avak wrote: Birile wrote:
Corth wrote:Despite Birile's contention that Hillary represents the working class, her true support has always come from the elite.
You mean the "elite" people in households making less than $50,000 a year? The "elite" Medicare crowd? The "elite" women? Or did you mean the "elite" Hispanics?
I feel bad for the downtrodden Obama supporters making over $200K a year with their MBAs with the last name Kennedy. They're always getting sh*t on. :(
Are you guys seriously berating democrats for appealing to the so-called elite?
You sound like the retarded republicans arguing over who is more conservative. And I know you guys aren't retarded, so wtf?
My post was a direct response to Corth's notion that Clinton has always claimed her support from the elite. I do, however, see your concern with the words I chose.
I happen to think Obama has a lot of good intentions and when he's got a script in front of him, boy he sounds inspiring! Those are great qualities. To paraphrase one of his favorite lines that makes my skin crawl (just a personal opinion): I wasn't impressed when I "lifted the hood and kicked the tires." I didn't find a lot of evidence showing he's capable of bringing his ideas to fruition. And when he's without a script, or thrown off guard, he doesn't have the same verbiose manner that he has when he's reading from a script, and--worse--he winds up with a foot or two in his mouth. I really have a hard time trusting him with international relations with that sort of track record.
Personally, I'm not berating Obama for appealing to the elite. Or to the rich (I'm sorry, the "well to do"). Or to the young. Or to the highly educated, for that matter (I myself fall into some of these categories). My problem is that he's not spending enough time trying to understand the plight of the average American living day to day in this country. Not one of his ideas can be implemented immediately or in one simple step. They all need time to develop, and involve longterm vision. I'm all for longterm vision, don't get me wrong. But while President Obama would be working on these longterm goals, there are millions of Americans who are trying to survive one day after another, desperately wondering why their president has his head in the clouds and not on the ground taking care of them. This is what people don't seem to understand. Obama appeals to the better-off because they can afford
to think well into the future. He appeals to the young because he gives good speeches, is charismatic, and also because, in general, young adults in college aren't concerned with the everyday plight. They're young, they shouldn't be expected to be concerned about such things, and that's just fine. I very much appreciate what Obama is all about. I think he has a genuine concern for the American people. I just think he needs to spend a lot more time worrying about the "smaller" things in life.
Clinton, on the other hand, actually listens to people and their concerns. To me, she seems to understand that our daily lives matter. She knows she can't just think in the long term OR the short term. She speaks to the concerns of the everyday person. Let me emphasize that. She speaks to
people, not about
them or over
them. I honestly have never heard someone say that after they met Clinton they felt as though they couldn't connect with her. I've heard quite the opposite. A lot. That's not something of small import. Add to all of this the fact that, thus far in her career, she has addressed problems head on and worked for solutions that benefit here and now as well as in the future.
In short, I think of Obama as the thinker and Clinton as the doer. Being who I am, I would much prefer a doer as President. Call me pragmatic. :)