Harry’s Place

He still not as rich as John Edwards or Hillary Clinton.

Obama is so poor he needed to do dodgy deals with Tony Rezko. At least McCain made his money the old fashioned way - he married it.

Sing along

I bet McCain knows what “arugula” is. Pathetic snob.

Gee - I’d love to be middle class in McCain-land!

So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Barack Obama explains the Little People to fascinated donors at a posh San Fransisco fundraiser

Obama’s main rivals have been Clinton in the primaries and now McCain in the general. How in the ever living hell has Obama gotten tagged as the elitist in these two equations? Politics today is completely inexplicable.

“How in the ever living hell has Obama gotten tagged as the elitist in these two equations?”

And has now been accused of “radiating elitism” by…. a Rockefeller. Do all these knee-jerk lliberals who we’re told run the American media just make big parping fart noises when McCain’s supporters come out with this shit? If not, they’re not doing their jobs properly.

John Kerry was the wealthiest candidate in U.S. history. But now wealth is bad?

Oceana has always been at war with Eastasia!!!

McCain spokeman Brian Rogers:

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people “cling” to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”</em?

John Kerry was the wealthiest candidate in U.S. history. But now wealth is bad?

Being wealthy in itself isn’t bad– although vast disparities of wealth and poverty are bad. What I’m knocking McCain for is being, um, out of touch with the non-wealthy– most of whom know how many houses they own.

Gene, I think you’re trying too hard. Can’t really see posts like this affecting anyone’s view of either McCain or Obama. `Oh, and did the Clintons know how many houses they owned? Or the Kennedys?

“because enough Americans would be unwilling to do it even for $50 an hour”

Not sure how to parse this.

The problem with Princess Obama is not that he is elitist, which I have no problem with (more people should be elitist, then perhaps the general level of education and skills here and in the USA wouldn’t be so abysmal) but that he is a liar with no discernible qualifications to be a senate committee chairman, never mind president. He hasn’t DONE anything (well, apart from shooting his mouth off with dumb platitudes and flip-flopping every 5 seconds).

Exactly, Judy. The soft left swooned over Clinton, never worrying about his wealth. Or that of dodgy members of our ‘Labour’ government.

“Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people “cling” to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who’s in touch with regular Americans?”

But according to McCain, someone who earned $4 million isn’t rich.

Anyway, a good ad from Obama.

Gene, I think you’re trying too hard. Can’t really see posts like this affecting anyone’s view of either McCain or Obama. `Oh, and did the Clintons know how many houses they owned? Or the Kennedys?

No idea. The point is that if the McCain people are going to dish it out about Obama being an “elitist,” they ought to be able to take it.

What a pointless post. But clearly Gene is getting rattled that Obama’s poll leads have evaporated over the summer, and he is looking an increasingly weak candidate.

Move on.

What has wealth to do with eliteism ?

Much of the “liberal elite” who look down their noses at the lifetsyle choices of your average Regular Joe are far from wealthy.

Obama’s poll leads have evaporated over the summer, and he is looking an increasingly weak candidate.

I said a few weeks ago at HP that McCain was giving off the distinct odor of Bob Dole. Lately I’ve been picking up a whiff of McGovern from Obama, and Lord knows, Dole would have smothered McGovern.

Maybe Democratic strategist Paul Begala was right when he said Obama would have a hard time appealing beyond “eggheads and African-Americans.”

A million dollars isn’t that much money anymore. We talk about billionaires these days.

McCain’s staff seem to think that the only people who are actively online and against him are “dungeons and dragons” fans, which may explain why he’s getting his campaign whooped all over the net. Typical of a 70 something year old I guess, but his campaign staff are obviously just as out of touch;

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/08/19/mccain-staffer-slams.html

http://www.johnmccain.com/McCainReport/Read.aspx?guid=181471d0-5456-4434-9f78-2f30ffc39459

CB, this snide remark about 70-year olds is just silly.

And I wonder whether Gene knows about the cost of living in America. The official exchange rate is as irrelevant here as when saying that the average person in India ‘earns 5 quid a month’.

Clearly either candidate could blow this election, but let’s wait for the debates shall we? McCain’s propensity for these confused “senior moments” (especially when discussing his specialist area of foreign policy - cf his recent “gaffe” about the draft) could be deadly at such a moment.

Otherwise, given the singular nature of both candidates it looks like it will be one of those election that defies general trends. Possibly a one-off like Kennedy vs Nixon, though I wouldn’t say either candidate is a Kennedy or a Nixon (you may decide whether this is a good or a bad thing depending on your own prejudices).

However, given that most pollsters - especially the more consistent ones - still have Obama ahead; that he’s got more money to spend on advertising, whereas McCain is going to be limited at the business end of things; and that the Republicans are not exactly loved in America and that McCain is not exactly loved by the GOP core vote all point to an Obama win.

Unless he does something really crazy like pick Hillary as his VP.

PS: My sneaky fiver’s on Mark Warner in the VP stakes, but betting on that’s a mug’s game.

Gene, I agree with an above comment. Discussing McCai/Obama has no bearing on the US election.

Obama is diving like a falling stone. He’s been sussed. He’s a liar, a flip-flopper, can’t do answers without a teleprompter, a ditherer who’s favourite word is ‘Ummm’.

My comments won’t change anything either. I hope to be in teh States to watch Obama’s collapse. That’s my sport.

McCain Senior moments compilation

http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2008/08/08/how-much-of-an-issue-is-mccains-eighth-decade/

I don’t think the age issue is going to resonate over here. McCain’s mom has been interviewed several times, and she’s sharp as a tack.

To be fair Obama knows about poverty, his own brother lives on a dollar a day and lives in a shack.

Although I would vote for Obama.

Obama is the sort of “elitist” who, no matter how short in actual stature he/she/they may be, still, nontheless, manage somehow to perform the actual physical, let alone figurative, act of looking down their noses at people a foot taller than themselves.

Who cares? This election will not be won on how many houses someone owns - at least, I hope it isn’t.

“I don’t think the age issue is going to resonate over here. McCain’s mom has been interviewed several times, and she’s sharp as a tack.”

Actually I think that it’ll rebound, and end up hurting Obama.

I suspect the same thing may be true of this kind of “eat the rich” stuff as well. It’s plain for all to see that McCain would be far more comfortable shooting shots in a bar with a bunch of Regular Joes than Obama.

“I know we’re spending — I added it up for the first time — we spend between the two kids, on extracurriculars outside the classroom, we’re spending about $10,000 a year on piano and dance and sports supplements and so on and so forth. And summer programs. That’s the other huge cost.”

Michelle Obama, in Muskingum County, Ohio (2004 median household income: $37,192.)

Well let’s face it, The United States does not select it’s presidential candidates from skid row.

And neither does the United Kingdom. Our Cabinet Ministers are sufficiently well connected, and sufficiently well remunerated to pay their own household bills.

So as I shall not be calling any Yank an elitist, so long as I am paying for the mortgages, council tax, and groceries, of the Commons and the Lords.

Mesquito: Where did you dig that one up? Are you jonesin’ for a Pulitzer? Boy, that’s a classic factoid of which I was totally unaware. And of course that figure doesn’t even include their children’s private school tuition. You’ll note also that “summer programs” is an additional cost over and above the $10,000 figure she uses. The academic/non-profit plantation is a rough life indeed.

Virgil xenophon:

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MmEyN2RkNzcwYzgyZDY2MDBiY2U5MjJlZGMwNDM2ODg=

McCain knew the $5m flippant throw away line would be misused, and sure enough, Gene steps up to the mark. You are going to have to work a lot harder than this to undo the damage that Saddleback has done to Obimbo.

Virgil and Dave: yes and yes, from what I know of ordinary joes in America.

So the answer is he agrees with the BNP on repatriation and immigration, bulldozing Mosques and the like, and issues such as restoring capital and corporal punishment, but is to their right on economic matters. Hope that helps.

Geodesic Lazy Thinking Liberal Malarkey, I disagree vehemently with the BNP on repatriation and immigration - frankly, Kelly Holmes has more ‘right’ to be here than Nick Griffin does (and is a hundred times the Briton that piece of shit is). I support the bulldozing of Churches and Synagogues as well as Mosques. Frankly, GD, I’d vote Lib fucking Dem before voting BNP, you ignorant muppet.

If you’re wondering where your comment went, it’s here Morgoth. :D

On that topic, Morgoth: I was libelled on that other thread by some pond life who claimed I support mass expulsion of Moslems, when I have never said anything of the sort. These are the amoeboids we are up against.

Never had you down as a conservative evangelical Alcuin

The point isn’t whether being “rich” is good or bad. It’s about hypocrisy, plain and simple. If mccain implied that making $3 million a YEAR doesn’t make you rich, then his charge of elitism against Obama is the height of hypocrisy.

All presidential candidates are rich, so that isn’t the issue.

For what it’s worth, the more i see obama the more i like him. other than the stupid remark, i kinda like mccain too, but would never vote for a conservative. not that it matters, i’m canadian. cheers

I think Kathleen Parker gets the Saddleback thing right:

http://townhall.com/columnists/KathleenParker/2008/08/20/purpose-driven_politics

At the risk of heresy, let it be said that setting up the two presidential candidates for religious interrogation by an evangelical minister — no matter how beloved — is supremely wrong.

It is also un-American.

Is the American electorate now better prepared to cast votes knowing that Obama believes that “Jesus Christ died for my sins and I am redeemed through him,” or that McCain feels that he is “saved and forgiven”?

I can just imagine the hate mail Kathleen Parker is getting over this article! :D

“It’s about hypocrisy, plain and simple. If mccain implied that making $3 million a YEAR doesn’t make you rich, then his charge of elitism against Obama is the height of hypocrisy.”

Since when is wealth the same thing as elitism. I know my share of millionaires, and they are for the most part good ‘ol boys who got lucky and/or busted their asses for their money. I also know my share of $80,000-per-year snobs. Tenured, most of them.

I also know my share of $80,000-per-year snobs. Tenured, most of them.

Oh dang! That’s gonna leave a mark.

“more people should be elitist, then perhaps the general level of education and skills here and in the USA wouldn’t be so abysmal”

It’s interesting how N.O. is by far the stupidest person on here, and also the most intellectually arrogant…….

“On that topic, Morgoth…..These are the amoeboids we are up against.”

“Exactly, Judy”

…..and the worst suck-up too.

Tagnuzlx: Your screen name is disturbingly familiar. Were you once a character in a science fiction novel?

re: Since when is wealth the same thing as elitism. I know my share of millionaires, and they are for the most part good ‘ol boys who got lucky and/or busted their asses for their money. I also know my share of $80,000-per-year snobs. Tenured, most of them.

Elites don’t have to be rich, but i would say that anybody making $5 million a year, good ol’ boy or not, qualifies as an elite.

vildechaye: I was talking about elitism. You are talking about elites.

Gene’s post is so Legacy Media.

McCain may be out of touch with issues like how many houses his wife owns and other aspects of material wealth. Whether you like him or not, McCain cannot be bought.

The same cannot be said of the Obama. Just look at the facts surrounding the purchase of his Chicago residence.

Since when is wealth the same thing as elitism. I know my share of millionaires, and they are for the most part good ‘ol boys who got lucky and/or busted their asses for their money.

I don’t doubt that some millionaires are good ol’ boys (real or pretend), but the question is how much they understand and empathize with what non-millionaires (especially extremely non-millionaires) are going through. (Hint: Johnson did, Bush doesn’t.) Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt fit everyone’s current definition of “elitist,” but they made more of a positive difference in the lives of ordinary people than such alleged “regular guys” as Reagan or Bush Jr.

Of course the Republicans in recent decades have done an excellent job at shifting a lot of public anger from the rich and the corporations, and economic unfairness in general, to the “cultural elite,” for which I congratulate them.

McCain is not only confused as to how many houses he owns, he is also Confused on Foreign Affairs! For example, The Below link exposes and reveals John McCain’s really bad lack of knowledge regarding foreign affairs — supposedly his strong point!

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-john-mccain-and-his-secretive-plot-to-kill-the-un-903998.html

It is unfoturnate that we have to get the truth from other countries rather than our Republican-owned main stream media — which is a derelict of duty to the American public. They failed us after 911 and they are still failing us now. Thank God we have the Internet and Blogs wherein we can find the truth.

McCain may be out of touch with issues like how many houses his wife owns and other aspects of material wealth. Whether you like him or not, McCain cannot be bought.

Too fucking easy.

Gene, all of the good ol’ millionaires started poor, so they know damn well what it’s like. (I’m sure there are plenty who go a head start, but we don’t run in the same circles.) Also, most of the ones I know don’t “live rich.” They’re just rednecks on a grander scale, which means they occasionally hunt in Alaska rather than Frio County.

George Bush, for all his pedigree, will leave the Presidency with a net worth of about $5 million. You wanna bet he exercises his ex-Presidency with a little more finacial humility than Bill Clinton?

And if your party thinks that the hoi polloi can not be trusted with (to list a few) a) where to send their kids to school, and b) keeping the tires inflated, and c) deciding, through their legislatures, when life begins and how it should end for men who rape small children, and d) trans-fat, then your Party will more and more be seen as a vehicle for a self-appointed elite of lawyers/bureaucrats/busybodies.

This negative campaigning is a bit alien to us brits - on the face of it this seems like a pretty insubstantial talkingpoint (or a michael moore sneeringpoint) tbh rather than a solid reason for voting one way rather than another.

From Emmanuel’s link:

Senators John Glenn and John McCain were cleared of having acted improperly

Next.

American politics seems to exist in its own distinct bubble. The “elitism” tag that Republicans use against their opponents is just so utterly bizarre, it should be completely off the scale; I guess it’s part of the cultural wedge politics that has been successful for them in the past.

It is true that there are some filthy rich Democrats (both Gates and Buffett lean Democratic), but there are also filthy rich Republicans; both parties represent elites.

However, in this somewhat phoney battle between Obama and McCain, the notion that McCain has credibility calling others “elitist” should have the entire nation guffawing.

McCain comes from an elite military family, and went to a private prep school before pursuing a military career. He left his wife to marry Cindy Hensley, and extremely wealthy beer heiress. When he left his first wife he gave her two houses, and now can’t count the number he owns.

Give me a break!

As regards Keating Five, he was rebuked for exercising poor judgment and paid back the contributions. That suggests that something untoward was going on, even if he didn’t officially break any rules.

McCain said:

“The appearance of it was wrong. It’s a wrong appearance when a group of senators appear in a meeting with a group of regulators, because it conveys the impression of undue and improper influence. And it was the wrong thing to do.”

Make of that what you will!

Make of that what you will!

Youthful indiscretions? :D

I bet McCain is such an elitist he doesn’t know that any automobile built in the last 15-20 years has electronic ignition and can’t, therefor, be “tuned up.”

Lighten up. The fact is, we Americans have to choose one of them, so my take is that the sense of the candidate is better learned from a forum like Saddleback . Having these gotcha contests and villification by association says more about us than the candidates.

Bet you could catch either one of them out asking what a loaf of bread costs now and cost a year ago.

my take is that the sense of the candidate is better learned from a forum like Saddleback.

Because they were put on the spot about moral issues and had to respond quickly and from the heart?

Or not, as the case may be:

“So it turns out that Pastor Rick Warren, in an effort to increase the candidates’ comfort level with his pioneering format, gave each of them a heads-up on several of the hardest questions he asked Saturday night…” A source close to Warren tells Mike Allen that Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama “knew in advance they would be asked their own greatest moral failure, America’s greatest moral failure, and the three wisest people in their lives.” Politico.

“Tagnuzlx: Your screen name is disturbingly familiar. Were you once a character in a science fiction novel?”

What science fiction novel is it. It’s just a name I made up off the top of my head. Maybe I was subconsciously influenced though.

I saw that. But if you watch the interviews, it should be obvious to you that the questions were fundamental. If either candidate had not already considered these questions in their careers (they have been casting votes on abortion, war, taxation, etc.) then they would deserve to look flummoxed. As you pointed out, Rick Warren even tipped them on ones he felt they should ponder the day before.

Run down the list . The brilliance wasn’t as much in the questions as in the open handed way they were asked and in the time given each man to expound. I felt I came away knowing each better than all the speaches and ads I had seen previously.

Yep, having looked more closely at the list of questions you post there jdwill, they are certainly better than the ABC Democratic debate that was a total disgrace. I guess some of them are a bit much for me - marriage, abortion, stem cell research - but some of the other ones are more interesting.

I bet McCain is such an elitist he doesn’t know that any automobile built in the last 15-20 years has electronic ignition and can’t, therefor, be “tuned up.”

Not so (OK, it’s OT…). You just do the tuning differently - by buying a new chip for the EM system. Try googling . I doubt it gives the same sense of satisfaction as successfully balancing twin SUs though…

I bet McCain is such an elitist he doesn’t know that any automobile built in the last 15-20 years has electronic ignition and can’t, therefor, be “tuned up.”
wrong!

Tag, by far the dumbest, screeches:

“It’s interesting how N.O. is by far the stupidest person on here”

You couldn’t make it up.

Tag: I have no idea. Maybe something by Larry Niven or Orson Scott Card.

“It’s plain for all to see that McCain would be far more comfortable shooting shots in a bar with a bunch of Regular Joes than Obama.”

Let me agree with Benji (eek) and muse as to why preoccupations with elitism, patriotism, and the ability to be a “regular joe” are core to American elections, and not mundane stuff such as, oh, policies?

I mean, I can’t recall the last time patriotism was even mentioned in an Irish election, and its not as if we’re not a nationalistic country. Why is it always an issue in the US?

P.

Let me agree with Benji (eek) and muse as to why preoccupations with elitism, patriotism, and the ability to be a “regular joe” are core to American elections, and not mundane stuff such as, oh, policies?

Well, this week we’ve been discussing Obama’s ghoulish abortion votes in the Illinois senate. Does that count?

Why is it ghoulish mesquito?

Three times voted against an act requiring medical care for infants born alive during botched late-term abortions. His explanations have been all over the place.

Oh right, well, thank goodness that abortion has come up as a prime issue in the election, giving the believers on both sides yet more opportunity to unproductively shout at each other. I mean, god knows that with a record $10 trillion deficit and entire swathes of burnt-out houses abandoned due to the mortgage crisis, there’s no real need for US voters to worry their little heads about which party is best to get them out of this mess.

(Maybe the party who left them with a record surplus? Just a guess.)

P.

John McCain is unsure how many homes he and his wife own.

Because his wife officially owns most (if not all the homes) hence it is a kinda trick question. If he says none then they accuse him of lying because its obvious he lives in homes and they might be classed as joint ownership. On the other hand he has to think to himself “Am i listed as an owner on the deeds” - hence its obvious why he would need to phone a friend to clarify the situation.

Obama bought a house at $300,000 less than the market and asking price. At the same time Rezko’s wife bought an adjacent property at full price. Rezko was given grants by Obama’s state to develop his slum homes.

Its almost obvious what happened. Rezko did a deal on both properties so he could subsidise Obama’s at a discount for which Obama paid in favours. Rezko is facing 200 years in jail.

The MSM refuses to tackle Obama over this.

Of course, the comments a big own-goal given the number of houses owned by people like Kennedy and Kerry. And then there is Al Gore’s huge new 10,000 sq ft property.

If the MSM actually told the public the truth about Obama he’d be ten points behind.

I mean, god knows that with a record $10 trillion deficit and entire swathes of burnt-out houses abandoned due to the mortgage crisis, there’s no real need for US voters to worry their little heads about which party is best to get them out of this mess.

Not to worry! The Council Of Nine Lawyers in 1973 told us not to “worry our pretty heads” about this difficult, emotional dilemma! And we haven’t!

BTW, the Council’s members are appointed by the President.

I bet McCain is such an elitist he doesn’t know that any automobile built in the last 15-20 years has electronic ignition and can’t, therefor, be “tuned up.”

FACT INVERSION!!!

It was OBAMA who told Americans to inflate their tires (USA spelling!) and get a tune-up!

Yes, the MainStream Media(tm)(r) are covering up the whole Obama/Rezko scandal. Which is why on Google News, there currently are only

1,465

references to “Rezko obama”! Someone alert Alex Jones.

The same way that they covered up the whole Obama/Wright thing. With only 3,000 references to that. As opposed to the hammering that McCain got over Hagee (oh, 100 mentions).

P.

“FACT INVERSION!!!”

Sarcasm actually.

..and honestly, I’m still curious about the “patriotism” obsession. Arguing over which of 2 people loves their country the most is a bit like arguing which guy loves his wife the most; it’s just embarrassing. Love isn’t a quantity that can be measured. “Guy 2 keeps a photo of his wife on his desk in work, while Guy 1 only keeps one in his wallet. Therefore I pronounce that Guy 1 HATES his wife.”

P.

A guy attends a radically anti-American chuch for twenty-three years like his country a teensy bit less than a guy who doesn’t.

If the MSM actually told the public the truth about Obama he’d be ten points behind.

And if the MSM reported McCain’s true feelings on abortion, it’d be all square again

Please explain how Trinity United Church of Christ is “anti-American”.

P.

Pastor (September 16, 2001): “God bless America??!! No no no no no!! God DAMN America!!!”

Flock: Raucus approval, wild applause, lots of jumping about.

(Or, you can read twenty years of material. You can’t ask the Good Reverend, though. He’s conveniently ministering to rural Ghana for the time being.)

Yes, just a tad, mesquito.
And nobody has ever loved Jews as much as he has done for decades. Or at least, until his head swelled up even more and he decided he is ‘president material’.

“Let me agree with Benji (eek) and muse as to why preoccupations with elitism, patriotism, and the ability to be a “regular joe” are core to American elections, and not mundane stuff such as, oh, policies?”

The executive in the US is is much weaker than in most EU countries - the president’s power, such as it, over domestic policy is principally the “bully pulpit”. The real, lasting influence of the Presidency is in matters like foreign affairs and in Supreme Court nominations.

This is, combined with the vastness and diversity of the USA, are part of what makes the personality and values of candidates so much more important than in Euopean parliamentary elections. In normal times, Americans are not electing somebody to implement a political program as such, but rather a “leader” - and so it is natural that leaders values and “the kind of guy they are” are legitimately at the center of the election. Most Americans will vote for the candidate that they most trust (or maybe least distrust) to react in they way that they would like to events in future unknown circumstances.

That is why McCain’s wealth (which has nothing to do with eliteism in any case) is much less of an issue than Obama’s patrician condescention. That is why Regular Joes care about which candidate would feel more comfortable shooting shots with them in a bar. That is why it matters that Obama was an active member of a church for 20+ years which embodied and promoted a persepective on the world that is very far outside of the American mainstream. In short, this is why American presidential elections are at least as much about the person as about the policies.

Just a point of logic to begin with: Evidence that one candidate is an elitist does not show that his opponent is not an elitist.

Gene tells us that Democratic presidents have done more for ordinary people than Republican presidents. (He might consider Lincoln an exception.) But, even conceding his point (which I don’t), it doesn’t affect the choices this year. FDR and LBJ are not running this year; BO is.

So why doesn’t Gene tell us what Obama has done for ordinary people? For instance, Obama ran (with the help of his unrepentant terrorist friend/associate/guy in his neighborhood Bill Ayers) a program to reform Chicago public schools. Did it succeed? If Obama did something that helped poor kids in Chicago, then tell us what he did.

(By way of comparison, George W. Bush pushed hard to improve education in Texas, when he was governor there, and in the United States as a whole. The New York Times thought that he had made an impact in Texas (and, not so incidentally, reduced performance gaps between whites and minorities). Most experts seem to think that the No Child Left Behind Act has had, on balance, good effects.)

Given how thin Obama’s resume is (and how much of his past is being hidden from us), we have to judge him partly on his personal record, and he doesn’t come off well there. According to the records that Obama has released, he and Michelle were not, until the last year or two, big contributors to any charities. (And then they gave a big gift to Trinity United, a church many consider racist.) In contrast, the McCains have been quite generous with their time and money over the years. Most impressive, of course, is the story of how Cindy and John adopted a handicapped Bangladeshi girl.

In contrast, I have seen no evidence that Obama has done anything for his impoverished Kenyan relatives, much less any strangers. And he seems to have trouble behaving decently toward his Hawaiian grandmother, the woman who, more than anyone else, raised him. (When he visited her briefly in Hawaii, he brought along TV cameras, but not Michelle or the great grandchildren.)

At some point, Gene really needs to show his cards, to tell us, not what other Democrats are done, or what Obama is promising when he reads those speeches from the teleprompter, but what — if anything — Obama has actually accomplished.

(Oh, and the house question? What it shows is that John McCain doesn’t pay much attention to his wife’s business dealings, which is fine with me.

It’s about as important as Obama’s 57 state slip, which just showed that Obama was tired.)

Jim: maybe there ARE 57 states, how can you prove there aren’t? ;-))

Is it true that a few weeks ago, Obama planned to visit a military hospital in Germany and talk to wounded GIs there? The story goes that when he was told he wouldn’t be allowed to bring cameras or reporters, he cancelled the visit.

Any idea whether this is an urban legend?

I think when people accuse Obama of being an elitist, what they mean is that he’s an intellectual. It distresses me that being an intellectual is seen as a bad thing, but hey, I’m used to it.

On the other hand, I can’t help but think it’s a good thing to see a black man being accused of elitism. Surely it’s a sign of progress.

re: vildechaye: I was talking about elitism. You are talking about elites.

Ahhh, that clears it up. You should have been a talmudic scholar. The distinction is lost on me.

“I think when people accuse Obama of being an elitist, what they mean is that he’s an intellectual. It distresses me that being an intellectual is seen as a bad thing, but hey, I’m used to it.”

I’m not sure that people necessarily think that intellectulism is a bad thing (except to the extent that it is often asscoiated with condescention); the issue is whether or not ordinary folk are going to relate well to someone they percieve to be so much of an intellectual that they can’t trust such a person to have a good feel for what matters to them.

Americans, to a substantial extent, want leaders that they can feel are sufficiently like them as to understand what matters to them in a non-theoretical way. That’s why the drinking in the bar thing is significant - is there even a comman language ? To relate this in UK terms, this isn’t all that different to the way that many Scots do not relate well to English leaders, and southern English voters could feel comfortable with Blair - even though they may have disagreed with him.

“Ahhh, that clears it up. You should have been a talmudic scholar. The distinction is lost on me.”

Elitism is a state of mind. Acquired wealth is a material state that may have a greater or less impact on one’s state of mind.

Equating the 2 seems to be a desparate ploy by practitioners of the politics of envy and resentment to neutralize what they fear may be a fatal weakness in their favored candidiate.

Here you go, mesquito: all your Obama-bashing needs met in one minute (except for Bill Ayers).

In the USA, “elitism” is not being richer or better than others, it is believing you are better than others and, more significantly, believing as a consequence that you know better than others what is good for that other. It is that busy-body nannyism that is the essence of what Americans mean by “elitist”. It is the air of someone who thinks he is a master and the rest of us peasants. Here is Rick Perlstein demonstrating that attitude in discussing Senator Obama

[I]f Barack Obama is elected president with a significant popular mandate, a number of Democrats riding his coattails to the House, and enough senators to scuttle the filibuster of his legislative agenda — all of which seem entirely possible — he will inherit a historical opportunity to civilize the United States in ways not seen in a generation.

Perlstein goes on to recommend that, basically, Obama lie about his actual policies by governing like an Old Labor leader despite his campaign rhetoric. Why should he do that? Because it’s for our own good as Americans and we’re too stupid to figure it out so our “betters” need to lie to us to get it done.

One may argue about the acuracy, morality, and efficacy of such a policy, but arguing it’s an attitude that is popular in the USA is ludicrous. And that’s what Senator McCain’s charge of “elitist” means, and why it’s an effective charge that doesn’t work against McCain. It’s re-enforced by the McCain “Straight Talk Express” vs. the Obama’s campaign’s excessive document security, exemplified by the whole birth certificate imbroglio, which gives credence to the “Obama knows best what you little people need to know about him”. Anyone who projects an attitude that is compatible with uttering “little people” is going to find winning elections a hard uphill struggle.

Annoying Old Guy: ‘In the USA, “elitism” is not being richer or better than others, it is believing you are better than others and, more significantly, believing as a consequence that you know better than others what is good for that other.’

Err … isn’t that the point of being president ergo McCain is an elitist. I mean, the nature of his military and political achievements have long since removed him from the realm or ordinary guyness - as I believe Benji pointed out above.

The fundamental nature of Western democracies is that through the democratic process we basically put our future safety and wealth in the hands of an elite whom we like to believe are competent to manage them. In other words, we abrogate the right to run large parts of our life in a manner of our choosing.

I suppose what i’m trying to say is that you’d have to be a fool to believe McCain’s “aww, shucks, I just speak it like I see it” schtick as though he were some schmo down the local boozer you’d be happy to hand control of the nation’s finances and military to.

isn’t that the point of being president [...]?

No. Americans can’t stand Presidents who think that way. Read up on Adlai Stevenson for the archetype of that.

the nature of his military and political achievements have long since removed him from the realm or ordinary guyness

You misunderstand my point. Others can believe that about McCain. He is not allowed to believe it about himself. He is very specifically not allowed to think it makes him deserving of being President. To think that is to take the decision away from the citizenry, who alone decide who is deserving of holding that office. McCain can go on about how he is qualified, but to me that’s a very distinct thing.

The fundamental nature of Western democracies is that through the democratic process we basically put our future safety and wealth in the hands of an elite

Not in America. We put our future safety and wealth in our own hands. The government is a tool we use to help us with that, and the people who serve us in government better do a good job or they’re fired. You may think of elected officials as rulers, Americans think of them as the equivalent of contractors hired to take care of things we’d rather not do ourselves. For that same reason, we like to hire people we can think of having a personal relationship with, not someone who thinks we’re idiots who need their expertise. And that goes right back to the previous point, which is people don’t mind contractors who are up front about their qualifications for the job, but can’t stand ones who presume they’re entitled to it.

I suppose what i’m trying to say is that you’d have to be a fool to believe McCain’s [...] schtick

Quite possibly. But the subject wasn’t whether McCain’s technique would work, or work on non-fools, but (1) why it would be effective if it did work and (2) why it has very little to do with how much money or how many homes McCain has. Beyond that, even a cynical recognizes hypocrisy as the tribute vice pays to virtue. McCain at least cares enough to fake it. If a candidate isn’t even willing to do that or is so out of touch that he isn’t even capable of faking it, that’s a very bad sign.

Good analysis from AOG

Yes, seconded, excellent analysis.
That is one of the many reasons why I admire Americans and their attitude to politicians, and despise our own political class and even more so the voters who allow them to get away with ruling rather than serving. In Britain, the term ‘public servant’ is hypocritical, because politicians regard themselves as rulers instead of the hired employees they are.
And also, of course, why I despise Obama, whose entire demeanour shrieks ‘I am entitled to be president, you little people, and my complete lack of qualifications is irrelevant and in any case it’s none of your business’.

“We put our future safety and wealth in our own hands. The government is a tool we use to help us with that, and the people who serve us in government better do a good job or they’re fired. ”

Great comment(s) Old Fart, but I think you should append to the statement above that this singular characteristic has been waning for some decades.

I’ve decided that one of the main reasons Europe is baffled (horrified?) by America is that we really DO think the government belongs to us, rather than vice-versa. Never had a King (the only guy offered the job turned it down), and are proud of being citizens as opposed to subjects. I can’t speak for others, but I would aspire to be a guy who forgets how many houses he owns. And married to a rich, big-breasted blonde.

But all that has little to do with leadership ability, nor governing philosophy. Obama is a full-on nanny-stater, McCain only slightly less so. We (I think I can speak for most) are mainly pissed off that these are our only available choices of job applicants right now.