You are viewing an obsolete version of the DU website which is no longer supported by the Administrators. Visit The New DU.
Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Reply #22: What insult? The "Chablis" reference? Context is everything, Larkspur... [View All]

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
Melinda Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-03-08 01:06 PM
Response to Reply #13
22. What insult? The "Chablis" reference? Context is everything, Larkspur...
WALLACE: But some observers, and some liberal observers, say that part of your problem is that you come off as a former law professor who talks about transforming politics when the lunch bucket crowd really wants to know what you're going to do for them.

Bob Herbert, columnist for the New York Times, happens to be a black man, says that Hillary Clinton seems tougher than you do.

OBAMA: Well, look. After you lose, then everybody writes these anguished columns about why did you lose. After Iowa, everybody was saying Obama's transforming folks because he's bringing in all these voters who we never expected would vote for a black guy.

This is the nature of politics. The fact of the matter is that, you know, we have done well among every group because people are less interested in dividing the country along racial lines or regional lines. They're really focused on how are we going to solve these big problems right now.

WALLACE: But when you see yourself among these groups losing 70 percent to 30 percent, you aren't troubled by that? Don't you think to yourself, "Maybe I need to have a different message or a new message, or a different way of reaching out to them?"

OBAMA: Look. You know, what we've done has been successful throughout. I mean, it's not like I've been winning in states that only have either black voters or Chablis-drinking, you know, limousine liberals. I mean, we've been winning in places like Idaho. We've been winning in places like Colorado.

There is this selective memory about how this campaign has proceeded. There's a reason why we won twice as many states and won more delegates and won a larger popular vote.


--end snippet--

Obama was dismissing people like Wallace who argue for pandering, for playing to special interest groups. And Senator Obama was refusing to play along, which is the exact opposite of what you claim in your 'letter'.

Way to take his words, and their meaning, out of context, and frankly, I find your assertion that you voted for Obama to be disingenuous on its face. I'm sure your next 'vote' won't be missed. :thumbsdown:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC