Greenwald hits on the key to my vehement resistance to faulting Obama for his San Francisco comments: To accept the criticism of elitism accepts the premise that it should matter. This is a completely bogus narrative that the right has used to define Democratic candidates at least since the time of Dukakis. I have no illusions that it is a factor and that Obama made himself vulnerable, but it's the narrative that needs to be blamed, not Obama's relatively minor slip-up in word choice. This Democrats-as-elitists narrative must be rejected root and branch. No quarter should be given--not an inch:
So Barack Obama now takes his place on the ignoble path tread by every other Democratic candidate before him: as an effete, elitist, out-of-touch loser -- just like Mike Dukakis and John Kerry, and just like Al Gore and (when she was leading in the polls) Hillary Clinton. Conversely, the GOP leaders are stalwart and amiable though heroic Men of the People. . . .
By all rights, John McCain -- leading proponent of one of the most unpopular wars ever and tied at the hip to one of the most unpopular administrations in modern American history -- should be 20 points behind in the polls, at least. But he isn't. He is typically tied or even sometimes ahead. Why? Because the Cult of Personality constructed around him -- just as was true for George Bush -- remains largely unchallenged, while the right-wing/media monster demolishes the personality and character of the Democratic candidates. Until that changes, it doesn't matter how enthusiastically voters embrace the position papers of Democrats. The Right will continue to dominate our national elections irrespective of how vehement Americans reject their political positions and ideology, because these vapid themes predominate instead. Drudge Rules the Media World. Ignoring that reality or wishing it weren't so doesn't make it go away. . . .
Only in Media World could an individual who grew up in a poor and/or single-parent home with purely self-made accomplishments (Obama, John Edwards) be an out-of-touch "elitist" while individuals who live in extravagant wealth earned by others (George W. Bush, McCain) be Regular Folk in touch with heartland lifestyles and values. As Atrios noted today, even Howie Kurtz understands the bizarre spectacle of watching coddled media stars decree who is an "elitist" and who is in touch with Common Values:
It's mildly amusing to watch cable hosts with multimillion-dollar salaries wring their hands over how Obama can't possibly relate to the struggling masses. When was the last time most of these people had a shot and a beer in a bar, or visited a small town unless it was to make a highly paid speech? It's a small irony of this "out of touch" debate that upper-echelon journalists with wardrobe allowances or kids in fancy private schools get to pose as the folks who are in touch with the great American working class.
I am more optimistic than Greenwald that this kind of thing is less effective now than it has been in previous election cycles, and the early polling from PA and IN suggests that this ridiculously cynical play on Clinton's and McCain's part hasn't affected the majority Mainstreeters who have enough sense to see through it. We won't know until the votes come in, but I think that we might be so used to the demagogues getting their way on this that we underestimate the resiliency of a candidate who has real substance.
I don't think he's going to win in PA because the structural fundamentals don't favor him, but I don't think he'll do worse because of this episode. And in the general, we all have to do what we can to strenuously reject this absurd elitism argument. It needs to be ridiculed and repudiated whenever it rears its ugly head.