WWTBAM Bored

When we get unmitigated trash like this article:

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/com ... 7521.story

That's right- people are calling Obama elitist because they think he's an "uppity black man".

Has NOTHING to do with him saying something utterly moronic and stupid, now does it?

Wake me up when the election's over, and someone give me the dictionary that tells me what words and phrases REALLY mean, so I can know what I'm saying.

And Billary and McBush have some nerve calling Obama an elitist and out-of-touch. The Clintons made $109 million since leaving the White House. McCain owns eight houses and has been a Washington insider for 30+ years.

Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot is calling for you on line 1.

I'm currently reading "Going Nucular" by Geoffrey Nunberg, about words and how they change meaning over time (deliberately or not so much). He has a nice turn of phrase, and there are a few of his essays which address the political aspects of some word usage. Such as "nucular" vs. the actual "nuclear". I recommend the book.

For a rant on equal opportunity of snobism you can't beat this rant

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/04/16/sn ... verywhere/

Heck, some people were uncomfortable just with the idea of Mitt Romney being a Mormon. I think most Americans are even less tolerant of those who worship the Egyptian Sun God.

I'd rather shove a red-hot poker up my ass and cut off my balls with a rusty scalpel than read anything that Pacific Rimjob Malkin infestates the Internets with.

We can debate whether the elitist rant was appropriate or not.

But to say if we call Obama elitist, that means we secretly think he's an "uppity black man" is ludicrous in the extreme.

Why are you guys focusing on the other crap rather than this gymnastics routine that seems to be the first step down the path of telling us that if we criticize Obama, it's because we're racist?

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:I'd rather shove a red-hot poker up my ass and cut off my balls with a rusty scalpel than read anything that Pacific Rimjob Malkin infestates the Internets with.

Ok, choice one it is.

TheConfessor wrote:Heck, some people were uncomfortable just with the idea of Mitt Romney being a Mormon. I think most Americans are even less tolerant of those who worship the Egyptian Sun God.

I'm glad you caught that. I was trying to think of something snappy!

NellyLunatic1980 wrote:And Billary and McBush have some nerve calling Obama an elitist and out-of-touch. The Clintons made $109 million since leaving the White House. McCain owns eight houses and has been a Washington insider for 30+ years.

Mr. Kettle, Mr. Pot is calling for you on line 1.

Being elitist is not about how much money you make. It's about how you relate to other people. Franklin Roosevelt was very rich, but his gift was the ability to talk to the common man, not at him. His fireside chats were tremendously inspirtaional and got people to believe that the government wasn't just the Wall Street fat cats but people who were there to work for and with them.

The reasons Democrats did so well in the south for years, before racial issues came to the forefront. was that people like Huey Long were there with them. Mike Huckabee brings that same type of populism to bear, which when combined with his religious conservatism, made him very popular in a number of Southern states. He destroyed Mitt Romney at a debate with the line that most voters could identify with the people being laid off rather than the CEO who laid them off.


Somehow the Democrats have gotten away from that and what should be their natural constituency has drifted away, in large part because of comments like Obama's. Bill Clinton was able to tap back into this constituency, because when he said "I feel your pain," he was sincere about it. The Democratic powers that be could never accept this and they have spent the last eight years tearing Clinton down. Now they've put their money on essentially a black Michael Dukakis with a slicker presentation. They still haven't reached the lower and middle white classes, and Obama is driving the Hispanic voters away as well.

What's bad about Obama's statement wasn't saying that lower and middle class white voters were bitter. Heck, when 81% of the people think this country is on the wrong track everyone is somewhat bitter. No, it was his statement that because they are bitter/upset/angry, that they "cling" to guns, religion, and, while we're at it , let's throw in xenophobic racism as well. Much as George Allen made his "macaca" blunder among a bunch of his supporters, Obama was talking at a San Francisco fund raiser and his comments in general were greeted with a good bit of laughter from the audience. The entire impression from the whole thing is that this group of voters wasn't for Obama because they just weren't enlightened enough to see the big picture and that, being the simpletons they are, they choose to cling to their guns and Bibles and immigrant bashing instead of realizing just what Obama is there to do for them.

Plus, for a man who less than one month ago, made the issue of his own faith so important that he couldn't bear to condemn Uncle Jeremiah for calling this country the US of KKK A, to turn around and claim that ignorant hicks turn to religion (and guns) presumably only because times are tough, is amazingly patronizing.

Now, we have morons like this columnist saying accusing of Obama of being elitist for demeaning others' religion is the racist equivalent of calling him racist.

Let's see if I have this right. If you denounce Obama for failing to distance himself from the Rev. US of KKK A Wright, you are a racist. And if you denounce Obama for demeaning white people's religious sincerity, you are also racist. Let's just go all out. If you criticize Obama about anything, you are racist.

The Democratic party may be too far gone in self denial for its own good this time around. But if Obama does win the nomination, then all these statements will come back and get thrown in his face in one cohesive, Republican-driven narrative. And as the Rev. Wright says, the chickens will be coming home to roost.

I agree with everything you said, SSS, except if you think Bill Clinton truly "felt people's pain", then I have some oceanfront property in Iowa that I have for sale.

For a bargain price in this tough market!

But yes- essentially we are moving towards an atmosphere where if you criticize Barack Obama, you are a racist.

What amazes me is that this should be appalling to everyone, yet it took how many replies before someone else got the point?

Obama clearly has some unnatural hold over people here. How could ANY of you, no matter who you're supporting, have ignored the trash that was being spewed in that editorial?

Jeemie wrote:What amazes me is that this should be appalling to everyone, yet it took how many replies before someone else got the point??

If Obama is nominated and loses, the media and the Democratic elite will blame (A) Hillary for "destroying" his candidacy, and (B) racism of the American public in general and anyone who criticized Obama in particular, and bemoan how in the 21st century, we're still not mature enough as a nation to look past the color of someone's skin to elect a President (odd we haven't heard these same idiots decry how the failure to nominate Hillary indicates we're not mature enough to nominate or elect a woman, when there's been a lot more sexist slurs than racial ones in this campaign).

For the record, I do think this country is ready to elect a black president. I also think that Obama is not qualified by experience, temperament, judgment or positions to be president. And I think that his candidacy is going to set back the cause of racial equality in this country considerably because of people who will blame his defeat on racism and then be reluctant to nominate or vote for a really qualified black candidate down the road.

I think the whole 'uppity black man' thing is, in itself, inherently racist. To me it says that he should be down closer to the common man, because as a black man that's where he belongs. Saying it like that almost smacks of saying he's not 'black enough'. (Whatever that really means.)

I'm not saying well enough what I want to be saying. But basically, to me, by calling him that, it is saying that he's forgotten his 'place' and thinks too highly of himself.

I don't think I'm making sense.

marrymeflyfree wrote:I think the whole 'uppity black man' thing is, in itself, inherently racist. To me it says that he should be down closer to the common man, because as a black man that's where he belongs. Saying it like that almost smacks of saying he's not 'black enough'. (Whatever that really means.)

I'm not saying well enough what I want to be saying. But basically, to me, by calling him that, it is saying that he's forgotten his 'place' and thinks too highly of himself.

I don't think I'm making sense.

No one called him that.

That's what the writer of the article I linked SAID people were implicitly doing, however, simply for calling him "elitist" over the "clinging to guns and God" remark.

In other words, there are pundits and writers out there ready to equate any criticism of Obama with racism (whether covert or overt) on the part of the one doing the criticism.

THAT'S what I'm angry about.

silverscreenselect wrote:
For the record, I do think this country is ready to elect a black president.

Me too. Which is why I will vote for Alan Keyes should the Constitution Party officially decide to support him. What this country needs is a viable third party.

silverscreenselect wrote:I also think that Obama is not qualified by experience, temperament, judgment or positions to be president.

There are many of us (who I guess must be sexist) who beleive this of Hillary. I think on those four I give Obama the edge on judgment and temperament and make them a tie on the other two.

I'm glad to see a candidate who will utter lines that are not foucs group tested on occasion.

I almost fell off the chair when the Clinton campaign called Obama elitist. For 17 years now the message I've heard from the Clintons is that if I was half as smart as them and half as compassionate I'd understand that they can cure all our ills.

I'm not loking forward to 2009 - I don't think there are enough grownups in either party that I want them running both the executive and legislative branch. Gridlock (When I was in school we called it checks and balances, but that is passee now) seems pretty damned appealing to me.

It blows my mind that I can post an editorial that basically said if you criticize Obama, it's because you're a racist...and no one here cares- they just care about defending their candidate.

What the hell is this country coming to?

Jeemie wrote:It blows my mind that I can post an editorial that basically said if you criticize Obama, it's because you're a racist...and no one here cares- they just care about defending their candidate.

What the hell is this country coming to?

This country is coming to apathy, because blowhards like the columnist you sited make money from being outrageous, so the population falls into three categories: angered, defensive or apathetic. I have no more energy to waste on people who make their living based on reaction to their ridiculous opinions.

Rexer25 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:It blows my mind that I can post an editorial that basically said if you criticize Obama, it's because you're a racist...and no one here cares- they just care about defending their candidate.

What the hell is this country coming to?

This country is coming to apathy, because blowhards like the columnist you sited make money from being outrageous, so the population falls into three categories: angered, defensive or apathetic. I have no more energy to waste on people who make their living based on reaction to their ridiculous opinions.

Apathy rules.

If I cared enough, I'd help create the Apathetic Party....

lb13

Jeemie wrote:It blows my mind that I can post an editorial that basically said if you criticize Obama, it's because you're a racist...and no one here cares- they just care about defending their candidate.

What the hell is this country coming to?

I can post you any number of editorials that say idiotic things. If I do, will you promise to get morally huffy and agree with me about the idiocy of said editorial?

I'll be honest -- I didn't even read the link. Don't plan to. I'm on information overload as it is without reading stuff that's evidently ludicrous on its face.

what mikey said

Sir_Galahad wrote:

silverscreenselect wrote:
For the record, I do think this country is ready to elect a black president.

Me too. Which is why I will vote for Alan Keyes should the Constitution Party officially decide to support him. What this country needs is a viable third party.

This country may be ready to elect an African-American president, but it's not ready to elect someone from a fringe third party. The two-party system is too entrenched, IMO, for there to be any viable challenge either from the left or the right. All that Keyes will do is to draw support away from both parties, probably more from the Republicans than from the Democrats.

mrkelley23 wrote:

Jeemie wrote:It blows my mind that I can post an editorial that basically said if you criticize Obama, it's because you're a racist...and no one here cares- they just care about defending their candidate.

What the hell is this country coming to?

I can post you any number of editorials that say idiotic things. If I do, will you promise to get morally huffy and agree with me about the idiocy of said editorial?

I'll be honest -- I didn't even read the link. Don't plan to. I'm on information overload as it is without reading stuff that's evidently ludicrous on its face.

Sorry- this one is particularly dangerous and particularly gets my goat because the thinking it displays is more prevalent than you might think.

If Obama's the man for the job, that's great, but let's not shut off any chance of vetting him to find out by pretty much intimating if we criticize him for anything, we're being racist.

If you post an editorial that I think is worth getting morally huffy about, I'll get morally huffy about it.

I think he's elitist because he was talking to farmers in Iowa about the price of arugula at the Whole Foods! But that just makes him whiter than I'll ever be, so it can't be about his race. I buy romaine and iceburg at my local grocery store.

Elitist isn't so bad, but I doubt any of those clowns feel the pain of what food costs these days. I wouldn't even buy a grapefruit the other day because it was so expensive!

Arugula. Heh. It's fun to say.