HealThisNation, I wasn't going to jump in here, but I have to. You're pretty close to right. It's not that I think Obama has to lose, that Obama IS Stevenson or McGovern, but I do think there are reasons to worry about that. I think it's early enough for him to reach out and widen his coalition. What worries me are his supporters who say he either doesn't have to -- yay, creative class! yay, elites! -- or that he can't, because of racism.

Truly, on the last point: I wouldn't be in this line of work if I thought America would never elect a black president. I don't know what I'd do instead, I've never thought about it. I know racism is a problem; I think we can overcome. I think there are some racists who'll never support Obama, and I admit: We don't know how many. But I also think there are some cultural issues around his campaign, and the way he's campaigned, that mean he is missing an opportunity to reach out to voters who wouldn't reject him because of race, but who are still skeptical. I also worry about another contradiction in pro-Obama arguments: For a long time, he was more electable than Hillary because he was this post-ideological, post-racial candidate who'd appeal to all groups, even independents and Republicans. Now, some say he's being really severely harmed (maybe 50 percent of Kentucky voters won't back him? all of West Virginia?) by white racism. If white racism is that pervasive, then it's tragic and despicable, but then clearly Obama is not an electable candidate in 2008. So which is it? I feel like my optimism about Obama's ability to overcome at least some, and maybe most, of the cultural skepticism about him in Appalachia and elsewhere, makes me a better Obama supporter than the people here who are insisting it's all racism. Does that make any sense?

In terms of my family: My father supported Eugene McCarthy. I still have his "McCarthy/Lowenstein" button. But when McCarthy refused to campaign for Humphrey after the nomination, he mailed him a Nixon pin and said: Glad your candidate won! My father didn't like Humphrey on the war but thought he'd been decent on other issues and was better than Nixon. My father, of course, was right. I do get that pragmatic streak from him. I was just turning 10 the summer of 1968 and I remember it better than some things that happened last year. It was formative. Make of that what you will.

I really appreciate your trying to fairly grasp with my motivations rather than calling me racist, a liar, a Republican, or just a dried up old Hillary hag, like too many alleged Obama supporters have in these threads.

Eric Berry, just FYI:

http://letters.salon.com/opinion/feature/2008/05/20/appalachia/permalink/a42eac717829662531da489f95d836a9.html

Please don't come to my blog and call me a liar anymore. If you want to know which Obama supporters give Obama a bad name, you might have to look in the mirror.

Carol, we're just going to have to agree to disagree. I think I've done everything I can to make you see why I feel the way I do about a vocal segment of Obama supporters. Really, just as there's no way, scientifically, to know what percentage of Hillary Clinton's voters are supporting her because of racism, there will probably never be any way for you or I to determine how much of my frustration with Obama supporters is a result of having been called a racist and a liar on my own blog for more than a year. It definitely gets to you. I'm going to try to stay out of here for a while to clear my head. Thanks for all you do to keep everyone honest and playing nice.

libertyson, for what it's worth, I criticized her "hardworking white Americans" comment. And yes, I do recognize you as someone who's slammed the sexism against her and I appreciate that.

lateagain, I know that lots of great feminist women are Obama supporters. I'm not arguing that all women support her. But it's too late to argue with you persuasively about why some of her female supporters are passionate about her. You're a singular woman, and good for you!

ljwalker53, I share your pain over people just writing off such a big chunk of the party -- and yes, also writing off people who need the Democratic party. There's always been a strain of elitism among college-town lefty Democrats (I should know; I used to be one), and of course among Nader voters (and yes, some Obama zealots are Nader voters.) The thing is, they've never been on what is almost certainly the winning side. And the sneering sore winner syndrome could change the equation and toss them over to the losing side, hurting Obama and the Democrats. Which is why I care so much about these questions of tone.

Oh lord, Uncle Fester, I should go to bed, but I'd rather play "What did lateagain mean?" I think she was saying that Garrison's strategy of just assuming slaveholders (and their supporters) would see the light thanks to his glorious prose was wrong, and Douglass was right that abolitionists would need to a lot more active engagement with people and not just rely on words. So I took that to mean that yes, there is probably more Obama can do to engage with Appalachia. But that could be my projection! lateagain?

Thanks, Tina R., that was interesting.

Thanks, Uncle Fester, I'm sorry I misread you. And I too fear a fight to the convention, but I don't expect one. I appreciate your clarification and lateagain's attempt to help me see what you really meant.