MaNyCtNj, you apparently didn’t read or comprehend my point, so I’ll ask you some simple questions:

How is it productive or effective to try to persuade Scott “I know this sounds stupid” to consider voting for Barack HUSSEIN Obama?

Why would it be less effective to focus on folks who, unlike Scott, do not announce their bigotry and provincialism with every breath?

Finally, why and how does focusing on non-bigots imply giving up on swing voters, unless you believe all swing voters are bigots and dimwits?

I don't have time to read through the comments, so apologies if it's been said.

F*cking hell, how did it ever come down to "the guy you'd like to have a beer with" as an actual qualification for f*cking President of the United States?

I don't want someone "I can relate to." I want someone who can do the damned job. I want someone who is a bazillion times smarter than I am. I want someone who reads and is an intellectual, though with a heaping spoonful of common sense. I want someone who knows and has learned the lessons from history, and not someone who cannot even identify what the Bush Doctrine is. I don't f*cking want someone who's just an ordinary joe!

And the fact that a good chunk of the electorate thinks that voting in someone who's "just like them" is a good idea makes me incredibly angry, and hopeless. Christ on a cracker, if democracies ensure that the people get the government they deserve, we're screwed.

There is only one way to reach the rural, working class voters, at least those who might be receptive to a black man. Repeat after me: ARE YOU BETTER OFF THAN YOU WERE 8 YEARS AGO?

Rural folks have kids and relatives in Iraq; they are disproportionately bearing the burden of this war. Rural folks know that we ought to be rebuilding our own country, not some far away place. Rural folks know when they are being lied to. Keep the message simple and forget about nuance. End the war now, get the troops home, and invest in the America.

TWo things:

1. What makes Hoyle think thta those of us in rural Amerisca will open up to the likes of him just because he arrived for interviews?

2. Maybe people ssmply don't like Obama and his wife

One big thing about this topic that makes me laugh is this:

It has been shown over and over again, that rural America receives a much bigger piece of the government spending pie than do urban areas. So, rural voters continue to vote for "small government" Republicans who then turn around and shovel money back at them. I guess Republicans mean "small government" in the "Ford to New York: Drop Dead" sense. The big cities are the tax revenue 'cash cows' and the rural areas get the money. Bridge to nowhere, anyone?

I grew up in a small town that is about 2 hours north of New York city, where I've lived for 12 years now. I have lifelong friends and family who still live there or other rural towns who are literally afraid to even visit New York. This despite the fact that there are 2 cities in Connecticut whose per capita murder rates make New York look like Vatican City.

Fear still goes a long way.

One of the reasons I supported Hillary over Barack was because I thought that many Americans would not vote for a black man at this point. I think they were ready to vote for a woman. As Clinton's VP, he would have had a chance for the American public to get to know him in a non-threatening way. On top of that, he could have garnered some much needed executive experience. He could have then stepped right up as the next Democratic candidate and had a good chance of winning.

That brings up the second reason I supported Hillary over Barack: I think she has much more experience, even if it's second hand observation of the day to day executive duties of the president, that would have helped her fill the federal "potholes." Most people don't realize all the day to day stuff that starts from the White House down, in terms of regulations and executive directives, that really makes an impact on the lives of people. So, although their views on the "big issues" are actually pretty similar, I think Hillary was the better choice right now.

It's a shame Obama did not pick Clinton as his VP, because I think that McCain might not have picked Palin at all in that case, and even if he had, Hillary could have demanded the same "deference" that Sarah is demanded. But Hillary would have beaten her cold on knowledge and comfort with the issues.

It's too bad the Obamas were so ambitious that they were not willing to wait. They may have blown it for all of us, because another 4-8 years of "Bush Doctrine" (and I do know what that is, unlike Sarah Palin, but I'm using it in a broader sense), will devastate this country.

If you are in the military, you hope the generals at the top know much more about warfare and military strategy than you do. If you need surgery, you hope the surgeon knows much more about surgery than you do. when you are a plane passenger, you hope the pilot is better at flying a plane than you are.

At least half of the US population is offended when the presidential candidate, incidentally always the Democratic nominee, is more educated, more sophisticated and smarter than they are. You keep hearing from "Red" Americans that Obama is "too smart, went to those elitist colleges and thinks he's better than us".

What profound low self esteem makes half of the country expect their president not to be smarter than they are ? It's mind boggling.

Saying that in order to be "progressive" you must vote democrat is as silly as saying that in order to be a "good christian" you must vote republican.