And people wonder why Clinton stays in the race.

Jon Chait can munch a few diatribes now.

"The other problem is this: Obama was essentially claiming that the reason people are not voting for him is because they are bitter:

So, it depends on where you are, but I think it’s fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people are most cynical about government...They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn’t buy it. And when it’s delivered by — it’s true that when it’s delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism."

Please show me where he claims that THE reason people are not voting for him because they are bitter. Complete nonsense.

You must admit though, Isaac, that plenty of voters opting not to support Obama have a predilection towards cynism - not that one really needs to be a cynic to doubt that another Slick Willy-style politician will reform Washington with swooping, transparent, honest-to-goodness-ethical measures. You sound like a cynic yourself. And I, a non-Obama girl, certainly confess to being one.

I don't know. The first time I read the statements they didn't strike me as condescending or that much of a big deal.  Then I saw that McCain's campaign was coming out with press releases that followed Hillary's almost word for word in criticizing Obama and I shook my head in disgust.  Hillary is playing the Lieberman role, attacking fellow Democrats and giving Republicans bipartisan cover.  Thanks, Hill.  Way to go.

jmkerr,  You wonder why Clinton stays in the race?  It's to tear down the eventual Democratic nominee even though she can't mathematically win without absolutely perverting the primary process or destroying Obama.  Chait and Scheiber are dead on to say that Hillary is helping Democrats blow an easy win this fall.

I don't wonder. Other people do. This idiocy by Obama is precisely why she stays in, waiting (and hoping) for the superdelegates to figure it out.

"Reverend" Jeremiah Wright Jr.:

Hillary is married to Bill, and Bill has been good to us. No he ain't! Bill did us, just like he did Monica Lewinsky. He was riding dirty."

Michelle Obama:

U.S. 'downright mean,'

. And let me tell you something – for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country.

Barack Obama:

"Well look, they’re frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they’ve seen jobs shipped overseas. They’ve seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare"

=================================

Paul Krugman

krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/.../bush-boom-bah

One other thing that’s striking from the report, by the way, is that over the 26 years the estimates span, the only significant gains for the bottom two quintiles, and most of the gains for the middle quintile, took place during the Clinton years."

Stgla,

"You wonder why Clinton stays in the race? "

www.realclearpolitics.com/.../why_should_clinton_just_pack_i.html

"Clinton should play every card she has in her hand. She owes it to herself and, even more important, to all of her supporters. "

Yes, I support her and she owes it to me not to quit.

Look, in spite of overwhelming support of the media and huge advantage in money he just can close the deal. People don’t want him.

Man . . . these comment threads have really been hijacked by the loonies. If we concede that Hillary Clinton is better than Barack Obama, will you guys go away?

Agreed that these comments are unfortunate -- but they're unfortunate in the was that Howard Dean's "Confederate flag" comments were unfortunate; Obama, like Dean, shoots from the hip and isn't as tightly scripted as machine politicians like Clinton. He gets into trouble, as Dean did, for saying things we all know to be true: Saddam's capture didn't make us any safer . . . many Pennsylvanians, having been discarded and forgotten, cling to Limbaugh-style bigotry and resentment. (McCain has the same "weakness," by the way, which is why I can bear the thought of a McCain presidency, but shudder at the thought of a Hillary Clinton term.)

Obama is an "elitist" only in the sense that he doesn't strike the same insulting anti-intellectual postures that Dubya and Hillary have perfected.

It's true, his original comment ain't pretty. But his explanation, in response to McCain's and Clinton's attacks, is strong -- and stronger on video than in print. www.youtube.com/.../BarackObamadotcom

The wording of the McCain campaign's initial response was so over-the-top I thought it actually undermined the power and credibility of their attack. I mean, they had something powerful to work with in Obama's stupidly formulated comment, but then they used such hyperbolic terms that they came off like they were just indulging in campaign gamesmanship, trying to whip up antagonism.

I have a REAL bad feeling about this one. The Wright thing was a problem, but HE didn't say anything wrong and it gave him the opportunity to say something very right in that Philly race speech. This is a self-inflicted wound and it's gonna be run into the ground for the next week, two weeks, who knows how long? I don't disagree with anything he said, but he can't say stuff like that - nobody can who's running for president. We Obama supporters would be all over Clinton if she said something similar so we have to expect him to get maimed over this.

I've been figuring since Wisconsin that this race is over if Obama doesn't totally collapse. I don't think this is QUITE that bad, but it could be. He could lose PA a lot bigger now than he was gonna and it hurts him in Indiana too. Color me bummed and bracing for the shitstorm.

Update - i just watched Obama take this on in his Indiana speech and I just watched the incredibly POSITIVE coverage he got on CNN. If this guy can actually turn this negative into a positive, he's the best politician of my lifetime, in addition to being right. I remain nervous, but this wouldn't be the first time I've badly misread a political event.

I don't have any particular problem with these comments, which are true at least within the tolerances for government work.  I for one am delighted to see evidence that Obama's anti-trade bluff is just that.

However it plays out, this is no "Poland is not dominated by the Soviet Union" moment.

Hillary should stay in the race to the last ditch (which I think will be another month or so). Obamaniacs who imagine this as some kind of a destructive act of selfishness are being either disingenuous or naive. The more this sort of thing gets hashed out now, the better for November. Carrying on with all the "controversy" amounts to getting lots of free publicity, and will actually serve to make Obama a better and stronger candidate.

Have any of you lived in PA?  Jump in your cars and set a course for Hamburg or Asheville or Pottstown and you'll see the light.

What Obama said is neither false nor condescending.

If you want to say it's not bright as someone on the campaign trail in America to speak your mind, fine.  

But admitting that major cultural barriers exist among Americans of different socioeconomic backgrounds and offering no-nonsense assessments of their possible origins, in a compelling tone of understanding, is not "condescending."

Condescending is the response from the other two campaigns, as McCain with $100 in family fortune or Hillary Clinton with 8 years already in the White House put on a pair of jeans in Carbon County and pretend like they're as familiar with coal slurry as they are with Veuve Clicquot and that Obama is out of touch with the common man.

Not a bright move on his part. Whatever he was trying to say, it didn't come out the way he wanted it to (or even as a coherent english sentence). The grammatical incoherence is enough to tell you that he was jumbling up his thoughts - people aren't clinging to guns as a way to explain their frustrations

But we all know he is right that there are plenty of voters who are in pretty bad economic circumstances but who routinely vote against their own economic interests but get very riled up over other issues (guns, gays, God, or sometimes just macho blustering by politicians). The bad part about his original statement is that it was condescending. I don't think he meant to be, but that's what came out.

On the other hand, his second take on the issue is straightforward and sensible. I'd give it better than "semi-coherent". It sounds like an honest assessment, and people can tell that when they hear it. My guess is that this will hurt him a lot less than Hillary's Tuzla lie hurt her.

I think Obama is right.

People are angry. As for small town folk holding onto guns and religion. Hey,I've lived in small towns in Pa. and NC. Jesus is big and so are guns.

People are pissed.

Pocketbook issues,real or perceived slights, any number of actions taken by Federal,State,or local governments are greeted with disgust.

I started out as a Hillary supporter. But she needs to get out.

Forget Mc Cain. Age has nothing to do with it.

Maverick-- Please. He is George all over again.

Obama, love him or not,understand what he is trying to do or not, is our only choice.

This is boring to me. Dude was one thousand percent right, and everyone's freaking and flapping and spinning around screaming. OOOOh this is HOoooorible! I dunno. Maybe it's horrible. Maybe this will be his "Dean Scream" [something that wasn't horrible except that everyone said it was, so it was]. That Hungarian fellow nailed it: by not adopting an anti-intellectual pose Obama's actually the only one who ISN'T condescending.

every word Obama said is absolutely true - my husband is from PA.  

Hillary folks always wail and faint when someone actually tells, you know, the unvarnished truth. Wha a concept! It's a pretty offensive stuff, that refusal to pander.  Hillary folks want to be patted and petted and jerked off.  Sorry, wrong guy.  

The phrasing was poor in that one sentence.  Had that one been the later comment about cynicism, the whole thing would have been great.

Idiocy, jmkerr?  What he should have said is:

"When we landed in Scranton, there was incoming sniper fire.  We had planned a greeting ceremony on the tarmac, but, instead, we had to run to our cars and drive all the way to Wilkes Barre."

Now, that would have been idiotic.  But it takes a complete charlatan, not to mention someone who really isn't very bright at all, to make such a statement when the whole thing is actually on videotape -- and then make it a few more times after the press calls you on it.  No mere poor choice of words for Hillary. Nope, she goes for full-blown Walter Mitty fantasy.

Stick with Hillary, Kerr.  You've made the right pick for you.

Let's not forget Hillary's single handed silencing of the guns in Ireland.  What a genius.

You're right roi - she's the right candidate for jmkerr.

I can't believe Hillary and McCain are dumb enough to try to make an issue of what Obama said.  Although it was not artfully phrased, the point he was making rings so true.  Economically depressed and frustrated and angry people often turn to issues like gays, guns, and God when voting rather than voting in their economic self-interest.  Every working class Democrat knows this instinctively and that is precisely why they aren't Republicans.  Then Hillary and McCain jump in and call him an elitist for saying this basic truth?  

It's no wonder Obama is now going to turn this back in their faces and make the point that it is they who are out of touch for not understanding how people in states like PA and Ohio are angry and bitter.  All he needs now is a personal story to spice up his point like talking about "Jim" the unemployed steelworker who he met in Pittsburgh who came up to him and said that he wasn't sure he was going to vote for Obama but when he saw that Obama understood how real people are angry and frustrated and Hillary and McCain just don't get it he jumped to Obama.

I also really appreciate that he's called it like it is on scapegoating by bitter small town people, bravo - this is just bad behavior and bad citizenship with a long history of toxic consequences for the republic. Its time people are called on it at least once in thier lives, its called leadrship.

You want to blame your unemployed status on gay people wanting to get married?  Then you get GWB sending your son off to dumb-ass wars, Katrina and a foreclosed home, its  that simple.  You need to pay attention to what the politicians actually do, not say when they are standing in front of you jerking you off.  Good for Obama!  

I spoke to my bitter small town Pennsylvanis relatives tonight and being of humorless, whip smart Scottish descent, they loved what he said - loved being spoken to like adults and agreed with every word he said.  They are still on the fence (they'll probably vote for McCain), but think Obama is a breath of fresh air and that what he said was great.

Its not like he reserves this refusal to pander for bitter white small town people.  He's told black audiences to turn off the TV and read to their kids, to buy healthy food, to stop blaming their problems on racism, to be good fathers.  He told auto executives to stop making such polluting cars.  He does not pander, he talks TO people not AT people.  

If that bugs people, then be my guest - vote for Walter Mitty who would tell you anything you wanted to hear for your vote and treats you like a fragile moron.  It may be too much for people to take after being treated this way by politicians their whole lives, but I think trying to lead takes a sincere willingness to risk.  It figures Hillary people would think its idiotic - its the polar opposite of her.  Courage to Hillary is pushing single payor (gee, what a concept).  

The only thing that I found worrisome (and I keep trying to WARN people about this) was when Obama brought up credit card/bankruptcies in his response to the controversy.  I'm telling you, people are talking about the SWARM of radio ads telling people to shed their credit card debt and make "pennies on the dollar" deals with the IRS.  People who made sacrifices and paid their taxes are pissed -- nobody is helping them on their mortgages, credit cards, etc.

Obama, at heart, is a prep school boy with prep school attitudes. Since many of his supporters share his limited experience and embrace the same stereotypes and cliches they don't understand how patronizing he can appear. This is certainly not the only time he has revealed his class prejudices and his limited experience or empathy with, and lack or respect for, Americans  outside that elite, it is just one of a long list of statements and acts that demonstrate his odd combination of arrogance and ignorance. Women especially have noted it because they have most often been the recipients of his patronizing attitudes. When he tried to do "out reach" to women before the California primary by using a few single mothers as props before an audience of reporters and TV cameras -- Obama seating  himself like visiting royalty at the head of a table, asking too personal and truly offensive questions (like the source of their income) of the women ( arranged dutifully and quietly not quite at his feet physically, but certainly close to it in attitude), rather than respectfully providing women with a forum in which they could openly question him -- I knew he had a serious problem as a campaigner. One which this latest gaffe has almost brought to the attention of a few of his equally clueless and insensitive elite supporters.  

The trouble with Obama's remarks is not so much that they are condescending or that they are liberal boilerplate. It is that they drive a wedge between what Michael Baorone called the Jacksonians and the Academics in the Democratic electorate. They are not unifying or transcendant remarks, but divisive ones. There is the sort of shallow elitism and Harvard disease in them that drives a lot of the country crazy. This is exactly why he has had trouble winning the big states or winning outside of caucuses and narrow demographics--thus the problem the remarks create for him in Pennsylvania.

esmense, you're an insecure class snob. You use your own defensiveness at some self-perceived lacking in your own background - I assume educational but God only knows really - to take out on Obama.  You don't even see him, only your own fantasy demon.

But it wouldn't even have to be him, just anyone who you felt envious of for something you think they have and you don't.  You should stick to the issues - if you're familiar with any - because you're really obvious with the irrelevant, intrusive class chip a mile wide.  You're actually in to pathetic territory.

As someone who lived a long time in PA and spent a lot of time in the "Alabama" portion, AND as someone who has many relatives who live in similarly economically depressed circumstances, I have to say his words fit the reality I have seen perfectly.

But then, probably I'm an elitist like Obama. Growing up without electricity or indoor plumbing will make one feel superior.

Woland- it's not stupidity, it's cynicism.

Wanderer--

Can you say ANYTHING to someone who disagrees with you that is not merely a stream of hatefulness and personal vituperation? You yourself have yet to address an issue instead of making a personal attack on posters who dare to have a view different from your own.

What y'all aren't getting is that this won't hurt Obama in the Democratic primary, but it will kill him in the general election.

Running against "arrogant Democrat elitism" has worked wonders for the GOP. It worked against Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry. Bill Clinton was able to steer around it with his superb political skills and working class rural background.

And don't get in a lather about how it's not true. Truth doesn't matter here, we're talking politics. The perception of Obama as a Harvard elitist won't necessarily hurt him against Hillary with the Dem party faithful, but it will kill him running against McCain.

I fear being stuck with another four years of GOP leadership because the Dems think with their hearts instead of their heads.

esmense--

That was a very discerning reading of the Claifornia/single-mo event. It exactly captures the sense of Obama that I and many people I know have about him.

pcostello - you're beneath contempt.  I stand completely by what I said to esmense - insecure class snobbery, hidden behind attacks on a Presidential canididate in this case.  It's just more of the same - touchy dish it out but can't take it whining complaining vicitimology Hillarista-ism.  You both spew vite hate, envy and ignorance and cry when you're called on it. Well, I'm calling you on it. If you spew hate and ignorance, someone will stand up to it. Grow up.

PS - yes, I have mostly coridal  relations with people on this site, except you and now this stupid class envy towards people.  

Better go pick up your check from Hillary HQ and your talking points too.  They're getting stale.

pcostello - I have yet to read anything by either of you (although this is the first time I've bothered with your propaganda in weeks) that is positive in any way, let alone a positive case for your candidate. You never have anyhting to say but really personally insulting attacks on Obama and then whining when called on it.  I stand by it: beneath contempt.

Why do people vote against their self-interest?  That is the question that needs to be answered.  BHO gives an honest personal assessment, that the ROVE crew paints elections based on guns and gays, religion, family values and such and people ignore the economy the war and all the other garbage created to vote for the little things and ignore the big things and has recent history to prove him right.  How is this condescending?  

BHO has consistently refused to pander to the lowest common denominator and I find it refreshing even when I don't agree.

This is rich. All of you members of the booboisie who are over-educated yourselves attacking a black man for his elitist ways. The poster child of the boobs being Chris Matthews who is profoundly disturbed by Obama's lack of skills in bowling alleys.

The lowest common denominator in America is now so low that anyone who reads - period  - is a snob.

And anyone who uses a word like "antipathy" is suspect of being, well, you know, uppity.

Other world leaders write books and we prefer presidents who don't read them.

McCain is possibly the most poorly educated candidate for president in the last fifty years. No wonder he feels so "authentic" to the characters making comments on this post. He is one of the people, that's for sure.

Wandreycerl --

You have a point of view. Others have different points of view. Like in the story of the blind men describing the elephant (one described his trunk, one his tail, one his flank, etc, and in doing so all describe a very different animal), those points of view  not only vary one from the other, but they will reveal different things about the whole. The problem with our political discourse is that the points of view presented are extremely limited --- and when someone from "outside" that narrow consensus does interject themselves into the conversation, it can provoke some hostility. As my comment appears to have provoked in you.

But I would suggest that liberals and Democrats have suffered in recent years from their embrace of some truly limited perspectives, and, most of all, both their unwillingness to concede how limited their perspective truly is and their unwillingness to concede that they may have something to learn from people who, unfortunately, they do too often think they are superior to.

"Why do people vote against their self-interest?"

People don't vote against their self interest. But it comforts political losers, who don't know. respect or understand those voters self-interest, to believe they do.

Wandreycerl --

One last word. There is a huge difference between making an observation and advocacy for a candidate. I'm no one's booster. But I do have some thoughts about what Democrats have been doing to alientate voters over the years.

esmense you are wrong

Voting based on a candidates stance on gay marriage or using fear tactics concerning terrorist attacks is not in anyone's self interest.  We are less safe now than we were according to such crazy measures as government reports, statistics and facts and yet people believe that Republicans are strong on defense.  They have pushed our military to the brink of it's capacity and have mortgaged our future for a venture where success can not be defined but failure is the Democrats fault.

How is that in anyone's self interest?

None of that may be in your self-interest or in the country's long-term, overall self interest yet it may be very much in the self interest of a particular voter. The military-industrial complex, for instance, has economic tentacles that reach into the most hidden corners of the country. Millions of Americans and hundreds if not thousands of communities profit from "a strong defense" (interesting isn't it how much more liberal the West Coast has become since major defense contractors began moving to the South?) (Back in the 60s, during the Viet Nam war, some friends of mine at Reed College did a survey of small businesses in the Northwest -- those with less than 100 employees -- to try to ascertain how many were involved in defense contracting. They could hardly find any that weren't.) The people who are most likely to vote, for instance, are likely to be in their peak earning (and highest tax bracket) years AND facing retirement just down the road. Of course tax and asset protection issues are of huge importance to them. People further down the economic ladder are much more likely to object to abortion than people higher up the income scale. Is that because of ignorance or because what is a "choice" to the affluent feels much more like coersion to them? (A few years back I was shocked by a bunch of letters to the editor, from "liberals" and "libertarians" here in Seattle, who objected to a school spending proposal because, they said, having children is an "individual choice." Who suffers from this notion, that totally negates any sense of community responsibility for children? The elite and affluent, or the working class and poor?

My point is this; progressives have to look a little more deeply, and think a little harder about, what is really impacting peoples lives -- get beyond the cliches about their ignorance or xenophobia etc. It would also be helpful if they could own up to the fact that it isn't only working class and conservative people who demonstrate narrow-mindedness, xenophobia, bigotry and prejudice from time to time.

It's like you people don't get it.  In American politics nobody's allowed a single moment of observable truth.  The reason for this is that the truth is rather unpleasant, and involves a failing economy, a crumbling infrastructure, an attitude to basic education that might have been harmless in 1910 but is like a death-wish in 2010, a health-care crisis in which the least relevant party -- the insuring entity -- is making out like gangbusters while both doctors and patients are squeezed, a war that's draining both the national wallet and the national spirit, a dangerously unanchored popular perception of what's happening in the world, and an income distribution map that looks more third-world than at any stage in the 20th century.  But deeper than that is a problem that other countries have seen:  a cynicism and resentment that can lead to contemptuous dismissal of needed reforms (and of the people suggesting them) and to an embrace of fringe issues like guns and evolution which make people feel like they're in charge of events but -- because they are a total distraction -- will do absolutely nothing to improve Americans' lives or secure the nation's future.

But you're not permitted to talk about that, especially if you're a candidate for office.  You're just supposed to churn out the usual BS.

Have to say: My heart sank when I first read Mike's Playbook today. Obviously Hillary will use anything, anything to damage Obama, that includes her all too typical distortions. Anything, anything to distract from her Bosnia misspeaking(lies). And of course McCain's comments are equally self-serving.

Having now read Obama's response and thought about it a bit: To me it only make Obama look more presidential. Unlike Hillary, he is pro-active and doesn't just throw crap at the wall to see what will stick.

My conclusion about this episode: It will pass with Obama gaining points and Hillary increasing the distrust and contempt for her.

I will not vote for Hillary because she is a gutter snipe. I would love to vote for a woman, but not a vicious self-serving Clinton.

As a non-American who's travelled thirty of these United States and lived in four - right across the continent - I confess I find this discussion rather amusing.

Just a few reminders: there are well over 300,000,000 people living in the States.  Some 50,000,000 do not have health insurance.  About 30,000,000 live below the poverty line.  Millions, if not tens of millions, are poorly trained for an industrial economy, and millions are functionally illiterate.  1/3 of the adult population - nearly 70,000,000 - is obese and at risk of a host of ailments for which many of them are not insured.

It is possible - just possible - that in the backwoods of Pennsylvania and West Virginia and New York and Virginia and Alabama and Georgia and Arkansas and ... there are some, perhaps even significant pockets, who are bitter, and who cling to their guns and their religion for protection from a Government that sends their children to slaughter in foreign lands, that gives tax breaks to billionaires even as it tells them to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, that seems all but oblivious to their plight.  Colour me "stupid" or "elitist" or an "idiot" or a "class snob", but to make the observation Obama did in a country as vast and as diverse - and, in some measure, as troubled - as the United States, is nothing but an observation of objective reality ...

Last time I checked, he had been a community organizer in the South Sideof Chicago.  In fact, many HillBill supporters constantly harp on his background in Chicago politics.  Well, I suspect you don't get be in Chicago politics without seeing some real bitterness and cynicism first hand.  He might have been impolitic for saying what he did; stupid or uninformed he was not.  

ironyroad - you beat me to it ;-).

Wandreycer1 - you're in good form today.  I have learned from experience that pccostello is impervious to feedback and either learns nothing from it or pretends (quite convincingly) not to.  Nevertheless, it is worthwhile  from time to time to remind her and our shared readers, as you so artfully do, that her blind spots, her capacity for self-delusion, and her cherry-picked data are elephantine and have not gone unnoticed.  As always, I appreciate your trenchant intolerance for cant.

icarus -- yours is all the better for the 9-minute extra maturing it got!

Chotiner's piece reminds me of the one by Ben Smith, in Politico, posted some time  before his:

www.politico.com/.../Obama_explains_SF_comments.html

Obama's observation was objectively true, but a rhetorical misstep none-the-less.  When you are running for office, you NEVER blame the voters for anything or say anything that could be interpreted that way or even twisted that way.  

What he should have said is that there are many people who are struggling, from lack of employment opportunities, from lack of wage growth if they are unemployed, from the skyrocketing cost of health care, and from a national government that has been indifferent to their plight while giving the wealthiest and most privileged enormous tax breaks and sweetheart contracts.  

"On top of that, we have had a generation of cynical politicians from the Republican party who have done everything possible to create anger between groups, on the basis or race, gender, sexual orientation, for the sole purpose of distracting people from the unwillingness of these same politicians to do anything to solve our economic problems.  They would rather pit one group against another, than do the work of lifting the opportunities for all."  

Then he could have bashed McCain about his indifference to the mortgage crisis.  That is, you blame the politicians, not the public.  Still, as much as Hillary might yearn for this to be some kind of opportunity for her, it isn't because the few words that were ill-chosen don't mean all that much.  Goes without saying though that she is being true to her Republican roots in her reaction.

I have speculated before that Hillary is still really a closet Goldwater Girl.   My mind is made up.  Hillary is a Republican who has, because of Bill, found it easier to try and realize her ambitions in the Democratic party.  There is exactly zero reason even to think of nominating her for president.

esmense,

You think Obama has problems as a campaigner?  What drugs are you on.  While it is surely true that he makes mistakes, compared to Obama both Hillary and McCain are like blocks of wood.  Hillary drones and hectors until you want her to shut up even if you agree with her substantive points and McCain cannot really string two thoughts together without sticking his foot in it.

Obama certainly made a very modest rhetorical mis-step, but it is pure Hillarista and Republican wishful thinking that this is of any importance.  If Tuzla wasn't enough by itself to sink Hillary clear out of sight, you are delusional if you think this is a big deal.  Same goes for pccostello who will be telling us how Hillary can still win the nomination in September.

ironyroad --

This "truth" is a cliche liberals have been comforting themselves with for 40 years.

Icurusr --

I am an American who has travel extensively in every part of the country (the only state I haven't spent any time in is Alaska) -- from childhood through adulthood, I've lived in 24 states (in the Northeast, Midwest, South, Southwest and Northwest) . As an adult I've lived extensively in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix and Seattle. For the last 20 years I've owned a business that's national customer base is made up of mostly rural, small town and suburban men -- the kind of people who have not been voting Democratic for quite some time (the top two states we draw customers from are Pennsylvania and California). These men have principles, ideals and interests that are rarely recognized by liberals. But Dems are never going to learn to appreciate those principles and ideals -- or how to talk to them -- if they don't start actually listening to them and get past seeing them as little more than stupid bigots,

roidubouloi --

With the backing of some of the country's richest donors, the support of the mainstream, political and online media, the organizations, funders and staff of a significant portion of the Democratic establishment (Kerry, Daschle, Gephart, Kennedy) put at his early disposal (making him the best financed primary candidate in history BEFORE he ever got his online fundraising effort up and running) running against a woman (the only woman in American history to win even ONE primary) who is absolutely detested by the mainstream media, etc., etc, Obama still hasn't been able to put this race away.

That's not an indication of a great campaigner. That's an indication that he is not connecting with a lot of voters he should be connecting with.

Obama doesn't seem to recognize that Bush isn't popular anymore and though he spouts change as a mantra every millisecond, the closer he gets to be the nominee the more he realizes himself how unprepared and inexperienced he is to even consider what he is doing.  He isn't afraid of running for President, he is afraid of being President.  At least one person knows that he isn't right for the job Obama himself.

I suppose, from the perspective of a tradition presidential campaign, Obama's comments on Pennsylvania bitterness can be considered "none-to-bright."   But then, they can also be considered to be telling it like it is.  Maybe that's something new in American politics.

Could somebody explain to me what was "elitist" about what  Obama said?  Please, I really want to know!

A few points that I think are missed here.

Obama had a chance to make political points here and missed it.  President Bush famously went against Free Trade in 2003 and blocked foreign steel into America to allow Pennsylvania Steel a chance to recover.  This relief helped, and steel prices are at an all time high now thanks to China Consumption.  Instead of his academic discussion of the failures of the average voter, he could have used this opportunity to talk about Trade.

Instead, he comes accross as a liberal version of Pat Buchanan.  Buchanan is famous for his America First speeches and specifically the Monogahalla Valley Steel Industry.  You can tie this into the Culture War speech of 1992 and GW Bush Campaign.

For some reason, either ignorance or timidity, Obama is not addressing the Republicans in this campaign.  You have to define yourself against the opposition or no one will understand what you stand for.

esmense,,,

uh, I hate to be the one to remind you of this but CA and PA have voted Democratic in the past 4 presidential elections...

may I suggest that you put away the Hannity/O'Reilly boilerplate and take another look at your customer demographic?

esmense -- your remark makes up for in glibness what it lacks in substance.  All politicians everywhere have comforted themselves and their constituents by massaging the truth -- the question is, if there's a time in a nation's history when that becomes more like a dangerous delusion than a matter of electoral technique.  Maybe it's now.

If politics becomes just reading the types -- he's a liberal so he's ABC, she's a conservative so she's XYZ -- without any attempt to to measure the rhetoric against observable reality, without any thought as to whether ABC or XYZ make independent sense, then it's no longer politics but kindergarten games.

Of course you're right in one thing:  it's about listening to people and not seeing them as stupid bigots -- but it's not only about that, as it's also about not caving before bigotry either.  So now's the moment to come clean and stop hiding in abstractions:  what exactly are the "principles, ideals, and interests" of these men that are not being perceived, that in your opinion are not being listened to?  Maybe this discussion would be easier if we had some concrete examples.

mozier,,,,

let me take a stab at your question - elitist is someone who, every now and then, tries to give a reflective, thought based answer to a valid question. There is something very wrong when candidates are only expected to give stump answers to questions about the electorate. How Obama described the political dynamic of rural voters is kicked around blogs everyday, tnr included. We, as a polity, have been transformed almost into the most pathetic johns...

You're so good!

You're so big!

It's never been like this!

37 seconds of self delusion and then we pay up for the privilege...

Mozier --

What was "elitist?" The assumption that rural and small town voters don't make reasonal and self-interested voting decisions, just like the more affluent and elite do, but, instead vote out of ignorance and bigotry arising from frustration and bitterness. Remember, Obama wasn't "telling it like it is" to working class voters (as some here are suggesting) -- he was telling his elite funders what they expected to hear -- confirming the prejudices of his extremely affluent audience as an explanation for why it would be difficult to get some voters to vote for him.

Truth be told this is an opportunity for Obama to connect.

Once upon a time many years ago this young youth witnessed to mortal enemies slug it out in the school bathroom. After much expediture of hostilities and spent blood the two combatants emerged henceforth to shake hands and declare it to be a good fight. Their dispositions defended and explained in the most basic terms. These two young men then went on to, if not love one another, then like and respect one another.

Obama must not let the pause become concession. Fight for his POV.....let those who are offended hit back and then affirm the best aspects of God and guns.

esmense,

Yours is an absurd revisionist history of the campaign.  The knock on Obama is that he is a fabulous campaigner but is unprepared to be president, not that he is not a good campaigner.  Hillary Clinton began with celebrity status, the backing of the entire party establishment, several years of head start, including more money in the bank, a mantle of "inevitability," a core group of supporters, baby-boomer women, who support her no matter what she does or fails to do, Bill Clinton, at that point still hugely popular with Democrats, to stump for her -- and Obama has cleaned her clock, out-maneuvered her, out-organized her, and is a far more compelling speaker who has raised his money from the grass roots, not from big bundlers.  What's more, he hasn't committed but a small fraction of the public gaffes of Hillary.

To spin that record as if Hillary were the underdog that Obama, the "establishment candidate" somehow cannot put away is, quite frankly, rank nonsense.  And, as a matter of fact, he has already put her away but, as Rhubarbs points out, the zombie Hillary refuses to go away because her die-hard supporters won't cut off the money spigot -- yet.  But they will soon, she is running on empty.

Somehow you imagine that it is Obama's job to "put her away" as if the demographics of different voter populations were completely irrelevant.  This isn't a sporting event, you know.  It is an election, and his margin in the popular vote is already larger than the margin that decided any number of presidential elections.  Hillary will be put away when there is no longer any doubt about the outcome expressed in the rhetoric of the punditocracy or her donor base dries up.  Obama cannot force her out and any hint that he might be inclined to try is met with howls, screams, and imprecations for the Hillaristas.  So, why should he bother?  Like he says, she can run as long as she wants (because the outcome is not really in doubt).  

Put the shoe on the other foot:  Despite the enormous advantages with which she began the campaign -- after all doesn't she have "35 years of experience?" -- Hillary not only cannot put Obama away, she is losing.  What does that tell you about her campaign skills?

Interesting to recall how Howard Dean was repeatedly excoriated by the press in 2004 for supposedly being out of touch with religious white voters and working class America.  Even though he actually showed evidence of listening to those voters -- on gun control for one.  Interesting how, until now, no one has seen fit to ask whether Obama is even more out of touch.  (Hillary of course is out of touch too, but at least she is smart and experienced enough of a politician not to insult these voters directly.)  

Interesting to also note the different view that Obama has of black and white anger.  White anger -- whether over black crime, affirmative action, gun control, the moral cesspool of pop culture -- is exaggerated, or expolitied, or irrational.  Black rage is always, always, grounded in in legitimate grievance. 

jauntyboulevardier --

You analysis would make sense if Obama was talking to small town and rural voters. But he wasn't.

He was pandering to the prejudices of extremely affluent voters in San Francisco.

He was, in fact, doing exactly what you are claiming he wasn't doing. Feeding his audience easy and self-flattering political publum. And they were both lapping it up and laughing about all those knuckleheads in PA.

The first woman to make a serious run for the presidency does not enjoy "enormous" advantages. Yes, Clinton enjoyed name recognition and association with a powerful male -- a traditional prerequisite for women who have broken political barriers in the past -- but she DID NOT enjoy a party unified behind her. The simple truth is, if the brand name in this race had been a male, it is highly unlikely that the political establishment that encouraged Obama to challenge Clinton would have done so -- instead, they would have told him to wait until he had more experience at the national level.

It is simply a myth that Obama arose as an under-funded grass roots candidate bucking the party establishment. He had very early support from Wall Street, the nuclear power industry, the old bulls of the Northeast liberal establishment (Kennedy, Kerry) and the Midwestern Moderate establishment (Daschle, Durbin, Gephart) who put their funders, staff and organizations at his disposal very early on.

esmense -- are you planning to respond to my question?  Once again, what exactly are the "principles, ideals, and interests" of these men you described above that are not being perceived, that in your opinion are not being listened to?  

It's easy to accuse Obama or even (as you seemed to be doing) a whole historical series of Democratic candidates of casually feeding coastal, blue-state prejudices -- but why would a candidate who has won a bunch of unlikely primaries in the heartland do that? -- but your charge would have more validity if you would come down from the abstract level and give a couple of examples of misunderstood or ignored principles or ideas or interests that Democrats need to take up.

Then at least we can discuss whether there's common ground or at least a possible bridging of the gap.

Hillary is not "smart and experienced enough as a politician."  Her problem, like Kerry's, is that, despite here seat in the Senate, she is completely inexperienced as a politician.  She did not work her way up in politics.  She was handed her first nomination -- starting right at the top, the US Senate -- by Charlie Rangel and ran against a ridiculous non-entity, Rick Lazio, who looked and sounded like he belonged at a college frat party.  Plus, the enrollment advantage for Democrats in the New York is 2:1.  Just like Kerry, who never really had to learn how to be a good politician before he ran for president, when Hillary stepped onto the big stage, she did so with zero electoral experience worth a damn and quickly showed that she was an inept campaigner.  That is most of her problem.  

Now, to give you an idea of how delusional the die-hard Hillaristas are, I estimated the PA, NC and IN turnout by looking at the number of delegates relative to turnout in NY, IL, CA and OH.  If you pay particular attention to OH, you get a range  for the three remaining big races, PA, NC, and IN, of 4.2 million to 5.2 million voters.  If you apply the current average poll percentages for those three states to the delegates up for grabs, you get Hillary gaining a net 12 delegates in PA, losing a net 18 in NC, and gaining a net 6 in IN.  That is a net ZERO.  After the results on May 6, Obama's pledged delegate advantage of 164 is barely going to budge if indeed it moves at all.  If Hillary could gain a net 10 delegates, it would be a miracle.  On the popular vote side, where Obama has a 532,000 margin, including FL but excluding MI where only Hillary was on the ballot, the best forecast, again based on the current polls, would be for Obama to pick up an additional net popular vote of 0 to 20,000.

By any stretch, these are big turnout forecasts, up to double the national average per delegate, so I rather doubt that I am under-estimating.  But even if you take OH as the yardstick, you only get up to a turnout of 5.4 million which would be enormous compared to the 14 million or so who have already voted.  It's actually sort of irrelevant because PA and IN together are double the size of NC and Obama's margin in NC is double Hillary's in PA and IN.  It is close to a wash any way you look at it and cannot end up dramatically different from a wash in either direction unless the voters in PA and IN go to the polls and the voters in NC don't.  Any reason why that should be the case?  Do you think Obama can count?  Do you think he is perhaps working overtime on turnout in NC so that Hillary has no story to tell on May 7?  I think so.

By May 6, 3034 pledged delegates will have been chosen.  Obama will have on May 6, a delegate margin that is probably unchanged but can't drop below 150 even in an extreme case.  His margin in popular votes will likely still be above 500,000, and growing, but cannot drop below 400,000 even in an extreme case.  Only 217 delegates and something like 1 million to 2 million votes will still be open.  Give Hillary an extremely unlikely 55:45 split (a 10% spread compared to the 2% spread to date).  Obama still goes to the convention with a delegate margin of 130 to 140 and a popular vote margin of 250,000 at the very least.

That's why this is already over, and why it will be clear to all that it is over come May 7.

The only thing that could possibly convince the super-delegates to over-turn the decision of the Democratic rank and file and choose Hillary would be the complete collapse of Obama v Hillary in the poll match-ups with McCain.  There is not a shred of evidence that that is happening or going to happen.  Just the reverse. Obama has been gaining ground on Hillary since the low-point of the Wright controversy when she almost, but didn't quite, catch up with him.

Esmesne- while it's certainly true that the first woman to make a serious run at president faces some challenges, it's at least equally true of the first serious Black candidate.

You're correct that Clinton didn't have the entire party behind her early on, merely most of the elites. Bill Clinton is THE elite of the party, and let's not forget Terry McAuliffe et al. and the DLC, which still has some power. Her entire superdelegate lead is a function not of elected politicians, but of the unelected party officials, the kinds who are the establishment. You're also ignoring her institutional advantages in states like Ohio and Pennsylvania where almost the entire party establishment is on her side.  As well, she had more big donors than did Obama (you can't criticise him for having big donors and ignore hers), and was regarded by nearly everyone as inevitable up until at least december of last year. She continues to have a huge advantage in terms of name recognition. It simply isn't credible to claim that she was an underdog, relative to Obama.

She lost in Iowa primarily because Obama out-organized her there and she listened to very bad advice from Mark Penn.

I would argue that if the frontrunner were not an African American, Clinton, as number 2, would already have dropped out. But she is staying in because she is banking on racism coming to her rescue, either racism of the remaining Dem primary voters, or racism of the general electorate which would make the superdelegates consider her bogus "electability" arguments. In this regard, she has underestimated the american people.

I like you, and I don't like the tone that Wandrey has taken with you. But in your partisan support of CLinton, it seems like you're ignoring rather fundamental realities of the nature of the race.

Just in case no one is counting, for Hillary to make up a 140 delegate margin out of the 315 super-delegates who have not yet declared, the remaining supers would have to 1) defy the pledged delegate count, 2) defy the popular vote, and 3) defy the national polls of match-ups against McCain and then cast their votes by a margin of more than 2 to 1 for Hillary.  If, on May 7, Obama's pledged delegate margin is still above 160, as seems likely, the remaining undeclared supers would have to go for Hillary by a margin of 3:1 to cover that margin.

Now, all you Hillaristas out there who still believe that the outcome is uncertain to any significant degree, just be careful you don't get hit on the head by any meteorites when you go outside today.

Good gracious alive. Americans who've lost their jobs aren't bitter? What's next, saying people who've lost a loved one aren't sad? There isn't a Democrat or Republican in our country who isn't bitter with the loss of a job. The media, McCain, and Limbaugh have, sadly, fashioned a flimsy facade as an undeserved knock on Obama.

I haven't said one thing about supporting Clinton.

I'm more concerned with the mistakes that I see the Democratic party make over and over and over again.

esmense,

how, may I ask, do you know that his CA audience was "laughing and lapping it up"?  I have seen no video showing that, nor have I heard audio to support that alleged mirth making?

Seems to me that you're imagining this in your head because you have predisposed bias towards Obama and those in the audience. I have no doubt that you BELIEVE that all those shifltess CA liberals were making fun of poor workin' folks but absent any proof, it just exists as a figment in your over worked imagination.

This scenario fits neatly into your boiler plate impressions of the feckless, elitist nature of liberals, cant taken straight outta Fox and the GOP playbook.  

are you pccostello?  Really, I'm askin...come to think of it...I don't think I have ever seen both of you on the same thread....

It's hard to put your finger precisely on what the problem is, but isn't it the idea that those who hold a different political point of view must do so out of some form of pathology?--a sort of equivalent of saying that my opponent must be dyspeptic to believe such things, hold such religious views or differ with me about guns (etc.).

And then it is as though one lumps together all those "small town types," assuming there are not many mainline protestants (as opposed to religious right) or pacifists or at least non gun-owners among these groups--those who would never care to own a firearm or know how to use one.

And isn't there also a form of economic determinism that lies at the root of thinking in this manner? That because of economic hardship, humans are led to believe in certain ways or embrace certain ideas. And we know that economics is an influence on our thinking and on our lives, but it seems so determinist to describe it in the way Sen. Obama has done in his remarks.

And fundamentally isn't it true that thinking in this way tends to view voters become viewed not as people--as human beings--but rather as character types or "lunch pail, small towners," etc.?

And then what does it say that one neither apologizes nor recants nor recognizes that it is a form of injustice to speak in this way?

Senator Obama has created a strong candidacy and has many great ideas for where to take this country--which makes it the more unsettling that these remarks have come forward at this moment.

TULLIUS

It is clear this campaign has gone on WAY too long. Amazing that the nonevent of Obama uttering a benign remark that Clinton, McCain and every thinking observer would admit agreeing with if they were honest generates all this commentary. This is only interesting to those who comment for a living. It will have no resonance with an actual voter.

"He was, in fact, doing exactly what you are claiming he wasn't doing. Feeding his audience easy and self-flattering political publum. And they were both lapping it up and laughing about all those knuckleheads in PA."

I don't follow your reasoning, esmense.  Tell me, please, how Obama's comments are mocking Pennsylvanians?  This same argument was made against Thomas Franks (who I think Obama was channeling), and it strikes me as a fundamental misreading of their argument.  If anything, Obama seems to be making excuses for these folk: i.e, they're not really mad at immigrants, they're mad because they don't have jobs.  I find his comments sympathetic, if not politically wise.

esmense writes:  ". . . the kind of people who have not been voting Democratic for quite some time (the top two states we draw customers from are Pennsylvania and California). These men have principles, ideals and interests that are rarely recognized by liberals. But Dems are never going to learn to appreciate those principles and ideals -- or how to talk to them -- if they don't start actually listening to them and get past seeing them as little more than stupid bigots,"

I've asked you twice already for some indication of what these principles, ideals, and interests really are that have been "rarely recognized" by liberals and what it is that Democrats need to be listening to (if, say, Obama isn't doing that).  And I haven't denied, by the way, that someone can casually assume bigotry rather than trying to properly understand someone else.  I don't believe that that's what was happening with Obama, however.

So, one last time -- something concrete, please!

What's getting lost in the hubbub (sp?) are the positive comments about Obama that Mayhill Fowler made in the post in which she "broke" his recent statement. Specifically, she says she's never seen him speak to people at public events across Pennsylvania with anything other than openness and high individual regard for them. It's obvious that he simply misspoke at the fundraiser, in the way he phrased the comment. It would be ludicrous, given everything else he's ever said, to think that he sees religion as a mere symptom of economic malaise. It was just a bad choice of words -- a mistake more eligible for the "I misspoke" disclaimer than are repeated outright fabrications of sniperfire, for heaven's sake! And Clinton is now unscrupulously exploiting this as much as she can. I have tried to be fair to her throughout this campaign, in part because I have been disturbed by the intensity of the animosity toward her by bloggers and commentators and by the sexist frame this animosity has too often expressed. But her exploitation of this gaffe is outrageous. Did Obama's campaign jump on or exploit the Tuzla lies?

This discussion has gone off the rails. I don't think anyone would find the substance of Obama's original comments condescending - the bitterness is real and some of the symptoms are as well. But the specific reference to people using religion as a crutch for their problems and bitterness has the potential to be political suicide in America. I personally agree with it, but I don't think you can say that kind of thing out loud in a country with some incredible percentage of voters who consider themselves religious and for whom their religion is part of the bedrock of their lives. What Obama or you or I think about their most basic motivations don't matter - I seriously doubt that those believers see the role of religion in their lives that way. That was the nugget that scared the crap out of me when I saw it. THAT'S the part that tripped my radar for condescension and elitism. To Obama's credit, his clarifications have been excellent. And, as not elsewhere on this site, the fact that the clarifications are in living color on video and the original statement is only available in very scratchy audio may be what saves his bacon.

hemlock: it's not that he blamed economic malaise for religious beliefs, but for "clinging to" religion -  as opposed to taking strength from it.  Kevincollins has hit the nait right on the head, and it's obvious that may Obama detractors have never had to worry about the next paycheck, a job loss, economic uncertainty and so on.

Bitter?  Of course you get bitter when your job goes overseas and your government tells you "retrain and move".  If you did not, you'd not be human.  Those who lambaste Obama are trying to peddle the Horatio Alger line; they'd be the ones blaming the poor for their poverty and the unemployed for their joblessness, because they would not be able to understand the very real human emotion - depression, bitterness, sadness - that comes from peering into the future and seeing only a bleak landscape.

And to do something about it, you must first accept the reality.  "There are lots of people who are bitter; they cling to their guns and religion to give them solace.  And they are right in their bitterness.  Their government has failed them.  I am running for office to change that.  To give them hope, real, concrete hope by getting the government back to work in their interest."  What the hell is wrong with that?

ironyroad: you are not going to get an answer, because there is none.  This is a reprise of the whole "values" debate, which has no winner because it has no substance and no parameters.  

BOOOORING.

Jesus, this is such a non-issue that it boggles my mind to read it.

There are bitter voters that don't trust government and base their votes on single issues?  REALLY?  Obama points this out and... what exactly is the problem?

Overall, while it is worded in a slightly less than inspiring manner, it does dovetail into what Obama has said from the beginning: that Americans tend to be divisive over the wrong issues and that there are many more important issues that Americans could rally around.  Hence, the alienation of the gun and/or god nuts from mainstream politics, or at least voting for someone that might push an economic agenda other than half-baked laissez faire.

I'm in PA.  I haven't heard about this until now because, well... no one really cares about it.  The average voter isn't going to concern themselves with this sort of thing.  Educated voters for Obama are going to look past this, and voters for Hillary will just reinforce their delusions with it.  But it really isn't anything to get excited about.

Well, gotta go... Adrian Fenty is supposed to stop by our HQ in the next half hour or so.  Interesting to see if he mentions it.

All this proves is the campaign is too long and the only one that could get elected in our eyes is a perfect saintly candidate.  He/she doesn't exist.  People make mistakes, offend others, etc.  Get over it.  HRC has done it, McB has done it.  So they deserve to be crucified too, right?  Wrong.

Is it December 2008 yet?  On second thought, watch the 2012 campaign start that month.

And for HRC to claim BO is "elitist"?  Sheesh.

Whenever someone purports to be so omniscient as to feel like they can adequately summarize a person (people's) station in life in a couple of sentences...that person is being, and will come across as being, patronizing.  If Obama becomes president, I hope he learns to be more respectful in his characterizations.  

Giggle.

If I didn't know better I'd say Justin Obama Timberlake's comments were kind of... smug. One might even say _arrogant_.

Clue: if you think the masses have "false consciousness", then f***ing go to them and RAISE their consciousness. PERSUADE them, with arguments. Don't tell San Franciscan lefties one thing and Pennsylvania blue-collar Dems something totally different.

STAND FOR SOMETHING.

Enough identity politics, already. It's the economy etc. Laserbeam etc. And please start focusing on the needs and concerns of the demographic that will decide this election, two-parent white and hispanic working- and middle-class families in the suburbs and exurbs of PA MI OH FL CO.

Tep, honestly, OF COURSE you tell San Francisco lefties one thing and Exurbans another.  They have different concerns, different problems, different needs ... and so they need different solutions.  The question is not whether one offers *different* ideas, but whether they are *consistent*.  

And to note the concerns of subpopulations, it is not to play identity politics.  It is normal, when you are in rural PA, to talk about things of interest to rural Pennsylvanians.  

In any event, there is no such species as "two parent white and hispanic working and middle class families" that is going to decide the election.  A parent, married or single, is concerned about education no matter where he or she is.  A worker who has lost his or her job to recession is equally interested in a job - and more importnat, health insurance, unemployment benefits, retraining, etc., regardless of whether he is married or where she resides.  Local conditions affect these interests; "identity" politics exist whether Obama plays with it or not - don't tell me the Confederate flag waving Louisianan is not going to forget the Obama is black.

The last time I ran for office was at the university.  My constituency included thirteen professional faculties - ranging from music to medicine, from architecture to law - and 9,000 students.  Do you think in a policy debate in front of 400 engineering students I said the same things as when dealing with Law students?  Of course not.  Different concerns, different problems, different solutions.  Two terms, that was my limit.  And never again; too fracking difficult.  The man's running for the presidency of a country spanning an entire continent.  Of course he has to say different things here and there.

Any way, as I said to one of the Engineering twerps who said it was arrogant of me to run, for what did I know about engineering school problems, I replied, "You think you can do better, you run.  At least I'm making the effort to learn about your problems and do something about them.  And if it makes me arrogant to think I can deal with your problems, so be it."  

On these two scores, give him a break.

I really don't understand your posts any more.  

eharder: Obama is making an observation.  He is not proposing that he is omniscient.

Has anyone here run an election?  Known a politician?  One of my friends represented, for a decade, the most ethnically and economically diverse riding (district) in Canada.  The northern part of the district has the highest per capita income in the country, and the southern part, among the lowest.  90 languages, 80 religions, god knows how many ethnic groups ... plus one of the worst ghettos in the country.  Those of you pissing on Obama and worrying about his arrogance or "omniscience", have you any clue what it takes to knock on doors and not know what language you will hear at the other end?  To seek their votes?  To try to get them to pay attention to the election even as they worry about where the next pay cheque is coming from?

Reflect on that a bit before you rag on politicians for not being consistent or "respectful" enough ...

Jeez.

He's saying they don't like him, or his "change" message, because they're bitter.  In reality, they don't like his message because they can't relate to it.  What does it mean?  How will it help them? Will it bring back the steel plant?  Will it pay their oil bill? They want specifics, and he gives them hollow  words like hope and change.  He acknowledged this, somewhat dismissively, during that same fund raiser in San Francisco, in comments that immediately preceded the offending ones.  He said, condescendingly, that  they crave "concrete" proposals and "talking points" about jobs and health care rather than higher-level analysis of the challenges facing them.

"But -- so the questions you're most likely to get about me, 'Well, what is this guy going to do for me? What is the concrete thing?'

"What they wanna hear is -- so, we'll give you talking points about what we're proposing -- to close tax loopholes, you know, roll back the tax cuts for the top 1 percent. Obama's gonna give tax breaks to middle-class folks and we're gonna provide health care for every American. But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

This was the most revealing part.  They don't get my new politics gig, so I guess I'll have to get down to their level and talk tax loopholes.  It was insulting.

hemlock41, sorry to disillusion you, but Obama's campaign actually did push the Tuzla deal.  Hard.

"Obama's campaign also sent reporters a fact-checking analysis from the Washington Post yesterday that described as "simply not credible" Clinton's oft-told story about landing in Bosnia in March 1996 amid sniper fire. The paper posted on its website a photo of Clinton and her daughter, Chelsea, at a peaceful greeting ceremony at Tuzla military airport."

www.floridacounts.com/index.php

Uh, gee, hayley.  Your idea of "pushing" the Tuzla lies is directing reporters to an article in the Washington Post in which the newspaper, not Obama's campaign," described her story as "simply not credible?"  That doesn't even rise to the level of spin much less negative campaigning.

Obama wasn't saying they don't like his message because they are bitter.  He was saying that they are disinclined to believe that government is going to do anything on their behalf because they have been stiffed for so long.  Hence, they don't credit the possibility of meaningful change coming from the government.  An excellent point after eight years of Bush neglect following eight years of Clinton free-trade-ism that didn't do much of anything for the losers in the shift to a global economy.

icarusr,

I have run for public office, have walked door to door asking people for their votes, have stood in front of delis at 5:30 am passing out palm cards, and have had to answer questions from the public without putting my foot in my mouth -- and I have had to respond to outrageous attacks from Republicans.  It is a very humbling experience and changes one's perspective on electoral politics like nothing else.  When it was over, I moved to managing campaigns rather than running because it is a lot easier.

The summer of 2001, when I was running, Bill Clinton came to town to speak to a fund-raiser being held for the national Dems.  I had already been on the stump for a few weeks and made my share of novice mistakes.  Toward the end of his speech, Clinton publicly thanked all of the Democratic candidates for local office who were in the crowd.  I was standing up near the dais with a real good view.  Then he smiled, and winked, it felt like he was winking right at me, and said, "Not as easy as it looks, is it?"  All I could think was, boy, is that the understatement of the century.  I will never forget it.

He also gave the most compelling extemporaneous speech I have ever heard and may ever hear.  He brilliantly wove together the comments of previous speakers whom he has just heard with jokes and his own thoughts.  Having had a little experience by that point, I was stunned by his brilliance.  But that was a long time ago, before he left politics for corporate speeches at high prices.  I think he has lost it.

Hey some of us engineers are not twerps!  Does that mean I now get to be one of the new denigrated groups?  What will McBush and Billary do for ME??   :-)

So hayleykelse, the blue collar voters can't "relate" to Obama.  Fine.  Then please explain to me how they "related" to Reagan and Bush I and Bush II when they overwhelmingly voted for those three even though the trio helped push much of the agenda that put them in this bind.  I don't get it.  And Bill's administration didn't exactly do gangbusters for blue collar workers either.

Is it the white collar voters actually pay attention to substance and actions while the blue collar voters pay attention to style and empty rhetoric?  Now there's a thought.

So, let;'s see:

Obama has been pushing guns and the right to bear arms.

Obama has clung to the religion of Jermiah Wright for 20 years.

And Wright preaches hatred of other races from the pulpit.

And Michele, with the 1,000 bottle wine cellar, is so bitter about this "mean" country that she has never before been proud of it.

And Obama goes to San Francisco to accuse small-town Pennsylvanians of clinging to guns, religion, hatred of others and bitterness, which he alone knows the way to save them from.

I'm sure this all makes sense to Chait, Zengerle, Orr and the rest of the superannuated college students at TNR.

hayleykelse: Obama did not refer to Clinton's Tuzla lies in every single speech or appearance during the days after the story broke (as Clinton has been doing re his comment.) Nor did he distribute instructions and talking points to his campaign surrogates telling them to hammer the issue (and how to do so) in all of their media appearances. Moreover, to my knowledge, his campaign did not push the issue at all -- even by mildly referring to newspaper articles -- after Clinton *finally* addressed her mistake by saying, in a ridiculous misuse of the word, that she "misspoke." (Never mind that she did so three times, and at least once as part of a scripted speech.) In other words, they effectively accepted her explanation, as implausible as it was. There is just no comparison between her tactics and Obama's on this.

Finally, your reading of his broader comments at the fundraiser are truly distorting and implausible. His acknowledgment that disaffected Pennsylvania voters need to be "persuaded" by concrete proposals was not in the least condescending. Quite the opposite: he was sympathetically explaining why he needs to work harder than normal to win their vote, because they're not as likely to fall for the usual b.s. campaign rhetoric that candidates (not just him) typically peddle. They've been let down too many times. Only someone who desperately wants to project condescension onto these comments can see them as condescending.

ironyroad --

1. To start with, they have an entirely different definition of "merit" than most elites. For liberal elites "merit"  and "meritocracy" is most often about obtaining high status credentials and positions. For most Americans "merit" is about both character and concrete achievement; surviving difficult challenges and enduring hardships (with your principles and dignity intact), over-coming obstacles, building something from nothing, like a business, obtaining something, like a difficult skill, a technical certificate, a college degree, despite great obstacles or establishment disapproval or discouragement.  They are NOT anti-intellectual, but intellectualism alone doesn't impress them. Your degree alone can't give you authority -- but the concrete things you created or achieved with the resources and opportunities that degree provided, or the difficult obstacles, if any, you over-came to achieve that degree and those opportunities, can. Under this definition, the troubled young man who straightens out his life, learns some skills, and, against the odds, makes a decent life for himself and his family is as worthy, if not more worthy, of respect as the more easily approved of young man who has always towed the expected line, impressed the authorities that be,  and been dependably rewarded with the expected credentials and privileges.

2. They believe in "fair play." You don't cut in line. You don't take unfair advantage. You don't ask for special privileges. But also, be fair, responsible, generous and helpful to -- and take pride in your ability to do and care for -- others. Liberals, when they treat working and middle class people like victims -- or as ignorant people needing "re-education" by their betters -- offend their dignity and miss opportunities to appeal to their pride, their sense of responsibility, their commitment to what is fair, and their generosity.

3. They respect competence and problem solving. Whether it is knowing how to fix a car, break a sales record, repair a broken piece of furniture, build a house, bring a project in under budget, design a new tool for a unique application, lead men in battle, build a better mouse trap, etc., etc. To them, intelligence is demonstrated through its competent application in problem solving, overcoming obstacles, meeting challenges, building and creating concrete things, etc.  

4. They respect experience. Because it is through experience that skills are honed, mistakes are corrected, understanding deepens, humility is learned, and competence and creativity blossom.

5. They value independence. All of the above; the ability to endure and overcome obstacles, a commitment to fair play, the acceptance of responsibility, competence, pragmatic creativity and experience are essential components of that independence.

Icarus - I want to hear arguments from Obama. He soesn't make arguments, doesn't persuade anyone. He preens for each audience, and by his preening subtly encourages them to think that he agrees with them, even when he doesn't. I don't consider that the mark of a leader.

esmense, all in all I agree with you that these are valuable traits.  They are also the traits recognized (at least in theory) by the vast majority of Americans, whether liberal or conservative or in between.  Indeed, the only disagreement I have with you is your assumption that there are strange "elites" out there who don't hold these ideas.  Look at it this way:  the only elite that might be said to depart from those principles is the elite that hangs onto its inherited wealth.  Neither Clinton nor Obama fit that bill, but some recent presidents have.

So while having no problem with your inventory, I'm extremely curious as to why you think that these characteristics belong to rural and suburban men (your phrase) as opposed to, say, rural and suburban women, or to urban men, or to San Francisco as opposed to Pittsburgh, or whatever.  What evidence do you have that somebody's LA or Boston zip code means that they don't respect merit, fair play, competence, experience, and independence as much as someone with a PA or TN zip code?  Indeed, with the exception of (4) experience, Obama's own personal history is a remarkable manifestation of your clear description of what people generally admire and approve of:

" . . . surviving difficult challenges and enduring hardships (with your principles and dignity intact), over-coming obstacles, building something from nothing, like a business, obtaining something, like a difficult skill, a technical certificate, a college degree, despite great obstacles or establishment disapproval or discouragement."

ironyman --

I do think these traits and values are broadly American middle class and working class traits  and values-- often exemplified by the small town and rural men who I deal with every day in my business, but certainly not limited to them.

I've spent my adult life living in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco and Seattle. I certainly don't believe that these values and virtues are non-existent in these places -- and I am offended when people suggest that they are.

But, liberal political consultants, pundits and academics rarely credit these qualities in Americans -- whether they reside in "fly over" country, in large urban centers, or on the coast -- or fashion effective messages that appeal to these values. How often have you heard liberals talk about , and speak to, for instance, the average American's sense of fair play -- as opposed to analyzing and criticizing their presumed prejudices and resentments?  (Obama too has displayed this tendency, by positing the "typical" white person is a racist, by suggesting class "bitterness," rather than real differences in experience and conflicting interests, offers the largest explanation for why working class voters in Pennsylvania make different political decisions than extremely affluent voters in San Francisco, etc.)  How often do liberals express faith in the better angels of our nature, as opposed to bemoaning the ways in which "ignorant" "low information" voters fail themselves and the country (by failing to vote as these liberals believe they should)? And, how often do they put forward highly credentialed, elitely educated candidates, often from priviledged backgrounds, with little experience outside the world of politics?

Obama is a writer. An intellectual. An elitely educated son of an academic. A "career" politician. He has an unusual biography, but it is not a biography filled with concrete accomplishment and much varied experience. In this he is NOT very different from most of the men the party has put forward over the last several decades.

emense: I think your list captures a range of extremely important values, though I agree with ironyroad that they are shared by most Americans. I have a few questions and comments about your subsequent post:

You write: "How often have you heard liberals talk about , and speak to, for instance, the average American's sense of fair play -- as opposed to analyzing and criticizing their presumed prejudices and resentments?"  

Actually, liberals talk about "fair play" all the time. For example, the liberals affiliated with Obama's campaign talk frequently about "fair play" in pointing out Clinton's penchant for moving the goal posts and for agreeing to rules (e.g. regarding MI and FL) and then junking them. It is a hallmark of liberalism, moreover, that its proponents talk about a "level playing field" in the economy. Tune in to George Will on any given episode of "This Week" and you will likely hear him make fun of liberals' obsessive concern with "fairness." I just don't see how your critique of "liberals" on this point hits its mark.

You also write: "Obama too has... posit[ed] the "typical" white person is a racist..." In fact, he explicitly denies this and usually rejects the word "racist" whenever he's asked about some allegedly objectionable behavior (ex. Ferrarro's comments.) If you are referring to the "typical white person" comment, he explained that it was the fears his grandmother expressed that he meant were "typical" of a certain generation of white people who have certain shared perceptions "bred into them by culture" AND he explicitly said that she was NOT "racist". The way critics of Obama have used that "typical white person" comment is really distressing, I think, because it suggests that the minimum level of good will that would be needed for having a genuine dialogue about racial difference is not present among members of different races and different political viewpoints even among Democrats(!) and so such a dialogue will never be able to occur. After all, any fruitful conversation about race will require participants to give others the benefit of the doubt in interpreting their (unscripted) statements, i.e. participants will have to assume that when a statement can be understood in either an insulting or a neutral way, the neutral meaning is what the author intended (unless he/she says otherwise.) In the wake of this election, such a conversation seems utopian indeed.

You ask: "How often do liberals express faith in the better angels of our nature..."  I can't give you a 'rate' of such expressions, here; but it is precisely Obama who has explicitly appealed to the better angels of our nature in his campaign speeches.

There are  other things in your comments that seem to misrepresent liberals and/or Obama's campaign but these will have to do for now.

esmense writes:  "Your degree alone can't give you authority -- but the concrete things you created or achieved with the resources and opportunities that degree provided, or the difficult obstacles, if any, you over-came to achieve that degree and those opportunities, can. Under this definition, the troubled young man who straightens out his life, learns some skills, and, against the odds, makes a decent life for himself and his family is as worthy, if not more worthy, of respect as the more easily approved of young man who has always towed the expected line, impressed the authorities that be,  and been dependably rewarded with the expected credentials and privileges."

esmense also writes:  "How often do liberals express faith in the better angels of our nature, as opposed to bemoaning the ways in which "ignorant" "low information" voters fail themselves and the country (by failing to vote as these liberals believe they should)? And, how often do they put forward highly credentialed, elitely educated candidates, often from privileged backgrounds, with little experience outside the world of politics?"

Now I'm confused.  In what way is Obama not somebody who fought against obstacles and odds in a somewhat troubled youth, both social and psychological, but nonetheless straightened out his life, gained degrees at Columbia and Harvard Law, as well as choosing work that took him into South Chicago as opposed to an elite law firm?  How is he somebody who doesn't work toward stimulating "the better angels of our nature"?  How is he "the son of an academic," for pete's sake?

It seems to me that your argument amounts to saying that if somebody achieves certain levels in American life, he or she then becomes "elite" and is therefore to be dismissed as a presidential candidate.  Despite your invocation of "merit" as an important quality approved by regular folks in the heartland, they won't in fact be treated as someone who gained merit by their work and struggle.

Oh, one more.

Question: "And, how often do [liberals] put forward highly credentialed, elitely educated candidates, often from priviledged backgrounds, with little experience outside the world of politics?"

Answer: No more often than do Republicans, to whom, apparently, the non-elitely educated, blue collar voters put off by "elitist" liberals are nevertheless readily drawn. (Bush went to Yale and Harvard.)

Interesting discussion.

esmense says about Obama:

"Obama is a writer. An intellectual. An elitely educated son of an academic. A "career" politician. He has an unusual biography, but it is not a biography filled with concrete accomplishment and much varied experience. In this he is NOT very different from most of the men the party has put forward over the last several decades."

But what about the other side? Reagan was an actor in mostly second-rate movies, then the Actor's Guild president, then into politics. George H. W. Bush did have real concrete accomplishments in his record, but W? A few unsuccessful businesses, part-owner of a baseball team, then politics. Nixon? I don't even know what he did before politics. So it is not like the Republicans have been putting forward candidates with biographies filled with concrete accomplishments before becoming career politicians. So I don't think this is really a decisive point in determining recent elections.

jaunty,

you are hilarious, however unintentionally. esmense is brilliant, but he/she ain't me. what a goof you are! is it so hard to believe that there are aother people who find Obama very hard to take for good reasons?

Jeff Frey --  

Ah, but you have to see Nixon, as he and many of his supporters saw him, in the context of his time; a poor young veteran from a small town in the West without elite connections or an elite education (he attended a local Quaker college -- he was offered a scholarship from Harvard but he did not have the financial means to attend. Later he put himself through law school at Duke and served in the military as a Lt. Commander in the Navy) challenging the powers that be and trying to succeed, against the odds, in a political world dominated by the scions of wealthy, usually liberal, Northeastern, long established elite families; Rockefellers, Bushes, Lodges, etc ( and, coming up in the other party, the more newly rich, Harvard educated Kennedys.)  In many ways Nixon represented the rise of a new middle class after WWII -- when young men returned from war, earned an education that probably would not have been available to them before the war, and used that education and their war experience to challenge the established order in business, politics and the professions.  In his generation military service counted a lot in terms of pragmatic experience. And, of course, Nixon was a red baiter -- as reprehensible as as his methods may seem to you or me, he established himself as a crusader against corruption and the country's betrayal by privileged elites. His was the classic story of the poor boy who comes from nowhere, takes on the corrupt powers that be, endures hardship and harsh criticism. and yet triumphs over the naysayers, critics and enemies in the end. That is until Watergate which you can read, as many of his supporters still do, as the final, triumphant blow from his "enemies" or as most of us do; as the ultimate and sad consequence of a sad stew of hubris, insecurity and "outsider" paranoia

Reagan too was a poor boy success story. Just as rags to riches as Nixon's, but, early on, more riches (and glamour) than Nixon. He may not have been a very good actor but he was a successful one. His story isn't about artistic triumph; its about the American dream of hard work and persistence leading to success and wealth and later to participation in public life. He had a long career that included union leader, corporate spokesman, successful two term governor before running for  president. You can't say he lacked pragmatic experience or accomplishment.  He too rose from "nowhere" with no elite connections and without an elite education.  

The Bushes' elite backgrounds have been a problem for them. Poppy overcame it a bit with his WWII experience and the supposed break from family privilege his time in post-war Texas oil country represents.. Junior buried his privilege under a tale of redemption -- lost young men reforms himself, triumphs in business, goes on to become successful two term governor, etc. These stories are pretty manipulated and haven't convinced many. Most of poppy's career depended on appointments, he only served one term. Junior wouldn't have had even one term without a lot of vote counting manipulation.  

Bill Clinton's story is also one of triumphing over obstacles -- and of service and pragmatic accomplishment. Although he was a 'career politician' it was a career outside of DC in one of the nation's poorest and least influential states. He is someone who as a young man earned his elite education on merit -- and then went back home to devote close to 20 years to teaching law, serving as Attorney General and then Governor -- for VERY little money -- in his home state.

Obama's story is a story of his struggle with questions of personal identity (which is by the way a story a great many Americans from many backgrounds can relate to) but it is not a story of over-coming adversity, enduring hardship, triumphing over resistance, managing change, executing a vision, building up concrete accomplishment. Maybe some day it will be that story -- but it isn't now.  

Oh yes, enonsense,

And Hillary's story is one of triumphing over her Yale Law School education, her marriage to the President of the United States, and the gift of a Senate seat in order to accomplish -- nothing.

pccostello,

esmense is "brilliant"? Is brilliant repeating the same cant about liberals that has been put forth by such deep thinkers as Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, Jonah Goldberg, and Sean Hannity?  This is "brilliant" to you? That liberals are "elites" while conservatives with the same cultural, educational, economic, and residential pedigree are not "elites"?  

pccostello, you are a good debater but you are blinkered by your partisan bias. And you have a very low threshold for "brilliance.".  But at least you aren't esmense and that is one in your favor....

and esmense isn't you and that is one in his/her/it's favor...

roidubouloi --

Women are always at a disadvantage in this; that our traditional (male oriented) narratives about how power is earned don't apply to them.  But Obama has benefitted from from the fact that his major opponent is a female suffering under this disadvantage -- it allows him to run without the usual and customary history, storyline, and accomplishments too.

roi: great story about Bill.  Sad what's happened to him.  And no, it is not easy running for office.  Despite many attempts to get me to run federally, I've said no, simply because I know what it takes, and I ain't willing to make the sacrifice.

Tep: I still don't understand what you're saying.  What do you mean by preening?  Last time I checked his website, he had tons of specific policies on everything.  Sure, he does not do a Clinton when he speaks in public, but why should he?  Who says that talking about milk quotas in Upstate New York and home improvement licenses in Brooklyn is the only way to run a campaign?

Any way, without drawing any parallels, tell me this: what do think of Kennedy's inauguration address?  Preening or policy?  Kissinger thinks that as Policy it was dangerous nonsense: "Bear any burden, pay any price ..." - hard to see how it's any different from Goldwater's "Extremism in defence of Liberty" ...

It seems to me that what you want, at this stage of the game, is an understanding, not of specific policies (at the end of the day, whatever policies you have will have to change in relation to the Congress you get), but broad philosophical outlines: is the Government the enemy of the people, or its friend/instrument? Do you believe in a Reaganite America or a Jacksonian one?  And so on.  And Obama has been fairly clear about these.

Jaunty: Mrs. Clinton's campaign is emailing around Jonah Golderg and Bill Kristol's comments on Mr. Obama.  The answer to your question is: for Hillary supporters, all's fair in love and elections.

esmense: You know, if we were talking about any other woman than Hillary, and any other man than Obama, and any other election cycle than this one, I might - just might - buy your "traditional narratives" argument.

But, if there is one woman in American who has no right whatever to complain about traditional narratives, it is Ms. Rodham - I mean, Mrs. Clinton.  The arguments on this score are legion and well-known and I don't need to rehash them.  Just suffice it to note that if her HUSBAND had not been in the White House for eight years, Ms. Rodham would not have been the junior Senator from New York.

As for her handicaps against Mr. Obama, her "as far as I know" about Obama's religion put paid to any notion that she was the one lumbering under a traditional handicap of any sort.  If you cannot see how a black man, raised in Indonesia, running for President would suffer from traditional narratives of his own, you know ever less about America that is humanly possible.  

Jaunty--

I think esmense's reading of the staged meeting of Obama with single mothers in California was in fact brilliant. He/she got it exactly right--both the cynicism of the exercise and the intrsuive personal  questions and the sense Obama displayed that the women were there at his feet to be asked personal questions by him, rather than they there to question him. The sense of messianic entitlement in Obama is so galling for those of us who see it. He is a papmpered prep-school boy, as the Chicago political and Afrcian-American community tagged him to be early in his career. I think it is his prep-school attitudes and style that make him so popular with the college staff here at TNR.

icarusr--

You are ignoring esmense argument with a kind of speical, personalized atttach on Clinton. But the attacks on her makes deep use of all the traditional narratives against women. You are trying to turn Clinton into a female version of Willie Horton. The work of that ad was done by incorporating the usual bigotry but tying them to an "exceptional case"--just what you and others try to do with Hillary. Nice work--let's you be a reactionary while posing as  morally high-minded.

esmense,

Blacks are also at a disadvantage.  Obama has the brains to understand that you cannot run for President of the United States based on claims of victimhood and never portrays himself in those terms.  He distances himself from that rhetoric.  Hillary does not understand that her victim shtick appeals only to her hardcore feminist supporters and alienates the rest of the electorate.  It isn't worth two seconds of debate as to which disadvantages are more of a disadvantage because you cannot become president touting your disadvantages.  Hillary routinely makes the worst out of both her advantages and disadvantages which is but more evidence of her political tin-ear.  Obama does not.

icarusr,

I have made the point endlessly that a successful campaign is not based on policy prescriptions but on broad themes.  That is obvious to you, as it is to me, because you have some electoral experience.  It has not been obvious to the Democratic party that, until now, has shown a strong preference for policy over politics.  Fortunately, we have in Obama, as we had in Bill Clinton, someone who is about to break that cycle.

pccostello/esmense,

what a bunch of nonsense. How the hell can you say such things when one, you're weren't there, and two, no other news reports paint this messianic tableau of this particular meeting. You say this because it exists in your head, prefabricated by your politics and partisan preferences.

It is also galling to hear so called tribunes of the working class, especially here at tnr. esmense at least has a peripatetic lifestyle so he/she/it sees people. My experience here at tnr talk back is that the demographic here knows very little about working people, how they think, and what they want. They know even less than squat about the challenges of people of color. That you can, with I guess a straight face, say that Obama has had some kind of golden path, ala Bush, to his current position, shows that you really are not to be taken seriously.

I will grant you that some of the resistance against HC, especially here at tnr among the wee lads, is indicative of "traditional narratives against women", yes thank you mr. working class. Funny, I don't remember anyone I grew up with, within the working class mind you, with such an elevated and catchy way with sociological observations but hey, I am in tnrland where college educated white boys can pretend that they're down with grubby working class people like me.  But, I would strongly suggest that the "narrative' that remains against HC, as it has evolved is a "narrative" against reckless personal ambition, oblivious to the damage that she is doing to her party at this late stage of the process.

Stay with kirchick posts laddie.  

PCC: So now I'm Lee Atwater?  

You know, in my Feminist Theory class in law school (yes, the only man in my year to attend the course), after three months of carping à là PCC, one female student turned to the rest and said, "I took this course to learn about structures of Power and how to combat them, not to sit through a bitchfest." (A word that have never escaped my mouth, and I an far from being politically correct.)

The "poor wittow me" "narrative" has no traction except among a very narrow demographic, and the more it's played up, the less attractive it and the candidate become.  Your last post is a case in point.  It is not enough to insult me (instead of addressing the issue), but you have to go to the extreme, take the vilest electoral ad of my generation, and accuse me of playing in the same ballpark.  

Read my posts.  I do not criticise Mrs. Clinton for anything other than what comes out of her campaign or her own mouth.  These are not "personal attacks".  I do not begrudge her her success, only question the victimhood "narrative", especially as regards her.  I'm sorry, but you cannot - it is ethically unacceptable - to sit on the coattails of a philandering husband for two decades, to run for office on the strength, more or less, of having been a high-flying wife, and THEN to criticise others for attacking you within "traditional narratives", whatever that means.

Any way, I doubt, very much doubt, that your line of reasoning - and I am being generous on this word - plays in Peoria or Montgomery or Reno.  To the single mother working two shifts to pay her bills, Hillary's "Me, Me, Me" has as much credibility as W's working class credentials.

In the meantime, and excuse my French, please ditch the Willie Horton merde.  It's nauseating.

The argument appears to be

1) that there are values (merit, fair play, etc.) held by a certain segment of the population,

2) that liberals and/or Democrats have not listened to these values or principles, and

3) that Obama was dissing these values when he spoke in SF about people attaching themselves to "culture" issues in order to keep a sense control over events after the economy has jettisoned them.

I don't think he was, irrespective of his tactical error of formulation (it hasn't been the only one so far, and they haven't been all his).  We'll see what happens, but Obama has been able to ride out the negative effects of telling the truth (or more of the truth than is usual in elections) quite effectively so far.  What he was doing was -- in a way, quite risky -- understanding and communicating why there's an obsession in some regions with "culture" issues that have no potential for improving people's lives or bringing a sense of economic hope into play.

Generally, it's nonsense to suggest that if you're not a "rural or suburban man" that you don't identify with or live according to values we've been discussing.  I'd also say that nobody seems to notice that the stream of abuse directed without pause at liberals over the past few decades is also "arrogant" and "elitist" (there are elitists on both sides but to suggest e.g. that your particular religious beliefs make you a better American than your agnostic neighbor, is quite as snobby as any other claim to superiority).

Could it be, just perhaps, that some voters have (for whatever reason) misread a label as the realty?  That they have bought into a fiction (effete liberals vs. downhome conservatives) that has locked a Republican world-view in place despite that fact that that world-view is singularly useless when it comes to addressing the major problems of the 21st century?

And maybe -- not certainly -- Obama is lancing the boil of this history of frustration and hostility and lack of optimism that has dogged progressive politics in the U.S. since the 1960s.  It may not work, and it could lose him the presidency, but bringing white working-class Democrats out from under their own resentments and tribal defensiveness could be the key to victory.

esmesne, if you want to go back to Nixon, how about Johnson? Eisenhower? Kennedy? Nouveau elite, but not entirely because he was Catholic. (Although he did have concrete wartime and post-war accomplishments).

I agree with you that Americans love a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" story, and I would point out that they seem willing to buy it even when the story is phony or exaggerated, as long as the guy in question seems like a regular guy. I'll also grant you that academic wonkishness often leads to a focus on details and points that may only seem important to other people focused on those same details (and not to the average Joe). But the reality is that almost all of the serious Presidential candidates of the last few decades came from an elite education, regardless of how they got there. So I think to some extent you are trying to draw broad differences when the differences are actually small.

But you just lose me completely when you claim Obama is simply a child of privilege. It's a little more complicated than that -- black guys named Barack Hussein Obama are not automatically lumped with people like the Bushes, who are Nth generation moneyed elites). And look at the other two candidates still left standing: wife of an ex-President, and son of an Admiral. (Son and grandson of Admirals, I think). Private university, Naval Academy. Not really that different. It's like claiming that different shades of dark blue are radically different, while ignoring the rest of the spectrum.

I think other factors end up being much more important.

I didn't say Obama was a child of priviledge. But, on the other hand, he didn't rise from poverty and hardship and he did not have to struggle for educational opportunities, etc. He grew up in the post-civil rights era, lived a pretty sheltered, very middle class life, and attended the most prestigious private school, in a community where being bi-racial did not impact him in any significant and negative ways. Pre 9/11 there was no more negative connotation to his name than to any other "ethnic" sounding name. He did not share the struggles of an earlier generation of black men, nor the struggles of young minorities today who face the burdens of poverty and class as well as race.

His story is simply not one of "over-coming" -- and it is a bit offensive, in the light of the many who have achieved so much for themselves and others, and sacrificed so much, in spite of genuine resistance to their achievement, and genuine danger, to suggest that it is. Celebrate it for what it is -- a sign of the real racial progress made over the last 40+ years. But don't pretend it is biography filled with courage, suffering and heroism.

Obama's biography is much like Hillary's in this way -- they both came from the solid middle class, were bright and enjoyed relatively easy access to elite educations. They differ in this; Hillary enter the adult world at a time when women held almost no positions of power, and when even elitely educated women like herself where raised to do good, rather than to be successful. The notion that she thought she could be president at an early age is absurd -- as any woman her age will tell you. There was no path to it, no one to guide the way, no welcoming mentors. She did what bright young women of her generation did -- she went into public service, not politics. And she married, and had a child, and devoted her energies and considerable talents to supporting her husbands ambition's, promoting his public policies, encouraging his engagement in issues she was devoted to -- and still worked on in a public service role; the welfare of children, legal representation for the poor, education, etc. She did a lot, but it was in the context of what was expected from women of her generation -- service to others. (Rather than in the service of her ambition.)

Obama entered the adult world at a time when those in power were ready to open the doors and encourage exceptional young men like him, who in an earlier generation would have found  many more doors closed and many fewer people ready to help and mentor him along the way. And he has been helped and mentored, by more powerful and established men, all along the way. Politically, he has risen rapidly and easily -- with plentiful encouragement from the Democratic establishment.

But that rapid rise hasn't provided much time for real, substantial accomplishment, for creating a clear vision of what he wants to achieve, for the American people to get to know him. And that is a problem for him as a candidate.

Frankly, if the only brand name in this race hadn't been a woman, I don't think the powerful Democrats who encouraged him to challenge Clinton would have done so. I think they would have told him to wait and get a few more accomplishments under his belt.

Once again, Barack Obama tells the truth and gets slammed for it.

You're goddamn right people are bitter. Their sons and daughters are being stop-lossed up the yinyang in Iraq and Afghanistan, with no end in sight. In fact, the American military is in worse shape than at any time in my lifetime. With the multi-trillion-dollar bill yet to be paid, and U.S. security mininally better, at best.

Meanwhile, the working class has watched its retirement fund--the equity in its homes--get slashed in the last 24 months. Guess what, dude: you gotta work another 8 years longer before you can retire. (That's if you're buying your home. If you ain't: forget it. Have fun paying rent on Social Security when you're too old to work.)

Gas and fuel oil prices are eating working-class Americans alive. As is healthcare. As is college tuition. And they may not be college graduates, but they are wise enough to see what lies in store for their children and grandchildren, the world they are leaving for their children and grandchildren, the world they have worked so hard to leave for their children and grandchildren. It ain't pretty.

Meanwhile, the aristocracy continues to prosper.

Bitter? Obama's only fault was being gentle.

Meanwhile, legend-in-her-own-Machiavellian-mind Hillary Clinton and her Mini-Me, John McCain, mustering all the Washington Beltway gravitas they can, accuse Obama of being out of touch.

Give me a fucking break.

esmense,

wow, where to begin?  No one is saying that Obama is Bigger Thomas but he hardly came from the solid middle class. Like Bill Clinton, he was raised throughout his formative early years by his single mother and when she married again, he lived in Indonesia, which, last I looked oh tribune of the working class, was a 3rd world country. Yes, he went to a prep school in Hawaii and lived with his grandparents but still, I would doubt that anyone would compare that Hawaiian private school to the top schools that housed dullards like George W. and Marvin and Neil Bush and any of the innumerable slacker 3rd generation Kennedy's.  

I agree that due to his talent and the power of his merit and accomplishments, he has been helped by powerful mentors and forces but what successful man or woman hasn't?

It always amuses me that so many people profess a love of meritocracy and personal accomplishment but when people like Obama or Bill Clinton, true products of the middle class,  embody these shibboleths, they, because of who they are or what their opponents want to believe about them, instantly diminish the power of that accomplishment. I have seen this at every step in my life, when I have outdistanced some flabby, privileged good for nothing who embodied the truly self entitled.

esmense for what it's worth, at least I get a sense that you have some experience with working class people, Unlike pccostello, he of the narratives, at least you seem to be able to see opposing viewpoints.

This discussion has slipped into a comparative weighting of various candidates' claims to be something other than children of privilege.  I'd say that in contrast to Bush at least, any privilege Obama exudes is what he earned himself by dint of his intellect and hard work (this does not mean you should vote for him if his politics differ from yours).  However, the bigger issues were these:

1.  whether Obama was stupidly condescending in SF to heartland voters he needs to win over, and

2.  whether there is a broader issue of the failure of Democrats/liberals to listen to or address the principles and ideals of an ill-defined white male demographic that resides -- mentally at least -- in middle America.

Enough has been said on the first, so on the second point I'll go out on a limb and say that, just as conservatives have failed to listen to the more liberal, more educated demographic in urban and bicoastal America, liberals have failed to listen to the voices of the ordinary voters across large swathes of the country (demographically as well as geographically).  I'd also say that such a posture, now in 2008, is non-existent on the Democratic side at least as both BHO and HRC are going into every last city neighborhood and rural lane to find support in this election -- and it'll be the same in the general election.

I would go further out on said limb and assert that it has never been the values of merit, fair play, competence, experience, and independence that have counted most crucially for people's electoral choices.  I doubt, for example, that if an openly gay or lesbian candidate or an openly agnostic candidate were to run for office in certain parts of the country, and if that candidate could show plusses against every value that is supposed to obtain in that community, that he or she would have a good chance of winning.  Their sexual orienation or agnostic philosophy would trump all other values.  To that extent, therefore, it's not the case that only certain people value merit, fairness, competence, experience, and indepdendence, but that such values count for very little when the paranoia of "cultural politics" comes into play, even among people who claim those values as their own.

In the case of Obama, the question is whether the subtle paranoias about race that still haunt America are going to be exposed and drained in this election.  Those unspoken resentments also work to undermine the American values of merit, fair play, competence, experience, and independence -- values that have just as much currency in the Bay Area as in Wichita, KS.

esmesne, you called him an elite child of an academic. (Maybe that's privilege without the money?) But there is not much point arguing this, because I don't think there is any serious claim that Obama's narrative is that he brought himself up out of poverty against vicious racism. My point is simply that if he is among the "elite", he is the first generation of his family firmly there (I'm judging here by wealth and political power). We've degenerated to an argument about small differences between the candidates. And I think small differences between the parties, in reality.

By the way, having lived in Honolulu, I can tell you that many people of "middle class" means sent their kids to Punahou or to the other big private school (St. Louis?, I can't remember), because the public schools are for the most part awful. Or at least were; I was there in 85-86.

icarusr--

I am afraid you are doing an anti-female version of Willie Horton (e.g., "she's only there because of her husband").

The fact that you are incapable of recognizing your biases makes them no repellent.

Geez, pc, that's a load of horseshit even for you.  The fact of the matter is that HIllary IS only where she is because of her husband.  She has accomplished nothing of consequence for her "35 years of experience" that she can credit to her own abilities and/or hard work.  Nice trick accusing anyone who happens to take note of the fact that her narrative is a fraud of being a misogynist.  You may be unmoved by Obama's narrative, but at least it isn't replete with patently phony claims.  The Hillarista posters above, most notably esmense are reproving him for things he doesn't claim.

Her victimhood on the basis of her sex is seemingly the only thing that Hillary and her supporters have, in the end, to say on her behalf.  Well, you don't get to be president, and she surely never will, based on the notion that you "deserve" it for any reason whatsoever, race, gender, what you have done, and certainly not be carrying on that you are a victim.  You get to be president for one reason only:  The American people believe you are the best person in the running to understand and defend their interests successfully.

PCC,

I don't even know what you mean by "Willie Horton" in this context, let alone a "female version of Willie Horton".  That ad exploited two themes: the first was a suspicion of "liberals" on crime; the second, a suspicion of African Americans as criminals.  And it only worked because of Michael Dukakis.  

In THIS context, yes, I'm "incapable" of seeing your point, and the relevance of the analogy; this is not because of my biases, but because any argument by analogy is weak; and yours, particularly idiotic.  

Basically, what you are doing, is the equivalent (sorry for using another analogy) of Mark Penn was doing to Obama's alleged cocaine use, or Clinton was doing to Obama's religion.  You accuse and insinuate, without any basis whatever, in the hope of tainting your opponent.  For good measure, I could, for example, accuse YOU of McCarthyism, or being a Blackshirt, of supporting Fascism, of being an anti-Semite (I'm part Jewish; is that you find repellent about me?  Admit it.) ... and then when you say, "Wha? the f*** %^$##$@?"  I can then turn around and call you repellent because you fail to recognise how despicable and ignorant and stupid you are ...  Not that I suggest you are any of that ...

Any way, what I said, if you bother to read instead of to insult, was that if there is one woman in politics today who has no right to claim to be a victim of sexism in the Democratic Party, it is Mrs. Clinton.  And if there is one opponent of hers of whom it cannot be said that he started with a privilege or an advantage, it is Mr. Obama.  If that makes me "biased" sure, I am.  I am definitely biased against White Privileged Women who marry Powerful Men (who earn $106 million in eight years) to advance their (joint) careers and who turn around and pull any and every race-related, class-related, and gender-related trick out of the hat to win.  I have no shame about that bias.

Finally, what's really pathetic is that the kind of rank sexism that would denigrate Mrs. Clinton because she is a woman, rather than because of who she is (two different things; I dislike Clarence Thomas but that would not make a racist) is not to be found here, in the pages of the TNR, and certainly not among many followers of Mr. Obama, who is a progressive liberal by any measure. (And if you think a husband of Michelle Obama can be sexist, you are far gone.)  Out there, where the unwashed masses live, that's where you will find "Willie Horton" type sexism and racism ... and you are not going to win them over by calling them "repellent".

pccostello, while Hillary is quite a capable woman in her own right, there is no way she would have started out this campaign as the presumptive favorite for the nomination if she hadn't been married to Bill. Without Bill, it is hard to say where she would have ended up (a successful lawyer, most likely), but there is no reason to believe it would be in the White House. Maybe she would have made the try on her own, but only if she had learned to campaign against a strong opponent quite a few years ago. Saying that doesn't make me a woman-hater.

I'd advise dropping the "Willie Horton" analogy -- it is nonsense. Especially given that her campaign has brought a lot more negative campaigning into play than Obama's has. But thus far, nobody has stooped as low as the Willie Horton ad, or Jesse Helms' famous "white hands, black hands" ad, or the South Carolina Republican primary in 2000. I think we can assume that the Republicans will be the ones to stoop to that level, if it happens.

After something like 48 hours on the mat, Obama is hitting Hillary back over the God and guns flap: "That's

The real Obama is akin to a conventional Ivy League, Manhattan West Side, or L.A. West Side richie elitist.  I've known this side up close and personal all my life.

And Obama's recent remarks about gun-totin' frustrated holy roller red neck trailer trash (said slightly more politely, of course) we know without a doubt where the good senator is really coming from.

Fortunately, the red necks, though they can't reason too good, do 'member stuff for a long time.

ramboorider, writes, "...Update - i just watched Obama take this on in his Indiana speech and I just watched the incredibly POSITIVE coverage he got on CNN."

Well, gee, ramboorider, that's a big surprise.  A positive coverage on CNN?  My, will wonders never cease!  

Next thing you know, Chris Matthews will be nice to Obama.

Chan:  "Fortunately, the red necks, though they can't reason too good, do 'member stuff for a long time."

If only.

icarusr--

You're right, you don't understand.

PCC -

And Hillary supporters call Obama condescending?

No, I don't understand; but if the comments above are indication, I'm in excellent company.

Incidentally, if *I* don't understand, you can be certain that a LOT of voters out there, men and women, white and blue collar, elite and non-elite, also do not understand.  These are the voters that, based on you notes above, you would find repellent.  I wonder if Hillary thinks as you do, and if she does, what business has she asking for the votes of people she finds repellent and ignorant?  

By the way, that zinger?  Really mature.  Next time, in addition to Willie Horton, make sure you trot out Dworkin/McKinnon to call all men rapists; works like wonder.

From today's headlines:  

"A Quinnipiac University survey taken April 3-6 in Pennsylvania found that Clinton's support fell 6 percentage points in a week among white women. Nationally, a Lifetime Networks poll of women found that 26 percent said they liked Clinton less now than in January, while only 15 percent said they liked her more."

Dang all those Willie Horton lovers out there.