The only reason I can think of to vote for obama is because I agree with him on the issues.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/06/25/1166068.aspx

Elitism is about not being able to empathize with the common man. It is not measured by the number of degrees one has or the size of the bank account.

I think Maureen does not apply the have-a-beer-with test. She applies the, who-do-I-want-a-roll-in-the hay-with, test. Hell of a way to pick a President.

The election isn't about who you'd want to have a beer with. It's about who will best govern.

Although the fact that he is good at basketball to me suggests he doesn't have bad wrists or hand/eye, and he simply doesn't bowl.

But while being fun to discuss, none of this matters as far as being president is concerned.

So you have to look at the policy record. And then even that is only part of it. After that, it's all about trust and what you think they'll do when the unexpected happens, and what you think they'll really do policy-wise. And for that, it's often about how you can relate to the person.

This is a new moment to identify and recruit better messengers. Perhaps it's time to tap into the "Obama" factor: Scour statehouses for young, energetic, inspiring, and emerging leaders with the ability to connect the head and heart. Too many of the old Democratic guard have stayed in Washington, D.C., too long to fully recognize how most Americans live their lives. ...

In this coming season, Democrats must resist going back to using terms like affirmative action, pro choice, union, and "the movement" to describe what we're for. These words are limited and often open to negative interpretation from the right. ...
Democrats will build on the successes of this year. More grass-roots organizers were recruited and trained than ever before. Over $300 million was raised in one year—the most ever by the Democratic Party. We started this electoral season more unified and energized than ever before; we must continue to soar.

Look, the real point is we need a President who will have the clout, over a long period of time, to achieve policy objectives.

If, instead, that President is perceived as unpopular and unlikable, as being out-of-touch, as being condescending, then his Presidency will achieve little good while he is President, and may very well, like Jimmy Carter before him, usher in a long era of Republican rule.

In short, it's not just about espoused policies. It's about being able to retain the popularity that allows those policies to come to fruition. It's about political appeal and basic people skills.

As for media smears and GOP constructs, it would be easier for me to believe that Obama was innocent of all of that if he had just once asked the media to knock it off.  He did not.  So either he was OK with it or he was complicit.  
Or both.  

This is, emphatically, different.

In my view, Obama embodies just about everything that is unlikable in the Democratic Party to a degree I've never seen even approached in the past.

Unfortunately for Obama he does have  elitest issues, which he tries to address not very successfully in his Kansas video. It is why he keeps on hammering on the single mother/food stamps theme.

I dont know whether to laugh or cry.

have yourself a good cry.

maureen dowd accusing someone else of falsely accusing someone else of being "elitest"? who'd a thunk the editors at the nyt's would let that slide by, without a note explaining ms. dowd was off her medication?

the woman who invented the "i invented the internet" lie about gore, and sissified kerry for windsailing, is now all about fairness?

strangest thing, the few people i know, who claim to support sen. obama, when pressed as to why, cite either that he's going to bring needed "change" to politics, or (my few black friends) that he's, well, black.

they're certainly entitled to their reasons, but their reasons don't amount to matters of public policy.

in fairness, the (few) men who supported sen. clinton seemed to do so for one of two reasons: a. sen. obama's lack of experience., or b. sen. clinton's health insurance proposal. of the women, it seemed to break down to: a. her health insurance proposal., or b. she's female.

none said it was because they wouldn't vote for a black man. they may have been thinking it, but they didn't tell me so. of course, none had a shotgun and stars & bars mounted in the rear window of their pickup trucks either, so who really knows?

of all the responses, policy was way down the list.

again, to be fair, none of my (few) black friends said they wouldn't vote for sen. clinton because she's a white female. in fact, most said they actually liked both her and her husband, but..............................

I get it, guns and goin' out a drankin' ISNT a patronizing stereotype, but coments about a demograph that may or may not be embittered due to downsizing, outsourcing and the fact that they dont have enough lobbyists working for them is.

They will then be savaged by the large, remaining lemming class.

reminds me of celebrity death match.

who would you say is more inherently evil? KKkarl or Barack?

"Even if you never met him, you know this guy. He's the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by."

Who, really, is the guy trying to make fun of the cool guy in the room? Karl Rove has brought America back to high school politics.

Or is it just a coincidence that all the decidedly Anti-Obama outlets from The Wall Street Journal, Fox News Corp, U.S News and World Report,
Jerusalem Post, the dozens of conservative syndicated columnists, talk radio jackdaws, et al, have all become irrelevant with no influence over "the narrative"?