Consider his sexual rockstar status among young voters, his ability to continuously lie without impunity, his connections to mob members and terrorist both real and wannabes. His strong and unscrupulous desire for raw power, at any cost, regardless what it does to others, (he became senator simply by disqualifying his opponents). His empty words and changing promises, his desire to be friends with those who wish to destroy us. His wife Michele has expressed her hatred for this country and has publicly announced her husband as the messiah.

The voodoo of this all is that Teflon Obama remains unscathed by all his nefarious connections and thug like history. He is worshiped not only blindly by the mindless masses, but by the fearful media.

I am not very religious, but I think Nostradamus got it right again. What is God going to think of all the lemmings that follow a man of darkness?

I'm all for not giving up rural votes, and the author makes a few good points, but can we put to rest the tired idea that Obama was secretly disparaging rural voters with his comments about bitterness and clinging? For starters, I'm not sure the author's characterizations are very different from Obama's:

Democrats should not be surprised when rural voters drift towards those institutions that stick around, like the churches, which often reinforce socially conservative ideas, and when rural voters prefer those politicians who actually ask for their votes.

How is this all that different from Obama's point in his infamous San Francisco fundraising comment? The entire controversy was ginned up from the start to sow division in Democratic ranks.

What's more, rural poor people aren't the only ones who cling to churches. Urban poor people also cling to churches, frequently churches with socially conservative ideas, and also churches led by black ministers. Both rural and urban have been left behind by a suburbanizing nation (hint: that's where most of the Republicans are...). The trick here is to forge more working (and working class) urban-rural coalitions. I hope Ms. Davis keeps that in mind.

It may be true that the Appalachian vote isn't that critical. There's more than enough other voters to guide Obama to victory in November. And Appalachian voters may very well be among the most stubborn in the country. I live in Ohio. I know people who get the news in small doses. Each candidate has a limited opportunity to make an impression. We work a lot because that's the only way to keep up with bills that are harder to keep up with. And we don't have time to analyze the analysis of each analyst. Maybe we're not stubborn -- we're just busy. Obama would do well to spend some time dazzling Appalachia. Not for the votes necessarily. More for the opportunity to prove that he can unite America. I hope he's not working just hard enough to win the election. I think it would be a very positive thing in the eyes of the world if there was a landslide victory in November. I think Obama could inspire us to unite on election day. I also think he could inspire decision-makers everywhere to unite for the benefit of everyone. I'm starting to get dizzy.

To summarize: participation is a large part of your grade. Try to get an 'A.' As in Appalachia

Sorry. Upon reading more deeply into the Center for Rural Strategies website, I realize I should have referred to "Mr." Davis in my comment, not "Ms." Interesting website!

DEMOCRACY IS A PRIVILEGE!

Instead of letting itself be ruled by media manipulations and soundbites (Rev. Wright, "bitter"/guns dialectic), rural America--which voted for Bush-Cheney TWICE--might want to educate itself.

Rural America's inclination to vote for warmongering neo-cons who pander to religion and guns and mediocrity is not so much Obama's problem as it is the existential problem of American identity.

In a time and era when alternative information is so readily available, the richest and the 3rd most wired nation in the world (after Japan and S. Korea) should not shift the responsibility for informed decision-making (a vote) from the voters to the candidate.

Hillbillies are welcome to forgo shoes and to marry their siblings, but to base their votes on misinformation, race-baiting sound bites, and manipulations is absolutely unforgivable. Appalachia is NOT in the remote mountains of Afghanistan; it is in the heart of the United States. Dee et al: Play your banjo, but also pick up a book or read news from an outlet other than MSM; that is, be informed. If rural America votes en mass for McCain, then it reveal more about the myth that is our standing as a super power.

In the last fifty years, the only years in which Republicans won West Virginia were years of landslide re-elections (1956, 1972, 1984.) Even Democratic losers, like Humphrey and Dukakis, won West Virginia. Until Bush won the state in 2000. Had Gore, who managed to win more popular votes nationwide, managed to do what even Michael Dukakis was capable of doing, then Florida would have been an irrelevant sideshow.

Can Obama win without West Virginia? Sure he can, assuming McCain doesn't overwhelm him in the West Virginia-esque portions of Ohio and Pennsylvania and assuming all the non-hillbilly democrats Obama and Howard Dean have worked so hard to disenfranchise in the critical swing states of Michigan and Florida still decide to vote for him.

To claim, as some here have, that these voters abandoned the Democrats first is absurd. One commenter suggested this defection happened in 1980 -- a year Carter won West Virginia. In 1984, West Virginians, like people from Massachusetts, New York, California, Illinois, Vermont and Rhode Island, voted for Reagan. But all of these groups came back to Dukakis and Clinton. Of all the regions that were once solidly Democratic, the Appalachian states (and regions) have remained the most Democratic and most strenuously resisted Nixon's Southern Strategy. Remember also that West Virginia actually so despised Southern political values that it seceded from Virginia and was nearly followed by East Tennesse, northern Alabama and parts of North Carolina.

There is no reason why these voters, who exist on the very fringes of American economic life, can't be won by Democrats. And yet, Democrats insist on laying the blame almost everywhere but themselves. They won't vote us because they're uneducated (if only the Jacksonian Democrats hadn't succeeded in opening the franchise to poor people, Kerry would be President!) or they're racist or they're Christian. No, it can't possibly be the failure of hip, wealthy, Harvard-educated, famously eloquent presidential candidates to articulate a vision of future prosperity for the poor mountain people.

Nope, they're just racists. Like, you know, the significant proportion of Mississippi "racists" who voted for Obama over Clinton by 20 points.