I find it laughable to find Clinton or McCain trying to brand Obama as an elitist.
These two millionaires - longterm millionaires - suggesting that Obama is out of touch with regular people, is just a bit laughable.
Obama has noted that it's just in the last few years that he and his wife have finished paying off their college debt. Obama is the product of a single parent home, who was a community organizer (ie, didn't make ANY money) before he became a lawyer before he became a state senator before he became a senator.
It is only since becoming a US senator and, at the same time, having his huge best seller, The Audacity of Hope that Obama has trickled past that millionaire mark. Elitist? Out of touch? Hardly.
"I wasn't born into a lot of money. I didn't have a trust fund. I wasn't born into fame and fortune. I was raised by a single mother with the help of my grandparents," Obama has said. "My mother had to use food stamps at one point."
It's one of the reasons I am supportive of him - he is less removed from the daily plight of We, The People than most presidential candidates are these days.
I'm thinking that this is another non-charge that just won't stick.
21 comments:
Indeed.
And our current president, and his presidential father were both Yalies, and members of the ultra-elite Skull and Bones. And Newt Gingrich who lately has been hitching a ride on the Obama-is-an-elitist bandwagon is a Professor at Georgetown. (And the fact that these elites are out there telling "the cattle" what to believe about Obama is hypocrisy at it's most hilarious.)
If by elitist they mean he isn't our current phony Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel-in-Chief, then I'd say "Hooray for elitists!"
Elitist? As Jon Stewart points out, if you do good at this job they're running for, they carve your face on a mountain. They build "temples" in Washington DC to you. Your face goes on money. So let's stop pretending we're talking about the race for local Dog Catcher here, shall we?
Personally, I'm of the opinion that, on the question whether a politician is out of touch, it's far more productive to examine the content of the ideas he espouses rather than compare the size of his bank account to those of his opponents.
He can't be out of touch because he's less rich? That's really the argument you want to make?
Yes.
If you grew up poor, walking the streets of Chicago. Going to urban churches. Hanging out with common folk, that will affect who you are.
Similarly, if you spend your developing years at the country club with your millionaire pals, going to the "best" schools, having sports teams handed to you as a present for you to run, etc, this, too, will effect who you are.
Of course, you can put that all behind you and turn your back on the "little folk," but I don't think that's the case with Obama.
Obama's ideas reflect his experience and so, to answer your question, I agree with you that what you have to say matters, too, as well as who you hang out with/what your experiences are.
You think otherwise?
What did Obama say that was elitist? That some folks people are bitter because they've been ignored for years and years? In our state (Michigan) 1 out of 5 homes are in foreclosure, our unemployment rate is nearly double the national average, and it took our current President 7 years of his 8 years as President to decide to meet with the heads of the Big 3 automakers. Seems pretty out of touch to me.
The full transcript is here, and as usual, it's useful to read in context.
http://thepage.time.com/transcript-of-obamas-remarks-at-san-francisco-fundraiser-sunday/
Dan writes, "I'm thinking that this is another non-charge that just won't stick."
Oh, like anything, it'll stick with those who are just looking for things to get ticked off about, who weren't going to vote for him anyway.
I liked this little moment, as reported by FOX news:
"At the close of Q and A at an Associated Press luncheon in Washington, DC, AP chairman Dean SIngleton skipped over a question on what’s becoming known as “bitter-gate” in favor of asking Illinois Senator Barack Obama what he surely thought would be a less controversial question on Iraq.
Would the senator be willing to shift a substantial number of troops from Iraq to Afghanistan, asked Singleton, where the Taliban has been gaining strength — and 'Obama bin Laden' is still at large."
Which just goes to show you that sometimes even intelligent people say things in a stupid way, or an unclear way, or in a way they'd like to rephrase. If you're a normal human being you excuse that. If you're a lame partisan hack, you exploit it for as many cheap points as you can get.
But as I said, I'd be far more convinced of Obama's elitism if the people accusing him of being elitist aren't part of the right wing media elite themselves. That's just rank hypocrisy.
(I also suspect that "elitist" is code for "uppity black man", but that's just my opinion.)
Dan, I agree that one's experiences shape a person, but they are not predictive of a person's political positions or whether he's really aware of what others think and believe.
To wit, the deep philosophical differences between Bill Buckley and Ted Kennedy. To wit, the deep philosophical similarities between Bill Buckley and Thomas Sowell.
Neither of these facts can be accounted for in the simplistic appeal to one's background and financial status in ascertaining where a man stands.
I also suspect that "elitist" is code for "uppity black man", but that's just my opinion.
Ah, the race card. That took long.
I wonder how conservatives were able to get away with subtly attacking John Kerry four years ago by suggesting he's an uppity black man.
What I do not wonder is whether there are people who play the race card every time Obama is criticized, regardless of the substance of that criticism. They will congratulate themselves for being so forward-thinking, all while they treat this politician's skin color as absolutely paramount. They will consider themselves the vanguard of free expression while trying turn every critical word of Barack Obama into hate speech.
"Ah, the race card. That took long."
Nope, just an opinion, and not a very serious one. But certainly one I don't mind considering, given that ridiculousness of this charge by a bunch of "elitists" about a guy from Chicago, who grew up on food stamps. I mean given the stupidity of the original charge of elitism, I do wonder about other motivations.
Or perhaps it's just as I also said, trying to score political points over yet another non-issue by a bunch of phonies and fakes.
You'll notice in fact, that I pointed out that it was "just my opinion" because I'm well aware that the phony "elitist" argument has been used over and over again by phony "populist" Republicans for many different Democratic candidates. Pretty much any Democrat from north of the Mason-Dixon line gets tagged an "elitist", which is interesting in and of itself, I think. Perhaps it isn't the race card they're playing; it's the Yankee card. ;)
I thought elitism was a matter of attitude more than bank balance. True, a good many Über-rich folk are elitist, but you don't have to be a millionaire to be an elitist. Define rich first, and then assign a level at which "elitism" reasonably kicks in... George Jefferson (Fictional Character, I know) wasn't an Über-millionaire.... if even that, but he did embody quite a few elitist attitudes.
Also, racism is a form of elitism in that it values and esteems one race greater than another.
You suspect McCain of being a racist AND an elitist???
I have my doubts.
I agree that Obama isn't elitist (although his comment on guns & religion in some white communities was unfortunate). Dan misses a few facts, however. Obama grew up not in Chicago, but in Indonesia and Hawaii. He did go to an elite Hawaiian prep school on academic scholarship. He went to Occidental College and then Columbia University on full scholarships. He first moved to Chicago to become a community organizer after university--passing over several major money jobs to become a community organizer for $10,000 per year--which was dirt bottom even in the '80s. He paid his own way to Harvard Law School--and, yes, paid that off with money from both Dreams From My Father and The Audacity of Hope.
I am not sure that he and Michelle make a million per year between them (minus book sales). In this, his story is closer to Bill Clinton's (also a poor kid from a single mother whose brilliance got him into rarified academic circles) than to either McCain (3rd generation Annapolis grad. from the upper-middle class) or Hillary Rodham Clinton (the Rodhams were upper-Middle Class; she went to Wellesley, one of the most elite women's colleges and then Yale--never saw ordinary folks up close until following Bill to Arkansas).
So, Hillary's attempt to seem "down home" by going to a bar and drinking beer and then doing shots is really fake. (And how does this jive with her 10 year attempt to convince conservative Christians that she is a person of faith? Sure, "Christian" does not equal "teetotaler" (I drink the occasional beer), but taking shots in bars would strike most of the crowd she has been courting for some time as "sinful".
The ideas some have expressed that elitism is more a state of mind than of bank account has SOME merit. There are academic elites or cultural elites that make much less income than some rich people with very simple or homey tastes. And some of our presidents who have most cared for the common person (Theodore and Franklin Roosevelt, to take an example from each major Party) have come from rich families themselves. But the log cabin myth is huge in presidential electoral politics--which is why the charges of elitism or polls about which candidate would one rather have a beer with, etc. It's why Bush II never goes on vacation to the family estate in Kennebunkport, Maine, but goes to his "ranch" in Crawford, TX and clears brush--to look "down home."
And, yes, ideas count. McCain's "less jobs, more wars" campaign certainly shows someone out of touch with the public. But there is often a connection between politicians who are out of touch and their life experiences.
America is a diverse country. We don't have one "common person," but many and no one can completely identify with all sections of society. The best will have staffs/cabinets from different walks of life so that, in addition to being qualified for their posts, they help the politician (especially president) understand sectors of the populace with which s/he has less in common. They also need to encourage criticism and open information sources in order to avoid the "presidential bubble" or echo chamber that isolates them and turns them elitist in the worst senses of the term.
Despite the terribly tone-deaf guns and religion comment (which Obama rightly said was no more typical of him than Hillary's infamous "Should I stay home and bake cookies?" comment was of her), I think Obama's life experience and career, as well as his campaign, demonstrates a person able to identify with the concerns of most sectors of our socety.
I don't find him elitist at all.
Sorry, Michael, thanks for the correction. I meant to suggest that Obama was walking the streets of Chicago in his organizer days. But it sure didn't read like that. Thanks.
I mentioned that McCain began as upper middle class, but I forgot to mention that he is now one of the richest men in Washington--owning 12 homes! Yet, he voted against helping people not lose their homes to predatory loans in the housing cruch and praised Bush for vetoing such help. Now, THAT'S elitist and out of touch!
In the Audacity of Hope Obama repeatedly warns both us and himself of the ways that politicians can become out of touch. It can happen to the best of them, including him, and he knows is.
He also talks repeatedly about the ways that ordinary people, including working class whites, have been ignored or manipulated. This is the context for his badly phrased "bitter" comment. He put it better in talking of white "resentment" in his great speech on race and religion a couple of weeks ago and he talks about it even better throughout The Audacity of Hope.
The controversy may cost him the PA primary. But nationwide he has 11 points over Clinton and 6 over McCain (down from the 13 points over McCain in Feb, but up from the tie with McCain during the Rev. Wright fiasco). So, I think Dan is right that people will get past this.
Maybe this is preparation for the Fall campaign--and preferable to the swooning excesses of some Obama followers in Feb when he was winning everything. That kind of behavior is not what we need.
Whomever we elect as president will be a flawed human being--and we need to see that.
Pardon me, but "predatory" is a subjective term applied to those who never held a gun to the heads of those who falsified their applications to get the loans. According to an article by Michelle Malkin, about 70% of those applying for the sub-primes were falsifying info on the apps, mostly regarding how much they earn. Sorry, no matter how juicy the pitch, it's up to the buyer to beware and also up to them to bear the consequences of their poor decisions, particularly when they lie.
Michelle Malkin regularly makes up stats and facts. In fact, most of those people who face foreclosures were talked into getting more home than they could afford by loan officers--most of whom did not explain the adjustable rate of the mortgages. Further, the "buyer beware" principle has long been denied by the courts--or we wouldn't have laws demanding truth in advertising, protecting consumers from harmful products, poor manufacturing, etc.
Further, this whole "they don't deserve help" attitude is elitism--for it fails to see that helping people keep from losing their homes protects the entire economy--including those of us who were too smart to go for the easy credit. Those easy credit loan terms were actively encouraged by the Bush admin. which promoted the housing bubble as a way out of the threatened economic downturn following 9/11.
"Michelle Malkin regularly makes up stats and facts."
Sez you. Typical response when the stats don't comply with one's perspective. I'd be happy to review anything you think you've got to support that allegation. And who says "most of those people who face foreclosures were talked into getting more home than they could afford by loan officers--most of whom did not explain the adjustable rate of the mortgages."? Those facing foreclosure? Gee. What excuse would YOU use for a stupid mistake? Truly, how can you support even THAT claim? And how does one get "talked into" making such a move? Didn't explain the adjustable rate? How can you be so sure? How can you say the buyers were paying attention to the explanation? Who was monitoring all these situations where the buyers are now facing foreclosure? What good does it do a bank to trick idiots into something for which they will be unable to pay. Banks do NOT want to foreclose. They want the interest paid. It's how they make money and trying to sell homes they've repossessed is a cost to them, not a profit. They do NOT want to sit on those properties and often unload them only to get as much back as possible. Bad loans do NOT help banks.
In addition, the legality of the buyer beware principle is irrelevant. The terms of the loan is in the contract and if the consumer doesn't understand a point or two, it is up to him to get an explanation he understands in order to make an informed decision. Once again, this being talked into it angle is nonsense.
And those unfortunates are certainly entitled to help, if they are willing to pay for it. My suggestion is that those same banks can offer to refinance the loans in order to give the people time to sell the place to avoid credit problems. But it burden must be borne by those who make the mistake, be it honestly or by fraudulent loan aps. Bailouts are bad policy (in general) on any level as it distorts the market place and causes artificial price fluctuations that disrupt the economy.
Further, if Bush pushed the idea of those loans, it was a good move on his part. It can't be laid at his feet if people abused the idea or failed to grasp the details of how it works.
One more thing. I'm a working class white. I don't give a single thought to whether or not the feds are ignoring me or manipulating me. What a crock and a loser mentality. I prefer that the government ignore me. I don't want them offering help, I want them to get out da way.
"I prefer that the government ignore me. I don't want them offering help, I want them to get out da way."
Ok. Then I suppose you'll refuse that social security check and medicare when you reach 65?
Too late for that, Marty. They took the money from my pay so when my time comes, they owe. However, I'd be happy to not have that taken out of my pay right now. The projections for my retirement are as piss-poor as everyone else's. But they won't do that, will they?
Well actually, Marshall, you will get much much more than you put into it, depending on how long you live after retiring.
My Dad is 91. He retired at 65. He told me he drew more social security in his first year of retirement than he ever paid into it. So just think of all the "free" money he's received from the federal government these past 26 years!
Then I should be in dutch, then, won't I? I plan to live forever. *snicker*
But since I've been contributing, it's my money at least to some point. Though my first opportunity to draw from it is less than fifteen years, I don't live as if there will actually be anything there. However, again, it's not the government's money anyway.
You've got a point...kinda...sorta.
Ha. You won't live forever, but my Dad is doing a pretty good job of it. He still mows his lawn and rides his bike around the neighborhood.
Post a Comment