Hillary’s “Elitist” Attack on Obama May Backfire

| | Comments (5)

I’m sorry but just what exactly did Obama say that was a “mistake?” In a closed meeting for Obama fundraisers in San Francisco April 6, Obama wrongly assumed that he was among trustworthy friends when he spoke candidly about what he has found in Pennsylvania while campaigning for the crucial April 22 primary.

“You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for twenty-five years and nothing has replaced them. As they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successful administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising when they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations,” said Obama.

While Obama spoke sincerely, a hidden recorder was preparing a transcript that was published on Friday, April 11 on the Huffington Post website. The big media played up the seeming issue for the desperate Clinton – her Pennsylvania margins continue to shrink – and she eagerly grabbed it to beat Obama with.

Under pressure of approaching defeat and desperately trying to stop Obama, Clinton reached into her bag of tricks and brought out this gem: “Obama’s remarks are elitist and out of touch. They are not reflective of the values and the beliefs of Americans.”

Another similar attack came from Senator Evan Bayh, a Democrat from Indiana who inherited his father’s seat. He told the New York Times reporters “Mr. Obama’s remarks should serve as a warning to superdelegates that he would be a weak general election candidate. They’re [the Republicans] going to say that we are weak on national security, that we’re a bunch of high taxers and spenders and out here in the middle of the country we don’t understand people’s values. The question is, have we given them some hook they hang their hat on to make that argument.”

The subtlety of Bayh’s racism may escape the casual reader. But what I think he is saying in effect is that the superdelegates most urgent concern – protecting and re-electing their down ticket – incumbent Democratic officeholders including themselves – will be extremely risky behind Obama.

Governor Ed Rendell of Pennsylvania, who is Mrs. Clinton’s most prominent supporters in that state, criticized Obama for implying that rural voters were clinging to their guns as a way of dealing with their frustrations.

But, the Mayor of Lancaster, Pa., J. Richard Gray, an Obama supporter, said Obama did not mean that at all. Gray said “the Republicans take emotional issues like guns and religions and use them to divide people. He’s saying the use of those issues as wedge issues plays on the bitterness that people have and diverts attention from the real economic issues, like the disparity between the wage earner and the rich.”

The Bureau of Labor Statistics announced on April 9, 2008 that U.S. 80,000 jobs vanished in March. Does Hillary Clinton think the nation, in general, or Pennsylvanians, in particular, should not be bitter or frustrated?

Obama’s staff understands what the Clinton Democrats are trying to do. Hari Sevugn, a spokesman for Obama, replied to Clinton’s statement: “We won’t be lectured on being out of touch by Senator Clinton who believes lobbyists represent real people and [who is] awash in their money and who can’t tell a straight story about her lengthy record about supporting trade deals like NAFTA and China that have devastated communities in Pennsylvania and Indiana.”

The superdelegates were not born yesterday. Senator Bayh’s arguments against Obama are unconvincing and show the sweaty apprehension of the Clinton camp. She must score an unexpectedly large victory over Obama in Pennsylvania or she is done. If she barely squeaks through, it will be because of anti-Obama arguments by Bayh and others which will neither be forgiven or forgotten by black voters who are crucial to the Democrats’ national victory map.

    Comments

  1. You say this issue is about race. I don't think so at all. Sen. Evan Bayh is not racist. Evan Bayh said what he said to help the candidate that he supports. Also, Sen. Bayh did not "inherit" his father's seat. He was a prior highly popular governor of Indiana and won election against a Republican incumbent Senator as I recall. Having said that, I admire his father for being an unapologetic liberal and a superb Senator. And by the way, I am a Sen. Clinton supporter who happens to agree with what Sen. Obama said although I realize he said it in a way that could and would be easily used against him politically. But the bottom line is race has nothing to do with it, in my opinion.

    Posted by: kind67 Author Profile Page | April 14, 2008 11:06 AM

  2. This isn't about race. It's about stupidity. Mrs. Clinton counted on people not being smart enough to notice that Obama was actually listening to what they told him----We've had a hard time. The government made decisions that resulted in many of us losing our jobs to China or Mexico. We're mad as h**l about it and he acknowledged how we feel. Mrs. Clinton is a User. She tried to use us in this and we don't like it.

    Posted by: karela Author Profile Page | April 14, 2008 3:35 PM

  3. Clinton and Bayh are DLC, meaning they pretend to be democrats, but really are shills for corporate interests. Clinton with her $109 million in family payola, and Bayh who is a legacy politician just like George "W". Imagine these sort calling Obama Elitist! Obama who started as a community organizer, who was never given anything but a good education, Obama called Elitist! These DLC shills become most shrill when anyone dares speak the truth.

    Posted by: Angry in Indiana | April 15, 2008 3:36 PM

  4. I am reminded that Indiana was the state (and Indianapolis, the city) in which 100,000 KKK members marched in the 1920s to affirm their solidarity and shared, seething hatred for catholics, jews and blacks. It happened in Bayh senior's lifetime. I think it would be instructive to review news and editorial commentaries from that period, to see if any quote the elder Bayh standing squarely against the venom of the KKK...or not? It would, perhaps, provide some perspective on the subtleties of Bayh the younger's veiled racist comment on Obama's electability..

    Posted by: George | April 15, 2008 5:49 PM

  5. I am reminded that Indiana was the state (and Indianapolis, the city) in which 100,000 KKK members marched in the 1920s to affirm their solidarity and shared, seething hatred for catholics, jews and blacks. It happened in Bayh senior's lifetime. I think it would be instructive to review news and editorial commentaries from that period, to see if any quote the elder Bayh standing squarely against the venom of the KKK...or not? It would, perhaps, provide some perspective on the subtleties of Bayh the younger's veiled racist comment on Obama's electability..

    Posted by: George | April 15, 2008 5:54 PM

Post A Comment


(for verification only; will not be published with your comment)