Well, Ramona - you seem to disagree with me, so I'm going to assume you're racist.

I don't have any real proof of it, but I can't figure out any other reason, so let's just assume you're racist.

And your parents don't seem to like me either, so I'll assume they're racist too.

And these other people around here argue a lot with me and don't seem to like me much, so you know what? I'm going to assume the whole blog's full of racist peckerheads.

Because it couldn't be anything I've done, so it must be they have a problem with Asian-blooded Tatar-Estonian immigrants, the intolerant racist bastards.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let's say someone ran for president and wanted to raise the tax on movies and put a heavy surcharge on incoming shipping to counter Chinese production - how popular would that candidate be in Los Angeles?

Imagine a candiate going to Iowa and saying they were going to cut off corn subsidies - both for ethanol and general support - what would the response be there?

Now, Iowa ain't a whole lot black - would you chalk up the response as "racist"? Do you think John McCain or Sarah Palin could threaten subsidies and walk away with ratings intact?

Could anyone threaten the 2 lifelines of the LA basin and keep popularity?

It might be remembered that West Virginia was the state formed from people who refused to secede from the North, who didn't have slaves (those were the ones in the lowlands). So where supposedly did all the racism come from if they didn't import and work blacks as chattel?

Now maybe it's that Obama's seen there as anti-coal, which is like being anti-beer and cheese in Wisconsin. The article notes the regulation of poultry as another difficulty.

But maybe just the insult of "clinging to guns and religion" hasn't worn off, that it's not Obama's skin color, but his foot-in-mouth disease in 2008, with his supporters insisting that a loss in Penn and WVa would be sure proof of racism?

Referring to working-class voters in old industrial towns decimated by job losses, the presidential hopeful said: "They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Maybe a region that's been hit hard since 2008 might still hold it against him, and maybe he hasn't felt a need to reach out that hard since Mr.-expert-pollster knows which swing voters he needs to win the election.

Here's an old comment from a Kos reader from WVa - if it's easy for a former resident to assume rampant racism, how about for the rest of us? Just that, assuming don't necessarily make it true.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/05/13/514869/-Racism-in-WV-hot-topic-today

PS - 43% of West Virginia voted for Obama over McCain. Higher than Kansas, Nebraska, Utah, Idaho, Alaska, Oklahoma. 

Then again, Georgia voted 47% for Obama and I'm sure the knee-jerk reaction is that Georgia's just another racist state as well. While Indiana, picking Obama by a thread at 49.9% will be God's chosen people. It's so easy to play red state-blue state, my candidate-your candidate.

Well, there are those who suffer the consequences of racism who might not want to wait until we're bored stiff.  Like it or not, a presidential race is one of the main event in the news media so when social issues like racism pop up, they will get attention because they are related to the main event. Steroids wouldn't be a issue in Congress if it was only impacted bicycle racing. 

Of course, voters should not feel obligated to follow party lines.  But it is also the voters responsibility as a good citizen to make their choices based on reason and their sense of values.  If their decision is being driven wholly or in part by racism, then, according to my values, they are not being good citizens and should be pointed out as a such.

The point of intense racism as a factor (beyond it just being a bad thing), is that it means that there is nothing Obama could do in order to convince them to vote for him.  Of course, we would need to have the parallel universe with the Obama candidate of 2012 running - whose administration did everything exactly as Obama's did, the only difference being the candidate is white - to ever know just who is making their choice based primarily or solely on race.

Finally, when Obama does put up the window-dressing to act like he cares, as with the war on drugs, he's bashed for pandering.  When he doesn't put the window-dressing up, he bashed for being dicky.  Probably Obama's team realizes that in a world dominated by coal, and seeing Obama isn't going to be the darling of the coal industry and those dependent on it (even though he isn't the worse president they can imagine), his energies are best spent elsewhere.  In the world of national politics, if someone is going to think you're dicky no matter what, there isn't much a point in trying to get them to dislike you a little less.

 I was going to spare you my thoughts about the longtime anti-Fed culture in Appalachia vis-a-vis moonshiners vs "revenuers," but I will admit having them, only because I nixed them myself.  It all depends on what the Feds do--see, for instance, the Tenessee Valley Authority.

Ah, yes, whiskey.  Long memories in parts of Appalachia over liquor laws.  However, I would think the coal-mining regions have different experiences with both private and public enterprises that affected them.  The Tennessee Valley is much further south.  Like the local lakes created around the same time, it still irks those who think their land was taken unfairly but it benefited many more.