Obama clings to his San Francisco message

Robert Novak:

...

Sophisticated Democratics regard Frank's book as condescending to lower-income Americans who have voted for Ronald Reagan, but grass-roots activists consider it gospel. They tell me Obama shouldn't back away from what got him in trouble: his declaration to a closed-door fund-raiser in San Francisco that "bitter" small-towners in Pennsylvania and elsewhere "cling to guns or religion."

Obama and his advisers know better. Though he revealed political inexperience by thinking what he said in San Francisco would stay in San Francisco, he's savvy enough to apologize profusely for "gaffes" and "errors." But he considers his blunder one of style, not substance.

The trick is to distance himself from the rhetoric while holding to the theory, as restructured in last week's debate: "Yes, [the American people] are in part frustrated and angry" by "manufactured" issues. Beating "to death" this issue isn't "helping that person . . . trying to figure out how to pay the bills at the end of the month."

Clinton's effort to brand Obama as elitist has failed to move the polls, probably because Democratic primary voters agree with Frank. Nevertheless, Democratic pros feel that the San Francisco incident halted an Obama surge in Pennsylvania that might have won him the state and ended Clinton's campaign tomorrow. What really worries them, however, is the impact on independents and Republicans who'd been entranced by the young man from Chicago. Now, they wonder whether the appealing unifier is really a divider.

Obama is trying to change the subject, but he lost his cool demeanor when questioners Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos returned to his San Francisco statement (among other difficult issues) in Wednesday's debate. In watching campaign debates dating back to 1960, I never before had seen a candidate criticize the moderator or challenge his premises so often (at least eight times). "Look, let me finish my point here, Charlie," said Obama, after Gibson had interrupted him following a 126-word answer.

The other unprecedented element was the deluge of abuse heaped on the two moderators by reporters on the media, TV critics and political writers. They object to prolonging what amounts to a debate on "What's wrong with Obama?" Exploring whether Barack Obama is a modified Thomas Frank does not depend on TV talking heads or Hillary Clinton. Supporters of John McCain, seeking to reel back the Obama Republicans, will press the issue from now to November.

He really believes it, bu knows it is not good politics to admit it in more so he has fallen back on the politics of fraud to obfuscate his beliefs. Those who objected to the questions about it would like to obfuscate the issue too. They are so far in the tank for Obama that they do not want the truth to be repeated too often