Some interesting conundrums continue to boil up in the stew the media have cooked over the charge of elitism leveled against Barack Obama. Given that one of his messages has been that of uniting groups with many different interests and values under a single "umbrella," under which they can discuss their differences as well as their agreements, an accusation of elitism is tantamount to an accusation of hypocrisy. Thus, as I had previously speculated, this attack may have been concerned more with finding and piercing Obama's most critical point of vulnerability than with weighing the many issues relevant to deliberating over who would make the best successor to the Oval Office. My reasoning is simple enough: The American electorate may not fully grasp all the intricacies associated with the rights and duties of the Executive branch of their government, but they know hypocrisy when it bites them. If they are convinced that, for all of his "audacity of hope," he is as hypocritical as any other politician, then there is a strong chance that they will turn away from him.It is this question of hypocrisy about which we need to be mindful. Even Republican pollster, spin meister Frank Luntz reminds us that Americans want a sense that their candidates are "genuine." This This is particularly necessary when one tries to stake out a position on some high moral ground. To the be found wanting is fatal to any aspiration to political power. Greens should pay special attention as we have not political power, only the moral high ground.
If Obama eventually loses and Clinton wins the nomination, it will not be solely because of his association with Rev. Wright, but rather because in the final analysis Americans have judged him just another politician.