Becoming disillusioned with Hillary

[gabosaurus]

My cousin David's wife Roxanne has always been a political activist. She's more liberal than I am, if you can believe that. Roxanne has supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy since Day 1.
Until last week. As I learned in an e-mail I got from her earlier.

She attended an event featuring Bill Clinton and found him to be very uppity and elitist. There was a question and answer period that saw Bill avoid non-staged questions with answers such as "I don't think it is appropriate for me to answer that" and "That's not something I wish to address at this point."

Hillary and Obama both have campaign rallies coming up in the Dallas area. The rally for Obama is free. All you need is a ticket obtained from a campaign office. Hillary's rally is also free, but you need to be a "favored supporter" to obtain a ticket. Roxanne was told that, because she hadn't donated enough money, she could apply for a "standby ticket."

Obama is aiming his campaign (at least in Texas, probably elsewhere) at individuals. If you want to donate $5, that's OK with him.
Hillary wants the support of organizations and corporate. Her "suggested donation" form starts at $100 and goes up.

Roxanne is going to an Obama rally sometime this week. She told me that, if she likes what she hears, she will likely switch her support.

I wonder how often this is happening across the country?

[Mr. P]

My cousin David's wife Roxanne has always been a political activist. She's more liberal than I am, if you can believe that. Roxanne has supported Hillary Clinton's candidacy since Day 1.
Until last week. As I learned in an e-mail I got from her earlier.

She attended an event featuring Bill Clinton and found him to be very uppity and elitist. There was a question and answer period that saw Bill avoid non-staged questions with answers such as "I don't think it is appropriate for me to answer that" and "That's not something I wish to address at this point."

Hillary and Obama both have campaign rallies coming up in the Dallas area. The rally for Obama is free. All you need is a ticket obtained from a campaign office. Hillary's rally is also free, but you need to be a "favored supporter" to obtain a ticket. Roxanne was told that, because she hadn't donated enough money, she could apply for a "standby ticket."

Obama is aiming his campaign (at least in Texas, probably elsewhere) at individuals. If you want to donate $5, that's OK with him.
Hillary wants the support of organizations and corporate. Her "suggested donation" form starts at $100 and goes up.

Roxanne is going to an Obama rally sometime this week. She told me that, if she likes what she hears, she will likely switch her support.

I wonder how often this is happening across the country?

A great many are jumping from what I hear, and fast. Even democrats are as smart as rats when da ship starts to sink. She can't win anyway, IMO. Too many skeletons.

Personally, I don't think the country has any good choice this good round. We should ALL stay home.

[Yurt]

my hunch is that it is happening alot. you hit the nail on the head gabs, shrillery the fake loves the corporate $ but must press her socialist views in order to control the world.

i'm glad that someone in the lib world finally realizes that libs, even super duper billy, are in fact elitist snobs. their schtick on being there for the "everyday" man (haha, i said man) is a ruse that allows them to maintain power and to spread that power into almost every facet of your personal life. they want to regulate almost everything, if not everything.

shrillery has been an elitist bitch from day one. all one has to do is look at her actions as first lady. then when manwhore was out of the house, she realized she had to become a carpet bagger (lesbian pun intended) senator from NY in order to maintain her elitist power. does anyone really think she stays with hewhore for the love? she wants power and thats it. she doesn't care about you, she cares solely about her power and place in history.

she is the epitomy of elitist.

[diuretic]

Yurt - they're all elitists, they just use different words.

I'm reluctant to get into domestic US politics (hey I check in at DU and just glide past the Obama/Clinton spewthreads until I find something interesting) but it seems to me as a sort of disinterested observer that both the GOP and the DP are composed of elitists. The non-elitist in the DP - Kucinich - never had a chance.

[Yurt]

Yurt - they're all elitists, they just use different words.

I'm reluctant to get into domestic US politics (hey I check in at DU and just glide past the Obama/Clinton spewthreads until I find something interesting) but it seems to me as a sort of disinterested observer that both the GOP and the DP are composed of elitists. The non-elitist in the DP - Kucinich - never had a chance.

i don't think so. unless we have different meanings for the term elitist.

the dems are elitist because they want power centered/focused with the government officials alone. this creates an elite group of people. these people are responsible for regulating your life. republicans (for the most part) are not elite because they believe that "you" are responsible for your life and the government is there, not to control every aspect of your life, but to see that you have a good country to come home to.

if you look at which political party craps on the 1st amendment, you will see that the dems are king pigeon.

[diuretic]

i don't think so. unless we have different meanings for the term elitist.

the dems are elitist because they want power centered/focused with the government officials alone. this creates an elite group of people. these people are responsible for regulating your life. republicans (for the most part) are not elite because they believe that "you" are responsible for your life and the government is there, not to control every aspect of your life, but to see that you have a good country to come home to.

if you look at which political party craps on the 1st amendment, you will see that the dems are king pigeon.

Yes, difference in meaning using the term "elitist" (if I can be a bit self-indulgent I'll explain my use of it in a moment). But even using the definition that you have it still seems to me that the GOP, in its actions rather than its words, is doing exactly what you've accused the DP of supporting. I mean the Constitution has taken a fair hammering under the current GOP administration.

Anyway, to my self-indulgence. For me an elite is a grouping that seeks to puts itself above others in society. In my country, historically speaking, that elite has been the moneyed squattocracy* (the landed gentry in our history) and the nouveau riche of the industrialists. But since the 1960s there has been another type of elite - the social elite. And this is where I thought you were going in your posts. The social elite - I've read them described in US forums as "limousine socialists" - have hijacked the Labor Party here, formerly the party of the working person, now used by the social elites who were more (and this is their self-definition) "progressive" than the naturally socially conservative squattocracy and industrialists. It came to mind because I read a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald the other day by a famous curmudgeonly journalist here in which he quoted a former federal government minister thus:


Wonderfully, amid all the heroic rhetoric trowelled on Beazley snr, all four speakers ignored recalling his best-remembered quotation, one of the most scalding pieces of political invective in the last half-century.

At an ALP state conference in Perth in 1970, Beazley thundered: "When I joined the Labor Party it contained the cream of the working class. As I look about me now all I see are the dregs of the middle class. When will you middle-class perverts stop using the Labor Party as a cultural spittoon?"

Damn, I wish I'd said that!




*http://dictionary.bnet.com/definition/squattocracy.html

The Beazley quote was in : http://www.smh.com.au/news/alan-ramsey/the-short-appalling-memory-of-politics/2008/02/15/1202760598502.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap2

[Yurt]

diuretic;204088]Yes, difference in meaning using the term "elitist" (if I can be a bit self-indulgent I'll explain my use of it in a moment). But even using the definition that you have it still seems to me that the GOP, in its actions rather than its words, is doing exactly what you've accused the DP of supporting. I mean the Constitution has taken a fair hammering under the current GOP administration.

How?


Anyway, to my self-indulgence. For me an elite is a grouping that seeks to puts itself above others in society. In my country, historically speaking, that elite has been the moneyed squattocracy* (the landed gentry in our history) and the nouveau riche of the industrialists.

Question:

Is it elite to think that because a "person" was first on the land that they have a better right to the land than the second?

Assuming the first believes their right superior over the second, is that elitist?



But since the 1960s there has been another type of elite - the social elite. And this is where I thought you were going in your posts. The social elite - I've read them described in US forums as "limousine socialists" - have hijacked the Labor Party here, formerly the party of the working person, now used by the social elites who were more (and this is their self-definition) "progressive" than the naturally socially conservative squattocracy and industrialists. It came to mind because I read a piece in the Sydney Morning Herald the other day by a famous curmudgeonly journalist here in which he quoted a former federal government minister thus:



Damn, I wish I'd said that!

I agree with you there, words and definitions.... do not make a person so. I admit ignorance tho when it comes to your country's definitiosn and parties.

the word progressive can easily be abused by any party. but we (you and i) can figure out the difference the between an elite.

[diuretic]

On the hammering of the Constitution. I hesitate to spray a heap of links about the place but you don't have to look far to find them. However I think the most egregious damage has been done by the assumption by the administration of the notion of the unitary executive and also the use of executive orders in a way that wasn't usual before the Bush Administration.


Question:

Is it elite to think that because a "person" was first on the land that they have a better right to the land than the second?

Assuming the first believes their right superior over the second, is that elitist?

I'm not sure that I see elitism in that way. The elitism I referred to in the squattocracy was about the transfer of the English attitude that the landholder was superior in all ways to the non-landholder. The English had their landed aristrocracy, we had our imported, constructed squattocracy. Both considered themselves as elite.

[Roadrunner]

...the use of executive orders in a way that wasn't usual before the Bush Administration.

You need to bone up on the use of executive orders by Bill Clinton if you think the Bush Administration is unusual in the use of executive orders.

[diuretic]

You need to bone up on the use of executive orders by Bill Clinton if you think the Bush Administration is unusual in the use of executive orders.

I don't have to. I know that previous presidents used them. I also know that Bush has used them in a far more extensive manner. And if there are going to be comparisons between Clinton and Bush G. then let's say that Clinton didn't try and put forward the idea of the Unitary Executive as the Bush Administration has done. Clinton may have been a grubby so-and-so but he respected the doctrine of the separation of powers.