When I first responded, below, I put forth an alternative interpretation of Obama's remarks. What I'm finding more interesting than what he said is how quickly a "standard interpretation" emerged as the Clinton campaign and the VRWC rushed to offer identical interpretations: "Condescending! Be insulted!".

Rereading the two paragraphs, I still see more latitude for interpretation than the standard interpretation allows. In particular, like I mentioned below, although Obama threw in the name "Pennsylvania", that's no more remarkable than remembering to mention the name of the town where a politician's speaking--it's rhetorical SOP. But despite that, I read that infamous phrase "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 intended to describe not necessarily all small towns in Pennsylvania, but "red state" attitudes, which we know are not entirely rural and are to be found across the length and breadth of this great land of ours.

Consider: Each of the attitudes/groups he cited corresponds to a recognized constituency within the GOP. They are, of course: The NRA; religious conservatives; anti-immigrants and nativists and others going Lou Dobbs on immigration; and anti-NAFTA economic populists of the Buchanan variety. You can assign "bitter" for yourself, I'll bet. I don't think that the one-to-one correspondence can be entirely coincidental.

So I'm inclined to see it as a political statement referring to a political demographic who've been hostile to Democrats the last couple of decades, but who, he might be saying in this interpretation, might respond to his message.

(Or he might not have been saying, I don't claim to read his mind, just offering an alternative.)

And that it's a group that the GOP has considered its loyal vassals for a long time goes a long way toward explaining the calculated outrage behind the Right's response. Obama's poaching on their turf! Of course they'll howling with outrage--they're afraid that Obama's kumbayaa might just undo decades of hard work getting those groups so disaffected and dissatisfied and angry.

You took umbrage at what you read as a characterization of dependence on the federal government, but don't overlook this phrase: "each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not." Is he perhaps talking about politicians making promises they don't keep?

(Please don't go Tom on me, I realize full well that if so, given the implication that he could do better, he's no doubt guilty of making the same hyperbolic promises. Just standing outside the standard interpretation box.)

"Great post!" gushes Tom, soundling much like the Emperor telling Anakin and Luke to "use your anger!" The path to the Dark Side anger is. Those who encourage it and gasoline pour on the fire, "demagogues" we call them. Deceived be you not!