I’m sorry, but perception is reality in politics. Billy boy wasn’t exactly a ‘man of the people’ either, nor is ‘awe shucks’ GW Bush…and yet they are perceived to be so. The working class associate with Bill Clinton, considering him one of their own…and Bush’s folksy BS has gone a long way to associating him to the working class as well. And in both cases (as well is in Hillary’s case) it is all smoke and mirrors.
That doesn’t make it less real in the minds of the people who think it though. And right or wrong Obama comes across as more an elitist. I think he is the best candidate out there from a purely intellectual and articulate perspective (though I disagree with a lot of his stances and politics I deeply respect the man)…but I’m not exactly representitive of either the majority of hispanics or the majority of Americans either. Far from it.
Your equivalence between Bush and Clinton is a mite shaky. Clinton really is from scrabble Arkansas, Bush from the tiny, rural gated community of Midland. Clinton achieved, Bush inherited. Clinton has natural gifts as a politician, Bush couldn’t be elected to the County Board of Commissioners without an army of spin-doctors and handlers. That Bush is perceived as a “man of the people” is a triumph…nay,* miracle!*… of public relations. His life history is a man who screwed up everything he touched, he is the Man Who Fell Up, scaling a life long succession of failures to reach the very pinnacle of incompetence.
Clinton did not require nearly so much re-branding, its like comparing Fronkensteen’s Monster to someone who’s had a bit of botox.
I don’t believe anyone voted for the war, I think they all voted to give Bush a way to fake Saddam Hussein out, and he screwed us all, “because they tried to kill my Dad.”
But why? I don’t get this. I could see how John Kerry could be spun that way, what with his billionaire wife with an accent, his windsurfing ways, and New England origins. But I honestly don’t see how Obama looks more elitist than his opponents. He’s considerably less wealthy than both Hillary and McCain. He comes from the midwest, land of meat and potatoes and beers. His spouse–unlike Clinton and McCain (and Kerry)–is not ridiculously rich and/or powerful. And for a Dem, he’s pretty religious.
Yeah, he’s educated up the ying yang, but so are the others, so that’s a wash.
I really don’t think people see Obama as an elitist. They just don’t like him and use the elitist slur as an excuse. And it’s politically incorrect to call the guy uppity, so you reach for the word that is safe and kinda-sorta means a similar thing.
“And it’s politically incorrect to call the guy uppity, so you reach for the word that is safe and kinda-sorta means a similar thing.”
Exactly so, it’s unfortunate and in my mind it’s why it’s important that he win. We need to move past this huge hurdle. Then who knows, perhaps a woman.
I’m sure some people feel that way. I spoke with Clinton when he came into the Library where I worked, and he at least came off as a regular guy. While I’ll vote for Obama if he’s nominated, I can’t see him as anything but political. They probably wouldn’t let me into Obama’s country club.
you with the face has nailed it exactly. Additionally, the relative non-issue of Rev. Wright has been pushed to the forefront of the news for so long because it’s a way of talking about Obama [del]possibly[/del] probably governing as the angry Black with a revenge agenda without actually saying it. This is another thing the less wealthy and less educated are afraid of. If Wright had been as vocal about God damning the faggots and baby-killers, he would nave been praised to high heaven.
Obama has been on the national radar in this race for over a year. Who here actually personally characterized him as elitist until they started being told he was a few weeks ago?
I’m sorry, I was a bit unclear and shifty here. I think currently Wright is representative of some fears that some Democrats have, but in terms of anti-gay and pro-life positions there are other, more conservative elements who wouldn’t have batted an eyelash or tried to use Rev. Wright’s positions against Obama.
I do stand by my belief that he’s a stand-in for broaching the angry Black man with an agenda topic, as responsive to the OP.
You may not like Bush (and I certainly don’t), but that doesn’t take away from the fact that a lot of blue collar types (of the Republican variety, to be sure) DO associate with the man and his folksy ways. I’ve heard a lot of working class people who say that Bush is the closest thing to having just some guy in the White House that there has ever been. Just because they are dead wrong doesn’t take away from the fact that they THINK that way.
As for Clinton, he is no more a Joe Blow than Bush is (well, perhaps a bit as he came form more humble origins). The guy was a highly gifted Rhodes scholar and he married into one of the rich blue blood East Coast aristocracies.
Seems to me that “being taken advantage of in foreign affairs” is actually a code phrase. Its usual meaning being “failing to use or opposing the use of force.”
Like John Mace, I question whether this would have happened. But I do think if Wright was a white preacher railing about the government being run by a bunch of rich people, who do bad things to poor blue-collar people, we’d all be like “Wright who?”. This even if the white Wright went as far as to hypothesize that the government was deliberately making poor people sick and stealing their jobs and healthcare.
As it stands, what Wright actually ranted about wasn’t miles apart from this. His crime was that 1) he made blacks out to be victims instead of the poor and 2) he is black himself. This makes him a target that a class warfare-inciting, white minister wouldn’t be.
And this is another reason why it’s pathetically hilarious that Obama is being made out to be the ivory tower type. Call Wright whatever you want to call him, but I can’t see an actual “let them eat cake” elitist attending a church that has a minister who portrays our elite-stacked government as an evil thing.
Because his attitudes come off as left wing elitist…unlike Clinton who hides it well (and who frankly is more moderate in any case…or at least more open to being blown around by the political winds). Billy boy was also very good at hiding his own elitism behind a folksy mask. Yeah…in actuality they are all pretty much from the same background (even Bush, though not left wing obviously). But perception is everything. The very thing that most appeals to the Dems here on the Straightdope is the thing that may turn off some blue collar folks about the man. You have to admit…the SD IS elitist after all.
You are trying to associate elitism with rich here btw…and that isn’t the point I’m making at all. Obama is actually one of the poorer candidates in recent American history (though he isn’t exactly begging on the street). This isn’t a rich/poor thingy…nor do I think it’s all about racism though to be sure there is some of that involved as well.
Sure, but it’s how they present themselves (and how he presents himself) that ISN’T (IMHO) a wash. As I said, YMMV…I think you are wrong that this is something that can just be handwaved away because it’s unimportant. I think it’s part of both what makes Obama so appealing (to educated folks like those around these parts) and so unappealing to others (those with less education).
Probably a lot easier for you to just paint them all with a broad brush as foaming at the mouth racists and move on, ehe?
That’s why I clarified and linked these thoughts to more conservative groups who have done this, in the sense they would have supported him and not condemned him for it – or, by association, anyone else.
I’m not handwaving it away as unimportant, I just refuse to accept as gospel, without scrutiny, the meme that Obama is widely perceived as more elitist than the others. People may say they view him that way, but if they can’t point to anything more specific than the bitter thing that was blown out of proportion and the “OMG he ordered orange juice instead of coffee” tripe, this chick ain’t buying it.
Since I haven’t done that anymore than you have, I gotta wonder why you’d say this.
Yeah, you’re right. I wouldn’t be surprised if the white working-class demographic who is voting Dem this go 'round share the same social values as many of their Republican counterparts.
There’s another thing to consider here - what are the consequences of white flight?
If most of the prosperous white people leave a decaying mill town in Pennsylvania and move out to the suburbs, the people left in the town will be largely poor, elderly, and disproportionately black. Black voters, now a far larger segment of the population than they were, will now elect black politicians to office.
Some of these will run their cities honorably, but in a place like Pennsylvania where corruption is pretty much a way of life, most will behave like white politicians, line up at the trough, and shovel as many goodies as possible into the wards that gave them votes.
Now, white voters left behind in these towns will seldom make the connection between these larger trends and the behavior of these politicians. They also will seldom care that these politicians are scarcely worse than the white ones they replaced. All they will see is a black councilman openly behaving corruptly, and they will flat out expect a President Obama to behave the same way.
That must be a non-New England thing because I’ve worked on many a town council in one capacity or another and I don’t know that I’ve seen anything resembling that here in CT. Perhaps it’s my towns demographic.
