Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 10:41:13 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Election Archive
  Election Archive
  2008 Elections
  Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25]
Author Topic: Obama on Small-Town Pennsylvania...  (Read 42109 times)
exopolitician
MATCHU[D]
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,892
United States


Political Matrix
E: -5.03, S: -6.26

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #600 on: April 15, 2008, 07:35:42 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course. But then, they were the people he was "insulting", weren't they.

Bingo!

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. The places he made this comment about weren't going to vote for him anyway. Did anyone really think Center City progressives would abandon him over this? LOL.

Do you really think this will draw the undecided and "leaners" to him.

No it wont [and doesnt seem to be] having any affect...so those undecided will still be undecided and the leaners will still be leaning.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #601 on: April 15, 2008, 08:21:43 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Of course. But then, they were the people he was "insulting", weren't they.

Bingo!

Yeah, that's what I've been saying. The places he made this comment about weren't going to vote for him anyway. Did anyone really think Center City progressives would abandon him over this? LOL.

Do you really think this will draw the undecided and "leaners" to him.

No it wont [and doesnt seem to be] having any affect...so those undecided will still be undecided and the leaners will still be leaning.

It's still early and that last Rasmussen poll showed a 4 point gain.  I think it's too early to tell.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #602 on: April 16, 2008, 02:43:00 PM »

600 posts in 5 days is quite impressive for a site like this.
Logged
opebo
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,010


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #603 on: April 16, 2008, 03:16:08 PM »

You have not contributed any facts into this discussion J.J.

Check the link, but, unfortunately for you it doesn't have pictures.

There is no link in this post, J.J.

There have been several that I've posed on this thread, generally on the population increases in PA, employment in some of the areas in question, and some of the mayor's statements from the region (which another poster added). 

They generally show up as blue and you move the cursor over and click your mouse.  Try it.

Ah yes, those.  Irrelevant.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #604 on: April 16, 2008, 06:54:25 PM »

You have not contributed any facts into this discussion J.J.

Check the link, but, unfortunately for you it doesn't have pictures.

There is no link in this post, J.J.

There have been several that I've posed on this thread, generally on the population increases in PA, employment in some of the areas in question, and some of the mayor's statements from the region (which another poster added). 

They generally show up as blue and you move the cursor over and click your mouse.  Try it.

Ah yes, those.  Irrelevant.

No, quite relevant, unless you exist in the land of Obamality.  His claims are nonsense.  For a guy claiming to know different cultures, he sure doesn't understand the domestic ones.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #605 on: April 16, 2008, 08:22:03 PM »

Interesting...  Apparently, "elitist" is now a code word for "n".  Who knew?  The best comment of this piece is bolded...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-shipler16apr16,0,2335261.story

The resonance of racism

In a nation steeped in stereotypes, candidates' words can hit a nerve.
By David K. Shipler
April 16, 2008

Whether by calculation or coincidence, Hillary Clinton and Republicans who have attacked Barack Obama for elitism have struck a chord in a long-standing symphony of racial codes. It is a rebuke that gets magnified by historic beliefs about what blacks are and what they have no right to be.

Clinton is no racist, and Obama has made some real missteps, including his remark last week that "bitter" small-town Americans facing economic hardship and government indifference "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Perhaps he was being more sociological than political, and more sympathetic than condescending. But when his opponents branded him an elitist and an outsider, his race made it easier to drive a wedge between him and the white, rural voters he has courted. As an African American, he was supposedly looking down from a place he didn't belong and looking in from a distance he could not cross.

This could not happen as dramatically were it not for embedded racial attitudes. "Elitist" is another word for "arrogant," which is another word for "uppity," that old calumny applied to blacks who stood up for themselves.

At the bottom of the American psyche, race is still about power, and blacks who move up risk triggering discomfort among some whites. I've met black men who, when stopped by white cops at night, think the best protection is to act dumb and deferential.

Furthermore, casting Obama as "out of touch" plays harmoniously with the traditional notion of blacks as "others" at the edge of the mainstream, separate from the whole. Despite his ability to articulate the frustration and yearning of broad segments of Americans, his "otherness" has been highlighted effectively by right-wingers who harp on his Kenyan father and spread false rumors that he's a clandestine Muslim.

In a country so changed that a biracial man who is considered black has a shot at the presidency, the subterranean biases are much less discernible now than when the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated. They are subtle, unacknowledged and unacceptable in polite company. But they lurk below, lending resonance to the criticisms of Obama. Black professionals know the double standard. They are often labeled negatively for traits deemed positive in whites: A white is assertive, a black is aggressive; a white is resolute, a black is pushy; a white is candid, a black is abrasive; a white is independent, a black is not a team player. Prejudice is a shape shifter, adapting to acceptable forms.

So although Obama's brilliance defies the stubborn stereotype of African Americans as unintelligent, there is a companion to that image -- doubts about blacks' true capabilities -- that may heighten concerns about his inexperience. Through the racial lens, a defect can be enlarged into a disability. He is "not ready," a phrase employed often when blacks are up for promotion.

When Clinton mocked Obama for the supposed emptiness of his eloquence, the chiding had a faint historical echo from Thomas Jefferson's musings in "Notes on the State of Virginia" that "in music they are more generally gifted than the whites with accurate ears for tune and time," but "one could scarcely be found capable of tracing and comprehending the investigations of Euclid."

This slander that blacks had more show than substance was handed down through later generations as a body-mind dichotomy, with physical and mental prowess as opposites. Overt "compliments" -- they've got rhythm, they can dance, they can jump -- were paired with the silent assumption of inferior intellect.

Clinton surely had no racial intent, but none is needed for a racial impact. In a society long steeped in stereotypes, such comments reverberate. The incessant loop of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. cursing America and repeating old conspiracy theories has revived fears of black anger among whites whose threshold of tolerance for such rage has always been low. No matter that Obama seems anything but angry. A few sentences from his pastor are enough to incite such anxieties.

The nation is testing how its racial attitudes have evolved. As the campaign continues, we are likely to be both pleased and disappointed with ourselves.

David K. Shipler is the author of "A Country of Strangers: Blacks and Whites in America" and "The Working Poor: Invisible in America."
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #606 on: April 16, 2008, 08:35:30 PM »

Interesting...  Apparently, "elitist" is now a code word for "n".  Who knew?  The best comment of this piece is bolded...

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-shipler16apr16,0,2335261.story

The resonance of racism

In a nation steeped in stereotypes, candidates' words can hit a nerve.
By David K. Shipler
April 16, 2008

Whether by calculation or coincidence, Hillary Clinton and Republicans who have attacked Barack Obama for elitism have struck a chord in a long-standing symphony of racial codes. It is a rebuke that gets magnified by historic beliefs about what blacks are and what they have no right to be.



In all fairness, if a white Republican said, "The people in North Philadelphia cling to their religion because the feel powerless to deal with employment," I'd call it racist.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #607 on: April 16, 2008, 09:55:44 PM »

But they have.  And so have democrats.

Well, not exactly, but many have commented on how the hamito-semitic peoples of the levant and north africa and the arabian penninsula have, out of a distinct lack of economic opportunity, turned to religious tantrums and even terrorism.  And nobody questions that.  No one ever even created a thread about it, much less a fourty-one page diatribe.  I have commented about this before and you wasted no time shooting it down.  But don't you see it's the same phenomenon to which Obama refers?  Admittedly a little less acute, and if Rendell is to be believed, a little less accurate.  But my guess is that you bought into the idea when it was rag-heads and camel jockeys that they were talking about.  But try to say the same thing about philly folks, whether white or black, and you're up in arms.  So to speak.
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #608 on: April 16, 2008, 11:16:31 PM »

But they have.  And so have democrats.

Well, not exactly, but many have commented on how the hamito-semitic peoples of the levant and north africa and the arabian penninsula have, out of a distinct lack of economic opportunity, turned to religious tantrums and even terrorism.  And nobody questions that.  No one ever even created a thread about it, much less a fourty-one page diatribe.  I have commented about this before and you wasted no time shooting it down.  But don't you see it's the same phenomenon to which Obama refers?  Admittedly a little less acute, and if Rendell is to be believed, a little less accurate.  But my guess is that you bought into the idea when it was rag-heads and camel jockeys that they were talking about.  But try to say the same thing about philly folks, whether white or black, and you're up in arms.  So to speak.

Angus, first who has said that?  Second, who has said, "Therefor, we need economic development in Arabian Penninsula?"  The only think I've heard is that some people are rewarded financially because they engage in terrorist acts.  They are not being paid, however, to have a religious belief.

I've heard people saying, "[Some] Arabs/Muslims hate freedom," but not economic development.  And, as I've indicated, I have not bought into the "hate freedom," argument.
Logged
angus
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 17,423
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #609 on: April 17, 2008, 06:54:02 PM »

But they have.  And so have democrats.

Well, not exactly, but many have commented on how the hamito-semitic peoples of the levant and north africa and the arabian penninsula have, out of a distinct lack of economic opportunity, turned to religious tantrums and even terrorism.  And nobody questions that.  No one ever even created a thread about it, much less a fourty-one page diatribe.  I have commented about this before and you wasted no time shooting it down.  But don't you see it's the same phenomenon to which Obama refers?  Admittedly a little less acute, and if Rendell is to be believed, a little less accurate.  But my guess is that you bought into the idea when it was rag-heads and camel jockeys that they were talking about.  But try to say the same thing about philly folks, whether white or black, and you're up in arms.  So to speak.

Angus, first who has said that?  Second, who has said, "Therefor, we need economic development in Arabian Penninsula?"  The only think I've heard is that some people are rewarded financially because they engage in terrorist acts.  They are not being paid, however, to have a religious belief.

I've heard people saying, "[Some] Arabs/Muslims hate freedom," but not economic development.  And, as I've indicated, I have not bought into the "hate freedom," argument.

consternation.

why have you twice referred to the "freedom-hating" diabtribe of the Bushies, when it is clear that we both think it's a load of horseshït? It is a very distracting thing to do, and has nothing to do with the arguments either of us are trying to make, and we both disagree with it, and neither of us have ever given credence to the idea.  You're either trying to yank my chain, or you're confused.  I'll assume the latter, since you generally don't go out of your way to constern.  But that's a difficult assumption as well, since you're also generally well-informed.

To answer your question, the BBC world report often comments on this phenomenon.  As does CNN's Christianne Amanpour.  Moreover, a number of respected writers including Samuel Huntington, Gary Becker, and Joe Klein of TIME have written that terrorism is often grievance driven, the grivance almost always being economic.  National Geographic, as well--and I know you're a subscriber--does several articles a year on the phenomenon.  Take the December 2007 issue on the "little town of Bethlehem" (now divided by a huge wall, the sort that some americans want to build along our southern border) in which Michael Finkel points out that the very wall built to protect west bank settlers has had the effect of stifling trade, which will no doubt lead to further acts of desperation.

Fair enough that you may or may not agree with such assertions, but it's amazing to hear you feign ignorance that such assertions are constantly being made.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #610 on: April 17, 2008, 07:00:21 PM »

Did they ask whether people were personally offended? Because I imagine that would lower the number...

The question was "do you personally find the comments offensive?"  I guess that is slightly different from "were you personally offended?", though, but I'm not sure you can get a perfect question to get at what I think you're getting at.

Still, only 1/3 of Democrats in a Clinton-leaning state being "personally offended" (a number not all that much higher than the national poll of Democrats who think Obama should withdraw) suggests to me that this is mostly Clinton partisans reporting offense.

What I'm getting at is basically that if you ask someone "Do YOU feel personally offended when retarded people are laughed at" they will say no because they don't want to be retards. People don't want to think of themselves as "bitter." So they'll say "no, of course not, why would I, I'm not bitter."

But I realize it's probably not quantifiable in polling anyway. Only a minor quibble, that's all.
Logged
Sam Spade
SamSpade
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #611 on: April 24, 2008, 12:02:32 PM »

Read this comment and found it interesting...

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes." - David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Overvaluing_downscale_whites.html
Logged
J. J.
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 32,892
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #612 on: April 24, 2008, 04:20:09 PM »

Read this comment and found it interesting...

"The white working class has gone to the Republican nominee for many elections, going back even to the Clinton years. This is not new that Democratic candidates don’t rely solely on those votes." - David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0408/Overvaluing_downscale_whites.html

The thing is, they do swing the election, e.g. Reagan Democrats.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 20 21 22 23 24 [25]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 13 queries.