The latest to lose his seat is West Virginia representative Alan Mollohan, who has served for 28 years now. Anti-incumbent fever knocked him out, and may very well knock out Arlen Specter in about a week from now. Judging from the comments made by the winner in the WVA race, State Senator Mike Oliverio, Pelosi might watch her back, too:

On the campaign trail, Democratic nominee Mike Oliverio told voters that if they sent him to Washington he wouldn’t vote for Nancy Pelosi as Speaker of the House.

And if this trend continues, Oliverio might not have to.

True that. And her losing the Speakers position could not happen to a more deserving person. She has been a disaster as Speaker, IMHO.

I tell you who else I would like to see get his pink slip is my representative James “The Clintons Are Racists” Clyburn. Not only did he stab the Clintons in the back repeatedly, but he just voted to give the House their pay raise, one of 14 to do so. I’m sorry, say, Whaaaa?? Our state is struggling mightily, as many are. Just today, our paper had an article discussing a possible property tax increase with decreased services because we have lost so much money in state funding. Our taxes went up last year, too, so we’re paying out more, getting less, and Clyburn wants a raise? Spare me.

And then there is this HUGE change that occurred Tuesday across the pond. PM Gordon Brown stepped down, and Conservative David Cameron stepped up. This ended 13 years of Labour as the ruling party in the UK.

Prime Minister Cameron had this to say about what type of government he would like to establish:

Well, that’s an intriguing start. Cameron has made the Opposition leader, Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister. And this was Clegg’s response at the same press conference:

What is this concept of “working together”? I am unfamiliar with that whole idea not having seen it in action of late. This will be interesting to see how all of this plays out in the UK. It would be refreshing if they are able to work as a coalition for the good of the country, and not just their respective parties. Time, as they say, will tell.

I think this says it all:

I have seen any number of people justify this action, good people, who believe the lines being fed them by Obama and the Democratic leadership about using this option, claiming the Republicans used it before, even equating getting Obamacare passed this way as comparable to how Social Security and Medicare were passed. Those comparisons are simply false:

Leave aside the irony of invoking “the American people” on behalf of a bill that consistently has been 10 to 15 points underwater in every poll since the fall, and is getting more unpopular by the day, particularly among independents. As Maine Republican Olympia Snowe pointed out in a speech last December, Social Security passed when Democrats controlled both Congress and the White House, yet 64% of Senate Republicans and 79% of the House GOP voted for it. More than half of the Senate Republican caucus voted for Medicare in 1965. Historically, major social legislation has always been bipartisan, because it reflects a durable political consensus.

Yet, these false comparisons continue, on a daily basis it seems.

While that is important to make clear, it is not my main point here. My point is about this man: Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat, of West Virginia. Specifically, I want to share Senator Byrd’s response to using a budgetary process to force such a massive program on us. Who cares what Senator Byrd says, you query? Well, he is one of the creators of Reconciliation, and oh, does he have something to say about usage of Reconciliation being threatened now (the following is from April 29, 2009):

Statement on FY 2010 Budget Resolution

“I like this budget. I support many of the policies that the President’s budget embraces – including middle-class tax relief, and badly needed investments in our nation’s infrastructure – but I cannot, and I will not, vote to authorize the use of the reconciliation process to expedite passage of health care reform legislation or any other legislative proposal that ought to be debated at length by this body.”

“Using reconciliation to ram through complicated, far-reaching legislation is an abuse of the budget process. ((Emphasis mine) The writers of the Budget Act, and I am one, never intended for its reconciliation’s expedited procedures to be used this way. These procedures were narrowly tailored for deficit reduction. They were never intended to be used to pass tax cuts, or to create new Federal regimes. Additionally, reconciliation measures must comply with Section 313 of the Budget Act, known as the Byrd Rule, which means that whatever health legislation is reported from the Finance Committee or legislation from any other Committee that is shoe-horned into reconciliation will sunset after five years. Additionally, numerous other non-budgetary provisions of any such legislation will have to be omitted under reconciliation. This is a very messy way to achieve a goal like health care reform, and one that will make crafting the legislation more difficult.”

“Whatever abuses of the budget reconciliation process which have occurred in the past, or however many times the process has been twisted to achieve partisan ends does not justify the egregious violation done to the Senate’s Constitutional purpose. The Senate has a unique institutional role.” (Emphasis mine)

I know, I know – Senator Byrd completely went against the will of the people of his state (along with Senator Jay Rockefeller) when he threw his support to Obama rather than the one, Clinton, his people overwhelmingly chose. But STILL – this is important. What he is saying is important. It paints a picture in bold relief that for the Democrats to pull this kind of maneuver is an “Abuse of Power.” Coming from the longest serving senator, who has been through a lot of Administrations and Congresses, that is saying something. He continues:

“It is the one place in all of government where the rights of the numerical minority are protected. As long as the Senate preserves the right to debate and the right to amend we hold true to our role as the Framers envisioned. We were to be the cooling off place where proposals could be examined carefully and debated extensively, so that flaws might be discovered and changes might be made. Remember, Democrats will not always control this chamber, the House of Representatives or the White House. The worm will turn. Some day the other party will again be in the majority, and we will want minority rights to be shielded from the bear trap of the reconciliation process.”

That reminds me of this quote by Joe Biden on the Reconciliation process: “and I pray God that when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.” Sorry, Joe – either the Democrats aren’t listening to you, or God isn’t. Guess where my money is.

Back to Byrd’s statement:

“Under reconciliation’s gag rule there are twenty hours of debate or less if time is yielded back, and little or no opportunity to amend. Those restrictions mean that whatever is nailed into reconciliation by the majority will likely emerge as the final product. With critical matters such as a massive revamping of our health care system which will impact the lives of every citizen of our great land, the Senate has a duty to debate and amend and explain in the full light of day, however long that may take, what it is we propose, and why we propose it. The citizens who sent us here deserve that explanation and they should demand it. We must not run roughshod over minority views. A minority can be right. An amendment can vastly improve legislation. Debate can expose serious flaws. Ramrodding and railroading have no place when it comes to such matters as our people’s healthcare. The President came to the White House promising a bipartisan government because he knew how sick and tired the American public is of scorched earth politics. I daresay President Obama should not be in favor of the destruction of the institutional purpose of this Senate in which he served any more than he would bless a rigged psuedo-debate on healthcare, completely absent minority input.” (Again, emphasis mine)

“While I support the admirable budget priorities outlined in this resolution, I cannot and will not condone legislation that puts political expediency ahead of the time-honored purpose of this institution.”

Reconciliation is not the answer, never was. But that Obama and the Democrats are even considering it speaks volumes about the plan, Obama, and the Democrats, especially Nancy Pelosi, who had the audacity to say this:

“They know that this will take courage,” Nancy Pelosi said in an interview over the weekend, speaking of the Members she’ll try to strong-arm. “It took courage to pass Social Security. It took courage to pass Medicare,” the Speaker continued. “But the American people need it, why are we here? We’re not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress.”.

One can only hope, and pray, that cooler heads will indeed prevail. One can only hope that the will of the people will ultimately triumph, and that this plan goes back to the drawing board where it belongs. One can only hope that the eyes of people, good, usually reasonable, people, will see this ploy for what it is. A purely political, ego-driven, lobby pandering, 1/6th of our economy government run plan opposed by the majority of Americans.

Perhaps Nancy and Barack should pay more attention to their elder statesman, who actually helped write the damn Reconciliation thing.

It is, in short, an Abuse of Power: ‘An undemocratic disservice to our people and to the Senate’s institutional role.’ Couldn’t have said it better myself.

I saw the following story this morning on the news, and was pretty surprised by it: One-Fourth of Overseas Votes Go Uncounted, Study Finds. Some of you may recall that John McCain asked for an extension to count votes in VA for absentee ballots requested by military personnel that were delayed in being set out. That was back in November.

Well, a new study has just come out from the US Senate, and you are not going to believe this. This is certainly timely given our conversations regarding our votes being counted, continuing tonight at 9:00pm (EST). Get this:

One out of every four ballots requested by military personnel and other Americans living overseas for the 2008 election may have gone uncounted, according to findings being released at a Senate hearing Wednesday.

Sen. Charles Schumer, chairman of the Senate Rules and Administration Committee, said the study, while providing only a snapshot of voting patterns, “is enough to show that the balloting process for service members is clearly in need of an overhaul.”

Uh, ya THINK, Chuck?? No freakin’ kidding! These people put their lives on the line, and then one of their most basic right as Americans, the right to have vote and have it counted is treated so cavalierly? Yeah, I think that warrants an “overhaul.” SO astute.

There’s more:

The committee, working with the Congressional Research Service, surveyed election offices in seven states with high numbers of military personnel: California, Florida, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, Washington and West Virginia.

It said that of 441,000 absentee ballots requested by eligible voters living abroad — mainly active-duty and reserve troops — (emphasis mine)more than 98,000 were “lost” ballots that were mailed out but never received by election officials. Taking into account 13,500 ballots that were rejected for such reasons as a missing signature or failure to notarize, one-quarter of those requesting a ballot were disenfranchised.

The study found that an additional 11,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable.

Holy smokes. Twenty-five percent of the votes cast were not counted. I’m still trying to get my head around that, especially in light of the clear intention TO vote as expressed here:

Schumer’s office said that because a person living abroad must request the absentee ballot and show a clear intention to vote, voter negligence is not thought to be a major factor.

Rather, the New York Democrat said in a statement, there is a chronic problem of military voters being sent a ballot without sufficient time to complete it and send it back. He cited estimates that a ballot can take up to 13 days to reach an overseas voter.

Among the states surveyed, California had 30,000 “lost” votes out of 103,000 ballots mailed out. An additional 3,000 ballots were returned as undeliverable and 4,000 were rejected.

And that is exactly the issue McCain was trying to address in VA, where it was CLEAR that the fault lay with those responsible for mailing out the ballots. They failed to do so in a timely manner, especially considering the length of time it takes for the ballots to be received overseas.

So, what is the plan to correct this unacceptable situation? Well, this:

The hearing was to take up possible problems in the Federal Voting Assistance Program, a Pentagon program that handles the election process for military personnel and other overseas voters.

Oh, whew. I feel better now. That should take care of it, right? Ahem.

This just boggles my mind. Come to think of it, this isn’t just unacceptable, it is a breach of trust with those who are serving in our military abroad. They should be able to know that if they ask for an absentee ballot, they will receive it in a timely fashion. And, they should be able to know that their vote cast is a vote counted. We all should be able to trust that. Clearly, not only can those serving and living abroad not be able to trust in that, even when they do all that is required of them to cast that vote, but we cannot either. Not now, not with electronic voting machines, and not with rampant voter fraud. Something has to change, and it has to change now. At the very, very least, we all, every American, should be able to know with CERTAINTY that the vote we cast is counted, first of all, but counted correctly, second of all. And those who put their lives on the line for us deserve that at the very least.

Twenty five percent. 25%. One-fourth, 1/4th, of the votes not counted. Simply unacceptable.

Barack Obama has a coal problem. Responding to yesterday’s revelation that Barack Obama intends to bankrupt all plants that operate on energy generated from coal, Chris Hamilton, the Senior Vice President of the West Virginia Coal Association, called Obama’s comments in San Francisco “unbelievable.” I quote the West Virginia Record:

The senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association called Obama’s comments “unbelievable.”

“His comments are unfortunate,” Chris Hamilton said Sunday, “and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally.”

Hamilton noted other times Obama and vice presidential candidate Joe Biden have made seemingly anti-coal statements.

“In Ohio recently, when Joe Biden said ‘not here’ about building coal-fired power plants — this is exactly what will happen,” Hamilton said. “Financing won’t be directed here. It will all go aboard for plants elsewhere in the world. The United Sates is importing more coal today from Indonesia, South Africa and Colombia than we ever have.

“If we’re going to create a situation where coal-fired power plants are at that much of a disadvantage, there will be new ones built. But as Biden said, just not here.”

In other words, the workers of West Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Indiana, Illinois, Colorado, New Mexico, North Dakota, Montana and all the other states in which coal is mined, processed and converted to electricity should be prepared to have their jobs outsourced under an Obama Presidency. That is not the change the economically battered Ohio River Valley needs. It is also not the change those of us who consume electricity need. Just imagine the cost of our energy bills if coal plants, which generates 49% of our electricity, are bankrupted and eliminated.

American Girl in Italy asks No Quarter readers to disseminate the following recording of Barack Obama’s statement on bankrupting coal plants far and wide.

And I offer more information on who will be affected by Obama’s reckless energy policy in an essay I published yesterday.

Clearly Obama’s statements will have electoral effects in West Virginia, where he has already garnered opposition from leaders of the industry that is that state’s main economic engine. But we must ensure voters in Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, North Dakota, Ohio, Indiana and Pennsylvania are armed with these facts before they cast votes tomorrow.

Sarah Palin is doing everything within her power to ensure voters in the Ohio River Valley understand the implications and ramifications of Obama’s desire to bankrupt plants relying on energy produced from coal. I quote CBS News:

(MARIETTA, OHIO) – Seizing on a newly released audio tape picked up by the Drudge Report, Sarah Palin took the opportunity here in coal country to accuse Barack Obama of “talking about bankrupting the coal industry.”

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he’s comfortable letting that happen,” Palin said. “And you got to listen to the tape.”

The audiotape Palin was referring to was recorded by the San Francisco Chronicle in a Jan. 17 interview.

“Why is the audiotape just now surfacing?” Palin asked, leading someone in the crowd to shout, “Liberal media!”

“This interview was given to San Francisco folks many, many months ago,” Palin said. “You should have known about this, so that you would have better decision-making information as you go into the voting booth.”

Marietta, Ohio, is located on the Ohio River on the border between Ohio and West Virginia. This is the perfect place to discuss Obama’s desire to bankrupt the coal industry, for many of the workers in that city and its environs earn their wages in mines and in factories reliant on coal.

And Sarah and the audience in Marietta, Ohio, are correct: we only learned about this now as a result of the venal and obsequious media’s suppression of any and all information that is unfavorable to Barack Obama. Just witness CNN’s attempt to minimize the importance of this story:

Contrary to her attempts to portray a media cover-up, audio and video recordings of Obama’s January 17 sit-down with the Chronicle editorial board have been freely available online for more than nine months.

In the interview, Obama said that his “aggressive” cap-and-trade plan would charge polluters for every unit of carbon or greenhouse gas they emit, a plan that would render polluting coal plants financially unviable.

“So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can,” he said. “It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”

In the interview, Obama also made the case for alternative energy sources, adding that he does not believe coal production will be eliminated, and that he supports carbon capture and sequestration technologies.

John McCain also supports a market-based cap-and-trade proposal to reduce carbon emissions.

Regardless, Palin sought to use Obama’s words against him in a part of the country where coal has long been king.

“He said that, sure, if the industry wants to build coal-fired power plants, then they can go ahead and try, he says, but they can do it only in a way that will bankrupt the coal industry, and he’s comfortable letting that happen.”

The media, it seems, will not inform working class voters of Obama’s attempts to eliminate hundreds of thousands of jobs and raise our electricity bills. But Sarah Palin and those who care about the economy of West Virginia and other states in the Ohio River Valley will. And so will we, for we understand that the elimination of jobs in a region of a country Obama already insulted with his comments in San Francisco about those bitter small town voters in Pennsylvania and Ohio who cling to guns and religion will not solve America’s economic woes. Indeed, it will only exacerbate the current recession.

Let us stand with West Virginia and the Ohio River Valley and defend those who rely on coal for their economic livelihood. This is certainly what Hillary would do. I quote the Sun-Times article I cite above:

After the quotes [about "bitter clingers"] surfaced on a political blog Friday, Democratic rival Hillary Clinton and GOP hopeful John McCain immediately decried them as evidence that Obama is “elitist” or “out of touch.”

“My opponent said that the people of Pennsylvania who faced hard times are bitter. Well, that’s not my experience,” Clinton told a crowd in Philadelphia. “As I travel around Pennsylvania, I meet people who are resilient, who are optimistic, who are positive, who are rolling up their sleeves … Pennsylvanians don’t need a president who looks down on them, they need a president who stands up for them.”

And yes, Barack Obama is an elitist politician who “looks down on” voters in the Ohio River Valley and in other areas of the country that rely on coal. Hillary Clinton does not, and neither does John McCain. Here is John McCain yesterday campaigning in Pennsylvania:

SCRANTON, Pa. — Campaigning in coal-rich Pennsylvania, GOP presidential nominee John McCain pledged this afternoon that if elected president, he would ensure that the U.S. exports coal overseas — something that U.S. policy already permits.

At the same time, the McCain campaign and Republican National Committee reportedly launched robocalls in Ohio, Pennsylvania and other coal states attacking Sen. Barack Obama’s position on coal.

Mocking Obama for a comment he made in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle in January — “The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster,” Obama had said — McCain promised the audience at the University of Scranton that he’s been a proud coal cheerleader in the past, and plans to be one in the future.

“My friends, you know what Senator Obama said about a year ago, he said he had not been a, quote, coal booster,” he said, as the crowd booed. “My friends, I’ve been a coal booster and it’s going to create jobs, and we’re going to export coal to other countries and we are going to create hundreds of thousands of jobs. That’s going to help restore the economy of the great state of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.”

The robocalls have been placed, but we must ensure the voters understand that Obama desires to bankrupt the coal industry and increase the prices of our energy bills. We have one day, and this must be done. Circulate the video I cite above.

———————————————-

[UPDATE]: Ohio Coal Association issues a scathing statement on Barack Obama’s statement. I quote:

COLUMBUS, Ohio, Nov 03, 2008 /PRNewswire–USNewswire via COMTEX/ — Mike Carey, president of the Ohio Coal Association (OCA), today issued the following statement in response to just-released remarks from Senator Barack Obama about the nation’s coal industry.

“Regardless of the timing or method of the release of these remarks, the message from the Democratic candidate for President could not be clearer: the Obama-Biden ticket spells disaster for America’s coal industry and the tens of thousands of Americans who work in it.

“These undisputed, audio-taped remarks, which include comments from Senator Obama like ‘I haven’t been some coal booster’ and ‘if they want to build [coal plants], they can, but it will bankrupt them’ are extraordinarily misguided.
“It’s evident that this campaign has been pandering in states like Ohio, Virginia, West Virginia, Indiana and Pennsylvania to attempt to generate votes from coal supporters, while keeping his true agenda hidden from the state’s voters.

“Senator Obama has revealed himself to be nothing more than a short- sighted, inexperienced politician willing to say anything to get a vote. But today, the nation’s coal industry and those who support it have a better understanding of his true mission, to ‘bankrupt’ our industry, put tens of thousands out of work and cause unprecedented increases in electricity prices.

“In addition to providing an affordable, reliable source of low-cost electricity, domestic coal holds the key to our nation’s long-term energy security – a goal that cannot be overlooked during this time of international instability and economic uncertainty.

“Few policy areas are more important to our economic future than energy issues. As voters head to the polls tomorrow, it is essential they remember that access to reliable, affordable, domestic energy supplies is essential to economic growth and stability.”

The Ohio Coal Association (OCA) is a non-profit trade association representing the interests of Ohio’s underground and surface coal mining producers. The OCA represents nearly 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 Associate Members, which include suppliers and consultants to the mining industry, coal sales agents and brokers and allied industries. The Ohio Coal Association is committed to advancing the development and utilization of Ohio coal as an abundant, economic and environmentally sound energy source.

Representing 40 coal producing companies and more than 50 associate members in related industries, the OCA will deliver many Ohio votes to John McCain.

Words do matter, I guess.

As you probably also know, Mr. Fund has written a book, “Stealing Elections, Revised and Updated: How Voter Fraud Threatens Our Democracy.”

In 20 minutes following publication of this story — at 3:00 a.m. ET (Monday, Nov. 3, 2008) — BookTV.org (C-Span2) is airing a one-hour speech and Q&A with John Fund.

You may also watch the video at any time here at BookTV.org.

What else is going on so early in the morning? Have you caught the latest on the breaking news about Obama’s intentions to bankrupt coal-reliant businesses and industries? NOTE the states listed above in the categories; workers and businesses in all of those states, and more, could be devastated by Obama’s schemes.

Here’s what we know so far:

Among the LATEST NEWS: Sarah Palin is speaking out about Barack Obama and coal, according to Memeorandum.com.

If you missed our reporting on this breaking story, please check out:

• Truthteller’s Sunday afternoon story, “MEMO to Voters in States Producing and Relying On Coal: Obama Intends to Bankrupt Your Businesses and Your Industries,” and
• American Girl in Italy’s call to action, “ACTION ALERT – Obama has promised to bankrupt coal plants.”

We hope to publish more on this “hot” story later today.

Search all kinds of sites, mommy sites, restaurant/city blogs, online newspapers, grocery stores…anything and everything!! We need to get this message out to the people that this will effect. Those who don’t live this stuff 24/7. Look for sites that are supporting Obama, too.

Try to post this video on web sites in these states: Montana, Illinois, Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado, North Dakota, New Mexico, Virginia and Texas.

States like WV have experienced devastating consequences from collapsing industries. They won’t want more of the same.

See Truthteller’s earlier post, for a more in-depth look at this.

You can make a difference TODAY! This will change people’s minds.

Let Obama speak for himself, just copy and paste the headline and link to the video:

(and I’m sure I don’t need to remind people to be polite. :O)

Wyoming, West Virginia, Kentucky, Pennsylvania, Texas, Montana, Illinois, Virginia, North Dakota, Colorado, Indiana, New Mexico, Utah, Ohio, Alabama and Arizona: these coal producing states will be adversely affected by Barack Obama’s energy policy.

Imagine mines closing, factories closing, jobs lost, towns abandoned, small businesses failing, pensions lost, wages dropping and widespread economic depression in states that rely on coal mining and processing. This is what Obama’s cap and trade system will engender in states such as WV, PA, MT, VA, ND, CO, IN, NM, OH and AZ. Just listen to this audio of Obama discussing how he will bankrupt factories and businesses that rely on power generated from coal when he was interviewed by the San Francisco Chronicle in January 2008:

[[[TAKE ACTION!! RIGHT NOW!
Start posting this video on sites in the coal based states: Virginia, Montana, Illinois, Indiana, West Virginia, North Dakota, New Mexico, Arizona, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Colorado.]]]

Here is the transcript:

Let me sort of describe my overall policy.

What I’ve said is that we would put a cap and trade system in place that is as aggressive, if not more aggressive, than anybody else’s out there.

I was the first to call for a 100% auction on the cap and trade system, which means that every unit of carbon or greenhouse gases emitted would be charged to the polluter. That will create a market in which whatever technologies are out there that are being presented, whatever power plants that are being built, that they would have to meet the rigors of that market and the ratcheted down caps that are being placed, imposed every year.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it’s just that it will bankrupt them because they’re going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.

That will also generate billions of dollars that we can invest in solar, wind, biodiesel and other alternative energy approaches.

The only thing I’ve said with respect to coal, I haven’t been some coal booster. What I have said is that for us to take coal off the table as a ideological matter as opposed to saying if technology allows us to use coal in a clean way, we should pursue it.

So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can.

It’s just that it will bankrupt them.“

Does Obama realize the number of jobs lost when he arrogantly states that plants will be bankrupted under his energy policy? Does he not understand the number of lives affected?

The Ohio River Basin is one area of the country that will be decimated as a result of Obama’s desire to bankrupt plants relying on coal.

And while the economy of the Ohio River Valley is decimated, the following regions of the country will witness no job growth, as the following proposed plants will never be built:

Permits for these proposed plants have already been cancelled:

The West will also be adversely affected by Obama’s reckless energy policy:

Bankrupting an entire industry will destroy the lives of Americans across the country. Both coal produces and consumers will have to fire employees, and this will create widespread job loss and increased economic recession.

More discussion on Obama’s desire to bankrupt coal producers and consumers is available at Memeorandum.

started running the “stages of grief” trope on Hillary supporters way back in February—you know, from anger, through denial, bargaining, depression, to acceptance. It’s an easy riff to run, even for bad writers, so it’s been all over the Obama blogs

Of course this “stages of grief” narrative oozed with sexism and condescension. The subtext implied that Hillary’s female supporters, emotional at the loss, had to be given post-partum recovery time, but then they would come around and, for those hold-outs, a few reminders about Roe v. Wade would get them in line. That was the strategy throughout the summer.

McCain’s selection of Palin as vice president, exquisitely timed to halt Obama’s bounce, has dominated the news for more than two weeks. It has also radically re-shaped the race. By most reports, Obama is slightly behind McCain in national polls and, more importantly, McCain has taken the lead in the electoral college.

The panic from the Obamabots in palpable.

Let me suggest that there are 3 levels of panic.

1. Wunderwaffen.

During World War Two, Hitler forced his beleaguered arms manufacturers to produce “miracle weapons,” strange armaments which he believed would turn the war in Germany’s favor.

Like armchair generals in a losing battle, losing political campaigns have supporters who desire the Wunderwaffen, a magical weapon which can sink the other side or a proven winner who can take the reins of the campaign and guide it to victory. In 2004, while Kerry was being hammered by Bush, many pleaded for James Carville to take over Kerry’s war room and provide the message discipline from 1992. From the Democratic Underground, August 27, 2004:

I have been saying this for over a month now…I wrote Mr Carville the following email:

Mr. Carville, please save the Kerry campaign!
He is throwing out sound bites that are perfect ammo for Rove and his evil crew. You can train this man.You can save this campaign and this country. We need you Mr. Carville.

In 2008, as victory becomes increasingly uncertain, Obama supporters are banking on voter registration and the belief that cell phone users are not accounted for in national polls. The same theories were trotted out in 2004 but the polls then fairly predicted the actual vote. However, there are even stranger ideas floating around Obama-land. At TalkLeft, there’s an armchair general named mmc9431 who believes that Obama should announce part of his cabinet now and turn them into roving ambassadors for the campaign:

Obama needs to come out with something very bold on his own if he’s going to have any chance of regaining the advantage.
Maybe he should announce ahead of time, 3 of his cabinet choices that would motivate his base. Sec of State, Attorney General and Sec of Treasury. These 3 could then go out and campaign of their platform. We’d have three people out there constantly pounding on issues rather than personalities.

Likewise, over at Daily Kos, Ursa Majority’s Wunderwaffen is one good television ad that will convince all the “low information” rubes to vote for Obama:

Yes, you heard it right. We need a killer ad (radio and TV) to get back onto message while shrinking McCain. And, with middle and low information swing voters, you’ve got to try to tie it all together in one digestible message. So, let’s get back to our effective messages of the post “Obama as Britney” era (i.e., McCain isn’t taking the issues seriously) and use McCain’s words and actions against him.

2. Denial

Obama supporters are now somewhere between searching for the magic bullet and denying that anything is wrong. The Kerry campaign is also rich with similar examples at a similar time in the campaign.

On September 17, 2004, almost exactly four years ago, Cartooner, at Democratic Underground, predicted that John Kerry would win in a landslide:

Call it an epiphany; call it crazy, and it’s just a hunch; but hey, A HUNCH made Quasi Modo famous…

~snip~

The economy, health care, jobs, LIES,

the messages are FINALLY STARTING TO RESONATE …

Ok… Maybe I’m an optimist; but I think Kerry will win on a
LANDSLIDE …

This campaign is also filled with delusion. A poster on Craig’s List gives Obama odds I’d like to take to Las Vegas:

Date: 2008-09-12, 12:32AM EDT
Location: new haven

He’s definitely going to win. No question.

What chances would you give him? I’d give him 100%.

3. Acceptance

The last stage is filled with sadness and recriminations.

Lentinel writes:

my heart sinks.
I lay some of the blame at Obama’s door.
As soon as he was assured of the nomination he turned South, figuratively speaking.
He voted for FISA.
He disowned public financing.
He went on preaching to evangelicals.
He waffled on his commitment to withdraw troops from Iraq.
He waffled on his commitment to the right of women to an abortion.
And, of course, he went on to treat Hillary Clinton and her supporters like dirt.

And Daily Kos’ DaveinSiliconValley has a diary titled: “Why (Sadly) Obama Will Probably Lose”

A few days ago I had a conversation with a mid-fifties nonreligious, pro-choice, Caucasian, suburban mother who thinks the Iraq war was a terrible mistake, that Bush was a terrible president, and is concerned that McCain may get us into another war, but she is “seriously thinking” about voting for McCain. I will give you a clue. She is absolutely going to vote for McCain.

I asked, given the way she feels on the issues, why isn’t she voting for Obama? She said “I don’t know.” I pressed her. She said, “I don’t trust him.” I asked why and she said “I don’t know.”

Obama can hit this lady with a thousand commercials explaining his stand on the issues and why his plans for the country are better than McCain’s plans and it will have no effect whatsoever on her vote. Zero. She is issue-proof.

What’s going on? Is it just subliminal racism? It’s not that simple.

After the 2004 election, Democrats became obsessed with psychoanalyzing the electorate. I engaged in some of this myself. Searching for answers, we read What’s the Matter with Kansas? but failed to find the answer. Believing, like DaveinSiliconvalley, that Republicans controlled the electorate with subliminal powers, we read George Lakoff’s Don’t think of an Elephant, but we found that framing issues is only one small part of winning elections. Framing can come across as patronizing, e.g., you’re pushing your agenda on the electorate instead of listening to their needs.

In 2006, as I began thinking about the next presidential cycle, I finally got around to reading Hillary’s Living History and President Clinton’s My Life. The Clintons, both policy wonks, believe that winning campaigns put forward good policies which appeal to the electorate’s aspirations. The voters do not need to be cajoled or hypnotized into voting for a candidate. The voters decide the issues and the politicians offer solutions.

The Clintons taught Democrats how to win elections. Remember, Bill Clinton was the first Democrat elected to a second term since 1936. Also, let’s not forget the magnitude of Hillary’s victories; she won Florida, Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky; she won West Virginia by 40%. A few caucus states and Obama’s delegate stealing in Michigan made the difference. Let’s not pretend that Obama was the people’s choice. The primary campaign was not a decisive win by either candidate, and millions of Hillary supporters will never forgive the way she was treated by those within the Party, to say nothing of the media.

The Clintons win by offering proposals to make people’s lives better. On the campaign trail, they talk incessantly about helping working people, and they both have an unwavering commitment to the nation’s defense. The Clintons reject flowery rhetoric and use a clear communication strategy. Their strategy is effective; they know how to build winning coalitions. I have no doubt that Hillary would now be locking down battleground states on her march to the White House.

Hillary won the popular vote and nearly all the important states. She was positioned to win the General Election. Hillary, like President Clinton, built a coalition based on economic opportunity and national renewal. Obama took the nomination because he controlled much of the Party’s infrastructure: his supporters controlled the hierarchy of the Democratic Party, specifically the Rules and Bylaws Committee, and he was funded and fueled by the activist base, by groups like MoveOn.org, and he was supported by the netroots and the media.

Now that the General Election is in peril, these groups, who failed to provide the base of the Party with any reason to vote for Obama other than habit, scramble to connect with the very voters they demonized during the primary as “low information” and hopelessly bitter. No one television ad or high paid adviser can turn the tide. Let them panic.

Is Axelrod right? Could it be McCain has energized his base but that Obama remains ahead?

Using Electoral-Vote.com’s numbers, I created a list of red states and compared Obama’s numbers to Kerry’s percentages in 2004. All but three of the state polls are post-Palin.

This is not a comprehensive list of all red states. However, I believe it’s a fair representation of reliable Republican states. Our purpose is to see if there’s been an uptick for McCain over Obama relative to the previous presidential election.

All battleground states are out, regardless of who won in 2004. Additionally, I did not include red states which Obama is now actively fighting for, like Virginia, or historically red states like New Hampshire, which Kerry won. In most states, there’s no difference in the relative position between Kerry’s final result and Obama’s current standing; in other states Obama is actually doing better than Kerry.

Let’s take a look at Axelrod’s assertion that red states are becoming redder:

As you can see, Obama is faring no worse than John Kerry did. In fact, the current state of the race is remarkably similar to the final results in 2004. It follows, then, that state polls reflect similar numbers as 2004. Obama’s weak numbers, as I believe Axelrod is implying, are not coming from intolerant red state voters. According to Rasmussen, McCain is leading Obama by approximately 2%, and in 2004 Bush beat Kerry by 2.4%. Obama is performing in Republican states about as well as any Democrat could be expected.

Contrary to Axelrod’s statement, Obama’s decline in national polling is not due to inordinately low numbers in deep-red states. Indeed, the opposite is true: Obama is under-performing in reliably Democratic states. As Truthteller demonstrates with the spreadsheet below, Obama is under-performing in blue states such as New York (population 20 million) and New Jersey (population 9 million). These high population Democratic states will skew national numbers far more than low population red states like North Dakota (population 640,000), while Republican Texas (population 24 million), where Obama is in nearly the same spot as Kerry, is easily offset by the densely populated California and Illinois, both states where Obama is doing very well. Additionally, Obama is trending down in the swing state of Ohio:

	New York	New Jersey	Minnesota	Pennsylvania	Ohio
McCain-Palin	41	45	45	47	48
Obama-Biden	46	48	45	47	45

Because of these weak blue- and swing-state numbers, Obama now has to defend more real estate than McCain. Truthteller writes:

So now Obama must invest precious and finite resources in states such as New Jersey and New York. And instead of campaigning in Arkansas, Nevada, Florida or Louisiana, he will hold events in Minnesota, a state that should be solidly Democratic in the current political climate. He may even have to campaign in New York now that McCain is within five points of the underperforming Obama.

And Hill Buzz sees a potential map-changer in McCain:

If McCain was only leading in Utah by 5 points, we’d say this election was over, and that McCain would lose GOP strongholds.

Instead, the opposite seems to be true. SoetorObama leads in NY by only 5 points, in NJ by 3 points, and in MI and PA by just 2 points.

To us, it looks like McCain could be the one changing the electoral map this year, with traditionally blue states having a better chance of turning red instead of the other way around.

Shortly after Obama’s grandiose trip to Europe, I wrote: “I think Obama would have been wise to go somewhere he lost big, like West Virginia, leaving behind his entourage and asking working people about their concerns in the streets and cafes of small town America.” There’s nothing earth-shattering in my suggestion, but I think that’s exactly what’s so troubling about the Obama campaign. It’s not the economy, it’s the arrogance. I think Obama’s odd trip to Europe — and the arrogance of selecting Biden over Hillary — is at the heart of many of Obama’s troubles today. The American people will vote for Ivy League candidates, but only those who come to their towns to listen and not to lecture.

Obama’s arrogance is now becoming a matter of concern for Democratic strategists. The statement below by an unnamed source in the British newspaper The Sunday Telegraph should send fear into the hearts of Obama’s supporters:

A senior Democratic strategist, who has played a prominent role in two presidential campaigns, told The Sunday Telegraph: “These guys are on the verge of blowing the greatest gimme in the history of American politics. They’re the most arrogant bunch Ive ever seen. They won’t accept that they are losing and they won’t listen.”

With this mentality, it’s no wonder Axelrod is blaming Obama’s woes on red states. Ani writes:

Of course there is a bunker mentality. Obama’s campaign manager, David Axelrod, must protect his carefully sculpted media creation at all costs. Their whole strategy has been to overwhelm their way into the presidency with huge rallies and concerts, presidential emblems, soaring rhetoric and platitudes.

Click here to view the embedded video.

I was struck by the high quality of the ad. It tweaks Obama’s celebrity status, and then unleashes a full-throttle class attack on Obama. “Life in the spotlight must be grand,” intones a woman’s voice, dropping her voice off for emphasis, “but for the rest of us times are tough. Obama voted to raise taxes on people making just $42,000.”

Contrast this ad with the lingering image of Obama in Europe, a trip which I think cost him dearly. Obama is trying to stretch his image into that of a statesman; he tried to fill the shoes of real presidents by going on the Euro-Disney tour of historic moments of American presidential history. But these staged events actually make Obama seem smaller, like the scared guy hiding behind a faux presidential seal:

I’ve been thinking about Obama’s missteps since he “secured” the nomination. I think Obama would have been wise to go somewhere he lost big, like West Virginia, leaving behind his entourage and asking working people about their concerns in the streets and cafes of small town America. Instead of puffing himself up to look presidential, Obama should bring himself to the door steps of poor whites in Appalachia, Latinos in Texas, the elderly in Florida. Bill Clinton published a book during the 1992 campaign called “Putting People First,” and his economic message struck a chord. Obama has promised Hope, but he has failed to articulate a compelling economic message. But I suspect that he and his advisers are already intoxicated on their perceived greatness.

Obama’s message is a post-modern, self-referential echo of how great Obama is, because Obama brings you hope and that’s what you’ve been waiting for, in addition to yourself (who you didn’t know you were waiting for). He won’t let you be complacent and he will remind you that you and he are merging into “The Ones we’ve all been waiting for”. And then a light will shine. Our tires will spontaneously inflate. And the earth will begin to heal.

Putting sarcasm aside, take a look at a Bill Clinton ad from 1992. People often complain that politics is all image and no substance. But here we have a candidate who is nearly all substance. He is working at his desk while the names of economists supporting his economic plan scroll across the screen. Obama fills the screen with himself and his adoring crowds, Bill Clinton (like Hillary Clinton) outlined solutions. Working Americans, I suggest, can see the difference.

Click here to view the embedded video.

My neighbor told me today that he’s voting for McCain. The only other time he’s voted Republican was for Nixon in 1972, an ominous warning for Democrats.

If Obama is losing Democrats like my neighbor — white ethnic, life-long Democrat, over 65 years old — he is in deep trouble. Back in April, Anglachel wrote that Obama’s inability to speak the language of the working class would cost the Democrats the election:

Should Obama be the nominee, he can kiss the general election goodbye … the Democratic Party leadership itself is going to be paying for its whole-hearted embrace of reductionist class politics. Some voters will defect to the Republicans, though I think that is going to be limited … I think you see a significant section of the working class simply turn away from participation, depressing turn out and costing the party electoral success. They will stay away until the party offers them candidates who talk to their material interests instead of to the leadership’s fantasy of being modern day Solons.

Obama’s inability to speak to the “forgotten middle class,” as Bill Clinton famously called them, is a primary source of his troubles. His campaign is still running to win the votes of college towns, but now great swaths of working America are starting to pay attention and the candidate speaking to the concerns of the working class, ironically enough, is the Republican nominee.

These gentlemen represent what is considered to be the best of Hillary’s coalition of voters. Well, unless you think the old bitter white women contingent is actually the best. The point is arguable, we know.

Still, if you like the Colbert Report, you’ll like Red State Update.

In the first video the gentlemen are discussing the West Virginia vote, with some some scintillating commentary on the twitchy superdelegate problem. We like to call this one RATBOAT.

In the second video, the analysts discuss the different “class” of voters in Oregon and Kentucky. Apparently clover and patchoulli are regional preferences. . . .

Senator, whatever could you POSSIBLY be thinking? What group are you pandering to NOW? We all know your standing with our sons and daughters in uniform. Are you trying to get the “too-stupid-not-to-sign-up-crowd?” Really? Even though your acolytes often suggest the only people serving are those who can’t get work somewhere better, like Starbucks or Whole Foods? That must be some great arugula you’re smoking, to think military people will feel your kinship to them, or was it the phantom army you were talking to? Senator, you do know that phantom army can’t vote? Oh but, you’re from Chicago – maybe that works there.

Where in your universe does having a grandfather and/or great uncle who served in the Army and may or may not have liberated someone somewhere suggest in any way whatsoever that you have any understanding of the military, its people, traditions and sacrifices?

What’s next, sir? A tank ride? By the way, senator, if you’re looking to attract military people, you MIGHT want to ask your not-my-close-friends to step off the flag for their publicity photos hawking their new books.

But Senator, perhaps you were going for the Jewish vote? Having previously stoked the embers of racism into a hungry flame, are you now trying to convince Jews they are “the other white people” – not those horrible West Virginia and Kentucky types – and you can “feel THEIR pain?” Do you think, sir, telling people your “uncle” liberated Auschwitz is a GOOD idea? Particularly since it was the RED ARMY that marched into Auschwitz? Know history, much, sir? Or do you think most Jews get their concentration camps confused and won’t really mind since you so clearly have the best intentions at heart? Or did you MEAN to tell us your uncle-in-the-attic was a communist?

Senator, traditionally on Memorial Day, our politicians profess gratitude for the sacrifices our service members have made on our behalf. Most of the time they manage to distinguish between the living and the dead and to offer up any truthful examples of family members who served. You did neither.

At the VERY LEAST, you should have been able to summon the skills of an experienced politician. But then again, you’re not.

Good night and good luck.

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::

::::::::::::::::

This broadcast was intercepted by our crack technology team from a dimension where Keith Olbermann really is a journalist. If you thought he said this on Earth, we apologize for the confusion. – Editor

I am not making this stuff up.

Obama blames Fox News, e-mail for likely loss in Kentucky

He also blamed Fox News for disseminating “rumors” about him and said that that and e-mails filled with misinformation that have been “systematically” dispersed have hurt him in Kentucky.

So those backwoods hicks are immune to the Cult-Aide because they prefer moonshine. Instead they get their hypno on by watching Fox News.

But that doesn’t stop Obama from trying to hoodwink Kentuckians anyway. The master in his own words:

“What it says is that I’m not very well known in that part of the country,” Obama said. “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”

Yeah, Obama, those dumb hicks aren’t aware that Illinois borders Kentucky. What an idiot!

And this is how he is explaining his massive loss in Kentucky Tuesday night.

“Part of it is because there have been these e-mails that have been sent out very systematically, presumably by various political opponents, although I don’t know who,” he said. “And there are a lot of voters who get their news from Fox News. Fox has been pumping up rumors about my religious beliefs or my patriotism or what have you since the beginning of the campaign.”

Juan Williams is having none of it. The way he sees things Obama is delusional and making excuses for his inability to connect with ordinary Americans.

Juan says Obama is Constipated

Well I think he is playing to the elites Laura. A lot of people on the elite side, the San Francisco people who he told that those backwood rubes don’t understand their clinging to their guns and their religion. They also think that somehow those people are being influenced and misguided by Fox news. And so I think Barack Obama is playing to that base and writing off people who watch Fox and I think distorting the truth. because as you just said, when he has come on Fox he has been treated very well. I would challenge him to say: Give me some evidence where you have been mistreated.

The one case he would cite is one day about a year ago Fox reported that he had attended a madras as a young person growing up. The next day, this was a one day one hit wonder, the next day Fox News corrected it. Is that what he is talking about? I don’t know. If that’s the case it is su8ch a thin reed that I think that it makes him look foolish. I don’t think, there is no substance to it. Because when he has come on Fox he has been treated so well. In fact I would go an added step. I would say in fact there are people on Fox that really don’t like Hillary Clinton and have been very rough on Hillary Clinton. And they have almost treated Obama as a savior. Oh yeah, treat him well because he is the guy thats come along and he is the one that is going to defeat Hillary Clinton.

I think that Juan does a good job of explaining all of this. Of course to the Obama campaign and his thug supporters, Juan is nothing more than a House N*g*er. But what else would you expect from them?

In the end Williams hits it out of the ballpark. This guy not only has his head on right, he understands ordinary people and knows exactly what to say.

It’s just like this: He is not campaigning in Kentucky. He is campaigning in Oregon. He didn’t campaign in West Virginia. So I think, wait a second, If he wants people to get to know him make an effort. Let people get to know you, make a case for yourself. Instead he wants to blame Fox. I think it’s a cheap out. I think in fact people are seeing through him. That’s the problem. He doesn’t like people seeing through him.

In Pennsylvania it was those clingy hicks. In West Virginia we never even had the chance to find out what Obama thought, because he only held one campaign event in that state. And now in Kentucky Obama is blaming this all on Fox News and those dumb hillbillies stupid enough to watch and believe it.

I think that Juan is exactly right. Obama has been caught looking down his elite nose on ordinary, hard working Americans. And the people of Kentucky can see right through him. Thank goodness!

And I am proud to state: Ich bin ein Kentuckian.

I end this with a wonderful find. It is the unofficial Obama campaign song. I think you will find it entirely appropriate.

Obama Might Do Better in Kentucky If He Knew Where It Was

Wonderful World (Don’t Know Much)
Sam Cooke
Reprise by Beto Ochoa

Don’t know much about history
Jus’ what liberals taught to me
Don’t know much about a bible book
Jus’ the view Revren’ Jeri took
But I do know I need your vote
And the press ain’t gonna’ rock the boat
What a wonderful scam this will be

Don’t know much about geography
Jus’ the places where the elite be
Don’t know much about ancient rocks
Jus’ the way to stuffa’ ballot box
But I know that if we make one vote two
And if we supress the rednecks too
What a wonderful scam this will be

Now, I don’t claim to be an “A” student
Just a product of whitey guilt
And if we can make you all feel guilty
I can get ya’ll to vote for me

Don’t know much about history
Jus’ what liberals taught to me
Don’t know much about a bible book
Jus’ the view Revren’ Jeri took
But I do know I need your vote
And the press ain’t gonna’ rock the boat
What a wonderful scam this will be

After Hillary Clinton’s historic 41-point victory in the West Virginia primary, two questions loom: How long will Barak Obama cling to his shattered dreams of the presidency, and how much damage will be done to the Democratic Party by his stubborn and divisive refusal to accept the obvious? [MORE BELOW THE FOLD]

This may be the best segment I’ve seen on WHY Hillary can win and WHY Barack cannot:

This segment covers her HUGE West Virginia win, and what it really means. As the videographer states, “The Mclaughlin Group talks about Hillary Clinton’s landslide victory in West Virginia and the “bizarre” math that make Barack APPEAR stronger.”

Here is the home page for the McLaughlin Group.

I make it a habit to watch this show weekly. I find that, conservative that he is, John McLaughlin has great respect for Hillary Clinton, and always has many astute observations about her abilities versus those of Obama.

You can also listen to podcasts and read transcripts from previous shows.

Here’s a sample quote from a previous show:

“And I think this thing has been very hurtful to Obama in this sense. It has drawn him out of the middle of “He’s one of us, a regular guy” over onto the left, where he’s got a wacko preacher. He’s got this Weatherman bomber friend of his. His wife has never known America to be something to be proud of. And I think it’s been overall the most…”

-Pat Buchanan

::::::::::::::::

MORE FROM THE KEY CORRENTE WIRE STORY:

What just weeks earlier had looked to the Obama camp like an easy path to victory has been derailed following his confidence-shattering defeat in Indiana, a state conventional wisdom and his own campaign had projected he would win, and his disastrous showing in Pennsylvania in spite of outspending Clinton 3:1. The North Carolina win was expected, with a demographic that heavily favored Obama’s race-based campaign style, and is of no value strategically since it came in a state that will certainly end up in the Republican win column. In sharp and defining contrast, Clinton’s 41-point West Virginia primary victory is highly significant because current polls show Clinton leading McCain there by a growing margin – it is a state she can win in the fall.

Obama’s best hope for convincing party elders of his general election viability was a decent showing in West Virginia, the closest thing there is to a “key” state for Democratic victory in the general election. Obama aides tried to dismiss the state’s importance – and avoid disturbing questions about why he is badly trailing McCain there in the polls – by saying that West Virginia won’t be part of their plans for victory in the fall.

It is difficult to see how Obama could win the general election without West Virginia; no Democrat, in fact, has taken the White House without West Virginia since 1916. When pressed for Electoral College details, Obama staffers could offer no specifics on what the general election campaign plan might be. “We’re still working on that, but don’t worry,” a source* cites one staffer as saying; “we’ll come up with something.”*

Concern Mounts Regarding Obama’s Electability

The superdelegates certainly are worried. Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid have repeatedly taken the trouble to make clear they don’t need to force a decision before the end of June, giving them time to see how Obama does with the remaining primaries before they make any decision. What happened in West Virginia, the single biggest percentage loss ever suffered by a leading candidate this late in the primary process, must certainly give them great pause; the expected result of next week’s Kentucky primary will only add to those concerns. The last thing these leaders want is to nominate another flawed candidate, one who can win the activist part of the Democratic Party but will fail in the general election.

Anticipating rejection by West Virginia voters, the Obama campaign scrambled to create a positive spin for an increasingly faltering effort. …

READ ALL of “Clinton Election Juggernaut Accelerates.”

SEE: “Obama blames Fox News, e-mail for likely loss in Kentucky,” McClatchy Washington Bureau

Barack Obama has retreated from Kentucky, conceding the Bluegrass State to Hillary, blaming Kentucky voters, just like he riled his cheerleading pundits to blame the voters of West Virginia after he was trounced there. Whenever voters actually prefer Hillary for solid reasons–better on the issues like universal health care, the economy, foreclosures, foreign policy–and knows what she’s doing–Obama plays the race baiting card. Once again, Obama plays victim, even before the vote.

Is the Democratic establishment blind to Obama’s glaring weakness? Does it worry the establishment that Obama can’t win the working and middle class? That Obama loses the critical states that a Democrat needs to win and that Hillary wins them?

Now, in advance of election day in Kentucky, Obama smears the entire people there, accusing all of them of being swayed by “rumors” from Fox News and nasty emails. Apparently, according to Obama, everyone in Kentucky is a bigot, easily manipulated by the slightest twitch of right-wing media. He must be projecting the distortions, lies and innuendo that pour from his jocksniffing worshippers at MCNBC and their addling effect on the most mindless of his childish idolators.

If Obama loses, we are told, the voters must be “bitter,” stupid, uneducated, dumb tools, bigots, racists, fools, clowns, bitter, angry, deluded, pathetic, hateful, and worthless morons.

Here’s Obama’s big alibi for his inability to persuade Kentucky voters of his divinity:

“When we’re able to campaign in a place like Iowa for several months and I can visit and talk to people individually, I do very well. That’s harder to do at this stage in the campaign,” Obama said in a brief telephone interview Friday. “And once we get past the primary, we’ll be able to focus more on those states where we need to make sure people know my track record.”

See, all the voters of Kentucky are rubes, hicks, dopes, and racist bigots. You don’t believe that? Listen to Obama:

“Part of it is because there have been these e-mails that have been sent out very systematically, presumably by various political opponents, although I don’t know who,” he said. “And there are a lot of voters who get their news from Fox News. Fox has been pumping up rumors about my religious beliefs or my patriotism or what have you since the beginning of the campaign.”

So, Democrats, Obama is writing off Kentucky, just like he’s written off West Virginia. He’s writing off state after state. He confesses he can’t win them. He’s going to places where “people know my track record.” Now he’s running on his non-existent experience? Isn’t this what he’s attacked Hillary for, actually having experience and knowing how to accomplish things for people?

Obama’s problem is that “those states” he going to, having rejected key states where Democrats need to compete, and condemned and tainted their people, is that the voters of “those states” have also voted on him–and he lost.

He lost every big state but his own–and he is behind in Ohio and Florida. which Hillary wins–and faltering far behind her in critical Pennsylvania.