Sorry, you may know rural people but you clearly don't know Appalachian people. Anyone who blames mountain people for mountaintop removal is just plain wrong. Go blame the out of state perpetrators and the federal government, not the people who are the victims.

Wright bashed whites and it cost Obama. You cannot call the electorate hideous names, nor tolerate those who do, and expect their vote. No doubt he has recognized this peculiar conundrum . . .

You wrote "it will be in their best interests to vote for him. If they do not.......well, all the sterotypes will be reinforced--that they are prejudiced, ignorant and uneducated!!!"

That simple minded outlook is one major reason why Barack Obama lost Kentucky! Throughout his campaign, people have been "threatened" with being labeled "racist", "uneducated", & "ignorant" if they don't fall in line with Obama.

Rick Moran summed it up perfectly in his blog concerning Obama "it’s not so much that there aren’t racists in Kentucky; there are. It’s just that there are hundreds of thousands of more people who think you are too inexperienced, too liberal, too much of an elitist, and too dangerously naive to vote for you."

Some people do not buy into this empty, hollow "blah, blah, CHANGE, blah, blah, HOPE" message.

Thank you for your answers.

So if Obama comes across as more "familiar" with the culture that would perhaps, make it OK? Or do the Appalacian people need to feel that Sen Obama is one of their own?

How much chance does an "outsider" actually have?

@ Paul in KY:

That is the damn problem...we need to jettison the Electoral College and elect Presidents with direct elections. One person-One vote. Why does a New Yorker's or Californian's vote equal much less than a Wyoming person's vote??? Why?

Yes, I know the history...the time has come to change.

And, Oh, By the way, I hail from Appalachia, and the mountain folk are full of dyed-in-the-wool racists. That is the fact, and no amount of spinning changes that fact, and the fact that most of these people will not vote for ANY non-white person.

I don't think Obama has to adjust his demeanor or speech to be more 'familiar', or 'regular' and he certainly shouldn't pander. Bill Clinton had enormous personal charisma and people connected to that, but so does Obama. I think more people will respond to that here, if they're exposed to him.

Mostly, in his personal appearances he needs to listen, ask questions and take people seriously. Not, 'tell me more about how you're a victim of this or that so that I can feel sorry for you' (which is unfortunately the Dem template), because people here do not see themselves as victims. Instead, how does this thing or process work, what happens, what does that do to your yield (or whatever), etc ... show someone you're smart around here by asking them about their own interests, show that you're listening and getting it by asking good questions, and you'll win anyone over. If Obama established the rapport in that way, it almost doesn't matter what he says.

When he does speak he needs to provide details: the balance between inspirational rhetoric and wonkspeak needs to shift in the latter direction, but in a specific way. No jargon, no intellectual constructs, no theories (okay, so it isn't wonkspeak ... but as detailed), plain presentation about the actual details relevant to the place he's visiting, the specific anxieties of whichever corner of Appalachia he has to be in. HRC is very good with details, and knows how to talk about them, and that's been a part of her appeal.

Finally, and this one is me personally -- I like it when Obama shows that he has some fight in him. I know others do too. Lots of people get a little queasy when they hear the hope and unity stuff not because they don't want it, but because they've heard it before AND things are bad enough that they don't imagine it's going to change unless someone is willing to fight.

I wonder what is up with that minority of voters who did vote for Obama in the rural parts of those states. I bet if you took a look you would find that they were mostly young.

That's the real meaningful breakdown in this thing -- young people can accept Obama more readily than older people can; and they also are more excited about change and less impressed with experience (taking at face value, for the sake of the argument, both candidates' claims to represent those things).

Here comes the next generation. Internet money, flash mob action. They don't have the same hangups about race, and for them, the gender thing is a fait accompli -- women are in the game, so what? Ten years from now, this thing would be an Obama romp. If he wins it this time, we'll just get there a little sooner.

And hey -- if Obama wins, old white ladies and Red Man chewin truck drivers are still going to do just fine. You'll see. He'll be all right. And if it's not Hillary, hey, she still gets to be Senator from New York. That's not like staying home and baking cookies. It was good enough for Pat Moynihan, it ought to satisfy Hillary Clinton.

A couple points, apropos of nothing

(1) For all their faults, the Kennedys managed to advance the interests of both labor Democrats and progressive social values Democrats. It is horribly sad that, on a day when EMK is diagnosed with brain cancer, Democrats of different stripes on this site engage in an debate about who dislikes the other more.

(2) A Democratic party consisting of only yuppies and lacking the support of labor would be heartless and soulless.

(3) Nearly everyone I know supports Obama. None of these people reveal any contempt for Appalachians, people who work with the hands, etc.

(4) When Southern and Appalachian people are asked to vote for Obama, they are being asked to vote for someone who does not share their views on abortion and gay rights. Those attitudes are not evil, and may not be changeable in a lot of cases. But these people can be persuaded to become more tolerant -- if not as tolerant as you'd like them to be -- and to vote in their own economic interest.