Obama is sticking to his guns on his remark on small town America deciding their vote more over guns and gay marriage than over the economy.  You know what?  I give him credit for at least not trying to completely remold what he said to curry favor.  He did try to use a little nuance in his follow up comment by framing it in terms of recognizing that people are fed up with the status quo and ready for change.

Of course Hillary and McCain are jumping all over this statement as if he were promising that day one of the Obama administration he was going to send out the police to confiscate guns and force everyone into a same sex marriage.  Considering the fact that Obama has managed to either explain or blunt the attack dogs over stuff like his reverend mentor and his Chicago chums, I have to believe he'll weather this storm.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

"And it's not surprising then 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," he said.

Ehhh, I can see where he's coming from, but I grew up in small town PA and I don't think he's partly right and partly not. I think he's 100% right about the anti-immigration / anti-free trade sentiment - that directly stems from fears that immigrants will take jobs. Religion and guns, on the other hand - that was a reckless and obnoxious comment. Religion has been a part of small town Pennsylvania life since the founding of the country - church social halls are often the largest public gathering place many of these small towns have. Frankly, I just find the whole comment puzzling - is Obama trying to imply that religion is somehow a bad, anti-progressive thing? Maybe he is, but if so then his own "faith" is a bit puzzling, no? And as far as the gun issue goes - this just shows that Obama really doesn't have a clue about rural concerns, basically. People in small town Pennsylvania hunt and target shoot for sport. People in small town Pennsylvania very, very rarely have to deal with gun crime - it's just not an issue. Of course they oppose gun control. What do you expect? If you want to change their mind, you need to make that argument in terms they can understand - not just call them bitter bigots.

Once again I'm disappointed in Obama. I was almost 100% behind him, and then the whole Wright fiasco happened. I had almost gotten over that, and now this (which, frankly, I find far more insulting and is far more damaging, at leas to my opinion, than the Wright thing was). I forget who said it but during the Wright affair someone here mentioned how Obama seemed out of touch with rural areas and to not have a really good plan for rural development, even though he had spent a ton of time on his urban renewal plans. Those comments were absolutely prescient.

One of the curious things about liberals that they can't comprehend that people might have legitimate reasons for not being liberal.

Obama seems not to grasp that many people like guns. They enjoy hunting, and value the 2nd Amendment. And they sleep better at night knowing if one of his cousins breaks in the door they can defend themselves.

He doesn't understand that many oppose immigration not because they are "frustrated" or "anti-immigrant" or suffer from "antipathy to people who aren't like them", but because it's a bad deal for them. They feel (and in this matter the evidence overwhelmingly supports them) that mass immigration ruins their schools, lowers their wages, and increases their housing costs, and transforms their country, while not providing any commensurate benefits.

Obama's condemning people for "clinging" to their religion is bizarre. Some people are religious, and given that Obama claims to be religious and clings to a pastor who is a hate-mongering loon you really have no business criticizing anyone in this matter.

Even more curious, liberals are surprised when people whose values they hold in contempt vote against them.

While I've never thought Obama exceptionally intelligent, these remarks are truly stupid and a massive political misstep.

Hypothetically speaking, why does Obama consider it to be such a bad thing to be a one issue voter? If so, where is the outrage over Hispanics flocking to whatever party will liberalize immigration laws or grant the most amnesty? Following his logic, isn't he just pandering to a single issue voter bloc by offering illegals drivers licenses, amnesty and citizenship?

People have always voted for their self interest instead of the country.

Here's the text of it, with some emphasis added by me:

"When I go around and I talk to people there is frustration and there is anger and there is bitterness. And what's worse is when people are expressing their anger then politicians try to say what are you angry about? This just happened - I want to make a point here today.

"I was in San Francisco talking to a group at a fundraiser and somebody asked how're you going to get votes in Pennsylvania? What's going on there? We hear that's its hard for some working class people to get behind you're campaign. I said, "Well look, they're frustrated and for good reason. Because for the last 25 years they've seen jobs shipped overseas. They've seen their economies collapse. They have lost their jobs. They have lost their pensions. They have lost their healthcare.

"And for 25, 30 years Democrats and Republicans have come before them and said we're going to make your community better. We're going to make it right and nothing ever happens. And of course they're bitter. Of course they're frustrated. You would be too. In fact many of you are. Because the same thing has happened here in Indiana. The same thing happened across the border in Decatur. The same thing has happened all across the country. Nobody is looking out for you. Nobody is thinking about you. And so people end up- they don't vote on economic issues because they don't expect anybody's going to help them. So people end up, you know, voting on issues like guns, and are they going to have the right to bear arms. They vote on issues like gay marriage. And they take refuge in their faith and their community and their families and things they can count on. But they don't believe they can count on Washington. So I made this statement-- so, here's what rich. Senator Clinton says `No, I don't think that people are bitter in Pennsylvania. You know, I think Barack's being condescending.' John McCain says, `Oh, how could he say that? How could he say people are bitter? You know, he's obviously out of touch with people.'

"Out of touch? Out of touch? I mean, John McCain--it took him three tries to finally figure out that 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? Senator 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? 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 on in Indiana. I know what's going on 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 part I highlighted in bold is probably the best defense of this he could have made, so I give him props for that. Still, when you read his original statement, I think it's a pretty big stretch to get what I highlighted in bold from his original statement. I think the original statement definitely exposes, at the very least, a relatively strong anti-gun sentiment and certainly an amount of condescension towards religion (and for that matter, so does his defense - does he not believe that some people so strongly hold their religions beliefs that they will vote against their economic interests, regardless?).