UPDATE: Clinton and McCain Camps Respond to Obama's Rural Pennsylvanians Comment

Sen. Hillary Clinton responded this way:

“I saw in the media it’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience.

As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves. They are working hard everyday for a better future, for themselves and their children.

Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”

Sen. McCain's campaign spokesperson responded, saying:

"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."

THIS JUST IN: Rural Pennsylvanians Are Radical Religious Gun-Carrying Xenophobes

Well, that's according to Barack Obama, at least.  It was at a fundraiser in San Francisco where Obama had this to say:

"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.(...)

(...)So it's not surprising then that 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."

This is a real and growing problem for Barack Obama.  First, his wife says that for the first time in her adult life she is really proud of her country.  Then we find out that Barack Obama has been friends with Jeremiah Wright, a racist and anti-American pastor, for over 20 years.  Then he stereotypes white people in his "typical white person" comment about his grandmothers's racist attitudes.  

Now, let me be clear, I'm not claiming to know what Barack Obama believes in his heart, but I am increasingly troubled by what I hear --- if not for the pure anger it arises in me personally, for the harm it does Obama in the general election should he be the nominee.  

This latest comment is particularly disturbing.  In it, Obama sounds elitist and snobby.  He plays up the stereotype that liberals are big city guys who don't care about small town America.  Kerry was painted that way in '04...and Democrats lost.  In '92, Clinton was able to connect with rural voters, and look what happened --- he won.  

I'm also not sure what exactly Obama meant by what he said.  Sure, it's clearly condescending, but how does losing your job make you more likely to "cling to guns", making it sound like rural people are gun-obsessed gangsters?  How exactly does it make people racist and bigoted to people who are different from the them? 

I don't get it.  Obama's campaign is supposed to be about uniting the country.  Instead, he's dividing us.  Not just by race, but now by big city vs. small town.   Comments like this are just plain not helpful --- not just to Obama, but the entire party.  They're surely not helping us win the White House.  

Why The Democratic Race Should Continue...To The Convention

The race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination that is playing out is a healthy sign of Democracy at work and at its best.  The American people have two final candidates who are in a close race (despite what the news media says) and the voters are taking their time in their assessment of the two.

 

Those who want Senator Clinton to drop out the race appear to be afraid to let the people vote in the final primaries and are dead wrong.  Those are the same people who say they do not want a brokered convention, but are clamoring for that in the primaries.  The primaries need to play out and the people need whatever time it takes to make sure that the best candidate is selected, not just as a nominee, but as a potential President.  That process will not hurt the Democrats chance to win in the general election in November; if anything, putting the best candidate forward will help the Democrats to win.    

 

The delegates who end up casting their votes should not rush to judgment before the voting process is completed.  There seems to be a movement for change, but who between the two candidates has actually articulated what they would change; how they intend to do it and carry it out.  George W. Bush ran on change in 2000---to change the tone in Washington.  He did not define it nor how he would accomplish it, but we all know that the change under his administration has been a disaster for our country.

 

The voters have to look beyond mere slogans of change, and instead focus on the issues and who can best handle those issues with a plan and deeds.  Experience at the federal and national level does matter; that is what the President has to manage and deal with.  Which of the two candidates has actually accomplished more for the people since they have been in Congress? That is a good indication of who would do better as President.

 

The larger problem that the voters face in the upcoming primaries is the news media having already made up their minds and pushing the candidate of their choice, failing to fairly and accurately report on this race.  I would hope that the voters exercise their own thoughts, listen to what the candidates actually propose to do, disregard what they hear in the news media, and then make their own judgement.  That would be the democratic way to choose the Democratic nominee for President.