<p>
</p>
<p>Here in Hawaii the image people get when you mention Punahou is “the snobby rich white kid school” (in a state with nearly everyone asian). </p>
<p>I have nothing against Obama but being part of my state’s terrible public schooling, I can testify that going to Punahou is not a humble beginning. I would have given a lot to attend Punahou.</p>
<p>Yes, there are several schools in Honolulu that are right up there amongst the top preppies in the U.S. Barrack Obama was lucky to have attended one of them. I am sure he knows that! I have read his first book and sent it on to my son to read over two years ago since his story reverberates with my own family’s story. That said, I support Hillary Clinton and my son supports Ron Paul!</p>
<p>Northstarmom,
The humilation I was referring to has nothing to do with HRC’s failed attempt at health insurance in 1993. I was referring to the fact that her husbands’s infidelity was made a national and legal issue for several years. And I doubt that even Ken Starr would blame her her for “inept way” of dealing with her husband.</p>
<p>It does surprise me how many people who call themselves Democrats (or Obamamaniacs) like to blast the Clintons with the same old smear tactics that previously were the domaine of the Gingrichs and Limbaughs of our world. Just because you heard the garbage non-stop in the 90’s from the right-wingers (who later went on to destroy John Kerry’s candidancy) does not mean its true or factual.</p>
<p>The Clinton’s were naive and idealistic when they went to DC (sound familiar?) and HRC’s health care efforts were an attempt to deal with the system, the politics, the lobbyists. It failed, in large measure because of those obstructions, as well as the naive idealism. To skewer her for that is equally naive, and perhaps rather disingenuous…all things considered. She has learned many lessons that a less experienced leader would have yet to encounter. I dread, dread, dread waiting through the wasted time of a novice trying to figure it out for himself, no matter how good his intentions might be. Sigh.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yep-- you and me both, lorelei. ;)</p>
<p>When Bill and Hillary came to Washington, they were both naive and arrogant about the changes they thought they could make inside the beltway, despite plenty of warnings from their DC-knowledgeable friends. Obama does not have the arrogance that he thinks he can change things all by himself- he knows how to forge agreements, how to compromise, and has already been in DC for 4 years. He has also shown he is also willing to listen to others who disagree with them-something the Clintons didn’t learn until well into their first term. Don’t misundertand me- I am a screeming life long Democrat, and I loved having Bill in the WH. I don’t hate Hillary in any way- matter of fact I was a $$ supporter of her LY. But most of all, I want a Democrat in the WH starting in 2009, and I now believe that Obama has more chance winning in Nov by pulling in independant voters and moderate Republican voters than Hillary does.</p>
<p>BO may get elected, or he may be a victim of the gathering storm of conservative attacks, and for sure he will be no less scathed than the Clintons have been, regardless of how pure and well-meaning BO followers think he is. I find him to be arrogant and haughty, and not very gracious, regardless of the well timed displays of humor. Am I judging him from a bias, or is it that his demeanor and style triggers suspicion and concern, and I trust my insincts? I do not know, but I am worried, which tends to be an instinct triggered by my experience and judgement.</p>
<p>Seriously? Compared to HC you find BO arrogant and haughty? As for his youth, how old was Bill Clinton when he took office?</p>
<p>I said nothing about BO’s youth, just my reaction to him. I am more comfortable with WJC’s hot reactions to things than the cool measured scripts I hear from BO…it seems more authentic. I perceive nothing about HRC as arrogant and haughty, but maybe because of age and place parallels, I “get” her.</p>
<p>lorelei2702: I understand what you mean about BO appearing to be haughty and arrogant. </p>
<p>I think it can be infuriating when a person (especially a man) is unflappable and delivers strong but soft-spoken arguments. It can create the impression of someone who thinks they are superior to you and talking down to you. If you relate to HRC, you are likely to perceive his quiet and controlled demeanor to be ‘haughty’. I would suggest you just listen to his words (better still, just read the transcript). His words suggest that he is very, very respectful and humble, and his apparent ‘haughty’ demeanor is merely a reflection of the fact that he is a very thoughtful and sincere person who likes to think (and perhaps count to 3) before speaking. I don’t think he has one arrogant bone in his body.</p>
<p>Oh, but I do listen to the words and read the literature. We will have to agree to disagree and wait to see what happens, how it all pans out. I trust my instincts, but I do try to process things rationally and thoughtfully. Same result.</p>
<p>I also find him arrogant and talking down on women.</p>
<p>I like both Clinton and Obama. Don’t find either to be particularly arrogant or patronizing (or matronizing!). Both seem incredibly bright, which in my humble opinion, would make a wonderful change of pace over what we’ve had these past 8 years. … Still, whoever wins the Democratic nomination this summer will be put through the Republican slime machine and come out the other end looking like a cross between Hitler and the Antichrist.</p>
<p>that is 1,000% correct.</p>
<p>simba & lorelei,
Thank you for seeing what I see. For awhile, I thought I was the only one who found him to be arrogant and smug. As if he believes he is “The Chosen” one. </p>
<p>No thanks. We’ve just had 7 years of cockiness and arrogance by an inexperienced and unqualified man. Who needs more?</p>
<p>I have heard his “quiet and controlled demeanor” described as a deliberate style to keep from intimidating or seeming aggressive…a cultural barrier. A restrained style may be just that, or it might hide what lurks beneath the surface…I have no idea…but it takes longer to feel like I know what the reality is. </p>
<p>His wife will have a much harder time than he will holding up under the attack machine once it gears up from everything I hear from her. It will be a long year!</p>
<p>My husband is an ardent BO supporter, and we allow snippets of analytical discussion about our perceptions and how they differ (if it goes on very long, things are not good!) For instance, the bit when Ellen Degeneres asked BO about his underwear, briefs or boxers, and he declined to answer, said that was too personal, but that he looks good in whatever he wears…H thought that was funny…I thought it was alpha male strutting. That kind of remark is cute from a teenager, but from an adult male, it is slimey. IMHO</p>
<p>“His wife will have a much harder time than he will holding up under the attack machine once it gears up from everything I hear from her.”</p>
<p>Oh, yes! She’ll be dragged through the mud and figuratively drawn and quartered before all is said and done. … One might question her husband’s “authenticity,” but she’s probably authentic enough for the both of them. To me, she’s infinitely preferable to some of the political Stepford wives we’ve seen over the years. … But yes, There Will Be Blood.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I highly doubt, if he were genuinely arrogant, that Michelle would put up with it. She is not going to stay with someone who communicates that attitude, nor talks down on women (especially given they have two daughters).</p>
<p>I sense a lot of personal projections having little to do with the candidates themselves. Clinton has suffered the worst of this in this election cycle, IMHO, but I suppose it’s to be expected that the same would be aimed at Obama.</p>
<p>You are right, kluge. Much of what is said is personal reaction, not so much antagonism toward political philosophies. The personal projections affect our judgement as to whether the candidates can do and be what they seem to be promising. It is like interviewing a person for a job…you have a sense of whether you think they are as capable as they are telling you that they are. We project based on our own experiences, people we have known about whom we are reminded. We use even tiny elements to reinforce those projections, to attempt to rationalize our opinions. An anthropologist or psychologist could tell us more about what we are reading and how we are reacting. All we get to do is vote and opine!</p>