Newsweek: Obama's Appalachia Problem Is Real
It's become accepted wisdom in this campaign that Obama's problem with working class voters is largely confined to Appalachia. But in the current issue of Newsweek, writer Evan Thomas claims that even if this is the case, this could still prove to be a major problem:
Appalachia is a big place, encompassing 13 states: southwestern New York, western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, West Virginia, western Maryland, western Virginia, eastern Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, western North and South Carolina, and northern Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi. You cannot afford to lose all those states and still win in November. Other pollsters have suggested that the race factor is at least noticeable in a much wider swath of rural America, where 60 million voters reside.One recent Greenberg Quinlan Rosner poll of rural voters in battleground states showed that you are trailing McCain by 9 points (and that Clinton runs even with him). Dee Davis, president of a Kentucky-based advocacy group called the Center for Rural Strategies, points out in a recent article on Salon.com that in June 2004, John Kerry trailed George W. Bush by the same 9-point margin in the same rural battlegrounds.
Your mission is to not wind up like Kerry, who ended up losing the rural vote by 20 points. The "reality," writes Davis, "is that when Democratic candidates run competitively in rural America, they win national elections. And when they get creamed in rural America, they lose."
The problem with all these arguments is that there are countless ways to slice and dice these demographics. As John Harwood of The New York Times points out, if you look at working class whites nationally, Obama is actually where he needs to be among that group right now, running 12 and seven points behind McCain among them in two recent national polls.
By contrast, Al Gore lost among this demographic by 17 points in 2000, and Kerry lost by 23 points four years later. The Dem doesn't need to achieve parity among working class whites to win.
Separately, all this renewed talk about Appalachia reminds me that Obama privately promised John Edwards that he'd undertake a poverty tour in the general election. Why not take that tour, with Edwards at his side, right through the heart of Appalachia?
Well this is interesting. Greg "Hillary Shill" Sargent is giving Barack Obama campaign advice.
May 26, 2008 11:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Greg's just reporting what Thomas is saying.
May 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
No, he posted this story.
And this story is just like the dozen or so previous that make the same argument that Clinton makes: he's too black to win.
Now whether Greg vouches for it or not - what is the point of continually harping on the same thing?
The post is here - no matter who said it and it's always the same.
It's Hillary's electability argument.
May 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
...because everyone knows that people in Western Maryland vote identically to people in Northern Alabama!
May 26, 2008 1:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with all these arguments is that there are countless ways to slice and dice these demographics. As John Harwood of The New York Times points out, if you look at working class whites nationally, Obama is actually where he needs to be among that group right now, running 12 and seven points behind McCain among them in two recent national polls.
By contrast, Al Gore lost among this demographic by 17 points in 2000, and Kerry lost by 23 points four years later. The Dem doesn't need to achieve parity among working class whites to win.
That's Sargent right? It's not in quotes, and it's quoting someone else who pointed out a counter. That's Sargent who did the work.
It's incumbent upon Obama supporters to be fair and honest.
In that vein, Greg, never do the TPM videos again, you are just not good video material and you talk way too sloooooooooooow (and this comes from someone in the Midwest!).
May 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please read the poll of Kentucky for President just to the right of your insipid comment. Feel better now?
May 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Kerry and Gore weren't black. Maybe this is about more than race.
But honestly, who cares. I think we can win without the ignorant white man vote. They are the minority.
May 26, 2008 2:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Democrats need working class whites to win national elections. Tatoo that on your forehead or something. There is nothing white rednecks hate more that snobby educated liberals telling then who to vote for. This site is snobby educated liberal heaven. Reality need not apply here but it will surely bite you in your arrogant ass in November.
May 26, 2008 3:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
In Marshall County, Indiana, a rural area that includes a Military Academy, Obama got 42.5% of the vote. A more than respectable number, considering the county is something like, 93% white.
http://www.co.marshall.in.us/Departments/Vote%20Reg/Forms/2007%20election/general/live/MarshallElecSumm%20.htm
Obama won the almost entirely white and rural states of Iowa, S. Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Idaho and is ahead in the polls in N. Dakota.
Further, he won Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, and Georgia, all states that would be important to a Democratic victory.
Just because a majority of voters preferred Clinton, in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania, it doesn't necessarily mean that they won't vote for Obama in the fall.
While he's got a tough road ahead of him, he can win.
May 26, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama gambled the prospects of a Democratic win in November on the proposition that America has recovered from racism. It is an astounding gamble: he doubled down by seeking to damage the standing of the Clintons with the African American community. He sought to make all discussion of race -- such as identity voting by blacks (good while identity voting by white women was held to be bad)--illegitimate except for the statement about how wondeful it is that we no longer consider race (a cheap, cheap cure for white guilty).
I do think that the black community -- with its insularity and its engrained suspicion of the white world (50% seeing AIDS as a government plot ?!?) being reinforced in churches like TUCC underestimates the willinngness of the whites to simply view blacks as people. Of course, if you live in a seggreated area it is irrelevant since you never even see people of the other race.
One of the reasons I am opposed to Obama is the size of that gamble -- I do not want a risk taker in the Oval Office.
But the main reason is that anyone willing to raise the false charges of racism which he and his campaign have is morally unfit to be President.
May 27, 2008 10:14 AM | Reply | Permalink
How dare ANYONE post ANYTHING that doesn't reinforce the delusional state of Obama's most rabid supporters! That in itself must be racist! If Obama loses those states, so much the better, since it will only prove how much superior he is to the white trash that lives in those states.
May 26, 2008 3:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Another Clinton supporter in denial.
May 26, 2008 5:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
HusseinTena & other bozos:
No, not because he's black as you all love to chant non stop...
Because we see him as a FRAUD & a naive & inexperience & far too ambitious & a radical and ...
for all of the above, we don't like him!!
May 26, 2008 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow! Clinton supporters must be off work today because they're in full force here and Kos.
May 26, 2008 8:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
I actually think Greg's idea of a tour with John Edwards is a great one. If you pay attention to Jim Webb the biggest part of the problem with Appalachian bias is poverty, in too many cases abject poverty. I think a show of some understanding of this reality and a convincing promise to throw money at the situation is the only was to take a step forward here.
May 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
Au contraire, it makes much more sense to tell people they must prove they're not racist by voting for Obama. Then, and only then, should he deign to visit them.
May 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
A rather non-traditional view of what campaigning is all about. One I hope McCain follows for the next five months.
May 26, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's the point of this? Is it to argue that we need to pitch our run for the WH to the goddamn racists in order to win?
Is that it? This is irresponsible and egregiously stupid. It's making this all about race again.
Quit falling for it.
May 26, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The point is to win in November. Please stay focused on the goal.
May 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
"The point is to win in November. Please stay focused on the goal."
I'm glad to hear you say this. No more predictions of mutiny (or incitements to mutiny) then, I take it?
May 26, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
As long as we stay focused on Obama and the Appalachian voter issue, we ought to be fine. ;-)
Greg Sargent is floundering on this topic, however. Help him out.
May 26, 2008 2:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Unfortunately, that's where you're wrong. The point for most of Obama's supporters - and I'm not saying all of them - is to prove how much better they are than other Americans, and especially better than the racist white trash in Appalachia.
The more of 'those people' who don't vote for Obama, paradoxically, the better they can feel about themselves. Because it's really all about feeling better about their life when compared to everyone else. As Obama keeps repeating to them over and over, “we are the change that we seek” and “we are the ones we’ve been waiting for.”
It's a form of group narcissism and the emotional basis of all cults, political or religious. The point is not to get everyone else to agree or vote with you, but to feel better about yourself by believing that you are somehow 'chosen' and better than everyone else. The reason why Obama supporters can't accept or deal with any contrary facts or opinions is because they experience it as a direct attack upon their emotional well-being.
May 26, 2008 4:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's asinine. Your letting your own insecurities and perceived slights get in the way of good judgment. Great, you hate people that you perceive as thinking they are better than you. Beyond that, you have little else to say of any value.
No one wants another four years of out of touch, right wing train wreck that's going to break our military and bankrupt our nation. A lot of people are going to suck it up this fall and do what they need to do to get whatever Democrat that wins the nomination into the White House.
May 26, 2008 9:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
You can pretend that race doesn't matter all you want but it does! America is a very very redneck backward country. Deal with it or loose in November.
May 26, 2008 2:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
So if the country is redneck and backward - what makes you think that Hillary is a better candidate? Aren't rednecks misogynists? Are you admitting that racism is more prevalent than sexism? Isn't that the exact opposite of what Hillary is claiming?
And someone on television brought up a very good point yesterday....if Hillary is claiming that sexism is playing a noticeable role in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY...how in the world can she possibly claim that she would be a stronger candidate in the GE - where there is likely to be more sexism among the general electorate? Explain, please.
May 26, 2008 2:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
UMM.... Hillary beat Obama by 2 to 1 in W Virginia. THAT'S WHY I THINK IT IS A PROBLEM FOR HIM. That is why you cannot just wish away the problem by pissing on Hillary one more time ..... Read the damn polls out of Kentucky! Quit hating Hillary for a minute and pay attention .... you might learn something about electoral politics in America.
May 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Totally non-responsive. You typing it in CAPS and claiming that I hate Hillary doesn't change the fact that you glossed over my question.
It is your candidate that said that she was losing because of misogyny - that sexism is more of a problem than racism - yet she claims that she is a stronger GE candidate. If she is losing during a Democratic Primary because of her sex than how does that equate to her doing better in a general election with there is likely to be MORE sexism? She can't have it both ways.
And considering the fact that you're in denial about a candidate that has already LOST the nomination - I don't think you have crap to teach me about electoral politics.
May 26, 2008 3:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Disingenuous concern trolling bullshit, Sargent. Well done. Jerome Armstrong applauds your efforts. Shameful, in every sense.
You really think Obama will lose Maryland? Really? Because a tiny part of that state is "appalachia"? Laughable.
And, since you, like Eric, has chosen to do so in ignoring the recent trends, Obama +8 in Ohio, Obama +9 in PA, over McCain.
Oh no! However will Obama win the election? Whatever shall we do?
Unbunch your pantaloons, Greg, and stop the veiled shilling for HRC. Just go ahead and admit she's your candidate and we will all be better off for your (and Eric's) honesty.
Unreal.
You apparently want to make the Dems the party that panders to racists. Good luck with that. I choose to move on and work toward a higher goal. Tool.
May 26, 2008 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
He's reporting what Thomas is saying. Greg isn't doing the concern-trolling of Thomas.
May 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
There are innumerable political commentaries all over the place. Greg chose to highlight this one, and it's on the front page of TPM. It's silly to claim that Greg has no responsibility here.
May 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh wait, he's leading Va in the latest polling there as well! Up 7!
The Dems are doomed!
Sargent, you are embarrassing yourself with this. Stop it.
May 26, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
is it really conceivable that you read this post and missed the fact that I explicitly said Obama is where he needs to be among working class whites?
that's just plain sad...
May 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How can you say that this where he needs to be with a straight face? He's losing by double-digits.
May 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Because, historically, he's not polling any lower than Kerry and Gore. I'll leave Clinton out since he ran against a plurality.
May 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you stop writing that Obama has an Appalachia problem? It's pretty damn clear that the problem, if there is one, is one with the Appalachia people. In short, the Appalachians have a problem with Obama.
May 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Bad bad bad voters.
Let's exile them to Florida and Michigan, just to teach them a lesson on what happens if you don't vote for Obama.
May 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why should we do them a favor for being racist fucks?
May 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Can you provide me a link where Obama says that he doesn't like the people of Appalachia? Or that he thinks it's a hot bed of racism? Or that they are a bunch of backwards hicks? Or that his policy proposals don't apply to Appalachia?
Meanwhile, I can provide you quite a few links of the fine folks from Appalachia saying, unequivocally, that they won't for him for a variety of reasons, none of which seem to relate to policy positions or electoral experience. So it seems to me that they have a problem with OBAMA and not the other way around. That is, unless you have evidence that he does in fact have a problem with the people of Appalachia.
May 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Right. Except that Obama is the candidate and not the voters. It's his job to win them over. Isn't he trying to become the LEADER of the free world?
May 26, 2008 12:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting that he undertake a Michael Jackson skin-bleaching regimen? Because, you know, how else is he going to convince a bunch of racists to vote for him?
Stupid.
May 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you suggesting it's better McCain wins the WH because it was beneath Obama to work on winning over voters, whoever they are?
May 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Are you retarded?
I asked how you expect him to win over people who swear they will never vote for someone with dark skin. Change his skin color?
May 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ask Publicola.
May 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Intellectually dishonest to the end I see. Please tell me, how does he make the racist vote for him? Or the ones who believe that he's a Manchurian candidate? Or Muslim? These folks (in the latter case) have been told that it's NOT true and you know what, they say they don't believe him.
It's like me trying to convince you that this isn't HIS problem, rather the problem of the people of Appalachia. You've settled on that answer for obvious reasons and you aren't backing off of it. No evidence of HIS problem, just that's what you believe the absence of facts be damned.
May 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yep. Except that it is Obama supporters who keep calling these voters racist, not me.
May 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, dumbass, it was the VOTERS THEMSELVES who said they are racists, in frickin' EXIT POLLS at the primaries. And in televised interviews. And in newspaper/magazine interviews.
Seriously, are you retarded? Or just pathetically informed? Or just O'Reilly/Limbaughesque dishonest?
May 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, ass-wipe. I just happen to think that there are no bad voters. There are inadequate candidates. And if he cares for their vote, there is no reason why he should work for it and get it.
May 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
BAD voters? no. STUPID voters? Yes.
I'm sure he will try to win their votes. But if it comes down to "I just can't vote for a black man" as I suspect it will with many of these yahoos, you're suggesting that it will be Obama's fault. Because he didn't work hard enough at changing his skin color. Or lobotomizing racist voters. Or something.
Who knows what you're suggesting? Other than that you aren't happy with Obama as the nominee. Tough shit.
May 26, 2008 12:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
His skin color is nothing but an excuse that you use to explain away the issue. The issue is that he hasn't worked hard enough to connect with people who are more concerned with daily bread than with "fixing Washington".
May 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
If you were even half as smart as Obama, you would see the very big connection between fixing Washington and daily bread. I'm sure George W. Bush being tight with coal producers had no impact on the health, safety, or wages of miners in either state, right?
Idiot.
May 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
While I absolutely agree that it's critical that Democratic candidates focus on helping the middle and working class (after nearly three decades of getting hosed by Republicans and Dems alike), it is more than a little disingenuous to claim that his "Appalachia problem" has nothing to do with race.
The exit polls and interviews clearly showed that many voters were uncomfortable with voting for a black man. Admittedly, some are likely to be more concerned about his race than others, and I don't know how large that population is, compared to those who just want a break. But Sen. Obama has addressed livelihood issues.
I agree that he might do well by emphasizing these themes even more, but it's simply dishonest to argue that his "Appalachia problem" is simply the result of not doing so at all.
May 26, 2008 2:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
And Florida and Michigan cast their fate when they elected to move up their primaries in violation of DNC rules. Senator Clinton and all of the other Democratic Candidates AGREED that they should be stripped of their delegates. Get your facts straight.
May 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
#1 You speak about Florida and Michigan as if they were disembodied entities. You are talking about millions of individual democratic voters who did nothing wrong except to do their duty and vote in a legal and democratic state election. What they really did wrong is that they didn't vote for Obama, and that's the _only_ reason that you want to disenfranchise them, so cut the crap.
#2 Senator Clinton did not agree that they should be stripped of all their delegates. The DNC stripped them of their delegates and all that Hillary did was to acknowledge this fact. She never agreed that they should be disenfranchised and she has consistently stated that they must be represented. Obama is the only one who hates democracy because that's the only way he can win on the cheap.
May 26, 2008 6:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg:
I have gone outside, mowed the lawn in 12 million percent humidity here in TN, and have come to these observations in response:
1. Nope, didn't miss it. I guess I have to wonder at your response in light of your headline. It is YOUR headline right? The same one that is splashed on the front page? The one that lends credibility to this rather over-blown talking point? Care to discuss context with me?
2. I come to TPM (and have for years) because I value what Josh has done in terms of finding stories from off-the-beat paths and in his critique of bullshit common talking points. My criticism of what this section has become is that it passes off bullshit common talking points as worthy and thereby adds to the amplification of the bullshit talking points. Headlining the piece as "Obama's Applachian Problem is Real" and splashing same on TPM front page and then taking offense or acting surprised when people call you out on it while hiding behind what you have written in the text is beneath you. By and large, this is a pretty damn educated readership you have. We understand immediately about how what you post amplifies coverage, and how headlines like the one in this article drive agendas. Or appear to. You surely must know that.
3. The drum-beat of appalachia concern trolling that you are amplifying goes beyond the point of reason when coupled with Kleefeld's ceaseless shilling for HRC. I apologize for lumping you in with that, but right after the KY poll post of his, on top of this page COMPLETELY IGNORING the latest polling from Ohio, for instance, raises eyebrows. Thankfully Josh highlighted some of that on the front with regard to PA, VA, and Ohio polls of late, because, curiously, it has been pretty damn silent back in these pages while "Appalachia problem" posts are legion. Weird, huh?
4. In the final analysis, it really doesn't matter, but it would be nice if you and Kleefeld would make public exactly where you come from in terms of who you are supporting. I read Kos, Open Left, Giordano, and still occasionally MyDD (hard to do). It is easier to read those sights in some ways because I understand who they support and can filter their posts appropriately. With you guys? Feels a lot more dishonest.
5. You do good work, generally. I read here every day because you do. But do understand that the way you choose to cast the headlines and splash them here and there on the site drives perception, and that is entirely within your control.
Just sayin'.
May 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sargent, is it really "accepted" that Obama's problem with working class whites in confined to Appalachia?
In any case, it's not accurate. By any measure, Hillary has dominated among white working class in states both inside and outside Appalachia. In fact, the only contested state in which Obama has beat Hillary among the white working class was Wisconsin. Hillary has beat Obama in this demo by large margins in every area of the country: New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Arizona, South Carolina, Indiana. Even in Oregon, which Obama won by a lot, Hillary won the white working class. (In general, Obama does better (less bad) in the western states among these voters.) Don't believe me? Here's Ron Brownstein:
"The Edison/Mitofsky National Election Pool has conducted exit polls in 29 primaries this year, and Clinton has outpolled Obama among white voters without a college degree in 26 of them, according to a compilation provided to National Journal by the NBC News elections unit. Obama has carried white noncollege voters only in Wisconsin, Vermont, and Utah; and Clinton didn't compete in the latter two. Obama has failed to attract even 40 percent of those voters in every other state except New Mexico, Virginia, and his home state of Illinois (where Clinton still narrowly carried noncollege whites)."
http://www.nationaljournal.com/njmagazine/pi_20080503_9050.php
And check this out, Hillary's margin among these voters was just as large before the Appalachian states started voting:
"In Democratic primaries held on or before Super Tuesday, Feb. 5, whites who have not finished college favored the New York senator by a cumulative 59 percent to 32 percent, according to exit polls of voters conducted for The Associated Press and the television networks...In primaries since Feb. 5, that group has favored Clinton by 64 percent to 34 percent."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/24447399/
Let me stress that this doesn't mean Obama will get crushed in the demo in the fall; as you point out, he seems to be doing well enough. But the notion that he's struggled in this demo only in Appalachia is simply bullshit. W
Why did Hillary crush Obama in Appalachia? It's quite simple: Because there are a higher percentage of working class whites--Hillary's base--there.
May 26, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jim Webb as VP. 'Nuff said.
May 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
No Greg,
Appalachian whites are the one who have a problem.
They have a problem voting for someone who isn't white.
And trust me, Obama will win Ohio and Pennsylvania, which have only a small portion of Appalachia as part of their voter demographic.
and Obama will win Maryland, and possibly soem of the other states with portions of Appalachia.
But the rubes in KY or WVA wouldn't vote for Jesus Christ if he was black.
May 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ was black. Get with the program.
May 26, 2008 11:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Jesus Christ had Osama Bin Laden's complexion. Yessir. Probably looked like him too. Long hair...
May 26, 2008 1:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have it on good authority that Jesus looked like this.
May 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have it on good authority that Jesus never existed and that the Bible is a Fairy Tale used by those in power to help keep them in power.
May 26, 2008 7:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Be careful. Apparently the word Fairy Tale is racist.
And why would the Romans make up Jesus?
May 26, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dammit - this "it's becoming accepted wisdom" shit is just the media's way of congratulating themselves because the media and the Clinton campaign are who came up with this bullshit.
Greg - this is Hillary's electability argument dammit. Just cause it shows up in Newsweek doesn't make it correct. It's "accepted wisdom" - e.g. Bullshit = alright.
May 26, 2008 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, no. The Obama campaign has pointed this Appalachia problem out as well.
May 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Tena, you have the facts wrong here. Hillary's electability argument is not that his problem is confined to Appalacia. It's that he has a problem with white voters in general.
The Appalachia argument is actually meant in part to counter Hillary's electability argument.
May 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
But the problem with even the Appalachia Problem theory is that current polls show that Obama is leading in New York, Pennsylvania and has closed Ohio to a point where it's entirely likely that he can win that too (especially if Edwards is his VP pick).
The "Problem" is with WV and KY on the electoral map.
Neither Gore nor Kerry won either of those states.
However, neither of them won NV, CO, VA, IA or NM either.
Obama's "Appalachia Problem" is over-stated.
He can and will win without WV or KY.
He should campaign there, as he will be President to all Americans. But he's not likely to win there. Until his reelection, when they'll be swayed by competent government.
May 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Gore won Iowa.
May 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
My bad.
My point, however, was simply that people are saying Obama is doomed if he doesn't win these two states.
Kerry and Gore both would've won their elections (if not for funny business) without either state by putting other states in play.
Obama does the same thing, but the narrative is that these two, KY and WV, are essential.
They. are. not.
May 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I agree completely. And I think it is absurd to base our nomination on fears that racism could hurt our chances. It just pained me to see Bush's name next to Iowa period, let alone twice.
May 27, 2008 4:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
Gore won the enire election
May 26, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
YEP, all those election results are just bullshit and all those demographic problems disappear because Tena is mad enough about it ..... well Tena is mad about everything...... but still Obama lost W Virginia by two to one ..... or did Newsweek just make that up too???
May 26, 2008 2:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama privately promised John Edwards that he'd undertake a poverty tour in the general election. Why not take that tour, with Edwards at his side, right through the heart of Appalachia?
I agree. Even if he can't turn it around in KY and WV, it will help him in OH, PA and NC and will do immensely to enhance his status among the demographic nationally. Not to forget, this is also an issue of principles- Bobby Kennedy had his own poverty tour as well.
May 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's where I would go.
May 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
And though we hate to remember it, Joe Kennedy paid off every party operative he could in WV, and got the districts delivered. I know the Obama campaign would never follow old Joe's lead, a campaign who wouldn't pay street money in Phildelphia isn't going to grease the palms of WV sheriffs, but the moral of the story is that there is progress to be made. In 1960, a papist "RC" was almost as exotic as Obama and Kennedy had to campaign hard in WV. There are other, perfectly enlightened ways, to grease the wheels with money.
May 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I didn't know that fact. Rather I should say I didn't calculate that fact. But it been more than four decades, it he doesn't have to do it to win every vote. Hopefully, enough has changed in those states to get a 50+1 majority and clinch the electoral college votes.
May 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hopefully ..... hopefully ..... hopefully ..... good luck! You haven't yet tasted a drop of Republican attack venom on everything that might make Obama seem like .... oh .... a man most loved by rich white liberals, college students, and black people everywhere. Please don't cry when it starts to take him down .... Hillary will be there to punch the bastards right back.
May 26, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just the name "poverty tour" would be the death of it.
Do you understand the insult that people will feel if you announce that you are going on a "poverty tour".
Ugh. I shudder.
Of course he should campaign there, if only to win elsewhere. But it would be unimaginably stupid to condescend to people by announcing that one is there to view and solve their poverty.
People do have pride you know.
May 26, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ofcourse I mean, fight against poverty. No one campaigns for poverty.
Anyways, I've been in some of the poorest places in SC, while they have pride I haven't met many who feel offeded by the word poor or poverty. The way I see it, it's far more insulting to put make-up on something that is so strikingly apparent.
But that's just me.
May 26, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I understand... but a 1960s Kennedy style rich guy goes to visit the country cousins, highlighting how lowly they are and how much they need help, would be a PR disaster.
You go there and identify with their struggle, argue that you can support their struggle, tell them how hard they work, how they are the heart of America but America hasn't given you the fair shot at the dream that you deserve.
"Poverty" is one of those objectivizing terms... a sociological concept like his reference to "bitter" voters in the 3rd person... that would be fatal.
Poverty tour sounds like you are viewing animals in a zoo, and promising to do something for them to improve the conditions in their cage.
You have to go and stand next to them, use people's own language, not look at them from the outside.
I doubt he can win Appalachia, but it will be important to campaign there so he can win nearby and elsewhere.
I'm not disagreeing with you... just that nasty 1960s era noblese oblige "poverty tour" term.
May 26, 2008 1:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's Edwards' term. I hardly think Obama would use it.
May 26, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed! He can call it anything he likes, as long as he goes there and listen and actually DO SOMETHING about their concerns, as opposed to pandering for their vote and abandonning them after he gets it like the other candidate.
May 28, 2008 1:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's nothing wong with taking a look at Appalachia, and trying to figure out ways to fix it.
But it's very wrong to think that this is a year like 2000 or 20004.
May 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
You are right, the analysis is very much flawed. They are basically assuming Obama will face some huge problem in every state that so much as touches Appalachia, which is ridiculous. Appalachia isn't densely populated, many of these states like NY, Ohio and Pennsylvania are densely populated in other areas, he won't have a problem, and the polls back this up. Yes, Obama can't win KY or WV, big deal. This article is garbage though.
May 26, 2008 11:41 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Obama is actually where he needs to be among that group right now, running 12 and seven points behind McCain among them in recent national polls"
So the fact that Obama is losing white working class voters by a smaller margin than Gore and McCain is where he needs to be?
Greg, get some sleep. Get some coffee.
Obama may win. Clinton will win. Obama/Clinton is a total blowout. Just sayin.
May 26, 2008 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
We've got five months.
Take a look at most polls taken through the primary. Obama starts low, then suddenly the curve takes a hockey stick shape.
May 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
well, that's harwood's analysis. he and ruy texieria think that the Dem wins if he gets 10-12 percent of the rural vote, which is where he's polling right now.
so in that sense, Harwood argues, he's where he needs to be.
May 26, 2008 11:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sen. Clinton, despite her abilities (or perhaps because of them), would be the biggest GOTV draw for the Republican party since gay marriage.
I'm sorry, but if you spent any time with ardent Republicans, you'd have an inkling of the depth of their loathing. I won't defend it, I can't even explain it. But it's there (just as race is for Obama).
Finally, even among the broader population, I think it's dangerous to confuse residual support for Pres. Clinton for support for his wife.
This is a long way of saying that it's problematic to make claims like "Clinton will win." I seriously doubt it, even if she weren't already losing the nomination fight.
May 26, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree.
I live in GA - the depth of the hatred most people feel around here for Hillary Clinton was shocking when I first moved here. In addition, most also LOATHE John McCain - you always hear "Only a liberal would think that John McCain is a Republican."
I think without Hillary on the opposing ticket, a lot of hard-core Republicans will not be motivated to hold their noses and vote for McCain. Now you add in Bob Barr running as a libertarian, and I truly think McCain's in trouble with the far right-wingers.
May 26, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
On top of everything else, Sargent, what the fuck are you insinuating with the Edwards poverty tour zinger? Given that HRC refuses to accept that she has fucking lost and is busy working hard to rip the party apart (something you are cheerleading), is there really time for Obama to embark on just that sort of thing right now?
Seriously?
In fact, if he did, I bet you would waste no time posting some passive-aggressive thought about how he is taking the nomination for granted.
You really are embarrassing yourself at this point. Laughable.
May 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
"zinger"?
how was that a zinger?
dude, you're completely lost
May 26, 2008 11:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
I imagine that when you are about to post an article, Greg, you must have to take a deep breath and reach for your flack jacket. It's really too bad that the commenters here have become so...I don't know...juvenile I guess. Sorry you have to deal with that, Greg. You're just tryin' to do your job. That's all...just sorry for the slings and arrows you face daily.
May 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
thanks, appreciate that
May 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
i couldn't even give a crud if the poor guys who write here are super secret hillary supporters. seriously, to all the rabidistas and those who politely agree, who precisely do you think greg is going to influence with his subtle pro-clinton innuendo? you? afraid he's going to plant subliminal pro-hil mindbombs that will go off in your dreams?
get a grip.
why the heck would they support clinton anyway.
May 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously, guys, back off a little bit, OK? Don't be so armchair intellectual about it. I know, I know, we all think we know what the media should be reporting on, but it's seriously getting to the point where not a single post goes up without someone saying "CLINTON/OBAMA SHILL STFU GTFO ZOMGWTFBBQ".
Take a breather, point out where you disagree, but leave name-calling and accusations out of it please! Be grateful that the poster even bothers to read your (likely overblown) criticism and be even more grateful that they care enough to even respond sometimes. TPM's a cut above, it'd be nice if its commentators would be as well.
May 26, 2008 12:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Seriously. Calm down. Greg said that Obama's actually at where he needs to be now. Re-read the post one more time.
May 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
I thought this post was fine. Geez, give the guy a break.
May 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Shorter Evan Thomas:
"When Democrats lose white racists, they lose the election."
Hmmm. Wonder if Mr. Thomas has ever considered what happens when Democrats lose black voters. You know, people who ACTUALLY ARE DEMOCRATS.
May 26, 2008 11:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
But how do you "fix" Appalachia?
How do you persuade racists to vote for an African American?
What is the point?
May 26, 2008 11:48 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed, no point, now that all the sexists have made their preferences public.
May 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
I'm sure that would be a remotely clever reply if you weren't on record as calling Obama "a monkey."
May 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually responding to a fellow animal lover who called Clinton a horse. But I doubt you care for details.
May 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Actually, you don't fix racists. But please don't assume everyone is either a racist or not.
Prejudice comes in a rainbow of colors.
People can be lightly bigoted, and quite ignorant. They might just be saying, "No way a black guy can be president." Why they're saying that could be any reason.
A tour, with Edwards covering poverty or not, would get Obama in the people's range of view. They might learn more about him. They might realize their assumptions were wrong.
Please don't frame this as a racist vs. all of us pure open-minded souls kind of thing. It's not black-and-white. That attitude isn't going to change any minds. If you assume they're all dumb cross-burning racists and hillbillies, then that's what you're going to get.
This election should be about changing minds, winning over people who fell for Bush last time.
May 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well said, bat.
Just because you're racist doesn't mean you can't be persuaded.
And I'll bet anything that Obama will be a heck of a lot more persuasive that most other candidates. Like say, John Kerry. Or Al Gore.
And he doesn't have to cure them of racism. He only has to show them that HE is okay.
Many racists are open to "some" of the people they are racist against. Tiger Woods and Michael Jordan are respected by people that hate other black people.
May 26, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
i know how to fix racists. first you put em under, then *SNIP* ;)
May 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama did remarkably well with the 27% of black voters in the North Carolina Democratic primary who said that race was important to them, and the 33% of black voters in the Pennsylvania Democratic party who said the same.
May 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, because we all know that in America, if it weren't for the black racists, there would be no racism!!!
Isn't that right, Rush?
May 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
My point, which you deliberately chose to ignore, is that there are large numbers of people, both black and white, who are casting their ballots based on the shade of the candidates' skin.
We now return you to your regularly schedule programming on KLDE, I've got Jonestown on my mind.
May 26, 2008 2:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think you're conveniently dismissing the fact that Hillary was far ahead of Obama among African American voters at the start of the primary.
May 26, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's this? A new theory of relativity?
The point is that when they voted, a very large percentage said skin color was an important factor in their decision.
May 26, 2008 5:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
And what I'm trying to say is that a large percentage of black people were prepared to vote for Hillary until her wonderful husband opened his big fricking pie hole and pissed them off.
May 26, 2008 8:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constantinople, I like this little Jonestown analogy you're working in here.
Who are the brainwashed masses suicidally sticking to the losing leader?
May 26, 2008 8:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
Isn't it true that a majority of blacks last year were for Clinton? And only as they got to know Obama did they go for him?
May 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Black folks loved the Clintons. Believe me, I know. My mother recently decided to vote for Obama and actually felt guilty about it.
May 26, 2008 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
13 states: southwestern New York, western Pennsylvania, eastern Ohio, West Virginia, western Maryland, western Virginia, eastern Kentucky, eastern Tennessee, western North and South Carolina, and northern Georgia, Alabama and Mississippi...... THAT IS WHY OBAMA IS GOING TO LOSE THE GENERAL ELECTION:(..... who wants 4/8 years of John McCain(republicans) in office.... well looks like it might happen if the democratic party gives this thing to Obama.
May 26, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
Axis Shrillary chimes in.
You lost.
Deal with it.
None of your inane posts will change that.
May 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why such a bitter winner? Sour grapes are for loosers .... your comments make sense for a high school cheerleading contest. How old are you? Can you actually vote?
May 26, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
yeah, obama's gonna lose NY and maryland. puh-lease.
May 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
A small tip to save you further embarrassment:
Be sure to turn your brain on before posting again!
May 26, 2008 1:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yeah, what a shame that a majority of the Democratic Primary voters just "gave" it away to the candidate they preferred.
Who knew that Hillary supporters had such deep-seeded despotism in them? Well, besides me?
May 26, 2008 2:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we look at this from the other angle for a damn change?
How is Hillary going to win when African Americans won't turn out and vote for her?
And progressive and everyone else she's pissed off? Why don't you write about that instead of constantly harping on racism in the electorate? That's been the thrust of the examination of this primary so far and it STINKS.
May 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why look at that when she won't be the nominee?
May 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Calm down, Tena. Greg pointed out that Obama's where he needs to be. He's just reporting what Thomas of Newsweek said.
May 26, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
You know, I don't tell you or anyone else to calm down when they're making a point.
If you don't like my comments don't read em.
I'm not here critiquing your shit =
May 26, 2008 12:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
GO TENA GO TENA GO! FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT!
no actually you should calm down.
May 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tena has only one speed ...... shrill .... with black smoke pouring out of her ears.
May 26, 2008 3:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you please stop using words like "screech" and "shrill"? I find them horribly sexist. If you continue, I will have to report you to Taylor Marsh.
May 26, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well maybe your sexistometer is a bit too sensitive. There is enough PC pretend outrage in the world, please turn it down a bit. I personally find a woman using an insulting picture of a Jewish man as an avatar to be grotesquely and painfully mocking of both Jews and men but I suck it up, wipe away the tears, and keep typing.
May 26, 2008 6:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
It's very interesting that the first thing that comes to your mind when you see a picture of Albert Einstein - a personal hero of mine - is that he is Jewish. I think that says more about you than it does about me.
Don't pull the PC crap on me....you're the one running around these boards claiming that all of us women are self-haters because we do not worship at the altar of Hillary.
May 26, 2008 8:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hollywood has one speed as well, Troll. Better to have smoke coming out your ears than nothin between em.
May 26, 2008 6:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
... or for that matter, how's she going to win over the ginormous Republican turn-out that will happen if/when she's on the Democratic ticket?
May 26, 2008 2:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hillary Stonewall Clinton: The natural heir to the Legacy of Jefferson Davis. "Well, Woop-Dee-Doo!"
May 26, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with this "conventional wisdom" is that...it ain't wise.
Mark my words: this election is going to break along generational lines. Not gender lines and not racial lines. Does this mean that there aren't still racists in America who won't vote for a black man? No, it just means that there are a lot more of them in the over-60 age group than in any other.
When this is all over and done in November, here's how it will play out: McCain will win handily in the over-60 age cohort; the 50 - 60 cohort will split pretty evenly between McCain and Obama; and Obama will win the under-50 age group by 4 points or more. McCain may win that age group in Appalachia, but as others have noted, there ain't that many people there. Obama's advantage among that group in other areas of the country will wipe it out.
May 26, 2008 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
That's my point.
"Conventional Wisdom" is bullshit that gets turned into Conventional Wisdom by being repeated often enough.
May 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
You nailed it, Jenn.
May 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
So Obama is already poised to do better than Kerry and the winner of the 2000 popular vote in an election where whites make up an even smaller proportion of the demographic. Oh no!
May 26, 2008 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
New York? Seriously?
It may be true that he has a problem in Appalachia, and it may even be true that he has a serious problem in Appalachia. But here's the problem with articles like this: They're stupid.
"Appalachia" is not synonymous with "the Appalachian Mountains". He's not going to lose New York just because it includes part of the same continental-scale mountain range that goes through West Virginia. In fact, he's not going to lose New York for any reason.
The Appalachian Mountains go through Massachussetts, too. He's not going to lose Massachussetts. And they go through New Jersey, and Connecticut, and Vermont, and New Hampshire, and Maine. He's not going to lose any of those states.
And on top of that, it's true even if "Appalachia" were synonymous with "the Appalachian Mountains".
May 26, 2008 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
You forget one important "but" in your comment: any demographic where Obama doesn't do well is called "Appalachia" on this site. That's just TPM's way of dumping anyone who doesn't support Obama into the "uneducated", "old", "racist" column.
In other words, it's not Obama who has to work hard to fix his problem with voters. It's the voters who have to work hard to convince themselves to vote Obama.
And I bet a thousand bucks most Keith-wannabes here don't even understand the irony of this.
May 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
If you insist on presenting your "opinion" as factual analysis then let's call you what you are, an arm-chair pundit. No one has claimed that anyone that won't vote for Obama indicates a problem with that person or group. Take women. Clinton is generally winning that group as a whole. It's not because women have a problem with Obama per se. It's that they favor Clinton for other reasons.
With the Appalachians, there is enough EVIDENCE to demonstrate that they in fact have a PROBLEM with Obama. Now if you were intellectually honest, you'd acknowledge that point. But experience has shown that you aren't, so you won't.
May 26, 2008 12:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
"No one has claimed that anyone that won't vote for Obama indicates a problem with that person or group."
Are you sure we are on the same thread?
It seems that there are more than enough people here making exactly that claim.
May 26, 2008 12:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
What the hell are you rambling about this time, you delusional racist? At least when you're calling Obama a "monkey," I know what point your trying to make. This drivel is just insane.
Did you miss the part where Sargent suggests Obama should go on a poverty tour? Seriously, if you see what you claimed in his post, you are obviously suffering from paranoid hallucinations.
Seriously, go grab a handful of Risperdal, because you seem to suffering a psychotic break.
May 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can see that you're trying to channel Keith Olberman again. Righteous indignation, purple face, bulging eyes, trembling hands, anger, anger...
Hmm, it's not working.
May 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're still incoherent, Mr. Racist.
May 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, in New York the Borscht Belt sits within the Appalachian chain. And Woodstock.
May 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't get your hopes up; I've seen polls where Obama had a double digit lead over McCain; I've seen polls where he only had a 2 point lead over McCain.
Don't forget, before Axelrod gave the country Obama, he gave Massachusetts, Obama: the Prequel.
Together We Can!....have casino gambling, except Massachusetts can't even have that due to its lightweight Governor with a thin resume.
May 26, 2008 12:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please be on the look out for polls a month or two after Hillary's finished. There are too many anti-war, women's rights folks in MA.
May 26, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I read the Thomas article and it was sophomoric, the kind of pap masquerading as analysis that makes you just shake your head.
May 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
I have to wonder if Newsweek is just trying to provoke politically motivated race violence.
May 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Get this,
I stopped subscribing to Newsweek in the 90s because of the Isikoff crusade against Bill Clinton.
That they are still a piece of crap is no surprise, and heightened with their inclusion of Bill Kristol as a columnist.
May 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Heh. When I was in Peace Corps, the only American news sources available to me were Voice of America - in Special English and Newsweak (provided by the US gov). To be honest, I'm not sure which of the two was least informative.
May 26, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Posted at 3:46 p.m., Sunday, May 25, 2008
Obama picks up three superdelegates from Hawaii
Wanted to share for those who might not know.
May 26, 2008 11:56 AM | Reply | Permalink
Delegates: Pledged Super Total Needed
Obama 1,660.5 315.5 1,976 49
Clinton 1,499.5 279.5 1,779 246
Remaining 86 201 287
(2,025 delegates needed for victory)
May 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
Personally, I think the Appalachia poverty tour with Edwards is a great idea.
Campaigning for Dem votes in KY, WV, etc. will be a lot easier without HRC clining to his ankle.
May 26, 2008 11:58 AM | Reply | Permalink
See my comment above about the incredibly insulting implications of going on a "poverty tour." It's patronizing beyond belief. People have pride.
May 26, 2008 1:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having spent a good amount of time in WV and Western NC, poverty is prevalent in those areas. It is also a huge problem. It impacts everything from nutrition to education.
If you think the people there don't want or need assistance with this very large problem, I believe you are mistaken.
That being said, I do not believe these areas would respond very well to anything that seemed like "welfare assistance".
So, if your problem is primarily a semantic one (i.e., poverty, welfare), I concede the point. But I also believe it is one that is easily addressed.
May 26, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
my problem is semantic, but the semantic is political...
May 26, 2008 3:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
This whole "Appalachian problem" bit of CW is based upon what? The fact that Obama garnered fewer votes than his democratic primary opponent.
Those folks who use such a fact, or polls five months out, to project an Obama "problem" in November are engaging in a fool's errand.
I think Greg's reporting of Thomas' ridiculous speculation was accurate and non-biased.
May 26, 2008 11:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Fine.
So be it.
You miss my point. But that's ok.
Keep bringing this up, discussing it and validating it.
May 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I wasn't addressing your point. I didn't read your comment, and still haven't.
May 26, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg - I think you may have accidentally stumbled into Jonestown from a place called Reality; a place, I'm told, where reporters and bloggers are permitted to criticize Obama and suggest he may be the less than perfect candidate.
Until you're able to return to your home, I suggest, for your own peace of mind, that you learn some of the local lingo:
May 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Constantinople, stop hitting the nail on the head. Your giving the Obamanuts a headache.
May 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can you provide links or name the bloggers for your crap, dumb distillation? Honestly? I actually read this on Hillarys44.org- "I hope he's dead..." Go read, and stay there, if you don't want to read an opinion you don't like.
May 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Just by scrolling up an down in this post, I've heard that voters in Appalachia are racist; that it's their problem, not Obama's & Axis Shrillary.
So please don't insult my intelligence, or yours, by claiming such posts don't exist here or elsewhere.
May 26, 2008 2:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well so many of us got tired of the Hillary lingo:
1. Electoral College Sweep
2. Anyone who doesn't support Hillary is a sexist
3. Whatever rules Hillary may have previously agreed to should not apply unless they mean she wins
4. Barry Hussein is a fake and a fraud and anyone who thinks differently is drinking Kool-Aid from a Jonestown unreality. It's certainly NOT that Hillary supporters are living in an alternate universe of falsehoods perpetuated by right-wing web sites.
5. Any nasty tricks or campaigning Hillary may have done is OK because we know Obama did it too even if we have no good evidence of that.
6. Any positive differences Obama claims about his campaign must be absolute or they don't matter.
So not accepting money from paid registered lobbyists and not allowing paid registered federal lobbyists to work for your campaign is no different than accepting more lobbyist money than anyone else and having a lobbyist working for your campaign while negotiating a trade deal with Colombia because Obama did after all accept donations from staff employees of lobbyist firms.
Nor is there any difference between Hillary piling on the personal attacks over the Wright affair and Obama declining to do the same in the RFK gaffe or the Bosnia gaffe because Obama's supporters did pile on.
7. Accusing Hillary of playing the race card is wrong, wrong, wrong even when she's arguing that she should be nominated because whites won't vote for Obama.
8. If Obama's being attacked by the media, he needs to stop whining about it, but Hillary complaining about getting the first question in a debate and slamming MSNBC for bias shows she's a fighter.
9. It's OK if Hillary does it because hey, she never offered a new kind of politics.
10. The only thing that matters in this election is Hillary's great resume and incredible grasp of the details of issues. Her campaign blowing through $170 million before the end of Iowa, failing to plan past Super Tuesday, agreeing to rules that would hurt her chances and failing to understand proportionally allocated delegates doesn't in any way say anything about her management ability or her foresight and judgment.
May 26, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery!
May 26, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
OMG, bad news for Obama.
Yell at Greg.
Too funny.
May 26, 2008 12:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey gotalife, I've got some bad news for Clinton.
She LOST.
She has no "electability" because she couldn't win the nomination.
She's a loser, like you! We retired her grotesque, incompetent ass to CHAPPEQUA!
May 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bad News for Clinton:
Your unelectable if you can't win the nomination.
LOL!
May 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Countdown to Obama's nomination:
49 Delegates to go....
May 26, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
There's plenty of rural vote in Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Missouri, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, Washington... all those prairie and western states beyond Appalachia, the states least in fear of war and the states least happy with the new ones McCain and Hillary want to fight.
May 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The posts here suggest two different vantage points.
Those who are dismissing Obama's problems in certain parts of the Appalachia are doing so purely to defend against the electability argument. Hillary is out, finshed. To be blunt, AA, the demographic which votes 90% democrat will not vote for her after uttering the word "assisination." There ends her eletability argument. So stop defending against Hillary's talking points. She's the past. It's time to progress and look at this from the GE Obama v. McCain point of view.
How can Obama win against McCain? That's the question, Hillary is not in the eqation anymore.
May 26, 2008 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama should not waste his time resources in KY and WV. His campaign seems to have realized that already. They appear to understand American racism fairly well and know they can't win there. This latest Hillary gaffe also reminds us that he is probably less safe there. (Remember, JFK was warned not to go to Dallas.)
May 26, 2008 12:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Its not that Obama is too black to win, it's that theres not enough of 'you' people to put Obama over the top in the Appalachia states. Oh what a joyous cry there will be in this country when McNastyMcSameMcCain is...wait for it...wait...
President McNastyMcSameMcCain! Oh let me hear you squeal Obamaheads! I am one of those who will tell you...no I will scream at you:
I TOLD YOU SO! Obama cannot win in America. Clinton can but like the Republicans who hate Clinton for no discernable reason you hate her for one, shes a woman and your not.
May 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
No she can't, because she looooooooooooooooost the primaries. She got her ass KICKED. And even if Obama does lose, I'll be able to sleep comfortably knowing that the Clinton family scumbags were RETIRED to Chappequa. Bwahahahha!
May 26, 2008 12:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't let those bedbugs bite! LOL! I'm just waiting for that rumored ObamasMama video to surface with that shout, "WHITEY!" on the tv 24/7.
May 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
AHAHA, wonderful! You keep waiting for that rumor.
Every CULT OF PERSONALITY needs an apocalypse MYTH to keep its delusional followers strung right along. BWAHAHA!
May 26, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your own words bxtchslap you Stroszek. NEXT.
May 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm a woman and I don't "hate" Clinton, but unlike you, I recognize the folly of nominating someone whose negatives exceed 50% and who is a galvanizing figure for every mouth-breathing wingnut out there. And that's without even getting into her vote on the war and a lot of other things that kept me from voting for her.
May 26, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
This has nothing to do with what Clinton has between her legs. We're not voting against Clinton people, we're voting for Obama. It's not his fault your candidate didn't run a winning campaign. It's not his fault Bill Clinton keeps talking nonsense and ruining his wife chances. Anyways YOU ARE the ones that are so hurt by this that you are willing to vote for McCain in november. God, get a grip!
May 26, 2008 1:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Evan Thomas is not my hero nor are his observations and reporting much to ponder about; he is a has been that has been around too long. Appalachia, associated political patterns and so on are not new; the poor white voter nonsense is that and should not be confuse with Appalachia. A few of these states are hopeless for any Democrat; those with the larger populations are not, the task is to selectively minimize their impact. The states on the northern side of the Mason-Dixie line have demographics more favorable to Democrats that should counterbalance the impact of these folks. I seriously doubt that the Obama campaign is unaware of these factors and has some approaches in place to confront these issues. Racism remains alive and well, but it will not play too well in Appalachia or anywhere else, and yes the Republican will try and receive the core voters they had in the past, the problem is this core group has shrunk!
May 26, 2008 12:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
so if you vote against ObamaGod your a racist? Insanity has replaced reality in America. America, bye bye.
May 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's the exact opposite of what ADLEED said, you drooling illiterate.
May 26, 2008 12:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Having a comprehension problem there Stroszek? Get your face out of the pillow and think for yourself.
May 26, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can hear it now coming from Evan Thomas:
"Well JFK got the Dem nomination because he won the West Virginia primary. And many people, including Caroline and Teddy think Obama is the next JFK. If Obama is the next JFK, and he can't win West Virginia like the first JFK, then Obama has an Appalchian problem."
Kind of sounds like the depth of his analysis, doesn't it?
May 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can hear it now coming from Evan Thomas:
"Well JFK got the Dem nomination because he won the West Virginia primary. And many people, including Caroline and Teddy think Obama is the next JFK. If Obama is the next JFK, and he can't win West Virginia like the first JFK, then Obama has an Appalchian problem."
Kind of sounds like the depth of his analysis, doesn't it?
May 26, 2008 12:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thomas always seem to analyze backwards (like the DLC). He was all over the faith and values voter theme getting there about the time that vote had peaked.
Now, we're supposed to strategically plan the next American Dream based on the visionaries in Appalachia?
May 26, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needs to drive up his numbers in the suburbs among people who want to compete in the great big diverse world out there (i.e., not those who want to hide in the backwoods or under the bed) and fear that the Republicans have been stacking the deck against them with wasteful foreign wars and inadequate support for the educational and other infrastructure at home.
May 26, 2008 12:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
If Obama is losing by so much in this appalachia region, then he must be doing VERY well elsewhere. Why so much focus on Appalachia, when he's much better positioned than Clinton in several other states (Iowa, New Mexico, Oregon, Washington, Nevada, Colorado, Wisconsin, even Nebraska). Interestingly, he's also doing better than Clinton in Virginia and Maryland, and he's ahead in recent polls in New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio. Obama even puts North Carolina in play.
Look, we can play these games all we want. If Clinton were ahead, someone would be writing sophomoric assessments of why she can't win the young vote, the male vote, etc. If the MSM says the race is over, then no one buys their papers and magazines.
Pablo
May 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm still pulling for my girl Hillary....
I believe she can win and will win.....
She ain't going to drop out till a woman wins that is what she said in kentucky:)
She is going to take this to the convention.....
FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT..... Change would be to put a woman in the white house as president... :)
Barack Obama talkes about change but what kind of changes is he going to make... good or bad changes
won't matter because John McCain is going to win the general election if he has to fight against Barack Obama.
How come Obama doesn't want to have debates againist hillary clinton any more..... will he do the same in the general election against John McCain? Probley.
May 26, 2008 12:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Go fly back to Taylor Marsh, little troll.
You lost.
And no amount of shilling for Republicans will change that.
May 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
The only thing Clinton is taking to the convention is a speech praising the Democratic nominee, Barack Obama.
And you delusional crybabies, once again, will be left sniveling in the dust like the perpetual losers you are.
May 26, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why doesn't Obama want to debate Hillary?
Let's see. He has $35 million in bank and is fighting general election.
She is $20 million in hole and needs the FREE air time.
WHY would he give her free air time to continue to spread the lie that she's still 'close' to the nomination?
There's 86 delegates left up for grabs.
Obama has a nearly 200 delegate lead.
Do the math.
Everyone else has...
May 26, 2008 1:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
22+ debates. What else is there left to talk about!? Come on people!!
May 26, 2008 1:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
I shudder to think how long you will be in denial when Obama wins the nomination officially and goes on to become the next President of the US.
They'll really have to up your meds then.
May 26, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Tell me again about how the Kerry administration built upon and expanded the policies of the Gore Administration?
May 26, 2008 12:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sure, once you tell me about the wonderful administration of CONFIRMED LOSERS like Bill Bradley and Jerry Brown.
May 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
HilKu-Ku
Assassination!
Ted's Tumor made me say it;
Shame on Obama.
May 26, 2008 12:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I personally don't believe all the polls showing Hillary winning. I think it's just another Operation Chaos effect, with Republicans answering polling questions saying they'll vote for Hillary in order to make her appear the better candidate. I mean, the polls are showing her winning Kentucky now against McCain. Please! That's a joke.
Electoral-vote.com allows you to go back through their maps to earlier dates -- albeit with a lot of clicking. If you go back on electoral-vote.com to mid April, she's way behind McCain and she had been in pollling for quite a long time while Obama was beating McCain or at least doing much better.
And if you look at the problems Obama is having in polling now, a lot of it is women. I'm guessing a lot of women are still upset about Hillary not being the candidate, and it is something that Obama needs to address, but I don't think it's insurmountable.
May 26, 2008 12:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Greg, you seem to be a Hillary surrogate.
After playing down Hillary's murderous comments and wishful thinking about assassins, now your try to mislead us into believing that millions of white Americans didn't vote for Obama.
I have news for you: racists do not form a majority in America. Not even a significant minority, and those in this shameless minority will vote Republican anyway.
May 26, 2008 12:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree completely with this post. Part of Obama's appeal for me is that he is magnanimous and inclusive - he meant it when he said as President, he'll serve ALL Americans, not just the hardcore Democratic base, i.e. the method and attitude of Bush. He reaches across the aisle to bring people behind his initiatives and policies, no more slicing, dicing, routing and divide-conquer.
I'm not sure why Greg's being put through the grinder, but this to me is a reasonable post.
Look, Obama doesn't need to woo people like us anymore. The Clintons and Republicans are replaying Nixonian tactics by hanging the tag "Out-of-touch BLACK ELITE" around his neck. He has to fight it, to show those who do not know him what he is made of, to tell them his story. He has to win over every vote he hasn't won yet to sail into the WH, and we should all be the wind on his back to get him there. Support his efforts to win DECISIVELY in Nov, not 51% of the electorate.
May 26, 2008 12:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appalachia does not "encompass" 13 states. Perhaps it encompasses a PART of 13 states, if very generously drawn.
Several of the 13 states mentioned will not really be in play either way. Take New York or Maryland off the table. They'll be blue. Take Alabama off the table. It'll be red.
Racism in places like Kentucky and West Virginia is a real problem. And a pverty tour through Appalachia with JE would be great. Shades of Bobby Kennedy.
But in the end, Obama's demonstrated ability to energize new voters and turn out blacks and young people will render the problem moot.
May 26, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
MSM picks up a meme and rides it to death, seriously these are the same wankers that spent hours analyzing John Edwards haircut...The MSM has been so far off during this campaign season why o why should we even pay them the slightest bit of respect. Mccain faces a serious uphill battle with the normal Republican base.
Tactically on the Pastors he had to let them go to keep up his BS maveirck label, but on a strategic level disillusionment among that crowd will mean depressed turn out in vital swing states, like Mich, OH, Iowa, Co, NC and VA which will doom Mccain.
Yet where is the two page Newsweek aricle on that? Non existent, yep god help the "brave" journalist that shows Mccain to be a sham of 2K. They want a competitive race so it is in their best interest to push a candidate that if he spent two weeks under the same microscope the Dems face his political career would be pinning in the fjords.
May 26, 2008 12:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
This kind of story is idiotic, but it is the Obama campaign's own fault that it has occured. Instead of using their apparently unending supply of money to really reach out to voters in this handful of states and working hard there, they just looked at the delegate count and confidently ignored this problem because they knew they were going to win the nomination. They could easily have crafted a message that would have cut into Hillary's margins, but they chose not to. Now it is coming back to bite them in the ass because even though they now have the nomination, the chattering idiots on tv and in the corporate media have nothing to discuss except this footnote problem that will be erased in the fall if there is any competence at all in the Obama campaign. Having said that, I never put losing beyond the realm of possibility when Democratic campaigns are involved.
May 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama receives 90% support from blacks, and Hillary receives what, maybe 60% from whites, and Newsweek's conclusion is whites are racist? So if whites gave Hillary or McCain 90% or more, then they wouldn't be racist?
Is there no law against dumbness in national magazines? I guess not...
May 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fear not Pale Trembler; President Obama will keep his promise, and emancipate all we long oppressed "White Americans"; we shall overcome someday.
May 26, 2008 12:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Cut him some slack. He's very worried about the prospect of President Obama appointing Mumia as Secretary of Kill Whitey.
May 26, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Damn! I thought I had a real shot at Kill Whitey!Guess I'm not quite dark enough (skin tone-wise)for those elitist,latte-sipping,volvo-driving-koolaid-drinking,college-edumacated,trust fund babies supporting Obama. Who knew there were so many of these delusional hopemongers wanting to feed the poor, house the homeless, educate our kids, provide healthcare for all,etc. Un-american bastards!
May 26, 2008 7:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
As recently as a few months ago, Hillary was well ahead of Obama among African-Americans. It took Bill's comments in South Carolina and other foolish comments by the Clintons to turn black voters against them. She really screwed the pooch on this one (one of her campaigns countless errors, all of which add up to her blowing her big lead and institutional support and basically handing the nomination to this "skinny kid with a funny name".
May 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Do not forget the shucking and jiving routine from January; it is my favorite. The problem: polite company does not address a U.S. Senator in such terms; as they say the rest is history!
May 26, 2008 1:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please quit spreading the shit sandwich that Bill said something in South Carolina that sent blacks running to Obama. They were going to vote for the black man anyway. The Clintons had a very large very loyal black following until they were competing for votes with an actual black person. No big surprise there! You swallowed the MSM bullshit hook, line, and stinker!
May 26, 2008 5:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Interesting that this issue is referred to as "Obama's problem with Appalachia" and not "Appalachia's problem with Obama". If there were something that Obama could do to or say to broaden his appeal to the good, hardworking people of Appalachia to cure "Obama's problem with Appalachia", that would be the subject of an interesting Newsweek article. On the other hand, if it is really "Appalachia's problem with Obama", or less politely with the color of Obama's skin, then there is not too much Obama can do about that. Why is there not an "Obama problem with the Rocky Mountains"? Is it too much to ask of our media to conduct a study to determine if the white people of Appalachia are more racist, on average, than the white people of the Rocky Mountains? Any psychologist or sociologist could develop a fair set of polling questions on this issue which are not tied explicitly to voting patterns.
May 26, 2008 12:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Obama's problem because he's the one running, not the voters.
Secondly, as pointed out elsewhere, there are no bad voters. There are inadequate candidates.
Obama hasn't been able to connect with working class voters and it's just convenient to dismiss them as racists. But if he dismisses them as his supporters do here, he just hands them to Republican, like Kerry and Gore did.
Personally, I don't support him but I think he's perfectly capable of resolving this problem.
May 26, 2008 12:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is Obama's problem because he's the one running, not the voters.
I wholeheartedly agree. And there is a reason why we're all talking about Obama's problem and not Hillary's problem.
May 26, 2008 12:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have no designs on your new toy, so no need to get defensive.
But keep at it and let's hope it works better in the end.
May 26, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
I feel much better now.
May 26, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I knew you'd feel better as soon as you feel less threatened.
May 26, 2008 1:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Less threatened from what? You're taking it way too personally buddy? I don' t see sniper fire coming. It's Obama and Hillary, we are just supporters from outside.
We hope our candidate of choice wins and move on. That's the reality.
Also, your new toy crap is really old now.
May 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think that you are right about Obama connecting. He will put effort into this, and it will change, just not completely. WV and KY are not going to be good states for him. I wouldn't say they are racist, by any means. Most voters probably have valid (in their minds) concerns about Obama. However, there is a significant percentage that are racist, and just won't vote for a black man.
A personal story. I was on vacation last summer and drove through WV on the way to Niagara Falls. We saw a major car accident outside of Charleston, and I am a paramedic. (I am also a spanish speaking Puerto Rican). I started to help a guy around 40 years old, who was trapped in his car. He kept telling me how grateful he was for my help and thanking me over and over. A van of Mexican painters stopped to help, and I asked them in Spanish to borrow some equipment that I thought they might have in their truck. After he heard me speak Spanish, the man who was trapped told me to stay away from him, and accused me of being a Mexican wetback that was trying to kill him, so I could take over his country. Another woman who had stopped to help, told me that I had better leave. She said that most people there are good people, but there are many that just don't "take to non-whites."
May 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
... as pointed out elsewhere, there are no bad voters. There are inadequate candidates.
I'm not sure I agree with this, at least not when stated in such absolutist terms. I'm sympathetic to the idea, if you look at it in aggregate terms (e.g., the electorate), but I can think of more than a handful of people (on both sides of the aisle, and supporting all candidates) that I think it would be entirely fair to say are voting based on the negatives, rather than the positives of any particular candidate.
Some won't vote for Sen. Clinton because they're misogynist or think Bill Clinton is the anti-christ. Some won't vote for Sen. McCain because they think he's crazy or corrupt.
And some won't vote for Sen. Obama because he's black.
I wholeheartedly agree with you that candidates should do what they can to persuade voters to support them, but being all things to all people isn't leadership, it's pandering.
May 26, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
A part and short answer, social and geographical isolation within the mist of plenty in the core Appalachian region. Although isolated as well the western states have a different historical patterns. As I said short and in part!!!!!!!!!!
May 26, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, it's pointless to go after the most hard core racists or the most remote niches of cultural difference. Obama' bigger problem is sharpening his economic message and figuring out how to tune in to northeastern Catholics. I don't see that as an Appalchian problem but if it's racial then he's got to do more to strike that JFK chord again and ask them to rise above their fears and prejudices for a better day. He's got to get back to talking about the future. The people who want to dwell in the past aren't going to vote for him no way no how.
May 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Clinton Could Face an Uneasy Return to the Senate
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/26/us/politics/26clinton.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&pagewanted=print
Excerpt:
When Hillary Rodham Clinton made a rare stop in the Senate last week, she spoke from a lonely outpost at the end of the Armed Services Committee dais, eight empty chairs emphasizing the gulf between her and real Senate power at the chairman’s spot.
It was illustrative of the inflexible senatorial math that will fix Mrs. Clinton’s place in Congress should the Democratic nominating fight play out on its present course. While she has received millions of votes, stirred thousands of Americans at rallies, made hundreds of appearances and is just scores of delegates short of her goal, defeat would still return her to the Senate as No. 36 out of 49 Democrats.
But the seniority arithmetic is only the beginning. There is also the personal challenge of returning to a club where more Democratic members, some quite pointedly, favored Senator Barack Obama and spurned her.
May 26, 2008 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is it called reaping what one has sown? Perhaps, earned?
May 26, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
what about Iowa, Wisconsin etc. Are these not rural, working class states?
May 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't we just be open and honest about this issue? It's not that Obama's policy positions irk or his political "experience" is too lacking for Appalachian voters. It's that he is a black man, and a lot of white voters in these areas do not want a black man to be dog-catcher, much less President. Unfortunately, these white voters make up the majority of the electorate there, so nominating a black man for President will lose us those states, we get it. I wouldn't be a member of this party if I believed we would nominate Hillary because we wouldn't want to risk offending backwater rednecks.
While we may lose Kentucky and West Virginia and Tennessee, we are surprisingly strong in Montana, Alaska and Colorado - three states that are kinda like a Vanilla ice cream convention.
Until Newsweek can do political analysis that is as sophisticated as what I can do in my underwear, thirty minutes after I got out of bed, don't post their crap on TPM, please.
May 26, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yup. Kentucky and West Virgina probably won't go for Obama.
But assuming that all states the Appalachia's touch will be losers for Obama is pretty much a stretch.
Note the SurveyUSA polls that include VP possibilities. They now have Ohio going for Obama, as well as Pennsylvania. There are some VP combination that win it for McCain in these polls, but the majority of them push Obama ahead. Out of the few polls in this series, New Mexico turns out to be the hardest for Obama right now.
Right now -- that's the big caveat we're facing.
May 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Since TPM choose to only dedicate a special thread, when ever Hillary picks up a single delegate, and when she farts or burbs, the her Sargent At Arms rushes to call them Hymns From An Angel, you should know that:
Obama gains three superdelegates from Hawaii today!!!!!
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/05/26/obama-gains-three-superdelegates-from-hawaii/
Excerpt:
(AP)–Barack Obama has picked up three superdelegate votes from Hawai’i.
Hawai’i Democrats selected three Obama supporters to fill its remaining superdelegate slots at their state convention Sunday, including the new chair and vice chair of the party.
May 26, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
This almost sounds like a dare, Greg.
May 26, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Weekend delegate update:
Obama Six more, Clinton just One more.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/05/26/1065538.aspx
May 26, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
The "Appalachian problem" is much more confined to the high altitude western ridge of Appalachia, as I point out here.
http://barefootandprogressive.blogspot.com/2008/05/obama-and-appalachia-its-gone-but-it.html
To describe appalachia as most of Pennsylvania, etc.. is misleading, to say the least. His problems there aren't anything that can't be overcome.
May 26, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
The rural thing is a 2-way street. They get their info slowly there and still haven't heard the guy speak, I'll wager.
May 26, 2008 1:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
We can't go around denouncing Hillary for playing the "white voters" race card and then turn around and declare since these are racists anyway, we don't waste our time on them, ironically, echoes of Hillary's "Screw 'Em!" remarks circa 1995.
Bittergate was all about them as well, Obama WILL go there to the white rural and urban working class areas, the poverty tour is a fantastic idea and thanks for suggesting it, and even if many of them are skeptical and don't buy it, at the very least he makes the effort and it will help him with moderate Republicans and Indies.
He *has* to get into the WH, and I don't want him resting on his laurels until he's there. Act 1 is over, Hillary is going to exit Stage Left, a brief Intermission and it's time for Act 2, Obama takes it to the ones Hillary swears will never pull the lever for him. Let's applaud him for that.
May 26, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Taking a look at how he's run, you gotta admit that he's good. He's not going to fall into a trap of us-vs.-them, unless the them are Bush/McCain Republicans.
May 26, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm more than a little taken aback by the anger and defensiveness on this thread.
Guys, the primary is over. Senator Obama has won and Senator Clinton lost. Not everyone accepts that yet, but it's true. Obama is our candidate and we can and must think openly about his weaknesses going into the general election. Being honest about this does not indicate we're suffering from buyer's remorse.
In fact, he does have a problem in Appalachia. Raising his profile there can help him a lot. Going on a poverty tour with Edwards is a great way to do this.
What doesn't help, and positively hurts, is being defensive and superior about the issue, attacking Appalachians as being the ones with "a problem", or making lame jokes about how people in West Virginia are inbred knuckle-draggers. Let's not be stereotypical latte-drinkers ourselves.
May 26, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Right there with you. See below.
The comment threads over the weekend have been just disturbing.
May 26, 2008 1:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Comments have gotten really bitter and nasty in the last several days.
Greg? Thanks for this post.
And for all the readers out t here slamming Greg for posting this, Evan Thomas is like the canary in the coal mine of conventional wisdom. If he says something is so, then that's what conventional wisdom will be. {Canary in the coal mine really isn't the right analogy, but whatever...}
Hilarious, given Evan Thomas' level of analysis? You betcha. But that's reality, and it's perfectly reasonable for Greg to post this.
Shilling would be posting the Thomas piece without reference to the NY Times analysis.
May 26, 2008 1:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
Appalachian racism is well-known by everybody, regardless of the blockade white folks enforce against the word "racism".
Appalachia's problem with Obama has been similarly well-understood for some time.
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/5/20/162117/922
May 26, 2008 1:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
Many of these voters have no idea about Obama - they don't surf the internet, they get their news from TV and the local press, they're pretty cut off from the political drama, they have very little access to information.
The poverty tour is necessary because that may be the only way to get Obama's message out to them, and for him to have a dialogue with these voters.
We can't judge from our own vantage point how these voters think and feel, we're their opposite, we spend our political lives online, giving $, getting our information and doing the organization and becoming the force that propelled him to the Democratic nomination.
The GE demands very different tactics, and Obama has to change and adapt to a bigger, different electorate, one that is dispersed, bitter, poorer, less informed, prejudiced against "elites" but no less Americans, some of them even racist - I'm confident he will do it. That would be the true test of a great leader.
May 26, 2008 1:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
Fact: The nomination is still undecided.
Fact: Appalachian voters get to vote their interests.
Opinion: Clinton is a better candidate.
Opinion: Money cannot buy the nomination.
Opinion: it is no more racist for whites to vote for Clinton than for blacks to vote for Obama. But blacks vote in higher percentages for Obama than whites do for Clinton.
If Obamites want to play the race card they can play it all the way to another Republican president.
Clinton remains the best candidate for president.
May 26, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
Money cannot buy the nomination.
I'm guessing you thought it could, last fall, when the inevitable candidate Clinton was raising such astounding sums of it.
Another flip-flop by a Clinton supporter, in other words.
May 26, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
C'mon Registered User, do you think we're all that stupid?
You know the race card has been brought out of the Clinton deck several times. She played it again a couple of weeks ago.
And there's a big difference between voting FOR someone and voting AGAINST them because of the color of their skin. Appalachian voter's self interest has nothing to do with it.
Let's try to keep the facts straight, because your opinions keep getting in the way.
May 26, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Even Obama doesn't state this publicly. Why else did he say, in some of the early debates, that he didn't want people voting for him based on the color of his skin.
Maybe because if you're voting FOR someone because skin color, you're automatically voting AGAINST someone because of skin color.
But thanks for playing. You've won an autographed copy of The Audacity of Koolaide.