That Only Works If You Are Blameless
- 04.14.2008 - 10:43 AMAfter a weekend of horrible press and an appearance by Hillary Clinton at Compassion Forum where she zapped him in words that would make Karl Rove grin (”Someone goes to a closed-door fund-raiser in San Francisco and makes comments that do seem elitist, out of touch and, frankly, patronizing.”), Barack Obama seems poised to go forward with a well-worn tactic: trying to counterpunch and throw the press off their target (him) by attacking his opponent.
Sunday night Obama declared Hillary Clinton “should know better” and labeled her “shameless.” The obvious retort: so? (Sure, she is capitalizing on his error - because his blunder was giant, ugly and easily understood.)
Clinton’s spokesman replied more expansively:
“Sen. Clinton does know better — she knows better than to condescend and talk down to voters like Senator Obama did. Senator Obama’s outburst won’t change the fact that he has embraced his characterization of the millions of Americans who live in small towns.”
Today Obama continues that gambit in a speech, once again only admitting that his choice of words was clumsy and attacking Hillary Clinton and John McCain as the ones out of touch on economics.
You see, Obama’s ploy only works when a candidate doesn’t have a problem of his own with the voters. (This poll suggests he does.) Here, Obama’s problem is not an issue of comparison with Clinton (e.g. who is holier than thou on trade or who is worse on defending the Second Amendment), but rather his own rapport with Pennsylvania voters. She didn’t call them irrational gun-toting, Bible thumpers; he did. ( And ridiculing her in personal terms risks getting those women voters in an uproar, just as he did with his “you’re likeable enough” bon mot.)
If voters are going to forgive and forget they won’t do it because Hillary is being Hillary. Obama’s got to make nice with them. But he seems unwilling to do that because, at bottom, he really doesn’t think he did anything wrong. This is becoming standard operating procedure for Obama. (Associate with a racist; lecture the country on racial unity. Insult a state; lecture us about the mindset of rural Americans.) Lots of lectures and changing the subject; never a full-throated apology.
In that debate this Wednesday when Hillary, as we know she will, asks him to apologize to the statement he will need to do better than “you’re a fake.” We’ve already heard that. For once, we’d like to hear about him.
| »Back to Contentions | »Back to Commentary |
April 14th, 2008 at 10:55 AM
Hillary and Obama are both failed candidates, and so was Edwards. They are all part of a broader and deeper problem that all parties of the left have in recent decades. Leaders of these liberal and left wing parties are supposed to be devoted to the working people - that’s what the left was supposed to be all about. Yet, all party leaders are highly educated, even over-educated. All of them are also millionaires or multimillionaires. When is the last time the Democratic Party had a nominee who wasn’t a millionaire when he ran for President? Can anyone remember that time?
How are these overeducated millionaires supposed to authentically represent a party whose most important constituency are undereducted people of modest means? It’s a real tough act to be successful at without seeming to be condescending and insincere. The Democratic Party since the 1960’s thought they could get around this problem by playing identity politics - dividing the electorate into identity groups rather than social classes. A woman candidate can represent women of all social classes, a black candidate can represent blacks of all social classes, etc.
This has only added a nasty balkanization and victimization cult to the inauthenticity problem of this party.
The way to surmount this problem is to appeal to larger unifying forces such as cultural values and religious faith. This is what the Republicans have done with great success, nothwithstanding their class problems of being tilted toward the rich.
Unless the Democrats can figure out how to do this in a credible manner they will simply self destruct, campaign after campaign, even in a year when they really should win.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:13 AM
I know it’s just rhetorical excess, Ellen S, but some of us can, in fact, remember as far back as 1992.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:20 AM
Obama really screwed up with these statements about Pennsylvania rural voters. Even though these statements have no relevance to how good a president he will be, Hillary and McCain are tactically right to jump on them. They are embarassing.
April 14th, 2008 at 11:41 AM
[…] voters are going to forgive and forget they won’t do it because Hillary is being Hillary. Obama’s got to make nice with them. But he seems unwilling to do that because, at bottom, he really doesn’t think he did […]
April 14th, 2008 at 11:49 AM
twalker,
It isn’t rhetorical excess, the Clintons as a household most probably did have a net worth greater than $1 million in 1992, not from Bill’s much publicized $35,000 per year salary as Governor, but from Hillary’s income as a lawyer and all those much discussed investments in controversial land deals, etc.
But you are right, on the surface, he did seem to be less well off than other Democratic left wing luminaries (like the Kennedy’s for example), and that was a big factor in his popularity. He seemed less hypocritical than the others in pretending to represent the common man.
April 14th, 2008 at 7:46 PM
Ellen - firstly I look forward to your posts.
It appears to me that this ‘educated wealthy demo ‘ thing is an American thing .
Plenty of anglo countries have leaders who were/are not super wealthy. Regular posters here would categorize them as far left but we think centre leftish..
So not ‘all parties of the left’ are the failures you describe. Does it apply here -well yes we could sell you some national health insurance plans!
April 14th, 2008 at 8:06 PM
I don’t know about the “educated wealthy” thing. I think it’s more of a mindset.
What’s the thesis of “What’s the matter with Kansas?” (or whatever the title is)? That people who “ought” to be supporting Democrats are voting against their economic interests because of (stupid) social issues, right?
The American Left believes it has “the” answers, that their answers should become policy even if they’re coercive & that anyone who opposes them is either evil or ignorant.
Perhaps recognizing that everyone who disagrees with them can’t be evil, they label the rest ignorant - “if they only understood, they’d support me instead of clinging to their stupid Bibles.”
April 14th, 2008 at 8:54 PM
I agree with Obama’s comments. I don’t think they were patronizing or elitist, but I do think it’s fascinating how many Americans identify with some phantasm called the “white working class,” when the working class is no longer dominated by whites. It seems that these people wish that “working class” was a synonym for white. This political campaign is an exercise in white racism. There was a brief moment when it wasn’t going to be, but then of course, this is America, and the political campaign had to become all about Black elitism and racism. Not very surprising though how much the Clintons (and of course it is both of them–when will Bill shut up?) cannot resist being racist and turning around and encouraging others to do the same.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:00 PM
Obama did not do anything wrong and being rich does not duaqualify you from representing the working class. that is just a ridculous Republican rich person’s argument.
April 14th, 2008 at 9:15 PM
Ellen, I remember HST. He was no millionaire. He was responsible and effective and could make the tough decisions.
He ended WWII and I remember that too.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki saved thousands of American lives. It was the proper decision.
(The afore mentioned peanut farmer showed his stuff in the Iranian desert.)
jo