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.

Just Words: Did Barack Obama Plagiarize Governor Deval Patrick's Speech?

The fight for the Democratic nomination has reached its pinnacle of intensity and correspondingly, the mudslinging between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton (shown on the same stage to the left) has reached its height. When these attacks take place in a controlled forum such as a national televised debate, it’s easy for interested Americans to extract the arguments directly from the candidates in real time. At this stage relatively late in the primary season, however, mudslinging comes in the form of staggered headlines, as candidates make accusations in speeches, campaigns respond in press releases, and rebuttals are only are only directed at one crowd in one state. In these cases, we must be able to extract reliable information from second-hand sources in order to draw our own conclusions about these arguments and to separate fact from spin.

Today, Hillary Clinton likened a segment of Barack Obama’s speech delivered on Sunday in Wisconsin to one delivered in 2006 by Gov. Deval Patrick (shown with Barack Obama on the right) to a crowd in Massachusetts; a video has surfaced on Youtube with a side-by-side comparison of the speeches. The similarities between the two segments are unmistakable, and both sides agree that indeed Obama used Patrick's words and ideas; however, while the Hillary Clinton camp has cried plagiarism, Obama maintains that he simply borrowed the words with the Governor's consent. An attempt to make sense of the situation led me to the blogosphere, which has erupted with editorials on the subject. I have found two particularly persuasive posts, each with a unique perspective on the argument. Although the posts are in contention, I found valuable points on each which I have provided my own insight. The first post by Sylvia Welsh for The Huffington Post stresses the salience of this revelation and the implications on Barack Obama's character. The second post written by Sean Hackbarth on his blog The American Mind dismisses the plagiarism accusations with technical interpretations of the term. I have provided a link to my comments on both posts, and for your convenience I have also pasted them below.

Desperate Clinton Accuses Obama Of Plagiarism
Comment:

Thank you for your very informative and engaging post on the plagiarism battle currently ensuing between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. It is so important that we closely analyze accusations by candidates and your insight has built a powerful case against the use of ‘plagiarism’ in this context. I wholeheartedly agree that context is an vital component of this discussion and that plagiarism is a politically charged word that does not accurately characterize the use of Governor Deval Patrick’s words and ideas in Sen. Obama’s recent speech. Consent is a big player in plagiarism and Gov. Patrick has confirmed he did authorize the use of his words by his friend Sen. Obama. At the same time, I think ‘sharing’ is too weak of a word for what took place. At best, Obama was a very irresponsible sharer, not even hinting that part of his speech was borrowed, even from a consenting friend. I know that as a university student, if I had transcribed and used that segment of Obama’s speech in a paper, I would be very alarmed if I found later that these words were not his own.

Along this same line, ‘desperation’ fails to accurately characterize the accusations made public by the Clinton campaign. It is true that the stakes are very high and the climate is very hostile; Barack Obama has carried nine consecutive states thus far and Hillary Clinton desperately needs a win to build momentum in her campaign. Nevertheless, I think pointing out Sen. Obama’s use of Gov. Patrick’s words was not simply a petty, political attack. Personally, the ‘exposition’ of Barack Obama did not drastically alter my assessment of his character. I did, however, appreciate learning information—presumably discovered by a sophisticated opposition research team—-that I would have been unable to otherwise find; Gov. Patrick made his speech over one year ago in Massachusetts and Sen. Obama made his speech to a crowd in Wisconsin—-two places I have not been.

Overall though, in assessing this battle over words, your quote from Governor Patrick was the most consequential, “The point is more important than whose argument it is.” Despite my feelings that this event is worth at least some of the headlines it’s receiving, I do not believe that this should take away from the Senator Obama’s ability to invigorate and activate crowds with his speeches or be used as a cheap tool to chip away at his character.

Barack Obama And Why It Matters That He Plagiarized A Speech (At Least One That We Know Of)
Comment:

I want to thank you first on providing a valuable, distinctive perspective on Barack Obama’s recent trouble with plagiarism. I too believe that the media downplay of the incident is unfortunate and that Barack Obama’s misstep has some relevant implications in the campaign for the presidential nomination. I particularly liked that you isolated the event to focus on Barack Obama’s actions without getting your point diminished as being part of an empty, pro-Hillary Clinton and anti-Barack Obama mudslinging war.

You used children in your examples, but given the record numbers of young people participating in the campaign, I felt a discussion of college students in particular should be included. I have personally weighed the significance of Barack Obama’s uncredited ‘borrowing’ of Governor Deval Patrick’s speech. I know that if I had, say, transcribed part of Obama’s speech for use in a paper, I would have been shocked to learn that I had mistakenly credited the Senator with writing words that were only lent to him. As academic integrity is a major part of most university student's scholarly careers and we are taught from day one to always cite the words of others, I would be confused by the mixed message sent by Obama, who has hardly accepted responsibility for his failure to credit Gov. Patrick. After all, Obama could have easily -- especially since he had permission -- made a quick nod at Gov. Patrick without diminishing the value of his words.

I do however disagree with you about the potential of Barack Obama to be a role model in light of this event. While I agree that character is an important consideration of a candidate and this event opens up more questions about Barack Obama’s character, I don’t think it should tell the whole story. First, we know through history that our best presidents have not always upheld high moral standards and that excellent characters don’t guarantee excellent presidents. Furthermore, I don’t think Barack Obama’s failure to cite Gov. Patrick renders him indecent and unethical. Obama has written several inspiring, influential speeches which have energized people of all ages. He should be praised for these endeavors and as a response to concerned Americans like you, he should amend his actions in future speeches.

Superdelegates: How 796 People Will Vote For Millions

One year ago, CNN senior political analyst Bill Schneider forecasted that Super Tuesday would decide the nominees for the 2008 presidential election. For Republicans, this is somewhat true. Governor Mitt Romney's departure (pictured on the left) after a poor performance on Super Tuesday effectively narrowed the field of candidates to two. Though Mike Huckabee remains in the race, John McCain leads overwhelmingly in delegate counts and is on track to become the party's nominee. In the Democratic race, twenty-two states and one U.S. territory made their way to the polls, with 1,681 of the 2,025 delegates needed to secure the nomination at stake. The results of Super Tuesday were much less decisive for Democrats, showing a relatively even split of support for Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Chris Cillizza of The Fix points out that both the Clinton and Obama camps have released statements manipulating the data to highlight their triumphs and build momentum for the fast-approaching primaries in other states. Though Obama carried some of this through to Saturday, winning in Louisiana, Nebraska, and Washington, the race is still up the air. As The Caucus reports, Obama and Clinton moved right along to Maine to court voters for Sunday's caucus with thirty delegates at stake; Obama won thirteen of the delegates while Clinton won nine. The battle will continue into Tuesday when the two candidates will battle for delegates in Washington D.C., Virginia, and Maryland.

Because Super Tuesday did not secure a nominee or force one contender to quit, it has shaped the primary into an extraordinarily democratic one, effectively mobilizing the nation in unprecedented ways. Whereas in past years the nominee could be named before some states even conducted primaries or caucuses, earning the nomination in a tight race such as this requires candidates to spend time actively campaigning across the country, reaching out to geographically diverse voters. Staggered primary elections afford candidates time to build up the massive funds and resources required to campaign heavily in each state and ultimately win. Every delegate has become crucial for victory, and campaigns have literally fashioned a mathematical equation for victory. The repercussions have been resoundingly positive; thus far, records have been broken for voter turnout in several states. In the immediate aftermath of Super Tuesday, the fund raising arms race between Clinton and Obama has inspired hundreds of thousands of small-donors to contribute. According to Hillary Clinton's website, between Tuesday and Friday night, Clinton raised $10 million from over 100,000 donors largely through online contributions. Additional debates are also scheduled to take place this month, further engaging, informing, and involving voters. Successful mobilization is undeniable. However, despite the numerous strides for democratic elections in the 2008 primaries, superdelegates threaten to render the 2008 Democratic nomination unfair and undemocratic.

If neither Senator Clinton, nor Senator Obama acquires 2,025 delegates by June 3rd, when South Dakota and Montana hold the final primaries, then the nomination will have to wait until the Democratic National Convention. At the convention, held on August 25th held in Denver, Colorado, 796 unpledged delegates from 50 states and U.S. territories will give one candidate the final push into securing the nomination. While pledged delegates represent the votes of millions of Americans, unpledged or superdelegates are unrestricted in how they decide to cast their vote. California, for example, will send 441 pledged delegates to represent the votes of 8.9 million people while 796 unpledged delegates will represent only themselves. Of the entire delegation, representing millions of votes cast in all states and territories, these unpledged delegates will make up an astounding 20% of all votes.

Some people might argue for the super moral character, super representational abilities or super judgment of these superdelegates. After all, they are Democratic governors, members of Congress, Democratic National Committee members, former presidents and vice-presidents, and other prominent party members. The problem is that they have no contractual obligations or guidelines for voting. Courting by quid pro quo arrangements with candidates is perfectly legal. In addition, these superdelegates may have strong personal ties to the candidates -- Bill Clinton is a superdelegate, shown on the right campaigning for Hillary Clinton -- and nothing in the DNC's rules addresses this issue. Even voting in an objective way is difficult. Should these candidates, as Barack Obama suggests, vote based upon their state and constituents' sentiments? Or, should they vote as Hillary Clinton argues just with their conscience? Either way, these 796 delegates could not possibly represent the millions of voters across the country. Especially in states like Utah with few Democratic elected officials, even if superdelegates voted with their constituencies, voters would be drastically underrepresented. And if we rely on the sound judgment of the superdelegates, we are still in essence privileging 796 insiders to make a decision for the entire nation. Some endorsements have already been publicly announced -- you can decide whether your state's superdelegates are representative of your vote -- and delegate projections from AP shows the impact of their inclusion in the delegate counts. Superdelegates are not bound to these endorsements and can reverse them at their whims. For unbound delegates who still remain unclaimed and unsolicited, campaigns have fashioned sophisticated plans to court and woo them with tactics such as highly persuasive phone calls from high-profile Democrats and close friends.

Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama may end up picking up enough delegates to secure the nomination before June, and superdelegates may not end up playing a significant role in the outcome. Democrats should nevertheless turn their attention to this system, which is chipping away at the value of votes in our democracy. Concerned Democrats should urge the Democratic National Committee to revise this backward system of unpledged delegates, or at the very least, impose restrictions on their impact in the nomination. It may be too late to salvage 2008 for voters, but with enough support, we may be able to prevent party insiders from taking the elections out of our hands in the future.