, you pissed her off.  You do not make her feel better by saying "What I really meant is that really was an attractive top and it's not my fault that you do have massive mammaries and got upset with me.".  You say "Oh, I am sorry that my clumsy remark upset you.  How can I make it up to you?".

    [ Parent ]

    cool.... (none / 0) (#21)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:19:49 AM EST
    He is an elitist.  It's a fact.

    wow - you must know him well.  tell the majority of your party, as he's going to be the nominee.  

    [ Parent ]

    The majority of the party already know (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    The majority of his party, the democrats, have actually voted for Clinton. So we don't have to tell the majority of the party anything, they already know. It's the republicans and independents and of course the disenfranchisement of FL and MI that is making this primary lean towards Obama. But of course you knew this.

    [ Parent ]
    thats not accurate (none / 0) (#40)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:28:27 AM EST
    although it does sound good.  

    [ Parent ]
    um, yes it is (none / 0) (#44)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:30:15 AM EST
    well, the democratic vote part. I am assuming you know that and are just spinning for Obama. So I could be wrong about that part.

    [ Parent ]
    And the majority of (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:35:09 AM EST
    MY party has voted for Clinton. More Dems have voted for her.

    [ Parent ]
    He will eat ham. If it costs 99,99. (5.00 / 2) (#71)
    by hopeyfix on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:45:28 AM EST
    PITTSBURGH, Pennsylvania (CNN) -- Barack Obama furthered his recent criticisms of Hillary Clinton Monday by mocking the fact that she recently "threw back a shot and a beer" in front of the media.

    After first saying too many candidates are only giving voters "rhetoric," the Illinois senator said, "They'll promise you anything. They'll even give you a long list of proposals. They'll even come around with TV crews in tow and throw back a shot and a beer."

    The shot came Saturday at Bronko's Restaurant in Crown Point, Indiana. With the national media in tow, Clinton made a stop there to drink a beer and speak with voters. After ordering her beer the bartender asked, "You want a shot with that Hillary?" After some deliberation, Clinton settled on a shot of Crown Royal, a Canadian whiskey.

    But Obama is not totally in the clear himself when it comes to photo-ops at bars. The White House hopeful nursed a beer in front of cameras with Pennsylvania senator Bob Casey at a sports bar during his Pennsylvania bus tour on March 28. He has since mentioned that moment of drinking in front of audiences on the trail in the Keystone State.

    Responding to Obama's comments, Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said, "With all due respect, this is the same politician who spent six days posing for clichéd camera shots that included bowling gutterballs, walking around a sports bar, feeding a baby cow, and buying a ham at the Philly market (albeit one that cost $99.99 a pound). Sen. Obama's speeches won't hide his condescending views of Americans living in small towns."

    [ Parent ]

    OMG! (5.00 / 1) (#82)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    He's attacking HRC for drinking a beer and a shot?

    I suppose she should have had Courvoisier?

    What is he talking about?

    [ Parent ]

    Well you know (none / 0) (#186)
    by Just another person on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:11:38 PM EST
    Woman drinking - OMG!

    [ Parent ]
    Whoa there... (none / 0) (#29)
    by RosaLuxemburg on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:23:56 AM EST
    Barack? An elitist?

    This is a guy who was raised by a single mother in a lower-middle class household. He lived in something like three different states as a kid. Elitist?

    After graduating from Columbia with no help from legacy or family wealth, he chose to work as a low-paid community organizer. Elitist?

    After graduating from Harvard law, he turned down opportunities to be a high-paid corporate lawyer. Elitist?

    As a politician, he's vowed not to receive money from PACs and lobbyists. Elitist?

    As a politician, he's fought against tax-breaks for the rich and fought for health care and opportunity for all. Elitist?

    What planet are you living on?

    [ Parent ]

    Yes. Tons of lower (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by rooge04 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:34:28 AM EST
    middle class poor people spend childhoods in Indonesia with their executive stepdad and then live with their NOT lower middle class grandparents in HI.

    [ Parent ]
    and Obama never attended a public school (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:52:22 AM EST
    Only private --- pre-school through Harvard.
    Yet his supporters claim he was from a "poor family."

    [ Parent ]
    He had a scholarship (none / 0) (#101)
    by marcellus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:01:06 PM EST
    and took out student loans.  It happens.

    His family was not rich.

    [ Parent ]

    They were definitely not lower middle class (none / 0) (#172)
    by BernieO on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:24:19 PM EST
    His parents were college graduates and his grandmother was a VP of the largest bank in Hawaii and lived in a nice high rise apartment ( which costs a bundle in Honolulu).  If you think this is lower middle class, you must be really out of touch. This life style clearly qualifies as affluent although not wealthy.
    The fact that Obama needed loans to go to Ivy League schools is not a sign that he is from the lower middle class. Only the very wealthy can afford to pay for these schools without taking out loans because they are so expensive. I know several people who came from upper middle class families who needed loans to afford these schools.

    [ Parent ]
    What planet are you living on? (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by sister of ye on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:34:40 AM EST
    Funny, that's what I was going to ask you. Obama's parents were not lower-class, his mom herself went to an elite school in WA, and living in different states can reflect wealth as easily as poverty. His mom was single for a couple of years when Obama was still a preschooler, then married a well-off man who supported them in comfort in Indonesia. Then it was back to live with his affluent grandparents.

    And you know, sometimes those people who take those low-pay organizing jobs do it because they have other income they can rely on to pay the bills. It's good padding on the resume of an ambitious guy. Most community organizers I have known do that work in their spare time, on top of their day jobs and family responsibilities, because they care for the cause.


    [ Parent ]

    what? (none / 0) (#73)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:46:09 AM EST
    Then it was back to live with his affluent grandparents.

    this site NEEDS to stop peddling this crap.  

    and what was all this other income he was getting?  

    [ Parent ]

    Well, unless you know (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by sister of ye on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:54:58 AM EST
    many impoverished bank vice presidents, describing his parents as affluent is reasonable.

    As for Obama's extra income, I have no idea, but since even my working class parents with other kids helped me out in small ways when I moved out on my own, it would be surprising if he didn't get gifts from home. And you have to be pretty naive not to know that it's common for applicants to elite schools to get some "community" time on their records to aid their admittance, especially if they're angling for financial help.


    [ Parent ]

    Also (none / 0) (#135)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:27:48 PM EST
    He did work in NYC for a couple of years out of college.  Not something that gets a lot of publicity, but it did happen.

    Obama received his college degree from Columbia in 1983, then worked at Business International Corporation and New York Public Interest Research Group before moving to Chicago in 1985 to take a job as a community organizer


    [ Parent ]
    This a guy whose parents were graduates (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:37:31 AM EST
    from Harvard (father) and mother had a phd.  A man who grew up in HI.  Being elitist is not about money, but snobbery about looking down on others for their way of life.  An example is a preacher who looks down on the non-religious, like the Pharisees.

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:42:37 AM EST
    and he and his supporters constantly deride HRC's supporters for not being educated enough or male enough or racially enlightened enough to vote for him.

    That's snobby and elitist. Unity, indeed.

    [ Parent ]

    this is so silly. (none / 0) (#81)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM EST
    for not being educated enough

    is there a website where you take this crap from?  please cite.

    Now, his education (and apparently his parents') means he's elitist?  i'd love to go to Columbia and Harvard (couldn't get in!).  are you guys going to say his mommy paid for that.  He was paying off his school loans into his 40's for god sake.  you guys have become so desperate.  

    [ Parent ]

    If you are (none / 0) (#170)
    by kenoshaMarge on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:19:21 PM EST
    so all-fired sure that YOUR candidate will win what are you doing here and why do you insist on calling those that do not agree with you "desperate". And I am not, nor have I ever been one of "you guys".

    You've made your point over and over again. Repeatedly calling people "desperate" is in and of itself an insult. Stop repeating it.

    [ Parent ]

    Immaterial (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:44:40 AM EST
    Elitism is an attitude.  There are billionaires who are not elitist (Warren Buffett springs to mind) and starving artists who are the biggest snobs you never want to meet.

    Obama looks down on those who don't share his views.  He thinks they "cling" to things rather than accept that he can deliver them from ... something.

    He's elitist and it wouldn't matter if he lived in the crappiest neighborhood in Chicago and drove a 30 year old car.

    [ Parent ]

    Bingo! (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by oldpro on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:05:30 PM EST
    Couldn't have said it better if I'd thought all day.

    [ Parent ]
    You don't have to read a biography (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Trickster on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:09:08 PM EST
    He comes across that way sometimes.  No book larnin' can erase that.

    [ Parent ]
    Lower middle class? (none / 0) (#35)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:26:41 AM EST
    Really?

    [ Parent ]
    yes, he was an urchin, didn't you know -snark, n/t (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:28:58 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Umm. You need to stop reading the (none / 0) (#189)
    by hairspray on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 02:21:26 PM EST
    Obama website for this information.  Read upthread about his grandmother who was the VP of the largest bank in Hawaii and all of the prep schools he has been to. His wealthy grandmother supported him.  Go to it.

    [ Parent ]
    "As a politician, he's fought against (none / 0) (#196)
    by kangeroo on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 06:23:52 PM EST
    tax-breaks for the rich and fought for health care and opportunity for all."

    well, the crown jewel of his original economic stimulus plan was tax breaks as the solution to everything, and his health care plan does leave out 15+ million people.

    [ Parent ]

    What jobs did he turn down? (none / 0) (#204)
    by jimakaPPJ on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 09:52:56 PM EST
    Proof, please.

    As a politician, he's vowed not to receive money from PACs and lobbyists. Elitist?

    Really??

    Barack Obama has pledged to end the influence of lobbyists, but that doesn't keep him from fundraising at the offices of one of the most notoriously corrupt lobbyists in years. Newsday reported over the weekend that Obama took about $125,000 from Greenberg Traurig employees at their Miami offices last October. The firm made headlines when its biggest lobbyist, Jack Abramoff, admitted to several counts of corruption and was sentenced to prison:

    [ Parent ]

    It does make me cringe (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by ruffian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:18:55 AM EST
    But in Clinton's case I can see that it is the only way to talk to the superdelegates.  If she says this stuff in private to them it gets leaked in an even more harmful way to her, and also the SDs need the arguments for Clinton to be in the public view if they do pick her.

    It's a tough call.

    No smelling salts for me (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:21:36 AM EST
    This is the first time, at least that I can recall, that HRC has said something remotely resembling a GOP talking point, and even then I think she was talking about the perception of being elitist rather than the reality. Though approaching the line, I'm not ready to grab the smelling salts just yet.

    For one, Barack Obama has been metooing entrenched GOP talking points with respect to HRC for months. I have a bad case of bitterness fatigue, so it's going to be difficult to summon up any more.

    Secondly, Obama's comments (in my view) are elitist and do great damage to the Democratic Party image. The damage HRC's comments might (very debatable) do to his GE chances pale in comparison to the the prospect of long-term damage to the Democratic Party, so we need to distance ourselves from them. Obama has just insulted our base, and you can be sure I will be throwing him under the bus long before I am willing to sacrifice that portion of the party.

    The whole she and McCain are ready line (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:26:29 AM EST
    was terrible.

    [ Parent ]
    Even then (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:32:11 AM EST
    It was an attack that was focussed on Obama.

    Not on the party.


    [ Parent ]

    Uhh (none / 0) (#64)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:42:10 AM EST
    If Obama's the nominee and the McCain campaign uses that against him, doesn't that hurt the democratic party?

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Huh? (5.00 / 1) (#79)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:48:10 AM EST
    Doesn't it hurt the democratic party for Obama to validate the stereotype that Democrats are a bunch of elitists who look down on the average person and laugh at their problems?  Why doesn't THAT hurt the party?

    [ Parent ]
    Changing the subject (1.00 / 1) (#90)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:55:55 AM EST
    Edgar08 said it was okay for Clinton to align herself with McCain on the commander in chief readiness issue. Stick to that and stop evading it, okay?

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Excuse me, (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Molly Pitcher on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:22:53 PM EST
    but did not Hilary's ad come before McCain?  I would not call that aligning herself with McCain.
    But no one can wipe out McCain's military and governmental history, so of course she'd have to recognize McCain as more ready (too ready IMO) than Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    That's not what I said (5.00 / 2) (#136)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:27:50 PM EST
    Actually.

    Two people who exist at opposite ends of the political spectrum can have one thing in common.

    Readiness to pursue their policies.

    I wouldn't use the word "aligned" to express that commonality.


    [ Parent ]

    Once again (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:31:05 PM EST
    Good for Obama does not equal Good for Democrats.  If he is an inexperienced, elitist nominee, he hurts the party.  That's his fault.  he could have, you know, been in the Senate more than a year before running for President or actually held some committee hearings.

    [ Parent ]
    I've got an answer (5.00 / 3) (#143)
    by standingup on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:33:43 PM EST
    The Democrats have to learn a lesson about making the mistakes that allow the Republicans to portray them as elitist and out of touch.  How many candidates and elections do they have to lose before learning this very practical lesson?  

    We went through the same tortured discussions after the 2004 elections.  Learn how to treat and speak to rural voters with respect.  It's not difficult.  

    And this is supposed to be one of the selling points of Obama's abilities according to many of his surrogates, including my Senator Claire McCaskill.  I have to wonder if Claire is looking forward to campaigning for Obama in rural Missouri after his remarks in San Francisco?    

    [ Parent ]

    Well he's not the nominee yet (none / 0) (#72)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:45:56 AM EST
    And can't I ask the same question of you re: Obama campaign criticizing her for being untrustworthy?

    But really why does Obama think Kerry and Edwards are untrustworthy too, is what I want to know?

    [ Parent ]

    Stop evading (1.00 / 1) (#83)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:51:15 AM EST
    Just answer the question, please.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Hillary questions Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#96)
    by MarkL on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:58:42 AM EST
    qualifications. If he wins that argument, then he is inoculated in the GE. Makes sense, right?
    Obama questions every aspect of Hillary's character; hence, if she wins, the value is tainted because she is ssen as using dirty methods to win.
    Your question is silly. Both are in it to win.
    Hillary understands how to be tough without attacking her opponent's character. I can't say the same thing for Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I did (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:58:48 AM EST
    He's not the nominee yet.

    And it's perfectly fair to enquire first if there's a double standard here before one starts any profound self-reflection on the issue.


    [ Parent ]

    You evaded the question by (1.00 / 1) (#117)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:10:35 PM EST
    denying its premise. That's not answering the question, Edgar.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Well (none / 0) (#120)
    by Edgar08 on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    The premise should be denied.  That was, indeed, the appropriate answer.

    Or rather before I can acknowledge the premise you first have to acknowledge that the premise is not a double standard.

    Can you do that?


    [ Parent ]

    I asked the question first (none / 0) (#122)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:16:00 PM EST
    You can answer mind first.

    I suppose I should just take your continuing evasions of it as a concession that you were wrong. If Obama is the nominee and McCain uses Clinton's alignment of the two of them vs. Obama as a tacit endorsement of McCain, that will hurt the democratic party. Your evasion = concession, I guess.

    McCain
    [ Parent ]

    McCain (none / 0) (#74)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:46:37 AM EST
    doesn't need pointers from HRC on how to attack Obama. They will certainly use Obama's lack of FP experience against him.

    This is just another instance of IACF, "It's All Clinton's Fault." Obama should have waited to fill the gaps in his resume before running for President. What was the rush to do it this year?

    [ Parent ]

    Because it would have been easy (none / 0) (#86)
    by blogtopus on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:52:44 AM EST
    Can you imagine this election without Hillary involved? Obama would be having parades already.

    He saw the reaction he got at the 2004 convention, and he figured he would be a shoo-in for both the nomination and the GE if he entered, because he was being compared to JFK even then, and he would be competing against a completely corrupt and disintegrating GOP. Fish, barrel, etc.

    I wonder if he expected Hillary to bow out once he entered a couple weeks later...

    [ Parent ]

    doubt it (none / 0) (#125)
    by po on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:17:12 PM EST
    but, it is too bad she drank her own inevitable kool-aid and failed to mount an effective campaign.    She might have had a fighting chance, had she actually fought early, rather than coast. It would make no sense to think that someone with the resources, name recognition and political clout HRC had at the time would even consider "bowing out".  

    And, BTW, it's not just the "right wing" that has said "she would say or do anything to get elected".  She and her husband have had "trust" issues for some time that run across the political spectrum.  Finally, her campaign all but confirmed this "GOP talking point" recently with the announcement of the "kitchen sink" strategy.

    [ Parent ]

    You make some good points (none / 0) (#150)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:43:20 PM EST
    about the early election strategy. However, it might have worked if Edwards had stayed in through Super Tuesday. Hindsight is always 20-20.

    I have to disagree with the rest of your post. In reality, there was far more in her kitchen that she could have thrown at Obama. And the "trust" issue she has comes 100% from the rightwing scream machine. Whether Democrats believe it now or not, it's a rightwing talking point.

    [ Parent ]

    "Prominent democrat Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#87)
    by digdugboy on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:54:18 AM EST
    agrees with me." So that's okay?

    McCain
    [ Parent ]
    Oh please (none / 0) (#106)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:04:23 PM EST
    This would be her response.

    [ Parent ]
    The rush to run this year was (none / 0) (#141)
    by waldenpond on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:32:57 PM EST
    because..... Just before the Iowa caucus, Obama began telling voters about a phone conversation with his wife, who said this year was the right time to run for president because they are "still almost normal." She meant that before her husband became a U.S. senator and received a $1.9 million book advance, they juggled school loans, grocery shopping and mortgage payments like other middle-class families.

    "Michelle's point was, in eight years from now, 10 years from now, we may still be nice people, but we may be in this orbit where we just don't remember, we don't hear people's voices anymore," Obama explained at the time.

    Here's the article

    [ Parent ]

    Yes, I'm sure that was the reason. ;-) (none / 0) (#151)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Again (5.00 / 2) (#48)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:32:46 AM EST
    that was simple truth, pointing out their experience relative to Obama's. The truth is not a right-wing talking point.

    [ Parent ]
    what is her foreign policy experience? (1.00 / 1) (#54)
    by AgreeToDisagree on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:36:47 AM EST
    why is she ready?  

    her judgement is why she isn't winning.  

    [ Parent ]

    And what is his? (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by hopeyfix on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:40:58 AM EST
    Seriously? Please don't tell me about Indonesia. I lived in England until I was 3 and that doesn't make me part of the monarchy, nor a specialist.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama is free to close the deal (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by DandyTIger on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:42:07 AM EST
    and win the majority of the vote in the next 10 states if he can. So I'd have to retort, his judgement is why he can't close the deal and win. People have just noticed who he is, and funny enough, now they're not voting for him. Hmmm.

    [ Parent ]
    Not GOP talking point (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Practically Lactating on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:47:45 AM EST
    That is not a GOP talking point, but I will admit that it made me slightly uncomfortable. She said something like we would have to ask Obama about his experience, and it's unfortunate he could not adequately answer when asked.

    I see your point, but I think that he has used a lot less restraint in this area.

    [ Parent ]

    I actually believe that Hillary has been way too (5.00 / 4) (#37)
    by Angel on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:27:03 AM EST
    nice to Obama.  Time to rough him up a bit so she can win the remaining states and lock up the nomination.  And what he said is fair game.  

    She has indeed (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by madamab on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:37:14 AM EST
    gone easy on him. If she truly wanted to destroy him and the Democratic Party, she would have been pounding on Wright and Reszko.

    [ Parent ]
    ...and pounding on Obama's LIE (none / 0) (#169)
    by Josey on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 01:19:15 PM EST
    about his father's connection to the Kennedy family.
    Whatever it takes to win an endorsement!

    http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/30/13655/6958

    Obviously, we haven't seen those lying Obama videos on TV 24/7.
    Probably because it would be an indictment against the Kennedys' googling skills since there is plenty of documentation refuting it.


    [ Parent ]

    Attacking BO's remark as elitist (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by Prabhata on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:30:02 AM EST
    was necessary because Democrats are seen as elitists by the blue collar Democrats in middle America.  Edwards connected with them because he talked to them on issues that mattered.

    And a fat lot of good it did him. (none / 0) (#49)
    by sweetthings on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 11:34:26 AM EST
    Mike Huckabee managed to put up a better show in the primaries.

    Don't get me wrong, I liked Edwards a lot, but he obviously didn't connect with all that many people.

    [ Parent ]

    The GOP field was weak (none / 0) (#127)
    by Fabian on Mon Apr 14, 2008 at 12:18:45 PM EST
    and seven years of Bush had opened the rifts wide.

    That's why Huckabee, darling of the religious right, did so well.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah, but look at things now... (