"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. 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." Elitist, elitist, elitist.  Let me translate for you:
So these people who live in the rustbelt.  Their beliefs aren’t their fault, those poor people, they just cling to them because they are frustrated.  It’s not that they are really that religious, or that they really believe in the 2^nd amendment, or that they really should be free trade or anti-illegal immigration, it is that they are mentally incompetent because of their poor economic conditions.  Obama tried to clear up his statements but even his fellow democrats are backing away from the comments.  I am going to quote Ben Smith from politico.com.  Here is a link to his blog http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/.  This is what he had to say about (btw he is a democrat): 

The first paragraph here is, basically, the case for a generous reading of his remarks Sunday. Politicians don't typically get generous readings ("When I said, 'last throes,' I meant..."), but since there will be no shortage of uncharitable ones between now and November if he's the nominee, (three different Republican committees have already denounced his remarks), it does seem worth to pause at what he meant to say.He's now saying, basically, that he meant his comments in the What's the Matter with Kansas? sense -- that he was arguing that economic insecurity and frustration have been displaced onto social issues. (A correspondent who was at the San Francisco fundraiser, Marcia Ewing, emails that he delivered a parallel diagnosis of the bitterness of inner cities.) So when he said that people "cling to guns or religion...as a way to explain their frustration," he meant something along the lines of, "displace their feelings of economic insecurity onto fears of social change." He was, he's suggesting, talking about the politics of guns or religion, not the things themselves.The What's the Matter with Pennsylvania reading still has its problems. For one, it is a refusal to take voters' devotion to faith and guns at face value, psychologizing it instead.And even if it was what he meant, it isn't what he said. What he did suggest, most problematically, is that there's something wrong, or symptomatic, about clinging to your faith, or to your gun. It's a suggestion that probably plays better in San Francisco (politically, the worst possible place to say it) than in the middle of the country. 

Let me repeat this last statement because I think it is EXTREMELY important:

And even if it was what he meant, it isn't what he said. What he did suggest, most problematically, is that there's something wrong, or symptomatic, about clinging to your faith, or to your gun. It's a suggestion that probably plays better in San Francisco (politically, the worst possible place to say it) than in the middle of the country.

So much for winning the Midwest you socialist snob.  I guess us religious folk are too dumb to know better.  One America?  You sir have run a multi-America divisive campaign… and clearly are not in touch with anyone but the elite democrat/socialist leftists.  Obama 08 Please God No.