it doesn't bother me when clinton talks about "elites" when she is referring to class differences in this country. yes, i think she's wrong to paint obama as an elitist, but painting your opponent as being on the wrong side is part of a campaign, even if i ultimately disagree with her portrayal.
and it doesn't bother me that some of her "elite" attack is engaging in class warfare. i'm a big proponent of class warfare. there should be more discussion of class in this country. i don't think that clinton stereotyping obama as any more "elite" than clinton is particularly accurate. indeed, if you look at their backgrounds obama (arguably) has a stronger record working with poor people than clinton. he was a civil rights lawyer and community activist in the south side of chicago whereas she was a corporate lawyer and served on the board at walmart. while i think that clinton's sudden class consciousness is a pander (it seemed to appear only after her polls showed that white working class was one of her strongest demographics), pandering is part of politics.
but it really annoys me when clinton started extending the "elite" label to economists who almost universally disagree with her gas tax holiday proposal. suddenly, "elite" isn't about class, it's about education and knowledge. i really don't like anti-intellectualism and i think there are elements of that in this version of the "elite" attack.
i'm trying to pin down why i am reacting so differently to the two versions of clinton's the "elite" attack. i disagree with both of them, but the first (class-based) version strikes me as not crossing a line that the second (education-based) one does. as i write this post out this line of mine seems to be so arbitrary. why is a wrong (IMHO) class-based attack "just part of the rough and tumble of politics" whereas a wrong education-based attack "unfair" and "crosses a line"? why am i making this distinction?
maybe i just identify more with the educated than the rich.
