May 16, 2008
His for the Taking (A.B. Stoddard)
The 41-point whooping Hillary Clinton gave Barack Obama in West Virginia has clearly done little for her, particularly after Obama stole her show the next night with the John Edwards endorsement. But boy, is John McCain happy.
The win upon wins — often with a staggering 70 percent or more in rural areas — Clinton has managed in blue-collar, white America has drawn a precise map for McCain through swing states he needs to win in November. These voters usually pick person over party. They voted for Ronald Reagan, for Bill Clinton, and for George W. Bush. This year they want to hear about the economy and healthcare, and McCain should polish up on these top issues to woo them.
As I described in my column this week, these voters have trouble listening to Obama. It could be racism, patriotism or a fundamental culture clash. Likely it is a combination of the three. No matter, it is McCain's gift to run with or squander. It's time for him to travel every pocket of Appalachia and cement his standing early with these voters. He won't have to down shots or talk tough, because he is. Many of these people will come back to Obama, but many of them won't and are McCain's for the taking.
***
HAVE YOU SENT YOUR QUESTIONS? ASK A.B. returns Monday, May 19 — before Kentucky and Oregon. Send questions and comments to askab@thehill.com to join my weekly video Q & A. Thank you.
Permalink TrackBack EMail This Post
Share this post
What's This 37 Comments
»
The Hill welcomes comment from anyone and will almost always post it whether it is favorable or critical, as long as it is substantive and advances debate.
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
A.B., the sooner you admit to the fact that John MCcinsane is George Bush's third term, the easier it will be for you to accept the fact that we as a country are in the shape we are in because of Bush's policies. How is MCccain going to do in 4 years that George Bush couldn't do in eight? From what I hear, MCcain sold his fellow soldiers out when he was taken captive so he could get better treatment. I'm sure more of his 'army greatness' will be coming out during the general election that's why the Democrats need to hurry and unite. I bet there is a 'war chest' of information on this guy. Maybe the reason why we lost the war in Iraq is because we really weren't supposed to be there. Too bad people lost their lives because Daddy couldn't get the job done during the first persian gulf war. I wonder what MCcinsane's reason is going to be.
Comment by Yvonne — May 16, 2008 @ 11:29 am
Yvonne
There is plenty to complain about when it comes to McCain.
But it is NOT that he sold out his fellow soldiers. In fact it was the exact opposite. He stayed longer despite the fact he could have been released and then used by the N. Vietnamese as a propoganda tool.
Yo
Comment by Jay from Texas — May 16, 2008 @ 11:48 am
We haven't lost the War in Iraq. Only liberals and the liberal press believe we have.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 16, 2008 @ 11:52 am
If McCain can win Ohio and one of PA, MI and NJ then he wins.
Even if Obama peels off NV, CO and NM.
If Obama wins VA then McCain has to win PA or keep the rocky mountain states.
Comment by Jay from Texas — May 16, 2008 @ 11:52 am
You have to think at a certain point that the number of folks accusing the Clinton voters of being racist for supporting her will have a long term negetive effect on the ability of Obama to win them over. It simple has to repell them at some level.
These are Democrats that are voting for her. People who on other places on the ballot are supporting Democrats for governor or senator or city council. I can understand the reason to push them away.
Watching the talking heads on Wednesday morning when they were convinced that this was all about race in West Virgina shows their hostility toward Clinton not any glims of wisdom. In the West Virginia exit poll 63% said the gas tax holliday was a good idea. Yet the talking heads say that it is just pandering and has no impact on the voters.
Obama's support of this flat/consumption tax is a turn off for low income voters and it wouldn't matter if he were black or white. Traditioanally, Democrats have opposed flat taxes in favor of a progressive income tax yet we see the liberal rally around this tragic position while the ecconomy is in the tank.
The problem is that it shows how out of touch the upper crust of our party is. They see the gas tax as taking money from wealth SUV drivers instead of poor bus riders. For most of lower middle class America is sucks a lot of money into the 1992 Monte Carlo. And a Harvard educated Senator from the South Side of Chicago doesn't see that.
Comment by Chuck R — May 16, 2008 @ 12:07 pm
I don't think any significant numbers of the Clinton voters in West Virginia are coming back to Obama. They don't like traitor-loving appeasers in the patriotic parts of the country. Obama wasn't even accused of being a appeaser, and he recognized himself. How can any patriotic American vote for this scum?
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 12:23 pm
Jay, I stand corrected. That's why I couldn't say it as a fact because I didn't know if it was. So, then I guess there is something honorable about John MCcain, and if there are other things, he doesn't need to piggy back George Bush because there is nothing honorable about him.
Comment by Yvonne — May 16, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Igor, Bush's problem with talking to other countries is they won't talk to him. In the Lebanon war last summer Bush did not come to the Israeli's defense at all, and he let the countries that were attacking them get a stronger hold on the region. He is trying to scare the Israeli people, but they know he is not to be trusted. When Jewish people were coming to Israel from other countries they needed aid from the United States and the only way Bush would give it to them is if they gave up land to the Palestinians to be able to get started on the palestinian state. That's why the people in Israel were displaced and had to move out of their homes and had their lands bull dozed down. Get your facts straight before you start calling people terrorist appeasers. I have to keep reminding you that we don't live in the days where people could be brainwashed and believe anything they are told. Bush has broken every law there is in the constitution and people were afraid of him. If you disagreed with him, you were fired Just like the people who told him the ramifications of a war with Iraq. He didn't want to hear it then, and he doesn't acknowledge the fact that this country is in turmoil because of his and his daddy's war. But guess what? the american people have had it with just going along with the flow. Change doesn't happen until things change. The reason people can vote for Obama is because they want change. Bush's road map to peace has put the world in danger, not just the U.S. And in case you didn't know, Israell has never been in more danger than she is now because of George Bush. He has allowed all of her enemies enough time to surround her with nuclear weapons while we were in Iraq starting a war his father started with Hussein.
Comment by Yvonne — May 16, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Yvonne, much of what you're saying is true, and in now way does it contradict Obama being an appeaser. From my point of view, Bush's problem with Iraq was not that he started but he wanted to fight a politically correct war with restrictive rules of engagement. I keep making this point over and over, but once again we were almost defeated by the concern for "innocent civilians". Israel is being defeated by "innocent civilians", for why else would the strongest military in the Middle East permit a residential area to be bombarded for years with homemade rockets, to be followed by advanced missiles fired into shopping centers? Bush is weak now and can't even do anything in Lebanon. That in itself and his incompetence doesn't make him an appeaser. His pressure on Israel and in particular Condi's attempts smack of appeasement. His tough talk with respect to Iran without action is to pitiful for me to hear.
On the other hand, Clinton was an appeaser, Bush Senior especially as represented by James Baker was an appeaser, Carter is Carter, and even Reagan did not take care of Iran and was one of the unbroken chain of American Presidents covering up for Arafat's orders to murder an American diplomat.
This country is full of appeasers. They think that being nice with enemies is the way to go. They think that showing over-concern with every civilian death saves lives in the long run. Where is the America that did what needed to be done to defeat both Germany and Japan? When will the evil "just war" dogma let go of this country's will to be able to face its enemies without tying one arm and both legs behind it's back?
Comment by Igor R. — May 16, 2008 @ 4:31 pm
If we want to talk about appeasers, lets start with GW's grandfather Prescott. The information about his association with Hitler is something that he doesn't want o bring up. Here is a link to Prescott Bush and his appeasement of Hitler.
http://www.rense.com/general40/bushfamilyfundedhitler.htm
and here;
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/sep/25/usa.secondworldwar
and here;
http://ecosyn.us/Bush-Hitler/
So for Bush to start this conversation is something that we all welcome.
and here
Comment by Mike Coleman — May 16, 2008 @ 5:09 pm
I really think Obama is going to lose people not only in the swing States, but could very well lose Ca. and lord knows how many other states.
Comment by Diane B — May 16, 2008 @ 11:08 pm
Barack Obama MUST admit he cheated in the Caucus state votes before any nomination can go forward.
Will you be brave enough to bring this issue up, or will you just keep your head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen?
http://www.hillary-wins.com
Comment by Alessandro Machi — May 17, 2008 @ 12:40 am
Diane, absolutely. He appeared out of nowhere, was proclaimed an instant second coming of Kennedy after one speech, then Messiah, and then the truth started coming out.
We've been talking about deflating bubbles on other threads here, this is one bubble that only started deflating.
Comment by Igor R. — May 17, 2008 @ 1:18 am
Fewer Republicans will infest the American national government after November of this year — many fewer. As a desperate and depressed Republican Congressman admitted recently of his party's discredited brand: "If we were dog food they would take us off the shelf." Ms Stoddard really needs to stop fantasizing about what West Virginia's 5 electoral votes will somehow do to put the rotten Republican dog food back on the country's shelves. Another century in Iraq will surely do the trick?
Those poor deluded souls who actually WANT to remain among the poorest and least educated of Americans by all means should vote for Panama-John McBomb. This foreign-born person with the rich vampire trophy wife would surely love to help them achieve their lowly ambitions. Fortunately for the second-grade drop-outs from Uncle Jim-Bob's Hillbilly Homeschool, even in spite of their own short-sightedness, President Barack Obama will most likely care about them anyway and do something to try and make their lives better. And they will hate him for it.
As the late Kurt Vonnegut put it: "And so it goes …" (down the toilet bowl drainpipe with the Republicans very soon now).
Comment by Michael Murry — May 17, 2008 @ 4:29 am
Igor R… didn't you just get your butt handed to you on Hardball for not knowing what "appeasement" actually means? Oh no,.. that was Rightwing pundit Kevin James. Same difference,… you throw out talking points, regardless whether or not they actually apply. "Appeasing" and "talking to" are NOT the same things. I don't often agree with Chris Matthews,… but he was dead right. The likes of you and Mr. James and Limbaugh and Michael Savage are going to have to do better than reading your scripts from the RNC fax machine. People are waking up to your propaganda rhetoric. Look up appeasment and get back to us.
Comment by Samantha — May 17, 2008 @ 12:44 pm
jews and latinos outnumber blacks 5-2 in CA.
obama is toast in november…
Comment by clark — May 18, 2008 @ 1:21 am
I personally observed the fact is: The media given a lot of pressure, hard time and try to damage Hillary all have done for her, but she has still standing to fight, I know that is the best person American Citizen need, because she has no enough money to buy the media to stand up for her, but Obama is totally different, he seems has the kind of special sources of funding to support him, he has spend huge of money to buy everything he want.
Comment by Chrsitne — May 18, 2008 @ 9:15 am
A.B….When Barack Obama announced his candidacy in Jan of 2007 most people, particularly Blacks, didn't even know how to pronounce his name let alone support him. I had followed Obama since his speech in 2004 at the Dem Convention and was particularly inspired by his stance against the Iraq War….a move that could have been political suicide. I started our grassroots organization www.Blacks4Barack.org in hopes of inspiring and invigorating support for Obama, particularly in the Black community at a time when Hillary had 82% of the black support. Keep in mind…black folks LOVED Bill Clinton (the first black pres.) But as folks (of all races) learned more about Obama…the more they were inspired. While the more we learned about Hillary….there was more, not only disappointment but actual hurt due to her and Bill's racist overtones. Because of her own actions, Hillary has lost the black vote….possibly forever. And whereas the media acts like all blacks are for Obama just because he's black….that is absolutely incorrect. Fact is, all blacks were for Hillary at first ! But now the black community feels like the Clintons have slapped them in the face….and in the heart….and that may be unforgivable. Despite the unfortunate divisiveness, the time is now for us all to unite…For The Re-Birth of America !
Greg Jones
www.Blacks4Barack.org
A Multi-Racial, Grassroots Org…Dedicated To Truth !
Comment by Greg Jones — May 18, 2008 @ 9:55 am
It appears to be clinton and her rabid supporters pushing this agenda.
Friday conference call she did this…
Clinton is maning an all out effort to confuse the low knowledge voter about obama…and is getting little coverage for her outrageous claims from MSM or Cable so she has turned to the bloggers with this on Friday…
"But by confusing the facts and casting doubt on his legitimacy, she can encourage resentment among her supporters that will persist even if she drops out after June 4 and endorses Obama. If they feel that she was pushed out illegitimately, at least some of her supporters may decide to sit it out or vote for McCain in hopes of giving her another chance in 2012.
In addition to creating questions about Obama's legitimacy as the nominee, she played the gender card yet again last night. She said that she "deeply regrets the vitriol and the mean-spiritedness and the terrible insults and rhetoric that has been thrown around at you for supporting me, at women in general, at many of those who support my campaign because of who they are and their stand based on principle." This is not the first time she has claimed that she is being treated differently because of her gender, and it appears to encourage women who feel she has been mistreated because she is a woman to keep feeling that way.
This, like the talking points designed to cloud Obama's legitimacy in terms of the math, could be part of a strategy to fan the flames of resentment among her supporters, particularly women. Yes, she may bow out gracefully after the primaries are over, but she wants to make sure her supporters are as disappointed and even angry when she does. She appears to want them to feel that she was wronged, making it harder for them to turn around and support Obama. She'll bow out eventually and give a speech that will probably tug at people's heartstrings and make them wistful, with some people perhaps hoping that she gets another chance in 4 years."
Comment by Docb — May 18, 2008 @ 10:08 am
I could not agree with you more Obama thinking that his has the Nominee is Naive. He will be SWIFT BOATED BACK TO AFRICA. The Muslim he is reglardless of his screaming I am a Christian. Christian do not have to re-inforce his beleif on TV ads. Rev. Wright groomed him along with the Muslim nation to destory America. He will not be President and the African Americans will get over it. Americans are smarter people than that.
Comment by Ann Chamberlain — May 18, 2008 @ 5:35 pm
It is pretty obvious that when a writer says something like back to Africa thesea are not mainstream Democrats. The Democratic Party has worked for forty-five years for equal rights for all. That doesn't mean all white people. That means ALL people. Hillary has stirred up a latent racism that was out there and her comments and those of Geraldine Ferraro have made it seem like it's acceptable to go back to the George Wallace days. It's not going to happen.When this stuff gets started, it can easily spread to Jews, Mexicans, Hungarians, Native Americans and any other convenient target to take the attackers frustrations out on. We are seeing this in the USA already. The Republicans like to see this. Blame the minorities for jobs going overseas and for $4, soon to be $5 gasoline.
Comment by dale anger — May 19, 2008 @ 10:57 am
Stating that racism is one of the reasons people may not have voted for Obama is baloney. He's an anti-American bitter phony who can't see the forest for the trees.
Comment by Robert Rosencrans — May 19, 2008 @ 1:23 pm
A.B.,
So much for the "Whooping" margin by which HRC won West Virginia; Sen. Byrd has just announced for Sen. Obama.
Remember, Sen Byrd voted against the war in Iraq.
I also get the impression that Byrd recognizes the Clintons for what they really are: money grubbers par exelence.
The Clinton's chickens have come home to roost.
Comment by barbara day — May 19, 2008 @ 1:54 pm
Samantha, you sound like of those left-wing nuts who shout down any speaker they disagree with. I don't repeat any talking points, and when Yvonne who I rarely agree with, said something I liked, I made it a point to write about it not far above your post, even though it was critical of Bush.
Ahmadinejad is insane because he has just stated that Mahdi is running things, among his many other insane statements, and he is killing Americans in Iraq. To talk to him just to talk is appeasement. He has repeatedly indicated that he does understands the language of bombs and missiles, and that's the way to talk to him.
Comment by Igor R. — May 19, 2008 @ 2:59 pm
Dearest Igor, you got me pegged! But I insist you do not know the meaning of "appeasement" if you think to talk to someone is in fact appeasement. Sorry. It just isn't. That's Bush thinking and that is what has alienated us from the world AND made us less safe. you HAVE TO talk to your enemies. Fact.
Comment by Samantha — May 19, 2008 @ 3:54 pm
now, now don't u go quoting the GOP talking point du jour.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeasement
Here is Kevin James, GOP radio host making a fool of himself:
http://www.thevaneljournal.com/2008/05/chris-matthews-vs-kevin-james.html
Comment by Theard — May 19, 2008 @ 4:22 pm
Samantha, "three squared is equal to nine.". That's a fact. An unconditional statement that "you have to talk to your enemies" is not a fact but an opinion.
Comment by Igor R. — May 19, 2008 @ 4:50 pm
Igor,…
but I leave you to your opinion which is obviously greater in its appeal than is mine.
Bush and McCain = ridiculously bad foreign policy. Fact.
Thanks Theard! Even if that wasn't for my benefit. Enjoyed it just the same.
Comment by Samantha — May 19, 2008 @ 5:10 pm
Samantha, Bush's foreign policy was half-bad. Obama's will be fully bad. McCain (who I only like for foreign policy and taxes) will be better. If you want to learn why, read this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=26569
Comment by Igor R. — May 19, 2008 @ 7:25 pm
OK Igor,.. I clicked on your link and was awaiting enlightenment. First, I was put off by the "subscribe to Ann Coulter's weekly letter on conservatism", but I got over the initial shock of that an proceeded to read the article. The line about Obama's “let’s join hands and dance in the garden” naiveté is just the ridiculousness that I cannot see as a legitimate argument. You really do think he wants to have tea with these leaders and say "so what do you want? how can we make you happy?" It's absolutely ridiculous. I guarantee you are the same 'people' who thought "thank God George Bush was President on 9/11!" as if Al Gore would have huddled under his desk crying for his mommy. It makes zero sense. He would have attacked Afghanistan, those that harbored Osama Bin Laden just as Bush did. AND he wouldn't have concocted the nonsensical war in Iraq and taken his eye off the ball in Afghanistan. AND he wouldn't have made Iran a much stronger power in the region by removing their secular enemy nextdoor to the west in Iraq, not realizing the makeup of the country, not realizing that instead of this great Democracy they wanted there, it would instead be mostly comprised of Shia and thus you would have two very large anti-American Shiite muslim countries as a result. But really,.. why know the difference? why not be like McCain who thinks every enemy of the United States is called "Al Queda"? It's that kind of simpleton thinking that will get us in big trouble if he is elected. And no,.. I don't find his 'quick temper' or his 'erratic, unexpected, you never know when he will blow' anger to be an asset when dealing with foreign countries. And I certainly don't think that kind of 'personality' should be making calls on war or strategic attacks on specific targets. AGAIN, we obviously differ in our opinions. Yet another FACT.
Comment by Samantha — May 20, 2008 @ 9:46 am
Samanths, I really don't think Al Gore would've gone into Afghanistan. Al Gore is a despicable self-promoter who will not debate ANYONE about what has become his life's most important work. He has such severe character flaws that I wouldn't expect anything positive from him.
I've heard McCain speak many times on the subject of Islamic terrorism. He may have a mental block about keeping the words "Shia" and "Sunni" straight, but to claim that he is so confused as to think that there is just Al Qaeda out there is too much. If you don't believe that quick temper and erratic personality may be an asset in foreign relations, look at what Ahmadenijad has been able to achieve: he stared down the most powerful countries in the world without so much as breaking into a sweat. Any serious game of strategy ain't beanbag, just like politics.
Comment by Igor R. — May 20, 2008 @ 2:25 pm
Well you start by thinking Gore wouldn't have gone into Afghanistan. Completely flaud and erroneous. Nowhere to go with that line of thinking. So this has been fun,… not very productive, but did we really think we would end up on the same page? If your best shot was that link,.. You had no shot to begin with. McCain DOES talk about Al Qaeda when they aren't part of the conversation, and I think it's because he doesn't give the American people enough credit much like Bush doesn't/didn't. Keep it in simple terms… people know the name AlQaeda, go with it. Why would they learn the ins and outs of a countries makeup afterall… our leaders didn't and look what it got us.
Your disdain for Gore, while it doesn't surprise me, makes me wonder if you are part of the "Global Warming" is a myth group.
New video out of Secretary James Baker vowing that talking to our enemies is not appeasement,… but I'm sure he's just some crackpot in your opinion. Soft on terrorism… part of that Baker-Hamilton mish-mosh report that wants us to take Ahmadenijad out dancing.
Well, This HAS been fun and if I run into Ann Coulter, after I get over the nausea, I'll let her know you said hello. We must agree to disagree, apparently on everything. I doubt we'll be dining in the same restaurants or attending the same parties with how incredibly different our ideas of the world are… but I do wish you well.
Comment by Samantha — May 20, 2008 @ 2:52 pm
Wow, Igor just explicitly compared John McCain to Ahmadinejad, and I'm pretty sure that in his mind that was meant to be a positive. I've often thought that many of the warmongering Republican were much more like a violent Islamic fundamentalist sect than an actual political party, but I'm honestly surprised that one of them would go so far to cement that impression. I'm honestly a bit speechless at this point.
Comment by Daniel B. — May 20, 2008 @ 4:55 pm
Daniel B,…Thank goodness! I thought I was the only one shaking my head in amazement. Not only did it seem like he was complimenting Ahmadinejad (how else does one read that?) by CREDITING his rise to power or position with his erratic "strength" personality, our friend Igor completely disregards our own involvement (Bush's policy) of removing their secular regional neighbor as if it never happened. Cafeteria Middle Policy making at it's finest. I still love ya Igor, but more incorrect on this you could not be.
Comment by Samantha — May 20, 2008 @ 6:42 pm
Thanks Samantha and yes, I do believe that man-made Global Warming is a myth.
Comment by Igor R. — May 20, 2008 @ 9:19 pm
Daniel, admiring someone's weapons isn't the same as admiring their ideology or goals. A reputation for unpredictability is overall a plus in diplomacy and any kind of negotiations in general. You could use it to save the world or to destroy it, or you can just indulge your penchant for believing that "warmongering Republicans" just love killing for it's own sake or to help out Halliburton.
Comment by Igor R. — May 20, 2008 @ 9:23 pm
wow. nuff said.
Comment by Samantha — May 22, 2008 @ 2:19 pm