So Obama is in all kinds of hot water because he said that there was bitterness in the working class of Pennsylvania, saying that workers in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who have seen factories shut down “get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” These sentiments are generating all manner of controversy, although since my understanding is that the remarks were made in private, I find the violation of confidences to be more alarming.
Clinton is blasting Obama, saying his comments smack of “elitism.” Newsday reported that one Democratic strategist in Washington, asserted, “Mistakes like this make superdelegates nervous. … You cannot be elected president of the United States if you think you’re smarter than everyone. People pick up on that.”
Here’s what I don’t get: Why is that a bad thing?
What’s wrong with a president believing he’s smarter than everyone? Or at least smarter than most people? What’s wrong with someone being elitist? Why shouldn’t the President of the United States be the best and the brightest, and know that he or she is and be proud of that fact? We’ve had a proud dunce for seven years now; does anyone REALLY think we’re better off for it?
It’s no wonder that people are distrustful of politicians, but really, we’ve brought it on ourselves. We have a situation wherein this country’s anti-intellectualism has become so pervasive, so suffocating, that we have multi-millionaire Ivy league graduates trying to pretend they’re just plain folks when clearly they’re not. And people know they’re not. This country was founded by men who knew they were the best and brightest, and the citizenry took pride and comfort in that. But television has put politicians into peoples’ homes, and now we just want someone we’re comfortable with. We don’t want men and women who come across like professors; we want the guy who sat in the back of the class and goofs off, as if life was a sitcom. To put it in “Fast Times at Ridgemont High” terms, we should want to elect Mr. Hand; instead we opt for Jeff Spicoli.
PAD
• 
Posted by roger tang at April 16, 2008 01:34 PM
Again, I thank Mr. Nolan for supporting my point.
Your welcome, glad to be of service. How about something with substance?
I’m surprised no one’s mentioned the old Adlai Stevenson quote:
(Random supporter): Congratulations on a great speech! You’re sure to get the vote of every intelligent American!”
(Stevenson): That’s not enough; I need a majority.
Anyway, I personally consider myself an elitist. And by that, I mean I want to deal with people who know what they’re doing and are good at it. For example, when my car needs repairs, I want a good auto mechanic, not just some random person off the street (or even worse, myself. I’m terrible with cars). That doesn’t mean I look down in general on people who aren’t good at fixing cars; it just means I don’t want them trying to fix my car.
And in pretty much every field beyond tic-tac-toe, there are people who, whether due to experience, or brain structure, or physical attributes, are just better at it than the average person. Some folk are fortunate enough to be better in multiple areas, or in areas with wide generality such as intelligence.
Personally, I’d be pretty dumb not to think I’m pretty intelligent; I’ve got a long list of accomplishments indicating such, the opinions of people I consider intelligent, etc. But I’m also well aware there are numerous areas where I’m not knowledgeable or good at, and that there are a fair number of people much more generally smarter than me. And I’m going to tend to listen to and go with the opinions of folk smarter than me, particularly in their specialist areas, unless I can come up with a flaw in their reasoning which they can’t explain.
So, I consider myself elitist, but not in the sense of looking down on people. Rather, in the sense of recognizing and admiring and appreciating people’s skills and abilities.
“intolerant of pro-gun thinking”
At least he opposes unconstitutional Katrina-style gun confiscations. HRC supports them.
So…what did Obama say that wasn’t true? I am a white liberal living in small town Indiana, and I see it every day. People here in “The Bible Belt” will always vote for fear driven and outdated notions that have kept this country from progressing to the potential that it truly holds. In fact, Obama pretty much hit the nail on the head. How else do you think Bush and his administration have kept such a stranglehold on the country for the last 7 plus years? Because small town voters do INDEED come out and vote for the very fear-rooted issues Obama named.
In fact, its nothing to see bumber stickers in my town that read things like: “God, Guns, Guts and Glory” Lets keep em all!” Need I say more??
Kudos to Obama for calling it as it really is!!
Alan Coil: It is my experience in life that those who cling to their guns ARE bitter.
Really? That’ll come as a shock to people who know me. I keep trying to be bitter, but it doesn’t stick. I’ve got a lovely wife, a comfy job, a couple of nice sets of wheels, 2 dogs, three cats, and a nice collection of firearms.
Why do I have guns? Simply put, when seconds count the police are only minutes away. I always held strong pro-2nd amendment views, but didn’t see fit to own any guns myself until someone tried to break into my house when I was in it. Since then, I bought a few guns and trained extensively with professionals in their use. It wasn’t bitterness that caused me to become a gun owner, it was the reality of the world we live in regardless of which party is in power. That reality is rooted in human nature and no amount of government meddling is going to fix it.
Well, now the national news programs are actually talking to people from small-town Pennsylvania.
It’s very interesting; once you filter out the right-wingers who couldn’t find anything nice to say about Obama (or any other Democrat) if he cured cancer, you’re left with a lot of people who are saying, in essence, “Yes, I’m unemployed. And yes, I’m a little bitter about that. You folks are just catching on?”
The big furor seems to be among those who want to get infuriated on behalf of those Pennsylvanians – as if the people themselves can’t tell whether or not they should be insulted.
Who’s the elitist here again? 🙂
Oh, as a total aside: Mr. Nolan, this shall be my sole response to you – you provide no substance to discuss. You present your opinions as if they are Revealed Truth, handed down from on high carved in tablets of gold. How can one reasonably debate such? Further, you litter your posts with such basic errors in grammar, spelling, and punctuation that I begin to wonder if you are, in fact, a student at one of our nation’s lesser high schools. (Hint: you don’t need an edit function, you just need to read over your post before clicking on the Post button.) Until such time as your writing improves (which will have to be reported by some soul more tolerant of barbarisms than I), you are shrouded. Good day, sir.
I LIVE in Western PA, and from where I sit (and teach) I think he called pretty accurately. As far as it damaging him, in my limited observations, the folks who supported him prior to the comments still seem to support him, and the people who didn’t still don’t. I have yet to run across a single person who was turned off by this “controversy.”
“The big furor seems to be among those who want to get infuriated on behalf of those Pennsylvanians – as if the people themselves can’t tell whether or not they should be insulted.
Who’s the elitist here again? :-)”
That’s what I thought would happen. Hillary started forcefully declaring that nobody was bitter and everyone was full of hope as soon as she heard what Obama said. Of course people noticed that she was saying they were outraged without first asking them if they actually were.
Hillary is now in Bitter-gate-gate.
Did anyone catch the debate tonight? Good lord, they both looked terrible–this race is killing them. Somewhere, John McCain is smiling.
Posted by Jonathan (the other one) at April 16, 2008 09:02 PM
Until such time as your writing improves (which will have to be reported by some soul more tolerant of barbarisms than I), you are shrouded. Good day, sir.
and you are? oh please, please respond to me…
Its funny, my spelling and grammer doesn’t bother anyone when im agreeing.
I have never had folks put so much emotion and attitude into my own posts, its as if you were in the room with me when I wrote them but then of course you would realize how wrong you are.
Being shrouded you will not get this but how about you grow some skin (or a pair) and get over yourself.
We grammatically challenged folks have opinions too.
my spelling and grammer doesn’t bother anyone when im agreeing.
Not true, kiddo. Not true.
In a written medium, being a lousy writer does neither you nor your points any favors.
Don’t mistake people ignoring the errors for people thinking they’re okay.
TWL
Pat—turn the other cheek
_____
Maclom Robertson—I don’t own a gun. My Father did, and both my brothers do. I don’t think the Second Amendment gives any sole person the right to possess a gun, but I think that common law at this point DOES say that individuals have the right to own a gun. I would speak against AND vote against any law that tried to state otherwise. Even a law that would limit how many guns a person could own. If someone wants to own 75, as long as s/he is responsible, I have no problem with that.
I stand by my statement that in my experience, those who cling to their guns ARE bitter. I live in southeast Michigan, and worked in a factory in northwest Ohio that has been closed. I have rubbed elbows with many bitter gun owners whose sole response to crisis is “That sonova&&^^&! I’ll get my gun and we’ll see what he thinks of that!” However, 2 of my best friends at work, one male and one female, owned multiple guns, yet I never heard them say anything about resolving problems with guns. They did not cling to their guns. Showing proud gun ownership and respecting what they can do is not clinging to the gun.
_____
Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are all in the same sinking boat. (And there may be other states, too.) Jobs are being lost at alarming rates. Jobs that paid good wages to people who never got higher education. Those people have little future in the work force other than working cashier for a gas station or Wal-mart. There are houses for sale on nearly every block in Toledo, Ohio. Many of them have been marked down 10-20% and still there are no buyers. People are afraid. People who are afraid and see no future do indeed become bitter.
Tim, Im sorry but I don’t really care if people think my grammer challanged posts are ok. I would hope folks would look past that and disagree with what Im trying to say or if it wasn’t clear ask me to further explain.
Posted by: Alan Coil at April 16, 2008 11:04 PM
Pat—turn the other cheek
If only i would have hit refresh one more time before that last post. My cheek is now turned.
Thank you for the advice.
By the accounts of the democratic contenders themselves, their platforms are nearly identical. That’s how.
For the 15 million or so who’ll get left out of Hillary’s universal healthcare if Obama becomes president, you’re going to switch your vote from a democrat to the guy who’s staffing his campaign with people who ran Bush/Cheney 2004? This seems to only demonstrate how disingenuous your support for Hillary has been all along.
Hey Peter! You writing for Jay Leno now? He just asked the same question: What’s wrong with having a President who’s smarter than everyone else?
As useless as discussions with Mike inevitably become, let’s try:
By the accounts of the democratic contenders themselves, their platforms are nearly identical. That’s how.
Even assuming that were true–and in your very next line you indicate that their healthcare plans are not, in fact, even close to identical– one does not always vote for a candidate based simply on their positions. There are a myriad of factors–trustworthiness, for example. A person who can’t be trusted is as likely to stab me in the back as not, even if they profess to believe the same things I do. Maybe I’d be better off with someone of integrity who I have honest disagreements with. There are plenty of valid reasons for a Democrat to vote for McCain or a Republican to vote for whoever wins the Democratic nod.
This is all so obvious it staggers the imagination that it needs to be explained. As you occasionally ask, usually in totally inappropriate circumstances; are you unwell?
For the 15 million or so who’ll get left out of Hillary’s universal healthcare if Obama becomes president, you’re going to switch your vote from a democrat to the guy who’s staffing his campaign with people who ran Bush/Cheney 2004?
I don’t recall ever saying Hillary had my vote–I said I would certainly consider voting for her. And, in fact, nowhere have I said that McCain now has my vote. You made that up. Misspoke, as they say these days when they mean lie. I was responding to the idea brought forth that anyone who supports Clinton or Obama MUST throw their support to the other or be an ášškìššër and/or bootlicker.
This seems to only demonstrate how disingenuous your support for Hillary has been all along.
Yes, it was all a trick to…um, well, I don’t know what the purpose of the trick was but rest assured, it was pretty darned tricky! Moo hoo hoo hoo hwah!
No, seriously, I have no desire to lead Mike Leung astray through calculated insincerity. Just being honest seems to throw you off sufficiently.
As for Hillary…sigh. I thought she was by far the most competent of the Democrats running. I thought her campaign would demonstrate that level of competence. I thought she would be able to handle her opposition without needing to resort to desperate tactics. I thought wrong. Jusding from the way she went from a tremendous lead in the polls to clinging by her fingertips to stay in the race I am far from alone.
In the words of Keynes “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?”
Feel free to respond with the typical nuttiness but don’t expect I’ll feel obligated to continue. Been there, done that, got the “I won an argument with Mike Leung and all I got was this lousy T-shirt”
i didn’t watch the whole debate, but there was one hilarious moment right at the beginning, when the moderator asked them if they would both commit to taking on the other as a running mate no matter who won.
their stunned reactions and hesitation to say anything at all made me wonder if i was watching an snl skit….:)
NPR reports that while newspapers and so-called “elitist” journalists are fumfarawing about Obama’s remarks, small-town newspapers in the very areas that Obama was talking about are basically saying that his assessment is pretty much accurate.
PAD
Yeah, it was a huge tactical mistake on Hillary’s part to focus on the “bitter” angle–given PA’s economic state it isn’t hard to find lots of folks who more than fit the description. It would have been better to try to focus on the clumsy way he conflated religion, guns, bigotry and, oddly (given his own positions), opposition to trade deals.
This could still hurt Obama in the long run since every word he says from now on will be parsed for any hint of snobbishness. He has to weigh his words carefully now and I think he is someone who enjoys using his eloquence without worrying about being pounced on. He definitely didn’t look like he was having any fun last night.
But Hillary has apparently damaged herself too much to capitalize on it. You can’t count her completely out of it yet but it will take far greater mistakes than this on Obama’s part for her to pull it out. So she’s managed to hurt him in the long run with no great gain for herself. Some think that’s the plan–help McCain now and run again in 2012 on the “I told you so” platform. I kind of doubt this–if Obama loses and she is perceived as having been in any way part of the problem there are going to be a lot of angry people who will not be forgiving.
Bill and Hill have exhibited incredible tone deafness for people who had previously shown some real savvy but they MUST know this. I don’t see any grand strategy, more of a “let’s throw everything but the kitchen sink and pray to God something sticks”.
Nothing is, so far. But it’s wearing him down. I’d have rated his chances against McCain as excellent but if the Obama of last night shows up against the relaxed McCain we’ve seen lately it won’t be pretty (admittedly, McCain has been able to coast these last few weeks. That will change.).
Watching as this has unfolded, I find myself thinking that maybe at no point did either Clinton or any of her team? Staff? Supporters? Whatever the term, really consider the possibility that maybe she isn’t a guaranteed in for the White House.
Obama has promised less than Hillary, Hillary has been asking people to believe there’s no conflict of interest in rolling out her healthcare plan and receiving more money from the healthcare industry than all of the Iowa candidates combined, and she’s been busted by footage of her strolling on an airstrip. Literally.
If you want Trust™ here’s a clue: trust the candidate who imposes on your trust the least.
Thank you for vehemently underscoring how implausible it is for someone to skip Obama by jumping from Hilllary to McCain, Nurse-Ratched- please-don’t-tell- my-mother. Yet again, it’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.
I’ve seen a dictionary definition listing calculating as a synonym for disingenuous, but not insincere. You seem to have literally criticized that other guy for not being disingenuous enough.
By hypothetical analogy: you don’t believe cannibalism is wrong, but because you like Hannibal Lecter you think cannibalism shouldn’t be held against him? That makes no sense.
Disingenuous is the New Black.™
I had her pegged at the simple fact Edwards shoved her into third place in Iowa. With you, it’s in one ear and out the other.
Mike, you have exposed yourself as a liar and a fraud better than I ever could. I won’t tell your mother. She knows.
Seriously, are you unwell? That was painful, even by your standards. I mean, you lie about me, I call you on it, you can’t deny it and you still trot out the Nurse-Ratched and the “it’s a wonder you felt the need to challenge anything I say.”
Then again…maybe you’re right. Since nobody takes you seriously why SHOULD anyone disagree with you? Point taken. Carry on.
It’s difficult to understand Alan Coil’s comments on gun ownership – Perhaps even he doesn’t have much of a grasp on them. First he says that those who cling to their guns are bitter. That may or may not be so, but it doesn’t address the question of whether the Second Amendment recognizes an individual right to bear arms. Later, he says “I don’t think the Second Amendment gives any sole person the right to possess a gun, but I think that common law at this point DOES say that individuals do have the right to own a gun.” It isn’t clear what he means by “common law,” as there are more than fifty state, city and territorial laws determining local gun rights. There is no “common law” governing firearms possession, unless it is the duty to obey the requirements of the Second Amendment, whatever those requirements are. Understanding just what the Second Amendment does and does not guarantee is contentious and difficult to settle, but Mr. Coil is wrong to suppose firearms laws are not fundamentally a matter of constitutional law.
PAD has said in the past (and I disagreed, of course) that he is a First Amendment absolutist. My own approach to the First, Second and other Amendments is (horrors!) essentially identical to his regarding the First – but I won’t call it “absolutist.” The Constitution reserves certain rights to the people, and any infringement of any of those rights needs to be narrowly drawn and amply justified by reason or necessity. What Mr. Coil seems to be saying is something like this: “The Second Amendment? That doesn’t mean anything. There is a general custom of permitting gun ownership, and I like that. But, you know, those people who really care about gun rights are a bunch of malcontent yahoos [and maybe THEY shouldn’t really be allowed to have guns – ’cause they’re low lives without MY kind of wisdom].
Gun ownership is the new black.
Re: the Second Amendment:
“A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It doesn’t say “the right of the States”. Nor “the right of the Government”.
It says, in plain language, “the people”.
Why is this difficult to understand?
It also says that the purpose of that right is for maintaining a militia to defend the state.
If you’re gonna quibble about exact wording, then the purpose of that right is for defending the country and nothing else. Not hunting, not target practice, not traditions passed down through families. Holding to the exact wording of the amendment isn’t worth much if you only look at half the words.
Jason, isn’t that pretty much consistent with how the laws have been done? There are plenty of laws regulating hunting, shooting, selling, etc. I think many hard core gun fans would be thrilled with an interpretation that says they are allowed to have guns for defending the country. They’d probably argue that such defense would require even bigger and more lethal guns than currently allowed.
One thing this mini brouhaha has made it clear is how completely the once powerful gun issue has been muted. It appears that the NRA has pretty much won. Give Obama credit; he’s the first serious Democratic candidate I’ve seen in a while who didn’t feel the need to be photographed in hunting gear or reminiscing fondly back on his childhood shooting varmints. But even he isn’t talking much about expanding gun control and the recent Supreme Court case has many court watchers speculating that the individual right to own guns is about to get a serious stamp of approval.
“Jason, isn’t that pretty much consistent with how the laws have been done?”
Yes and no. If everyone accepted that wording to it’s full extent then there would be no problem saying that guns can only be bought for military use, nothing else. It’s a matter of degree.
However, what I want to get across is not that the exact wording defines one specific way of doing things. My point is that looking at two words, “the people,” and ignoring other words does not give a clear picture of the amendment. It’s not accurate to try to take that state out of the picture when it is clearly part of the amendment.
Nothing I’ve said depends on the casual comment you have provided only your own neediness as evidence was submitted with intent to deceive. I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Fortunately for me, calling you on your bullying is more wellness than those at the mercy of your professional privilege are permitted to demonstrate. Freedom is not unwell.
Nothing I’ve said depends on the casual comment you have provided only your own neediness as evidence was submitted with intent to deceive. I’m not asking anyone to take my word for anything. Fortunately for me, calling you on your bullying is more wellness than those at the mercy of your professional privilege are permitted to demonstrate. Freedom is not unwell.
Hey, who stole my idea of creating the Mike Leung random comment generator? It’s not bad, though it needs a little bit of tweaking–even he usually makes a little more sense than that.
Also, you need to stick a reference to Vonnegut or Jung in there somewhere—it doesn’t have to be relevant, just something to look deep. But pretty good for a first try. Kudos!
It’s like that Tolstoy line about happy families resembling each other but unhappy families finding their own path to unhappiness. While your vulnerabilities are endless, taking your wrongness hostage requires the simplest of discipline. That isn’t my sucktardness, but yours.
Thank you for not invalidating my rebuttal.
Much better–the Tolstoy reference was spot-on. Now just add “lennie-like” and a threat to call CNN.
Thank you for owning up to your suckitude. Was that so hard?
I’m getting the impression the primary next Tuesday will be a little more decisive than we figure. I wouldn’t be surprised that Pennsylvania goes to Obama with major numbers, given how many people really hate this negative campaigning on Clinton’s side. Unless, of course, you support the candidate who’s obvious VP choice will be Joe “Droopy Dog” Lieberman. But hey, I do think all this was good, since it shows that she isn’t qualified as she thinks she is to be president. But it’s starting to hurt the Democrat’s chances of getting the clean sweep into the White House they should get.
I don’t know that he’ll win PA–though it would almost certainly be the final nail in the coffin for her if he does–but it isn’t looking like the big victory she needed is likely.
he had a bad night at the debate but the post debate spin has been more about what a bad job the moderators did, not how poorly he did. If I were him I’d put an end to this–why risk going on CBS and getting reamed by Katie Couric? Unless he can be assured of friendlier questions there’s little to be gained.
Judging from the numbers of lawn posters and bumper stickers around here, I’d say he’s going to sweep North Carolina. Even those here who don’t like Obama are not big on Hillary–the Clinton name isn’t a huge draw.
Obama should coast from this point on–yeah, there’s a risk in doing so but as long as Hillary can’t get any traction (and thus far she hasn’t been able to capitalize on his mistakes)it’s probably the safer choice. This extended campaign has already damaged him. At one point he was seen by many as a genuinely new kind of politician. Now it looks more like it will end up just being another campaign where people think they’re voting for the lesser of two evils.
I think he should hold out for a reaming. My toothpaste, Katie, or yours?
“It also says that the purpose of that right is for maintaining a militia to defend the state.”
Apolgies for joining in the corruption of this topic to a 2nd amendment discussion.
I don’t think that argument addresses that the Bill of Rights are there to put limits on the power of the Federal government.
The state and the federal government aren’t terms you can use interchangeably.
By their very definition, politicians think they know what’s best for their constituents. If they didn’t think so, they very well wouldn’t be running in the first place unless the idea is to merely obtain personal power/wealth.
And by their very definition, socialists KNOW that they are smarter/better than their constituents and KNOW what the people should be doing/thinking/saying. This is why socialism has become imbedded in our society and our government, much to our detriment.
This discussion is moot in that ALL of the candidates KNOW they are smarter/more knowledgable than you, therefore you only need to stop thinking and obey your masters.
Kevin May makes a good point, that the intention of the Second Amendment is to prevent the Federal government from limiting firearms rights. The big question is whether it applies in any way to the individual states’ firearms regulations. Some parts of the Bill of Rights and other Amendments (Amendments I, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, XIII, XIV, XV, XIX, XXIV and XXVI, at the least) have been so extended and others have not. Some of the others refer only to the Federal government (qualifications for the Presidency, term limits, reservation of unenumerated rights to the states, and so on.
So is it possible, for example, for the states to pass laws that suppress free speech to a degree that the feds could not?
Ok, everyone may have already seen this but if not–pure genius.
BARACKY: THE MOVIE; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyhIBXNfqMA&feature=bz303
The first and second amendments are very simple, and they are something most people agree with. Unfortunately, we get too caught up in the language sometimes. We forget when we talk about “the press”, “separation of church and state” and “militias”. At their core, they are to allow you to protect your mind, your soul and your body from external intrusion, especially by the government.
States are obliged to enforce federal laws. States therefore are obliged to enforce the first amendment.
As the states’ obligation to enforce the second amendment goes, the wording of the second amendment as it was passed by the house and senate seems to literally make gun control the discretion of the states:
Going by those commas, “shall not be infringed” doesn’t even apply to “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” but a “well-regulated Militia.”
“Elitist” as it’s used in politics has nothing to do with superiority or perceived superiority. It’s a media term that means little more than “We don’t like you.”
John Kerry has been tagged as an elitist for ordering green tea in a restaurant. And an egomaniac for having his initials monogrammed on his shirt (because they’re JFK, so obviously he must think he’s the Second Coming of Kennedy).
An article in the 2004 election specifically compared John Kerry, Rich Person Who Windsurfs to George W. Bush, Plain Spoken Texas Farmer.
One journalist–I forget which–said that in the 2000 election, they saw the difference between Gore and Bush being that Gore was the smart kid in class who broke the grade curve and Bush was a regular guy, a jock, just like you (which is telling because since when were jocks considered regular guys?).
Remember, these are the same people who keep mocking Obama for his lousy bowling.
And no, since journalists have admitted they keep a lot of stuff in private conversations with McCain off the record, I doubt that a private statement by the senator would have drawn the same attention.