[QUOTE=SenorBeef]
It may not have been an out of context soundbyte, a faux pas. It may be an indication on how he feels on the issues and towards certain people, which if that is the case it’s certainly worth something exploring because it’s relevant to his beliefs and how he would run the presidency.
You make it sound as if the only people who can be concerned about this are idiots who are fooled by the sound byte machine. Just because the mainstream media tends to be devoid of substance doesn’t mean that the issues they cover never have substance on their own.
[/QUOTE]
The answer is: of course they are both elitists. He went to Harvard. She went to Wellesley. Neither of them has had a job in the private sector in years.
I am sure his comments were an accurate reflection of his mindset and the mindset of the bien pensant San Francisco crowd to which he was speaking. In his mind (or hers), because there is no legitimate reason for being a gun enthusiast, or drawing political opinions from religious beliefs, or opposing immigration, these viewpoints must be explained away as an artifact, a side effect of some external cause.
This is a prime example of the Genetic Fallacy (attacking a belief by calling into question the source or motivation that ostensibly gave rise to it), and thus is not irrelevant to whether a candidate’s judgment can be trusted.
[Wiki]The fallacy therefore fails to assess the claim on its merit. The first criterion of a good argument is that the premises must have bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim in question. Genetic accounts of an issue may be true, and they may help illuminate the reasons why the issue has assumed its present form, but they are irrelevant to its merits.[/wiki]
I am quite sure that if either Obama or HRC made a list of 1000 things to do, shooting a gun, or owning one, or caring about the Second Amendment, would not be on it – just as it would not be on the list of those in their liberal, political elite circles. Thus, I am sure that Obama’s belief is genuinely that support for gun rights MUST be chimerical and motivated by something other than a genuine belief that gun ownership is constitutionally protected, and desirable. Presumably he also believes that if you could cure people’s “bitterness,” they would realize that they never really cared or should have cared about the issues in question.
As HRC was quoted as saying she never really heard much complaining about immigration when the economy was good (say what?), they’re both guilty of it. It’s relevant both because it shows their (respective) disconnection from reality (viz., that people have sincere, well reasoned grounds for supporting gun rights, or opposing immigration, or letting faith influence their votes, and that these beliefs can’t and shouldn’t be explained away as side effects). It’s also not irrelevant to whether voters choose to trust, respect, like a candidate. When have you ever won points or increased peaceful relations with someone by telling them “you’re just saying that because you’re a Jew” or “wow, you’re complaining a lot, must be because you’re on the rag?”
