I can't wait to read the equivalent Salon article explaining why Clinton's female supporters don't like Obama.

Appalachia isn't the only place he has problems.

First off, damn straight - if you use "hillbillies" and you're taking their position, you're a troll. What's the point here, to play the low end and come under? Gain sympathy? BALONEY.

Now about respect and showing up. Suppose Obama and McCain show up equally in time spend, energy and the amount of respect shown. Who wins? Who takes Appalachia?

The simple answer is the candidate that ISN'T grinding against the "hidden" anti-Black vote...despite what the author states.

There I said it. It's plain as day and it's real.

It's as real as the anti-Muslim vote that Tenn GOPs were pushing with their hit piece. It's real.

Yes it's the 21st century. Times have changed. Race is less of an issue now more then ever. Many, many white people have embraced Barrack Obama as the best candidate in a color-blind manner and he just might win (I certainly hope so). Maybe Appalachia sees things in a new light, maybe it's about respect and showing up.

Then again, maybe it's not.

Appalachia is anti-Black because of long held beliefs and there's such a small African American population as not to counter-balance it as in the South.

I'm still holding hope that the majority of the U.S. votes for Obama and a better future and I think it's time. Maybe Appalachia joins the rest of the country. Still, don't be surprised if it doesn't and it's not about "showing up".

I feel that the analysis of this article is deeply flawed. First, it lumps all "rural voters" together within the Democratic primary, but it is clear that rural voters are an extremely hetereogeneous group throughout the country. Off the top of my head, I can think of the country's rural voters in at least 8 culturally different groups: Appalachia, the rural Northeast, the Ohio valley, the upper Midwest, the Plains, the rural West, the Northwest, and the rural South. I would argue that Obama has done well with democratic voters in at least 4 of these regions. It is clear, because Appalachian states are voting, that many of them have preferred Clinton. However, the rural voters of Minnesota, Iowa, and Wisconsin clearly have different preferences that are not easily overlooked. There's quite a bit of condescention in this article that suggests that "rural voters" are some kind of monolithic block, when it is especially clear in this election that they are just as varied as ever.

What the author of this piece doesn't get is that people who don't want to see a black man as president can never be satisfied no matter what that African-American (or any black person) does. Trying to please them is a "gotcha" deal you can't win because racists and those who pander to them constantly shift the goalposts. If you talk and dress "street," you are a thug; if you talk and dress "well," you are "elitist." If you became successful with only a high-school education, you are "uppity" or "slick" or some kind of trickster or "race pimp;" if you became successful via the Ivy League route, you are uppity, slick, and elitist. If your wife is intelligent and outspoken, she's "angry;" if she's quiet and reserved, she's "still angry" or not feminine enough in some undefinable way. Hell, if Obama could turn white tomorrow, he'd be accused of being dishonest and pandering. In short, all the reasons these folks have given for not liking Obama boil down to, "even if he was perfect, I wouldn't vote for him, because he's black, and therefore can _not_ be perfect no matter what he does. Besides, he simply can't seem to be better than me, a white man. _Ever_." Does Obama really need to engage in a game where attitudes are rigged against him no matter what he does? The best he can do is talk the issues and hope some of these folks make a connection between their lives and what he wants to do. And if they can't make that connection, well, does he really need their votes?

If people voted their pocket book, would we have had 2 terms of GWB?

Also, I remember Salon hosting an article that talked about how Democrats dont need these kind of voters.

I think GWB connected with America in a way ( and 9.11 helped greatly) that Dems cannot.

No point blaming the media or other external factors.

Media is a product that is suited to the prevalant demand.No more no less.

America was always conservative and will remain to be so.

Especially in this highly multi polar world.

There's actually a hymn called "I Saw the Light." We used to sing it often in the Baptist Church when I was a little girl.

Here's a hint on how to win rural white voters: They already have religion. They don't need some high-flown political substitute for it. Instead, the Democratic nominee needs to talk to them in terms of specifics. They are practical and want to know how politics will benefit their lives -- not so often in terms of handouts -- but in terms of how to recover their communities. The Democratic nominee needs to understand that in really small towns poverty may mean that there is not even a movie theater. Social life may take two forms, the church and the bar.

Obama lost in rural Texas, west of the I-35 corridor. That's another lesson. Those are rural voters, but many of them are not white. They're Hispanic, but they deal with the same problems. Prosperity has moved away to Dallas, Austin, and Houston and left them behind. If the Democratic nominee hits on the change meme but doesn't tell them specifically how that change will make their lives better, then they have no reason to vote Democratic. Don't be vague, don't talk abstractions, talk reality. They tend to think fancy talk is phony talk.

Of course, if the Democratic nominee only assumes that they are racially prejudiced and refuses to try to win their votes, that's not so visionary, is it? That's hope you can dump in an ashcan.

And for the person who is about to chime in that Texas isn't achievable, maybe it's not, but it's not very hopeful to assume so. Texas is baja Oklahoma. Is Oklahoma not achievable. West of Texas is New Mexico with only one true city and a population of rural Hispanic and white voters. Wanna give up New Mexico too?