Soccer Dad

Painting?

The Washington Post reports, Opponents paint Obama as Elitist:

Obama's comments came at the end of a lengthy answer in which he rejected the notion that voters were passing him over simply for racial reasons, saying instead that his campaign of hope and change was having difficulty in "places where people feel most cynical about government."

"Everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class . . . don't want to vote for the black guy,' " Obama said at the fundraiser.

"Here's how it is: In a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long. They feel so betrayed by government that when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama, then that adds another layer of skepticism."

In an effort to minimize the effects of Sen. Obama's "bitter" comments, the Post presents the context of his remarks. Reading this, it's very clear that this is a very skilled attempt at political jujitsu. He's implicitly striking out at both Republicans and Bill Clinton (and by association, Hillary Clinton) and blaming them for the economic problems he intends to address.

Up front though, the Post reported those remarks: In remarks first reported on the Huffington Post Web site, Obama said,

"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 25 years and nothing's replaced them.

"And they fell through the Clinton administration and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not," he went on. "And it's not surprising, then, 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."

Here the criticism of previous administrations becomes explicit, but then he changes his tone with "...it's not surprising..." Those three words are words of condescension, not sympathy.

Willam Kristol eventually gets to the point and describes this as Sen. Obama's mask slipping:

What does this mean for Obama’s presidential prospects? He’s disdainful of small-town America — one might say, of bourgeois America. He’s usually good at disguising this. But in San Francisco the mask slipped. And it’s not so easy to get elected by a citizenry you patronize.

And what are the grounds for his supercilious disdain? If he were a war hero, if he had a career of remarkable civic achievement or public service — then he could perhaps be excused an unattractive but in a sense understandable hauteur. But what has Barack Obama accomplished that entitles him to look down on his fellow Americans

Former speech writer John Podhoretz describes the failure like this:

A campaign that believes its role is to “require you to work,” and is partially based on the demand “that you push yourselves to be better,” really does have it backwards. It’s the president who is “required to work,” who needs to “push himself to be better.” His role is not to analyze and address the shortcomings of the voter and the voter’s spiritual, political and ideological weaknesses, which is what Obama’s remark the other day portends. His role is to represent the voter. This is a crucial distinction, and if Obama is unable to make it, he will not become the president.

Meanwhile the Politico puts words in the Clintons' mouths:

Rip off the duct tape and here is what they would say: Obama has serious problems with Jewish voters (goodbye Florida), working-class whites (goodbye Ohio) and Hispanics (goodbye, New Mexico).

(via memeorandum, Instapundit)

From my perspective, this is entirely too glib. I don't believe that the Democrats will lose the Jewish vote in November. There's too much of an effort to boost Sen. Obama in the Jewish community. I don't buy it, but there are many who do. (Besides, I don't think that the Democrats would win Florida anyway.)

But read the whole article. Later on it argues referring to VP Gore and Sen. Kerry:

Both men lost control of their public images to the right-wing freak show — that network of operatives and commentators working mostly outside of the mainstream media — and ultimately lost their elections as many voters came to see them as elitist, out-of-touch, phony, and even unpatriotic.

Obama is a much less familiar figure than Kerry or Gore, with a life story that is far more exotic, who is coming out of a political milieu in Chicago politics that is far more liberal.

The freak show has already signaled its early lines of attack on Obama. Polls show a significant percentage of Americans believe — falsely — that he is a Muslim. Voter interviews reveal widespread unease with minor and seemingly irrelevant questions like why he does not favor American flag pins on his lapel. Nor have we heard the last about Wright and his fulminations.

This is like the "painting" metaphor in the Washington Post headline. Gore's and kerry's failures have little to do with how they were painted. It had to do that their public images matched the perception. The paint wouldn't have stuck if hadn't been appropriate. (And those who criticized George W. Bush didn't have success portraying him as stupid? An unfair label, no doubt. But it stuck because of his sometimes awkward way of expressing himself.)

Powerline takes strong issue with this to score some partisan points:

Now, VandeHei and Harris want to declare voters' concerns about Obama out of bounds by associating them with the "right wing freak show." In fact, however, it is entirely legitimate to wonder whether a candidate whose spiritual mentor says "God damn America," and who was himself drawn to that mentor when he heard him blame the world's problems on "white men's greed," is the kind of person who should be elected President. And let's not start throwing stones about "downright fiction." The "right wing freak show" hasn't fabricated any charges against Obama. The fabrications, so far, have all come from the liberal ("mainstream") media, like the New York Times, and Democratic politicians, like Jay Rockefeller and Howard Dean, just as they did in 2004.

If there is a "freak show" on the fringes of American politics, it can be found on the Left, at fever swamps like the Daily Kos and Democratic Underground that specialize in conspiracy theories and hate. It's interesting, though, to find out how former mainstream reporters--Harris and VandeHei formerly wrote for the Washington Post--feel about those who have broken the liberal monopoly on the news.

Just One Minute though, takes things tongue in cheek:

That said, their point - that if the Evil Republicans could turn Al Gore and John Kerry into effete strangers, Barack will become a space alien - is indisputable. Of course, as with Kerry, the effort to depict Obama as an out-of-touch urban lib will be like pushing water downhill; it is so much easier when reality is on your side. In a nut shell, the Dems have six more months of trying to stay in costume at the masquerade ball; Republicans have six more months to strip away Obama's mask. Who ya gonna bet on?

Again, if the characterization didn't match the candidate it wouldn't stick. The issues and idiosyncrasies are there, it is the opponents who frame them once the paint is dry.

More at memeorandum here and here.

barack obama.