Wednesday, April 16, 2008


I haven’t said anything about Obama and “bittergate” because the whole brouhaha strikes me as embarrassingly stupid. But, since it doesn’t seem to have made much difference in the polls, it looks like Americans also think it’s embarrassingly stupid. So, let me say two things now:

1. Obama’s words could have been better chosen, but we all understood what he was saying. And his responses have been great, once again. It really is striking that he’s banking on the ability of Americans to listen, absorb, and understand adult speech, while both of his opponents are betting the bank that Americans are too stupid to understand things they read or hear. I’m not sure how that makes him the “elitist” here.

2. McCain and Clinton are also making this case: “Listen here, Obama- Americans are really, really happy with how their government is working these days. And if you can’t see that, then you must be an out-of-touch elitist!” What, seriously? They think that’s a good argument?


narrator said...

There was one NYT column (yesterday? today?) which suggested that Obama's only "mistake" was emphasizing "bitter" instead of "cling." Because "cling" is what uninspired working classes do when under stress. I could be cruder than Obama - peasant religion and peasant icons which control the underclass and prevent them from acting in their own best interests.

The responses from Hillary and McCain are ridiculous for differing reasons. Clintonism is, of course, the reductionist politics of the "uninspired possible." McCain represents a party entirely based on the theory that government can do nothing for anyone, but only picks people's pockets.

As for elitism - it may be the European in me, but I want elite leaders.

Rufus said...

Absolutely! I think the strategy of electing an idiot because you could theoretically hang out with him and he wouldn't look down on you hasn't really worked at all these last 8 years.