I don’t agree with some of this, but it makes a few good points:
People who are more educated are a bit more likely to be socially liberal on certain “culture” issues, but a candidate who represents himself with anti-gay performers who are invited to make anti-gay speeches at campaign events, who at best ducks reproductive health issues, who claims the fight for racial equality is already 90% won, and who has little to say about the problems with the drug war, is not all that much more progressive than another candidate who is generally no worse on the same issues and doesn’t invite anti-gay speeches on her behalf (and at least knows that racism is far from solved). And the golden age of the American educational system was over once Ronald Reagan got into office and started messing it up. Don’t assume you’re more educated than people who went to school when the Constitution was still being taught in class, and who didn’t just read about the civil rights movement (because they were in it). Consider the possibility that some of them might just know something you don’t. (They used to teach logic as well, by the way – and it makes no sense to insist on the one hand that it’s unthinkable to mention white racism as an issue in the nomination calculus while simultaneously insisting that all those people who don’t support Obama are just being racists.) There are low-information voters on both sides of this equation. And if you’re so sure that Obama has won the nomination, trust me – now is not the time to be trumpeting your contempt for the other half of Democratic voters.
–from The Sideshow