Matt, examining Lady de Rothchilds defection to McCain, notes that irony must be truly dead. "Lady" de Rothchilds main reason for not endorsing McCain? Obama is an elitist. More accurately elitism is dead. When a gazillionaire who insists on being IDed as "Lady" can call a black dude from the South Side, whose mother had him as a teenager an elitist, the word has no meaning.
Um, I'm pretty sure that in this context, "elitist" means "uppity." This is one instance where I feel like race is really coloring a person's perspective. I feel the same way about Geraldine Ferraro. Some of these Clinton women - I really think they believe that Obama was "given" the nomination because he's black, which is obviously just such a ridiculous concept. But that idea is rooted, ultimately, in a core belief that black people aren't capable of achieving great success without the help of white people. Thankfully, people like that are old and will die in a few decades. I don't think the younger generation thinks about race in nearly the same way.
Obama came out of "elitist" central casting: a professor, a Harvard University graduate, a liberal idealist whose policies sound good but lack any details on how they will be operationalized, has a tendency to talk down to blue collar Americans, hangs out with other radicals and elitists, has never had a "real" job, a media darling.
The Democrats make it easy to paint their candidates as elitist because they keep on nominating the same tpe of candidates: Al Gore, John Kerry. It was impossible to paint Clinton as an elitist even though he also has almost all of the same characterisitcs, but they were ovetaken by his 'aw shucks' Southern accent, penchant for fatty foods and trashy women.
You are purposely conflating "being of the elite" with "being elitist."
Elite can mean being rich, having a name that includes Lady and "de," and stuff like that.
Being elitist, in this context, means preferring the company and values of the elite.
It is not logically impossible for Obama to be elitist, and you know it. It is possible for a member of the elite (such as Lady de Rothchilds) to not be elitist, and you know it.
Of course, Obama is not elitist. That's the honest argument to make.
When do we move on to "it is not possible for any principled person to vote for anyone except Obama"?
Dude you are late. I've long ago concluded that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist. And a homophobe. And hates America. And is a steward for the end of civilization itself. Don't you know whose blog you're reading?
Libertarian reveals the awesome depth of right-wing stupidity: "Obama came out of "elitist" central casting: a professor, a Harvard University graduate, a liberal idealist whose policies sound good but lack any details on how they will be operationalized, has a tendency to talk down to blue collar Americans, hangs out with other radicals and elitists, has never had a "real" job, a media darling."
John McCain lacks both coherent policies AND operational details, and he's a megarich child of privilege who has spent about 12 minutes off the public tit in his entire life. He hangs out with princes and billionaires and hasn't had a blue collar moment in his entire life.
The "elitist" argument is the purest sort of horseshit, but it's about all the wingnuts have left. That and their usual appeal to racism.
Yeah, but isn't calling Obama an "elitist" at least hinting at the fact that you're trying to hide your racism? I mean, if Lady Rockefeller de Roosevelt du Fancypants had said, "In this time of turmoil and crisis, I trust John McCain to be a strong and steady leader. Barack Obama is untested and not ready," then that would not get people's heads scratching. But to say, "I don't like him. He's arrogant" - I mean come on, there's obviously a reason why she doesn't like him and thinks he's arrogant, and since she doesn't exactly spell that out, either, it's not unreasonable for some of us, or a lot of us, to conclude that race may be a factor in her distaste of Obama.
This "lady" would be no-one without her wealth or her name. She has bought her pulpit. I don't see how I should care what she thinks. At the very least, Obama earned his position with hardwork and smarts. This "lady" was born into her power.
Republicans have been calling Democrats elitists for decades, to turn it into a racist euphamism when it is applied to Obama the same way it was applied to Gore and Kerry is an excuse to find racism in any criticism of Obama. Its like the old saying if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
I know that "Lady" whatshername is profoundly unAmerican.
Am I misreading the use of the phrase "they are who we thought they were"?
Allow me to show the inner depths of my soul and explain what I see when I see this phrase.
"We came into this discussion more than willing to pretend that both sides were as principled as we happen to be... but we lost the argument/election. That is because we kept our principles in the face of evil. We should have known better than to remain principled in the face of such an opponent."
Wow...this is great stuff! Thanks this blog post was super informative and spot on. I really wanted to read more about this severely exaggerated segment of the voting populous known as the PUMAs, especially in a time like this. I guess I stick with McCardle and Igloo over the next few days for relevant posts.
Any group that is choosing to vote for the other side purely out of spite doesn't deserve ANY coverage but that's just my opinion. They want Obama to lose not out of principle, but b/c they don't have an inside track to his ear and thus no inside track to power...if he wins. The rationale that "we can tolerate 4 more years, to get our CHANCE at power again" reeks of elitism, since what they are really saying is that 4 more years is academic for me.
I'm all for the Smithian argument of each individual doing what's in their best intersest, but that doesn't mean you need to cover that best interest, but I guess analysis (political, social, financial) on the credit crunch is beyond your pay grade.
Libertarian: you don't see the difference between Gore, Kerry, and Obama? Gore was the son of a US Senator and Kerry married an heiress with a huge fortune. Obama grew up like us reg'lar folks. He wears the same suit over and over. He just purchased his first house a couple of years ago. Calling him elitist is, as others have pointed out, ridiculous. And besides, as has been pointed out, Lady du Rothschild von Moneybags also called him arrogant and untrustworthy. There may certainly a knee-jerk reaction among some people to call racism whenever criticism is lobbed at Obama. Conversely, there are some who just as quickly will claim that racism does not play a factor in any condemnation of Obama, no matter how frivolous, which is just silly.
"Its like the old saying if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail."
"Republicans have been calling Democrats elitists for decades"
I think we have found said hammer! You'd be here no matter who the Democratic candidate was calling him elitist, and we all know it. Completely transparent. But Lady de Rothschild wouldn't, because it's farcical on its surface for her to do so, and she's not a Republican who would normally say such things. So it means something different coming from her.
Libertarian writes: "Republicans have been calling Democrats elitists for decades, to turn it into a racist euphamism when it is applied to Obama the same way it was applied to Gore and Kerry is an excuse to find racism in any criticism of Obama."
Calling Obama an elitist isn't racism. The Repiglicans just toss that in as a bonus, as they've also been doing for decades. And quite deliberately, too.
Oh, and a message to you from an elitist - the word is "euphemism."
I don't know what to say except that Democrats don't seem to get the idea of myth-making anymore. In reality, Bush certainly could have been classed as an elitist, his father unquestionably was an elitist.
However, that isn't the public personna that stuck and that isn't how HE presented himself..he was presented as a down home, regular guy who you would want to have a beer with, Texas cowboy and all the rest of it. And that is the personna that stuck.
Obama was in a tough position because he has certain racial stereotypes that he has had to combat, namely the angry, radical black man with a narrow black agenda. So, he carefully calibrated his personna as an intellectual, thoughful, not rash, very etherial. This helps him get white votes as does his rhetoric on personal responsibility and some statements about affirmative action, but, they open him up to being called the typical liberal ivory tower elitist.
It seems so strange to me that Democrats, with huge support among media people, Hollywood and generally creative types can't seem to put their own knowledge to work when it comes to politics. They always get beat out by the Republicans.
I mean give me a break, John Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam and served his country with distinction and he gets tarred as unpatriotic? You cannot lose the image war any worse than that.
Lady de Rothchilds just trusts people like herself and John McCain and Hillary Clinton that married into wealth and/or power. People like Obama that worked their way to power are likely to be overly proud of their achievements and inclined to tax inherited income.
When a half-white dude who went to the most prestigious prep school in paradise before going to cushy Occidental College in LA and then transferring to Ivy League Columbia in New York before reinventing himself as a community organizer in Chicago gets identified as a "black dude from the South Side", you know what a successful zelig and chameleon Obama is.
@ the last comment by Libertarian: Certainly, what you say is true -- the Democrats have been beaten by the Republicans in the "image war," but you seem completely aware that the Republican victory was based on the most preposterous kinds of lies (i.e. Kerry is unpatriotic, esp. when compared to GW Bush). And despite your awareness of the morally reprehensible tactics of the Republican campaigns, you still flaunt the fact of victory? Blame the victim? Reduce it all to an ends-justifies-means scenario?
This is exactly the kind of attitude that has a lot of people (myself included) worried about the long-lasting doom that would follow a McCain-Palin victory. If these kinds of tactics are not only successful in terms of winning elections, but, once exposed for their nastiness, are accepted without indignation from the American people, we're fucked for a long time.
A common mistake that liberals tend to make is to equate anything positive said about the tactics of their 'enemies' is paired with the assumption that acknowledging success is the same as supporting it.
I supported Clinton, I supported Gore, I grudgingly supported Kerry and my preferred Democratic ticket for 08 would have been Gore/Obama. I detest Hillary Clinton and have believed for two years that the Democrats were extremely foolish to have their choice come down to an extremely polarizing woman with high negatives and a relative unknown black man. I also detest Bush, but Bush and John McCain are not the same no matter how much the Democrats want to make it so.
Acknowledging that the swift boating of John Kerry was successful is not the same as admiring it or supporting it, though some blame lies with the media for reporting it as if it was legitimate and some to Kerry's campaign for not effecitvely squashing it.
However, finding an image that resonates with voters is not necessarily morally reprehensible. Bill Clinton won the image war, that's why he got elected, why he got re elected and why, truth be told, if he was able to run for a third term he would probably be elected!
Not really. That team--the Bears--went to the Super Bowl that year. They were up and should have won. The bigger point here, though, is that the "Lady" has been a PUMA for months now, but hadn't endorsed McCain. Now she has, hence "she is who we thought she was." Trying to understand Green's quote logically misses the point. It made no sense at the time. That's why it was funny. And now I've undone the funny by explaining. Sigh.
Ah, okay. I haven't sat through an entire football game since Elway retired.
I didn't see humor in "they are who we thought they were" as much as a statement earnestly made (if clunky in execution) about the veniality of one's opponents.
I didn't see humor in "they are who we thought they were" as much as a statement earnestly made (if clunky in execution) about the veniality of one's opponents.
It's all in the delivery. It's not what he said, but the way he was flipping out when he said it. Crown 'em!
Elitist: Adjective describing whomever the Democratic nominee for president is, even if that person were Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Jesse Ventura or an actual Maytag repairman.
Other uses: Also describes the Democratic veep nominee
Bill Clinton was tagged with it, too, what with the Rhodes Scholar stuff. To the extent he slithered out, it's very revealing that it was via the "I feel your pain" stuff rather than growing up poor. The takeaway message seems to be that if your path was smoothed by your family's wealth, political, and military connections (Bush 1, Bush 2, McCain) but you are Republican, you're a regular guy; if you were born poor to middle class but worked hard and excelled by--this is so wuss--being smart and doing well at school and getting into top universities on merit, plus you're a Democrat, then you're an elitist snob.
Libertarian, so long as this argument continues to come from the mouth of Lady de Rothschild, billionaire London political hostess, we will continue to find it outrageously funny for the mouthpiece. It's as though Lady de Rothschild is so unaware of irony that it almost amounts to a disability, though I imagine the billions cushion that. Why is so much US media willing to give the baroness editorial inches and talk show time?
The idea that an Ivy League education makes you an eltist, and therefore unfit to be President, is absurd. Our country has a long history of electing Ivy Leaguers, including:
John Adams,
John Quincy Adams,
James Madison,
Rutherford Hayes,
William Howard Taft,
Teddy Roosevelt,
Woodrow Wilson,
Franklin D. Roosevelt,
John F. Kennedy,
George W. Bush,
George H. W. Bush,
and Bill Clinton.
And there's a whole host of Presidents that graduated from other top schools. What is outside the norm are Presidents that had little to no college education.
I am going to ask everyone to read this. It does have relevence to this post. It was first posted at Windsofchange.net. I have not completely wrapped my head around it to say I understand it.
It posits a reason Democrats(read liberals) cannot move conservatives(read republicans) to their side. The one thing I disagree w/ them on is his family model(conservative). My experience has been it is a universal one.
The Bears were an early favorite (and that might have been their Super Bowl year, I forget), but the Cardinals had beaten them in the preseason and had a 20-0 lead late in the 4th quarter of this early-season game. They then gave up I believe a kickoff return TD, fumble return TD, and interception return TD in the last few minutes and lost 21-20. At the post-game press conference Dennis Green was in a tirade about how the Bears weren't all that good at all ("they are who we thought they were", and the even funnier "if you want to crown them, then crown their ass!") and how his team basically threw away a game in which they felt they were the better team.
Green's quote made perfect sense at the time-- he was saying that despite the fact that the Cardinals were huge underdogs to the Bears, he had been confident that his team was capable of playing a close game against the Bears, and the game he had just lost had vindicated that belief.
As it happened, his team should have beaten the Bears had they not melted down completely in every aspect of the game in the 4th quarter.
I totally disagree w/ you about Green's statement and the Bears are my heart team. It was totally true despite the fact the Bears went to the super bowl-look how that turned out.
Green posited that the Bears were not very good on offense-we played them in the preseason. In the game they put up nothing. The defense and the absolute choke-fumbles, intereceptions and celebrating before the final whistle-on the part of the Cardinals offense was how the Bears won. That is why he said we let them off the hook.
One more time: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc
The author is correct, but you will never convince the Democrats of this...they will continue to fall back on the rote excuses that the country is full of stupid people [it is, but that's not why they vote Republican] and the Republicans are evil and win elections by dirty tricks.
It took me a LONG time to begin to understand the American conservative heartland mindset as it is, and not as I 'think' it is or as it should be, but once I was able to see things more clearly I was able to let go of some issues and I was able to see very, VERY clearly why conservatives believe its the liberals who are the real authoritarian, fascists.
And that is when I stopped identifying myself as a liberal, and as the years go by I become increasingly embarrassed that I ever identified with some of these beliefs.
The idea that graduating from Harvard is a bad thing is ridiculous. It's straight haterade. You disapprove of Harvard degree because you don't have one, never could've had one. But let one of these "he's an elitist" folks' little son or daughter get into Harvard and see how long it takes them to stop bragging to anybody who'll listen.
@ Libertarian: Yes, finding an image that resonates with voters is not necessarily morally reprehensible, however the same cannot be said for finding an image that resonates with voters and is untrue or based on lies, and then exploiting it, which, as you hint at, has been a strategy of both Democrats and Republicans in varying degrees. Beyond discussing the "image war" in terms of partisan campaign tactics, what I'm saying is that people - Republicans, Democrats, radicals, libertarians, whatever - need to recognize how problematic this form of campaign politics is, and how damaging it will be to actually solving problems in this country, no matter what side you're on.
@AKBY: For me, you're comment mostly serves as a reminder that our country was founded by, and has long remained in the power of, elitists.
"He used it after he lost a game to a crappier team everyone would have thought he'd beat, right?"
No, he used it after the Cardinals lost to the Bears, who would go to the Superbowl that season. But anything to jam a square analogy in a round hole, I guess. I'm going to wager that you're not an NFL fan.
Just once I want one of the media places giving Lady de R. time and space to press her on where she gets her information about how regular blue-collar voters feel.
a) She roams around southeastern Ohio in disguise: elastic waist pants, a sensible sweater in a pattern that hides coffee spills, and shoes from Payless. She drives an old beater, obtained by purchasing a new Mercedes on each visit and then trading it with a lucky soul she met along the way, usually at a gas station that doesn't even have an air pump. She roams the state: the Walmarts, the Kentucky Frieds, the places where the common, red-blooded, true Americans live. And they look her in the eye, and say "Lynn....I can call you Lynn, right?....That Obama guy, I'm just not comfortable with him. I feel like he's an elitist, almost like some billionaire who doesn't even live here...."
Nobody is going to solve this country's problems. That is why my posts mostly consist of comments on campaign strategy, not substance. There isn't any substance and what substance there is will end up so watered down by inside the beltway politicking that it won't matter. And, there is less substance on the most important issues....long term economic outlook, debt, globalisation. Much easier to talk about tax cuts and education, but means nothing in the scheme of things.
Also, this election will be close, so no mandate. No mandate, no ability to sweep in with momentum and shake things up. Clinton had a mandate but he f***d it up and never recovered. Reagan had a mandate and he took full advantage...agree w/his policies or not...he got a lot of his agenda accomplished.
It would take raising Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and FDR from the grave to get this country back on track. And even then, its possible, since they might not turn out to be telegenic, that nobody would listen to them.
The whole "elitist" argument really has little to do with education, though there is a long history in this country of being suspicious of highly-educated people as those who rob you with a pen much more effectively than with a gun. I think it has more to do these days with your tastes as perceived by others, and how you comport yourself. If you seem intellectual, thoughtful, and have tastes that line up with cultural fare profiled by NPR, you're an elitist, regardless of background. If you like to clear brush, eat grilled meat, like rock and country, and see everything as a simple problem with a simple decisive solution, you're a regular person, regardless of background.
So, Obama appears elitist, and possibly even worse than someone born into money because he worked his way into it and chose it. Conversely, you have Bush. How McCain fits into it I'm not sure - in my eyes he seems neither in the Democrat Gore/Kerry "elitist" mode nor the Bush "regular guy" mode.
It's really the dumbest thing in the world, from either side, on which to base your vote. A "regular guy" could be a great president, as could an "elitist." But in this image war, the Dems get their ass handed to them continuously.
The first time I saw the line "they are who we thought they were" I had no idea that it was a line mocking a football coach... I honestly thought that it was saying "we all pretend that it's two principled opposing people looking eye to eye... but they are who we thought (in our hearts) they were and we should abandon the charade."
So please understand that *THAT* is how I've been reading any posts with a "they are who we thought they were" title.
Now that I know that it's a funny title making fun of a football coach... well, I'll try to lighten up.
So you equate an Ivy League education with elitism without caveats? A person who has actually worked hard to earn gets no special consideration in your mind?
Listen up kids! Lebren says: Don't aim for Harvard or you'll forever be labeled an elitist! Forget the American dream! Aspire to mediocrity!
And how many of the presidents on your list had to "work hard" to get into an Ivy League school? With the exception of Bill Clinton, I'm not seeing anybody.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of your first comment was to refute the equivocation of an Ivy League education with elitism - however, you chose to do so by listing recipients of an Ivy League education who went on to become President of the United States, a position long held (and created by) power hungry rich white guys. Lincoln, Clinton, potentially Obama, and a few others have broken through occasionally, but in general, it is a title reserved for the privileged and elite. The same can be said of Ivy League schools.
I'm not saying don't work hard and don't have dreams, but I am saying don't work hard just to be part of the club :)
As an ivy league grad who grew up poor in the 'hood, but had a Mom who worked two jobs [and wielded a mean belt] to get me there, it is so gratifying to know that I am somehow "elite" now.
I'll be sure to tell that to Emily Pataki or Victoria Weld next time we're chatting on their Daddy's yacht in the Hamptons, right after I finish paying my student loans off sometime in 2013...
Getting into an Ivy League school means you're smart and worked your ass off, and for maybe 40% (the percentage who recieved no finncial aid my freshman year) Daddy wrote a big check. The rest of us just wanted a better life.
Thsi post isn;t about nayone voting for McCain over Obama. It is about the group of people who's voting preference went 1) Hillary, 2) McCain, 3) Obama (and specifically Lady de ...). There is a rational justification someone can have for that order, but it is pretty thin. And it certainly isn't that Obama is an elitist.
I'd say of course Obama is an elitist, so is McCain and Palin and Bush and Gore and Kerry and Huckabee and anyone else who thinks they are qualified to be President. You better think your one of the elite.
I promise you all that being an ivy leaguer mainly mainly means that are a MASSIVE dork and you probably had no social life in high school outside of the extrcurriculars that would look good on college apps.
Except for the boarding school kids. They're that 40% elite (actually I really mean elitist, not elite, because arguably we're elite now, although you cant tell it from my non-profit paycheck). And they had a realllllly good time in hs.
I'm not saying (and never said) an Ivy League degree makes you elite or an elitist. I am fully aware that there are plenty of people attending Ivy League schools that did not grow up privileged and studied hard to get into those schools. However, denying that an Ivy League degree is recognized as a symbol of privilege and elitism seems silly. In part, that's why people who aren't privileged and elite work their ass off to go there.
As a kid who grew up poor in the 'hood, are you really telling me that at Brown or Yale, or wherever you got your degree, you didn't feel like the place was a little stuffy? I grew up a middle class dork, and I never felt poor until I went off to a midwestern liberal arts college. But everything's good in Ivy land?
Did the traditional culture of Yale feel stuffy? Well yes, and no.
The vast majority of students (unless you were an econ major who had a plan to make your first ten million) weren't stuffy. They were normal college kids, liberal and poorly dressed who eat way too much cheap pizza. Compared to my visits to places like Auburn?? Ivy Leaguers were super liberal dirty hippies. ESPECIALLY Brown kids. Maybe not Dartmouth or Princeton kids.
This is not 1963. Yalies aren't all male, aren't all rich, aren't all white and don't attend sit-down dinners nightly with a cadre of servants and wearing white gloves. Getting in and graduating can be a mark of academic achievement. But in the current environment, based on my experience, it doesn't mean squat about elitist (I will grant you elite, in the sense of gaining a great deal from having an Ivy listed on your resume).
I'm voting for McCain, but I'd agree that Lynn Forester de Rothschild calling Obama elitist is a bit strange unless her pre-Rothschild days were unusually poor and narrow. They don't appear to be though as she'd apparently made a hundred million before she ever met de Rothschild. (In fairness she doesn't seem to go with the title "Lady" in the interview I found)
It's not just that she's rich. She apparently honeymooned at the White House and is well-connected to the world's most powerful people. She was introduced to "de Rothschild" by Henry Kissenger and meets with the Prime Minister of India. So it's not even like some wealthy people I know who lived somewhat sheltered lives and never got much education.
Also yes McCain is of an elite. Bush was certainly of an elite and benefited an elite to a large degree.
Something I read recently stated the two parties are more a battle of different elites. Republicans are said prefer elite businessmen and soldiers while Democrats prefer elite lawyers and scholars. I'm not sure this entirely works, but there is some support for the idea.
The best Democrats have been elitists: specifically FDR and, to a lesser extent, JFK.
The problem Democrats have had is that they rarely have the courage of their convictions. At one end, Stevenson was cowed by Truman's example, while Kerry didn't have the self confidence to wind surf with pride.
One of Obama's strengths is this core conviction: his willingness to believe in his own merit, and his lack of chagrin about putting his tie on straight and tight.
I think they use "elitist" because "Jew" got used up (and they think they can get some more support from Jews who've mistaken themselves for White Men), and they want to keep "faggot" for special public occasions and "nigger" for their private sex games.
Here's a piece no one cared about. Meh, whatever, probably the most enjoyable article I did during my stint at TIME. Premiered a month before I got laid-off. The nail in the coffin? Ya think?
Here's me going after Al. I didn't so much have a problem with him, as I had a problem with media acting like this dude was the go-to guy for everything black.
This was my first real story at time. I was writing for the Business section, a real change of direction for me. At any rate, it's about Wal-Mart's attempts to colonize the inner-city. As much as I enjoyed this piece, I mostly enjoyed going out to Chicago, which is a beautiful, beautiful city.
This a piece I did about the cops just outside our nation capitol, in Prince George's County, a few years back. I wanted to offer a counter to the dumb, conventional wisdom that if you paint your police force black, you could eradicate police brutality. In fact, Prince George's--one of the richest, blackest counties in the country--also had one of the most brutal police force's in the country.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Is the next step "The Hillary supporters are who we thought they were"?
When do we move on to "it is not possible for any principled person to vote for anyone except Obama"?
Um, I'm pretty sure that in this context, "elitist" means "uppity." This is one instance where I feel like race is really coloring a person's perspective. I feel the same way about Geraldine Ferraro. Some of these Clinton women - I really think they believe that Obama was "given" the nomination because he's black, which is obviously just such a ridiculous concept. But that idea is rooted, ultimately, in a core belief that black people aren't capable of achieving great success without the help of white people. Thankfully, people like that are old and will die in a few decades. I don't think the younger generation thinks about race in nearly the same way.
Obama came out of "elitist" central casting: a professor, a Harvard University graduate, a liberal idealist whose policies sound good but lack any details on how they will be operationalized, has a tendency to talk down to blue collar Americans, hangs out with other radicals and elitists, has never had a "real" job, a media darling.
The Democrats make it easy to paint their candidates as elitist because they keep on nominating the same tpe of candidates: Al Gore, John Kerry. It was impossible to paint Clinton as an elitist even though he also has almost all of the same characterisitcs, but they were ovetaken by his 'aw shucks' Southern accent, penchant for fatty foods and trashy women.
You are purposely conflating "being of the elite" with "being elitist."
Elite can mean being rich, having a name that includes Lady and "de," and stuff like that.
Being elitist, in this context, means preferring the company and values of the elite.
It is not logically impossible for Obama to be elitist, and you know it. It is possible for a member of the elite (such as Lady de Rothchilds) to not be elitist, and you know it.
Of course, Obama is not elitist. That's the honest argument to make.
When do we move on to "it is not possible for any principled person to vote for anyone except Obama"?
Dude you are late. I've long ago concluded that anyone who doesn't vote for Obama is a racist. And a homophobe. And hates America. And is a steward for the end of civilization itself. Don't you know whose blog you're reading?
Libertarian reveals the awesome depth of right-wing stupidity: "Obama came out of "elitist" central casting: a professor, a Harvard University graduate, a liberal idealist whose policies sound good but lack any details on how they will be operationalized, has a tendency to talk down to blue collar Americans, hangs out with other radicals and elitists, has never had a "real" job, a media darling."
John McCain lacks both coherent policies AND operational details, and he's a megarich child of privilege who has spent about 12 minutes off the public tit in his entire life. He hangs out with princes and billionaires and hasn't had a blue collar moment in his entire life.
The "elitist" argument is the purest sort of horseshit, but it's about all the wingnuts have left. That and their usual appeal to racism.
Yeah, but isn't calling Obama an "elitist" at least hinting at the fact that you're trying to hide your racism? I mean, if Lady Rockefeller de Roosevelt du Fancypants had said, "In this time of turmoil and crisis, I trust John McCain to be a strong and steady leader. Barack Obama is untested and not ready," then that would not get people's heads scratching. But to say, "I don't like him. He's arrogant" - I mean come on, there's obviously a reason why she doesn't like him and thinks he's arrogant, and since she doesn't exactly spell that out, either, it's not unreasonable for some of us, or a lot of us, to conclude that race may be a factor in her distaste of Obama.
What sticks out to me is that she doesn't "trust" him.
What makes McCain more trustworthy than Obama, exactly?
This "lady" would be no-one without her wealth or her name. She has bought her pulpit. I don't see how I should care what she thinks. At the very least, Obama earned his position with hardwork and smarts. This "lady" was born into her power.
John McCain spent more than $200,000 last year just on servants for his many homes.
But, no, Obama's an elitist. Right.
Republicans have been calling Democrats elitists for decades, to turn it into a racist euphamism when it is applied to Obama the same way it was applied to Gore and Kerry is an excuse to find racism in any criticism of Obama. Its like the old saying if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail.
Libertarian, this is for you:
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/portrayal_of_obama_as_elitist
Bush came from one of the countries most 'elite' families. Substitute 'elite' for Liberal and you'll see how it really works.
I know that "Lady" whatshername is profoundly unAmerican.
Am I misreading the use of the phrase "they are who we thought they were"?
Allow me to show the inner depths of my soul and explain what I see when I see this phrase.
"We came into this discussion more than willing to pretend that both sides were as principled as we happen to be... but we lost the argument/election. That is because we kept our principles in the face of evil. We should have known better than to remain principled in the face of such an opponent."
Am I completely reading this phrase wrong?
When do we move on to "it is not possible for any principled person to vote for anyone except Obama"?
Don't be silly, Jaybird. Racism, greed, and closed-minded religious fundamentalism are principles.
Wow...this is great stuff! Thanks this blog post was super informative and spot on. I really wanted to read more about this severely exaggerated segment of the voting populous known as the PUMAs, especially in a time like this. I guess I stick with McCardle and Igloo over the next few days for relevant posts.
Any group that is choosing to vote for the other side purely out of spite doesn't deserve ANY coverage but that's just my opinion. They want Obama to lose not out of principle, but b/c they don't have an inside track to his ear and thus no inside track to power...if he wins. The rationale that "we can tolerate 4 more years, to get our CHANCE at power again" reeks of elitism, since what they are really saying is that 4 more years is academic for me.
I'm all for the Smithian argument of each individual doing what's in their best intersest, but that doesn't mean you need to cover that best interest, but I guess analysis (political, social, financial) on the credit crunch is beyond your pay grade.
k1
Libertarian: you don't see the difference between Gore, Kerry, and Obama? Gore was the son of a US Senator and Kerry married an heiress with a huge fortune. Obama grew up like us reg'lar folks. He wears the same suit over and over. He just purchased his first house a couple of years ago. Calling him elitist is, as others have pointed out, ridiculous. And besides, as has been pointed out, Lady du Rothschild von Moneybags also called him arrogant and untrustworthy. There may certainly a knee-jerk reaction among some people to call racism whenever criticism is lobbed at Obama. Conversely, there are some who just as quickly will claim that racism does not play a factor in any condemnation of Obama, no matter how frivolous, which is just silly.
"Its like the old saying if all you have is a hammer everything looks like a nail."
"Republicans have been calling Democrats elitists for decades"
I think we have found said hammer! You'd be here no matter who the Democratic candidate was calling him elitist, and we all know it. Completely transparent. But Lady de Rothschild wouldn't, because it's farcical on its surface for her to do so, and she's not a Republican who would normally say such things. So it means something different coming from her.
Elite can mean being rich, having a name that includes Lady and "de," and stuff like that.
---
True, but Lynn Forester *is* an elitist, by any definition of the word.
Libertarian writes: "Republicans have been calling Democrats elitists for decades, to turn it into a racist euphamism when it is applied to Obama the same way it was applied to Gore and Kerry is an excuse to find racism in any criticism of Obama."
Calling Obama an elitist isn't racism. The Repiglicans just toss that in as a bonus, as they've also been doing for decades. And quite deliberately, too.
Oh, and a message to you from an elitist - the word is "euphemism."
I don't know what to say except that Democrats don't seem to get the idea of myth-making anymore. In reality, Bush certainly could have been classed as an elitist, his father unquestionably was an elitist.
However, that isn't the public personna that stuck and that isn't how HE presented himself..he was presented as a down home, regular guy who you would want to have a beer with, Texas cowboy and all the rest of it. And that is the personna that stuck.
Obama was in a tough position because he has certain racial stereotypes that he has had to combat, namely the angry, radical black man with a narrow black agenda. So, he carefully calibrated his personna as an intellectual, thoughful, not rash, very etherial. This helps him get white votes as does his rhetoric on personal responsibility and some statements about affirmative action, but, they open him up to being called the typical liberal ivory tower elitist.
It seems so strange to me that Democrats, with huge support among media people, Hollywood and generally creative types can't seem to put their own knowledge to work when it comes to politics. They always get beat out by the Republicans.
I mean give me a break, John Kerry volunteered to go to Vietnam and served his country with distinction and he gets tarred as unpatriotic? You cannot lose the image war any worse than that.
Never before was "black dude from the South Side of Chicago" given a more equivocal meaning.
Lady de Rothchilds just trusts people like herself and John McCain and Hillary Clinton that married into wealth and/or power. People like Obama that worked their way to power are likely to be overly proud of their achievements and inclined to tax inherited income.
Am I misreading the use of the phrase "they are who we thought they were"?
It's a reference to a quote by Dennis Green when he was the coach of the Arizona Cardinals.
When a half-white dude who went to the most prestigious prep school in paradise before going to cushy Occidental College in LA and then transferring to Ivy League Columbia in New York before reinventing himself as a community organizer in Chicago gets identified as a "black dude from the South Side", you know what a successful zelig and chameleon Obama is.
@ the last comment by Libertarian: Certainly, what you say is true -- the Democrats have been beaten by the Republicans in the "image war," but you seem completely aware that the Republican victory was based on the most preposterous kinds of lies (i.e. Kerry is unpatriotic, esp. when compared to GW Bush). And despite your awareness of the morally reprehensible tactics of the Republican campaigns, you still flaunt the fact of victory? Blame the victim? Reduce it all to an ends-justifies-means scenario?
This is exactly the kind of attitude that has a lot of people (myself included) worried about the long-lasting doom that would follow a McCain-Palin victory. If these kinds of tactics are not only successful in terms of winning elections, but, once exposed for their nastiness, are accepted without indignation from the American people, we're fucked for a long time.
"It's a reference to a quote by Dennis Green when he was the coach of the Arizona Cardinals."
He used it after he lost a game to a crappier team everyone would have thought he'd beat, right?
A common mistake that liberals tend to make is to equate anything positive said about the tactics of their 'enemies' is paired with the assumption that acknowledging success is the same as supporting it.
I supported Clinton, I supported Gore, I grudgingly supported Kerry and my preferred Democratic ticket for 08 would have been Gore/Obama. I detest Hillary Clinton and have believed for two years that the Democrats were extremely foolish to have their choice come down to an extremely polarizing woman with high negatives and a relative unknown black man. I also detest Bush, but Bush and John McCain are not the same no matter how much the Democrats want to make it so.
Acknowledging that the swift boating of John Kerry was successful is not the same as admiring it or supporting it, though some blame lies with the media for reporting it as if it was legitimate and some to Kerry's campaign for not effecitvely squashing it.
However, finding an image that resonates with voters is not necessarily morally reprehensible. Bill Clinton won the image war, that's why he got elected, why he got re elected and why, truth be told, if he was able to run for a third term he would probably be elected!
who has spent about 12 minutes off the public tit in his entire life.
And that 12 minutes was spent sucking on the tit of his bootlegging father-in-law.
Not really. That team--the Bears--went to the Super Bowl that year. They were up and should have won. The bigger point here, though, is that the "Lady" has been a PUMA for months now, but hadn't endorsed McCain. Now she has, hence "she is who we thought she was." Trying to understand Green's quote logically misses the point. It made no sense at the time. That's why it was funny. And now I've undone the funny by explaining. Sigh.
Ah, okay. I haven't sat through an entire football game since Elway retired.
I didn't see humor in "they are who we thought they were" as much as a statement earnestly made (if clunky in execution) about the veniality of one's opponents.
It's all in the delivery. It's not what he said, but the way he was flipping out when he said it. Crown 'em!
Elitist: Adjective describing whomever the Democratic nominee for president is, even if that person were Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Jesse Ventura or an actual Maytag repairman.
Other uses: Also describes the Democratic veep nominee
Bill Clinton was tagged with it, too, what with the Rhodes Scholar stuff. To the extent he slithered out, it's very revealing that it was via the "I feel your pain" stuff rather than growing up poor. The takeaway message seems to be that if your path was smoothed by your family's wealth, political, and military connections (Bush 1, Bush 2, McCain) but you are Republican, you're a regular guy; if you were born poor to middle class but worked hard and excelled by--this is so wuss--being smart and doing well at school and getting into top universities on merit, plus you're a Democrat, then you're an elitist snob.
Libertarian, so long as this argument continues to come from the mouth of Lady de Rothschild, billionaire London political hostess, we will continue to find it outrageously funny for the mouthpiece. It's as though Lady de Rothschild is so unaware of irony that it almost amounts to a disability, though I imagine the billions cushion that. Why is so much US media willing to give the baroness editorial inches and talk show time?
Libertarian:
The idea that an Ivy League education makes you an eltist, and therefore unfit to be President, is absurd. Our country has a long history of electing Ivy Leaguers, including:
John Adams,
John Quincy Adams,
James Madison,
Rutherford Hayes,
William Howard Taft,
Teddy Roosevelt,
Woodrow Wilson,
Franklin D. Roosevelt,
John F. Kennedy,
George W. Bush,
George H. W. Bush,
and Bill Clinton.
And there's a whole host of Presidents that graduated from other top schools. What is outside the norm are Presidents that had little to no college education.
I am going to ask everyone to read this. It does have relevence to this post. It was first posted at Windsofchange.net. I have not completely wrapped my head around it to say I understand it.
It posits a reason Democrats(read liberals) cannot move conservatives(read republicans) to their side. The one thing I disagree w/ them on is his family model(conservative). My experience has been it is a universal one.
Here is the article: http://edge.org/3rd_culture/haidt08/haidt08_index.html
Here is the winds of change post:
http://www.windsofchange.net/archives/cowboys_and_liberals.php
Jaybird,
The Bears were an early favorite (and that might have been their Super Bowl year, I forget), but the Cardinals had beaten them in the preseason and had a 20-0 lead late in the 4th quarter of this early-season game. They then gave up I believe a kickoff return TD, fumble return TD, and interception return TD in the last few minutes and lost 21-20. At the post-game press conference Dennis Green was in a tirade about how the Bears weren't all that good at all ("they are who we thought they were", and the even funnier "if you want to crown them, then crown their ass!") and how his team basically threw away a game in which they felt they were the better team.
Green's quote made perfect sense at the time-- he was saying that despite the fact that the Cardinals were huge underdogs to the Bears, he had been confident that his team was capable of playing a close game against the Bears, and the game he had just lost had vindicated that belief.
As it happened, his team should have beaten the Bears had they not melted down completely in every aspect of the game in the 4th quarter.
I totally disagree w/ you about Green's statement and the Bears are my heart team. It was totally true despite the fact the Bears went to the super bowl-look how that turned out.
Green posited that the Bears were not very good on offense-we played them in the preseason. In the game they put up nothing. The defense and the absolute choke-fumbles, intereceptions and celebrating before the final whistle-on the part of the Cardinals offense was how the Bears won. That is why he said we let them off the hook.
One more time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_N1OjGhIFc
This is still funny.
Robert M,
The author is correct, but you will never convince the Democrats of this...they will continue to fall back on the rote excuses that the country is full of stupid people [it is, but that's not why they vote Republican] and the Republicans are evil and win elections by dirty tricks.
It took me a LONG time to begin to understand the American conservative heartland mindset as it is, and not as I 'think' it is or as it should be, but once I was able to see things more clearly I was able to let go of some issues and I was able to see very, VERY clearly why conservatives believe its the liberals who are the real authoritarian, fascists.
And that is when I stopped identifying myself as a liberal, and as the years go by I become increasingly embarrassed that I ever identified with some of these beliefs.
The idea that graduating from Harvard is a bad thing is ridiculous. It's straight haterade. You disapprove of Harvard degree because you don't have one, never could've had one. But let one of these "he's an elitist" folks' little son or daughter get into Harvard and see how long it takes them to stop bragging to anybody who'll listen.
@ Libertarian: Yes, finding an image that resonates with voters is not necessarily morally reprehensible, however the same cannot be said for finding an image that resonates with voters and is untrue or based on lies, and then exploiting it, which, as you hint at, has been a strategy of both Democrats and Republicans in varying degrees. Beyond discussing the "image war" in terms of partisan campaign tactics, what I'm saying is that people - Republicans, Democrats, radicals, libertarians, whatever - need to recognize how problematic this form of campaign politics is, and how damaging it will be to actually solving problems in this country, no matter what side you're on.
@AKBY: For me, you're comment mostly serves as a reminder that our country was founded by, and has long remained in the power of, elitists.
"He used it after he lost a game to a crappier team everyone would have thought he'd beat, right?"
No, he used it after the Cardinals lost to the Bears, who would go to the Superbowl that season. But anything to jam a square analogy in a round hole, I guess. I'm going to wager that you're not an NFL fan.
Just once I want one of the media places giving Lady de R. time and space to press her on where she gets her information about how regular blue-collar voters feel.
a) She roams around southeastern Ohio in disguise: elastic waist pants, a sensible sweater in a pattern that hides coffee spills, and shoes from Payless. She drives an old beater, obtained by purchasing a new Mercedes on each visit and then trading it with a lucky soul she met along the way, usually at a gas station that doesn't even have an air pump. She roams the state: the Walmarts, the Kentucky Frieds, the places where the common, red-blooded, true Americans live. And they look her in the eye, and say "Lynn....I can call you Lynn, right?....That Obama guy, I'm just not comfortable with him. I feel like he's an elitist, almost like some billionaire who doesn't even live here...."
b) She can just tell.
LeBren,
Nobody is going to solve this country's problems. That is why my posts mostly consist of comments on campaign strategy, not substance. There isn't any substance and what substance there is will end up so watered down by inside the beltway politicking that it won't matter. And, there is less substance on the most important issues....long term economic outlook, debt, globalisation. Much easier to talk about tax cuts and education, but means nothing in the scheme of things.
Also, this election will be close, so no mandate. No mandate, no ability to sweep in with momentum and shake things up. Clinton had a mandate but he f***d it up and never recovered. Reagan had a mandate and he took full advantage...agree w/his policies or not...he got a lot of his agenda accomplished.
It would take raising Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and FDR from the grave to get this country back on track. And even then, its possible, since they might not turn out to be telegenic, that nobody would listen to them.
The whole "elitist" argument really has little to do with education, though there is a long history in this country of being suspicious of highly-educated people as those who rob you with a pen much more effectively than with a gun. I think it has more to do these days with your tastes as perceived by others, and how you comport yourself. If you seem intellectual, thoughtful, and have tastes that line up with cultural fare profiled by NPR, you're an elitist, regardless of background. If you like to clear brush, eat grilled meat, like rock and country, and see everything as a simple problem with a simple decisive solution, you're a regular person, regardless of background.
So, Obama appears elitist, and possibly even worse than someone born into money because he worked his way into it and chose it. Conversely, you have Bush. How McCain fits into it I'm not sure - in my eyes he seems neither in the Democrat Gore/Kerry "elitist" mode nor the Bush "regular guy" mode.
It's really the dumbest thing in the world, from either side, on which to base your vote. A "regular guy" could be a great president, as could an "elitist." But in this image war, the Dems get their ass handed to them continuously.
Well put. People throw around 'elitist' now with no regard. It's just silly half the time.
I am not an NFL fan, to be sure.
The first time I saw the line "they are who we thought they were" I had no idea that it was a line mocking a football coach... I honestly thought that it was saying "we all pretend that it's two principled opposing people looking eye to eye... but they are who we thought (in our hearts) they were and we should abandon the charade."
So please understand that *THAT* is how I've been reading any posts with a "they are who we thought they were" title.
Now that I know that it's a funny title making fun of a football coach... well, I'll try to lighten up.
Apologies, Ta-Nehisi.
Lebren:
So you equate an Ivy League education with elitism without caveats? A person who has actually worked hard to earn gets no special consideration in your mind?
Listen up kids! Lebren says: Don't aim for Harvard or you'll forever be labeled an elitist! Forget the American dream! Aspire to mediocrity!
Wonderful advice (gasp).
Every once in a while Marc Ambinder cracks me up with a one-liner. Here is his take on this big Lady de Trampstamp announcement:
"Breaking news: an incredibly wealthy white woman decided to back John McCain."
@AKBY:
And how many of the presidents on your list had to "work hard" to get into an Ivy League school? With the exception of Bill Clinton, I'm not seeing anybody.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but the point of your first comment was to refute the equivocation of an Ivy League education with elitism - however, you chose to do so by listing recipients of an Ivy League education who went on to become President of the United States, a position long held (and created by) power hungry rich white guys. Lincoln, Clinton, potentially Obama, and a few others have broken through occasionally, but in general, it is a title reserved for the privileged and elite. The same can be said of Ivy League schools.
I'm not saying don't work hard and don't have dreams, but I am saying don't work hard just to be part of the club :)
As an ivy league grad who grew up poor in the 'hood, but had a Mom who worked two jobs [and wielded a mean belt] to get me there, it is so gratifying to know that I am somehow "elite" now.
I'll be sure to tell that to Emily Pataki or Victoria Weld next time we're chatting on their Daddy's yacht in the Hamptons, right after I finish paying my student loans off sometime in 2013...
Getting into an Ivy League school means you're smart and worked your ass off, and for maybe 40% (the percentage who recieved no finncial aid my freshman year) Daddy wrote a big check. The rest of us just wanted a better life.
Jay Bird,
Thsi post isn;t about nayone voting for McCain over Obama. It is about the group of people who's voting preference went 1) Hillary, 2) McCain, 3) Obama (and specifically Lady de ...). There is a rational justification someone can have for that order, but it is pretty thin. And it certainly isn't that Obama is an elitist.
I'd say of course Obama is an elitist, so is McCain and Palin and Bush and Gore and Kerry and Huckabee and anyone else who thinks they are qualified to be President. You better think your one of the elite.
I promise you all that being an ivy leaguer mainly mainly means that are a MASSIVE dork and you probably had no social life in high school outside of the extrcurriculars that would look good on college apps.
Except for the boarding school kids. They're that 40% elite (actually I really mean elitist, not elite, because arguably we're elite now, although you cant tell it from my non-profit paycheck). And they had a realllllly good time in hs.
@T Harris:
I'm not saying (and never said) an Ivy League degree makes you elite or an elitist. I am fully aware that there are plenty of people attending Ivy League schools that did not grow up privileged and studied hard to get into those schools. However, denying that an Ivy League degree is recognized as a symbol of privilege and elitism seems silly. In part, that's why people who aren't privileged and elite work their ass off to go there.
As a kid who grew up poor in the 'hood, are you really telling me that at Brown or Yale, or wherever you got your degree, you didn't feel like the place was a little stuffy? I grew up a middle class dork, and I never felt poor until I went off to a midwestern liberal arts college. But everything's good in Ivy land?
Did the traditional culture of Yale feel stuffy? Well yes, and no.
The vast majority of students (unless you were an econ major who had a plan to make your first ten million) weren't stuffy. They were normal college kids, liberal and poorly dressed who eat way too much cheap pizza. Compared to my visits to places like Auburn?? Ivy Leaguers were super liberal dirty hippies. ESPECIALLY Brown kids. Maybe not Dartmouth or Princeton kids.
This is not 1963. Yalies aren't all male, aren't all rich, aren't all white and don't attend sit-down dinners nightly with a cadre of servants and wearing white gloves. Getting in and graduating can be a mark of academic achievement. But in the current environment, based on my experience, it doesn't mean squat about elitist (I will grant you elite, in the sense of gaining a great deal from having an Ivy listed on your resume).
""Lady" de Rothchilds main reason for not endorsing McCain?" i think you meant to write "obama"
Jaybird
Please just watch the video. It is not a mash up. This is an actual press conference my an NFL coach.
Wow, that is a great video...
But I think it kinda does leave an opening for my original interpretation, now that I've seen it...
But, yeah. I can totally see the goldmine of parodiable (is that a word? I guess it is now) material in those few seconds.
I'm voting for McCain, but I'd agree that Lynn Forester de Rothschild calling Obama elitist is a bit strange unless her pre-Rothschild days were unusually poor and narrow. They don't appear to be though as she'd apparently made a hundred million before she ever met de Rothschild. (In fairness she doesn't seem to go with the title "Lady" in the interview I found)
It's not just that she's rich. She apparently honeymooned at the White House and is well-connected to the world's most powerful people. She was introduced to "de Rothschild" by Henry Kissenger and meets with the Prime Minister of India. So it's not even like some wealthy people I know who lived somewhat sheltered lives and never got much education.
ht-tp://www.portfolio.com/views/columns/the-world-according-to/2007/10/05/An-interview-with-Lady-de-Rothschild#
Also yes McCain is of an elite. Bush was certainly of an elite and benefited an elite to a large degree.
Something I read recently stated the two parties are more a battle of different elites. Republicans are said prefer elite businessmen and soldiers while Democrats prefer elite lawyers and scholars. I'm not sure this entirely works, but there is some support for the idea.
The best Democrats have been elitists: specifically FDR and, to a lesser extent, JFK.
The problem Democrats have had is that they rarely have the courage of their convictions. At one end, Stevenson was cowed by Truman's example, while Kerry didn't have the self confidence to wind surf with pride.
One of Obama's strengths is this core conviction: his willingness to believe in his own merit, and his lack of chagrin about putting his tie on straight and tight.
I think they use "elitist" because "Jew" got used up (and they think they can get some more support from Jews who've mistaken themselves for White Men), and they want to keep "faggot" for special public occasions and "nigger" for their private sex games.