Conversation | 04/21/2008 9:22 am

Does a Little Obama 'Elitism' Go a Long Way in Politics?

With Joan Juliet Buck, Lesley Stahl, Liz Smith and Whoopi Goldberg

JOAN: What is this thing of Obama being perceived as an elitist? Is it important? Is it going to harm him? What do you think?

LIZ: I think it does harm him. And the National Review story on Michelle Obama complaining to ladies in Ohio about how could the two of them live on $500,000 a year, and how they couldn’t pay for their children’s tennis and dancing lessons, or piano lessons, or something. But, honestly, you have to admire the Obamas. They’re an upscale, young American couple. They’re a model for every downtrodden person in America. So, I think a little elitism goes a long way. I think it both helps and hurts. It’s like people having money or being rich. Well everybody wants that. The public wants the same thing. So I think it’s sort of a two-edged sword. But do I think the Obamas are intellectual elitists, probably. They’re smarter than the rest of us.

LESLEY: You come at this issue the way we come at the whole campaign now – now that we’re this deep in. And that is with certain preconceived opinions. If you like Obama, I don’t think it bothers you at all. If you don’t like Obama, it’s a huge thing. And this is why, to me – and I’ve always said this to some criticism – when it comes to the president, the most important thing the people vote on is likability. That you get down to hearing these discussions about the issues and they get so confusing. Sometimes the difference between the candidates – and this is true between Obama and Hillary Clinton – the differences on issues is so small that it’s very difficult to listen, where you can’t go back and re-read and figure out exactly who said what. And then, if they disagree, the argument goes back and forth and back and forth and you agree when this one says it and then you agree when the other one says it. You get lost. So you end up making your decision on whether you trust them, whether you’re comfortable with them, whether they convey a sense of confidence, comfortableness in their skin. And I think that Hillary Clinton runs the risk, in this particular question of whether he’s elitist, of being too heavy-handed. And I noticed the other day there was a new poll. It said that her negatives on this likability factor have gone way up as she keeps pounding away at this. It could end up where, yes, he’s painted as an elitist. But she gets hurt more than he does by it.

JOAN: Whoopi?

WHOOPI: I just think it’s the most ridiculous thing in the world. You know, it’s a phenomenon which, had both candidates been white, wouldn’t be as big an issue as it’s become, because they painted John Kennedy the same way, that he was an elitist. So now they’re saying Obama’s an elitist because he pretty much said that when this is happening and this is happening and this is happening, people cling to those things that they know best, that they’re most comfortable with. He didn’t say, "Only people in Pennsylvania." He said, "Folks who have gone through this kind of experience." He didn’t say, "Only white people." He didn’t say, "Only poor people." And it’s the same with rich white folks. They cling to what they know. All of us do it.

LESLEY: Whoopi, I think the fear the Democrats have with this issue is not because he’s a person of color. It’s because the Republicans latch onto this exact kind of argument time and again and make it work for them. As with Adlai Stevenson, with Dukakis, with Kerry, with Gore …

WHOOPI: Well, what’s the matter is the Democrats are an elitist group. That’s the truth.

Read more about: Barack Obama, Election, Hillary Clinton, Politics

320 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

ellie… where did i say that the people were bigots? they are isolationalists!

By ariadne a on 04/29/2008 10:49 am

e-mail alert

Ellie, I also have noticed how that bigot line gets left off. That is the most critical part of Obama’s statement and that is why he was characterizing that population as red necks to lend credence as to why he cannot get elected.

By Kay Sara on 04/25/2008 10:04 am

e-mail alert

Regardless of the basic drift of your article,your comment on those “weird people in Maine” fasting and praying reveals a singular lack of awareness of the role prayer and fasting had in the establishment of our nation. Even an early Congress held a time of fasting and prayer. It is likely we would not have won our independance except for God”s intervention. Think about it! We could use a heavy dose of it today considering the downward plunge of our nation in its tolerance of moral decay. R.

By R Pinkham on 04/24/2008 6:48 pm

e-mail alert

What do you think of Obama’s pastor of 20 years, his old uncle, saying Obama is a politician and since he is a politician he has to say what politicians have to say? So much for Obama’s integrity and honesty & new wave of politics. Thay are all, the same.

By Kay Sara on 04/25/2008 10:07 am

e-mail alert

Kay - before you blast Rev. Wright too badly, I urge you to watch his interview with Bill Moyers on Friday evening. http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04252008/watch.html

By Maurine H on 04/27/2008 12:36 am

e-mail alert

Could you please put up a different picture or 2 pictures of equal weight, one for each. This picture at the top of the page, appears to be promoting Hillary and I TRULY believe Obama will serve this country much better!

By Susan Patricia Golden on 04/25/2008 10:14 am

e-mail alert

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvI5hPo7pMU

By iris odonata on 04/26/2008 7:20 pm

Thank you Iris! and That is the TRUTH! Hope Woopi watches that video too!

By sibelle daubigne on 04/26/2008 11:34 pm

e-mail alert

Thanks Iris for the link. Hope he’s right!!

By Maurine H on 04/27/2008 12:40 am

e-mail alert

Amigas, and Frank. I’d like to address the repudiation of Rev. Wright. Think of all the people you and I would have to repudiate in order to run for president. As a Buddhist I would most certainly be asked and expected to repudiate my spiritual teacher, Chogam Trungpa Rinpoche. He was a extremely controversial guy. I didn’t agree with everything he said or even how he led his own life. But damned if I’d repudiate him. Who can not remember when we were teenagers that parents and certainly peers asked us to repudiate friends who were not members of the herd? That was painful. How much moreso to be asked to repudiate someone dear to us in public, on television, before the nation and the world. This is a lousy thing to ask of presidential candidates.

By laurie moy on 04/27/2008 2:21 am

e-mail alert

Let’s call it a draw, he is snooty and she is dishonest. At this moment, they have both turned me off and I am hoping, desperately hoping, that something occurs within the Democratic race that uplifts and engages me anew in this election season. Obama appears to be flagging. He needs to draw from some internal sources of strength (which I certainly hope he has) and show that he is better trained for this marathon than his current performance reflects. It would be great for Hillary to understand that most people can see through her dishonesty and her acceptance, even acceleraion of the ugliness of the race. We don’t need it…and if she is such a superior candidate, she doesn’t need it either

By cathy l on 04/27/2008 5:52 am

e-mail alert

Sancho Dumerachini - 4/28/2008 2:45 PM I mean why argue over things like who is an elitist and who lied last— what favored group of people have been wronged or whether they are likeable or not. What about the truth? The truth is that Hillary and Obama are both socialists. Many or all of their ideas come straight out of Karl Marx. This country was not built on socialism. Sadly, we seem to have reached the point where the electorate is willing to buy into which ever candidate can promise them the most. They are not being told the truth (there is that word again), only what they want to hear. If people are told that government has an inexhaustible supply of money and that other people have been holding them down and suppressing them, in effect, teaching them class warfare and that they as candidates will get even for them. The people are being told lies. There are such things as true government principles. The more we lean toward socialism the farther away we are from those principles. Liberalism and socialism are all about power, not truth. Teach people that you will take care of them from cradle to grave and that you need that candidate to make it work and you get someone to vote for you at first and then encircle them with a little more socialism and drag them down a little at a time. It is a sad fact of history that when the people believe they have the key to the treasury of a country it is too easy to forget about self responsibility, entrepreneurship, and doing as Jack Kennedy exhorted, “Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.” Hillary and Obama regularly tell people what they are going to give them that which is rightfully theirs—if they can only get in power. But government has no money of its own— only that which it takes from the people. In other words you. They sell the idea that tax cuts were essentially given only to the rich. Wrong again. Or, I should say untruthful. If you are going to give any tax cuts at all you must by definition include a lot of so called rich people because the statistics show that the top 5% of earners pay 50% of the taxes in this country. http://www.taxfoundation.org/news/show/746.html But will you ever hear a candidate tell the truth about that. No, just the opposite and people who don’t read and are not informed take it in hook line and sinker when a candidate who seems very intelligent and ‘elite’ tells them that they are getting all the burden and the ‘rich’guys are getting away scot free so elect me and I will help you get even. Heck, their are people who will read the facts and still not believe them because some candidate sways them by telling them a convenient sophistry or out right lie. But it’s all about power. What is the next step below socialism? It is a slippery slope. Whatever it is it is not good because it is simply not based on truth. “A government that can give you everything you want is powerful enough to take everything you’ve got” someone once said. We have to stop spending ourselves into oblivion. If we cut taxes lets cut spending. We cannot make everyone rich by increasing taxation. It just doesn’t work that way. Another truth. Why aren’t these things self evident? Its not just a matter of opinion so that it will work several different ways. Just because you believe there are inequities in life you can’t force things to be other than they really are. The way you want them to be—- because true government principles are underpinned by truth. Why don’t we hold all candidates up to the light of truth and weed out those who lie to us like Hillary and Obama. Like Abe Lincoln said,” You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all of the time.” May that statement be true, I pray, for our sakes as a people and as a nation.

By Sancho Dumerachini on 04/30/2008 1:08 pm

e-mail alert

Cathy, you could just ignore it and vote damnocrat in November. Then organize for true campaign reform.

By Mugsy Peabody on 04/27/2008 1:02 pm

e-mail alert

Elitism isn’t what bothers me about BHO. it is his arrogance that will prevent me from ever voting for him. if he is the nominee, even if Hillary is VP candidate(highly unlikely), I will vote for McCain. Frankly, I feel BHO is a radical leftist who will undermine the security of our nation. And I cannot stand is wife. She does not deserve to be First lady-someone who felt no pride in her country until her husband declared his candidacy. To me BHO has a likability factor of zero. He is a gifted orator, a lousy debater, and not ready for the presidency.

By Denise Duncan on 04/27/2008 8:01 pm