Yes-I have an elitest, smug attitude

Hill has made some observations about Obama's support base, most notably perhaps though, her own base of support as it stands currently.

Hillary has made comments suggesting her support is from low-income, working white people. Let's be clear here: While accurate, they are on some channels being described as elitest and racist.

Hill has mentioned/noted the idea that her support is coming from low-income white voters who are somewhat afraid to vote for a black candidate. While, this may be stereotyping, and I know my blog-friend in Hoosier-land hates when I do this, it is by and large an accurate representation of the facts in what we are seeing in the votes.

Low income white voters who didn't go to college are not as book smart as the elitest crowd. They don't swim in the same pond (literally or figuratively) as black people. This is because there are no black people there.

People who go to college and get an education tend to vote for more liberal policies, and are more friendly to other people not because there is a secret magic fairy dust we all get upon our graduation from said college, it's because by going to college you are usually confronted to re-examine your worldview and see things how they may not be outside of Po-dunksville, USA.

It may be a smug, elitest view to say that low income white people who didn't go to college aren't voting for Obama because of his skin color, but it's largely true. Don't send or cite poll numbers on the comments either people. We all know polls are bunk. Again, white people who wouldn't vote for a black candidate are not exactly willing to be identified even if it is an anonymous poll.

Obama is getting the black American vote for much the same reason. He's black. Black people can be and may be as racist as white people when it comes to this thing. To deny there is any possibility that a good portion of the black community is voting for Obama simply because of his skin color, is not only naive, but it's preposterous.

Back in September 2003, I read a fascinating article by the conservative commentator David Brooks in that months issue of The Atlantic Monthly. I'm not saying his entire article is unimpeachable, but he makes some fantastic points. His essential premise is that people like being with people who are like themselves. We give lip service to the idea of diversity, but we often bristle when asked to change our lives to deal with diversity in a fundamental way.

His article spoke to the very reason I moved from Hoosier-ville to New England. Indiana's social politics don't fit me, their politics don't fit me, their religiosity doesn't fit me, in fact...all those things made me ill living in that damn state for over 20 years. I believe in Democratic values, and higher taxes, and helping those who are less fortunate, and I like my good basic liberal ideals...thus I moved to New England...willingly and lovingly. I'm going on living here several years now, and you couldn't pay me twice my salary to get me to move back to Indiana. This is partly why I supported the idea of Affirmative Action, though how to implement that has always been a struggle for me to solve because like the Supreme Court, I think quotas are baloney. People need to be forced to work with people of other cultures until the societal norms recognize the good differences between people.

Finally, it may be an elitest view, but I think there is something better about people of my ilk who have some perspective on the world. It's a smarmy, asinine thing to say...I'll admit. But, those who have a larger contextual base from which to see the world and see how larger pieces and smaller pieces come together, are indeed better people to decide an election than a white male, living in Small Town, America who hasn't left the state or taken some college classes that address a larger view of the world.