OK lags in support for Obama; fears Apocalypse

[FOTD]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/opinion/03dowd.html?em

By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: August 3, 2008
WASHINGTON


"It is a truth universally acknowledged that Barack Obama must continue to grovel to Hillary Clinton's dead-enders, some of whom mutter darkly that they will not only not vote for him, they will never vote for a man again.

Obama met for an hour Tuesday with three dozen top Hillaryites at a hotel here, seeking their endorsement and beguiling their begrudging. He opened the session by saying that he knew there had been frustration about what they saw as sexism during the primary.

The Los Angeles Times reported that Hillary die-hards want to enshrine a whine in the Democratic platform about how the primaries "exposed pervasive gender bias in the media" and call on party leaders to take "immediate and public steps" to denounce any perceived bias in the future. That is one nutty idea.

Perhaps it is because feminists are still so busy cataloging past slights to Hillary that they have failed to mount a vivid defense of Michelle Obama, who has taken over from Hillary as the one conservatives like to paint as a harridan.

Before the Obama campaign even had a chance to denounce Ludacris, one of the rappers on the senator's iPod, Hillary Inc. started to mobilize. Susie Tompkins Buell, a former Clinton bundler, told The New York Observer that Obama had to distance himself, given Ludacris's new song rooting for Obama to "paint the White House black" and calling Hillary the b-word.

Despite Obama's wooing, some women aren't warming. As Carol Marin wrote in The Chicago Sun-Times, The Lanky One is like an Alice Waters organic chicken — "sleek, elegant, beautifully prepared. Too cool" — when what many working-class women are craving is mac and cheese.

In The Wall Street Journal, Amy Chozick wrote that Hillary supporters — who loved their heroine's admission that she was on Weight Watchers — were put off by Obama's svelte, zero-body-fat figure.

"He needs to put some meat on his bones," said Diana Koenig, a 42-year-old Texas housewife. Another Clinton voter sniffed on a Yahoo message board: "I won't vote for any beanpole guy."

The odd thing is that Obama bears a distinct resemblance to the most cherished hero in chick-lit history. The senator is a modern incarnation of the clever, haughty, reserved and fastidious Mr. Darcy.

Like the leading man of Jane Austen and Bridget Jones, Obama can, as Austen wrote, draw "the attention of the room by his fine, tall person, handsome features, noble mien. ...he was looked at with great admiration for about half the evening, till his manners gave a disgust which turned the tide of his popularity; for he was discovered to be proud, to be above his company, and above being pleased."

The master of Pemberley "had yet to learn to be laught at," and this sometimes caused "a deeper shade of hauteur" to "overspread his features."

The New Hampshire debate incident in which Obama condescendingly said, "You're likable enough, Hillary," was reminiscent of that early scene in "Pride and Prejudice" when Darcy coldly refuses to dance with Elizabeth Bennet, noting, "She is tolerable; but not handsome enough to tempt me."

Indeed, when Obama left a prayer to the Lord at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, a note that was snatched out and published, part of his plea was to "help me guard against pride."

If Obama is Mr. Darcy, with "his pride, his abominable pride," then America is Elizabeth Bennet, spirited, playful, democratic, financially strained, and caught up in certain prejudices. (McCain must be cast as Wickham, the rival for Elizabeth's affections, the engaging military scamp who casts false aspersions on Darcy's character.)

In this political version of "Pride and Prejudice," the prejudice is racial, with only 31 percent of white voters telling The New York Times in a survey that they had a favorable opinion of Obama, compared with 83 percent of blacks.

And the prejudice is visceral: many Americans, especially blue collar, still feel uneasy about the Senate's exotic shooting star, and he is surrounded by a miasma of ill-founded and mistaken premises.

So the novelistic tension of the 2008 race is this: Can Obama overcome his pride and Hyde Park hauteur and win America over?

Can America overcome its prejudice to elect the first black president? And can it move past its biases to figure out if Obama's supposed conceit is really just the protective shield and defense mechanism of someone who grew up half white and half black, a perpetual outsider whose father deserted him and whose mother, while loving, sometimes did so as well?

Can Miss Bennet teach Mr. Darcy to let down his guard, be more sportive, and laugh at himself?"

[Red Arrow]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow

Hell has frozen over. One of my die hard democratic voting friends has declared he will vote Republican in the next presidential election.

So, your friend.....Okie?

Born and raised in Los Angeles, CA area. Has lived in Tulsa area since mid 1980s.

Well then. She either is pissed Hillary's not there or she's a fraidy cat.

What reason did she give? Is she into hopelessness?

This friend is a "he". He doesn't care for McCain much, just likes Obama even less. His most valid comment is that "change" hasn't been well enough defined. He would like (both) candidates to tell more of what they will try to do to fix things, not just say change without definition.

[TheArtist]

My suspicion is that Obama is a bit "early", and on a couple of fronts.  First, he could have used some more experience under his belt. Secondly, the young demographic that he speaks to still does not have the numbers. Though in time that demographic will be much much larger and the baby boomers and older will also be dying off.  

Is going to be a fascinating election. No matter who wins. I think we are going to see a continued Balkanization of America into very different regions and places. Plus, the Baby Boomer wave is getting ready to crash, and the next wave is just starting to swell on the horizon. As those different places and demographics further sort themselves out, the battle of ideas and philosophies will become all that more strident.  This will cause even greater shifts and "sorting outs" to happen. "Nobody here thinks or believes like I do... I am going where they do." Thats going to create some interesting situations.

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by TheArtist

My suspicion is that Obama is a bit "early", and on a couple of fronts.  First, he could have used some more experience under his belt. Secondly, the young demographic that he speaks to still does not have the numbers. Though in time that demographic will be much much larger and the baby boomers and older will also be dying off.  

Is going to be a fascinating election. No matter who wins. I think we are going to see a continued Balkanization of America into very different regions and places. Plus, the Baby Boomer wave is getting ready to crash, and the next wave is just starting to swell on the horizon. As those different places and demographics further sort themselves out, the battle of ideas and philosophies will become all that more strident.  This will cause even greater shifts and "sorting outs" to happen. "Nobody here thinks or believes like I do... I am going where they do." Thats going to create some interesting situations.

I think that's true. I struggle with the idea of living here another year, and I'm a native of over half a century. I crave a blue state atmosphere.

Yet, I remind myself that the one reason we didn't move to Ranch Acres area a few years back was the realization that nearly 98% of the campaign signs in the last election in that neighborhood were Bush. A majority I could tolerate, but that density of support for one party and that particular moron makes for dull block parties. So, if I'm comfortable in my mostly Obama neighborhood how can I criticize them for rounding up the wagons?

We have some serious issues in America based on religion, race, age and wealth. Lack of experience? Not so much. Neither of the last two presidents had any legislative experience and very little executive experience. Well Clinton had Arkansas, but should that count? []

I see a rocky road ahead with no real improvement. This should be a change election. After 8years of any party, you expect change. Its being overidden by religion, race, age and wealth.

[FOTD]

+1

Ask yourself which candidate might be more able to lead government with the least acrimony.

Ask yourself, which candidate is flexible and more likely to compromise to move us confidently into the future.

Wise up. It's about confidence in ourselves and our ability to face down fear.

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Red Arrow


This friend is a "he". He doesn't care for McCain much, just likes Obama even less. His most valid comment is that "change" hasn't been well enough defined. He would like (both) candidates to tell more of what they will try to do to fix things, not just say change without definition.

It's spelled CHEnge. [}:)]

[buckeye]

Jeezum, apparently if you don't vote for Obama, you're an idiot, racist, brain-washed hick.  Couldn't possibly be because you disagree with his position...

It's all a big circus anyway.  

Obama = empty promises couched in feel-good language

McCain = empty promises couched in hard-donkey language

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin

What's the difference?  Either way, half the country will be pissed as hell.

[FOTD]

Disagree....more than half will be pissed when they find out where the past 10 years got them.....

If you don't vote for Obama, it doesn't matter in Dumbf*ckistan.

FOTD likes the big top! Especially the men on the flying trapeze and the fire breathers. They make the audience scared!

[waterboy]

quote:Originally posted by buckeye

Jeezum, apparently if you don't vote for Obama, you're an idiot, racist, brain-washed hick.  Couldn't possibly be because you disagree with his position...

It's all a big circus anyway.  

Obama = empty promises couched in feel-good language

McCain = empty promises couched in hard-donkey language

http://sendables.jibjab.com/sendables/1191/time_for_some_campaignin

What's the difference?  Either way, half the country will be pissed as hell.

In the Oklahoma poll, respondents didn't even know the issues. Didn't know whether they disagreed with Obama or not. 20% didn't want to say. I think you can be pretty assured opposition in this state and most of the south has nothing to do with his postions (which btw are not that different from McCains till Mac started switching on drilling, the war, the prez policies etc.) In fact I doubt most Okies even know what the issues are other than gay marriage, abortion and illegals.

[carltonplace]

I've been thinking about the cross-section of Oklahomans that would have been included in the Oklahoma Poll (+/- 3% error rate) of 750 likely voters. There is one thing they have in common that (to me) paints them into a specific corner: They all have home phones with published numbers.

Most young people don't have landline phones. If they have a home phone it's through their cable company and it isn't published.
Single people are less likely to have a home phone than couples with families (they have one in case of emergency, but most don't publish it).

I think the Oklahoma Poll gets mostly older people that still have a published home phone number, and time and patience to answer a poll and a desire to have someone listen to their opinion.

[FOTD]

Good observation.

BUT, we reside in Dumbf*ckistan anyway.....