Democratic Presidential Primaries 2008

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

I haven't been there, but I've been paying attention to American politics long enough to know that PA is one of the states where black candidates typically underperform their poll numbers on election day by huge margins--which has classically been interpreted to mean that voters harbour racist attitudes that they won't reveal to pollsters.

Obama will carry Philadelphia--but after that it's a turnout issue. Rural PA will go for Clinton--and in the general election, when this garbled comment from a poor recording at a private fundraiser will be a distant memory, they'll go for McCain, even if Clinton is the nominee.

Having said that, I still think to say all rural pennsylvanians are "bitter" is an overgeneralization. It's a gaffe--politicians have them from time to time. John McCain admitted to knowing nothing about economics. Then he revealed that he has no understanding of foreign affairs. Both of these are just as egregious. Will it hurt him in November? Unlikely. Both comments will be distant memories by then--and so will this latest one from Obama. A bigger concern is whether it affects Obama in the PA primary, which is close enough that this won't have blown over.

The fact is, when you scrutinize every comment a person makes for two years, some of them will turn out to be ill advised. What's more disturbing is the expression of glee on the faces of some of the Fox talking heads while they're trumpeting this issue as if it were the next Watergate.

[HotHotHeat]

Originally Posted by badnarik

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.

Good point. I'm going to presume you mean Ron Paul. He gets it.

Obama is no Ron Paul, but he gets it more than Hillary or McCain.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

Funny, because how many times did we hear that George Bush seems like "a guy you could sit down and have a beer with."

Obama, Clinton and McCain are in the elite class and believe they have the ability to lead a country with so many complex issues facing it. I disagree that they see themselves as simply "better" than the majority of their constituents, but rather that they are more equipped to lead via education, experience, leadership skills, etc...

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by HotHotHeat

Good point. I'm going to presume you mean Ron Paul. He gets it.

Obama is no Ron Paul, but he gets it more than Hillary or McCain.

How do you know so much about Obama? I really would like to read a nice post from you about your Obama knowledge base.

It seems he can do no wrong it your eyes... I would just like to see where this knowledge and belief comes from.

[blankall]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

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.

The whole point is that the people who are offended by these comments still have to vote. These people (which make up a huge portion of the electorate) are not going to go "oh yeah we are a bunch of hicks, his comment is excused and I'll vote for him anyway".

Regardless of what your perception is or even how right you might be, you can't insult people and then expect them to vote for you.

Yes you want your president to be better than you and that is a large part of why he gets to be president over the typical person on the street. However, you also want a president who understands you. When he makes comments that totally demean your chosen way of life, it does not bode well.

Think about it this way, if you were running for class president and there was a fat kid in the class. If you pointed out in a speech how fat the person was would you get their vote? I'm not saying that Obama's comments were truthful, but even if they were it shows extremely poor judgement to make them. What if once in power he exercises this kind of judgement again. What if the comments next time are about hispanics? another country? muslims or arabs? I'm not saying his comments amount to that, but part of being a politician is being able to pick your words wisely and being sensitive to the people you are speaking to.

This is not the first time he has made ridiculous comments either. At the beginning of the race he made some pretty poorly worded comments about plans to deal w/ Pakistan. To me both comments show a lack of experience. As a democratic supporter, I just hope his lack of experience does not cost the democrats the race. A comment like this further down the road could be absolutely disastrous to a campaign.

I will admit that I am totally and utterly surprised McCain has not done something absolutely crazy yet...

[coolsurfer]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

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?

I disagree with you on some points. I will agree that they are elitists, but I don't agree that they are elite. In fact I believe most people who aspire to high political offices such as President or Prime Minister are inherently losers. They usually get the idea at a young age of attaining position in higher office. So they change everything, and everything becomes a cold calculation to manipulate peoples view of them. I mean, show me a serious presidential candidate who goes to church only at Christmas and Easter. Not only do these guys go to church every week but they have close personal relationships with their Priest or Pastor. Some may be sincere, but to me it looks like complete bull. John Kerry may have been a smart man, but he set out to be the next Kennedy. it looked to me like when he was not getting rid of his medals from Vietnam that it was based on the political capital they held. i think he knew they would help him in the future.

My comment was that I was surprised that he didn't differentiate, not that he used it wrongly. I believe they should be looking for elite rather than elitist. Overt elitism in my mind is what we call arrogance. If you are an extremely elitist person you may not listen to the views of others, which I believe to be a negative leadership quality. that's why I view elitism as a negative. I think it was best illustrated in the Clinton vs G H Bush town hall debate. Bush looking at his watch came across as elitist. While Clinton was connecting with regular people, Bush appeared as if him being there was a waste of time.

What I didn't like about Stewart's take on the situation was that he was defending overt elitism, when he would mock it in others. If George Bush were to make an elitist statement then Stewart would be all over Bush and treat it as a negative. With someone he supports appears elitist he makes a special aside to defend there actions as simply being natural.

I say this as an avid watcher of The Daily Show, and I want you to know that I take no offense to your disagreement with what I wrote. I must also say that of all the presidential Candidates, none of them seems especially elite to me.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by badnarik

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.

Name one. We're not talking about ideology here--this isn't a question of "do you believe in big government?"

If you run for president it implies the following things:

1. You believe that there should be a president.
2. You believe that certain powers of state should be vested in that person.
3. You believe that not just anybody is qualified to do this job--that only a very special person can do it.
4. You believe that you yourself are that special person.


It's practically a dictionary definition for "elitism."

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by blankall

Think about it this way, if you were running for class president and there was a fat kid in the class. If you pointed out in a speech how fat the person was would you get their vote?

How is describing someone as "bitter" the same as saying somebody is "fat"? I'm confused...

[Nehkara]

Despite the protests of some Americans, the voters in Pennsylvania do not seem to have been offended by Obama's "bitter" remarks… in fact possibly the opposite.

The two most recent polls show a very close race with Obama even ahead in one of the polls.

Obama ahead by 3 points in a poll conducted from April 14th to 15th, 1 point behind in a poll conducted from April 15th to 16th.

I should remind everyone again that this is a state that Clinton needs to win HUGE... bare minimum 10 points... preferrably (for her) 20.

[Table 5]

Originally Posted by Clever_Iggy

I disagree that they see themselves as simply "better" than the majority of their constituents, but rather that they are more equipped to lead via education, experience, leadership skills, etc...

Having more of those qualities is exactly what makes them better. I have qualities that make me better at graphic design than any of those candidates, and they have qualities that make them better to lead a country. I'm ok with that. If somone of my ilk was leading the country, we'd be in trouble.

[Clever_Iggy]

Originally Posted by Table 5

Having more of those qualities is exactly what makes them better. I have qualities that make me better at graphic design than any of those candidates, and they have qualities that make them better to lead a country. I'm ok with that. If somone of my ilk was leading the country, we'd be in trouble.

I think we're all splitting hairs, myself included. Do they think theyre simply better than everyone else or do they think they are better able to lead than anyone else? Is there a distinction?

The presidency requires someone with a specific skill set, confidence and leadership abilities. However, one of the most important qualities is the ability to understand the people - their needs, wants, aspirations, moral values, and expectations of the President's office and be able to meet those important elements effectively. I would want my leader to be more qualified than me for that position... or at least I would like to think he/she is.

[badnarik]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Name one. We're not talking about ideology here--this isn't a question of "do you believe in big government?"

If you run for president it implies the following things:

1. You believe that there should be a president.
2. You believe that certain powers of state should be vested in that person.
3. You believe that not just anybody is qualified to do this job--that only a very special person can do it.
4. You believe that you yourself are that special person.


It's practically a dictionary definition for "elitism."

I don't believe running for president necessarily implies any of those. It's the paradox of the libertarian politician. You have to get to the power switch to turn it off.

[Flashpoint]

After 8 years of a president who talks and acts like a frat boy, I think America could use a slightly more elitist president. Better still if the new president is actually elite. At this stage I think any of the 3 candidates left will fill that roll, so it's win win as far as I'm concerned.

As for Jon Stewart - it's a comedy show. Nothing more. Why should he be held to the neutrality standards of regular news when his comedic commentary is clearly not meant to do anything except entertain? (Obvously setting aside current media bias, and the fact real news networks are designed to entertain more than inform as well).

Poverty, god, and guns tend to go hand in hand wherever you go in America. Most poor communites will gravitate towards these things - as well as a mistrust of outsiders. In that sense Obama wasn't off the mark. The problem is that it is a political campaign, so the truth doesn't really matter.

Fortunately for Obama, the sound clip is terrible. In the "eye candy" age of news, a text quote is next to useless. People aren't going to be interested in watching static and reading subtitles with something barely audible, and they REALLY aren't going to be interested next month.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Nehkara

Despite the protests of some Americans, the voters in Pennsylvania do not seem to have been offended by Obama's "bitter" remarks… in fact possibly the opposite.

The two most recent polls show a very close race with Obama even ahead in one of the polls.

Obama ahead by 3 points in a poll conducted from April 14th to 15th, 1 point behind in a poll conducted from April 15th to 16th.

I should remind everyone again that this is a state that Clinton needs to win HUGE... bare minimum 10 points... preferrably (for her) 20.

It's still possible. Historically, black candidates hugely underperform their poll numbers in statewide elections. A weird Pennsylvania quirk.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Weiser Wonder

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.

Rural people ARE some of the most decent people I've known.

Ask Ford Perfect about the difference in growing up in a small town, versus growing in a city.

Your claim that rural people are racist is ridiculous. And dead wrong. There are racist people in the cities too.....should I suddenly make the claim that all urban people are now racist? There are also bigots in the city....should I suddenly claim that all urban people are now bigots? Some pretty screwed up logic right there.

What is sad is that Obama can stereotype a group of people he has no clue about, and people like you are giving him a free reign.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Vulcan

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.

Well at least you can admit that it was a mistake. Unlike others here who think rural people are racists and bigots.

I'm sure Obama can too....or he will, once he sees the polls drop.

The right thing to do would be to apologize and move on. Honesty SHOULD mean something, but it won't if Obama constantly keeps sticking his foot into his mouth.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Table 5

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.

I disagree.

The POTUS should be 'serving' the people, not telling them how screwed up they are.

A 'statesmen'....not an elitist who thinks he's better than everyone else.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Well at least you can admit that it was a mistake. Unlike others here who think rural people are racists and bigots.

I'm sure Obama can too....or he will, once he sees the polls drop.

The right thing to do would be to apologize and move on. Honesty SHOULD mean something, but it won't if Obama constantly keeps sticking his foot into his mouth.

I guess I didn't get "rural people are racists and bigots" from Obama's comments. I think it's weird that you did. I got "rural people are a disenfranchised lot who are bitter because of it, and that's often the root of an intolerance of difference."

I'm not saying it's right--but it's a far cry from "racists and bigots." At worst it's an overgeneralization, but he's not insulting anybody, isn't calling anybody a racist, and isn't saying he's better than anybody. Let's stop singing from the Fox News songsheet on this, shall we?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I guess I didn't get "rural people are racists and bigots" from Obama's comments. I think it's weird that you did. I got "rural people are a disenfranchised lot who are bitter because of it, and that's often the root of an intolerance of difference."

I'm not saying it's right--but it's a far cry from "racists and bigots." At worst it's an overgeneralization, but he's not insulting anybody, isn't calling anybody a racist, and isn't saying he's better than anybody. Let's stop singing from the Fox News songsheet on this, shall we?

Where did I say Obama called rural people racists and bigots?

There was another poster in this thread who implied that rural people are racist and bigots.

Obama would have bowed out of the campaign by now had he said something like that.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Where did I say Obama called rural people racists and bigots?

There was another poster in this thread who implied that rural people are racist and bigots.

Obama would have bowed out of the campaign by now had he said something like that.

My bad--I see now where I misread you.