Some seriously discriminatory posters here. Appalachia is like any other place with a wide range of people, beliefs and lifestyles. Lumping them together as a monolith is both stupid and intellectually lazy. And visiting for a few days does not give one a "better understanding" of those people. It makes one a poseur.

Many posters here go on about how these people aren't like the posters themselves (always to someone else's detriment) and then express incredulity when those "hillbillies" don't think like the posters.

Well, duh.

The Appalachia I grew up in could be described as a "show me" state. Deeds, experience, a list of accomplishments that are meaningful to those people impress them. Rhetoric, not so much. Some proudly hold themselves to be "simple." But simple doesn't mean stupid and you're the idiot if you think these folks aren't just as quick, smart and capable of higher thought as anyone else. I've known too many very rich people in Appalachia who drive beat up pickups, worn workshirts and wornout hats. Often there's a dog in the truck.

But if you think these people are stupid then you're really showing your lack of understanding that human capacity and intelligence are distributed throughout the population, not even skipping the "hillbillies."

Imagine that.

Great fact-filled post, thanks. I didn't know about Rahall, either! Much obliged. :>

Appalachia isn't going to vote for a black candidate, period. Yeah, Obama should have tried harder. But it would have been entirely symbolic. Shame on Hillary Clinton for whipping it up.

She's done.

Sheikh bin al BaraBitterBlackJeremiahHugoHusseinFarrakhaFidelistaMadrassaHusseinMuslimSleeperAgentHusseinRezkoSharptoHusseinNotQuiteABrothuhHusseinOsamaBama rules!

Y'uns.

Maybe it's like a Brangelina-type thing. Only in this case it's Hill-Billy.

Shit! Nicky Joe is muslim-terroist-foreigner!?!?! No wonder he endorsed Obama.

Except for a grammatical twang' here and there, they are almost Exactly like you. gospel truth. If *you* lived in Appalachia, you would be appalachian, as we Appalachians like to say. Home is where the heart is, i trust you will agree.

Although I am Appalachian, I have been all over the world. All over the world. I am here to tell/ask you (all) there is hardly a whit of difference between you. You are almost identical...under the circumstances..

For example, I once had a large farm in the panhandle of Fl/lower Alabama area. 90% black, poor, Very very poor population demographic. I am telling you, change the color-shade a little (and a few 'twangs) and these people could have been from Whitesburg... prestonsburg, pippa passes, Inez, mousey or w. n.c.. You could hardly tell the difference. LOwer/upper gothem Manhattanites are just like hillbillies too, same hunting and gathering skills. Different environment.

My point is, we all have some thing different in common. For one thing, there's the Bush Adm. (*It just so happans, and I am the very essence of hillbillyism, I am for Barack for many reasons.)

horses mouth,

bah.

Let's not forget that Clinton, were she to win the nomination, would quickly have to do an about-face on her redneck act that so appeals to voters who once hated her and Bill. She'd have a lot of fence mending to do with the real Democrats whom she has offended and with that the hillbillies would drop her like a rapid 'coon and vote for McCain. But that won't happen for the very reason she has offended so many real Democrats that she's not going to get the nomination.

In Illinois Obama does well with the rural and even those in southern Illinois (next to kentucky). I think given the time he can do well with them.

But, it doesn't help having the media talking about why Obama can't get blue collar voters 24/7. It sends a message to those voters and therefore chases them away.

Since they have not focused on Hispanics it seems as of today Obama is leading Clinton alot with democratic hispanics now.

I'd say the media gets an obsession with them and they end up doing alot of damage to a candidate with endless talk about whatever they are obsessing on.

Let's not pretend this is such a nuanced issue. It's not. The American South and great swaths of its rural area have well earned the stereotype of racist, backwards, uneducated simpletons.

It sounds harsh. Sometimes the truth is. I have lived most of my life in rural America. I speak from experience. But forget experience. Look at drop-out rates, poverty levels, teen pregnancies and so on. A very clear picture emerges.

I suppose DEMS must get better at lowering themselves to pander to the shame of the Western world. The GOP has built a base around it. Rather than attempt to reach them, the GOP has exploited them and played upon their many fears and used their sheepish adherence to the most profane and perverse brand of Christianity to convince them that "liberal" is Satan's middle name.

I used to feel like "these people" could be reached, that they were good at heart, just misguided and left behind. After 8 years of wedge issues and Christian nationalism, I have no sympathy. They whole-heartedly back the GOP as gas prices climbed and they lost their homes. The economy hits them hardest and they STILL come back for more, just so long as those "America haters" and "liberals" don't get control of things.

Rarely is it this simple, but when it comes to this section of America, it is exactly how it looks. I have no idea who a principled DEM can reach them without selling his/her soul. Perhaps Obama can. I think he truly believes in these people. I think that makes him a better man than me and, I'd love to see a better man than me in the White House. It'd be a nice change.

He surely won't get there be listening to the apologist that wrote this article. Denial really doesn't get you too far even these days.

Seriously? Why does this "problem" rear its ugly head, time and time again? White, rural voters are only one part of the voting population. They are also far more likely to be religious, and far more likely to vote Republican. This is not news.

So the question is: why are so many pundits fixated on the notion that the path to electoral victory is to attack the Republicans at their strongest point?

Why don't we start to have articles about actual swing constituencies?

The bit about "name-calling" is particularly tiresome. Non-religious East Coasters are constantly belittled by Republicans in their campaigns. Why not talk about how the Republicans are losing this vote because of their name-calling? We could start by considering the fate of a man who, as recently as two years ago, was considered a leading Presidential contender. Ask George Allen whether "macaca" is a reasonable thing to call a person of color.

So much of political "analysis" consists of people pulling theories out of thin air and not bothering to substantiate them in any meaningful way.