US ideology has always tried to downplay

the importance of class conflict as the defining issue

of politics. The contest between Obama and Clinton

has brought both race and gender to the fore

Everyone is still denying that class is an issue

What a great photo to rally the working class [as if Obama would]

Obama spoke frankly about the economic realities of American society.

He compounded this political sin with the suggestion that religion, gun rights, economic protectionism and anti-immigrant agitation were used to divert working people from the economic oppression they face.

The episode has been a revealing exposure of both the media and the political establishment.

The near-unanimous consensus that Obama has committed a huge blunder by referring to working class bitterness and resentment has two sources:

The enormous social distance of the millionaire pundits and politicians from the real lives of working people.

And the fear that under conditions of convulsions in the financial markets and the onset of a deep recession, any discussion of the underlying social antagonisms in America has potentially explosive consequences.

Race, Gender & Class

Throughout the world, May 1 is celebrated as May Day, the international workers' day. The only exception is the United States. The irony is that May Day is celebrated in memory of an American event, the Haymarket Riot in Chicago.

On May 1, 1886, in many U.S. cities workers engaged in a general strike in support of an eight-hour day.

In Chicago, 80,000 workers marched down Michigan Avenue. On the fourth day of the demonstrations, at the very end of a rally in Haymarket Square, violence broke out.

Its origin is contested to this day, but some policemen were killed. Subsequently, leaders of the strike were arrested and four were executed for what was termed murder.

Although they were German immigrants to the United States, they died singing not "The Star-Spangled Banner" but "La Marseillaise," an expression of international class solidarity.

Despite this, politicians in the United States have always tried to downplay the importance of class conflict as a defining issue of U.S. politics, which is why the United States does not celebrate May Day.

In 2008, the campaign for the presidency in the United States is fiercely contested. The primary contest in the Democratic Party is between a woman and an African American.

The Republican candidate is a white male. In the beginning, everyone denied that either race or gender was an issue.

But as the contest has become prolonged and more fierce, both race and gender as themes have come to the fore. Everyone is still denying that class is an issue.

In all this conflict between the victims of inequality (race versus gender), there was virtually no talk of class, although the vast majority of both African Americans and women were working class, as they still are today.

Thus it is that an avowedly conservative Republican candidate, who has throughout his career voted in support of the interests of the upper classes and against all legislation that would be in the interests of the working classes (called in the United States the "middle class"), can hope to attract some working-class voters who are not ready to accept the idea that either a woman or an African American can be the president of the United States.

Is there anything new? Well, yes, there is. The very idea that the two possible candidates of the Democratic Party are a woman and an African American is something that was unthinkable a mere decade ago.

The election of one or the other may yet turn out to be unthinkable. But that depends on the degree to which the Democratic Party can organize its campaign around class issues, which are delicately called issues of "the economy."

If it does, it will probably sweep the elections. If it does not, the contest will be close.

Obama-Clinton Race Increasingly Reveals Class Divide

There's been plenty of hand-wringing among Democrats about racial polarization. But a class divide has also reared its head as the primary season winds down.

In state after state, wealthier, better-educated voters have flocked to Sen. Barack Obama, while poorer, less-educated voters have sided overwhelmingly with Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, keeping her alive with wins in states such as Pennsylvania, Ohio and now West Virginia.

These are battlegrounds the party needs to win the White House.

Party leaders confidently predict that ranks will close around the eventual nominee and argue that blocs reflect preferences, not aversions.

But surveys show Clinton and Obama voters digging in, with more and more telling pollsters they won't support the other candidate if theirs loses.

"It all depends on how you define schism," said Democratic pollster Mark Mellman. "There are clearly two distinct demographic coalitions facing each other in the Clinton-Obama matchup."

That has held true in nearly every state so far besides Wisconsin, where Mr. Obama made inroads among older white voters.

But like other Democratic analysts, Mr. Mellman doesn't think the rift will survive into the fall.

"There's a durable, clear difference of opinion within the party by demographic group in terms of which candidate they prefer. But at the end of the day, nearly all Democrats are going to prefer whoever the nominee is over John McCain," he said.

He noted that in 2000, more than half of Mr. McCain's voters vowed never to support George W. Bush. Most ended up doing so anyway.

As one pundit put it, if you ask a couple where they want to spend Valentine's Day, you won't get an accurate answer if they're in the midst of a quarrel.

Broadly speaking, the Clinton coalition comprises downscale whites, women – especially older ones – and Latinos. The Obama coalition depends on blacks of all socioeconomic levels, plus upscale white men and younger voters.

Exit polls and other surveys show that someone with more education and income is probably an Obama voter. Someone with less of each is probably for his rival.

'United bloc' foreseen

"There is definitely a division between Democratic voters right now," said Hector Nieto, spokesman for the Texas Democratic Party, but "all demographics are tired of the status quo that we've had in the White House. ... Once that nominee is chosen, Democrats will come back together and vote as one united bloc."

Jim Spencer, president of the Campaign Network, a Democratic consulting firm with offices in Austin, Boston and Chapel Hill, N.C., also played down fears of a rift.

Polarized voting, he said, is natural in a contest between candidates who would each break a barrier, gender or race. It also stems from the way campaigns work, he said.

It's easier to drive up turnout among likely supporters than to poach from a rival's base. So, if Mr. Obama is relatively weak among older whites, why waste resources that could be used courting young voters and college-educated suburbanites?

"You fish where the fish are," said Mr. Spencer, who produced John Kerry's direct mail in the key 2004 New Hampshire fight.

Neither camp has made it easy for the other to poach, he added. Mrs. Clinton, for instance, through aides and in debates, has reminded voters about racially charged statements from Mr. Obama's former pastor, with the likely aim of keeping lower-income whites in her camp.

"She's running regular, strategic wedge politics," Mr. Spencer said.

Nothing new

The 2008 Democratic fight is hardly unique in exposing socioeconomic fault lines.

History shows that Democrats need both blue-collar and well-heeled voters to win a general election. Jimmy Carter pulled it off in 1976. Bill Clinton did it twice. Al Gore and Mr. Kerry didn't.

The fact that both would-be nominees have struggled to bridge the party's divide has fueled concerns of a shaky coalition in the fall.

"It's a big problem," said Matt Klink, a Los Angeles-based Democratic strategist.

"Barack Obama's comments about the bitterness of rural America strike a deeper chord about the elitism many blue-collar workers see," he said, noting Mr. Obama's lack of success with those voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio.

But Mrs. Clinton, he said, could have similar trouble keeping her working-class supporters while courting the Obama base.

"The party establishment is very concerned about it," Mr. Klink said. "Really, what's going on is a fight for the heart and soul of the party. ... They've got to resolve this schism. When they do that, they win."