--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The truth is that her claim about > > > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. > > > > Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do > > with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; > > it's an attitude of superiority. One can be > > an elitist without being wealthy; and not all > > wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism > > has much more to do with class and education. > > I appreciate an opportunity to focus on what the word > really means. I just spent a few minutes searching. > I think the conclusion I draw is that it is a stupid > term when used in elections between people who obviously > fit the definition in most ways. I know some really > poor uneducated people who carry an attitude of > superiority over more educated richer people because of > their street smarts. So the definitions become vague > enough that people can use it as a weapon in politics > like the word "liberal" to demonize the other person. I > don't find it very useful since it is so subjective.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think it is about Obama that some folks are calling "elitist"? I know highly > educated poor people, rich uneducated people, and each of them > can use their situation to be elitist if that is how they roll. > I don't believe it is the most important thing to focus on in > a candidate. I still think it was a legitimate challenge in > this interview. But not in terms of its being hypocritical for her to call Obama an elitist because she's rich. It's fine to challenge her on whether Obama is an elitist. > > > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain > > > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I > > > guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get > > > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal > > > go for McCain/Palin. > > > > The liberals who are supporting McCain are > > doing so because they believe the Democratic > > Party has failed them and needs to be brought > > down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see > > the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court > > nominations as a kind of blackmail. > > How can it be blackmail when it is just a fact? How can it be a fact when it hasn't happened yet? (And even if it were a fact, why would that mean it couldn't be blackmail??) The > liberal/conservative choice for the next judges will effect the > rest of our lives. No one is blackmailing anybody. Yeah, Curtis, they are. Instead of telling us all the reasons why Obama is a fine choice for president, they're threatening us with *one* thing they predict McCain will do that we won't like. > I also feel betrayed by the democratic party for cowering to > Bush's Iraq war. But after 8 years of republicans I don't > believe it can be brought down any more. It wasn't "the party," strictly speaking, that caved to Bush on the war; it was the Democrats in Congress. I believe that it can rebuild a lot better > with a democrat in the White House. I don't see how four > years of McCain/Palin is going to help re-build the party. The party leadership--Dean, Brazile, Pelosi, et al.--will be discredited if McCain wins; that will mean it will *have* to be rebuilt, with different people in the leadership. If Obama wins, it'll just be more of the same; they'll have been proved "right." > I fear that this crazy logic that electing McCain will HELP the > democratic party will sentence us to four more years of > republicans,and yes, more ultra conservative Supreme Court judges. Again, it's a matter of destroying the current party and putting together a new one, not helping the current party. If > the Bush/Gore fiasco didn't convince you of the wide > reaching implications for the democratic party didn't > convince you, I don't know what will. Want to try this again? Your syntax got garbled. Didn't convince me of what, exactly?
