As you yourself point out Obama came to West Virginia 3 times almost inside a week. And yet the press chastised him for largely ignoring it. No offense, but based on some of the assumptions we saw including in articles here, "We're not racist, we just don't like black people" well you've got to wonder WHAT exactly if anything it is Obama can do to win these voters back.

Obama has ads up in Kentucky explaining how he worked with KY Senator Jim Bunning (R) to get through the Senate a clean coal act, thus assuaging enviornmentalists and also helping to make sure the coal industry in states like Kentucky (and yes West Virginia) continues to survive thus employing those same people who vote so overwhelmingly against him.

Now I agree Obama has to do more, much more, to honestly earn the votes in Appalachia. He has to work hard, speak to their interests, and not by-pass states. He has to explain how the Democratic Party represents their interests, how his presidency will help them and how the Republicans are actually hurting them.

But they have to give Obama the chance to hear, really hear him. As it stands right now, based on the first-hand observations of young and old Obama supporters, it appears that they seem determined to disqualify him from office simply for being half-black. IF that's the case then, yeah, there's nothing anyone can do about it.

That's another thing, this question succeeds in roping us all in with the provocative and splashy headline.

But, um, how 'bout a gesture at an answer to it?

Usually when you ask a question in a title, you set out to answer that question in the following essay.

Otherwise, it's a dishonest gimmick.

So I ask again, anyone?--why don't those hillbillies like Obama?

Why did not the author, oh, I don't know, maybe interview some hillbillies themselves?

If you're going vent their frustration about being made fun of (a perfectly valid grievance, of course), why not let their voices speak for themselves in the course of the essay? Nothing fancy is necessary, just a couple of heartfelt quotes of hillbillies who don't like Obama.

And no, you needn't find the extreme ones, the ones who really do wear sheets, or wish they could, but you could make some effort to identify a "mainstream" of opinion of those who don't like Obama.

That would be interesting and maybe even productive.

Who knew that every single non-rural voter was going to vote for Obama? And why does he need to win West Virginia, you ask? Try the fact that a Democrat hasn't won the White House without winning WV since 1916. And that was the only time it ever happened. (Woodrow Wilson barely won the election, while losing West Virginia by 2800 votes.) Throw in a loss in Ohio, where he's down in the polls thanks to his troubles with rural voters, and he'd be forced to sweep the Colorado-New Mexico-Nevada troika to win the election.* Democrats who have done that: Bill Clinton in 1992 (he failed to do so against Dole), Johnson when he ran against Goldwater, Woodrow Wilson back when the West was solidly Democratic, and FDR in only two of his four campaigns. More recently, Bush went 5 for 6 in those states in his two campaigns, including a sweep in 2004.

* And that's assuming he carries Pennsylvania and Michigan.

Well, sweat _getting_ the urban vote. They are pretty keen to suppress it.

The coasts haven't had a president in twenty years. If Appalacia won't join the 21st century, or even the late 20th century, that is on them. It is our time.

And it isn't just political. Places like West Virginia can accuss NAFTA of taking their jobs, but they need to look at themselves. It is a state where 25% of Clinton's DEMOCRATIC voters will tell a pollster that they didn't vote for Obama because of his race. How well do you think they treat minorities that aren't running for president? With that level of culturally acceptable racism is it any wonder employers aren't setting up shop in their area? What business is going to set up in a place where they will difficultly getting qualified minorities to move there? Candidates may have to curry favor with with the hill folk, but Boeing, Microsoft, Google, GM, etc don't. Successful businesses are smart enough to know that shrinking the potential pool of candidates for reasons other than their qualifications results in less capable employees.

At some point Appalacia come around or they'll be left in the dustbin of history.

Obama's job is to lift the vision of voters and get enough of them to see the light- even if it's their own self interest and nothing else- to win. You can't out-cracker McCain and the fascists. We shouldn't try. If the people of West Virginnie, raped for decades by the coal companies, their water poisoned, their mountains leveled, their children sickened, still think it's better to vote for a white fascist than a black populist, then they're too stupid to save, at least for now. they're turkeys in the rain, drowning in the open and too dumb to seek readily available shelter.

I know guns are a great vote getting tool, and that is why Democrats work so hard for gun control and Republicans work so hard to not prevent gun control -- it's a guaranteed hot button for politicians of all stripes.

But the soon to come Heller decision by the Supreme Court is going to give both sides a great excuse to drop the subject. Democrats will no longer have to pretend that gun control laws drop crime, when not only do statistics show no correlation (positive or negative) between gun control laws and crime, but they can drop the hypocrisy of claiming the slightest rise in crime is signs of the evilness of guns while drops in crime are not signs for the usefulness of guns for self-protection.

Those who really want to learn about this issue should investigate the Deacons for Defense and Justice and see how blacks used their second amendment rights to protect themselves from corrupt evil state, city, and county governments which were part and parcel of the KKK. Then look up crime statistics and see the amazing non-correlation between gun control laws and crime rates. See how Britain's violent crime rate has gone up since strict bans went into effect, and bear in mind that Britain doesn't count a killing as a homicide until there's been a successful prosecution -- see ow that skews the record. Compare DC's crime rates to when the strict gun ban went into effect (in theory but not in practice) -- watch the crime rate go up and down with no correlation. Watch Australia's suicide rate remain unchanged after a strict gun ban, with the only difference being that fewer suicides were by gun and more by knives, hanging, and other choices.

Here is your chance, Democrats. Drop the subject of gun control. Heller is going to make it real easy for you to stop wasting time pushing a divisive gun control platform which has lost you many elections. Take the hint. Stop messing with my guns, when all the stats in the world show ZERO correlation between gun control and crime, and the Deacons show every reason why government should fear its citizens rather than the other way round.