Obama is bringing in millions of new voters and placing states into play like Mississippi Louisiana etc that may cause the "conventional wisdom" of how Democrats win elections ...to become obsolete.

I believe that when the blue collar people, who are basically Democrats according to you... get to know Obama during the general election cycle they will want to vote for him. Only the hard core racists will refuse to vote for him.

Mc Cain sure isn't their friend and the Republicans just wrecked the economy and sent the few jobs left to them overseas. For dessert the current Administration is already trying to shirk their responsibility to care for returning Vets. Many of whom are the sons and daughters or grandchildren of these voters

Just because they preferred Hillary in the primary, who they feel they "know", over a newcomer Obama,...doesn't mean they won't perfer Obama who they will get to know and like... over John Mc Cain in the fall.

PS Al Gore didn't lose. He won by 500,000 popular votes and was cheated out of the electoral votes in Florida, while we all sat around and did nothing.

Not to be overly picky, but the mountains once you get up into Pennsylvania are called the Alleghenies, not the Appalachians.

Some of these letters break my heart. They really do. I'm a little blue dot in my family, and an even smaller blue dot in Appalachia. I've seen the worst. All the stereotypes that get played on television--I've seen those in real life. I've seen the best--the stuff that wouldn't make it onto the news in a million years, because it doesn't fit into the narrative that the media wants to play. Sometimes I feel like I have a foot in two worlds.

I could take offense at those who want to just "leave us behind", but I choose not to. I get the frustration. I sit around at family gatherings and when the talk turns political...believe me, I feel the frustration on a micro level. But I love them. Despite everything. I can't let these people go. They're my family. And you can't let Appalachia go. Ok...so a lot of you don't love us. But we're part of America. We're in your family. We just are. And there's no changing that. So you can go around us. Or you can try to work through us and with us. Maybe you can pull this election off and Obama can win the national election without us.(For what it's worth, I hope he IS elected.) But if he can, does that mean he should actively ignore rural America? That strategy may work in the short term, but it damages the Democratic party in the long run. Because there WILL be a time you need rural America in the future. I know. It sucks. It's like an elephant herd. We can only go as fast as the slowest member. It's maddening sometimes. But instead of giving into the temporary release that name calling and condescenion brings you, maybe we as democrats can show a little imagination, and a little compassion. (Even if you don't feel like they "deserve" it.) People very rarely feel inclined to vote for a party whose membership calls them stupid, racist, etc. Maybe you're right. We may well be. But do you want to be right, do you want to feel superior,or do you want to win? Drop the condescenion. Show some civility. Show some interest in how to make life better for these people. It's not as emotionally gratifying as maybe indulging in moral outrage at our "stupidity" but it may get you where you want to go.

So let me get this straight -- we should suck up to them and abandon our ideals? NO.

You assume what they want is a war on poverty, when in reality they are going to vote for McCain anyway because of their policy positions. Because they aren't voting in whatever we presume their self-interest to be.

--They are interested in GOD.

--Anti-flag burning amendments.

--They think Democrats are going to steal their guns.

--Pro-torture

And none of this is a stereotype. Sorry, it's what they believe in. So why pander?

An interesting article about some women's "emotional" feelings toward Clinton, far away from Appalachia:

http://tinyurl.com/4zof4n

I wouldn't call these women "sexist" (though some of them might be), or even representative. I don't think the article impeaches your point, either.

Rather, I think that it shows a)lots of emotional fault lines in this campaign (which the Republicans will use in the fall), b)there are differences among supporters that aren't captured by all the swapping of charges over 'racism' or 'sexism', and these differences are important, and c) we're in big trouble if we don't stop yelling at each other and start listening and reaching across the divides.

But when it comes to name calling, most of it seems to come from angry "rural" people and it's directed at us horrible, horrible "coastal elites". Maybe we're all just sick of having to apologize for our progressive lifestyles and kowtow to a bunch of backwards, bitter racist hicks who cling to a bunch of bullshit and an unearned sense of superiority. Maybe you need to get your own shit together and try to catch up with the rest of us instead of dragging us back with your backwards bullshit. America is going to move on without you wether you like it or not.

The issue here is one of overlapping change. Because of globalization (and other things), it is no longer possible to be affluent in America without a college degree (without winning the lottery). This trend will continue. So, it behooves Democrats to court that segment of the population, the college-educated, that represents both present-day and future economic strength.

But a college education doesn't just provide training for good-paying jobs. It has secondary effects, effects which are reflected culturally. Thus the stereotype of the "latte-sipping, brie-nibbling, Volvo-driving" liberal. A politician who wants to communicate with the college-educated set will, like Obama, clearly identify himself as one of them. And Obama is strong among those who are college-educated.

Yet that very presentation will trigger the age-old resentment of the uneducated for the educated, of the rural for the urban, etc. There really isn't any way out of this. It's not possible for a politician to simultaneously have strong appeal for both of these two groups, when there is so much contempt and resentment between them.

Once this is accepted, the only question left is, which group better embodies the future of the country, and the party? The question answers itself.