Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

"Elite" equals "elitist"

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on Fri, 08/22/2008 - 10:16am

Logical fallacy perpetuated.

Truly.

0
No votes yet

Comments

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

You know that, right, lambert? I've made peace with everyone selling out their ideals for Obama, but do they have to sacrifice the English language, too?

And is this really what so-called progressives want the debate to be - which rich man running for president has the bigger house? Really?

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

You knew this was coming, right, BDBlue?

And is this really what so-called progressives want the debate to be - which rich man running for president has the bigger house? Really?

Yes.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Even though I considered the question to be rhetorical. Of course this is what they want to debate, if it weren't they wouldn't be debating it.

I predicted awhile ago that this would be the shallowest presidential contest in history (which is saying something). We have two candidates who don't want to discuss the issues to go along with the media who doesn't want to discuss the issues. Great, I guess that means I'm free to vote on some perfectly shallow issue like whose house I like more. I bet the McCain ranch is awesome. And no lecturing me on what a disaster McCain will be for the country, we've already agreed the critical issue is houses. Not housing.

oceansandmountains's picture
Submitted by oceansandmountains on

You are the best. One of the great things about the four-star flameout of PB 1.0 was getting to see so much more of the intertubes. Finding this place and getting to read your stuff (as well as lambert's, VL's and others) has been amazing.

You are so right: the issue has become houses, not housing.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

is now, btw, complete for the lefty blogosphere. Because going after Democrats for being rich is what the right-wing usually does to paint them as elitist. I guess if you can't beat 'em, join 'em. Still I can't help but think of all the outrage when the GOP did this to Kerry. Glenn is right that the MSM has a double standard on this stuff, but so do many "progressive" bloggers, apparently. I guess I was just naive enough to hope that the answer would be to stop getting the media to go after stupid stuff like Kerry's wife being rich instead of having them go after both Democrats and Republicans equally for being rich. I guess the latter is an improvement of a sort, but not at all what I've been hoping for.

For my own part, I seriously doubt this entire thing is moving swing voters (with the possible exception of making them reach for a bucket after recognizing how fucked we are that with a failing economy and two wars, this is what our Great Men talk about).

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Enough with the Star Wars references already!

You are making me desperate to get home and play Knights of the Old Republic on my XBox again(or watch Attack of the Clones, which is in mt DVD right now).

Let me have some peace, please :)

Bill Clinton for First Dude!!!

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

which means, I believe, that there's a huge market for PB 2.0 if we can tap it.

As I keep saying, the key data point of the primary is that millions voted for Hillary, despite the press saying she was dead since February (and yet, with her under the radar campaign, she connected with them). So, that's some number smaller than 18 million but way larger than zero who have totally tuned out our famously free press and yet, if I read this aright, are still hungry for real news, which is why Hillary's boring bullet points about policy connected with them.

We really do not need to be thinking in terms of a small number of right-minded blogs. We can think bigger.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

Clinton's ability to get voters to ignore the media was the most subversive and progressive thing about her. Because until we do that, we're going to be stuck with center-right vs. right political contests. So I came to see her as kind of a first step towards breaking the machine by getting Americans to listen to boring policy (which Americans actually love, btw) even if that policy were not as liberal as I would like.

But hey it's fun to revisit 2004 and argue over rich wives with the man who was going to change politics. That's good, too.

lambert's picture
Submitted by lambert on

Not only did they hate her to begin with, her response to their hate* was to bypass them, threatening to destroy their business model. And since the A list doesn't want to replace Broder, but to be Broder...

It all falls into place...

NOTE * I don't give her credit for being visionary on this, I'm sure it was tactical. But that was the result.

[ ] Very tepidly voting for Obama [ ] ?????. [ ] Any mullah-sucking billionaire-teabagging torture-loving pus-encrusted spawn of Cthulhu, bless his (R) heart.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Both Clintons have been bucking the media since Bill took office in '93. There was a lot of talk about Hillary's "transformation" as Senator, but there really weren't any significant changes. Her increase in popularity in NY was mostly having the voters getting to see her instead of the media caricature of her. She had to do everything since her 2000 campaign by bucking the media..

It may be tactical, but it goes way beyond this election. Her ability to win despite the Village, and the threat that caused, may explain why so many in the Dem establishment were so quick to screw her over. That was obvious with the media, but maybe it makes sense with the Dem power brokers as well.

FrenchDoc's picture
Submitted by FrenchDoc on

Which is why Lambert and I are pushing the PB2.0 thingie (whatever it turns out to be).

And I have yet to see any data showing that swing voters, moderate conservatives (if such animals actually exist) or evangelicals are moving in Obama's direction. So, unless the Obama camp has super secret data, I am at a loss as to why they are pushing this strategy rather than focus on tepid progressives who might still be persuaded to vote Dem for sure.

Go Global!

Submitted by Paul_Lukasiak on

Because you know that McCain is dying to be asked this question in a debate setting, with a huge swath of the electorate watching....

myiq2xu's picture
Submitted by myiq2xu on

Nixon wasn't

------------------------------------------------
“When someone engages in divisive behavior, any resulting division is their responsibility” - Melissa McEwan

BDBlue's picture
Submitted by BDBlue on

I never got the feeling that he thinks he's better than a coalminer because he makes more money (maybe because he was a POW). He's awful in so very many ways, it's hard to document them all - liar, fraud, hirer of puppy torturers, forced birth zealot, war monger, Bush enabler, etc., etc. - but I never got the impression he was an elitist. And, of course, being an elitist is much worse than war monger or Bush enabler or else Obama would be focusing on that. No, better to go with the McCain has a lot of big, fancy houses. That's his real problem.

Truth Partisan's picture
Submitted by Truth Partisan on

I posted this on pb 2.0 a little while ago. Thanks for the (implied) hat tip. I love hat tips!