“Bitter-gate” No Problem for Obama April 16, 2008

It doesn’t matter what Mitt Romney said (”quite offensive…strange and elitist”), what Karl Rove said (”an elitist…he is arrogant”), what John McCain said (”a fundamental contradiction of what I believe America’s all about”), what network news said, what the pundits said (”[the Obamas] ooze a sense of entitlement”), or even what Hillary said (”elitist…out of touch”).

The “bitter-gate” controversy has not only not damaged Obama, but a new Gallup poll has already been released showing that Obama’s lead over Clinton has actually grown, and in the key “offended” demographics, absolutely no change in opinion has taken place, as the Kansas City Star’s Matt Schofield reports:

The political pundit class isn’t going to like this one, but a new Gallup Poll (released today) indicates that Barack Obama is actually at least as popular (if not a bit more popular) after the controversy about his comments that small town Pennsylvanians “cling” to religion and guns in tough economic times.

Hillary Clinton and John McCain have described the comments as condescending, and labeled the Democratic frontrunner an elitist.

The Gallup Poll, however, shows that while before the controversy began (April 8-10) he had a nine point lead among Democrats (51-42) a poll after the controversy shows him with an 11 point lead (51-40). …

In fact, they also polled the specific groups assumed to be most offended by the comments, and found that there had been little if any (no statistically significant) movement in their opinions of the campaign.

In addition, some are branding Hillary’s use of the word “elitist” a synonym for ‘uppity’ when viewed in American race-conscious context, something Obama himself rejected when a voter suggested it to him.

Vibe Magazine’s Mark Anthony Neal stressed this parallel between “uppity” and “elitist” (one Rolling Stone blogger called “arrogant” no more than a “code word” for “uppity”), noting the “irony that two of the wealthiest members of the Senate would describe a former community organizer as out of touch”, and pointing out that “in terms of instigating anti-Black racism and violence in this country, few things were more potent than the perception that black people, and black men in particular, did not know their place.”

I find myself inclined to, however, agree overall with Mary Mitchell from the Chicago Sun-Times on this one, though. These polarizing tactics are part of Hillary’s MO, and blowing this “bitter” statement up in media outlets is par for the course for the Clinton campaign. Hillary is just as divisive and polarizing now as she was accused of being at the beginning of this campaign in the minds of an increasing number of voters — and it is actions like this that testify to the “slice and dice” politics Obama accuses her of.

For the record, for anyone who’s still confused: no one’s bitter, no one’s sleeping while clutching Bibles and 12-gauges. Obama was speaking about an anecdotal psychographic, far from the “offensive” label Romney (of all people!) tried to affix to the only candidate preaching hope and positive change.

Hillary, the media, the Democratic campaign, and all concerned parties in America need to move on, for the sake of the greater good, and for the sake of us all.