Want To Solve Obama's "Appalachia" Problem? Put Clinton On The Ticket

You have all heard a lot about Obama's Appalachia Problem? That's the Obama supporter theory anyway. Well, if you want to solve it, apparently the way to solve it is to put Hillary Clinton on the ticket. Or so sez SUSA's Kentucky polling:

21% of Clinton supporters today say they will support Obama; 20% say they will support McCain. Another 21% say they will support a different candidate or no candidate at all; 37% say it's impossible to say until they know who both vice presidential candidates would be. Should Obama choose Clinton as his running mate, 57% of Clinton supporters say they will back Obama; 13% would back McCain. If Obama chooses John Edwards, 28% would back Obama; 13% McCain. Should Obama choose a woman other than Hillary Clinton as his running mate, McCain picks up more support from current Clinton backers -- 28% go with McCain, and 21% with Obama.

SUSA's general preference polling indicated that 36% of Kentucky voters prefer Clinton (37% go for McCain, 22% for Obama). Doing the math, putting Clinton on the ticket makes Kentucky Obama/Clinton 43, McCain 42. Obama could win Kentucky if he picks Clinton. KENTUCKY! The heart of Appalachia. These numbers are hard to ignore.

By Big Tent Democrat, speaking for me only.

< Gallup: Hillary Gives Obama 5 Point Bump As VP | Howard Wolfson: Hillary is Not Seeking Vice-Presidency >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    And as we were saying (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:13:00 PM EST
    The benefits of this go beyond Kentucky: the jackpots of Ohio and Pennsylvania would be helped immensely by numbers like this.

    Uh oh (5.00 / 7) (#3)
    by standingup on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:16:56 PM EST
    Those da#n Appalachian's are causing problems again. Don't they listen to the media and realize that Hillary has blown her chances as V.P. by not being conciliatory enough Tuesday night? First they voted in record numbers in spite of the media proclaiming the primary over and now this?

    heh (5.00 / 7) (#5)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:19:50 PM EST
    BTW, this looks like evidence that they're not to racist after all. SHHHHHH

    Hillary said..... (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:19:15 PM EST
    that she will work her butt off to make sure there's a Dem in the WH. If she really means it she should accept any offer.
    Which I see as bad for her own chances. If McCain wins she could try again in 2012. If Obama wins she has 2012 or 2016 to try.
    But I believe the ONLY way Obama can win the EVs needed is if she is on the ticket.

    It should be her choice to decide. I wouldn't blame if if she decided not to. But she is still the key - with the EVs and the big Mo.

    Of she's on the ticket, (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by ChiTownDenny on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:23:17 PM EST
    all her supporters need to come out for her.  A loss with her on the ticket could be trouble for 2012.  If she's not on the ticket, whatever....

    We're used to her being blamed for (5.00 / 6) (#9)
    by Edgar08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:25:17 PM EST

    Until Hillary Says (5.00 / 8) (#16)
    by Athena on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:32:42 PM EST
    I'm laughing at the outcry over when she will endorse him.  It's more evidence of her power.

    It's not enough that she lost.  She must be killed.

    The media coronated Obama - and now they're not happy until Hillary actually says he's the nominee.

    Make no mistake - whatever she does in the next 2 days will not be enough.


    Then they will have to wait until (none / 0) (#75)
    by FlaDemFem on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:40:12 PM EST
    after the convention, like everybody else. Except the Obamas, they are sure he is The One.

    Once again (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by cmugirl on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:21:35 PM EST
    Edwards doesn't connect with rural voters.  Wonder why that is...hmmmmmm....

    He connects fine (none / 0) (#11)
    by cawaltz on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:27:32 PM EST
    That doesn't necessarily mean that it'd bring votes to the table though. I have my doubts about his effectiveness within an Obama admistration. Obama's philosophy is the opposite of Edwards. They'd either be at loggerheads or Obama would ignore him.

    Hillary is actually closer and actually has worked with the GOP as Obama is suggesting needs to occur to get rid of gridlock.

    Personally, I'm not ovely thrilled with the idea of giving the GOP an inch. Generally speaking when you give them an inch, they take a mile and give nothing in return.


    If he wins KY, it will only be because he goes (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:22:47 PM EST
    there and lets the people get to know him. He didn't have time a couple of weeks ago. It will have nothing to do with Hillary being on the ticket. (I'm just practicing)

    lol...he shouldn't let them get to know him... (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:19:44 PM EST
    lately the more people get to know him, the more the realize there is no substance, experience, etc.

    I hope finally the idiots in the media will notice (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:26:30 PM EST
    that he does worse with a woman not named Clinton. They keep saying he can pick a woman to get Hillary's voters. It's not her gender, it's her.

    And Tweety just said it again (5.00 / 1) (#18)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:33:45 PM EST
    'cause he says it's Sebelius, according to sources.

    Wonder if she makes his leg tingle, too.


    Wow (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by JustJennifer on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:24:40 PM EST
    I think picking Sebelius would be a terrible choice.  Her tepid response to the last State of the Union was almost enough to put me to sleep.  What would be the benefit of picking someone so dry?  And I thought he just formed his committee?  How could they have decided so fast?

    Think last Sat....They were going to have a (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by PssttCmere08 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    meeting and let everyone participate, but the outcome was already laid out before the meeting...

    Let him pick Sebelius...gets Hillary off the hook and we will be witness to the biggest defeat ever for the dems.


    two obvious benefits of Sebelius (none / 0) (#91)
    by angie on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:37:38 PM EST
    is that (1) she will not take any of the limelight off of Obama (there is only room for one "star") & (2) she's the one choice that makes him look better qualified by comparison.

    The Veep vetting (none / 0) (#109)
    by HenryFTP on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 03:34:04 AM EST
    has been going on inside the Obama team since May. They were smart enough not to publicize it earlier -- they're not entirely tone-deaf about premature triumphalism.

    Sebelius has some family ties in Ohio that would supposedly be helpful to the ticket there -- maybe some Buckeye here can tell us whether there's any truth to that (e.g. I don't think Nancy Pelosi would be terribly helpful in Maryland these days, but then the d'Alessandros aren't quite as prominent as they were in my youth).


    I missed that before. At first (5.00 / 6) (#43)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:58:41 PM EST
    my reaction was . . . wow, that's not good.  But then I reviewed the long list of my family members, and you know what?  I wouldn't vote for any of them to be a heartbeat away from the presidency, either.

    That's my gift to my country -- sparing all of you from my family.  You have enough troubles already.


    Heh. (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:29:04 PM EST
    I'm a sixth or so cousin to Jimmy Carter.  I'd nominate one of mine, but s/he'd a.) lose, b.) endorse Obama, or c.) both...

    I didn't see that before (none / 0) (#62)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:26:38 PM EST
    That you were related I mean.  Did you see Marc Ambinder's post about her today? It was very complimentary  - she does seem like a fine person.  I had to laugh because he says people describe her as "competent, qualified, young, "  then later he said she was a 'youngish 60'.

    Hillary is a 'youngish 62' in my book.  When has a blogger described her as young, even in supposedly quoting someone else?


    That said, fine as she may be (none / 0) (#66)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:28:52 PM EST
    I'monthe record here as thinking this would be the worst possible choice as far as winning Hillary supporters back.  Best to just pick the white man of his choice

    She is a fine person (none / 0) (#92)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:38:22 PM EST
    but I think she's delusional if she thinks Obama can come anywhere near a win in Kansas.

    Yep, there are a couple of Dem members of Congress there, but Dole and Kassebaum owned those Senate seats for eeeeeever.  I don't think there's been a Dem Senator from KS for at least forty years.

    They just don't have the numbers.  The population is in Wichita, two college towns (Lawrence and Manhattan), and the Kansas City suburbs.  Only the latter three will go even a bit Dem and even then not by much.  I seem to remember Dennis Moore, the member from K.C. (who hasn't endorsed a candidate yet, I don't think) has had a couple tough re-elects.


    But that's just one state in Appalachia! (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by lilburro on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:30:50 PM EST
    What of South Dakota?!  Or Puerto Rico?!

    As someone else pointed out on the other thread, Clinton does well with Hispanics (not an Edwards strength?), women, and the blue-collar in general.  What is the Edwards coalition?  There isn't one.

    Obama can't choose Hillary. She (5.00 / 3) (#13)
    by WillBFair on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:32:12 PM EST
    would overshadow him. And Hill and Bill togather would make him look like cold soup. Of course we need them to actually govern the place. But the powers that be, who put Obama here in the first place, will not allow it. They're already making the stupid argument that putting her on the ticket would silence his 'change' chorus.
    And I don't want her in the second spot. Whey should the Clintons step in to fix things after the way they've been treated? Let Mr. Wonderful try to get us out of the jam, that is if he even makes it to the presidency. If he doesn't, I'm leaving the party.
    This will be the second time the dingbats have screwed us over. And that's two too many for me.

    Sorry, BTD, but we're gonna win Kansas (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:32:16 PM EST
    'cause Tweety just called it, from inside sources blah blah blah: It's Sebelius.

    Is that all it takes to turn Kansas blue?  Well, then, heck -- why didn't the Dems just put a purty  Kansas woman on the ticket before?  Y'know, it's not at all the same as putting a New York woman on the ticket.  Naw.  What would that bring to the ballot?

    Oh, I can hardly wait to hear Ferraro on this. :-)

    Wow, only McCaskill would make me more (5.00 / 2) (#19)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:35:14 PM EST

    Oh Teresa, can't you just wait.... (5.00 / 6) (#23)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:42:43 PM EST
    ...to be called anti-women too, along with all the other labels we've acquired during this campaign.

    CNN tagline "Obama's Her-dle" (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by bjorn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:49:28 PM EST
    I didn't listen but saw this tag line when they showed a snippet of Candi Crowley's interview with Obama, they labeled it "Pitch to women."

    Ohhh nooo, I can just see the emails (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:52:58 PM EST
    I'll get from my Obaman brothers and others now:  "But, but, you wanted a woman on the ballot.  So we gave you a woman."  

    (Just like men "gave" women the vote.)  

    "What do you women want?"

    (I always really appreciate being "you women."  It makes me feel like I must have two heads or something, to be addressed as a plural.)


    Same here. (5.00 / 6) (#29)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:59:02 PM EST
    But with Clinton out of the race, I'll just ignore them. I'm going to be that obtuse undecided voter that drives everybody crazy.

    I Think McCaskill As A VP Choice Could (5.00 / 8) (#28)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:58:21 PM EST
    actually make me vote for McCain.

    Can't imagine she would even (none / 0) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:42:17 PM EST
    make the long list. Is her experience any better than his? Other than being a woman, what does she bring? She capable of taking over the presidency?

    Comments closed on the other thread (5.00 / 2) (#90)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:33:49 PM EST
    but when I read that business about "my daughters see the world as a different place because Hillary ran for President," I swear to God steam ran out of my ears while my head turned around on my neck and I spit pea soup a la 'Exorcist'...

    Seriously!  The nerve of him!  I know he's just flogging the whole "unity" schtick, but the more stuff like that he says, the more hopping-mad furious I get.  

    As far as Kentucky goes, I live on the border of TN/KY and hear a lot about politics in both states.  Hillary could have won Tennessee and maybe Kentucky.  I don't think she can save Obama in either state, though.  He's simply got too much baggage and is too inexperienced.

    People are just not going to buy his "change" rhetoric, plus a million reasons we've all outlined here before.  Frankly, I think they'll be angry that Party elders thought they could flimflam them by nominating someone so green, and I think the general sense - so far at least - is that the Party doesn't value their votes by thinking about what they'd want here.

    People will stay home in droves.  I'm convinced of it.


    I so hope Tweety's source is correct! (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by nycstray on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:39:15 PM EST
    [never thought I would say that!]

    It would REALLY show Obama's understanding ;)


    I think it was BTD who posted yesterday (5.00 / 3) (#78)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:46:24 PM EST
    on Obama's lack of personal connection to voters, as contrasted to Bill Clinton who connects so well. (Bad summary of the post).  This is a good example of that, IMO.

    Anyone with any empathy would see immediately what a bad idea Sebelius is, no matter how much Obama likes her.

    Someone else who was very surprised to hear about the negative attitude of Hillary's voters to Sebelius: Chris Matthews.  I rest my case.


    he's usually wrong (none / 0) (#93)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:41:45 PM EST
    about everything

    Ah well, but..... (5.00 / 11) (#22)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:40:46 PM EST
    ...Hillary doesn't deserve to be the first female vice president, but Sibelius does because she had the judgment to back Obama from the beginning. LOL.

    Just kidding, of course.

    I swear sometimes I think Obama camp will be happy if he only wins 2 states in November....Illinois and a red state, any red state.


    She Gave A Great Obama Clone State Of (5.00 / 5) (#30)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:02:16 PM EST
    the Union rebuttal. In fact, it was so clone-like that I wondered back then if the Dem leadership would go out of their way to ensure an Obama victory.

    Two candidates putting us to sleep with hopey, changey rhetoric would be great for the party. The only question would be which party.


    I watched that rebuttal..... (5.00 / 4) (#32)
    by Maria Garcia on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:10:53 PM EST
    ...but I swear I don't remember one thing about it.

    Go back and listen to it again. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:22:54 PM EST
    It was a promotional speech for Obama's hopey/changey campaign.

    Yes it was (5.00 / 5) (#71)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:33:33 PM EST
    I said at the time that it was Obama's stump speech delivered by an animatronic woman.

    You're seriously insulting (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:04:32 PM EST
    animatronic women.  They're more lifelike than Sebelius was.  

    She's the only Gov. I've heard who can compete (none / 0) (#72)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:35:59 PM EST
    with my Gov. (Bredesen-TN) as the most boring speaker ever. Or John McCain from the other night.

    I heard a pretty good rumor (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:43:45 PM EST
    Bredesen's been offered short list for VP.

    Of course, dope that he is, today he told a reporter for the Nashville City Paper that Obama can't win Tennessee.

    Seriously, I had to laugh.  Way to motivate volunteers and get them to donate money, dude!


    It was awful. Her delivery put me to sleep (5.00 / 7) (#33)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:12:11 PM EST
    then, when I really was trying to listen.  Now, I wouldn't even try.  

    We've seen this before, haven't we?  The women picked by men for promotion must be no threat whatsoever -- not from the top tier but from the second tier.  And then, when such women perform exactly as one would expect -- i.e., competently but not brilliantly -- it just goes to show that women aren't good enough for the top tier.  

    It's such a good system.  For guys.


    Oh yes, Cream City (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by stxabuela on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:54:17 PM EST
    Of course, there were always the same two reasons given as to why outstanding women weren't promoted.  Those who sought promotions by letting their excellent work speak for itself were told they should have spoken up about their desires to be promoted.  Those who were open about wanting a promotion were told they were too "pushy." Classic double-bind.  

    One more thing, (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:03:21 PM EST
    I hope the old Hillary (I suppose I could have baked cookies) would come back just once and tell them, on record, to kiss her ar*e.  I will pay a month's salary for that clip.  

    you deserve a 50!! Great comment. (none / 0) (#82)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:01:36 PM EST
    Exactly my experience, but you put it much better than I could.  

    Second-tier and no threat.  

    BTW, it's an insult to all women to let Hillary be VP.  She is head and shoulders above all these idiots.  I hope she doesn't accept it.  


    I think Sebelius must have (5.00 / 2) (#79)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:47:49 PM EST
    made him a nice plate of waffles.

    Please, please, Hillary, save his butt (5.00 / 3) (#17)
    by Prabhata on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:33:38 PM EST
    Give me a break!

    Nah, he wouldn't want a racist (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Cream City on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:47:23 PM EST
    on the ticket.  No way he can have Hillary, then, huh?  What if, gasp, she even mentions LBJ again?

    Orders to new VP:  Never, ever say nice things about former Dem presidents.  Reagan, though, that's okay.

    But , But She Can't Be The VP (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:06:20 PM EST
    She has not been properly vetted.

    For those whose snark meter is malfunctioning: Snark!


    That ship has sailed (5.00 / 5) (#34)
    by stillife on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:13:52 PM EST
    long ago, when Obama dissed both Clintons.  He has run on the ticket of hope and change (whatever that means) and cast Bill and Hillary as purveyors of old-style politics.  Heck, half his campaign, IMO, was based on dissing the Clinton legacy.  

    Barack needs to dance with them that brung him.  The DNC is supporting him precisely because he is the anti-Clinton candidate.  And now he needs her to get those pesky low-information hicks? What delicious irony.  Cry me a river.  He's gonna have to solve this problem on his own.

    Another argument in favor of Clinton as VP??? (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by dwmorris on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:15:52 PM EST
    If there is a September/October surprise that renders Obama unequivically unelectable --- can he withdraw from the ticket leaving Clinton at the top? Is this allowed under our election laws?

    Asked this in a previous thread as well.

    The 'Appalachia Problem' was an illusion (5.00 / 4) (#38)
    by RonK Seattle on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:31:22 PM EST
    If DHinMI had crosschecked his non-Appalachian bases of white Obama support against the list of caucus states (where Obama's popular margins were greatly exaggerated), he'd have seen the theory evaporate.

    Yep (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:24:42 PM EST
    It was nonsense.

    RonK (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by ghost2 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:18:26 PM EST
    since there is now a PUMApac, could you link to it in your signature? Just wondering!

    I just love the idea of P.U.M.A.

    On 'Appalachia Problem':

    In all fairness, I first heard of this not through dk, but through the incomparable Jay Cost, who drew attention to the great analysis of Sean Oxendine (who I believe is a Republican), and who in fact predicted the blowout in KY and WV.  See this article by the latter, published April 03/2008:

    No Really. Hillary Has a Decent Shot

    The article provides one of best analysis of a race that I have ever seen. The maps will blow your mind away.  He did this after OH, but before PA voted.  

    His quote on May09/2008:

    "Appalachia didn't budge [on Tuesday]. She is going to absolutely blow him out of the water in West VA and KY."

    Hillary connected amazingly to working class rural voters, and Sean was the first to see it.  


    It could be why Obama will lose (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:48:48 PM EST
    I know I've said this so often people are tired of reading this, but three states have voted for the winner in every Presidential election since 1960:  Missouri, Ohio, Tennessee.  All of them are full of blue-collar voters.

    Now, whether this all is cause or effect, I couldn't say (people win because they carry these states, or they appeal everywhere else and THEN carry the three states).  But if it's the former, Obama's doomed.


    I remember reading (none / 0) (#112)
    by ccpup on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 08:13:12 AM EST
    that Kerry actually lost in 2004 because he lost the rural vote.

    Leads one to believe that if you can lock in the rural vote, you can get the Presidency.


    As a working stiff (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by glennmcgahee on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:36:54 PM EST
    I don't want Clinton to be the Vice Presidential candidate. Let Obama come up with his own policies for once instead of repeating hers. He has too many problems for her to defend and they will be brought out by the Republicans. She was too good a Democrat to destroy another dem. McCain gets elected - 1 term. Clinton continues in the Senate. We elect her in 2012.

    Except I'm practical. (5.00 / 3) (#47)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:07:56 PM EST
    Look, I'd rather have Obama in office cribbing off HRC than John McCain in office cribbing off the stinkin' corpse of Ronald Reagan.  And if Obama is going to crib, might as well be from the best, right?

    i like that idea (1.00 / 4) (#45)
    by Jlvngstn on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:05:28 PM EST
    every one of the whiny clinton supporters, not the policy supporters, but the whiny miserable ones should vote for McCain. And encourage their friends to vote for McCain. And maybe he will win. then in 4 years, you can all bring her to the white house because everyone will see that we were all so wrong.

    Pop Quiz (5.00 / 7) (#44)
    by pcronin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:04:05 PM EST
    What do these 11 states with 116 Electoral Votes have in common?

    New Hampshire
    West Virginia

    Answer: Bill Clinton carried all of them in 1996 ... and they went Republican in both 2000 and 2004... AND,

    ... Hillary won 9 of the 11 - 82% - in these elections and only lost Missouri by 1.4% (11,000 of 802,000 total votes)  but she won 110 out of the 115 counties. And, recent polls showed Clinton leading McCain in Missouri.

    She won the first 9 states listed. Her margin of victory, 1,160,449 votes out of 6.3 million cast... a whopping 18.5%.  Those states represent 96 Electoral votes.

    Of them, truly Arizona is the only one off the table in the General - because it's McCain's home state - and as an Arizonan, I know McMain is popular here and will hold AZ.

    However, those other 8 states she won hold 86 EV - a full 32% of the 270 needed to win back the Whitehouse.

    So, can Hillary help Obama in Appalachia? Yes, and in many other states too.

    But as I said in another post: He's the Presumptive Nominee and thereby should be able to stand and deliver on his own strength and merits!

    Oh, wait a minute: he won based on a highly disproportional pledged delegate system that filters-out or completely locks-out nearly 1.9 million would-be voters in the 13 states that gave him a buffer of nearly 300,000 votes and 152 pledged delegates.

    He won through the caucus system. Those states that can help you rack you a lot of delegates based on very low turnout and votes... but alas only have 74 total EV.

    Oh, and he won in 80% of the deepest-Red states that Democrats haven't won since 1964 to 1976.  22 of his 30 states-won were Red states or caucus states!

    It's finally for some truth-telling and medicine-swallowing:

    Obama based his strategy on winning the Dem nomination - NOT on keeping his eye on the ultimate prize, the Whitehouse ... like Hillary had the wisdom to do!

    NOW, his near-sighted strategy is going to haunt him.

    So, like I mentioned in a different post: Let that guy iron his own shirts!!!

    Boy, payback's a barack isn't it?

    speaking only for me.
     -- peniel cronin

    Exceptional post, Peniel (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:20:57 PM EST

    The Democrats and media are trying very hard to dismiss Hillary Clinton right now.

    Her true supporters are not so quick to erase any knowledge and/or memory of her extraordinary value to this country.

    I remain her supporter until the convention confirms who officially is voted the nominee.

    The information you contribute is fantastic. Thanks!!


    JavaCityPal (5.00 / 4) (#85)
    by pcronin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:23:25 PM EST
    Thanks. I'm a bit perturbed right now at how so many want immediate embrace of Obama ... no matter how much he diminished the Clintons.

    I think about the youth following him. I wonder how many are old enough to remember how good of a President Bill Clinton really was. He had his faults ... but he got this country back on the right track after 12 years of supply side economics that was piling up so much debt that it was threatening every important social program.

    Obama has insulted and diminished the Clintons ... and these young followers, have become bashers. What does that say for our Party's future? Or for the civility of politics in general?

    And, Obama chose his path to the nomination by focusing on the caucuses to build an insurmountable delegate lead and not taking aim at a longer-term goal of winning in November.

    Can Hillary help him?  Yes. She ended with 311 Electoral Votes and 227 of them are in  purple and blue states ... those where we're best positioned to win in November.

    So, when I say it's time for him to face his own losing strategy and stand or fail on his own message and merits ... I mean it!

    Let that prove his worth as a nominee. Then if he is found wanting ... the delegates at the convention can correct their votes and support Hillary. That's why we have a convention.


    For how passionate the supporters had been (none / 0) (#104)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:10:38 PM EST
    I, too, find this sudden acceptance of loss and VP discussions rather disturbing.

    It was a long and stressful process, and it did not conclude with a true winner. Obama has gamed the rules and the processes all along, and using superdelegates to push his numbers only created an illusion of victory. Had he been running against a man, the DNC and the media would have challenged the legitimacy.

    I so agree with you on how he and his campaign did all they could to diminish the Clintons. Bill Clinton returned to his private sector speaking engagements today, and I sincerely hope he will calmly, and succinctly tell Obama that he and Hillary reserve their campaigning until after the candidate is announced at the convention.

    They would do better to give their campaign efforts to the downticket candidates who are trying to unseat Republicans in the Senate and House.

    Short of a series of public apologies from Obama to the Clintons, with full acceptance of the attempts to demean the Clintons he made, the opportunities to publicly denounce the Keith Olbermann's, Chris Matthews, and General McPeaks he ignored, and his own disgusting hand gestures against our former First Lady & sitting U S Senator he remains unelectable to me.

    Hillary needs her supporters energy and focus until this is truly decided at convention. I still believe she will be the nominee.


    Can we all stop the crappy ratings (even (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:22:49 PM EST
    though I'm giving the Spectator dude 1's, but he deserves them).

    We're mostly all friends here. andgarden is able to move on faster than many of us but he's still on our side.


    have never used the rating system (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by pcronin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:29:14 PM EST
    If I have anything to say, I do so outright. Its much healthier and more honest to be assertive than aggressive or passive-aggressive.

    Ugh (4.50 / 2) (#48)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:08:29 PM EST
    You know, I understand what you're saying, but the primary is over. The focus has to be on winning in November. I am certain that for Hillary it is.

    I really don't like this comment much because it implies that a moral victory is more important than keeping John McCain out of the White House.


    I heard something interesting on the radio (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:17:31 PM EST
    today. I work in the boonies 30 miles away and I was searching for something to listen to. I happened across something that sounded political so, of course, I had to listen. It turned out to be some Republican guy that was a big official with the party but I can't remember his name.

    Anyway, this guy was talking about how they will run against Obama. He said they will frame it as going back to the 60's...big spending, big govt, etc. I thought that was interesting that they aren't going to run against going back to the 90's. One, because the 90's look pretty good now, even to them, and two, they really don't want to offend Clinton supporters.

    This is OT to your discussion but I found that conversation very strange to hear a Republican skip right over Bill Clinton while dissing the Democrats.


    Well, Obama disowned the Clintons (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:52:03 PM EST
    Which at the time I thought was both an outrage and a mistake, and I guess I still think it is.  It may be a mistake that bites him in the ass HARD.

    UGH (5.00 / 6) (#77)
    by pcronin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:46:06 PM EST
    RE: "I really don't like this comment much because it implies that a moral victory is more important than keeping John McCain out of the White House."

    What it implies is that Obama did everything in his power to make the Clinton's seem so "yesterday" ... the bridge to the past. He took the easy road to the nomination by focusing on delegates ... not by how to ultimately win the Presidency.  So now, Hillary should come in and be his strength ... help Him win the Whitehouse ... only he should get the power and title?

    Let me spell out exactly what I implied:

    The moral victory would be to let him stand on his own merits and win on his own message. Or not.

    Then, by convention time, if he has not been able to do so, then the delegates and supers can change their minds and votes and suppport the nominee who would best represent us AGAINST McCain ... and best lead this nation into the future.

    He is the "presumptive" nominee. Its not official till the convention.


    My bottom line (4.00 / 1) (#81)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:54:26 PM EST
    is that there is no moral victory in losing. Obama stepped on a lot of people and groups on the way up, including me. But you know what, that's politics. And in an election this close, it doesn't surprise me that it took a backroom deal to win. Hillary, I am sure, would have done the same.

    But I am also sure that Hillary cares about the good of the country and the party, and she has said repeatedly , and I agree, that the paramount goal must be to put a Democrat in the White House come January.


    andgarden - we concur (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by pcronin on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:50:29 PM EST
    on most of your points.

    But winning at any cost? Even stepping on people/groups and backroom deals... No. There we differ. And, I also don't believe "Hillary, I am sure, would have done the same."

    You are correct that there's no moral victory in losing. But there is no moral victory or soul-ethics to winning at Any cost.

    My bottom line: Obama chose his path to victory. It was short-sighted and it was flawed. So, now let him walk his path of choices-made till the convention. His strengths will prove him worthy of being President, or not. If he is not, then delegates can change their minds and votes and endorse the real winner and strongest leader: Hillary Clinton.

    This is ultimately the same lesson each parent has to learn with their kids: If you constantly bail them out, they never will learn from their mistakes and know their own strength.

    Hillary should not keep Obama from his own choices or bail him out of his own self-made electoral vote problems.

    We give "presumptive" status to a nominee until the convention for this very reason.


    Actually... (none / 0) (#98)
    by Alec82 on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:54:21 PM EST
    ...I really doubt this.  He fought for the nomination strategically.  Senator Clinton fought for the nomination on name recognition and early dominance in the polls.  She had plenty of advantages, but they wanted a Super Tuesday blowout.  When it became clear that the contest was not going to end on that date, they developed the concept of firewall states (TX, OH, PA) to score overwhelming victories, and opted not to contest the votes in between.  

      Regardless, I really doubt her ability to win KY, TN and WV.  Oh yes, I know, we've seen the polls indicating she would win there in November, but color me skeptical.  I would bet on that as much as the purported "tie" in IN according to electoral-vote.com  The battleground states will be what they were in 2004, essentially.  


    Not trying to be a brat, but (none / 0) (#102)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:06:24 PM EST
    do you live here?  If you do, you'll have a different perspective than someone who's basing an opinion on something like polling.  

    I don't think Hillary would have been a shoo-in in Tennessee.  Especially not this year, since Memphis is hugely AA and I'm sure Obama would have played the martyr card had he not been the nominee.

    However, I think she'd be hugely popular in many rural-ish states in west and middle Tennessee, which together typically carry state elections (blood-red east Tennessee has more residents, but mid and west outweigh it when they vote together.)

    The more I think about it, the more I do think it would depend on what had happened when Obama exited the race.  Had it been a few months ago - say, for example, he'd been drummed out for his profound inexperience - she'd have had a much better shot.

    But given his proclivity for throwing elbows, I think in any event he'd have ruined things here for her as well as himself.  

    Which is why, in a way, I almost think the current dynamic is for the best.  Hillary steps aside, he sinks under his own weight, Hillary runs in 2012.  I can't imagine McCain would do such a good job he wouldn't be at least somewhat vulnerable.


    rural-ish counties, I mean n/t (none / 0) (#103)
    by Eleanor A on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:07:06 PM EST
    The truth about Appalachia (5.00 / 7) (#53)
    by ChuckieTomato on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:20:08 PM EST
    You can't call people racists, bigots, clingy, have a twenty year association with two racist pastors, and then go back in November and ask for their vote.

    That water is under the bridge.

    Isn't the other stereotype about them (5.00 / 3) (#74)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:38:57 PM EST
    that they cling to their feuds?  Obama will be like a Hatfield campaigning in McCoy country.

    According to George Will on FOX tonite (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by kenosharick on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:22:07 PM EST
    there is no such problem. He said all of Hillary's supporters "will fall into line once they realize McCain is pro-life." I guess we are all too STUPID to have known that so far. This is exactly how the SDs and DNC were thinking; they are taking us for granted and I say they may be in for a big surprise.

    That's almost funny (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:31:52 PM EST
    And, when George Will realizes the demographic is beyond childbearing years, he'll see that's no longer a big issue for us.

    The youth vote that bulldozed through the caucuses need to make sure they back the candidate who can win if that's an important issue for them.

    Isn't abortion a state issue?


    I don't think (5.00 / 3) (#73)
    by Nadai on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:36:49 PM EST
    George Will has ever delved that deeply into women's reproductive capacities.  It's icky and it has nothing to do with baseball.

    HRC won't solve Obama's Appalachia problem (none / 0) (#15)
    by pluege on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:32:30 PM EST
    Want To Solve Obama's "Apppalachia" Problem? Put Clinton On The Ticket

    I think that solves a very small percentage of the problem. I think the problem is much much bigger than being implied. I don't think HRC's "Appalachia" support was so much pro-HRC as it was an anyone-but-Obama vote and HRC was the only alternative. With Obama atop the ticket, I don't think Clinton nor anyone else solves most of the problem.  

    Where HRC as VP helps Obama demographically is the many women who feel Obama treated her poorly and in general is not a friend to women's issues. (Note, HRC is the ONLY women for Obama's ticket - anyone else is just more disrespect.) HRC would also give him much needed, otherwise missing gravitous.

    This poll invalidates just about everything (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 07:38:35 PM EST
    you say.

    No it doesn't - read it (none / 0) (#35)
    by pluege on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 08:15:46 PM EST
    BTD takes a bunch of numbers to make inferences so you'll connect a bunch of dots that aren't there and come to the same conclusion he has - in other words - you've been had.

    Please God... (none / 0) (#49)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:14:29 PM EST
    Let him ask her.  They are meeting right now.  We need Hillary.  They look great together.  It would be a landslide.

    I remember your diary on DKos when you (5.00 / 2) (#52)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:19:45 PM EST
    went to work for Hillary that week in NH. I know how bad you wanted her to win. I admire you for what you did.

    The country needs her. (5.00 / 5) (#57)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:22:00 PM EST
    She's become a far better leader since then.  Just like RFK, she didn't change the country, it changed her.  I hope he picks her.  We'll win Reagan style.

    I may get there but right now, I can't get past (5.00 / 4) (#63)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:27:28 PM EST
    the hate. I may later but I need to see some genuine sucking up. I ask my mother today what she would do if Hillary is on the ticket. She just groaned and said it would be hard not to vote for her. I know you and BTD are right but I hate to give in to the powerful people who got us in this mess.

    I'm listening to Donna B. right now bragging that Obama has taken control of the DNC now, etc. Ugh.


    Ha. Seemed to me he had pretty good (5.00 / 3) (#80)
    by ruffian on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:51:20 PM EST
    control of the DNC last weekend.

    She's possibly the best campaigner (5.00 / 5) (#65)
    by andgarden on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:28:45 PM EST
    I've ever seen. She is clearly every bit her husband's equal, and then some.

    I would have had no idea about that before this year.


    Agreed. (5.00 / 7) (#69)
    by masslib on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:32:07 PM EST
    But it wasn't even true a year ago.  She was great campaigning for Bill though.  You are probably too young to remember, but women voted for the two-fer.

    I agree. (none / 0) (#105)
    by liminal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:14:19 PM EST
    With everything you said, masslib.  I saw her several times in West Virginia, including once when she just stopped in to church.  She's become a fantastic campaigner, and as great as Bill was, I thought she connected better.

    She has a lot of fans out here.  Obama could learn a thing or twenty-seven hundred from her.


    I remember the last time he called a (5.00 / 5) (#64)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:28:07 PM EST
    meeting with her. It was the day the first Rev Wright tapes were being played publicly and he asked her to join him in agreeing to stop the negative campaigning both sides felt was going on.

    A few days later, KO did his vulgar commentary against her and Geraldine Ferraro was skewered.

    I just don't trust him.

    Hillary will do what is best, and I sincerely hope she includes what is right for her in the decision.


    One of my pre-conditions would be to totally (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by Teresa on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:32:10 PM EST
    isolate Keith O. from the campaign. I wouldn't let a single supporter that I could control appear on his show. He needs to be put in his place and Obama is the one who can do it.

    what do you mean (5.00 / 4) (#67)
    by waldenpond on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 09:29:46 PM EST
    they are meeting right now?  They have got to be exhausted.  I'm surprised if she was pushed to go out this weekend.  I would have said.. I need to have a celebration with my peeps and I'm friggin' exhausted.  Give me a week.'     Sh!t, they've never done this cr@p to anyone running for office.

    I would (none / 0) (#86)
    by BrandingIron on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 10:28:29 PM EST

    voluntarily give up a finger on my left hand to see a McCain/Clinton ticket.

    For real.

    THAT is called REAL unity.

    Like others have said above, Obama already laid waste to the entire Clinton legacy and dissed them both ten times to Sunday.  McCain, on the other hand, has extended the olive branch and has (lately) been civil and respectful of Clinton's accomplishments.

    There IS such a thing as a split ticket.  Clinton doesn't have to give up her Dem label to run with a Republican.  

    And that ticket would sweep the floor with Obama/Whoever.

    Well, it's just the first game of the series BTD, (none / 0) (#100)
    by carmel on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:03:53 PM EST
    but what a come back for the Celtics! And the Red Sox won tonight too! And the Sox had a really big rumble on the field with the Devil Rays. Does this foreshadow things to come for the Hillary/Obama meeting tonight? Let me guess BTD, you probably like the Giants, and of course, I'm with the Patriots. That game didn't work out so well for the Pats this year.

    I dont think I want her (none / 0) (#107)
    by Amiss on Thu Jun 05, 2008 at 11:55:34 PM EST
    to be on the ticket with him, I think there would be too much gutter-sniping from the Michelle's that would personally be hurtful to Hillary and I think she has had enough of that. And, I might add, if he puts another female on the ticket, it will totally blow it for him in November for sure with Hillary supporters, IMHO, at least.

    and (none / 0) (#108)
    by ghost2 on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 01:49:48 AM EST
    Obama's 95% support among AA was just dandy? His campaign's race baiting was OK? Jesse Jackson Jr. threatening primary challenge to AA congresspeople was fine?

    Give me a break!

    That poll meant the folks were mad as heck at the way they had been treated by the media and by his campaign.  Plus, it made no news in the previous polls when the majority of people saying gender or race being a factor voted for Obama.

    Don't go cherry picking exit polls, please.

    so, if i read this correctly, (none / 0) (#110)
    by cpinva on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 04:18:21 AM EST
    obama is so disliked in KY, that putting clinton on his ticket only gives him a 1 point margin over mccain. yeah, that'll do it!

    let's be blunt here, sen. obama ran a "winning" primary campaign, with no thought whatever to anything beyond that. he's managed to completely alienate the very voters he needs to win in the GE, and no amount of attempted damage control is going to change that, between now and nov. 4th.

    so, i hope he enjoys his brief victory, because it's probably the last one he'll have. whoever thought this guy was ready for the big leagues should have their collective heads examined.

    Obama thinks (none / 0) (#111)
    by melro on Fri Jun 06, 2008 at 07:36:32 AM EST
    he can win on his own merit, and half of America has been mislead to think so also, totally ignoring 18 million other voters, then let THEM get Obama elected. He's a big fundraiser. Money can buy anything in America remember.

    I've listened to Obama and was willing to vote for him as an alternate but after the DNC's decisions, politicians at the top that ignore the whole political election process and tell Hillary to wind it up by the end of the week, and a media that is pretty much owned by the wealthy and not to be taken seriously ever again, I'm not voting at all for the first time in my life.

    That and the fact that I am from Michigan and after giving monthly donations to the Democratic party for two years my vote was cut in half because Obama failed twice to put his name on our ballot. Then to insult me more, MI Reps/politicians who I once admired gave away Hillary's delegates to Obama.

    Now someone ask me to vote at all in the next election even for the senate/rep spots.  I have never, will never vote Repug, so there you are.