I think you are right. It is all about familiarity with the candidates. The more familiar voters get with Obama, the worse he does.

I "hope" this is correct. I suspect it is, but I don't have much proof.

I also think it is real risky way to win a presidency if correct.

When I see so many Obama "supporters" in the blogosphere bashing and/or insulting "Reagan Democrats," is it mainly to serve their small-minded goal of bashing and hating Hillary, or do they really feel that way without her there?

I get nervous, I get some of that 2004 deja vus allover again. It's the "screw the big tent, we want our small pure tent back" attitude. And I wonder whether those "supporters" will like it if Obama does that, the ones that were drawn by those big "hopeful" non-specific rallies, the ones that don't want to hear policies and solutions because that makes people disagree and that takes away all the solidarity fun. Is he damned to lose turnout of former fans if he does it and damned if he doesn't? Many seem to mostly like their image of Senator Obama as Mr. Liberal Inspirational and don't want to see him showing another side, they might change their mind about getting off the sofa in November to vote if he's turned into a friend of Reagan Democrats by then.

I very much like this post. It's very down to earth. I just think, however, that he's got to do a much better job of allaying fears that he's a closet black radical. He may succeed doing it your way, by talking more about his history and meeting directly, interacting. He might try to create a longer ad where he puts together clips of actual conversations he had.

I agree with your premise. I think they voted for Bill, frankly. But McCain is familiar to them as well and a white "war hero" to boot. Obama might help by courting them and it might help if theclintons campaign for him (is that just my fantasy?). Beyond that, his choice of vp might make a difference and I am not advocating clinton.

I'm not sure how the food stamps will play with the "hardworking whites".

There's no such thing as a "Reagan Democrat" anymore.

People have either grown from that era or chosen to stay willfully ignorant.

If he's going to win the blue collar vote he's going to have to do more than say NAFTA was a bad treaty. Okay, so what is he going to DO about it? So far, Obama is short on action and sounding too much like a politician on NAFTA.

People in great numbers fear Obama. As a plubmer in my town, San Francisco put it, "He'll put in a bunch of blacks." Too many people don't trust him based on Wright, bittergate, and Ayers. He must rise to the occsaion instead of counting on a narrow victory sans statesman like address on the above issues.

That Obama, he's magic. He's not trying to get rural voters because he doesn't need them yet but he's going after rural voters contrary to traditional practice. He didn't lose working class voters, he just lost "undecideds" but don't worry because Democrats haven't won working class voters since LBJ. People like him more when they get to know him, unlike Hillary, who people like less the more they see her, but he didn't have time to work his brand, so they voted for her anyway.

Let's see, how long were the two of them campaigning in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Indiana? Shouldn't that have been enough time for them to hate her and love him, or does he need to be in these states a half a year like Iowa to work his true magic? The man of so many contradictions, so many possibilities.