Bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb-bomb Iran? Pure elite. Ron Paul helped Hitler? Pure elite. "At least I don't plaster on my makeup like a trollop, you cunt?" Pure elite.
Not sure where you are going with all that...seems very intellectually dishonest to me. Elitist=snobbish, elite=rich. Take a look at the values of the candidates: John McCain gave near 20% of his income to charity; Barack Obama gave less than 3%. John McCain has given to charities that benifit both blacks and whites. Obamas charitable donations are mostly local and primarily help only african americans.
Not sure where you are going with all that...seems very intellectually dishonest to me. Elitist=snobbish, elite=rich. Take a look at the values of the candidates: John McCain gave near 20% of his income to charity; Barack Obama gave less than 3%. John McCain has given to charities that benifit both blacks and whites. Obamas charitable donations are mostly local and primarily help only african americans.
^All of that is misleading. It credits Mccain for giving more without taking into account that he has more to give. Mccain could give away 50% of his wealth and still be able to afford a small island. Would it be fair to chastise a midget for not dunkin' on Larry?
I disagree with that characterization. "Elite" doesn't necessarily imply monetary wealth: it can represent someone who's distinguished in other ways as well -- we talk about the "academic elite", or "elite Olympic athletes". John McCain's behavior and demeanor is decidedly non-elite, which is where I was going with those remarks.
Marley, at the income levels of Obama and McCain they can both afford to give a considerable amount of money to charity. Remember also that John McCain files his return separately form his wife, and in 2007 I think he made 1/10 what barack Obama did (about 400k vs 4M). So here's my point: John McCain keeps for himself far less than what Obama does.
Mindseye, I can allow that John McCain's behavior is not elite, but the man is no snob. His jokes are often taken out of context to artifically create snobbery, but it really is a cover for Obama's more evident snobbery. This goes back to the "bitter" comment. Obama would rather blame uneducated hicks for his failings that admit that he is doign somethign wrong. Thats pure snob. Anyone not blinded by adoration of him can see it.
Yeah, the "bitter" comment wasn't well-considered. But to bring it up immediately after objecting to taking remarks out of context is hypocritical.
Do you know the context in which Obama made that remark? I doubt you can quote the paragraph leading up to that remark and still call him "pure snob" for it.
I cant quote the paragraph, but the global context of that statement was made behind closed doors to maxed out donors to explain his inability to connect with rural voters. He was failing to "close the deal", and he tried to blame uneducated, country, and or religious folk. That is uban elitism, intellectual elitism, and even religious elitism.
The statement was made at a fundraising event, yes. ("Maxed out" donors? I don't know.) Here's the audio of the event.
I think you're being unfair in suggesting that Obama was blaming people.
He began by citing a New York Times article that suggested that racism was the reason for voting patterns in rural communities, and objected to the conclusions that NYT drew:
...Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class ... don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing. Here's how it is:
He then suggested that instead of racism being the cause of the voting patterns, economic conditions were the cause instead:
in a lot of these communities ... people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it.
He holds past administrations of both parties responsible for the high levels of unemployment:
You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not.
So it's not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.
In context, it sounds a lot more like he was empathizing with their plight instead of "blaming" them. If he assigned any blame at all, it was to the past administrations that created the conditions in rural Pennsylvania, and not the Pennsylvanians themselves. I've posted a link to the audio and a link to the transcript so that people can judge for themselves.
What you seem to be ignoring is that ALL of the above rhetoric is a complexe argument for WHY he is not doing well with a certain class of voters. Then, he supposes that religion, guns, xenophobia, anti-immigration, and anti-trade are crutches that rural people use to either abate perceptions of suffering or justify sentiment toward Obama.
There is a difference between acknowledging why someone isn't doing well and blaming.
Say that I was transferred to a new job in Quebec, and I said "This new job will be a challenge for me because some of my clients speak French." I'm not blaming them for speaking French.
To blamesomeone is to suggest that they're at fault, that they're doing something wrong, that they should be the one to change. In fact, Obama twice said words exactly to the contrary:
Early in the remarks he says, " the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government." (emphasis mine)
He acknowledged that the responsibility for reaching these voters was on his side, not theirs: that's not blame.
Later he says, "our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."
Again, he's stated that the responsibility is his to persuade these voters. That's not blame.
And when he finally does get to the FOX News soundbite, he says, "It's not surprising [that they're bitter]": he's said their attitude as something that is expected of people in their position -- which is different from saying they're doing something wrong or at fault. Again, it's not blame.
Just where are you getting your talking points from?
What people seem to ignore is the fact that Obama himself was raised by middle american grandparents who he has admitted showed many of the same fears he is dealing with in certain sectors of the population. Yes there are those who are racist, on both sides of the page but there are many that are just looking for someone who delivers the hope and results they so desperately need. I dont think that either man is as bad or as great as either end of the spectrum would have us believe. As with anything timing and circumstance has a great deal to do with the success of many candidates.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.