From the pulpit to the gas station its FOX News 24/7

There are TV screens at the gas pumps that play only FOX.

Go into a 24 hr greasy spoon in Owensboro, or stand in line

at McDonalds in Owensboro or Madisionville, its FOX News only

The only information people get is what they see on FOX News.

One of my indigent African American patients tells me she wouldn't vote for Obama because of his middle and first name....She does not read. She just watches TV.

It is easy to convince the locals to support Barach Obama.

When people ask me if he is a Muslim. I just say "nope".

Then I suggest they go to his web site (and stop watching FOX). If they bother to get on line, its 100% conversion in my experience here in rural Kentucky. The Hillary Obsession thats another phenomena but I wont comment on this as I am not a psychiatrist.

Something to keep in mind in the general.

This question should not be posed in a way that suggests Obama wins everywhere there are "mainstream people" but loses where there are "Hillbillies" and the uneducated. Rather: why are almost all of Obama's victories in states with a very high concentration of African Americans, or, a very low African American population. The answer/conclusion might be disturbing yet unavoidable. His narrow appeal is based on support from those of similar racial identity, those harboring strong anti-Clinton and anti-woman sentiment and those who fancy themselves as progressive, liberally high minded individuals, seeking to re-emphasize their "enlightened mindset." The latter, in short, is what has been referred to as "the elitists." There is, of course, the wholesale support of the very young (first time voters) who would naturally be drawn to the "rock star" parallel. However, the majority of mature women, Latinos and white male and female blue collar voters will not join the Obama acolytes during this primary process and most probably in only modest numbers in the general election.

This article is insulting on so many levels, to so many different groups of people. I’m sorry, but even if you are a self-proclaimed “hillbillie,” the term is equivalent to calling someone a n****r. Would Salon highlight the n-word in such a prominent way, in the headline, even if the story were written by a black person? I don’t think so.

It is also offensive in its treatment of “typical” Democrats. Take, for instance this little gem: “But lately, other than Edwards, we haven't had many visitors. Maybe the party that once welcomed Appalachian coal miners and hillside farmers has moved on. The national Democratic Party has become younger, richer, hipper and far less interested in preserving an identity forged in the Great Depression. Who really wants a political party full of poor mountaineers? Perhaps, in the minds of some, ‘Coal Miner's Daughter’ has been supplanted by ‘Deliverance.’”

First, I thought the Democratic Party was the party that actually cared about the poor, no matter where they lived. I hadn’t realized we morphed into rich Republicans overnight. I thought, of the remaining candidates, McCain was the rich guy. We should all take issue when Democrats are called classist a**holes, a claim that is untrue. A better question is why Democrats are perceived as uncaring by Appalachians, when, in fact, they support policies that benefit more than those of the Republicans.

And, were is the evidence for the claim that the party has become “younger, richer, hipper”? It sounds like a Clinton supporter taking a potshot at Obama supporters who have been labeled “young, rich and hip,” which in and of itself is a fallacy. He has supporters of all ages and incomes and that reflects the diversity of the Democratic Party. I also don’t think Obama supporters (or other Democrats) sit around and revel in their “hipness.” WTF does that mean, anyway? Sounds like the authors’ problem (I guess she’s not feeling particularly cool today) and not the problem of “hip” Democrats.

Also, why does the author not address the fact that McCain lost these Appalachian states as well? He was blown out of the water by Huckabee AND Romney in West Virginia. Yet now, McCain is even with Clinton. Is the writer asserting that there is a difference between possible gains between Democrats and Republicans? That it is somehow easier for Republicans to make up ground? That is actually a more interesting topic than what is focused on.

Also, according to the author’s thesis, Romney should’ve been a shoo-in since he spent more time campaigning in the state talking to average W. Virginians than Huckabee. Yet Huckabee won. How to explain that? Was it Romeny’s Mormon foreign-ness?

I wonder how much time would be enough for Obama in this area. He has been criticized roundly by the media and this author for not campaigning in these areas, while, in truth, it was only West Virginia that Obama did not spend a significant amount of time.

Lastly, not all rural people are Appalachians as the author would have us believe. It is also insulting that she lumps all rural people in a monolithic group when they are as diverse as any other group in this country.

Change his skin color.

It is painful to watch Dee Davis contort his phrases to avoid the simple but true fact that the reason these poor white uneducated voters went for hillary is because she is white (and married to bubba) and obama has a "foreign name" and is BLACK. yes...half black IS black here in america. People call alicia keys black as well.

It has little to do with his message or whether he panders to these voters or not.

so unless obama can change both his race and name by november he might as well just focus on some other demographic.

Anyone who thinks this is about obama's phrasing or "reaching out" was not paying attention to the exit polls in the primary (plus the truly depressing videos of these voters TELLING the pollster that they did not vote for obama because he was black and his name was hussein)

next topic.