Saturday, April 12, 2008

The Bitter Truth


If I may be politically blunt for a moment, being called 'elitist' by a former resident of the White House who's filed income over the past eight years totals more than $109 million and 'out of touch' by a septuagenarian supporting an unending American military presence in Iraq is downright laughable.

Of course, when one candidate is faced with the reemergence of a damaging news story (brought on by none other than her own husband!), and another candidate can't seem to break into the news cycle much at all, it would seem that this may be their best political move. However, these candidates would be wise to tread carefully here, for one need only watch the last 45 seconds of the above video to be reminded of precisely how a candidate speaking to the frustrations of government inaction and to the perils of divisive issues will be received in the current American political climate (particularly for a crowd of Philadelphians attending the Democratic presidential debate only four days away).

8 comments:

Mr. Cooper said...

What's elitist about making money?

CJ said...

It's not that the act of making money makes you elitist, but if we're going to talk about elitism of the candidates, I can't imagine that being a former occupant of the White House and being worth hundreds of millions of dollars doesn't qualify one as a member of the American elite. So, in terms of trying to attack Obama for being elitist, the adage 'those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones' comes to mind. It'd be like if Obama attacked Clinton for being a non-traditional candidate (because she's a woman), when he himself is a non-traditional candidate (being black).

Mr. Cooper said...

Elitism is a state of mind -- many elites are not what would be considered "elitist".

CJ said...

Well, that kind of parsing seems to be a bit convenient for Clinton (no doubt linked to all the liquor she's been drinking and gun reminiscing she's been doing this weekend) and, while it may be true that not all members of the elite class are elitist in attitude, I think it's a tough pill to swallow claiming Hillary Clinton's mind, with the well-known narrative of her political career, is one of the humble common folk. So, it still feels very much like a 'glass house' situation.

Mr. Cooper said...

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism (-ltzm, -l-)
n.
1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

I really couldn't disagree with you more about this. Elitism isn't about BEING elite, it's about thinking that your status makes you better than others. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with how much money you have, it's about how view and treat others. Obviously Clinton is "elite" -- ANYONE running for president is "elite". It doesn't make her "elitist". I don't think that's parsing, I think it's the definition of the word "elitist".

And she's only been shooting guns this weekend. No drinking. That would be irresponsible.

CJ said...

No, I get exactly what you're saying about the difference between being elite as a class status and being elitist as thinking you are better than others, and I agree that they do not necessarily correlate.

What I've since said is that I don't see how you can claim Hillary Clinton does not have the 'perceived superiority' you refer to in your definition of being elitist. Her statements at the beginning of this campaign repeating "no, I don't have to think about not being the nominee because I will be the nominee", her campaign's attempts to reshape/finesse the rules of this primary process for her benefit (caucuses don't really mean much, florida and michigan should count now but not before, even pledged delegates can switch if they want, etc.), her antipathy for politicians that have come out in support of Obama (Kennedy, Richardson, etc.), her political reputation during the 90's like when she squashed Democratic politicians that had varying opinions about her health care proposal, and so on. In your own words, elitism is about "how you view and treat others", and there are just so many different examples from her political career/reputation, as well as this current campaign, that can be brought up to show precisely how Hillary Clinton thinks her status makes her better than others .

And that's perfectly fine in my opinion! I think it's not only fine but necessary for those seeking the presidency to have a superiority complex (how else would they justify taking on such an unimaginable job?), but, again, for all these reasons I don't see how Hillary Clinton trying to attack Obama as elitist is anything other than throwing stones in a glass house.

And, what do you mean she hasn't been drinking this weekend? Check out the ABC News report...

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/
2008/04/clinton-takes-a.html

"ABC News' Eloise Harper reports: Sen. Hillary Clinton stopped by Bronko’s Restaurant and Lounge in Crown Point, Ind., tonight. Clinton stood by the bar and took a shot of Crown Royal whiskey. She took one sip of the shot, then another small sip, then a few seconds later threw her head back and finished off the whole thing."

Mr. Cooper said...

JUST saw the drinking story. Hadn't seen it before.

As for the rest, call it what you will -- self-delusional, power hungry, maybe even arrogant -- it's not elitist. There's a real difference between those that I think relates more to class and social status than anything else. We're still just debating the meaning of the word elitist.

CJ said...

Well, I don't see how we're debating the meaning of the word, because I used your definition of elitist - "Elitism isn't about BEING elite, it's about thinking that your status makes you better than others. Elitism doesn't have anything to do with how much money you have, it's about how view and treat others." - to show with examples that Hillary Clinton's status has made her think she's better than others and that the way she views and treats others (in the past and during this campaign) has reflected that.

And the follow-up post I just put up on the blog seems to make the same points I'm making here. Not that that guarantees their validity, but it shows that these points seem to have some support from reputable sources.