If my $40k a year in Pittsburgh makes me an elitist, then I'm scared to even think about what makes someone 'common folk'. I have a greater need for a gun for the protection of myself and my family in the city than any small town folk could claim, and yet I support reasonable regulations. I see more pain and misery and suffering in the city every day than any small town folk see in their life, and yet I don't embrace an imaginary friend who promises me Disneyland in the afterlife. I am a heterosexual male who believes that monogamy is right for me and yet I feel no need to impress that opinion on others. I am a white male who feels no personal responsibility for the sad state of race relations in this country, and yet I have the reasoning capabilities to recognize that systematic racism is still rampant and as such remains a stain on the very values we espouse as Americans. If those opinions make me an elitist, then I am damn proud to be called one, and damn proud that Obama has the balls to tell the truth. Better to lose with integrity than win at any cost. Our Republic is lost anyway when ‘elitist’ becomes synonymous with ‘educated’.

You're an elitist when you see someone who hunts or someone who's religious or someone who's against illegal immigration and see a problem that is in need of a solution.

These people Obama was talking about are the heart of this country. They are honest, hard-working, church-going people who pay their taxes, don't make a for-profit business out of having babies, don't expect a handout from the government and generally mind their own business.

What you see around you is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Obama doesn't like their behavior and thinks he can fix it. That's elitist.

Great post. All these people soiling themselves with rage over Obama's comments miss an essential truth--there's no reason he shouldn't express the complexity of small town life, and nobody can deny that there are insular, fearful qualities to it. It's sad that a presidential candidate has to avoid speaking the truth if it will offend some key demographic. Does any pundit stop to think that there might be a more complex message here than "all good" or "all bad?"

I live in a small town with a mill (the only major employer) that is constantly going bankrupt. While I'm not religious, I do own several guns. And I wasn't offended in the least by what Obama said. While the soundbite that everyone's quoting is too strong out of context, it's still accurate. I guess I'm an elitist too, but if Hillary's "populist" government is going to produce a nanny state, and Obama's will produce an elitist state that doesn't pander to whoever will vote for it, I'll stick with the elitism, thank you. It may be aloof, but at least it's impartial. What happened to the old small-town tradition of self-reliance? In my town, we're shifting over to other industries rather than complaining. You can't curse the government with one breath and ask for handouts with another. If a scrappy rednecks want to prove their toughness, maybe they can start by not complaining every time someone hurts their feelings.

P.S. It's also shocking that Bill Kristol and our own Lou Dobbs wannabe Kaus have blown this controversy WAY beyond any reasonable sginificance. Do they think that by throwing indignant tantrums over it, they're helping out the country in any way? No, of course not, they just smell blood.

The problem I see is that he is taking behaviors that are core to that culture and trying to claim that they are the result of economic problems. Do you have guns because of the economic problems or because your dad took you hunting as a kid?

I heard that sound-bite and it reminded me of lectures from my profs during college. He didn't mean to be condescending, but he was.

Yeah, but he doesn't actually say that gun rights or religion are problems that need to be fixed. People keep parsing it to find that, but it was clearly not his intent to insult these people. That seems to be where you've missed your bus, Tony.

People keep distorting his words in the hopes of uncovering some sinister aspect to his soul, to prove that even though he says otherwise, he really truly does hate America and the American way of life. It's getting really tiresome and the electorate is less and less apt to buy into this way of thinking.

Hillary has run a strictly negative campaign, plus she's told several bald-faced lies about her experience in Bosnia and her original stance on NAFTA. Then she keeps distorirting Obama's words in this derogatory, simplistic, almost childish way... I don't understand how people can see her as a credible or legitimate person anymore, let alone a candidate.

You sound outraged because of the outrage which you think is ridiculous. Does the ridiculous often outrage you, or do you usually just chuckle?

It seems to me there is actually something very powerful in this clinger controversy even to you and you would serve yourself, me, and the country better by putting your finger on exactly what it is. It couldn't be outrage over other peoples outrage could it. You don't slap you children for crying because they got stung by a bee and you can't feel their pain do you?

People are offended, outraged now because Obama doing the elitist dance of power refuses to say he is sorry for calling any Americans bitter. Remember all that he has been promising people? Change we can believe in? I think the one change that we can't believe in with him as an administrator is admitting he is wrong. Is this the one big change that would make all the difference?

I have heard the elitist circles talking in rage over another politician who wouldn't admit he was wrong.

But to put this insistence of the casual and normal use of the word bitter in administration, imagine how Iraq, or Pakistan, or Iran will react when Obama explains that these global problems are caused because their people are bitter and therefore clinging to bombs and religion.

Do you think that will go over well in the world?

A blunder like that could be the spark that starts world war III, this is reality and it is actually something we should all be concerned about. Those of us who have a healthy fear of such calamities just don't want a leader to slip up like that and this is a deep sense of self preservation that higher education might just cover up enough to create a dangerous sense of complacency and yes that is called elitism.

Leea

I don't think there is anything sinister about what Obama said and I don't think he hates America. He probably truly believes what he said. The problem is that what he said was left-wing elitist. It has a very east-coast, noblesse oblige vibe to it.

You get the feeling that he doesn't feel the need for religion and guns or xenophobia because he's economically advantaged and educated. If only those poor souls in PA had good jobs, they wouldn't cling to church so much

There are some good points here (wow, so much attention!) and I would say a few things in response.

I think it's more reasonable to be outraged (or irritated, as I am) over the concerted, systematic outrage and character assasinations of an entire group of pundits than to be outraged at one stupid but essentially correct statement by a candidate who has to make thousands of statements a week, and is bound to screw up once in a while. They're talking about it like he's a traitor--the spittle-spraying apoplexy seems overkill for the thing they're condemning. I'd be more inclined to listen to their point if they were calmer about it.

Perhaps the implication that economic trouble caused "guns and religion," bigotry, etc., is offensive, but the verb cling implies that these things were there to begin with. Whatever, it's equally flawed to parse words that way; on the face of it, the statement is wrong about that, but I still think there's a kernel of truth. In context, it implies demagogues have hijacked these values, pairing them with the bigotry that results from fear, to scare up votes. Yeah, i'ts offensive, but if you look at the history, it's got some truth to it.

As a small-town boy who went to college in New England, I am profoundly aware of New England elitism (in fact, that elitism helped me re-discover my fondness for firearms, partly as a way to shock uptight classmates). The elites I knew would never speak as directly as Obama did--they would find PC ways to make the point sound less offensive. I bet that most of them are, as we speak, trying very hard to sound scandalized by the whole thing, since it seems to be fashionable. It's that kind of soft, pandering condescension that I find more elitist.

My main reason for being so irritated, though, is the pattern I see here--it's exactly what happened to Gore and Kerry, who, for all their faults (and sure, let's assume for the sake of argument that they're effete, wimpy snobs) just might have managed things a bit better. Having a down-to-earth president has not worked out so well recently. I won't go off on the real scandal--that much of the criticism against Obama is coming from someone in his own party who has more of a herditary claim to elite status than he does. That deserves its own post.