Pennsylvania Primary and the Last Act: Elitism, Flag Pins and Jobs! Jobs! Jobs!

Right now, waiting by the red phone, Hillary Clinton is feeling good - empowered and encouraged from her decisive victory over Barack Obama in Pennsylvania. The message is clear once again, she does well with working class white voters, the backbone of the Democratic Party. This victory still leaves her behind Senator Obama in delegates, (lets not get into Florida right now), but does allow her to promote her case to the remaining undeclared “super”-delegates, that she is a more competitive and realistic candidate

Tuesday's victory reinforced several things about this election and the candidates. As pointed out by WNYC’s Andrea Bernstein that morning on the Brian Lehrer Show, there is a dearth of “urban” issues or policy brought up by any of the candidates, despite the fact that the majority of Americans live within or a near a major urban center. The discourse of the campaign is instead focused on small town or small city America, both culturally and economically. John Mellencamp’s “Small Town” is this election cycle’s theme song for all rallies and victory speeches.

So big deal, its about 4H populism, all presidential campaigns are populist. But who is this populace? The John Q voter for the Democrats may indeed be Nash McCabe, a Latrobe, PA woman made known to us most infamously on the ABC debate with her “Flag Pin” question (see last post). In point and fact this woman is facing a very difficult set of circumstances indicative of what many Americans are dealing with right now. She is unemployed and struggles with debt and lack of finances relating to the healthcare costs of her spouse (see article here). Mrs. McCabe is against the war and done with Bushian politics, which includes Senator McCain, but being a Democrat does not mean she is “unpatriotic” as she made known with her question to Mr. Obama. Indeed the new template for the election may be both what’s behind her question and which candidate seems most likely to fix the economy fastest.

Obama continues to struggle with the issue of distrust among working class white voters. Race is a factor, but also the perception that he is different both culturally and intellectually from them. Obama rose to power by bridging the race divide, which carried him in states like Iowa, Wisconsin and Idaho and down state Illinois where in the beginning of his career he secured the support of rural white voters to win a seat in the state senate. However, the 38 percent support of the white vote in Pennsylvania may be an indication that he may need to adjust the last leg of his campaign by homogenizing and tempering the assets that have made him so successful, and indeed groundbreaking: his intellectual background and unique life experience.

These two factors, elite schooling and growing up in a multi-cultural family, when projected nationally, become chafing liabilities. The message, tacit or otherwise, seems to be that if you are well educated and of distinctive racial make up, you are inherently less patriotic, or unpredictable. Is the election process becoming a war against intellect and an apotheosis of average?

Hillary Clinton still struggles with some personality abrasion issues, but she has seized the role of the small town gal, while some people still believe Obama is Muslim. Clinton is also an intellectual, a policy wonk and an Ivy League alumna. But she is not called an elitist, yet. She has escaped that label in one way through the simplicity of her stump speeches. Obama may be one of the best rhetoricians in recent history, but despite the inspired millions, he is missing the target with a critical block of voters: white voters focused on kitchen table issues.

Jobs! Heathcare! Jobs! Just repeat those words, Bill must have told Hillary. In Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana next, that refrain will be as intoxicating as “Fire Up! Ready to Go!”. In theory, Obama’s message of hope and optimism is the tonic to heal all of America, especially economically wounded working class people. Hillary may speak their language, but Senator Obama truly represents change, but a change that requires people to take a risk and tolerate difference.

Is Obama’s discussion of damaged politics and plans of a hopeful and elevated tomorrow asking too much of the electorate to hold onto come November? He truly believes in a better and engaged world that expects more of its leaders, but he's asking all us of to join in, to also become accountable as we improve our standards and expectations. Hillary promises to give the electorate what they want, but doesn't ask us to change.