Bullet meets foot, foot meets mouth

Barack Obama has done an admirable job of positioning himself as a uniter of people and a principled candidate who disdains tawdry attack-dog politics. But the U.S. presidential campaign is an 18-month marathon, a grueling process that inevitably scuffs up even the squeakiest of squeaky-clean politicians. This week, Obama carved a deep gouge in his own beatific public image after telling a group of well-heeled San Francisco campaign donors that working-class voters in small towns suffering from economic malaise often "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." For a more complete account of Obama's comments, his (unimpressive) attempt to clarify them, and of the reaction of the Hillary Clinton and John McCain camps, go here.

Well. Where to begin? A month after delivering one of the finest, most insightful, most mature and honest speeches in American political history on the subject of race, Obama serves up grist to his political opponents and gives at least one blogger an opportunity to mix metaphors about shooting and feet and mouths in his subject line, all in the space of a couple of sentences. A man whose main selling point is that he is a bridge between Americans of all stripes arrogantly alienates a huge segment of voters - the segment he most needs to win over by November - by essentially telling them that they are backward, Bible-thumping gun nuts ignorant to the true cause of their troubles. To this point, Obama's campaign machine has thrummed along with power and efficiency. Now, for some reason, he has thrown a grenade under the hood.

Without a doubt, there are those out there who might read Obama's comments and conclude that his biggest mistake was in telling the truth. Blunt truth-telling, after all, is almost always a dangerous tactic for politicians. Obama himself seems to think that the error was in his choice of words, not the content of his message. 

But if Obama believes this, and if most Democrats and Democratic voters agree with him, it would not bode well for the chances of the candidate and the party this fall. Obama's remarks go right to the heart of why Democrats have so rarely tasted electoral success in the past four decades. Which is to say, the would-be party of the people has so often condescended to the people, fielding a series of hyper-educated, urbane candidates who arrogantly toss off theories about the behaviour of the unwashed masses. 

Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are the only Democrats to have been elected president since 1968, and there is no coincidence in that. Both were successful populists, highly intelligent men who were nonetheless able to forge a credible bond with working-class voters. 

It is crucial that left-wing politicians and activists understand the importance of this. While the policies of the left may be more beneficial to lower-income voters than those of the tax-cutting right wing, no one likes to be told "I know what's best for you" by a candidate that does not share their experience. 

A month ago, Barack Obama eloquently proposed a new way to talk about and bridge the divisions between Americans. Last week's gaffe, however, suggested that while his ear is finely tuned to racial issues, he is tone deaf about class divisions. If he does not repair the damage caused by his comments, he may find that voters tune him out in November. For Democrats, that would be the same old song.