Hillary's Memo on Why West Virginia Matters

The Hillary Clinton campaign sent out a memo today on why West Virginia's primary matters.

Shorter version: Obama may not have spent much time in West Virginia but he threw an awful lot of resources at it.

Some quotes below, but the link takes you to the full memo.

"Given the attempts by our opponent and some in the media to declare this race over, any significant increase in voter turnout, coupled with a decisive Clinton victory, would send a strong message that Democrats remain excited and energized by Hillary's candidacy,"

...."In the face of grim poll numbers, the Obama campaign has attempted to dismiss today's outcome despite the fact that Sen. Obama has outspent us on advertising, has more staff in the state, and more than double the number of offices. He has also benefited from the support of the most high-profile endorsers in West Virginia-Sen. Jay Rockefeller and Congressman Nick Rahall. By every measure, the Obama campaign has waged an aggressive campaign in the Mountain State."

It adds some facts on West Virginia:

The Mountain State is used to picking winners. Every nominee has carried the state's primary since 1976, and no Democrat has won the White House without winning West Virginia since 1916.

Democrats carried West Virginia in 1992 and 1996, but lost the state-and the White House--in 2000 and 2004. Hillary has predicted victory against Sen. McCain in West Virginia based on the strength of her economic message.

And closes with:

Sen. Clinton has already won Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida and Michigan. With a win in West Virginia, Sen. Clinton will have once again proven her greater ability to win in the key swing states.

< Hillary and Obama Take Time Off To Attend Their Day Jobs | Tuesday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    No giving up here (5.00 / 7) (#1)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:31:25 PM EST
    if the rest of the Dem party is ready to roll over, and if I was for a mere 3 hours, Hillary is not.  All the way to the convention.  Make the leadership and the SDs earn their keep.  

    Never give up!! Never surrender!!! (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:14:59 PM EST
    That is why Hillary will win in the end, she is in until the bitter end, no matter what. Obama whines at the drop of a hat, gets rid of opponents when he can, and continuously blames others for his own shortcomings. That's no way to win anything, let alone an election.

    Surrender (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:16:04 PM EST
    never won anything.  If we can't handle a convention fight we can't govern.

    Maybe if she had the super D's (1.00 / 0) (#58)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:29:25 PM EST
    But they're breaking for Obama. He will have 2025 by mid June. There won't be a fight. Everyone should get on with their lives.

    It's not 2025, it's 2209 (5.00 / 0) (#65)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:08:08 PM EST
    2025 really is a 'magic' number, because you have to make Florida and Michigan disappear to get to it.

    Just like MI and FL would count right? (1.00 / 0) (#71)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:36:36 PM EST
    I'm sure your a nice person. But just because you want it doesn't mean it's going to happen. The number is 2025. Sorry.

    If they don't count MI and Fl then they (none / 0) (#74)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:44:49 PM EST
    better get ready to loose the Election..  Without those two states the Democrats won't win the GE and if they insist on not counting their votes for the convention they are probably not getting their votes in the GE. SORRY

    They'll be seated (none / 0) (#76)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    I wouldn't worry about it. An accommodation will be found. I think the dilemma has always been finding a solution that was fair and equitable. Many were told months ago that the idea of seating those states as is would never fly. But they persisted in their fantasies instead of working toward a credible solution. The fantasies and closed-mindedness inadvertently redounded to the benefit of Obama, while causing grievous damage to Hillary.

    That is exactly the kind of thinking that will (none / 0) (#77)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    cost the Democratic Party.  
    Many were told months ago that the idea of seating those states as is would never fly. But they persisted in their fantasies instead of working toward a credible solution

    The only credible solution was to follow the rules as written and not the draconian punishment that was given.  The Democrats have thrown the dices and IMO they are very near loosing the GE because of it.  If there was any close mindedness it was in the DNC and the Obama campaign.   And the damage will be to the party and unfortunately if they loose the GE to the Country.


    That's my girl! (none / 0) (#61)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:37:46 PM EST
    Keep that single chin up (on the internet, we are all thin, young and pretty)

    I totally agree with Clinton (duh) but would also like to add to those yankee, left coaster and otherwise geographically situated Clinton supporters who have been painted with the very broad brush of low-info, hillbilly racists simply because you prefer our girl: welcome to what it feel like being from the south.  We get called this all the time by folks who have never stepped foot here.  

    I just can't forsee that a resounding thumping this late in the game will do Obama any good.  No matter how the media spins it, a win is a win, and a trounce is a trounce.


    It sounds like they are raising (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:32:41 PM EST
    expectations even more - which they never do...30-40 point win?  That might be wishful thinking on my part but it would be sweet!

    Ok, I have to confess (5.00 / 0) (#9)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:40:05 PM EST
    I'm a little nervous now -- I don't want to jinx anything -- someone reassure me that this memo means they expect a big win tonight, right?

    In the NYTimes today (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by ahazydelirium on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:49:11 PM EST
    an article mentioned an adviser saying a +25 win. Personally, I think they're setting the bar low because they are expecting a significant victory. I honestly would not be surprised by at least a +35 margin.

    Thanks! n/t (none / 0) (#21)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:54:03 PM EST
    KUSA, which has historically been correct (none / 0) (#62)
    by Kathy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:43:25 PM EST
    in all its polling, at least according to its website, predicts Clinton will get trounced by at least 50 points or higher.

    (those of you who are familiar with KUSA's excellent track record will surely agree...)


    Outspending her (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:36:08 PM EST
    was stupid and unnecessary.

    Damn the torpedoes, Axelrod wants his massive percentage payday!

    All that money (none / 0) (#6)
    by Stellaaa on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:38:05 PM EST
    he made promises to the MSM.  I will get you money, advertising and sweet he gets large chunks.  

    A while ago I remember the madness at the other "blogs" about Penn's contract with Hillary.  The outrage, the pain.  My oh my.  Are they saying anything now?  


    Surely you jest Stellaaa! (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:56:55 PM EST
    Remember that if Obama or his supporters or surrogates do something it's just fine and dandy but if Hillary does the same things it's because she's rotten to the core.

    The WV Repugs are running a vote (none / 0) (#23)
    by Joan in VA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:57:02 PM EST
    against her campaign for free!

    You left out my favorite sentence: (5.00 / 4) (#4)
    by chancellor on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:36:46 PM EST
    "Despite being the presumptive nominee...." Great dig by the Clinton team, saying Obama spent big bucks on advertising, had Rockefeller and Rahall supporting him, tons of staff and volunteers in-state, and he still can't close the gap. Might as well point out the obvious since no one in the press will do it otherwise.

    My thoughts too (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:38:36 PM EST
    Great memo & right on the facts -- but will the msm report it? I'm skeptical on that one.

    What happened to all those (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by kenoshaMarge on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:01:06 PM EST
    on the left that used to loathe ol Jello Jay Rockefeller for unrelentingly attempting to bestow telecom immunity?

    Now because he supports Obama he's no longer one of the bad guys? I swear, I'm gonna have to get a score card because it is all getting so confusing.

    I'm still trying to wrap my mind around the fact that Krugman and Joe and Valerie Wilson are enemies now too.


    Has there been (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:21:54 PM EST
    an influx of Obama supporters into the blogosphere that don't remember the critiques of the Bush administration?  Because that's what seems like has happened, at least in my eyes.  If we've forgotten that Plame & Wilson are patriots and heroes, then that's pretty bad.

    the working class is comprised of ALL races (5.00 / 6) (#5)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:37:19 PM EST
    Hillary was honest in making the distinction that the "white working class" wasn't voting for Obama.
    They voted for Jesse Jackson, but his campaign was based on substance and solutions not manufacturing racist charges against his opponents.
    Perhaps they realize Obama's "hope and change" is empty rhetoric and certainly calling them racists didn't help.
    But of course, it's all Hillary's fault they reject Obama.

    you said it (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:25:45 PM EST
    The hysteria over her comments reveals the subtle racism of those making them, at least I think so.

    Oh Hell Bjorn, Let's Shoot for 50%. I Sincerely (5.00 / 5) (#7)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:38:17 PM EST
    hope the good people of WVA see through obama's facade and the fact he could give a rat's patootie about them.  Every state matters and Hillary is not out of this race, no matter how much the pundits would like her to be.  obama knew
    he would lose big and still spent a bundle to try to stem the flow of lost votes while pretending WVA doesn't matter.  What a creep he has turned out to be.

    Has KUSA issued anything on WV yet? (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:41:56 PM EST
    Chuck Todd (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:43:13 PM EST
    just said she could gain 180,000 votes with a 40 point win...50 would give the MSM something to discuss.  I am on board with that!

    50%?? I am holding out for 60%!!! (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:35:49 PM EST
    Given the stupid things that Obama keeps saying, it wouldn't surprise me in the least. And don't think that people in WV don't read blogs and have the net, either. I was living in WV in 92, back in the mountains, and got my first computer that year. I got AOL, dial up over the local phone line, and immediately invited my friends and neighbors over to check it out.

    One of my friends was the principal of the grade and junior high school. I showed him the homework help and tutoring features on AOL, and he immediately saw that it was a huge asset for any school system. I was also able to use the computer to find out that his son was ok after the earthquake in Mexico that year, he was there on an exchange program. Phone lines were down, but the university had a satellite web link.

    In 1993, the county installed computers in all the schools, and set up an ISP for local users. And the library got computers too, so people could go use them if they didn't have access to the school computers. The school computers were available to the students, and anyone that came along to watch, after school until 9 pm. every week night. You can bet your ass, your hat and your housecat that every demeaning word that Obama has said about various voters' bloc has been noted and passed around. They have awesome phone trees in WV, anything that happens is all over the area in a couple of hours. So, figure they are as mad as we are. And today they vote. Heh.


    FlaDemFem....I like Your Numbers Better!! (none / 0) (#37)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:38:18 PM EST
    GO HILLARY...and a tip of the hat to the residents of WVA who will show obama who is boss...

    she should put... (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:42:34 PM EST
    Clinton should put more emphasis on the "DO NOT WANT" part of her argument -- with the media and Obama supporters already declaring him the winner, Obama's continued failure to consolidate his support among rank and file Democrats has to be seen as a very big warning to the Party... rank and file Dems DO NOT WANT Obama.  

    Remember, as soon as McCain was declared the presumptive nominee, the GOP got behind him.  Except for Louisiana which voted 5 days after ST (and where McCain lost by only one point to Huckabee), he hasn't lost a single state.  But "Obama is inevitable" has been around since Wisconsin, and rank-and-file Democrats keep saying WE DON'T WANT.

    But even worse is Obama's response to "WE DON'T WANT" -- its been "I DON'T NEED YOU"  -- and we can expect considerable defections to McCain in the face of Obama's arrogance.

    Bingo (3.00 / 1) (#44)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:57:55 PM EST
    We need an Obama lolcat....

    Heh (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:42:38 PM EST
    I can't wait for the usual suspects to start telling us this was a "Soviet-style election" since one of the candidates chose not to campaign.

    OMG!!! (5.00 / 0) (#19)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:53:20 PM EST
    My Obama-supporting co-worker kinda of beat around this point.  He said (paraphrasing here) that it would seem bad for Clinton if she got too many votes. He couldn't put his finger on it - but you hit the nail on the head - it would seem "Soviet-style".

    I, then of course, had to point out that nobody seems to care when Obama gets 90+% of the AA vote, even though nobody gets that kind of support unless the elections are rigged.


    93% in NC (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:01:52 PM EST
    That is Eastern Bloc.

    It's not based on political ideology.


    In 1996, when elected to his second term (none / 0) (#46)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:00:40 PM EST
    Bill Clinton received 84% of the black vote and 43% of the white vote.

    I don't suppose you complained when AA's voted as a block for Clinton, as they have done for every democrat. By the way, as you can see, Clinton had roughly the same white support as Obama is likely to have in the GE.


    In 1988, Dukasis received 86% of the black vote (none / 0) (#49)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:05:17 PM EST
    Of course... (none / 0) (#53)
    by OrangeFur on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:18:22 PM EST
    ... Clinton's race was a 3-way race.

    That was not (none / 0) (#56)
    by IzikLA on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:27:02 PM EST
    during a closely contested Primary, unless I'm mistaken...

    Point is they usually have voted as a block (none / 0) (#60)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:34:33 PM EST
    for white candidates. So the race-baiting and racial insinuations are misplaced. These people are thoroughly unlike certain members of "white working class" who will never vote for a black candidate. Those folks are motivated by hate, unlike AA Obama supporters.

    AA Obama supporters are motivated by race, too (none / 0) (#75)
    by makana44 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:56:11 PM EST
    Many, if not most AA Obama supporters are motivated by race, and race only. Everybody says, "well, that's understandable." Perhaps it is. However, their vote has nothing to do with the relative merits of the two candidates. AAs aren't comparing experience, or policies, or anything else. They're voting lock-step for Obama because he is a black man. That's as racist as any white not voting for Obama because he's black. And nobody is accusing the AAs of voting black because they hate whites. But you're accusing whites who vote for Clinton of doing so out of hate. It's either the goose or the gander...which is it? And btw - your statement happens to be racist as well.

    John Cole over at Balloon Juice (none / 0) (#57)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:28:30 PM EST
    peddles this argument, and it was believable until I realized that Obama was not required to take his name off the ballot.

    You never voluntarily take your name off the ballot - that is the height of stupidity.


    How is it stupid if it doesn't count? (none / 0) (#59)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:30:42 PM EST
    Is anyone counting MI? Nope. So how can you say he was stupid?

    Apparently (none / 0) (#63)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:00:20 PM EST
    Obama thought it would count, because he had his supporters campaigning that people should vote "uncommitted." In fact, the radio ads run by John and Monica Conyers specifically mention Barack Obama's name and that Obama supporters should vote for "uncommitted".

    But you knew that and yet still you perpetuate Obama talking point falsehoods.


    good point (none / 0) (#66)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:11:00 PM EST
    As I recall there was a mostly (none / 0) (#73)
    by Seth90212 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:43:09 PM EST
    independent movement among Obama and Edwards supporters to embarrass Hillary. For a while that night she struggled against uncommitted. The intent was to embarrass her, and it was mostly done by unaffiliated persons. We all know that supporters of candidates are very capable of taking this kind of independent initiative. Look at all the Obama "field offices" that sprang up months or weeks before his campaign ever got showed up to a given state.

    Uh (none / 0) (#79)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:30:19 PM EST
    when you get to the point of suggesting that advertisements by Congressman John Conyers, Obama superdelegate, are part of an "unaffiliated" effort to embarrass Hillary, it's clear that you're too far deep in apologia to be of any value here.

    Seriously, I know you think it's your God-given role to show up here and recite the Obama talking points, but you haven't found a single one we haven't heard countless times before.


    FL and MI (none / 0) (#64)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:06:39 PM EST
    have to be counted.  No one expected this to be so close, or to go on for so long.  If it hadn't, and one candidate had simply emerged as the 'presumptive nominee' like in 2004, Michigan and Florida could have been 'symbolically represented' at the convention and they would have fallen in line with the winner.  However now that FL and MI are literally crucial, and this campaign is ongoing, their votes do matter, and making them 'not count' would be a disenfranchisement that throws the election to Obama.  This is why there is an upcoming meeting to try and 'resolve' the issue. The devil is in the details, of course.

    If conventional wisdom on MSNBC and the Obamasphere says that it's true, that does not make it so.  

    Lately I keep thinking of this:

    The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality." ... "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.

    I want a Prime Time speech (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by BarnBabe on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:43:17 PM EST
    At least there will not be any Lake Cty Ind screwballs around to keep her out of the limelight. I was waiting until tonight to send her more $$ so she can count a large after win windfall. She should have gotten one last week, but cheatments come to provements as my Mother always told me.

    I'm waiting to give tonight too (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by angie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:46:49 PM EST
    which reminds me, I promised to donate more to TL this week too -- I'm doing it now.

    Wonder what the mayor Gary is like? (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:45:37 PM EST
    (My mother is from Gary, WV).

    I Hope He Has More Class Than The Mayor (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:47:46 PM EST
    of Gary, IN., who is no more than a low-down snake.

    I agree with you so much I'll even abide ... (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Ellie on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:04:26 PM EST
    ... the distinction of a low-down snake.

    I'm not afraid of snakes (except poisonous ones, which, as a kid, we were taught to look out for in our region.)

    But I've gotta say, if I saw one that WASN'T low-down, but working from an upright position, that's the kind I'd fear with an extra helping of caution.

    Like the mayor of Gary, IN: Definitely keep an eye on those!


    lol...good point....they can do more damage (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:23:56 PM EST
    Do you think the media will call it early? (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by ineedalife on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:53:31 PM EST
    Will the Obama boys choir at MSNBC have a countdown to the polls closing so they can call it for her, like they did for Obama in NC? Or will the say "to early to call" with 60 percent of the vote in and her up 40%? Anything to deny her a spotlight.

    Actually, I expect that if Obama loses by less than 25 points they will point to this a surge among white voters on his part. Furhter evidence that he can win in the fall. He will have cut her margin in half in  only....yada, yada, yada.

    Do You Think One Minute After The Polls (none / 0) (#26)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:00:28 PM EST
    close is too early?

    They'll call it early to kill the story (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:58:51 PM EST

    Then it will turn out the exit polls underestimated.


    Fox won't :) (none / 0) (#68)
    by waldenpond on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:18:18 PM EST
    MSNBC/CNN will pull one of the usuals... and call it as soon as the polls close, probably leave a counter on the bottom of the screen and spend their coverage with a plethora of Obama talking heads bashing Clinton.  

    Look for long drawn out analysis of what this means for Obama on Fox.  They will be very serious about their coverage, at the same time I picture them hanging out behind the scenes laughing their @sses off.


    We Can Hope That Maybe This Time Will Be (none / 0) (#72)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:39:02 PM EST
    different.  I know are hopes have been dashed time and again, but let's save the doom and gloom until after they do what you have laid out.  At some point, these people need to come to their senses.

    West Virginia (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:54:51 PM EST
    will get the page 11 treatment. It'll be on TV after the story about the blind dog.

    voted today!!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by debbie f on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:03:55 PM EST
    i cast my vote for our girl. i also did a protest vote against our state senator for comming out for obama before we voted in our state.
     as upset as i am about our elections now, i am mre upset with dnc.this proportional system dilutes votes and gives the big wigs a bigger say. i thought i was fairly informed of the system until this year. i have switched from the  d column to independent. i just hope someone gets smart an gets rid of dean

    Go Debbie! (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by liminal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:06:46 PM EST
    I early voted Saturday.  Like you, I did not vote for Rockefeller, nor did I vote for Rahall.  I hope they notice the undervotes.

    wv vote (5.00 / 0) (#34)
    by debbie f on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:21:58 PM EST
    i hope more voted like us today

    Edwards is on the ballot??? (none / 0) (#39)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:46:08 PM EST
    I just checked the WV Sec. of State's page and he is still on the ballot they have on the site. Was he on yours when you voted? And if so, do you think he got any votes?

    Proportional System (none / 0) (#41)
    by Dave B on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:53:52 PM EST
    What really burns my butt is that the Democrats weight certain districts heavier than others based on who the voters there are.  AA districts in many cases got 4 instead of 3 delegates.  So, Obama actually got more delegates in some close losses.

    That is not Democracy.


    At least here in Texas... (none / 0) (#70)
    by sweetthings on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:28:34 PM EST
    We reward precincts that reliably vote Democrat with more delegates than precincts that are more fickle.

    I'm not sure that's a bad thing.


    I'll be at the victory party. (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by liminal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:05:51 PM EST
    Wave to me!

    Hey liminal! (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:16:42 PM EST
    You're from H'tington, right? Hope you see some of my family there!

    I went to the "old" HHS. It was awesome. And Marshall. Pretty town, too.

    I'll be there with you in spirit, at least.


    The big story for me (none / 0) (#24)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 12:58:57 PM EST
    is the nature of Obama's nomination.

    He's lost the enormous states.  He's also lost the foundry states. If he wins in November it'll be based on a unique coalition that has not existed before. Youngerhipperurbanwelleducated.

    It's all very mysterious.

    Didn't that coalition exist in 1972? (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:00:25 PM EST
    Why it's an (none / 0) (#50)
    by DJ on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:09:33 PM EST

    whew! (none / 0) (#38)
    by cpinva on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:38:38 PM EST
    i'm surprised none of you mentioned the comments to that memo. there are some truly deranged (and deluded) obama supporters. i hope wherever they live has sufficient mental health facilities available, to care for all of them when sen. clinton is nominated.

    as i see it, CA, MA, NY, NJ, FL, MI, PA, OH, TX, etc. really didn't count. on the other hand, UT, WY, SC, IA, NC, GA, AL, VA, AL & HI do count.

    who exactly decided this, and how come the rest of us weren't informed?

    Talked to my ex-WV friend. (none / 0) (#40)
    by Fabian on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:47:10 PM EST
    He said that any candidate can get the WV WWC vote by daring to go get down and dirty with the coal miners.

    IOW - perceived elitism costs votes with working class, especially the blue collar working class.

    CNN: Clinton win could raise doubts (none / 0) (#42)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 01:56:25 PM EST
    I was amazed to see the CNN headline just now, "A Clinton win in W. Virginia could raise doubts."

    But when you click on the story itself (http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/05/13/wv.primary/index.html),
    the headline changes to the exact opposite thrust:  "Likely Clinton win in
    W. Virginia won't derail Obama."  Which has almost nothing to do with the content of the story.

    The morning after the NC and Indiana primaries, the websites of the NY Times, WA Post and LA Times all had anti-Clinton headlines suggesting all was lost for her.  Depressed, I decided to view the archived image of the print edition for each of these.  I was stunned to see that the headlines were all PRO-Clinton, suggesting it was a big comeback.

    It would appear that headlines are deliberately spun for marketing purposes and the target demographic; online geared toward Obama fans: paper for us Net-illiterate unwashed masses who support Clinton.  The idea that headline writers are intentionally spinning a story for marketing purposes is shocking to me.  And I keep thinking my shock at the MSM has maxed.

    Interesting: the CNN headline has changed again.  Now it's: "Analyst: Obama's likely W. Virginia loss reveals a weakness."  

    Acute comment. The editors are more the problem (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by lambert on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:02:22 PM EST
    Reporters, bad as they are, are just employees.

    They report to the editors...

    Who report to the publisher...

    Who report to the owners, who are the real problem, as Somerby points out over and over again with GE.


    Who spins the headlines? (none / 0) (#51)
    by BoGardiner on Tue May 13, 2008 at 02:11:02 PM EST
    I share this opinion, Lambert.  Headline duties vary by paper; I know sometimes it's the reporter, sometimes the editor.  I presume the larger the paper, the more likely it's an editor.  Who I suppose self-censors/self-spins to keep the owner happy and to keep his/her increasingly rare job, in this day of waning newspapers.

    this brings us back (none / 0) (#67)
    by Iris on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:16:17 PM EST
    to the question of why GE supports the candidate of unity and reconciliation -- at a time when the GOP is at its weakest....hmmmm.

    HIllary continues to impress (none / 0) (#69)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:24:23 PM EST
    with her fighting spirit, toughness and resiliency.

    She belongs on top of the short list for VP.

    fighting spirit? (none / 0) (#78)
    by makana44 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 04:15:09 PM EST
    Want to see a fighting spirit, Andrew? See you at the convention. Bring your party hat. And leave your list at the door.