2008 Primaries Thread 3: The Rejecting and Denouncening

HRC: 'I'm Not Bitter'; Obama: 'Sorry if I offended you. Ughhhhhhh.

They handed out "I'm not bitter" stickers in North Carolina, and held a conference call of Pennsylvania mayors to denounce the Illinois senator. In Indiana, Clinton did the work herself, telling plant workers in Indianapolis that Obama's comments were "elitist and out of touch."

jesus fucking christ

http://punditkitchen.com

What does it say that the Republican nominee and the Democratic rival are making identical attacks?

I think he should not have said that because doing those things have meaning in their own right, although he may have had experiences that seem to indicate they go together.

he's saying people are VOTING on these issues because their elected leaders aren't making progress on their promises

This is a good point, but it just makes me frustrated (oops) about the consumerism of politics.

Hillary is mean.

He should just give up the old game altogether.

Hillary is mean.

Mean, but not bitter.

hillarys campaign will be looked back on and mocked for years to come - mostly for losing a seemingly insurmountable lead - but also for shit like im not bitter stickers

"________'s campaign will be looked back on and mocked for years to come - mostly for losing a seemingly insurmountable lead"

Don't worry, history is running out of room.

He should come to the debate wearing one of those stickers.

^^^ This. Maybe he should come out wearing an "I'm So Bitter" sticker.

Hillary is mean.

lol

http://news.scotsman.com/latestnews/It39s-Obama-stupid-Carter-and.3976738.jp

I don't think it comes off as "elitist." I think that word should be banned at this point b/c its become meaningless.

not meaningless, just codespeak: it means "snooty," and I think that's how people take it. it means "somebody who's not like you and me." it is kind of like "hipster" in that it means "those people over there who we don't like."

btw am0n my whole household thanks you for massive roffles

So basically Obama hates white people and himself for being half-white.

So he wants to take his guilt-trip out on America by becoming president.

Can Hilllary's campaign actually afford to commission stickers when it hasn't paid for so many other things?

hows that rap career comin colin

the 'bitter' controversy is going to be minor. it was probably a bad choice of words...well the 'cling' bit was bad, but he was basically reiterating 'what's wrong with kansas' and a bunch of other recent books' claims, which are not untrue. that the clintons and mccain are now charging him with 'elitism' when he was raised by a single mother and went on to work in the poorest areas of chicago is absurd. last night i flipped by CNN and they were making it sound like this was fatal to his campaign; by this morning it's dropped off the cnn.com homepage. this is minor compared to the wright 'scandal'; clinton's best bet to to try to use this as a wedge to convince superdelgates to abandon him and i don't think it'll work.

i mean for god's sake, this is so much less of a 'gaffe' than mccain's 'alqueda training insurgents in iran' BS.

not meaningless, just codespeak: it means "snooty," and I think that's how people take it. it means "somebody who's not like you and me." it is kind of like "hipster" in that it means "those people over there who we don't like."

-- J0hn D., Sunday, 13 April 2008 02:54 (11 hours ago) Link

Right, but that twist in meaning is somewhat bizarre. Because the word doesn't actually mean "snooty," it means you subscribe to the idea that there exists an elite that's better than other people and should be given more deference/more power/better treatment, etc. Representative democracy has enormous potential for elitism built into it, and I'd say both Clinton and McCain are more elitist in their approaches than Obama.

they're trying to paint obama as John Kerry, I don't think it'll stick

not that I thought that was a fair attack on Kerry either, but you know

I am bitter, and I guess I'm probably elitist too. He dropped some very satisfying truth bombs that haven't been told since Edwards dropped out.

Consider the different outcomes of sticking Obama and Kerry on surf boards, apply to election chances.

this such a non-issue

akm otm - pundits need something to talk about, McCain and Hillary need attention, hey lets manufacture a controversy out of some inconsequential remarks

clinton: i will wrestle a bear

Nine years ago she was lobbying for gun control with Rendell. How long will pundits take to raise this issue?

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C04E7D9173FF93AA35756C0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1

Also saw three CNN heads not take the 'elitist' bait yesterday, citing eight McCain residences and $109 million Clintondollars.

http://images.huffingtonpost.com/gen/18372/thumbs/r-HILLARY-DRINKING-huge.jpg

lol @ DAD

im enjoying this bear wrestling whiskey swilling hillary incarnation - but three sips to finish a shot is just amateur - step it up tough guy

Pic or do I mean hic! one = clearly already trolleyed.

Clinton stood by the bar and took a shot of Crown Royal whiskey.

drinking Canadian whiskey in Indiana = coded NAFTA support message

For the household of J0hn D. and others: http://www.lolbama.com/

Hillary was just telling us who her favorite driver is

http://images.athlonsports.com/d/3992-1/McMurray_07.jpg

Right, but that twist in meaning is somewhat bizarre. Because the word doesn't actually mean "snooty," it means you subscribe to the idea that there exists an elite that's better than other people and should be given more deference/more power/better treatment, etc. Representative democracy has enormous potential for elitism built into it, and I'd say both Clinton and McCain are more elitist in their approaches than Obama.

Yeah absolutely agree! I know this is probably a huge sidetrack for everybody else so just disregard if boring/tl;dr but: I think for many people the word "elitist" means/signifies more "you think you are above me" than "you are actually socioeconomically from a different world than I." (Usage = meaning, right.) I think, too, that plenty of people hear how good Obama is at expressing complex ideas and are eager to put a name to how they don't like that quality in him - how his thoughts require thought in kind from the listener. Like, you know how on this thread people've said "Christ, it's refreshing for a candidate to talk to use like we're adults"? Not everybody thinks like that. Some people, when you talk to them as if they had brains they were capable of using, get real defensive: are you trying to show them how smart you are? Etc. I don't think this is a modern/recent development, I think it's an ages-old political reality: if you presume to demonstrate your intelligence, some people are going to feel talked-down to, even if they aren't in fact dumbasses - complicated weird social dynamic at work in that I think. But that's what Clinton & McCain hope to exploit here - to worm in through the back door of the "which one would you have a beer with?" question.

Which annoys the piss out of me, because I don't hate Clinton the way pretty much all my peers do, nor do I think she's showing her "true colors" in being so tenacious - I think she's lost the plot rather and is so pissed off at the party for not rallying behind her that she's determined to do some damage on her way out, which is total bullshit. Which really sucks for those of us who are so completely and totally desperate for a woman Presidential nominee that we'd even vote for an asshole like Hilary Clinton.

xpost thank you Suzy

What does it say that the Republican nominee and the Democratic rival are making identical attacks?

FWIW, it says they both think they can use the rhetoric of the attack to convince voters they do not like Obama, and by extension to convince suceptible voters that, as the deliverer of the attack, they are more in alignment with the voter's sympathies. The fact that they are of different parties does not affect the desire for increasing the number of votes detached from Obama, and this particular method for seeking them is not party-specific.

OTOH, you are using another rhetorical argument to deflect the effectiveness of the attack. This particular construct will only work for voters with a strong party identification, who believe that whatever a Republican does is, by definition, heinous, and any Democrat who resembles a Republican in any particular is, by definition, untrustworthy.

Hmmmm. I can get behind that!

ha

Are they identical? I thought Hillary was attacking the "bitter," and McCain the "cling."

You pretty much zeroed in on my point, but I was trying to suggest that while McCain has an obvious reason for making these attacks (GE votes), HRC's reasons are considerably murkier. She clearly has no shot at the nom nom nom, what reason would she have for deliberately pushing voters towards McCain?

I really don't understand it.

xpost

Such is the state of politics. We are treated like sharecroppers, with malice aforethought, and the hell of it is we justify the treatment by falling for it.

She clearly has no shot at the nom nom nom

She would disagree. After Super Tuesday knocked her back, she set her sights on playing the long game and squeaking it out with superdelegates. Mathematically and politically, she could make that strategy work.

As for why she thinks it is worth it? She believes the Repubs are in such bad odor with voters that whoever wins the Dem nomination will be in the White House for four years, starting next January. She's treating the nomination as the GE.

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/041308DailyUpdateGraph1_xz7yt6jk.gif

Beat to the whiskey wisecrack.

"She clearly has no shot at the nom nom nom"

She would disagree

a++ @ ignoring the lolbait

http://photos-a.ak.facebook.com/photos-ak-sf2p/v233/249/73/2908083/n2908083_31798112_2414.jpg

She's treating the nomination as the GE.

But what if she goes too far? The fears she's playing on could be our undoing, but I don't think she would admit it if it happened that way. If Obama were on the verge of greatness, he would never acknowledge the divisions, if not as a matter of conviction, then as a matter of strategy. (But maybe he's getting there.)

So basically Obama hates white people and himself for being half-white.

So he wants to take his guilt-trip out on America by becoming president.

I don't think it's that simple. It could go either way. I think he's conflicted, but that it could lead to greatness.

I think his vision of belonging might evolve.