Why is there always double standards when it comes to whose an "elitist"

[Hawaii Hiker]

In 2004, Bush & Kerry had similar Ivy league backgrounds & wealth, & while Kerry was pegged the snob/elitist, Bush was the everyday guy you can have a beer with??....How does that work?.....(Actually, Bush is the guy you wish a tape would surface with him and a dominatrix)....

More recently, let's take Mitt Romney & John Edwards...Romney was always praised for being a successful businessman blah blah & is probably worth $250 million or so...Now Edwards, who has made a fortune as a trial lawyer, but still no where near the wealth of Romney, was deemed an out of touch elitist because he got $400 haircuts?....What???

Now, with the recent flap over Obama's statements....Sorry, I'm not buying it...McBush & Clinton are far wealthier than Obama is, plus Obama is funding his campaign with MOSTLY small donations, MOST of which are coming from middle class people....

And as a general view; it seems as if it's ok to bash those living in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, etc., but if anyone makes fun of rural America, you're some out of touch elitist...Fuck that.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

1. You nailed it.

[melody]

2. Because in McClinton World, reality doesn't count ... perception does

They don't care what they have to do so long as they retain power.

[lumberjack_jeff]

3. Because Bush would say "Y'all are alright."

In contrast Obama says, "There's something wrong with y'all, but I understand where you got those crazy sentiments - I'll make it okay."

[patrice]

6. LOOK at "Us". There IS something Wrong here.

Or is it all always and only forever wrong with the other guy?

[panader0]

4. I am weekly amazed at what can constitute a controversy

This is a stretch. What a crock of bullshit. The semantics of words like "bitter" and "elitist"......... it will pass soon and then there will be another grasp at some small thing trying to make up a controversy.

[patrice]

5. Because everyone assumes that s/he is the absolute arbiter of the definition of the word and, ergo,

qualified to make whatever exceptions s/he wishes. It is the assumption that meaning is static and I am in possession of it and, because I am the owner of the meaning, I get to say who it applies to and who it doesn't apply to. In short, it's hypocrisy + either purposefully ignoring or being ignorant of the fact that words and the real phenomenal world are not equal. People frequently mistake words for the things that the words actually only refer to, and imperfectly at that. Reality is bigger than any word.

[housewolf]

7. Because everyone wants to be one and no one wants to admit that they _are_ one

n/t