At least, that's what I get from Obama's speech to - wait for it - high-net worth, limousine liberals in San Francisco.
“You go into 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,” Obama said. “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.”
Karl at Protein Wisdom provides excellent analysis.
In addition, if Obama thinks these voters are clinging to anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment because of US economic policy, he ought to explain why he is exploiting anti-trade sentiment on the campaign trail, but advocating lax policies on illegal immigration, including (but not limited to) providing government benefits like drivers’ licenses to illegal aliens and allowing criminals to become citizens. Once he does that, Obama can explain how he squares his stated position on trade with the advice of his top economic adviser. And when he does that, Obama can explain how his stated position on immigration squares with his labor-induced vote that killed the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill last summer.
While Obama is busy with those explanations, Democrats — particularly superdelegates — may want to consider what David Frum wrote about the Thomas Frank thesis:Suppose you believed that liberal economic policies were not only good for America, but also potentially popular. And suppose you also believed that the only reason that these policies kept losing elections was the Republican success in misrepresenting Democrats as snobbish, effete, weak, and godless. What conclusion would follow from these premises? Seems to me it would be: “We Democrats have to find a way to separate economic populism from cultural liberalism - and we have to start finding candidates with whom the voters can identify.” Obvious, right?
Apparently not, given that the Democrats have a tendency to nominate candidates like Mike Dukakis, John F. Kerry and probably Barack Obama.
Instapundit also has a roundup of links on the topic, including this post by the Gateway Pundit and this hilarious post by Ace.
My only comment on the subject is that if Hillary!TM doesn't seize on this to increase her lead in Pennsylvania (voting occurs just over a week from today), she is too clueless to be considered for the Dem nomination, much less the presidency.
Perhaps this is Obama's next campaign event?
ARC: St Wendeler