Stupid reasons not to vote for political candidates #15: Confused rhetoric? [orichalcum]

You're viewing

orichalcum's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

Clinton surrogate and Machinists union President Tom Buffenbarger: "Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

Obama supporters...are all lesbians? My stereotypes are getting all confused. Oh, wait, maybe lesbians drive Volvos, and Obama supporters drive Priuses (because of their trust funds, presumably)?
That must be the crucial difference. Also, less sushi. (I hear the sushi in Iowa is terrible.)

The same man also made a comparison between "the editor of the Harvard Law Review or a fighter for working families" and called him "a trained thespian" and "silver-tongued." So maybe, um...Obama is a rich gay guy and Clinton is a straight working-class woman? Is that the message here?

location: home

Music:: Track 09

Mood::

amused

←

→

There are 14 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

I dunno, I think it's a pretty coherent image. I mean, I don't per se approve of stereotyping, but the "rich ex-hippie boomers and their trust-fund yuppie children" is... definitely an image I'm familiar with, and definitely a recognizable part of Obama's core. I mean, I don't think there's anything *wrong* with any of those things, but I'm pretty sure it's an image that any Machinists union member will grok.

[link] [reply]

I agree that it's a coherent image. I just think that it's a label a lot easier to pin on the Deaniacs than on the Obama supporters,if nothing else than because of the racial angle. It's hard for them both to be wearing Birkenstocks and playing inner-city basketball. Also, boomers are a key part of Clinton's constituency, especially boomer women, who would tend to fit into the above stereotypes.

"Trained thespian" did strike me as code, as I suggest, along with the recent descriptions of Obama as a "pussy." (I don't actually think Obama ever did any theatre, though I could be wrong.)

[link] [parent] [reply]

I would disagree. Like I say, I think the "rich ex-hippie boomers and their trust-fund yuppie children" is a very easy label to pin on Obama supporters; The "wine-track candidate" label is one he's had since the beginning, and that's what this is evoking. Yeah, for obvious reasons he pulls a lot of the black vote as well, but that hasn't really been the defining story of his campaign and its appeal.

Whether the image will significantly hurt him is another matter; it hasn't so far, so it probably won't this time either. But I don't think that's because of dissonance.

Re: boomers & Clinton: yes, but her boomers are the poor boomers, by and large, not the Prius-drivers and latte-drinkers.

[link] [parent] [reply]

There's definitely a strong criticism/fear that Obama is the candidate of the rich/over-educated, ultra-liberal wing of the party, which is not entirely inaccurate given the voting demographics (the black community aside) in the earlier races, and for that matter, the lot of us.

That said, I think this is an increasingly inaccurate criticism given Obama's more recent performances, especially in Wisconsin, where he picked up votes among the working class.

Of course, how he'll deal with the Republican attack machine is anyone's guess. One of the major concerns many people had about an Obamam candidacy (and one I share) is his lack of time in front of the klieg-lights. But we'll see how it goes.

[link] [parent] [reply]

He only got the wine-track label after NH, and it's unclear that it is not more true that Clinton is limited to "beer-track" candidates.

I suspect the label will also be less effective after the endorsement of the Teamsters today. Nothing says Birkenstocks like cement overshoes?

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hmmm, Obama is a gay Muslim! I knew there was something weird about him...

In any case, if they hope to convince me not to vote for him by accusing him of being gay they are barking up the wrong prejudice.

[link] [reply]

As long as he's not a gay Jew. 'Cause then he'd cause earthquakes.

[link] [parent] [reply]

All I can say is OMFG.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Hah! That's this year's version of the "latte-drinking, volvo-driving, new-york-times-reading, body-pierced liberals" remark from that Iowa campaign commercial attacking Dean, back in 2004, I guess? Hee. Hey at least I'm getting farther from the stereotype, since I no longer drive a Volvo and I didn't spring for a Prius.

[link] [reply]

yep, except they can't directly layer on the VT civil unions subtext.

[link] [parent] [reply]

"Give me a break! I've got news for all the latte-drinking, Prius- driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust fund babies crowding in to hear him speak! This guy won't last a round against the Republican attack machine. He's a poet, not a fighter."

This is such bullshit. Clinton is one of the most widely-loathed American politicians there is (she is to conservatives as the Chimp is to liberals). Nothing will galvanize the Republicans like the opportunity to vote against her, even if many of them don't particularly like their own candidate. The Attack Machine, moreover, has been pre-programmed and optimized for attacking Clinton for years. I don't think nearly as much intensive Rovian wargaming has been done against Obama. Current polls have Clinton losing to McCain, but Obama beating him.

[link] [reply]

I really like the image of "intense Rovian wargaming" it cracks me up for some reason.

[link] [parent] [reply]

It's the image of him pushing around little wooden voting machine tokens, I think.:)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Using "Rovian" in the sense of "Rove-like", I think Clinton is doing a good job so far. Which is why I want her to lose.

[link] [parent] [reply]

April

Sun	Mon	Tue	Wed	Thu	Fri	Sat
			1 1	2	3 3	4
5	6 1	7 2	8 3	9 1	10 2	11
12 1	13 2	14	15	16 2	17 3	18
19 1	20 2	21 1	22 1	23	24 1	25
26 1	27	28	29	30 1

orichalcum

Stupid reasons not to vote for political candidates #15: Confused rhetoric?

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

(no subject)

April