"Snob-ama Is Not Just Out of Touch, He's From Another Planet"

This is how the Republicans are trying to define Barack Obama: Too Liberal, Too Out of Touch.

"I know what makes people there 'bitter.' It's slick-talking politicians who look down on their beliefs and values." Michael Goodwin wrote in Sunday's Daily News about his small town in Pennsylvania.

The well-circulated quotes from Huffington Post -- of Obama telling a closed, well-heeled fundraiser that people in small towns in Pennsylvania are bitter and cling to religion and guns out of frustration -- have created a dangerous firestorm.

This brouhaha exposes an existing political vulnerability -- the perception of an elitist Obama. He will be tagged as the Harvard-trained candidate of the young and educated. The Republicans managed to stick a similarly crippling perception on the candidacies of Michael Dukakis and John Kerry.

And the Democrats didn't stand a chance.

The Democrats have not lost elections because they are out of step with the white working class Catholic vote -- the key swing vote -- on economic or foreign policy issues... they have lost because of cultural issues -- "God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag."

And this is going to be a real problem for Barack Obama. Not so much in the nomination struggle, but in the general election.

"It's arrogance on steroids, fueled by a secular elitist view of Middle America as filled with ignorant red-necks," wrote Goodwin. Come November, the Republicans are going to cram this perception of Obama down the throats of voters.

Remember, the only Democrats who have been elected president since John Kennedy have been southern moderates.

There is nothing wrong with what Obama said. It's all true and very perceptive. It follows a Marxist economic view that religious faith is rooted in economic anxiety. Obama is not a Marxist. There is a lot of anger and bitterness in small town America today. But when you are running for President you can't say this kind of stuff.

A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth, as Michael Kinsley wrote in the Guardian 16 years ago. You can't be a coolly academic political sociologist. In the heat of battle, the last thing you can tell voters is the truth.

Voters, ravaged by economic upheaval, don't want to hear the truth.

Michigan primary voters didn't want John McCain telling them that their old manufacturing jobs are not coming back. So, instead, in January, they cast their votes for rival Mitt Romney, who offered them bromides.

America is coming into some rough economic times: you have to keep it simple.... Stupid!

The Republicans are going to seize these issues and whoever is the Democratic nominee is going to have to play along.

You can't tell the voters in Rust Belt America that you are not going to make everything all right ....like it was before.

If you are a politician, you have to promise them that you are going to bring back the factories and the high paying jobs. You have to tell them that you will build a wall on the Mexican border to keep out all those illegal immigrants who are taking their jobs..... even if it's not true.

And you have to promise to gut the free trade agreements like NAFTA. You don't dare mention that you really can't do this because the treaties are signed, and if you did Canada would stop sending us their oil and natural gas.

You don't tell them that if we closed our borders to all the foreign goods coming in from China, prices would skyrocket at Wal-Mart and the Chinese wouldn't buy our wheat and farm products and our farmers would go crazy.

You gotta keep it simple. Blame the immigrants, the Canadians, the Mexicans, the Chinese, Al Qaeda, Iran..... Blame anyone, blame everyone, but make sure that finger is pointing away from American soil.

Jimmy Carter made this mistake in his 1976 "Malaise" speech, in which he admonished American "self-indulgence and consumption." It proved to be a fatal blow to his presidency -- and he lost his reelection bid.

I have admired Obama's ability to talk in inspiring generalities about Hope and Change, without getting into specifics, but he seems to have stumbled this time.

It would be sheer folly to expect complete honesty from politicians during an election, much less during a nominating process.

You can't really be a good politician, or a good president, without being somewhat of a morally flawed human being. The too-good-for-this-world politicians -- George McGovern, Barry Goldwater, Adlai Stevenson, Michael Dukakis, Jimmy Carter -- have had an annoying habit of losing elections.

Americans know they need a president with a different skill-set: someone who will take care of them and their needs but is not too fastidious to do what it takes to win.

A Presidential candidate shouldn't have the same opinions and concerns during the primaries as he has in the general election ... or during governing -- that would be stupid.

Campaigning politicians are expected to charm and cajole relevant constituencies, to pander, to bob and weave, and to continually cobble together disparate interest groups. These are the skills - making political moves and having the capacity and courage for bold, persistent experimentation - an effective president will need.

Good presidents should have an agenda - a strategic vision, a fundamental core of beliefs, ideas, and a burning passion; but they should also be pragmatic, flexible, cunning and be able to demonstrate the capacity to grow and change.

This should be our modus operandi when picking a president. We should judge a candidate on what, we believe, he (or she) is really going to do when he (or she) becomes president, and not by whatever gibberish they have to spout to win the nomination.

We need to pick a president who is going to be able to deal artfully with a complicated, dangerous geopolitical situation. Someone who can forge a coalition of Arab states that will make it possible for the U.S. to get out of Iraq ...who can create an international climate that dries up anti-American terrorism...who can win over the Europeans and the Asians...who can preserve and restore American hegemony, without being a bully...and who can nimbly confront the coming economic maelstrom.

It doesn't really matter who opposed the Iraq war first. This has nothing to do with what we need for our future safety and prosperity. What matters is which candidate has the depth and dexterity to get us out of one of the stickiest and scariest situations America has ever faced. The maneuvering is going to take a deft and delicate hand.

These skills are, coincidentally, similar to the skills that it takes to get the nomination.

You have to win the nomination first, and do whatever it takes, then you can think about what kind of campaign you want to run in the general election, how you want to govern, and what you want to, and can, accomplish.

The history of the great presidents of yesteryear has shown that campaign themes/promises and subsequent governing often have little to do with one another.

Nor would we want them to.

All of our great presidents have shown -- for lack of a better phrase -- a great deal of "ideological malleability" and pragmatism.

Thomas Jefferson reviled public debt so much that in 1798 he proposed a constitutional amendment that would have prevented the federal government from borrowing. But in 1803, when presented with the opportunity to drastically increase the size of the United States by purchasing vast swaths of land known as the Louisiana Purchase, Jefferson quickly abandoned his fears about borrowing.

During the campaign of 1860, Abraham Lincoln persistently promised not to interfere with slavery in the Southern states. But when the Southern states declared their independence, Lincoln soon issued the Emancipation Proclamation, freeing slaves in states that had seceded from the Union.

Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1932 campaign was based on his pledge to cut taxes as a way to deal with the Great Depression. He did nothing of the sort of course. His opponent, Herbert Hoover, tagged him as a "chameleon in plaid," but FDR went on to become one of our greatest presidents by increasing taxes and spending.

In 1960, John F. Kennedy ran on a platform that shamelessly exploited fears that the U.S. had fallen grievously behind in the arms race against the Soviet Union-- the Phantom Missile Gap. We hadn't, of course, as later became obvious.

Lyndon B. Johnson pandered to his conservative southern roots during the 1960 election and yet, as president, he pushed through the most extensive civil rights reforms ever enacted.

The first rule in politics is: if you don't succeed in the short run, there will be no long run.

Somehow the voters knew, when these wannabe presidents were running, that they were tough enough, nimble enough, and artfully pragmatic enough to successfully negotiate some of the thorniest problems this country has ever faced: Slavery and Rebellion, the Great Depression, World War II, the threat from Communism, and the Civil Rights struggle.

Candidates with uncompromising ideals, who promise a new kind of politics, are very appealing. But ultimately, politicians who practice compromise and calculated obfuscation tend to be our most successful presidents. Had these great presidents clung steadfastly and bull-headedly to their campaign positions, our country would be far worse off.

Write: [e-mail]

Follow Blake Fleetwood on Twitter: www.twitter.com/Blakefleet

Comments

[Justtellthetruth]

My God. Blake, and I mean this with all due respect and sincerity, were you ever under the impression, even for a few seconds as you were typing this article, that you were in any way being clever?

Did you even for a moment believe that your ideas and "analysis" of Obama were anything but silly, transparent, vapid, morally compromised, and possibly even a sign of some sort of horrible post "realization that Hillary is an utterly sold out, desperate, unmitigated disaster" traumatic stress disorder on your part?

Certainly I hope that you don't interpret this as some sort of a personal attack, but rather only one of your Ideas as they are expressed here and the manner in which they seem to suggest an almost child like mendacity, utter lack of vision or principle, and possible mental illness on your part.

[Rule Of Law]

So, Blake, it is better to lie in defense of the truth? Or are you channeling Karl Rove now?

Get this--it's not a game. And the American people are tired of being lied to--for our "own good" or anyone elses. We're all grownups here--we can handle the truth.

[ndolomar]

Acting against our own self-interest is part and parcel for Americans. We eat foods we know will kill us; we smoke; we drink and drive; we knowingly vote for politicians who systematically have reduced our security, increased our debt and made it tougher to get by. However, the rub is, the same people who complain we need to change this world for the better are the first ones who rebuke a candidate who uncharacteristically is speaking the truth -- not some skillful soundbyte that makes people feel warm and fuzzy inside.
While using the Waco, Texas, tragedy may not be the best, it does parallel this whole "bitter" nonsense: Extremely devout Christians will tell you they're awaiting the second coming of Jesus Christ; yet, those same people will denounce anyone who comes along and says he's the Second Coming. When seen through a political perspective, this means most people will complain about their stratified economy and out-of-touch government that doesn't understand how they really feel -- and when the politician of their "dreams" does come along and not mince words, and not placate, but says point-blank what that feeling truly is -- well...those same people deride him or her (Kucinich, anyone?).
What do you people really want? Is it easier just to complain and reject those people who truly wish to help: Kucinich, Obama, Edwards? Let's not cast our votes to spite our country any more.

[Singha]

I saw that movie, "Brother from another Planet".........didn't scare me like it appears it scared you.

What scares me, is the third war with Iran.

[grendl]

Yeah, whats with references to another planet . Does he mean neighborhood? Or maybe continent.

The Monsters are Due on Maple Street Mr. Fleetwood.

Or maybe they're already there.

[altohone]

Is anybody else looking forward to dealing directly with the GOP instead of their lite stand-ins?


The list of writers who are making themselves irrelevant for the general election is growing longer.

Hillary should have kept Bill off the campaign trail, and Democrats should consider seriously whether we should embrace the support of those intent on damaging our likely candidate.

I'd prefer logical fact-abiding supporters making the case for us.
The name-calling spinners have earned a long vacation (unpaid), just as we have earned a vacation from them.

[TinaFreeman]

Mr. Fleetwood, I don't think the American people are prepared to be duped again. We're not that stupid.

NOT THIS TIME.

Obama 08

[IsaacKuo]

You Hilary Clinton supporters really don't get it, do you? "Elitist-gate" is a disaster for Hillary of her own making. It's impossible for Hillary or her supporters to say the words "elitist" or "snobbish" without hurting Hillary's candidacy. Like it or not, Hillary is seen as cold, elitist, and snobbish. She'll never have that down-to-earth appeal with ordinary folk that her husband did. The more you guys say "elitist" or "snobbish", the more you remind voters why they don't like Hillary.

There was a small window, after Hillary's first loss to Obama, when she showed a moment of authenticity and warm humanity. She could have turned public perception of her had she embraced that candidness instead of returning to her practiced ways. Oh well, it's too late now. Far too late.

There really shouldn't be anything wrong with a smart person for President, even if he or she isn't the warmest personality in the room. Al Gore won the popular vote, after all. Who knows? Maybe even Hillary could have won despite being smart and cold. But not if she and her supporters try to point it out like it's a bad thing in others. It not only sounds stupid, but hypocritical.

[Gma11]

You can't fool ALL of the people ALL of the time . . .

[larry278]

Has anybody told her Hillaryship that there isn't a light version of elitism? Being a US Senator, wife of a former gov & POTUS & a number of Hillary Rodham Clintion's accomplishments, being born to & raised by a rich family place her among America's elite. HRC also has elitist attitudes. She shouldn't be surprised is somebody has collected & cataloged her elitist statments & circulates them. The same thing goes for recordings of her elitist statements. We will soon hear & see plenty of sound bites making elitist statements in Pa, NC & In.
In the event Sen Clinton has a photo op of her carrying a gun, hunting or engaging in shooting sports, check out her gun; it will be a high priced, well cared for by a gun bearer, premium quality fire harm. Check out her hunting clothes; don't be surprised to seeing her in custom made Orvis boots, well tailored & spotless Orvis or other top quality hunting clothes. Check out the site of HRC's hunting photo op; it will be at a private game farm or game preserve which caters to the wealthy elite with well fed game that are easy to shoot, guides, gun bearers, field butchering by experts, packing the well cleaned game in dry ice, delivery of the game to a site selected by HRC. She is one of America's elite DLC types.
If I weren't choking & vomiting in disgust when the faux-country girl puts Barack down as a prissy elitist,

[bmora]

Republicans win because of good, or bad depending on how you look at it, marketing. Nothing more nothing less.

[yourekiddingright2008]

Well done... that's just about the most well crafted essay on why obama can't win in the fall that I've seen to date. The republican political dirty trickster's plan to destroy the democrats and their nominee has succeeded better than any of them could have imagined. Nurture the anti-Hillary candidate in the early stages of the process, all the while publicly declaring their ultimate wish and desire of facing off against her in the general election so that the left-wing crazies and bloggers, like lemmings pouring over the edge of the electoral chasm and their political doom, can point to them and fuel their orgiastic and suicidal bent. "See....", they say... "The republicans will feast on her carcass in the fall!". "It's Barrack, they fear!" Hasn't anyone here read the Uncle Remus story of Br'er Rabbit and the Briar Patch? It's Hilary that they don't want to face.... Say what you will about her, the people who believe in her will believe in her no matter what ANYONE says about her..... and, incidently, they're the same people who live in the states that Barrack just dismissed as "bitter"...( ouch! that's going to leave a nasty mark.).... you know, the ones that will turn the election this November. Well done, Karl et al.

[Countess]

You would prefer a right wing neocon opportunistic idiot like Hillary Clinton I suppose and then you will feel good knowing you would have two pigs wrestling in the mud in november.

[genmalia]

What I'm getting out of this post is that Americans will vote against their own best interestes.

"Candidates with uncompromising ideals, who promise a new kind of politics, are very appealing. But ultimately, politicians who practice compromise and calculated obfuscation tend to be our most successful presidents."

Faulting Obama for telling the truth, or more accurately reflecting the views conveyed to him by the hundreds (thousands?) of people he's spoken with over the last year is why our country is worse off today. I would HOPE (there is that pesky word again) that Americans will realize that calculating politicians who will tell voters what they want to hear despite their past history are not the ones who will ultimately transform this country towards her great potential.

[LeftRight]

Mr. Fleetwood,

I've asked the same question for a while now, and I haven't gotten an answer. Perhaps YOU can answer me! Why do Senator Clinton's supporters keep feeling the need to insult Senator Obama or his supporters? I don't see very many Obama supporters come out and insult the intelligence of Hillary, or of those who will vote for her. By contrast, I'm always seeing Hillary supporters come out and say things like, "Obamabots," or "Saint Obama," or "Obama's disciples," or now "Snob-ama." And yet, I haven't seen a single one of those slurs directed at Hillary!

[yourekiddingright2008]

"I don't see very many Obama supporters come out and insult the intelligence of Hillary, or of those who will vote for her'.... you're kidding, right?

[LeftRight]

no, I'm not kidding. I see stuff like this all the time, and I never really see the opposite. I do admit that it happens, but almost all of the times that I've seen it happen, it's in direct response to a Hillary supporter who had come out with something like this first!

[BlackJAC]

Gotta love the new bigotry against those who champion excellence rather than mediocrity. If your parents could afford to send you to private school without resorting to a school voucher, then you're an elitist and therefore must sit in the back of the bus. If you attended a college whose name didn't fit the pattern of "University of [state]-[town within said state]," then you're an elitist and therefore must sit in the back of the bus. If you've ever been inside a country club or yacht club without being one of its employees, even as a guest, then you're an elitist and therefore must sit in the back of the bus. If you grew up in a suburban town rather than unincorporated farm country, then you're an elitist and therefore must sit in the back of the bus. If you know how to operate a sailboat, then you're an elitist and therefore must sit in the back of the bus.

Thomas Jefferson once spoke of a natural aristocracy, one built upon virtue and intellect rather than inherited wealth. If he had done so today, he'd be drawn & quartered by the mob for being an elitist snob.

[anon004]

Here, Here!