It's not racism that won WV. HRC is now a niche candidate.

It's not racism that caused the blowout, it's that HRC basically attached herself like a leech to Appalachia in order to win Pennsylvania.

For good reasons, people in the Appalachian areas have suspicions and resentments of outsiders, and HRC remade herself into a rural Appalachian white person fighting for them against 1) San Fransciscans 2) Economists 3) Democratic Activists 4) Those blacks playing the race card.  She appeared on O'Reilly.  She drank.  she pumped gas.  She fumbled with coffee machines at the quick-mart.  She went on about hunting.  

And no mention of gays, or mandates, or abortion, or the supreme court, or a rainbow coalition.  Shhhhhhh. It's not about what you are for.  It's about who you are against.  

She joined the culture war on the red side.

It's basic politics of division, again, this time dividing democrats.

Obama wants to get past that sort of thing, and the good news is.....HRC has lost ground nationally.

Turns out...even white working class people in other states aren't all that much like Appalachian people. Whites are too diverse, even working class whites.  Most are younger than WVa, for one thing, but let's not get too complicated:  Indianans aren't going to give a crap that HRC spent summers in Scranton.  

She barely scraped by in Indiana, needing Rush voters.  Her patter didn't even work in a white, conservative state outside of Appalachia.  It's only good for a niche, in Appalachia itself.  

SUSA says that if the CA primary were re-run today, Obama would beat Hillary by SIX POINTS.  SIX.  I'm assuming that Hispanic voters in Los Angeles got the heebie jeebies with Hill's antics,and not all whites feel great about doing shots, hunting, and forgetting the liberal social agenda.  

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that the supers moving to Obama is from them taking the pulse of their states and feeling that HRC is losing ground there.  We'll see.

UPDATE:  I should have mentioned and included the original work by other people on Appalachia.
DHinMI
http://www.dailykos.com/...
Josh Marshall
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

•  Tips. nt

  by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:42:23 AM PDT

  •  she has connected better with low-incomes

    Each candidate has their strengths with different demographics, with Obama coming out ahead in total.  Why you feel the need to diss people to justify your decision is beyond me.

    by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:47:27 AM PDT

    •  Aside from Appalachia, she really hasn't.

      That's sorta my point.

      by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:10:05 AM PDT

      •  that's not entirely correct

        If exit polls are to be believed, her supporters tend to contain more low-income voters than his do.  Even if she's not winning the state, she is still getting more low-income votes.  Her message of economic populism is resonating with a lot of people, even if it's not enough to give her a majority.

        by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:12:34 AM PDT

        •  No, she really hasn't.

          The only demographic she wins consistently is older white women and Appalachia.  And it's not a static picture...her poll numbers are going down.

          by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:14:53 AM PDT

          •  ugh, you are not reading what i wrote

            I said even if she is not "winning" she is connecting better with low-income voters.  This has been shown in exit poll after exit poll.  If Obama was winning EVERY demo except old people then he would have the nomination already.
            I didn't say she is "consistently" winning.

            by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:19:03 AM PDT

            •  Well, then "connecting"

              means something I'm not interested in.

              by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:26:16 AM PDT

•  Hillary Hates Black People.

  I don't know any other message she meant to send.  You might be right on the money in your analysis, but I saw a racist evil thug on my teevee when she had the nerve to mouth off with traditional White Power Movement talking points.

  by Ouroboros on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:43:48 AM PDT

  •  I disagree.

    She doesn't hate black people. She just thinks her own supporters, and certainly most voters, are racist and/or stupid, and will only vote for a white woman who voted for the war and wants a gas holiday.  And she's not trying to change that one bit, since it works for her.

    I wrote a diary on that.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:48:33 AM PDT

    •  I don't think she hated them

      When she started running for president...

      But she probably does now!

      by Trepanator on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:30:44 AM PDT

    •  I'm not a mind reader. I take her at her word.

      And her word matches the words of many leaders and public advocates of the White Power movement.  She clearly has no shame, no principles, and no respect from me.  And she's my Senator.  My White Power Senator.

      by Ouroboros on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:38:28 AM PDT

•  I think you're right...

  Someone posted a great article on HuffPo about it being Appalachia Obama has a problem with not white working class in general.

  http://talkingpointsmemo.com/...

  by RighteousisRight on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:45:57 AM PDT

  •  Actually, DHinMI at this site

    beat Josh Marshall and a lot of others to the Appalachian analysis. This was the most recent of his posts on the subject.

    by MissLaura on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:22 AM PDT

    •  Thanks for linking

      I guess I assumed everyone had seen it.  

      by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:55:03 AM PDT

    •  He was three months ahead of the game

      in identifying how the western counties of the Chesapeake primary were a harbinger of what might happen in Appalachia, which is mighty impressive.

      But once he goes beyond that basic insight, his explanations are highly reductionist, and when he's challenged on them, he seems to back away (while claiming that his critics are stupid) to the point where it's no longer clear what he's claiming at all, beyond that "there's something about Appalachia."  Can you explain what he means, and why Bagof's criticisms in that linked thread are off-base?  I can't.

      It's too bad, because given his early insights he could have played a more significant role in this discussion -- but I can't blame people for preferring the arguments after they've been processed by Josh Marshall, et al.

      by Seneca Doane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:12:10 AM PDT

      •  I think DH would have done better

        to either ignore criticisms he found lacking or to explain it more clearly -- for strategic reasons, such as the hard-ons of people like you to take him on. I'm certainly not going to attempt to be his interlocutor in such a complex case.

        But Josh Marshall took a map that DH had conceptualized and asked Meng Bomin to put together, and attached it to an argument that was fairly close to what DH had said. That's highly questionable behavior.

        by MissLaura on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:55:40 AM PDT

        •  "hard-ons of people like you to take him on"

          Honestly, Laura!  He's a smart guy, but he is often a corrosive force in comments, and as a progressive (not to mention a member of this community), when he screws up I want him to get his act together better and am willing to say so to his (virtual) face.

          This isn't because of a "hard-on" -- for God's sake, Laura, is that actually what you think? I simply believe that when prominent progressive bloggers in an interactive forum treat people asking legitimate questions like shit, it undercuts the ability of sites like this to foster beneficial change.  That change is what I care about.  (Call it a "hard-on" if you must, but I don't see why you must.)

          This was the same problem that Armando had/has, and the same tactic that he still uses when challenged -- abusive responses that refer people back to what he had originally written (or, in Armando's case, supposedly written) without engaging the substance of their argument, as if careful reading should make the rightnes of position clear to any fool, and as if he's not capable of being unclear or misguided.

          I don't think that you do him any favors by enabling him uncritically.  I never "take him on" gratuitously; only when he screws something up.  If you can't figure out what the hell he ended up arguing either, based on the above thread in the diary that you linked to approvingly above, then maybe that's the sort of feedback that would make him a better writer and more effective agent of change.  Role models abound here.

          by Seneca Doane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:40:18 PM PDT

          •  Bullshit.

            You're the dick who, when you disagreed with Barb on something she had posted, told her to stand aside while you argued it out with DH. That's 1) unbelievably condescending to Barb, such that you lose all right to any generosity of interpretation on ego, and 2) kind of clear evidence of a hard-on for DH, that you would think he was the correct person to engage about someone else's post.  And it's part of a pattern in which you are far more eager to pick fights with him than with other CEs -- and there are definitely masculinity issues at play, most clearly there, but not exclusively.  So yeah, I stand by my assessment.  

            And explain to me how exactly you want to simultaneously assail me for uncritically enabling him and not acting as his interlocutor? Those would seem to be fairly opposite positions. In this case, I think he was right on the merits. I also think he would have done better to be more patient in engaging people -- even, occasionally, really stupid people -- on said merits, but that's his choice.

            by MissLaura on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:58:29 PM PDT

            •  I don't remember the incident with Barb

              You could well be right; if you send me a link and I agree with your interpretation, I would want to send her an apology.  Without the context, it's hard to know.  If DH was whaling away at me as he does with many people, and the argument got heated, I could see how I or anyone could get carried away with the argument -- especially when it comes to pushing back against insults -- but that's no excuse.

              As for "masculinity issues," I don't like bullies.  Period.  That, as much as anything, is why I'm a progressive Democrat.  To the extent that standing up to bullies when other people are cowed by them suggests "masculinity issues," then I guess you may have a point, but in that case it's nothing I'm ashamed of.  In general, when someone is bigfooting around, especially abusing power of office, then yes I will often take them on, largely for the benefit of others who may wish they could fight back but for one reason or another do not.  But it's not something that I like to do, especially to fellow progressives.  It's just something that needs doing.

              I don't see a contradiction between enabling a friend's bad behavior in general and deciding not to defend a particular act.  But if you think he was right on the merits and don't want to defend it, fine.  I thought his reactions to the Bagof in the diary were retrogressive and indefensible for someone interested in discussing issues in a progressive forum, all the more so when one is being challenged for a prejudiced attack on the entire region of the country where the commenter lives.  I was going to say that it makes me regret his high profile here, but as with Armando it's not the high profile I regret -- his diaries are often great -- so much as the responses to comments in those diaries.

              "Really stupid people" -- that ought to be beneath you also.  I don't expect to convince you of that, but I think it ought to be said for the record.

              Thanks, tongue not in cheek, for the illuminating interaction.  I would appreciate knowing how I offended Barb, for whom I have a lot of respect.

              by Seneca Doane on Wed May 14, 2008 at 03:10:42 PM PDT

    •  Pretty Amazing How Josh Marshall...

      ...took a map Meng Bomin made specifically at my request, exactly how I asked him to lay it out, uses it for his own post, and doesn't acknowledge where it came from or that it was done specifically for my post.

      Wow.

      Wow.

      by DHinMI on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:06:09 PM PDT

•  In The Culture Wars

  Billary has always stood on the Red Side, as did Al and Tipper Gore with their anti-First Amendment PMRC.

  Hell, Ricky Rector died simply to prove that point, just in case the hillbilly vote needed a body to make it.

  by greenskeeper on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:46:02 AM PDT

  •  No, the gays and abortion rights disappeared

    and diversity became a ritualized moment.  And she isn't going to side with ECONOMISTS against the PEOPLE!

    She's really joined the culture war on the red side.

    by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:19 AM PDT

    •  This is a sort of Zelig candidacy

      In NH, Hillary sent out a mailer attacking Obama for not being pro-choice.  (Which was, characteristically, a lie.)

      Hillary also trumpeted her big leads among gays, Latinos, Jews, and Asian-Americans in the early going.  We haven't heard from her on any of these groups either.

      As the calendar changed so did Hillary.

      by theran on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:55:20 AM PDT

      •  Well, in NH, HRC said FL wouldn't count.

        Then the second NH was in the rear view mirror....

        I know what she would do if she got the nom.  She'd dump democrats like a hot rock.

        by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:59:30 AM PDT

•  Ok, there's definitely an Appalachian effect

  and race is a big part but not all of it, but this is obnoxiously stereotyping.

  by MissLaura on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:47:28 AM PDT

  •  Of course it isn't.

    You pick a group small enough, you can find traits in common and you can appeal to it.   HRC could have done the same thing in any other area of the country.  It just so happens that PA was on the calendar, that's all.

    I'm avoiding the racial and class stereotyping of the talking heads because it's not very close to reality.  

    by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:07:12 AM PDT

•  Agreed

  She's attempting to paint Obama as a weird, unknown, foreign "other." Notice how a lot of people are saying things like "Who is Barack Obama? What don't we know about him and his background?"

  by droogie6655321 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:49:09 AM PDT

  •  that's because a lot of people hadn't heard of hi

    until recently.  If anything, fewer people are saying that now than they did at the start of the primaries.  Why blame everything on her?  That's silly.

    by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:50:28 AM PDT

    •  I'm not

      But she's taking full advantage of the fact that people don't know him as well as her.

      by droogie6655321 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:51:28 AM PDT

      •  why is that bad?

        Aren't both candidates "taking advantage" of their strengths?

        by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:52:38 AM PDT

        •  Where did I say it was bad?

          by droogie6655321 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:19 AM PDT

          •  maybe i misread the tone of your post

            When you said she is "attempting to paint Obama as a weird unknown".  If I misread, I apologize.  But I'm just getting tired of people blaming her for all of world's ills.

            by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:55:37 AM PDT

            •  Well, me too

              Maybe it isn't her so much as surrogates and some media personalities. I hear it from the likes of Glenn Beck all the time.

              It's like they know they'll be called on it if they say "He's a Muslim!" So instead, they wring their hands about his background.

              by droogie6655321 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:58:43 AM PDT

              •  glen beck is not an hrc supporter!

                He dumps on any dem.  The only reason he has backed off Hillary lately is because she is losing.  If she were the front-runner you better believe he would have a special on TV everynight stirring shit about her.

                by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:00:24 AM PDT

                •  I know

                  I listen to him enough to know that he's trashed on Hillary as much as he has Barack.

                  by droogie6655321 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:07:42 AM PDT

      •  People DO know her well.

        That's why she can't move her negatives anywhere but up.

        by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:54:06 AM PDT

    •  Um. Not exactly.

      That's only the way that it works.  HRC knows who Obama is.  But she preys on people who have fears.

      by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:31 AM PDT

      •  "prey

        by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:11 AM PDT

        •  "prey" is a subjective word

          They are both vying for votes.  Could it be that you are not completely objective?

          by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:56:48 AM PDT

          •  It's the word I meant.

            HRC 08 knows who Barack is, but they'd rather put the question out there with ominous tones in order to get those low information people worried.  The fact she continues it after six months and a kajillion debates and Rezko trial over is, well, just like her.

            by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:01:10 AM PDT

            •  it's not her fault that he was not well known

              Few people had heard of him until he started his campaign.  How can you blame her for that?

              by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:03:12 AM PDT

              •  Not her fault he's black, either.

                None of it's her fault.  

                by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:07:49 AM PDT

                •  just like it's not his fault

                  That she has negatives and repubs hate her.  You don't expect him to tell indies to fairly consider both of them and ignore the media's constant reminder of her negatives, do you?  

                  by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:09:15 AM PDT

                  •  Well, unlike noticing HRC's negatives

                    most of us think that racism is a social evil and that HRC is simply accepting it as something as neutral as being from Illinois.

                    And unlike HRC's negatives, it's not Obama's fault he's black.  HRC's been building her negatives, as I've been saying from at least October: her only real negative is that she'll do anything and say anything to win, and she reinforces that every day she campaigns.

                    by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:12:50 AM PDT

                    •  what?

                      by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:15:16 AM PDT

    •  Come on though...

      If you don't want to know anything about him, you won't try. People use that excuse when they don't want to know. They can find out about him just like they "found out " about the Clintons.

      by RighteousisRight on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:02:48 AM PDT

      •  you don't have to try to know clintons

        The brand is well-known.  It's like having to go our of your way to know Coca Cola.
        I'm not saying people should or shouldn't bother to get to know him.  I'm just saying blaming her for him being less known is silly.  What is she supposed to do?  Encourage people to get to know him better?  What candidate has ever done that?

        by sunshineonthebay on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:05:05 AM PDT

      •  So according to your reasoning, its gonna

        take 16 years to learn about Obama? The Clinton's have been in the national spotlight since about 91, and all their dirt has been cycled and re-cycled, but people still like them, well not on here, where they are evil incarnate, but to most of the world outside of this Clinton hating, Clinton's are evil, blog, they are looked on favourable. Unfortunately for Obama, he hasn't done a lot in his short foray into national politics, his time in the senate has been pretty dismal, and consists of waiting to see which way the wind blows before making a stand, and giving speeches, not much there to be for, or against. Hillary on the other hand, has put her butt on the line over and over, so its natural for her to pick up negatives along the way. You have a good idea though, lets wait for Obama to actually do something, before making him our countries leader. Maybe in 16 years, or so.

        They can find out about him just like they "found out " about the Clintons.

        by ichibon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:26:33 AM PDT

        •  Well, you pretty much got everything wrong.

          The Clinton's have been in the national spotlight since about 91, and all their dirt has been cycled and re-cycled,

          Sadly no.

          1. Bill is still sitting on every single piece of paper on what HRC did, or didn't do, in his administration.  The only thing that got released is her agenda, and that was by court order, and that showed her to be Pro Nafta.

          2. Her real negative isn't killing Vince Foster or being a lesbian or any of that MADE UP stuff.  It's the truth of her ambition: she'd do antyhing and say anything to win, and that she's dishonest.  She's been building on that since October by simply saying anything and doing anything again and again and again.

          but people still like them, well not on here,

          Bill used to have big star power in the democratic party, but he would have been less than no use in the general.  Indeed, until the loss in IA, the plan was to keep Bill entirely out of the limelight.

          As for HRC, first, she's not Bill and never was, and second, she started with high negatives and made them higher.

          by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:56:28 AM PDT

          •  I wish people would make up their minds.

            You people sometimes use Bills record against her, then can turn right around and say no, she had nothing to do with that administration. Come on, did she, or did she not, which is?

            As for HRC, first, she's not Bill and never was, and second, she started with high negatives and made them higher.

            If I looked at your diaries and comments here, would I find where you've criticised her for something that happened in his administration?

            by ichibon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:50:58 PM PDT

            •  Come on.

              You people sometimes use Bills record against her, then can turn right around and say no, she had nothing to do with that administration. Come on, did she, or did she not, which is?

              We could ask her, but she's too busy claiming credit for all the good parts and blaming the rest on Bill.

              Ask Bill to release the WH records and we'll find out for sure.  All we really know is she really messed up the health care committee in 93 and supported Nafta.

              But in the meantime, stop pretending like she's been vetted.

              If I looked at your diaries and comments here, would I find where you've criticised her for something that happened in his administration?

              Yep, right above.  But that's not the source of her negatives.  It probably SHOULD be, but isn't.  

              by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 12:55:42 PM PDT

              •  Looks like you admit to "Moving the Goal posts"

                yourself, as I've heard her being accused of on here, many times.
                And on the NAFTA issue, have you looked at Obama's record on that and the little NAFTA's , It seems he kind of likes them too,  but I suppose that doesn't fit your point now, does it?

                by ichibon on Wed May 14, 2008 at 01:14:29 PM PDT

                •  Well, you're asking for the impossible.

                  Bill won't release the records of his admin, but you're asking me to sort out HRC's claims to be a big player in the Clinton admnistration vs. her claims of being nowhere around when the bad stuff happened.

                  Aside from screwing the health care pooch, she says that she worked Under Cover and Without Attribution so we just have to take her word on stuff.

                  Then a court order her agenda released, and it says practically nothing, but it still shows she lied about opposing Nafta privately.

                  But let's find out.  Tell Bill to release the docs of his administration, finally, so that we can see for ourselves.  Until that happens, your claim that HRC has been vetted is bullshit.

                  by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 02:33:40 PM PDT

  •  Yep, it's like nothing's changed since Nov.

    Every statement that says HRC has to hang in there until the convention adds that something's going to come out about Obama.  I'd say it was a plan, but I think it's just a hope now.  Even HRC seems to have given up on pinning anything on Obama except being insufficiently rural white Appalachian.

    by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:52:23 AM PDT

    •  It's the Huckabee Plan

      For Electoral Success.

      by droogie6655321 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 10:53:00 AM PDT

•  We need to face the facts

  Obama lost WV because he is black. Racism is everywhere but where race is concerned time has stood still in WV.The majority of people in WV will NOT vote for a black candidate. That is not dissing WV, it is just stating a sad but true FACT. Even if Obama had campaigned there more the result would have been the same. We will NOT win WV in the General Election. They only have 5 electoral votes anyway. Time of the campaign is better spent in states where we can win like the places Obama is campaigning now like Missouri and Michigan. The campaign made a smart move to skip that place and move on. We are not going to change the racial attitudes in WV in a few months. We need to cut our losses and move on which is exactly what the campaign did. Brilliant move in my view on there part.

  by jessica69 on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:11:12 AM PDT

  •  NC

    Obama lost WV because he is black.
    And he won NC because he is black.

    by gaf on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:23:28 AM PDT

•  I wish that were true

  But, as an Ohioan with family in WV (my mother's home state), I don't think Obama ever had a chance.

  by Lord Sphere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:15:30 AM PDT

•  But, you ignore the fact that they liked her!

  Many early fencesitters tried to argue on this site that when voters get to know HRC, they like her. She eliminates the right wing hater talking points one handshake at a time. Now that the young hardcharging male has been helped to jump the line ahead of her, you could at least admit she won over the haters. At least admit that much.

  by threesmommy on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:16:40 AM PDT

  •  now that's

    Now that the young hardcharging male has been helped to jump the line ahead of her, you could at least admit she won over the haters.

    diplomacy in action.
    :P

    by Lord Sphere on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:21:16 AM PDT

  •  Of course they liked her.

    What's not to like?  It's a huge compliment.

    But as for winning over the right wing hater points, sadly, no.  Her only real negative is that she'll do anything to win, and she reinforces that every day.

    I note that conservative commentators say nice things about her...but always in the context of noting her concessions to republicans.  She's running a culture war race now, and of course Republicans like it.  They LOVE it.

    by Inland on Wed May 14, 2008 at 11:50:50 AM PDT