If someone wanted to see how early 21st century American politics operates, they need look no further than the current (growing) flap over politically flat-footed comments Senator Barack Obama made giving his theory on why small town Pennsylvanians are bitter.

It follows a pattern of American politics — one Americans will see often in the coming months until Election Day. But it’s a pattern that requires a candidate unguarded enough to set the damaging reaction in motion. And Obama — in what will sure go down as an Amateur Hour moment — did just that.

Here’s how the pattern works:

(a) Candidate opens mouth and firmly inserts foot inside by making an over-simplistic comment about something he believes but can’t be verified or uses a stereotype that others can point to and use against him or her. He/she gives opponents an opening to expand on it and characterize it in the most damaging way.

(b) The controversy is jumped on by the news media and weblogs (many of which are allied with specific candidates) and starts to dominate the news — and political — cycle. News cycles are now nearly instantaneous and in a continuous loop….the news report…the blog report…the reaction stories…the talk show feedback…the candidate’s supporting and opposing blog reaction posts (which usually say what you’d expect them to say on a given issue). And it continues on until the story (or candidate) fades away and a new one appears.

(c) Said candidate takes foot out of mouth and responds but, if he/she doesn’t give in totally to politically-motivated critics’ demands to apologize or retract it the way they insist it be done (to inflict maximum damage on said candidate), it will continue to be used against them until the media gets bored or it shows it’s not registering in the polls.

Senator Barack Obama, in comments that were indeed unverifiable, indicative of stereotypical thinking and a virtual Christmas/Hanukkah/Birthday/Wedding Show/Door Prize gift to Senator Hillary Clinton, presumptive GOP nominee John McCain, politically-aligned bloggers and talk show hosts, gave his opponents an opening that they will and are going to use against him. It came in comments he made about small town Pennsylvania that were reported in The Huffington Post that handed foes political attack material on a silver platter:

You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. So it’s not surprising then that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

Um, now these are in some communities, you know. I think what you’ll find is, is that people of every background — there are gonna be a mix of people, you can go in the toughest neighborhoods, you know working-class lunch-pail folks, you’ll find Obama enthusiasts. And you can go into places where you think I’d be very strong and people will just be skeptical. The important thing is that you show up and you’re doing what you’re doing.

The reaction? A firestorm. Clinton suggested this means Obama doesn’t want to work for Pennsylvanians and looks down his snoot at them. (A key Clinton support in introducing Bill Clinton in North Carolina is already using the issue there.) John McCain’s camp said it couldn’t believe a candidate for President could say such a thing. One Internet columnist called Obama anti-American. John Hinderaker of the big Republican blog Powerline asked if Obama’s campaign was over and answered his own question:

I don’t see how anyone known to have uttered these words can be elected President….Barack Obama’s arrogance has been evident for some time, and it’s no shock, perhaps, to learn that that he shares this bigoted opinion, common among urban liberals, of people who live in “small towns.” But to actually express it, in public, at a campaign event, is stunningly stupid. Nevertheless, Obama did it.

And, indeed, Obama’s comments have given his critics an opening — just what the doctor ordered for the recently-on-the-defensive (over strategist Mark Penn’s ouster and Bill Clinton’s decision to revive the Bosnia issue) Hillary Clinton campaign and another strand the GOP can use to paint Obama as a liberal elitist.

In Pennsylvania on Friday afternoon, Mrs. Clinton was first to seize upon the comment Mr. Obama made at the California fundraiser. Both Democrats are embroiled in a vigorous battle for the Pennsylvania primary on April 22.

“It’s being reported that my opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience,” Mrs. Clinton told an audience at Drexel University. “Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them, who fights for them, who works hard for your futures, your jobs, your families.”

After making her remarks before a crowd of voters, aides to Mrs. Clinton issued several statements criticizing Mr. Obama, including ones that contained criticism from Republicans. Soon, the McCain campaign also weighed in with criticism of Mr. Obama’s remarks from the California fundraiser.

“It shows an elitism and condescension towards hardworking Americans that is nothing short of breathtaking,” said Steve Schmidt, a senior adviser to Mr. McCain. “It is hard to imagine someone running for president who is more out of touch with average Americans.

Obama has been working to improve appeal to working class voters — and the latest comment won’t help. So he soon made a speech replying to critics:

“Here’s what’s rich. Sen. Clinton says, I don’t think people are bitter in Pennsylvania. I think Barack’s being condescending. John McCain says, he’s obviously out of touch with people. Out of touch? John McCain, it took him three tries to figure out the home foreclosure crisis was a problem and to come up with a plan for it, and he’s saying I’m out of touch? Sen. Clinton voted for a credit card sponsored bankruptcy bill that made it harder for people to get out of debt, after taking money from the financial services companies, and she says I’m out of touch?:

The crowd listened silently when Obama started his explanation, but now people were on their feet, stomping and clapping.

“No, I’m in touch. I know exactly what’s going on. I know what’s going on in Pennsylvania, I know what’s going in Indiana, I know what’s going in Illinois. People are fed up. They’re angry and they’re frustrated and they’re bitter, and they want to see a change in Washington, and that’s why I’m running for president of the United States of America.”

The Clinton campaign jumped on Obama’s explanation, blast e-mailing it out to reporters.

“Instead of apologizing for offending small town America, Senator Obama chose to repeat and embrace the comments he made earlier this week,” said Clinton spokesman Phil Singer. “It’s unfortunate that Senator Obama didn’t say he was sorry for what he said. Americans are tired of a President who looks down on them — they want a President who will stand up for them for a change. The Americans who live in small towns are optimistic, hardworking and resilient. They deserve a president who will respect them.”

Meanwhile, The New York Times reports that Clinton plans to hit Obama in Pennsylvania today on his small town comments.

Can it derail the Obama campaign?

Most assuredly it will likely break Obama’s growing momentum in Pennsylvania and will completely obscure the recent Bill Clinton Bosnia debacle.

Also: his comments were specifically about small towns and Clinton would be almost politically negligent if she didn’t raise them in small towns in Pennsylvania. On the other hand, the way Clinton is characterizing them — suggesting Obama looks down on all people in small towns and really doesn’t want to help them — may not pass an accuracy test (but will pass a political test).

The New Republic’s Isaac Chotiner, writing on the magazine’s The Plank blog under a headline Obama’s None-Too-Bright Remarks says this:

A predictable but basically understandable firestorm has begun over Barack Obama’s comments on the “bitterness” of Pennsylvanians…

He looks at Obama’s later comments in trying to respond to the furor and adds:

The second statement at least has the virtue of being semi-coherent; Obama is making Thomas Frank’s ‘What’s the Matter With Kansas’ argument, while at the same time playing defense against his rivals. But go back and read the original comment. It ain’t pretty.

Then Chotiner writes:

I suppose the Obama folks are lucky that this is breaking on a Friday night–and going after McCain is probably the smartest thing they can do–but this is not the story he needs ten days before Pennsylvania.

So the lingering questions are:

–Will this do-in Obama in Pennsylvania, un-tightening what appeared to be a tightening race? Will Clinton now win by the whopping margins showed in polls a few months ago? Or is Obama’s on-the-round organizing still enough to keep it a close horse race?

–Will this start a new cycle of Obama on the defensive? Cable and radio talk shows will have a field day expanding on this theme and running Obama’s comments starting on Monday.

–Can Obama’s camp now rebound from what is clearly a big political error. Just as Clinton’s campaign has showed signs of being poorly run, what does this say about what advisers are telling — or not — telling Barack Obama? And if they are giving him advice is he listening?

Once again in a Democratic party primary twist-and-turn…McCain must be smiling. Because this is yet another sign that this bitter campaign will be fought tooth and nail and could go all the way to the convention.

For tons of blog reaction GO HERE.