Quote Originally Posted by Xanith

Untrue. You label someone as an elitist because they talk one way to their constituents and then when you don’t think you are being reordered you state how people are simply clinging to their guns and their religion with antipathy to those who are not like them. That is a perfect definition of an elitist. One who purports support for the lower class to their faces yet secretly despises them.
That statement requires that gun fanatics and religious folks are the lower class. I can think of a few who would disagree with that. Are those types typically lower class? My perception is that those who are very vocal on either issue are not lower class by any definition. Of course, the quote is from Obama, and the groups you mention are not likely to support him.

Clothing is part of a campaign expense and there is nothing illegal about spending money to outfit someone.
A couple points. One, John Edwards was flayed for a pair of $400 haircuts, and this has blown those haircuts out of the water. If the cost is ten times as high (one report had 4k for hair styling in that total bill). The other point is that some of the stores are saying that they certainly haven't sold that much to any campaign, as it would be extraordinary even for them. Which introduces the bizarre suggestion that reporting that the money was spent on clothes was covering up for something even more outrageous.

No law broken means there is no embezzlement.
True, not embezzlement. There is some question about violating finance laws, but it is irrelevant, since nobody cares.
I never heard anyone complain about Hillary’s 10k pants suits. All of a sudden clothing is a major issue?
Hillary is a multi-millionaire who can buy whatever she wants. However, clothing has ALWAYS been a major issue for female politicians. There were people on this very forum attacking Hillary for her looks and clothes, and this place is a bit more intellectual than most. It's a sad commentary on our society, but this is not "all of a sudden".


I don’t know if you are too young to remember but Bill Clinton also promised a middle class tax cut before he got elected. For some strange reason he never got around to it, even when the economy was doing good. Democrats have a long long history of saying one thing about taxes and doing another, especially when it comes to taxes on businesses.
So does everybody else. People expect the candidates to state what they will do. Presidents don't introduce legislation. They can certainly twist arms to get certain legislation introduced, but that's a tricky game, especially when the house is held by the opposition party, as was the case for Clinton from 94 on.

Nobody should take campaign promises seriously in the specifics. Those statements are only promises for the ignorant. For the rest of people, campaign promises should be suggestions as to the general philosophy that will be pursued. On this issue, I would say that it comes down to whether or not you buy into Trickle-Down economics or not. Obama doesn't appear to, while McCain does, but not strongly. I've already stated that I think the concept is an ignorant conept foisted on an ignorant public by ignorant or greedy people.