I'm not sure where I'm headed with this, but it's time to call a spade a spade (if you will).
Why can't the TV pundits and talking heads I've heard recently come right out and say why Kentucky voted overwhelmingly for Hillary, while Oregon went for Barack in Tuesday's primary?. Why molly coddle around using "nice" terms to describe the average voters for each candidate.

The Clinton supporters are called "white, working class". Gee, how sweet. How about "white, illiterate, poor, and racist"? They're not all "white trash", but most fit the mold. Have you heard them interviewed? I've witnessed some of my golfing com-padres say stupid things like "I wouldn't vote for a n***er or a woman", and "Obama? He's a Muslim." Ignorance reigns supreme. I think this "white, working class" of voters also are countering what they know to be true--that over 90% of blacks support a black candidate. That's equally wrong.

Who says we're not a divided society? Why don't the pundits admit it? Well, for one thing, they're too scared of insulting certain classes of people. Oregon has a progressive looking voter clientele. For the most part, they aren't uneducated hicks. They don't judge candidates by skin color, gender, religion, or any other shallow description. They look at character. They study ideas and policies. They're smart and logical, using reason to make their choices.

It has been asked, "What does Obama have to do to reach this voter block Hillary has?" In my humble opinion, there's nothing he CAN do. If he loses in November, mark my word, it'll be the uneducated "white working class" that will be his undoing. It worked for George W. "Family values", religion, and white supremacy are powerful forces.