I just heard a taped discussion by 5 middle-aged and low income women in small town, USA.
They said they were disgusted by the lapel pin,, Rev Wright questions because that took away time from focusing on the issues. One called it 'bashObama', even though she plans to vote for Clinton because of some policy postitions.
.
Pretty stupid, right Marlowecan?
Not one mentioned elitism. I suspect the word itself is elitist.

I don't think you even read my comment, past the first sentence., since your response addresses nothing in it.
You just repeat what you claimed earlier.

Hey, Marlowecan, YOO-HOO!!!, There are ideas out there, beyoind the echoes in your mind!, beyond your version of what Obama meant and beyond your definition of what elittism is.

You assume that small town Americans are too stupid to understand anything beyond political hype, but I'm elitist?
How arrogant of you to claim that these people are as narrrow minded as you, the spin masters and media folks who think this line of questioning represents examining the candidates.

They are not supid. They can understand!!
That's what you don't get.

At least those are actual tangible things to discuss. I disagree with superdestroyer that his policies have those consequences, but I would be open to actually seeing why he says that if he is open to argument as well. At least it is something policy related.

And Marlowe you might be right about what drives people to vote but that makes it all the more important to critically analyze the candidates. The “real” background and viewpoints of most politicians are completely lost and every one just starts gossiping about spin and secret thoughts and plans. There is a larger disconnect between image and reality even more than prescribed policies and actual ones, so trying to actually find out the truth of the matter is paramount. For instance Marlowe, you still didn't address his expansion of points or the video I linked. You just flat out say that he has an elitist attitude without any supporting evidence. So what, you think that he was caught in his “true” colors and everything else is just a well crafted image? Then argue why.

Runasim…I disagree, and not for reasons of spin. Obama said that people cling to guns and god because of a failure of government.

We will not know the full impact of Obama's words until the fall, I expect.
If, as I suspect, it will have been defining . . . you will denounce the population who disagreed as “patsies”.
That is precisely the elitist attitude that has cost the Democrats so many elections in recent years.

You cannot market anything . . . a product, an idea, a candidate . . . by telling people: if you do not vote for me (or buy this) you are a moron.

It is a losing strategy.

Let's just get the 'condescendng' part out of the way. It's only condescending in the spin zone, and to those patsies who fall for it.
Rather than talk down to rural America and speak the language of SFr., I think Obama was trying to explain rural America to SF. Surprisongly, two callers to NPR (one from rural VA, one from the Ozarks suggested this analyis., independent of one another. Some of those living in small town America are a lot smarter than all the pundits and clever commnetators.
———————————————————————————————————-

If everything you say about what it takes to get votes is true, the implications are horrible. It means that sticking a pin in a lapel and saying ''aw, shucks' repeatedly is what makes someone worthy of the presidency. It means that pretending to be one these people (the privileged Bush is as elite as elite can be) is more important than being one of them (see Obama's bakcground in small towns of Kansas) For the highly educated millioniare Clinton to pretend to be one of them is outright deceit.

What's important, however, is not whether a candidate is one of them but whether or not he can connect with them. There Obama is doing quite well. People can understand that and many complex issues quite well, if given half a chance. The problem is that people don't give them a chance and continually underestimate their intelligence., while they themselves show condescension by recommending pretense over honesty.

A good leader educates, raises the level of understnding of his public rather than sinks to the level of the least intelligent among them. I think Obama is trying to do that, and he is being beaten up for it by the media and condescending commentators.

It's not a question, then, of what Obama is doing wrong. It's a question of how to drown out the nattering crowd so that his voice can be heard.

The questioning in the debate was a travesty . It was condescendingly trivial for small towns, big cities and everyone in between. Respect their intelligence, for pete's sakes.

Why should people vote economic issues? I think people rarely do.

Queen Elizabeth I once remarked of princes: “We are the world writ large.”

In democratic times, people vote for leaders who reflect something in themselves. People voted for Dubya over Gore/Kerry because they felt more comfortable with George Bush.

Truman hammered the New York sophisticate Dewey in one of the greatest campaigns in American history. Americans may have looked up to Dewey…but they saw themselves in “Give 'em hell, Harry” small town hat salesman.

Americans similarly saw themselves in Kennedy more than in Nixon…and then in Nixon more than Humphrey/McGovern.

Interests often have very little to do with it, I think.

but is blue collar whites were to vote economic issues (and not entitlement issues) would they be in a rush to vote for Senator Obama. Senator Obama supports policies that make it harder for their children to attend college. Senator Obama supports policies that lower the value of their homes, make it harder to create private sector jobs, and definitely makes it harder to reuse former industrialized sites.

Obsidian Wings is the only one I've read that is asking the real question. Instead of debating what he did or did not mean, they actually attempt to understand his point (which isn't hard) and then point out the inherent value judgment in his statement (that people should vote economic issues) and that is the proper thing to argue about and would move the country forward. Where do we want politics to reflect in this country and are we happy with what it currently does? Upper class liberals arguably vote against their economic interest, why? And if they do, then what is there rationale and how is that similar to why the “bitter rural” folks vote against theirs?

Even if you think Obama is elitist or whatever, that would still be the overarching point, because if we come together and change the focus then they will have to respond to win elections.

I disagree. FDR would NEVER have said anything like Obama's comment on small town Americans “clinging to guns and god”.
Truman would never have said that.

Obama is following in a Democratic tradition begun by Adlai Stevenson, who condescended to the American public…and was repaid in kind.

As reflected in the famous quotation, in one of many versions:
Admirer to Stevenson: Every thinking American is voting for you.
Stevenson: But Madam, I need a majority.

JFK…for all his money and intellect…never sneered at Americans like Stevenson. He was willing…after all…to crawl in the engine of a PT boat like a grease monkey.
LBJ also had the common touch.
Bill Clinton loved eating at McDonalds, for god's sake.

Obama is more in the Stevenson, McGovern and Dukakis mold.

Obama wasn't speaking the truth to the nation. He was speaking to the privileged of San Francisco…in a private setting…in a condescending way about a less privileged group.

You don't get people's votes by talking down to them.