Althouse: Not Bittergate.

April 16, 2008

Not Bittergate.

Clinggate.

14 comments:

rhhardin said...: This comment has been removed by the author.; 4/16/08, 6:17 AM
Paco Wové said...: Not enough syllables. "Clingygate" would work better.; 4/16/08, 6:17 AM
rhhardin said...: Both the Clinton and McCain campaigns focused on the word “bitter” — allowing Senator Obama’s supporters to engage in a largely semantic discussion about whether economically disadvantaged Americans were “bitter” or “angry” or “frustrated.” But this is a meaningless series of distinctions even in this super-charged political environment. It’s safe to say that people without jobs are not particularly happy about that situation, regardless of the adverb in question.

What sort of idiots are over at the Times these days? Those are adjectives.

It's the reverse of the FCC ruling that ``fucking'' is an adjective in ``fucking brilliant.''

Nobody cares about grammar these days.

Next up : a better value for pi.; 4/16/08, 6:18 AM
bearbee said...: Bubba Bitter barfed a barrel of bilious beer. If Bubba Bitter barfed a barrel of bilious beer, where is the barrel of bilious beer that Bubba Bitter barfed?; 4/16/08, 6:23 AM
Apple Fanboy Dude said...: Indeed, as I wrote to a friend last weekend:

"The focus has been on "bitter." That's no accident, because "bitter" is far easier to defend. "Cling to," with all its "false consciousness" ramifications, is much more difficult to defend."

The reference to Thomas Frank is exactly right:

"An environmentally conscious, pro-stem cell bond trader who votes Democratic is lauded for selflessness and open-mindedness. A gun-owning, church-going factory worker who supports Republican candidates, on the other hand, must be the victim of partisan deception. This double standard is at the heart of the Democratic challenge in national elections..."; 4/16/08, 6:34 AM
Bissage said...: Clinggate?

Doesn’t sound like anything so bad this fine product couldn’t take care of it.

Marion Ross approves!

P.S. Nice teeth.; 4/16/08, 6:39 AM
Bob said...: I saw "Bitterquiddick" in one of the blogs yesterday, can't remember which one.; 4/16/08, 6:50 AM
Sloanasaurus said...: This double standard is at the heart of the Democratic challenge in national elections..."

The double standard in general is the heart and soul of the Democratic party.

Obama and his church is a classic example. If John McCain attended a church for 20 years that gave a prize to David Duke for a lifetime of service, the national media would be on a relentless attack against him. Yet, Obama is praised for sitting in the pews of a church for 20 years that gave a lifetime achievement award to Louis Faharrkan. It's a double standard.

Remember when Obama said he wouldn't never go on the show with Don Imus because he had to young girls and he didn't want to condone his racial comments because of his girls... yet Obama is given a pass for sitting through for 20 years and bringing his girls to listen to the anti white tirades of the reverend Wright It's the double standard.

Obama collects millions from the CEOs of large multinational oil companies and pharm companies, yet the press doesn't call him on it when he says he doesn't take oil or pharm money. Meanwhile, McCain is written up for having a lobbyist on his staff. THE DOUBLE STANDARD - the lifeblood of the democratic party.; 4/16/08, 7:20 AM
AllenS said...: Soap opera:

The Days of Our Bitter Lives.; 4/16/08, 7:21 AM
Meade said...: As The Lower-class World Clings; 4/16/08, 7:27 AM
Simon said...: I can agree with it as far as it goes, but it never once challenges the implicit assumption that voters who lean Republican based on social concerns are voting against their economic self-interest. The predicate becomes a sub silentio assertion that liberal/progressive economic policy is better for the working woman than Republican economic policy, and/or that values voters believe that this is the case. Neither of those are remotely established enough propositions that they ought to go unremarked.; 4/16/08, 9:12 AM
Dust Bunny Queen said...: I thought this was a good and fairly thoughtful article for the NYT.

Two points.

The mistake that Senator Obama and Mr. Frank both make is that they assume that only the values of culturally conservative voters require justification

The false assumption that your world view is the only one with validity and that the 'other' must be faulty or that there is something wrong with the people who hold the other view is prevalent on both sides of the political debate. However, it seems that there is NO willingness to concede to any other point of view on the left.

Secondly: As Simon points out the left can't conceive that the economic interests of the people who vote against their liberal socialist agenda don't lie with becoming either a ward of the State or becoming a wage slave to support the wards of the State.

Most people I know in "bitter middle America" cling to the idea of self reliance and would rather have less, that they earned for themselves, than to have more and become a serf to the government. It doesn't occur to the elites like Obama and Frank that people that the economic best interests of some (those who receive the benefits)are detrimental to others (those who are forced to pay for the benefits).

Indentured servitude is never in the economic best interest of the indentured. Of course the master, or in this case the government and freeloaders, approve of the arrangement.; 4/16/08, 9:49 AM
Anonymous said...: it never once challenges the implicit assumption that voters who lean Republican based on social concerns are voting against their economic self-interest.

Another thing it overlooks is that the implicit premise behind the implicit assumption-- that pursuit of economic self-interest is the right and natural thing-- is a bit off-message for liberal Democrats.; 4/16/08, 10:15 AM
hygate said...: I can agree with it as far as it goes, but it never once challenges the implicit assumption that voters who lean Republican based on social concerns are voting against their economic self-interest.

Exactly . . . if such is the case then why does Kansas, a reliably red state, have both lower unemployment and significantly fewer people living in poverty (3% vs. 12% IIRC) than the national average?

Additionally, aren't self-reliance and a reluctance to appropriate others wealth using the ballot values as well?; 4/16/08, 10:25 AM