Posts with the tag elite

This Race

Khaidji — Thu, 30 Oct 2008 11:06:44 EDT

There has been so much too and fro about whether he is or his not. Has no one chosen to listen to the man? Are they all comfortable listening and believing all the divisive slurs on this patriotic man who happens to be Black? I didn’t notice skin color until they all insisted, now they want me to believe their negative things about him. I look and I listen and yes, I do hear his oratory ability although some have criticized that too as his ability to read a prompter. What ever he does, he is criticized by the few that will not listen. None are as blind as those who choose not to see.

This Race

There has been much divisiveness and polarizing ado

He’s been treated unfairly by McCain and Palin too

I listened as they tried to reduce Barack

Slurs of narcissist, terrorist and he’s an elitist Black

Recently he’s a socialist and some even call him

A sexist, misogynist and an unpatriotic Muslim

Call Barack all these divisive terms but they will never derail

Every positive seed he has planted on his Campaign trail

Get an easy Download or a Hardcopy of
” Path To The White House”
Acrostic Poetry on Barack Obama
By Khaidji
The Bajan Poetry Society

People like us

Jeanine — Sun, 05 Oct 2008 14:20:24 EDT

A woman I talked to on the phone while I was canvassing asked me, "Where did Obama get all his money? How can he understand people like us?"

I answered that the Obamas are doing well, although they are not anywhere near as rich as the McCains. Barack Obama grew up without much and his mother sometimes used food stamps. He was a smart little boy, got into a good school in Hawaii, and eventually made it with scholarships and loans to Harvard. Along the way, he worked for church groups to help people in poor communities in Chicago. He wrote a best-selling book about his life, and that money enabled him and Michelle to pay off their student loans. His life story and his proposed programs and policies suggest that he understands the needs and the aspirations of all Americans. He has committed to making life better for working people.

Your vote is your own choice, of course. But don’t waste it on bad information.

This Is It...

Lawrence Freiberg — Mon, 08 Sep 2008 04:44:54 EDT

"Make no mistake where you are..." 4Such a time as this. Tax and spend - maybe a trillion when its all said and done.

Now imagine a giant vacuum cleaner sucking up billions of dollars above the USA. Half a trill and counting!

Now The Elite is someone who can't remember how many homes they have... When you have so much disinformation, and lies, remember its all here to serve the Elite and The United Corporations of America.

Thank You Barack for answering the critical call at such a time as this.
Apathy, get thee behind us all!
Men are calling good evil (at their con) and evil good (like "gov get out ofour way")
What she meant was dereg everything until no government or people stand in the way of their corps!
Barack asked "Do they think were stupid?"
Were not...
But waking up the sleepy is hard when they are lullibyed to sleep by fear, dumbing down, God, Flag and Country as if the dems don't hold these things sacred, the real ones.

Rise up, be counted, REALLY VOTE, this far, no further!

Let's Rock 4 Barack!

Palin gives a good speech

Bill — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 09:37:11 EDT

Wow! What a performance Gov. Palin gave last night. Everyone is so impressed...so what

I find it interesting that the republicans feel that giving a great speech is proof positive that Sarah Palin is ready to the V.P. These same people claimed only a week ago; the exact same reason for Obama's not being ready to be the President!

I am outraged;but glad that the speaking part is over. Now Let's get real about this election!

I think that Time magazines' Joe Klein said it best... Calling the McCain campaign’s assault on the media “insidious”, “bullying” and “not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.”

The story of the day out here in Minneapolis is the McCain campaign’s war against the press … So what’s going on here? Two things. McCain is just plain angry at us. By the evidence presented in the utterly revealing Time interview, he’s ballistic. This is a politician who needs to see himself as the man on the white horse, boldly traversing a muddy field…any intimations that he’s gotten muddied in the process, or has decided to throw mud, are intolerable. The second thing is more insidious: Steve Schmidt has decided, for tactical reasons, to slime the press. He wants the public to believe that there is an unfair–sexist (you gotta love it)–personal assault going on against Palin and her family. This is a smokescreen, intended to divert attention from the fact the very real and responsible vetting that is taking place in the media–about the substance of Palin’s record as mayor and governor. …There is a tendency in the media to kick ourselves, cringe and withdraw, when we are criticized. But I hope my colleagues stand strong in this case: it is important for the public to know that Palin raised taxes as governor, supported the Bridge to Nowhere before she opposed it, pursued pork-barrel projects as mayor, tried to ban books at the local library and thinks the war in Iraq is “a task from God.” The attempts by the McCain campaign to bully us into not reporting such things are not only stupidly aggressive, but unprofessional in the extreme.

That’s straight talk, the clear-quill real deal.

Klein comes in for a lot of grief from liberal blogs because he was originally a vocal supporter of the Iraq invasion. It’s been a goodly while now since Joe said that was a mistake he regrets and that’s good enough for me. Liberals really should be cutting Joe some slack - he’s a well-connected, establishment journalist who has worked out that he was fooled once and is determined not to have it happen again.

Let's Talk Issues.

Let's Talk Truth.

Let's leave the Rove, Bush "old" RNC tactics out in the cold.

The Many House of John McCain

Andr�a- (You've called him everything else- now call him Mr. President!) — Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:17:02 EDT

The new 7 wonders of the world- Sen. John McCain’s many homes.

How many homes do you have?

A simple question, really. One that could be answered quickly smoothly and without difficulty.

Unless,

You’re Sen. John McCain.

In Sen. McCain’s world, that question does indeed require serious thought. When asked by a reporter yesterday, just how many homes he had, Sen. McCain really couldn’t answer. He said he’d have to get his staffers to check into it.

Well now,

As it turns out, Sen. McCain has at least 7 homes.

Seven

One for each brother and his bride.

One for each Disney Dwarf

One for each day of the week

While millions of people are going through foreclosure on one house, Sen. McCain has his pick of the litter.

And his campaign calls Sen. Obama an elitist?

I remind myself now of the ABC Night News Report some weeks ago that focused on an Ohio town. This was right after Sen. Obama gave his wonderful speech in Germany. The reporter asked some of the "locals" in a restaurant what they thought of the Senator’s foreign trip. One lady in particular seemed to take great offense to the trip. "He is not President yet", she then went on to say that Sen. McCain was "one of us".

Hmmm

This particular part of Ohio has been decimated by the slumping economy. People are really struggling. I wonder if this lady knows Sen. McCain has 7 homes. Maybe he’d let her housesit for him one weekend.

August 14, 2008

Dave — Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:44:53 EDT

Can you believe the lies that we are already hearing from the McCain campaign?

That Obama will raise taxes on all Americans making more than $40,000?
Condensing Sen. Obama's comprehensive energy plan into a mere suggestion that Americans simply check their tire pressue?
Lying to the American people that offshore drilling will really create a quick fix to the high cost of oil?
Calling Obama an "elitist" when his second wife (who is half his age and with whom he had an affair because his other wife, who waited for him to return from VietNam, was horribly disfigured in a car accident) owns a beer distributorship worth a quarter of a million dollars, the couple owns eight (YES 8!) houses, fly a private jet and McCain wears $520 Italian shoes? In contrast, Sen. Obama just paid off his student loans. To whom do you think the American people can really relate as a real American?

It's time for change!

Best Is the New Worst

Chinni — Fri, 30 May 2008 15:47:41 EDT

Best Is the New Worst
By SUSAN JACOBY - May 30, 2008

PITY the poor word “elite,” which simply means “the best” as an adjective and “the best of a group” as a noun. What was once an accolade has turned poisonous in American public life over the past 40 years, as both the left and the right have twisted it into a code word meaning “not one of us.” But the newest and most ominous wrinkle in the denigration of all things elite is that the slur is being applied to knowledge itself..
..“Elite” and “elitist” do not, in a dictionary sense, mean the same thing. An elitist is someone who does believe in government by an elite few — an anti-democratic philosophy that has nothing to do with elite achievement. But the terms have become so conflated that Americans have come to consider both elite and elitist synonyms for snobbish. All the older forms of elite-bashing have now devolved into a kind of aggressive denial of the threat to American democracy posed by public ignorance..
..It is past time to retire the sliming of elite knowledge and education from public discourse. Do we want mediocre schools or the best education for our children? If we need an operation, do we want an ordinary surgeon or the best, most elite surgeon available?
America was never imagined as a democracy of dumbness. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were written by an elite group of leaders, and although their dream was limited to white men, it held the seeds of a future in which anyone might aspire to the highest — let us say it out loud, elite — level of achievement.

Race? Elitism? Trust?

Cheryl — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 14:15:21 EDT

Wow, and so it continues...the truth about which carpets the dirt has been hiding under is being revealed more and more. We are finding an interesting trend in the states that seem to overlook all the Clinton tarnish because a dirty Democrat may be better than a black one. And Bill Clinton shows his expertise on black life and issues because he has an office in Harlem...hmmmm. So a wealthy politician who has his hands in so many deals with corporations outside of the U.S. we've lost count, and one who never could lie well but continues to try, and who is certainly never going to have to worry about gas prices or where his next bag of groceries will come from is trying to help the poor black folks. Hmmmm...can you say elitist? Look at me I'm Bill Clinton and I am such a great guy I'm communing with black people. All the while wifey Hillary is throwing back shots and beers with the very people who are openly admitting that they cannot vote for a black guy. Something is wrong here. It seems that we still have a few ignorant fellow Americans who are missing the big picture. MORE OF THE SAME. Talking out of the side of their mouth is what the Clintons have always been known for. Sounds just like the last 8 years...say one thing and do another. Based on the assumption that the American people are too stupid to know the difference or are to complacent to care. Barack Obama will prevail because there are more of us out here with brains and a conscience than the Clinton machine ever counted on. As I try to hold on to my principles and stay with the positive campaign I find myself tested every day. I know that at some point the media will introduce the truth and Clinton will have much to answer to. Until then I will continue to know that Obama drives the road of truth and that is always the best road to be on.

Sean Hannity - An Elitist Candidate?

Donald — Fri, 18 Apr 2008 15:31:20 EDT

This is an e-mail sent to Sean Hannity and other Fox news mail addresses as well as CNN Thursday, 2008-Apr-17, after Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich discussed the Pennsylvania Democratic debate the evening of Thursday, April 18, 2008.

I have generally ceased to waste my time watching the Hannity & Colmes show because it quite obviously does not live up to Fox standards of “Fair and Balanced” reporting. If we want to see a picture of ‘elitism’ we can watch the expressions and comments of Newt Gingrich diminishing the parentage of Barack Obama while elevating his own upbringing in Pennsylvania and conveniently ignoring Barack Obama’s childhood and service on the south side of Chicago and to this country.

American Hunters and Shooters Association Endorses Obama

Chris Blask — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 13:15:15 EDT

HI folks!

Another example of Senator Obama's ability to unite America.

http://www.huntersandshooters.com/index.php

AHSA Endorses Obama Obama: He "gets it"

Today, as President of the American Hunters and Shooters Association (AHSA), I announced our endorsement of Senator Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination for President of the United States. Because the gun issue has recently become a factor in the Democratic primary in Pennsylvania, I want to share the remarks I made today:

As a gun rights organization we have not come to this decision lightly. We were formed two years ago because our research shows that millions of gun owners wanted a change. They not only wanted an organization that would protect their gun rights but an organization that was also committed to the protection of their communities as well as the protection of our lands. We reached out to the Obama campaign several weeks ago to offer our support and approval as was reported by Paul Bedard of US News and World Report. We believe recent attacks on Senator Obama's stand on the 2nd Amendment and his commitment to our hunting and shooting heritage are unfair and American Hunters and Shooters Association is stepping up to set the record straight.

Senator Obama has clearly demonstrated his commitment to the 2nd Amendment by his vote in support of the Vitter amendment to HR 5441, the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations bill of 2007. This amendment prevents the Government from confiscating guns in a time of crisis or emergency. Imagine how the citizens felt during Hurricane Katrina when government agents kicked in doors to confiscate law abiding citizens' guns at a time when they needed them the most. We know Senator Obama "gets it." To say that he is an elitist is patently ridiculous. To hunters and shooters everywhere, Senator Obama's vote demonstrated a fundamental understanding of the meaning of the 2nd Amendment which means he recognizes the individual right of all citizens to keep and bear arms. Senator Clinton, on the hand, failed to grasp the importance of this critical issue to hunters and shooters and voted against this Amendment. She turned her back on America's gun owners. In addition, Senator Obama's commitment to conservation and protection of our natural resources and access to public lands demonstrates to us his commitment to America's hunting and shooting heritage. Senator Obama will be a strong and authentic voice for America's hunters and shooters and it is with great pleasure that we endorse his candidacy.

Ray Schoenke
Wednesday, April 16, 2008

don't let non-issues divide us

Ali F. — Wed, 16 Apr 2008 01:26:30 EDT

I'm not surprised that the Republican sleaze machine has turned full force to try to distract us from how bad the GOP's policies have hurt this country. It's typical old school politics (led by Fox News). However, I am dissappointed to see that Sen. Hillary Clinton has joined the republicans in in this attack. I am dissappointed to see the lame and unconvincing efforts of Sen. Clinton to suddenly turn herself into a gun-toting conservative, in response to Sen. Obama's "bitter" remark.

Why is Sen. Clinton joining ranks with the Republican attack machine? I don't know. I suppose I could be cynical and say it's because the Clinton's always put themselves ahead of the party (as some in the media have suggested). When asked if Sen. Clinton was crossing a line when she implied Sen. McCain was more prepared to be Commander-in-Chief than Obama, Terry McAuliffe justified this attack by claiming that it's less harsh than what the Republican attack machine would do. I'm comforted to see that Sen. Clinton's campaign pegs it's moral compass to the GOP attack machine.

But I think it is none of these. I think this is a simple case of old school politics vs. new school. In other words, we can either play the same old political games, by allowing the talking heads and the politicians to divide us using non-issues and distract us from having substantive debate and solving real problems. Or we can reject those tactics and decide that we need to debate iraq and healthcare, not diction. We need to find ways to help families facing foreclosure, not throw around charged slogans to gain cheap political points.

And for the record, I am bitter that our leaders took us into a disastrous war in Iraq, while Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan have regrouped. I am bitter that our brave iraq war veterans are getting sub-par healthcare through the VA. I am bitter that american workers are losing their jobs, and their government is cutting their social benefits, just when they need them most. I am bitter that the income inquality has increased dramatically, making the American Dream harder to achieve for many families.

Even if you support Sen. Clinton or Sen. McCain, you must admit that we should be spending time debating policies, not throwing around buzz-words to get a rise out of people.

Absurd Article... and my response

Anthony D — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 02:11:45 EDT

I was infuriated with an article I read on the National Reviews website today about Obama's "bitter" remark. So I decided to respond to author of the article Peter Wehner, a former Deputy Assistant to President Bush. In his summation, everything he said was inaccurate or untrue, and completely biased, so I took it apart statement by statement. It's kinda long, so I apologize. ;-)

Read National Review Article HERE

Peter,

I can't remember a time when I've been more infuriated by a columnists article, then after reading your article today entitled "Off-the-record Obama". The article of course is very well written, and well constructed.

I take issue with the entire text of your last two paragraphs, and I will address each issue one-by-one. My comments are in bold.

"Increasingly, Barack Obama appears to be the Candidate of Illusion. He presents himself as post-racial — which is harder to accept than it once was, given his intimate, longtime relationship with a pastor and church that harbor deep and obvious racial anger toward whites." I think there is a term for this, Guilty by association. Massively taking the Rev. Wrights words out of context is one thing, but not even making an effort to get to the truth of the matter helps no one but you and whatever agenda it is you represent. The now infamous comments by Rev. Wright, "God Damn America" came from his sermon directly after the tragic events of 9/11. If you read the entire sermon, you will see that there is nothing racist or anti-American in anything that he has to say on that day. Anderson Cooper of CNN posted this analysis on his AC360 blog. Full Sermon Here

"Obama presents himself as post-partisan — even though in his time in the Senate he has done nothing to bridge the partisan divide, which explains why he has been endorsed by the rabidly partisan MoveOn.org." I love how you end with the endorsement of MoveOn.org, as if to say "see, the crazy ultra liberal group likes him". Who's your audience? MoveOn.org also ran ads during the 2004 election season saying "give Bush the boot". How could they possibly represent the feelings of Americans, when only 28% of the people in this country support President Bush?

"Obama presents himself as post-ideological — even though he was named the Senate’s most liberal member in 2007 by the respected National Journal." Obama has never described himself as post-ideological, that’s a term the media came up with. How can you hold him to label created by others for or about him? Besides that, everybody has an ideology. If he didn't have strong beliefs, he wouldn't be running for President.

Obama is a public critic of free trade — yet his chief economic adviser is quoted by a Canadian official as saying that Obama’s position on NAFTA is politically motivated and insincere." Why are you still repeating these flat out lies? As a "respected" journalist, I would think that the truth would matter more than anything else, and that you would let the facts stand on their own merits, and not create or perpetuate falsehoods. On March 3rd, the Canadian Embassy in Washington released a statement including this, “In the recent report produced by the Consulate General in Chicago, there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA. We deeply regret any inference that may have been drawn to that effect.” Full Canadian Embassy Statement

"Obama speaks about the importance of religious faith in his life and the life of the nation — yet when speaking to a group of rich liberals, he implicitly denigrates people of faith, pairing them with people who have “antipathy to people who aren’t like them” and who harbor “anti-immigrant sentiment[s].” He paints religious believers as folks clinging to crutches to better deal with their desperate lives — only to insist last night that his words were actually a tribute to people of religious faith. So sayeth Barack Obama, “healer of broken souls.” When Senator Obama was explaining to a group of supporters why he wasn't doing as well as he should be in the mid-west states, his explanation makes sense. In context, he is speaking about people being ignored by previous administrations, and being told that the jobs will come back when they haven't. If you read the entire quote it becomes a very different statement, and doesn't seem in any way that he is speaking down to the people of those rural communities. If anything it shows how deeply understanding Obama is to the realities these communities face. Someone who was elitist and "out of touch" would not come to the same conclusions. Here is the first part of the quote most people don’t get to see… “You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.”

"Early on in this campaign I was impressed with Barack Obama as a thoughtful, inspiring, and admirable (if far too liberal) political figure." Are you saying this to gain credibility with your readers? As though you were a supporter of Obama in the beginning, but now have seen the error of your liberal tendencies? If you were before truly impressed with Senator Obama, how could you possibly let these falsehoods change your mind? There are two possible answers; either you didn't know that what you were saying wasn't true, or you don't care, and you never really liked him.

"As the months have worn on, it’s become increasingly apparent that the candidate is projecting mere shadows on the wall. Our Republic deserves better." You and I both agree on one point... Our Republic does deserve better. It deserves better than the politics of fear and manipulation. It deserves better then persons with the ability to influence tens of thousands of people to misrepresent factual events, and to perpetuate falsehoods. If you truly believe that there is another candidate who is better and more qualified, then talk about that persons strengths. Let the chips fall where they may. The simple fact that you have perpetuated more falsehoods, tells me that you know that he is what he appears to be. Barack Obama IS the charismatic, honest and genuine person who has inspired Americans all over this great country. He is someone who has the ability to bring about great change in this country, and for whatever reason you don't want that to happen. I believe he will win, and I believe that he will change the political landscape in this country. We can do better, and we will do better, and Barack Obama is person who will help restore honor, respect, and Hope to this Great American Republic.

Thank you for reading my response to your article.

Anthony D'Elia
Phoenix, Arizona

"You must be the change you wish to see in the world."
-Mahatma Gandhi

Bitter?

Sandy — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 23:03:45 EDT

Elitism? Bitterness? Both are 'heavy'....

Christian Broadcasting Network says Obama 'bitter' comment "no big deal"

j f n — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 17:50:18 EDT

Here's the link. Be should to 'digg' it!

The important chunks are copied below.

Look, could Obama have said the whole thing better? Sure. The "cling" word as it relates to religion makes it seem that these people are needy in some way. "Cling" is not the best word to use.

The word "bitter" wasn't the best choice in the context he used it in but he was trying to make a broader point. I guess those are the pitfalls of being really smart.

But to say that these comments are "elitist" or are "demeaning" seems to be a big time stretch. It's hard to paint Obama as an "elitist" while at the same time he's described as hip, cool and relates to the younger generation. That makes no sense.

Maybe he could lay off the Grey Poupon and go with the French's mustard but give the guy a break.

Here's the best Hillary can hope for from this. She can try and make the case to the super delegates that comments like this show that Obama is "green" and "inexperienced" and who knows what he will say when he's on the World stage as President. I'm not saying it's an argument that will work but these comments give her some amunition. A few weeks back he also said how he wouldn't want his daughters "punished" with a baby. She can try and argue that this is a trend.

Still, I know Obama is getting blasted for these comments but to me this seems like a case of piling on. We talk alot in Christian circles about giving people "grace" but in politics those same rules don't apply.

This whole "elite" thing is pissing me off!

Wm — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 14:40:22 EDT

This whole thing about painting Obama as "elite" is really annoying me. I mean, we now have the first concrete evidence that Bush and his administration personally approved torture (which should get them indicted for war crimes). But what is the media yammering on about? Clinton and McCain (of all people) accusing Obama of being elitist.

Give me a break.

Obama's point is that people have given up on having a good government, so they are susceptible to voting on wedge issues, while ignoring those issues that should really matter to them (like the economy, the environment, etc.). So what do Clinton and McCain do? They turn it into a wedge issue!

The republicans succeeded in painting Gore and then Kerry as elitist. If we fall for this again, we deserve the crappy government we get.

2004 Obama video explains "bitter"

Wayne — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 07:42:44 EDT

Everybody's shouting so loud about the San Francisco "bitter" sound-bite, I can't hear what anyone is saying! CONDESCENDING! ELITIST! OUT-OF-TOUCH! I'M NOT BITTER! So let's step back, take a deep breath, and talk quietly for a moment. Which is exactly what Charlie Rose did with Obama in 2004...when they discussed this exact issue.

Thanks to John Marshall at TalkingPointsMemo ( http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/188674.php ), we have the video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6oGF3cyHE7M

The Fix Is In: Superdelegate loyalists will choose Clinton for nomination that may culminate in DNC riot a la 1968

Nepos Libertas — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 03:29:29 EST

CNN: What does it mean Hillary's ready to rely on SuperDelegates? (YouTube, 4:11)

Keith Olbermann: Hillary Clinton pushing for superdelegate strategy (YouTube, 6:23)

1968 Chicago police riot at Democratic National Convention (YouTube, 4 min)

Let's be clear that if Hillary Clinton is crowned with the nomination by the overwhelming majority vote of the superdelegates at Democratic National Convention in Denver, Colorado the last week of August, it will swing the moderates, hostile towards Hillary's "socialist agenda" (mandatory health care, economy micromanagement, etc) to cast the ballot for McCain (if chosen by RNC hacks), ensuring the win for McCain in fulfilling his quest to become the next "war president" eager to order the attack on Iran/Syria should Bush back out.

Si, se puede!

George W. Heath, R.N. — Tue, 19 Feb 2008 18:20:18 EST

The talking heads claim Clinton has the appeal to Latino voters. There is even some stats to indicate that possibility. Well, she derides Obama's use of the cry of the farmworkers, "Yes, we can" for her "Yes, we will" shows a bit of insensitivity. But what can one expect of a white girl from the elite of New York. As one who was able to shake hands, quickly, with Cesar Chavez and heard insights of him by people who houses he visited, "Yes, we can" or "Si, se puede" is just fine.

I am not saying Obama is some guy up from the 'hood. I would be unsurprised if he has suffered indignities because of the color of his skin, something Hillary Clinton never had to confront. In that respect, I feel akin to Obama. A few indignities have been served to my wife and I due to her disability, though a lot less as the decades unwind. Heck, the family problems Obama seems to parallel Bill Clinton. :)

BTW, I also was able to shake hands with Bill Clinton during his presidency.

George W. Heath, R.N.

Elites behaving badly

Michael Weiksner — Thu, 01 Mar 2007 03:00:30 EST

I apologize for starting off a tad negative, but I was disappointed by Obama's response to the whole Geffen thing. Geffen behaved badly, and shame on Dowd and NYT for publishing his comments. Clinton's reply was too strong. But those things are outside Obama's control. Obama's response is presumbably within his control.

Obama has rightfully asked to raise the bar on political discourse. So, why didn't Obama privately ask Geffen to apologize? And if Geffen refuses to apologize, why is Obama not willing to call him out on it?

I look forward to contributing some cheers and other pure support, but as a true supporter, I also plan to contribute costructive criticism. I hope that the campaign staff and other supporters appreciate this. It's going to be a long and grueling campaign, and we all have to live and learn if we are going to succeed.