StrictConstruct

After the recent controversial speech Obama gave at a San Francisco fundraiser,  polls are showing his advances in Pennsylvania have come to a stop. Though he had been making up ground on Clinton since the last primaries in the lead up to the April 22nd primary in Pennsylvania, he has since fallen back and Clinton has gained several points. Whether the trend will continue as April 22nd approaches, or is merely noise in the polling, has yet to be seen.

Ironically, the question which began the controversy was one asking why he was having trouble making inroads in small Pennsylvanian towns. Obama responded stating that economic woes leave people in small towns feeling “bitter,” prompting them to “cling to guns, religion” and an array of other things, including xenophobia and bigotry. The answer did not appear to win over any supporters in Pennsylvania, nor did his later explanations.

Both Clinton and McCain have labeled Obama’s comments elitist, and haven’t missed a beat in trying to capitalize on the political gaffe, with some alleging that he was merely pandering to the San Francisco audience. Obama has hit back, pointing out occasions where Clinton has pandered - including a recent occasion where she downed a shot of beer at a bar for the cameras. But is this really a defense? With all the hype over how Obama represents something “new,” this seems like a very old tactic - defending wrongs you committed by pointing to others who did as well. While is most certainly is true that McCain and Clinton have pandered for votes, this does not clear Obama, it merely confirms that he is in their league afterall.

(Photo credit to Daniella Zalcman.)