The Heartland Gap

For all the talk of race and gender in this marathon race for the Democratic presidential nomination, the most visible gap on the left is one most often ignored - the yawning chasm between working-class Democrats and the so-called creative class, well-educated liberals who tend to populate the blogging ranks. Barack Obama's ill-considered remarks about the various salves to poverty and job loss that lower middle-class Americans cling to - religion, guns, nativism, protectionism and the like - fairly accurately reflect what many in the creative class kinda, sorta, actually do believe about those in the working class side of the big Democratic equation.

And besides, we're sick of the this media-fueled myth of the heartland that has elected Republican after Republican, and many of us see Senator Obama's candidacy as a way to crush this myth forever, and proclaim the ascendancy of a new American left that recognizes the true leadership of smart, wired progressives. That's why the chorus of "he's right!" echoed through the liberal blogosphere as the extent of Obama's spring-time gift to John McCain became apparent.

You know, I'm tempted to join the chorus.

After all, I'd like to retire the Second Amendment to emeritus status in the Bill of Rights and strengthen our gun laws to roughly parallel Great Britain's. I do think that poor people cling to religion when all hope of economic advance is stilled. I believe that racial hatred and anti-immigrant vitriol is often rooted in class status and economics.

But Senator Obama is running for president in the United States of 2008, not in the country of liberal elitist dreams. The whole point is to win. And while his words may tilt some of the upcoming primaries, its real import is in throwing away his campaign's greatest currency - the love the media insiders showed for his candidacy. In the bowling alleys of Altoona and the diners of rural Indiana, that love took the slightest of hits as Obama's style of retail politicking was derided as less-than-manly. That was small stuff, basically filling the dead air in this six-week slog to Pennsylvania.

Now they've filed for divorce. Despite his apologies, Obama's remarks to big San Francisco donors already have the dons of the Sunday morning roundtables hurling the most vile of Democratic electoral epithets at his candidacy.

Kerry.

Mondale.

And, oh lord, Dukakis.

Words like "Belgian endive" and "windsurfing" are being tossed about. As Lance Mannion pointed out last summer, "In the journalism of the Beltway Insiders, the only real Americans are white, rural, Southern and Midwestern, salt of the earth types." In their heartland myth, created in Georgetown salons over aged port and Cuban cigars, the only kind of president Americans can stand is the regular Joe, the man you'd enjoy a beer with in that bar down on Main Street, in hardscrabble small towns that are hanging on, by God, to the American Dream.

When they listen to their young college-bound and climbing professional kids, these swaggering 60ish blowhards flirt with post-racial creative class hegemony, feeling the occasional thrill up their legs. When the chips are down, they go with their guts - and John McCain is all guts to them.

Hell, even our creative class icons believe in the strength of the manly leader image. Two years ago, Markos Moulitsas, owner of the hysterically anti-Clinton uberblog, DailyKos, nailed the manly stereotype that excites these media types when he - quite without irony - described the he-man Democratic governor of Montana, Brian Schweitzer, to The New York Times:

“Schweitzer is the antithesis of the Democrat stereotype. Too many Democrats look like targets for the school bully. Schweitzer is a tough guy. And people like guys who will bar-fight their way across a state.”

Barack Obama doesn't look like that kind of Democrat, but his new coalition was in the process of changing the rules and reorganizing the electoral map; perhaps it had a chance to finally banish this stupid bar-fight mentality - to meld the creative class that reads "ideas" into the word "hope" whenever Obama utters it. I think that chance took a severe hit in San Francisco, even as liberals rally to defend his statement. Perhaps they worry that Obama's boneheaded words will hurt him as he tries to close out Hillary Clinton. Class traitor that I may be -  believing Clinton would be the better president - I have to disagree with that take, though it pains me.

Obama's gift wasn't wrapped up for Hillary Clinton. No, the gift card reads "John McCain."

UPDATE: You can tell how potentially damaging this thing is by the vehemence with which the toughest pro-Obama bloggers try to make the story about the always nefarious Hillary - with a little Mark Penn thrown in as a chaser. Also, John Cole enters full-on freak-out mode - hilarity ensues.

UPDATE II: Riverdaughter catches me with my elitism showing - good thing I'm not on the ballot. Seriously though, a post worth reading.

UPDATE III: I had to share this Stewart video on the whole thing - it's damned funny - hat tip to Tracy Russo:

Comments

[tdraicer]

I'm not giving up on Hillary yet. She may take PA by 15% or more, and the Supers have to be getting nervous about that media divorce from Obama's campaign. And if the Obama people were sure they had this locked up, they would just ignore Hillary.

[Will]

Let's put this one in the category of "Worst Articulated Intelligent Thought Since John Kerry Last Opened His Piehole".

Yes, I get it. People vote on these social issues, because neither party is assisting with the economic crises that have afflicted them. Therefore, they end up voting against their economic interests, since the Republicans are at least offering them some red meat on guns, religion, gays, and immigrants. It's the Thomas Frank argument, and it's true.

That said, where to begin with your formulation here, Senator? Did you have to tie "guns" to "religion" to "anti-immigrant sentiment" to "anti-trade sentiment", all in one frigging sentence? Do all gun owners in Pennsylvania hate immigrants? Do all of these small-town folk "cling" to religion merely because of their economic problems? Are the steel workers' problems with trade policy just some emotional diversion?

These aren't the arguments Obama was making. But the extremely poor choice of words, now available in audio, certainly makes it easy for his rivals to hammer home that impression. It will come off to many as the height of condescension.

Here is this young, urbane, highly educated, wealthy black politician from Chicago\Hawaii\Kenya, explaining to even wealthier liberal donors in California the kooky ways of the 12-gauge loving, bible-thumping, 'spic-hating hicks from the sticks of Pennsylvania. Thank God this at least didn't take place in San Francisco. Oh shit, it did.

[Judith]

too bad Obama cant just run for President of the part of the country he actually likes.

[pk]

Hillary may well find after this dust-up that the campaign that's finished is hers--and Obama can compete with McCain, on this ground and any other, better than she could have.

Which is more condescending: Obama's clumsily expressed compassion, or Hillary's cynical and dishonest manipulation? There are gun-loving, immigrant-bashing rubes, and then there are the people who know they aren't, whom Hillary is trying to convince that Obama is calling them that.

He isn't, and I have more confidence in his ability to clarify what he actually meant (see the Charlie Rose clip at TPM) than I do in Hillary's ability to pass as a hymn-singin', varmint-killin' den mother.

OTOH, maybe this will secure her spot on the McCain ticket.

[Judith]

oh dear, if that was supposed to be compassion then Obama aint the articulate guy he has been touted to be, is he?

I just wonder what American people he is trying to unite? The pompous and pretentious? DONE!

[Palomino]

@ pk: I saw that Charlie Rose segment on the night it first aired, in 2004, and Obama's comments then sounded to me just as condescending as they do now. Then Obama and Charlie Rose were discussing a whole group of voters as if they were specimens under a microscope; last weekend Obama and his backers--the Haves and the Have Mores (remember GWB and "I call you my base"?)--had a good chuckle at the same deluded, gun-totin' rubes. And these people wonder WTF is the matter with Kansas! Another portion of the same Charlie Rose segment contains something I've just been waiting to see again. Maybe the Repubs are saving this for the general election (if Obama is the nominee), but in that segment Obama talks blithely about how he "tried" community organizing and he "tried" the Illinois state segislature and now he's going to "try" the U.S. Senate. He sounds like a dilettante. Anybody else remember seeing and hearing that?

[jason chervokas]

The real problem w/ the Obama remarks and their impact on the race isn't so much demographic (after all, it's the white collar suburbs that elect presidents these days) as it is this: The promise of Obama's candidacy, of the "new politics," was a post-culture war dialog--that's what attracted Obamacans, indie voters, etc. W/ the remarks Obama waded neck-deep into the old culture war morass, a quagmire that has sadly dragged down Dem presidential prospects for a generation. Stupid and careless for a guy who is so obviously smart and careful.

It certainly helps HRC on her road to the Dem nomination--potentially scaring off a bunch of super delegates and exposing Obama in regions where he needs to win (the West) and w/ voters he needs to draw (independents)--but does nothing for her in a gen election v McCain in which she's still viewed as an old line, liberal culture war candidate.

She's still not a great candidate. Her negatives are crazy high and she's an inelegant pol--every move she makes the seams show through. But she could back in to the nomination unless Obama has another rabbit to pull from his hat.

[Mutaman]

God, I've spent the last few months listening to a bunch of prissy white liberals telling me about race, and now I'm going to have to listen to them telling me about class.

"The whole point is to win."

Tom, I really have felt for a long time that there are a lot of people on the left who don't agree with you. That's why Bush beat Gore, and that is why we may very well be in for four more years of the same old shit.

[Judith]

"Here’s a guy who says he shouldn’t be stereotyped, but yet he stereotyped us.” Southern Democratic Political Strategist.

[Tom W.]

Hey pk - this ain't about Hillary.

[zeke]

Hey Tom,

You're right. What it's really about whether or not Obama can beat McCain. We already know he can beat Hillary.

pk's point is well taken though - when the dust settles after this latest kerfluffle, it is Hillary who will be diminished, not just in relation to Obama but in comparison with McCain. By allying herself with her Republican foe to score points against Obama, Clinton only accentuates Obama's refreshing candor and her own wearisome cravenness.

[Judith]

Poor you Tom - you go to all that trouble and all you get is this response from the Obama crowd - more Hillary bashing. They aint got nuthin else.

[Kevin K.]

I think the only way Dems can win this thing in November is if we run a Buchanan/Scarborough ticket. Anyone want to help me launch one of those draft/petition we sites?

[chris cameron]

Buchanan/Scarborough ticket, aren't you cute.

Yes,evil Hillary must never take advantage of her opponents blunders or she is a cynical and dishonest and very, very bad. She should politely and daintily disagree with Obama and remember to say "please" and "excuse me" when doing so.

[Judith]

Kevin k, I heard Scarborough say that soemthing might happen after PA - maybe that is what he meant? :-)

[Tom W.]

Sigh....what're you all gonna do when you don't have Hillary to blame everything on? It's almost like a tic....She didn't hold a gun to his head in San Francisco and make him utter those ridiculous remarks.

Listen, Clinton's 5% is Clinton's 5% - she has to fight for it, she owes it to her supporter, and she's just doing what any candidate in her position would do. Indeed, she's held back, in my view.

So that's the 5% equation - the 95% equation is that Obama will have to go up against McCain and the Republicans - in other words, a 95% chance that he'll be my candidate too - and he's just handed them a freaking bazooka! So it pisses me off.

For months last year, we heard about the perfection of the Clinton campaign. Not true. For months this year, the Obama juggernaut has been sold on its perfect pitch and execution. Not true, either.

[Judith]

Tom - when you think about it, the corporate media has executed a wonderful plot. The GOP should have been firehosed out of the WH this year. So what do they do? promote the weakest and most inexperienced Democrat to be the candidate and either ignore or outright attack the ones who could win. Biden disappears because he called someone clean? Edwards gets ignored and Clinton gets treated to an avalanche of filth. And Obama, who sounds an awful lof like his pastor to me, gets a free ride until tney think he is actually gonna win and then WHOOOOOOSH. They actually start quoting him. Not enough to kill him, but just blow off a kneecap so he starts to limp.

I still believe Clinton by 20 in PA. But remember, I dont watch cable tv or network news and a lot of people do nothing other than that so I should never underestimate the power of brainwashing.

[Kevin K.]

Uh, Chris, I didn't even mention Clinton, but thanks for saying I'm cute!

Tom, your "tic" comment can be reversed and used about a majority of pro-Hillary bloggers/commenters out there as well. Both sides are playing the same game. And Obama didn't hold a gun to Hillary's head when she was spinning the Tuzla tales, which in my view (not yours, I know) will be just as damaging in the GE.

And regarding "freaking bazookas," McCain has been handing plenty of them to us lately and I'm sure he'll keep right on doing it. The defeatism expressed by both camps (and, to a certain extent, Edwards' folks as well when he was still in the game) has been less than helpful. McCain was the last Repub I wanted to run against, but he's got plenty of negatives to work with, regardless of who are nominee ends up being.

Group hug!

[Palomino]

@Judith: "Biden disappears because he called someone clean." Yes, Biden was one of the first aboard the Forced-Apology Express.

[Judith]

Palomino - indeed. Biden shopuldnt have said it, but considering the garbage coming out of Obama's mouth and his trusty sidekicks it all looks rather pathetic in retrospect, doesn't it? I actually read an Obama supporter saying Biden talked too much so would get in trouble. HAAAAAA.

Kevin - it is always hysterical to see somebody use a GOP talking point -reality vs defeatism - against Dems. Good stuff. Right up there with "anti-Americanism". Can you spell Wright right?

The media elects the president - where you been? And they looooove McCain. He's a real man.

[Tom K]

It may be, by the time this is over, the consensus will be that the D's were very smart to have this "Superdelegate" procedure in place, to protect them when the voters have narrowly favored a relative unknown who just keeps drip-drip-driping away his chances in the general.

[Slappy]

Judith, I only hope the GOP is a fraction as enthusiastic as you in attacking Obama.

Tom K, so you think Clinton has a better chance against McCain than Obama?

[Tom K]

Slappy:

I wouldn't say I think that, yet, but it's getting there.

At least amongst what I'll call "non-interventionist" conservatives, Obama has made some significant inroads (based on my reading of such websites). I mean not only that he is more popular there than Hillary (hardly worth noting), but that many were considering voting for him over McCain.

That Obama's appeal is broad enough to extend from the far left to (at least potentially) to the far right is not doubt due in part to the vagueness of the policy positions he has vocalized. But I can hardly think of a faster way to lose this particular crowd -- smallish, but potentially significant in a matchup against McCain -- than "misspeaking" this way to a buncha San Fran lefties.

There's been one or more noticable gaffes per month (on average) by the Obama campaign this year -- not counting Rev. Wright (since that was a problem, but not a gaffe). Some, like the bowling thing, are without substance. But the cumulative effect is to undermine the impression of assured competence that is a major part of his appeal.

[justus949]

Tom, lately your site, riverdaughter, taylor marsh, noquarter and bartcop are all I can stand to read. It takes a real man to link to riverdaughter's response to your post. Thanks for being real and love to all of the bullheaded hillary supporters.

[zeke]

I know, I know...this isn't about Clinton. But if any of her supporters really imagine that she hasn't handed McCain not only a bazooka, but a few stinger missiles and artillery pieces to boot, they are quite simply delusional.

During the course of such a ridiculously long nominating process and general election campaign, candidates of both parties will inevitably make some errors.

My own personal preference is for a candidate who errs by telling the truth, however unartfully. I am less favorably disposed to a candidate like Clinton who errs by making up stories out of whole cloth to make herself look stronger and more "presidential." Especially insofar as her lies actually will have the exact opposite effect should she somehow become the Democratic nominee.

Again, all of this is not to say Obama has not made mistakes, nor that Clinton would be a terrible president. But I honestly believe that Obama will be a much stronger candidate than Clinton.

Tom, I accept that you honestly believe that Obama hurt himself severely with his awkward but truthful statements in San Francisco. I also accept that you honestly believe that Hillary's attacks on Obama's so-called elitism are both warranted and necessary. I assume that you honestly believe that her transparent and ridiculous pandering to gun owners is politically savvy.

I honestly believe that you could not be more wrong.

[Judith]

gee slappy, were you awake during the runup to the 2004 election? Did any of it stick?

[Tom W.]

I wouldn't so much say warranted or necessary, as "fair." I mean, this is politics.

You know, Hillary wasn't in the pew with Barack listening to Wright for 20 years and she wasn't in the room in SF - she didn't gin up those controversies. Both were already raging before she waded in - and yeah, she's trying to sink Obama with his own words.

Let me tell you - he'd do the same damned thing.

Also, I probably need to clarify the "truth" of Obama's statements - I agree that economic hardship breeds prejudice against anyone who can be classified as "the other" - whether it's immigrants, black people, migrant Chinese in the old west, whatever. It's the worst of human nature, but it's there. I do not agree with Obama's overall statement lumping guns and religion in his laundry list with economic class/race distrust - that part was just stupid. I may not be a big fan of organized religions or liberal gun laws, but I don't think their popularity is limited to the kinds of economically disadvantaged Americans Obama stereotyped in San Francisco.

[Judith]

Tom - per Riverdaughter - yeah, ya gotta watch the generalizations a tad.

But what is relly freaky is that Obama fans think going around saying that what he said is true is somehow okay, but my calling him on it makes me a terrible person. Now that is inexperience and weakness showing, baby. The GOP is savage and brutal and if you cannot take ME! then you are in for a nasty shock. Personally, I dont think Clinton did Obama and his fans any favors by going easy on him. he/they have no idea what could hit them and they havent developed the muscle for it. They should have been in training to beat them - not other democrats. it is just so stupid ya gotta wonder.

[Judith]

ps Tom -

I generalize too and it is not good - when I say Obma supporters or fans I mean to refer to the ones I meet on the net and not the ones in person. One of the people I know in person is a young African american guy who is juts stellar - smart and going places and he told me to read Obama's books and made some very very good and smart comments. He has never bashed anyone and the idea that he bring down a woman to build up his guy would NEVER occur to him. Anyway, I used to be more careful but I have gotten sloopy and will be more careful not to lump all of them in to one pile.

Having said that my PS #2 is that I think it is so great that you are a consultant for philantropy - i have actually bought some of the susan kamen pink kitchen items for just the reason stated in the clip. They make really nice gifts, too. Good for you!!

[zeke]

Tom,

I think where we differ is that I really found little to object to in Wright's statements, despite the overheated delivery. Why should god, if he existed, bless America for condoning slavery, or throwing a disproportionate number of black men in jail, or perpetrating unnecessary and unwarranted wars? Why, in fact, wouldn't god, if she existed, DAMN America for such unchristian behavior? Makes sense to me, but I'm an atheist so what do I know. (One caveat - the AID's stuff was, I agree, over the top, but in a country where the Tuskegee Experiment is possible, Wright might be excused for being somewhat paranoid...)

Neither do I find much to object to in Obama's statements in SF, especially as clarified since. Obama wasn't saying that guns and religion are linked or limited to economic factors or social class, only that those who are predisposed to favor so-called gun rights and restrictions on abortions etc. are more likely to cast their votes based on those issues when they don't see a dime's worth of difference between the two parties on issues of economic justice. In other words, how can they be expected to vote in their own economic best interests when those interests have, in their view, not been served by either party.

Finally, while Hillary didn't instigate the idiotic "controversey" over Obama's comments, I don't see how you can deny that she has been vociferously (dare I say stridently - or is that now a sexist term?) "ginning it up" ever since.

[Judith]

oh dear. the obama fans just cant help but put stones in his pockets.

[Slappy]

Judith, what lesson from 2004 did I sleep through that tells me I should be attacking Obama and cheering Clinton?

[Judith]

I dont attack Obama so your question is formulated merely to antagonize me. When you want to ask me what I meant in a mannner that will persuage me to make an effort to repond then I will do so.

[Horselover Fat]

justus949...

check out correntewire and anglachel - good stuff there

[Slappy]

The sleep analogy was yours, not mine. I ask what about 2004 am I forgetting? Or maybe, what about 2004 compels you to bash Obama? Also, 2004 was your reference point. My original point was that I thought your bashing of Obama does no one of any good except McCain. In the manner you bash him I mean. I have no problem with hard campaigning but at a point you become your own worst enemy, ESPECIALLY when there is a very good chance Obama wins nomination. But you mention 2004. What am I missing?

I dont care who wins nomination but I do prefer Obama. But I wont cut off Clinton's nose to spite Obama's face. You know what I mean. I can argue my choice of Obama but trashing Clinton's character and such when she has a good shot at the nomination would be helping no one but the GOP. The only way McCain can win is if all the Obama and Clinton fanatics truly believe everything they say and live by their words. Im fairly confident they dont and wont and will vote Dem no matter what. And if thats the case for yourself, consider the taste of crow. It will either be a healthy serving of crow or a super-sized shit sandwich courtesy the GOP.

Im in a rush. sloppy but I hope I made my point.

[Judith]

No again, dear slappy. It was not the use of sleep, it was your use of the word "attack". And no dear Slappy, I dont know what you mean - only what you assume.

I want to win an election here and the dopey shit that your inexperienced choice says stinks of failure to me. That scares me for the hurting people in this country who need a leader who might actually like them and may end up with McCain.

[Judith]

and calling you dear slappy was not meant to be patronizing...but if it came across that way my regrets.

gonna make myself scarce here - I am not the story. Be back after the PA primary to either gloat or to be the recipient of heaps of scorn.

[helena]

Okay, so now does everybody finally GET why John Edwards could not in any conscience endorse the inexperienced and unvetted Obama??

God, for John Edwards right now--he'd mop both of them up.

[Slappy]

"...and the dopey shit that your inexperienced choice says stinks of failure to me." And the use of the word "attack" somehow offends you.

Its the inexperience of Obama that is part of his attraction.

And don't kid yourself. You're out to win a nomination, not the election. BIG difference. Obama is the odds on favorite at this point and you attack Obama with more enthusiasm than any Republican I know.

-----

And please. Obama misspoke. Big deal . They all misspeak. Its not the first time or the last for any candidate. The same argument would have Clinton sunk for her lies about whatever she got caught last bullshitting about. Grasping for any reason to defend your choice for prez. Nobody made more idiotic comments than Bush and he was was elected twice. Other than tearing apart the Dem. party over nonsense, its meaningless.

[Ralph DeMarco]

Um. Hillary calls Obama an elitist? That was a joke, right?

Hillary who went to Wellesley, Yale, whose husband was President, who was on board of directors at Walmart, now lives in Chappaqua. Funny joke.

Obama was raised by a single mother and went to college on student loans.

[Andre]

Obama's mother was unmarried for about 2 years or so of Obama's childhood and adolescence. Most of the time she was married.

[Judith]

Ralph - you need a dictionary. Look up the word and stop embarrassing yourself.

[Judith]

Tom - I thought Jon Stewart missed the point.

It is ok for New York media people to look down on small towns and call the people there any manner of terms. He and they have been doing it for years. I get it. But it is another thing for a candidate to pretend he wants to bowl and all that crap and suck up to PA and then reveal his contempt for those same people elsewhere (epsecially his "where"). I find that most people dont like being treated that way - the behind your back treatment.

It is also a pattern for him and for his supporters to label anyone who doesnt want to vote for him a "racist". His comments were in response to a question as to why certain people were voting for Clinton and not voting for him - answer, not becasue she has more experience and seems to get them and they rememmber the good times when Bill Clinton was in office, but because they are racists.

That is FUN TV for Jon - it basically writes its hillbilly self!

But it is just AWFUL politics.

[Judith]

ELITE: "A group or class of persons or a member of such a group or class, enjoying superior intellectual, social, or economic status."

Going to Harvard and/or making 4.2 million makes you part of the elite. That would be all the people running for office, pretty much.

Being an elitist means you think you deserve "favored treatment by virtue of your PERCEIVED superiority, as in intellect, social status, or financial resources "

That is why Clinton said Obama's comments were elitist - they smacked of thinking he was in a position to negatively judge people outside his favored status...not an attractive quality.

[Lambert Strether, Philadelphia, PA]

Tom:

Love your blog, but I think you're missing the point on this one. (We were saying this early, so I feel free to say it again.)

It's not the "bitter," it's the "cling to."

We were recently treated to a very long disquisition by Obama about the complex and nuanced relation he has with his pastor, and about the choices he made. I'm not saying the choice was wrong; I'm saying it was a choice. Obama, and those who listened to, applauded, and posted on his speech regarded him, and rightly so, as a moral agent.

Now, what "cling to" does is deny working people the complexity and nuance -- and yes, the moral agency -- that Obama, and his "creative class" [cough] supporters, are quite willing to award themselves. When you deny moral agency to people, you treat them as less than fully human.

"Cling to" is the very definition of elitism, which isn't about the possession of money and power, but about your attitude toward those who don't have what you have.

I remain outraged by Obama's statement, and that colors my view of the attempt by Obama's supporters like Kos to read me out of the party. Who do they think they are? As one caller to C-Span said [paraphrasing]: "He meant what he said and he said what he meant, in a roomful of people he was asking for money." Bingo. That was the real Obama. I've finally figured out that the reason he's not asking for my vote is that he doesn't want it.