It was definitely a poor choice of words. But how does it imply that city people are "better"? To me it implies that rural Americans are powerless, disenfranchised and bitter, and that some of their attitudes stem from anger.
It was a mangled remark--but in reality, is that so crazy?
I agree that it could have an impact on the election. No-one ever said American politics made sense.
But that is the whole point, not all rural people feel powerless, disenfranchised and bitter.
Some of them are quite happy with their position and don't see their way of life being described by any of those adjectives.
In January 1995, as the Clintons were licking their wounds from the 1994 congressional elections, a debate emerged at a retreat at Camp David. Should the administration make overtures to working class white southerners who had all but forsaken the Democratic Party? The then-first lady took a less than inclusive approach.
"Screw 'em," she told her husband. "You don't owe them a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
and this:
Quote:
Perhaps even more telling than Hillary Clinton's proclamation, however, were the words from her husband that followed. As reported by Barber, Clinton "stepped in, calm and judicious, not irritated, as if rehearsing an old but honorable debate he had been having with his wife for decades."
I know how you feel. I understand Hillary's sense of outrage. It makes me mad too. Sure, we lost our base in the South; our boys voted for Gingrich. But let me tell you something. I know these boys. I grew up with them. Hardworking, poor, white boys, who feel left out, feel that our reforms always come at their expense. Think about it, every progressive advance our country has made since the Civil War has been on their backs. They're the ones asked to pay the price of progress. Now, we are the party of progress, but let me tell you, until we find a way to include these boys in our programs, until we stop making them pay the whole price of liberty for others, we are never going to unite our party, never really going to have change that sticks.
If the tone and tenor of the above sounds familiar, it's because the message, Boyte says, is remarkably similar to what Obama was trying to convey in his now controversial remarks about small town America.
__________________
"Opinions are like demo tapes, and I don't want to hear yours" -- Stephen Colbert
Let's be fair--he only insulted them if you use a very narrow interpretation of his comments--the one that is favoured by the talking heads because it makes a good story. He said that rural Pennsylvanians are "bitter" over their disenfranchisement, and since they're not empowered with a surfeit of education or influence, they "cling" to the attitudes of intolerance that they were raised with.
It wasn't a smart thing to say--and at best it was a huge overgeneralization. But an insult? Only if you're Chris Matthews.
If you watched the daily show yesterday you would have a different perspective, lol.
EDIT: And by that I mean to say that if you're running for president, of course you're elitist. It's the fataing president.
Hillary doing shots comes across more as more insulting to me.
Last edited by HotHotHeat; 04-16-2008 at 05:37 PM.
If you watched the daily show yesterday you would have a different perspective, lol.
EDIT: And by that I mean to say that if you're running for president, of course you're elitist. It's the fataing president.
Hillary doing shots comes across more as more insulting to me.
I thought Obama was supposed to 'unite' the country though?
How can he do that if he's insulting a certain part of the country? And telling people that they're 'bitter?' Or stereotyping 'white' people?
Like I've said before....he could be absolutely running away with the nomination right now, instead he keeps sticking his foot into his own mouth.
Its amusing actually. I seriously figured he was going to win the nomination and the actual election in a landslide.
I thought Obama was supposed to 'unite' the country though?
How can he do that if he's insulting a certain part of the country? And telling people that they're 'bitter?' Or stereotyping 'white' people?
Like I've said before....he could be absolutely running away with the nomination right now, instead he keeps sticking his foot into his own mouth.
Its amusing actually. I seriously figured he was going to win the nomination and the actual election in a landslide.
Azure, you've been saying you 'thought' he'd win for months. It's clear you've never thought that...And your tactic of what I can only call disappointment is fairly transparent. It's obvious Obama is uniting people, regardless of what disappointment you apparently see.
Azure, you've been saying you 'thought' he'd win for months. It's clear you've never thought that...And your tactic of what I can only call disappointment is fairly transparent. It's obvious Obama is uniting people, regardless of what disappointment you apparently see.
If given a choice, he wouldn't be my first choice....but that still doesn't mean I didn't expect him to win.
A couple months ago, he was clearly in the lead.....very clearly.
The only disappointment I see is that Obama isn't different from any other politician in Washington.
He will do anything to gain votes. Even if it means insulting people.
The fact that you see NOTHING wrong with his recent 'bitter' comments is disturbing. No politician should be given a free ride.
I would like to youtube Obama's "famous speech", but I don't know anything about the details. When was it/what was it about? Can someone point me in the right direction please?
I would like to youtube Obama's "famous speech", but I don't know anything about the details. When was it/what was it about? Can someone point me in the right direction please?
If given a choice, he wouldn't be my first choice....but that still doesn't mean I didn't expect him to win.
A couple months ago, he was clearly in the lead.....very clearly.
The only disappointment I see is that Obama isn't different from any other politician in Washington.
He will do anything to gain votes. Even if it means insulting people.
The fact that you see NOTHING wrong with his recent 'bitter' comments is disturbing. No politician should be given a free ride.
I don't think insulting people is the way to get votes and Obama knows this. He made a mistake here and he's made a few others, such as NAFTA and separating himself from his minister but I believe he is coming from a good place and he's smart enough to learn and adjust. This is what I'd like in a president, I'm tired of the ideologues with their one track philosophies.
If given a choice, he wouldn't be my first choice....but that still doesn't mean I didn't expect him to win.
A couple months ago, he was clearly in the lead.....very clearly.
The only disappointment I see is that Obama isn't different from any other politician in Washington.
He will do anything to gain votes. Even if it means insulting people.
The fact that you see NOTHING wrong with his recent 'bitter' comments is disturbing. No politician should be given a free ride.
I see something politically wrong with saying it and maybe the phrasing but nothing wrong with the comment itself. I've lived a great deal in rural Idaho, and I always get a kick when someone says "rural people are some of the most decent in the world" line. They are nice in some ways (help you move type way) but backwards and mean to whoever is different. Racism and homophobia abounds. A lot of it is really quite sad.
Yo props to Obama, if he could win his electorate, and then pull off the win for the presidency, oh man would be almost as good as seeing the Flames hoist up the Cup in the final series this year!
If you watched the daily show yesterday you would have a different perspective, lol.
EDIT: And by that I mean to say that if you're running for president, of course you're elitist. It's the fataing president.
Hillary doing shots comes across more as more insulting to me.
I did watch The Daily Show and was surprised Jon Stewart didn't differentiate between "Elite" and "Elitist". One problem with these comedy shows is the host are extremely biased . I remember when Clinton was running against Dole he was using the "have a beer with the guy" argument against Dole. basically he was putting Dole down for not being the guy you would want to have a beer with. Then against George W Bush in one of his comedy specials he was talking about how we shouldn't vote on a guy based on whether we would like to have a beer with him.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wins and is running against another candidate in four years, that guys like Stewart would put that guy down for being "Elitist".
I did watch The Daily Show and was surprised Jon Stewart didn't differentiate between "Elite" and "Elitist". One problem with these comedy shows is the host are extremely biased . I remember when Clinton was running against Dole he was using the "have a beer with the guy" argument against Dole. basically he was putting Dole down for not being the guy you would want to have a beer with. Then against George W Bush in one of his comedy specials he was talking about how we shouldn't vote on a guy based on whether we would like to have a beer with him.
So I wouldn't be surprised if Obama wins and is running against another candidate in four years, that guys like Stewart would put that guy down for being "Elitist".
Steward is funny but he goes which ever way the wind blows. Bill Maher is a far better political commentator, it's too bad I can't find him on Canadian TV.
I did watch The Daily Show and was surprised Jon Stewart didn't differentiate between "Elite" and "Elitist".
Hate to call you out, but you're wrong about this. In fact, Stewart's comment was "if you don't think you're better than us, then what are you doing?!?" That's the definition of "elitism"--thinking you're better than others.
And there's a serious point there--which is that EVERY presidential candidate is a member of an elite--and every one is an elitist. If they weren't, they wouldn't be running for the highest office in the land; it's an incredible act of hubris. If you don't think you're better than most people, what makes you think you're qualified to lead them?
If anyone's been to the countryside of Pennsylvania, they'd quickly realize how right Obama's comments were. It's hillbility country of the north. Probably not the smartest thing to say, but It's far from being false.
If I was an American, I'd want my president to be better than me, smarter than me, more elite than me. I'm never ever going to have beer with the president, so why should that be important? I want him to lead the country, not a kegger.
And there's a serious point there--which is that EVERY presidential candidate is a member of an elite--and every one is an elitist. If they weren't, they wouldn't be running for the highest office in the land; it's an incredible act of hubris. If you don't think you're better than most people, what makes you think you're qualified to lead them?
I don't think that's true in every case. There are some candidates who think the people are better qualified to lead themselves. Most people aren't comfortable with that idea, however, so the mainstream candidates will probably always be elitist.
