Obama's attacks are on the party.  Or at least half the party.

The nexus, and relevant to Obama's comment above:

Saying AUMF voters voted out of political calculus.

When Obama makes that criticism, he is not just criticizing Clinton, he is criticizing everyone in the party who voted "for the war."

Once again, I am angry that the "Obama" personality style of campaigning, the Axelrod strategy, has sidelined the issues that would have made us win, the economy.  

In the same vein, saying Hillary would do anything to win is not true in the general sense (unless you believe the Vince Foster stuff, of course) or even in this particular circumstance.

1. Hillary can't possibly win. It's the math.

2. If this is true, what motive could she possibly have for irreparably damaging Barack's image? Answer: she wants Barack to lose in the general so she can run against McCain in four years.

As a PA voter, I find his remarks off-putting and elitist.  I should disclose that although my background is working class, I'm apparently 'creative class'.  I'll be interested to see what reputable polling finds about this issue.  I also found it extremely distasteful to watch Senator Daschle attack Mayor Nutter on Sunday but that's another subject for an open thread.

Reagan, the great communicator and transformationalist:

It doesn't do good to open doors for someone who doesn't have the price to get in. If he has the price, he may not need the laws. There is no law saying the Negro has to live in Harlem or Watts.
Ronald Reagan - classist AND racist!

"wrenching moral issues"
aka "Women must be punished for having sex."

The implication that everybody's issues are important(women, GLBT, the poor) but not important enough for him to actually stick his neck out for them.

But then this
'Obama spokesman Hari Sevugan responded, "We won't be lectured on being out of touch by Senator Clinton, who believes lobbyists represent real people and is awash in their money and who can't tell a straight story about her lengthy record of supporting trade deals like NAFTA and China that have devastated communities in Pennsylvania and Indiana."'

Obama's campaign has not traveled the high road as so many of his followers think.

More:
'Pressed on whether she truly believes Obama is an elitist, Clinton called him "a good man," but recalled the narratives of the 2000 and 2004 president election.

In that case, it could be seen as Democrats "coming to their senses", and turning their backs on the elitists in their midst.

In a way, in a parallel fashion, that's what's happened on the Republican side. Whatever McCain's multitudinous faults, he is at least perceived by the public as being more independent of the crazies in his own party, and is therefore both more electable himself as well as bringing a sense of some redemption to the Republican image.

I think that one of the reasons the Democratic primary process is so contentious is that it really does cut across major lines of class and attitude differences within the party. The response to Obama's remarks are a case in point. Many in the Democratic Party are more than OK with them. About an equal number aren't. Yet I don't think that if you're not an "elitist" of some description, if you're not inclined to look down on the values of small town Americans as backward and somewhat delusional, that you would be likely at all to be fully comfortable with Obama's remarks.

The simple reality is that the elitist image of the Democratic party is based in no small part on the very real class/attitude distinction that exists within its own demographics, just as the religious-nut image of the Republican Party is likewise. And it's as dangerous to the Democratic Party to go down the elitist path as it is to the Republicans to go the way of the Jesus freaks.

And I don't like that a lot of Obama's reponse has been to try to point out Hillary is elitist, too.  That's what the Annie Oakley thing was about, instead of explaining why he wasn't an elitist, he's moved on to "her, too."  Lousy for all democrats, IMO.  

I also think, as much as I hate the elitist storyline around Democrats, that when someone does say something that plays into that narrative, they need to get over themselves and apologize.  Otherwise they leave other Democrats with little choice but to call them out, because if they don't they'll be called elitist.*

Luckily for Obama (and for Democrats and the party) it demonstrably ISN'T true that Hillary will "say or do anything to get elected."  It's a flatout lie as well as a RWTP and it is, therefore, character assassination.  NOT acceptable.

If Hillary said (or did) even half the things her supporters have mentioned or discussed, Obama would have been history a long time ago.  She can't say them...while Obama and his supporters feel free to say anything about Hillary and/or 'the Clintons.'  NOT acceptable.

What is remarkable to me at this point is to see an AA Democratic candidate who has set himself up to be tagged an elitist by his own doing.

I think the tag will stick...not because it is a RWTP, but because it appears to be accurate on many levels...just as the word 'arrogance' comes so often to mind in observing and listening to Obama.

Honestly, though: Dems have lost almost every election in which they've run a candidate who was successfully portrayed as more "elitist" than the Republican.  We're talking about decades and decades of history!

Johnson beat Goldwater in 1964.  Johnson was by no means an elitist!  Nixon over Humphrey in 1968.  Nixon over McGovern in 1972.  Both times, Nixon successfully portrayed his opponent as an elitist.

1976 is the only aberration, and it almost wasn't so.  In the days leading up to the election in 1976, Ford was rapidly catching up to Carter with an aggressive campaign painting Carter as, among other things, an elitist.  If Ford had started campaigning harder a few weeks earlier, he probably would have won.

After that, it was Reagan v. Carter, Reagan v. Mondale, and Bush v. Dukakis.  Each time, Republicans successfully painted the Dem candidate as elitist.

After Clinton, it was Bush v. Gore and Bush v. Kerry.  Both times, Republicans successfully painted the Dem candidate as elitist.  In fact, Kerry barely resist the label.  Americans can't stand candidates with too much pride; we like to take them down a notch. Kerry couldn't swallow his pride, so we're still in Iraq.

In 1992, Bill Clinton beat George H. W. Bush.  GHWB was portrayed by the Clinton camp as an out of touch elitist (does that mean James Carville was using "right wing talking points"?) and Clinton made himself out as the exact opposite of elitism.  GHWB was too proud of his own elite specialness (because, face it, GHWB was a flaming elitist) to run that kind of campaign against Clinton.

The lessons one should draw from history is that Americans don't want to elect an elitist, and maybe that Republicans are good at painting Dem candidates as elitist, so choose carefully.

Americans don't want a president who looks down on them.  That's not right- or left-wing.  That's just a fact about the electorate.  One of the stories you have to tell, if you want to get elected, is how in touch you are with the common man.

Obama should not suffer, instead he should be disqualified, for his continuing use of this Right Wing talking point, one he has used since September 2007: his Harry & Louise assault on universal healthcare.

It's the central domestic piece of legislation that will come up in the next four years, and Obama has not merely been absent on the issue, he's been squarely in the right-wing opposition.

It's time for the Democratic Party to show a little backbone.

"Look, I know something about long odds, they had me written off last summer," McCain explained over the weekend, according to a top source.

McCain would prefer to go up against Clinton in the general election, insiders reveal.

He has instructed his campaign staff to "chill out" on countering Hillary Clinton's torrent of claims and promises as primary voting comes to an end over the next 6 weeks.

McCain made the tactical decision to downplay Clinton's tale of Bosnia sniper fire, leaving some McCain staffers frustrated and perplexed.

Instead, the critical focus has been on Barack Obama. McCain's official website features 14 press releases taking on Obama since the first of the year, only 3 for the former first lady.

That is even less contact with the real world than Bush and much less contact than McCain.

I'm really not comfortable with reading that phrase on a regular basis. It's like someone harping on how they're cooler than the service sector folks (who are probably working on novels in their spare time).  And what little processing/reading i've done of the idea of the creative class makes it seem incredibly value laden, naive about the nature of work, and elitist.

Sen. Obama accused Sen. Clinton of playing politics, and his campaign said she would say or do anything to get elected.

regardless of who said it. politicians do play politics, it's kind of their job.

politicians will do or say anything to get elected. again, it's pretty much their job. what, you think they all actually love kissing a bunch of slobbering babies?

e·lit·ism or é·lit·ism    Audio Help   (ĭ-lē'tĭz'əm, ā-lē'-) n.  

   1. The belief that certain persons or members of certain classes or groups deserve favored treatment by virtue of their perceived superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources.

         1. The sense of entitlement enjoyed by such a group or class.
         2. Control, rule, or domination by such a group or class.

First, I fail to find in BO's remarks statements that prove he is an elitist.  While everyone here points to various factors that might make him be viewed as elitist, it seems that those factors are just stereotypes tossed to inflict (death through 1000) paper cuts.  

Second, "Elitist" is a silly taunt, especially amongst politicians.  Since the USofA is a republic, a representative democracy, and not a straight up democracy, it would seem that all politicians, of every stripe, must be elitist on some level.  Else, why would they want to lead us or believe that they, above all others, have the skills to pay the bills?