Barack Obama is in serious, serious trouble. His ill-advised comments at a fundraiser in, of all places, San Francisco were the final, decisive bullet point needed for the GOP to assemble an effective, negative caricature of him to promote for the next six months (continue reading...)

At the home of a real estate developer in the home of the Godless, Obama spoke of how “bitter” residents of rural America “cling” to guns and religion. The comments were captured by a Huffington Post blogger (God damn liberal media … always in the tank for Obama) and filtered through the seven circles of “freak show” media Hell. Lucky for Obama, no usable audio appears to exist.

The story is devastating because of the irreparable blow it poses to Obama’s already fragile relationship with the “working class” (more on this later). It also reinforces the perceptions that he is condescending, aloof, and the candidate of the Bono set.

In the end, these perceptions and the campaign narratives they solidify are all that matters. The controversy has taken on a life of its own. The lone available poll that may have been influenced by Obama’s comments suggests the potential for extensive damage in a state that Obama must carry in the general election.

At the same time, the Jeremiah Wright controversy led many people (myself among them) to doubt he could bounce back. He did. Spectacularly (albeit with a little help from Clinton’s Bosnia fiasco). With that said, here are a few observations to keep in mind.

1. This changes absolutely nothing about the Democratic Primary. Clinton can take all the Crown Royal shots she wants and unveil seven more, warm paeans to duck-hunting at her plumbingless Scranton cabin, but she is still going to lose the primary. The only issue is how much damage she does to her fellow Democrat and how many sound bites she gives McCain and the RNC.

There’s something to be said for putting Obama, who has never won a bitter race, through a bareknuckle fight and making sure he’s “vetted.” The ad Clinton just cut explicitly citing Obama’s “bitter” comments, however, is a culture war gambit straight from the GOP playbook. Instead of fighting Obama along Democratic Party lines, she is doing the GOP’s job. And she doesn’t have a choice, because SHE CAN’T WIN without ripping the party apart.

2. Obama screwed up. It was a dumb thing to say on any number of politically and substantive levels. Where he really messed up was in his attribution of causality. He implied that the economy makes people bitter turning them to guns or God and insulting the majority of the people in the country (himself included) whose belief in God or the Second Amendment is deep and personal. If instead, he acknowledged that people have powerful feelings about these matters, but that the GOP uses the very primal strength of those feelings to gin up wedge issues that take the focus of economic matters, he would have come off better. And he also would have been describing the exact strategy that Clinton is now exploiting.

3. The reaction of the media and opposition campaigns is just as condescending as anything Obama said. Explain to me how unilaterally declaring that people who have had a constant access to information for the past six months to inform their decision are going to make up their mind based on thirty-odd words of non-policy matters? It suggests both a fundamental contempt for the intelligence of the electorate and a cynical belief in one’s power to proclaim a story news because you, the media or the campaign, says so. Do they believe that people are too stupid to decide an election based on anything beyond a verbal slip that infects a couple of news cycles?

4. When discussing how Obama doesn’t understand the “working class” who exactly are we talking about? I think one of his campaign’s failings has been to neglect the chapter in his life where he was a community organizer. There are few more immediate ways to connect with the concerns of the “working class.” Does Obama’s submersion in the South Side of Chicago before and after he attained one of the country’s highest intellectual honors say nothing of his commitment to the needs of “working class” people? It does if the media and the Clintons’ conceptions of the “working class” are defined solely by mythical steelworker types with Polish sounding last names. The condescension, again, and the thinly veiled racism are stunning.

5. I think Obama’s problem in responding to this is that he is truly baffled by the uproar; that people might truly consider him some effete, John Kerry clone. He knows its ridiculous to be caricatured by a woman worth $109 million. He knows that a dumb comment about the price of arugala has no right to overshadow his formal economic policy. But he doesn’t always get that you’re not supposed to say it. He has a penchant for saying “look” with a bemused smile when confronted with these absurdities. Most people would react the same way. He left anything resembling reality a long time ago, however. The unimpeachably cool demeanor; the casual, almost caustic humor; the knowing winks that he gets the joke too. These are all things supporters flock to. They’re also what detractors will seize upon.

6. The most important thing to remember is that Barack Obama is not John Kerry. He will not decide that the best way to reestablish his Joe Six Pack bonafides is by donning a leather jacket and riding a Harley onto the Tonight Show. Why would he? He’s actually comfortable in his own skin. It may come off as condescending at times, but the confidence and authenticity it breeds are one of the reasons he has charted the most thrilling political ascent in a generation. Clinton does not share that comfort. You can see it in her forced exchanges attempting to capitalize on the “bitter” speech. That’s what she’s forgetting. She just doesn’t have that ability to connect like her husband or even W. Everyone panders. Some successfully. Most not. Clinton will be photographed in John Kerry’s old hunting outfit before this episode is over.