I apologize in advance for the preachy, soapbox tone of this post. If there are flaws in this post, please understand that it was composed hastily and that the thrust of the argument I will make could be made much better.
It seems that lately a narrative has emerged among the (relative) elite that they themselves are the compassionate ones. Educated and wealthy, "high information voters" as well as the "liberal media" is supposedly above such things as ignorance, or racism (but not sexism). Those things are the province of the 'white working class', the West Virginia hick.
What the elites do not understand is how their view is influenced by the culture they come from. Obama didn't lose West Virginia by 41 points because of racism. They equate West Virginia 2008 with Mississippi 1956 (and by implication, themselves in the role of the Warren Court) and do not see how this insinuation could possibly be insulting. They call Clinton supporters 'low-information voters' when what they really mean is 'low-infotainment voters' (too low infotainment to see that Obama is the 'cool' one), and do not see how that could possibly be insulting or that they would ever be called on it.
They created Lou Dobbs to pander to nativists and all the scare stories about immigration and foreign buyouts/imports without a shadow of remorse. Yet they separate themselves from it, considering themselves 'superior' even while they pander to it. Dailykos goes berzerk over supposed racial slights to Obama but when a wave of anti-immigrant nativism was sweeping the country in 2006, the Kos position was 'it's not a big issue for us'.
While some of West Virginia was due to racism, most of it was due to the fact that his speeches are clouds in the sky that voters are supposed to believe despite his complete lack of experience and record of accomplishment or courage. He may have 'Obamapalooza', as my radio DJ referred to Obama's Nissan pavilion rally, but what did Obamapalooza do except create a traffic headache? What American problem did his rally solve?
I received a funny fundraising letter the other day from a Congressional candidate. The letter began with something like 'for just $80 per capita, we can ensure that everyone has the health care they need' and about 2 pages later concluded, 'will you donate $50, $100, or $250 to my campaign?'
Hillary Clinton has rallies and raises money but one never gets the sense that her campaign is about rallies or how much money she has raised.
She talks about the worker on the night shift, the waitress on her feet, those who feel 'invisible', but no matter how often she includes it in her speeches and how many times she wins primaries, it has never occured to the media or the chattering classes that, that is a message that actually resonates with night workers and waitresses. Nor has it occured to the liberal wing of the party that these are the people who are the core of the Democratic party, and who, along with the black working class, they are the people the party is supposed to be standing up for first and foremost. It is not Markos and his band of activists, or even those for whom politics is professional entertainment, who are 'outside the gate' trying to crash in. The ones who are truly outside the gate are those who do not have the inclination or time to go online and make comments on politics, and who therefore do not add much to the bottom line of 'new media', whether that means the Huffington Post, FoxNews, or WashingtonPost.com.
It would behoove the Obama campaign to understand all this.
1) A big chunk of the working-class IS voting on ignorance whether you like it or not, and it's not necessarily their fault. Obama's message of ending corporate influence and propping up the middle class is very much in their economic interests and does show that he's "in touch" (i.e. understanding the problem)... yet they would rather dissect a statement about "bitterness" and "guns and religion". That's probably because the media has duped the average American into thinking that "in touch" means that you go to NASCAR events, grew up in Hicksville, USA and shoot animals (an over-simplification but you know what I'm saying). How? The constant coverage of how out-of-touch Obama is, IS the only reason he has that reputation. The media constantly hijacks popular opinion.
2) I'm sick of hearing that upper-income, affluent Americans should inherently bear some sort of guilt. A lot of people in the upper-class have the interests of the lower to middle class in mind. Most "elitism" is simply an excuse for jealousy when a fully capable working class person throws that potential away and winds up doing a blue-collar job that they hate, so they direct that hate at people who did use their potential to get higher income jobs. (I am NOT saying this is the norm, but I believe this type of person is prevalent enough to somewhat define what "elite" has come to mean)
3) Clinton only became that candidate of the people when she realized it was a good political move. Had it been Edwards-Clinton, she might have been the type of candidate Obama was viewed as.
