Quick thoughts on BITTERGATE's impact

My random thoughts on Bittergate:

1. Does this really help Hillary ?  Isn't this one of these moments (unlike Wright where she ignored the story while it was unfolding) where the party realizes it does not help when Clinton is calling Obama "elitist and out-of-touch" thereby giving some legitimacy to a GOP attack that a united party could have dismissed as a "There they go again ..."But notice how the whole spiel by the campaign seems aimed at the Superdelegates. They don't even seem to say this hurts with voters. Rather they say the Republicans will use it to hurt with the voters. So if it doesn't hurt on its own merits, what's their point here ? And why would Evan Bayh be arguing that SDs should switch to Hillary because Obama might be painted as an elitist like Gore and Kerry was when two days ago, he said Hillary would be painted as a serial liar like Gore was. Where is the difference ?

2. The funny thing is that most of the coverage all around seems to be more on whether this hurts Obama rather than the substance of the quote.  It is to the credit of the Clinton campaign that they have somehow convinced the media to buy their frame of "Obama is one controversy away from collapsing". If he survived Wright with all the visual evidence (which this does not have) and much more directly raw quotes, why would THIS be a "meteor crashing into the campaign" as the generally much more level-headed Mike Allen puts it ?

3. And didn't it give Obama an incredible opportunity to pivot to an Edwards-style populism that does not come naturally to him ? I don't like it but I have been obsessing over this story and I am stunned that the comment sections on national and local blogs seem to include a LOT of people saying "hell yeah I am bitter". It was a huge mistake on Hillary's part to issue her first statement on the bitter part of the statement rather than the gun-and-religion part which is more problematic. It allowed him to make this about people being angry and bitter and as far as I can tell, Edwards proved that it resonated very well with blue-collars. And if Obama succesfully makes the Thomas Frank case (a more dubious proposition since it is complex) this may turn out to be even more of a positive we think.

4. Funny that everybody seems to miss the most damaging part of the statement: the implication on trade. So far the Obama campaign has handled their response better than Hillary has handled her attack.

UPDATE

5. Btw  When Hillary lectures Obama on religion and guns (in spite of her own checkered past on those issues) to gain what she thinks will be an edge in the blue-collar vote, isn't she proving his point about politicians using those as wedge issues which distract from the real (economic) choices ?

•  I don't know how much it helps Clinton

  in the primaries, but it does help McCain, so Clinton will make the argument again to the superdelegates that Obama is unelectable.

  by IhateBush on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:44:49 AM PDT

  •  But as I said

    the absurdity is that whatever the Reps would throw at him they woudl throw at her too. And the SDs are not stupid enough not to see it !

    by doriangz on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:53:16 AM PDT

    •  If our argument is

      he's more electable than her, this throws it out the window, at which point they now have to decide on other factors which could help her.

      I think it could help the idea of another candidate entirely.

      by nrafter530 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:42:10 PM PDT

      •  Which almost certainly would have

        to be Gore.  He is the only one that they could justify at this point as a compromise, having had the election stolen from him in 2000.

        by IhateBush on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:19:12 PM PDT

  •  It's Not Playing Well In The Cornfields

    You learn everything you need to know about Hoosier politics at the breakfast table of the small-town diner, and they are "pissed at Obama's arrogance".

    That's a QUOTE I heard this morning...

    Between "Bittergate", and Average White People, he's in danger of losing a LOT of support, FAST...

    by IndianaDemocrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:09:38 PM PDT

    •  While I agree with you

      that this doesn't help Obama in general, Obama already isn't doing very well in those areas in the primary.  Most of the people who will be very offended by these comments are either not voting in the Dem primary or already voting for Clinton.  

      The few in the rural areas who are voting Obama are likely to be more committed to him than to let a foolish comment bother them.

      So it probably costs him a little in the primary, but hurts him most among superdelegates, as the electability questions become paramount.

      by IhateBush on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:38:33 PM PDT

      •  ALL Of Indiana Thinks We Are A "Rural Small Town"

        Even in Indy....
        It's why many choose to live here.

        And our friends on the coasts never seem to fail to remind us of that....

        by IndianaDemocrat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:41:21 PM PDT

•  While the Clintons play golf....

  Obama plays a game of pick-up basketball.  Who is the elitist again?

  by ford prefect 2 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:47:24 AM PDT

•  There is no difference

    Evan Bayh just doesn't care. He wants Hillary to be the nominee. If Hillary thought it would help, he'd go on television and say we can't trust a man who eats Cocoa Puffs for breakfast.
   
   

  by usmeagle69 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:49:16 AM PDT

•  and nary a word so far about HER gaffe:

  "Gordon Brown became an unintentional standard-bearer for pro-Tibet campaigners today after being wrongly praised by Hillary Clinton for boycotting the opening ceremony of the Beijing Olympics."

  so much for 35 years experience making her ready to lead on world affairs!

  http://www.timesonline.co.uk/...

  by Snowcat on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:51:57 AM PDT

•  I'm not convinced

  that this will help McCain.  If Obama can push this so that voters really see that republicans have used these issues to drive their vote.  And that because  they are convinced that politicians won't help with their economic concerns they vote on their moral or societal issues, which the republicans haven't done anything about either, then perhaps they will give Obama another look and take a chance.

  by psdunc on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:52:56 AM PDT

•  This is all distraction from real economic issues

  that have been destroying the Middle class for a long, long time.
  Once again, Hillary thinks she will some how get a boost by aligning herself with McCain, and the playing the old Rethuglican "class warfare" framing game.
  It's unbelievably pathetic. In her zeal to destroy Obama, She's destroying her husband's legacy.

  by pat bunny on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:54:09 AM PDT

•  My random thought

  This is not a complaint about your diary, it is just a convenient place to park my own thoughts on the issue.

  I had to go to MyDD to find out what Obama really said.  I read his apology or clarification on his own website and thought it was masterful, but I wasn't sure what he was apologizing for.  I read all sorts of defenses and counterattacks here at DKOS.  I heard distortions of his comments instead of the actual quote on television.  But I had to go to MyDD to find the source.  What a shame.

  We are not electing a Legend-in-Chief.  We are not nominating First Dreamer.  It is important to know what kind of man Obama is, warts and all.

  I have now digested the entire thing: original comment, Clinton and McCain attacks, media distortions, Obama carlification, DKOS and MyDD Pavlovian responses. I came to this conclusion:

  I really like Obama.

  by math monkey on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:56:32 AM PDT

•  She is supposed to knock him out of the race.....

  ...she is not supposed to sit by on her hands. Obama did NOT recover from Wright. It is what people remember most about him. That is unfortunate as Obama does not share the sentiments espouses by Wright. It is also unfortunate because the Press is ignoring John McCain's association with Hagee who has said the Catholic Church is a "great whore".

  But the notion that Hillary is not supposed to fight -- I mean really slug it out-- for the nomination is ridiculous.

  by Bensdad on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 11:56:55 AM PDT

•  Don't know what ultimately happens, BUT...

  ... in reading some coverage today and watching some clips, one could assume that at the very least, many media outlets (and online media) seem a bit uninterested in applying the whole "who's-up-who's-down" narrative to this.  It's been going on for the duration of the primaries and I'm guessing that most folks are tired of it.  I know I am.  

  And anyway, it's the weekend; not a lot of people watching anyway, and if they are, I'm willing to guess that these "_____gates" are growing tiresome even for the unengaged.  I can't speak for the blue collar workers that Obama was referring to and what they'll think - after all, I'm an urban metrosexual latte-sipper that doesn't work - and I'm sure they'll make up their own minds so I won't presume to know anything about what they'll do, but perhaps as far as media narratives go, this election is starting to wind down.

  It's like when you're in traffic and get caught in a gapers delay - sometimes the incident is far behind you but the traffic continues to move slowly anyway for a stretch, then motorists realize they can resume normal speed again and start speeding up.  I feel like that's what this campaign and coverage thereof has resembled for the past month.

  Maybe this latest "______gate" has, again, reminded newsmakers that the race is essentially over, or at the very least they feel as if though they risk annoying readers/viewers and maybe even themselves by trying to blow this up into something bigger than it already is again ( and as much as both Hillary and Bill and John McCain would love them to).

  by jamesparenti on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:03:15 PM PDT

•  Hillary is reading a script.

  It's what Hillary does, as it's like what McCain does.  The scripts are prepared by separate factions of the Clinton/McCain/Penn Campaign Machine.

  Hence, when they lie, they tell the same lie, and the connection becomes impossible to miss.

  by sheddhead on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 12:35:24 PM PDT

•  obama made a bet

  Obama made a bet when he started the campaign- that the American people were tired of partisanship and were ready to be told the truth. So far he has told the truth - now individual voters will have to decide whether they can handle the truth or whether they would like somebody who just will tell them anything.

  by keepingitstraight on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:48:03 PM PDT

  •  and the funny thing is

    in my experience, people want to be lied to and told what to think and just be fed what they already believe. They will only vote for the person who says what they want him/her to say, whether it's true or not.

    For Obama to win, I have to be wrong...this would be one of those times it would be nice to be wrong, but I'm skeptical.

    by nrafter530 on Sat Apr 12, 2008 at 01:58:50 PM PDT