Clinging to my blog

Well, I haven’t been, lately.

Hope you are all having a good early spring. We had snow last Friday here but today it’s sunny and should get up into the 60s. Excellent.

So things have been busy and I’ve not gotten around to updating the blog lately. There’s been lots of things to write about, but not enough time.

However, let’s talk about this latest controversy. Sen. Obama said people were bitter and clinging to guns and religion, and Clinton “saw an opportunity” as the AP put it and has been hammering him hard for being “elitist.” McCain has also taken this line of attack.

Calling a Democrat elitist is one of the most knee-jerk responses in the conservative playbook. It’s a little surprising to see Sen. Clinton pull out that playbook, but given her rather desperate situation, I suppose she feels this may be her last good chance to really change the dynamic.

I doubt it will work in the long run. First of all, let’s just back up and talk about elitism. It’s like the “liberal” bugaboo, it’s an attack that has gotten very tired and predictable. Conservatives call Democrats “elitist” if they: have a college degree; listen to NPR, buy coffee from Starbucks, etc. etc. etc. In other words, at least 50 percent of the population in this country is part of an elite. By stretching the definition of “elitism” so broadly, the word is in danger of losing all meaning in the political context.

Part of Obama’s problem is that he does come off as a little arrogant and over-intellectual sometimes. But the fact is he’s a pretty smart guy—God forbid we get someone like that in the White House!

This comment of his was a poor choice of words, and really if you think about it, not very reflective of his life story. He is after all, a church-goer and has spoken a lot about his beliefs and how they inform his politics. Now, maybe, that’s all a lie and he’s a complete phony. Or maybe the guy just made a poor choice of words. It’s our job as voters to decide for ourselves. Having listened to a quite a few of Obama’s speeches, interviews, and debates, I don’t think he’s a complete phony. In fact, I think, as one person put it, Obama’s big sin—in this and other controversies—is that he tells the truth.

Are voters bitter and angry? In places like Pennsylvania, I think the answer is often yes. Do they tend to “cling to”—or to use a better term, turn to—issues like gun rights and social issues when issues like economic policy seem to consist mostly of smoke and mirrors, no matter who the candidate is? I think that makes some sense, although I would hesitate to stereotype voters—which I think is another mistake Obama makes here.

So Obama probably should have thought this one through a bit more and phrased it differently. But really, his main point rings true, despite the poor way he phrased it.

Now, my question is, are voters in Pennsylvania going to buy into Clinton’s faux outrage and turn on Obama for disrespecting them? Or are they going to recognize this manufactured controversy for what it is?

I think by election day next Tuesday, most voters will have moved on. But there could be enough blowback from this (and Clinton will do everything she can to keep the controversy alive) to cause Obama to lose by more than 10 points instead of losing by less than ten percentage points. That’s an important outcome for Clinton. Obama has always been likely to lose to Clinton in Pennsylvania simply because of the demographics. If he keeps that loss under ten percentage points, Clinton really can’t claim much momentum. If it’s a larger loss, Clinton’s quixotic candidacy gets a big boost. And we’ll drag this thing out a little longer.

There’s another point I’d like to make about this “elitist” charge against Obama. You can bet we’re going to hear a lot of this from the pundits and opponents of Obama. It’s a cheap and easy thing to criticize a candidate for, and with the pundits especially, cheap and easy are their stock in trade. I mean, Obama has been criticized for choosing orange juice over coffee. So is he elitist, or just healthy? (Answer elitist and you are well-qualified for Loud Dobbs’ job.)

But I think it’s going to be very interesting to see the “elitist” attacks on Obama. Maybe they’ll be effective, but I think they will not have the impact we’ve seen in the past. Aside from the fact that Obama’s background is anything but elitist, he is just better equipped to deal with this sort of distraction.

This is no John Kerry we have here. Look at how Obama has handled the Wright controversy, look at how he is handling this current one. This guy knows how to defend himself. At times in past presidential campaigns I’ve felt both sympathy and complete frustration with Kerry or Gore before him for not being able to counter these kinds of ridiculous attacks effectively.

Obama just seems to me to be in a different league. Quick to respond, able to talk to people in simple yet thoughtful terms, not easily rattled, comfortable in his own skin … the guy just seems to roll on unruffled by the screeching circus around him. He’s far from perfect, as this incident shows. But he is extremely adept as a campaigner, and unlike a Kerry or Gore, he seems able to shake off these attacks and move on. In fact, he’s not adverse to going on the offensive at a time when he is under fire, as he did when he noted Sen. Clinton’s ridiculous “shot and a beer chaser” photo op.

Anyhow, it’s all pretty crazy, but if Obama can ride this out, he’ll be in good shape for the inevitable GOP sliming to come.