Obama on Pennsylvania voters:
[T]he truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there’s not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of 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 gonna regenerate and they have not. 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.
Some reactions:
Roger L. Simon: “Excuse me for finding Barack Obama a disingenuous creep…. Well, I know one thing I believe about Obama. He’s a big time careerist (and evidently now an elitist). And I’m pretty sure I know the mysterious “change” he has been proffering. He’s the change… as in La change, c’est moi!”
John Hinderaker: “Is Obama’s Campaign Over? It may be. I don’t see how anyone known to have uttered these words can be elected President…. Barack Obama’s arrogance has been evident for some time, and it’s no shock, perhaps, to learn that that he shares this bigoted opinion, common among urban liberals, of people who live in “small towns.” But to actually express it, in public, at a campaign event, is stunningly stupid…. It sounds like Obama is scaling back on his effort to appeal to religious voters. And what’s this about the yahoos’ “anti-trade sentiment”? Would that be like opposing the Colombia trade agreement? Hypocrisy is not unknown among politicians, but Obama seems determined to set a new standard.”
Jennifer Rubin: “This raises several questions. First, is the Clinton campaign minimally competent so as to be able to make this into the quote for the next 10 days in Pennsylvania and convince voters there and elsewhere Obama is a sneering snob? Second, if that is these people’s reason for adopting an uninformed view on trade what is his explanation for embracing protectionism? Third, just how many religious voters and NRA members could there be in Pennsylvania, Indiana, North Carolina, Kentucky and West Virginia?”
Glenn Reynolds: “Obama had better hope that this reaction [from Jean Spik, Moon Township, PA] isn’t typical: “… the comment about ‘people who are different’ is just so insulting to those of us who live in or around Pittsburgh, an area noted for its ethnicity. I can go 25 miles in any direction from where I live and see churches, temples, neighborhoods, signs, social halls, stores, etc., for many different ethnic groups from every part of the world. I can also pass through many small towns and not notice anyone who is hoping for a remake of ‘Deliverance.’ Honestly, Obama is such a sham. He doesn’t have a clue about anything having to do with real life. What an idiot.”"
Where to start? People in Pennsylvania have been deeply religious for a long time, through good times and bad. They’ve been devotees of deer hunting through good times and bad. Pennsylvania’s ethnic diversity is unparalleled. (What other university has anything like the University of Pittsburgh’s nationality classrooms, supported by local ethnic organizations?) And the anti-trade attitudes come from the influence of unions and the Democratic party.
Politically, I think this is worse for Obama than it might initially seem. Pittsburgh is a large city—over 2 million in the metropolitan area—but Pittsburghers are generally religious, fond of guns, friendly, and not at all bitter. The city has the feel of a collection of small towns. Many parts of Philadelphia are similar. This will count against Obama not only among white, rural voters, but quite generally across the state.
Obama’s defense of his outrageous, condescending remarks in Terre Haute will play poorly here in Indiana. He didn’t even have the sense to acknowledge his mistake. The quick response of the Obama spin team backfired here. Sometimes a thought-out response is better than a quick one, especially in the case of a campaign-imploding remark.
Because Obama has already trotted out a “major speech” after the still-simmering Wright debacle, the major speech approach won’t work. Only an outright admission that sometimes you get a little uppity (”ippity” ’round these parts) will do. Maybe Obama could “make amends” or “admit his powerlessness over intellectual snobbery” and offer to start a Recovering Snobs Anonymous meeting here in Indianapolis.
But his now-certain loss in Pennsylvania and Indiana, where he trails (Real Clear Politics hides the IN polls), will insure that this goes to the convention. Good luck convincing superdelegates you can win in states other than the People’s Progressive Republic of Wisconsin. Earth to the Obamacolytes: superdelegates are there for split decisions to determine who stands a better chance to win the presidency and lead the party to victory.