In order for a candidate to get votes, he/she must earn them with empathy and understanding. Bill Clinton did so with his ubiquitous "I feel your pain". In that one simple sentence, he allied himself with all who were trying to climb up but were not able; it said, basically, "I understand because I am one of you".

For all his attempts, Barack Obama just doesn't have that, for lack of a better term, "good ol' boy" persona about him. He is smooth, charming, slick and nuanced; I describe him as John Kerry with a better tan. And, imho, that's the problem: he's too slick.

John Kerry never really bonded with Joe Sixpack and his wife. He was seen as aloof, overly-refined and distanced. Barack Obama has a similar persona...even though he does try to win over the voters with a message of hope and optimism.

I'm not sure that the "average hillbilly" core Democrat white guy blue-collar voter dislikes Barack Obama because he's half-black; I do think he isn't bonding with that voter because he doesn't "feel their pain" and is NOT one of them. After all, how many "hillbillies" graduated from Harvard Law School?

Can you see Barack Obama in jeans, a t-shirt and baseball cap at a NASCAR race? I can't and neither can many so-called "hillbilly" core Democrats. THAT is the problem.

LilyRose wrote: "People voted for George W. b/c he felt their pain, they could imagine having a beer with him, and he looked NASCAR-y in his jeans and t-shirt. HOW DID THAT VOTE WORK OUT FOR THOSE LOVELY PEOPLE?"

LilyRose, you most likely never read Joe McGinnis' exceptional 1968 book "The Selling Of A President". You should; it might assuage some of that whining you're doing.

>>"Did that beer and empathy pave the way wonderfully for a chance to pay $4.00 for gas, have 4,800 soldiers dead, 1,000,0000 Iraqis dead and displaced, etc.?"

George W, Bush will have to answer for himself for his blunders, mistakes, missteps and errors; how you're trying to corrolate any of that to either Barack or Hillary escapes me, though.

>>"Bill Clinton was a LOUSY president. His disastrous foreign policy led directly to 9/11. He failed to intervene in Afghanistan after Kabul fell; he failed to intervene in East Africa after the embassy bombings there; he failed to intervene when there were credible intelligence about cells in America. HE WAS A LAME DUCK PRESIDENT FOR MOST OF HIS SECOND TERM."

>>sigh<< Nice reads from the "Karl Rove Playbook" there, LilyRose. Sorry you missed the boom economic times under Bill Clinton that I and millions of others enjoyed. He left office with a huge surplus in place and America not embroiled in a false war. Dubya was apprised of Bin Laden's imminent plans...and did absolutely nothing to prevent it. Again, place the blame where it belongs: at Dubya's dirty little paws. As for being a "lame duck Prez during his second term", your hero Republican henchmen were the proximate cause of making a federal case out of nothing against Bill Clinton. Those same Republicans were more interested in taking Clinton down than lifting America and her people up.

>>"His wife is a opportunist, a neo-con sympathizer (Bill Clinton worked with neo-cons in 2000 to force Arafat to accept a joke of a peace treaty, which resulted in the 2nd Intifada), and one of the most corrupt politicians in the U.S. history."

Your ignorance is exceded only by your hubris. Being able to work with all sides is a sign of a true diplomat; being unable to compromise and work for detente...as you espouse...makes you dogmatic and inflexible. Bush and the Republicans never learned to work with Democrats; they only will accept their version and view of things. I certainly prefer a President and Senator who can and will work with Republicans to the benefit of the American people; Bill and Hillary have done so and continue to do so.

>>"But of course if Bill says that he feels people's pain and speaks with a Southern accent, then he must be the great president material."

Save your snide, derogatory and racist remarks about Southerners; we all can read between the lines of your original screed to see your prejudice.

So...

Dubya wants to attack Iran before he leaves office? Here are a few reasons why that makes "sense"...in an apocalyptic way:

1) For AIPAC, the American-Israel Political Action Committee, this might be the best chance to get the US to nuke Iran before a Democratic president takes office, who, probably, would NOT nuke Iran sans provocation.

2) For the Republican born-again base, nuking Iran might bring on a retaliatory strike against Israel by Arabic states in the region, thereby bringing on the biblical Apocalypse...hence, the "Second Coming". Biblical prophecy will have been fulfilled.

3) To help John McCain's campaign, Dubya would nuke Iran and say that "If Barack Obama had been President, he would have talked with Iran. Only Republicans are truly manly men!"

4) Dubya, knowing a Democrat will probably win in November, wants to make the new President's job as hard as possible; a new war in the Middle-East against Iran would ensure that scenario.

5) Dubya is simply an evil, war-mongering, soul-less hemorrhoid who doesn't give a crap about diplomacy or the innocent who will surely suffer in a region-wide conflagration.

Pick your poison, ladies and gents...

Many Obama supporters here have expressed disdain and disgust for "hillbillies" who they regard as racist, poor, white, less-well-educated Democratic voters who populate rural areas.

Well, many of those Clinton voters look with disdain and disgust at those urbanites who dislike them, i.e., inner-city denizens who are poor, black, less-well-educated Democratic voters who also exhibit the same brand of intolerent racism.

They might remember Matthew 7:5: "You hypocrite! First, remove the beam in your own eye and then you will see clearly enough to remove the speck from your brother's eye".

I'm just sayin'...