Obama has again proven himself to be effete and entitled.

My My My the Obamites are losing it. I have reports from the field that the Obamite commenters are in full melt down mode on most blogs. I don't dip too deeply into the rampant pro obama media and blogs anymore. Life is too short to be bothered with childish fanatics. The most important political take away from Obama's idiotic remarks and weak explanation is this:
More than likely, HE JUST LOST PENNSYLVANIA TO MCCAIN IN THE FALL. The road to Obama actually being in the White House just got much narrower. Florida is out of reach and Ohio looks bad. West Virginia should be put squarely in the GOP column now. I would even say he'll have to do some explaining in Massachusetts. A lot of voters are not going to take kindly to him when reminded of Wright and his San Fran gaffe in tandem.

D.C. and Illinois are probably still safe for Barry.

The list of proofs that Obama is an arrogant, entitled brat is now longer than ever. There are many ways to look at Obama's latest offensive remarks. Let's look at a few:

1. The man is a political fool. The remarks to San Francisco are a violation of politics 101. In 1984 Gary Hart said on the eve of the California and New Jersey primaries to a group of California supporters that they where lucky whereas "he had to go back to New Jersey". Mondale promptly kicked his ass in New Jersey and that was that for Hart. Obama did him three better in Pennsylvania: he insulted gun owners, all religious people, and said in essence to white voters that they were bitter toward anyone "who was not like them". Nice. Especially coming from a man who has gotten quite a lot of white support. Gratitude is not the Obama family's long suit.

2. The statement is just wrong. Pennsylvania is above the national average in income and has made a small, but real come back since Billy Joel's Allentown defined it. This is largely because of the hard work of Pennsylvanians. Read this to get the low down.

3. The statement itself is a compendium of all the latte liberal nonsense that loses election after election for Democrats. One can easily imagine Dukakis opining in a similar way. One can hardly imagine LBJ, FDR, or Bill Clinton being so breathlessly condescending. both because they were politically smarter than Obama and, frankly, they weren't brats.

What he said:

Pennsylvanians were "bitter" and "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"

Wow. Really where to begin? It is an astounding list of insults. The most offensive being that religious people are, in fact, religious to the degree that economic hard times have befallen them. I suppose if one spent 20 years in the "Our Lady of Perpetual Resentment" congregation one might think of any religion not full of anti-American, anti-white clap trap was merely a bromide and sedative. The subtext here is: the faithful are being taken for a ride and are therefore stupid. Obama is saying that the religious "cling" to Catholicism, and the Quaker faith, and the rest out of empty headedness and fear. This statement is appalling and, as a religious person, very hard not to take personally.

He started the nonsense with:
"They feel so betrayed by government that 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, then that adds another layer of skepticism."

I can only repeat this truism about the Obama Entitlement Express: when it works for him he says "race doesn't or shouldn't matter" When it looks like things won't break his way it's because he's black. The sentiment here is clear: If I lose it is because they were skeptical because I am a "46-year-old black man named Barack Obama". HE can't possibly imagine losing because the people wanted someone else. He still seems stunned that he can campaign in a state and then lose. As he said last summer "to know him is to love him."

The sentence assumes that Pennsylvanians inherently should trust him - why? - I guess because he showed up - and that skepticism is wrong in any case. The idea that voters might ask him to prove that he can deliver never enters the equation for him. I've noticed time and time again that the one question he and his supporters can never answer is "Why should we choose you?". One gets a response, but never an answer.

Let me add: His entire "pitch" is premised on the most basic level of cynicism: people will go with whoever makes them feel good regardless of who they actually are or have been. This is why the speeches are so good and the content of the campaign and its leader are so empty.

I have nothing much to add about "clinging to guns" except it is classic latte liberal foolishness. Gun owners are not particular clingy types in any case. Again: Obama just doesn't get it. In his world people "cling to guns". In the gun owners world it is their right to have them. The reason liberals like his San Francisco audience cannot ever win this argument is because their premise is always gun owners are hicks. Having a reasonable conversation about the 2nd Amendment is off the table immediately. I do not own a gun. I am for much stricter gun control laws. But knowing a few gun owners who are hardly hicks I chafe at lefty remarks like Obama's. Obama telegraphs his contempt for gun owners. I can only hope they respond in the voting booth.

I hold out no hope that the MSM will treat his remarks fairly. The ability to deny facts on the ground when you've invested so much pie in the sky is astonishing. Olbermann will probably make the blogger at the Huffpost the "worst person in the world". Matthews must be in a cold sweat about how to spin this to his fellow Quaker Staters.

The damage is done. Obama has again proven himself to be an effete, entitled, numbskull.