Surely small town America can relate to Barack's integrity and strong moral and family values, it is what anchors him; the reason he is so cool under fire, the foundation that keeps him so ease with himself. However, Jamie Lee Curtis said it best (paraphrasing) I dont want a President I can relate to, I want a President that can debate and lead on my behalf.

People who worry Barrack might be a secret Muslim should instead worry about the very real non Muslim church the BHO

Family frequented for 20 years. The strong views of his mentor - spiritual advisor are very well known.

This is BHO's rather haunting problem: He's been living his life a certain way for the past 20 years, and now he expects people to believe rhetoric which belies twenty (20) of very real experience. People are expected to believe he really would lower just about everybody's taxes, when everything he's done as a community organizor and as a legislator had the real life effect of raising just about everybody's taxes.

You must think all these people are rubes and yokels if you think they could really believe that a thoroughly left wing guy with a visceral distaste for the military would actually secure our victory in Afghanistan, when, IN REALITY, when things got tough in Iraq, he was the first and the loudest to proudly champion a speedy surrender and betrayel of all those Iraqis proudly displaying voters' ink on their fingers. Now, do your really expect people to believe he'd be steadfast in Afghanistan. You leftys live in a bubble. Very few of you have been in the military, waited on tables, worked on a construction crew and rubbed shoulders with real people, people who are smart even though they did not have the educational opportunitues you have had.

Pleeze, do yourselvs a favor, new leftist of a brave new world.

Try thinking clearly. Try listening rather than just despising people who disagree with your untried and untrue remedies which have caused so much suffering during the past 100 years.

While there may be racial issues that concern small town Democrats, I think the reality is that they don't like the content of his character rather than the color of his skin. Obama has talked alot about change and running a different style of campaign, but I think most voters see him as being all talk and no action. His campaign is no different than that of any of his predecessors.

As for change, I think voters believe him and are uncomfortable about the type of change he wants to make. This is for two reasons; He has been very coy about his agenda. He is indirect and non-specific. Additionally voters are able to read between the lines of what he has said, and they don't like what they believe they are hearing.

Most Americans like America they way it is. They don't believe that the radical changes Obama has indirectly promised are neccessary. They believe we need some reforms, but not revolutionary changes.

Thanks Jug for the insight. Just a note: it's not Truman I'm worried about. Why do Americans - more specifically this group of voters - distrust a smart, well-educated candidate? It's as if their first reaction is one of suspicion. Wouldn't you think they'd want someone smarter than them running their country, a country that keeps over 4800 operational nuclear warheads that can be launched at a moments notice? Why would anyone want someone with a "simple high school education" in the highest position of the United States in the 21st Century? This is just plain crazy talk and I'm beginning to feel ill over it. I hope I misread the quote or took it out of context somehow...ugh.

(re: "We know Obama's plenty book-smart ... but I liked Harry Truman, the last president to have a simple high school education."

Is this for real? I mean with that said, are these people OK going into surgery with a medical practitioner with a "simple high school education" or getting onto a 747 which was just recently serviced by a mechanic with a "simple high school education"? Is education and training not relevant here?

What the f#@!? Is this really what Obama is up against?)

I'm getting sick about hearing about the views of so-called "Small Town America." Those towns are dying, the vast majority of Americans live in cities and suburbs, not small towns. The only small towns that have a chance of surviving in the next few decades are those with an economic base that depend on tourism and/or a solid resource extraction industry.

The idea and ideals of "Small Town America" does not represent any real portion of America no matter what politicians try to tell us. America -- like every other civilized country before and contemporary with us -- is represented by its cities. "Small Town America" is only a romantic vision of America created by the elites in America's cities and the faster people realize it, the better.

I know how you feel. The first time I could vote I voted for John Anderson as I didn't want to vote for Jimmy Carter and Reagan was out of the question. When Reagan won, I was a bit ambivelent because he ran on a balanced budget platform, which I beleived in.

He got elected then tripled the budget deficit and turned out to be a disengenuous war hawk with a staff that sold arms to Iran (gee, no problems there....).

I voted for Ross Perot because one again, he was talking about the budget deficit and something about Clinton seemed not on the up and up however if Perot didn't run I would have voted for Clinton. The next election, I voted for Clinton because he proved himself to be very capable.

The next election was Gore versus Bush. It was clear the stakes were very very very high to anyone paying attention. People who voted for Nader literally split the vote and Bush would have never been President. Now, the bigger reasons of course were the blatent cheating in Florida, but if Nader didn't split the vote that would have been mitigated.

So here we are, another very very very high stakes election.

Are you REALLY going to vote Third Party because:

1) Obama let you down,

2) You are pissed because Hillary Clinton isn't the nominee,

3) You are in a state that doesn't matter,

4) You really think your third party vote is making a statement?

Here is the reality...

Obama will never be perfect but you are also voting for the Party, and all it represents and YES, AGAINST THE REPUBLICANS.

Hillary lost, we can't change that, and asked you to vote for Obama. Your state DOES matter...remember when people in the West Coast voted for Nader because they thought Florida was firmly in Gore's camp and it WASN'T? That is not a game!

Finally, yes, you are making a statement but what is the cost? Potentially, everything you hate.

I am not just talking to you Green Party/McKinny folks, I am also talking to you Ron Paul folks. You don't seriously think the Republicans have anything to do with Libertarianism do you? The Democrats are no farther from Libertarianism than the Republicans, as they are more about personal liberties and will think twice before putting our boots on the ground over an oil field. They are simply more trustworthy. (And Bob Barr a Libertarian? For real?)

This isn't a game. Think hard about the stakes.