Transformation? NOT!

Paul Krugman almost got it right in his op-ed piece, "Self-Inflicted Confusion," in the NY Times this AM, in which he states that maybe Barack Obama's "transformational campaign isn’t winning over working-class voters because transformation isn’t what they’re looking for." That statement is the truest yet from a pundit on why Obama isn't winning in certain enclaves of the so-called "working class." But from reading the rest of Krugman's article, what is clear is that Mr. Krugman didn't grow up in a "working class" environment (or if he did, he's so distant from it now that he's forgotten what actually goes on.) He ludicrously suggests that said voters won't support Obama because they like Hillary's health care plan better, or that they buy into her "no-nonsense style." What? Oh, right, she downed some beer and whiskey without flinching. I forgot.
Listen Paul, I grew up in a working class family in a working class neighborhood, and I can tell you, emphatically, that "transformation" is anethema there. Transformation, which means change stemming from a desire to go beyond where one has been, implies a certain amount of self-reflection as a precursor. Believe me when I tell you that whether it's in rural Pennsylvania or Staten Island, what makes working class people "proud" is to be able to point out how their values and mindsets haven't changed in several generations, and that furthermore, they see no need to change or reflect on their attitudes. And guess what? Part of that "We'll never change" attitude includes not accepting a person of color or a woman as their leader. Which means that I can also tell you, emphatically, that Hillary will never win over this crowd in the general election because after Obama is gotten rid of, the people who voted for Hillary are going to vote for John McCain for president.
Bet the ranch house on it, Mr. Krugman.