I vacillated considerably on what title to give this diary. I was going to say "Why Edwards hasn't endorsed Obama" but I didn't want people to get distracted because that isn't the main point. The main point is that Obama really does have trouble with working-class whites. I'm banging my head here in blue Northern Ohio attempting to figure out how we can deliver Ohio to Obama on March 4th. Read on to get my take.....
The inspiration of this diary came from a diary written by David Sirota. I have been attempting to devise (at least in my own mind) a winning strategy for Obama in Ohio. How to frame the issues, or at least the appeal of Obama in a way that Ohio voters will embrace. While, not the biggest fan of Sirota by any means (I have always been one of those people that says "take the idea for what it's worth, don't reject the source out of hand"), I think that the construct he provides in a diary written today is spot on.
It doesn't provide an answer to the question, but it does sharpen the issue, which at least, is half the battle. I have co-opted the idea and applied it to Ohio. Basically, in beer-drinking Ohio, can Obama win given that Hillary wins the beer drinkers? Or can Obama stop the "Hillary wins beer drinkers" trend in Ohio? If he does, all this talk of a brokered convention and fights through the summer are over. Because if he does, he will win Ohio, the nomination, and the election.
Ok, so first things first. Here is Sirota's diary:
Caught Between Race and Class
The two taboo subjects in American politics, class and race, are now front and center in the Democratic nominating contest. As my new nationally syndicated newspaper column shows, the former is driving voting behavior and the biases against the latter are making it more difficult for Barack Obama to court lower-income voters.
Exit polls show Hillary Clinton winning votes from those making under $50,000 a year. She is the candidate of NAFTA, the candidate on the cover of Fortune magazine, the candidate of Big Money. And yet, she is winning the working class. Much of that, as I say, has to do with Obama not running an economically populist or class-based campaign. He simply hasn't been appealing to working-class voters in any direct way. . . . .
[T]he decision also likely has to do with the fact that Obama knows that if he voiced a more full-throated populism, he would be depicted in the media as a race-centric candidate - even if his populism was race-blind. As my column shows, power-challenging African-American politicians have been marginalized in this way for the better part of a half century. The moment a black leader talks about class or threatens the Establishment, he or she is billed as a race-centric radical.
The best contemporary example of this came from Time Magazine's Joe Klein. In a 2006 column that no one other than the blogosphere flagged as wildly offensive, Klein called populist Rep. John Conyers as:
"An African American of a certain age and ideology, easily stereotyped [and] one of the ancient band of left-liberals who grew up in the angry hothouse of inner-city, racial-preference politics."
Though this was a particularly obvious example of the media firing racism at class-based African-American politicians, it represents a widespread attitude pervasive in our political Establishment. If you are a non-white politician and you talk about class, you are "stigmatized as a candidate mobilizing race," as Columbia University's Manning Marable says in my column.
The problem for Obama is the big states coming up in the contest. As National Journal's Ron Brownstein reports, the key contests on March 4th are Texas and Ohio. "In both states, the upscale white voters who have bolstered Obama are scarce," Brownstein reports. Put another way, Obama needs to make some sort of populist pitch to speak directly to these voters, but is constrained by his knowledge that the media and the Clinton machine will quickly label him "the black candidate" if he does just that.
That last point about the Clintons is very important. It was no coincidence that the moment Obama started talking about NAFTA and class in South Carolina, Bill Clinton made an unprompted remark likening Obama to Jesse Jackson, and an unnamed Clinton aide told the Associated Press Obama is "the black candidate." The Clintons are playing an ugly game.
Link
I usually don't agree with too much of what David Sirota has to say, but I do agree with the essential argument that he is making here. Obama is in a quandary. His premise is also accurate--Obama is losing the lower income working class despite the fact that his policies benefit these people, and despite the fact that he has fought hard for the rights of these people. This conflict poses the greatest challenge for Obama winning Ohio. The only demographic group that these economic divisions have not worked with is in the black community. Poor and working class blacks still support Obama regardless. However, with black leaders in Cleveland like Stephanie Tubbs-Jones attempting to rally her black constituents to vote for Hillary, Obama is dealt an even larger blow to his Ohio victory chances. I've been thinking about this issue for a while and I'm not sure what the best strategy to combat this issue is. I do think, however, that the first step is to get people to understand the situation in the very terms that Sirota presents the issue. Obama is for the working class. I'm not trying to Hillary bash, but Hillary is not (well some people might take offense to this, but NAFTA, and the economic policies of Bill Clinton hurt Ohio more than any other state in the country). Obama is not elitist. Eventhough his transcedent calls for hope, unity, change, and transformation appeal to liberal, progressive, and highly educated voters. The concerns of working folks are his concerns.
Here comes my somewhat controversial panacea (tongue in cheek).
One easy solution to win some of these people over would be for John Edwards to come out and endorse Obama and campaign for him. Of course, Edwards does not want to do this until Obama demonstrates that his is willing to adopt a more confrontational and direct approach on the class-warfare issue. I think Edwards is being stubborn and unrealistic with this approach, for the inevitable Obama campaign destruction that could ensue should Obama decide to adopt confrontation over unity. Can't Edwards just accept that Obama is right on the policy, that he is genuine in his concern, and get over it already?
A few additional notes about why I think that I understand this thing. (You are more than welcome to disagree :)) I grew up in Sandusky, OH. That is where I live and vote now. Right on Lake Erie. Half-way between Toledo and Cleveland. Kerry won here in 2004, Gore in 2000, Clinton in 1996 & 1992. The largest employers here are the 5,000 good-paying jobs from the local Ford and GM factories, despite the constant rumors of closings and lay-offs. I went to college in Western PA, law school in Michigan. Notice the trend--coal miners and steel workers to auto industry and machinists. Although I am the "advanced degree, red wine drinking, American Prospect reading liberal who goes to the theatre" I have been immersed in the hard-working culture of an honest days' work and the punching of time cards. That's my grandfather, and my uncle, and everyone else in my family. It is the guy who lived next door to me when I had a small apartment in a working class neighborhood in law school. It is my roomate's dad in college. And it is the guy who comes to me when he's been injured on the job, or lost his job, or occasionally needs to draw up a will to keep his family secure. These are the people who are hurt the most by trade agreements that value these people the least. These are Obama voters.
Just a couple thoughts. I must say that I do believe that Obama can win Ohio. I'm just looking for some answers to this question, and any insight you may have.....