what's wrong with being elite?
You know what, I realize this is a campaign and that Hilary wants to win. I don't begrudge her that. She's not my choice for the democratic nomination, but I don't think she shouldn't be allowed to continue campaigning until all the states have voted.
That said. I was reading this article, Obama Fights Perception He Is Elitist and it really annoyed me.
Clinton, campaigning in Brownsburg, Indiana, tried to perpetuate the elitist label on Obama, pointing out his opposition to a proposal she supports, a temporary suspension of the federal tax on gasoline of 18.4 cents per gallon.
"I find it frankly a little offensive that people who don't have to worry about filling up their gas tank or what they buy when they go to the supermarket, think that it's somehow illegitimate to provide relief for the millions and millions of Americans who are on the brink of losing their jobs, unable to keep up with their daily expenses," she said.
First off, I see nothing wrong with a presidential candidate being ELITE. That means better than the rest! Since when is that a bad thing? I want a president that is better and smarter than me. Look what happened when people voted for the guy they could have a beer with? Eight years of President Bush. ::shudders::
Secondly, I'm quite proud of Obama for not backing a ridiculous tax break on gas. That's not going to SOLVE the problem. It won't suddenly make gas more readily available. What we need to do is increase the tax and use that to truly focus on an energy plan. It's just insane to "temporarily" remove the tax.
Finally, is Clinton taking an idea out of the Republican brain workings? Because when you're in debt as much as we are, should you really be *decreasing* taxes?
Comments
Still, I think Hillary is a thousand times more elitist. Whereas Obama is down to Earth and more or less honest about his intentions, Hillary panders to demographics in ridiculously patronizing ways by playing up stupid stereotypes. Not only that, but she hasn't even gotten the nomination, and she's already lying to us (Bosnian sniper fire? Riiiiight).
If Hillary gets the nomination, a third party is getting my vote.
I just find it rather irritating that the media seems to be so concerned with smearing Obama (note that McCain hasn't worn any flag pin on his lapel since he got the nomination either, and I don't think Clinton ever has, either), while they play slow pitch softball at the senior center with Hillary Clinton's campaign.
It just seems ridiculous that Obama gets asked questions like "Do you love the American flag," at the debates and is constantly scrutinized for connections to people like Rev. Wright and Bill Ayers (who, I admit, is a personal hero of mine, anyway - any connection is just more of an incentive to vote for Obama, as far as I'm concerned), while Hillary Clinton just kinda gets a free ride.
It was all spin. The culprits: Karl Rove, and Frank Luntz:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/2/133127/1815
Copy and paste the above site into your browser and scroll down for Luntz's
evil-genius playbook.
George Lakoff tried to counter with "Don't Think of an Elephant."
but that enlightening book is still not the last word on the subject.
The book that I consider definitive, at least for me, so far, has such a long title,
that I can't remember it, but it's on language and I will alert you all
when I unpack it some day(although by then it may be out of date:(
Yes, the President should be an exceptional person and beer-guzzlin'
buddy material should not come into our decision, but unfortunately it
recently has(for so many) since 2000(aside from 2000 and 2004
elections being stolen, ofcourse!
But just as a woman has to work harder to receive equal pay and equal respect, a democrat has to win more votes than the margin of vote-fraud.
George Orwell's essay, Politics and the English Language, is still good.
was neutral.
Also, how hypocritical whnever a republican uses "elite" to describe
the dems negatively. They practically run the country with the WSJ
as a mouthpiece. That is an elite paper, as the Economist admits.
In fact Economist says WSJ's elitism is what will probably cause it
to survive, in print, perhaps as far as 2040, while all other newspapers
will likely have to migrate, by then, to online-only.