Theda Skocpol makes a variety of good points on "bittergate" in an email to Josh Marshall. If only she hadn't given me such a bad grade in "American Society and Public Policy" way back when....
« The Jobless | Main | Immovable Feast »
The Clintons and Elitism
13 Apr 2008 09:52 am
Comments (106)
As this campaign wears on, Hillary Clinton seems ever more determined to embody the very worst stereotypes people have of politicians. In a way, it just further sets up the contrast with Obama, who, while certainly not perfect, at least comes across as an authentic and honest human being.
"She [Hillary] described herself as a pro-gun churchgoer, recalling that her father taught her how to shoot a gun when she was a young girl and said that her faith “is the faith of my parents and my grandparents.”
-------------
I guess she missed that part about "Thou Shalt Not Lie --not even to take Pennsylvania" part.
My guess is that she also could not hit a bull in the ass at six feet with a rifle.
On the other hand, maybe being under sniper fire in Bosnia has given her a suddenly strong interest in being able to return fire.
Or maybe she just has a compelling urge to shoot a former President who can't keep his big mouth shut.
Whenever GWB appears on television I have to change the channel as listening to him speak, or give that little smirk implying that all of us are chumps and/or idiots, makes me feel like vomiting. It has now come to the point where HRC makes me feel exactly the same way. And Bill too. Never, ever did I think for a minute that would happen.
It seems Obama and Clinton each sees him/her self on the wrong end of the 'Kansas' effect. If I understand correctly, this is because Clinton thinks her economic policies are more popular with Democratic voters, and Obama thinks the cultural issues cut against a black guy with an exotic name.
Hillary Clinton seems ever more determined to embody the very worst stereotypes people have of politicians.
She also has a very outdated boilerplate speaking style that seems to date back to the Fifties. Sort of New Deal Retro or Mondale Redux. I suspect that that's one of Obama's big advantages over her with young people.
She especially has the tic of using her shouty voice to show that she really cares and is a real fighter, which in the age of amplification seems incredibly corny.
So Hillary is now claiming to be a beer swilling, bible thumping gun nut in a pants suit. Nice. Maybe she can start yelling about "libruls" and joking about how democrats want to "save the chilrun" with the "mommy state."
I wish her well on her new career as moderator over at Free Republic.
The elite jumping to the defense of the elite. Harvard professor runs interference in service of Harvard graduate as relayed by Harvard blogger (via Obama shill Josh Marshall).
No she didn't really make very many good points at all. Very disappointing piece for a highly regarded Harvard professor. I've seen much better written stuff here in the comments sections. "Lurid ... over-the-top crudity"? Skocpol should be writing B-movie ad copy.
Obama certainly has the background to qualify for elitism. You would think a professor of sociology would know that elitism is based on many attributes besides financial status (although Obama has enough money that to qualify there too.) Something about Obama seems to dumb down his supporters.
About all I can agree with is that it's silly for Hillary to try to hint at being a God-fearing gun enthusiast instead of simply challenging Obama's misguided depiction of bitter small-town gun and religion nuts.
Unfortunately all this looks to be leading to Obama getting his butt kicked in November in an election the Democrats have no business losing.
The elite jumping to the defense of the elite. Harvard professor runs interference in service of Harvard graduate as relayed by Harvard blogger.
As opposed to Hillary Clinton, graduate of such proletarian institutions as Wellesley and Yale? I mean, come on.
'Undecided', you might wanna change your handle, lest people accuse you of being a lying troll.
$109,000,000.00
Take it to the bank.
Does Undecided have a point or an argument to make? So Skocpol pointing out she has heard the Clintons say similar things to what Obama said doesn't count because she teaches at Harvard and Obama went to Harvard Law (as opposed to Bill's Georgetown-Oxford-Yale education and Hillary's Wellesley-Yale education)? The only difference between the Clintons' and Obama's statements seems to be that Obama didn't know anyone had a tape recorder on at the time.
Matthew Yglesias makes a rare appearance in the comments just to feed a troll?
Hillary Clinton personally bagged three weasels, two squirrels, and one black bear out back her grandaddy's shed. She had to finish the bear off with her bare hands.
As opposed to Hillary Clinton, graduate of such proletarian institutions as Wellesley and Yale? I mean, come on.
Speaking as a Harrisburg Area Community College graduate, I don't particularly care for Hillary's Paul Bunyan-esque spin on this either. She's not good enough to sell "I feel your pain". Stick to the facts.
No doubt the Skocpol email will give the Obama-inclined something to cling to but it was simply not worthy of the play Marshall, you and others have given it.
This deconstruction of Obama's clarification is much more interesting. I'm sure it will be derided because of its source but WTF!
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZDA5YTc3YmJjM2U2NTdhNDJhYTFhMDk1YmU3ZTIxOTI=
Bittergate?
What has journalism become in this country? Jesus. What a joke. Who among us is NOT bitter on some level because of what this administration has done for the last 7 years?
Another lie! The bear was killed by a sniper who was aiming at Clinton.
"way back when,..." being in the heart of Bush's first term?
On the snuffleuppogas, Steven Hadley just referred to China's human rights problems in "Nepal," SIX TIMES. And no correction from 'lil George. Now, I agree that it's a little unfair to pop quiz politicians about obscure third world leaders, but Hadley is the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR! I generally expect such a person to be a little more geographically capable than Adam Youch.
You aren't fooling anyone, Undecided. We all know you're Petey. We recognized your foul stench when we clicked on the comments link.
Seems to me what Skocpol described hearing is significantly different from what Obama said, and not because his remarks were "more humanely sympathetic." What Skocpol heard sounds to me like a discussion of hard political realities, whereas Obama floundered off into a kind of pop psychology, characterizing emotional states and imputing escapist motivations to account for those realities.
It was this that folks found so offensive. These people, he suggested, retreat to religion because they're upset by financial problems, when in fact they've been deeply religious for many generations back. They retreat to hunting, he suggested, for the same reason, when in fact hunting has been an integral part of their culture since long before their economic difficulties.
Skocpol gave no indication in her recital that the Clinton people were talking about anything remotely like this.
As to Hillary the "multimillionaire," what were she and Bill earning compared to what Obama and Michelle are earning now when she was his age? And what will he and Michelle be earning when they're her and Bill's age?
Man, you'd think a Harvard sociologist would be able to have spotted that little slipup before it escaped her fingers onto the keyboard.
Not sure why you need the "scare quotes" around "multimillionaire," "Swift Loris."
When Bill Clinton was Obama's age, he was President of the United States, which is presumably better paying than Senator, but I'm not "sure."
"It was this that folks found so offensive. These people, he suggested, retreat to religion because they're upset by financial problems, when in fact they've been deeply religious for many generations back. They retreat to hunting, he suggested, for the same reason, when in fact hunting has been an integral part of their culture since long before their economic difficulties."
His point was about voting behavior, not religion. Voting on religious conservative issues and the 2nd Amendment were just two ways that such voters decide to vote once DC shows it won't respond to economic realities. Did he say that people only turn to religion because of economic bitterness? No. That means that your entire argument is built on a strawman. Also, no one has put forth evidence that the people Obama was describing actually feel outraged. More, it seems media elites have decided to feign outrage on their behalf. Most people don't watch CNN, FoxNews, etc. because they get tired of network news focusing on stupid crap.
As to Hillary the "multimillionaire," what were she and Bill earning compared to what Obama and Michelle are earning now when she was his age? And what will he and Michelle be earning when they're her and Bill's age?
Yeah, sure, once you hit 60 it's only natural to have 50+ million in the bank.
So, why DOES Sen. Clinton think that these voters have been abandoning the democratic party? Not enough point point clap clap? Maybe her husband's policies and lack of basic socialization? Not to mention that rural and small town areas have been hit pretty hard by the war, which SHE voted for. And telling the working class it's their fault we have a health care crisis for not buying insurance probably won't cut it.
How condescending is it that Clinton and the MSM can't seem to accept that rural Pennsylvanians are capable of self-reflection? In presupposing the backlash against Obama, they're the ones who are stereotyping and, yes, diminishing. The fact that Obama's right about the bitterness and the sense of abandonment is the larger issue. He's seen it up close in urban areas so knows whereof he speaks.
Speeches don't put food on the table, novokant. To make that sort of buck, you have to be fighting for working-class families like a real fighting fighty fighter.
Also, to agree with Reality Man, it's a bit strange that people seem to find it inherently objectionable that Obama imputed motives and stimuli to certain voting behavior. I mean, sure, nobody likes to personally be psychoanalyzed, but isn't analyzing voter behavior what every single campaign spends millions of dollars on, from consultants to polling firms to media strategists. Obama probably could have worded it in a way less likely to offend anyone, but it's ludicrous to imply that the very fact he would try to explain voter behavior is offensive. He's a politician, that's part of the necessary skill set!
For the last two months watching Hill and Bill, I've felt like I was watching a Peter Sellars' opera.
After getting his first degree from an Ivy League school, Obama turned down jobs on Wall Street (though I think he worked as a writer for a business for a couple months) and took a $10k/year working in church basements trying to provide job training and homes to people laid off by steel mills moving overseas. After getting his second degree from an Ivy League school, Obama turned down a Supreme Court clerkship and dozens of offers from the nation's most prestigious law firms. Instead, he ran a voter registration drive and practiced civil rights law in the South Side of Chicago.
After getting her Ivy League degree, Hillary Clinton spent less than a year at the Children's Defense Fund, and then practiced corporate law at the Rose Law Firm and sat on the board of corporate giants TCBY and Wal-Mart.
Game, set, and match.
morgan, I'm pretty sure this is what he meant to say: http://youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M
Like him or not, the man is definitely consistent.
Let us not forget the larger point that all this illustrates -- that people on the right can say the most ludicrous crap about liberals and not even create a dust devil, let alone a fire storm,
What Obama should have said was, "Homophobic gun-loving Pennsylvanians will burn in fiery hell for all eternity." That would have been acceptable,
And if only she hadn't led a nonsense temporary academic fashion called "State Autonomy Theory."
speaking as a teaching in a low income city with people actively ridiculing the educated (el paso, tx) it saddens me that the citizens of this blog are falling into the trap of believing that being educated kills your ability to be authentic. i know why el paso does it, but why do you guys feel the need?
Um, yeah, except the comments of the Clintons and their advisors were said behind closed doors, as opposed to a fundraiser in San Francisco. You know, there's a different between farting in private and farting into a microphone. Email me personally if you want to know the difference.
The faux-surprise and faux-outage coming from the prObama parts of the blogosphere aren't helping him at all. I mean, come on, people. Obama said the little folks "cling to" God and guns cause they're bitter. If you didn't immediately know that the comments would cause a furor and that Clinton would milk them, then you haven't been paying attention. Or are pretending you haven't been.
I support Obama-I voted for him--but after his failure to fire Wright from his campaign and these remarks make me wonder if he realizes what he's up against. He's giving the GOP and its 527 precious gifts.
Which is to say that this incident tells us only about his political skills and instincts. I understand the need to rally behind him--he was trying to get at important truth--but you look silly and, um, elitist tsk-tsking the press and Hillary for seizing on Obama's huge gaffe.
Looks like Clinton's trying out McCain's earlier not-so-subtle "I'm American and he isn't" angle.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-hbPmcMFxU&eurl=
but you look silly and, um, elitist tsk-tsking the press and Hillary for seizing on Obama's huge gaffe
Oh noes, let's pretend to speak for the silenced outraged masses instead, that's much less elitist.
There will be a moment a few months into President Obama's first term where he drops his guard for a second and let's everyone know just how completely he kicked the ass of the Clinton machine. His "Do you like apples? Well how do you like THEM apples?" moment. And it will be sweet and there will be much rejoicing in Whoville.
And Hillary Clinton will be left to drink beer, shoot guns, and do whatever it is that the 19th most senior member of the Senate Armed Services Committee does when she's musing about losing the biggest prize on earth to a skinny state legislator from Illinois who wasn't even on her radar when she planned her run for the White House.
"Um, yeah, except the comments of the Clintons and their advisors were said behind closed doors, as opposed to a fundraiser in San Francisco. You know, there's a different between farting in private and farting into a microphone. Email me personally if you want to know the difference."
Both were private conversations. Was the fund raiser held outdoors in the open air? Obama didn't know the tape recorder was there, so what distinction are you really making? Also, if criticizing a millionaire Senator and former First Lady and the media elite is somehow elitist, that word has lost all meaning. If actual working-class religious NRA members are offended en masse, then criticizing them for being angry is elitist (though not necessarily incorrect on the merits of the argument), but Clinton and the media elite here are not the average blue collar socially conservative white person. As for the Wright controversy, even after Wright, 70% of Americans said Obama shares their values (as opposed to 68% for McCain and something like 53% for Clinton). Also, asking people to e-mail in the middle of a thread to discuss the topic being discussed in the thread is a bit odd and suggests you aren't comfortable enough in you stance to keep it public.
Maybe MattY would care to jump back into the comments and address the parts of Obama's presumed-private speech to the super wealthy in MarinCounty that isn't getting that much attention:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=dXqGtXxkZ4o
Whatever the validity of the Battle of the Elites, it's clear that the elites don't want to talk about that part of his gaffe.
"I support Obama-I voted for him--but after his failure to fire Wright from his campaign and these remarks make me wonder if he realizes what he's up against."
Hmmmm, where to begin....
Look, Obama's offhand comments are obviously a problem, but they're a HUGE problem when you (or rather Republican consultants!) *combine* them with Obama's explicit policy proposals. Consider the following sort of TV attack ad:
"Barack Obama has promised that once he reaches the White House he'll work very hard to give government drivers' licenses to every illegal alien in America. And he says that Americans opposed to illegal immigration are just "bitter"...
"Barack Obama has promised to enact a sweeping program of national gun control. And he says that Americans who want to keep their guns are just "bitter"...
"Barack Obama spent twenty years attending the radical church of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who shouted "God Damn America!" from his pulpit. And he says that Americans who "cling" to religion and attend normal Christian churches are just "bitter"...
"Barack Obama, graduate of an elite Hawaii prep school and Harvard Law, lives in a huge Chicago mansion which he received through the financial assistance of convicted-felon Antoin Rezko. And he says that ordinary hard-working Americans just worried about putting food on their tables are simply "bitter"...
Call Barack Obama and tell him whether or not you really are "bitter"---Paid for by the 527 for All Republican Crooks."
Frankly, any political consultant could write these sorts of ads in his sleep. And remember, Obama's NEVER been hit with a single TV attack ad in his entire political "career". Maybe he has "spontaneous immunity"...and maybe he doesn't...
Theda Skocpol:
To see Hillary going absolutely over the top to smash Obama for making clearly more humanly sympathetic observations in this vein, is just amazing.
Obama's 'observations' were not at all 'sympathetic'. He spoke of people 'clinging' to guns and religion like children clinging to security blankets. He associated religion and gun ownership with bigotry, and thus with backwardness and ignorance. The performance was almost a self-parody of elite liberal disdain for the white working class.
I don't buy that Obama 'misspoke'. I think Obama said exactly what he wanted to say. Whether he believes it or not, it was sure to please his audience.
Is portraying Obama as anti-religious really the right strategy for Hillary?
She loses more ever more credidibilty and sounds like Rush Limbaugh.
RKU, that is a good point. However, any candidate who is not infallible will have something that an attack can used against them. Obama is starting from a higher perch and has given less material to the GOP than Clinton has. After all, Clinton's repeated Tuzla gaffe is perfect material for subtly suggesting that she's a paranoid schizophrenic who has visions of things that aren't there.
David Tomlin, can you teach me how to make so many logical jumps out of quoting just one word? You're reading words into what Obama said that weren't there, which says more about you than Obama.
Everybody should watch that video TLB posted, it's hilarious. Gems include "Obama supports illegal immigration" and an allusion to the "North American Union" conspiracy.
"Hillary Clinton claims to be fighting for the working man but she and her husband have made over $100,000,000 in the past seven years."
OMG shut down the Democrat Party I smell a negative campaign ad!!!
"publius at ObWi has a great post on this issue."
Pretty good but not that good. The fact is, the amazing of ascendance of Obama presents an array of touchy issues that few people have the stomach or honesty to discuss. For example, Obama's problem--yes, problem--with the white working class. He trails Clinton by 30 POINTS! among whites without colleges degrees. The main factor, I'd guess, is race, but no one really wants to say that, not Obama supporters because to suggest that race is a problem is to suggest that people shouldn't vote for him because he's black is to be kinda-sorta racist even if we know that to point out that racism exists is not to be racist at all...And Obama opponents don't want to say that people won't vote for Obama because he's black because it's not politically correct--and elitist!-- to point out that the white working class may not be ready for a black president. And the Clinton campaign is chomping on the bit to say that we shouldn't nominate him because he'll lose too many downscale white voters to McCain, but they can't cite his race as a factor so they use Wright and this. So we talk about Obama's alleged elitism--which in fact by most measures he's less elitist than most pols--when really want we're talking about his race. Note than when we say "working class" generally the picture that comes to mind is white people, as if blacks weren't overly represented among the working class.
Anyhoo, I'm on a listserve with former Edwards supporters and as soon as the comments were made public--before McCain or Clinton had commented--we all had a team cringe because we saw the shitstorm that was coming, not because of of our liberal self-hatred, because we live and breathe.
Hillary is a trollop and a cunt.
He trails Clinton by 30 POINTS! among whites without colleges degrees.
He trails Clinton by 100 points among all voters who prefer Clinton to Obama. It's really pretty scary.
At least Mizner is being honest with the "Obama can't win because he's black" thing. So many Clinton trolls ramble on and on without coming forth and saying what they mean.
JoeKlein is about the only mainstream person I've seen come out and explicitly support illegal immigration. Obama isn't far behind, sounding like a crooked cop trying to convince other cops to turn a blind eye to illegal activity. He wasn't just discussing reality, he was actively promoting turning a bline eye to illegal immigration. And, he was doing it in a completely dishonest manner, offering a false choice instead of the "honest conversation" he promised.
Not only that, but he marched in support of illegal immigration at an event whose main organizers included an official from a MexicanPoliticalParty and people linked to the MexicanGovernment. I don't think U.S. Senators should do things like that, and I'm sure that if most PAans knew about what he did there'd be plenty more bitter people.
As for the NAU, it's clear that many very powerful people want something like it, and it's clear that many hacks flail around reflexively trying to deny that for some reason or other. The proper response is to look at the evidence involved and wonder exactly why Bush is pushing the SPP scheme (and why Obama wants to continue it) and what it could lead to. Don't let the fact that Congress and several states have resolutions against it deter you from simply reflexively mocking concerns over it because of those who oppose it. Few expect any better.
"At least Mizner is being honest with the "Obama can't win because he's black" thing."
You don't really think that's what I said, do you? I voted for him in part because I think he's got a marginally better shot of winning than Hillary, because she's Hillary.
Sometimes I just get tired of pretending Obama is struggling in this demo because he's a bad bowler.
TLB, you better run on home, there's a scary Mexican under your bed.
BOO!
such a bad grade in "American Society and Public Policy
Given Harvard undergad grading "standards," I assume this means you got an A-.
Actually, I think David Mizner might even be soft-peddling Obama's "demographic weakness".
One way of expressing his problem is that he's been losing to Hillary by about 30 points among white working-class Democrats...
Another much, much more serious way of expressing his problem is that he's been losing to Hillary by over 30 points among all non-black Democrats, a vastly larger demographic segment.
White working-class voters will probably be something like 40% of the November electorate. That's bad for Obama.
Non-black voters will be 90% of the November electorate. That's horrible for Obama.
And remember that the non-blacks who don't vote in Democratic primaries are tremendously more conservative than the ones who do, and most tend to take their cues from Rush Limbaugh and his friends.
"Another much, much more serious way of expressing his problem is that he's been losing to Hillary by over 30 points among all non-black Democrats, a vastly larger demographic segment."
Where is that number from? I had thought it was considerably less. Anyway, I keep hearing about what a serious problem this is and yet, for months, he has been polling as well or better than HC against McCain. So what exactly is the problem?
Reality Man:
David Tomlin, can you teach me how to make so many logical jumps out of quoting just one word? You're reading words into what Obama said that weren't there, which says more about you than Obama.
The expression 'cling to religion' has no logical, literal meaning. A religion is not a physical object. It cannot be grasped by hand. The expression is metaphorical, calling for its meaning to be read in.
Skocpol's benign interpretation is neither more nor less read in than mine. I think mine is more plausibly what Obama intended to convey to his audience.
Will - It will come off to many as the height of condescension.Here is this young, urbane, highly educated, wealthy black politician from Chicago\Hawaii\Kenya, explaining to even wealthier liberal donors in California the kooky ways of the 12-gauge loving, bible-thumping, 'spic-hating hicks from the sticks of Pennsylvania. Thank God this at least didn't take place in San Francisco.
Oh shit, it did.
RKU also makes the great point that what Obama said is even more devestating when paired with his voting record and specific policy proposals in future commercials and debates.
And, I will add that hispanics on top of working class whites are hardly enthused by a Harvard elitist who implies that they too are bitter and ill-educated on economic matters and therefor "cling" to their traditional values like religion....
"Another much, much more serious way of expressing his problem is that he's been losing to Hillary by over 30 points among all non-black Democrats, a vastly larger demographic segment."
Where is that number from? I had thought it was considerably less.
Actually this number is extremely easy to calculate from the exit polling data, and several people have worked out cumulative averages at various points during the campaign. Remember, white "working-class" voters are a pretty ambiguous category, and difficult to fully determine. But for the non-black numbers all you need are the total numbers, the black numbers, and simple arithmetic.
In a few states, Obama's come within 10 points of Hillary among non-black Democrats, while in others he's been totally annihilated. I think he lost the non-black vote by around 40 points in Ohio, and some polls have him down by 40 points in Pennsylvania. For totally mysterious reasons, the media seems to almost never report these important numbers. Ignorance is bliss, I suppose...
RKU - I think he lost the non-black vote by around 40 points in Ohio, and some polls have him down by 40 points in Pennsylvania. For totally mysterious reasons, the media seems to almost never report these important numbers.
When they do, the numbers are always spun by liberal Jews in the media, as well as the Gentile "progressives" there - as proof of the unenlightened racism of evil people like Geraldine Feraro and the sweaty, unwashed ignorant white working class masses against a "laudable" black candidate. While at the same time they applaud 95% black vote pluralities for unqualified black candidates like Cynthia McKinney or Mayor for Life Marion Barry as "natural, enlightened" black people voting for an "authentic voice" that speaks for them.
As if to the media Jews and their Gentile hirees - there is a duty for white to vote black to prove they aren't evil racists, while at the same time it is considered the duty of black voters to always vote for the black candidate to show they aren't Uncle Toms.....Except of course against a black Republican - where the media believes blacks have a duty to denounce such candidates or appointees AS Uncle Toms for the sin of being Republican...
Everybody should watch that video TLB posted, it's hilarious.
Let's not.
It only feeds Kelly's blogwhoring megalomania, and another round of OMG TEH BROWN MENASS IS COMING! Which, I'm sure, impresses all of the white-supremacists who hang out at his piece-of-shit blog, but keeps the fucker under the bed scoffing Cheetos and shitting himself.
Every time you follow a link from the Kellybot, God kills a kitten.
That's it. There's a general election ad against Obama - Clinton's gotta be the nominee.
"For totally mysterious reasons, the media seems to almost never report these important numbers."
Except the four days a week a new poll comes out, then it just happens to be the topic of discussion for about two hours' worth the day's broadcast. So, in the sense that CNN hasn't started running the Jeanne Moos "Why White People Be Hatin'?" show, you're right that it hasn't been discussed.
So, Matthew, you're quoting a Harvard sociologist to show that Obama is not an elitist?
This is why we lose this election if Obama is the nominee.
CNN exit polls have him losing the white vote in Ohio by 30 points (insufficient data for other races).
But he won the white (or "non-black") vote in Virginia, Wisconsin, Illinois, Utah, Vermont, and almost every caucus state (including Minnesota, Colorado, Washington, etc.), and he was close in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and among white voter s in California (though in California he did poorly with Latinos and Asians).
In any case, I'm still not sure what the great importance of these numbers is supposed to be.
So, Matthew, you're quoting a Harvard sociologist to show that Obama is not an elitist?
This is why we lose this election if Obama is the nominee.
Posted by John Petty
Right, because Reel Demcrats only quote sociologists from good Heartland rural universities, and Republicans are by definition workin' people who have beer and barbecue and clean up brush on ranches where they so never were Ivy-league cheerleaders, and someday soon quoting academic ivory tower elitists will no longer bee needed when Hillary Clinton takes the Party back from the elitist trust fund scumbags and uses her experience as the son of a millworker to send the latte-sippin' elitists out of their cushy trust fund scumbag jobs out into the countryside to work the rice paddies under corrective proletarian worker songs.
John Petty:
No one MattY knows thinks Obama is an elitist.
Special alternate version for the dinner show: MattY asked his friends, and none of them think Obama is an elitist. He asked the other "voices" at the Atlantic, and they all agreed.
As for my previous comment, perhaps MattY could consider bringing in better commenters (such as by offering better posts). I'm going to take it as resolved that Obama supports massive illegal activity, and also that the left's failure (in the U.S., but not in Canada) to discuss the NAU and related topics in adult terms is because they're simply reflexively responding to those (in the U.S., but not in Canada) who oppose the NAU.
Not sure why you need the "scare quotes" around "multimillionaire," "Swift Loris."
Because she used it as a scary word, that's why.
When Bill Clinton was Obama's age, he was President of the United States, which is presumably better paying than Senator, but I'm not "sure."
Yes, it was better paying, $200K per Wikipedia, vs. Obama's $157K as senator.
However: In her last year at Rose Law Firm, before Bill was elected president in 1992 (when she was 45, two years younger than Obama is now), her salary was $203K; Bill's was $35K as Arkansas governor.
When Bill Clinton began his term, Hillary quit her job, so they had only his salary and whatever they were earning in investments. Their adjusted gross income for 2000 was $357K, according to their tax return.
In 2006, the Obamas' combined salary was $430.7K
(Michelle's was $274K, Barack's $157K). But from investments and royalties on his books, their total income was $991K.
Maybe somebody would want to adjust those figures for inflation, but I'd guess it would turn out that the Obamas made significantly more in 2006 than the Clintons did when they were the Obamas' age.
From now on there should not be any blog posts or comments about "elitism" from anyone who earns over $15,000 per year or who has a college education (and the software should be programmed to disallow fancy words), and for good measure the poster or commenter should probably be restricted to white Southerners who work on farms.
Those fitting the filter are urged to limit their comments to subjects touching upon illegal immigration.
Shorter Swift Loris: Obama may have made one or two hundred thousand more than the Clintons did at his age, that makes him more elitist!
Yeah, sure, once you hit 60 it's only natural to have 50+ million in the bank.
If you've been president of the U.S. for two terms and are an accomplished speaker, you can make quite a bit of moolah giving speeches in the next eight years. And if you're a good writer, you and your spouse can publish a book or two that are quite likely to become bestsellers.
And then you can invest some of the proceeds.
Seems to me I heard something somewhere about Obama being a pretty good speaker. Oh, yes, and didn't he also write a couple of books that sold rather well? Maybe he could do that again. Michelle could probably write well enough to turn out one herself on her years in the White House.
Bottom line: Skocpol didn't exactly cover herself with glory on the income issue.
Chris Ford reminds me of the guy that was convicted of drunk driving in my father's court and as a parting shot called him a "Goddamned Irish Jew."
On a slightly more serious note, is there anyone anybody can name who would by general agreement be considered an "elitist," or is it just a garbage term of abuse?
John Kerry and Mike Dukakis come to mind. Nothing against them, you understand. I happily voted for both. But yeah, they don't get it.
El Cid,
There is nothing faddish about what you call "State Autonomy Theory;" it has a rich legacy in the Weberian/Hintze sociological tradition (re: Michael Mann's recent work) and, believe me, is extremely important in the way current Comparative and American politics scholars conceptualize the state and state capacity. Just sayin...
Matthew Yglesias, why do you tolerate vile racism and vile anti-Semitism from scummy Chris F? Matthew Yglesias, please, there have to be some limits.
Chris F. is a degenerate maniac who is really scary to allow here. Please, please stop this vile poster.
Shorter Swift Loris: Obama may have made one or two hundred thousand more than the Clintons did at his age, that makes him more elitist!
Oh hmm, you didn't read the Skocpol email to the guy who kidnapped Josh Marshall at all, didja?
See, this is what she says at the end:
"This has to be one of the few times in U.S. political history when a multi-millionaire has accused a much less wealthy fellow public servant, a person of the same party and views who made much less lucrative career choices, of 'elitism'!"
Get it now? Or do you need to have it explained further?
Fascinating how Obama trails Clinton by shocking amounts among certain "key demographics," and yet is solidly kicking her ass overall, both head-to-head and in comparisons against McCain. IT'S SO CONCERNING!
Swift Loris: someone makes a hundred million dollars off speeches, and then claims that someone else is an elitist who just talks pretty? Damned if I can see a line of attack here. Nope, can't see it. Obama is a Senator with a law degree, and we all know Senators and lawyers are elitist. Clinton is a very astute social critic.
The only duck Hillary has ever hunted is the Duck Le Orange off of someone else’s plate while at La Espalier while she and Bill get entertained and accept contributions (other wise known as taking bribes) for the Clinton Library and Their Legal Fees Fund.
She's doing such a good job for the Repuglicans that Dick Cheney is likey to ask her along on one of his next hunting trips.
It is stunning to me, and I admit I am a Clinton supporter, that Obama folks don't realize the seriousness of this situation.
These remarks will be played on 527 ad and/or McCain ad from Labor Day throught the election, several times a day in swing/Blue states. And it will be devastating. "Cling", "Guns", Religion". Jesus, it's like a parody of lefty elitism.
Some of us have been telling you for months that he was going to be "Dukakized", and that was before he gave the GOP Example Number One.
If there is anything else out there like this, probably from alternative papers in CHI, it better come out now before we walk the plank with someone we all barely know.
Oh no Andruw. He's going to be Dukakized? The only way I can feel in control of the situation is by joining in. Obama is out of touch and elitist! Real people vote for Republicans! God, guns, and gays, God, guns, and gays.
Shouldn't you be concerned that your candidate, with infinite name recognition and presumably great support among the key Democratic demographic of white women, and whose husband had very high approval ratings among African-Americans, is getting her ass kicked by a no-name fancy-talking latte-sipping dirty hippy elitist? I would be very concerned about my candidate if that was the case.
Andruw, I agree. The cluelessness is the most worrisome part.
chichi2: State Autonomy Theory as a dominant view of the origins of U.S. policies did become quite the fad. The fact that it is apparently now more seen as a specialized path of looking at one type or aspect of power and policy formation does not change what it once aspired to be.
A lot of academics actually committed themselves quite strongly to opposing this view of power, and their urges toward correcting the view of "state autonomy" as an over-arching model of power-formation succeeded.
One who did on domestic policy was Domhoff, who also relies upon some of Mann's work:
...Skocpol started out in the 1970s as the main advocate of state autonomy theory in American sociology and political science. She began her research career studying the revolutions in France, Russia, and China (Skocpol, 1979). This research led her to the conclusion that states had the "potential" for autonomy and that this autonomy had been overlooked by the "society-centric" researchers who studied the United States. She further claimed that they ignored the fact that the state system and the economic systems operate on the basis of different principles and dynamics, which was a slap at Marxists while ignoring the fact that power structure researchers should not be tarred with the same brush. (She never mentions C. Wright Mills's work on power, for example.) She then created high expectations among political sociologists and political scientists with an "exploratory essay" applying her theory to the New Deal, criticizing previous work by pluralists, neo-Marxists, and power structure researchers (Skocpol, 1980, p. 199). The essay was announced as the beginning of a larger project to explain the origins of the New Deal and later additions to the American welfare state.
This early essay was followed by a large number of articles and edited books by Skocpol and her students drawing on a wide range of studies by historians who look at New Deal legislation, especially in relation to the origins of the welfare state (e.g., Finegold, 1981; Finegold & Skocpol, 1984; Orloff, 1993; Skocpol & Finegold, 1982; Skocpol & Ikenberry, 1983). However, Skocpol thought that further work on the early origins of the major New Deal policies was necessary, which was the reason she undertook the research for Protecting Soldiers and Mothers...
...Skocpol and other state autonomy theorists insist they made a contribution by arguing that the state is not reducible to class logic, but as this book signaled, they are no longer prepared to talk about state autonomy in the American case, and for good reason. Instead, they simply insist that institutions matter, as do political parties, experts, and government officials. They have declared victory and assimilated into the diverse ranks of historical institutionalism, where they are part of the pluralist wing (e.g., Finegold & Skocpol, 1995, p. 312, footnote 3; Orloff, 1993, pp. 41-42; Skocpol, 1992, p. 569).
But how much do parties and government officials matter in the United States when it comes to analyzing the driving dynamics of the power structure? In a country that is best understood in terms of class-based economic power for well-known historical reasons, and in which any emphasis on classes or class conflict is frowned upon, it does not seem helpful to subordinate corporate power and class conflict into a more general -- institutional -- framework. State autonomy theory has been transformed, denatured, and then cast aside in little more than two decades since its initial flowering, replaced once again by a form of pluralism. However, the reluctance to embrace a class-based analysis of power in America is still very much with us.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/theory/skocpol.html
Of course, one could easily take the perspective that Domhoff's view must have been erroneous given the far lower interest anyone that institutional academia currently has in any approach resembling his or Mills'. [After all, how many times have I heard or seen the idea of trying to identify for any purpose a "power structure" is 'selecting on the dependent variable" har har har? Many times.]
Sometimes institutional strength indicates the legitimacy of an idea or set of approaches; sometimes it merely indicates a cultural context for why certain ideas and approaches surge & fade at certain times.
Seeing policy as the product of autonomous, expansionary governmental entities is in my view pretty rarely what we see, and is a pretty bad and not very useful way of interpreting what goes on in most U.S. decision-making.
I found very unconvincing an approach whose adherents advised, at its height, not simply a way of looking at how institutions operate in a context of power and policy formation, but a claim that that was how best to conceptualize the power of the state.
For a time that strong view really was pushed, and I don't think I'm just expressing a subjective view, and it was not just an aspect of using Weberian approaches. The strong view no longer holds, and after the Bush Jr. administration, I suspect that will remain the case.
But who knows? Institutional social science does what it does for all sorts of reasons. I guess we'll see what the next big thing is.
Barbar: Thanks for proving my point exactly. Obama=can do no wrong/Clinton=eeevil!
No matter what the context or discussion.
Really, in a little while I'm going to be with you, and defending this guy day and night, but if you don't think that quote is politically toxic, you're insane.
And if there are similar (or worse) quotes out there in the same manner, yet to be discovered, we need to know now, and the Clinton campaign will be, um, hurting the party if they don't expose them.
If "typical white person" didn't sink him, this certainly will not either.
And ditto Barbar. Clueless is just one way to describe the dimwits on Clinton's campaign that blew a gimme nomination and the people who believe her spin on her war vote or that she really didn't like NAFTA, no matter how many meetings she held to discuss strategies for getting it passed.
Andruw, as the discussion about Obama's comments is taking place almost entirely between liberal and not-so-liberal elites (the multimillionaire Senators running for President, the millionaire pundits blabbing about them on the cable talk shows, the much poorer but overeducated losers blabbing on stupid political blogs), your role here is simply to back up Republican frames and insist that liberals are out-of-touch elitists. So, take your political toxicity and choke on it.
You can watch the "Compassion Forum" live on CNN.com: http://www.cnn.com/live/
Hot damn I can't think of anything more boring than hearing two politicians talk about God. Though Clinton is probably pissed that Obama gets to wax eloquently on this issue right when he needs to.
Oh my god this is so awful. Hillary is talking about the times she felt the presence of the Holy Spirit.
I'm going to look for a funny blog that's liveblogging this trainwreck.
Well, since Clinton is a member of a far right Christian political organization with connections to dictators and right wing death squad leaders around the world called "The Family", I'd say her suggestion that she's a "gun-toting churchgoer" is probably correct, at least in some sense - a very negative sense compared to your average NRA member.
And nothing Obama said was in any way untrue. A lot of lower class people are bitter and the list of associations with lower class people includes extreme Christianity and guns. Obama probably shouldn't be surprised that a bunch of people took exception to that characterization. What he should do is say, "Look, I said it, I think it's true. If you don't believe it, fine, whatever."
Meanwhile, RKU is back again with his "concerns" that Obama is somehow...unknown and thus "risky" in some unspecified manner.
How about specifying, RKU? Are you simply saying Obama is black and therefore can't win - or worse, that Obama is black and therefore will turn into Malcolm X once elected? Merely asserting an example of a Republican attack ad which doesn't yet exist and would certainly be recognized and attacked as racist doesn't seem to be much evidence for either proposition.
Andruw, as the discussion about Obama's comments is taking place almost entirely between liberal and not-so-liberal elites (the multimillionaire Senators running for President, the millionaire pundits blabbing about them on the cable talk shows, the much poorer but overeducated losers blabbing on stupid political blogs), your role here is simply to back up Republican frames and insist that liberals are out-of-touch elitists. So, take your political toxicity and choke on it.
Another charm offensive from the candidate of hope and unity.
John Petty, after reading your comments, and the first few posts on your RSS feed of a blog, I can only assume that a lot of what you read goes over your head.
John Petty, would you care for some tea?
Hack:
Sure, no problem at all.
For at least as long as commenters here have been touting Obama as a very strong candidate in November, I'm been saying I was *extremely* skeptical of that.
Over and over again, I've said that based on his name, race/ethnicity, personal background, ideological positions, and almost total lack of campaign experience, I thought poor Barack would have an extremely tough time against any Republican other than Alan Keyes. What we're seeing now is exactly the consequence of that lack of "campaign experience".
But I
The most excellent point being that Clinton is a picture-book perfect example of an elitist herself. Let the ridiculing begin. I have lost all respect for that lady over the last several months.
Posted by 14All | April 13, 2008 10:18 AM