Let's look at the several components of the SF comment and see how he addresses each in his response. "And it's not surprising then they get bitter." He says these poor people are bitter. It is hard to imagine that they are not bitter given the economic hardship they are enduring. Clinton for some strange reason decided yesterday to say that she didn't think that Pennsylvanians she had met were bitter. Well, I am certain that a case can be made that they are very angry. Obama, in his response sticks to his guns, "There has been a small "political flare-up because I said something that everybody knows is true, which is that there are a whole bunch of folks in small towns in Pennsylvania, in towns right here in Indiana, in my hometown in Illinois, who are bitter....They are angry. They feel like they have been left behind. They feel like nobody is paying attention to what they're going through." Obama reiterates that he said that people were bitter, that he thinks it is true that they are bitter and that, the fact that he said so is what has caused the uproar. But is that true? Is it the case that people are upset with him because he said that they were angry? No. This is the straw man. Nobody is really saying that the offense is that he said that people were bitter. The offensive part is what comes next.

Let's go back to the SF fundraiser comment. When people are bitter, Obama says,  "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."  That's five things that bitter people do to explain away their frustrations:

1. Cling to guns

2. Cling to religion

3. Cling to antipathy to people who aren't like them

4. Cling to anti-immigrant sentiment

5. Cling to anti-trade sentiments

First let's see if he addresses the notion in his response that bitter people seek refuges to explain away their frustrations.  "So I said, well you know, when you're bitter you turn to what you can count on. So people, they vote about guns, or they take comfort from their faith and their family and their community. And they get mad about illegal immigrants who are coming over to this country." Obama reiterates that he believes that bitter people turn to things that they can count on. He specifically mentions guns, religion, family and antipathy for illegal immigrants.  I don't know much about guns, but one could argue that hardship would lead one to take refuge in religion and families, but what on earth does that have to do with not supporting Obama? Is he saying that people who take refuge in their guns, religion and families are disposed to reject Obama? Why? Is he saying that he people who care about illegal immigration are inclined to reject Obama? Again why?

He continues:  "The truth is that these traditions that are passed on from generation to generation, those are important. That's what sustains us. 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. You know this in your own lives..." Whether you believe this or not, what does it have to do with whether or not they support Obama? You would hope that the more people took comfort in their families, the more they would embrace his message of hope and change. Then he does something very odd and concludes, "and what we need is a government that is actually paying attention."  

I guess the implication is that the people are bitter because the government has deserted them. For some reason, this makes them turn to their families, guns, religion and anti-immigration ideas, which for some reason makes them not support Obama. What they need is a government that is actually paying attention so that they will believe more in government and therefore support the head of the government...him. It seems impossible to argue with the conclusion, that if government served the people better they would be more supportive of the leaders, but again what does that have to do with why they don't support Obama over Clinton and McCain now. If anything, those two are more closely linked to this government. So here we have another straw man. It simply makes no sense that bitter people turning to guns, family, religion and anti immigration sentiments would have any reason to reject Obama over Clinton and certainly not over McCain.

Let's go back to the assumption that people who are bitter are more inclined to take refuge in guns, religion, family and anti immigration sentiments. Can that be what people find offensive and elitist? What if he had said that people who are rich, like his audience in SF, were more likely to reject guns, religion and families, and be more inclined to go easy on illegal immigration. Now that would not have gone over very well at all. So it seems that the ease with which he was willing to categorize an entire demographic of the electorate and then ascribe anti-Obama leanings to them based on that characterization is the crux of the offense.

And....there is something else. A careful reader would notice that he only addressed four of the five things that bitter people do to explain away their frustrations in his response. One other thing that he told the rich people at the SF fundraiser that bitter people do is "cling...to antipathy to people who aren't like them." His response does not address this at all.

Now let's go back to the perplexing analysis of what on earth these four refuges he mentions in his response could have to do with why they would reject Obama. As stated above, it is very hard to make a clear case, but here we have it. Obama is saying that bitter people turn to racism as a way to explain away their frustrations. In one short comment he generalizes that an entire segment of the population, because they are poor and bitter, among other stereotypical characteristics, harbor racial animosity. He says this to a room full of rich people as a way of explaining why he is not doing as well in these areas.

So, the offense has nothing to do with the fact that he called poor people bitter, and nothing to do with the fact that they need more government help. Two things about Obama's SF fundraiser comments are at the root of the offense and the response today does absolutely nothing to address either of them. First is the elitism and condescension implicit in assuming that bitter people turn to stereotypical refuges as a way of coping. Second that one of those refuges is racism, and that racism is why he is disadvantaged.

****************************************************

UPDATE-jdusek points out below:

He said "people who are not like them." That could mean any number of things. People who live in big cities. People who don't believe in God. People who are pro-choice. People who are gay. There are lots of possible ways that someone might be different in their attitudes, beliefs and lifestyle that have nothing to do with race.

He suggests that I am too quick to ascribe Obama's comment entirely to race, and suggests it may just be one of the factors. This is a valid point. Given the context of the speech in SF, I am assuming that he was refering primarily to race, but it may be that age or a perception of religious difference is also a factor. Obama does bring up his race earlier in the speech saying:

Here's how it is: in a lot of these communities in big industrial states like Ohio and Pennsylvania, people have been beaten down so long, and they feel so betrayed by government, and when they hear a pitch that is premised on not being cynical about government, then a part of them just doesn't buy it. And when it's delivered by -- it's true that when it's delivered by a 46-year-old black man named Barack Obama (laugher), then that adds another layer of skepticism (laughter).

But he also mentions his age, so perhaps jdusek has a point. It is still very difficult for me to follow why it would make people more or less skepticle of a pitch about not being cynical about government that he was young and black, unless he is implying some sort of bias. So, essentially he is accusing these people of bias. I don't see any way around that.