<p>You hardly need cash to be elitist. Its a way of thinking that your values are better than others and that you have a duty to impose those values on others who might have different beliefs to save them from their own “stupidity”.</p>
<p>Barrons: by your definition ALL politicians are elitist. I’ve yet to meet one who didn’t think he (or she) knew better than someone!</p>
<p>Me, I know I’m an effete snob, a flaming left-wing liberal progressive, and an intellectual. Oh yeah, and I know what’s good for everyone else, if only they’d listen. I guess that makes me an elitist, too.</p>
<p>No, liberals have the special knack for “nannism” that makes them so insufferable.</p>
<p>For you, my favorite columnist</p>
<p>[Uptight</a> Seattleite - Columns (Seattle Weekly)](<a href=“http://www.seattleweekly.com/columns/284118/]Uptight”>http://www.seattleweekly.com/columns/284118/)</p>
<p>Barack Obama may have added more fuel to the fire for those who want to paint him as arrogant or elitist, praising himself Wednesday as a pretty darn good politician.</p>
<p>In a speech to Jewish community leaders in Philadelphia, the Democratic presidential candidate was asked whether the recent controversy over Jeremiah Wright, Obamas retiring pastor, could lead to him being attacked by Republicans in the fall and create the possibility of turning his candidacy into one akin to failed candidates George McGovern and Michael Dukakis.</p>
<p>At the end of a long response, Obama said: Let me make one last point about the comparison to McGovern and Dukakis, both excellent men, but Im a pretty darn good politician. And I can give a pretty good speech and I can connect and inspire the American people in ways that I think will become apparent. I wouldnt be here if I wasnt pretty good at mixing it up. And so much of the attack machine thats been built up is part of the old politics.</p>
<p>[Obama:</a> ‘I’m a Pretty Darned Good Politician’ - America’s Election HQ](<a href=“2024 Election Results, Latest News & Updates | Fox News Elections Center”>2024 Election Results, Latest News & Updates | Fox News Elections Center)</p>
<p>^^^ And HUMBLE too!</p>
<hr>
<p>Does saying, “I’m a pretty darned good politician” demostrate that he is not?</p>
<p>Barrons – by your definition, all mothers are elitist!</p>
<p>Regarding last night’s debate:
Thank you Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos for asking tough questions!</p>
<p>yeah, but he gives pretty good speeches and knows how to mix stuff up.</p>
<p>^ I liked seeing the candidates squirm and stammer their way through a half-hearted attempt at an answer…then completely avoid it and go into their stump speech mantra…</p>
<p>BO supporter Dowd calls it.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/opinion/16dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin[/url]”>http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/16/opinion/16dowd.html?_r=1&oref=slogin</a></p>
<p>based on all his comments; his associations; and his poor showing last night on the debate; Obama has no chance of getting Pennsylvania. Now, will this hurt him in the end? I don’t know. The truth is; Hillary will win Penn. She will narrow the delegate count. They will go to the convention with no clear winner.</p>
<p>Then the question becomes; who should they nominate as the democratic nominee. Obama’s only defense for why he should get the nod is that he has the most votes and delegates on those who voted. That however is NOT a good defense. Why? Because the democratic rule is that you need 2025 delegates to win. It doesn’t say; “2025 OR the MAJORITY at the end of the voting”. So, his defense of; “I’ve got the most means nothing”. It’s no different than playing a baseball game and leading 10-2 after 5 innings. If it rains out, you DON’T win. It specifically says you have to play at least so many innings or the GAME DOESN’T COUNT. So, if neither candidate gets the 2025 votes, then there is no automatic winner.</p>
<p>Clinton on the other hand has some very good arguments on why she should get the nomination. The states she DID WIN are the big democratic states. She is pretty much guaranteed to get those votes and electoral votes during the general election. Obama isn’t guaranteed that. She also has the argument of experience, contacts, etc… These normally wouldn’t be an arguable issue during the primaries if the voters voted for Obama; but they didn’t. He didn’t get the required delegates, so for all intent and purpose, if this goes to the convention without someone having 2025 votes; then it’s a tie. They need to look at it from that point. If they want Obama to get it because he had the “Most” after the primary, then that should be in the rules. It isn’t, so it’s not an issue.</p>
<p>Either way, Obama has lost Penn and probably the whole Ohio, Ky, north-east, etc… There were a lot of democrats polled directly after the debate last night. All had direct response devices to monitor their reaction to the questions and answers. Every time Obama had to address Reverend Wright, his wife’s comments, the “Bitter Rural Americans”, or similar questions; the polled democrats reacted very negatively to him. They don’t like his evading of direct answers. They don’t like him not being committed to giving a direct answer. They don’t like his excuses of “Not Knowing”. And they didn’t like his response of “We need to forget all this and move on”. Sorry, but the American people can’t just move on. When in public office, Americans DO care who you associate with. If those associations are controversial, the American people can forgive the association, but you have to take a hard stance and make it sincere. Unfortunately, they feel Obama is side stepping the issues.</p>
<p>Didn’t it bother anybody that Hilary claimed that raising the payroll taxes would hurt the teachers and firefighters in PA? If that’s true I want to be a teacher in Pennsylvania. Payroll taxes, at least the social security portion, stop at $97,00 this year and are rising every year. I realise she’s not an accountant but, she should at least have a clue how the system works before she criticizes the other candidate.</p>
<p>Obama doesn’t have much of a better grasp on economic issues either. On those type of responses, I give both of them, McCain, and any other candidate a pass. The truth is, the president doesn’t have the direct power to increase, reduce, change, etc… taxes. S/He can persuade the congress, but they can’t do it directly. They do however need to have a concept of HOW they are going to raise money for certain things. If they have a plan, they can persuade congress. If they don’t have a plan, they aren’t going to persuade anyone.</p>
<p>^ The biggest laugher is “create jobs”…</p>
<p>Yeah…we need more govt jobs. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Show me the skills, I’ll show you the jobs.</p>
<p>3bm103 - I couldn’t believe Charlie and George. It was embarassing. Also, anyone else wonder how Clinton’s campaign would have whined and complained if one of the moderators was Michelle Obama’s former senior political advisor and then her communications director?</p>
<p>I went to ABC’s website last night after the debate. It took me a couple of hours before I could get on because the traffic was so high. Once I did, I read through bloggers comments as they were taking place during the debate. About 90% of them were of the nature, “Let’s move on, I want to know what they’re going to do about jobs in Pennsylvania, the housing crisis, etc.” Many people felt as if the debate was a waste of their time - they were looking for answers to issues that directly impact them and their families, not rehashing old stuff.</p>
<p>^ I’m more interested in the principle of their character.</p>
<p>Let’s face it, the President has little power to get everyone a job and solve the housing crisis. These are fundamental free market issues. The states are responsible for education…let’s start there.</p>
<p>Also, there is very little difference in the economic agenda between Obama and Clinton.</p>
<p>It was hard to perceive any kind of organization to BO’s answers last night, lots of shotgun blasts of sentences, but no cohesiveness to responses. If I were sitting in a meeting (or a class) and expected to take notes or respond with a plan of action, understanding the philosophy and assignment, I would be at a loss and frustrated. From all reports he gives a good speech, when it is planned and written, but off the cuff, he is not a good speaker, to the point that his organizational skills are suspect. He may think lots of lofty thoughts, but there is no logical sequence to his prose when he is talking without a script. The worry is that it may bespeak an untidy mind…just what we need…sigh.</p>
<p>George Stephanopoulos is no friend of the Clinton’s, and it would have been much more likely that she would have objected to his participation in the debate. We could see the sparks fly between the two of them last night, and our TV is not that high-tech. His “career” has been boosted by his willingness and eagerness to speak of both of them harshly, no small part in his thriving during the Bush era.</p>
<p>^ I don’t think it’s about the organization of thoughts in his mind…it’s that he wants to avoid answering uncomfortable questions about his associations.</p>
<p>Wow. It’s amazing how differently two people can see the same thing so opposite. </p>
<p>What I saw was Clinton taking every oppotunity to criticize without ever answering a question. To the point of saying things that weren’t even correct in a drastic attempt to to find some flaw in her opponent. </p>
<p>I have no problem with him saying that he needs to look into a subject before making a decision. I don’t expect that on “day one” he will instantly know the answer to every problem without keeping an open mind as to a solution. To me, the President’s job is to listen to those who are experts on the subject and make an informed decision. But his character is what will guide him to those decisions.</p>
<p>I was also very disappointed when she AGAIN said that you can pick your Pastor but not your family. She is grasping at those things she perceives as flaws but has no problem being married to a very, very flawed (in character) man for more than Obama’s twenty years listening to a Pastor. I personally would rather listen to a pastor that I disagree with than be married to a man whose idea of marriage is polar opposite to mine.</p>
<p>Fox tv had a 5 min analysis of the debate this am where the guy (can’t remember his name) said that he saw the debate as Hillary speaking to the superdelegates and showing them a taste of what the Republicans would do to Obama and how he’d look in response. The message was that the R’s are going to harp on the same stuff H and the moderators harped on and that Obama will get on his heels and get fuddled. Rush has been having a field day with the debate all morning. Says it’s the worst showing Obama’s had yet. </p>
<p>I saw another article I can’t retrieve on google that said the same sort of thing, ie, Hillary wasn’t trying to illuminate other issues; she was showing the superdelegates Obama won’t stand up to a Republican attack. So even though she said the words “yes he’s electable”, her actions said “no, he’s not”.</p>