Kentucky Demographics and Voter Stats

Kentucky demographics favor Hillary Clinton.

Obama has a slight chance in Louisville, an urban area, but very little elsewhere in the state.

Trade with China is important to KY since its farmers grow tobacco for China and sell them a lot of Maker's Mark and Wild Turkey bourbon. About $300 million a year's worth.

Kentucky, like other states, will set a record for voting tomorrow, but new registratons are lower there than we've ssen in other states.

A record 2.8 million Kentuckians are registered to vote in the primary election. Of those, 1.6 million are Democrats. And, despite the close presidential primary, the number of new registered voters hasn't skyrocketed. In the past six months, 16,000 people have registered, 13,000 of them as Democrats.

A map of Kentucky is below the fold.

More demographics:

Records from the Kentucky Board of Elections show that 53 percent of the state's registered voters are women, a demographic that has played in Clinton's favor in other states. Kentucky doesn't track party registrants by race, but blacks make up only 7.4 percent of the state's population compared with 12.4 percent nationally — a far smaller minority voting bloc than in other Southern states carried by Obama.

Absentee ballots were available starting May 2 and have to be received by May 20, the date of the primary. In the 2004 primary (pdf), there were 563, 000 registered voters and a 23% turnout (375,000 voted in the Democratic primary, a 24% turnout.) Women and men voted in roughly equal numbers.

It's a closed primary and party registration changes had to be in by December 31. Registration ended April 22, 2008. Independents cannot vote in the primary.

< New Rural Battleground States Poll: Hillary Better Against McCain | Richard Cohen Needs To Stop Digging >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    My prediction for KY (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by texas hostage on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:18:32 AM EST
    750,000 dems turn out with Clinton winning 70% to Obama's 24% with Edwards picking up 6%.  520,000 votes for Clinton to Obama's 185,000. A net plus for Clinton of 335,000.  In Oregon, Obama 53, Clinton 47, Obama netting a litttle over 60,000 votes. Hillary adds 250k to her popular vote total and wins the majority of delegates for the night. Woo Hoo!

    It's doable... (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:11:43 AM EST
    in Kentucky, the winning margins I mean. Is it correct that if she wins 70%+ of the votes, the opponent doesn't get any delegates assigned, or is it 85%? Wouldn't it be GREAT? What ever the winning margin is above 25% (as it's being predicted) is a great shot in the arm of the campaign. Earlier on Morning Joe, some of the pundits were already making excuses for his loss in KY saying he did not campaign there; Terry McAuliffe (sp?)  counteracted  that argument by saying the opponent had outspent Hillary 5-1, so the ocamp's "spin" was ridiculous or something to that effect.
    Let's keep our fingers crossed.
    God-speed Hillary!

    Rise, Hillary, Rise! (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by zfran on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:16:29 AM EST
    You are very optimistic. (none / 0) (#2)
    by AX10 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:26:58 AM EST
    Do we know how much Edwards is polling at?

    Im sorry if OT (5.00 / 3) (#3)
    by Chisoxy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:27:39 AM EST
    and please delete it if so. But what would need to happen in Oregon to snap some sense into uncommited Supers? A Clinton win? Keeping it to 5-10? What?

    I don't know, but (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by barryluda on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:06:55 AM EST
    it's the right question.

    I doubt there are many uncommitted supers. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by jimotto on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:27:53 AM EST
    I assume most of the remaining supers know who they will support.  Undeclared supers is probably a better way of putting it.  

    At a minimum would take an Obama loss in OR and a WV sized win in KY to begin to change some minds.  But even with that, it is likely too late.


    Probably the same it's taken the ones (5.00 / 1) (#138)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:21:31 AM EST
    who have endorsed following a primary, or newsworthy event.

    1. They want to be center stage for a day

    2. Obama promises them the VP slot

    3. Obama dumps $10,000 into their re-election fund from his PAC

    4. They take a serious look at the facts, weigh the experience of the candidates, think in terms of what is best for the country, and endorse Hillary.

    I think that winning KY...... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:29:56 AM EST
    ...means that Senator Clinton cannot possibly win the GE, because she is losing African American voters by 90+%.  Since the primaries are indicative of how one will perform in the general election, she will lose every state where Democrats rely on high and sustained black turnout.  

     I mean, there is no other explanation, right? snark.

    Obama played the Race Card (5.00 / 3) (#25)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:15:52 AM EST
    The only way he could get the AA vote was by falsely accusing the "first black president" and his wife of racism. The Kidz were easy to get - just identify someone as an evil target, found in video games.
    Obama has repeatedly trashed the Clinton admin! A Republican candidate would never trash a former Republican president's administration.
    And the continual race-baiting by Obama and his followers indicates he couldn't win on his own merits.

    exit polls say otherwise (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by urduja on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:16:44 AM EST
    AAs will support HRC if she were the nominee.

    ... and Jesse Jackson himself (who formed a true rainbow coalition during his campaign way back when)  wasn't offended by Bill Clinton's remark in SC. His son on the other hand...


    Really (none / 0) (#167)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    I would not vote for Jessie Jackson for anything less than a hypocrite, and I am black. He has never spoken for me and millions of other blacks, that what the media has fed you for years. Same thing goes for Al Sharpton and if you think black people find these two representing them worldwide, you do not understand or know anything about black people in general.

    These two black bastards are the epitimy of trash, and are both racist pigs, oh and don't forget the good old Rev. Jackson and his disrespect to the church with his affairs. Please, what a bad example of a real black man.

    Bill Clinton should have apologized like Obama did when his words were taken out of context about "clinging," even though he knew his words were taken out of context, and I read the entire statement and I knew they were taken out of context, he still apologized. Bill Clinton, the elitist, continued to lie about the statement and belittle blacks even more when he went on radio during the PA primary.

    Stop making excuses for Bill Clinton, he sabbotaged Hillary's campaign, has anyone ever thought about that, and now that he knows she will lose the nomination, he is pretending like he really cares, becasue he knows the truth. He helped write the rules for pledeged delegates being the thing that wins nominations.

    Hillary's disasterous husband intended to put her exactly where she is, then he can not have to have male ego crushed, if it appeared that she was a better President than she. I know it is hard to believe, but we live in America and people will do anything to soothe their egos. Why do you think so many are still voting for her when she has already lost, to soothe their egos and strike against the one that beat the female.


    Alec, will A-As vote for McCain? (3.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:40:04 AM EST
    If they were told how they were deceived by Obama with his character assassination based on phony racist claims, they would throw him under the bus.  Unfortunately, Hillary is not telling them.

    Hah! (3.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:48:38 AM EST
    No, even worse, they won't turn out.  And when they do, they'll vote against her.  The majority will probably still support her, but not enough, if the primary analysis is to be revered.  Lose more than 15% of the AA vote, lose the election.  Pure and simple.

     Of course, I don't think that will actually happen.  They'd suck it up and vote for Senator Clinton.  They were en route to do so during the primary, but for Senator Obama's success in IA and President Clinton's horrid comments after SC.  Now, however, they will not be put in that situation.  

     Assuming that AAs will vote for Senator Clinton because she "tells" them something is the height of arrogance.  I cannot imagine the response I would receive on this site if I said that Senator Obama would receive "white women over the age of 45" votes if Senator Obama "told them" that Senator Clinton used gender to her advantage.  And yet the opposite is paraded as gospel.  


    President Clinton's Horrid Comments in SC (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:03:12 AM EST
    hmmm. Now what were they.

    Obama's position in Iraq is a fairy tale. Only a fool would think this comment is racist. Oh! wait the uncommitted SD DB thought it was racist.

    Obama won SC and so did Jesse Jackson,
    If I were Obama I would proudly say, yes Jesse Jackson won and I am proud of him he is agood candidate and I won too.  
    The comment may have been to belittle Obama's win but for God's sake there is as much racisim there as Obama dismissing Hillary's win in other states.

    Also note, Hillary has never shied away from embracing her gender and constantly acknowledges her gender support.
    Obama shied away from painting himself too black. Initially he used to avoid all high profile Black gatherings. He talked about race only when he was cornered to do it. He and his supporters continue to pretend that 92% of AA voting for a particular candidate in a Dem nomination is not something out of the ordinary.

    And please - Obama can woo Females or all the sweeties by telling them that Hillary is using her gender card (that is if he has bnot done already). Nobody is stopping him.  


    Can someone remind me EXACTLY (5.00 / 6) (#36)
    by stefystef on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:51:09 AM EST
    the HORRIBLE statement Bill Clinton made that is supposed to offend black people?

    I'm black, I wasn't offended.  I was offended that the Obama camp made such a big thing about a minute statement.  And then trying to say that Hillary was dissing Dr. King by stating, FACTUALLY, that it was Johnson who sacrificed the Democratic Party in the South to pass the Civil Right Laws.  

    Funny how much Obama "defends" Dr. King's dream, but couldn't be bother attending the State of the Black Union or any of the events around the anniversary of Dr. King's assassination.  

    If anyone takes black voters for granted, it's Barack Obama.


    You know (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:30:00 AM EST
    Jesse Jackson, the person BC talked about with his supposed racist comments, also didn't find it racist, so for punidts, the Obama campaign, and posters here to cry racism is just absurd.

    New Splash (1.00 / 0) (#173)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:35:52 PM EST
    Obama did celebrate Dr. Kings dream. You should get your information right.


    He did not have to attend every single event that happened in Black America. He is running for the President of the United States of America, not President of the Black United States. Why is it required the he do that. Clinton has name recognition throughout the country and she could afford to attend the meeting to attempt to win back the Black vote that Bill sabbataged. He did exactly what he should have, but you as a black person, I guess was too full of anger because he did not follow the plan you imagined to be best for him.

    They have been trying really hard to make Obama the "Black Persons President," I can see the headlines now, regardless to whether they are right or wrong the headlines would have given ammunition to a lot of rediculous statements.

    You think about that mr/mrs black person. What if Hillary went to "State of the White Union," Um, I wonder what the headlines would have been then?

    And I was hurt by Bill's statement and so was millions of others, we had that right and so do you have the right to not have felt that way, good for you.

    But don't pretend that Obama is somehow not black enough for you because he choose not to attend what you thought he should. He had celebrated with the King family, I might add, when it was most important, not for show and tell. Which is what I love about the man. He does not do things to make himself look good but he does what's real in his heart. No pretending, no pandering, no changing the message to fit the moment.


    You're living in a dream world (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:53:29 AM EST
    The GOP have been losing the AA vote by far more than 15% for just about forever and they have managed to carry off the GE plenty of the times.

    Go ahead and downrate me now for punching holes in your alternate reality.


    Ha! Delusions.... (1.00 / 3) (#16)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:11:04 AM EST
    ...win you arguments in some places, but not in cold reality:

    The GOP have been losing the AA vote by far more than 15% for just about forever

     That's not the issue.  The issue is: Can the Democrats win with anything less than 85% of a strong black turnout?

     Any Democratic electability argument is premised on that (mutable) fact.  

     You can cry reverse racism till the cows come home.  That won't change the electoral map reality.  That is one of the more obvious truths ingored by Camp Clinton in their electability argument.  It must be confronted.  

     And in order to be confronted, they would have to say one of a few things:

     1.  Black voters, while instrumental in all previous elections for Democratic presidential candidates, don't matter now.

    2. Black voters don't matter as much as the white voters we haven't won in the last string of contests.

     3.  Black voters will vote for Senator Clinton because they either

     a. Have no choice or
     b. Won't exercise it.

     Of course, in addition to this, Senator Clinton would have to convince the liberal coalition to vote for her, a feat I doubt, at this point, given their lukewarm reception to President Clinton.  And suddenly look at that, so-called "eggheads" and "blacks" matter a great deal.  As it turns out denigrating those voters works well if you are a Republican, not so much if you are running in a Democratic primary.


    Why don't you (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by magisterludi on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:27:06 AM EST
    go patronize and condescend at another blog for a change of pace? You do your purported candidate no favors.

    It's (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:25:36 AM EST
    too late. Obama is running off 1/2 of the party today. Good luck winning in Nov. He has ticked off so many Dems that they are going to actively work toward his defeat in Nov.

    alec82, you're boring. (5.00 / 0) (#96)
    by cpinva on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:30:42 AM EST
    that logic escapes you is obvious, by the many inane, lame posts you've made here. all that could be forgiven, if you were at least interesting. you aren't.

    if you're an example of the "creative class" obama supporter, i submit the sen. has bigger problems than sen. clinton or mccain.

    if you're going to be a troll, you really need to hone your skills, before appearing in public. it's the decent thing to do. otherwise, you just come off looking like a twit.

    we wouldn't want that.


    For someone whose candidate is ahead (5.00 / 0) (#97)
    by felizarte on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:32:58 AM EST
    why do you sound bitter, Alec82? And you keep clinging to the absurd notion that Bill Clinton made racists remarks? Or that Hillary made any remarks against AA's to preclude their voting for her in the GE?

    Obama on the other hand, has made comments about women, rural folks . . .

    Well Alec82.  I guess I do understand.  


    paid Obama troll (5.00 / 0) (#99)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:35:09 AM EST
    ...I forgot where I read it, but apparently Axelrod had put 400 people on the payroll to troll in pro-Clinton blogs.  I suspect that Alec is one of them

    Alex, don't you see the irony of your comments? (4.63 / 11) (#19)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:08:02 AM EST
    Substitute Hillary's constituencies for AA's and eggheads and you illustrate the great challenge that Barack Obama will have this fall: winning over working-class whites, older women, Catholics, Appalachian voters, rural whites.

    I know, I know. The Obama supporters think that these people will just fall in line behind Obama or that they aren't key constituencies really because Obama is so deeply and widely beloved, much more than his 1% lead over Teh Evil Hillary shows.

    Dude, you guys have a ton of work to do because that Unity Pony isn't going to fly out of the clouds like Pegasus. Alienating Hillary supporters isn't the smartest way to start rebuilding. It's sort of like picking up a hammer, grinning, and pounding yourself in the head.


    Don't forget Latinos and Asians. (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:56:26 AM EST
    They will likely go for McCain before Obama.  And Latinos are a very large demographic in many states.  

    I have said this before, but Obama will not carry MA with our small AA population; our large population of older women activists who are angry at Dean, Kerry, and Kennedy; and the many people who have buyer's remorse over their votes for Axelrod client Deval Patrick.  If he can't carry MA, Obama will be in trouble.


    exactly--good points (none / 0) (#72)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:05:59 AM EST
    What (4.42 / 7) (#21)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:40:56 AM EST
    they fail to acknowledge is that Obama is a deeply flawed candidate. He's unlikely to win in Nov. due to his baggage and his hatred of anyone who he is up against. He's apparently just banking on McCain or GOP hatred to try to win in Nov. This won't work. If it didn't work against a worse candidate in 2004 then it won't work in 2008 no matter how bad of a shape the GOP is in. Really, the DNP isn't in much better shape than the GOP. Anyone taken a glance at those congressional approval ratings lately?

    Obama got spoiled (5.00 / 0) (#142)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:27:08 AM EST
    running again Alan Keyes in Illinois (and prior to that removing all his opponents from the ballot for state legislature so he ran unopposed).  

    The Process (1.00 / 0) (#175)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:45:40 PM EST
    You know, it really doesn't matter to me if Obama or Hillary is best to win the Presidency. The most important thing to me is that the rules of the game are obeyed.

    Then when the nominee fight for the presidency, I can be satisfied that the process worked. That is what is most important.

    Obama has proven to be the better strategic planning in this campaign and he has the most pledged delegates, which is how nominations are won.

    If he wins the general, it was his to lose and the same goes for Hillary.

    But having a fair process and keepign the integrity of the process as it is written to be is very important to future primaries and presidencies.


    Ask an older black person (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:45:05 AM EST
    in that 10% that Obama can't reach WHY he can't reach them.

    Two words:  Bill Clinton.  Contrary to what they spoon-feed you at Dkos/HuffPo/Americablog, ALL FORMER republicans by the way, Clinton enjoyed strong AA support, even during impeachment, when a resounding 89% were against it.

    Alec82, your days are hopefully numbered here.  JM and BTD will see what you're doing.  Time to go get your payck from Obama sweetie.  The damage, is done...you people just can't HELP yourself!


    You don't give AAs much credit, imo (none / 0) (#67)
    by befuddled on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:58:11 AM EST
    Saying things like "They'll suck it up (for Hillary)." It's like saying they are manipulated sockpuppets. Your whole line of reasoning, in fact, implies that they are a sullen, non-thinking group who will not participate if they don't get their pretty brother. I really can't remember Hillary ever dissing that group or saying anything other than that she could "understand." Please give some evidence of where she said she was planning a strategy that involved leaving out AAs, or any part of the voting body.

    AAs want a joint ticket (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by lambert on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:04:40 AM EST
    IIRC over 60%, larger than any other segment. That hardly argues they're againstHillary, except for  the AA equivalent of the "creative class" [cough], who are manufacturing outrage. They're just for Obama.  If all the yammering about racism was significant among those most affected by it, they wouldn't want a joint ticket.

    Most AAs live in red states (3.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Prabhata on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:52:11 AM EST
    There participation in the Democratic Party is important, but not as critical as the white blue collar workers. One has only to look at the map from
    lectoral-vote.com and see that the AA vote that gave the wins to BO in NC, SC, MS are not turning those states blue for the Democrats.  Snark.

    Carry that message... (3.66 / 3) (#9)
    by Alec82 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:58:40 AM EST
    ...with Senator Clinton to November.  "AAs don't matter, states we don't win in don't matter" and you have a recipe for a disastrous campaign.  

     You really think black voters, the most loyal Democratic base, don't matter in swing states?  If President Clinton campaigned like that his loss would have been momentous.  



    Senator clinton doesn't write anyone off (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by sarahfdavis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:11:43 AM EST
    that's what the obama campaign does.
    out with the old! in with the new. we don't need blue collar
    racists! we don't need women over 40! we don't need latinos!
    clinton apoligized when her campaign was accused of
    being racially insenstive. (i'm not even gonna touch the
    racist accusation - that's just obama and his surrogates bein'
    lower than low).
    if anyone thought for 2 seconds about the clinton's supposed race baiting, it would be obviously absurd and disgusting.
    but the O camp has no reality to build on so they've got to
    burn and slash the last giants of the dem party. The Clintons.
    how pathetic when i reread those words.
    Senator Clinton looks down her nose at no one. she goes into the den of those that hate her and tries to show respect.
    you're making another false argument. all the race divisiveness has been flamed by obama.
    how ironic. mr unity.
    as obama would say...how sad.

    I see your as good at pretend (5.00 / 4) (#13)
    by cawaltz on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:56:04 AM EST
    as youre candidate. Either that or you have a readinf comprehension problem. The poster never said "AA's don't matter." Not a surprise that you have to manufacture outrage though.

    The math for the GE (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:55:29 AM EST
    is different than for the primaries.  In Democratic primaries and caucuses AA votes can be as high as 40-50 % of the votes in some states like SC, Miss, and others.  In those states having near to 90% of the AA vote gave Obama a distinct advantage.  In states such as Ohio and Pa that was not the case.  Clinton has never dismissed any demographic within the Democratic party that has been an Obama camp practice.  In the GE the AA vote is somewhere around 12 to 13% of the registered voters that does not mean it is not important for a Democratic win but if you don't have the average white working class Democratic voter solidly behind you you can 100% of the AA vote and still loose. That is why unlike Obama''s followers and campaign members Clinton's campaign does not dismiss the Black vote or the White working class vote.   No bitter and clinging remarks, no Donna Brarizille ill conceived remarks.

    Please convince the other posters of that fact (none / 0) (#59)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:51:05 AM EST
    "The math for the GW is different than for the primaries."

    Most Of The Posters Here Are Looking At (5.00 / 0) (#69)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:02:38 AM EST
    individual state polls which match up Obama against McCain vs Clinton against McCain, electoral maps and regional demographics. The math for the GE doesn't look all that good for Obama  taking those elements into consideration.



    and this is the problem (4.66 / 3) (#77)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:12:34 AM EST
    An electability argument for ANY candidate is necessarily built on data that indicates how they might do in the GENERAL ELECTION--state head-to-head polls, demographic polls--against the likely opponent, in this case McCain.

    Whenever we try to talk about ELECTABILITY, Obama supporters and the media change the subject to the "metrics" of the Democratic nomination, which has NOTHING to do with electability. Instead of looking at the data that matters, we end up sidetracked on whether MI and FL should be counted, etc., as if MI and FL are going to disappear from the electoral map in November to accommodate Obama.

    The less-electable candidate can (and will) become the nominee.


    That is the theme (5.00 / 8) (#39)
    by Molly Pitcher on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:11:30 AM EST
    Obama is already using--only he has lots of states that don't matter (like where those white racists live in Appalachia, which, by and large, was not a tremendous rallying point for the confederacy.  Lincoln called the mountain people of Ky, where he was born, his people.  Think maybe Lincoln's approach to the population might work better than calling them racist and ignoring them?)

    Oh--and btw, the largest segment of faithful voters among democrats are women.  Women too have been written off as 'sweeties;' you know, that herd of sheep which will do as they are told.

    But, bless your heart, worrying about Hillary!  Too bad your comment applies better to Obama than to her.


    Women are the largest segment... (5.00 / 3) (#119)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:22:00 AM EST
    But the African American segment has been the most solidly Democratic.  Soccer moms put Bush over the top last election; hope the same won't happen this election.

    No, this time (none / 0) (#141)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:26:42 AM EST
    it will be the "bitter hags" that put McCain over the top. I'll work on the soccer moms to help, though.

    alec, why don't you can that false outrage. (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:35:29 AM EST
    frankly, i am tired of the self righteous bull you post on here.

    alec, please don't make any more racist (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:37:41 AM EST
    baiting comments. it is so rude.

    And what message is Obama sending? (4.55 / 9) (#18)
    by kempis on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:00:32 AM EST
    "AAs don't matter, states we don't win in don't matter" and you have a recipe for a disastrous campaign.

    Obama's message is that low-income, blue collar, non-college educated, and rural whites don't matter. Furthermore, states containing these creatures (WV and KY and TN--all of which Bill Clinton won) don't matter.

    One of the Obamamyths repeated by the faithful is that Obama is running equally hard in all states and with all population groups, while the Evil Hillary picks and chooses. That's a false comparison easily illustrated by pointing to WV and KY.


    Don't even pretend they should make a good living (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:26:18 AM EST
    out of their farm: Arugola is too expensive,

    Eh, I got watercress at the farmers' (none / 0) (#51)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:41:29 AM EST
    market.  I like it better than arugula, but it's seasonal.  I'm just a food snob, coffee snob too.  Everyone talking about lattes when any Real Coffee Drinker knows that french press beats all the others.  That and a really good espresso in a china demitasse with a hint of sugar and a snap of lemon oil.

    My husband likes the flavored coffees that are so strong you could use them as aromatherapy.  I'm surrounded by heathens!  


    Personally (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:04 AM EST
    I prefer to brew a nice pot of tea.  China cups are a requirement and adding milk or cream is pure sacrilege. Sugar, if you must, but why not choose a tea that satisfies you without. The riff-raff who think they can make a cup of tea by dunking a teabag in a paper cup and filling it with hot water at the water cooler are beneath contempt.

    Kind Of Like The Message That Obama (4.55 / 9) (#20)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 06:31:23 AM EST
    and his campaign has been sending about working class folks. Do you think that Obama can win with nothing more than the AA community, the "creative class" and the youth vote? IMO that is a recipe for disaster for November. Also, while we might write off solid red states, seems the theme surrounding Obama's campaign and his supporters is that he can write off states that Dems normally win and traditional battleground states.

    Sure the AA community is essential to a Dem win in November but what is also essential is capturing conservative Dems, women, the working class, seniors and hispanics in sufficient numbers to win in November. Obama has shown weakness in all of these categories. The lack of strength in those demographics show up in match ups between Obama and McCain in all the recent polling that I've seen. So it is not a matter of when Clinton is no longer in the picture these demographics will suddenly come to Obama.  


    I See Our Great Friend April (5.00 / 6) (#32)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:27:07 AM EST
    is dropping 1s in the threads. The unity pony rides again. McCain won't have to work as hard because SOME of Obama's supporters are very talented at driving people away from supporting Obama. McCain appreciates your efforts April.

    April, eh (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by feet on earth on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:30:14 AM EST
    She does not realize that the low scoring was last month memo. Move on April, it is May.

    Poor Excuse (1.00 / 0) (#170)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:22:36 PM EST
    That is a poor excuse, why would people that do not control Obama and are not controlled by Obama make you vote McCain?

    The truth is that you probably would not vote for Obama anyway. This race is about us as Americans and it is so easy for all of us to forget that in the passion of the moment when we are fighting for our candidates.

    I do support Obama but you can believe one thing for sure, although I feel very disgusting with Bill Clinton and his racial slurrs, I will never vote for McCain. I may sit home but that depends how this race ends and what happens next.

    I have been attacked on the internet a million times in post for supporting Obama, but there is no one in the world that can make me vote McCain. In fact, when I think about it. I will not sit home, because this is too important to me and my family to allow McCain a victory by default.

    However, I will still continue to support Obama until they say he is not the nominee which I believe is unlikely.


    x (4.42 / 7) (#22)
    by Mary Mary on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:02:53 AM EST
    You ought to shoot off a memo to your candidate, the one who wrote off WV and KY, post-haste. Because they'll remember in November.

    another Obamamite race-baiter (3.66 / 3) (#34)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:29:12 AM EST
    Hillary never said AAs don't count. But in ObamaLand everything is viewed through the racist lens of white oppression and victimization - reflected in Rev. Wright's ideology.
    And if a racist motive isn't apparent, Obamamites like you twist and distort to reach an outcome of "racism."

    Alec82 (3.66 / 3) (#125)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:39:28 AM EST
    is a trouble-maker.  He comes in here to bait you with his backhanded racism attacks on Hillary voters.  He's as subtle as ebola.

    Time for him to be called out, so that's why I am doing it.


    Would this (1.00 / 0) (#169)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:15:12 PM EST
    Would this be a topic if all AA voted 90% for Hillary. Is that why she is getting the white votes so strongly in WV and KY? I am beginning to believe that the race and sexist card they have been playing all along is finally working for them. WOW.

    Even if that were true... (none / 0) (#28)
    by Exeter on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:21:25 AM EST
    The main difference between African American voters and blue collar white voters is that, on average, African Americans voters that are disenfranchised are more likely to stay home, while disenfranchised blue collar white voters are more likely to vote for McCain. Both scenarios are bad, but voting for McCain is twice as detrimental.

    hillary can kick your candidate in the (none / 0) (#95)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:29:46 AM EST
    polls in just about every state. but since your candidate is helping to destroy the democratic party please pardon my not admiring your "snark".

    U of K is closed and hopefully (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:36:13 AM EST
    the rest of the schools in KY are out and everyone left for the summer.

    As far as trade and our future in the global economy, we certainly need to protect American industries from businesses in third world countries that pay pennies per hour and we also have to be careful with foreign businesses coming here and starting out without any seniority or pension costs for their brand new employees but we do need to sell our products to the rest of the world.  Unfortunately, some pain happens initially, we have to get our citizenry ready to compete and doing nothing will not work.

    Yes, what is it with those uppity students (none / 0) (#56)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:48:33 AM EST
    wanting to participate in elections?

    If they wanted to do that... (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by lambert on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:05:55 AM EST
    ... they shouldn't have left the state, right?

    They should be registered in their (none / 0) (#139)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:24:52 AM EST
    home state and vote absentee, so most have probably already either voted or declined to fund the postage stamp and will wait and see if they need to rally or protest in August.

    Sneaky Obama knows his prey (3.00 / 2) (#84)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:16:09 AM EST
    Sure they can participate but sometimes their lack of knowledge is damaging and they will believe and follow those who are KEWL.  Hillary is not kewl but at least she has a past.  Obama has done nothing.  Someone here had the temerity to criticize the choice of Geraldine Ferraro as she didn't have the experience to run for VP.  She had a lot more than Obama has.  We even heard last night that he really didn't practice law.  So, what the hell did he do?  Since when is a community organizer enough to qualify one for the presidency.  Haven't we learned anything the disaster of the last 8 years?

    Unfortunately, the college kids are quick to follow, like they followed Nader and led our party to defeat.  No, I have a lot of trouble when they are the ones who are the deciding factor.  It's one thing to protest the war in Vietnam and quite another to see through charlatans like Nader and Obama.  Too often the kids are into politics for partying and really don't look at the candidates the same way adults do.  A life of a student is not the same as the life one will have when they become responsible for a family and their own future.  And then their stupid parents, like Claire McCaskell, vote for the candidates their children tell them to vote for.  


    College Student (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:13:12 PM EST
    You know when I look at post like these it really makes me want to cry, seriously. First, I am 44 years old and I support Obama. I am not college educated but very happy to see those that are college educated.

    It has always been the dream of moms and dads around the world to see their kids get an education and succeed in life. To look at some of these post, you would think that one, either a person is jealous because they did not complete college, or two, that you have a profoud hate for those that have completed college. What happen to loving to see your fellow American college educated.

    In this primary season, it seems that college educated people regardless of what the degree are ignorant, blind  followers. If they support Obama.

    This is just plain weird to see so many derogatory statements about college students. Has anyone every considered that it is those college age students that are fighting over in Iraq and Afganistan to protect your freedoms, did thy make a mistake by pledging to do that? Some of them are not old enough to buy alcohol, yet they made a choice to die for you and me.

    When this same age group votes for Obama they are somehow delusional. Everyone has a choice and their choice is Obama, your choice may be Hillary, does that make you delusional to vote for someone who does not have the "pledged delegate," count to secure the nomination. This is how the rules were setup initially, it always has been about pledged delegates in primaries.

    I think you all outght to get off demonizing the young college educated supporters of Obama. We all have rights and we are using them. You might also whan to realize that not all of Obama's supporters are from college, nor or they college aged, I know it makes you feel better to degrade a colleged educated person, but someday, I hope that you, your children, or other family members have the opportunity to become college educated themselves. There is nothing wrong with that!


    We're not demonizing the kids (none / 0) (#179)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:15:45 PM EST
    We are demonizing Obama for preying on the weakest among us.  Many of these kids just graduated high school and they are at the stage where they think they know everything but don't know a whole hell of a lot about life.  Those of us who are parents know these kids very well.  I have four and I love them.  They are smart and great kids but know very little about the system and who they are voting for.  

    Obama is a liar.  Anyone who did what he did in South Carolina, spreading a lie that Bill Clinton introduced race into the election, while his wife was telling all the black women in the beauty parlors of South Carolina that it is necessary to get a black guy for president is not fit for the presidency.  The kids don't push to find the truth and believe the BS that comes out of the media and we know the media were accessories to this crime of lies.  Kids don't see how Obama is all sweet and smiley when he talks to them but trashes the baby boomers, the 60s, the 70s, Viet Nam and then he embraces the most egregious abuser of the 60s, William Ayers.  Then he blames US for looking down at the guys coming back from Vietnam.  Another disgusting lie because none of the people I knew looked down on anyone but Nixon and Agnew.  Too bad the kids don't know Obama lied about that too.  Kids born around the 1990 have no concept about Selma Alabama and they don't know that Obama lied about being born in 1965 when he was born in 1961.  Finally, he put Reagan on a pedestal, only to say Reagan was great and Clinton wasn't, and the kids know nothing about the kind of SOB Reagan was, so he gets away with that too.

    So Jolly, it's not the kids we hate; it's the liar who is tricking them into thinking he is genuine, honest and a real agent of change.  I guess you have to lie when you have done absolutely nothing to make you worthy of the presidency.


    Yes you are (none / 0) (#184)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:35:48 PM EST
    You are demonizing them by referring to them as "kids.

    You are demonizing them by calling them "the weakest among us".

    You are demonizing them by continuing to think of them in a parent sense without acknowledging that they are adults with their own individual points of view.

    Sorry that your kids don't know much about the system or who they are voting for, but that doesn't make it true for the rest of us.

    P.S. we also understand the difference between an outright lie and nuance.


    Definitely time (1.00 / 1) (#105)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:45:15 AM EST
    to raise the voting age to 30

    Yea (none / 0) (#128)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:49:40 AM EST
    Lets send those 18 year olds to die overseas but heaven forbid we let them vote.  Oh no, that's too much responsibility, lets just give them guns and let them kill Iraqis.  But picking a president, waaaay beyond their level.

    Unless you want to raise the age for the military to 30 too.  I'm all for that.  Let's see how much you guys like being sent off to die and see your friends get shipped home in body bags.

    But yea, we must all like Obama cuz of that kool-aid, it wouldn't have ANYTHING to do with the Iraq war.


    So what has Obama done (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:17:36 AM EST
    to stop the war?  I must have missed the speeches from the Senate floor, the votes, the participation in marches and rallies, etc.  Perhaps it is a fairy tale.

    Once Bill blew Obama's cover on the war (5.00 / 0) (#140)
    by madamab on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:25:07 AM EST
    the race-baiting started from the Obama camp. The truth that Bill spoke was obliterated by all the ZOMG!!!111 Teh Clintons are racists!!!1111 BS.

    Quelle surprise that Hillary's voters find that actions speak louder than words.

    How has Obama tried to stop the war again?

    [cricket cricket cricket]


    ok... (2.00 / 0) (#146)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:39:11 AM EST
    I have no problem with Hillary supporters supporting Hillary.  I have a problem with people who want to demean and belittle Obama supporters.  You're right, actions do speak louder than words, and I for one, have a hard time forgiving the action of sending us to war.  But that's just me - everyone is entitled to their opinion.

    Bill Clinton can say whatever he wants, and I don't think the Clinton's are racist.  But he has to expect that his words carry extra meaning at this time and some people might take offense.  How that is Obama's fault is beyond me.


    CST (none / 0) (#180)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:18:19 PM EST
    Take offense to what?  What did Bill Clinton say that was offensive?  I cannot believe this lie still continues!

    Bill Clinton (none / 0) (#182)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:30:31 PM EST
    Look, I am not saying that what he said was intentionally offensive, or even offensive to me, it wasn't.  I am saying that some people clearly took offense to the fact that he was comparing Obama to Jesse Jackson.  Bill was the first person to bring Jesse Jackson up, no one asked him about Jesse, there was no reason to mention him except that he was the "black" candidate.

    I don't really have a problem with this, since Obama is the only other "black" candidate.  However, I can also see why he wouldn't want to be portrayed that way.  But to somehow blame Obama that people took offense to this comment is ubsurd.  People being offended by Bill Clinton has nothing to do with Obama.


    But don't you realize this South Carolina lie (none / 0) (#186)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:03:33 PM EST
    was the cause celebre played and played and played by Frank Rich, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olbermann and everyone else in the media because the Obama campaign faxed it three times a day every day for months.

    I am sure it is nothing so big to you but it is the reason why so many of Hillary's supporters left her.  Don't you remember how they started on Andy Young and Charlie Rangel and Bob Johnson, charging these three black men with injecting race.  

    Remember also, Michelle Obama was sticking black power turkey basters up the butts of every black person she saw in So Carolina.

    Bill Clinton was asked by the son of Kendrick Meeks about the history of the black vote in So Carolina so....Bill Clinton started with Jesse Jackson the first black who won the So Carolina primary.  The duplicity and the evil of Obama for using this absolute lie goes beyond what I find acceptable and for that reason, I'd never vote for him and neither will lots of Democrats and the Republicans he once had, he lost with Jeremiah Wright, his wife and William Ayers.  Hillary was a Queen and he was a slug.  If all Dems knew what steps Obama took to steal this election, he's have been friend.


    Obama (1.00 / 0) (#143)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:33:09 AM EST
    You're right, he never made any speeches :)  Besides, I thought words don't matter?

    He ran for president to stop the war.  And since then, has given many speeches, and participated in many rallies.  But none of those count for squat right?

    Look, the fact is, you can believe him or not on Iraq, everyone is entitled to their opinion.  But the fact that young people are voting in this election should never be considered a bad thing.  And I am really sick of everyone on this blog acting like we are a bunch of spoiled little kool-aid drinkers who can't think for ourselves and really need a spanking and someone to tell us what to do.

    As for everyone who listens to their children, maybe that's because they made some convincing arguments.  And were informed.  I know a lot of young people who know pay a lot more attention to politics than their parents (although in fairness, that shouldn't be true of a politician).


    Few children (none / 0) (#147)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:40:16 AM EST
    have the reasoning ability to know the damage they are doing to their eardrums with their iPods. I sincerely doubt that they are better judges of what the total package requirements are in a president. Single issue voters are scarey.

    Children??? (none / 0) (#149)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:42:56 AM EST
    But they can go to war.  And kill people.

    Not single issue, that's just the one issue I brought up, because it pertains to the shipping us off to war argument.


    p.s. (none / 0) (#151)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:45:33 AM EST
    Sorry, I take this personally.  I recently went to a funeral for one of those "children" who was shipped overseas.

    And old people... (none / 0) (#153)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:47:18 AM EST
    have been in charge since forever, and look what they have wrought.  I'd vote for a 13 year old at this point...even Obama is too old and corrupted.

    Young Man's Blues

    Well a young man
    He ain't got nothin' in the world these days
    I said a young man
    Ain't got nothin' in the world these days

    In the old days
    When a young man was a strong man
    All the people stepped back
    When a young man walked by

    You know nowadays
    Well it's the old man's
    Got all the money
    And a young man
    Ain't got nothin' in the world these days

    You know nowadays, if you're the young man
    You ain't got nothin' in the world these days

    -The Who


    Your comment is ridiculous (none / 0) (#181)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:27:59 PM EST
    First of all, things are not so bad here.  Once the Bush crew goes we can be proud again.  Things were great when Bill Clinton was president.  Considering that we have to compete in a world where people make pennies an hour and live in abject poverty, the old people did a pretty good job.

    Yeah... (none / 0) (#187)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:08:07 PM EST
    things were great under Slick Willy.  Bombing runs over Iraq when he needed the press off his back, a skyrocketing prison population and expansion of the drug war highlighted by a huge spike in marijuana arrests, NAFTA and the continued slow sell-out to China, his own illegal wiretapping....need I go on?

    You must be getting old, your memory is going.


    Well, we had (none / 0) (#188)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:24:03 PM EST
    job growth, balanced budget, FEMA worked, Clean Air Act, more people owning homes than ever, convicted the WTC bombers, that's just off the top of my head.  No President is perfect--he did a lot of good--and all the while he was being daily attacked by the Republican-controlled Congress.  And yes, he had to reach across the aisle to the Repubs which resulted in NAFTA and welfare "reform," but Obama claims to want to reach across too.  Do you think he will get EVERYTHING he wants?  (And just what does he want?)

    or, (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:52:07 AM EST
    the super-delegates should have their radar on when charlatans like Nadar and Obama are speaking to those kids only. Plus, Obama went into an area where Nadar would never have gone and that was to make this election racial and play on the guilt of well to do whites.    

    The super-delegates use the criteria of selfishness when they choose, not what is better for America.  We know all too much about what selfish spineless pigs our Senators and Congressmen and women have been.  Even Robert Byrd's endorsement was given because he assumed Obama won.  When he was talking about Obama being his candidate, he meant as opposed to McCain, not Hillary.

    The problem is the American electorate is stupid and cannot see passed the Obama lies and facades.  But, the kids are much worse off because they don't have any frame of reference.  Then Obama goes ahead and says that 80% of the medical costs of this country are going to 20% of the people, meaning the baby-boomers and up.  More division that he does so well.  Make the kids feel as though the adults are taking away their income.  

    When push comes to shove and the Republicans make issues of the Obama lies and his divisiveness, Obama will be history because McCain will have the trust of many more people than Obama will have, a fact that was well hidden by an illogical and corrupt primary season.  The lead Obama has will disappear in seconds once the general election campaign starts, if the super-delegates are too stupid to see through this.  Unfortunately, they find safety in numbers.


    The electorate are sheep..... (none / 0) (#155)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    no doubt, but you left a bit out.  There are unable to see past the Obama/Clinton/McCain facade.  All 3 are more full of sh*t than a colostomy bag.  All 3 guarantee 4 more years of war, occupation, and tyranny-lite.

    drinking (1.00 / 0) (#174)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:37:44 PM EST
    No, what the SHOULD do is lower the drinking age to 18 like it is in most reasonable places.

    Most of BO's support is NOT under 21.


    Actually, the solution is probably found (none / 0) (#144)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:35:06 AM EST
    in replacing some of those unbelievably ridiculous course selections in high school and making a political structure course mandatory for graduation.

    I vividly recall the 1964 campaign year. I was a 9th grader who was given the incredible opportunity of being a page at the "Mock Political Convention" being held at the High School. Every single student was involved as a delegate, and the more advanced students took the leadership roles. They even brought in real politicians and speakers for the candidates (they used the politicians actually running). Parents could come to observe, as well.

    They defined the party platforms, and nominated the candidates for both parties.

    It was fabulous. Jackie Robinson came to speak on behalf of Nelson Rockefeller. OMG, what a presence he had.  


    Great idea. (none / 0) (#183)
    by cpa1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 03:31:24 PM EST
    We used to have Civics in school but that was done away with and it's too bad.

    I agree whole-heartedly (none / 0) (#185)
    by riddlerandy on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:00:05 PM EST
    Deal..... (none / 0) (#159)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:34:05 PM EST
    then only those over 30 can go to war, and only those over 30 year have to pay taxes.

    Where do I sign....I'll make that trade.


    Since there is no longer a Draft (none / 0) (#165)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:05:11 PM EST
    yours is an empty argument.  17 year olds can join the military and fight in the war but can not vote.

    17 year olds (none / 0) (#168)
    by CST on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:13:33 PM EST
    Can only join with parental consent.  Something I disagree with, but it's hardly free reign.

    It's not an empty argument.  The vast majority of people who are paying the price for this war with their lives are the same people others want to prohibit from voting.


    And as far as taxes are concerned if I work (none / 0) (#166)
    by Florida Resident on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:06:29 PM EST
    at age 14 which I did taxes and SS tax were deducted from the pay check.

    Sounds like you.... (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:31:55 PM EST
    have a case against the government.  When I worked as a teen I got all my withholding taxes back when I filed.  SS is different, technically were supposed to get that back if and when we reach retirement. (technically...lol)

    No taxation without representation is a tenet of our system.

    And there might not be a draft right now, but that could change tomorrow.  When I was 18 I had to register with selective service...there's a reason for that.

    I can't believe what I'm hearing here today...if I proposed an end to women's suffrage I'd be villified, and rightly so.  But it's ok to disenfranchise the youth as long as it helps Hillary.  I hope you guys ain't serious, and if you are you should be ashamed.


    Primaries, anyway (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:06:53 AM EST
    but as for the fall election, we'll see if they really make history and remember to turn out again.  Not so, so far.

    According to a new study (none / 0) (#133)
    by esmense on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:09:15 AM EST
    by American University's Center for the Study of the American Electorate, "total turnout likely won't reach the record set in 1972's primaries." (Overall turnout this year is 19.3 percent,  smaller than the 21 percent who turned out in 1972.)

    Those were the primaries that gave us McGovern, of course. And a total disaster in the general election -- in large part because of the Democratic voter resentment and apathy engendered by McGovern's divisive primary campaign -- that threw the most important traditional Democratic constituency (Big Labor) under the bus in an attempt to attract affluent independents and moderate Republicans.  

    As the American University study points out, despite record breaking primary turnout, "In 1972, the year of the highest presidential primary turnout, turnout in the general election experienced the largest decline of any election since World War II" (when turnout declined because a large percentage of Americans were outside the country fighting that war).

    Of course, history may not repeat itself. But so far much of the the thinking, rationalizations, strategy and tactics coming from the Obama camp are repeats of the thinking, rationalizations, strategy and tactics of the McGovern camp in '72. Including the conviction that a huge influx of new voters would (will) eliminate the need to appeal to traditional working class Democrats.



    I'm sure they got absentee ballots, right? n/t (none / 0) (#137)
    by samanthasmom on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:20:35 AM EST
    Hillary and Maker's Mark . . . (5.00 / 0) (#14)
    by nycstray on Tue May 20, 2008 at 04:01:54 AM EST
    the lady knows her stuff . . .

    Maker's Mark is also the name (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:03:37 AM EST
    of three race horses. The Irish-bred one is by Invincible Spirit out of Certain Impression. Fits Hillary to a T, don't you think?

    And Maker's Mark, the bourbon, sponsors the retraining of retired racehorses for new careers at the KY Horse Center. I don't drink, but when I give liquor as a gift, I give Maker's Mark. They support the things I care about. So does Hillary.


    Yeah, she knows her stuff and knows how to hide it (1.00 / 0) (#157)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:15:40 PM EST
    Yeah, she knows her stuff and knows how to hide itBy: Doug Cogan

    Yes, Hillary Clinton has been caught in a big lie that seems to keep getting worse as she tries to lie her way out of it. No, it was not sleep deprivation. No, she doesn't speak millions of words per week. No, she didn't just misspeak. SHE LIED about the supposed sniper fire in Bosnia.

    When will the press finally be willing to talk about the biggest lie of all? In 2000, Peter F. Paul spent approximately $1.6 million on her campaign with the promise that the President would join Stan Lee Media for one year when he left the White House.

    When Ed Rendell, then chair of the DNC, was alerted that Lloyd Grove of the WASHINGTON POST was writing a story about Peter's felony past from two decades earlier for his involvement in the CUBAN COFFEE CAPER (that was really a good thing, ripping of Castro), Rendell advised Peter that he and the rest of the gang were going to lie.
     See full story at: http://www.nowpublic.com/world/peter-paul-vs-hillary-clinton-election-fraud-case-stuffed-california- court


    I think a toast tonight (none / 0) (#120)
    by abfabdem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:25:01 AM EST
    with some great Kentucky bourbon is in order in our household!  Salud, Hillary!

    I have a lot of (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Grace on Tue May 20, 2008 at 05:07:07 AM EST
    relatives who live in the Louisville/Southern Indiana area.  Our family has been there since, oh, before the Civil War.  ;)

    Since my family is huge, we have church leaders, union leaders, nurses, engineers, blue color workers, white color workers, and a whole lot of other things in the demographics.  

    Frankly, most of them vote Republican.  I believe the ones who do vote Democrat would be more inclined to vote for Hillary since they are more like the Pennsylvania/Ohio/Michigan demographic.  I can't see Obama having much attraction for them.  They prefer stability versus "trendy" things.  

    I do know that some of them are terrified of terrorists since Louisville has some tall buildings and chemical plants.  They are inclined to vote for people who are big on National Security.  

    I think Hillary is going to do well, even in Louisville.    

    "...big on national security..." (none / 0) (#131)
    by Dadler on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:54:59 AM EST
    Ask them for a rational definition of what they mean.  Do they think murdering hundreds of thousands for no reason while bankrupting their own nation is part of national security?  Do they make ANY connection between the nation's economic collapse and the obvious reason behind it?

    Hillary's Voters (5.00 / 0) (#23)
    by creeper on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:04:52 AM EST
    had better turn out in droves today in Kentucky.  The MSM is spending the day digging Hillary's grave and they'll push her into it if she doesn't give a really strong showing.

    Even better would be a strong showing in Oregon.  

    after her 41% win in WV last week - (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:16:49 AM EST
    the media proceeded to dig her grave.

    The media proceeded to dig her grave (5.00 / 7) (#31)
    by Serene1 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:25:55 AM EST
    after her Iowa loss. Since then every win or loss by her has been subject to the same coverage - she is finished, over, nada yada yada.

    Tomorrow win or loose the coverage will be the same, difference will be in the tone. If she looses the tone will be mocking and taunting. if she wins it will be a seething with anger tone.


    MSM (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:30:59 AM EST
    is the american public susceptible to influence from the MSM or are they as free thinking and smart as they think they are? Peddled war. Used Pentagon paid advisors who used talking points. Influenced 2008 election. Promoted Saddam 9-11 link. There are a few examples of the hundreds of the MSM undue influence. What is wrong with the American people that they are so swayed by what they hear on the telly? Shameful.

    Sorry, can't afford (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Fabian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:45:10 AM EST
    my own stable of journalists, muck rakers and private investigators so I have to rely on Teh Media.

    Although at the rate Teh Media is shedding actual journalists, I should be able to hire them at bargain basement prices.


    Media (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:23:01 AM EST
    digging her grave? It's no different than what they've been doing for months. Too bad the voters aren't listening to her.

    The media (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    whatta joke they are.  The voters of WV showed them the door last week.  72% of the country also want the coronation of BHO to stop.

    Jesus could come down and show Hillary support and the media would ask him, "um, is Joseph really your father?"


    Kentucky shares media markets with Illinois (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Exeter on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:17:57 AM EST
    Which, like Indiana, is a huge advantage for Obama. Link

    Obama played the Blame Card - again (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 07:39:43 AM EST
    asserting he'll lose KY because voters there don't know him. ha! Oh - they know him quite well.
    And know he blames them for his own words - calling Democrats "racists" because they're not voting for him.
    And they know his followers who consistently engage in race-baiting to defocus from Obama's empty suit.

    Yesterday he was blaming FOX News (5.00 / 0) (#150)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:43:09 AM EST
    for his inevitable loss in KY. They reported the Rev Wright topic, you know.

    I'm (none / 0) (#50)
    by Claw on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:35:33 AM EST
    Troubled, though, by how well Edwards does in states like WV and (it looks like) KY.  To me it looks like a kind of misogynistic/racist protest vote.  I'm not trying to insult anyone who just doesn't like either candidate and happens to be a very die-hard Edwards supporter...but the guy got 7% in WV and he's been out of the race for months.  
    Also, I don't think Obama has ever called the dem electorate "racists."  I'm pretty sure I would've heard that piece of news.

    Obama's "bitter" remarks (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:49:19 AM EST
    included calling Dems "racists" for not voting for him. But Obamamedia only focuses on the guns and religion part of Obama's remarks.

    Rev. Wright and Obama's 'blame game' and 'victimization' are perpetrated on Obama blogs.


    Simple Explanations Are Sometimes The (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:55:55 AM EST
    best explanations. Many people voted Edwards even on Super Tuesday because they 1) just didn't like either Obama or Clinton on issues or 2) they were die hard Edwards supporters and wanted to vote only for him. People are still voting Kucinich and he never had a chance to win. For that matter,  the media determined as early as February that Clinton had no chance to win and people are turning out in record numbers to vote for her.

    I caucaused for Edwards... (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by NWHiker on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:49:41 AM EST
    I went to the WA state caucus for Edwards. I wasn't yet totally a Clinton supporter, but knew Obama wasn't a good thing. I also knew that, since it was a caucus, it was a throw-away vote.

    My dh and I had discussed it before: if our votes had made a diff, we would have switched to Clinton on the second tour. Turns out they didn't, so we stayed with Edwards.

    I voted for Clinton in the beauty contest primary.

    It wasn't racist or sexist. I just wanted to stand up and support the guy I thought was best. I certainly don't regret it. BTW, I detest caucuses. Third time and just... ugh!


    Its better than... (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:53 AM EST
    Edwards 7% is better than the 10% he got in Oklahoma...

    Based on the exit polls, Edwards got 10% of the male vote in WV, and 5% of the female vote.  In OK, Edwards got 9% of the male vote, and 11% of the female vote.

    But Clinton got 55% of the male vote in OK, and 60% of the male vote in WV.  And her portion of the female vote went from 54% to 73%.

    In other words, I think that Clinton grabbed most of the people who were supporting Edwards and switched to Obama after Edwards dropped out, plus about a third of the people who were "none of the above"

    see my diary on this topic...

    also note that the gains that clinton made at Obama's expense were with "non-working class" voters -- Clinton picked up Edwards support among the working class, while Obama's numbers stayed the same in the demographic categories associated with the working class (below median income, no college education.)  But she grabbed a lot of Obmma's support among higher income and college graduates....

    In other words, the "racist" meme is a pile of crap.... unless the creative class is racist to the core.


    So (none / 0) (#76)
    by Claw on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:10:52 AM EST
    The people telling exit pollsters that race and/or gender factored heavily in their decision are lying?  The fact that they broke uncomfortably well for Edwards means nothing?  I'm more convinced by the arguments above, but I don't think any should discount the fact that some are voting against Clinton because of her gender and against Obama because of his race.  Shorter version: I don't think it's "a pile of crap."  And I'm very tired of people who think you must be a white male to make a real run for the Presidency.

    Maybe. And, maybe liberal elites are sexist. (5.00 / 0) (#81)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:14:08 AM EST
    Let's look at OR SUSA.  BO's lead is entirely dependent on men by a 28 point margin.

    liberal elites (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by sancho on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:45:32 AM EST
    are, in my experience, the most sexist group in american society. this is certainly true in the academy (where i have worked). liberal elites, as a group, often include wives/mothers who do not have to work to support the family. working class families are more used to seeing women in roles of responsibility (instead of just ceremony). obviously, there are exceptions. but aspects to obama's voting block certainly suggest that liberal elites are wary (even frightened) of women in posiitons of authority.

    You made my point far more blatantly (none / 0) (#108)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:48:45 AM EST
    then I was going to.  Thank you.

    I'm (none / 0) (#87)
    by Claw on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:20:34 AM EST
    including sexism in the WV vote.  I'm saying I don't like it.  And just who are these "elites?"  The Clintons (Senator/Presidential candidate, and former two term President) seem pretty elite to me.  

    The upper income, highly educated (none / 0) (#88)
    by masslib on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    voters.  And, I am not referring to WV, I'm referring to OR.  Further, elitism is not merely a function of wealth.

    Elite - Elitism (none / 0) (#178)
    by cal1942 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 02:22:39 PM EST
    Well of course the Clintons are elite people.

    What you're missing is the difference between elite and elitist.

    Clintons are elite but not elitists. They represent what some people are calling the Beer track.  Obama represents the wine track.

    Two different sets of Democrats.  

    The DC establishment and that includes the Village people and the Boston-DC axis hates the Clintons, always have always will.  Remember what Obama fan Broder said: 'he came here and trashed the place and it's not his place to trash.' Obama is their candidate. The wine track set has contempt for blue collar people.  Obama's unguarded remarks in San Francisco are a testament to that contempt.

    The elites want Clinton and their demographic out of the party.  They want that demographic to vote for their candidate but want nothing to do with legislation/programs that strengthen that demographic.


    the percentage of people... (5.00 / 2) (#93)
    by p lukasiak on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:58 AM EST
    learn to read the polls...

    race and gender as a "factor" does not in any way imply that people voted against someone because of their race/gender.

    for instance, I'd have to answer "yes" to the question of it being a factor, because I'd like to see both an AA and a woman as President.

    Very few people -- especially Democrats -- vote against someone because of their race/gender as such.  AA and women do have to jump a higher "credibility" hurdle than white males, but it can be done.

    That being said, the antipathy toward Hillary Clinton has its roots in misogyny, and the "normalization" of Hillary-hatred by the media and Obama supporters is the insitutionalization of misogyny.  


    Race As A Factor Could Be Explained (none / 0) (#134)
    by MO Blue on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:12:12 AM EST
    in another way. The current theme in the media is that white voters don't vote Obama because they are racists. Many people are sick and tired of that label. So that is a race related issue for them.

    surely you don't think (none / 0) (#148)
    by Josey on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:42:01 AM EST
    the 90% Blacks voting for Obama is on the basis of gender.
    The majority of working class are voting for Hillary because she offers solutions for our economic crisis.
    Obama voted for Bush's energy bill that gave huge tax breaks to the oil companies. $5 gas? Obama says - no problem.
    Obama voted against capping credit card interest rates. Students rack up huge credit card balances paying tuition and books. Gee thanks, Obama.

    I'm (none / 0) (#60)
    by liminal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:51:41 AM EST
    sure that some of that is a racist/sexist vote, but in WV at least, it could be also a union-loyalist vote.  The UMWA endorsed Edwards early, I believe.  I spoke with one miner who thought they'd endorse Clinton, but I don't think that's true.  

    Then the 90%-plus AA vote for Obama (none / 0) (#74)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:09:16 AM EST
    must really look like a misogynist/racist vote to you.

    I've commented on this before... (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by NO2WONDERBOY on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:12:17 AM EST
    The Black vote block is identified with race over all other attributes a candidate may have.
    Living in New Orleans, I work with a significantly higher percentage of Black colleagues than the national average, and NINE OUT OF TEN (just like the turnout for O) have told me that they're voting COLOR. One lady whom I consider a friend, has been (so has her family) a 100% a Clinton loyal up to now, told me she was OBLIGATED to vote for a Black man, whether he was qualified OR NOT.

    Not for all (none / 0) (#161)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:46:22 PM EST
    I am black and I am not voting for Obama because he is black. Actually, to me he is mixed and that does not make him black, but bi-racial, which you all apparently do not wish to recognize.

    I love the fact that he is willing to talk to our enemies, surely dictating to them hasn't helped. I love the fact that he respects and understands that all people of the USA deserves a better life and opportunity regardless of the color of their skin. I love the fact that he did not want war in the first place and spoke openly about it. I love his healtcare plan because it does not mandate or impose fines on those who simply cannot afford it, and he will offer subsidies. MA has a mandatory health plan, read about it and see exactly what you think you want. There are many other policy issues that I prefer from Obama than Clinton.

    You all have fell for the spin of the media. Bill Clinton is why the black vote deminished from Hillary and for no other reason. Maybe you wouldn't understand since you are not black. We have always supported the Clintons. I don't buy that "Obligated," story from anyone.

    As an African American, yes, I am proud to see a bi-racial person run for President, but it's not all about the color of his skin. He is a vital and very intelligent candidate. About his experience, we have had at least five great Presidents without prior executive level experience and they did a fine job.

    In fact, if you are honest with yourself and objective, Obama has demonstrated outstanding leadership skills on an executive level during this campaign. Now that is a fact that cannot be denied. So experience matters but it is not everything. Hillary has experience but look at the way she has run her campaign. It is disasterous.

    You all vote for Hillary, more white than black, but do we call you racist because you are giving your vote to Hillary. No! I would rather think regardless to your color, you give her your vote more because of name recognition and reliance on the past rather than your color. I guess I could be wrong. I don't know.

    The one thing I know for sure non of the candidates are perfect, but all are better than McCain, and Obama has played by the rules and will have the majority of the pledged delegates tonight and he has earned this nomination according to those rules.


    No (none / 0) (#82)
    by Claw on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:14:49 AM EST
    Obama is RUNNING.  Edwards is not.  I don't think white women voting for Clinton are racists...please read my posts.  I'm talking about a strangely large number of votes for someone who is no longer in the race and has not been for quite a while.

    No longer in the race, that is true (1.00 / 1) (#162)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:56:53 PM EST
    It really doesn't matter to Clinton voters that she does not have the pledged delegates to win the nomination. It seems that more and more people for voting to make a statement rather than choose our nominee and prepare for the general. Hillary recreates the math in this process at least every three or four days and plays on the intelligence of women seeking to be recognized by the world as having broken the glass ceiling in politics.

    It really doesn't matter the quality of the woman, the ethics of the woman, the honesty of the woman, or anything that would make you extremely proud to pass on to your daughter as morally sound and of good character. It is simply about getting a woman, any woman elected to the highest office in the Country. Now, that is sad, because truly Hillary has attributes and moral issues that no mother should want a daughter to possess.

    Yes, she does not stick to it determination, but I would want a lot more for my daughter than her ability to stick in a race and reinvent rules along the way, showing her desperation to win at any cost. Imagine the walls that will be erected if she were to become President. This is one of the reasons she could not get the first healtcare initiative passed, the people in Congress hate her for good reasons.


    True, but (5.00 / 2) (#43)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:26:52 AM EST
    it's southern Illinois where Hillary killed Obama in the Illinois primary.

    That might have helped Obama (5.00 / 3) (#107)
    by Boston Boomer on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:46:38 AM EST
    if he hadn't let on that he thought Kentucky was somewhere in the vicinity of Arkansas.  Actually, it still probably wouldn't have helped him....

    I don't see Appalachia on that map (5.00 / 0) (#44)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:27:58 AM EST
    It would help if it were clearly marked snark

    Dang. (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:30:04 AM EST
    I meant 'clearly marked. /snark'

    Not 'clearly marked snark'.


    You'll be able to see it (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by liminal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    tonight, when CNN puts up the big state map.  The counties that HRC wins will all be full of low-information Appalachians, while the counties that Obama wins will be enlightened, post-racial, highly attractive young Creatives.  /snark.  kind of.

    Can't wait to see (5.00 / 0) (#63)
    by ruffian on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:55:24 AM EST
    how they stretch Appalachia all the away over to rural Oregon.

    Hey! (5.00 / 3) (#85)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:18:41 AM EST
    Apparently they moved the Great Lakes from my beloved Michigan, so I think it will be no problem to move Appalachia over there!

    Nah, only one of the Great Lakes (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:26:03 AM EST
    was moved to Oregon by Obama.  Talk about redrawing the map, huh?

    So, since your beloved state is the only one bordered by four of the five Great Lakes, he still left you with three pretty good ones. :-)  Of course, I lack a copy of his map that has 58 states in these United States, so maybe he has more Great Lakes on his map than we know about, too.


    Maybe that's why (5.00 / 1) (#104)
    by cmugirl on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:44:42 AM EST
    Richardson will be his VP choice - he wants to move the water out of the Great Lakes so people in the deserts of NM can have lawns and gardens!

    Yeh, Richardson really would kill the Dems (5.00 / 2) (#114)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:10:58 AM EST
    in Wisconsin.  We had our fun here with him on that idiocy.:-)

    I think I found the other 7 states..hehehe (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by FlaDemFem on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:13:27 AM EST
    North of the border. If you count up the lower tier of Canadian provinces, you get seven. Add that to the 50 US states, and you have 57 states!!! See??

    Hee. (none / 0) (#68)
    by liminal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:00:38 AM EST
    Well, if you ironed flat the deeply eroded Appalachian plateau, it might well stretch all the way to Oregon.  

    Bill Clinton Causes Protestors To Be Ejected (1.00 / 0) (#163)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:59:49 PM EST
    Bill Clinton Causes Protestors To Be Ejected At Hillary Rally Over Peter Paul Question

    The First American Citizens to Publicly Challenge the Clintons About Hillary's Refusal To Admit Soliciting and Hiding More than $2 million in Illegal Contributions from Peter Paul To Win Her Senate Seat

    Bill Clinton Stumps Murray; Protestors Ousted Saturday, May 17, 2008
    Murray, KY (WKYX) - Former President Bill Clinton's visit to Murray was the first presidential visit to the area since Harry Truman, says the Murray Ledger. Murray was just one of his many stops ahead of Tuesday's primary, stumping for his wife at Murray's Playhouse in the Park, in which he said Hillary could still win the nomination for the Democratic Party. The rally went as well as one could hope and there was a good-sized turnout. Two protesters at the Murray `Hillary Rally' were escorted by police out of the immediate enclosed area. Their sign referenced the Peter Paul campaign funding scandal.


    Read for yourself, does this not matter (1.00 / 0) (#164)
    by jollyf on Tue May 20, 2008 at 01:01:15 PM EST
    Even if you are a woman that wants to see a woman President, does this not matter? Is her integrity not an issue to you? Is this what you really want for your daughers?

    I hope not!



    Isn't KY a bigger state population-wise? (5.00 / 0) (#109)
    by rise hillary rise on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:48:46 AM EST
    1.6M registered Ds? vs. OR with ~ 900K? If this is not correct please advise.

    If I am correct then my head is exploding. OR is a fairly blue state, KY is red, Hillary winning a bigger primary by a huge margin and the MSM can't talk about anything but BO? Ugh.

    my predictions (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by Lupin on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:28:35 AM EST
    KY-01 3-2
    KY-02 3-2
    KY-03 4-4
    KY-04 3-2
    KY-05 4-1
    KY-06 4-2
    PLEO: 4-2
    At Lg 7-4
    TOT 32-19

    Maybe 5-3 in KY-03?

    those numbers seem funny to me .... (none / 0) (#54)
    by Klio on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:47:33 AM EST
    Total Dem registration in 2004 primary was 563,000 but total Dem registration for 2008 primary is 1.6 million?  Doesn't that mean they've added over a million registered Democrats in 4 years?  Am I reading this wrong?

    Reading it wrong. (none / 0) (#58)
    by liminal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:49:41 AM EST
    Yeah, you've reading it wrong.  That means that 563,000 total voters - Democrats and Republicans - turned out to vote in the 2004 primary, not that there were 563,000 registered Democrats in the state then.

    Just under 1.6 registered Dems in 2004 (none / 0) (#62)
    by Klio on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:53:08 AM EST
    that 563,000 is total numbers registered in age code 5 [62 +] and includes others.  Registered Democrat numbers are in the 4th column and total 1,580,000.

    Sorry to be nitpicky like this ...


    I think it is realistic to think AAs would stay... (none / 0) (#66)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue May 20, 2008 at 08:57:57 AM EST
    home if the SDs choose Clinton over Obama after he leads in every metric: pledged delegates, SDs, states won, and sanctioned popular vote.  The only way you could even say Sen Clinton leads in popular vote is if you count both unsanctioned contests (FL & MI) and you disregard the caucus states that don't track votes.  Heck, even with FL he is leading; you have to put your eggs in the basket of MI, where Sen Obama wasn't on the ballot.  To say that all of the uncommited votes there would not have voted for Sen Obama is ludicrous.

    I know that he pulled his name off the ballot; but as Sen Clinton said, that contest wasn't going to count anyway.

    "sanctioned popular vote" is rich (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by lambert on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:12 AM EST
    You mean the popular vote in the two states that so-called democrat Obama disenfranchised?

    Also, Teh Rulez say that the SDs are to exercise their judgment. And the metric your blastfax from Axelrod doesn't mention is the EC, which is the only one that matters in the general. There, Hillary has a decided advantage. The SD system was put in place precisely so that the party wouldn't go over a cliff in the general. Like Obama is about to do.

    Of course, for the insiders in the Obama Movement, it's enough to seize control of the party machinery. That's the must-have. The general is the nice-to-have.


    "Obama disenfranchised"? (3.00 / 2) (#102)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:42:27 AM EST
    I thought it was the DNC that decided to punish those two states. Perhaps you should take up your case with Harold Ickes, who as a part of the DNC voted to punish those two states.

    You are right that the SDs are free to choose who they see as stronger.  It is just that in the primary the numbers have been in Obama's favor and the SDs would have to do some crazy thinking to overturn all of those numbers and risk losing a loyal voting block like the African American block.


    Obama's attorneys (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by txpolitico67 on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:52:15 AM EST
    stopped the revoting.  How, um, democratic.

    That may be, but the fight for the right (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:34:13 AM EST
    to vote by AAs in the South is still strong in the memories of many there -- and in the North, too.  

    I know how heartfelt AAs in my town are in speaking of the significance of having the ballot, many of them having migrated from the South in the era when they could not vote there, many of them having returned there to fight for and assist with voter registration in Freedom Summer, many of them having migrated since and carrying north with them the pride in the right that they won.  

    They don't miss elections.  They also retain a huge admiration for the Clintons.  So I think that the recent polls are correct that show that AAs would turn out well for Hillary Clinton, too.


    Just curious.... (none / 0) (#75)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:10:17 AM EST
    how so?

    kdog, you are a long time poster (none / 0) (#103)
    by hellothere on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:43:40 AM EST
    here. while you disagree with posters on issues, you will debate for the most part in a good natured way and stay to defend your thoughts. whereas posters like alex hit and run in my opinion not for the purpose of sharing and debate. i hope that helps. have a nice day.

    I'll go one further.... (none / 0) (#78)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:12:54 AM EST
    I can't believe how anyone in their right mind could consider voting for Obama, Clinton, or McCain.  All 3 support foreign occupation and war (in actions if not words), drug war, prison nation, police state and the erosion of civil liberties.

    Wake up America!

    i second and third the motion (none / 0) (#92)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:56 AM EST
    Let's end our Military Industrial Complex and reinvest a substantial portion of our defense spending in domestic programs. Let's take care of Americans first. Healthcare for all, free college for all, research and development to break our addiction on oil, nutritious meals for every american and dependency programs for those incarcerated for non violent crimes coupled with job programs. We are so flipping worried about "iran" yet we have so many domestic issues that make us less than progressive, it confounds me.

    Sounds good to me.... (none / 0) (#112)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:02:30 AM EST
    I wouldn't feel slimy paying my taxes into a government with an agenda such as that J.

    It strikes me as irreconcilible (none / 0) (#121)
    by Jlvngstn on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:28:30 AM EST
    that we claim to be the greatest nation on the planet and we give rather readily as a people, yet when we talk about social services from the federal goverment, it is "welfare". Helping our fellow man and woman should be a basic tenet of the union, yet building nukes to "protect" them is always more pressing. There is no representative party for the people as long as the people are incarcerated at world record levels, no universal healthcare, no universal education and defense spending 20x that of any other nation. The left and the right care more about elections than they ever will the common man.

    I do worry though.... (none / 0) (#124)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:39:19 AM EST
    that such a government might ask to much in return for such social programs.  One of my worries about universal healthcare is that I fear the govt. will then think they can tell you what you can eat, what you can drink, what you can smoke, etc. if they are providing the healthcare.

    Sarasota County FLA won't hire smokers...they make you take a nicotine test now.  If that is indicative of what would happen in a universal healthcare scenario, you can keep it.  I cherish my freedom above health insurance.


    But if we did that (none / 0) (#117)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:14:37 AM EST
    we'd be similar to Holland  :-)  I used to have business partners in Holland and they were aghast at the level of social services in the US.  Their tax rate was higher but they would never have traded places with us.  

    I don't wanna be too similar to Holland.... (none / 0) (#123)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 10:35:25 AM EST
    the Dutch govt. will prosecute you for drawing a picture of Mohammed.

    I'll take their freedom loving social policies, but I want free speech too.  The Dutch don't seem to believe in free speech, they've caught the pc bug big time.

    Plus they've banned magic mushrooms, very disappointing.


    They take the "good" society (none / 0) (#132)
    by RalphB on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:04:56 AM EST
    perhaps a bit far in that regard.  However, they are right next door to Germany who had banned and punished "hate speech" since shortly after WWII.  Likely the Dutch just overreacted to the violence over the anti-Muslim cartoons.  Silly but ...

    Agreed. A chatterer -- and for someone (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:13:09 AM EST
    who is here so often, he's not keeping up with the posts and polls on this site about AAs.  Indicates he doesn't want to read and contribute but just wants to chatter, to deride commenters and derail conversation.

    Nobody likes a tattle tale..... (none / 0) (#86)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:19:13 AM EST
    If you don't like the comment, ignore it.

    We need all the people not high on Clinton Kool-Aid we can get around here lately...balance is good.


    I'm ignoring yours... (none / 0) (#90)
    by Angel on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:21 AM EST
    I like to do as Jeralyn asks (none / 0) (#91)
    by Cream City on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:28:34 AM EST
    which is exactly what is done here.  Those on this blog who don't do as Jeralyn asks are the nobodies.

    They also grow... (none / 0) (#83)
    by kdog on Tue May 20, 2008 at 09:16:05 AM EST
    a whole lotta reefer in Kentucky...any chance one of these piker candidates will support allowing the farmers of Kentucky to grow hemp and/or reefer legally so they don't have to risk their freedom and their farm to asset forfeiture to make a living?

    I didn't think so.  But Steve Kubby would.

    OBAMA CAMP Changed Their Mind (none / 0) (#152)
    by JavaCityPal on Tue May 20, 2008 at 11:45:55 AM EST
    They will be very careful to not suggest the primary is over with at the celebration tonight according to FOX News right now.

    I think that announcing victory prematurely... (none / 0) (#160)
    by NvlAv8r on Tue May 20, 2008 at 12:42:09 PM EST
    Would be a mistake.  Better to let Sen. Clinton bow out gracefully.