Hillary's Win Grows in West Virginia

Barack Obama didn't win a single county in West Virginia. Here's the CNN county map. She's ahead by 41 points.

With 97% of the vote in, Hillary is leading Obama 67% to 26%. John Edwards has 7%.

West Virginia has 28 pledged and 11 unpledged delegates. It has 5 electoral votes and last voted for a Democrat in 1996. More...

Update: Did anyone see Nightline? It was one of fairest examinations of the state of the race and West Virginia that I've seen. No doom and gloom, no predictions of what will happen next, just facts and the truth: It's an uphill battle, but it's not over. They even had an expert who talked about how buyer's remorse may be setting in as a result of Obama being crowned by the media as the "presumptive nominee." He said it's common in elections, with people stepping back and asking, is this the person we really want.

Comments now closed.

< Media Misses the Electoral Map Issues | Overnight Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Yipee! (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Shainzona on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:08:54 PM EST
    That's all I've got!


    hey, check out the Nebraska beauty contest... (4.71 / 7) (#102)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:10 AM EST
    Mr "I can win the west but Clinton can't" has a whole 2% lead over Clinton, with 85% of precincts reporting.

    This is a state that Obama got 2 for 1 in the caucuses... (16 delegates Obama, 8 delegates Clinton), and where only 38,571 people participated in the caucuses.  With close to 93,000 votes counted, Obama is up by about 2600, or or 47%-49% -- despite having 13,681 more caucus attendees.

    I mean, Mr Presumed Nominee isn't just getting it kicked in West Virginia, over half of Nebraskans are saying DO NOT WANT as well


    Can we have some consistency, please....? (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:40 AM EST
    A. When has Nebraska EVER been part of "The West?"

    B. Clinton won Indiana by .08%, and rightly claimed "a win is a win." Now you're denigrating a possible 2% win? When is a win a win, and when does it not matter? I'm curious as to the shifting standards.


    I don't denigrate a 2 point win. (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by liminal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:23:34 AM EST
    Clearly, 2% more Nebraskans prefer Obama to Clinton, just as 41% of West Virginians prefer Clinton to Obama.  The poster's point (if I may interject) is the difference between the primary results and the caucus results.  Obama won both, but more people participated in the primary, and the margin was much closer in the primary than in the caucus.  It's another important piece of information to use when evaluating the state of the race.

    I think he's talking about the (5.00 / 5) (#141)
    by tree on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:27:48 AM EST
    significant slippage in support for Obama since his 68-32 lopsided caucus win in February. Yup, a win is a win, but either the caucus was not a good representation of voters feelings in Nebraska, or else there's been a significant case of buyer's remorse in Nebraska (i.e.,a 17 point drop in support).

    Nebraska is west of the Mississippi, and it has been cited by some Obama bloggers as being part of Obama's western strategy with the idea that he puts certain western states into play. If you've got a problem with considering Nebraska western, then you should probably take it up with the originators of the idea.


    Similar imbalance in WA, a western state (5.00 / 2) (#162)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:50:10 AM EST
    that most often goes Democratic in presidential elections. Caucus was a more solid "win" for Obama than the vote and both events took place before any of the Rev Wright, elitist, Rezko trial, etc. were out.

    WA isn't a state I would bet will go Obama in the
    GE, either. We've got a huge demographic of the folks the Change candidate doesn't think he needs.


    Caucus wins... (5.00 / 2) (#186)
    by mabelle55 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:17 AM EST
    are so unrepresentative of registered voters. I have to say, though, Obama's campaign was smart to pack them (especially with so many young and AAs), who had no idea what they were doing or how to do it and thus just completely created chaos among local party leaders.

    I, too, live in WA and served as my precinct's chair (pro-tem until the real one arrived), and we were inundated with new, unregistered voters (mostly young/mostly male), and voters who were told to vote at our location even though it was not the correct one. These folks really raised a huge ruckus when I told them their voting location was in Bremerton. Eventually they actually voted in one of the other precincts (that was actually staffed by an Obama supporter -complete with stickers, signs, etc.) at our polling location.

    So, even though I think a lot of caucuses probably experienced at least this level of dishonesty (and probably more), who's got the stomach to "disenfranchise" these new young voters who already have bought Obama's line that the system is rigged? That's what I mean by Obama's savvyness.

    But this also works against him I think by Clinton supporters who have been so turned-off by the animal behavior of many, many of Obama's followers.

    Just my humble thoughts...


    Nah, WA will go blue... (none / 0) (#165)
    by NWHiker on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:58:21 AM EST
    Seattle/King County will bring it in for the Dem nom, no matter, I think. I mean... even if there is almost zilch enthusiasm for the Dem prez person, keeping Dino Rossi OUT OF OLYMPIA will bring everyone out!

    Though it does good to remember that we vote split tix: if everyone who voted for Kerry had voted for Gregoire, iirc, we wouldn't have had that... 60 vote  nailbiter (or whatever the number, and my MIL worked the final count. It was as fair as it could possibly be, almost impressively so).


    Disagree (5.00 / 1) (#201)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:49:05 AM EST
    The demographic of Seattle/King County is made up of the people Obama has insulted, and Hillary supporters will not readily accept him after all he's done to her. If he loses even 30% of the Hillary democrats, he can't win the state.

    We've gone Republican before in the presidential races.


    Thank you. For once, it is pointed out (5.00 / 1) (#204)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:52:34 AM EST
    that Obama has done so much damage to the potential nominee, Clinton.  I am so weary of hearing the reverse of that, the whining about protecting him from the big bad campaign politics.  If so, he is so unready for the Republicans. . . .

    No way does McCain win WA (none / 0) (#211)
    by shoephone on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:01:15 AM EST
    na ga happen.

    Either Obama or Clinton wins handily.


    beg to differ (none / 0) (#181)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:20:40 AM EST
    Just because of that Gregoire/Rossi race. Which after all was decided by Counting The Votes By Hand.  And Kerry hadn't dissed farmers, service workers, and women.

    When Ohio is considered Midwest... (none / 0) (#152)
    by jerry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:39:53 AM EST
    What the hell is Nebraska?  What the hell is it?

    The wikipedia article on the Midwest will really confuse you.

    There will be a test on this tomorrow.  Study up!


    Ohio is, as part of the Northwest Territory (none / 0) (#161)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:49:19 AM EST
    for the five Great Lakes states in the Midwest.  Plus the Plains states (which is what Nebraska is), and you've got the definition at your link -- the census definition, which is the simplest way to go.  (Ditto with definitions of other regions, as then you can get good comparative data from census.gov.)

    Not denying that any regional definitions are iffy -- but perhaps more so for the Midwest than many, in part because perceptions of it by others are so removed from reality.  There was a great survey by a cultural geographer of what people in this country defined as the Midwest, with maps, and the maps are so disparate it's maddening.  Some didn't even put Wisconsin in the Midwest.

    You may not be surprised, either, to know that Californians -- Hollywood -- had absolutely the worst perceptions of where the Midwest is. :-)


    I'm from California.... (none / 0) (#184)
    by jerry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:23:42 AM EST
    I think the "West" is anything west of the Mississippi.

    So Midwest is Colorado and Wyoming or thereabouts.  TalkLeft is a blog from the midwest.  Eschaton is a blog near the mideast.

    This notion that the midwest is Ohio or even east New York (according to the wiki) is just all farkakt!


    Nope, see your link (none / 0) (#202)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:02 AM EST
    Funny snarky stuff.  But the Midwest is comprised of 12 states, none of them begin Colorado, Wyoming, or New York.  

    It's confusing enough, for those who don't know history -- i.e., the Northwest Territory, the Louisiana Purchase, etc.  Don't make it worse!

    Actually, it may be easier to go back a bit farther in history and think of the Midwest as mostly French first (Great Lakes states) and/or Spanish (Great Plains states, plus the ones you want to stick us with) first.  Then we had to tolerate the Brits, until the good French folk helped the U.S. take the western forts and let the Americans concentrate on the eastern colonies.

    There actually is a Liberty Bell hanging in Illinois older than the one in Philadelphia.  The French were in the Midwest when the Puritans landed at Plimoth Rock -- although Coronado came even sooner, to Kansas.  And, of course, the Vikings left their runestones in Minnesota even before Columbus got lost and landed a bit to the east.  

    But we're just too Midwestern nice to make a fuss about the way the easterners write the American history books.  We know who we are and where we are -- and there just may be a reason that we want to keep more potential invaders confused.  Let 'em keep calling us flyover country -- that means they'll keep flying over and not landing here. :-)


    when the presumptive nominee (4.00 / 4) (#140)
    by p lukasiak on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:26:26 AM EST
    when the presumptive nominee can't get 50% of the rank and file democrats who show up to vote in party primaries (and there is an open senate seat at stake, so voter interest is high) in a state where he won the caucus by 2-1, it definitely tells you that rank and file Democrats DO NOT WANT Obama.

    How can you say that when the Majority of... (1.00 / 1) (#147)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:37:56 AM EST
    ...rank and file Democrats in Nebraska voted for Obama today?

    49% is not a majority (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by ding7777 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:27 AM EST
    Correction (none / 0) (#151)
    by RustedView on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:39:28 AM EST
    I don't mean to be excessively anal retentive, but your percentage win by Clinton in Indiana is significantly off.

    Clinton = 644,549
    Obama = 630,399
    Total Votes Cast = 1,274,993

    Clinton = (644,549 / 1,274,993) * 100 = 50.55667
    Obama = (630,399 / 1,274,993) * 100 = 49.44333

    Clinton % - Obama % = 50.55667 - 49.44333 = 1.11334 %

    Vote Totals from CNN.com Indiana Election Results via CNN

    Again, not to be combative and fixating on small numbers, but there is a significant difference between the actual win percentage 1.11334 and your stated percentage, .08 (1.03334)


    My apologies... (none / 0) (#172)
    by EddieInCA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:38 AM EST
    I meant .8%, or 0.80, not .08 as a percentage.

    I was using numbers from a few days ago, as well.

    And, not to nitpick, but according to the Indiana Secretary of State's Office, the actual numbers are:

    Clinton- 645336 - 50.5646%

    Obama - 630925 - 49.4354%

    or a winning margin of 1.1292% for Senator Clinton.

    Thanks for correcting my figures. I always get confused with percentages versus decimal points.


    Amazing Yippee!! (3.66 / 3) (#114)
    by talex on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:05:18 AM EST
    It's amazing that even though Clinton had this HUGE win tied up weeks ago that there was still over...

    A Quarter Of A Million

    Clinton supporters that left their homes to come out and vote for her!!!

    Compare that to the total Republican turnout of just over 100,000 and you can say

    Clinton has to be the Swing State Winner Nominee if we want to win the WH.


    That's a lot... (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by kredwyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:10:13 PM EST
    night all...bed calls.

    It's almost like heaven (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:10:40 PM EST

    Glad (none / 0) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:56 PM EST
    to see you happier. Will you come back if we nominate Hillary? Heh, I may do what you did if we do end up nominating Obama.

    I'll be here regardless (5.00 / 4) (#82)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:50:10 PM EST
    my support for McCain is tepid and conditional.  If Hillary is the nominee I will drop him pretty much immediately.  Plus, I love this blog and would never want to miss the great analysis by many of my friends here.

    You've got it all wrong. I just checked DK. (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:45 PM EST

    This diary is interesting: (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:14:36 PM EST
    Orange diary--click at your peril

    Having Obama lose to McCain will be good because Democrats will pick up so many seats in the Senate.
    That's 50% reality-based thinking, anyway.


    Willing suspension of disbelief. (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:56 PM EST
    I get it now (5.00 / 8) (#13)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:16:33 PM EST
    DailyKOS is just one big gigantic satirical Stephen Colbert-like site.

    None of it is real, it's all for the purpose of humor.

    It's "The Onion," but in orange.


    truly the inmates have taken over the (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:40:19 AM EST

    It might drop (none / 0) (#76)
    by Salo on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:47:30 PM EST
    the stupid culture of the party.

    I was just over there also (none / 0) (#8)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:13:25 PM EST

    As far as I know. Obama did nothing to (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by jpete on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:40:08 PM EST
    criticize the extreme misogyny of his supporters.  And now, guess what?  Some Clinton supporters are much less  kneen on him.

    Hillary is now OVERPERFORMING my 35-40 (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:13:04 PM EST
    point estimate.

    This is very very not goo for Obama.

    Heck, it isn't even *good* :D (5.00 / 4) (#11)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:37 PM EST
    You mean (none / 0) (#27)
    by themomcat on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:21:14 PM EST
    It's "goo" which isn't "good" for BO but it's "good goo" for HRC.? Have I got that right?

    She is undermining your excellent (5.00 / 6) (#14)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:17:01 PM EST
    crystal ball skills.  But that's o.k. w/me.

    It's the Math... (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by waldenpond on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:00 AM EST
    It's the math all right.  The math says he got 21.6% of the non-aa vote to drop to 26.  Ouch!!!!    It is stunning that the so-called nominee just tanked this bad and... eh, no big deal, because he's got the roolz on his side.

    I guess those Ponies have a hard time (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Rhouse on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:15:17 PM EST
    climbing the hills in West Virginia.  Must be more show animal than hard working pack pony, since they couldn't get the job done.

    Working pony? (none / 0) (#23)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:20:41 PM EST
    isn't that like working class? If so, heaven noes the Obama campaign doesn't want anything to doing with that demographic. The Obama pony is part of the "creative" class and the "new" coalition.  

    Obama's all show pony. Heaven knows he didn't (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by DeborahNC on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:31:40 PM EST
    get much work done in the Senate. Committee meetings? Uh, not today, I'm meeting with my man Axelrod. Voting? It's such a looonnng flight back to DC. Can't I just have it done by proxy? No? Oh well...

    Yikes, McCain called Clinton (5.00 / 11) (#15)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:17:40 PM EST
    So did Obama, but...

    "A senior McCain adviser tells CNN's Dana Bash the presumptive Republican nominee called Hillary Clinton to congratulate her on her primary win in West Virginia.

    McCain has not called either Democratic candidate after the past few contests -- but he has made clear in the past that he admires Clinton's tenacity. The two have long had a cordial relationship in the Senate.

    The Obama campaign says the Illinois senator also called Clinton to offer his congratulations, reports CNN's Chris Welch, but was unable to reach her, and left a voicemail."

    The media hasn't yet covered how adroitly John McCain's campaign is courting Clinton voters and how it might help him in the fall. His campaign complaining about Cohen's statement plus this kind of move is very smart. Very very smart.

    smart man (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:20:22 PM EST
    I would love to hear that voice mail. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:20:51 PM EST
    Musta called during her speech, lol!~ (5.00 / 3) (#51)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:35 PM EST
    let's see! baaaaaaaaaaaaaaa! (none / 0) (#198)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:41:31 AM EST
    Very smart indeed (5.00 / 4) (#71)
    by daria g on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:44:38 PM EST
    The bar has been set so low for Obama at this point, I was thrilled he didn't flip the bird, though I guess he'll probably have a chance to do that and wipe West Virginia off his shoes etc. in a rally tomorrow.

    The bar is set really high for Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
    per Mark Halperin re WV

    Number (as a percentage) Hillary Clinton has to get of the vote in West Virginia for the press to take notice and assign it some meaning: 68

    If she got 68, they'd change it to 69 n/t (5.00 / 6) (#95)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:56:39 PM EST
    She's at 67 now. (5.00 / 3) (#108)
    by davnee on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:58 AM EST
    She just might hit it.  Absolute blowout.  Imagine if Edwards hadn't been on the ballot!

    And -- she did it, and then some (5.00 / 2) (#101)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:02 AM EST
    So I expect the media to start behaving better.

    Ha.  As if.


    Heh! Dan Abrams and Chris Matthews both (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:58:49 AM EST
    have said tonight that they have never called for Hillary to quit, but the "pundits" who are true experts have made it perfectly clear that there is absolutely no way she can get the nomination.

    I sure don't think the Clinton's are so stupid they can't see the possibility of winning at the convention. They've put up several million of their own money with no guarantee they'll get it back.


    How about this: (5.00 / 1) (#203)
    by Robot Porter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:50:25 AM EST
    Number of picture of David Axelrod in the new issue of Newsweek: 4

    Number of typos in Mark Halperin's piece: 1


    "unable to reach her" (5.00 / 1) (#185)
    by LHinSeattle on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:24:15 AM EST
    Yeah, how hard did he try?

    He DUCKED!


    Wow (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Steve M on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:19:11 PM EST
    Not a single county?  Even in Idaho, Clinton didn't get shut out.  That's a thumping.

    She didn't even accomplish that (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:21:19 PM EST
    in New York or Arkansas.

    This was a royal thumping.

    That Obama would get any delegates at all out of this--and he will--shows just how absurd our delegate apportionment rules are.


    Darn John Edwards...Imagine Hillary @ 74% (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by PssttCmere08 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:55:43 PM EST
    Almost 75% of voters voted agaisnt Obama (5.00 / 11) (#106)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:37 AM EST
    is the way to look at it.  Really awful, and in a swing state that the Dems could need.  Really awful.

    Thumping, My Eye! (5.00 / 2) (#190)
    by mabelle55 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:32:11 AM EST
    That's a whopping, pure and simple!

    You have to wonder why he really didn't bother. My guess? He really can't stand to lose - and by such a huge margin. Either that, or he just thinks of all the blue-collar, working class voters, the women, the seniors, as a bunch of old racists. I've actually seen comments to this effect on a lot of the other blogs.

    Can't believe how Cro-Magnon most of Obama's followers are. Whew. If that's the future of the Democratic Party we all better brace for huge setbacks in women's rights, civil rights, worker's rights...


    I think he made a huge mistake not (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:19:29 PM EST
    spending more time there.  He really should have hung out more instead of going around like the nominee.  I believe he could have done better if he had spent the time and done the work.  What are the latest projections for KY and Oregon?  

    It's the biggest mistake of his campaign so far. (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:20:37 PM EST
    The bigger mistake (5.00 / 3) (#30)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:22:10 PM EST
    was nevertheless spending a fortune on TV.

    true - so what is your (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:24:05 PM EST
    prediction for KY? Is it anything like PA or W va?

    It is everything like WV and PA (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:25:54 PM EST
    Obama will do well in Louisville, but will be blown out like he was tonight in the rest of the state.

    I predict a 25-35 point margin for her in Kentucky, though she will not win every county this time.


    Unless he learns his lesson... (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:27:16 PM EST
    ...and goes to Eastern Kentucky.

    Which he won't.


    I'm trying to understand (5.00 / 3) (#43)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:29:42 PM EST
    what his general election strategy is, because running the campaign like this just isn't going to work.

    Perhaps he expects John McCain to have a stroke or something?


    It's a concern I'm having... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:32:09 PM EST
    ...there's absolutely nothing barring him from contesting rural areas, playing the "Nixon goes to China" card and crossing that urban/rural divide to have different groups understand where he's coming from.

    But he's not doing it.

    I'm disappointed.


    His political style-- (5.00 / 4) (#53)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:34:10 PM EST
    indeed, the message of his campaign--does not translate well to these small towns.

    I don't think that's true... (none / 0) (#58)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:36:27 PM EST
    ...but that's a discussion better held with a case of beer on a porch, I think.

    Saw somewhere, maybe on Huff. Post, (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:35:16 PM EST
    the Obamas were receiving threats.  Maybe he is being cautious?

    To be honest... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:39:05 PM EST
    ...earlier today I thought about that as a possible reason. I'm surprised it was even rumored anyway, though. I don't buy it completely. But, I did think about it, and he's got two girls, I wouldn't blame him for thinking twice. But I don't buy it completely, even if true. He's missed chances to sell himself to rural voters before (after proving very adept in Iowa).

    Schmoozing SDs in DC is being cautious? (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:43:49 PM EST
    he was doing victory laps. Obama blogs are gonna need some proof before I buy their spin :)

    C'mon! (5.00 / 8) (#70)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:43:58 PM EST
    You mean you don't think HRC has gotten threats all the way along?  

    I'm not discounting racism, but this seems like Huffpo spin to me.  


    and (5.00 / 4) (#75)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:46:14 PM EST
    why does this come up after he loses big-time?

    Actually, I read this several days (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:48:27 PM EST

    and the 2 fires in her HQs? in Tex and Ohio (5.00 / 3) (#177)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:54 AM EST
    I didn't hear whines from the Clinton's Camp

    cowardice? (5.00 / 3) (#59)
    by dws3665 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:36:41 PM EST
    if he goes and tries and still loses, he looks ineffective. if he stays out and a) pretends the state doesn't matter (where is Kos decrying this now?) and/or b) writes off his loss to racist hillbillies, he maintains the (deluded) air of invincibility.

    Thing is, Clinton campaigned in NC (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by nycstray on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:46:01 PM EST
    the week before. She's not the one that needs to prove she's a fighter, he does.

    but are you surprised...obama's m.o. is he's too (5.00 / 5) (#107)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:02:38 AM EST
    sexy for WVa, he's too sexy for MI, he's too sexy for KY....and so on.  His arrogance, coupled with his lack of common sense is staggering.

    but doesn't he have a foreign policy trip (5.00 / 6) (#125)
    by Josey on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:15 AM EST
    planned for this summer?  In 2004 Kerry was derided for even mentioning he'd talked with foreign leaders. But Obama's grand tour of the World will be lauded.
    Hmm...he can go across the pond but can't visit small towns in the USA.
    I think he knows "bitter" and Wright are still hurting him.
    Time for another "the best speech evah!"

    Haven't You Heard? (5.00 / 4) (#207)
    by mabelle55 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:13 AM EST
    There's a whole new coalition being formed: the "creative class"; the wealthy urban whites and AAs); AAs; the young.

    Rural areas and that whole Rust Belt are just so passe, with all those old white women, coal miners, union members, seniors, and racists; not to mention anybody over 45!

    BTW: Did you (or anybody) read Kohut's analysis in the NYT?

    "The Widening Gap" - May 8, 2008:

    http://campaignstops.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/05/08/the-widening-gap/?ex=1211083200&en=6b10fde13ac bcf4f&ei=5070&emc=eta1

    It's fascinating. These public opinion surveys show that people 45+ just don't go for Obama's hope and change shtick. They've been around the block and know a thing or two about bright, shiny toys...and this age gap is also a gender gap.

    Another point: women make up over 50% of the Democratic Party and are the most loyal constituents. They/we have carried the water for so many loser Dems, without complaining, without asking for much, always being the loyal foot soldiers (and being disappointed so many times). But THIS time is different and I think the party knows it's different. And still, they think they can buy us off with pats on the head, tut-tut's, charm, smiles, apologies, and some other patronizing bs and we'll happily go along.

    Yeah...try winning the WH without all of us AND the rest of the 45+ group, and the blue-collar working class.


    What General Election Strategy? N/T (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Marvin42 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:35:48 PM EST
    maybe he believes Clinton (none / 0) (#49)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:32:00 PM EST
    will campaign for him and get those votes. I believe she will campaign, but i am not sure she can get them to vote for him in large numbers unless he goes there himself.

    Not Hillary's Problem, Really (none / 0) (#196)
    by mabelle55 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:41:11 AM EST
    The onus is on Obama - if he is the nominee - not Clinton to get her supporters.

    Clinton will go through the motions publicly because she will want to expand her power base in D.C. after November and doesn't want to be blamed for any fallout.

    But this curious twist of McCain calling her after her win really intrigues me. I know he's got other fish to fry by wooing her supporters, but who knows? Clinton may be so pissed-off at Obama that she's got something up her sleeve with McCain. I mean, since the o-godosphere already thinks Clinton is a "Republican-in-drag", why not at least carry the image forward a little further?

    Nah. She's a Democrat. But I hope that if she is not the nominee she sets up a hard bargaining position. The longer she holds her hand, the more nervous the Dems (and Obama) get. I'm such a sadist that I just love the thought of her twisting the knife... ;)


    she will gain a lot of net votes next week (5.00 / 1) (#173)
    by bigbay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:09:57 AM EST
    A 15 % loss in Oregon , with a 25 % win in Kentucky, is probably another 100,000 vote net. They are aprox. the same size.

    But Axelrod Gets Commissions on TV Buys (5.00 / 5) (#127)
    by BDB on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:09 AM EST
    He doesn't get them on Obama appearances.

    Do you think it would have made (none / 0) (#31)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:23:25 PM EST
    a difference?

    To be honest (5.00 / 1) (#191)
    by felizarte on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:32:54 AM EST
    I am glad that Obama is making all those mistakes to the benefit of Hillary.  I hope he keeps making more.

    Yes. (none / 0) (#35)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:26:21 PM EST
    If he had just laid his soul bare and talked about how much he's worked to empower the powerless as best he knew how, it would've made a difference. And he's done a LOT on that count.

    If I've learned anything so far in my life it's that simply showing up and being open and humble can do wonders, if not immediately.

    He might not have shifted WV this time, but KY would've been different, and then PA, and OH, and maybe even WV in the general.

    He failed to do anything this time.

    The status quo remains.


    I really want someone to ask him (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:29:00 PM EST
    what he actually did as a community organizer because he isn't acting like one avoiding the rural areas.  He is hanging out where he already has the votes.

    I think he has a hard time facing adversity. (5.00 / 9) (#67)
    by DeborahNC on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:42:18 PM EST
    If it's not a smooth ride, then he'd rather steer clear. It is a very serious problem and does not bode well for a presidency--quite fightening, really.

    State Senate (5.00 / 6) (#143)
    by jedimom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:29:25 AM EST
    well he did only have to work 55 days a year in his State Senate seat...
    he must be exhausted trying to keep up with Hillary's passionate campaigning..

    cant he just eat his waffle on the beach in peace?


    There are numerous articles... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:34:51 PM EST
    ...sources, and books about what he did as a community organizer. And don't ask for the names, you should look them up yourself. He was good, he sacrificed a lot of salary, he helped elect Moseley-Braun and Bill Clinton due to his work in Illinois. He did a lot.

    I don't know what's going on now.


    I will take your word for it (5.00 / 0) (#60)
    by bjorn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:36:49 PM EST
    Glad to hear he was doing stuff...makes no sense what he is doing now.  I wonder if he is getting some bad advice on this one or perhaps underestimated just how many people would turn out to vote.

    He registered voters (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:40:06 PM EST
    Come on.

    A lot of people sacrifice salary for the greater good. I believe Ms. Clinton did that as well in her younger days. A sacrifice is joining the peace corp and spending 3 years in a hostile village with no running water.


    Heh heh heh... (none / 0) (#83)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:50:35 PM EST
    ...yes, well, I of course have no quibble with Peace Corps service as a plus in someone's resume. It's an occasionally useful occupation, and it usually does no harm.

    But, take it from me, Obama and Clinton have both done a lot for a lot of people.


    I'll agree (5.00 / 4) (#103)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:00:40 AM EST
    They both have done good things. I just think he should have done more of them for a longer time before running for President.

    That would've been beneficial... (none / 0) (#121)
    by Addison on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:09:11 AM EST
    ...but I think his experience and (my judgement of his) wisdom is enough for me. I don't require some standardized "experience" for me to think someone would be an amazing, different sort of president. At some point -- and this will be a point of contention for some since it's similar to Bush -- I simply trust my gut feeling since I trust myself to judge things.

    But it's up to him to convince other people of that. He let me down in WV by not even trying.


    Today I talked to a CA attorney (none / 0) (#126)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:12:23 AM EST
    who has been a life long Republican, as was his famiy.  He was whole-heartedly supporting Obama but would vote for Clinton.  He suggested her as Obama's Secretary of State.  Sd. she would know what to say.  

    I think he was weighing two things (none / 0) (#214)
    by andrys on Wed May 14, 2008 at 04:19:22 AM EST
    1.  Unless he tried with some intensity so that people would come to 'know' him better (neighbors telling other neighbors all across the state), just trying somewhat would have been perceived as 'trying and failing.'  This way he didn't try, so the failure's not as bad, it was hoped.  The problem is he expected to lose by about 12, so 41 is just huge.

      Spending 2-1 for the 11 offices in WVa (with enthusiastic volunteers who were interviewed by press there) and spending a lot of that for TV ads was actually campaigning without looking like campaigning (the latter happened in Florida in the last 2 weeks there).  But as we all know, he does better when he shows up in person (though not so much in the larger swing states since March).

    2.  He's working on functioning as the presumptive nominee and going to election=states, hoping that this will firm up the (incorrect) belief that he is already the nominee.  There were phoning efforts in WVa to tell people the nominee had been selected and there was no need to vote.  Howard Dean has said that the last 6-8 contests and the momentum seen in them will be the largest factor -- meaning electability in November is key.

    I realize you're for Obama and I understand his attraction to idealistic people (though I myself don't find him presenting an idealistic persona that much, though I like his soothing conversational voice (not the rally one).  But what's always struck me is that both he and Hillary were both fixed on doing good when they were young and that both really want the power to do what they feel they are best suited to do for those who need help.  

      Problem is neither one is a strong GE candidate on their own (even with a vp pick) but it's still my own feeling that a Clinton/Obama ticket would signify both change and newness in that we'd elect a woman and an African American for the top two spots!, and they'd probably bring 85% of their own groups in and wipe out any Republican team.  I think the Dem turnout vs Rep in WVa was 2 to 1 ?

      And Obama would be in a good position to head the party afterward, and I really do think that as a team they would do wonders.  

      It doesn't work so well the other way and Obama supporters are really down on the idea.  I think young people and the left-close-to-horizontal tend to see less gray.


    Back during Ohio - (none / 0) (#100)
    by liminal on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:59:59 PM EST
    there was an Obama ad running on local teevee, featuring Laurence Tribe lauding Barack Obama for "giving up salary," essentially.  It wasn't very effective, in my opinion.

    Got to wonder how many likely voters (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:53 AM EST
    know anything about Lawrence Tribe.

    Part of Senator Obama's problem, (5.00 / 10) (#84)
    by eleanora on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:51:05 PM EST
    IMO, is that he doesn't talk about that stuff himself nor really go deeply into exactly what he wants to accomplish as President. I know we can check the website and I have, but there's just no energy there related to policy. The facts sheets are written in a boilerplate fashion, quite dry and almost dispassionate. And the fact that he often glosses over substantive issues or rambles while discussing them (as in the last debate) is a problem for him with me and many of the Clinton voters I know.

    Wish I could remember who, but some funny TL poster said, "I'm tired of getting told to go to his website. I want Obama to go read his website and come tell me about it."


    Exactly... (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:18 PM EST
    Selling Out His Constituents To Defend Rezko (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:06:45 AM EST
    in a lawsuit where tenants were trying to get him to get them some heat for their apartments, negates most anything he has done, in my book anyway.

    My book too! (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by alexei on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:20:13 AM EST
    Yeah, That Sucked (5.00 / 4) (#212)
    by mabelle55 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:07:35 AM EST
    When I read the whole story (and follow-ups) about the housing projects (one of which was for seniors) and how he didn't do one thing to talk with Rezko about taking care of the problems, and that he knew they didn't have heat, had roaches and rats, leaks in the roofs, water breaks and leaks, broken-out/boarded-up windows and doors in empty units, just turned my stomach. I just couldn't square that with his glossed-over image as a "community organizer".

    Of course, when you really start to look at who he is, it isn't pretty and doesn't even come close to the "package" he's selling. I hate to burst anybody's bubble, but he's really just a smooth-talking sales/con man, imo.


    Was his wife (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:38:08 AM EST
    supporting him while he sacrificed salary?

    Ugh... (none / 0) (#154)
    by Addison on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:42:10 AM EST
    ...if this is the best you can do, don't try.

    Not even the people I disagree with most on this site would bother with such an argument.


    Not to mention the potential (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by standingup on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:34:52 PM EST
    impression it will leave with the WV voters that Obama does not care about them.  McCain has to be pretty happy with Obama's decision to avoid WV and give McCain an open door to them.  

    you're right! (5.00 / 9) (#81)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:50:03 PM EST
    Obama's arrogance overwhelms his message.
    Sometimes I wonder if he fails to realize - when he's giving a televised speech in one state it can be seen by people in other states.
    When Obama "brushed Hillary off" his shoulder and off the bottom of his shoe - the crowd laughed - as he expected. But the TV audience may have been repulsed by his arrogance and dark side.

    Obama's "hope and change" meme wasn't meant to last this long. Just through Feb-Mar - long enough to dupe enough people in red states to win the nomination.
    But now people are beginning to see through Obama's empty slogans and realize that's all he has. There is no Plan B where he rolls out the substance that the working class is seeking.


    What has he done exactly? (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:32:11 AM EST
    Nobody seems to know.

    Actually I am amazed how few reporters have even tried to do any kind of investigative reporting on Obama. Compare that to 1992. Re Bill Clinton they didn't leave a stone unturned.

    Switched the channels last night and There was a Chicago reporter on O'Reilly's show and the  community organizer subject came up actually. I didn't quite understand the discussion and what they were implying there. But maybe they got a transcript on that site.


    Nothing there (5.00 / 2) (#206)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:06 AM EST
    It was a right wing radio host spewing conspiracy theroris about Saul Alinksky and making it seem like  being a community organizer was a communist plot. Pure drivel.Everytime she got asked about Obama or Ayers, she launched into a speech about Alinsky. It was pure garbage. The next night he had on a conservative radio host and a young woman supporting Obama who wouldn't stop talking, even when it wasn't her turn. O'Reilly hates that. He usually comes in your microphone before the segment and reminds you not to do that. The Obama supporter was so out of control that the right wing radio host had to stick up for Hillary and you knew that wasn't what she wanted to do. they both got "gently" scolded by O'Reilly who said he was going easy on them because they were females. The  women both said he didn't have to do that and the Obama supporter said "Bring it on." Stupidist segment I've seen in a long time except for the night before with the woman trying to tell a novel about Alinsky and being that you need soundbites in that short format, she never got to say whatever it was she was trying to say. In other words, you missed nothing.

    Probably John Kass of the ChiTrib (5.00 / 1) (#208)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:57:17 AM EST
    who has done that research and reporting, tirelessly.  But it seems that the east coast media haven't heard of a little paper called the Chicago Tribune.  If they read Kass and others in Obama's adopted hometown, the country would have known a lot sooner about Rezko, Wright, Ayers, and more.

    Or the east coast media did read the ChiTrib and just decided to coronate an unknown.  But you can decided not to rely on the "national" (eastern) media and read more of Kass' work in his archived columns at the ChiTrib site.


    I think Obama looks tired and sounds flat. (none / 0) (#179)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:19:59 AM EST
    Should smile and put some pep into speaking to crowds.

    NYT had a graphic of IN and NC (5.00 / 4) (#36)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:26:40 PM EST
    showing the places the Obamas and Clintons had campaigned.
    The Clintons were all over both states. The Obamas were in cities - NOT small towns where bitter voters live with their guns, religion and racism.
    Since the Obamas avoided small towns in IN and NC, it's not surprising Obama avoided WV.

    And it's his biggest mistake... (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:28:03 PM EST
    ...and one that I'm thoroughly disappointed in.

    Claire McCaskill (5.00 / 3) (#46)
    by andgarden on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:30:47 PM EST
    could have taught him this lesson. Indeed, the writing was on the wall after the Missouri primary.

    Ha! (5.00 / 6) (#65)
    by standingup on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:40:11 PM EST
    Claire was the delusional one who thought Obama would be good at reaching out and connecting with the rural voters.  Shows how well she understands them and explains her previous losses.  She would not be in office now if it weren't for the angst people felt toward Republicans and Talent.  I wouldn't count on that to get her re-elected in 2012.

    the Clintons had fundraisers for her.... (5.00 / 4) (#182)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:22:17 AM EST
    thats loyalty for ya. Yeah, one term for Claire sounds good to me.

    the Clintons had fundraisers for her.... (5.00 / 0) (#183)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:22:39 AM EST
    thats loyalty for ya. Yeah, one term for Claire sounds good to me.

    Wow (5.00 / 5) (#193)
    by IzikLA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:38:54 AM EST
    Really interesting observation.  I never even acknowledged this as, apparently, neither did his campaign.  She won almost all the rural vote but he squeaked out a win in the urban and suburban areas.

    Watching Hillary and Obama's speeches tonight, I am really worried that he will be the nominee and we will lose in November.  She has hit her stride, he is flailing.  He was very comfortable in the "movement" role with the big rally's, et. al., but does he ever flounder about when trying to connect with voters in town halls and small venues and when talking policy.  I don't think the luster of a movement will carry him through November.  


    I get the feeling... (5.00 / 7) (#80)
    by Upstart Crow on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:49:41 PM EST
    that he really doesn't like WORK much.

    Kinda like (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by dissenter on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:58 PM EST
    Bush lol. I wonder if he has to go to bed by 9 pm as well.

    please stop insulting (none / 0) (#109)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:01 AM EST
    Obama personally with one liners. It doesn't contribute to the discussion and I don't appreciate insults. Disagree with him, criticize his experience or position on issues or anything substantive, but don't just slam him.

    ok, (5.00 / 7) (#128)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:14:10 AM EST
    Jeralyn, if this was intended for me. But my comment was a substantive one. We don't really know much about him, but he (and his wife) have already complained about what a "sacrifice" they are making by being on the campaign trail, he's already gone off to Virgin Islands because he wanted to be left alone, and he seems to check out a lot when he doesn't want to do the grinding work of campaigning.

    Given that the presidency is likely to be at least as grinding as the campaign trail, I really wonder how much he likes to work. I wonder how much he really likes the job, or simply wants the job.

    HRC gives the impression that she really is a policy wonk, and she really does like doing this stuff.  

    And yes, we have a president now who doesn't seem much to like work or enjoy the job.

    So it's a concern.  It's not a job I'd want -- but I think you have to have a president who really really wants to do the job well 24/7.


    okay (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:19:10 AM EST
    that's an opinion. I don't agree but I respect your right to have it. It's much more valuable than the oneliner.

    not an opinion (5.00 / 4) (#134)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:22:21 AM EST
    A question, really, or a series of questions. I don't have an answer, just a series of observations that maybe someone else (such as you) could throw some light on. It's an impression I'm getting, but I really don't know the guy.

    (And if I try to stick to one-liners, it's because I don't want to be accused of being verbose.)


    Me too (5.00 / 4) (#136)
    by dissenter on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:23:21 AM EST
    The "going to bed comment early" was snarky. I will give you that. But like the previous poster, his tendency to become bored and distracted concerns me. The job is all consuming (it is a 24/7 job) and worries me that he just doesn't want to put the work in. Perhaps that is because I have to work 18 hours a day when I am in-country and I expect the president asking me to make the sacrifices that I do in Afghanistan to work just as hard and display equal commitment.

    Sorry if it was OTT but it is a real issues for me. You can't just shut it off at night nor does he demonstrate the drive to be president. I'm online right answering skype messages from Kabul.

    Not to sound like Bush, but it is hard work being president and it requires attention 24 hours a day.


    endurance and stamina (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by jedimom on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:33:43 AM EST
    that is the concern I had also, that he does not have the sheer stamina and endurance needed to be POTUS in the times we are living..Hillary will never crumble under pressure..

    I agree with your opinion. (5.00 / 5) (#139)
    by alexei on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:24:29 AM EST
    He has taken off several times during this campaign.  He has compared it to the Bataan Death March.  There was a story about his aide(s) saying he was bored with the campaign.  He appears to have about twice as less campaign visits (at least I saw that stat in NC) than Hillary. With your points and mine, he doesn't appear to me that he likes to work.

    Not many people have the stamina for (5.00 / 3) (#144)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:31:38 AM EST
    the Presidency, or the campaign.
    I don't think Obama has it.

    You think he would have been welcome (none / 0) (#167)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:01:12 AM EST
    after all the things he has said about the biggest demographic of the state?

    Tonight is another reason (5.00 / 6) (#19)
    by Josey on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:19:39 PM EST
    Obama first began calling for Hillary to GET OUT on Feb. 20 - before voters realized the emptiness of his "hope and change" mantra - and before the women got riled up!!
    Don't mess with Tex....er WOMEN!

    Yep, the internals must have panicked (5.00 / 8) (#93)
    by Cream City on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:56:18 PM EST
    the Obama camp.  It wasn't handled well at all.  He wasn't presumptive, just presumptous.  

    And that came off as arrogant again.  That and the raiding of a Clinton pledged delegate, with Plouffe's admission that there really are no pledged delegates -- that makes a couple of bad errors.  Is the brilliant Obama campaign beginning to crack?


    Huh... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Addison on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:19:58 PM EST
    You have to wonder if Edwards feels stupid for dropping out? I mean I would, looking at Clinton's post-chance (by most observers' conclusions) success, if I were him.

    He made a big mistake leaving the race.

    If Edwards had stayed in... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by CK MacLeod on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:27:05 PM EST
    ...who knows?  He always seemed like such a horribly flawed candidate to me, but Trippi had an interesting and even subtly moving (in a saddest words of tongue or pen vein) column a couple of weeks ago on his regrets about advising Edwards to drop out at the crucial moment:  What I should have told John Edwards...  

    I hope he isn't sad (5.00 / 3) (#42)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:29:38 PM EST
    Personally, I hope he is abe to do for poverty what Gore has done for global warming. I like to think that his decision to leave works out for the best for him, Elizabeth and their kids.

    I read that and thought: does Edwards (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:30:35 PM EST
    get a refund now?

    there is always the unknown part about (5.00 / 1) (#205)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:54:18 AM EST
    his wife. i think that played signficantly into his decision. i have thought that at least hillary will know she tried. there is comfort in that.

    I wish he stayed in too (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:31:19 PM EST
    Then I wouldn't have had to take sides, since he and Hillary were both my favroite candidates.

    Mine, too. At least they have issues that are (5.00 / 5) (#99)
    by DeborahNC on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:59:35 PM EST
    important to them...and to Americans. Obama seems to be Obama's main concern. That, and hope and change. His HOPE is that he'll win the nomination, but what kind of CHANGE will he bring? That's what frightens me, because I just don't have a clue what he is really all about.

    The netroots poison (5.00 / 1) (#187)
    by Edgar08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:29:04 AM EST
    Infected the Edwards campaign too.

    Makes his apology and calls a few dems Cowards for voting for a funding bill, and blah blah blah....

    Before he suspended, every speech he made during this primary was like it could have been written by a blogger.

    Less arrogance, less cult of personality, and even more issues perhaps.  All good things and improvements over Obama.

    But still the same poison.


    I didn't like Edwards ; however, (none / 0) (#66)
    by MarkL on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:40:35 PM EST
    the campaign would have been much more focused on issues with Clinton vs. Edwards.

    No kidding, and they were both (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:02:50 AM EST
    willing to talk about the issues and their plans for bringing solutions to the country.

    Edwards left and I was glad he did (none / 0) (#158)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:47:51 AM EST
    it was over - he didn't have a chance anyway.

    Trippi is dreaming.


    i often tink of Hillary and JE as her VP (none / 0) (#192)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:33:11 AM EST
    he'd get some of Obamas supporters

    Hillary Now Leads in Popular Vote! (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Muzza on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:21:01 PM EST
    Prior to WV, Hillary trailed Obama by only 125,000 when counting ALL STATES that voted. She now leads Obama in WV by 137,000. Therefore she now leads in the popular vote!


    When they calculate Michigan, (5.00 / 3) (#33)
    by mg7505 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:24:33 PM EST
    do they give Obama all of the non-Hillary votes? I'm just curious because I want to be sure she's actually leading in the popular vote count.

    Rise, Hillary, Rise!


    no, he gets no vote because not on ballot (5.00 / 5) (#44)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:30:15 PM EST
    It's a hardline argument but it's politics and they're making it now.  He CHOSE not to be on there because of a likely loss.  If we are going to allow candidates to pick and choose which primary to be on the ballot, then we cannot have elections.

    For example, if Hillary had chosen to take her name off North Carolina's ballot... should Obama's popular vote totals there not count either just because she wasn't on it?

    How convenient it would be!  If you want to be President of the United States, compete everywhere, count the votes and deal with the result.


    I think this should be the next (none / 0) (#62)
    by oculus on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:39:11 PM EST
    questioned posed by TLers on a candidate conference call.  

    I've been making this logical argument before (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:42:59 PM EST
    Hillary should have kept her name off the ballot off every state where she was facing a likely loss and then she'd be leading in popular votes by a landslide.  Hawaii? No Thanks.  Idaho? Cya!  D.C.? Hardly knew ya.  South Carolina?  Vote for Obama, but it won't count guys!

    Obama pulling his name from the ballot in Michigan was politics.  Counting the votes for Clinton who was on the ballot is politics.  One deserves the other.


    Obama got all the votes he asked for in MI. (5.00 / 3) (#160)
    by MarkL on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:49:04 AM EST
    edit: meant to say "could have" (none / 0) (#72)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:45:56 PM EST
    I meant to say she could have left her name off the ballot in those unfavorable states.

    Anyway, Obama has now agreed to seat Florida and Michigan at the convention so they're going to count.


    No. (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by lansing quaker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:51:39 PM EST
    It doesn't count.  Because the media narrative now is "OBAMA IS SOOOO AHEAD!"

    If you count MI/FL he clearly is not.

    Seating at the convention after he's "presumptive" is akin to giving a euolgy 3 months after the corpse is buried.

    Too little, too late.


    There is voting at the convention (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:55:53 PM EST
    The media narratives have not been able to silence the voters nor stop people from voting.  So, let's wait for all the voting to take place, including at the convention by superdelegates and pledged delegates.

    Almost every single media narrative has been wrong to this point.  Such a pattern is favorable to Clinton.


    urls must be in html format (none / 0) (#52)
    by Jeralyn on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:33:40 PM EST
    and if you are just trying to drive traffic to a site, please don't. If you are using it as a source of information, fine, but then do it in html format and not in every comment.

    Got himself a (5.00 / 4) (#29)
    by kaffied on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:21:41 PM EST
    a regular woopin.

    Heh. (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by lansing quaker on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:46:13 PM EST
    Aravosis over at AmericaBlog (my gay ties are severed) warrants that since one person predicted an 80% Clinton win and didn't reach it, she effectively failed.

    Click if you dare.

    Or click if you have a strong stomach and want to bask in the LOLOLOLOLOL! of Obama fantasy.

    Let's see... (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by AX10 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:52:13 PM EST
    Dailykos (Kos), Huffingtonpost(Ariana), Ameriblog (Aravosis), TPM(Marshall), Air America Radio, Ed Schutlz/Stephanie Miller, Randi Rhodes, Democraticunderground, and the rest of the nutroots have decided that they don't need us to win in the fall.  A moderate such as myself does not need to be part of this "Creative Class" electorate.  Good luck winning without me.  I may just have to go with McCain.  I do trust him more with our national security than Mr. Obama.

    Arguing that (5.00 / 3) (#145)
    by mg7505 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:32:40 AM EST
    it's good to lose the Presidency is a creative position indeed.

    the antidote to a MCCain win would be a Democratic (none / 0) (#197)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:41:30 AM EST
    Congress,a strong one, but since we got punked with the unitary executive precedent, we can't know what McCain would do. GWB should of been impeached just sos people would know that he was really very bad for democracy. argh!!##

    every time... (5.00 / 5) (#119)
    by dws3665 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:08:00 AM EST
    I think that Aravosis's descent into irrelevancy is complete, he discovers new ways to humiliate himself.

     He won't settle for being simply ridiculous; he must be the epitome of it. In a way, I guess that's impressive. You go, A-blog!


    Hey now! (5.00 / 2) (#176)
    by Beth on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:44 AM EST
    "my gay ties are severed"

    Aravosis doesn't speak for all, or even most gay people. He certainly doesn't speak for me. He doesn't really speak for anyone other than certain straight-looking, straight-acting gay men.

    He completely sold out the gender variant members of the queer community last year (including butch women, femme men, trans people and genderqueers) when he went ballistic arguing in favor of dropping protection for gender identity and gender expression from the employment discrimination bill (ENDA) in congress. His statements about ENDA were bad enough (and completely devoid of balance or objectivity), but some of the comments on his blog were incredibly vile.

    Anyway, the point is that he's been like this for a long time, so I'm not sure why anyone would be surprised now. I suspect his tendency towards misogyny has more to do with his being male than his being gay, if you want a demographic group to blame for his words.

    Are you going to severe ties with any demographic that has even one loudmouth that bashes Clinton? Because if so, you are going to get very lonely.

    [This message brought to you by a gay woman that is a very devout Clinton supporter.]

    thanks for saving me a click, appreciate (none / 0) (#200)
    by thereyougo on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:46:55 AM EST
    the truncated version, again saving me time, hassle
    and heartburn. :-)

    He's really gone off it. My gay ties (none / 0) (#98)
    by Joelarama on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:58:47 PM EST
    are severed, too.

    That wasn't John... (none / 0) (#156)
    by jerry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:46:32 AM EST
    Not that it necessarily matters, but I don't think John Aravosis posted that.

    John, Jacki and I were at a book party for Harry Reid,

    It was someone named "I".


    Woo hoo! (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by janarchy on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:48:06 PM EST
    94% of the vote in and still holding at 41% ahead and 140K votes (I think. Math isn't my strong suit).

    Pity there weren't more results like this but it's making a strong statement nonetheless.

    Congrats Hillary! Well Deserved! (5.00 / 15) (#90)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:53:26 PM EST
    A lesser candidate would not have survived the constant bashing by the media and the party elites. I myself had literally given up hope after the results in Indiana and NC and after seeing the way theMSM had all but placed the crown on Obama's head.
    This victory has been a personal lesson for me. It has taught me that sometimes if you believe in a cause you should be ready to go all out and not bow down to pressure. I cannot be more proud of Hillary and I am also proud of the fact that she has actually in a way taught us women that there is a certain dignity and nobility in fighting against all odds. We women are constantly conditioned not to fight it out even in causes we believe in. I know I sound all mushy but it is a very sentimental occassion for me.

    well said! (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:57:54 PM EST
    Hillary is a fighter. (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by liminal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:07 AM EST
    And we in West Virginia appreciate that.  

    WAY TO GO (5.00 / 5) (#129)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:33 AM EST
    West Virginia!  Y'all did us proud!

    Peace and love from the state of Texas!!


    I love West Virginia (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Jane in CA on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:38:55 AM EST
    so much right now!

    California thanks you too :)


    here here! (5.00 / 2) (#116)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:25 AM EST
    Or is it hear! hear!

    Hillary's WV VICTORY speech (5.00 / 3) (#94)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:56:31 PM EST
    Read it in light of this snippet (none / 0) (#118)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:07:40 AM EST
    from Mother Jones via Huff Post:

    And the fact that she has throttled back on the anti-Obama rhetoric in recent days--she barely she criticized her in her not-so-jubilant West Virginia victory speech--is a signal that she may not believe her own spin and is merely halfheartedly trudging toward the last primaries (Montana and South Dakota) on June 3.

    D##md if she does (5.00 / 6) (#142)
    by standingup on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:28:07 AM EST
    and d##md if she doesn't.  I have heard many pushing the point that it's not when Hillary will exit but how she will exit, i.e., she should avoid being critical of Obama so as not to harm his GE chances.  And when she avoids criticizing him they peg her as limping to the finish line.  

    I swear they must have listened to a different speech than the one I heard tonight.  


    I agree w/you. Terrific, energetic, (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by oculus on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:38:50 AM EST
    optimistic speech.  

    Anybody who could write that (5.00 / 5) (#157)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:47:45 AM EST
    didn't watch the speech.  There was nothing even remotely half-hearted or "trudging" about it. She was fierce and radiant at the same time.

    I would add that... (5.00 / 2) (#178)
    by AX10 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:18:20 AM EST
    Motherjones, The Nation, and the American Prospect have joined in the Hillary Hate-fest along with the netroots.

    It's the popular vote, stupid! (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by DWCG on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:57:42 PM EST
    The popular vote total (even just with FL) is going to be very close.  She has a very good chance of winning it depending on Kentucky and Puerto Rico turnout and how close the vote is in Oregon.

    I think to remain credible she has to state that she's won more votes:

    a) including Florida, but not including Michigan
    b) including Florida and Michigan, while assuming all of the undecideds were Obama voters (which they clearly were not, but giving him best case scenario).

    Option a, will likely put her down by 300-400K votes after tonight.

    Option b, will likely put her down by 210-310K votes after tonight.

    So do the math:
    Assume a Clinton reasonable case scenario (per the polls) in Kentucky: a 65-35% Clinton win

    Assuming a 50% turnout of the 1.6 million registered Democrats in Kentucky is 800K voters.
    That would net Clinton 240K votes.

    And assume a 10 point win in Puerto Rico: a 55-45% Clinton win

    Assuming a 50% turnout of the 2 million registered Democrats in Puerto Rico is 1 million voters.
    That would net Clinton 100K votes.

    Combined that's an additional 340K votes for Clinton.

    Now that doesn't count Oregon, where even if Clinton loses, but keeps the bleeding down to 50K vote loss, she's in a good position to win the popular vote.

    So my message to the Clinton campaign is ramp up the operation in Kentucky, hold off the bleeding (or if possible) win Oregon and then on the night of May 20 claim, "Even if you assume all of the undecided voters in Michigan were Obama voters - more people have still voted for Hillary Clinton."

    Then pivot to making sure Florida and Michigan are seated (tuck away the Lenny Davis' and put the darn Florida and Michigan spokesmen on the air 24-7), run hard in Puerto Rico and make folk define the will of the people by the number of votes, and start twisting the arms of the super delegates to "respect the will of the people."

    WOW, anyone seen Mingo County? (5.00 / 5) (#110)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:03:02 AM EST
    They are 100% reported now on the CNN map and Obama ended up with 8% !!

    These were the results:

    Clinton  88% 7,813
    Obama     8%   712 (lol)

    Take a look for yourselves here:

    Mingo county must not get MSNBC.

    DAMN!! That Qualifies As A Trouncing If (5.00 / 4) (#123)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:09:16 AM EST
    there ever was one!

    And at 97% In....Clinton Up By 143,000 Votes (5.00 / 4) (#124)
    by PssttCmere08 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:11:42 AM EST
    not too shabby for someone who has supposedly lost the nomination....GO HILLARY.

    Yes I just saw that, too (5.00 / 1) (#164)
    by bridget on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:57:25 AM EST
    there are a few other counties almost that high

    I saw a number of other counties (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by janarchy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:06:08 AM EST
    that were 70-something % to 12-14% but that's the best one ever!

    Mingo is in the southwest corner of the map (none / 0) (#113)
    by diplomatic on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:04:10 AM EST
    for anyone looking

    Jeralyn (5.00 / 5) (#120)
    by txpolitico67 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:08:22 AM EST
    realclearpolitics.com is referencing your Early W VA Exit Polling post on their front page.

    Just thought you may wanna know.

    What a lesson (5.00 / 8) (#130)
    by Stellaaa on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:18:53 AM EST
    One of the problems with I would say modern times, is giving up.  Quitting if you don't win right away.  What a wonderful lesson Hillary is making.  Don't give up.  Keep working hard and keep it real.  Yess.  

    inspiration (5.00 / 6) (#138)
    by Upstart Crow on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:23:45 AM EST
    It's been an inspiration to all of us.  I would have thrown in the towel months ago. I couldn't take he abuse she has.

    Even parents who aren't supporting her, should (5.00 / 3) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:12:21 AM EST
    sure be encouraging their daughters to pay attention to this.

    My daughter wants Obama... (none / 0) (#199)
    by jerry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:45:53 AM EST
    Because she wants to be the first woman president. :)

    (Sigh.  Often she comes over from her mom's place where she is being inculcated with McCainism.)


    Gore, Kerry, Edwards, .... STOP QUITTING!!!! (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by jerry on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:48:03 AM EST
    don't quit 5 minutes before the miracle! (none / 0) (#209)
    by hellothere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:58:45 AM EST
    Congratulations... (5.00 / 4) (#133)
    by decih on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:21:48 AM EST
    ...to Hillary on her win tonight! An impressive margin.

    BTW - Clinton has a respectable lead in ... (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:22:31 AM EST
    counties won.  WV = extreme case in point

    This is a good retort to the "Obama won more states" argument.

    I think that counties won is a pretty good metric.  Counting states is not granular enough; the popular vote requires adding apples (primary votes) and oranges (caucus votes); and the apportionment of pledged delegates has too many nondemocratic biases.

    County lines are fairly randomized historical artifacts and, nationwide, counties come in all sizes, population densities, demographic profiles, etc.

    Source? (none / 0) (#153)
    by znosaro on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:50 AM EST
    That's great!  I'm interested to see the numbers.  Anyone know if there is a national map that is colored in by counties won?  I remember thinking BHO's victory in Missouri was a lot less impressive when you saw the county by county breakdown.

    Check CNN (5.00 / 4) (#163)
    by themomcat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:51:00 AM EST
    John King did a break down of several states by county. Apparently BO does well in cities but poorly in rural counties.

    I think that's actually (none / 0) (#175)
    by JavaCityPal on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:13:58 AM EST
    true in many states. WA is red, except for the greater Seattle area. I think CA goes blue because of the larger population areas, as well, but can't swear to it.

    NY (none / 0) (#180)
    by themomcat on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:20:10 AM EST
    This is why NY becomes a toss up state for BO. Upstate and Long Island Have been historically Republican and one district in NYC remains staunchly Republican (CD-13, Fossella (R), who is up to his neck in a DUI and marital scandal). NYC has a Republican mayor and the recent Democratic scandal generated by Eliot Spitzer puts NY in play for Republicans. IMO

    Home brew database ... (5.00 / 2) (#169)
    by dwmorris on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:03:04 AM EST
    abstracted from -
    and various other sources via google

    Right now I've got it 52% Clinton / 45% Obama

    This is best case Obama / worst case Clinton because I've given Obama 100% of the counties in KS, ND, and WA. The reason for this is that I haven't been able to find good sources for the county data in these states, and I didn't want to bias the results in favor of the candidate I support.

    Not sure how to post the raw numbers.


    CNN (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Donna Darko on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:19:36 AM EST
    was fair too. Lou Dobbs and Blitzer hours. They probably heard anti-Clinton bias makes us madder and more determined to continue or they're trying to persuade us vote for Obama.

    The moral of the story is (none / 0) (#4)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:11:13 PM EST
    You can win voters by disliking them.

    Obama doesn't like rural voters.  West Virginia is almost all rural.

    I meant to say (none / 0) (#194)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:40:07 AM EST
    You CAN'T win voters by disliking them.

    Obama came really close in Jefferson County (none / 0) (#24)
    by ding7777 on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:20:47 PM EST
    What's different in Jefferson County?

    Hillary 49% - 4322 votes

    Obama   46% - 4015 votes

    closest to D.C. and Virginia? (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by diplomatic on Tue May 13, 2008 at 11:27:36 PM EST
    DMV commuters partly (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by daria g on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:01:26 AM EST
    Real estate and cost of living is so insane here in DC/Maryland/Virginia metro area that people are buying out there in West Virginia and commuting to the city, it's about 1 hour 15 min or more, but they do.  I know some of the maintenance staff at my old job did this, their shifts started so early they'd leave home at 4am and drive back mid-afternoon.  

    Yes, heard the same from WV relatives (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by Cream City on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:09:13 AM EST
    rather astonished by it, that D.C. people were moving into WV.  And it's beginning in other eastern counties.  It could make for some shifts in that state down the line, if the Dems play it smart now and give them a nominee they like in November.

    Congrats to Hillary (none / 0) (#188)
    by flyerhawk on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:30:05 AM EST
    Congratulations to Hillary for winning 9 net delegates tonight.

    Comments Now Closed (none / 0) (#210)
    by Jeralyn on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:58:47 AM EST

    HERE WE GO WITH THE FUZZY MATH AGAIN (none / 0) (#215)
    by dmpflorida on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:28:47 AM EST
    Now she will claim victory again (NEWS FLASH.....Doesn't matter)  Oh Yeah that's right it does because the magic number is 2025...no wait she's changed it again it's 2209 today... no wait it will be a 1,000,000 tomorrow!!!!