Karl Rove thinks this is a Marxian statement [h/t to Think Progress]. Whatever that statement was, it wasn't Neo-Con-ian. Thank God.
I rather agree with Fred Newman on Talk/Talk: "I don't really know how the remark plays to the people who Hillary has now appointed herself the defender of. So, she wants to get some mileage out of it. This gives her the freedom to get into personalistic accusations about Obama and his past. And that's what's so sick about politics. It's a very dangerous business to put yourself out as a spokesperson for millions of Americans who hold very complex and varied views on values, on religion and on guns."
Andrew Sullivan was horrified by Hillary's follow-up ad: "Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president. "
With all due respect to Michelle "Them's Fightin' Words!" Obama (And if you're smart, you don't want to fight nobody who grew up on the Southside of Chicago..... see the YouTube video here from Keith Olbermann's show), elitism isn't a factor of where you come from. Many working class people who have "made it" are elitist. That's what most major institutions -- universities, political parties, etc. -- cultivate. For my money, elitism is a political issue. When Geo. Washington declined the crown, he made a statement on behalf of American Democracy. That's the politics we need to be cultivating. And that's the politics of inclusion. --NH