XX Factor

Excellent post, Munich ...

SpeakerNancy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:27:49 GMT

Except that a lot of turned-off Hillary voters are just sick & tired of being insulted by these Professional Intellectuals like O'Rourke & 95% of the Slate writers & 115% of the Fray pro-Obama posters. I don't see a lot of them showing up for "team tryouts" or turning back "home" to the Dems in Nov. myself -- at least not at the top of the ticket. Obama blew it badly -- letting his native elitism show. And imho, the wife is worse, far FAR worse. O'Rourke is a snob, of the worst kind -- a New Yorker AND a professional poet to boot! What more proof do we need? :-)

Meghan O'R is a Professional Intellectual ...

SpeakerNancy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 22:06:13 GMT

and as such, obnoxiously elitist and above it all. Just TRY reading some of her poetry, some time, or her crits of poetry by others. And good luck to you! You are quite right that reading some of BObama's "supporters" on Slate is enough to turn any good, loyal DEM. into an abstainer, a one-time McCain voter or in my case, someone who is going to write in Hillary's name on the top line in November. What is even more annoying than O'Rourke's petty intellectual snobbery is the infuriating FACT of the anti-woman / female position that she & several of the XX-Factor "feminists" have taken. Picking a guy who is in so many ways behind the colorS of his skin, actually not much more than just another guy OVER the first female candidate who had a real chance at being elected POTUS ... tells me all I need to know about these spoiled brat, Gen X "women" writers.

Meghan O'Rourke has never had what most people would consider a "real" job (Look her up on GOOGLE, for the specifics) and it very clearly shows in her writing. So does her age. (Mid to late 20s, my guess)

"Cultish, irrational mob?" Why, she's

SpeakerNancy — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 21:49:30 GMT

describing Obama's supporters, to a T !! I have to laugh, watching them portray themselves as SO intellectual, SO enlightened & above it all, when what they really are, are the most irrational, scarily dedicated (read "cultish") FOLLOWERS & Kool-Aid drinkers, now on the planet, outside of North Korea.

Loved your post, loved your tone, loved your analysis but best of all, I loved this: "As one of the few Clinton supporters who can actually read."

FABulous, and thanks. A little wit goes a long way. And yes, we are just THAT stupid, aren't we? Those of us who will still refuse to vote for His Hopeness and will, instead, write in Senator Clinton's name.

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

blueshift — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 19:55:14 GMT

Actually what he said was that a lot of working class people have been repeatedly lied to by politicians of both parties and not seen any improvement in their lives in decades. Therefore, they are not particularly open to a message of hope and change and tend to cling to things such as guns, religion etc. If you look at what he said its pretty clear that the things people cling to may be good or bad.

Also, if you want the government out of your face, then i assume you want a dem in the white house, because its the reps that have been violating your privacy and pushing their own morality into your private life.

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

smpcompdude — Fri, 27 Jun 2008 18:39:43 GMT

See I'm one of those rural Americans and Obama frankly scares the shit out of me. I not asking to be included and worried about being left out. I want the government out of my face and letting me take care of my own problems. I certainly don't need you or anyone else telling me how to live my life.

As for Obama not saying these things, well you better do your research. The most pointed statement from his mouth was and this is not exact but you can google this and figure it for yourself was something to the effect of "the bitter white man clinging to his guns and religion".

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

blueskies — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 21:06:46 GMT

"eric2500be"

"Meghan O'Rourke is clearly channeling the supporters of Adlai Stevenson when she writes:

"She animated the cultish, irrational mob impulse in her supporters."

If you want to understand why a sizeable number of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, all you have to do is read this obnoxious screed. Characterizing the other candidate's supporters as "cultish" and subject to an "irrational mob impulse" is not my idea of the best way to actually win over votes you desperately need if you're to have any hope of winning the general election."

So what is new?

"prescient article on George Orwell and why British Socialism never took off with working men and women in Britain. As one of the few Clinton supporters who can actually read, I'll precis it for you: the British working class did not reject socialism because they had a problem with the tenets of socialism, but rather, they rejected socialism because they could not stand British socialists themselves."

Thats like the USA. We did not reject socialism and progressive liberalism when they turned to Reagan and the Republicans. They were trying to reject Feminism & its homosexual allies, which had turned on and begun to prey on the rest of the democratic party, the working class and the progressive white male heterosexuals, dividing the party.

http://www.classmatters.org/2004_07/forgotten_majority.php

They found the average British socialist to be an officious, arrogant snob who looked down on them.

Very Much like the Yuppies once they were past draft age!

"As Obama supporters are "the best and the brightest" surely you must be able to see that. I believe Shaw made the same point in a different context in the preface to "Saint Joan." Typically, people don't like to hear themselves mocked as racists, dummies, or both."

This has become SOP, for all opponents. In fact the media is full of constant overt/covert misandry & misogny, insults to someone, in shows, commercials, in special station messages, most often demeaning heterosexual working class white guys, I suppose because they are a powerless minority.

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

Thevail — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 06:32:20 GMT

I do think this is an informative thread. So thank you all for your honesty.

I blog a lot, and often, and all over the place.

But I keep seeing this funky argument all over.

Obama supporter: "The SKY is blue!"

Clinton supporter:"The WATER is green!"

Obama supporter:" Ok, you're not getting it. I said, the SKY is BLUE."

Clinton supporter:"And I said the WATER is GREEN, you jerk!"

Obama supporter:"What in the Hell is WRONG with you people that you cannot seem to grasp the SIMPLE fact that the SKY IS BLUE."

Clinton supporter:" No one in their right mind CARES if the Stupid SKY is blue..as if you could tell anyway..EVERY NORMAL, HARDWORKING, REAL AMERICAN knows that the fact that WATER IS GREEN IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT you f-ing elitist."

ETC. Ad Nauseum (which means until we're all flippin sick of hearing it.)

I assume that people on both sides can see the futility of all of this.

The problem is that NO ONE on either side is bothering to explain why they care more about the water color than the sky color, or vice versa.

We all seem to be too busy defending our beliefs to bother explaining to someone else why we hold those beliefs or why they are important to us.

But the only way for me to understand and care about your issues, or for you to understand and care about mine, is for us to understand them together.

And any attempt to explain, BY EITHER SIDE, is greeted as condescending.And any questioning from the other side is greeted as confrontational. And all responses then end up defensive.

We really do all have to calm down (and I can see that that's happening on this thread ) take a breath, and maybe accept that this won't be the easiest conversation, but that it IS necessary.

And welcome Clinton supporters, this is one Obama supporter that's DAMN glad to see ya.

And if you'd like a bit of specific clarification of what Senator Obama meant by "CHANGE Washington", and a great reason to share in the HOPE we Obama supporters have...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24989468/

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

bugger — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 16:01:13 GMT

Good post, eric. I hope you have time to submit a question to the XX bloggers today via the WP:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/06/04/DI2008060402610.html

I'd like to see them answer your criticism.

I've been a Hillary supporter from the start, but have always said I like and respect Obama and would be proud to vote for him if he won the nomination. That said, blogs like XX and many of the dedicated Obama fraysters aren't making it easy. Even in victory, the attacks on Clinton and her supporters continue.

"Party reconciliation" doesn't mean "sit down and be quiet now, Hillary - say some nice things about Barack and limp back to New York". This isn't the one-way street Obama supporters believe it to be. She won half the vote. She gets to say whatever she wants to say. If Barack is smart, he'll listen.

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

Gilbyboy — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 15:32:48 GMT

Black (and other minority) people have been voting for people who don't look or sound like them for decades - but Clinton's "hardworking white people" have to have someone with whom they personally identify? If that's true, that's very sad.

Obama can't win for losing with some folk: if he were too plain-spoken, some would doubt his intelligence - but as he's too well-spoken, he must be elitist. It speaks volumes to his character that he has refrained from harping on the fact that he was raised by a single mother to shoot down the elitist charge.

Don't people want a president who is smarter than they are? I mean, W has shown us that someone being able to mimic "hardworking white people" isn't the strongest criterion when it comes to being Commander-in-Chief.

Get a grip: we're looking for a president, not a neighbor...

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

Advn2rgirl — Thu, 05 Jun 2008 00:36:55 GMT

Gee, Eric, maybe you ought not tar all Obama supporters with Meghan's brush? Because one of the things that I've found most fun about this campaign is the mix of people involved. Sure, there are your Volvo-driving, latte-drinkin', pampered intellectuals with three degrees (not that there's anything wrong with that), but I've also gotten to meet high school kids who were the only person in their family who thought this guy had a chance and had to get their mom to bring them to the headquarters so they could help phonebank. I've met old sorority sisters in their 70s who tell stories about working for Bobby and Jack back when they lived in Boston and were young and fly, meeting "beaux" on the campaign. One guy I know is a farmer, another's a teacher, another is a waiter. I've met artists and kids and women who were stay-at-home moms but who want to be able to send their kids to school. The lady who made me cry was in her upper 80s and her husband was in his early 90s and still working! She had a son in his early 40s, beginning a career as an academic, and she said that she supported Obama because she "knew his mother had educated him" and she "sort of felt that, if he could be successful, then [her] boy could be successful, too." She said to let the Senator know that her family was praying for his success and they would be at the polls for the Virginia primary. Barack Obama can inspire elderly white people in conservative Virginia. He can energize young people and new voters and people who haven't voted in years. I really think there's more going on than elitism and mockery.

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

TJA — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 23:13:39 GMT

Eric, I'm sorry if you feel I'm attacking you but I really only want to question your argument. You make a whole series of statements that are totally unsupported. I would like you to defend those points.

"How are working class voters, rural voters, union voters, and voters who only have a high school diploma supposed to react when all the noise out of the Obama camp is that they're so stupid and easily manipulated that they have unwittingly fallen prey to Clinton's devious racist message. "

What "noise" are you referring to? I chanllenge you to point to any comment by the Obama campaign that working class people are stupid.

"Calling the blue-collar voters yokels, idiots, every insulting name you could think of. But whatever words they use, the message is the same: "the common citizen doesn't understand things like I do, and he doesn't know what's good for him. He needs me to tell him." - Munich"

Again, who is saying this? Not Obama.

"It's the same old story about how do you put toothpaste back in the tube. You don't. Despite the view of some Democrats, these people aren't idiots. They know when their being disparaged even if they aren't here reading all the posts."

Well, you say you "know" when you are being disparaged but I can't think of anything from the campaign that you could find disparaging. I think you are taking media comments and somehow transferring your anger to Obama when he wasn't the one who made the comments.

"These people were unmoved by Obama's critique. They aren't looking for transformational change. They're looking for someone who speaks to them about the issues that matter to them. "

Ok, that is fine but his message worked for the rest of the country. His message worked better than that message which is what Clinton ran on. Soooo.......

"To be perfectly honest, I don't believe they care about Obama becoming the first black president. It is not their aspiration. That is the aspiration of people who don't have to deal with the things that worry them. They've got car payments to make, families to feed, rent to pay. They feel that they are sinking. Obama hasn't spoken to these people. "

How is he "not speaking" to those people? His whole campaign has been about the broken system leaving out many Americans. It is about helping the average American. Oh, and he isn't running as the first black President, he is running for President. Again, you keep making these claims but I challenge you to point to any quote where he says he is running as the first black president.

"When you suggest that these people are subject to an "irrational mob impulse," whether you know it or not, you're making fun of them, and nobody likes that"

Back to this again. Bottom line, IT ISN'T OBAMA WHO IS SAYING THESE THINGS!!! It is illogical for you to take offense at the comments of a writer on Slate and then somehow apply that anger to Obama. Do you understand what I am saying? It would be like me deciding I didn't like you because of something Rush Limbaugh said.

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

eric2500be — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:15:03 GMT

Thanks Real Slim K,

I've been spending alot of time at Salon, but I must say this group is more about communication and less about scathing personal attacks.

Eric

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

eric2500be — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 22:10:36 GMT

Hi TJA,

Actually, I thought Munich did a great job of describing the problem of what do you do to get rid of all the condescension once its been disseminated. How are working class voters, rural voters, union voters, and voters who only have a high school diploma supposed to react when all the noise out of the Obama camp is that they're so stupid and easily manipulated that they have unwittingly fallen prey to Clinton's devious racist message.

Calling the blue-collar voters yokels, idiots, every insulting name you could think of. But whatever words they use, the message is the same: "the common citizen doesn't understand things like I do, and he doesn't know what's good for him. He needs me to tell him." - Munich

It's the same old story about how do you put toothpaste back in the tube. You don't. Despite the view of some Democrats, these people aren't idiots. They know when their being disparaged even if they aren't here reading all the posts.

These people were unmoved by Obama's critique. They aren't looking for transformational change. They're looking for someone who speaks to them about the issues that matter to them. To be perfectly honest, I don't believe they care about Obama becoming the first black president. It is not their aspiration. That is the aspiration of people who don't have to deal with the things that worry them. They've got car payments to make, families to feed, rent to pay. They feel that they are sinking. Obama hasn't spoken to these people.

I'm not sure he knows how to.

When you suggest that these people are subject to an "irrational mob impulse," whether you know it or not, you're making fun of them, and nobody likes that.

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

eric2500be — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:46:25 GMT

Hi TJA,

Re: Meghan O'Rourke on Clinton and the Lumpenproletari

blueshift — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 21:12:18 GMT

Slim,

I'm not really a baseball fan, but if your ever in Chicago we can have a beer together. I bet a lot of the Fray exchanges would be friendlier in person.

Blueshift