It's certainly an arguable point that a Democrat can't win the White House without getting some "White Working Class" votes, but Wilentz too readily buys the Clinton line that Obama will never get these votes to make the claim plausible. I suspect that he's projecting some of his own issues with "elitist" politics onto the larger public. It also looks like he can't quite accept that the WWC, at least as he defines it, isn't necessarily the most progressive constituency in American politics. It appears that, must he choose between progress and the WWC, he'll follow the latter over the cliff, as long as a Clinton is playing the pipes. This fawning attitude toward the Clintons from a man of learning is nearly inexplicable, while the similar fawning toward the WWC may reflect some craving for acceptance as a regular guy -- but we shouldn't speculate too far that way. Let's leave the topic with another writer's comment in response to Wilentz:
"Wilentz observes that George W. Bush carried the majority of white working class votes in 2000 and 2004. Are we then to assume that the white working class can be held responsible for electing the "worst" president in American history. If so, should the judgment of the white working class be trusted?"