home

Enough With Elitism

By TChris, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:19:08 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Maureen Dowd:

Conservatives love playing this little game, acting as if the “elite” Democratic candidates are not in touch with people like themselves, even though the guys doing the attacking — like Rove, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and Hannity — are wealthy and cosseted. ... Everyone who ever became president was in the elite one way or another, including Andrew Jackson. ...

Rove’s mythmaking about Obama won’t fly. If he means that Obama has brains, what’s wrong with that? If he means that Obama is successful, what’s wrong with that? If he means that Obama has education and intellectual sophistication, what’s wrong with that?

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

< Supreme Court Limits Doctrine of 'Forfeiture By Wrongdoing' | Conrad Black Loses Appeal >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Enough With Elitism | 177 comments (177 topical)
    That's news (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by koshembos on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:27:21 PM EST
    It will be a huge innovation if the elections will be about who is capable to govern. Of the current two options, none seems the only capable one. In 92, Bush failed and Clinton didn't. In 2000, we were convinced that Bush is a great guy and Gore a mumbling liar. It was never about who will best to govern, for that we can devise meaningful tests. We allow elections because we let people decide whatever they want, including beer buddies.

    Oh really? (5.00 / 10) (#4)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:29:02 PM EST
    I thought it was all about who had the youngest, smartest, hippest, hopefulest fan base.  Wasn't that what it was all about?  Wasn't Obama a brand of sorts with the Sports Illustrated Swimsuit Mocels with PhDs in Architecture for supporters?  And weren't Hillary's supporters all old, stupid, working class sino-peruvian lesbians with barely a high school education?  That's what it seemed like to me and that's what the media kept telling us.  I mean, heck, who wouldn't want to be on Obama's team?  
    Because it sure as heck wasn't about who was best able to govern, of that we can be fairly certain.  
    If that bothers you (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:56:52 PM EST
    frankly, Im suprised you're even ambulatory and coherent after 50 mil + voted for Bush.

    [ Parent ]
    You mean after they were fightened to death? (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:21:50 PM EST
    There are some well known studies of how easy it is to get people to vote for the conservative after they've had the bejesus scared out of them.  Americans in general do not estimate risk very well, including Obama supporters.  But were all of these people, including some well educated suburban security moms, old stupid working class sino-peruvian lesbians?  No, I don't think so.  And I don't know anyone in the "Bigots for Hillary" PAC.  
    You bet I was disappointed with Americans after they  elected Bush for the first time in 2004.  But I completely understood that there were some fairly smart people who fell for it.  And some fairly ordinary people who did not.  

    [ Parent ]
    goldberry (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by just victory on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:33:57 PM EST
    I agree with a lot of the points you make, but I wish you'd knock off the "sino-peruvian lesbians" bit. I know you think it's funny, but your lumping the word "lesbian" in with a bunch of descriptive words that are supposed to be negative is starting to irritate me. It was okay the first time, but you use it CONSTANTLY now, and it's starting to offend me.

    [ Parent ]
    Imagine how offended... (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:48:01 PM EST
    ...my commenters on my blog were when the marketing lumped everything together like that.  I have yet to hear any Conflucian protest.  they understood very well that gays, latinos, asians, women, elderly, working class and those people without degrees were out.  It became a club of sorts down there underneath the bus.  I've even been told that there really is such a thing as a Sino-Peruvian.  Yeah, Chearles Lemos of By the Fault told me that Chinese laundressess emigrated to Peru in the 19th century and he postulated that some might have even been lesbians.  Go figure.  
    So far, you are the only one to complain.  But I take your point.  It's so much nicer to be an Obama supporter and be thought of as instantly shiner, newer, more likeable, fresher and smart.  The amalgamation that is the stereotypical Clinton supporter is offensive and it should be.  Everyone who fits into those categories should be offended by the way Obama's campaign has written them off or didn't bother to see how many women with advanced degrees came from working class backgrounds, such as myself.  If you were me, wouldn't you be a little bit incensed at having the entire country describe you day after day in such negative terms? And people are still going to vote for Obama after all the division and destruction his areless campaign has created?  Is that realistic?  There are a lot of potentially very PO'd people out there.  

    [ Parent ]
    I thought that stereotype was supposed to be a put (none / 0) (#18)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:37:35 PM EST
    Down of OBama?

    [ Parent ]
    Put down? Are you nuts? (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:45:03 PM EST
    That's what Axelrod was going for.  Who would you rather be?  Ann Hathaway from The Devil Wears Prada or Roseanne Barr?  It wasn't a put down.  It was meant to be a way of joining the popular clique at school.  You know, the one where you make fun of the "losers" behind their backs and call them stupid, uneducated and ignorant?  
    Hey, MILLIONS of people bought it.  Just not more than the ones who voted for Hillary.  I guess some of us are comfortable in our ignorant loserdom.  Either that or we're not as stupid as we are told we are.  

    [ Parent ]
    Style Over Substance? (3.00 / 2) (#100)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:18:21 PM EST
    Youth Over Age?
    Pretty Over Not-So-Pretty?

    I can't really tell which argument you're making by comparing the Obama-Clinton race with Hathaway and Barr. Although in terms of wealth and power, I'd say Barr trumps Hathaway.

    In any case, this kind of assessment of the nature of Obama support and the attitudes of his supporters is superficial and tiresome.

    Some supporters on both sides have slimed the other candidate and her/his supporters relentlessly. Outside of the blogs, and the comments sections of web sites, I encounter little of this.

    Who I do meet, face to face, are people on both sides with reasons (policy, temperament, history, experience etc.) for backing their woman or their man.

    And most of the Obama supporters I know (including me) don't hate Hillary Clinton or her supporters. Indeed, some of them are my family, friends and neighbors who I respect and care about. We have just chosen different candidates in the Democratic primary season.

    Ignorant loserdom, indeed. People attacking on that basis and the people who attach any significance to such attacks seem to me to be the ones who are losing.

    [ Parent ]

    I detest false equivalence (5.00 / 6) (#120)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:30:39 PM EST
    Axelrod is a marketing guru.  he created a style, a brand, a niche and marketed it relentlessly.  The media helped him.  It was very exclusive.  Small town residents in PA need not apply.  Nor should Appalachians.  Or anyone without a college degree.  I could go on and on.  Now Muslims are being boucned.  
    I didn't see anything of the sort from Clinton. She reached out to every constituent group and excluded no one.  She even went to the Black State of the Union after the African-American community completely wrote her off.  That's something even Obama didn't bother with.
    As to whose voters were more likely to switch, all of my canvassing and phone banking told me that it was the OBAMA supporters who were soft.  Hillary supporters were solid and unshakeable.  They knew what they were getting with her while Obama was all about something nebulous and ethereal.  A few grounded statements was frequently all it took to get them to switch.  
    And this ought to give the DNC pause.  Because the Democrats who are coming to Obama now are doing it because they feel they have no other choice.  It isn't because they like, admire or believe in the man.  So, if John McCain can give them something solid, they'll switch.  
    Obama has a very tenuous grip on his voters and one strong ill-wind might be all it takes to blow away all that smoke and reveal him to be as insubstantial as he really is.  
    ;-)  

    [ Parent ]
    I Don't Care What Axelrod Did (4.20 / 5) (#179)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:56:05 PM EST
    It's irrelevant to how I decided who to support.

    I made up my own mind based on my own research of the candidates and their positions.

    Clinton is my senator so I didn't have to do much new research because I follow her votes in the senate. I was a supporter when she first ran and not so much since. Her senate positions have disappointed me.

    Obama has impressed me with the nature of his grassroots support and his policy stands. He's not my idol or my star and supporting him doesn't make me hate or revile Clinton or her advocates, or blindly follow him no matter what. I just like his potential for working from my values better than I like hers.

    Every Obama supporter I know (in person in real life outside the Net) feels the same way and each of us would vote for Clinton were she the nominee. Ditto my friends and family who voted for Clinton in the primary as to voting for Obama.

    By the way, I don't presume to try and persuade anyone to support Obama or not to support McCain. I think I understand the position of Clinton supporters who say they will never--and that's their business.  

    [ Parent ]

    I care very much what Axelrod did (5.00 / 5) (#192)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:03:00 PM EST
    That is one of the reasons I will not support Obama.  The scorched earth campaign he conducted tells me everything I need to know about him and his scruples.  i have no expectation that he will ever represent me or work for issues that are important to me.  
    As for recruiting people, the primaries are over.  I'm not working for John McCain and I have no idea what he is planning to do to win voters over.  My goal is to make sure that 18 million Clinton voters get the respect they earned and deserved.  
    But let's just say that I have a different set of standards than you do and leave it at that.  

    [ Parent ]
    LOL Sam, the fact that you think that..... (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by Maria Garcia on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:11:25 PM EST
    ...probably means that you are a secure, fair minded person. But those of us for whom the stereotype was intended know when we are the butt of a joke.

    [ Parent ]
    lol (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    I think mccain will best govern.

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

    As for elitism, I'll be trite, obama is too.... Get this... Skinny.

    Thanks (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:55:29 PM EST
    Your comment has opened the door to useless and tasteless personal attacks on Obama.  What are we gaining with this?  

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, he's almost 'fragile' looking (3.25 / 4) (#9)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:31:57 PM EST
    Frail even.  Maybe, dar I say it?  Weak?  You can bet that's what Maureen Le Fey will be churning out in the next couple of months.  

    [ Parent ]
    its hard to trust someone (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:35:09 PM EST
    who doesnt have a vice.  And well if his vice is calling subordinate women sweetie, well, maybe that's not the way to go, either.

    I can't say.

    [ Parent ]

    Smoking? (none / 0) (#20)
    by CST on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:38:54 PM EST
    I guess he has "slipped up" occasionally on the trail.

    [ Parent ]
    there you go (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Edgar08 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:41:08 PM EST
    I forgot about that.

    [ Parent ]
    I picked this up from MSNBC.com. (5.00 / 0) (#7)
    by Marco21 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM EST
    Chuck Todd goes to a focus group.

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

    Quite sad. I think we're all screwed if pollsters and our idiotic media really think the questions asked of the group are really important to most Americans.

    This meme was kicked off (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:44:30 PM EST
    four years ago when those two down-home, salt-of-the-earth kissin' cousins David Brooks and Ann Coulter, were railing about how everyone in Manhatten and New Caanan (but them) were blithely cruising the countryside in their Volvos, sipping lattes and listening to Noam Chomsky on dvd while chuckling about Dale Earnhart's mishap.

    What complete, unadulterated, b.s. But then, consider the source.

    [ Parent ]

    Excuse me if I choke on this coming from (5.00 / 8) (#8)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:31:00 PM EST
    Maureen Dowd of all people. One of the most elitist ones around.

    Pretty rich, isnt's it? (5.00 / 8) (#30)
    by standingup on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:44:44 PM EST
    How many columns has Dowd written that personally attacked people for trivial issues like her "Breck girl" reference with John Edwards.  Dowd has zero room to talk critically of anyone on this issue.  

    [ Parent ]
    Let's ask Somersby about the number she did (5.00 / 1) (#162)
    by rooge04 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:47:57 PM EST
    on Gore, too.  She's the last person to give a lesson on elitism.  Makes me ill.

    [ Parent ]
    yeah wierd innit? (none / 0) (#43)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:51:48 PM EST
    a stellar career in a chosen field reduced down to a hair reference.

    It's funny how Dowd turns the integrity on and off.

    [ Parent ]

    She has snark, not integrity. (5.00 / 10) (#69)
    by tree on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    She misplaced the switch for integrity years ago through lack of use. All she's doing here is shilling for her preferred candidate, nothing more. She's not even doing it very effectively.
    See here:

    The cheap populism is really rich coming from Karl Rove. When was the last time he kicked back with a corncob pipe to watch professional wrestling?

    Yup, that's what the non-elite masses all do. Smoke their corncob pipes and watch wrestling. She can't do an adequate put-down of elitists because she's a walking, writing poster girl for the problem. That also explains why she purposely confuses the separate meanings of the words "elite" and "elitist".

    [ Parent ]

    Actually (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:14:37 PM EST
    she's been known to slam down a couple while doing a photo-op or two in a blue collar bar.

    And it's a well know fact that no ones done more ahuntin' and ashootin' with her favorite uncle than Maureen.

    [ Parent ]

    everyone? with her uncle per se? (none / 0) (#102)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:19:13 PM EST
    or just generally?

    [ Parent ]
    That's a good point. (none / 0) (#78)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:09:38 PM EST
    It's not like she entirely gets the point really. However the NYT is marketed to professors, lawyers and other upper middle class types in the midwest who would love to live in Manhattan.  

    So she blends all that's stereotypically rotten about urban life with all that rotten about the midwest. And she's not really conscious about what she's doing or why she's doing it.

    [ Parent ]

    I'm not sure who it's marketed to anymore (none / 0) (#215)
    by datadriven on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:20:34 PM EST
    It seems like all The Times does is close down overseas bureaus and add more space for gastro & wine coverage. At some point they must have looked around at the successful urban weekly papers and decided that The Voice would be paper's new role model.

    By the way, why bother to reprint 'grafs from such mental giants as Dowd, Brooks, or Blow on Talk Left? Maybe there could be some numerical index-- "The Times' Daily Barometer" -- of how stupid and offensive its coverage was today. Interested parties could then go and rubberneck at the disaster.

    [ Parent ]

    heh (none / 0) (#61)
    by mrjerbub on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:01:58 PM EST
    My thoughts, exactly.

    [ Parent ]
    Conservatives? (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Decal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:32:44 PM EST
    "Conservatives love playing this little game, acting as if the "elite" Democratic candidates are not in touch with people like themselves".  Does that mean Maureen Dowd is outing herself as a conservative?  

    I think so (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    She certainly plays that little game better than anyone else.

    [ Parent ]
    Well, now that Maureen has spoken... (5.00 / 3) (#12)
    by ineedalife on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:34:42 PM EST
    that's it then. Not.

    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.

    It is the same metric Chris Matthews uses. The leg tingle intensity (LTI) metric. Obama is obviously way up there on the LTI scale within the punditsphere.

    In any other election cycle 90% of blogging (5.00 / 2) (#25)
    by samtaylor2 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    Dems would have agreed with the statement.  It was just true.  Sorta like McCain's advisors comment, it was just true.  Did it sound stupid yes, but it should not have been a big deal.  Clinton supporters made it a big deal in the same way the OBama supporters made sniper fire a big deal.  It did not speak to being an elistist at all.

    Obama was talking about other democratic (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:45:13 PM EST
    primary voters.  He wasn't describing GOP voters.

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think you can make that inference. (2.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:05:52 PM EST
    He's talking about small town people in the Rust Belt, with no partisan distinction.  In point of fact, most of those people vote GOP.

    Dumb thing to say, for sure, but it's disingenuous to say he was talking only about Clinton Dems and not about Republican voters as well.

    [ Parent ]

    he was telling Dem donors (5.00 / 5) (#80)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:10:20 PM EST
    why Clinton was kicking his ass in a Democratic Primary.

    [ Parent ]
    LOL. (3.50 / 2) (#93)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:15:24 PM EST
    Oh, right.  Except that he had basically wrapped up the nomination in the midwest, mountain west and south at that point.  But yeah, he was really back on his heels.  LOL.

    He was talking about why Dems tend to have trouble in rural areas.  Like I said, dumb comment, but it was standard "what's the matter with Kansas" fare.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah in Pennsylvannia (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    He was reassuring donors that he could talk the bitter clinging rubes in the primaruy in Penn around.

    [ Parent ]
    Maybe standard - (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by liminal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:33:01 PM EST
    "progressive" "what's the matter with Kansas fare" is actually elitist?  

    [ Parent ]
    Practicing sociology/anthropology (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:36:29 PM EST
    on current communities always is.  That doesn't mean it's necessarily incorrect.

    But politically, we should stay far away from this kind of ivory tower stuff.  Which is why I have repeatedly said this was a dumb, dumb thing for Obama to say.

    [ Parent ]

    That kind of expediency (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by liminal on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:48:08 PM EST
    ("We're so right about those people, but they're so sensitive! so we just can't say it, we just have to watch our mouths.) is actually my point.  

    [ Parent ]
    Look at the reaction. (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:59:10 PM EST
    He pretty obviously shouldn't have said it.  If being politically smart is elitist, sign me up, I guess.

    And re: the correctness of it, I think he's off the mark a little with the guns/God bit in particular, but it's hard to argue with the rough outline of the argument.  As economically downtrodden Americans have seen not enough concrete help from either party, the GOP has been able to exploit cultural signifiers better than we have.  It's a big part of how Bush won two elections with an awful policy platform.

    [ Parent ]

    PA had a closed Democratic party. (5.00 / 5) (#88)
    by tree on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:14:10 PM EST
    He made his "bitter/cling" comment in response to a question from his wealthy supporters about why the PA voters in the Democratic primary weren't connecting with him. He wasn't asked about Republicans. He was asked about why he wasn't doing better with Democrats in PA.

    [ Parent ]
    You sure? (none / 0) (#98)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:17:12 PM EST
    I had it that it was a line in his fundraising speech, not part of a Q&A.

    [ Parent ]
    Yes, we're sure (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by otherlisa on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:24:21 PM EST
    He was explaining why he wasn't winning in PA, why those voters weren't going for him.

    [ Parent ]
    Nope. I'm actually listening to it now. (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:32:52 PM EST
    Here's a link to the audio transcript (go to about the 34 minute mark).

    It was in response to a question about what kind of questions volunteers for the campaign could expect to get in PA.  He said it depends which communities you go to, saying some are more like SF and some are culturally quite different.  Blah blah blah, winds around to the bitter/cling comments by way of talking about justifiable skepticism towards government in economically depressed areas.

    What he was not saying was "I'm having trouble against Clinton in PA because voters are bitter and clingy."  

    [ Parent ]

    are you being deliberatly dishonest? (3.66 / 3) (#118)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:29:20 PM EST
    Or unconsciously dishonest?

    [ Parent ]
    Be nice. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Pegasus on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    All I ever knew about this was from Mayhill Fowler's firsthand reporting, and she reported it as a fundraising speech, not a Q&A.  I tracked down the audio (link below, I think) and see that I was mistaken; he was taking questions.

    [ Parent ]
    Not the voters in PA *I* spoke to (5.00 / 6) (#40)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:49:34 PM EST
    He really screwed up there.  Democrats in PA were not stupid, superstitious, racist hicks and they were mighty offended to be lumped in with their stupid, superstitious, racist hick Republican neighbors with the Stars and Bars hanging from their porches.  
    No, those Democrat voters in PA told me over and over again how stung they were of being accused of being racists.  They weren't stupid or racists.  They just didn't think Obama was ready.  
    Way to go to win a constituency.  They will remember come November.  

    [ Parent ]
    And we see (none / 0) (#70)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:04:54 PM EST
    as Obama has improved in Pennsylvania among white voters, some of whom definitely must've voted for Hillary that, egads!  not everyone who voted for Hillary was a RACIST.

    The blame for the racist meme gets spread around, for sure.  Rendell deserves some of it for his comments about whether PA is "ready."  

    Reaching out to the Hillary voters in PA will be very important for Obama soon.

    [ Parent ]

    Please give me an example (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:10:05 PM EST
    of how he has "reached out" to voters anywhere?

    [ Parent ]
    Rendell never said (5.00 / 0) (#226)
    by mkevinf on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 04:27:25 PM EST
    that PA was not ready to vote for a black man.  He said that there were conservative Pennsylvanians who were not ready or who would probably not vote for a black man.
    It was a statement of fact, to which he added that those same kinds of voters would probably not vote for a woman, either.

    [ Parent ]
    And not everyone who votes for McCain... (3.66 / 3) (#85)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:12:56 PM EST
    ...in PA is a racist either.  I challenge you to prove that they are.  
    I'm not getting thrown by the polls.  Kerry was up at one point, so was Dukakis and we all know how that went.  Besides, I know there are many more people who will not be voting for Obama this year because they think he is unqualified and they are right.  
    It might be just enough people to swing it for McCain.  Now if I were Obama and I were smart, I'd apologize to those Democrats who he falsely accused of racism and beg their forgiveness.  So far, I have yet to see humility from the Obama camp.  So, the voters will exact their revenge for the smears on their character.  
    Count on it.  

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think (5.00 / 2) (#111)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:24:51 PM EST
    Obama needs to apologize, per se.  I think he needs to reapproach.

    We may be mad at the media's characterization, but I think the more important political move for Obama is to present himself differently and more directly to the small town PA voters.  He has plenty of time and the media won't have exit polls with which to cast aspersions on the rural voters.  I will be dissatisfied if he does not take advantage of this fresh start.


    [ Parent ]

    I don't think Obama (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by samanthasmom on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:03:16 PM EST
    will be getting a "fresh start". I think that the people who felt disrespected in the primaries are going to remember or at least be reminded of it during the GE. He's not going to get away with just pretending it didn't happen.  And disrespect is in the eye of the person receiving it not in the eye of the person dishing it out.  Even if Obama meant no disrespect, what he said and did was perceived that way so he was disrespectful.

    [ Parent ]
    Time Will Tell (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:32:57 PM EST
    But one mistake people make comparing Obama as a candidate with Dukakis and Kerry is that 2008 is NOTHING like 1988 or 2004.

    Aside from Obama's strengths, there are formidable challenges for McCain this season, not the least of which are his own shortcomings as a candidate and his campaign's inability (so far) to present a coherent message. Coupled with the nation's profound Repub-exhaustion, this really is Obama's race to lose rather than McCain's to win.

    It could happen. I don't rule anything out. But comparisons with 1988 and 2004 don't really work.

    [ Parent ]

    The NBC ABC kewl kids won't (none / 0) (#140)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:38:43 PM EST
    allow that McCain message to happen.  I tend to think it is a done deal this year.

    we might be about to see what a Dukakis, Mondale McGovern admin would have looked like. i hope it's everything that Nixon, Bush and Reagan were not.

    [ Parent ]

    yeah (5.00 / 0) (#157)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:47:07 PM EST
    but the GOP seems to know how to get around that. They will hammer the media until they carry McCain's message. The media always caves in the end.

    [ Parent ]
    Be Honest With You (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by daring grace on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:01:33 PM EST
    If Obama gets elected, I have no idea what we will see. I certainly have(dare I say it?) hopes about how it will go, but no certainty.

    That would have been true for me if Clinton won, too. Uncertainty, and hopes.

    McCain, I'm pretty sure about.

    [ Parent ]

    IMO, you're wrong on this. (5.00 / 9) (#42)
    by tree on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:51:33 PM EST
    A lot of so-called progressives may have agreed with  the sentiment, but it truly was an ignorant stereotype used by Obama to justify his own poor showing against Hillary in PA. Its just that its an acceptable stereotype for a lot of so-called progressives. The so-called progressives "get" that its not OK to stereotype minorities. They don't get that stereotyping white people is just as bad. Real progressives understand that. Its an important part of the discussion on race that we don't have.

    [ Parent ]
    Are all stereotypes (3.00 / 2) (#77)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:09:29 PM EST
    equally ignorant, or is it just the ones Obama uses in the process of beating HRC in the primaries?

    The specific charge that the thread topic is refering to would be being wielded against HRC as we speak if she had won. Or dont you think so?

    [ Parent ]

    Whether the stereotype was thrown at (5.00 / 3) (#103)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:19:58 PM EST
    Hillary or anyone else who ran in the primaries has no bearing on how true it is, not for any of them.

    So it really doesn't matter what they would have said.

    And, as far as I can tell, the Republicans at this point are only doing just what the Obama campaign did for months -- throw out a steroetype, or smear, or meme or whatever the cool kids call it these days, and see if it sticks.

    Obama's bitter-cling comments did not and do not help him there, not with the people his comments were aimed at.

    [ Parent ]

    All are ignorant (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by tree on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:35:33 PM EST
    and probably everyone falls into making them at some point or another. My post was in response to Sam who seemed to be saying that the stereotype about rural white Pennsylvanians was true, and therefore Obama's shouldn't have been criticized.

     As for elitism, I'm sure that the charge would have been made against Clinton as well. In fact I know it would have because I've seen some Obama supporters try to make the charge during the primary, mostly by confusing "elite" or "rich" with "elitist". Not all elites are elitists. That's just another stereotype.

     

    [ Parent ]

    DHin MI pretty much castigated the Appalachia regi (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    on for voting for Clinton.  

    Is that down the memory hole too?

    [ Parent ]

    I don't (5.00 / 5) (#213)
    by Nadai on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:19:26 PM EST
    think the elitist label could have been successfully wielded against Hillary Clinton.  Both of the Clintons have been painted as so-called 'trailer trash' by the right wing for well over a decade; it's such a set meme that the Obama campaign used it in referring to Clinton as a Tonya Harding type.  I don't see the right wing being able to jerk that around 180 degrees in the few months left before the election.

    This is not to say that they wouldn't have found other labels to slap on her, just that elistist wouldn't have worked so well.  I suspect they'd have gone back to the old standard tax-and-spend liberal.

    [ Parent ]

    It was an elitist (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lilburro on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:52:24 PM EST
    and it was a politically stupid statement.  90% of Dem bloggers did agree with it though.

    It was not the kind of attitude that wins votes in Pennsylvania.  I think Obama has probably learned from it.  If he goes into Pennsylvania again and says the same kind of thing, he will get ripped for it.  

    I'm sure McCain will do his best to bait Obama into saying something similar again.

    [ Parent ]

    I don't agree (5.00 / 7) (#62)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    I know there are plenty of Democrats who believe those statements were "just true."  In my book, those people are the problem with the Democratic Party, and not just in an electoral sense.

    [ Parent ]
    No, it is not true, and was not true (5.00 / 7) (#66)
    by Valhalla on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:03:56 PM EST
    Yes, there is a big segment of the Dem Party that puts forth the idea that the 'little people' just don't know what's best for them, and they do.  And that comes across very clearly to all those allegedly 'low information' voters.  And guess what?  They don't like being condescended to.  Imagine that!

    But there's also a huge part of the Dem Party that either 1) never believed that or 2) is in the group that's being condescended to by Obama.

    And if the 90% agreeing comment becomes true, it will be because of the people leaving the party because of what Obama's bitter-cling comments reveal about him and reflect in the thoughts of the leadership.

    [ Parent ]

    and those polls may be skewed (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by kempis on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:27:44 PM EST
    If the cool kids like Obama, a lot of people being polled may say they're for him but they may vote differently in November. In part, it's a Bradley Effect, but it's also a hip-bandwagon effect.

    I don't trust these polls that have him up by double digits nationally. Also, I think this may be a very difficult election to poll because both parties are in such flux.

    [ Parent ]

    Newsweek poll (none / 0) (#134)
    by laurie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:35:11 PM EST
    if you look closely included only 23% of Republicans

    [ Parent ]
    The fact (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:43:58 PM EST
    That the Republican's were able to sell GWB as the "common man" that you'd like to have a beer with was one of the greatest marketing fete of all time! It shows you can sell anything if you tie it with a shiny bow. After that, I'll never over estimate the American public.

    Almost a Mencken quote. (none / 0) (#33)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:46:10 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    huh? (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Turkana on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 12:59:52 PM EST
    The election isn't about who you'd want to have a beer with. It's about who will best govern.

    since when?

    This election has been all about Obamania. (5.00 / 9) (#67)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    And not much about future policy.

    [ Parent ]
    ding! ding! ding! <eom> (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:13:01 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Thing is Obama has the media in his pocket (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:00:48 PM EST
    so far.  They are so deep down in the pocket that it could breed resentment.

    Right (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:18:11 PM EST
    except the part of the media that isnt "in his pocket".

    Get effin' real: O'Reilly, Rush, Hannity etc etc aren't part of the media?

    [ Parent ]

    They are not a significant (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:23:19 PM EST
    factor this year. They are deffinitely not in contro of the narritive as they have been in years passed. Fox is a diminished franchise.  And Murdoch appears to be buttering up Obam ain the same way that he buttered up Blair in the UK.

    I saw it all happen once before in the 1990s when Blair was poised to take power, and it appears to be happening again in 2008.

    [ Parent ]

    Not significant eh? (5.00 / 0) (#114)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:27:41 PM EST
    What city in the U.S dosnt have some rabid, r.w radio call-in show that makes Matthews look like the most sober, even-handed commentator since Murrow?

    [ Parent ]
    They are not controlling the narrative (none / 0) (#123)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:32:41 PM EST
    NBC and ABC were once in the tank for Bush.  Now they are in the Tank for Obama personally.

    NBC and ABC  Mocked Gore and Kerry. They now praise Obama to the high heavens and appear to be planning to continue that trend. Murdoch has been sending out signals to his affiliates and underlings that obama's acceptable in the same way that Blair was deemed acceptable by Newscorp in the 1990s.

    [ Parent ]

    It's temporary (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:56:05 PM EST
    They very much want to squash any possibility of Hillary having a deus ex machina event at the convention.  In a way, it's a good thing for Hillary to be running interference for him.  They won't go all out negative until she is out of the way.  Then they'll bash him senseless.  
    Watch.

    [ Parent ]
    Except that the election IS about ... (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by dianem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:01:29 PM EST
    ...who most people would prefer to have a beer with. It's not the right way to pick a President, but it's what people do it. They want somebody "like them". That means that they don't want some "elitist" who understands national politics and history and international relations. They want somebody who doesn't read the paper, eats chili, and can tell a good dirty joke.

    It's about who you want (none / 0) (#64)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    blah blah blahing on the TV in background as you wash your dishes and pick your nose on the couch.

    [ Parent ]
    I dunno (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by CST on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:01:55 PM EST
    I have pretty strong wrists and terrible hand/eye coordination so I am a terrible bowler.

    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.

    As long as his wrists are strong enough to sign bills that's good enough.

    Who will govern best or who would I rather have a (5.00 / 8) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:01:57 PM EST
    beer with?  Personally don't see McCain or Obama as a preferred choice for either category. Can we start over or add more options?

    disagree with this post (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by DandyTIger on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:07:50 PM EST
    I think elections are partly about what the politician says the policy stance is this week. But I actually think it's very important to look past that since they're pols, you can't believe what they say, only what they do.

    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.

    So in a funny way, it is actually reasonable to try to get a feel for the person and how they can relate to you. Because doing something in your interest and in the countries interest isn't just based on how smart they are, but it's based on what they're interests are and what they think the country should look like down the road. And here is where Obama has a problem. Elitism isn't about how rich or what schools, it's about relating and listening and being interested. I think if you look up Elitism you see Kerry's picture there. :-) And Obama has some of that about him, which he should work on.

    kerry was actually a very ordinary sort of guy. (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:14:38 PM EST
    very dull live speaker, wanted to shake your hand and talk and stuff like that.  He exhibited quite a lot of noble traits. i'd happy follow the dude up a river or into a trench and I think he'd have followed me and been a proper comrade to the bitter end.

    Americans don't really like that sort of leadership thopugh. They evidently like weasels and backstabbing self absorbed pr*cks like Bush.

    [ Parent ]

    kerry (5.00 / 4) (#127)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:33:06 PM EST
    wasn't the best candidate but at least I trusted him to do the right thing. He had a history to base this on.

    [ Parent ]
    Heh (5.00 / 5) (#84)
    by Steve M on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:11:57 PM EST
    The unstated assumption in your post is that everyone agrees Geraldine Ferraro is a racist.

    I certainly do not think Edgar believes Geraldine Ferraro is a racist, so I don't think he was trying to call you a racist, either.  Maybe I'm wrong.

    Brazile in 2004 on the "Obama factor" (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by laurie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:14:15 PM EST
    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.

    Any more "phony myths" around?

    Just so ya' know, I did not influence him (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by zfran on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:14:28 PM EST
    at all. I raised him a dem, I suggested he read and find all the info he could to be well-informed. His vote, his choice. I would rather share MY world view (I try to see all sides) rather than wearing blinders. The world is a complicated place, it takes complicated thinking, and today, so many young people think with an "american idol" methodology. The difference between us is that I welcome your opinion(s) whether I agree or not, you do not welcome anyone's but your own.

    Yeah (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Salo on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:16:38 PM EST
    he's constantly telling peolpe what to think and in what style they ought to think.

    [ Parent ]
    Ha! (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by BRockNYLA on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:15:27 PM EST
    Man, you are funny.  Since when are elections really about the issues or who can best govern?  When was the last time that actually happened?

    Do you simply not get the point (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:30:53 PM EST
    that gaining the Presidency, and espousing the right policies, is only a portion of the issue -- indeed in many cases a small portion?

    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.

    I can't think of a single Democratic candidate in my lifetime -- George McGovern included -- who seems less likely to achieve that long term popularity than Barack Obama. He has already likely turned off millions of Democratic voters permanently. Do you really imagine that the larger American public, having to deal with his personality over years, will not ultimately find a very great deal to dislike intensely about him (and his movement) as well?

    I find your argument to be (3.40 / 5) (#151)
    by tben on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:44:11 PM EST
    totally unfounded.

    In my judgement, I would say, after watching 9 presidential elections, that Obama has as much or more of a chance to accomplish that long-term clout than anyone I have ever seen. I think the American people will love him, as much or, more likely than they loved Bill.

    Its odd that you make this argument as a Hillary supporter - a woman who has perhaps the highest inherint negative ratings of any active politician. After knowing her for 16 years, you cant pretend that those negatives are based on ignorance.

    Sorry, but your comment strikes me as yet another, amongst the thousands of comments here, that take the form of predicting/wishing the worst for Obama, at the cost of everything all of us have worked for all our lives, because of your great resentment that he beat your favorite candidate.

    [ Parent ]

    Please (5.00 / 4) (#183)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:57:34 PM EST
    this isn't about Hillary in any case, is it?

    Look, my dislike for Obama is clearly shared by millions upon millions of Hillary voters who roundly rejected him in state after state well after his nomination was well nigh inevitable.

    People don't do that unless they really dislike a candidate.

    I take that as strong evidence that there's something very basic about Obama that really turns people off.

    I don't see any reason in the world to believe that that's going to go away.

    He may become President -- but that will not be because of anything he brings to the table, but rather the current strength of the Democratic brand, or, more precisely, the toxic quality of the Republican brand.

    But the day will come when that toxicity will wear off some, and the Democrats, as the ruling party, will develop some toxicity of their own. So it always is.

    And then everything that's unlikable about Obama will once again come to the fore.

    And it will not work out well for the Democratic Party.

    [ Parent ]

    your premise is just wrong to begin with (3.66 / 3) (#217)
    by tben on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:24:26 PM EST
    Those of us who track these elections like junkies certainly knew back in April that Hillary could not win - but most voters dont sit around adding up delegates, looking ahead to future contests, playing out scenarios. They just go to work, take the kids to school, watch the news, and if there is a contested election, check things out and cast their vote.

    So no, sorry, much as you may wish it to be the case, a vote for Hillary really is simply a vote for hillary - its not a total rejection of Obama.

    But in any case, I find your response odd. You seem to object to my original comment, but you basiclaly just confirm it. He seem to hate Obama (and yeah, it sounds like hate, because it is relentless and seemingly impervious to reason), and wish him ill.

    He beat your favorite candidate because more people supported him than her. It doesnt get more simple than that. Everything negative you say about him, in terms of how the public percieves him, goes even more for her. In fact, if you look at favorable/unfavorable polls - all of them - he is always a bit more favorably seen, and much less unfavorably seen that she.

    So, bottom line, if you care about liberal and progressive issues, and even if you really hate Obama, you should be very glad he is the nominee. He will be a stronger president and a more popular one than she could ever be. And that will be to all our benefits.

    [ Parent ]

    What "should be" and (5.00 / 0) (#163)
    by angie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:48:00 PM EST
    what actually "is" are hardly ever the same thing.

    How do you know I support mcCain? (5.00 / 5) (#171)
    by goldberry on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:52:47 PM EST
    Actually, I do not.  Friends don't let friends vote Republican.  So, how did you manage to jump to that conclusion?  Was it brainwashed into you or do you simply do your own non-thinking?  

    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.  

    Hey, he's YOUR transcendent, hopey, changey candidate.  I voted for the Democrat.  

    I downrated you for (5.00 / 5) (#177)
    by tree on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 01:55:36 PM EST
    personal insults. I know you have special status here and probably won't get your comment deleted. I also suspect that you don't even realize that you are being personally insulting. I just wanted you and everyone else to know that I am not downrating you for having a contrary opinion, but for being insulting about it. Any 1 I give to you is my statement that your post contains what I see as personal insults.

    Thats it. Carry on.

    I have supported many (5.00 / 7) (#196)
    by frankly0 on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:03:33 PM EST
    many Democratic candidates in the past who lost the nomination, and then turned rapidly to support the candidate who won.

    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.

    Really, he's sui generis.

    I have been going thru (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by magisterludi on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:06:32 PM EST
    a lot of existential anguish when it comes to all politicians. A snooty posture is the least of my concerns.

    I just read an article that referenced The Global War On Labor. Skeery stuff.

    Somerby goes brutal on Dowd today.. (5.00 / 6) (#203)
    by rjarnold on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:09:22 PM EST
    "and, lacking all memory, self-reflection and shame, she even defends him as someone who "tries to see things from the other person's point of view."

    http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh062508.shtml

    Great Howler today! (5.00 / 2) (#216)
    by tree on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:23:03 PM EST
    Thanks for the link. And its a two-fer. A takedown of Dowd and Nancy Pelosi.

    [ Parent ]
    It's called "identity politics" (5.00 / 4) (#204)
    by laurie on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:10:09 PM EST
    and it's something Obama must do if he's to win the GE. He has to do this because he also has a "competence" problem. Bush was similar, but got over that hurdle because his father was standing in the wings.

    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.

    Hillary of the 3 candidates was the only one to have gone to a state school. She worked herself up thru scholarships. To the surprise of many uninformed journalists, she was successful in capturing blue collar votes. Why was this? She knew the right kind of imperceptible signals. She wasn't a coal miner's granddaughter for nothing.

    I wish (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by Ga6thDem on Wed Jun 25, 2008 at 02:17:54 PM EST
    he would quit with the food stamps routine. First of all, the way he implies it isn't true. Secondly, his elitism is due to his attitude having nothing to do with his childhood. It seems to be an attitude that he's acquired later in life.

    [ Parent ]
    Dowd is the worse offender... (5.00 / 1) (#211)