I agree that race may play a factor for some, it is always there for some. In this particular article, I do not believe the premise was race based, it was coal based, income based and poverty based.

 

The journalist didn't think it was enough about to race to give it more than 3 sentences in an otherwise well written article. It's like a back handed compliment, it sounds good….kind of..

 

If they wanted to make a point about race being the issue for people not liking Obama, then do an article on how the people feel about race, but don't cloak race baiting comments in an article about the loss of a lifestyle. It cheapens the entire argument for the people.

 

Agree to disagree.

 

I liked the fact that those 3 sentences were all the author put in there about race when I guarantee he could have made a whole article about race and Obama if he wanted to.

 

No issue with the 3 sentences at all.

...and I'm from KY, and not a racist, and have no stomach for Obama either.

 

You aren't poor though.

The article linked in the OP is a great example of bad journalism. The author, operating on the hypotheses that opposition to Obama is based on racism and set out to illustrate his point. Unfortunately for the author, the subject that he chose as the centerpiece for his article did not give him the blatant display of racism that he expected. Instead of revising the story to match the facts, he decided to fill in the gaps with his personal opinion.

 

Had the author found a poster boy for racism - and it is not that hard to find such examples among any race - this would still have been a bad example of journalism. Many poor white people voted for Bill Clinton, who was a moderate Democratic president who served during a period when the economy was relatively strong. There is nothing moderate about Obama and the performance of the economy throughout his first four years in office was, and continues to be pathetic. Clinton was weak on foreign policy but Obama's foreign policy has been a train wreck.

 

The author's premise that poor white folks who voted for Clinton but have voted against Obama is ridiculous. A much better case can be made that a substantial portion of Obama's support among blacks is based solely on his race but the author's target was white and his target audience liberals who want to feel good about their votes.

 

There are more reasons for people to oppose Obama's agenda than any president in history but race is not one of them. Obama has benefited more from racism than he has suffered from it but liberals two favorite political cards are victimhood and racism.

You aren't poor though.

 

I'm from KY, we're all poor, barefooted, wives are pregnant with our 6th kid, cook on a wood stove and are all artists (because we're on the draw)

I'm from KY, we're all poor, barefooted, wives are pregnant with our 6th kid, cook on a wood stove and are all artists (because we're on the draw)

 

:lol2:

 

Speak for yourself. I have some nice kicks, 3 kids, 1 grand kid, an electric stove and I can't draw. Never could. :lol2:

:lol2:

 

Speak for yourself. I have some nice kicks, 3 kids, 1 grand kid, an electric stove and I can't draw. Never could. :lol2:

Ah, you'd have to prove that to the national media.

The article linked in the OP is a great example of bad journalism. The author, operating on the hypotheses that opposition to Obama is based on racism and set out to illustrate his point. Unfortunately for the author, the subject that he chose as the centerpiece for his article did not give him the blatant display of racism that he expected. Instead of revising the story to match the facts, he decided to fill in the gaps with his personal opinion.

 

Had the author found a poster boy for racism - and it is not that hard to find such examples among any race - this would still have been a bad example of journalism. Many poor white people voted for Bill Clinton, who was a moderate Democratic president who served during a period when the economy was relatively strong. There is nothing moderate about Obama and the performance of the economy throughout his first four years in office was, and continues to be pathetic. Clinton was weak on foreign policy but Obama's foreign policy has been a train wreck.

 

The author's premise that poor white folks who voted for Clinton but have voted against Obama is ridiculous. A much better case can be made that a substantial portion of Obama's support among blacks is based solely on his race but the author's target was white and his target audience liberals who want to feel good about their votes.

 

There are more reasons for people to oppose Obama's agenda than any president in history but race is not one of them. Obama has benefited more from racism than he has suffered from it but liberals two favorite political cards are victimhood and racism.

 

You got all that from 3 sentences about race? I'm thinking if the author wanted to do a hit piece on racism and Obama then he could have. Just my opinion though.

Ah, you'd have to prove that to the national media.

 

It would be my pleasure. Straight outta Junction City.

I couldn't stomach Obama from the start, and I don't depend on the Coal industry nor am I a racist.

You got all that from 3 sentences about race? I'm thinking if the author wanted to do a hit piece on racism and Obama then he could have. Just my opinion though.

Yes, it is just your opinion. I wonder who suggested that a French news agency send a reporter to Wolfe County, Kentucky to do an article about political opposition to Obama? I think that you are smart enough to know why the article was written and the message that the author wanted to send.

Yes, it is just your opinion. I wonder who suggested that a French news agency send a reporter to Wolfe County, Kentucky to do an article about political opposition to Obama? I think that you are smart enough to know why the article was written and the message that the author wanted to send.

 

Yeah, the message was in the irony of their political opposition. Poor people who are dependent on welfare are against the guy who wants to give them welfare and for the people who want to end their welfare.

 

That's what I saw.

Yeah, the message was in the irony of their political opposition. Poor people who are dependent on welfare are against the guy who wants to give them welfare and for the people who want to end their welfare.

 

That's what I saw.

Maybe the guy who is receiving welfare understands that the welfare programs of the left have destroyed more families than they have helped lift from poverty and that the programs have eroded the work ethic, which was once a prized asset among the poor people living in eastern Kentucky to hang onto their meager benefits.

 

Some people find themselves drawing food stamps and other welfare benefits because of the rotten economy. Some of them still have hope that government will stop destroying the economy. Others have just given up hope and vote for charlatans like Obama.

To clarify, votes based on race happen both ways. Not sure which way the pendulum swings but people did and didn't vote for Obama because he was black. Regardless, the coal industry and it's workers have had a pretty long time to realize that coal is less and less depended on.

 

#whiteguy

Maybe the guy who is receiving welfare understands that the welfare programs of the left have destroyed more families than they have helped lift from poverty and that the programs have eroded the work ethic, which was once a prized asset among the poor people living in eastern Kentucky to hang onto their meager benefits.

 

Some people find themselves drawing food stamps and other welfare benefits because of the rotten economy. Some of them still have hope that government will stop destroying the economy. Others have just given up hope and vote for charlatans like Obama.

 

Pretty sure if those folks can't recognize that the downslide of the coal industry has been a multi-generational process, they're not thinking very deeply about the irony of their situation as welfare recipients beyond day-to-day survival.

To clarify, votes based on race happen both ways. Not sure which way the pendulum swings but people did and didn't vote for Obama because he was black. Regardless, the coal industry and it's workers have had a pretty long time to realize that coal is less and less depended on.

 

#whiteguy

 

There's no way to quantify it because most people won't be that forthcoming about how and why they vote the way they do, but I would bet a large sum of money that more people voted against Obama because of his skin color than voted for him, simply based on population demographics.