First of all, I don't care what Obama says about voters in Pennsylvania. What I think voters in Pennsylvania are most "bitter" about is that the Eagles can't win the Superbowl.
But let's look at the argument from both sides...
Those against Obama (Hillary, McCain, the right wing, half of the Democratic Party, and one or two media folks who haven't "gotten the memo") are saying his comments were "elitist." They point out the utter gall it takes to presume to speak for the feelings of such a large group of people. They point out also that it's pretty demeaning to suggest that just because government hasn't accomplished anything economically worthwhile in oh, about 6 decades, voters are going to become single(or double, or triple)-issue automatons so disaffected with the whole shebang that all they care about anymore is their guns. Or their church. Or their Klan buddies. Or their national isolationism. Or their economic isolationism.
Well, certainly some folks are bitter. And certainly some folks are bitter because the government (or lack thereof) has led to them being so.
But saying what he's said has effectively marginalized those issues he brought up. We'll leave out the comment about "people who aren't like them," since it's a cleverly worded play of the race card (good show, old chap!). Is he actually suggesting that people who value their faith would just give it up if an "economic Messiah" came along? Or that people who value their 2nd Amendment rights will be first in the "gun buyback line" if a factory's coming back to town?
Not bloody likely. And when you elevate economy above faith in one of your speeches, you've attempted to elevate yourself above that faith, as well.
Those who are for Obama (everybody else) say that his words are "the truth." Well of course they are. Especially when there's no way for them to be objectively proven. I've seen them actually referred to as "'unartful,' but not inaccurate." (Donna Brazile said that, and she'd know all about unartful comments and inaccurate ones).
Obama's response to the wave of criticism was essentially to say that he meant what he said, just not exactly the way he said it.
He said he apologizes to those who were offended by what he said. Great.
But does it bother anyone but me where he chose to say it? A closed fund-raiser in that last bastion of the liberal "we-know-better-than-you" elite?
That's right, folks. San Francisco.
I can't for the life of me figure out why he chose to address his comments not to the downtrodden, rural voters of Pennsylvania, but to the upscale $500-a-plate crowds in S.F. I'd really like to hear an explanation of that part of it.
P.S. -- Obama supporters, please stop posting youtube videos of rural Pennsylvania voters saying, "You're darn tootin' I'm bitter." It proves nothing.
'Cause we all know by now that if Obama had stood on stage and said, "All those rural Pennsylvania voters want is a ham sandwich! And I intend to give 'em one!" You'd all be falling all over yourselves to video rural Pennsylvania voters saying, "Boy, I sure could go for a ham sandwich right now."