Hillary Clinton’s chief strategist Geoffrey Garin recently said that Barack Obama's comments about small-town America

“would be "damaging" to him in a general election, could set back the Democratic Party's efforts to reach heartland voters, and should be something that super-delegates consider when deciding whom to support.  These are the kinds of attitudes that have created a gulf between Democrats and lots of small-town and heartland voters that we've been working very, very hard to bridge."

Is this the same Clinton campaign that publicly ridiculed and dismissed the relevance of small-town American states during Hillary’s string of losses in January and February?   Are the “small town and heartland” voters in Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, Illinois, Kansas and Nebraska not as important as the small-town voters of Pennsylvania?  The characterization made by Geoffrey Garin is hypocritical beyond belief and the only thing more appalling is the readiness of the mainstream media to accept such statements as fact.  In reality, it is Hillary who has damaged her chances in the general election with her condescending treatment of states that she did not win, and even Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa has spoken publicly of his resentment at the way his state was belittled by Hillary.  In contrast to Hillary’s approach, Obama’s 50-state campaign has been actively trying to connect with voters in small towns and communities all across the nation, not just in the select states that are deemed important for delegate votes.

Why doesn’t the media comment on the discrepancy between Hillary’s words and her actions?  Maybe the media could ask the Clinton campaign to clarify exactly what they have been doing to bridge this gulf with small-town voters, as they claim, and what part of Hillary’s 35 years of experience were directed at such activity.  Was it her 15 years as a corporate lawyer serving the interests of powerful banks and corporations?  Was it her years on the board of directors of Walmart?  Is it her past support of NAFTA and Bill Clinton’s ongoing support of such free trade agreements?  Unfortunately, the media does not do the job it is supposed to do but rather acts as a mouthpiece for the Clinton campaign’s accusations and complaints.

John McCain’s campaign also jumped into the fray and called Obama’s comments elitist and condescending.  But why hasn’t the media scrutinized statements by John McCain that reveal a detachment towards American voters?  For example, John McCain recently explained his earlier opposition to the MLK holiday as simply a matter of his not having been aware of the “issue” of MLK (and by extension the Civil Rights movement) at the time.  He rationalized that he was part of the military, which he claimed to be the “greatest equal-opportunity employer in the nation” (a claim which warrants scrutiny in itself), and therefore we are to believe that he was in some way insulated from the societal turmoil regarding civil rights.  Unfortunately this explanation was accepted with little questioning by the media, but it demonstrates a shocking disconnect with American society.  John McCain was in his 20s and 30s during the Civil Rights movement and he was 47 years old when he voted against MLK Day.  If, by his own admission, he was out of touch with such important social and legal issues as civil rights over so many years, how can he connect with voters and deal with the ongoing social problems facing this country?

Clinton and McCain are clearly trying to exploit Obama’s recent comments to manipulate the emotions of small-town, mostly-white voters whom they consider to be their critical base.  But why are Clinton and McCain being allowed to dictate the terms of the election?  Why are small-town voters the only ones that seem to matter?  In reality, there are many segments of American society that are hurting and frustrated by years of government neglect and corporate greed, including:
• Inner city communities that have suffered from continuing cuts in critical infrastructure and social services, resulting in growing rates of unemployment, poverty, crime, and incarceration.
• Minority communities that have been victimized by decades of environmental racism, resulting in high levels of sickness, disease, and economic loss.
•  The diaspora of displaced Hurricane Katrina victims that cannot return home due to lack of available housing even while perfectly sound public housing is being destroyed to make room for a newer “whiter” New Orleans.
•  Military families that must cope with the care of severely injured or traumatized veterans with shockingly little support from government or military services. 
•  Young people throughout the nation who will be paying the price, literally, for years to come for a bloated war budget and ever increasing national debt.
•  Family farmers whose livelihoods and way of life are being destroyed by the dominance of big agribusiness, soaring fuel prices, and lack of affordable credit.

While the vast majority of Americans believe the country is headed in the wrong direction, the media is all too happy to distract and divide the public with such diversions as Obama’s “gaffe”.  This is not surprising since the mainstream media (and especially right-wing media such as FOX news) are owned and controlled by corporate entities that directly benefit from the very policies that have contributed to the economic and social hardships of most Americans.  From the defense contractors and oil companies that benefit from our protracted wars to the prison industrial complex that benefits from the failed War on Drugs and the exploding prison population to the banking industry that has benefited from the growing consumer debt, the American people have paid a steep price for policies that serve the corporate interests over the public welfare. 

Rather than speak out against these corporate powers and the corporate media that promote their interests, Hillary and Bill Clinton have been all to eager to cozy up to Rupert Murdoch and FOX news, Rush Limbaugh, and even Richard Mellon Scaife.  Apparently believing that the enemy of my enemy is my friend, Hillary and her surrogates have repeatedly worked through these right-wing media groups to attack Barack Obama.  However, in doing so, Hillary is implicitly validating and endorsing the credibility and legitimacy of these media groups that serve up a steady diet of corporate and government propaganda, tabloid journalism, and right-wing bigotry.

In some ways, the Clintons’ exploitation of such corporate media should not be a surprise since President Clinton supported and signed the Telecommunications Act of 1996 that started the explosion of media consolidation.  The Clinton policies promoted deregulation of the media, which led to greater corporate control of the news and information being fed to the public.  Hillary has been trying to use the corporate media to control the dialogue throughout the primary, but in doing so she has joined forces with the same corporate entities that have decimated our social fabric by the downsizing and outsourcing of jobs in the quest for record profits and that have mortgaged the future of the country with ruthless war profiteering.  This makes Hillary’s posturing about trying to bridge the gulf with small-town voters all the more hypocritical and shameful.