I've got a flat spot on my forehead from smacking it with my palm this week........
I've finally figured out what it is with Obama's "incredible oratorical skills" (which even I have praised at length).
Like that other "Great Communicator"......these skills only apply when he has a SCRIPT!!
Get him off script......and these much-vaunted skills disappear!
You can usually tell when he's begun to speak contemporaneously when the "uh" count goes from one every 15 seconds to three or four per sentence!
ACTING!
No wonder he's such an admirer of Ronald Regan!
Thank God for a long campaign wherein we could figure this out before turning over the reins to yet ANOTHER snake-oil salesman!
Sorry for mentioning GOD, ....I mean, .....god, ..... Barrack.
Pay no attention to the man-behind-the-curtain!.................................................tm
You Went Too Far Today Jane Smiley
If the comment below was meant to be persuasively rational, Jane, you'd better stick to fiction.
But, please, any of you angry white women who still support this craven shill, don't mention it to me.
This attack and the paragraph that follows it in your blog are shockingly narrow-minded and hateful.
Barack Obama's words about "bitter" sentiment in Pennsylvania were poorly chosen. In time, these words may be barely memorable remnants of a hard fought election.
But for now, criticism of them has not risen to a level of vitriol deserving of your attack on "white women" or anyone else not supporting Obama.
As if that weren't enough, you then wrote:
From Senator Clinton's remarks, I infer that to actually see what has gone on in the US in the last 20 years is unAmerican. It doesn't matter who you are, where you were born, what you pay in taxes, what else you might have contributed to the culture, how you vote, who you support. If you don't support fundamentalist religion, job outsourcing, and free access to guns, then you are not even American.
This may be the perspective advanced by far right radio hosts, but not by Senators Obama or Clinton.
You should have reconsidered before writing your blog today. It doesn't help Barack Obama and contributes to vicious rhetoric that serves no one. It divides us further and harms us all. Barack may win. He is already ahead. There is no need for panic and certainly no excuse for vile attacks and a list of appalling assaults on humanity, including high school killings, for which some vaguely defined group of "angry white women" should apologize. If anyone should apologize, it should be you.
Dr. Reardon also posts at bardscove.com.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I read Jane Smiley's post after I read yours. Her post is maybe as inelegant as Obama's recent controversial words, but she's still got a right to be angry and a right to be angry at certain people for the reasons she laid out. I have no problems with any of their statements of fact.
On the other hand, your outrage at interpreted offensiveness is tedious and overblown. Get over yourself.
The major deficiency in Senator Obama's Marin County speech was not that he cited obsession with God and guns as frequent emotional escape hatches from decades of rust belt small town economic decline and governmental neglect, it's that he forgot to mention booze and hard drugs, which are perhaps even more commonly sought out for that purpose. The major difference is that the God and guns contingents tend to vote GOP, while most of the substance abuse crowd doesn't know or care about politics of any kind as long as the supplies of bait shop beer, home made crank, cheap heroin, and oxycontin don't dry up -- in that sense the drunks and junkies actually do less harm.
yes, and one reason we have a growing substance-abuse crowd is that we have growing unemployment and growing despair about the future.
I live in one of those down and out towns, and am thrilled to see the support here for Obama among young people, many of whom have abuser parents who have given up. Obama gives them the hope their parents have lost, along with their jobs.
when did it become a political liability to tell the truth?
No argument there -- Senator Obama is our best (dare I say?) hope and there is no close second. If some cosmic cataclysm (and make no mistake about it, Professor Reardon, nothing short of that will suffice) makes Senator Clinton the nominee, I will hold my nose and vote for her -- but with no enthusiasm and very little (dare I say?) hope for much in the way of improvement.
Who are the real "elitists"? The people who jet-set around the world with their billionaire pals collecting obscene fees for introducing their elitist billionaire buddies to their elitist friends who are the rulers of countries in order to make elitist deals that put megabucks in all of their elitist pockets. Those are your true elitists.
$109 million dollars in the last 7 yrs. That's some pretty elitist money, right there. But, no, never mind. Pay no attention to the (wo)man behind the curtain. Just listen to all the BS spewed forth daily with all the soon-to-be-broken promises being dished out to every group that Clinton can possibly pander to. It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
When did the Huffington Post become so 90210? Joseph Palermo vs Mayhill Fowler. Kathleen Reardon vs Jane Smiley. I think that you need to do a group teambuilding retreat at Color Me Mind.
You are right, Kathleen Reardon.
Only an liberal elitist would make fun of small town religion. I live in a small town, and religion is important here, and it's not because of bitterness. If people are bitter here, they get less bitter in church.
but then there are those dang conservative elitists, aren't there? Like Bush and Cheney and the whole cabal.
Elitism in general is what's wrong.
I am getting closer to voting for Clinton. I was a Huckabee supporter, after a lifetime of voting Democratic. Huckabee was a small town guy who went to church and shot birds, and he was probably the best of the candidates as far as offering good governance. But Clinton's looking better when I look at her current oppostion.
By all means, do. And continue your support of the Republican party, which is apparently where your real interest lies. And there are plenty of reasons to mock small town religion. Just consider those wonderful pious folks down south who used to do the lynching.
Well said. I live in one of those small towns down south, Black mountain NC and while there haven't been any lynchings of people here one thing had been lynched in the 04 election. Sanity was and is the victim when many of the pious voted for bush and said: I really hate the war but I have to vote for him, 'cause he saves babies and stops homosexuals from getting married. One of those who said this to me personally is an ordained and practicing pastor in a nearby city!
Ah, so Barack WAS mocking religion.
Thanks for clarifying.
Quote: "Ah, so Barack WAS mocking religion.
Thanks for clarifying."
Why would you imagine that a poster here has any "inside knowledge" on what Obama was doing that you, for example, don't have?
My opinion -- and it's just another one of many -- is that no, he was not mocking religion at all. He was saying that when voters are ignored for decades, suffer long-standing economic downturns, etc. etc. -- they get to where they stop voting for things they can no longer believe in -- such as economic help from the government -- and instead vote for the things they DO believe in -- the things the Republican party has led them to believe they CAN get from the government, such laws about wedge issues.
And lemme be more precise about this one point: Although Hillary and her "fellow Republicans" are saying Obama said people turn to religion, guns, gays in times of economic stress, what he in fact said was that people may turn to VOTE THOSE ISSUES in times of economic stress. Even that was perhaps not as well put as it could have been, but let's at least be clear about what he did say.
Smiley is a jerk. An apology from her would be meaningless--somewhat akin to a forced "I'm sorry" from a sulky ten-year-old.
This whole situation is hilarious. Obama, whose speaking skills are just slightly better than those of George Bush, Sr., says something that's perfectly true but expresses it his usual confused, rambling way. His fans, who would die before they'd admit that Obama sucks as a speaker, have to turn up the volume on their Hillary bashing. They HAVE to believe that Obama is an eloquent speaker--their whole religion would crumble if they were forced to admit that 1) Obama is merely a man, not a god, and 2) however smart, he's a pretty crummy communicator.
But they can't face the facts. So they cling to their myths and deny the reality of the outer, rational world. They turn to the worst features of their religion. Speaking of.
When all is said and done, Barack is merely human. Eventually, his fans will have to face that, and I hope we don't see mass suicides, as a result.
The average Americans stupidity is what makes Obama an elitist not his actual beliefs or the way he has liven his life. Those people are Hillary and McCain. Your post adequately supports my theory.
"Average Americans" should be "average American's."
"Liven" should be "lived."
"Elitist not"--where's the comma between elitist and not? Did you forget it, or didn't you know it was necessary?
Zanti, well said. Thank you for paying such close attention to what I have written. Isn't it telling how you chose to answer my comment by editing my comment. The opportunity for you to actually respond was presented, yet you chose not to take it, choosing instead to remark about my obviously poor writing skills.
In case you haven't noticed my original comment still stands. To paraphrase for you basically it says that the average American (like yourself) is not smart enough to get past the accusations of elitism by noticing those who charge Obama with that smear are in reality the elitists you despise.
This may be the perspective advanced by far right radio hosts, but not by Senators Obama or Clinton.
I don't think anyone has any doubt that this is not the perspective advanced by Senator Obama, but the jury's still out on Senator Clinton. What a crock!
Bush and Clinton leap at every opportuninity to keep us divided. This is how they govern, isn't it obvious by now? Barack Obama on the other hand is trying to unite us. He is trying to do that by giving speeches about what America is REALLY like not what the candidates lie about. Obama is smart enough to know that by giving speeches about race and speeches about bitterness that his opposition and the press will jump all over him and he will leave himself open to attack from the establishment, in this case CLINTON.
Hillary Clinton has shown all of us repeatedly what kind of president she would be and it would be one that ignores the will of the people. It would be a presidency that attacks the people who do not agree with her. It will be a presidency that harms this country by continuing to keep the American people divided. Hillary Clinton will not solve the multitude of crisis facing America today because of Bush because she herself is Bush.
Jane was spot on Kathleen try reading more comments and you will see down here in regular people land we are sick and tired of business as usual.
Hillary Clinton is trying to push the democratic party far to the right where people like Limbaugh and Coulter can feel comfortable and she is pandering to the worst instincts in people. I agree with Jane Smiley that she has gone way to far and should be denounced and rejected by democrats.
BUSH and Some of his backers are all responsible for this mess. They've destroyed the country. The US are loosing his prestige an influence oversease. GW introduce himself as "a cow boy" (gun and hunting), as a "new born" (a man save from alcohol by god itself), as a "patriot" (military service).
Evry day Hillary casts a new plan for creating jobs. That's demagoguery. She's just tryed to mislead the voters.
And now what've we seen? Now i hope the redstate will take care for the country main issues and vote for Obama.
I had to laugh. While chastising Smiley for vitriol, Reardon uses the epithets "narrow-minded," "hateful," "vicious," and "vile." Maybe Reardon should go to the dictionary and look up the word "hypocrite."
Epithets? Hardly. Those are mere descriptions of the reality of Smiley's blog.
Senator Hopey McChangey sure is a catalyst for unity, isn't he?
and what did you prove with this
There is nothing left to prove about how problematic Obama is in regard to electability. He's managed to offend large demographics over and over. Pretty soon, there won't be anyone left to offend. Obama already has one foot in the grave. Now he's got another in his mouth.
Being African American, his mere presence is going to offend 'large demographics ' of retarded racists in the democratic party. It's inevitable, and just as inevitable that HRC and her minions will try to exploit that for all it's worth.
If you think a comment that mild is hateful, imagine what it feels like to be told by a group of women of immense privilege that your principled distaste for Hillary Clinton's act--a distaste shared by some 60% of the nation--is really just sexism.
I used to love Bill and kind of felt that Hilary got a raw deal. Now I think those republicans weren't hard enough on her. And what is with her using the word elitist for a biracial child who grew up without his dad being in his life? Unbelievable. She's the angry white woman.
Randi Rhoades nailed it I'm afraid, but that level of candor is not tolerated in America
If thats what you call candor you have issues.
Randy Rhodes' comments were vulgar, uncalled for and inaffective. My great grandfather was a prominent minister and intelectual and councelled that to use vulgar language shows a lack of intelligence and limited vocabulary. If the best Randy coud come up with is "whore" she should have just stayed home. She might be right but the shock value killed her point. I don't know how much her Air America platform was worth to her and the rest of us but I think it would have been better if she could have moderated her tone.
"You know, some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It's part of culture. It's part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it's an important part of who they are. Not because they are bitter." Hillary Clinton. Note the "subtle" way she implied that Obama hates people who hunt. Then she does some whiskey shots for the camera. Woo-hoo, that HRC is just a regular gal, somebody you could hang out with like George W. Bush only he don't drink no more, but he's good people . Suddenly Hillary shot up in the polls, Obama tearfully dropped out of the race, Jane Smiley moved to Europe, but then the Clinton campaign staffer awoke from her happy dream.....
I am an Obama supporter, and I personally agree that other posters need to treat each candidate with respect. I find the name-calling here highly offensive. And when I see the level of vitriolism toward Clinton regularly displayed by Obama supporters, it makes me cringe. Can't you all see there are two sides? While you can take positions, at least respect the fact that not everyone sees things through Obama's lenses, nor through Clinton's. Please respect the fact that hatred is divisive, which is the last thing we democrats need. What really concerns me is that the level of hatred toward HRC smacks more of misogyny than intellectual discourse. Obama is far from perfect, as is Clinton. Yet, I don't see the hateful comments lobbed at Obama, which is kind of spooky and cult-like. Elevate your intellectual discernment and view the discourse of this campaign with the same level of integrity and respect that Obama might, instead of name-slinging and blame.
Oh, and zagyzebra, I just went to your profile and well, over all, in your comments I mean, like all of them, you have had the strangest way of being "an Obama supporter." I'm going to have to talk to the rest of the cult about this.
You sort of had me going or would have had me going until "I don't see the hateful comments lobbed at Obama, which is kind of spooky and cult-like." A less amazing explanation is that you are a highly selective reader of these comments: say what? You don't see anybody posting any hate towards Obama, hmmm? But then I've been reading for ages that nobody who writes for Huffington Post supports Hillary......ummm....I really don't know where to begin. Well okay I do: Erica Jong, Taylor Marsh, Kathleen Reardon, Rosanne Barr, what's his name who used to do the ambassador thingee, um, that dumb guy from England who usually generates about 15 comments - Dean Martin? No no it's Martin Lewis. And there's an African American guy who always does anti Obama stuff....oh yeah, who's the husband of the woman who was outed, the guy who said the 3 am ad was peachy? Him too. Yeah, the whole Huffington Post is stacked against you, I'm crying bitter tears for ya
Writers like Ms Reardon do an enormous disservice to feminism and the feminist movement. Here she berates Jane for displaying emotion. Rage. Bitterness (god forbid). She tsk tsks her for not being more coolly rational. How ironic when so much of contemporary feminist literature talks about the the binary distinctions that are draw between masculine/rationality as eminently preferably to the feminine/emotional. In the much dated characterization of 'feminism' that Ms Reardon upholds, a woman must emulate a man in order to gain legitimacy. Hence, in her other article, the writer implores us to consider Hillary Clinton as worthy because she is no different from her male compatriots - imperfect. Further, she accuses Jane Smiley of writing in a manner that is divisive to the cohesion and aims of the Democratic party, and yet is surprisingly silent on Hillary's latest attack on Obama. The attack which imitates Republican tactics of portraying Democrat candidates as elitist and out of touch. The very same tactic that cost both Gore and Kerry prior elections. In 'bitter-gate' Clinton is engaged in fanning the same flames of resentment and distraction that the Republicans do on exactly the same issues: Religion. Guns. Immigration. Trade. and "American-ness." I am appalled that Ms Reardon makes absolutely no comment on the divisiveness of this tactic. But then, Hillary is just playing with the boys apparently. And Ms Smiley should be a good woman and just grin and bear it.
I think most of the opinions on this post are right but for different reasons. I think that ALL of us are "bitter"and "frustrated" after GW and we are now taking our anger out on the candidates running for office. I believe that each side wants a Dem if office and we have taken very stong positions about who we think will be the best nominee against McCain. This is why everyone is so worried about a protracted primary. Hopefully, the supers will make a move and begin to aggressively back the frontrunner. Then we can exhale and get on with the business of kicking the crap outta the Reps and taking back the WH. I am an Obama supporter, but if the truth be told I would have backed Hillary 100% if he had not shown up on the scene and I think this is true for most of us sitting up past midnight following & posting on these blogs. We blog because we care!
and of course, i mean tavis smiley is a sellout punk.
Steel yourself to see more blogs of this sort & the kind of blog Ms Smiley posted on HP. A lot of people are tired of this 2 year long campaign & angry about the mud slinging by each of the 3 surviving candidates & their supporters. Just as W is the worst POTUS in the USA's history, this campaign is the longest & fetidly foul campaign in the USA's history. This campaign is so foul that its smell would drive a rat out of full garbage truck on a very hot day.
Posted April 12, 2008 | 07:37 PM (EST)