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.
