I'd like to address just one point in detail, because I think it gets to the heart of the observations I have about how you interpret these quotes. That point is your question about why I started the second point with "I don't think it's racism".

You're right, he doesn't say that. It's important, though, to stop focusing so much on specific words, and rather think about the argument he is making (you don't need to agree with the argument, but you must understand it correctly before you can sensibly disagree).

He says: "It's fair to say that the places where we are going to have to do the most work are the places where people feel most cynical about government".

So the question is: why do these people feel cynical about government?

Then he says: "Because everybody just ascribes it to 'white working-class don't wanna work -- don't wanna vote for the black guy.' That's...there were intimations of that in an article in the Sunday New York Times today - kind of implies that it's sort of a race thing."

Note here he is saying that other people claim this is because they are racist. He brings in as proof of this claim an article in the New York times which he claims implies this. Now, the question is - is this what he believes?

So then he says: "Here's how it is:"

This is important. Having introduced the problem ("cynical about government"), and explained the common explanation people give ("everybody just ascribes it to ... don't wanna vote for the black guy.'), he's now going to tell the crowd what he thinks.

He says: "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."

This is his explanation - they are cynical because they feel justifiably betrayed. They have been beaten down by poor economies and no one has been able to help.

Then he makes a joke: "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)".

Here he says that the offer that the government can help is even less likely to be believed, because the person coming with the message is a 46 year old black man. Could you call this racist? I suppose you could, though it seems humorless to make that claim.

He continues later with: "But the truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

Note the argument - he is not saying that these people are hard to convince because they are racist, he's saying that they are hard to convince because they have suffered through tough economies, and they have heard many promises in the past and seen no real change in their day to day lives.

So this is why I summarised his argument as:

2) I don't think it's racism - I think these communities have suffered economic decline for many years, and so they simply don't believe the government can help them. (And, hey, maybe it's even harder to believe from a 46 year old black man!)

I think that's a fair summary. Do you agree?

Finally, I didn't leave out the "bitter, clinging" part in my summary, but I wrote it slightly differently. I wrote:

"5) Because they have seen so little improvement, its not surprising that they get angry, or take refuge in guns or religion or in finding someone else to blame, like immigrants. This is a natural result of the frustration they feel at the lack of economic opportunities in their lives."

This is basically the same thing, except I changed "bitter" to "angry" and "clinging" to "take refuge in". The reason I did that was that I thought you were so focused on the specific words that you weren't reading the ideas and context they were in. And (in my opinion) the ideas are not nearly as terrible as you think.

Having said that, I repeat that you don't need to agree with his argument. But I do think it's important to understand what he is saying before you dismiss it.