Holy crap do you have that backwards. Hillary is nothing more than your standard politician who plays the polls instead of doing actual leading. She's not one for putting forward tough choices, or even taking early stands in the right on issues. This latest stunt with the gas tax is just another example of that.

Elitism is a social issue, not a political one. Politicians are by definition elite both in responsibilities and power over others. Calling another politician elitist is a game played to make people look like jerks, because EVERYONE sorta resents people in power and its easy to stoke that resentment. Our leaders are supposed to be better than us, thats why we vote for them and not run ourselves. However, give a whiff that these politicians actually think along those lines and its “who the hell does he think he is?”.

Just another silly game we play to distract us from reality.

I'm a little busy now so I can't respond in full… but I wanted to address this:

Nice equivocation. You don't miss many opportunities, do you?

See… when I brought up elitism, I actually came up with examples, some of them even having to do with substantive policy issues. You've just sort of thrown the word “elitist” out there as if it needs no explanation. Well, it does.

That's not a generalization I've ever attempted to make. Northeastern liberals are found throughout the Northeast, encompassing a huge population, not only on Ivy League campuses. (Even Northeastern Republicans often are liberal!)

“Now, if you said '[Berkeley] liberal,' or 'Bob Jones conservative' I think that kind of generalization is more accurate and somewhat more appropriate.”

No disagreement.

“Also, this is more appropriate criticism of Obama. Eventually, he'll have to put up or shut up.”

Agreed completely. Substance, sometime, will be needed. To date he reminds me of Lamar Alexander. “Buchanan [i.e., McCain] has the wrong ideas, and Dole [i.e., Clinton] has the old ideas. I'm the candidate with new ideas.” WHAT new ideas?

Pssst, conservatives go to Ivy league schools too.

The “Ivy league liberal” sounds like dog whistle for “Northeastern liberal.” It's a generalization that doesn't hold water, I think, mainly because loads of conservatives go to good schools as well, and I think the majority of Americans look askance at people who go to college period, not just Ivy leagues.

Now, if you said “Berkley liberal,” or “Bob Jones conservative” I think that kind of generalization is more accurate and somewhat more appropriate.

Also, this is more appropriate criticism of Obama. Eventually, he'll have to put up or shut up. He's carried himself well during the Wright flap, but that's political damage control, not policy. It'll be interesting to see if he can continue to be the “non threatening something for everyone black man” on the economy, Iraq, foreign policy, etc.

Also btw Damozel, don't knock around Carter TOO much. Some of us remember 1980 presidential campaigns negotiating with terrorists (called treason) and then the subsequent administration selling arms to them (also treason). Yet Reagan smells like a rose and Carter is damned for a botched rescue op. Perceptions are funny things.

Actually, I'm relocating from Iowa to Detroit metro shortly and making nearly 50% more money in the new job. (I was hoping to go to St. Louis instead, but the lead for a job there didn't materialize quickly enough.) I do get your point, however. (And I, a happy road warrior with close to 100 day trips over 800 miles to my credit, have been reducing my driving and reducing my speed to 55 mph on the highway to save on fuel costs. As far as the new job and escape from Iowa is concerned, I got quite lucky.)

Maybe that New York Times guy who wrote the book about how mean the business world has become (he gave a few examples; he dreams for the return of pateralistic employers and unions, UAW-style in the 50s and 60s) could be a campaign staff member and even a convention speaker. (This guy was on an NPR show a few weeks ago. Steven Greenhouse — “The Big Squeeze,” that's who the guy is. This is ammo for aiming dead center at the GOP economically.)

http://www.stevengreenhouse.com/

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/may/…

The current downturn is not as bad as previous ones (which the Economist pointed out weeks ago, during some of the louder hype), but there is obvious cause for concern. (Note: More than one report can be reached on the page.)

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/826/jobs

In that economic light perhaps Clinton or Obama could do something psychological that I described months ago, using the current economic downturn (which is not anything like previous recessions that were over-hyped as this one has been) to link the current Bush and by extension the GOP to Bush the elder and his elitism (as well as earlier economic downturn). I still deny this merits much campaign mischaracterizing of McCain as “another Bush” (he's not been considered any kind of reliable conservative or Republican, and has spawned resentment and anger frequently rather than the gentler disappointment we have with our current President). But the economy obviously can and should be exploited by the current Opposition (which is what the Dems are about, hardly anything positive as well; listening to Harry Reid when interviewed about his book and what he says wrongly about Social Security and other matters exemplifies it).

Nice equivocation. You don't miss many opportunities, do you?

John “Keating Five” McCain is far from perfect as a candidate. Just ask his many critics. (I'm one of them.)

To date this is totally true. (I've been asked about why he performs exercises in content-free speechmaking and I've said in turn that his speeches are not only full of sound bites — which is what we expect from all the candidates this year and all other politicians as well — his speeches amount to single, long sound bites.)

So long as the rhetoric-only approach is successful with as many people as he is having, I would expect this approach to be continued. Note that if he is nominated, it then becomes a contest between him and McCain and he's freed from his current reticence as far as negative rhetoric is in his speeches. He can go on offense in earnest once he has the nomination and has more rhetoric (hopefully beyond the silly, stupid “another Bush” drivel) to use to appeal to so many voters' emotions.

(His appeal, as someone else correctly stated is particularly high among the young — we should add, often idealistic and naive, is an appeal to emotion, of his youth and attractiveness — American Idol voter appeal — and along with Clinton, an obvious minority-ground-support appeal. In Obama's case it really is all about the packaging. And just wait until McCain is presented against him as a dull geezer, possibly, the media will say, with Cheney-like evil tendences he's hidden from us.)

Where I dissent is where they are _elitist_.

Do you mean to say you disapprove of the kind of elitism that focuses on tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans while the rest of us are seeing falling wages and a higher cost of living? The kind of elitism where you leave your injured wife for a much younger and wealthier uninjured one? The kind of elitism where you staff your campaign with more wealthy lobbyists than any other?

None of the three candidates are worse than our current Ivy League president.

“I want the President to be elite.”

All three candidates are fine in this regard. Where I dissent is where they are _elitist_. Ivy League liberals are commonly, terribly elitist. That bothers Americans.

But seriously. I want the President to have an education from a good school. I want the President to be the best of the best. I dare say, I want the President to be elite.

That's a BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD thing.

It beats one alternative, saying that she is as stubborn as Bush is. [grin]

I'm not sure I totally understand where you're coming from on one issue though. You say that Hillary Clinton's fighting spirit is an admirable quality. Sure. However, you phrase it in such a way that makes it seem like you don't think Obama has that same quality.

If that's true, I'm wondering what gives you that impression.