home

The "Creative Class," Elitism and Obama's Gaffe

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Elections 2008
Posted on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:22:07 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Do you think the "creative class" blogosphere just started watching politics today? Or are they playing ignorant? Ezra Klein writes:

I'm not really sure what the big deal over Obama's comments in SF is supposed to be . . . As far as I can tell, few actually find the argument underlying Obama's statement controversial. It's a pretty standard thesis, and has been delivered, in various forms, by everyone from John McCain to Bill Clinton.

I would be curious to see what statements of Bill Clinton and John McCain Ezra Klein is talking about. Personally, I have never seen a pol say what Obama said. Political scientists, bloggers, intellectuals, ME, yes. But pols? Never. See, pols have a different job - get votes. Obama already has trouble getting white working class votes. This statement certainly does not help him. But I think he will ride it out - precisely because of his "Creative class"/Media Darling status. More...

This post from AmericaBlog is typically overwrought and filled with bile for Hillary Clinton, but it links to an example of how being a Media Darling will help Obama ride this out:

Until the Hillary Clinton campaign gets into a overt fight with "creative class"/Media, like the type we see in that clip, she can not easily label Obama "elitist." Why they have been so hesitant to do this is impossible for me to understand.

The most interesting part of this story will be how John McCain and the Republicans play it and what effect it will have. Barack Obama's Media Darling status has completely neutralized the Media advantage Republicans and conservatives have long had on these kinds of stories. Can the GOP get traction on this one? We will see. It is worth noting that Obama fanboy Andrew Sullivan actually understands the problem here.

< Hillary Again Attacks Obama Over PA Remarks | Live Blogging Today's Clinton Campaign Press Call >

  • Premium Ads

  • Blog Ads

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

    donate to TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    The "Creative Class," Elitism and Obama's Gaffe | 185 comments (185 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Obama bloggers... (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:35:08 PM EST
    are trying to carefully ignore that the predicate behind Obama's remarks was that the Bush years AND the Clinton years were responsible for the plight which embittered these small town PA gun totin', bible huggin' unfortunates.

    The predicate of his campaign is destruction of Democrats...whether they are small town citizens or past presidents or opponents.

    Why does he heart Reagan so?

    Why do these progressive bloggers see Obama as their savior?

    media star? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by mscristine on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:18:08 PM EST
    OH WHY INDEED. I am so mystified over this man's seeming magical power over some dems, but the media won't be able to save him come november, and probably won't want to. They are corporations after all. I am so scared of Obama.

    [ Parent ]
    I do not think that is the problem for Obama (none / 0) (#9)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:35 PM EST
    They should know what the problem is, but wither they are political idiots or have decided to play political idiots.

    [ Parent ]
    CDS (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:53:50 PM EST
    it's the gift that keeps giving

    They see anything but Clinton as the best choice.

    I'm of course assuming that the blogging elite are not so young and blind to believe that Obama is the second coming of RFK and it is events like this past week have proven that not to be the case.

    And then there's the other possible explanation...that we buy emotionally and defend our purchase rationally. They have already bought in and are 'deer in the headlights' incapable of changing direction because they are hypnotically tranced or too weak to change their minds. One of the funny things about blogs is that you get hung by your past statements because they are so readily available (hint...Markos).

    I don't know which to be the case with Ezra...he is young. Perhaps Hillary doesn't satisfy his yearning idealism because she is rooted in history and is a well known commodity.

    Arivosis and company and Sullivan, though, are CDS afflicted and they probably serves little purpose here except to inflame.

    [ Parent ]

    BTD is being mocked (none / 0) (#147)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:46:16 PM EST
    by John Cole:

    Out of respect to one of the of the worst Clinton bots, I am affixing the following to all posts now:

    Speaking for me only

    John has posted 4 CDS threads at Balloon Juice just today.

    I think he's starting to realize he bet on the wrong pony.

    [ Parent ]

    How do you mean? (none / 0) (#162)
    by Daryl24 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:50:55 PM EST
    I think he's starting to realize he bet on the wrong pony.


    [ Parent ]
    Heh (none / 0) (#173)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:29:05 PM EST
    I take it as as sign of respect. John cares about what I say. He is smart to care. . . .

    [ Parent ]
    Not the Media's Darling Forever (5.00 / 6) (#2)
    by tdraicer on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:36:04 PM EST
    He won't ride it out in PA. And he won't ride it out in the fall if he gets the nomination because McCain is the REAL Media Darling. How you continue not to see that is beyond me.

    We will see (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:39 PM EST
    If he rides this story out, then my theory will be proven correct imo.

    [ Parent ]
    He's had a (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:47 PM EST
    2 point downtick in the Gallup poll, overnight, which means his one-day numbers were quite a bit higher.

    Link

    I think this one really hit home.

    [ Parent ]

    He may in the short term (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by joc on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:12 PM EST
    But this one's coming back. Particularly the part where he claims the people of "states like Ohio and Pennsylvania" are 'more skeptical' when they here a "46-year-old black man" talking to them. The problem isn't just that he is impugning racist beliefs on the voters, there is also the audio track. When he says this the millionaire donors (from San Francisco no less) all laugh at the point he's making. Have no doubt that will find its way into Republican commercials in the fall.

    [ Parent ]
    Well my thoughts (none / 0) (#196)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:19:48 PM EST
    are that the GOP and McCain think that Obama has clinched the nomination and if they can drag out the outcome longer that is to their advantage and then of course they get a bloodied corpse in September to beat up some more.

    Yes, you are right Obama will make more errors. He is after all rather inexperienced.

    [ Parent ]

    Eh (5.00 / 1) (#163)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:52:06 PM EST
    sadly, I must say, don't be so sure. The media is doing their best spinning, spinning, spinning and trying to make it look like this is all Hillary's fault for going after him on it. What a meanie! What these people who are upset at Clinton don't understand is that organizations like Fox News and the RNC are using this to paint ALL democrats as out of touch elitists (based on the 5 minutes I could stand to watch this morning), saying this is how Democrats really feel, etc. Clinton needs to run from this, and run from it hard, to avoid being painted in that same light - as someone who thinks it is okay to look down her nose at working class voters.

    [ Parent ]
    And that's how Obama has hurt the Dems (none / 0) (#171)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:21:08 PM EST
    yet again.  He is divisive and has to go.

    <one part snark, one part not; you decide>

    [ Parent ]

    Are you saying (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:36:12 PM EST
    Clinton should go after people like Jeffrey Toobin and Jack Cafferty who found nothing wrong with what Obama said?  I wish she could but I think that might backfire.  The press loves nothing more than to talk about how a candidate is blaming the press for all his or her problems (especially the Clintons).  They are able to neutralize a lot of criticism with this tactic.  How would she go about it without it backfiring on her?

    YEP (5.00 / 1) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:03 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Did you see her comments this morning? (5.00 / 3) (#15)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:42:32 PM EST
    She had a determined look on her face like she is not about to let this one go.  A decision was probably made that Obama has attacked Bill Clinton's presidency once too many times and there will never be a joint ticket.

    She looked to be personally pissed and stunned at different parts of Obama's quote.  It was a very bad quote.  The reasons why will take several days to fully analyze.

    [ Parent ]

    Yeah one does wonder (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:46:04 PM EST
    how much will be too much as Obama continues to vaguely attack Clinton and the Clinton years by name.

    [ Parent ]
    Somerby does point out that when a Big Dem pol (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by jawbone on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:25:50 PM EST
    tries to merely chide the MCMers (members of the Mainstream Corporate Media), much less "go after them," the MCMers tend to unite against the "whining" Dem.

    Somerby says it's important for surrogates and especially the lib/prog/Dem pundits within the MCM, or near to it in the magazines, to take on the poor journalism of the MCM.

    Not happening--CDS? Preserving career viability for that big transfer to the MCM? To rise within the MCM?

    Such critiques may happen if the MCMers split on supporting Obama v. McSame--but the really Big MCMers will dance to the tune of their corporate masters. That's where the real decision will be made: Do the corporatists want to risk the governing style of BushCo through McCain for 4 to 8 years--or will they see a manageable alternative in an Obama presidency.  Which might explain why Obama is trotting out so many Republican talking points...not for the voters, but the CMs (Corporate Masters).

    In a way, that's the game Bill Clinton played to get into office--he used the DLC to calm down the CMs enough that they did not feel he would change things too much, and the MCM laid off him a bit in the general election.  But the MCM sure took off after him almost immediately after the inauguration. Did fulfilling his promise to allow gays to serve in the military startle the CMs enough to want to rein him in? I've never understood why Sam Nunn kneecapped him so early in his term....  But I claim no understanding of what goes on at those levels of power!

    I do, however, notice that when the Clintons take on the press, they get huge pushback and punishment.  Tweety may have had to apologize, but that and the Schuster thing seemed to harden the Boyz in the MSNBC Locker Room against Hillary.  And Tweety seemed to gloat in the NYTimes article, but I digress.

    I think Somerby is right on this--can't be the Big Dem pol, needs to be surrogates.

    [ Parent ]

    She could begin (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:43:42 PM EST
    by demanding a correction re jobs/unemployment during the Clinton administration...just for openers.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill had nothing (1.00 / 0) (#38)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:03:11 PM EST
    to do with the tech boom in the 90s.  Greenspan's tinkering with monetary policy was more significant.

    [ Parent ]
    NOTHING to do with it? (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:09:49 PM EST
    Nothing? that is a horribly ignorant statement.

    Just awful.

    [ Parent ]

    And an RNC talking point to boot (5.00 / 3) (#63)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:16:57 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Can someone explain this to me (none / 0) (#77)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:18 PM EST
    OT sorry.

    I hear this from every Reagancrat out there: Bill didn't cause it, it just happened because of the internet.

    I want to tell them they're wrong, but I don't know what to say. Anybody have a helpful link?

    [ Parent ]

    This is the problem (none / 0) (#99)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:39:49 PM EST
    That Bill was responsible for a good economy works politically....but when trying to pinpoint specific economic policies, it becomes difficult....

    Bill raised taxes in 1993...Raising taxes did help to set the framework for closing the deficit--which actually happened when the tech boom flooded the federal cofers....

    The other major economic idea was NAFTA--that was in 1993 too.   Beyond that there really isn't much.    

    [ Parent ]

    raising taxes on the correct people (5.00 / 4) (#120)
    by Florida Resident on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:02:34 PM EST
    helped in setting the stage for a better economy.  Your insistence sounds more like republican talking points than real economic analysis.  

    [ Parent ]
    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:05:23 PM EST
    enlarging the middle class in record numbers certainly helped boost the economy in a massive way...just as Bush's anti-middle class tax policies have pushed many of them back into poverty.  And out of their homes.

    [ Parent ]
    Bill raised taxes (5.00 / 4) (#58)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:13:54 PM EST
    and put the government's fiscal house in order. He did a lot to put the country on a firmer economic footing, improve the investment climate, and give us sustained job growth. The fact that he didn't personally invent the microchip, well, I guess you're right.

    Presidents don't have as much influence over the economy as people think, but they still have a lot. Obama was simply wrong to imply that things had gotten worse under Pres. Clinton.

    [ Parent ]

    That might do it (none / 0) (#81)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    re my request above. Thanks!

    [ Parent ]
    Bill raised taxes (none / 0) (#92)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:33:23 PM EST
    in 1993 and pushed NAFTA to passage that year as well....

    After that, the Republicans took over Congress in 1994 and Bill had little impact on the economy.....Greenspan adjusted interest rates to fine tune the giant tech boom--which is what closed the deficit.

    [ Parent ]

    NAFTA was passed in 1994 (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:38:24 PM EST
    your comment on Greenspan is simply false and ignorant. Adjustments to monetary policy would not have any direct effect on fiscal deficits. You are really full of it on this issue.

    Of course if you are arguing that all that is needed to insure economic growth is low interest rates ten you need to talk to Ben Bernanke and ask him what the problem is.

    [ Parent ]

    Tell that to Milton Friedman (none / 0) (#100)
    by MKS on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:42:36 PM EST
    Interest rates make a difference in economic activity....not directly on deficits, true, but they matter.

    [ Parent ]
    Obama was actually (none / 0) (#197)
    by facta non verba on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 09:23:31 PM EST
    factually incorrect. Pennsylvania had positive job growth during the Clinton years. 4% I believe. The decline came under Bush. And yet Obama blames Clinton time and again.

    [ Parent ]
    "nothing to do with it"... (none / 0) (#144)
    by Dawn Davenport on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:35:08 PM EST
    ...except for funding and promoting the rural tech initiatives that brought high-speed internet into the classrooms of middle America, often before the large cities had that kind of access.

    You're wrong on this, and it would behoove you to study the history of the Clinton administration's efforts in this area before offhandedly dismissing them.


    [ Parent ]

    Ooooh, that elitist Jack Cafferty! n/t (none / 0) (#34)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:00:17 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Very much so (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:09:09 PM EST
    It is too funny that you do not think of Jack Cafferty as an elitist.

    Here is a clue - so is Lou Dobbs.

    [ Parent ]

    THEY may personally be (none / 0) (#78)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:25 PM EST
    since they get paid a lot and are on the teevee. But what they push is populist themes, economic for JC, ecoonomic/xenophobic for LD, and that's what people hear and see. It takes being able to take a meta step backward to separate them from their message. Not going to be too effective a tactic for HRC to go after someone like Cafferty, imo.

    [ Parent ]
    Cafferty in particular (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:35:57 PM EST
    is an elitist and his unabashed support for Obama irrespective of what position Obama takes proves that.

    Dobbs is a racist populist in the classic sense but it springs from his elitist roots.

    these two actors are elitists and we both know it.

    [ Parent ]

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#148)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:50:19 PM EST
    elitist
          n 1: someone who believes in rule by an elite group [ant:
               egalitarian, equalitarian]

    I don't think so. At least what he says is anti-elitist on a regular basis.

    So support for Obama=elitism? Ha ha. "Irrespective of what position Obama takes" is simply your characterization of what you don't like - his support for Obama, especially when you admit you didn't understand the remarks he made in SF.

    Don't be so mad just because Cafferty made fun of Hillary's Tale of Tuzla.

    [ Parent ]

    Cafferty (none / 0) (#166)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:55:01 PM EST
    is a sexist pig. End of story. The ridiculous comments he makes on a daily basis going after Hillary are enough to know that he is out of his mind. He regularly talks about how she has multiple personality disorder. Gee, could it be that she is just a human being like everyone else and expresses a full range of emotions???

    [ Parent ]
    bjorn, I think ... (none / 0) (#36)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:01:54 PM EST
    ... HRC and Hillary supporters could have a "Bitter as Hell" protest event in front of the CNN building with about 50 people with signs. No, wait, that won't help.

    I thought the commentators mostly got it right in discussing Obama's statement: Voters feel like they can no longer trust Washington to deal honestly with THEIR economic interests, so they become one-issue voters.  

    [ Parent ]

    Hmm (none / 0) (#48)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:08:27 PM EST
    But that is not what Obama said. Certainly not ALL of it.

    [ Parent ]
    Here is a link to ... (none / 0) (#67)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:19:10 PM EST
    ... an Obama speech in Indiana yesterday --

    He did say this.

    [ Parent ]

    Not what I am referring to (none / 0) (#93)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:34:17 PM EST
    Sorry. the SF comments are the issue.

    [ Parent ]
    Harder for a Clinton (none / 0) (#41)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:05:17 PM EST
    Poppy Bush did what you suggest, and to great effect, in going after Dan Rather in an interview in 1988.  It was clearly a set up and Bush clearly had an echo chamber all in place to applaud his taking down of the "elitist" Rather.  This cowed the rest of the media and resulted in less critical coverage of Bush during the 1988 campaign.

    In the case of Bush's attack on Rather, though, the Republican media wurlitzer was already in place to make sure that Bush's attack succeeded.  The Clintons have never been successful at manipulating the media and certainly don't have a David Gergen-Michael Deaver operation in place 24/7 the way the Reagan White House did.

    For reasons I don't understand, the media just hates the Clintons and have hated them almost since January 20, 1993.  I remember covering Clinton's Northwest "Forest Summit" in the spring of 1993 for Pacifica.  Sitting there in the media room with the White House press corps was disheartening, just listening to the reporters go on with each other about Bill Clinton.  They clearly already hated him and he'd been in office for what?  Two or three months?

    So I think it would be really hard for Senator Clinton to pull off what Poppy did in cowing the media.

    That said, I certainly hope she tries.  They definitely deserve it.

    [ Parent ]

    The media hate the Clintons (none / 0) (#71)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:21:32 PM EST
    because they loved them so much.

    They hate them the way you hate your first love because you made such a fool of yourself fawning all over them.

    [ Parent ]

    I Must've Missed Something (none / 0) (#106)
    by kaleidescope on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:50:02 PM EST
    When did the media ever love the Clintons?  When Bill was governor of Arkansas?  I was a politically attentive adult during that whole time and I don't remember there ever being a media love fest for Bill Clinton.  Heck, the media in Arkansas forced Hillary to stop calling herself Hillary Rodham and start calling herself Hillary Rodham Clinton.  And even then they snarked about her keeping the "Rodham" (while not being similarly snarky about the "Day" in Sandra Day O'Connor.

    And though the media have it in for the Clintons, that's nothing compared to how they had it in for Howard Dean. William Greider actually heard them bragging to each other about having brought Howard Dean down.

    Jimmy Carter couldn't catch a media break; Ronald Reagan could do no wrong in the media's eye; Poppy Bush got a free ride until the recession at the end of his administration.  Then Bill Clinton came along and it was Whitewater 24/7/365, almost for eight years.

    One theory I heard (though I don't know if it is true) is that early in the Clinton Administration, the Clinton media folks -- can we say George Stay-on-top-of-this? -- were not sufficiently deferential to the media darlings.  Stephanopolis did not sufficiently hide what he really thought of the national media.  And they never forgave him or his boss or his boss's family.

    [ Parent ]

    The media never loved the Clintons (none / 0) (#114)
    by myiq2xu on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:57:39 PM EST
    but they didn't always hate them.

    [ Parent ]
    In the very beginning (none / 0) (#119)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:01:15 PM EST
    the media establishment LOVED the Clintons.  They were the new Camelot. He was young and an outsider and energizing and the elites lined up behind him...for about ten seconds.  It was short, but it happened--and remember when George Snuffaluffagus was called a Greek God?  (I never saw it myself)  The love affair ended when they saw that Bill was actually a politician.

    Sound familiar?

    [ Parent ]

    Coming out of hibernation to disagree (5.00 / 6) (#6)
    by diplomatic on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:37:33 PM EST
    I'm just logging on to express my opinion that this quote by Obama will not go away.  Sorry BTD.

    He is NOT riding this one out.  Well he may stay on the bull for a while, but he's about to fly off the saddle.  Get the distraction clowns ready!! (media on alert already)

    Quite frankly this is the fatal gaffe of his presidential campaign.  It insults way too many people in ridiculous and nonsensical ways.  It even tries to equate Bill Clinton's economic legacy to that of Bush.  It is toxic and ugly stuff coming from a supposed Democratic candidate.

    So yea, basically BTD I disagree with you.  The Obama elitist puzzle just got its final piece with his "cling" statement and it may take a while for the media and the blogs to digest but this is definitely toxic and makes him completely, and I mean completely unelectable.

    Despite the media.  Maybe it will resonate even MORE because of the media adoration.  The ELITE media telling the little people what to think.

    Hillary will be the nominee.  I knew it the morning I saw the Jeremiah Wright tape and never in my wildest dream did I think he'd pile on to his problems by making such a disparaging statement about people whose votes he badly needs and are about to vote in Pennsylvania.

    We will see (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:40:25 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Will it happen at "Dean scream" (5.00 / 4) (#19)
    by MarkL on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:46:48 PM EST
    speed?
    Frankly, Obama has made the most ridiculous comments I have EVER heard from a serious Presidential candidate---not just this one.
    His repeated insistence that he is qualified to conduct foreign policy because he spent 4 years of his childhood in Indonesia is in my opinion the single most foolish statement uttered by someone of his supposed caliber. Once the shine rubs off him, the desire to "cling" to him in "hope" will very quickly fade.

    [ Parent ]
    again with the clowns! (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:28:46 PM EST
    What did they ever do to anybody except make cute balloon animals and wear floppy shoes?

    I think the interesting thing about this particular media story is that McCain is leading it.  I've been watching it pretty closely, and I don't think it would have legs without McCain and his folks pushing it along.  That's what makes this particular instance different.  It'll be a good test of BTD's electability argument as well, because the media can only have one darling.

    [ Parent ]

    Rodeo clowns, who are (none / 0) (#151)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:58:55 PM EST
    what he was referring to, are very brave and nimble people. When the rider bites the dust, their job is to keep the bull away from him by getting the bull to chase them. Not the greatest job in the world, but a highly skilled one. More to being a rodeo clown than balloons and big shoes. :D And given what the Obamacans have to do every time Obama opens his mouth these days, it is an apt analogy. Or is it a metaphor?? Hmmmmm...

    [ Parent ]
    I don't think (5.00 / 5) (#13)
    by americanincanada on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:40:59 PM EST
    he is going to ride this one out.He is utterly unelectable now and I believe the voters of PA and IN...much less WV and KY will show us that. I believe that the media spinning for him will doom it even more. I believe that the SDs will be watching.

    But are the SDs part (none / 0) (#14)
    by bjorn on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:42:05 PM EST
    of the elite creative class, or are they regular people who will understand the situation?

    [ Parent ]
    Some of each but most are pols... (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:32 PM EST
    They know whose votes they need to get elected, reelected and they know whose votes the Democratic nominee will need to beat McCain.

    They'll wait to see how it all plays out but I do think this will help Hillary.

    Bumpy road ahead...detour sign in view...

    [ Parent ]

    Is all of the creative class elite? (none / 0) (#22)
    by nycstray on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:28 PM EST
    Shouldn't the question be, are the SDs elitists?

    [ Parent ]
    The SDs are the people (none / 0) (#24)
    by FlaDemFem on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:50:39 PM EST
    ultimately responsible for seeing that the Democratic Party fields a viable candidate in the General Election. An unelectable candidate is not viable. They are politicians, and they make a living counting votes, and they aren't stupid. They will look at the votes and realize that Obama cannot carry the states with the most electoral votes. The ones we need to win.

    [ Parent ]
    I sat down for dinner last night (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by OxyCon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:47:36 PM EST
    ...flicked on the TeeVee and decided to see what the bobble heads were saying about this latest Obama scandal, and what did I see?
    The video that BTD posted.
    Borger, Cafferty and Toobin are really teh suck.
    Us blog commenters are more informed and make more sense then those clueless baffoons (and we do it for free ;)
    Does anyone feel sorry for Woof Blitzer having to ask those marooons their opinion every day?

    duh... (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by white n az on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:00:12 PM EST
    Borger is CDS
    Toobin is big time Obama supporter
    Caffery hates everyone
    Blitzer asks these people for their opinions because there isn't a story that he's capable of understanding even with and/or in spite of their help.

    Talking heads on main stream media continually miss the point but this travesty has gone on for many years...this is not a new phenomenon nor does the American public by and large not realize this.

    That is why blogs have a higher rating of trustworthiness than cable television news.

    Cable television news serves to continually undermine their own credibility and seemingly are incapable of realizing that they are all but guaranteeing their own extinction.

    [ Parent ]

    Did you stay tuned? As within an hour (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Cream City on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:25:38 PM EST
    (and I'll keep this shorter than my comment on this last night -- with the transcript of Toobin, Borger, Cafferty, et al., if you want it) CNN had quite a different cast of characters, with quite a different tone and take on this.  It really highlighted for me how poor that first group's research is -- the basis of the best reporters, knowing the facts rather than just spewing puffery.  For example, Toobin's reverse of the realities of Obama and Clinton's backgrounds, claiming he was poor and she grew up in wealth -- no  journalist worth his salt ought not know by now that Obama went to a private prep school while she went to public schools.

    This is especially important in looking at their proposals for education, such as his support of vouchers to use public funds to send more off to private schools.  From the city that started that program, I'm so appalled by that; the cost of essentially supporting two school systems, public and private, through our property taxes has hit my city hard.  But Obama hasn't been hit hard or at all on that -- because of buying into the myth of his poverty-striken upbringing, it must be.

    [ Parent ]

    the "elitism" label has sunk other Dems (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:54:26 PM EST
    GOP used it successfully against Dukakis, Gore, Kerry.
    You'd think a former first lady....but no - Obama has been identified as the "elitist."  Even with Edwards big house, it didn't stick to him because of his lower-than-middle class childhood. And he always attended public schools, unlike Obama who never attended a public school - all the way through Harvard.
    Then there are his "arugula" comments combined with "latte sippers" - combined with his comments about "those people" during a fundraiser on Billionaires Row....

    But you're right - he's probably safe because the billionaires who like him influence the corporate media.

    Time will tell. (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by oldpro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    The corporate media is no longer the only media.

    Got a radio in your car?  Rural Pennsylvanians do...and they're not the only ones...

    [ Parent ]

    Are we headed towards (5.00 / 3) (#62)
    by MacBook on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:15:44 PM EST
    ...a GE based on:

    Rev. Wright vs. Rev. Small Town

    Once religion gets thrown in -- and it seems Obama rightly or wrongly has been responsible for this -- all hell is likely to break loose.

    The Democrats really need Hillary right now -- or Gore, or someone to turn us away from this.


    [ Parent ]

    Great clip from CNN (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:58:35 PM EST
    Obama's gaffe was the worst in the world for a pol - speaking the hard truth instead of the pretty fable.

    Indeed (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:31 PM EST
    I am not sure if what he was saying is true - I can stretch it and have him agreeing with me and Richard Hofstadter about the dangers of populism. Truthfully, it is a pretty incoherent statement.

    But politically, and Obama's JOB is POL, it is absolutely bonheaded.

    Let's hope his Media Darling status can put this to bed. But let's be honest, if any other pol had said it, they would be toast.  

    [ Parent ]

    I took it from an economic perspective (none / 0) (#61)
    by Alien Abductee on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:15:32 PM EST
    right off the bat - but then that's how I see everything. He clearly shifted the emphasis to that rather than the cultural aspect in his excellent off the cuff response to Hillary's trying to make it an issue. It would be  great if we had a teflon prez who could start to connect these dots for people against the screaming meanies of the right and their constant obfuscation of the economic implications for most people of the conservative agenda.

    [ Parent ]
    Let's hope he is that Teflon pol (none / 0) (#74)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:23:08 PM EST
    I think he is.

    [ Parent ]
    You can't speak to his underlying concerns (none / 0) (#66)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:18:15 PM EST
    but you can say its a political gaffe? How is discussing the impact of using gays and guns to cover up economic issues an arguments against economic populism?  With whom is this a gaffe? The media? You say he's insulated by being a media darling. The voters? Do you think they don't know they are angry at the politicians and politics over economic issues, and being cynical are voting other issues? How is different than what the matter with Kansas? I don't know how else to ask this question.

    [ Parent ]
    Of course I can (none / 0) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:22:37 PM EST
    And you know I can. Stop playing ignorant Bruh. Are you a Creative Class blogger now? Are you an ingenue about politics now?

    [ Parent ]
    Yeah, that's me, the political creative class (none / 0) (#104)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:48:57 PM EST
    I will tell you what- let's trade biographies and life histories, and then, let's talk about which of the two of us having this conversation are more like the creative political class and which is more like the working class voters we are now discussing, because ulimately its about the voters. Trust me in trading biographies, you would certainly not be able to make such an argument. I mean what do I know of these issues aside from growing up so poor I didn't have running water until my teen years, living in a rural town of only 5000 people with a conservative bent (they voted GOP by 70 percent in 2004), working my way through school, and the whole 9 yards. You can certainly disagree with my questions and not answer them, but it's really unfair to keep slappiing with labels that really have nothing to do with either me, my backgrounds or belief systems.

    [ Parent ]
    Coming from a guy (none / 0) (#82)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:26:44 PM EST
    who has already made a gaffe about arugula, who is already being painted by Hillary as not giving a crap about universal healthcare (and honestly, he doesn't really seem to view it as being of primary importance, as being a need), his comment is not going to be taken as an APPEAL to voters frustrated with politicians over economic issues.  Especially when said in front of millionaires in San Francisco.  He has little ground to stand on when separating himself from these "other politicians."  

    Plus I think the explanation on offer from you as to why voters vote for "guns and God" is a very simplistic one.  

    BTD posted about a month ago, maybe, on the topic of Obama winning over values voters.  Apparently it didn't work out so well and he is actually winning the traditional Democratic blocks.  Well he won't be winning over values voters now, and since he clearly can't articulate working class Dem values, I don't know how well he will do with them either.  

    [ Parent ]

    Did you disagree with (none / 0) (#108)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:52:20 PM EST
    What's the Matter with kansas? And, no, it's pretty spot on. They don't trust us over the economic issues so they vote on random issues. People regardless of class or backgrounddo this all the time. When you don't have a way to tell the difference between two choices, you pick something arbitrary like gays.  you got two applicants for a job, they both have perfect resumes, but you only got one spot- who do you choose? Basic human behavior that doesn't involve just class.

    [ Parent ]
    Who are THEY? (none / 0) (#117)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:01:04 PM EST
    THEY in Obama's example are PA voters.  Again, you realize PA is blue right?  PA voters have a tendency to agree with us.  And PA voters can be easily inflamed on class issues.  PA is a state with many industrial ghosts.  PA is a state with many farmers.  PA is a state with fans that throw batteries at other baseball players.  PA features the Main Line, a strip of gross wealth that grows directly out of a poor Philadelphia neighborhood and continues in a series of upper-middle class strip malls until it reaches the farmers and much less wealthy middle class folk outside.  

    The way Obama explained the feelings of Pennsylvanians in his statement doesn't agree with me.  PA is a state with a lot of class issues and class is important there, certainly symbolically.

    [ Parent ]

    My point is (none / 0) (#126)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:06:35 PM EST
    Pennsylvania ISN'T Kansas.  So yes I disagree with its application to PA.  

    [ Parent ]
    what I realize is that (none / 0) (#150)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:58:53 PM EST
    this cycle has produced so many contortions amongs bloggers including here about what they stand for that I really have found it eye openning about bloggers more than about the issues.

    I note how you change the subject. The core issue isn't blue versus red. It's do you see what he says as true or not.

    [ Parent ]

    I am the wrong crowd to spin (none / 0) (#154)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:04:07 PM EST


    [ Parent ]
    many of us likely agree with "Kansas" (none / 0) (#132)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    GOP has used God, guns, and gays to incite voters to vote against their own best interests.
    But we're not politicians telling zillionaires on Billionaires Row that "those people" with no job and no health care are stupid for clinging to their God and guns.


    [ Parent ]
    "you see, what the liberal elite (none / 0) (#139)
    by Kathy on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:25:35 PM EST
    fail to notice is that poverty is a heart-wrenching decision.  I think the reason that these folks flock to my campaign is because I understand them, and realize that they have moral issues.  They need hope again. They need unity.  The problem dems always make is they don't reach out to the religious folk, the common folk.  That's what I'm all about...  

    I'm Barack Obama, and I disproved this message."


    [ Parent ]

    that was Obama's message (none / 0) (#161)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:48:45 PM EST
    in his diary at DK - that caused such a firestorm.
    Of course, those opposing his remarks then are defending them now.


    [ Parent ]
    yes (none / 0) (#153)
    by bruhrabbit3 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:01:32 PM EST
    how dare he point out to billionaires that there is a such thing as class and that people  are resentful of it. How elitist. Look, I am more than willing to accept for those who want to spin it that this is a gaffe, but really, the more you argue and put light on what many o fyou are saying the less it makes sense other than its Obama who said it. I don't accept this sort of stuff from Obama supporters, and I am not good with this sort of analysis from clinton supporters either. i see it as ultimately aiding and abedding the GOP to engage in such tactics. Neither side is doing the party and our chances in the GE any favors by playing these games. The only one who wins here by the spin is the GOP.

    [ Parent ]
    oh - no! (none / 0) (#165)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:54:56 PM EST
    when Obama made the comments and his zillionaires laughed at the "God and guns" crowd, Obama didn't stop them.
    He was waiting to collect their zillion dollar checks for the Obama campaign.

    And bruh - I only wrote a potential GOP ad. If you dislike it now, you'll probably dislike it more in Nov.


    [ Parent ]

    Don't forget (none / 0) (#170)
    by nell on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 04:10:56 PM EST
    the gaffe about overall wearing farmers in Iowa:
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/11/guys-in-overall.html

    The problem is not that he had this one gaffe, the problem is that this fits a pattern.

    [ Parent ]

    He was especially surprised when (none / 0) (#181)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:15:29 PM EST
    the farmers showed up in overalls and their "Arugala Farmers for Obama" tshirts.

    [ Parent ]
    Then There Is the Little Matter of Accuracy (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:03:32 PM EST
    A lot of the spin seems to be that Obama was merely trying to explain why these rural whites vote against their economic interests.  But here's the problem with that - Pennsylvania has gone democratic in every presidential election since Clinton in 1992.  

    These people have been voting their interests, they've just been getting screwed over by all those red state voters Obama is so very fond of courting.  And now they're being told that the democratic party doesn't need to worry about their vote in November because Obama can win over red states like Virginia and Colorado.  Oh, and that their lack of enthusiasm for being consistently condescended to and discounted by Obama and his supporters makes them racists.  

    Hard to believe Obama isn't doing better in Pennsylvania.

    He does know (none / 0) (#54)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:11:21 PM EST
    PA is blue right?  Because some people speak as though PA isn't blue, while the next day saying we don't have to worry about MI and FL because Obama will win PA.  PA voters do often vote in their economic self-interest.  But if they're insulted they might not.  All McCain has to do is run an ad.  A cheap ad.

    Plus it is my experience that the people who "cling" to guns and religion in PA are just middle-class people who feel like they don't owe anyone anything.  Not "small town" folks who are frustrated with job losses.
     

    [ Parent ]

    I think the voters in Penn ... (none / 0) (#75)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:23:14 PM EST
    ... sylvania will soon figure out, if they already haven't, that the people they've been voting into office for the last 25 years have been working behind their backs to send THEIR jobs to Mexico, Colombia and other countries.

    That would make me bitter, too!

    [ Parent ]

    Which is why they would vote for (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:30:55 PM EST
    the "just kidding, Canada!" on NAFTA guy?  Which is why they would vote for the guy whose healthcare plan isn't up to par, whose economic plans trinkle in after Clinton's?  Obama isn't running on populism.  He's running on hope and change.  And painting people as bitter racist gunowners is not going to work with that strategy.

    [ Parent ]
    I think you got the NAFTA ... (none / 0) (#164)
    by Tortmaster on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:53:02 PM EST
    ... issue exactly backwards. What makes it so dispiriting is that Clinton operatives certainly had discussions with Canada -- and she used the issue to attack Barack Obama!

    Moreover, Obama's chief pollster isn't contracted with Colombian anti-labor interests, and Obama's spouse hasn't been paid huge sums by Colombian interests. (those were Mark Penn and Bill Clinton, respectively).

    Also, it wasn't Barack Obama who claimed that he was against NAFTA -- when he was actually for it and had attended and presented at mettings in support of NAFTA. (that was Hillary). Of course, when it became politically expedient for her to change her opinion on NAFTA, the change was made.

    Yes, Pennsylvania voters have a right to be bitter with the status quo -- represented by Clinton and McCain -- and want, instead, change.    

    [ Parent ]

    prove Hillary's campaign (5.00 / 2) (#180)
    by RalphB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    had discussions with Canada.  Obama's did.

    [ Parent ]
    But They Haven't Been Voting Them Into Office (5.00 / 5) (#116)
    by BDB on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:58:55 PM EST
    They voted for Gore.  They voted for Kerry.  They threw Santorum out for Casey.  

    They don't need to figure out anything.  They already know and it shows in how they've voted.

    What they also know is that their votes are being discounted by Obama and his supporters.  How many times have we seen comments here that say, Obama doesn't need Pennsylvania, he's going to win Colorado and Virginia.  He's going to win over those red states.  You know, those states filled with people who did vote for Bush.

    They don't need to figure anything out, they know that nominating Obama will marginalize their power in the democratic party in favor of the "creative class."   Just as it is in their best interest to vote democratic, it's also their best interest to vote Clinton (who also has the only universal healthcare plan).  

    Of course, nobody will say this because that would mean that Obama isn't losing these voters because of his race, he's losing them because of his politics and policies.  Which would mean the "creative class" admitting that maybe they don't know what's best for the working class and poor.  Which has never happened and isn't going to happen any time soon.

    [ Parent ]

    EXACTLY (none / 0) (#121)
    by lilburro on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 02:02:35 PM EST
    Every election cycle, Democrats in PA work hard to keep the state blue, and they SUCCEED.  Why can't our fellow Democrats give this state and its Dems some credit?  

    [ Parent ]
    This is exactly the point (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 03:14:03 PM EST
    Obama was talking about Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and explaining how guns and God and bitterness prevent them from seeing the light of his magicalness.

    So while we could argue about the usefulness of his "analysis" when we're discussing, say, white voters in the south in the general election, that wasn't what he was talking about.  He is simply factually wrong on this, as well as demeaning.


    [ Parent ]

    At the very same fundraiser, (5.00 / 8) (#42)
    by Practically Lactating on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:05 PM EST
    Obama contended that knowing "the people" of other countries is a sufficient and even admirable credential to have in the foreign policy realm.

    "You do that in eighty countries--you don't know those eighty countries. So when I speak about having lived in Indonesia for four years, having family that is impoverished in small villages in Africa--knowing the leaders is not important--what I know is the people. . . ."

    Yet he also reduces a large swath of his own people to an offensive caricature. If this is "knowing the people," I am scared to see what stereotypes he will reduce people of other countries to as part of his diplomacy.

    If Obama cannot bridge the gap between small town America and wealthy Marin donors without being offensive, I have no confidence in his ability to bring difficult foreign policy entanglements to a satisfactory resolution.

    ugh (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by Nasarius on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:12:50 PM EST
    What is this now, part of his stump speech?

    knowing the leaders is not important

    It truly doesn't get much stupider than that when you're talking about foreign policy.

    [ Parent ]
    That tape from CNN was at the beginning. (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Teresa on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:06:35 PM EST
    Later in the evening, they changed their tune. Other analysts, asked on a scale of 1 to 10, how bad is this? Two said 10 and one said 11. I wouldn't assume that first clip is how others now view it.

    I think he will (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:07:17 PM EST
    WORM his way outta this one too, but it does throw another a chunk on the heap of him being a prissy, pretentious little fellow.

    pics of Obama event on Billionaires Row (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Josey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:12:00 PM EST
    where he made the controversial comments last Sunday.

    http://209.157.64.201/focus/f-news/1998779/posts

    thanks! (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by OldCoastie on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    that is an interesting little read...

    [ Parent ]
    San Francisco is going to be the symbol (none / 0) (#94)
    by blogtopus on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:34:23 PM EST
    of Obama's candidacy, I think. He's no longer 'Chicago Style', he's San Francisco Snob Style.

    I live in the Bay Area, so I know the type. They contribute to Greenpeace, but drive Hummers 'for the security' or 'I don't drive it often.'

    If Obama had been Clinton, he'd already be sipping lattes on the Golden Gate Bridge in all the political cartoons by now. But he's not, so I give him a couple months.

    Hillary can win CA without SF (and did) and it would behoove her to ignore the Bay Area at this point; it's radioactive at this point.

    [ Parent ]

    wow, guess that claim by the Obama camp (none / 0) (#198)
    by thereyougo on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:54:19 PM EST
    that the little people are buying up his candidacy, in mugs and hats isn't totally true.

    He mentioned how a woman sent him 3$, but kept this quiet, he must be burning an awful lot of green. Hmmmm.....I thought something was fishy about his liitle people are financing me claim.

    Change you can believe in, yeah as in bing chunk of change he needs!!

    No wonder he wanted to end the campaign, heck we're really finding out what he's made of.

    Not made of the small donors more like the stuff of Oprah and  SF's billionaire row.

    I was just at Pacific Heights for a doctor appointment at CPMC and the houses are old, but big and the view shown from the link is typical of the homes there. On a clear day Angel Island and Alcatraz is the back yard view.

    [ Parent ]

    The handwriting (5.00 / 14) (#59)
    by swiss473 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:14:30 PM EST
    The handwriting has been on the wall for Obama ever since he pulled a whopping 27% of white democrats in Ohio(and a staggering 34% of whites overall when independents and /Republicans were factored in), after having been annointed the nominee by the establishment and the media, after outspending/out advertising Hillary 3-1, after blowing her out in 11 staright contests by an average of 30 pts, after having the best media/press coverage that anyone in the history of American politics has gotten, after having just about every advantage that one could imagine...and he still could not top 44% in a democratic primary and not top 27% among white democrats.

    That was at the height of his powers.  He's fallen quite a few pegs since then and will only continue to fall.  There's no reason to expect he'd improve on those numbers.

    When taken in comparison with Texas where the county maps showed that he basically won the cities with high black turnout(Dallas, Houton, Cleveland, Cincinnatti) and the college towns with the kids(Austin, Columbus) and got smoked everywhere else.  I suspect Pennsylvania will continue this trend with Obama winning Philadelphia, State College, maybe a few counties right outside Philadelphia, but getting hammered everywhere else.  The map will look eerily similar to the county map in Ohio.  At that point, the Super Delegates will realize what is up.

    Also, his results in Texas confirmed his huge weakness with the Hispanic vote.  The dems already struggle topping the low 40s in the white vote.  If we start falling in the Hispanic vote(and unfortunately for us, McCain is about as the best guy the GOP could hope for to get Hispanic votes), we may as well pack it in.

    Throw in his excluding Florida