To riff further on that point, I saw this interesting video on DKos:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/22/142132/498/133/520573

I think Thoreau’s observations about racial tensions may still apply, even in the nearly all-white counties of Appalachia. They’ve seen themselves in a tension with the areas of the South with a large black population, going back to the Civil War (e.g., the negative attitude of eastern Tennessee toward both blacks and the plantation owners, and ditto for the West Virginia secessionist movement). Their racial attitudes are shaped by a completely different history than whites in the Midwest and West.

I don’t know if you read Joe Bageant, but it’s likely that in all those Appalachian counties where Obama does badly, the whites are disproportionately Ulster Scots (or Scots-Irish, or “Borderers,” or whatever).

This would make sense, as this ethnicity predominates in those regions (has pretty much since the colonial days, when Scots-Irish mostly settled further inland). I think, however, it has much less to do with ethnic origin, and more to do with economic problems, combined with racial insularity.

As to the comment about resistance to black candidates being at least partly a product of being near black communities - I think plenty of evidence disproves this. We see this resistance in overwhelmingly white areas of appalachian regions as well, where you’d be lucky to see a single minority. Inversely, I believe that states like Maryland, for instance, have less reluctant white populations despite the larger black communities there.

Much more than exposure to black communities, what matters is what kind of exposure. If you live in an all-white community, and all you ever see of black culture is the stuff on the nightly news or in rap music, you could very easily validate racist tendencies. On the other hand, if you work with black folks, or know them on a better level, you realize how much prejudice truly is pre-judging people.

But some people never change their attitudes, no matter what.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Senate/Chuck_Hagel.htm

Ix-nay from me for the idea of a Obama/Hagel ticket.

Anyhow, I don’t think either Obama or Hagel would go for it. So far at least, I think Obama have shown too much bravery and confidence to cynically offer the veep slot to Hagel as a kind of boost amongst the whites. I don’t think Hagel will relish that role either.

Fundamentally, Obama and Hagel are on different teams.

Regarding whether he’s an asset on the ticket: First, the blue-collar/working-class/middle-class/insert-preferred-term-here whites that Obama is doing worst with are in the Midwest and Appalachia. They may not be as impressed as you’d hope by an affluent Republican from the Great Plains. The social, economic, and geographical differences are substantial.

Second, one observation I’ve heard is that Obama does best among whites when the whites live in areas with few blacks. Can’t remember where I read this, or I’d link to it, but the idea is that where there are a lot of blacks the white population is less likely to support a black politician because there are a lot of racial tensions mixed in with local politics. OTOH, where there are few blacks, racial politics is more abstract, so Obama has more of a chance. I grew up in a midwestern city with a large black population and significant racial tensions, and this analysis makes a certain amount of sense.

So, bringing in a white guy from a 99% white state like Nebraska might not be the best way to deal with the racial politics. A white politician more accustomed to black-white politics might be a better running mate if the goal is to win white votes in the Midwest.

I don’t know if you read Joe Bageant, but it’s likely that in all those Appalachian counties where Obama does badly, the whites are disproportionately Ulster Scots (or Scots-Irish, or “Borderers,” or whatever).

Possibly, but who is this “white conservative female Democrat?” And would she bring the same political capital as a gun-loving, white Vietnam vet?

McCain is going to play the Vietnam POW card, long and loud. Maybe not him directly, but his allies will.

Yup. Another good choice. But I still think a Hagel switch to the D Party and as Obama’s Veep would be an Ace of Spades, where Webb may only be the Ace of Hearts, Diamond or Clubs. For sheer discombobulation and disarray among the Rs that would be so, and would buy many conservative populist votes.

But I have zero opposition to an Obama/Webb ticket, and like the idea quite well enough.

Jim Webb, for instance. Although he can be a bit rough around the edges (which I personally like).

And I do believe Obama’s “white problem” is overstated. As many have pointed out, he actually does quite well with non-Appalachian white folks. At least well enough to win.

The game - even moreso this election - is turnout. Obama has turnout like McCain has the phrase “my friends.”

1. Obama has to win before it would be of any concern who would succeed him if he died; and

2. Hagel is good on the most important issue of our time, foreign policy.

That *is* the question: Who does Obama want to be president, if he wins the election and then gets shot by some lunatic on Inauguration Day? I don’t think “Chuck Hagel” is the answer.