Clinton 55, Obama 27
Appalachia has always been Obama's weakest territory while Hillary's has been the Midwest. I think this will end up being Obama's worst performance state.
Posted on March 20, 2008 12:39 PM
the big 'o' has some rough waters ahead. not just wv, but pa, kentucky and dont forget north carolina's not exactly falling in line nor is indiana... which is the big surprise. then oregon and OMG!! what if Michigan did vote and florida??? get out those calculators you geeks and start modeling the what if's!!
anyway - i'm totally glad it's all happening, i mean the contention, the racism, the in fighting and media bombast, the hegemony, the whole deal. i just think as i said in a former post, this is a story that is writing itself, the inevitability of it is on the wall already.
it is the parting of the waters for the future first black american president, or to mix my metaphors..the ugly cutting down of the brush to make the real deal happen when it's supposed to happen.... just not yet. not yet.
Posted on March 20, 2008 2:32 PM
The speech Obama gave will go down in history as perhaps one of the top ten speeches ever given in American Politics.
Scholars and historians will analyze it for years to come for its poignancy, context, timing, and honesty.
However, having said that, did enough people pay attention to the 40 minute speech by Obama? Or will many more just remember the 30 second sound bite from Wright? I put the attention span of most Americans slightly under a hyperactive dog with ADD, so that may be unkind for Obama in the next few weeks. The right wing clowns are already spinning this like a top - reminiscent of how they portrayed MLK during the 60's as a radical.
As someone said earlier - the people get a government they deserve. And we have had Bush for 8 years, so what does that tell you? I bet we end up with Bush 3, I mean McCain, in November. Maybe in 4 years, when we get another boatload of younger voters, we will have a chance at a real progressive candidate. Until then, the war-mongers and politicians will win over true leaders I fear.
Posted on March 20, 2008 3:04 PM
Well Clinton certainly isn't going to be the nominee, so are you saying McCain is the likely president for the next 4 years?
Posted on March 20, 2008 3:07 PM
apparently, there is more to come of the same 'rabid pastor' proclivities of obama. another one of his friends/pastors is about to hit the fan, this from a friend who knows and just emailed me. if you think the wright melee was a twister get ready for a typhoon.
again, not an easy month for harvard's good ole boy. though hillary may be in for some cuckolded women transference syndrome: uhh, that would be when a divorcee or two timed dame takes out her own issues on ms hillary and cant deal with her own parameters.
all in all some very yummy entertainment headed our way!! start popping the corn.
Posted on March 20, 2008 3:15 PM
do you have any proof of this 'rabid pastor', or are you just making things up?
if so, post a link.
and are you sure the mccain camp isn't just making stuff up again?
Posted on March 20, 2008 3:28 PM
wait and see.
Posted on March 20, 2008 3:33 PM
Hi all Just want to say that I thought that we have been doing really good at keeping to the numbers and polls, but This one seems to be falling into a possible troll fight please all of us are grown up enough not to do this. But if you feel you absolutely have to say something provide evidence and not just veiled claims of evidence. please
Posted on March 20, 2008 3:42 PM
josh - i agree. i stepped over but here's the quote from a friend in the area who is pretty well plugged in and not too happy about it either:"Revelations are coming out of yet another black minister in Chicago -- an outspoken Obama supporter -- sermonizing in much the same way as Rev. Wright"
more than that i could not give as a friend and for the sake of privacy. is it true? who knows. this person is a retired journalist not given to hearsay. do i know personally that it is true. no.
do i even value the spinners and hucksters who recast facts every which way so that no one anymore knows which way is up? well, who could. it really comes down to connectivity: how directly the candidate is able to break the fourth walls in order to speak directly with you the viewer.
that's why i said, 'wait and see.' i really mean it. let's just wait and see. maybe yes, maybe no. nevertheless, if it is, the web and news should pick it up in the next little bit.
if it does pan out, don't expect more of the same out of me... i have no inside track other than regular people, obamites, clintonites, maccainites all of whom i really enjoy jousting with!!!
Posted on March 20, 2008 4:34 PM
Obama's current problems go way behind the upcoming contests in PA, WV, KY, IN, PR, and potentially NC. There are now several polls out from OH, PA, MA, NJ, FL, MO, and AR that show Hillary easily defeating or tying John McCain in the general election in those states, but McCain defeating Obama. As we all know, FL, OH, and PA have decided the last several presidential elections. We know that early polls aren't always accurate and it is still early, but if these numbers hold (or get worse for Obama) in several polls in these states into June, it's going to be very hard for the superdelegates not to strongly consider this, especially if Hillary is ahead (or tied) with Obama in the popular vote. Obama's strongest demographic groups (blacks, progressives, youth) do not represent a large enough % of voters in most of the states he needs to win electorally. It's historically unprecendented for 2 Democratic candidates to have such polarized supporters, so the national polls are not as meaningful this year as usual. Even if both Dems outpoll McCain nationally, given Obama's demographics, he will have a much harder time winning electorally than Clinton (because of her much stronger appeal with white, working class, Hispanic and Jewish Dem voters), even if he carried the national popular vote.
Posted on March 20, 2008 5:10 PM
Ismakc thank you for explaining it. I guess I missunderstood your statement. I thought you had some sort of video or something. I appreciate your willingness to explain it to me thanks again.
Posted on March 20, 2008 5:38 PM
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/obama-talks-mor.html. I do not think this video will play well with the white swing voters in West Virginia whom Obama is hoping to attract.
Posted on March 20, 2008 6:38 PM
I just heard that The democratic committee is planning to meet and will broker a deal that favors Hillary. America is rejecting Obama, and he have done nothing rather than give the democratic party a blck eye. You can try to steal my name, and do whatever other antics you wish, but THE_TRUTH LIVES FOREVER AND WILL NEVER DIE. OBAMA IS UNELECTABLE, GO CRY, DRINK YOUR LATTE, BLOG YOUR FALSE HOPES AND DREAMS, BUT REALITY IS YOU ARE BEATING A DEAD HORSE. OBAMA WILL BE REMEMBERED AS THE GREATEST, MANIPULATOR, AND DIVIDER OF THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. AMERICANS ARE NOT STUPID.
Posted on March 20, 2008 6:49 PM
Please guys, lets talk about this poll, or at least about topics related to West Virginia.
Does anyone have the cross-tabs from the "premium members only" site?
18% undecided is huge. If they break 5/6 one way or the other, the end result could be 58% to 42%... or 70% to 30%. That's only a couple delegates in the grand scheme of things, but it will result in a very different narrative.
Certainly, Clinton is going to win this state barring her dropping out or getting hit by a huge scandal, but this poll would tell us much more if it had pushed harder on the undecideds.
The Pennsylvania poll had these same problems.
Posted on March 20, 2008 6:54 PM
@ANDREW from wherever,
What are you afraid of? I know, it's the_truth.
Posted on March 20, 2008 6:56 PM
well!!! uh, how to follow.
anyway, here's a thought...
i just finished watching an hour of mathews, an hour of the guy that follows him and they spent the whole thing on obama and race. very noble of them i'd say.
which, gentlemen, take a deep breath, belies the inability, no make that, total black out of sexism. they refused to talk about how hillary is walking the thinnest hairline tightrope so as not to frighten them off. yet they are alas, frightened off anyway and ascribe obama's plight to the higher calling. why yes, then they are priests, thank you brother mathews and gregory and robinson. thank you for leading us into the light.
so, let's address the grandeur of this so called "great' speech, where obama stood up and laid it out and addressed the slings and arrows hurled at him. ouch!! poor dear. it's been a rough three months for him, n-est-ce pas?
i have one word that the priests have failed to invoke which is rather bizarre since it is a parable, make that parallel that is utterly obvious as is their omission:harold ford
why does no commentator ever bring up this name in counterpoint to obama? here is someone who excuse me had more guts, running for office in the deep deep south. a guy whose campaign was hoodwinked, no make that hijacked by the darkest and meanest race baiting.
and you tell me that obama has guts? that obama has style? that obama is brilliant? obama is getting an easy ride because ford took the fall
for him. but why no mention of this?
and why no mention of hillary and what she takes every night in public forums over cable television and the web when she is shut out of discussions because obama worship dominates, because obama woes pre dominate.
just think on it, gentlemen, that's all.
Posted on March 20, 2008 7:17 PM
Patrick I still think that there is a pattern of states decreasing for both candidates and not just Obama. I think generally this is because McCain has been able to avoid the fray of news and people eventually just tune out and vote for the person noone is talking about. I don't think Hillary has a chance just like Obama to win West Virgina and we shouldn't highlight this state so much because of that. Its not even on the radar for being a purple state.
Posted on March 20, 2008 7:21 PM
@ "the truth" - Could you have picked a more ironic name?
"The democratic committee is planning to meet and will broker a deal that favors Hillary"
- I haven't laughed that hard since....when was it....oh yeah, this morning when I read this story:
Posted on March 20, 2008 7:29 PM
the problem with the poll above is it's too far out int the future. almost silly at this point and just an idle talking point.
the ohio people i spoke with knew about this ratio pre-ohio primary. they seem plugged into the trend via friends and family and predicted it with great aplomb - something pollsters have trouble unearthing because the length and breath of their interviews do not relax the person enough to 'chat' and reveal these golden morsels.
Posted on March 20, 2008 7:36 PM
You are right about Harold Ford Jr. He was "lynched" by the right wing racists in Tennesse. But what do you expect from Tennesse, one of the most racist states in the US?
He should have run elsewhere. I always thought he could have been a great leader.
You are right, the race issue had to come out - it had to be dissected and reported and manipulated until it was exhausted. There was no other scenario. The media has become this flaccid, unhonorable entity with it's own agenda, namely making money. Who would love to report on a divisive subject as race every night? Who benefits by destroying the Democratic party? Who gets endless ratings by having a drawn out primary battle? Who would also benefit if AAs and the youth vote call on Obama to run with Hagel in November if his pledged delegate lead is overruled by super delegates?
The lovely media consortium.
Sure the Republicans do too (and conspiracy theorists out there will link them to the media), but the ratings that political fighting generates amounts to cash, pure and simple.
On a tangential note - I love Lou Dobbs - he is like a old grandfather who tries to mask his biases and thinks he is succeeding - and everyone just plays along. Go Lou! You stay "independent" now.
Posted on March 20, 2008 7:43 PM
Well remember Andrew- only states Hillary wins count!
The media has now done a successful job of painting Obama as an angry black man, something every white person (admit it or not) is afraid in varying degrees. You can already see it in the polls. It is funny how all these major news outlets played the pastor's comments on a loop for days, but not many played much (if any) of Obama's speech. Two days later, and one of the most important speeches in American history is completely off the radar. Oh well, it is not like "I have a Dream" was well received at the time. Even today, only a select few know that King's "vietnam" speech was even more poignant and impressive.
Posted on March 20, 2008 7:57 PM
re: "belies the inability, no make that, total black out of sexism. they refused to talk about..."
careful what you wish for! I go back and forth on this - honestly, its probably better for everyone if Matthews et al just keep their horrid thoughts to themselves... then again, when they did open their mouths before New Hampshire, they drove appalled voters in Hillary's direction. hmmmm.
Posted on March 20, 2008 8:13 PM
yup. lou dobbs, if you get him off of immigration for a sec.. is reliably cynical across the board. i like him in this hat best and agree with you.
Posted on March 20, 2008 8:14 PM
Andrew - you're correct. Neither Obama nor Clinton has much of a chance of winning WV in November. Like TX, SC and any number of states that were deemed "important" in the Democratic race this season (e.g. WY & MS most recently), it's a safely "Red" state. But along with PA, KY, IN, NC, and PR, Hillary has a chance to win there and keep the "momentum" for the Dem nomination the media always talks about (creates actually). This nomination is still Obama's to lose (assuming there's not another major scandal) UNLESS Hillary not only wins big in PA and several other states between now and June, but mainly if she is polling much better than Obama against McCain in the most important swing states that Democrats know they have to win electorally in Nov. (esp. FL, OH, and PA). At the moment, this is plausible because her strongest demographic groups happen to make up a huge % of the population in those particular states. And even if FL and MI don't hold re-votes, those delegates will have to be seated somehow and that is likely to give Hillary a boost of some kind. It certainly won't be 50/50, so she is bound to get a bigger share of the delegates than Obama and is very likely to pass him (if only slightly) in the overall popular vote. If she is behind by only 50-60 pledged delegates, has more votes, and is polling better against McCain in June, it could really go either way. So it's not over til it's over...
Posted on March 20, 2008 8:36 PM
"something every white person (admit it or not) is afraid in varying degrees."
That goes a bit too far - it really depends on perspective. I'm not worried about the Angry Black Man. Its the Angry White Man that gives me the willies, esp. their patron saint, Cheney. For Gen-X and younger, the "Angry Black Man" has been pasteurized, commercialized and thoroughly embraced (or suffocated) by mass culture. The now-cuddly Ice Cube, ultra-hip Samuel L. Jackson, the gangsta stuff, and so on.
The "Angry Black Man" has gone the way of Amiri Baraka. The "Angry White Man," on the other hand, is still in his prime - not just Cheney but Matthews, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck - and remains the stuff of nightmares. Mine, anyway.
per your comment at 7:43 - I agree totally. And Lou Dobbs straining to appear reasonable - lol.
Posted on March 20, 2008 8:44 PM
Hmmm.... All this talk of Lou Dobbs and other cable nuts - poor me can only afford basic $13 cable... [am I glad!!] I think I read a couple of Lou Dobbs' columns on CNN a couple years back, and haven't looked at his stuff since.
Also, just wondering - has anybody else followed Senator Obama's speeches after the race speech? The "world beyond Iraq" yesterday in NC and "cost of war" today in WV. I guess the MSM is still digesting the race speech.... and of course, Senator Clinton's "major Iraq speech" got lost in the crowd as well.
Wonder how Senator Rockefeller's backing of Senator Obama affects WV?
Posted on March 20, 2008 9:30 PM
As we all know, large numbers of republicans crossed over and voted for Hillary Clinton in Texas, Ohio and Mississippi. In the coming days, when it becomes known that Hillary�s campaign had ties to the person who covered up Passport-Gate, she will blame it on the state department / republicans and will shamelessly call it another right wing conspiracy. Those Republicans who voted for her will get a taste of her charm. It will be great to watch. Enjoy.
Posted on March 21, 2008 12:41 AM
Hey, check this out:
After the news broke Thursday that two employees of the State Department had been fired and a third disciplined for accessing passport records of Sen. Obama, there are reports of a Clinton connection to the story. It is reported that the State Department official, Maura Harty, in charge of the Bureau Of Consular Affairs during the first two breaches of Obama's passport had served as an ambassador under Bill Clinton. Harty was a consular affairs chief until the end of last month when she retired from foreign service work. Before her stint as the assistant secretary of state of consular affairs, Hardy was an ambassador to Paraguay under Bill Clinton.
Politico is reporting on a recently uncovered photo of Bill Clinton and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. A photograph of Wright and President Clinton, which it says was taken on September 11, 1998 -- the date of a White House gathering for religious leaders. Hillary Clinton, according to her recently-released schedule for the day, was present at the gathering. That is where Clinton reportedly told the assembled clerics, at the depth of the Monica Lewinsky scandal, that he had repented.
Posted on March 21, 2008 2:55 AM
You should be glad. It is like noise pollution. I think my ears are still bleeding from their continued outpouring of verbal rubbish. I just can't watch that nonsense any more. The creation of "news" and the rehashing of it for ratings. They have no one who states what is painfully obvious to any intelligent person. The media in this country, for many years now, has been an absolute joke.
I much prefer bbc.com and other international sources for any sort of intelligent news analysis.
As far as Senator Rockefeller - I doubt it will change things much in WV. However, Richardson's endorsement comes at an opportune time for Obama. The Latino vote will be crucial come November.
Posted on March 21, 2008 10:02 AM
Pat, its the State Department. Plenty of people there were hired or appointed by the BUSH administration. Others came in under Clinton, Bush I, even Reagan. Big deal.
The first thing I thought when the passport story broke was this - its going to be awkward for Obama's campaign to express (rightful) outrage over his travel and other personal records being viewed by others, but invite scrutiny of Clinton's travel records (the attack Axelrod launched earlier yesterday). I know the two issues are substantively apples and oranges - the Clinton records are redacted and meant to be public, Obama's absolutely not - but rhetorically I think the two messages are an uncomfortable fit (don't look at my records; let's look at hers). The passport story might draw the press away from the Wright story(good), but perhaps also muffles his 'WH records show Hillary is a big fat liar' story (bad).
Per Richardson and the VP buzz, I totally get why it would be a smart pick for Obama; not just the latino vote in NM, NV, poss. FL, he's heavy on experience, gravitas, foreign policy. On the other hand, a friend had this reaction when I told him about the endorsement and VP buzz this morning - "what, he couldn't find a qualified white person?" He was having a Jay Leno moment, but I wonder how the endorsement announcement / VP buzz will play butted up against the race story.
But maybe it will prod Edwards into getting on board if he has any interest in an Obama-Edwards ticket.
Overall, I think Obama has had some terrible luck with timing over the past two weeks.
Posted on March 21, 2008 12:33 PM
A real stretch on your part with the whole records argument. Obama has released his tax returns, earmark allocations, and most anything else people have wanted to see. The Clintons in general are secretive people - something that exacerbated Whitewater. Personal passport information is just that, personal - ie SS #'s, govt applications. It is a privacy and security issue. Clinton's mostly redacted first lady papers have shown her to be present at a lot of NAFTA meetings. Up until now, she gave the impression that it was something that her husband wanted and she disagreed with it privately - but supported publicly. Oops.
The question remains - why are things still redacted?
I can pretty much guarantee you the Richardson will NOT be the VP pick of Obama's. I suspect it will be either Webb or Kaine from Virginia. Richardson f-ed up his VP chances when he didn't endorse before NM or Texas. That prolonged the procedure.
I think Kaine is a better fit - bilingual, southern state white male - he fits all the deficiencies of the current Obama constituency. Without a doubt Obama needs a white face on the ticket to appease the fears of the general populace. Sabelius of Kansas is an ok choice too.
Posted on March 21, 2008 1:32 PM
I certainly don't disagree with you that the two "records" issues are completely different. (By the way, the White House records are redacted to protect people's personal information, and whatever other criteria the National Archives has. The Clintons themselves do not and have never had any control over this process - that's been thoroughly debunked).
I just think the two messages make an awkward fit for a public that doesn't pay attention to details. But beyond that, you're right about "noise pollution" - there are so many competing storylines out there.
Kaine would be good. Webb would be a disaster with women voters. I doubt he could pick Sebelius without being accused of pandering to same. Really I think he needs an older white guy with military experience (who is not Webb).
Posted on March 21, 2008 1:49 PM
Apparently not entirely "debunked".
I understand the need for some secrecy as the right wing machinery was salivating to get their mitts on something/anything to hang them with. But after all this time, is full disclosure not essential - especially about policy matters?
Posted on March 21, 2008 2:14 PM
At the end of the day, Obama may pick a woman just as Mondale did "just because she is a woman". But in this case to shore up the base. Most people do not follow politics as closely as you or I. They see a woman who is half-way qualified and they'll vote for her - just because she is a woman. They won't care that she isn't Hillary, in fact they may eventually come to like someone new. Granholm would have been good - unfortunately she is a Clinton supporter. She's hot to boot. Hey - some people vote on looks only - why do you think McCain is going to pick Crist? Youth and vitality never hurt a campaign.
Right now, the party is splintered - easy pickings for the republicans. While I believe in Kaine's ability to campaign, a woman may add to Obama's base and solidify Dem voters. Who knows - maybe time heals all wounds.
Posted on March 21, 2008 2:23 PM
Hmm, looks like the speech worked:
Posted on March 21, 2008 4:09 PM
Comments: (you may use HTML tags for style)
Please be patient while your comment posts - sometimes it takes a minute or two. To check your comment, please wait 60 seconds and click your browser's refresh button. Note that comments with three or more hyperlinks will be held for approval.
Please email us to report offensive comments.
See our comment policy here. Note that we require commenters to share their email address via Typekey. We will never share your email address with anyone without your explicit permission.
MAP - US, AL, AK, AZ, AR, CA, CO, CT, DE, FL, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN, IA, KS, KY, LA, ME, MD, MA, MI, MN, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NJ, NM, NY, NC, ND, OH, OK, OR, PA, RI, SC, SD, TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, WA, WV, WI, WY, PR