Why Obama's Explanation Doesn't Fly

In light of the uproar over his "bitter" comment, Barack Obama has tried to explain what he really meant when he called people in rural America "bitter" and claimed "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."
Obama's explanation seems to work at first glance, as he explains that what he really meant was that people are angry that they have been ignored by government. And as for the "clinging to religion" part, Obama said "when you’re bitter, you turn to what you can count on...they take comfort from their faith, and their family, and their community." So, that explains it! I'd agree that if times are tough you may turn to--or cling to--your religious faith. However, that's a positive assertion that religion gets rural Americans through the rough patches. But Obama used the same word, "cling", to also describe opinions about guns, free trade and immigration. If we accept that "cling to religion" was meant wholly positively, as meaning they use religion to lift their spirits, then what in the world does clinging to guns, anti-immigrant and anti-trade sentiment mean? If "clinging" to religion means using it to lift you up and help your through the bad times, does it logically follow that when he said they cling to guns, anti-free trade beliefs and anti-immigrant sentiment that he meant those thing also help people through the bad times?
Sorry Barack, but that explanation doesn't fit well with me. I don't find the word "bitter" as offensive as everyone else seems to, but I do find it intolerable to claim that people "cling" to their religious faith out of bitterness and frustration. I do not believe that people's views on guns, trade and immigration are so unfounded as to be based solely on disgruntled attitudes about their own economic woes. I believe someone can be anti-trade or be pro-gun rights without it meaning they are backwards, bitter and wrong. And no number of eloquent speeches will change my opinion on this one.