Barack Obama the Elitist: Another Debate on Words

The title of my blog, Vote and Wait, has indeed been the theme for the Democratic nomination process. Since the last primary on March 11th in Mississippi, Democrats across the country have been waiting patiently for Pennsylvania's primary election set to take place on April 22nd. Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (pictured on the right) unfortunately have not enjoyed a vacation from primaries and instead have capitalized on the time to campaign aggressively in Pennsylvania and Indiana. Tensions are escalating between supporters of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, and Pennsylvania promises to bring the candidates more delegates, either closing the gap or widening the margins. Thus, media coverage on Pennsylvania has been intense and in-depth in the past few weeks. The most recent controversy took place on April 6th when Senator Obama spoke to San Francisco donors on the situation in Pennsylvania. The Huffington Post has a thorough article on what transpired. Obama said, “So it's not surprising then that [Pennsylvanians] 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." Amidst a climate where campaign staffers resign for minor slip-ups in speeches, his comments have sparked huge dispute and responses to his comment have dominated just as many headlines. A spokesman from Senator John McCain’s campaign responded first, commenting that, "It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking. It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans." Senator Clinton followed shortly after briefly commenting on his words, and has throughout the week continued to question his comments. Upon searching the blogosphere, I have found two positions on the issue, both with astoundingly firm, strong, and contrasting opinions. The first entry comes from Alan Stewart Carl from the blog Donklephant, who paints Barack Obama as an "elitist liberal". The second comes from the Huffington Post and John Farr defends Obama and disparages the attacks on him. Subtracting the emotional hyperbole from both sides of the conflict help to put the situation in perspective and I have attempted to encourage a more objective debate. For your convenience, the links to the comments and the full text are pasted below.

Post:

First of all, I want to thank you for providing a distinct, unusual perspective on this issue. Too many blogs covering the “elitist” issue are taking a similar stance, defending Senator Barack Obama’s comments with little or no sound justification. These blogs do little to hide their unwavering allegiance to one candidate, and blind hatred of another.

Barack Obama is considered a highly skilled rhetor and like you pointed out, it is a rare event when he errs in his words. Especially in unscripted segments, the blunders are scrutinized for their implications; are they indicative of his “true feelings” or a simple misstep? Also, given that he was addressing urbane, wealthy donors in San Francisco, rural Pennsylvanians could find the words very offensive. I appreciated your focus on the word “cling”, which I agree has negative and even condescending implications; it struck me immediately when I first read his comments.

I have to disagree with you however that these comments exemplify even a reach for the “elitist liberal ideology". It seems more as if you have framed the events to fit into the label than attempted to accurately characterize the words. The full transcript and audio of the speech have been made available online, and they distinctively show compassion and concern for Pennsylvanians rather than a snobbish attitude. I believe adding the word “liberal” diminishes your argument. Barack Obama’s comments merit analysis especially as they are offensive, but declaring liberal elitism after two sentences is hard to justify. Obama’s campaign is famous for raising large amounts of money from small donors, and rural Democrats are a definite part of his support base; I find no strong argument that his tendency is as a liberal elitist.

At the same time, however, we agree that the comments warrant media coverage and examination. The same bloggers I mentioned earlier who will become apologists for candidates automatically brush-off the comments as irrelevant. Regardless, the comments have been made the focus of the public and therefore need to be addressed. Thank you again for providing a unique, relevant, and strong opinion on the topic.

Second post:

I want to begin by thanking you for a comprehensive, coherent post on the current media frenzy over Senator Barack Obama’s words in San Francisco last Sunday. The blogosphere is a place for people to offer alternative perspectives to campaigns and the media; your post is definitely a unique take on the issue.

I appreciated your analysis of the three main parts of Obama’s words: faith and politics, gun control, and race and diversity. After watching the entire speech, not the controversial segment out of context, it is clear that Sen. Obama was not speaking out of a hatred for rural persons.

However, your argument as a whole could have been enhanced if it were not so one-sided. Throughout your post, I was dismayed by your focus on disparaging Senator Hillary Clinton. You first argued that her $100 million dollar estate and history of courting the American render her a hypocrite for calling Obama an elitist. Obama himself has courted elite; large donors have been essential for both candidates in securing enough funds to win the nomination. Both candidates have also experienced record numbers of small donors.

I do not think Senator Clinton is hypocritical for responding to another candidate’s comments, especially when these are controversial and have become salient through the viral power of the American media. Every move in politics is opportunistic and Clinton is neither a hypocrite, nor an opportunist for addressing the comments. Sen. Obama has chosen, in fact, to partake in a rebuttal, refuting her criticisms and responding to McCain’s as well.

While I completely agree that the real focus should always be the issues, Obama has taken part in this fiery argument just as much as the other candidates. Your unabashed support for Barack Obama actually diminishes some of your arguments; at one point, you say he is “America’s savior” and it seems as if you are letting him off too easily for his comments. He has not been all positive politics and his comments were indeed offensive to some rural Pennsylvanians.

Essentially though, the core of your argument is sound and I concur with several points. When two or three lines in a speech dominate media coverage, it hurts the chance of substantive, relevant debate. Despite some flaws in your argument, I thank you again for a thought-provoking, well-written post on the subject.

Hillary Clinton Drop Out: Who Would it Help?

Calls for Senator Hillary Clinton to drop her bid for the Democratic nomination have re-surfaced. Earlier in the primary season, Senator Barack Obama's consecutive victories prompted pundits to suggest Clinton should exit the race; however, wins in delegate-rich Ohio and Texas rejuvenated her momentum. The remaining contests for Democrats will be held in Pennsylvania, Indiana, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Oregon with the last primaries in South Dakota and Montana taking place on June 3rd. Few remaining elections coupled with Obama's lead in delegate counts have rousted the political elite to once again justify pushes for Hillary Clinton's departure. If Clinton opts to stay, the process will undoubtedly continue to the Democratic National Convention on August 25th, where superdelegates will give one nominee the final push into candidacy. The concern is that the extended calendar will hurt Democrats in the national election, giving Senator John McCain a great advantage on November 4th. It is true that every action has consequences in this campaign and a long primary for the Democrats obviously has implications for voters, candidates, the party, and of course the general election. At the same time, the extended primary season is not necessarily completely detrimental. Despite the negative repercussions stemming from the delayed nomination, Clinton is legitimately vying for the remaining delegates with some unexpectedly positive implications for Democrats.

The controversy began last week when Senator Patrick Leahy (pictured on the left) of Vermont, who has endorsed Obama, announced on public radio with conviction that Clinton's win was a near impossibility. Mathematically, at least, Leahy was incorrect. Obama leads Clinton in delegates 1,414 to 1,286, respectively, but this advantage is not sufficient to secure the nomination. 2,025 is the golden number, and another way of looking at the situation is that Obama still needs 611 delegates, and Clinton needs 749; the fight for delegates is far from over. In an earlier post, I explained the great voting power of 796 superdelegates. As of now, some are already committed, others are changing their minds, and more are not planning on deciding anytime soon. The prospect of conducting new elections may be diminishing, but the question of delegates from Florida and Michigan still remains up in the air, with prospects of appeals and even vote splits still on the table. From a quantitative perspective, neither candidate can legitimately push the other out.

Barack Obama's backers may argue that Clinton is hurting the Democratic party. After all, Senator John McCain has already sealed the Republican nomination and has begun to air ads for the general election. He also has the ability to utilize this time to build himself up positively, without any attacks from Republicans and few from Democratic competitors. Notwithstanding, this is not smooth sailing for McCain. Although his early campaigning gives him somewhat of a head start, the Democrats are also reaping benefits from conducting a full 50-state (save Florida and Michigan) campaign; voters are hearing the messages of Obama and Clinton, which in turn is effectively activating Democrats across the country. The Democratic race is also dominating media coverage and public interest is high, so McCain must struggle to make competitive headlines. Both candidates have not been shy to criticize McCain, as they are attempting to prove they will fare well against him in the general election. Essentially, when the occasion arises, McCain must attack and defend himself from two contenders, the Democratic party, and interest groups.

Pressure is also being transferred to the Democratic National Committee (DNC), who is increasingly being called on to solve problems. Perhaps most publicly, chairman Howard Dean has been asked to solve the Florida and Michigan delegate problems. In response to the long primary, he has taken a more neutral stance, calling on superdelegates to make their decisions quickly in order to secure a nominee by July. The DNC's primary responsibility to get a Democrat in the White House is understandably difficult when a candidate has not been elected. It seems somewhat contradictory, though, to discourage the long primary season and system that the DNC created and approved. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are simply a rare case where two candidates test the entire primary from early start to late finish at the DNC convention in August; this has not happened since Gary Hart and Walter Mondale had an extraordinarily close election in 1984.

Democratic voters are understandably anxious and new polling data suggests that supporters of both candidates will be extremely unsatisfied if their candidate is not elected, and as a result may vote for John McCain in the general election. I see the argument that if Hillary leaves, Barack will have more time to court her followers (one is pictured on the right). In spite of that, I find it more likely that her supporters would be willing to concede a loss if the entire process were allowed to manifest. The poll found that 41% of Obama voters would be upset if Clinton won the nomination, while conversely 51% would be upset if Obama won the nomination. The Democratic party could be noticeably hurt, if Clinton prematurely removes herself and subsequently, her supporters switch their party allegiance.

In pressuring Clinton to quit, Obama supporters have suggested that the choice is hers alone. Leahy said, "There is no way that Senator Clinton is going to win enough delegates [...] She ought to withdraw and she ought to be backing Senator Obama. Now, obviously that’s a decision that only she can make.” By describing a climate where Clinton has a very slim chance of winning and suggesting that she make a sacrifice for the country, they subtly position her as an ambitious politician and hopeless candidate. Thus far, Barack Obama has won 13,568,526 votes, while Hillary Clinton has won 13,464,305 across the country. Obama's numbers are clearly higher but not by much. I find that these numbers make a strong case for Clinton with thirteen million Americans standing by her campaign. Indeed, Hillary has affirmed she will not withdraw, and has even used the criticism to her advantage. Thus, while elections do not always pan-out in a way that is advantageous to personal interests, affirmation of one candidate should not deny others' affirmation of their candidates. A recent blog post in the Daily Kos has rationed that Clinton should exit because states like Kentucky and West Virginia are too racist to pick the right candidate. Comments like these are more divisive and dangerous for Democrats than an extended primary season. In this heated contest especially, the election must chart its course and schemes to end the race early is not the solution.