You may not agree with this but I believe it to be true. The reason conservatives are admitting admiration for Hillary is because she is doing their work for them. She's driving a wedge between the party and is well on her way to fracturing it leading to their guy winning by default. They admire her "tenacity" while secretly rejoicing over the fact no one on her campaign can perform basic arithmetic.
It's funny that you make the case that Barack Obama is the "elitist" in the election considering Bill and Hillary made five times more money than he did last year. Besides this elitist argument won't fly anymore, the country has seen what happens when you vote for the person you'd rather have a beer with. Being intelligent is nothing to be ashamed of.
This disenfranchisement argument that does the rounds here is truly pathetic. Either you think voting in a primary is a privilege or it is a right. If you believe it is a right you should not only be upset about Michigan and Florida but also all the independents who are not allowed to vote in closed primaries, why is it only disenfranchisement when you agree to be affiliated with a party? If you think voting in a primary is a privilege then you can't get upset when states who try to break the rules are punished by not being allowed to participate. I guess you can take the third option and admit to being a hypocrite.
"It's funny that you make the case that Barack Obama is the 'elitist' in the election considering Bill and Hillary made five times more money than he did last year."
Elitism and wealth are two entirely different things. Since when did intelligent people begin conflating the two so regularly?
Wealth is an accumulation of pecuniary and material resources. Elitism is an attitude towards fellow human beings. A wealthy person or couple may either harbor and exhibit this superiority complex or they may be genuinely goodhearted and egalitarian, both in theory and in practice. I wouldn't brand every rich person I know as elitist. Conversely, there are middle-class and working-class folks who are elitist even while not being wealthy.
I haven't charged Obama with being an "elitist" (because frankly I think it's a weak way of phrasing the core argument) but acknowledged that the meme is there.
"I guess you can take the third option and admit to being a hypocrite."
Taking the gloves off, are we? I'll refrain. I should note though that your discursion on rights & priviliges sounds like it would be well placed in a constitutional case against a government body, but it's irrelevant here. The Democratic Party is not a state actor.
Since when did Democrats buy into the "Elitim" argument anyway.
Jon Stewart said it better, but I'll add that this anti-intellectual BS serves no onewell, and may ultimately be looked upon as the nadir of this race and the Clinton machine as a whole.
"Since when did Democrats buy into the 'Elitim' argument anyway."
We don't because it's used against us, not to advance us.
"anti-intellectual"?
Either you misread my post or you just didn't read it. That issue isn't even raised.
There is a core anti-intellectualism in the "elitism" argument, although at its root is a total contempt for the working class.
The sad irony is that it has worked in the past.
The silly irony is that Hillary Clinton, of all people, is trying to wield it.
The possibly-futile hope is that maybe the country is ready to rise above it.
But by legitimizing the 'elitist' argument, you allow it to be used against Hillary or Obama in the general, Hillary as a hypocrate and liar if she pretends to be otherwise, and Obama because, well, Hillary said it and she's a democrat.
It's like going on Fox News. Bad mojo all around.
Elitism is arguing that working class white, Latino, and Asian voters are all voting for Hillary because of racism, and not because of the fact that Hillary's out there pushing specific policy solutions to address their specific needs. Elitism is arguing that the Clinton economy was the same as the Bush economy, and that both require us to "change" from them.
Elitism is arguing that a temporary gas tax holiday, which is only passed if it comes from the coffers of Big Oil, is somehow not a "progressive" policy.
I think most Obama supporters are elitist, and I say that with full cognizance of the fact that the GOP has used this talking point against us. But the fact is, it has worked. You can either claim that it's because the working class has (again and again) been bamboozled, or you can recognize the grain of truth in it.
But I see it when I talk to my friends and colleagues, almost all of whom are Obama supporters, and they talk with contempt of Hillary white trash voters. And assume that anyone with a college degree must be an Obama supporter.
The vast wealth schism between Hillary supporters and Obama supporters, on average (and excluding African American voters), indicates that the "elitism" divide did not start with any blog postings or candidate comments. This has been a very real dynamic in this race, and while you can ignore it, that won't make it go away.
The only instance where Hillary voters were charged with racism is when exit polls asked "How important was race in making your decision of who to vote for?" and many of the people who answered "very important" also voted for Hillary.
No one has ever made the claim that much of Hillary's support is gained through racism but to think that it doesn't exist is ignorant.
I said the elitism argument was "weak." That certainly doesn't "legitimize" it.
"Taking the gloves off, are we? I'll refrain. I should note though that your discursion on rights & priviliges sounds like it would be well placed in a constitutional case against a government body, but it's irrelevant here. The Democratic Party is not a state actor."
My argument of right vs. privilege is at the heart of your claim. By using the word "disenfranchisement" you have definitionally included rights into the argument. So assuming you actually believe voting in a primary is a right, you should also be outraged for the millions of independent voters are excluded from the voting process. The charge of hypocrisy doesn't stem solely from this claim but also from how most Hillary supporters were fine with Florida and Michigan losing their delegates until after she had fallen behind and the vote had taken place.
But I understand your dismissal of my argument, I don't know how I would respond either.
"You may not agree with this but I believe it to be true. The reason conservatives are admitting admiration for Hillary is because she is doing their work for them. She's driving a wedge between the party and is well on her way to fracturing it leading to their guy winning by default. They admire her "tenacity" while secretly rejoicing over the fact no one on her campaign can perform basic arithmetic."
You're right. Hillary is the only one capable of making arguments that Obama is a bad candidate. The Republicans could never do that. And negative media scrutiny would never have hit Obama if Hillary had just dropped out.
For the record, could you please describe how Hillary is "driving a wedge between the party"? Because I have yet to talk to an Obama supporter who will give me specific examples that haven't already been discredited somewhere. On the other hand, I know that Obama has fueled the "Hillary is a racist" meme, and I know that he has called Hillary divisive and unelectable, repeatedly. His campaign has also taken the unprecedented step of calling for her to drop out, despite the fact that she can still win, by any metric (yes, even your best-case Obama scenarios still show that she can win, even if unlikely).
3am ads, which are relatively tame, or ads showing various catastrophes (including the Great Depression, 9/11, and many other examples) do not count as "tearing apart the party" in my book.
The fact that Obama is doing this poorly, without the GOP having really unleashed their meanest attack dogs yet, is a really really really poor sign for his campaign.
