My dad was actually arguing with me last night that racists only live in certain parts of the country. All the people who voted for Hillary in WV and KY did so out of racism. In Iowa and WI, there are no racists because there aren't as many AA's. That's why Obama won. Also, that's why Obama won Oregon.

Who was it that Democrats were supposed to have a history of standing up for again?

And "the problem" will not be cured this week, or,
certainly, anywhere near soon enough to satisfy those who really are looking for a club with which to hit Obama.  They won't be appeased.  BTD, not sure whether you're in this club or not.  Can't read anyone's mind.

I think it's safe to say that Obama and his team, who have been successful so far, know these little political campaign 101 tidbits about subgroups that the "experts" here keep hammering on.  

http://politics.nytimes.com/election-guide/2008/results/demmap/

It is interesting that the media doesn't talk about how much Hillary win, just what Obama is able to achieve.  Truth be told, Obama has not been able to break through his initial "coalition" of blacks and college educated voters.  There has been on real cross over and there is nothing right now that would indicated that Obama would get the core Democratic voter and the Independent voter.

The Democratic party has a decision in front of it. Move towards a smart, strong future or support the MSNBC candidate and lose the election for democrats across the country, again.

The media is trying to railroad Clinton out.  The voters, however, are not listening to what Chris Matthews and Nora O'donnell tell them.  In fact, the voters seem to be revolting against this tactic that they see is UNFAIR.

This is the climate as I see it:

If you blame the voters of a state for it's politicians' choices (FLA and MI) then you will lose those voters in the GE.  You will probably also lose the voters in similar states (OH and the Appalachian states).  

This is the solution as I see it:

Seat all the delegates and win back those voters to your party for the long term.  Be confident and not afraid.  It will benefit the party in the long term and win over voters nationwide.

It's about economic poliy. When you only have $30,000 you want to stretch those dollars as much as you can. Hillary appeals more because she emphasizes the parts of her policy that will benefit these folks. It's really that simple.

As I posted above, Obama has won whites without a college education in one state, Wisconsin.  It doesn't appear that he won this demographic in Oregon, either, but even if he did that would make a total of two.

That is one major issue in the press that really bothers me, these two are not the same and Hillary in essence, through policy positions (and I checked votes too) has been morphing into a fire breathing populist.  I am certain this is what is winning the Midwest, working people, especially those looking for manufacturing jobs.  People are responding to that and frankly those are the right positions to turn the US around.  Anything which pushes a candidate into positions that will save US manufacturing, US jobs, revamp trade and so on, well, those are the ones most US voters want and it's not because they are uneducated, it's because they are educated on what needs to happen to improve the US economically!

So, this little public relations mantra trying to imply Clinton voters are somehow uneducated just drives me nuts.

It's not just Kos, either. I really can't see how the Super D's are going for Obama in droves unless he's paying them off (which he is, handily more than Clinton), threatening them (which is perfectly in tune with his more rabid caucus supporters), or promising them high positions in his administration.

And she is nailing it talking about all the generations present and how they have seen change and know what it is and isn't.

This is where she is speaking.

Where she is speaking

It's been years since I've read the book but I remember the author making a point that it's the working class/HS educated that can usually see through political gloss and they've proven time and time again that their votes are grounded and pragmatic. Wish I had the book at hand so I could reread the section.

More interesting to me is that in Kentucky Obama lost not only working class whites but also whites making over 100,000 a year and those with all levels of education. He lost whites with post graduate work by 16 points in Kentucky.

So yes he lost people making less than 30,000 a year (though he won people making 30-50k by a very healthy margin), but by a margin that would have served him very well had he been able to duplicate it in the east.

Obama's supposed strong support among the educated and weathy did NOTHING for him in Kentucky. He lost whites in virtually every category. In Oregon his supposed weakest groups didn't hurt him very much and he won most categories handily.

Hillary has won approx 1/2 million MORE votes than he has since then.

But whatever, even the shell game doesn't make any sense. 46 and 45 percent of a subgroup is perfectly respectable. Nothing magical happens if you add an extra 4.1 and 5.1 percentage points, respectively. If Obama replicates his numbers among Oregon white and working class voters in the fall --- that's not a valid extrapolation, but it's the MO here, and therefore sauce for the gander --- he'll win in a landslide.

Kenyans of African origin do not necessarily have Christian names. That doesn't even make sense. Christian proselytizers would not disqualify anyone based on origin, and neither would Muslim proselytizers. As a matter of fact, Obama Sr's family converted from native religion to Christianity before converting again to Islam.

In WV and KY, some will, most won't.  

I think that means talking directly about economic hardships and the middle-class squeeze that so many of us are facing in our daily lives.

Yeah, I'd love to see Clinton on the ticket -- either at the top, or as the veep -- but if Obama is at the head of the ticket, even with Hillary as VP (don't think it will happen), he has to really start wooing these voters who have rejected him.

The truth is, Appalachia voters haven't embraced Obama. That's entirely different than saying working class whites in general won't vote for him, as the Hillary campaign has repeatedly suggested.

In Kentucky Clinton beat Obama among these voters handily, but the Oregon exit polls show a different story.

In Oregon Obama beat Clinton by sizable margins among all ages of white voters except those 60 and older. And he beat Clinton among voters with no college degree--and since the state is overwhelmingly white, these voters are the ones he's supposed to have trouble with.

Obama beat Clinton by seven points among voters making less than $50,000 (though she won among voters making between $15,000 and $30,000). Obama also won among voters from a household with a union member.

Oregon, a state as favorable as you can find for Obama on [income and education]

Oregon ranks T-8th nationally in unemployment (5.7%), 14th in percentage of uninsured (16.6%), 23rd in poverty (9.2%), 29th in median household income ($46,349), link, and 28th in per capita income, link.

Compare to Ohio:

T-8th in unemployment (5.7%), 40th in percentage uninsured (10.7%), 17th in poverty (10.1%), 31st in median household income ($45,776), 29th in per capita income.

To put the `icing on the cake', on CNN with Anderson Cooper,  Castellanos counteracted Tobin's criticism against those who called her a b**h, saying that she was a B**H and deserved to be called one. This panel did not break out in laughter, I perceived some `discomfort' (they kind-a lowered their eyes), but neither Gloria nor Donna condemned the statement. I JUST CANNOT BELIEVE IT!