The predicate of his campaign is destruction of Democrats...whether they are small town citizens or past presidents or opponents.

Why does he heart Reagan so?

He is NOT riding this one out.  Well he may stay on the bull for a while, but he's about to fly off the saddle.  Get the distraction clowns ready!! (media on alert already)

Quite frankly this is the fatal gaffe of his presidential campaign.  It insults way too many people in ridiculous and nonsensical ways.  It even tries to equate Bill Clinton's economic legacy to that of Bush.  It is toxic and ugly stuff coming from a supposed Democratic candidate.

So yea, basically BTD I disagree with you.  The Obama elitist puzzle just got its final piece with his "cling" statement and it may take a while for the media and the blogs to digest but this is definitely toxic and makes him completely, and I mean completely unelectable.

Despite the media.  Maybe it will resonate even MORE because of the media adoration.  The ELITE media telling the little people what to think.

These people have been voting their interests, they've just been getting screwed over by all those red state voters Obama is so very fond of courting.  And now they're being told that the democratic party doesn't need to worry about their vote in November because Obama can win over red states like Virginia and Colorado.  Oh, and that their lack of enthusiasm for being consistently condescended to and discounted by Obama and his supporters makes them racists.  

knowing the leaders is not important

That was at the height of his powers.  He's fallen quite a few pegs since then and will only continue to fall.  There's no reason to expect he'd improve on those numbers.

When taken in comparison with Texas where the county maps showed that he basically won the cities with high black turnout(Dallas, Houton, Cleveland, Cincinnatti) and the college towns with the kids(Austin, Columbus) and got smoked everywhere else.  I suspect Pennsylvania will continue this trend with Obama winning Philadelphia, State College, maybe a few counties right outside Philadelphia, but getting hammered everywhere else.  The map will look eerily similar to the county map in Ohio.  At that point, the Super Delegates will realize what is up.

Also, his results in Texas confirmed his huge weakness with the Hispanic vote.  The dems already struggle topping the low 40s in the white vote.  If we start falling in the Hispanic vote(and unfortunately for us, McCain is about as the best guy the GOP could hope for to get Hispanic votes), we may as well pack it in.

Throw in his excluding Florida and Michigan and the problems only mount.

And his struggles in Ohio and Texas were BEFORE the Wright videos broke, before this latest blunder, before who knows what else will come out between now and November.  His numbers will only decline.

The correct answer, of course, is that he's doing poorly in these areas because these people feel the effects of bad policy immediately and hard. They vote for the candidate who makes the best case for policies that will affect them and Obama's campaign is about "politics not policy."

The answer Obama gave, we all know is that they are bitter and, well exhibit "antipathy to people who aren't like them."

Now it's being reported that Obama is bactracking by saying:

"I didn't say it as well as I should have," Obama, an Illinois senator, said in Muncie, Indiana.

"But what is absolutely true is that people don't feel like they are being listened to. And so they pray and they count on each other and they count on their families," he said.

That is all well and good, but what does it have to do with why he is behind among rural voters? Why exactly does Obama think that these people who don't feel like they are being listened to voting for Hillary and not for him?

"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."

Because of their frustration they cling to guns or religion?

I know rural people, I live in South Dakota.  Hunting and guns are a way of life here, part of the culture, just like in Pennsylvania.  People worry about losing the right to hunt and bear arms when they hear talk from people that lived their whole lives in Urban areas who are anti gun and animal rights activists, and Republicans prey on those fears.  It has NOTHING to do with the frustration of their daily lives.  It is culture.

Same goes for religion.  People grow up here in their local church.  All their family members and neighbors attend.  It is as much about spirituality as it is a part of the social fabric.  It is in no way shape or form a response to bitterness.  I'd like to know where Obama's religiosity comes from?  People here in Rural America get offended hearing people like Bill Mahr belittle them for their belief and way of life.  Heck, last night Mahr went on a tirade against the Catholic Church.  That'll get us votes in November, that's for sure!

And what's the deal with - antipathy to people who aren't like them?  Is this due to their misplace frustration, or is it their way of life???  I say it's their traditional way of life.  They grow up around people who look like them and are suspicious of people who are different or non-traditional.  But on the other hand, they are the friendliest and least standoffish people I know.  I honestly don't see the Rural Americans I know as having a racist bone in their bodies.

How about their anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment?  He is implying that what people who live in the rust belt have misplaced anti-sentiment.  They see complete industries shut down, packed up, and sent overseas.  Meanwhile profits at these companies that left them behind skyrockets, the executives get rich beyond any reasonable expectation.  What conclusion are they supposed to draw?

His response statement does not address these things.  He just went and made a totally different point (ala Thomas Frank - What's the Matter with Kansas?) to justify a stupid statement.  People who live in Rural America like me won't buy it.  Franks was talking about something different than Obama was in his first comment in SF.  But the urban elites will bite hook, line, and sinker.

I run a national business that's customer base is almost entirely rural, small town and suburban men. Before the 1994 election, I was overwhelmed by angry guys who, out of the blue, would start ranting about term limits. Since I don't agree with term limits, for several well thought out reasons, I was reluctant to get roped into these conversations -- their anger told me something was going on here that did not have much to do with rational arguments for or against term limits. So, to defuse the conversation I would make a kind of a joke -- I'd say, "Naw, I don't think term limits are the answer. I think we should try to pass a law that limits congressional pay to no more that 2 or 3 times the average per capita income in the representative district."

The reaction was ALWAYS the same. There would be a pause while they did a little calculating, then they would laugh, uproariously. Then, we could have a real, conversation.

My point is this; people well know that those in our national political establishment no longer share much in common with the people they are suppose to represent. This is why the label "elitist" is so effective.

My prediction is this statement will have consequences, because it confirms what people think about candidates, liberal candidates especially -- that they are out of touch with ordinary American life and have little respect for the people they claim to want to represent -- and what they think is wrong with the system.

The thing I detest most about mainstream political commentators is that nobody really talks about the words themselves, the issues, the principles. No. That requires too much intellectual rigor. It's so much easier to sit back like an arm chair quarterback and theorize about how the archetypal Archie Bunker voter is going to react to something or other. The issues don't matter. Only the meta matters.