Here is how the AAPOR defines the Bradley effect on page 53 of the report:

the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent.

And here is what their extensive and rigorous report found (pages 53-54):

Several compelling pieces of evidence suggest that the New Hampshire estimation errors were probably not caused by the “Bradley effect” – or the tendency for respondents to report a preference for a black candidate (Obama) but vote instead for a white opponent. A meta-analysis by Hopkins (2008) indicates that while the Bradley effect did undermine some state-level polls in previous decades, there is no evidence for such an effect in recent years. In the 2008 general election, the very accurate final poll estimates of Barack Obama’s fairly decisive victory over John McCain dispelled suspicion that the Bradley effect was at play during the final weeks of the fall contest. There is also a conspicuous lack of evidence for a Bradley effect in the primary contests outside of New Hampshire. Of the 81 polls conducted during the final 30 days of the Iowa, South Carolina, California, and Wisconsin contests, the vast majority (86%) over-estimated Clinton’s relative vote share, while just 14% over-estimated Obama’s relative vote share. This finding is based on the signed direction of A for each survey.26 Furthermore, as reported in Table 3, poll estimates of Obama’s vote share in New Hampshire were quite accurate – it was only Clinton’s share that was consistently underestimated.

Here is Table 3 (page 14):

In poll after poll Hillary Cinton’s support was undersampled while Obama’s support was correctly sampled. It was not that her supporters lied to pollsters; they were simply not contacted.

Pollster.com offers this summary of the report:

• Given the compressed caucus and primary calendar, polls conducted before the New Hampshire primary may have ended too early to capture late shifts in the electorate’s preferences there.
• Most commercial polling firms conducted interviews on the first or second call, but respondents who required more effort to contact were more likely to support Senator Clinton. Instead of continuing to call their initial samples to reach these hard‐to‐contact people, pollsters typically added new households to the sample, skewing the results toward the opinions of those who were easy to reach on the phone, and who more typically supported Senator Obama.
• Non‐response patterns, identified by comparing characteristics of the pre‐election samples with the exit poll samples, suggest that some groups who supported Senator Clinton–such as union members and those with less education–were under‐ represented in pre‐election polls, possibly because they were more difficult to reach.
• Variations in likely voter models could explain some of the estimation problems in individual polls. Application of the Gallup likely larger error than was present in the unadjusted data. The influx of first-time voters may have had adverse effects on likely voter models.

Hillary’s base of women, blue collar workers, union members, single mothers and the elderly were simply too difficult to contact, while young Obama supporters were always available by telephone. It was not racism or the Bradley Effect that enabled Hillary to win New Hampshire; it was that the pollsters never spoke to her base.

But the media and the Obama campaign had to accuse New Hampshire Democratic Primary voters of racism in order to minimize Hillary’s victory and racialize the race before the South Carolina primary, where the majority of Democratic voters are African-American.

Here is Mickey Kaus of Slate on January 9, 2008:

1. Bradley Effect: It seemed like a nice wonky little point when Polipundit speculated on the Reverse Bradley Effect–the idea that Iowa’s public caucuses led Dem voters to demonstrate their lack of prejudice by caucusing for Obama. Now this is the CW of the hour. Polipundit wrote:

I suspect that Obama may have scored better than he would have in a secret-ballot election, and benefited from a Reverse Bradley Effect.

New Hampshire, of course, is a secret ballot election. Voters might have told pollsters one thing but done another in private.** New Hampshirites I ran into Tuesday night mentioned that the state was very late ratifying the MLK Holiday.

Here is Andrew Kohut in the New York Times on January 10, 2008:

To my mind all these factors deserve further study. But another possible explanation cannot be ignored — the longstanding pattern of pre-election polls overstating support for black candidates among white voters, particularly white voters who are poor.…

Poorer, less well-educated white people refuse surveys more often than affluent, better-educated whites. Polls generally adjust their samples for this tendency. But here’s the problem: these whites who do not respond to surveys tend to have more unfavorable views of blacks than respondents who do the interviews….

In New Hampshire, the ballots are still warm, so it’s hard to pinpoint the exact cause for the primary poll flop. But given the dearth of obvious explanations, serious consideration has to be given to the difficulties that race and class present to survey methodology.

Here is David Kuo of the Huffington Post as votes were counted during the New Hampshire Primary:

Tonight, despite all the talk of how little race matters in this campaign, it is clear that race is still a big deal in bi-racial campaigns. And it has showed up for the first time, in a measurable way, in the 2008 presidential race.

It means that every poll — from exit polls to tracking polls — are absolutely suspect from here on out.

Here are excerpts from MSNBC on the night of the New Hampshire Primary:

ROBINSON: Well, I‘ll tell you what some people will suspect. Here you have polls, you know, the day before the primary showing Obama way ahead. And he finishes, you know, 15 points lower than that. A lot of people will suspect a “Bradley effect.”

You know, Tom Bradley…

SCARBOROUGH: Oh, Tom Bradley. You‘re…

(CROSSTALK)

ROBINSON: Not the Bill Bradley effect. We were talking about Bill Bradley‘s endorsement being, you know, not necessarily the greatest thing. I‘m talking about Tom Bradley, the mayor—African-American mayor of Los Angeles years ago, ran for governor of California. Polls showed him on election eve that he was going to cruise to victory and he lost. And Doug Wilder of—the first…

SCARBOROUGH: Wait, wait, wait, but are you really saying right now that the people of New Hampshire may have—I won‘t say, be racist, but are you saying that they did not want to go in that booth and vote for a black man? …

BRIAN WILLIAMS, NBC ANCHOR: I was just going to say, I‘ve been listening to the panel. Number one, the “Bradley effect,” whether people are going to decide it was in effect in this case is very real and talked about among people in the political business. Let‘s not forget the Gantt race in North Carolina few years ago.…

CHUCK TODD, NBC NEWS POLITICAL DIRECTOR: Well, look, you can only go back—you know, and I go back in recent history and you try to find races where you had these gigantic poll shifts, where the final pre-election polls differed so dramatically from the actual result.

And the one thing they all have in common is something that Eugene Robinson brought up earlier, and that is race.

It was Tom Bradley in California governor‘s race in 1982. The polls had him ahead—ahead by a fairly healthy margin over George Deukmejian. He ended up losing.

And Virginia governor, 1989, Doug Wilder had a double digit lead going into the final—in the final weekend. He won by a very narrow 1 point margin.

Harvey Gant, the 1990 Senate race with Jesse Helms—one of the most divisive races, frankly, that this country had on race. That was, again, pre-election polls had Gant ahead, Helms wins.

So you can‘t help but look at that—and particularly you‘ve got to wonder what this sends—the message that this could send to African-American Democrats, who may look at this and say, well, of course, that‘s what happened. You know, a lot of times when I‘ve noticed this and when you talk to African-American Democrats, they sat here and they‘ll see this race stuff a lot quicker than us in white America. And I think that this is—it‘s at least, you‘ve got to explore it. You‘ve got to look at it. History has taught us this—recent history—when it‘s come to dealing with African-American candidates.

Here is Carol Costello, Andrew Kohut and Professor Charles Ogletree on CNN’s Situation Room on January 11, 2008:

I’m Wolf Blitzer.

You’re in THE SITUATION ROOM.

Is the U.S. ready for an African-American president?

Senator Barack Obama’s strong showing so far in this campaign has many saying absolutely, yes. Others, though, say it’s too soon to tell.

Carol Costello has been looking into this story for us — you’ve been talking to a lot of people supposedly knowledgeable on this very sensitive subject.

What are they telling you?

COSTELLO: Well, it is a sensitive subject, isn’t it?

You know, most I talked with today say it is too soon to tell.

Obama seems to have transcended race, but can he in the long run?

Already, critics say Obama’s opponents are trying to create this subtle narrative of racial division. They deny it, but it illustrates how hard it is in this country to take race out of the equation.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

COSTELLO (voice-over): The Iowa caucus created all kinds of excitement surrounding Barack Obama. His win in a predominantly white state and a strong showing in another seemingly proves it — Obama can transcend race. It’s something Obama has always believed could happen.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE: If I have your support, if I have your energy and involvement and commitment and ideas, then I am here to tell you yes, we can in ’08.

COSTELLO: Maybe. But there are those who feel while Iowa and New Hampshire prove Obama can certainly get white votes, it doesn’t mean he can continue the trend — that Obama’s second place finish in New Hampshire, despite polls that had him coming in first, illustrates the undercurrent about race that exists in this country.

Andrew Kohut, in charge of Pew Research, has a theory. He says many of those inclined to vote for Hillary Clinton in New Hampshire were poor, uneducated whites who don’t participate in polls and who often don’t vote for blacks.

ANDREW KOHUT, PRES., PEW RESEARCH CTR.: At least race should be considered because we know that the kinds of people drawn to Mrs. Clinton are always the kinds of people who turn down surveys at pretty high rates. We don’t know much about whether the people who we don’t get are like the people that we do get.

COSTELLO: Polls about race are notoriously difficult to analyze. Take this ABC/Washington Post poll conducted before the Iowa caucus. A whopping 88 percent of Americans said race would not matter in choosing a president. But pollsters say you have to take this result with a grain of salt. Few people are willing to tell a pollster they’re racist. It reflects the Bradley effect, after Tom Bradley, a black man who ran for governor in California in 1982. Most polls showed him leading but he lost to a white male candidate.

PROF. CHARLES OGLETREE, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL: Ask Tom Bradley when he ran for governor in California. Black man, thought he could win, he didn’t. Ask Harvey Gant in North Carolina. Ask Harold Ford, Jr.

COSTELLO: Look at the stats. There is one black governor in the United States. They are nine women governors. They are 16 senators who are women. And one black man, Barack Obama.

Still, Barack Obama got plenty of votes in New Hampshire and in Iowa, which are both 95 percent white.

You could say that trumps the poll, but there are many more people yet to vote and racial under currents that are so hard to predict.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

And here is the Obama campaign as discussed in an article by Ryan Lizza in the January 21, 2008, edition of the New Yorker:

Did Obama experience a similar fate in New Hampshire? The evidence is murky, but his campaign believes the question is important enough to warrant study. When I asked a senior Obama adviser whether the Bradley effect was a possible explanation for the gap between the final poll numbers, which showed Obama leading by an average of eight points, and the ultimate outcome, he replied, “Definitely.” He added, “If so, then the question is: what’s different between Iowa and New Hampshire? It could be that the socially acceptable thing in front of your neighbor at a caucus could be different than what you do in a secret ballot. Obviously, that’s something we’re going to be trying to figure out as we go forward, primarily through polling. I know people are working on ways of asking questions about getting at people’s attitudes about race. We’re working on this.”

In other words, the Obama campaign cited the Bradley Effect in order to explain a loss, and the sycophantic media repeated the notion again and again and again. Apparently they received the memo from David Axelrod as votes were counted in New Hampshire. Too bad real analysis reveals that the Bradley Effect had no impact on the New Hampshire Primary.

Will CNN apologize? Will MSNBC apologize? Will the New York Times apologize? Will Slate apologize? And is it not a coincidence that after the Obama campaign decided race was the reason he lost the NH primary that the Clintons were accused of racism by the Obama campaign during the South Carolina primary? All of it was debunked in the report released today by the AAPOR. Will Obama and Axelrod apologize to Hillary and Bill Clinton?

I doubt anyone will apologize, for no one in the Obama administration or in the Obamamedia cares about facts. But at least all of us know that those of us who voted for Hillary during the New Hampshire primary and during the other primaries are not racist. Will they apologize to us?

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.

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.

Like many of you before this election cycle, I never watched Fox News. In my naivete, I believed they were the bad guys and MoveOn were the good guys. Boy have things changed.

I now go to Fox before any of the other MSM, and while there are several excellent reporters there, my favorite is Greta Van Susteren. Greta Wire has the real dope, the antidote to the sexism and misogyny of the others talking heads, men and women alike.

In response to Obama’s Infomercial, Greta points out that Obama is not taking questions and that there are questions that women in particular need answered:

Tomorrow night [TODAY, October 29] Senator Obama has purchased 30 minutes on television on multiple television statIons. It is disappointing that he is NOT TAKING QUESTIONS – that means he is going to miss talking about issues that might matter to YOU. Until now, I have had a question that he has not answered but he won’t do an interview with me to get the answer….but now I have another question….a new one…and I think he needs to answer this BEFORE WOMEN VOTE FOR HIM on November 4 ..and here is the question (with a few follow ups):

She asks questions that Obama has ignored through the primary and then general election.

IS IT TRUE THAT WOMEN IN YOUR SENATE OFFICE GET PAID LESS THAN THE MEN???? PLEASE ANSWER THIS IMPORTANT ISSUE TO WOMEN IN YOUR 30 minutes tomorrow night! IF THIS IS FALSE, MAKE SURE WE KNOW AS IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO YOU.

SusanUNPC addressed this in a post in September; in addition, Obama’s inequality to women has been raised here and here and here. Greta makes her case to Obama for answers before election day in terms that all women can understand:

I have read that the women get paid 83 cents to the men’s $1.00 in your Senate office…true? or false? ….I was suspicious of the unequal pay allegations and suspected the allegation was wrong and/or politically motivated. So what did I do? I had someone on my staff crunch the numbers and it is, per our calculations 84 cents on the dollar! I am still uneasy about our number crunching. We are not accountants and this is a very important issue. What is the truth? Tell us!

As an aside, we did a similar analysis of Senator McCain’s Senate office and women get 97 cents to the men’s $1.00.

Let me tell you what I was also told by my number cruncher – which might be disturbing to women (if true.) The reason for this unequal pay for women analysis is due in part because men hold the better jobs (the important high paying jobs) in your Senate Office. This also needs to be explained. Women in other Senate Offices are the chief of staff etc and hold all sorts of important higher paying jobs than entry ones. Why don’t women hold the high paying jobs in your Senate Office? Women I know don’t accept it anymore that we can’t have important jobs. Many women not only are the breadwinners in many families but also assume extra responsibilities at home…yes, multitask..so we demand equal pay for equal work and equal opportunity…not extra..and not less.

There are many reasons I refuse to vote for Obama, but the sexism coming out of the Democratic Party is the reason I have quit the party after almost 40 years of loyalty. And the liberal women who felt justified in attacking Hillary turned their rabidity onto Palin with a bloodlust previously unimaginable.

Sarah Palin appeals to women who work hard for a living, especially women who work hard while raising a family. But as we’ve seen, the Democratic Party, as evidenced by Randy Rhodes’ comments about older white Hillary supporters, Donna Brazile’s comments about the Democratic Party not needing the white-working class, Obama calling blue-collar Pennsylvania Democrats “bitter,” and Rep. Murtha calling huge swaths of Pennsylvanians “racists,” it’s clear that the new Democratic Party, with Obama as their leader, HATES THE WHITE WORKING CLASS! Obama will not deign to answer Greta’s question because if you have to quibble over the difference between .83 and .97, you are of no interest to him. To quote Victor David Hanson again, as Reverend Amy did in her fine post:

Feminism, it turns out, is no longer about equal opportunity and equal compensation, but, in fact, little more than a strain of contemporary elitist identity politics, and support for unquestioned abortion. Had Gov. Sarah Palin just been a mother of a single child at Vassar rather than of five in Alaska, married to a novelist rather than a snow-machiner, an advocate of pro-choice, who shot pictures of Alaskan ferns rather than shot moose — feminists would have hailed her as a principled kindred soul, and trumpeted her struggles against Alaskan male grandees.

This is not the Democratic Party I used to know.

Like many Democrats, I fell hard for Bobby Kennedy. Although I wasn’t born when he was killed, his memory is woven into the fabric of the Democratic Party. You couldn’t be a Democrat through the conservative revolution of the 1980s and 1990s without yearning for his voice of outrage.

Bobby was the last politician, except perhaps for Hillary this year, who consciously sought to unite the remaining factions of the New Deal coalition. He sought the votes of African Americans in Watts and conservative whites in Indiana. His funeral train famously symbolized the divided America he sought to unite; for many miles between New York and Washington, whites and blacks, young and old, saluting veterans, nuns, and Americans every stripe lined the train tracks to see the train which took Bobby to his final rest.

It’s been 40 years since he was taken from us. In many ways our country is a more tolerant and better place. Women and minorities are no longer legally treated as second-class citizens, environmental and health standards have been put in place, a massive safety net saves many from abject poverty. But we’re also a cruder and meaner country, a place where destroying your opponent is considered the sign of a smart politician. It’s now considered funny and acceptable to sexualize and degrade women who seek elective office. In contrast, Bobby refused to be interviewed by the very tame Playboy magazine for fear his children would one day see it.

Bobby Kennedy’s voice was direct and honest. Of course he was a politician, but he knew his strength was in his authenticity. Politicians today smooth the edges of their rhetoric. In a desire not to offend, they soften their approach and offer platitudes instead of policies. They sooth us, but they don’t challenge us. Bobby challenged.

A professor from my college, where Bobby visited in the mid-sixties, related to me that when students asked Bobby who would pay for health care for the poor, he simply told them “You will.” His fearless voice is sorely missed today.

On Monday night I’ll be speaking with Thurston Clark, author of the superb new book: The Last Campaign: Robert F. Kennedy and 82 Days that Inspired America. I hope you’ll join us.

What are your memories of Bobby?

“We want to take money and put it back in the pocket of middle-class people.” Snow asked: “Anybody making over $250,000…” Biden responded: “Is gonna pay more.” Snow: “Is going to pay more.” Biden: “You got it. It’s time to be patriotic, Kate. Time to jump in. Time to be part of the deal. Time to help get America out of the rut.”

Conservatives predictably went ballistic with their calls of “class warfare”; Obama’s fans thought it brilliant economics.

For those of us who are Democrats, or former Democrats, Joe Biden’s statement was offensive on a different level. Although many of us agree with progressive taxation, Biden’s formulation is deeply offensive. According to Biden, greater taxation equals greater patriotism. This concept fits perfectly with the self-congratulatory world of Whole Foods Nation. Anglachel describes Biden’s target audience as the new elites:

The focus of the [Obama] Democrats is on the winners of the economic realignment, those who managed to win a place in the white collar upper-middle class … [Obama] is the exemplar of a mode of life that, while not as unreachable as that of Bush’s base, is still out of reach of those who do not have the education, acculturation and business contacts to climb up that economic ladder.

Some will argue that Biden is simply practicing liberal class warfare; he is targeting the wealthy and not the “bitter” gun owners of greater Appalachia. I disagree. By using the framework of patriotism, Biden is challenging — to use Anglachel’s parlance — the “Bubbas” and the Archie Bunkers — to ownership of American patriotism.

Biden is telegraphing to Whole Foods Nation that it’s equally patriotic to live in Boulder, Colorado and pay on a 33% tax bracket income as it is to serve in Iraq, like Governor Palin’s son. Or, as a friend in this income bracket told me recently, she “sacrifices” by voting Democratic.

The primary campaign showed that Obama fared well with affluent voters and African Americans. Clinton crushed Obama with middle- and low-income voters. The Pennsylvania primary was a perfect example of Obama’s inability to connect with low-income voters:

The Pennsylvania Democratic primary shared many of the same vote characteristics of other primary states this season – with Clinton winning her core base of union members, less educated and lower income voters and rural voters, and Obama winning voters with more education and income, and black voters.

The attack on blue-collar voters by Obama is what precipitated the civil war now raging in the Democratic party, and Obama’s race-baiting of blue-collar whites has been one of the more depressing episodes in our history as a Party.

Low-income white Democrats are the least likely group to vote Republican, and the assault on this vulnerable group has all the markings of racial and class warfare used for electoral gain. African Americans are all too familiar with politicians playing on prejudices for electoral gain and there is nothing different in this case except for the color of the victims’ skin.

The dishwasher, the waitress at Denny’s, the auto mechanic, the grocery clerk, the nursing assistant, the soldier — all low income Americans — are equally patriotic to anyone living in San Francisco or Hyde Park or the East Village, regardless of the amount they pay in taxes.

I’ve been thinking about Biden’s notion of patriotism for several days. Last night I found a video which captures patriotism in a way still held by much of the country. It’s an old fashioned form of patriotism which is now considered uncouth and looked down upon by the liberal elites. But it’s a type of patriotism once honored by Democrats; it’s a part of what made Democrats the governing party for most of the first half of the last century.

The video is from Ken Burns’ brilliant 1990 documentary The Civil War. I think Sullivan Ballou’s love for his wife Sarah is only matched by his love of country.

Listen to Sullivan Ballou’s words carefully and think about everything he is sacrificing. You won’t hear politicians — except perhaps for John McCain — speak of our beloved country with such a degree selflessness and honor.

Sullivan Ballou wrote to his wife that he was “willing—perfectly willing—to lay down all my joys in this life, to help maintain this Government.” Ballou’s patriotism is echoed by Sarah Palin’s willingness to give her child to the service of our country: “Today is the day that I send my first born, my son, my teenage son overseas…to fight for our country, for democracy for our freedoms.”

Whole Foods Nation hates Sarah Palin for the class she represents. She threatens the self-perception of their own moral superiority on race and their economic “sacrifices.” Giving her son to our nation is not enough to silence the voices of hate.

During the primary campaign, on TPM, billysumday suggested that Bill Clinton was a racist because of his bumpkin origins, totally ignoring that the President was educated at Georgetown, Yale, and Oxford:

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.

I’ve been thinking about Liz Phair’s response to the rockin’ but boorish Rolling Stones after reading Jacob Weisberg’s If Obama Loses: Racism is the Only Reason McCain Might Beat Him in Slate. Unlike Phair, I won’t attempt a point-by-point rebuttal; Weisberg’s piece is so riddled with distortions and hyperbole that a laundry list argument cannot summarize my feelings.

Weisberg’s article is so bad on so many levels that it’s amazing it was published at all, but it does fit with the media’s love affair with Obama. It’s a deceptive piece of writing and it relies on faulty logic, which I show below. But of course that is not an accident. A strident media partisan like Weisberg cannot rely on facts. So let’s start from the beginning:

John McCain, a sub-par Republican nominee with a list of liabilities longer than a Joe Biden monologue. Obama has built a crack political operation, raised record sums, and inspired millions with his eloquence and vision. McCain has struggled with a fractious campaign team, lacks clarity and discipline, and remains a stranger to charisma. Yet at the moment, the two of them appear to be tied. What gives?

Weisberg overstates the effectiveness of Obama’s operation. The trip to Europe, the faux presidential seal, his many policy reversals, and his disastrous debate performance at Saddleback are not mentioned.

Now notice how Hillary’s name is not mentioned. Nor the fact that 18 million voters chose her, approximately 200,000 more than chose Obama. Obama did not win a decisive victory. He was pulled over the finish line by Reid and Pelosi.

In fact, Obama as a brand has actually been declining — if you look at primary results and polls — since March. McCain, on the other hand, has actually run a surprisingly nimble operation, releasing ads which deflate the self-important Obama.

He continues:

If you break the numbers down, the reason Obama isn’t ahead right now is that he trails badly among one group, older white voters. He does so for a simple reason: the color of his skin.

This would be a shocking conclusion if it were true. Older white voters, Weisberg is telling us, are racists. What’s his evidence?

Five percent of white voters acknowledge that they, personally, would not vote for a black candidate.

Five percent? Repeat. Five percent. Is Weisberg innumerate or does he think we’re stupid? That means 95 percent will not take race into consideration. Does this satisfy Weisberg? Of course not.

Five percent surely understates the reality. In the Pennsylvania primary, one in six white voters told exit pollsters race was a factor in his or her decision. Seventy-five percent of those people voted for Clinton. You can do the math: 12 percent of the Pennsylvania primary electorate acknowledged that it didn’t vote for Barack Obama in part because he is African-American.

Here he assures us that the number he just cited is wrong. Why did he cite the five percent to then just swat it down? Because it doesn’t serve the necessary condition of his argument; in fact, it refutes his thesis. Weisberg’s logic is not just twisted, it’s fabricated. Furthermore, just because Pennsylvania voters said race was a factor does not mean they view it as a problem. Indeed, the language of the polling is so vague that the race factor may have been Pennsylvanians voting for Obama because of his race. Does Weisberg mention Obama’s victory in lily-white Iowa ?, a state which is less diverse than Pennsylvania. No. Nor does he mention any of the deep-red and very white caucus states where Obama won. Because, as he says with a bit of sarcasm, “Obama may be too handsome, brilliant, and cool to be elected.” You see, Obama is really so wonderful that it must be racism.

Not once does Weisberg mention the sexism and misogyny directed at Hillary. Not once does he mention Hillary’s decidedly blue-collar appeal, her populist economic message, and the older, white female voters who fell hard for her. No, these ladies (and men) must be racists.

Except for health care, Weisberg does not consider issues important to older white voters:

You may or may not agree with Obama’s policy prescriptions, but they are, by and large, serious attempts to deal with the biggest issues we face: a failing health care system, oil dependency, income stagnation, and climate change.

He is silent on national security and terrorism, international relations, the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, job creation, and fuel prices. Weisberg’s litany, like Obama’s, is a distinctly Whole Foods Nation brand of liberalism, and it fails to address the economic insecurities of the poor and middle class. The blogger Anglachel writes:

Where has Obama lost ground among Democratic voters? In the populations most endangered by the faltering economy and the long term erosion of socio-economic standing. He did not address what mattered most to them, which was their increasing vulnerability to the ordinary dangers of life – insurance, health care, retirement, wages, job security, housing. To fail to do this was what makes Obama come across as elitist.

McCain is talking about drilling to reduce gas prices, and charging Obama with wanting to raise taxes. This message is gaining traction with many working Americans. As Anglachel puts it:

The [Obama] wing is all too enamored of its own moral superiority on race, too contemptuous of the Bubbas and the Bunkers, to make the slightest move to win back and thus defend this constituency.

Weisberg utterly fails to prove that the race is tied because of racism.

So let’s talk about what a vote for Obama actually signals: voting for Obama is condoning a culture that hates women (Keith Olbermann’s idea for Beating Hillary: Literally Beating Hillary). It’s a tacit acceptance for the media and the Democratic establishment giving preference to a far less qualified man over a much more qualified woman. It’s telegraphing to our daughters — to all women — that a man is rightfully at the front of the line, regardless if he lost nearly every important state and the popular vote. It’s telling our daughters — and all women — that violent imagery against a female candidate is acceptable if it benefits the male candidate. It is the familiar salt-in-the-wound for millions of women, the majority of the Democratic Party, that bullying and force — by the media, the liberal blogs, by the Democratic Party — is the way to crush a woman who tries to achieve too much.

Voting for Obama is to support a candidate who listens to and publicly references music which celebrates the degradation and abuse of women.

Voting for Obama is condoning race-baiting, like Weisberg’s. It’s accusing Hillary of suggesting that she was waiting for Obama to be assassinated because she mentioned RFK’s assassination in reference to the length of past campaigns when the media was trying to force her out; it’s having your surrogates imply that President Clinton’s remarks about Obama’s Iraq statements was racist (even producing a memo describing the plan), and it’s using coded language like “bamboozled” to mostly African Americans audiences in order to dislodge their support from the Clintons.

Voting for Obama is to embrace using race as a divisive strategy in a Democratic campaign.

Voting for Obama is being party to a rigged election. It condones voter intimidation, caucus fraud, and gaming your opponent’s states. It’s voting for outright bias by Party leaders like Dean, Pelosi, and Brazile. It’s an intentional violation of the one person, one vote ideal.

Voting for Obama is embracing intentional voter disenfranchisement.

Weisberg insists that Obama has a progressive agenda. But there’s nothing in the way Obama conducts his campaigns that would give us that idea. Many of us, Hillary supporters like myself, will vote for McCain because Obama’s treatment of Hillary goes against everything we believe in. And I want the Democratic Party to repudiate his tactics, and their own. Obama’s supporters must, some day, listen carefully to the very real reasons of why we’re angry, and they need to examine their consciences over their silence on the sexism towards Hillary and Obama’s race-baiting strategy.

Weisberg is wrong: Obama may lose because he conducted a despicable primary campaign, and he failed to offer a compelling economic message during the General Election.

Pennsylvania is an important swing state. It is one of the large states needed in the win column to reach the White House. During the primary race, there was an oft heard question; If Obama can’t win PA, how will he win the White House? The Clinton campaign commented during the primary, and said this:

“The path to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue goes through Pennsylvania so if Barack Obama can’t win there, how will he win the general election?” spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

The research identifies who undecided, swing voters are in Pennsylvania-white, lower-to-middle income, older women.

These are Hillary’s folks and supporters through the primaries.

These are their concerns:

Swing voters in Pennsylvania revealed their concern about the economy, financial security and health care. Among those surveyed, the economy was the number one most important issue in the state with healthcare following closely behind.

These “undecideds” feel they don’t have enough information from either McCain and Obama have addresses their issues fully enough. Pennsylvania State Director Dick Chevrefilshad this to say:

“Pennsylvania swing voters want more information on these issues from the candidates,” ……
“At a time when the economy is struggling, our voters are expressing their concern that neither Senator Obama nor Senator McCain has adequately addressed the issues of economic security or affordable healthcare, and these issues are likely to have a significant impact on voters’ decisions in November.”

The research revealed some clear facts about the voters. It is interesting to note that McCain’s favorable is 4% higher than Obama’s.

How do Senators McCain and Obama unlock the swing voter?

The research demonstrated wide consensus among swing voters on ways to approach health care and financial security, however specific proposals resonated most:

– 94 percent favor requiring clear explanations of healthcare costs so patients know how much they will be charged up front

– 91 percent favor making healthcare affordable for small businesses by allowing them to band together for lower rates, providing tax credits to offset employee premium contributions and protecting them from large rate increases simply because one employee gets sick

– 91 percent favor requiring schools to teach financial literacy to all children

– 90 percent favor controlling costs of prescription drugs

Among all respondents in this survey, Senator McCain is viewed favorably by 64 percent, and Senator Obama is viewed favorably by 60 percent.

They had this say to about the candiates “attributes”:

On important candidate attributes, Pennsylvania swing voters have an interesting perspective. Senator McCain leads on is a strong leader, and has the experience to be president, while Senator Obama leads on will bring change, understands people like me, and will reduce the influence of special interests. The candidates are essentially tied on will work in a bipartisan fashion.

There is an opportunity for either McCain or Obama to win this state. There are some issues the candidates will have to address first. And the survey highlighted these issues.

The survey demonstrates that both candidates can reach the key swing voters this year and win their support – if they reach out to them by making lifetime financial security and healthcare a central element to their campaigns.

This question remains. Will McCain or Obama address these concerns?

I asked how his “Citizen of the World” tour will go down in Steubenville, Ohio.

“There will probably be some backlash,” he said. “I’m a big believer that if something’s good then there’s a bad to it, and vice versa…”

Backlash? What in the hell does he mean?

That we’ll grouse about him spending time overseas?

No. What we complain about is, to quote a McCain press release:

• Barack Obama’s record of not calling a single oversight hearing on NATO’s mission in Afghanistan
• not visiting in Iraq for over 900 days
• not supporting our troops when he voted against critical funding in 2007 and
• not visiting our wounded troops in Germany when he made time to go to the gym but cancelled trips to Ramstein and Landstuhl.

Not only does Obama flat out not know enough about international politics, he doesn’t know enough about the U.S. military.

As Larry Johnson said last night on the John Batchelor radio show (podcast), it’s doubtful that Obama even knows the ranks in the military.

McCain’s TV ad also says it well:

Anncr: Barack Obama never held a single Senate hearing on Afghanistan.

He hadn’t been to Iraq in years.

He voted against funding our troops.

And now, he made time to go to the gym, but cancelled a visit with wounded troops.

Seems the Pentagon wouldn’t allow him to bring cameras.

John McCain is always there for our troops.

McCain. Country first.

Now, if Hillary is our nominee, the Republicans will not be able to use ANY of these arguments against her.

That is why over 30 flag officers endorsed Hillary Clinton.

I am reprinting my story, “34 Flag Officers and the Out Of Iraq Caucus Support Hillary Clinton“:

It is highly significant that both elected anti-war activists and 34 top flag officers support Hillary Clinton to be our next Commander in Chief:

From the caucus: “We support Hillary Clinton because she is the candidate with the stature, strength, and experience needed to end this war as quickly and responsibly as possible.” … (Read all below.)

Who signed this letter today? These elected Iraq war opponents:

Hillary has put forward the most comprehensive plan for bringing our troops home, with troop withdrawals beginning within 60 days of taking office. She bravely pressed the Pentagon to begin planning for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq. And she has introduced legislation to bar the Bush administration from unilaterally negotiating a long-term security agreement with the Iraqi government and thereby tying the hands of the next administration.

Hillary’s commitment to ending this war is matched by her experience. Her knowledge of the armed forces, her service on the Senate Armed Services Committee, and her extraordinary efforts on behalf of our veterans have earned her the respect of our men and women in uniform.

We are proud to support her because we know that she is the candidate ready to bring our troops home.

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

TRANSCRIPT OF THE NEW CAMPAIGN VIDEO:

Hillary for President

Admirals and Generals

(Ret) Rear Admiral David Stone: There’s a large group of retired Admirals and Generals that believe that this is the most important election in their lifetime…

[Screen: 34 retired Generals and Admirals including two chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff endorse Hillary Clinton]

…We face growing threats around the globe. Sen. Clinton is the candidate that we believe is the strongest, most experienced leader.

(Ret.) Lt. General Joe Ballard:

She has spent time in discussions with foreign governments and has spent time on the ground with military in Iraq and Afghanistan .

(Ret.) Brigadier General Evelyn “Pat” Foote:

The woman has traveled to over eighty countries; she knows this world

D. Stone:

Sen. Clinton has served for over five years on the Senate Armed Services Committee. She’s intimately familiar with the challenges that we face in our military today.

J. Ballard:

Sen. Clinton is the only candidate that has articulated a clear plan for getting us out of Iraq .

(Ret.) General Wesley Clarke:

On Iraq , she has a plan to bring our troops home in a smart, safe way.

(Ret.) Brigadier General Michael Dunn:

I have seen her get legislation passed that provides resources for our combat veterans.

(Ret.) Brigadier General John Watkins:

She took it upon herself to make sure that the National Guard and Reserve members who didn’t have access to TriCare insurance would get access to TriCare.

(Ret.) Major General George Buskirk: Sen. Clinton came out early and often, to fight for upgraded body armor, and you can ask any soldier-you can ask my son-how appreciative they are.

M. Dunn:

I admire charisma, I admire intellect. In a Commander in Chief I want more than that. I want proof. I want a track record.

J. Ballard:

You cannot learn on the job, you have to have a base of experience-a framework of experience.

J. Watkins:

Who do we believe would be the best person to occupy the Oval Office and to answer the red phone, as we said, at 3 o’clock in the morning or three o’clock in the afternoon? We come down on the Sen Hillary’s side of the ledger

W. Clark:

I believe Hillary Clinton is the right choice for America .

Obama courts Middle America in attempt to counter ‘antiChrist’ image

If Obama thinks he has problems with us Just Say No Deal Pumas, he’s got much bigger problems with the very same Americans that he put down during the primaries, you know, those bitter, gun toting, bible clinging folks:

The Obama team’s strategy of picking up conservative, evangelical Christian voters has run into unexpectedly strong headwinds. This is especially true among the poor, white and working-class voters of Scots-Irish descent who live in the Appalachian mountain region that stretches across parts of seven states.

Barack Obama may wonder why many people aren’t falling in line behind him, but the truth is, he faces major public relation problems. Many people just don’t trust him to tell the truth about himself. Obama remains a mystery to millions of ordinary Americans. Who is he? What does he believe in? Is he a Christian? And if so, after 20 years in the church run by Jeremiah Wright, what kind of Christian is he? Doyle writes:

Along with Internet claims that he is a Muslim, some evangelical Christians have put it about that Obama may be the Antichrist. Glenda Kinzer, 41, from rural Ohio, believes the end of the world is about to occur. “A lot of people are talking about how Obama fits the description” of the Antichrist. “I always thought he will be from the Middle East.”

Obama is now advertising his Christianity by pushing Bush’s faith-based initiatives. Not long ago, liberal Democrats worried about Bush using religion, and now, Obama, the shape-shifter extraordinaire is hawking the same old wares (this is a new kind of politician?). Not only are these programs designed to replace social programs (and social programs have long been the mission of the Democratic party), even more troubling is that Obama’s plan “blurs the nation’s constitutional separation of church and state”:

Earlier in the week, he unexpectedly took a page from George W. Bush’s political playbook by embracing his controversial “faith-based initiatives.” He told voters in the evangelical heartland of Ohio that as president he would fund religious groups dealing with America’s social problems provided they did not discriminate in who they offer help.

He praises Ronald Reagan and copies George Bush. Yet Obama remains an unknown. Many of us will never vote for him because he is inexperienced, unproven and displays poor judgement. And Obama’s talking points consist of whatever he thinks his audience wants to hear. What are Obama’s positions? As they say about the weather, wait five minutes and they’ll change. Just last week Obama appeared to throw MoveOn under the bus. MoveOn is one of his major contributors, but for the sake of appearances, they went quietly under the bus. Obama’s followers embrace his political position of never allowing values to come in the way of winning:

In the run-up to the July 4th national holiday, Obama has been on a “values” tour of middle America as he seeks to counter Republican attempts to label him as too liberal.

That’s the thing: Obama will say and do anything for the sake of appearances. And the good folks of Middle America are wise to question who he is and to wonder about his motives.

Don’t worry about those angry Hillary supporters who say they’ll vote for McCain or stay home in November. History proves they’ll vote for Obama.

The article shows a photo of a Hillary’s supporter, a woman of course, crying and being comforted by another. But this melodramatic display of emotion, Shapiro suggests, is just bluffing. First, to continue the theme of a domestic spat, he compares us to nagging parents. Perhaps because that insult is too banal, he then compares us to George Bush:

As an empty threat, it ranks right up there with “Eat your spinach now or your mother and I won’t pay for college” or even George W. Bush’s taunting promise to get Osama bin Laden “dead or alive.” During the post-primary news lull, ardent Hillary Clinton supporters have managed to linger in the spotlight with their over-hyped warnings that they intend to sit on their hands or even bolt to John McCain if they are not wooed and won over by Barack Obama.

Yes, the sexism is there: we’re waiting to be wooed. And of course Clinton supporters are holding out because some people, women specifically, are fanning the flames of “feminist grievances. ” Here Shapiro perpetuates the Obama campaign’s sexist stereotyping of Hillary’s supporters by focusing on women, when in fact there are many men actively protesting Obama’s stolen nomination. But when the “Barack-and-Hillary show” goes on air, and the pundits wonder:

Was the joint appearance enough to win over the hardcore Hillary holdouts? The answer is an obvious “yes”…

Shapiro makes the same mistake as others outside the circle of Just Say No Deal PUMAs. He thinks that during the primary there was no “overriding issue…absolutely no ideological reason — beyond ruffled feelings” to keep Clinton supporters from voting for Obama. In fact, he says that the polling done today will not stand up in November:

For example, an ABC News/Washington Post Poll last week found that 24 percent of the Democrats who backed Clinton prefer McCain over Obama. But these numbers will certainly decline as base Democrats gravitate to their party’s nominee with increasing enthusiasm.

Citing studies that indicate that voters come back to the party even though their favorite candidate lost the nomination,” Shapiro seems to think that we will be convinced that Obama WON the nomination. We know that he did not win. This is no longer about Hillary, this is about the corruption of the Democratic leaders. Shapiro joins the ranks of Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, and the Obama-loving media who think we are simple-minded vacuous creatures who will ultimately follow them like sheep to the slaughter. He says:

A common theory is that disgruntled voters, troubled by the direction of their party, end up staying home in November. But with a record-smashing 36 million Democrats voting in the presidential primaries, this is not shaping up as a political year in which anyone will neglect to vote because, say, Whole Foods was having a sale on organic olive oil that day.

Again resorting to sexist stereotyping, Shapiro suggests that “the hardcore Hillary-types” will vote for Obama instead of shopping for olive oil. The media, and the Obama campaign, which of course includes the DNC, since they are now one and the same, are expecting us to develop collective amnesia.

We are going to forget all about Barky stealing the nomination, and insulting Hillary and her supporters. We’re going to forget the farce of the primary, that the decision to put Barky in place came before the first caucus cheating ever happened. We’re going to get over the misogyny and the sexism and the accusations of racism, and the elitism. We’re going to forget that many of us have received death threats from Barky’s insane followers, that our families have been threatened, and that we blog in full knowledge that we could be outed and viciously attacked at any time. We’re going to get over the fact that Barack Obama is an inexperienced, unqualified, two-faced, and a potentially dangerous politician with roots deep within the corrupt Chicago Machine.

Shapiro is certain that we’ll come around, though, even if we don’t know it yet. Well, maybe not those bitter, gun-toting, religious nuts–the blue-collar Dems, but those us who are “errant voters,” we will. In an analogy that is surely a Freudian slip, Shapiro claims that we will be guided by the lights of a roadside hotel, where cheap tricks are scored and whores are on the make, that is, the hijacked Democratic Party:

Party unity is never total — and there certainly are blue-collar Democrats who opted for Clinton in the primaries because she was a placeholder for their qualms about Obama. But for over-the-hill-with Hillary voters, passionate about the notion of a woman president or beguiled by all things Clinton, there will be no dramatic renunciation scene in their political future. Virtually all of them will be voting for Obama, whether they know it now or not. For a political party is a bit like Motel Six, where there is always a light on to guide errant voters home in the dark.

Talk about being in the dark….

I turned 18 in November. My first thought? Oh God, I have to vote.I hadn’t listened to the pundits, I didn’t even know who was running. Some Hispanic guy, some black guy, and the former First Lady of the United States; oh, and some other white guys. The only one I recognized was Edwards and my heart did an awful large thump for what could’ve been in 2004. (I hadn’t forgiven John Kerry for conceding Ohio, I still haven’t and he’s invoked my ire ever since.) Yet, it wasn’t John Edwards and his invincible haircut that caught my attention; it was the woman I had never noticed and the history I’d never cared about.

For the first time ever, I noticed Hillary Rodham Clinton outside of Bill Clinton’s shadow. I noticed a woman who dared to stand side-by-side on a stage with a large group of men and consider them her equal. I saw a woman who had a mind like a mantrap, who could recall facts like the kids I know can Google. I saw her make fools out of her competitors when they just didn’t know answers that came naturally to her. I was more than impressed.

Then, the season truly began and I saw Hillary Clinton lose Iowa. Then, I saw her win New Hampshire. Then I saw her lose some and win some on Super Tuesday. Best of all I got to watch somebody play the race card and somebody else be framed for doing it. Reminds me of a shirt a lot my friends have. There’s a cute white bunny on it and beneath the bunny it reads: “I did it, but I’m blaming you.”

Yep, that sounds about right. Do you know why Hillary Rodham Clinton won New Hampshire? According to one “political analyst,” or those who get paid to regurgitate what the Washington Post says verbatim, it was the Bradley effect. The Bradley effect takes place when polled likely voters claim they will vote for a minority candidate but fail to do as much when they are in the voting booth. The insinuation: closeted racism. That was just the first indication that this primary wasn’t going to be fair, but it was far from the last.

South Carolina came and the biggest double-edged sword to be forged came out full force and he went by the name of William Jefferson Clinton. He was a gift on the stump. He was all charm and down home sweetness, but he was a wonk and there was no denying that East Coast education. He was an asset to Hillary Clinton that could not be denied. So he had to be neutralized—and best believe that he was.

By February 15th, Bill Clinton barely dared to stick his head in view of a camera lest he be misquoted and vilified for the nineteenth time. Suddenly, the “first black president,” as coined by Toni Morrison, was the first KKKlan President. He and his wife, both with a lifetime of civil rights advocacy and battles behind them were outcasts in a community that once revered them. For what reason? What could he and his wife possibly gain by espousing racism after all this time?

Not.

A.

Thing.

What had made Hillary Clinton so formidable was the sheer size of her coalition. She had African-Americans, one of the most dependable voting blocks in the Democratic Party, she had working Americans who remembered what life under a Clinton was like. She had her determination and she was in it to win it. Nobody else was of any real consequence. That is, until the first-term Senator from Illinois stood up to bat.

…And the pieces came tumbling down.

He showed up. He spoke out loud. The masses—though not the majority—fell to their knees in awe. I didn’t. I was neither impressed nor fooled. The media was. The party leaders loved what he brought to the game. He had style, had new voters, he had money. Oh, they had tingles up and down their legs. This was February, around the time that I realized that the fix was in. Naively, I still hoped that things could change. I think that even Hillary did.

A string of bare defeats and incredible victories later, here we are. It’s June 8th, the day after Hillary Rodham Clinton has suspended her campaign for the presidency in order to endorse Barack Obama. I and many thousands—perhaps millions—of others are left without a leader. It isn’t as easy as saying “let Democrats be Democrats” and vote Democrat. What we’ve seen these last two months was far from Democratic. I’ve seen so many minority cards played that I can’t stand the card game anymore.

I’ve seen a distinguished Senator and beloved First Lady verbally molested in a fashion I would never allow if I were a producer on network or cable television. I’ve seen death threats leveled against her. I’ve seen more than a single man or woman say that all it would take was a good “doing over” for Hillary to see the light, whatever that proverbial light was. I’ve seen men laugh at her laugh. I’ve seen the nutcracker and boys who call themselves men talking about the way they gird their loins when she comes anywhere near them. I’ve seen those same boys where the masks of saints when she deigns to entertain their company only to sneer at her back on exit.

I’ve seen a party that has claimed as its mantle the interests of the people turn their noses up at their expressed desires in direct violation of their very own written rules. They’ve said, “We must respect the rules.” Why thank you, Alice Germond. Sadly, those rules state that they also should’ve respected the voters. (Rule 13 A of the Democratic Party Rules & Bylaws, entitled Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference, if any can be bothered recall.) But those weren’t the rules they were interested in and so weren’t the rules they followed. Democracy didn’t die the day we allowed the best President we would’ve ever known to leave history with no impression; it died the day that 30 people decided that their desires were more pressing than the expressed wishes of 600,000 people in Michigan and 1.7 million in Florida.

Until the very last primary I prayed that someone in the party would see sense. I even prayed they’d defend my candidate against the harsh, uneven criticism leveled against her by the media and her opponents. The problem wasn’t that she couldn’t defend herself; the problem was that she had to defend both herself and her opponent with her hands tied behind her back. Any historical fact—from the most trivial and benign to those even minutely inflammatory—became a gaffe and sandstorm. The news cycle for her was lost time and again to media-made monsoons of Tuzla (never-ending, I recall), to LBJ & JFK (true, however, it was), to RFK and his assassination on the 6th of June. She couldn’t win the day for losing because if it was folly, it made her a fool and if it was true, it was anyone and everyone’s dog whistle.

Her opponent didn’t and hasn’t faced that. I imagine he won’t. Now that the media has picked him—and the party leaders have gone along with it—they’re gonna have to save him from himself. By not vetting him or questioning his many “misspeaks” or gaffes, they’ve left the country to choose between the lesser of who-cares and why-should-I. They’re gonna have to cover their bottom lines.

They had a brilliant mind and an iron will. They turned her away.

They had an unbeatable candidate and a popular, voter-driven mandate. They said, “No, thanks.”

They had the White House in November, like they promised. They decided they wanted the hot, red car instead, with the dollar signs on the hood, something they can drive home and show their kids.

They wanted to be rich and cool. They didn’t need those poor working-class people to cramp their style. They didn’t want those Latinos, or Asians, or LGBT people, or the disabled, or the elderly, or the Jewish, or the Catholic people reminding them of how things used to be. They didn’t want to be reminded of those horrid “old politics.” You know, the kind espoused by the foolhardy Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the lackluster Harry Truman, by that truly despicable John F. Kennedy, and even further still by that disgustingly traitorous American Lyndon B. Johnson who fought for the Civil Rights Acts, bent arms and bent ears to bring it to life. He lost the South forever for the Democrats but brought morality back to the American consciousness, that loathsome toad. And how ever will we forget Robert F. Kennedy, who lived and died on his ideals, the ideals embraced by a generation and that saw their completion decades after his own senseless end. Damn those old politics, nothing good ever came of them. Guess it’s time to try something new.

Hope and change. Those very words have lit the torches and the candles of a dozen movements that have carried this country forward to where it is and I imagine that those words will carry many others in the future. Nevertheless, what no ones wishes to address or be caught addressing is the fact that “just words” will never change the world. If there is no mind to a movement, it becomes chaos or worse. What we have now is a war of “just words” that without distinction will be interpreted in any way our opponents see fit. What we have now is an opponent that is not impressed with just words that are pretty, and words that are light. We have an opponent who laughs at our sonnets and our metaphors, whose spirit does not lift with a good hymn, and a chant makes him punchy. We have an adversary who is all about “straight-talk.”

Hope and change will not deter him. Hope never put a dollar into an empty bank account. Change is the thing a struggling mother is looking for when the food stamps don’t cover Pampers and milk. Hope is what that same mother has when she can’t get out of bed, but she can’t miss work today—she just can’t! Change is what happens when she has to take her kids and sneak away from her apartment in the middle of the night because the change she used to buy the Pampers isn’t there to pay the rent.

Everyday Americans will just have to keep holding on for another term more. Democrats aren’t gonna save them like they promised. How do I know? I know because the “Democrat” they picked has exactly one hope in the hell of being elected. I’ve met the Republicans, most of America has—John Kerry has certainly met them. Thanks to them and their fair friends, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Senator Kerry hasn’t seen the inside of the White House save for on the Christmas tour, and he won’t ever again. That’s a common sentiment among Democrats—and no doubt will become familiar to the party’s “nominee.”

To quote the eminent Maxine Waters of California, “We don’t need hope, what we need is help.” Sadly, neither Representative Waters nor the rest of her Super Delegate compatriots are in any position to give us that help. They have done the politically expedient thing, they have spoken aloud and made themselves heard; they have covered their backs—and left us in the rain.

By 2012, most of them will still have their homes, unlike more than a million working-class Americans thanks to the foreclosure crisis.

Expect gas prices to get so expensive that working isn’t worth the cost anymore. Between gas, taxes, utilities, and—I don’t know—being alive, there’s just no sense in it. A living wage isn’t one if you can’t live on it, and everyday Americans can’t keep living like this.

Doctor? You don’t need no stinking doctor. You won’t have anything to live on during retirement anyway, so I wouldn’t plan to live that long. Haven’t you heard? Universal Healthcare Coverage is for other countries. Dying unnecessarily is an honor and a privilege in the United States. Get used to it.

As for global warming, I suggest you buy, in bulk, shorts and flip-flops. Don’t expect Al Gore to stick his neck out for you now. God knows there isn’t a Democrat left who will.

But what can I say? It’s evidently a great year to be a “Democratic” Party Leader. It’s just a really, really awful year to be a run-of-the-mill Democrat.

Racial attitudes pose challenge for Obama

“I don’t think our country is ready for a black president,” Susick, who is white, said in an interview in the paint store where she works. “A black man is never going to win Pennsylvania.”

Now if we were in campaign mode you would see Axelrod, Plouffe or Jackson point out that the person making the comment was just a racist and therefore could be dismissed. But thankfully we aren’t in campaign mode and people like Susick are allowed to speak their mind without being labeled as something they are not.

More troubling is the statistic that won’t go away. No matter how much money and bullshit the Obama people try to throw at it.

In the April 22 primary, Susick voted for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who carried Pennsylvania by 10 percentage points. Perhaps more troubling for Obama, one in four Clinton’s backers told exit pollsters they would vote for McCain if Obama were the nominee; an additional 17 percent said they would not vote at all.

Look at this closely. 25% of Hillary supporters said they would vote for McCain and another 17% said they wouldn’t vote at all. That is a whopping 42% of Hillary supporters that WILL NOT support Obama. You might call that a significant statistic.

More worrisome are longtime Democrats who backed Clinton in April but are threatening to abandon the party now that she is not the nominee.

Rose Iezzi, who lunched recently with two friends at a Greensburg cafe, is one. All three women are middle-aged, work for an accountant and admire Clinton. But only Iezzi took a hard stand against Obama.

“I think he’s a snake oil salesman,” she said. “He’s a little too slick and smooth.”

“He just doesn’t appeal to me, and not because of race, definitely,” she said in an interview in which race had not been mentioned.

In fact for all the attempts to call the people that will not support Obama racists, the facts tell another tale. A tale that doesn’t fit in to well with the lies the Obama camp would have you believe. Despite the exit poll claims we were spoon fed by the Obamedia, the truth tells us something else entirely.

In interviews with 40 Pennsylvanians across three counties that Clinton won by big margins, only one person indicated opposition to Obama simply because of his race.

Sounds a little less troubling than we were initially led to believe. Some estimates had the percentage as high as 20%. So much for the reliability of exit polls despite the DNC’s illegitimate reliance on them.

And if this was just Pennsylvania perhaps Obama and the DNC could write it off. As they have so many other things. But the problems in Pennsylvania apparently also resonate in Ohio where Obama not only lost to Hillary but is losing ground to McCain.

Clinton’s supporters still wary of Obama

Harper was impressed by Clinton’s empathy for the struggling middle class and said she would have voted for her this fall. But now that Barack Obama has sewn up the Democratic nomination, Harper isn’t sure whom to support.

Obama’s comments about “bitter” Pennsylvania voters turning to guns and God turned her off, and she’s concerned that Republican John McCain represents a continuation of the Bush administration that she doesn’t think the country can afford.

“Now, I’m kind of in limbo,” Harper, 53, said last week during an interview in Hanging Rock at the Ohio University Southern Child Development Center where she works.

So Bittergate still resonates in Ohio as I am sure it resonates elsewhere. People have not only not forgiven Obama for his comments, they have come to trust him even less recently.

Last week, The Dispatch retraced Clinton’s trip, and in interviews with nearly three dozen people in places she visited, it was clear that although Obama has fans in the region, he has work to do to win over voters such as Harper.

There is a disconnect that Ohio voters instinctively feel toward Obama. Hillary they got. She touched them, made them feel visible, important. Obama, not so much.

“It was like we meant something to her,” said Chuck Denney, 55, of Gallipolis, who works at a nearby power plant and was having lunch last week at the original Bob Evans restaurant in Rio Grande where Hillary Clinton stopped in February.

But the Obama campaign and their DNC enablers aren’t worrying about Ohio. They have a plan. They honestly think that getting popular governor Ted Strickland to campaign for Obama is all he needs. And Strickland seems to think so too.

The governor said Friday he will encourage Obama to spend time in Appalachia and focus on such “kitchen table issues” as jobs and health care.

“I think if he does that and does it effectively, with my help — and I will help — that the folks in the communities that you’ve just visited will give him an honest hearing,” Strickland said.

But Buckeyes have to ask the pertinent question. Why is it that Obama didn’t reach out to Appalachia before, when he was courting Ohio for the nomination? He instead referred to them as bitter white people that cling to guns and religion.

So, sorry Governor Strickland. As popular as you are and deservedly so, you aren’t going to hoodwink the good people of Ohio into believing Barack Obama suddenly respects hard-working blue collar white people. Because we already know that he does not. Except for when not respecting them gets in his way to power.

These latest revelations, coming just days after Obama’s presumptive coronation as the Democratic nominee, are mere warning shots. More will come, surely. I expect them to dribble out a little at a time. The question is: Will the people that have the authority to do something about it take action before it is too late?

And I can’t say with any sincerity that I am hopeful they will.