Meghan O'Rourke is clearly channeling the supporters of Adlai Stevenson when she writes:

"She animated the cultish, irrational mob impulse in her supporters."

If you want to understand why a sizeable number of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, all you have to do is read this obnoxious screed. Characterizing the other candidate's supporters as "cultish" and subject to an "irrational mob impulse" is not my idea of the best way to actually win over votes you desperately need if you're to have any hope of winning the general election.

I suggest that Meghan should have read Jeff Greenfield's prescient article on George Orwell and why British Socialism never took off with working men and women in Britain. As one of the few Clinton supporters who can actually read, I'll precis it for you: the British working class did not reject socialism because they had a problem with the tenets of socialism, but rather, they rejected socialism because they could not stand British socialists themselves. They found the average British socialist to be an officious, arrogant snob who looked down on them. As Obama supporters are "the best and the brightest" surely you must be able to see that. I believe Shaw made the same point in a different context in the preface to "Saint Joan." Typically, people don't like to hear themselves mocked as racists, dummies, or both.

I'm guessing there are many other dolts such as myself who you will find out in the days and months ahead are too stupid to join forces with the vanguard of humanity, the forces of light, the Obama campaign, the Change, but what can you expect from morons like us

Good luck, and keep it up.

Wow. Where did YOU come from? This is a much more intellectual version of what I've been trying to say here for a long time. hear hear. The 'choir' on Slate is much limited to self-satisfaction and insult-advocates such as Mehgan. As a loyal dem, it's easy actually to (be forced to) choose go with Obama over McCain. On the other hand, many of his supporters on Slate...makes virtually all the enthusiasm out of that selection. It's almost like I know Obama would probably make a better president, but I wonder if I would rather catch a baseball game with a McCain supporter...MUCH rather...

Good post by you, Eric.

One thing that I think the super-educated, "thinking class" does not realize is that they cannot turn their condecension off like a light-switch when they go out in public. And this might mostly apply to liberals/Dems, but there are some country club Republican types who need to learn the lesson too - it's presented as a political issue here, but it's really more about social class.

I would imagine that most "Slate" posters, even if not truly elitist/country club types, have heard some of the things that the philosophising intellectuals say. I mean, go back and read some Daily Kos diaries from the week after the 2004 election. And the things they were saying in bars and coffee-houses (semi-private environments) were even worse.

Some might have said that the lower and middle classes are being "used" by the Church, or are being taken advantage of (like Obama's "bitter" comments, but a lot worse). Some people basically said the Republicans won becuase they were better at lying to the rubes. Calling the blue-collar voters yokels, idiots, every insulting name you could think of. But whatever words they use, the message is the same: "the common citizen doesn't understand things like I do, and he doesn't know what's good for him. He needs me to tell him." Again, smart, upper-class Repubs as well as Dems say this, but it's been worse from the Dems recently, just because of the last 2 Pres. elections.

But the thing is, you can't just change your tune when you go out in public, or out on the campaign trail, and think that people will accept you. Blue-collar/working class Americans are naturally suspcious, and they're likely to see through the "I'm-just-like-you-Earl-and-Ma­ude" routine. They might not call you on it, they might not even realize exactly why they're feeling uncomfortable ... but they know when you're showing them a facade, with smug contempt being hidden behind it. Which isn't to say that Bush didn't have such a facade ... to some extent, I guess he did. But Kerry and his supporters were far worse, adn Obama seems similar.

Next time you're drinking coffee and talking politics with your grad-school-educated, white collar friends, listen to the way they talk about the average working-class voter. Then think, "if the voters knew we really felt this way, would they still want to be on our team?" Because the chances are, they do. And there are a lot more of them than that are of you.

(And you're paying for them to out-breed you, too, but that's another issue). Sorry for the long post.

If you're new here, Eric, Munich's always smart and fun to read.

If you're going to talk about Obama supporters acting like assholes, will you recognize that a lot of Hillary supporters are acting like spoiled children?

The youtube clip of the woman at the committee meeting would be a good place to start. I'd read Gatewood's posts next, but that's just me...

Eric, you have got to be joking:

"If you want to understand why a sizeable number of Clinton supporters will not vote for Obama, all you have to do is read this obnoxious screed. Characterizing the other candidate's supporters as "cultish" and subject to an "irrational mob impulse" is not my idea of the best way to actually win over votes you desperately need if you're to have any hope of winning the general election."

First of all, why would the fact that Meghan O'Rourke insulted you make you not want to vote for Obama? She does not work for his campaign in any way. Are you saying that if ANYONE says anything negative about Hillary's supporters that you will punish Obama for it regardless of the fact that he had nothing to do with it?

Secondly, it is beyond ironic that you would take such offense at being called "cultish" and then direct that anger at Obama considering that his supporters have been called that and much worse for the better part of a year.

Fight the real enemy!

Thanks Munich for the extremely thoughtful and well-argued reply.

I must say that I agree with you on the class basis of this phenomenon. The tendency towards elitist condescension, to my mind, in the Democratic party started with the gradual loss of the South to the Republican Party following LBJ's courageous, but also fratricidal decision to enact civil and voting rights legislation. As the Democrats lost representation and power in the South, the party also lost probably half or more of its populist base (an essential part of the New Deal coalition). Having been raised in eastern NC in the 60s and early 70s, I can tell you that initially race and racism were the foremost issues driving the migration of Southern voters to the Republican Party, but rather than re-tool our message in an attempt to rebuild the base (without the racist ideology or racist coding), we just gave up and ceded the South to the Republicans.

Now the shoe seems to be on the other foot as large numbers of people seem to be "migrating" back to the Democratic Party. Our problem is that we have too few voices who can speak to those "migrants" who are motivated by populist sentiments. It's a shame that John Edwards was not able to catch fire, as it were. He still might be a good choice for vice president; however, he would not be able to swing North Carolina to the Democratic column in November. He really is not very well liked in the state. Having spent most of my adult life in Greater Washington, I will suggest that Virginia is probably very much in play.

Our inability at a national level to speak to the working class, to the rural voter, to the Western voter, to the Southern voter (even in the absence of "strong" racist sentiment) is pathetic, and unfortunately, even if Obama were able to pick up the language, his manner, so professorial, is not a great selling point when it comes to these voters. We're talking presentation here. Even if interested, Obama does not have enough time to rid himself of his stylistically academic demeanor. What these people want is someone who speaks up for those issues which help them and in a voice that cannot be mistaken for cynical vote grabbing. They could care less about Obama's "transformative signature," and I haven't heard anyone in NC "lookin' for the revolution."

I moved back to NC about 2 years ago, and I must confess I don't really know any highly educated, latte-drinking, biscotti-munching people of either political persuasion. In fact, you have to go to McDonald's to get a latte in my little town. So I won't be able to test your conclusions empirically, I will say that while I agree there is a class basis to this reprehensible behavior moreso than a political basis, the Republicans still have a major lead on us in populist presentation, but then again, many of them were Democratic officeholders in the 70s.

Thanks again for your comments. I've been spending most of my time on Salon, but I must say Slate discussion threads are more on target, and certainly easier to follow.

Slim,

I'm not really a baseball fan, but if your ever in Chicago we can have a beer together. I bet a lot of the Fray exchanges would be friendlier in person.

Blueshift

Hi TJA,

Hi TJA,

Actually, I thought Munich did a great job of describing the problem of what do you do to get rid of all the condescension once its been disseminated. How are working class voters, rural voters, union voters, and voters who only have a high school diploma supposed to react when all the noise out of the Obama camp is that they're so stupid and easily manipulated that they have unwittingly fallen prey to Clinton's devious racist message.

Calling the blue-collar voters yokels, idiots, every insulting name you could think of. But whatever words they use, the message is the same: "the common citizen doesn't understand things like I do, and he doesn't know what's good for him. He needs me to tell him." - Munich

It's the same old story about how do you put toothpaste back in the tube. You don't. Despite the view of some Democrats, these people aren't idiots. They know when their being disparaged even if they aren't here reading all the posts.

These people were unmoved by Obama's critique. They aren't looking for transformational change. They're looking for someone who speaks to them about the issues that matter to them. To be perfectly honest, I don't believe they care about Obama becoming the first black president. It is not their aspiration. That is the aspiration of people who don't have to deal with the things that worry them. They've got car payments to make, families to feed, rent to pay. They feel that they are sinking. Obama hasn't spoken to these people.

I'm not sure he knows how to.

When you suggest that these people are subject to an "irrational mob impulse," whether you know it or not, you're making fun of them, and nobody likes that.

Thanks Real Slim K,

I've been spending alot of time at Salon, but I must say this group is more about communication and less about scathing personal attacks.

Eric

Eric, I'm sorry if you feel I'm attacking you but I really only want to question your argument. You make a whole series of statements that are totally unsupported. I would like you to defend those points.

"How are working class voters, rural voters, union voters, and voters who only have a high school diploma supposed to react when all the noise out of the Obama camp is that they're so stupid and easily manipulated that they have unwittingly fallen prey to Clinton's devious racist message. "

What "noise" are you referring to? I chanllenge you to point to any comment by the Obama campaign that working class people are stupid.

"Calling the blue-collar voters yokels, idiots, every insulting name you could think of. But whatever words they use, the message is the same: "the common citizen doesn't understand things like I do, and he doesn't know what's good for him. He needs me to tell him." - Munich"

Again, who is saying this? Not Obama.

"It's the same old story about how do you put toothpaste back in the tube. You don't. Despite the view of some Democrats, these people aren't idiots. They know when their being disparaged even if they aren't here reading all the posts."

Well, you say you "know" when you are being disparaged but I can't think of anything from the campaign that you could find disparaging. I think you are taking media comments and somehow transferring your anger to Obama when he wasn't the one who made the comments.

"These people were unmoved by Obama's critique. They aren't looking for transformational change. They're looking for someone who speaks to them about the issues that matter to them. "

Ok, that is fine but his message worked for the rest of the country. His message worked better than that message which is what Clinton ran on. Soooo.......

"To be perfectly honest, I don't believe they care about Obama becoming the first black president. It is not their aspiration. That is the aspiration of people who don't have to deal with the things that worry them. They've got car payments to make, families to feed, rent to pay. They feel that they are sinking. Obama hasn't spoken to these people. "

How is he "not speaking" to those people? His whole campaign has been about the broken system leaving out many Americans. It is about helping the average American. Oh, and he isn't running as the first black President, he is running for President. Again, you keep making these claims but I challenge you to point to any quote where he says he is running as the first black president.

"When you suggest that these people are subject to an "irrational mob impulse," whether you know it or not, you're making fun of them, and nobody likes that"

Back to this again. Bottom line, IT ISN'T OBAMA WHO IS SAYING THESE THINGS!!! It is illogical for you to take offense at the comments of a writer on Slate and then somehow apply that anger to Obama. Do you understand what I am saying? It would be like me deciding I didn't like you because of something Rush Limbaugh said.

Gee, Eric, maybe you ought not tar all Obama supporters with Meghan's brush? Because one of the things that I've found most fun about this campaign is the mix of people involved. Sure, there are your Volvo-driving, latte-drinkin', pampered intellectuals with three degrees (not that there's anything wrong with that), but I've also gotten to meet high school kids who were the only person in their family who thought this guy had a chance and had to get their mom to bring them to the headquarters so they could help phonebank. I've met old sorority sisters in their 70s who tell stories about working for Bobby and Jack back when they lived in Boston and were young and fly, meeting "beaux" on the campaign. One guy I know is a farmer, another's a teacher, another is a waiter. I've met artists and kids and women who were stay-at-home moms but who want to be able to send their kids to school. The lady who made me cry was in her upper 80s and her husband was in his early 90s and still working! She had a son in his early 40s, beginning a career as an academic, and she said that she supported Obama because she "knew his mother had educated him" and she "sort of felt that, if he could be successful, then [her] boy could be successful, too." She said to let the Senator know that her family was praying for his success and they would be at the polls for the Virginia primary. Barack Obama can inspire elderly white people in conservative Virginia. He can energize young people and new voters and people who haven't voted in years. I really think there's more going on than elitism and mockery.

Black (and other minority) people have been voting for people who don't look or sound like them for decades - but Clinton's "hardworking white people" have to have someone with whom they personally identify? If that's true, that's very sad.

Obama can't win for losing with some folk: if he were too plain-spoken, some would doubt his intelligence - but as he's too well-spoken, he must be elitist. It speaks volumes to his character that he has refrained from harping on the fact that he was raised by a single mother to shoot down the elitist charge.

Don't people want a president who is smarter than they are? I mean, W has shown us that someone being able to mimic "hardworking white people" isn't the strongest criterion when it comes to being Commander-in-Chief.

Get a grip: we're looking for a president, not a neighbor...

Good post, eric. I hope you have time to submit a question to the XX bloggers today via the WP:

<link>

I'd like to see them answer your criticism.

I've been a Hillary supporter from the start, but have always said I like and respect Obama and would be proud to vote for him if he won the nomination. That said, blogs like XX and many of the dedicated Obama fraysters aren't making it easy. Even in victory, the attacks on Clinton and her supporters continue.

"Party reconciliation" doesn't mean "sit down and be quiet now, Hillary - say some nice things about Barack and limp back to New York". This isn't the one-way street Obama supporters believe it to be. She won half the vote. She gets to say whatever she wants to say. If Barack is smart, he'll listen.