If you want to enjoy a belly laugh, here are three reliable suggestions: (1) rent an old Woody Allen movie, especially Bananas, (2) rent Borat, or (3) listen to Hillary Clinton, of all people, attack Barack Obama as "elitist."
So begin an piece in the Philadelphia Inquirer entitled The American Debate: 'Elitist' is as 'elitist' does by Dick Polman, National Political Reporter for the Inquirer in his blog. It is worth reading.
So is Keeping Up with the Bitters, another blog post, this by Fatimah Ali, shown on the home page of Philly.com, the joint webstie for the Inquirer and the Daily News. Taken together they will an interesting picture.
First from Ali. She starts with the experience of being accused by a Daily News columnist she respects of having the bitters, of having a chip on her shoulder. And she is furious. After looking up the definition of bitter, she begins to reflect. The columnist was not alone in criticizing her after she wrote a piece about institutional racism. People told her it was a figment of her imagination. She explores the impact of America never having really apologized for slavery, referring to words of Michael Eric Dyson calling this nation "the United States of Amnesia":
Dyson said the country's refusal to apologize for slavery has had destructive implications for generations. Howard University history professor Gregory Carr also cited subtle language misnomers in the way black culture is treated, like using the term "mainstream" for white culture, instead of "Euro-stream."
From here she pivots, to what makes her frustrated, the difficulties of a job search, while recognizing how poverty affects others. She then begins an incredibly section, which includes saying that if W Penna whites in their circumstances cling to their guns and their religion, God bless 'em. She puts this in the context of the black Philadelphia experience of poor schools and poor opportunities. And after the reference to those in W PA offers the following:
Barack Obama spoke volumes when he referred to the bitterness of small-town families because of our deteriorating economy. Although, as he admits, his words were ill-chosen, no one should miss his point.
Hillary Clinton and John McCain's opportunistic reactions to his sound bite is ludicrous.
People are fed up with the elite Washington status quo that excludes them.
They are angry that the White House continues to ignore their needs and that thousands of children go to bed hungry because their parents' jobs were sent to countries that provide cheap labor. These people work themselves to the bone and still can't make ends meet.
Here's another snip from a bit further down the piece:
No one is more elitist than Hillary Clinton. No one has tried to manipulate the public more. And no one has "misspoken" as much as she has.
Sniper fire? Puhleeze. Throwing back shots to show how regular she is and that she can hang with the boys does not prove that she is one of them.
Then after talking about having two elderly white women knock on her door for Obama over the weekend, and how they all shared how their children were all supporting Obama, she concludes as follows:
They are thinking about an American future that includes opportunities for everyone.
Bitter is a mighty strong word, but it accurately describes taxpayers like me who feel let down because it's so hard to take care of our families.
Obama told the truth. That doesn't make him elitist, it just makes him real. As for the bitters - the good thing is, they can be temporary when you're really an optimist at heart.
As I read her piece, I thought of some remarks Eugene Robinson made last night on Keith, that it is such an advantage being a black man. He was of course being sarcastic offering examples like the inability to get a cab and the attention you get from "personal shoppers" when as a black you go into a store and security is so solicitous of your needs that they follow you around. He did offer one way in which it was an advantage - that people often underestimate you, in his case about how well he could write. I think the same has happened with Obama - the Clintons and the political press have badly underestimated him: sure, he could give a good speech, but he really was not of their caliber when it came to politics. Only both the Clintons and the press not only misread Obama, they also misread the mood of the nation, for which he is a very good fit. And there should now be little doubt about how well he can do things necessary to succeed in politics.
Which brings me to the Polman blog. Remember, he is the national political reporter for one of the two most important papers in the state. He shreds Clinton - rehearsing for us the many ways she is that of which she accuses Obama. Try this paragraph:
This is the same woman who during the last seven years, as evidenced by her tax returns with Bill, has become a millionaire 109 times over; whose husband has long supported the Colombian free-trade deal (deemed hurtful to American workers); who long defended his signing of NAFTA; . . . who, during her Senate career, voted in favor of confiscating guns during a national emergency (one of only 16 senators to do so; Obama voted against confiscation); and who, during the Democratic debates, has refused to shed any light on why the Clintons are safeguarding the identities of the global heavy hitters who are bankrolling the Clinton Library.
He offers similar criticisms of McCain, and notes how the Andover - Yale - Harvard Business School alum George Bush got away with similar rhetoric. He then returns to Clinton:
. . . But I digress. Hillary was more fun to watch this weekend, as she went into blue-collar overdrive - waxing nostalgic about how as a youngster she was taught to shoot a gun; walking into a bar and drinking from a shot glass; telling a faith forum how she always feels "the enveloping support and love of God" . . . I half expect to see her marching in the Lehigh Valley, clad in a bowling shirt, with a 12-gauge in one hand and the New Testament in the other.
But that's politics. If she can successfully brand as elitist a guy who was raised by a single mother far from the comfortable suburban trappings that she enjoyed as a child . . . well, to the victor go the spoils.
Polman, like many of us, looks forward to the debate tonight. He fully expects Clinton to go after Obama on this issue as quickly as she can. Heck, I suspect we would all be surprised if the issue of "bittergate" were not one of the first two questions posed. He thinks it presents Obama with an opportunity to reframe (he uses that word) the issue in terms that offers an economic populist message that would connect with the workers Clinton thinks are offended by Obama's words. He suggests this might force Clinton to explain why her husband's administration failed so badly to address the needs of these workers (and here I should note that he made specific reference to Bill's support of the Columbia Free Trade Agreement when he was shredding Hillary). What is interesting is how he gets a dig in at the very end:
Obama screwed up badly during that fund-raiser in San Francisco. But it's the successful politician who bounces back from adversity . . . We'll soon see whether Obama has the gift that saved Bill Clinton from Bimbo-gate in 1992.
I disagree with the first part of that final quote. It shows that Polman is still thinking with a more traditional mindset, one that evaluates statements as to how much of gaffes they are, rather than as to how much truth is in them. In San Francisco his language was almost too compressed. His analysis of why people were bitter is right-on. And he was attempting to explain how that led to such people being manipulated, not voting on their economic interests. It is interesting that the woman who taped it has offered some additional remarks, first that the audience to which he spoke was not, contrary to how it has been portrayed, all wealthy. Of equal importance, that she has been impressed by how he and his campaign have reacted, to her and the story. I will return to that in a moment.
Polman's conclusion contains the important insight that when a candidate shows skill in reacting to adverse situations we tend to have a more positive evaluation of that candidate. I think this is especially true of candidates for executive office, especially the Presidency. After all, no administration can anticipate all it will encounter. And consistently on this campaign Obama has reacted with an almost perfect response. He listens, evaluates and then speaks and acts. He - and to a large degree also his campaign - is gracious. When the head of AP accidentally asked him about "Obama bin Laden" he handled it with gentle humor; compare that with the response of Clinton when asked when she had last fired a gun or gone to church, and you will immediately grasp what I mean. Add to that how the campaign has treated the woman (whom I refuse to name) who exposed the SF comments: she has acknowledged that they have in no way attempted to restrict her access. Now think how the Clinton campaign would have reacted, and if you have any doubt merely consider the words of Carville about Richardson.
Polman's line about bimbogate is interesting as well. Here you have a major political writer injecting into the middle of discussions one of the things that concerns many people about the Clintons. And perhaps it is something beyond that. Polman is saying that the Bill Clinton of 1991-92 was skilled enough to handle such a situation, but neither Clinton today has that skill. Bill has certainly made multiple misstatements, some far worse than Obama's words in SF. And Hillary's handling of episodes like Tuzla and - yes - even her attempts to tear down Obama have been sorely lacking in the appropriate touch.
I will say again what I have said many times this cycle. This cycle is very different. Those who attempt to view it through the lens of how politics worked in the past are going to be very surprised at the results, as have been both the Clinton campaign and much of the political press. Their predictions and analyses have been far off the mark. By contrast, look back to the "leaked" Obama spreadsheet on primaries and caucuses and note how remarkably prescient it has been, if anything, conservative in its evaluation of how he will do.
I have offered two views from Pennsylvania. They give us a partial picture of the lay of the state. That picture will be painted somewhat more fully by the debate tonight. I suspect that Clinton will be very aggressive, because she has no choice - she has to have a big win or else. And yet, when she is aggressive she is not as effective with voters. Think about her most effective debate performances, when she was softer: in NH, where she joked about her feelings being hurt, or when she said nice things about Obama at the end of another debate and it lead to a handshake.
I will not predict the content or the impact of tonight's debate. I would suggest that the press has again, with bittergate as with Jeremiah Wright, totally misread the impact upon the American people. And in Polman's blog we see the beginning of the recognition by at least one writer of how things are different. And with Ali we see how the concerns of working-class whites and many in the African-American community coincide. Jim Webb has written that were these two groups to come together in their common interest they would be a very powerful force that would totally change the political structure of this nation. Is it possible that "bittergate" is providing the opening for that to happen? I wonder . . .
Peace.
UPDATE there is a diary a few above mine that is related to this. I urge you to read Republican Talker Michael Smerconish: FOR THE DEMS, IT'S GOTTA BE OBAMA by Jimmy Crackcorn. Smerconish is the most important radio talk show host in Philadelphia for working class whites.