The "bitter" comment has gotten the most play, but in my view, it is merely a distraction. As I noted the other day, the most disturbing aspect of this entire scandal is that
Advertisement
Clearly, Obama's comments were made to an ultra-liberal elite group of wealthy San Francisco donors. He was implying that government is the real solution to people's problems -- but that average people stupidly "cling" to God out of desperation. Anyone who has studied liberal/humanist ideology knows this is a widely-held belief.
From a political perspective, of course, Hillary is attacking Obama for the comments -- and attempting to make the case that Obama would be susceptible to Republican attacks that he is some sort of elite, effete, liberal.
So how politically damaging is this gaffe, really?
It hurts Obama in Pennsylvania, but he was going to lose there any way. Hillary hopes it hurts him with superdelegates, and buttresses her argument that he will be easy prey for the GOP "attack machine."
The problem is that while Democrats in 2004 nominated a candidate who was susceptible to the effete image, they also passed over a more exciting candidate (Howard Dean) in order to nominate the Democrat they deemed to be most "electable."
Recommended
Advertisement
So the question is: Which lesson did they learn? If Democrats learned that they should go with their heart, instead of their head, Obama will win the superdelegate vote. If they learned that they cannot pick a candidate who will be easy prey for those seeking to portray him as an elite out-of-touch liberal, then maybe Hillary has a chance.
One thing is for sure: Obama appears much more vulnerable to GOP attacks than he did a few months ago. This -- coupled with the Rev. Wright comments -- gives Republicans hope that the Obama facade may be beginning to crack ...
Join the conversation as a VIP Member