Washington, D.C. (Rightcommentary.com): I must say I don’t get it. Why are people shocked that Sen. Obama called most of rural America “bitter” and that such bitterness has lead them to “cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them.” The implication, of course, is to say that their bitterness has made them close-minded, backwards, and ignorant, and has driven them to be conservative or identify with the right. Because of course, only conservatives like guns, praise religion (anyone hear of a religious left?), and are of course all xenophobic.

And in response to the outrage that resulted from these statements, Sen. Obama said, “I didn’t say it as well as I should have.”

I believe Sen. Obama did say it right the problem is - the doctrinal pretexts of American Liberalism that has taken over the Democratic party is offensive to many Americans. This is where much of the Democratic party is today - a hard embodiment of Social Liberalism of the early 20th century (progressivism).

To quote Captain Renault to Rick, “I’m shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!”

Sen. Obama is a brilliant orator, there can be no denying that. Therefore, to somehow suppose that he “said it wrong” is misguided at best. While it took Sen. Obama awhile to get to his point in that speech before a San Fransisco crowd, the message was clear - it’s not your fault your broke, stupid, and gun-totin? It’s not your fault you are such simpletons you cling to religion, to conservatism, and can’t understand my message. You’re just backwards - and Sen. Obama is going to help you see the light.

American Liberalism - going back to its roots - posits that the “evil” of mankind stems from a lack of understanding, knowledge, and resources. Even the most serious conflicts - war for example - stems not from basic constraints like scarcity, or indivisibility of competing political ends, but rather, a lack of education, a lack of understanding, a lack of compassion. American liberalism argues that governments must take an active role in promoting the freedom of citizens (the overall goal of Liberalism more broadly is the maximization of individual liberty). They believe that real freedom can only exist when citizens are healthy, educated, and free from dire poverty.

This is what the Democratic Party has come to exemplify and embody in their core political beliefs - that only the government can bring about change - that only the government can free the individual from the shackles of poverty and ignorance.

So it wasn’t that Sen. Obama said it incorrectly - rather - the fact that he said it at all that’s the problem (for him). Most rural voters, although they do suffer from anxiety because of economic instability, do not “cling” to religion, or guns, or their other ‘backwards’ ways, as a result.

Is it elitist to say these things? Yes. So what? Sen. Obama is an elite. The man is a United States Senator who has an exceptionally good chance at becoming the Democratic nominee. Of course he’s an elite! So is Sen. Clinton. So is Sen. McCain. They are all elites! That in and of itself, however, is not his problem, as much as Sen. Clinton would like to make it so.

A very curious thing happened to me last week. A friend of mine, who is a Democrat (although he refuses to admit it), told me he saw little difference between President Bush and Sen. Obama. Flabbergasted, I asked why he would say that (as I saw them as night and day). He said, they both speak from a sense of self-righteous arrogance and a firm belief that their way is the only way. Clearly in the view of the left - in looking at the case of the President, they point to decisions (such as the decision to eject Saddam from Iraq) that the President stated he made alone, without consultation of the Cabinet, and has maintained is ultimately the right course for America despite significant political opposition. It is this “arrogance” that the Democratic party has hammered hard with their base since 2004 (when they, ahem, won the Presidential election before they lost it - twice.)

As I thought about more - the same can be said of Sen. Obama. It’s not that he’s elitist that’s the problem - it’s that he’s arrogant and embodies the basic core of the American Liberalist doctrine of we know better than you do.

To a certain degree, this is understandable. Sen. Obama wasn’t supposed to get this far. He was supposed to get the floor mopped up with him. Sen. Clinton was supposed to smash his campaign like a bug. Over and over, articles about “Big Mo v. Big O,” and Clinton v. Obama, routinely declared that the inexperienced Obama could not ultimately overcome the mighty campaign of such a veteran warrior like Clinton. The reality was, however, a clever Obama beat Clinton at her own game, flipped her upside down Super-Tuesday, and has been running with the nomination ever since. Convinced in his own abilities - he has pontificated at length on every social issue - while providing little details about what he would do about those issues.

Sen. Obama is arrogant about his positions and their correctness. When he speaks, he does have a sense that if we all just “trust him,” Nirvana is at hand. Rev. Wright - don’t worry about him, he doesn’t speak for me. Weather Underground? No - they’re not a part of my policies or supporters, and they’re surely not terrorists - I don’t care what the FBI says. Raise your taxes - no, you must be mistaken - clearly if you disagree with helping the poor, you must be a backwards soul!

His rhetoric and its delivery has been slick - but last night, for me, something clicked. For awhile I thought Sen. Obama was just a very well spoken left-leaning moderate. I even have lamented that I wished we had someone on the right with his charisma and attractive “cult of personality” (I still do). I was wrong - he’s just a very well spoken ultra liberal who will bring back to American domestic and foreign policy the core of the failed Liberal tenants of the 19th and 20th centuries. Far from bringing “change,” those policies actually want to take us backwards.

Not that I think Hillary Clinton is much better. Despite chugging boilermakers with the dock workers - the difference between Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama is their sense of what’s politically palpable.

This is a bonehead play from a guy who thus far was running a brilliant campaign. Will it hurt him in August, in the end no - because most liberals actually believe Sen. Obama is right. Will it hurt him in November… I’d bet on it. Because the “gun toting, bible thumping, disenfranchised” people out there that Sen. Obama slammed - tend to vote in exceptionally high numbers in the general election. By saying what he said last week - he added probably a million popular votes to the Republican ticket.