Lest anyone's forgotten the phrase that launched a thousand shills:

"So it's not surprising then that 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 a way to explain their frustrations."

I've tried to follow the the pundit reaction - obviously every politically-interested Joe has had their say - and below are excerpts from some of the big ticket commentators. (please anyone add further links in the comments section)

Bill Kristol takes a leaf from the Jonah Goldberg Liberal Fascism play-book. Obama, like Marx, speaks about hardship and religion. Hint. Hint, hint. (Cue Fox for the pavlovian response)

Bob Herbert says its actually all about race. (Obama said, no, it's not that simple.)

David Brooks says Obama said nothing at all. ("economic light beer" was his hapless bourgois description of a speech that was hardly a grand policy outline)

George Will, with a particular eye on 20th century history, says "Obama's dismissal is: Americans, especially working-class conservatives, are unable, because of their false consciousness, to deconstruct their social context and embrace the liberal program".

John Fund referred to Obama's "cultural miscues".

Bob Shrum says the acid test is whether Obama can credibly be attacked as an elitist by his political opponents.

I don't know about others, but after checking out what Obama actually said, his key point was undoubtedly this:

"...our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives."

Leaving aside Shrum's comments - which are I think fairly uncontroversial analysis - it seems that like the speech in Philly on race, it's not Obama's message that the punditocracy object to, it is that they either don't get the message, or don't want the message to be heard.

As I read it, Obama's point is a lot less about "bitterness" that people feel about their personal circumstances than it is about cynicism towards politicians and the political process.

This isn't a new theme; it's not original to attack the Establishment and the political status quo. And it is not at all surprising to have the Establishment Media railing against the upstart. What's grimly ironic is seeing the elites - none of whom, I believe, have ever run for political office - chastizing Obama for sounding elite and aloof when the crux of Obama's argument is that politics has gotten detached from the matters that impact your ordinary American.

Obama is dead-right about what his challenge is: convincing voters that he can make a difference. The false consciousness he's fighting against - that politicians can't make a difference - is not simply a myth propagated by the likes of George Will and his cocktail weanie chums, it is debate they don't even want to see.