Gee, Janet, it seems you've fallen into a syndrome usually found in Bush supporters. Though, to be honest, it also seems to be found in some Hillary supporters too. Both groups don't seem to read carefully--even what they themselves post.

Too bad the evidence from your oh-so-scholarly excerpt from the PA State study you cite is too slender to support the weighty conclusion you are determined to draw--that Obama was dead wrong in his San Francisco observations. Pardon me if I don't label them "the bitter speech"--since that line was a small part of his argument. Though I understand that as a faithful devotee of Fox News, you believe in the bumper-sticker approach to politics.

But fortunately, I (and other Obama supporters, no doubt) am here to show you the error of your ways.

1) From your excerpt: "Research on the political attitudes of conservative Protestants has yielded inconsistent results". That right there kills your chances of any major valid conclusion from your excerpt.

2) If you actually read Obama's remarks in context--and with an open mind--unreasonable request though that is to make of the president of the Sour Cynics Club--you might realize his conclusions are not only valid, but obvious. Especially the search for scapegoats to explain tough times, foremost among the scapegoats immigrants and foreign trade.

Also, much of Bush's 2004 support came from people who voted against their own economic interests: people vulnerable to propaganda-- people who bought Cheney's line about "here in........ a dirty bomb could be exploded" and the other Bush team line about "if homosexuals can marry, your marriage will be in danger".

If you don't believe this, you're more naive than I thought.

Or perhaps blinded by your own bitterness--I'd say that's actually more likely--and only you know why you are so bitter.