Embrace Your Inner Elitist
He eats arugula. He looks great in a suit. He's not a good bowler. He asked for orange juice instead of coffee in that diner. He is educated, well-read, articulates himself brilliantly and doesn't lose his temper. What an arrogant prick this guy is.
If you're rejecting Obama because he's "an elitist," then I'd like to ask you to turn in your passport and leave the country immediately. The smart people would like it back.
If after seven years of the schmuck you want to have a beer with you've found yourself longing for the good old todays, you're just a retard. You heard me. Send me all the angry notes you want because you've had seven years of that neighborly fella who pretends to clear brush on his "ranch," seven years of that regular guy who praises the Pope by saying (and I'm not making this up), "Awesome speech, Your Holiness," seven years of that down-to-earth C-student who doesn't read the paper or use words with more than two syllables, and seven years of the kind of macho swagger that should be reserved for old John Wayne movies and the occasional aging porn star, and you still want more of that everyman horseshit. If that's true then you deserve everything you get. The problem is that the rest of us don't.
If after seven years of joining the rest of the world in ridiculing your own president (the one who promised to bring integrity back to the White House) and living with the results of regular guyness -- a swirling toilet of an economy and a war without end -- you still reject a candidate because he did well on his SAT score, you've just plain overstayed your welcome. Please. I beg you. Move to a country where mediocrity is applauded. Like Texas.
Loading comments…
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
Hey don't diss the C-Student.
Great Post! I simply don't understand this idea of wanting a President you feel you can have a beer with. It's like me giving my best friend my money to invest when she doesn't even know how to balance a checkbook. Love her to death, but when it comes to my money and my future, I'll take the well educated, Arugula eating, White Wine drinking one every time. George Bush acts like a complete idiot and says the stupidest (is that a word) things and Paw Paw McCain doesn't sound any better. Can we have a President who has a command of the English Language already.
Very funny!
The problem we've got here is no one actually has a good reason for why he's been labeled 'elitist'.
If you think you do, I'd like to here it, I haven't heard one great one yet. So here are the rules, first correctly define the word 'elitist' and then show me what he said that would categorize him as such. And then if you've correctly been able to do that, tell me why it's a bad thing to have in a President (set aside your desire to be best friends forever with them).
Elitist - the belief that some people or things are inherently superior to others and deserve preeminence, preferential treatment, or higher rewards because of their superiority (from Yahoo research)
I believe the elitist title is the result of his attempt to explain the white, rural, working-class men in Pennsylvania and the feeling that his words were, in the main, insulting. I'm a white, working-class male who was raised in small town California and I was outraged by that insult. Believe me, .elitist is a lot kinder that what I was calling him at the time. I finally came to the realization that he was simply being stupid.
I'll give you some credit on the definition. But an elitist doesn't need preferential treatment or higher rewards... they've already earned them and already have them (that adds to their self image of being an elitist). They DO feel however that people as intelligent and successful as themselves are the type of people who should run the country. So in other words... they think the best people should be running the country.
But I'm looking for specifics here. How exactly did he portray them?
I think the only reason anyone was insulted was because before people even heard what he said, they were told they were insulted.
this is the basis for 90% of those of us who reject obama-his 'change' consists of a mishmash of mcgovernite BIG government nannyism and frothey rhetoric which soars in a bubble of hot air. he shows incredibly piss-poor judgment in his associations. he fears competition to the point that he would rather any rivals be knocked off the ballot rather than face a challenge directly. he rewards his political allies and fixers with millions of dollars in grants. he sticks his nose firmly in the washington pork trough and calls for a 'change'. the squawks about being a bipartsian uniter, but has yet to exhibit any actual bipartisanship. he prevaricates, invents, excuses away the same things he decries in others. he suffers from a messiah complex. when faced with criticism, he cowers and whines, bleating feeble cries of 'racism'. he's openly condescending towards people who are not like him and who do not fall for his snake oil pitch. he's a coward, a con, a liar, a sanctimonious blowhard, and while insisting that he is THE solution, he reveals himself to be part of the problem
Oh my... how delusional you must be. There's no way to win with people like you. If he wasn't a Washington Senator, you'd say he doesn't have federal government experience to be worthy of the Presidency; he is a US Senator, so you call him corrupt... that's fair. You want to remain ignorant about Obama, that's your right, but don't you dare say he hasn't exhibited bipartisanship when you don't care to look for it. Do yourself a favor, or preferably my sanity a favor, and look up the Coburn-Obama Transparency Act and the Lugar-Obama Nonproliferation Act. Then come back here and say he still hasn't, or most likely, tell us how wrong you are. People like you take what you see and hear and run with it (with a horrible lack of capitalization I might add). Nothing you said revolves around anything even remotely considered a truth. But your collage of right wing and Hillary-esque talking points crammed into one comment tells me everything I need to know about what kind of intelligent information you're surrounding yourself with.
Meanguy, You represent your name well. Your critique is amusing and it becomes increasingly comical when you consider that the other nominees lack integrity (Clinton) and are prone to senior moments (McCain). Obama has exercised exceptional judgement on all critical foreign polocy issues. If we are guilty by association that would make McCain a homosexual white supremacist because of his close ties w/ Richard Quin and Larry Craig. Hillary would be a communist or a black panther since she used to represent them. Sen. Obama is change. His story is remarkable and can not be reduced to gross generalizations. Meanguy, I think you are misdirecting your frustrations because of what might be a deeply rooted sense of inadequacy. There are several penile enlargement options from which you could elect to try and then you could proceed to find some release in the same manner as Spitzer. Hope it all works out! Obama '08
Funny, everything you said could and should be said about Bill Clinton. In his case I would add,
"and takes advantage of much younger and much less powerful women."
Add that, and you have a great description of the former President.
While I certainly empathize with you being offended at Mr. Seitzman's suggestion that you be required to leave the country, is that any reason for you to direct your anger into a tirade against Senator Obama in such a virulent fashion? Mr. Seizman does speak for himself, so attacking the Senator in such an abusive manner is a little bit off topic isn't it?
Besides the obvious provocation of others reading your comments, is there really any purpose to your exhibition of unfounded accusations against Senator Obama? It certainly has nothing to add to a reasonable discussion of Mr. Seitzman's post, now does it? Do your comments even address the post topic of elitism in the slightest?
You live up to your screen name, that's for sure. Unlike the candidate you oppose, though, you're all bluster and no substance. Too pointless and exhausting to dismantle your emotion-based arguments one by one, so I'll let your "frothey" [sic] rant reveal itself for what it is -- the online equivalent of a mean kid scribbling on a bathroom wall. You need a Xanax, bro.
Great post! I've been wondering why being intelligent is so offensive to Americans.
****Jealousy : New definition = opposite of Elite
****Elite : A group or class of persons enjoying superior intellectual or social or economic status
See my response to Zogtastic.
byrok67,
I'm very glad you put the "or"'s in there, thus keeping things accurate.
If any other candidate than Obama makes it to the WH in November, I am looking into (2) countries right now -- Italy and France. As a Liberal Elitist, I like the wines in both countries, especially the Red, and I am pining away for cities that do not have the airplane hangars we all shop in; i.e. WalMart, K-Mart, or miles and miles of "cookie cutter" gated communities, believe in our constitution; do not favor torture or invading sovereign countries as if they would not notice it was really about the Oil, and not the democracy of that country.
Thanks for a really good hard laugh at work today. I needed that.....
Can I go too?! I was thinking Canada, just because it's much closer, but your plan sounds much better than mine.
Please take me with you.....to another country. If Obama doesn't win this election, America is doomed. If McCain gets the deal, there will be one more dumbass on Pennsylvania Avenue who can't talk, balance a budget and simply thrives on war. With Hillary and Bill, you will get further drama and dishonesty. Bill will be hitting on and making out with every chick in the White House halls since he won't be gainfully employed. Good old Hill will be trying to find that phone to answer at 3:00 am because Bill will be calling some hottie around that time of day. Remember that his calls to Monica were in the wee hours. These scenarios are just too profoundly depressing. Bring on the arugula!! With that serving also comes the Obama's happy marriage and parenthood.
Note: The arugula Obama spoke of during the unforgivable arugula gaffe was grown by elitist farmers in that bastion of elitism,Iowa. What happened to the days when most Americans actually wanted their kids to get a college education? Crabs in a barrel, these "low information" droids who can't be bothered to turn off American Idol long enough to read a newspaper. Democracy is an everyday commitment, not a once every 4 years gut decision.
Interesting post....bu
One problem -- the (serious) elitist charge is not really that Obama is well educated, is skilled in rhetoric etc. which therefore should disqualify him because he's not one of the people. The problem is when those in office or aspiring to the Presidency want to dismiss large segments of the people because they don't have the "correct" view.
The problem is when they, for instance appoint supreme court justices that usurp the role of legislatures (including those of the states, closest to the people). They subvert the U.S. Constitution in the name of "progressive" values. (no need to make the old anti-state's rights argument..
The problem with elitism (mainly, but of course not only in the democratic party), is at the FUNDAMENTAL level, not just at the level of any given policy or person. In sum, the problem with elitism is not at the level of the Presidential candidate's own characteristics, but whether he or she desires to ignore whole segments of the population because they don't have the "correct" understanding of how the world should be.
One point in favor of Obama, by the way -- at least he tries to think about the issue, unlike the last democratic presidential nominee, and many of the party leaders.
Wow, you said a lot. A lot of valid, considered and thoughtful stuff! Amen.
"the problem with elitism is not at the level of the Presidential candidate's own characteristics, but whether he or she desires to ignore whole segments of the population because they don't have the "correct" understanding of how the world should be."
Is that not a perfect description of the current administration? They haven't listened to the people on anything of significance. When asked about people's view of the Iraq War Cheney's answer is "So?" Clearly, you haven't learned anything in the last 7 years.
SatanicPanic,
Good rejoinder. But here's my problem with it -- foreign policy, by design, is not run by opinion polls. The Constitution gives the President the primary control, with certain authority from Congress. In fact, the Congress gave the President authority to do what he did, and by the way, has not revoked that, despite two elections since 2003 (and most recently, and democratic majority). You might not like certain results, I might not even like them either, but that's the system we have. That the president has to make judgments based on the information he has, is not elitism, it's the job he is instructed to do by the Constituion.
By the way, you seem to be in disagreement with the initial post by Seitzman that says Bush is an non-elitist, and what we need is an elitist. Interesting twist.
One thing you neglect to acknowledge in all your puffing, puffin -- there are, in fact, huge swaths of the American population who don't have the "correct" understanding of how the world should be. How else to account for eight years of the Bush plague? And that's the entire point of Seitzman's post.
Obama didn't "dismiss" those working class voters in Pennsylvania. He just understands them better than Senator Clinton does, and, it seems, better than you do.
Either way, I would argue that the average rural citizen merely parrots the right wing media's charge of elitism without understanding it fully. Obama has an Ivy League education, drinks OJ and eats arugula, can't bowl worth a damn, has written two bestselling books, and is clearly more intelligent than they are. He must be an elitist.
Gee, this sure sounds like "eliteism" to me.
Do you think that an Ivy League diploma is an indication of "superior" intelligence? Then I hate to tell you that G.W. Bush has one of those too, it's the best diploma money can buy.
I'm a rural citizen. Do you think I merely parrot the right wing media as well? I don't know what Obama's IQ is, but mine regulary measures at 125, just above normal. Does that make him better then me? Just what do you think qualifies Obama to be our president? His two books? His Orange Juice and arugula? Or should I be running for president? No, I'm smart enough to know better than that, too bad he isn't.
Elitiest - the belief that some people or things are inherently superior to others and deserve preeminence, preferential treatment, or higher rewards because of their superiority
Good points, StoutHouse (but I must ask is mocking those you disagree with part of standard HP discourse? If so I guess I'm out of sync...but anyway....
I read Seitzman differently. My interpretation is that he really means what he says: we need an elitst as President, rather than a "regular guy."
That is about personalities, but the real point should be -- which party's principles have limited government as part of their core? And that means that the republicans, at least relatively, will argue more for the people's autonomy rather to cede decisions to those who supposedly "know better". That's the important point about elitism.
Seitzman, I was with you until you bashed Texas in the last sentence. Not cute. It makes you look... well, makes you look stupid... I know you think you are one of the "smart people" who wants the country back, but ... Texas-bashing shows me you only think you are smart and cute.
Hey, Salty. I have loved ones in the plains of Texas and am as quick as you to take offense at a dismissive attitude to the population as a whole. Regardless, I have to concede to Seitzman that Texas is like no other state in its view of itself, and that its self-image saw itself in the candidacy of G. W. Bush circa 1999. The ensuing presidency has been disastrous to all Americans, but Texas is still full of people at all income levels who like the way George does it, even as his policies continue to favor the rich and disregard the poor almost entirely. Is there any state in the union more responsible for the rise of this disastrous presidency than Texas? George's swaggering jerk routine could not have gotten him elected in Connecticut.
"George's swaggering jerk routine could not have gotten him elected in Connecticu
True.
I take offense to you too... Let me give all of y'all a lesson about Texas: it is about 45% Democratic, close to 3 million people participated in the Democratic primaries, and there has always been a liberal, free-spirited tradition in Texas that is exemplified by many people who have chosen to call this state home, like the economist Clarence Ayres, the theologian Charles Hartshorne, and entertainers like Willie Nelson... and Texas is, I think, the most liberal state among the former Confederate states... so don't say "Texas saw its self-image in Bush". We didn't ... we just have a lot of residual bigotry and ignorance that keeps Texas from really showing its true character and spirit.
In other words.....
Its not education, wealth, intellegen
Deciding that people are not voting for you, over Hillary Clinton (democrat), because they are bitter and cling to what they believe in IS true snobbery.
Except that is -not- what he said. That's not even close to what he said - that is simply what Clinton and the pundits -told- you to think, and here you are, having dutifully sucked it up.
LOL...easy to see which end -you- fall on. The dumb, gullible side that doesn't think for itself.
If you'd actually read the entire exchange that took place at that San Fransisco fundraiser and not just the out-of-context comments that got aired, you'd understand what Obama was trying to say. He doesn't mean that working class voters cling to guns and religion. He means that they've given up on voting based on economic issues because the candidate always make empty promises on those issues. Instead, what the issues they turn to are ones pertaining to guns and religion. They don't think they can count on the candidates to solve their economic problems, but they hope they won't take their guns away or impede on their religion.
Elitism is when you start to patronize people, acting like you're concerned about them being offended about Obama's statements. She obviously is playing on the fact that these people are indeed DAFT.
Bravo - I will be happy to collect the passports on the way out - I am beyond tired of the worship of the stupid.
I am available to help on weekends and after five. That's when I finish my "career" that barely pays my medical expenses & other bills even with insurance, a title, an education and insurance. Right now I have to cling to those things that are comforting because if I didn't I would start screaming and I don't think I'd be able to stop!
Perhaps being raised by a single mother who worked to start with for forty dollars a week and raised three children who went on to achieve, thanks to her ability to fight her way to success in the fifties makes me an elitist too. If so to quote Jim Morrison..
No summer cottage in Scranton though this week she's from Illinois and next week I'm sure we'll find her North Carolina roots.
Enough free association or maybe disassocia
Barack on!!!!
BUT, BUT, Arugula is delicious! ( And easy to grow!)
If you can charactorize an older woman living on $10,000 a year an elitist...
Obama is a Harvard Law grad, so what? Bush was a Harvard MBA grad, big deal. Elitism is not about education or intelligence. Elitism is attitude. Elitism is usually married to paternalism. It is the belief that you know what is best for others more than they know what is best for them. If the democrats embrace elitism then they will fail. Hypocrisy is the child of elitism and paternalism, and Americans hate hypocrisy. Once a candidate crosses that line they are done for. Americans got a sniff of Obama’s elitism from the bitter comment. We shall see how he does with paternalism and hypocrisy.
So according to you, if I do the research no one else does then make a recommendation that is against the mainstream thought, I'm an elitist because I actually do know what's best for people because I've taken the time to figure it out?
I'm sure glad we've had elitists like Washington, Jefferson, Galileo, Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein around.
I was going to give you a dressing down for claiming that Americans hate hypocrisy. Then I reconsidered. I dont think most (excpt most Huffpo readers) dont even know what hypocrisy is.
Is it the hypocrisy of executing your one-time ally, Saddam Hussein? Is it the hypocrisy of 'bringing democracy to Iraq' while supporting the undemocratic regimes in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt?
Is it the hypocrisy of bleating about human rights in Darfur and elsewhere, while arming and supporting the human rights abuses against Palestinian civilians in the Occupied Territories?
I think most Americans wouldnt know elitism if it bit them on the arse.
What Americans need to do is get a clue.
Is 'elitism' the new 'racism'?
Thank you, thank you, thank you Seitzman. I can not say it enough, thank you.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
